Evangelicalism’s greatest problem is its beliefs. So thinks Jake Meador:
Evangelicalism’s biggest problem with regards to those outside evangelicalism isn’t our image, it’s our beliefs. That’s why Louie Giglio was uninvited from President Obama’s second inaugural. That’s why there was a mass freakout about Chick-fil-a despite the fact that even gay rights activists admitted that the leadership at Chick-fil-a was consistently kind and gracious to them. That’s why laws so modest and restrained as the Indiana RFRA illicit such outrage and why the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby ruling met a similar reaction last year. The groups being attacked in these cases are not Fred Phelps clones or even Pat Robertson clones. They are simply ordinary evangelical believers trying to live out their faith.
If the issue actually was that most cultural elites outside of the church simply didn’t understand what we actually believed and had all sorts of wrong ideas from seeing one too many stories about Fred Phelps, then maybe a rebranding campaign could “work” in the way that marketing campaigns work. Trying to convince everyone outside the church that we’re cool and “get it” and care about all the things Portlandia hipsters care about would get us somewhere. I’m not sure it’s a place worth going, mind, but it’d be something.
But the events of the past five years, or at least the past three years, should make it abundantly clear that ours is not a credibility problem. The issues are much greater than that. As Rod Dreher noted several months ago (and David Sessions made much the same point here), what we’re actually talking about are two societies that have beliefs about the basic nature of reality that are fundamentally antagonistic to one another. Note that they aren’t simply fundamentally different, but antagonistic. Set next to a difference of that nature, the attempts at finding superficial similarities look rather silly–which is precisely what they are.
Consider this if you want to make a big deal of Christian belief. Once upon a time the Christian world divided with important cultural implications when the Western Church added filioque to the Nicene Creed. Or remember the 16th century when beliefs really did matter to the differences between Roman Catholic and Protestant churches and the societies that underwrote them. Or remember too a more recent past when differences of beliefs made even liberal Protestants worry about a Roman Catholic president like Josiah Bartlet.
Beliefs have mattered.
They don’t any more. What matters now are divisions over morality, yes. And you can’t have a full-bore ethical system without some kind of theological or philosophical system. And that leads to a host of doctrinal differences that should actually divide Jake Meador from Rod Dreher. But for now those doctrinal convictions don’t divide the two bloggers.
What matters and has always mattered in U.S. history is morality and the degree to which personal moral convictions must be implemented as public policy or law. In the 1970s thanks to Francis Schaeffer channeling neo-Calvinism (in part), evangelicals bought the idea that neutrality didn’t exist, that faith went all the way down (read identity politics), and that secularism was stripping the public square of clothes. It was possible and still is every single day to practice most of one’s Christian convictions — Sabbath observance? — without turning it into law. Heck, you can even voluntarily choose life (even though Christians are right to try to protect the lives of innocents).
So the credibility that evangelicals seek has taken a beating because of the way they have conducted public arguments. Would they have won? Would social life have turned out any better if they didn’t adopt the very logic of gay rights — that one’s political identity cannot be distinguished from one’s personal convictions? I doubt it. News from Ireland today about the referendum on gay marriage suggests that Christians have few tricks up their sleeves in public debates.
But the difference has far less to do with beliefs than with politics and especially the age-old American trope of LIBERTY.
Old Life 
Is that the right hand of fellowship being extended
by these dummies?LikeLike
Meador: And as you cultivate that identity, these problems begin to reinforce themselves. Speaking in this way creates a kind of echo chamber as those people who feel aggrieved by the church tend to rally around you. As this happens, it becomes harder to say what needs to be said because your own status as the “cool” Christian who gets it becomes more entrenched. To return to our business metaphor, you’ve begun to develop an audience for your brand, which creates a pressure to keep your brand consistent and not do something to lose your “audience.”
…
And that, of course, is the irony of these evangelical accomodationalists who are theologically orthodox but prone to this sort of approach to Christian ministry: They think they are separating themselves from the conventional errors of American evangelicals when in reality they are simply embracing a new generation’s errors to replace those of the previous one.
Exactly. The problem was and is cowardice. As the moral battle was being lost, the “cool” people stayed silent, leaving the battle to incompetent fools like Falwell and Robertson, or refusing to say a word against the sliming of Dobson and Colson, who were far more reasonable than the media, cultural, and academic elite caricatured them to be.
Oh well, back to the catacombs. Hide your children.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2013/February/RC-Sproul-Universal-Pre-K-Program-Not-a-Solution/
LikeLike
TVD, my children?
Precislely why I won’t join that horrible institution headed by the bishop of rome you seem intent on promoting here at this blog.
I don’t expect people without children to understand the point I’m making.
LikeLike
TVD’s nomenclature appears to be the standard.
Next.
LikeLike
TVD, I’ll take the RCC’s view of schooling over Junior’s (and most of modern Reformed Protestantism, more or less):
2229 As those first responsible for the education of their children, parents have the right to choose a school for them which corresponds to their own convictions. This right is fundamental. As far as possible parents have the duty of choosing schools that will best help them in their task as Christian educators. Public authorities have the duty of guaranteeing this parental right and of ensuring the concrete conditions for its exercise.
But Dobson as reasonable? Wow, are you gullible.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted May 23, 2015 at 9:33 pm | Permalink
TVD, I’ll take the RCC’s view of schooling over Junior’s (and most of modern Reformed Protestantism, more or less):
2229 As those first responsible for the education of their children, parents have the right to choose a school for them which corresponds to their own convictions. This right is fundamental. As far as possible parents have the duty of choosing schools that will best help them in their task as Christian educators. Public authorities have the duty of guaranteeing this parental right and of ensuring the concrete conditions for its exercise.
Oh my. Looking up what the Catholic Church actually teaches. That would set a dangerous precedent here at Old Life. Soon there would be nothing to talk about.
But Dobson as reasonable? Wow, are you gullible.
I admit I might have missed something, not a follower. But he has actual cred as a clinical psychologist, not a shoot-from-the-hip type such as Jerry Falwell or David Barton. Wikipedia loves to load up on the slime vs. conservatives, but I don’t see much to discredit him here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dobson
On October 23, 2008, Dobson published a “Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America” that proposed that an Obama presidency would lead to: mandated homosexual teachings across all schools; the banning of firearms in entire states; the end of the Boy Scouts, home schooling, Christian school groups, Christian adoption agencies, and talk radio; pornography on prime-time and daytime television; mandatory bonuses for gay soldiers; terrorist attacks across America; the nuclear bombing of Tel Aviv; the conquering of most of Eastern Europe by Russia; the end of health care for Americans over 80; out-of-control gasoline prices; and complete economic disaster in the United States, among other catastrophes
Not bad, although nuking Tel Aviv will probably have to wait a few years.
LikeLike
Dobson is big in evangelical circles.
My old man is a big fan, along with his propensity for Gothard. It was Character Sketches every night before bed for (all about) me. I digress..
LikeLike
We do not use Gothard, please note.
We use CRC. And we like it.
LikeLike
AB, CRC is from what used to be the Back to God Hour, right? I loved the radio program with Dr. Needhour.
Looks like a good family devotional. Nice, AB.
I know that Reformed people – and feminists! – don’t especially like Dobson. However, as TVD said, Dobson has some pretty impressive credentials. I could never get people to tell me why they didn’t like Dobson.
LikeLike
All this gives me shivers, I was raising my kids in the thick of all this crap. If I had only had the Catholic Church’s help, I probably would have faired better as a parent.
Look at all these groups claiming that they know how to help parents bring up kids “biblically”. Don’t talk to me about parachurch organizations either; churches are the places where their books are sold and their conventions and lectures are held. At least Dobson was a smart voice out there. I loved Focus on the Family.
These other people are either predators, authoritarian nuts, or opportunists. Glad to be out of all of that, you-know-what!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julie-ingersoll/doug-phillips-biblical-patriarchy_b_5151442.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/02/bill-gothard-sexual-predator.html
LikeLike
I linked two articles in my other comment before this one, so it’s in purgatory, until Mr. It’s All About Me, lets it out.
Let me also mention “Growing Kids God’s Way” Gary Ezzo. It’s a load of hogwash. Everybody doing what they think is “God’s way”…..give me a break. Oh and then there is this insanity:
http://theweek.com/articles/480363/train-child-book-thats-leading-parents-kill
I read all of these methodologies, in hopes that wise and seasoned parents could instruct through the difficult stages so that my kids would “not depart’ from the faith. With parenting advise like this, our kids should bolt at the first opportunity, and they often do.
LikeLike
To be fair DG, I don’t consider myself an Evangelical. Only because I associate being an evangelical as having a statement of belief more bare than the Apostles’ Creed. >_>
But yes, a lot of evangelicals have beliefs. I think. Well you wrote a book that said that evangelicals don’t exist, didn’t you?
Eh. Never thought of subsuming Neo Calvinism under identity politics. Makes sense considering the similarity of language I’ve heard from both “sides”.
LikeLike
If you throw “Dobson” into opc.org and you get six hits:
MW, Back to God hour also appears to be a publication of the Christian Reformed Church. ” Today” is what was always left on my OPC’s book table so we always got the new one that way. We read after dinner each day. Now I find the PdF online since our new church plant isn’t as sophisticated as the churches I used to attend which had subscriptions to “today ” for us the sheep. It works for the five of us.
LikeLike
Susan, “Don’t talk to me about parachurch organizations either; churches are the places where their books are sold and their conventions and lectures are held. At least Dobson was a smart voice out there. I loved Focus on the Family.”
Coherence alert.
And you want me to believe you about Roman Catholicism? (cue vd, t for Susan’s defense)
LikeLike
Dobson? He is sooooo last millennium. I thought all the cool parents were reading Ted Tripp these days. I found Caplan’s “Selfish Reasons to Have more Kids” pretty compelling and quite liberating (don’t let the title fool you). Essentially, he demonstrates via twin studies (I am a data nerd after all) that parents have very little influence (not zero!) over how their kids turn out.
So Susan, don’t beat yourself up too much. The stuff you would have done differently as an RC wouldn’t have made much difference.
The one area where we do have an impact on parents is the environment where our kids are raised and the peer group they end up with. A few threads back, Erik noted the disadvantage of not living hear where you go to church and a while back I seem to recall dgh wondering what the OPC could do to better hold on to its kids. I suspect that the principal variable that influences which sects retain their youth and which do not is the extent to which the peer group of the young people is dominated by other kids committed to the tradition. When RC spilled out of the ghettos and became mainstream, it equilibrated with the surrounding culture and the peer group was no longer principally RC. The advantage of evangelicalism (particularly of the megachurch variety) is that it creates a peer group for youth that reinforces its ideals more than if the peer group were comprised by random members of the community. I’m not sure one needs to have a mega church to provide a thriving peer group for one’s kids that reinforces the faith, but I’m not sure a 50member congregation meeting at the local elementary school is going to be so helpful either.
LikeLike
SDB,
A thousand times yes. Stop these wonderful comments, trying to drink my coffee and stop making thumb movements.
My personal history in Fundy/evanellyfish (http://fair oaks.org) attests to your comment.
We have figured out in my family how to have our church life ssomewhat bifurcated from children’s activities where they have friends. My kids are 8,6, and 4. They Xcel in sports and school. We attend the Evangelical Covenant Order mega Presby church here in town for their drama and music and summer activities. But they ordain women. So we head down the street to the OP we’ve planted. For Sunday worship. We may never pull in my girls’ soccer coach or the ECO families we know into the OPC. That’s ok, the OPC has been small and can thrive in such a a milieu. But maybe we can encourage these outside parties to aattend to the means if grace in their own setting. We don’t need to make them all OPs is what I mean. The OP supports churches in you neighborhood, we would love people to join us, but know that may not be in the cards. God is building his church. It is sufficient enough for me to get the sense that I am working with Him as he does it. That’s all the satisfaction in the world. The rest is just details. Thanks.
LikeLike
TVD, “not bad”? That doesn’t strike you as chicken little-ish social commentary? Oh wait, Barton is your historian. Never mind.
AB, Protestant mainline liberal fathers also admired Dr. D. More reason to doubt.
Susan, you didn’t get a mild theo vibe from Dr. D.?
sdb, I’m not convinced. While peer groups (and others) may greatly influence, parents still make, for better or worse.
LikeLike
fixed link to the church of my youth, which is still alive and kicking
but Zrim, Gothard never became poop-ular in lib protism.
That’s a personal card I get to play as only a child of a fundy milieu can. Character Sketches, can you dig it, yo?
LikeLike
Nice, dear old dad is still writing for their monthly newsletter:
If you are reading, pops, good plug there! They need to get your bust to go along with your article next time.
Who’s next ;-P
LikeLike
So, tell me again why you don’t like Dr. Dobson? I know why feminists don’t like Dobson, and the gay community. Why don’t Reformed people like Dobson? Is it because he is an Arminian, or are you against psychology on principle, or do you really have some substantive objections to his teachings?
LikeLike
MW,
Check out SDB:
It’s not our job to fix everyone else’s (Dr. D’s) problems.
But we strive to be the best.
Surely you know of CCEF? Ted Tripp? Ed Welch (When people are big and God is small? anyone?) Timothy Lane, Paul Tripp, How People Change, only $2.99 (bargain!) and over 214 positive reviews on Amazon.
I would read those 5 articles at opc.org, probably a good bet for what the brains in our operation are thinking, ya know?
LikeLike
“Andrew, from unity post: Any particular reason you ask? (about daily reading)”
just that its paramount As a man thinks with himself, so he is Rom 12:2; 1 Cor 2:16
Hart: Beliefs have mattered. They don’t any more. What matters now are divisions over morality
Pretty sure you can’t separate them Rom 1:32
LikeLike
a.,
Okay.
Public service announcement:
I’ll try to make this my last comment for a really long while. Really. I pissed a lot of you off, you know where to find me if you want to come after me.
Peace.
LikeLike
anyway, Andrew, hope you’re teaching your kids that also, and demonstrating it for them. Wish I had. Though there are many important things in life, their personal relationship with the Lord is paramount, which only grows by seeking Him in His word, by His Spirit. Your prayers for them are important too.
LikeLike
a., my kids have these.
contra sdb’s point, and with zrim, probably the biggest factor in my love of the scriptures the model set down for me by my father, and he daily devotion and religious fervor in seeking out the scriptures. He came to Christ in college, so for him, learning the truths of the Xtian faith came later. He set a standard for us Buckinghams that I believe will be felt many generations over. I’m blessed to have the earthly father that I do.
I’m out.
LikeLike
A man who loves wisdom brings joy to his father. The father of a righteous child has great joy and rejoices in him. Proverbs
LikeLike
http://legacy.esvbible.org/Proverbs+17+6/
LikeLike
Darryl,
What I mean is that the “churches” have some responsibility for what they promote in their bookstores, and if you are part of a community bible church that’s feeling its way in the area of child rearing than your going to get their picks recommended to you because they’re simply trusting the experience of another. As a young mom seeking direction, I always wanted to do things biblically, so when the people you respect and associate with share their wisdom, you listen. I just wish I had had less patriarchalism around me during my evangelical days, but then that is also part of the Reformed circles I was in too. My former church didn’t like the patriarchal Doug Wilson, but at the same time wouldn’t allow women to teach kids older than elementary age; he later changed his mind saying that woman could teach but that they had to be watched. Makes my blood boil.
It’d be interesting to know if Catholic parents were buying Growing Kids God’s Way books, and listening to family advise from Vision Forum.
LikeLike
Oh, and I wanted you to know that I was teasing with the purgatory comment and the “it’s all about me”. 🙂
LikeLike
@MWF I don’t know if I like Dobson or not. I’ve not read much of him. But then he was pretty irrelevant by the time I started having kids (at least in the circles I move in). Not bad per se just not someone I’ve ever given much thought too (it seems the only people who care about him are commenters at HuffPo and Salon looking for a bogey man to lambast.
One thing I’ve heard about Dobson is that he is pro-masturbation (or at least not necessarily opposed). I think the discussion is in “Bringing up Boys”…something about responsible masturbation (i.e., porn free). I think this has put him on the outs in some circles (presumably RC circles), but this is all second hand, so maybe it is something else about his advice.
I’m generally skeptical of self-help (parenting) books more generally. Naomi Wolfe’s evisceration of the “What to Expect” genre captures a lot of my misgivings about these kinds of books if you are interested.
LikeLike
@Zrim “sdb, I’m not convinced. While peer groups (and others) may greatly influence, parents still make, for better or worse.”
I dunno. Caplan’s summary of the twin studies were pretty compelling. If nurture really were more important than heredity, then I would expect that fraternal twins raised in the same household would share more traits than identical twins raised in different households. The data is consistent with the biggest influence parents have on their kids are their genes and community.
For example, if you are rock-ribbed republican and most of your friends are republicans, then your kid will likely spend a lot of time around republican leaning kids which makes it more likely your kid will be a republican. But some republican voters are really hardcore about politics and others are “meh…”. While a parent’s political identification is a very good predictor for a child’s political affiliation, it seems that how into it all a kid is hereditable.
Maybe the studies he based his inferences on are flawed, but assuming the data is valid (and I have no way to independently verify that one way or the other but haven’t heard any criticisms along those lines), it really does seem that we parents have a lot less influence on our kids than we think we do.
So relax, have more kids, and toss the parenting books in the round file. You aren’t going to mess them up too bad.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted May 24, 2015 at 7:30 am | Permalink
Susan, “Don’t talk to me about parachurch organizations either; churches are the places where their books are sold and their conventions and lectures are held. At least Dobson was a smart voice out there. I loved Focus on the Family.”
Coherence alert.
And you want me to believe you about Roman Catholicism? (cue vd, t for Susan’s defense)
Quite. You know it’s unfair. You didn’t go near what she was actually saying. That was just a poo-poo fling at Dobson, then the guilt-by-association card.
Your M.O. is to find the weakest links you can find to attack Catholicism: Some blogger somewhere, a phrase by a commenter, a left-wing “Catholic” newspaper, an uncharitable reading of Called to Communion. Rod Dreher, who joined the Eastern Orthodox and Pat Buchanan’s magazine. The execrable Garry Wills.
In the case, saying something faintly nice about Dr. James Dobson equals Susan should ignored re Catholicism.
You’re quite right that such dirty pool sets my teeth on edge. If you have something negative to say about James Dobson–which is tangential to the original comment anyway–you should just say it and leave Susan out of it.
Instead, you avoided manning up on Dobson and attacked a bystander. Not good, Dr. Hart.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted May 24, 2015 at 1:13 pm | Permalink
@MWF I don’t know if I like Dobson or not. I’ve not read much of him. But then he was pretty irrelevant by the time I started having kids (at least in the circles I move in). Not bad per se just not someone I’ve ever given much thought too (it seems the only people who care about him are commenters at HuffPo and Salon looking for a bogey man to lambast.
That’s where I was going with this. The “cool” Christians were afraid to speak up and we got stuck with the aforementioned objects of ridicule because nobody else would stand up.
[You also have a point about the left seeking out bogey men. The inept “historian” David Barton is of great interest to them while competent scholars such as Daniel Dreisbach* are easily ignored. And it doesn’t help when self-proclaimed “conservatives” pile on Barton without offering the Dreisbachs as the credible alternative.]
_________________________________
*http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/06/the-mythical-wall-of-separation-how-a-misused-metaphor-changed-church-state-law-policy-and-discourse
LikeLike
“Execrable” Garry Wills? That’s pretty harsh. I found him to be a pretty affable fellow and a first rate scholar…his work on Augustine is quite good.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted May 24, 2015 at 2:09 pm | Permalink
“Execrable” Garry Wills? That’s pretty harsh. I found him to be a pretty affable fellow and a first rate scholar…his work on Augustine is quite good.
As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, I reckon they’d be happy to let you have him. In trade for Leithart, say. 😉
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/the-strange-world-of-garry-wills
LikeLike
Ibid:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/the-strange-world-of-garry-wills
LikeLike
Susan: Let me also mention “Growing Kids God’s Way” Gary Ezzo. It’s a load of hogwash.
Amen.
And that actually explains the pushback against Dobson as well. He’s much more of a mixed bag than the Ezzos. As a positive example, the Adventures in Odyssey series is fairly creative and is probably the best part of what FotF produces (much as the best part of Veggie Tales is “Silly Songs with Larry”).
But “Christian parenting advice” lives in a no-man’s land of jurisdiction. Is Dobson delivering doctrine on how to parent? If not, then why is his advice “Christian?” If so, then does that doctrine carry the force of church teaching? If so, then which church? If not, then what does it mean to deliver doctrine that is not binding doctrine? That’s a structural problem with his approach.
If he were just content to be a family counselor who delivers parenting advice, some of which is religious in nature, it would be much better than setting up shop as a purveyor of Christian parenting advice.
The structural problem doesn’t become obvious UNTIL something goes wrong (see: Duggars). So circling back to the Ezzos, the reason they gained such traction was that they attached the label “Christian” to their product. If any sane woman had picked up a book off the shelf that said “Feed the kid on your schedule, not his”, she would have almost certainly rejected it. But now advertise with “This is God’s Way” or “Biblical Ethics for Parenting”, and you get millions of sales in 25 languages.
Same problem with Tripp. Shepherding a Child’s Heart has some good ideas in it. But when you attach “Christian Parenting” to the marketing, that turns off some peoples’ ability to discern. And the major point that needs extra special discernment is where Tripp claims that any form of discipline other than spanking is just manipulation.
That’s the structural problem created when you have Christian this-or-that. It creates brand-think and pushes the boundaries of Christian liberty.
All that said, Dobson’s best piece of advice concerning the teen years is this: “Just get through it.”
LikeLike
@TVD Sounds like that trad isn’t so fond of Wills. Allen’s coverage seems a bit more nuanced, though Wills does come across more than a little pompous in the interview…
LikeLike
She whose feet are webbed, Dr. D. is the face of the religious right 90s. And since religious right is Protestant liberalism…
Susan, what does your blood do when no woman ever comes close to taking up Peter’s chair?
sdb, if the example is simply emulating the politics of one’s parents, I’m still not convinced. What’s convincing is watching the one homosexual black sheep of the fundamentalist extended family do all he can to disown and distance in ways that only show his fundamentalism-in-reverse.
Jeff, really? AiO is the Thomas Kinkade of broadcasting–sentimentalist tripe. But otherwise, ding.
LikeLike
Susan, “I had had less patriarchalism around me during my evangelical days”
How’s that working out for you now as a Roman Catholic?
LikeLike
vd, t, “Your M.O. is to find the weakest links you can find to attack Catholicism: Some blogger somewhere, a phrase by a commenter, a left-wing “Catholic” newspaper, an uncharitable reading of Called to Communion. Rod Dreher, who joined the Eastern Orthodox and Pat Buchanan’s magazine. The execrable Garry Wills.”
If you’d let me see the vd, t view of the universe, I’d know which bloggers and news sites are legit.
Your fault.
LikeLike
b, sd, are you sure vd, t approves of Allen? Maybe a bogus source.
LikeLike
Jeff,
“But when you attach “Christian Parenting” to the marketing, that turns off some peoples’ ability to discern.”
This is so true, but what about godly parenting. I mean if the world the world thinks abortion and contraception is okay. So who do you turn to for godly advice?
What does it mean that to spare the rod, spoils the child. Does this mean spanking or is it more like a shepherds crook that gently gathers the little straggler to get back on the path?
” And the major point that needs extra special discernment is where Tripp claims that any form of discipline other than spanking is just manipulation.”
I knew of a mom, that flicked her kids hands wen they did something wrong and they were just toddlers. I don’t judge her….. I did plenty of wrong to my kids. I’m sure I have used plenty of form of manipulation. Spanking can tend to get out of hand even and also become a overused form of discipline. If I had it to do over again, I would not spank my kids.
Steve and Darryl,
There’s patriarchy authority( which men have to obey too) and then there’s patriarachal power
( which is harmful to men and women).
With much power comes much responsibility. To whom much is given much will be required. The RCC has women doctors of the church and only men can be priests, but women have high honor. Some people believe this is so because of the place of reverence given to Mary. I think this is probably true.
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/sexual-symbolism.htm
LikeLike
@zrim I’m not following…. anecdotes about a single child aren’t very meaningful. The data comes from comparing outcomes for twins raised together versus those raised apart. Life outcomes for identical twins raised apart were more similar than fraternal twins raised together. Are you skeptical of the twin survey data or the conclusions drawn from the comparisons?
LikeLike
Ahh, the practical side to extra-biblical doctrine. Gotcha, now the co-mediatrix is so clear.
Not.
I stand by my comment:
I guess I need to chime in since I feel somewhat responsibile for this rabbit hole of raising kids. It’s a personal topic, and since we have roman catholics who like to comment here, I should have known better how provacative this would be. My apologies RCs, I know you are seeking to parent the best you can just like we protestants are. The comments should probably focus on what Darryl wrote, so my bad, again, and apology. At least, I didn’t see anything in what he wrote pertaining to parenting.
ab. Out.
n
e
x
t
?
LikeLike
Susan, “to whom much is given much will be required.”
Are you telling this to your priest and bishop? Like I said earlier:
Boniface weighs in on the numbers in Ireland’s referendum:
LikeLike
sdb, my point isn’t to disparage the science behind your theory. It’s simply to be skeptical of any theory that parents have relatively little effect upon their children. That just doesn’t comport with common sense.
Susan, but does rejecting authoritarian patriarchy really require the adoration of a particular woman? Plenty of Prots do the former without the latter. From over here, it often seems that Catholicism toggles between the two. Sure, what you report from your former Reformed days is silly (and I believe it, having seen it), but you understand how it loses some edge when coming from someone who now embraces a system of male authoritarianism? Good patriarchy and bad patriarchy? That sounds like good subjectivism and bad subjectivism, revival and revivalism, etc. Patriarchy is only good when the right guys do it?
LikeLike
oh no he did not just say that!
LikeLike
Steve,
“Susan, but does rejecting authoritarian patriarchy really require the adoration of a particular woman?”
I think that the patriarchy( of any sort) becomes authoritarian when it rejects “our tainted nature’s solitary boast”. http://maryourmother.net/Wordsworth.html
“but you understand how it loses some edge when coming from someone who now embraces a system of male authoritarianism”
What’s changed? Don’t males typically run the churches out there? From my perspective all church leaders are patriarchal, however because I understand that the church is feminine, I don’t buck it….it’s beautiful. I’m not a feminist, I recognize that there is both the masculine and the feminine.
Why are you confounding the partriarchal church with the patriarchal-ism of some leaders?
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/09/mary-in-the-old-testament/
LikeLike
Zrim:
She whose feet are webbed, Dr. D. is the face of the religious right 90s. And since religious right is Protestant liberalism…<<<<<
So, that’s it? Is that why the feminists, gays, and Reformed groups all oppose Dr. Dobson, because they all have that in common – opposition to the religious right? Strange bedfellows.
LikeLike
Zrim:
Susan, but does rejecting authoritarian patriarchy really require the adoration of a particular woman? >>>>>
What woman are you talking about, Zrim? Does your form of patriarchy require that you not even say her name, let alone give her the title that the Word of God and the Church has given her since ancient times?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted May 24, 2015 at 3:47 pm | Permalink
vd, t, “Your M.O. is to find the weakest links you can find to attack Catholicism: Some blogger somewhere, a phrase by a commenter, a left-wing “Catholic” newspaper, an uncharitable reading of Called to Communion. Rod Dreher, who joined the Eastern Orthodox and Pat Buchanan’s magazine. The execrable Garry Wills.”
If you’d let me see the vd, t view of the universe, I’d know which bloggers and news sites are legit.
Your fault.
Not atall. An accredited scholar such as yourself doesn’t get to where he is without being able to tell authoritative primary sources
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
from non-legit ones such as Garry Wills. I won’t insult your intelligence to suggest you believe a word you just wrote.
LikeLike
Mrs. W:
That title is “theotokos”, which is non-problematic for a Protestant. “Co-redemptrix”, not so much. That would be significant deviation from the faith deposited with the apostles. To quote Irenaeus: “If there had been a secret tradition, the apostles would have told us.”
Is that why the feminists, gays, and Reformed groups all oppose Dr. Dobson, because they all have that in common – opposition to the religious right?
Yes, pretty much. The religious right and left agree about this (hello, 2nd Great Awakening) — that the religious should be the political. In the case of the right, it’s 6th, 7th, and 8th commandments (marriage, abortion, property rights). In the case of the left, it’s “love your neighbor.”
Even though they differ on the particular commandments, they agree on the general principle.
LikeLike
Susan: but what about godly parenting. I mean if the world the world thinks abortion and contraception is okay. So who do you turn to for godly advice?
Right, so Christians do in fact need teaching about the meaning of Proverbs and the rest. That teaching should carefully delineate.
God has said A, B, C. He has not said X, Y, Z. For those latter, you will need to use all the wisdom you have, remembering A, B, C.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted May 24, 2015 at 6:52 pm | Permalink
Susan: but what about godly parenting. I mean if the world the world thinks abortion and contraception is okay. So who do you turn to for godly advice?
Right, so Christians do in fact need teaching about the meaning of Proverbs and the rest. That teaching should carefully delineate.
God has said A, B, C. He has not said X, Y, Z. For those latter, you will need to use all the wisdom you have, remembering A, B, C.
Oh, I think he was pretty clear on X.
3Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH ‘?…
LikeLike
TVD: I’m sorry, but ‘X’ did not represent anything about marriage. The topic was parenting, and ‘X’, ‘Y’, and ‘Z’ were general markers for “anything God has not spoken to us about concerning parenting.”
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted May 24, 2015 at 7:46 pm | Permalink
TVD: I’m sorry, but ‘X’ did not represent anything about marriage. The topic was parenting, and ‘X’, ‘Y’, and ‘Z’ were general markers for “anything God has not spoken to us about concerning parenting.”
I thought you were speaking more generally, since Susan was [abortion, etc.].
As for whatever you’re saying about the “co-redemptrix” bit, as it’s not official Catholic doctrine, I think Protestants shoving it in Catholics’ faces sheds far more heat and light.
LikeLike
Hi, Jeff,
Jeff Cagle:
That title is “theotokos”, which is non-problematic for a Protestant. “Co-redemptrix”, not so much. That would be significant deviation from the faith deposited with the apostles. To quote Irenaeus: “If there had been a secret tradition, the apostles would have told us.”>>>>>
Who are you talking about, Jeff? Yes, this is a test. 😉 Besides, I am sure that you know “she” does not have the title of Co-redemptrix. The concept is not Church dogma.
Actually, the English version of theotokos- “Mother of God” – is a problem for many Protestants.
Mrs. Webfoot asked:
Is that why the feminists, gays, and Reformed groups all oppose Dr. Dobson, because they all have that in common – opposition to the religious right?>>>
Jeff Cagle:
Yes, pretty much. The religious right and left agree about this (hello, 2nd Great Awakening) — that the religious should be the political. In the case of the right, it’s 6th, 7th, and 8th commandments (marriage, abortion, property rights). In the case of the left, it’s “love your neighbor.”
Even though they differ on the particular commandments, they agree on the general principle.>>>>
Wasn’t Francis Schaffer the founder of the religious right? He pointed out that 19th Century pietism made Christians more concerned with the next life and not so concerned with this. Here is a bit of his essay The Abolition of Truth and Morality. Note especially this sentence.
“True spirituality covers all of reality.”
I don’t think that Christ means for His Church to have to hide in the Catacombs again. It’s one thing to be forced there. It’s another thing for her to prefer the Catacombs.
“Christianity and spirituality were shut up to a small, isolated part of life. The totality of reality was ignored by the pietistic thinking. Let me quickly say that in one sense Christians should be pietists in that Christianity is not just a set of doctrines, even the right doctrines. Every doctrine is in some way to have an effect upon our lives. But the poor side of Pietism and its resulting platonic outlook has really been a tragedy not only in many people’s individual lives, but in our total culture.
True spirituality covers all of reality. There are things the Bible tells us as absolutes which are sinful — which do not conform to the character of God. But aside from these the Lordship of Christ covers all of life and all of life equally. It is not only that true spirituality covers all of life, but it covers all parts of the spectrum of life equally. In this sense there is nothing concerning reality that is not spiritual.”
http://www.the-highway.com/articleOct01.html
Thanks, Jeff, and take care,
Mrs. Webfoot
LikeLike
@WF which protestant sects rejects Mary’s title of theotokos? I realize most prots haven’t heard of it, but then most Christians think Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife.
While co-redemptrix hasn’t been made official doctrine, it hasn’t been condemned either. Consider the popular ex-evangelical RC apologist Dwight Longnecker’s perspective. Alternatively JP2 and Benedict were not in favor. At any rate it plays a non-negligible role in RC spirituality in many places, so I do not think it is a total red herring.
LikeLike
Mrs. Double You, but the fems and gays don’t oppose the Prot libs. Still, nobody moralizes politics and politicizes faith like the RCC, Thee Original Protestant Liberalism.
The blessed virgin Mary, that’s who. Not a problem. I can even refer to the church as mother, as in if one is to have God as Father, etc.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted May 24, 2015 at 9:17 pm | Permalink
While co-redemptrix hasn’t been made official doctrine, it hasn’t been condemned either. Consider the popular ex-evangelical RC apologist Dwight Longnecker’s perspective. Alternatively JP2 and Benedict were not in favor. At any rate it plays a non-negligible role in RC spirituality in many places, so I do not think it is a total red herring.
Catholicism is either too doctrinally tyrannical or not tyrannical enough. You nail them either way. Well done. As for the locution
it plays a non-negligible role in RC spirituality in many places
that’s so vague as to be meaningless. Neither, from what I see, does the term “co-redemptrix” even mean what it could uncharitably mean to a Protestant polemicist, that somehow Mary is seen as an equal to Jesus Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity. That’s patently false, indeed idiotic once you see it written out.
I do not know who Dwight Longnecker is. I doubt one Catholic in 1000 knows who he is, or ever heard the term “co-redemptrix” either. Of course this is a red herring, dude.
LikeLike
MW: Who are you talking about, Jeff?
Any non-Nestorian Christians. Who are you talking about, my dear Web?
MW: Wasn’t Francis Schaffer the founder of the religious right?
Arguably, yes. The point is that the religious political right is in fact theologically liberal (read: Not Confessional) inasmuch as it adds various social and political teachings to the word of God.
LikeLike
sdb, I am trying to take you seriously, but seriously? Give it a Google and see what you come up with about the title Mother of God and what Protestants think.
…and read the context of my question to Jeff. You gave the wrong answer. What is the name of the Mother of God?
So, who is your pope, sdb? I mean, who told you that anyone who is not confessional is liberal theologically? Your whole religion is based on a rhema that Martin Luther had.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted May 24, 2015 at 10:05 pm | Permalink
MW: Who are you talking about, Jeff?
Any non-Nestorian Christians. Who are you talking about, my dear Web?
MW: Wasn’t Francis Schaffer the founder of the religious right?
Arguably, yes. The point is that the religious political right is in fact theologically liberal (read: Not Confessional) inasmuch as it adds various social and political teachings to the word of God.
Francis Schaeffer was a theological liberal? If only.
http://billmuehlenberg.com/2012/06/30/8405/
LikeLike
@ MW: sdb’s response makes more sense to me than yours. Who do you have in mind?
LikeLike
vd, t, “An accredited scholar such as yourself doesn’t get to where he is without being able to tell authoritative primary sources”
Okay, if that’s how you want it.
LikeLike
TVD: Francis Schaeffer was a theological liberal? If only.
Yes, I would imagine that it’s hard to understand subtle points if one’s entire conversational mode is
YOU”RE WRONG!
LikeLike
Jeff, from the man who wants authoritative sources, we get Bill Muehlenberg.
LikeLike
Aw, Jeff, don’t get grumpy. Get a good night’s sleep, and we’ll talk later, okay? Don’t mean to annoy you or confuse you. Not my intention at all.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted May 24, 2015 at 11:14 pm | Permalink
Jeff, from the man who wants authoritative sources, we get Bill Muehlenberg.
Actually I grabbed it just for the direct Francis Schaeffer quotes, which actually have something to do with the discussion. I was aiming at primary sources, and the direct quotes qualify.
I’m as unfamiliar with the Protestant fever swamp as I am with the Catholic one. Sorry about this Muehlenberg mook. I was not quoting him authoritatively, but for information only, not to attack your religion, as you use the Catholic mooks you dig up, as weapons.
Now then, Darryl, are you saying that Francis Schaeffer was a theological liberal or are you just trolling your own blog again?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted May 24, 2015 at 11:08 pm | Permalink
vd, t, “An accredited scholar such as yourself doesn’t get to where he is without being able to tell authoritative primary sources”
Okay, if that’s how you want it.
Tough love. Genetic fallacies [Muehlenberg said x, so it can’t be true] or arguments from authority [Garry Wills said it, and he’s a “respected” Catholic so it must be true] are both no-go.
LikeLike
@WF
Well in the Southern Baptist sunday school I attended while I was in college in TX, we were studying the creeds and learned why Mary was properly referred to as Theotokos. Leaving TX and moving north I attended a CRC church and learned that they see the Nicene Creed as a true summary of the Christian faith. I’ve been in the PCA since and they think the same thing. In fact just a few weeks ago in our Sunday School class we were discussing why it proper to refer to Mary as “God-bearer”. So of course, this isn’t a rigorous statistical analysis of protestant views on the proper title of Mary. My suspicion is that most protestants have never heard of Nestorians or even know that there was a third ecumenical council. But then surveys indicate that folks don’t know Abraham from Moses.
I didn’t realize this was a quiz. I was just curious which protestant sects officially reject Mary’s title of theotokos (God-bearer or Mother of God)?
I’m afraid I’m not following you here. I don’t think I’ve ever indicated that anyone who is not confession is liberal. However, it is true that in the 19th century, liberal was originally taken on as those who were “liberated” by confessionalism. That’s kind of an antiquated definition of course. I understand liberal (in a theological context) to mean accepting of higher criticism, suspicion (if not outright rejection of) the supernatural. I’m not sure why I need a pope to define words. Pretty sure your pope has left that to you as well unless I missed the ex cathedra announcement on the definition of liberal.
I had to look up rhema… that was a new one for me. I’m not sure that Luther should get all the credit. Hus (the goose who was cooked) and Wycliffe, were pretty important too. Of course, they and their followers lacked the state protection enjoyed by Luther. I suspect that Prince Fred deserves more credit than he gets.
LikeLike
@Tom
You might enjoy reading him. He has a pretty popular blog over at Patheos and is pretty affable apologist for the RCC. I don’t mean to imply that he has any special authority, but I think he is reasonably representative of conservative RC apologetics. Don’t get me wrong, I think he is wrong about a lot of stuff, but I find him worth reading nonetheless.
LikeLike
@Tom Regarding the co-redemptrix bit. I was mostly going by memory of an annual conference at ND that highlighted Mary as co-redemptrix and was heavily Latin American. Here is a bit from that always authoritative source, wikipedia:
As I said, non-negligible support. But there are serious concerns about this belief expressed by the previous two popes (not speaking ex cathedra of course):
So they did worry that this naming could cause the sort of confusion that you evidently find absurd.
LikeLike
b, sd, so vd, t knows Bill Muhlenberg but not Dwight Longnecker.
LikeLike
So….. the Church of Rome’s only allowable talking points are those that are already in the skull of the Three Musketeers on here?
That isn’t getting too much in to the depths and crannies of that faith.
No… not at all…
LikeLike
Kent, I say again.
Great to have you back.
Who will post next at Oldlife, yo? Let’s all watch and wait.
LikeLike
Women are heard at the OPC GA coming up June 3:
sdb and Jeff,
I find you two to be very fair interlocutors, and because I find you fair and as open as you can possibly be, I don’t begrudge you your skepticism about Catholic belief. What really put me outside the framework of Protestant belief, as I have said before, was that I honestly couldn’t see sola scriptura functioning like it was supposed to, so( again), I was de facto not Protestant anymore and I could find no way back into the tent. Protestantism as a thing had neglected to account for someone like me. If there wasn’t a category for my situation, then to my thinking, something was amiss in the system itself. Could that be possible? Yes, if it was not a system that God made. Man is the one who builds systems from the data, and he can make mistakes, even if he is a very logical systemizer( lawyer); but even this admitted truth doesn’t shed light on whether or not he can and should be systemizing outside the ontological nature of what is the church. To reform “church” you have to stay within “church”, otherwise you start a new one, defining its perimeters and so forth… And if the first church wasn’t the true church, then there is no church for man will forever try to systemize from biblical data, but there’s no way to safeguard each and every system. If though there was a first church then there must be continuity with her that is more than biblical, as in, addition to. The bible gemmated inside the church after all.
Sola scriptura collapses into solo scriptura, not matter how you try to stack it. I don’t say this glibly; it can be a terrifying discovery. Remember though that when we as Catholics spell something out for you, we are simply telling you a reality that you might not have known about in the same way that you know first principles, they are matters of revealed faith. Teachings concerning Mary don’t have to be dogmatized to be truth. IOW, the nature of whether something is so, doesn’t draw its life from dogmatization. Of course all religious truth can be made dogma when the church says so, because she is the New Jerusalem, the mother of us all( Gal. 4:26) and has the same third person of the Holy Trinity who guided Abraham and his descendants.
Now, if you don’t want to have just the historical-critical method to go by( and I know you don’t) then you will be open to a more mystical/spiritual understanding of the texts. When you can do that without a Protestant presupposition( not that its bad to have the presupposition, but that it might keep you from seeing the whole picture). For instance yesterday was Pentecost Sunday, and so we learned more about the forgotten person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit, who was given to the church when Jesus ascended into Heaven. Did you know that the Holy Spirit is called the spouse of Mary. You can see from St. Luke’s account of the Annunciation how theologians have arrived at this idea?
Anyways, so my point is that if you can see how that the scriptures themselves are fluid enough to open up this kind of interpretation, then you can only do four things:
1) Take it, remain Protestant and amaze( or shock depending on who you talk to) your Protestant friends with your scriptural keenness 😉
2) Find a Protestant church that is more Catholic than you “were”.
3) Become Catholic because now you are aware of a spiritual truth, that I doubt you will find in Protestant circles;so possessing this wisdom you won’t be housed in any Protestant tents. You will be outside like I was when sola scriptura fell apart. You are actually slowly becoming more Catholic anyways, so might as well swim the Tiber real quick. Come on in, the water’s just fine:)
4) Ignore it altogether, but remember your reason will be unprincipled because you can’t disprove it and your traditions can’t either.
SDB, was I shortsighted in my possible outcomes? Seriously guys, it’s fun chatting like this. I really enjoy thoughtful back and forth.
Have a wonderful rest of your Memorial Day!
LikeLike
I noticed that the title “Theotokos” is not capitalized in all the Reformed comments and documents. Why is that? It is a title, like Son of God or even Dr., for heaven’s sake. Then, what I was driving at was that it is it seems hard for you good folks to write her name. Her name is Mary. She is Mary, the Mother of God.
Do you have a problem with that title being capitalized? I am trying to get a feel for what you good people really think about her.
Now, sdb, you are correct in saying that your experience is limited. Check out this article from Got Questions. Now, maybe you guys are saying that Evangelicals are not Protestants, or some such. In fact, I am not even sure what you mean when you throw the term Reformed around. Anyway, take a look. This understanding – or misunderstanding – is pretty common among Protestants. I could give you more links, but you could do some research. …or ask what I was taught. Mary the Mother of God is going too far, since God does cannot have a mother – pretty much what the guy at God Questions said.
Besides, are you comfortable with the title, : Mary, Mother of God? That is what I am talking about, which is the English equivalent of the term Theotokos. …and I commend you for capitalizing the Greek, transliterated to English, title.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Mary-mother-God-theotokos.html
LikeLike
You know, Francis Schaeffer was a fundy by most people’s definition of fundy. Are you sure you want to claim that he was a liberal? In what sense?
Is there a little historical revisionism going on, here?
LikeLike
Susan, I got lost somewhere between the ontological nature of what is church, the hypothetical of the first church not being the true church, and somehow the first church being the RC church post Gregorian reforms and the counter reformation. However, it got back on track for me when I thought of those leaps and the need for the mystical/spiritual ‘meaning’. That all worked in an Alice down the rabbit hole kind of way.
LikeLike
MW: I noticed that the title “Theotokos” is not capitalized in all the Reformed comments and documents. Why is that?
Because it’s a transliteration from Greek. “theos” will likewise often be uncapitalized, by way of contrast to “Ihsous” or “Nikodemos”
LikeLike
AB, I know that women want their voices to be heard, and it should not be surprising that women want to be heard in the OPC. I have left Protestantism, so I hope that y’all can straighten this out.
My contention is that there is no coherent theology or philosophy of male and female anywhere within Protestantism. Not sure that there ever will be. IMO, until Protestantism turns to natural law, there never will be.
This is a sad case it looks like. Thanks for the comment, AB, and the info.
BTW, were you in ATI?
LikeLike
@ Susan: What really put me outside the framework of Protestant belief, as I have said before, was that I honestly couldn’t see sola scriptura functioning like it was supposed to
I can appreciate that. Those of us who shepherd would love to explicate Scripture and *poof* see the people under our care light up with the wonder of it all, with all problems cleared away and ready for obedience to the Lord and discipleship. I’m speaking of my own dream-world, not yours.
In the real world, I’m not even like that.
I came at your problem from a different place, having traded Protestant horses in my 20s. What clinched it for me at that time was a study of the issues of predestination and church government, both of which pointed me away from my then-current Southern Baptist home.
But I also had to think deeply through issues like “How do I know what the text says?” And here’s where you and I part ways. You seem to have come to a conclusion along the lines of “Without a guiding authority, I cannot in a meaningful way know what the text says” (feel free to amend that if I’m misreading you). I came to more Hodgian conclusion: “Using careful exegesis, we can reasonably know what the text says, as long as we don’t expect perfection in this life.”
And as I studied church history, I discovered several things. The first is that there are not (contra Catholic apologists) 30,000 denominations all divided over sola scriptura. Rather, there are only three.
Those three are the Lutherans, the Reformed (including Scottish and Anglican), and the historic Baptists.
All of the others, with the possible exception of historic Anabaptists keeping the flame alive at Dallas Seminary, divided from Protestant branches using non-sola-scriptura methods. The Methodists use the quadrivium; the Pentacostals and charismatics use religious experience; the Southern Baptists use Arminian and Grotian non-Scriptural postulates, etc.
What I also found was that as particular denominations and institutions (e.g., Dallas, or the Southern Baptists) began to emphasize sola scriptura over their particular distinctives (dispensationalism and Calminianism, respectively), they moved back towards the Reformed camp.
Put in that light, I don’t think sola scriptura does poorly. It certainly is not responsible for the plethora of Protestant denominations.
There’s a whole lot more to be said about this topic, but here’s a final thought. If Scripture is hard to read, then how much more the Church Fathers? And if they are all subject, theoretically, to error, then how do you know that the set of ones in error do not include the ones reading Matthew 16.19 in a Rome-centric way? The whole frame rests on patristic interpretation of … well, one verse.
I would think that you have traded a hard problem of exegesis in for a harder problem of genuine certainty. Circularity looms large.
Blessings,
LikeLike
Sean,
“However, it got back on track for me when I thought of those leaps and the need for the mystical/spiritual ‘meaning’. That all worked in an Alice down the rabbit hole kind of way.”
So says “you”. What do you deny, a spiritual interpretation? Fine, it’s all a historical record of miraculous events that we are not to draw any conclusions from. Cease from formulating doctrines, and don’t even try to expound in preaching then, the scriptures are static. It’s merely a series of propositions is all.
There you go again…..defining the perimeters, but you alone are not the church, Sean, and neither am I.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I’m 49 and have run the gamut of “churches” too. I was baptized in a Southern Baptist church in Alabama in April of ’85 and have seen everything in between since then.
The Lutheran are the head stream in your river, the other two branched out from there. Unless you can show where the Holy Spirit sidestepped and made the Lutheran the new church, then you can’t begrudge the latter Reformed, nor the Anabaptists. They are simply following Luther’s lead.
“Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.”
I’ll let you ponder what I said about Mary.
Blessings to you too,
LikeLike
ATI? No. Not that I’m aware of.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted May 25, 2015 at 9:39 am | Permalink
b, sd, so vd, t knows Bill Muhlenberg but not Dwight Longnecker.
Nice try, Butch, but I obviously didn’t know Bill Muhlenberg either. I grabbed the article for the Francis Schaeffer quotes, but you already knew that.
___________
sdb
Posted May 25, 2015 at 8:06 am | Permalink
@Tom
I do not know who Dwight Longnecker is. I doubt one Catholic in 1000 knows who he is, or ever heard the term “co-redemptrix” either. Of course this is a red herring, dude.
You might enjoy reading him. He has a pretty popular blog over at Patheos and is pretty affable apologist for the RCC. I don’t mean to imply that he has any special authority, but I think he is reasonably representative of conservative RC apologetics. Don’t get me wrong, I think he is wrong about a lot of stuff, but I find him worth reading nonetheless.
Thx. I’m not too interested in the Mary stuff. But there was enough devotion to her in the early church that it’s bogus to try to make a dealbreaker out of it. But thx for the reco.
LikeLike
Hey now, Susan, I’m not the ‘series of propositions’ syllogisms guy. That’s flat cap and the neos. But I am a supernaturalist, yet, that’s distinct from the mystics. Bultmann disbelieved the historicity of Jesus but was all for the ‘spiritual’ reality. I deny a ‘spiritual’ interpretation detached from the historic reality and a non apostolic tradition (oral or otherwise). When ‘your'(RC) doesn’t line up with the original apostolic authority, we got problems that no ‘spiritualization'(magic-charism) can overcome.
LikeLike
I would be interested why Jeff calls Schaeffer a liberal. I am not a fan of Schaeffer (At all, yes I know he was a student of Van Til’s), I hadn’t thought of him as liberal.
LikeLike
@MW I was just asking what sects reject the title of mary as theotokos. GotQuestions looks like a fundamentalist independent baptist operation. That isn’t so helpful in answering my question, but I guess that isn’t your problem. Given my experience in SBC, CRC, and PCA churches I found the charge surprising.
According to this paper, the fundamentalist objectors to referring to the the blessed virgin as theotokos are an anomaly historically. Like I said, I strongly doubt that if you were to poll 1000 christians of any stripe more than 1 would have any idea what the difference between an orthodox christology and nestorian christology would be. Most are happy to sing Hark the herald and O come all ye faithful at Christmas though, so I suspect objections to nicea aren’t too strong.
I believe along with the reformed churches that Mary is theotokos, and as far as I know all reformed churches have historically recognized the validity of nicea. I’ll associate my own views about Mary with those of Drelincourt (who I discovered from the paper cited above):
Evidently Norman Geisler (the guy who wrote the evangelical statement on biblical inerrancy) writes,
And Kenneth Kantzer (past president of Evangelical Theological Society, dean of Trinity Evangelical Seminary, and editor of Christianity Today) writes
Interesting enough, it seems that a significant source for the author (an RC apologist and Dominican i think) is Tim Perry’s, Mary for Evangelicals published by Intervarsity Press…about as mainstream evangelical as it gets. He writes,
So from the article I linked, Jimmy Swaggart, Dave Hunt, and the independent baptist at GotQuestions all reject Mary’s title of “Mother of God”. On the other hand Evangelical luminaries such as Norman Geisler and Kenneth Kantzer as well as the editorial board at Intervarsity press (not to mention Luther and Calvin) recognize the necessity of understanding Mary to be the mother of God. I’ve conceded that most protestants (or catholics) probably have no idea what theotokos, Nestorianism, or Nicea is all about. I was just curious which sects you were referring to that reject the title of theotokos for mary. From what I gathered there aren’t many and they aren’t exactly luminaries of the protestant world.
As far as what it means to be a reformed church, it is simply that the church subscribe to either the Westminster Confession and catechisms (longer and shorter) or the three forms of unity (Canons of Dordt, Belgic confession, and heidelberg catechism), or I suppose both sets. I’ve never been all that clear on what divides these groups other than geography, but I guess some suggest that the Scots were a bit more strict on the sabbath. I’m no theologian though and as far as I can tell, while my PCA church formally adheres to Westminster, we reference the 3forms of unity at least as often. My children are memorizing heidelberg and that doesn’t seem to be too controversial in our congregation. All reformed churches I’ve been a part of recognize the Apostle’s Creed, Athanasian Creed, Chalcedonian, and Nicene Creed as valid summaries of the Christian faith (n.b. the similarities between the Chalcedonian Creed and language in the WCF by the way).
LikeLike
“I deny a ‘spiritual’ interpretation detached from the historic reality and a non apostolic tradition (oral or otherwise)”
Me too.
“When ‘your'(RC) doesn’t line up with the original apostolic authority, we got problems that no ‘spiritualization'(magic-charism) can overcome.”
Completely agree. That’s what I was looking for- “original”, “the”, and it had to be apostolic for without that part it was be no means an authority that I was bound to.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted May 25, 2015 at 4:09 pm | Permalink
But I also had to think deeply through issues like “How do I know what the text says?” And here’s where you and I part ways. You seem to have come to a conclusion along the lines of “Without a guiding authority, I cannot in a meaningful way know what the text says” (feel free to amend that if I’m misreading you). I came to more Hodgian conclusion: “Using careful exegesis, we can reasonably know what the text says, as long as we don’t expect perfection in this life.”
And as I studied church history, I discovered several things. The first is that there are not (contra Catholic apologists) 30,000 denominations all divided over sola scriptura. Rather, there are only three.
Those three are the Lutherans, the Reformed (including Scottish and Anglican), and the historic Baptists.
Put in that light, I don’t think sola scriptura does poorly. It certainly is not responsible for the plethora of Protestant denominations.
Blessings,
Google:
One Hundred Scriptural Arguments for the Unitarian Faith
100 Scriptural Proofs That Jesus Christ Will Save All Mankind
&c.
You may disagree with these things, but they have their scriptural arguments and you have yours.
There is also the complication of translation. For instance, Luther didn’t deny that he added “alone” to “faith.”
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/07/debate-did-martin-luther-mistranslate.html
Now perhaps he was justified–although it would have been better if he claimed it was the will of the Holy Spirit instead of his own reason. Y’all built a whole religion around his reason.
And by what authority did he cut books from the Bible that were in regular use–and are still in use by the Eastern Orthodox?
And where is “sola scriptura” itself in the Bible? Where is “perspicuity” in the Bible? That’s a Protestant theology, not sola scriptura, and you yourself are obliged to admit that even if we allow that there are only 3 branches, the facts on the ground are that scripture isn’t self-evidently perspicacious.
For the record, the 30,000 figure is unfair. But it’s also disingenuous to maintain that say, “Presbyterianism” even exists as a discussable entity: The differences between the PCUSA and the OPC are dealbreakers, as are 100s of other such schisms, and they are justified by each faction’s “consciences” disagreeing as to what scripture says. It certainly is responsible for the plethora of Protestant denominations, by their own lights.
LikeLike
Sean,
Something just occurred to me. Is the recognition and hence, doctrinal decision about Mary being the Mother of God, a spiritual interpretation or a historical interpretation? “The Holy Spirit as the Spouse of the Blessed Virgin—— spiritual interpretation or historical? What hermeneutic delineated the first and what if anything changes the interpretation of the second?
I feel like Colombo:)
LikeLike
sdb, you have your experience to fall back on. We all haver our experience of what we have been taught. I was taught by an Evangelical Free prof. that the term Mother of God is going too far. Mother of Our Lord, like Elizabeth said – Mother of My Lord, actually – is fine and does not go beyond Scripture. Mother of God goes too far, since God cannot have a mother.
It was almost the identical argument that the Got Answers guy used. I don’t know what his background is, but do you know anything about the E. Free? Have you ever heard of Dr. Don Carson? Have you ever heard of him? He is Reformed Baptist, and Canadian. Here is what he says.
“Catholics have added titles such as “Mother of God” and “Queen of Heaven” to Mary, neither of which is found in the Bible. “
http://www.life.biblechurch.org/index.php/73-process-faithfulness-during-the-ongoing-journey/process-publications/3615-for-the-love-of-god-don-carson-february-15
Actually, Dr. Carson has always been one of my favorites. My interest in how Protestants view Mary may be different from what you think, but I won’t even try to explain.
At least Carson gets it that Mary is “wholly admirable, a model of many virtues”.
I want to ask again. Do Reformed people have trouble with the English version of Theotokos – Mother of God? How can Mary bear God without being His mother? The one who bore you, sdb, is your mother, after all. Did God Incarnate have a mother or not?
Why is this important?
Think of this. Eve is The Mother of All Living. Mary is the Mother of God. Looks like motherhood is pretty important to God’s plans. That is what is missing in Protestant theology, IMO. Motherhood. It is not missing in Catholic theology or Orthodox for that matter. Why is motherhood missing in Protestantism?
I don’t mean that Protestants don’t have mothers. I mean where is the theology and philosophy of motherhood that comes from Protestant theologians and philosophers? Maybe I missed it. So, please enlighten me.
LikeLike
@Greg My understanding is that “liberal” as a theological category in the US started in the 19th century and meant that one was “liberated” from the creeds and confessions (I seem to recall a line from Rauschenbusch or Briggs advocating for a return to the Bible unimpeded by creeds and confessions). This was more about method than the doctrines one arrived at, so that the “conservative” baptists who rejected the use of say the “London Confession” are “liberal” in that sense.
Schaeffer and others who down play the confessions may not be politically or theologically liberal per se, but they open the door to theological modernism. When the faith is added to or squeezed by social policy, the end result has historically been that true doctrine is lost (e.g., the evolution of the YMCA). Schaefer was a Kuiper acolyte in many ways and sort of the antithesis of the 2k represented by Hodge and Machen. If one looks at the legacy of Kuyper and those who followed that path, it isn’t so hot (and as I recall, though I could certainly be wrong, Kuiper himself ended his life not being particularly active in the church).
While evangelicalism (1970-2010) is generally thought of as conservative (and it certainly has had tight connections with right of center politics with a few notable exceptions…e.g., Ron Sider), it is in keeping with the tenets of 19th century liberalism (rejection of creeds and confessions, boiling down of doctrine to a short list of “essentials”, and an emphasis on social activism) in ways that suggests that the current alliance with “conservative” theology is temporary. Already we are seeing cracks on the issue of ssm. I suspect that within a generation evangelicalism will return to its liberal roots.
It seems like a stretch to me to think of Schaefer as “liberal”, but this is the context where such a charge at least makes some sense.
LikeLike
Jeff,
“And if they are all subject, theoretically, to error, then how do you know that the set of ones in error do not include the ones reading Matthew 16.19 in a Rome-centric way? The whole frame rests on patristic interpretation of … well, one verse.”
Good question. The events in Matthew happened even if there were no onlookers or anyone to record it. I’m happy that Matthew did, but the church isn’t dependent on the words being written, but only on Jesus doing or giving or teaching such-and -such. The RCC isn’t deriving its authority from those word penned in Matthew. The Church, to be the Church, must get her existence from Jesus.
But it is very interesting that the scriptures would work so hard to demonstrate a Petrine headship given by Christ. I think it the Protestants who have had to twist scripture in order to escape the clear meaning. But here we are at our original problem, and that is how does scripture help us mutually come to know what the truth is?http://saintjoachims.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Other-Scriptural-Evidence-for-Petrine-Primacy.pdf
Done for today!
LikeLike
@WF Maybe I was too longwinded above (wouldn’t be the first time!)? In response to what I wrote, you asked:
Here is what I wrote above:
I believe along with the reformed churches that Mary is theotokos, and as far as I know all reformed churches have historically recognized the validity of nicea. I’ll associate my own views about Mary with those of Drelincourt (who I discovered from the paper cited above):
I went on to point out that I also agree with Norman Geisler (the guy who wrote the evangelical statement on biblical inerrancy) who wrote,
I also noted that I agree with Kenneth Kantzer (past president of Evangelical Theological Society, dean of Trinity Evangelical Seminary, and editor of Christianity Today) who wrote,
This entire exchange started because I was curious what protestant sects rejected the orthodox belief that Mary is the mother of God. I wonder if Carson would qualify his remarks if someone pointed out to him that theotokos = mother of God? I’ve heard of the evangelical free church (I have Grudem’s systematic theology, but I don’t recall if he addressed Mary in it).
LikeLike
Susan, it all depends on what we mean by mother of God. If I invest Mary with all the sinless, ark of the covenant, inventiveness of Rome, then we aren’t talking about the historic Mary. The same goes for the Holy Spirit as spouse when the holy writ tells us Joseph was her spouse by whom she bore additional children. IOW, it’s all the adding to, that Rome engages in under auspice of apostolic charism that begins to eclipse the original apostolic tradition.
LikeLike
sdb, do you have trouble with the title Mary, the Mother of God?
I did find this article from First Things. It was written in 2007, showing the change in attitude towards the concept of Mary being the Mother of God. So, both Carson and God Answers – which if I remember right, is pretty mainstream conservative Evangelical – may reflect an older view.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/02/evangelicals-and-the-mother-of-god
I know that many Protestants have a huge problem with Marian theology. However, certainly seeing in here the prototype of Christian motherhood and of Christian submission to the will of God does not violate even the strictest doctrine of sola scriptura.
The Holy Family has been the prototype of the Christian family for a long time, now. It may be something that Protestants should look into. The knee jerk reaction of, “but that’s Catholic!” is not necessary. After all, the Trinity is also Catholic and Orthodox, as is the Nicene Creed and so many other important Christian teachings.
Anyway, this is pretty important… and the CBMW needs some tweaking, IMO. I haven’t looked in awhile, but I never found any articles about motherhood there.
…and, well, there’s more… Anyway… Thanks for the exchange.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “My contention is that there is no coherent theology or philosophy of male and female anywhere within Protestantism.”
Why oh why pick on Protestants when now is not exactly a good time for male priestly celibacy or gay marriage among Irish Roman Catholics.
But if it makes you feel you bought the right car.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted May 25, 2015 at 8:30 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, “My contention is that there is no coherent theology or philosophy of male and female anywhere within Protestantism.”
Why oh why pick on Protestants when now is not exactly a good time for male priestly celibacy or gay marriage among Irish Roman Catholics.
But if it makes you feel you bought the right car.
Actually she’s talking theology. You keep talking about people and politics. Interesting.
Especially in a self-proclaimed “theological society.”
LikeLike
@mwf for the third time, I believe that Mary is the Mother of God. I reject co-redemptrix, co-mediatrix, queen of heaven, her perpetual virginity , or sinlessness.
My favorite line about our lady is from Lou Holtz. Asked if God really cares who wins when the fighting Irish play, he responded “God may not care, but His mother does.”
LikeLike
Gotcha’ sdb. 🙂 I understand. Cute line about the fighting Irish. You said our lady. Hmmm. That’s not Protestant. 🙂 I thought you were Protestant. No?
Thanks
LikeLike
Sean,
“If I invest Mary with all the sinless, ark of the covenant, inventiveness of Rome, then we aren’t talking about the historic Mary”
Okay, buuut I don’t know how you reach that conclusion. Jesus is the New Adam, the Bread of Life, etc… and He was a historical person. Elijah was taken out in a chariot of fire, and Enoch was translated out and didn’t see death( Heb. 11:5), and Simeon was righteous and devout and the Holy Spirit was upon him. You don’t think God could keep Mary from the stain of sin, but that he could make us gradually less sinful( sanctification)?
Mary is the Ark, her womb contained the bread of life, the logos.
This is literal and spiritual:
Ark Contained the Commandments, Manna, & Aaron’s Rod
New Ark Contained Christ Our Lord: Logos, Bread of Life, King/Priest
I don’t believe that it’s antithetical to a supernatural schema. Do you? Inventiveness of Rome? How do you know which is the right way to see it?
http://www.stpeterslist.com/2022/4-biblical-reasons-mary-is-the-new-ark-of-the-covenant/
LikeLike
random thought:
case in point – ^^ susan says ^^
Susan, you are a hoot
TVD, you are a hoot
Footlady, you are a hoot.
which one of these musketeers is next to post? hoot hoot hoot!
LikeLike
The same way as the bereans:
<blockquote cite="")
Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
(Acts 17:11 ESV)
Roman Catholic Marian doctrine proper is tradition of men, rightly rejected. We call it Sola Scriptura, Susan.
LikeLike
Susan
Posted May 25, 2015 at 11:34 pm | Permalink
Mary is the Ark, her womb contained the bread of life, the logos.
This is literal and spiritual:
Ark Contained the Commandments, Manna, & Aaron’s Rod
New Ark Contained Christ Our Lord: Logos, Bread of Life, King/Priest
Frankly, Susan, this is all more poetic and abstract than literal. Since Marian devotion is optional in Catholicism, and largely condemned by Protestants, the line of argument, even if true, is romantic, and like Mr. 50 Shades of Grey, Geneva does not do romance.
The most important quote in the Old Life context is prominent in your link
You’ll still get a fight about not going directly to Jesus, but at least you can beat the “idolatry” rap.
____________________________
BTW, The Ark is in Ethiopia. 😉
“We’ve had 1,000 years of Judaism, followed by 2,000 years of Christianity, and that’s why our religion is rooted in the Old Testament,” he told me. “We follow the same dietary laws as Judaism, as set out in Leviticus,” meaning that his followers keep kosher, even though they are Christians. “Parents circumcise their baby boys as a religious duty, we often give Old Testament names to our boys and many villagers in the countryside still hold Saturday sacred as the Sabbath.”
Is this tradition linked to the church’s claim to hold the ark, which Ethiopians call Tabota Seyen, or the Ark of Zion? “It’s no claim, it’s the truth,” Paulos answered. “Queen Sheba visited King Solomon in Jerusalem three thousand years ago, and the son she bore him, Menelik, at age 20 visited Jerusalem, from where he brought the ark of the covenant back to Aksum. It’s been in Ethiopia ever since.”
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/keepers-of-the-lost-ark-179998820/?no-ist=&+c+=y&page=6
LikeLike
tom, that reminds me of the quote from tim whatley to seinfeld,
tim:”jerry, it’s out sense of humor that has sustained us as a people for over 3000 years”
jerry: “5000”
tim: “5000! even better!”
Good stuff, thx for the link.
Here, this is what the moon looks like from my house tonight. Enjoy.
LikeLike
Hi Tom,
Well, Mary is not literally the ark of the covenant that Moses built, that’s impossible, and besides it’s in Hanger 18. 🙂 Typologically though, she is the Ark of the New Covenant, and the New Eve.
“You’ll still get a fight about not going directly to Jesus, but at least you can beat the “idolatry” rap”
True, but if they don’t believe the scriptures and the church fathers( without cherry picking), then what can you do about the charge of idolatry?
“The Fathers of the Church also teach that Mary was without sin. I’m not going to comment on all the passage below, as it would stretch this post into an article length treatment. Nevertheless, here they are. You’ll see that the Immaculate Virgin has always been revered as uniquely holy – as they say in the Eastern Church – she is the Panagia, or “All-Holy.”
“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me {ante A.D. 235).
“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1{A.D. 244).
“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity 15:23 {A.D. 370).
“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns 27:8 {A.D. 370).
“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin 71:216 {ante AD 373}.
“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22, 30 {A.D. 388}.
“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace 4, 36 {A.D.415}.
“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 {ante A.D. 446}.
“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.” Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily 6, 11{ante A.D. 446}.
“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.” Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 {A.D. 449}.
“The very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.” Jacob of Sarug {ante A.D. 521}.
“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.” Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption 5:6 {ante A.D. 650}.
“Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God…. The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation.” Andrew of Crete, Sermon 1 On the Birth of Mary {A.D. 733}.
“Truly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever.” Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali {ante A.D. 733}.
“O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! Oh glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew.” John of Damascus, Homily 1 {ante A.D. 749}.
I’ll close by saying that if you “Get Mary” you “Get Catholicism.” Mary represents everything that Catholicism is: sacraments, incarnation, sanctity, matrimony, celibacy, prayer, silence, love, charity, faith and works, and even the synergy of the divine work within human vessels.”
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/mary-without-sin-scripture-and-tradition/
LikeLike
Andrew,
That was really cool! Did you lasso it for the Mrs? 🙂 What kind of telescope can get that close of a shot?
LikeLike
Susan
Posted May 26, 2015 at 3:18 am | Permalink
Hi Tom,
Well, Mary is not literally the ark of the covenant that Moses built, that’s impossible, and besides it’s in Hanger 18. 🙂 Typologically though, she is the Ark of the New Covenant, and the New Eve.
“You’ll still get a fight about not going directly to Jesus, but at least you can beat the “idolatry” rap”
True, but if they don’t believe the scriptures and the church fathers (without cherry picking), then what can you do about the charge of idolatry?
Aw, lay off the Mary. Protestantism doesn’t really do the female question. Name 5 Famous Protestant Females and that’s 5 more than anybody else can name. I saw a pro-Old Life female around here once. She was a Lutheran, as I recall.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted May 25, 2015 at 8:30 pm | Permalink
Mermaid,.
Darryl, You Ignorant Slut:
Denigrating “Mrs. Webfoot” as “Mermaid,” based on “opposition research” conducted by your fan “Andrew Buckingham” [her web profile showed a quite harmless affinity for Disney heroines] is perhaps your lowest yet.
I’m so inured to your dirty pool that I didn’t even notice this latest stunt until now. Not feeling the love of Jesus here. Your mockery makes you more Mencken than Machen, and even Mencken spared the rod on the sincere.
LikeLike
Celestrom Nextsar 4se, coupled with my Nikon D3100. Ibgot it for $450, getting ready for our trip this summer to great basin national park, the stars are supposed to be good there. I googled “best telescopes” and followed this article
http://www.telescopes.com/telescopes/telescopeawardsarticle.cfm
Susan, since you love talking theology, ever thought of seminary? There’s a great one, wscal dot edu, I would givebyou a recommendation if you need one. You have a good heart and a passion for your denomination and for the Lord. Props, yo.
Grace and peace.
LikeLike
“Erik Charter” and I want to know what Tom Van Dyke (read: no scare quotes) means with all these scare quotes around our names.
Tom: thoughts?
LikeLike
I rather like my new OLTS handle. Thanks, Tom.
As for googling “Mrs webfoot,” did I do something wrong doing the research on our newest RC interlocutor?
,”Mermaid” doesn’t make Dgh a slut, not to me anyway.
Later.
LikeLike
Susan, there is what God could’ve done and there is what the apostolic record records what He did do. This is where I bring up what the RCs have tacked on to the original tradition. I do agree with you that Mary is more a locus within RC than Jesus. As a Christian that is a problem not an aide. 1 cor 15
LikeLike
“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? “
wow, don’t think I’ve even ever seen praise like this to the LORD here @ OL.
Greatness in His word is essentially always attributed to the Lord; Ascribe greatness to our GOD! Great is the LORD, and highly to be praised and HIS greatness is unsearchable.
LikeLike
TVD:
Denigrating “Mrs. Webfoot” as “Mermaid,” based on “opposition research” conducted by your fan “Andrew Buckingham” [her web profile showed a quite harmless affinity for Disney heroines] is perhaps your lowest yet.>>>>>
I appreciate your comment, Tom. See, Disney heroines go to what it means to be female and not male. They are strong feminine characters. So, my putting them as part of my profile is a kind of statement, a kind of rebellion against our gender neutral culture.
Their stories keep the feminine alive, until our culture does all it can to degrade that image. The Princesses are evidence that girls are made female in the image of God.
I won’t tell what the Webfoot is really a reference to. Imagine what D. G. Hart would do with that! At least mermaids are beautiful.
The fact that D.G. Hart idolizes H.L. Mencken is, sadly, a little window into his soul. Would that he idolized Machen.
AB did nothing wrong, on a technicality.
LikeLike
Darryl, you are once again charged with idolatry. Not of the OPC , but of HLM.
You said or did something to get these RC interlocutors upset. Whatever you are doing here, it appears to be working. They lost their cool long ago.
LikeLike
AB, actually your faith – Calvinism – teaches that the human heart is an idol factory. So, I am saying that D.G. Hart is an idolator, but no worse than all other idolators. This is according to your system of theology where human beings are, by nature, idolators. That does not change with regeneration and a new heart for some reason. The factory is still in operation, according to Calvin and Calvinists.
——————————–
Susan:
Well, Mary is not literally the ark of the covenant that Moses built, that’s impossible, and besides it’s in Hanger 18. 🙂 Typologically though, she is the Ark of the New Covenant, and the New Eve.>>>>
Well, this is how I understand it. The intention of calling Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is not to turn her into a goddess. It is Who she bore that is the focus – her Son, Jesus Christ. Protestants tend to misunderstand this. It is Christ who is the Mediator of the New Covenant. Remember, co-redemptrix is a title that she is not given, and will not be given. That is a title that has been debated for centuries, now, and it is on the losing side.
Just as Moses is the Lawgiver, Abraham is the Father of Faith, Joseph in the book of Genesis is a type of Christ, David is honored as the father of Jesus, Eve is the Mother of all Living, Rahab is the example of justification not by faith alone, and so forth, Mary is seen as being the Ark of the New Covenant.
Put her in that context. Her honor is because of Christ. We honor all those I mentioned because of their place in redemptive history. In that way we give the most blessed of all women honor. Along with Mary, all mothers are honored and we are saved by childbirth. The womb is a sacred place because it was a human womb who carried the Son of God. No, not all mothers are therefore arks of the covenant, since not all mothers have born our Savior. Mary has that special place of honor in God’s plan of salvation.
Why was I trying to get you guys to say that name Mary? Well, besides frustrating dear brother sdb? Didn’t mean to do that! It is because God prepared a specific woman for the role she played. It was not just any old virgin with a womb. She has a name, Mary. She has a title, Theotokos, Mother of God. She bore the One who made the New Covenant in His blood, Jesus Christ.
In fact, this is the kind of thing that Mary understood when she prophesied, “From now on all generations will call me blessed,…” It was because she is the Theotokos, the Mother of God, the one who gave birth to our Savior that she is honored, and has been honored all throughout the history of the Church, including in the NT.
…except Calvinists… 😉
LikeLike
MW,
You idolize Walt Disney then.
LikeLike
Mr. Hart,
You’re wrong. There is a fundamental difference between those who think homsesuality is an inherently positive lifestyle and those who think it is sinful. These are not two positions on a scale; they do not occupy a “neutral” space. They are diametrically opposed. And they are not abstract notions but have very real-life application. And I do find it strange that a libertarian such as yourself would argue that business owners should be coerced into providing services which directly contradict their faith. This isn’t about allowing people to refuse to serve someone because they are gay; but rather requiring people to actively support homosexual causes.
You will also need to explain to me how someone’s faith does not go “all the way down”. How can regeneration and re-birth not affect the whole person? How is being born again; being adopted into the family of God; becoming a disciple of Christ not affect someone’s “identity”?
And since you brought up the Sabbath: actually, the laws and behaviours of our neighbours directly impact on our keeping of the Sabbath. The noise caused by people breaking the Sabbath affects our ability to rest on that day; post being delivered on Sabbath; bins being collected on Sabbath; Christians being pressured into working on the Sabbath because they works in shops or businesses open on the Sabbath. There is no neutrality in these things: they all directly affect one’s ability to keep the Sabbath.
This is why your talk of a neutral space does not hold water. I may be able to walk down the street without having to make a decision one way or another concerning my faith; I may even be able to go and buy a paper in a “neutral” way. However, if when buying that paper I’m confront with pornographic magazines on the shelf above; or if the shop assistant decides to offer their political opinions (as happens) or, if one is a shop assistant and is forced to listen to a customer’s rant, then one is no longer in a “neutral” environment.
What is truly ironic is that the secular paradise you so desire is only possible by the very laws you are condemning. Only by allowing Christians the right to live and work according to their faith can we actually have a society where regenerate and unregenerate can live together.
LikeLike
@MWF
“You said our lady. Hmmm. That’s not Protestant. 🙂 I thought you were Protestant. No?”
Just a lowly Notre Dame (Our Lady) grad. One of the sermons by the pastor at the CRC church I attended 20 years ago was “She’s Our Lady too”. I guess you didn’t take the time to read the paper I linked for you. That’s unfortunate as it lays the waxing and waning of the protestant understanding of Mary. As Luther wrote,
Similarly, Calvin writes,
Thanks for the link to Timothy George’s (the dean of a Baptist seminary) essay on Mary. So now you have the editors from the main publishing are of evangelicalism, deans of two evangelical seminaries, and perhaps the most influential evangelical of the 1980’s-1990’s as it regards inerrancy of scripture and apologetics all concur that Mary is properly noted to be the mother of God. Similarly, virtually all reformed churches recognize the first four ecumenical councils as producing true summaries of the Christian faith (though obviously not infallible authorities). Perhaps your knowledge of protestantism generally (and reformed Christianity in particular) is not as complete as you think? The magisterial reformation was not a knee-jerk rejection of all things Catholic – it was a taking of the good and dispensing with the bad.
That isn’t to say that recognition of Mary hasn’t been under-appreciated in many protestant circles or that anti-RC reactionaries of a certain fundamentalist bent (particularly restorationist influenced types) have gone too far in rejecting articles of the faith with a whiff of Catholicism attached, but that is not the whole of protestantism.
On the other hand, there is no question that veneration of mary has shifted into idolatry and talk of her as co-redemtrix/mediatrix is quite unhelpful as noted by both of the previous two popes in rejecting a strong push to elevate the status of Mary beyond what is biblically warranted (to use Ratzinger’s phrase). So while this unwise formulation has not been made dogma, neither has it been officially condemned which is unfortunate.
LikeLike
@MWF
“AB, actually your faith – Calvinism – teaches that the human heart is an idol factory. ” I’m pretty sure our faith is Christianity, not Calvinism. If you want to be more specific, it is Presbyterianism. Our denominational standard is “The Westminster Confession” not “Institutes of the Christian Religion”. Calvin’s warning that our heart is prone to idolatry (which is what he meant in the institutes about idol factory) is an observation in keeping with the biblical witness and at the core of John’s closing of his first epistle…little children keep yourselves from idols. It is quite foolish to dismiss such warnings, and indeed both Ratzinger as a Cardinal and JP2 were quite concerned with syncretism and idolatry in much of popular RC spirituality. I’m surprised you understand this as a distinctly “Calvinist” teaching.
LikeLike
SDB,
Thanks for cleaning up Mrs. Webfoot’s misconstrual of our beleifs. And that was a neat quote, appeared to be by Niels Bohr.
It’s fun having a roman catholic tell me, a calvinist what I believe. I feel like I’m in the comments section of Called To Communion with MST (MW,Suze,TVD) hanging around. I guess they feel the need to let all their emotions out since Bryan Cross is too grumpy to allow open comments.
The best way we can help Darryl is by engaging these constant interlocutions. Now Alexander even appears to be making some comments about the sabbath on this thread (thanks for the help on Lee Irons stuff on the other thread, Alex!).
Oldlife=comments always open.
Who’s next?
LikeLike
Alexander, I have not argued that business owners should be coerced. Please do not attribute to me ideas that allow you to condemn.
I haven’t called secular society a paradise.
I have argued that Christians make distinctions all the time between what they personally believe to be the duty before God and what they tolerate from others. Husbands and wives do this all the time. Parents and children. Elders and church members.
If Christians do this with each other and families, they can also do this with neighbors. If they can’t do the former, then they live alone.
LikeLike
Mermaid, according to your teaching, then, you worship the wafer and the wine since they are the body and blood of Christ. Just sayin’.
LikeLike
@AB,
I’m pretty sure that Darryl doesn’t need my help…if I was that good, I’d start my own blog. I do enjoy engaging with folks here on various topics if for no other reason to sharpen my own thinking and learn something new (I just learned a new word from webfoot: rhema!). Unfortunately, I drop in pretty sporadically (a month of regular commenting before going dark for a while… wash, rinse, repeat), so I’m not always up on what is going on and sometimes drop into discussions late. Oh well… As long as our host is OK with it, I’ll continue as is. I do find the constant refereeing and metaconversations about what is and isn’t acceptable on a blog by the guests here more than a bit strange…
LikeLike
That’s not the only thing to find that’s strange out here.
What do we have? A suggestion box where all you need is a false email address, and direct line to Darryl Hart himself. Nice of DGH to run this box, I’d say. Here’s what wiki says:
The number of comments attest to this fact – people have been wanting to change the OPC since as long as I can remember. I never could understand why I was so attacked from 2004-2009 in my OPC over my views on science, well, that’s because there were people in our congregation who wanted to change the OPC.
So anyway, I haven’t seen anything out here that rivals what I see on the front lines of when I live out my life as an orthodox presbyterian. It’s just same stuff, different day.
There, I’ve written too much. My belief is TVD does not go to church, because the way he acts out here would probably get him kicked out of church pretty quick. His language is a dead give away (Hi Tom). But admittedly, I know nothing of the man outside of how he conducts himself online here and on american creation.
Grace and peace, SDB.
LikeLike
sdb:
That isn’t to say that recognition of Mary hasn’t been under-appreciated in many protestant circles or that anti-RC reactionaries of a certain fundamentalist bent (particularly restorationist influenced types) have gone too far in rejecting articles of the faith with a whiff of Catholicism attached, but that is not the whole of protestantism.>>>>>
Remember, I am the one who linked you to the article by the Baptist, and I said that it looks like the attitude is changing in Evangelicalism. Remember ? 🙂 Now, since I am an ignorant Catholic, I may have missed the point of the article, but it sure seemed like the author was saying that the attitude was changing. IOW, it used to be more like Dr. Don Carson – member of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals – explained. So, according to your def., he is not a liberal.
http://www.alliancenet.org/events/holiness-and-honor
BTW, have you ever read Loraine Boettner’s book called Roman Catholicism? Check it out, and check out what denomination he was from.
You probably can figure out why I think it is important to honor Mary as Christians always have.
It’s funny to see Calvinists deny that they are Calvinists, but whatever makes you happy. You honor the man, even venerate him, and a number of other Reformers. We all need heroes. Y’all are in denial. 😉 Remember, I do not believe it is wrong to honor those who we look up to. Honor is a synonym of venerate. Remember, we are told to honor our father and our mother. If it is sin to honor a fellow human being, why would God command us to honor those who gave us life?
Hey, even Luther accepted the Immaculate Conception and the perpetual virginity of Mary. There are Biblical arguments in favor of both. Of course, as he got older, he got more and more anti-Semitic and his views on Mary seemed to have changed somewhat as well. All in all, he was pretty respectful of Mary. He was more Catholic than Protestant. The division was unnecessary and tragic. Both sides could have listened to one another more, but what’s done is done, I suppose.
Do you know why I said that Luther got a rhema?
…and you have nothing against Tom. Your belief about him is, well, your belief and nothing more.
“We are not to reflect on the wickedness of men but to look to the image of God in them, an image which, covering and obliterating their faults, an image which, by its beauty and dignity, should allure us to love and embrace them.”
― John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 Vols
Where are you learning to “reflect on the wickedness of men”, or to call them wicked when they are not?
Indeed, grace and peace, to you as well.
I am glad you are happy in your church.
LikeLike
The type of language Tom uses here is not in keeping with Calvin
Don’t forget, Tom calls Darryl an ignorant slut about 20 comments up.
It’s comments like that that have me conclude he is a troll looking to make reformed protestantism look bad. Anyone coming to this site has no idea who any of us are, and yet, his language is now associated with reformed protestantism.
He is gross and should apologize many times over.
Queue Tom’s ad-hom attack on me.
Next?
LikeLike
@MWF You are really confusing to interact with… I think I am totally missing your point or something. Maybe I’m just incredibly unclear? For example, you just asked,
In response to what I wrote above,
I have no idea what the relevance of Carson and Boettner are to my response to your assertion that “You said our lady. Hmmm. That’s not Protestant. 🙂 I thought you were Protestant. No?”. Do you think I mean that there are no protestants ever that questioned the propriety of referring to Mary as theotokos? I’m just trying to figure out what your point is here. Just to be clear, my point is that the majority of protestant denominations accept the ecumenical councils as proper summaries of the Christian faith (along with the Apostle’s Creed and Athanasian Creed) though not infallible or equal in weight to scripture. Further there is nothing inconsistent with being protestant and recognizing Mary as Theotokos. I’m still not aware of any protestant denominations that reject this (and proof texts from this person and that don’t really establish this). My references to the early reformers and modern day prots who affirm this about mary is merely to illustrate that the concept is not foreign to protestants, though from the beginning I’ve conceded that most don’t have an opinion one way or the other…alas. What exactly do you disagree with?
Calvin was great and did a lot of great things. The Institutes was incredibly important for the development of reformation theology. I don’t dispute that we are heavily influenced by his work. But his work doesn’t have any special authority and it doesn’t define our beliefs. We have creeds and confessions for that. Not every opinion uttered by Calvin (or Beza, or Zwingli, or Luther, etc..) made it into the confession of faith.
And worship “just” means to ascribe worth to something. But of course, while that may be true of the root, the word has taken on its own connotations and clearly means something different now. Similarly with venerate – it does not mean the same thing as honoring someone. This is really quite disingenuous. Is the honor you show to your mom and dad the same thing as your veneration of Mary? If so, why use loaded language that creates division among Christians. Why not simply drop “veneration” of the saints and simply say that you honor the Christians that came before us?
Uh… ok? I change my mind. I accept the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity of Mary (not really). Good thing I’m not a Lutheran!
Is this like a Jedi mind trick? Why would I have anything against Tom? I don’t think I’ve said anything about him one way or the other…am i missing something? Probably, but you’ll need to clue me in if it is important.
Dr. Evil school? I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry… Not saying I didn’t do this somewhere along the line, but I’m drawing a blank. It seems that I’ve offended you (and Tom?) somehow, but I’m not sure how. I’m just too dense I guess.
LikeLike
Well said. Check this out, from JV Fesko’s Theology of the Westminster Standards to see who’s names were cited the most in the minutes to the Westminster assembly. Calvin holds the #2 spot, but there’s a lot of names on that list (even Aquinas, imagine that..)
LikeLike
sdb, Oh, no! No, you didn’t say anything about Tom. That was AB! Sorry about that. Anyway…
So, AB! What I said to sdb about Tom is for you! 🙂 I was happy to find that quote, and I agree completely!
Time for a snack… a brain snack…
Okay, you presented a case with quotes and all about how Protestantism does honor Mary as the Mother of God, so therefore I was wrong to say what I did about Protestant’s view. I say that I was not wrong, and I quoted Dr. Don Carson of the Alliance for Confessing Evangelicals. I also gave you the link to the First Things article showing that the attitude among Evangelicals has indeed changed – showing that it was something else before.
Your definition of liberal had to do with not confessing. I said that Carson is not a liberal according to your def., and he is not some guy who just fell off a turnip truck.
Look up the definition of venerate. In the range of meaning you have the word “honor.” It is disingenuous on the part of many to venerate – highly honor and constantly quote – their favorite theologians without recognizing that is what they are doing.
I am just pointing out that you do the same things you accuse others of going. I am also saying that it is not sin, necessarily. It can be, but not always. Idolatry is a heart matter, and Calvin actually got that – and a lot of other things – right.
I am trying to get y’all to face up to your own idolatrous tendencies. It is absurd to think that Catholics are not also warned about the dangers of idolatry. That is why we are told often that it is okay to venerate saints – as in highly honor them, but really highly honor the grace of God in Christ that is demonstrated in their lives – but not worship them. We are to worship God alone.
All Catholics know this. It seems that Protestants are ignorant of that fact. Before I was a Catholic, my many Catholic friends would tell me that. Now I understand it by personal experience. I do not worship the saints or Mary any more than you worship Calvin or Machen, or John Knox or any of your heroes of the faith.
Do you understand? …and you do not even know the Biblical arguments behind the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary or the Immaculate Conception.
You and I need grace, right? It is said of Mary, and of no one else, that she was full of grace before Jesus was conceived in her womb by the Holy Spirit. Do you ever wonder about what that means? Noah was said to have found grace, but Mary was full of grace. When did she become full of grace?
Now, you may not agree, but do not say that the dogma has no Scriptural support.
Anyway, you seem to be having trouble thinking outside the box Protestantism has put you in.
No, you may never want to be Catholic or Orthodox, but you are far from being able to accurately represent Catholic theology.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted May 26, 2015 at 11:37 am | Permalink
Mermaid, according to your teaching, then, you worship the wafer and the wine since they are the body and blood of Christ. Just sayin’.
That’s disingenuous even for you, Darryl.
LikeLike
Mrs. Webfoot,
What does it matter if your church’s teaching has scriptural support or not? Your church can declare doctrine which is equal to what scripture teaches (scripture and tradition on the same level) so there’s an impasse between catholics and protestants. And it’s ok, 1 cor 11:19 tells us that division must exist to see who is genuine. We do not have to have organizational unity to fulfill John 17. We are just going around in circles. It’s a poor showing when roman catholics come to protestant blogs for answers to their questions – it only shows your system is failing you, you go outside your own God given means (your own church) and seek answers among us. It’s better for you if you stop, we are up to almost 20,000 comments in the are CTCers paying attention and every comment you make only helps a cause which you do not support. So by all means, continue.
All you have to do is just wait for sean to chime in. He’s the expert, everyone here knows. This comment is the antidote to many of these polemics out here, unless you all just like playing these games, but there’s really little else to be said than this:
LikeLike
Wait … I have a picture here of Don Carson falling off a turnip truck!
Kidding.
I have a basic logic puzzle that I’ve successfully employing with my students recently. It’s related to the notion of “Scriptural support.” Here goes:
You have four cards in front of you. One says 3, the next says 8. The third shows a solid green back, the fourth a solid blue back. It is given that each card has a counting number on the front and a solid color on the back.
Now your puzzler presents a hypothesis: “All cards with even numbers on the front have blue backs.”
Now the question: Which cards do you have to turn over to test the hypothesis?
LikeLike
AB, my dear friend and brother, be happy! 🙂
Jeff Cagle, my other dear friend, and brother – : – ) Glad you liked the turnip truck ref. I like Carson. He’s a good Christian man, and plenty smart. I do not agree with him that the title of Mary, the Mother of God is going too far in honoring her. Not many Protestants and Evangelicals do, evidently.
Remember. Justification by faith alone is not even in the Bible, yet you base your religion on it.
“Hail, Mary, full of grace” is in the Bible. What does it mean?
LikeLike
Jeff, I was way off. Fallibility strikes.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wason_selection_task
That’s neat. Thanks.
LikeLike
The 8 card and the green card need to be flipped.
Still thinking how it applies to scripture support.
LikeLike
@JC Let me see if I have this right. There is a three card, an 8 card, a blue card and a green card. The hypothesis is that all even cards are blue. To test that hypothesis you would need to see the 8 card and the green card. The three is irrelevant because the hypothesis doesn’t make any claims for odd cards. They could be any color. The blue is irrelevant because they could be odd or even and the hypothesis would be true. However, if the green card were even, the hypothesis would be falsified. So you need to see the 8 and the green card. Right?
LikeLike
And Mrs. Webfoot holding to scriptural doctrines only is irrelevant, the same way the three and the blue are irrelevant. Since Rome is Scripture and Tradition, if we turn over the Marian theology card, it can show supported by either source. Geneva on the other hand can only have scripture on the other side of her card.
Good stuff.
LikeLike
Said better, if Webfoot is right, that Justification by faith is unscriptural, we reformed prots are toast. However, if a so less Mary is not found in Scripture, no problem for mermaid. Her church fills that gap for her.
Fortunately,/justification by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone is scriotural, and Geneva’s system remains consistent with herself. Of course, TVD wont be satisfied and Mermaid is still siding with the guy calling Darryl a slut.
Good times indeed.
LikeLike
@ AB, sdb: Exactly so.
Turning over 8 and green allow us to eliminate the alternative hypothesis that some even # cards have non-blue backs.
Now consider the statement “Mary was full of grace.”
Does it support the hypothesis that Mary was born “full of grace”?
No, for at least two other hypotheses are equally compatible with that phrase.
(1) Mary became “full of grace” sometime between birth and Jesus’ conception.
(1a) “Full of grace” is a synonym for “highly favored”, which would remove entirely the notion of grace as a substance that one could be full of.
The phrase “full of grace” does not allow us to eliminate competing hypotheses, and therefore is not support.
@ Web: I happen to think that (1a) is the correct read.
LikeLike
*if a sinless Mary is not found in scripture.
LikeLike
Not that this is an area of interest to me, but I hate to see discussions do collateral damage to the truth.
Regardless of your beliefs on Mary, the author below makes his case with scripture, speaking the language of Protestants. That Joe Protestant disagrees with Scriptural Argument X is fine; he also disagrees with Jack Protestant on Y, and Joan Protestant actually agrees with the Catholics on Z. So it goes.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/CAIMCON.HTM
LikeLike
Tom, for your “slut” comment, you get to defend yourself again. Enjoy. I’ll go listen to the cookies if it means we can still be friends.
Here’s why (1a) is probably best. There is a way to say, in Greek, that someone is “full of grace.” That phrase is used by John to describe Jesus.
Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας·
“And the word became flesh and dwelt with (in) us, and we beheld his glory, a glory as of the only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1.14)
[Aside: Let’s not go into “only-begotten” v. “one-and-only”]
If a Greek-speaker needs to say “full of grace”, he literally says that.
The same phrase is used by Luke in the description of Stephen in Acts.
Στέφανος δὲ πλήρης χάριτος καὶ δυνάμεως …
“And Stephen, full of grace and power…” (Acts 6.8)
Now, by contrast, when Mary is greeted it is with
καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν· Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ.
“And entering to her he said, Hail, she-who-has-been-graced, the Lord is with you.” (Luke 1.28)
As you can see, the Greek κεχαριτωμένη is not smoothly rendered in a single word. It is a participle used as a noun, hence the “she-who.” And it is in the perfect aspect, hence the “has-been-graced.”
But there is no sense of fullness present in the word κεχαριτωμένη (contrary to some Catholic bloggers, who misunderstand the perfect aspect, e.g. here).
Why then is it translated that way? Well, because when Jerome translated into Latin, he rendered Luke 1.28 κεχαριτωμένη as gratia plena, full of grace. He added the word “full.”
Now my dear Web: What was your complaint about Luther’s Romans translation again?
LikeLike
@MWF
“I am trying to get y’all to face up to your own idolatrous tendencies.”
It is much appreciated, I’m sure.
Re: idolatry “All Catholics know this. It seems that Protestants are ignorant of that fact.” I’m pretty sure that just about any statement about “all Catholics” or “all Protestants” is going to be false. As I noted, both previous popes raised concerns about co-redemptrix, etc… because of the confusion it raises. There is great concern in their remarks about misunderstandings over subtle differences between what they consider proper veneration and idolatry among the pew sitters. Evidently not “all Catholics” know this. The RCs I knew at ND treated lighting candles at the Grotto as a good luck charm (particularly when playing Michigan or USC). I’m not so sure they got these differences. Perhaps they should know the difference, perhaps the church officially teaches that. But I think your suggestion that “all catholics know this” is likely false.
“Do you understand? …and you do not even know the Biblical arguments behind the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary or the Immaculate Conception.”
Are you sure? Could it be that I’ve looked into the biblical arguments and found them wanting?
“No, you may never want to be Catholic or Orthodox, but you are far from being able to accurately represent Catholic theology.”
How did I misrepresent catholic theology? I don’t recall making any positive statements about catholic belief to misrepresent. Or is pointing out that “venerating” connotes more than merely “thinking highly of” or “showing respect for” (do you venerate our president? I don’t, but I do respect him) a misrepresentation of catholic theology? If I have made a mistake in something I said, I’ll happily stand corrected. I’m not owning up to any of AB’s mistakes though. I make enough of my own!
“Now, you may not agree, but do not say that the dogma has no Scriptural support.” I don’t think I’ve said anything about it one way or the other.
LikeLike
@Tom
“Regardless of your beliefs on Mary, the author below makes his case with scripture, speaking the language of Protestants. That Joe Protestant disagrees with Scriptural Argument X is fine; he also disagrees with Jack Protestant on Y, and Joan Protestant actually agrees with the Catholics on Z. ”
Quite so. This is why I asked MWF which sects disapprove of this formulation. The creeds and confessions define our faith, but its a free country so anyone can go full Garry Wills and call hirself whatever ze wants. It’s a mixed up muddled up, shook up world… getting into quote contests isn’t so helpful I think unless one just wants to establish an exception to a claim (like no prots accept theotokos or all prots accept theotokos).
LikeLike
Excepting her minor meltdown on the Brad Gregory, Rod Dreher, Carl Trueman charity thread, Mrs. Webfoot, you have done very well for yourself. Kudos. Don’t tell Greg the Terrible, but I let my daughters watch Frozen, and I still think Tom needs to learn to Let it goo, can’t hold back anymoooorrre, meaning, he (read: you, Tom) should open up about his (read: your, Tom) faith. If he (read: you, Tom) is afraid of what some goofy 33 year old duffer says in response to his (read: your, Tom) opening up, then I don’t know how to help him (read, you Tom).
Next.
LikeLike
I wanted to let that snark hang in the air for a moment, mainly so that TVD could ponder what Keating might have missed.
Continuing, we have reasonably falsified the notion that the angel declares Mary (in being or in title) to be “full of grace.” She is rather “the one who has been graced.”
So the next question is, “In what way?” Is the grace bestowed upon her a quality or substance or supernatural endowment received from God? Or does it refer to God’s acts of kindness towards her, acts which do not give her additional qualities?
In fact, the verses immediately following supply the answer cleanly.
καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἄγγελος αὐτῇ· Μὴ φοβοῦ, Μαριάμ, εὗρες γὰρ χάριν παρὰ τῷ θεῷ· καὶ ἰδοὺ συλλήμψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ καὶ τέξῃ υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν. οὗτος ἔσται μέγας καὶ υἱὸς Ὑψίστου κληθήσεται, καὶ δώσει αὐτῷ κύριος ὁ θεὸς τὸν θρόνον Δαυὶδ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, 33 καὶ βασιλεύσει ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰακὼβ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, καὶ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔσται τέλος.
and the angel said to her, Do not fear, Mary, for you have found favor (“grace”) with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and you will call his name Jesus (“Joshua”). This one will be great and will be called son of the most high, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end of his kingdom — Luke 1.30 – 33.
There it is, neat and simple. The grace (χάριν) consists of favor with God
Warrant: The verb and preposition are significant. She does not receive grace from God, but finds favor with God.
That favor in turn consists of bearing a son who will rule over the house of David and of whose kingdom there will be no end.
This favor is parallel to the good news received by Elizabeth and Zachariah in the earlier part of 1.
In short: The text supports, as in rules out alternatives, the hypothesis that Mary is “highly favored” in that she will bear such a Son.
LikeLike
@ AB: Two years ago, I had a classroom rule.
Absolutely positively NO FROZEN
LikeLike
Not allowing my 7 and 5 year old to be Anna and Elsa for Halloween (along with 97% of all other girls last year), I had concluded, would have been cruel and unusual. See if you can spot my mother in law in that picture.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted May 26, 2015 at 11:05 pm | Permalink
I wanted to let that snark hang in the air for a moment, mainly so that TVD could ponder what Keating might have missed.
Continuing, we have reasonably falsified the notion that the angel declares Mary (in being or in title) to be “full of grace.” She is rather “the one who has been graced.”
His argument is that the term is used as a name, not as a description. Therefore he’s arguing that as a name, it’s an essential quality of Mary, not a temporary attribute. “He with the Birthmark on His Forehead,” that sort of thing.
This is going nowhere: You didn’t understand his argument and trolling the internet for dueling experts on 1st-century Greek proves Thomas More’s argument that “sola scriptura” is impossible for anyone not a master of Hebrew and Greek. In the end, you’re taking somebody’s word for it, be it a scholar or a magisterium.
Or worse, your own fallen reason. To take one’s chances instead that Jesus left behind a church guided by the Holy Spirit to bridge all confusions is not an unreasonable bet.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Very helpful. Thank you.
LikeLike
Just remember Tom, our biggest gripe is with Called to Communion. The fact remains, Vatican 2 religious freedom (see sean) means we prots have no reason to convert if we feel the truth claims of Rome may demand it. We’re (separated) brothers per the pope. You need to apologize for calling DGH a slut.
LikeLike
AB
Posted May 26, 2015 at 11:25 pm | Permalink
To take one’s chances instead that Jesus left behind a church guided by the Holy Spirit to bridge all confusions is not an unreasonable bet.
Just remember Tom, our biggest gripe is with Called to Communion. The fact remains, Vatican 2 religious freedom (see sean) means we prots have no reason to convert if we feel the truth claims of Rome may demand it. We’re (separated) brothers per the pope. You need to apologize for calling DGH a slut.
It’s an old joke from Saturday Night Live and was intended lightly, not literally. As for your problem with Called to Communion, that’s your problem. As for your behavior, it still stinks.
LikeLike
As for your behavior, it still stinks.
Why, because I brought up your Ordinary League?
Unless you care to explain, you just attack me for no reason. I’m used to it, so no worries.
LikeLike
No It’s Not
By D. G. HART | Published: MAY 23, 2015
Evangelicalism’s greatest problem is its beliefs. So thinks Jake Meador:
Evangelicalism’s biggest problem with regards to those outside evangelicalism isn’t our image, it’s our beliefs. That’s why Louie Giglio was uninvited from President Obama’s second inaugural. That’s why there was a mass freakout about Chick-fil-a despite the fact that even gay rights activists admitted that the leadership at Chick-fil-a was consistently kind and gracious to them. That’s why laws so modest and restrained as the Indiana RFRA illicit such outrage and why the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby ruling met a similar reaction last year. The groups being attacked in these cases are not Fred Phelps clones or even Pat Robertson clones. They are simply ordinary evangelical believers trying to live out their faith.
If the issue actually was that most cultural elites outside of the church simply didn’t understand what we actually believed and had all sorts of wrong ideas from seeing one too many stories about Fred Phelps, then maybe a rebranding campaign could “work” in the way that marketing campaigns work. Trying to convince everyone outside the church that we’re cool and “get it” and care about all the things Portlandia hipsters care about would get us somewhere. I’m not sure it’s a place worth going, mind, but it’d be something.
But the events of the past five years, or at least the past three years, should make it abundantly clear that ours is not a credibility problem. The issues are much greater than that. As Rod Dreher noted several months ago (and David Sessions made much the same point here), what we’re actually talking about are two societies that have beliefs about the basic nature of reality that are fundamentally antagonistic to one another. Note that they aren’t simply fundamentally different, but antagonistic. Set next to a difference of that nature, the attempts at finding superficial similarities look rather silly–which is precisely what they are.
Consider this if you want to make a big deal of Christian belief. Once upon a time the Christian world divided with important cultural implications when the Western Church added filioque to the Nicene Creed. Or remember the 16th century when beliefs really did matter to the differences between Roman Catholic and Protestant churches and the societies that underwrote them. Or remember too a more recent past when differences of beliefs made even liberal Protestants worry about a Roman Catholic president like Josiah Bartlet.
Beliefs have mattered.
They don’t any more. What matters now are divisions over morality, yes. And you can’t have a full-bore ethical system without some kind of theological or philosophical system. And that leads to a host of doctrinal differences that should actually divide Jake Meador from Rod Dreher. But for now those doctrinal convictions don’t divide the two bloggers.
What matters and has always mattered in U.S. history is morality and the degree to which personal moral convictions must be implemented as public policy or law. In the 1970s thanks to Francis Schaeffer channeling neo-Calvinism (in part), evangelicals bought the idea that neutrality didn’t exist, that faith went all the way down (read identity politics), and that secularism was stripping the public square of clothes. It was possible and still is every single day to practice most of one’s Christian convictions — Sabbath observance? — without turning it into law. Heck, you can even voluntarily choose life (even though Christians are right to try to protect the lives of innocents).
So the credibility that evangelicals seek has taken a beating because of the way they have conducted public arguments. Would they have won? Would social life have turned out any better if they didn’t adopt the very logic of gay rights — that one’s political identity cannot be distinguished from one’s personal convictions? I doubt it. News from Ireland today about the referendum on gay marriage suggests that Christians have few tricks up their sleeves in public debates.
But the difference has far less to do with beliefs than with politics and especially the age-old American trope of LIBERTY.
Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted in Adventures in Church History, Being Human, Christianity and the West, Evangelicalism, Modern Church, Novus Ordo Seclorum and tagged Jake Meador, Rod Dreher. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
« The Basis for UnityWhen People Believe in God . . . »
163 Comments
AB
Posted May 26, 2015 at 10:39 pm | Permalink
Tom, for your “slut” comment, you get to defend yourself again. Enjoy. I’ll go listen to the cookies if it means we can still be friends.
This move makes me both happy and sad.
Tom was a gifted writer, and could, when he’s not trying to tweak others’ sensibilities, could write some cogent and well-executed prose. I’ll miss that Tom.
Then, there was the other Tom. The one who delighted in stirring up shit, and in probing the tender spots of his ideological adversaries. The one who would never acknowledge when he caused offense, and never, ever back down or apologize. The one who would write with purposeful obtuseness, and then complain that no one understood him. That guy I won’t miss so much.the
Farewell, Tom, and fare thee well. I hope you keep writing, and are able to find a congenial home for your missives
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2012/12/05/parting-ways#comment-427915
Jeff Cagle
Posted May 26, 2015 at 10:48 pm | Permalink
Here’s why (1a) is probably best. There is a way to say, in Greek, that someone is “full of grace.” That phrase is used by John to describe Jesus.
Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας·
“And the word became flesh and dwelt with (in) us, and we beheld his glory, a glory as of the only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1.14)
[Aside: Let’s not go into “only-begotten” v. “one-and-only”]
If a Greek-speaker needs to say “full of grace”, he literally says that.
The same phrase is used by Luke in the description of Stephen in Acts.
Στέφανος δὲ πλήρης χάριτος καὶ δυνάμεως …
“And Stephen, full of grace and power…” (Acts 6.8)
Now, by contrast, when Mary is greeted it is with
καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν· Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ.
“And entering to her he said, Hail, she-who-has-been-graced, the Lord is with you.” (Luke 1.28)
As you can see, the Greek κεχαριτωμένη is not smoothly rendered in a single word. It is a participle used as a noun, hence the “she-who.” And it is in the perfect aspect, hence the “has-been-graced.”
But there is no sense of fullness present in the word κεχαριτωμένη (contrary to some Catholic bloggers, who misunderstand the perfect aspect, e.g. here).
Why then is it translated that way? Well, because when Jerome translated into Latin, he rendered Luke 1.28 κεχαριτωμένη as gratia plena, full of grace. He added the word “full.”
Now my dear Web: What was your complaint about Luther’s Romans translation again?
sdb
Posted May 26, 2015 at 10:54 pm | Permalink
@MWF
“I am trying to get y’all to face up to your own idolatrous tendencies.”
It is much appreciated, I’m sure.
Re: idolatry “All Catholics know this. It seems that Protestants are ignorant of that fact.” I’m pretty sure that just about any statement about “all Catholics” or “all Protestants” is going to be false. As I noted, both previous popes raised concerns about co-redemptrix, etc… because of the confusion it raises. There is great concern in their remarks about misunderstandings over subtle differences between what they consider proper veneration and idolatry among the pew sitters. Evidently not “all Catholics” know this. The RCs I knew at ND treated lighting candles at the Grotto as a good luck charm (particularly when playing Michigan or USC). I’m not so sure they got these differences. Perhaps they should know the difference, perhaps the church officially teaches that. But I think your suggestion that “all catholics know this” is likely false.
“Do you understand? …and you do not even know the Biblical arguments behind the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary or the Immaculate Conception.”
Are you sure? Could it be that I’ve looked into the biblical arguments and found them wanting?
“No, you may never want to be Catholic or Orthodox, but you are far from being able to accurately represent Catholic theology.”
How did I misrepresent catholic theology? I don’t recall making any positive statements about catholic belief to misrepresent. Or is pointing out that “venerating” connotes more than merely “thinking highly of” or “showing respect for” (do you venerate our president? I don’t, but I do respect him) a misrepresentation of catholic theology? If I have made a mistake in something I said, I’ll happily stand corrected. I’m not owning up to any of AB’s mistakes though. I make enough of my own!
“Now, you may not agree, but do not say that the dogma has no Scriptural support.” I don’t think I’ve said anything about it one way or the other.
sdb
Posted May 26, 2015 at 11:03 pm | Permalink
@Tom
“Regardless of your beliefs on Mary, the author below makes his case with scripture, speaking the language of Protestants. That Joe Protestant disagrees with Scriptural Argument X is fine; he also disagrees with Jack Protestant on Y, and Joan Protestant actually agrees with the Catholics on Z. ”
Quite so. This is why I asked MWF which sects disapprove of this formulation. The creeds and confessions define our faith, but its a free country so anyone can go full Garry Wills and call hirself whatever ze wants. It’s a mixed up muddled up, shook up world… getting into quote contests isn’t so helpful I think unless one just wants to establish an exception to a claim (like no prots accept theotokos or all prots accept theotokos).
AB
Posted May 26, 2015 at 11:03 pm | Permalink
Excepting her minor meltdown on the Brad Gregory, Rod Dreher, Carl Trueman charity thread, Mrs. Webfoot, you have done very well for yourself. Kudos. Don’t tell Greg the Terrible, but I let my daughters watch Frozen, and I still think Tom needs to learn to Let it goo, can’t hold back anymoooorrre, meaning, he (read: you, Tom) should open up about his (read: your, Tom) faith. If he (read: you, Tom) is afraid of what some goofy 33 year old duffer says in response to his (read: your, Tom) opening up, then I don’t know how to help him (read, you Tom).
Next.
Jeff Cagle
Posted May 26, 2015 at 11:05 pm | Permalink
I wanted to let that snark hang in the air for a moment, mainly so that TVD could ponder what Keating might have missed.
Continuing, we have reasonably falsified the notion that the angel declares Mary (in being or in title) to be “full of grace.” She is rather “the one who has been graced.”
So the next question is, “In what way?” Is the grace bestowed upon her a quality or substance or supernatural endowment received from God? Or does it refer to God’s acts of kindness towards her, acts which do not give her additional qualities?
In fact, the verses immediately following supply the answer cleanly.
καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἄγγελος αὐτῇ· Μὴ φοβοῦ, Μαριάμ, εὗρες γὰρ χάριν παρὰ τῷ θεῷ· καὶ ἰδοὺ συλλήμψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ καὶ τέξῃ υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν. οὗτος ἔσται μέγας καὶ υἱὸς Ὑψίστου κληθήσεται, καὶ δώσει αὐτῷ κύριος ὁ θεὸς τὸν θρόνον Δαυὶδ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, 33 καὶ βασιλεύσει ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰακὼβ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, καὶ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔσται τέλος.
and the angel said to her, Do not fear, Mary, for you have found favor (“grace”) with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and you will call his name Jesus (“Joshua”). This one will be great and will be called son of the most high, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end of his kingdom — Luke 1.30 – 33.
There it is, neat and simple. The grace (χάριν) consists of favor with God
Warrant: The verb and preposition are significant. She does not receive grace from God, but finds favor with God.
That favor in turn consists of bearing a son who will rule over the house of David and of whose kingdom there will be no end.
This favor is parallel to the good news received by Elizabeth and Zachariah in the earlier part of 1.
In short: The text supports, as in rules out alternatives, the hypothesis that Mary is “highly favored” in that she will bear such a Son.
Jeff Cagle
Posted May 26, 2015 at 11:07 pm | Permalink
@ AB: Two years ago, I had a classroom rule.
Absolutely positively NO FROZEN
AB
Posted May 26, 2015 at 11:15 pm | Permalink
Not allowing my 7 and 5 year old to be Anna and Elsa for Halloween (along with 97% of all other girls last year), I had concluded, would have been cruel and unusual. See if you can spot my mother in law in that picture.
TVD
Posted May 26, 2015 at 11:19 pm | Permalink
Jeff Cagle
Posted May 26, 2015 at 11:05 pm | Permalink
I wanted to let that snark hang in the air for a moment, mainly so that TVD could ponder what Keating might have missed.
Continuing, we have reasonably falsified the notion that the angel declares Mary (in being or in title) to be “full of grace.” She is rather “the one who has been graced.”
His argument is that the term is used as a name, not as a description. Therefore he’s arguing that as a name, it’s an essential quality of Mary, not a temporary attribute. “He with the Birthmark on His Forehead,” that sort of thing.
This is going nowhere: You didn’t understand his argument and trolling the internet for dueling experts on 1st-century Greek proves Thomas More’s argument that “sola scriptura” is impossible for anyone not a master of Hebrew and Greek. In the end, you’re taking somebody’s word for it, be it a scholar or a magisterium.
Or worse, your own fallen reason. To take one’s chances instead that Jesus left behind a church guided by the Holy Spirit to bridge all confusions is not an unreasonable bet.
Erik Charter
Posted May 26, 2015 at 11:20 pm | Permalink
Jeff,
Very helpful. Thank you.
AB
Posted May 26, 2015 at 11:25 pm | Permalink
To take one’s chances instead that Jesus left behind a church guided by the Holy Spirit to bridge all confusions is not an unreasonable bet.
Just remember Tom, our biggest gripe is with Called to Communion. The fact remains, Vatican 2 religious freedom (see sean) means we prots have no reason to convert if we feel the truth claims of Rome may demand it. We’re (separated) brothers per the pope. You need to apologize for calling DGH a slut.
TVD
Posted May 26, 2015 at 11:35 pm | Permalink
AB
Posted May 26, 2015 at 11:25 pm | Permalink
To take one’s chances instead that Jesus left behind a church guided by the Holy Spirit to bridge all confusions is not an unreasonable bet.
Just remember Tom, our biggest gripe is with Called to Communion. The fact remains, Vatican 2 religious freedom (see sean) means we prots have no reason to convert if we feel the truth claims of Rome may demand it. We’re (separated) brothers per the pope. You need to apologize for calling DGH a slut.
It’s an old joke from Saturday Night Live and was intended lightly, not literally. As for your problem with Called to Communion, that’s your problem. As for your behavior, it still stinks.
AB
Posted May 26, 2015 at 11:42 pm | Permalink
As for your behavior, it still stinks.
Why, because I brought up your Ordinary League?
Unless you care to explain, you just attack me for no reason. I’m used to it, so no worries.
Your behavior stinks whether I explain it or not. Besides, the guilty accuse themselves. You don’t need anybody to tell you your behavior stinks.
Darryl allows you to harass his interlocutors for his own reasons. But it makes you both look bad.
LikeLike
In case you haven’t noticed, Mrs. Webfoot has defending my actions, all the while you call me names, “scare quote” my name (what the h**l is that?) and decry what I do.
I like your contributions, and Darryl does too. But that comment seems like it has something to it. But I don’t know you. I didn’t know that line was SNL.
Peace.
LikeLike
@ TVD: I’ve been doing translation work (for sermons, study, and grad school) for over 20 years. I don’t need to “troll the internet.” Except to hunt down the origin of “full of grace.” I did not know that the interpolation was due to Jerome.
So yes: I understood the argument; and no, you didn’t.
Making wild swings again…
LikeLike
Ah, my dear friend, and brother, AB, I didn’t say that justification by faith alone is not scriptural, just that the phrase itself is not in scripture. You get there by adding to scripture traditions and interpretations that have developed over time. You say that the traditions are subordinate to scripture. I disagree at least in the case of justification by faith alone.
BTW, justification by faith alone is not rejected by the Church in all of its interpretations. It is the way that Martin Luther taught it that got him into trouble.
You have to go to the traditions of your Reformed teachers to arrive at your particular doctrine of justification by faith alone.
My point is that maybe you need to be a little more careful with claiming that your tradition trumps the traditions of the Church. Your assumption is that Catholics do not know their Bibles, and that Catholic dogma does not have any support in Scripture.
You may wish to rethink those presuppositions or not. It is up to you, of course. You are free.
Then, Jeff, your arguments are not airtight. For one thing, you left out the most important hypothesis that tends to support the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Before the angel appeared to Mary, she was already full of grace. IOW, he addressed her as “Mary, full of grace”. Not, Mary, you will be full of grace when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.
Besides, who is talking about a substance that one can be full of? Grace is not a substance, it is a spiritual favor that God gives freely. It is invisible. At some point before the angel addressed Mary, her cup of grace had been filled up. When did that happen?
Think of it this way. There were nations in the OT whose cup of iniquity had been filled up. Iniquity is not a substance. It is invisible, but it reveals its presence through one’s actions. That is, they had reached the maximum point of sin that God was willing to tolerate.
Why not put “full of grace” in a similar context? Mary had been given the maximum amount of grace that a human being needs, and that grace enabled her to live a sinless life. Why not?
No, this does not prove the Immaculate Conception. I am not talking solo scriptura, here – which is bad Latin grammar anyway – or even sola scriptura. There are other proofs.
However, on what basis, or on what authority do you reject the Immaculate Conception? It cannot be on the basis of scripture. It must be on the basis of your tradition that teaches you it is impossible for her to have been born without original sin. It is impossible for a human being who is not the sinless Son of God to live a sinless life. Is it that God cannot, or that God would not do such a thing?
Now, the Orthodox churches reject the Immaculate Conception because they reject Augustine’s theory of original sin inherited from Adam. They do teach that she lived a sinless life, though.
You may not have thought about this before, and I am sure that this will not change your mind. However, the idea that the Catholic Church is idolatrous and pagan is based on flimsy evidence. The Reformed claim that they base what they believe on scripture alone and then tradition as subordinate to scripture is not exactly sustainable in the case of the Immaculate Conception.
Your tradition leads, and scripture follows you in this case, but scripture may or may not even follow you. I don’t think it does.
Like Tom pointed out, every Protestant has his or her own interoperation of Scripture. I am just doing here what Protestants do. However, what I believe about the Immaculate Conception is based on what the Church has always taught down though the centuries. I am saying that the teaching magisterium has always contemplated scriptural passages as well as logic and the testimony of the church Fathers and other saints when deciding on an official teaching. It is the Holy Spirit who leads the Church into all truth, just as Jesus said He would, though, that is the determining factor. How has the Holy Spirit been leading through the apostolic succession?
I trust that in this area, the Holy Spirit has led infallibly, and am at peace.
Protestants will argue this dogma and others for hundreds of years, and never be at peace about anything. So, have at it.
Anyway, AB, I am way over my limit for the day. Nice to visit with you guys. Take care.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted May 27, 2015 at 12:33 am | Permalink
@ TVD: I’ve been doing translation work (for sermons, study, and grad school) for over 20 years. I don’t need to “troll the internet.” Except to hunt down the origin of “full of grace.” I did not know that the interpolation was due to Jerome.
So yes: I understood the argument; and no, you didn’t.
Making wild swings again…
If you understood his argument, you ignored it. Same difference. In fact, you ignored my restatement of his argument: Using “full of grace” as a name and not merely as a description implies an essential, not an accidental quality.
You didn’t swing and miss; you didn’t take the bat off your shoulder.
LikeLike
You’ve failed to grasp the central point. The issue of name is irrelevant because the Greek word doesn’t mean “full of grace”
If you want to find title-significance in the name, knock yourself out. You just have to get your sources and language straight. Luke doesn’t say “full of” anything; Jerome does.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted May 27, 2015 at 2:20 am | Permalink
You’ve failed to grasp the central point. The issue of name is irrelevant because the Greek word doesn’t mean “full of grace”
If you want to find title-significance in the name, knock yourself out. You just have to get your sources and language straight. Luke doesn’t say “full of” anything; Jerome does.
And Luther added “alone” to “faith” because that’s how he read the sense of the text. You follow Luther when it suits your purpose and reject Jerome when it suits your purpose.
I’m not even entering into how kecharitomene should be translated. I’m pointing out that according to your own religion, it’s a matter of taste, and one’s mileage may vary (and invariably does).
Indeed, my larger point is that subjectivity is going to enter into translation, which makes “sola scriptura” problematic. You’re at the mercy of the translator’s opinions and biases. In this case, your interest [and vociferousness] is clearly linked to your religion and your antipathy for Catholicism.
Even most Catholics are like, so what?, when it comes to this Mariology stuff. It makes zero difference in the larger scheme of things.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/CAIMCON.HTM
LikeLike
Mermaid, “every Protestant has his or her own interoperation of Scripture.”
And Roman Catholics don’t have their own interpretations of the magisterium (while not even knowing the Bible)?
Bottom line about Mary: whatever.
So says vd,t: “Even most Catholics are like, so what?, when it comes to this Mariology stuff. It makes zero difference in the larger scheme of things.”
LikeLike
TVD: You follow Luther when it suits your purpose and reject Jerome when it suits your purpose.
Yet another wild swing and miss.
I’m happy to keep flagging these all day long until it occurs to you to ask before assuming. Didn’t you have some snarky teacher tell you about the dangers of assumption?
LikeLike
Sure. Right back atchya. We disagree on what the “church” is. With the council of Trent, Rome anathematized the Gospel, profs didn’t leave, Rome left, you know the drill.
Much more to say. Of course Luther was scandalous if what he was fighting for wasn’t the very core of what the church stands for. Talk to Darryl, he knows his stuff. I’m out. This documentary (parts 1 and 2) is worth your time. My station in life doesn’t afford me time for these convos. I bow out.
Next.
LikeLike
But for your real argument, contained in the citation of Keating, is that the Greek indicates that Mary’s grace was perfect.
I’ll be blunt: He’s wrong. The “perfect aspect” of a Greek verb has nothing to do with perfection. You can study up a little bit, or listen to Susan (or is it Web?) who studied Machen’s Greek, but please don’t fall for that kind of basic language error.
(Oddly, Mrs. W, Don Carson is the guy who has described these kinds of exegetical mistakes in his book on exegeticall fallacies.)
Tom, if you want to make a theological argument that Jerome was correct, you may do so. In that case, the theology supports the reading of the text — so that the text is no longer a support for the theology.
LikeLike
Curious that the doctrine of the immaculate
receptionconception that is so foundation to the RCC (as Susan suggests) is not shared by the Orthodox. Of course it doesn’t make much sense if one denies the doctrine of Original Sin. Maybe the Orthodox and Catholics aren’t basically the same thing after all?LikeLike
Rod has more to say about the controversy brewing over the Synod on the Family as reported in NCR. I’m not sure how realistic these concerns are as an outsider, but it seems fair to say we should recall the indicative to “not put your faith in princes [of the church]”. My own translation… I did find this line in the story kinda funny,
And they say we presbyterians are cold…
LikeLike
*
profsprotsLikeLike
“Even most Catholics are like, so what?, when it comes to this Mariology stuff. ”
Which is why 3 out of 2 women at Notre Dame were named Mary. I mean the Hail Mary is totally incidental to RC devotion right? After all, who makes a football play into an act of worship?
LikeLike
Footlady, for you (emphasis mine):
AB, have you read this? Now, I don’t know who the Lutherans were who signed on to this, but take a look.
I’ll read all the responses later, probably. I do have an inbox to attend to, as I am sure all of you do. …and I’m writing that Mass for solo oboe d’Amore as well.
Your comments all seem to be serious and substantive, mostly. I thank you.
Anyway, the joint declaration that I include here in the link is interesting. Maybe it’s a conversation that is a few hundred years too late, but better late than never I suppose. Unfortunately, as well, so many Lutheran churches have caved on orthodoxy. Maybe it was not the wisest move in the beginning to make justification the “”ruler and judge over all other Christian doctrines.”
JOINT DECLARATION
ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION
by the Lutheran World Federation
and the Catholic Church
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html
LikeLike
Susan, I met a guy named Michael TX (he still has a blog) at a blog called turretinfan[dot]blogspot.com, back in 2012, we e-mailed a bit, and he pushed on me the joint declaration. I’ve never read through it all. I’m more about JV Fesko’s Justification: Understanding the classic reformed doctrine.
greenbaggins[dot]wordpress.com/2008/10/29/john-fesko-on-justification/
i’ve been doing this for a long time. welcome to the discussion. grace and peace, i have many other things to attend to as well. the blogs will always be here when you are, and if not this one, some other one. take care, whatever your real name is.
regards,
andrew buckingham
LikeLike
I meant webfoot, not susan. my bad.
who’s next? Anyone wanna hear my mad piano skills from this weekend?
LikeLike
Hey AB,
I don’t remember pushing, but I can understand how it could feel that way. I definitely remember giving the link and telling you that you should read it. Just trying to spread what I came to understand as the truth. Things been going good?
LikeLike
See, the problem with putting justification at the center of one’s theology, as Luther did, is that it also puts man at the center. Now, each man and woman decides what is true for them, with no real apostolic authority, not even from the original apostles.
The Catholic Church has Christ at the center and focus of her faith. Why do I say that?
The Eucharist is the heart of Christian communion.
——————————————————-
How important is the Eucharist for the Church?
The celebration of the Eucharist is the heart of the Christian communion. In it the Church becomes Church.
We are not Church because we get along well, or because we happen to end up in the same parish community, but rather because in the Eucharist we receive the Body of Christ and are increasingly being transformed into the Body of Christ.
LikeLike
Michael, my last golf outing may not speak as well of me as I do here, but I’m fine. I want to help the RC interlocutors here in their convert cage phase learn to stop posting and asking so many questions, we could use your help around here. Susan, Mrs. Webfoot, and Tom Van Dyke could use someone as yourself who appears more settled and at peace that these three musketeers. Good to hear from you, I’d enjoy hearing how you are faring, and hoping you are escaping any flooding that may be around those parts. Things ok over there amigo?
LikeLike
Mrs. W.,
See, the problem with putting justification at the center of one’s theology, as Luther did, is that it also puts man at the center. Now, each man and woman decides what is true for them, with no real apostolic authority, not even from the original apostles.
I’m not trying to be rude, but that is just about the biggest misreading of Luther that I’ve encountered on these inter webs. The point of JBFA is to take the focus off of the pope, off of the priest, off of Mary, off of the saints, off of the scapular, off of the rosary, off of every other accoutrement and to put it on Christ.
The Catholic Church has Christ at the center and focus of her faith. Why do I say that?
The Eucharist is central to Protestants as well. In fact Christ is even clearer because we actually bar the table to impenitent people and don’t pretend that they’re in Christ when they are plainly not.
Meanwhile, every RC who voted against the church in Ireland on Saturday could easily get the mass on Sunday. Explain that if the Eucharist is ex opere operato conforming them to Christ.
LikeLike
Rain rain rain, but no flooding at my house. Can’t say the same for the Houstonites South of me. Lord be with them and may God rest the souls of those who have pasted.
I haven’t been following what has been going on in the chattin here so I wouldn’t know how I could help. I tell all to love God and be faithful to the truth as they understand it, yet test all blind assumptions. I did and I am a grateful Catholic. I still do the same. Some aren’t there yet. Some aren’t even searching. Some hate me and the Church. It is what it is.
“Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind.” Eccl 12:13
Be grateful if I can help. What is the problem?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted May 27, 2015 at 7:31 am | Permalink
TVD: You follow Luther when it suits your purpose and reject Jerome when it suits your purpose.
Yet another wild swing and miss.
I’m happy to keep flagging these all day long until it occurs to you to ask before assuming. Didn’t you have some snarky teacher tell you about the dangers of assumption?
An amusing Old Life affectation: Abandon the field and then do a victory dance.
LikeLike
I could catch you up to speed as I know it. Susan converted to RCism around 2012 (I first met her at creedcode, unless this is a diff susan)
My main problem is somehow you figured out how to stop posting in protestant blogs, I can only assume because you have a more healthy church situation. Now maybe Susan feels commissioned to be an ambassador to help promulgate converts to the RC church, but that’s going against what Pope Francis said when he said proselytyzing is pious nonsense (www[dot]ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-pope-francis-just-say-that-evangelization-is-nonsense-8-things-to-know)
You don’t really need to help, I just found it fun that Mrs. Webfoot (not her real name, but is her online handle, she explained here earlier why that is her name, but is too shy to reveal it again, so lets leave it at that) was telling me to read the joint statement, and it reminded me of our e-mails,. YOu are right, you didn’t push per se, but again, somehow you seem to have found peace that I don’t see happening with the three musketeers i mentioned. it’s the same stuff, different day out here Michael, only get involved if you feel like it. glad you aren’t having flooding. I need to work…
LikeLike
Link didnt make it
http://www.creedcodecult.com/the-destiny-of-the-species-the-jagged-little-red-pill/
LikeLike
Sorry to jump in Robert, but “ex opere operato conforming them to Christ” doesn’t not mean that it happens without faith in that truth reality or that it happens apart from the will of the person acting in union with God’s fully active work. “the Spirit is willing but the flesh is weak” Faith is require, but it is faith in what God alone is doing ex opere operato to be efficacious. This is Catholic teaching.
LikeLike
Mary did need a Savior, and God is her savior, according to her own words. Now, I know that most of you will never accept the Catholic Church’s teaching on this, but at least it is good to be informed about what she actually teaches. Straw men arguments abound among Protestants about what the Church actually teaches.
In fact, I contend that the OPC has a particular problem coming to terms with what the Church teaches because of one of your own theologians who got it so wrong in his book Roman Catholicism. You know who I am talking about, right? You might want to toss that book and start reading the CCC.
No, you will probably not be convinced, but at least you will know what your are disagreeing with.
Besides, the Immaculate Conception is not all about Mary, as you seem to think. It’s all about her Savior and ours.
“We pronounce and define that the doctrine which states that the Most Blessed Virgin Mary was in the first instant of her conception, by the singular grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. (Pope Pius IX, 1854)”
“Christ, as the Church teaches, “conquered the enemy of the human race alone (solus)” (D711); In the same way, He alone acquired the grace of Redemption for the whole human race, including Mary…” (Dr. Ludwigg Otto, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma 212-13)”
LikeLike
I haven’t the foggiest. By the way, by your logic, if one of your RC clergymen doesn’t understand the OPC, then you guys are toast. So come on, let’s not be coy.
LikeLike
Mermaid, great. Rome talks with liberal Lutherans. The LCMS would not have caved.
LikeLike
Mermaid, if Christ is at the center, why not his Word?
LikeLike
AB,
I don’t think I will ever be at peace with people being visibly separated from the Church while having a fervent love of Christ, because I know the great good God has given His people in the Church. I do know people have their conviction though and I respect that and leave much work to the Holy Spirit in doing the work only God can do. I am more of a person who helps people with difficulties and inquiries than one who presses the Catholic understanding of the faith on others now, but God calls each to His own work for them. I am not to judge only to encourage goodness. Being a watchmen on the wall is to be encouraged not discouraged. About you and me, AB. I felt I have spoken what needed to be spoken and I am free of that call to you now. My door is always open for inquiry and probing as I am sure you know. I am sure you know I wish to sit at the same fellowship table with you and partake of the Body of out common Lord together. That day is in the Lord’s hand though.
Susan,
What day did you come into the Church on in 2012? That was my families year too. Kids Were on Easter Vigil me and my wife were on Divine Mercy Sunday.
LikeLike
Can’t wait until vd, t learns about international Calvinists:
LikeLike
Michael, well said. Psalm 133 would rightly have us pray for further unity between cats and prots, to that I’m committed.
It’s just great to hear from you man. Like I said, I gotta run. You know where to find me (my name is linked above).
Grace and peace.
LikeLike
Mermaid, why does Mary need a savior if she is perfect?
LikeLike
D.G. Hart, the same reason you and I need a Savior, and that some day because of His grace, we will be perfected – like Him because we will see Him as He is. Mary was perfected, completely sanctified, at the moment of her conception, before she became the Mother of God.
Now, you reject this teaching, but now you at least know what the Church actually teaches instead of what Protestants – not even to early Reformers, BTW – teach about the Church. Throw away your Boettner, and read the CCC and early Church fathers.
You might be interested in a native speaker of the Greek language’s take on the word “Kecharitomene”, which is actually a title he assigns to Mary. I present St. John Chrysostomos poem as evidence.
Guys, a good rule to follow when trying to understand the meaning of any word or phrase in a foreign language that you do not speak is to go to the native speaker to get a feel for it. In fact, even those of us who are bilingual always consult with the native speaker when we are unsure of how a word is used, even the same word in a different country. Notice that Chrysostom calls the Kecharaitomene “faultless.”
Hail, Kecharitomene, unreaped land of heavenly grain.
Hail, Kecharitomene, virgin mother, true and unfailing vine.
Hail, Kecharitomene, faultless one carrying the immutable divinity.
Hail, Kecharitomene, spacious room for the uncontainable nature.
Hail, Kecharitomene, new bride of a widowed world and incorrupt offspring.
Hail, Kecharitomene, weaving as creature a crown not made by hands.
Hail, Kecharitomene, habitation of holy fire.
Hail, Kecharitomene, return of the fugitive world.
Hail, Kecharitomene, lavish nourisher for the hungry creation.
Hail, Kecharitomene, interminable grace of the holy virgin.
Hail, Kecharitomene, lampstand adorned with all virtue and with inextinguishable
light brighter than even the sun.
Hail, Kecharitomene, challenger of spirits.
Hail, Kecharitomene, wise bearer of spiritual glory.
Hail, Kecharitomene, golden urn, contaning heavenly manna.
Hail, Kecharitomene, dispensing sweet drink ever flowing to fill those who are thirsty.
Hail, Kecharitomene, spiritual sea who holds Christ, the heavenly pearl.
Hail, Kecharitomene, splendor of heaven, having the one uncontained by the heavens in herself,
God confined and unconfined.
Hail, Kecharitomene, pillar of cloud containing God, and guiding Israel in the wilderness.”
LikeLike
Hart,
Perfect is not the same as sinless. The saints in heaven are no longer sinners that doesn’t make them God who is the only perfect one. The angel have never sinned and are in no need of a redeemer they still will consider Christ the savior of all creation, including themselves. DG don’t just nitpick. Liberals do that to all people who believe the Bible is inerrant and God’s Word, Catholic and Protestant alike.
LikeLike
Mrs. W–“Remember. Justification by faith alone is not even in the Bible, yet you base your religion on it. ”
Here’s just a FEW verses:
Romans 5:1, Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:16, Galatians 5:6, Galatians 2:21, Romans 4:1-25, Romans 3:20, Ephesians 2:8, Romans 11:6…I could keep going???? But you’d have to believe in Sola Scriptura too, and yet you cannot, because your church does not. Aaannnnd the circle continues….
LikeLike
@MWF Did you read Boettner or did you happen to first hear of him from the paper I linked? I had never heard of him before, though I gather he wrote a a fairly popular anti-RC polemic back in the 60’s…crazy times. While he had a master’s in theology, his day job seems to have been working for the IRS. I can imagine how that would drive just about anyone over the edge. I doubt that he is especially influential, but I could be wrong. Was he influential to your views pre-conversion?
LikeLike
@Susan and Webfoot
I’m curious. Does the Orthodox rejection of the Immaculate conception give you any pause? If the patristic and biblical case is so clear to those without protestant blinders, why didn’t they sign-on back in the day? I’m not saying this “proves” anything. I’m just curious about how you make sense of the history.
LikeLike
sdb, the Orthodox church rejects the Augustinian doctrine of original sin inherited through Adam. They do not reject her sinlessness. You see it clearly in Chrysostom’s poem.
The Catholic dogma is that Mary was kept from original sin at the moment of her conception, thus the Immaculate Conception. She did not inherit the sin of Adam. This was an act of grace on God’s part, since God is her Savior just as He is the Savior of all mankind, including Mary. The Savior that she bore is also her Savior.
I am curious how you do not make sense of the history, sdb. In fact, history is not on the side of Protestants at all, at least in how Mary’s holiness has always been viewed by the Church, both East and West with that one caveat about the inheritance of original sin through Adam.
Not even the history of early Protestantism or the early Reformers is on the side of Boettnerism.
What it does prove is that the present-day Protestant view of Mary is a very new kid on the block.
————————————
Salvation not by faith alone actually is in the Bible, s. Salvation by faith alone is not in the Bible.
LikeLike
Read the verses –just the few i listed, there’s many more before you say that. It ABSOLUTELY IS
LikeLike
And don’t try pulling James 2:24 out of context to show me otherwise..
LikeLike
Mermaid, “D.G. Hart, the same reason you and I need a Savior, and that some day because of His grace, we will be perfected – like Him because we will see Him as He is. Mary was perfected, completely sanctified, at the moment of her conception, before she became the Mother of God.”
Makes no sense. She’s not a sinner. Never was. She needs a savior.
Oh, that’s right. The pope teaches it.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart, you must reject the Incarnation altogether, then, since that makes no sense. …or the Trinity…or original sin at all, for that matter.
Besides, the greatest minds in the whole history of the Church have believed that Mary was sinless. I thought you liked history.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted May 27, 2015 at 2:09 pm | Permalink
Can’t wait until vd, t learns about international Calvinists:
anyone who converts from an informed and self-aware Reformed church to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy needs to make strong and exclusive claims and why they had better really believe them. The act of joining a church which makes such claims is itself a profession of a kind of faith, and it bears direct and sober implications about the status of churches outside of their institutional jurisdiction. The various nice-guy converts who try to downplay all of this and say that it’s not that big a deal, or that nobody has to take a big criticism in all of this, are actually the least loving and least responsible of all. Let me explain.
To join the Roman Catholic Church, you must believe that Jesus ordained Peter as a singular bishop with full jurisdiction over the entire church. Further, you must believe that this Peter set up his jurisdiction in Rome and conferred that jurisdiction, in an institutional form, to all succeeding bishops of Rome. They were given, by Jesus Christ Himself, plenary authority over all other Christian churches. Beyond this, one must also believe that the substance of bread and wine are wholly removed from the eucharistic elements when the words of institution are spoken (Council of Trent, 13th Session, Declaration Concerning the Eucharist, Canon 2) and that anyone who denies this is anathema. An anathema is the placing of someone under a divine curse:
Do you have a point, Dr. Hart?
No, I didn’t think so.
LikeLike
If that were true, we’d have a rogue RE of the OPC, his confessional vows were valid last I heard, so no, you are wrong.
Here, try some Cyril of Alexandra, on these incarnation questions you raise. If I was concerned about apostolic succession, I’d become Eastern Orthodox, just me tho. I’m not, so I’m a happily placed Protestant. I’ve never studied Boetnner, so thanks for educating me, nor did I know he was OP, I had only heard his name before. Grace and peace.
One of my favorite quotes from this book is this, mentioning how paradox and logic fit within Cyril’s Christology:
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted May 27, 2015 at 4:13 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, “D.G. Hart, the same reason you and I need a Savior, and that some day because of His grace, we will be perfected – like Him because we will see Him as He is. Mary was perfected, completely sanctified, at the moment of her conception, before she became the Mother of God.”
Makes no sense. She’s not a sinner. Never was. She needs a savior.
Even if there is no original sin, man needs a savior: he cannot save himself from death.
Oh, that’s right. The pope teaches it.
Such gracious hostility, Butch. Jesus must be proud.
LikeLike
@tvd no sin, no death.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted May 27, 2015 at 7:50 pm | Permalink
@tvd no sin, no death.
No, death. God doesn’t have to save anybody if He doesn’t want to. You die, you’re dead.
LikeLike
Jeff, nice try, but there is a huge difference between Mary being “the fully graced one” – a compound word in the Greek – and Stephen, a Christian man who was given dying grace as he was being martyred.
Grasping at Greek straws. You must know how the language works There are only some 400 basic words. Greek works like Sanskrit. All other words are made up of compounds of these basic words. Every time you add a prefix or a suffix, you change the meaning of the word. Kecharitomene is a compound word and has its own meaning.
If you already know that, then there is no excuse for what you did with the Greek, trying to force the same meaning onto different contexts and trying to force the same meaning onto two different words.
Notice that Chrysostom, the GREEK father, used Kecharitomene as a title for Mary, and he included in his understanding the idea of being “faultless”. You may wish to contemplate the mystery of the Kecharitomene, or not. It’s up to you. Notice that he addresses himself to Mary, the Kecharitomene as well.
LikeLike
Tom, speaking for Jesus now? You are so silly. What’s your religion, again?
Remember who the real enemy is, silly man.
LikeLike
“sdb, the Orthodox church rejects the Augustinian doctrine of original sin inherited through Adam. They do not reject her sinlessness. You see it clearly in Chrysostom’s poem.
The Catholic dogma is that Mary was kept from original sin at the moment of her conception, thus the Immaculate Conception. She did not inherit the sin of Adam. This was an act of grace on God’s part, since God is her Savior just as He is the Savior of all mankind, including Mary. The Savior that she bore is also her Savior.
I am curious how you do not make sense of the history, sdb. In fact, history is not on the side of Protestants at all, at least in how Mary’s holiness has always been viewed by the Church, both East and West with that one caveat about the inheritance of original sin through Adam.”
I’m not arguing with you, I am simply curious about how you make sense of the “obviousness” of the biblical and patristic case for a doctrine not accepted by the orthodox. I know original sin was pricipally promulgated by Augustine who isn’t all that favored in the east. I also know lots of Christians who think Mary was sinless. I disagree…a perk of being protestant I guess. If you don’t know, don’t want ro explain in a commbox, orjust haven’t thought about it yet. That’s fine. You don’t have to answer for everything.
As far as history goes, it is an important teacher and carries a lot of weight, but it is never dispositive…only scripture gets that. The example of Israel and erroneous traditions called out in NT is my basis.
I don’t reject tradition per se, but it cannot contradict scripture. Jeff has described Jerome’s error. There is also the fact that Mary’s exceptional status gets no mention in scripture. I believe God chose her befor the foundation of the world to be the God bearer. I also believe she needed a savior because she was sinful. Christ pleaded with the Father to spare him if there was anyway to take away the sins of the world. Evidently there was not. If Mary was fully human (and she must have been), then she must have inherited Adam’s guilt. If there was any other way to spare the elect, then Christ’s death was superfluous… a conclusion I cannot accept. I believe that the belief (held by the great luther…good thing I’m not Lutheran) that Mary was sinless or perpetually virgin does not do justice to the gospel witness. So now you know where I stand.
Regarding the point I made originally, there is nothing inconsistent with a prot recognizing Mary as the Mother of God. None of the magisterial sects reject this formulation. I’m not aware of other sects that do either (no surprise as I don’t know much about most groups). Your dismissal of my original question was unfortunate…I’m still curious to know if there are any sects that do explicitly reject this (besides assyrian christians of course).
As for Boettnerism…how did a layman working for the IRS get so upgraded by writing a sloppy polemic? I’ll make a deal with you. If you don’t make me answer for him, I won’t ask you to account for these members of your church.
LikeLike
Mrs. W: If you already know that, then there is no excuse for what you did with the Greek, trying to force the same meaning onto different contexts and trying to force the same meaning onto two different words.
Quite by contrast, I pointed out two different phrases and observed that they have different meanings. That was abundantly clear above.
Mrs. W: Every time you add a prefix or a suffix, you change the meaning of the word. Kecharitomene is a compound word and has its own meaning.
Yes. And I carefully explained each part.
Again: As well you know, “full” is not any part of that word.
LikeLike
We all need to be crystal clear on what’s under discussion.
(1) Is κεχαριτωμένη a title or merely a substantive participle?
It doesn’t matter. Clearly, if used as a title (plausible), then the meaning is intensified. But what is under discussion is the meaning of the word.
So while Tom’s post of Keating and Web’s post of Chrysostom are interesting, and certainly reveal that Chr. thought Mary was sinless, they do not shed light on the meaning of the word.
(2) What are the parts of κεχαριτωμένη?
κε- indicating perfect tense. (here for basic info)
χαριτω- the stem meaning “to favor or give grace to”
μένη- passive participle, nominative (vocative) singular feminine.
(3) Where does the notion of “full” come from?
It is an interpolation from Jerome. It is not present in the meaning of the Greek word itself. This is objective fact.
(4) On what ground do Tom and Web continue to insist on “full”?
Tom is relying on Keating, who confuses perfect tense with “perfection.” Web is making a more complex argument, that the use as a title (which is clear with Chrysostom, but not in Luke) somehow adds “fullness” to the meaning. But the logic here is unclear. Perhaps she could lay it out plainly?
(5) Why does it matter?
Good question. The topic began with the proposition that Luke 1.28 lends support to Marian doctrines. In order for this to be true, it is necessary that
* Luke 1.28 mean “full of grace”
* That “full of grace” mean “God’s grace given to prevent stain of original sin, since birth”
I hold that the first is dubious, but even if Web and Tom were to win that hill, they have to climb the mountainous second proposition.
LikeLike
sdb, there is nothing in Reformed Protestantism per se that would make your religion reject the Immaculate Conception or the perpetual virginity of Mary. There is nothing in the Greek language. There is nothing in Church history that would make Protestants reject the fact that Mary was sinless. In fact, neither Luther nor Calvin rejected those doctrines, at least early on. So, why do you reject them now? Even more than that, why are you so dogmatic about rejecting these doctrines that have been the norm in the Church for millennia?
In fact, as you clearly point out, the sinlessness of Mary has been the norm in the Orthodox Church as well.
So, what is your problem, again?
The Protestant, especially the Reformed, position about Mary makes no sense. Can you explain it? You do accept the doctrine of original sin.
So, you cherry pick Augustine and you cherry pick Church history. Then, you pretend that your religion is the real church that has been reformed.
It’s nice to try to distance yourself from Boettner, and I can’t blame you, but he is yours. How much of his influence is still in what D.G. Hart writes here on his blog day by day?
…and now we’re on to Galileo? What specific problem do you have? Does refuting Galileo do harm to anyone? Boettner’s book is actually harmful because of the lies it promulgates in an attempt to tear down Catholicism.
LikeLike
Webfoot, wrong.
Wrong again.
Try again.
LikeLike
Mermaid, if she was sinless why did Christ need to die for her?
I mean, in your system Jesus needs to die for Mary and for me.
Something wrong with that picture.
LikeLike
vd, t, maybe you haven’t heard, but death is the wage for sin. No sin, no death.
That’s right. You’re the product of RC catechesis.
LikeLike
Jeff, Mermaid says “Grasping at Greek straws.”
Words don’t matter. Fathers do.
LikeLike
Jeff, “So while Tom’s post of Keating and Web’s post of Chrysostom are interesting, and certainly reveal that Chr. thought Mary was sinless, they do not shed light on the meaning of the word.”
Now you know how Erasmus felt.
LikeLike
“So, what is your problem, again?”
I don’t have *any* problems…well I have lots of problems (you wouldn’t know how to get the gfortran compiler to work with Yosemite would you?) but none that are relevant here. I am just curious (it’s a curse). I had a couple of questions for you:
First, which sects reject theotokos as the proper title of Mary. Perhaps you still can’t take that question seriously as it is too absurd to even consider? I’m pretty sure that’s not the case, but if there are protestant sects that do explicitly reject “theotokos”, I’d be very interested to know.
Second, how do you square the “obviousness” of the doctrine of the immaculate conception with Orthodox rejection of this doctrine? I’m not trying to make a point or prove anything. I’m just wondering what you think about these things. That’s all.
I did lay out my beliefs on the matter and why I don’t accept the sinlessness of Mary. I don’t understand why you are asking me why I reject them? I told you why. I might be wrong, but it is where I am on the matter. I do apologize for coming across as dogmatic on this, but I really don’t see where you are coming from with that criticism. And here I thought I was offering you an olive branch by noting that the recognition of Mary as “theotokos” is fully compatible with reformation theology.
Why is Boettner mine? The crackpots working on geocentric theories in order to “save” the Catholic church are quite an embarrassment to the church (and particularly Fr. McMullin)… it was a joke. I don’t think you have any responsibility to answer for those loons any more than I need to answer for a rabid anti-RC’er who died before I could drive. I’ve never heard of him before, so I suspect his influence is really quite exaggerated. I’m not sure all anti-RC polemics came from him even if he is a particular fun target for apologists. But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Loraine (who names their son Loraine anyway?) is a lot more influential than I suspect. But I seem to recall that more than a few of us on here were cradle RCs (sean was a seminarian if I remember correctly), I picked up my knowledge of the RCC from my grad student days at ND (most of the guys I interacted with were either trads or cultural RCs…I didn’t spend a lot of time around the SJW types). I also watched the Father Brown mysteries on PBS, so there is that.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle:
We all need to be crystal clear on what’s under discussion.>>>>
Absolutely, and you have made it as clear as mud. You do know that you are out of step with all of Church history, the early Reformers, and Scripture itself, right? I wish I knew why.
Jeff Cagle:
(1) Is κεχαριτωμένη a title or merely a substantive participle?>>>>
Let’s go to the native Greek speaker and Father of the Church for the answer, shall we? In his prayer to the Virgin Mary, he uses κεχαριτωμένη as a title. I kindly posted his prayer here in the comments section.
Jeff Cagle:
It doesn’t matter. Clearly, if used as a title (plausible), then the meaning is intensified. But what is under discussion is the meaning of the word.>>>>
Now you are sounding like Hillary Clinton. What does it matter? It does matter, and it mattered to Chrysostom.
Jeff Cagle:
So while Tom’s post of Keating and Web’s post of Chrysostom are interesting, and certainly reveal that Chr. thought Mary was sinless, they do not shed light on the meaning of the word.>>>>
Bingo! Chrysostom thought Mary was sinless, and that κεχαριτωμένη was a title.
Jeff Cagle:
(2) What are the parts of κεχαριτωμένη?
κε- indicating perfect tense. (here for basic info)
χαριτω- the stem meaning “to favor or give grace to”
μένη- passive participle, nominative (vocative) singular>>>>
You sound like the Dad on My Big Fat Greek Wedding. 😉 Basic question When was Mary graced? Explain what the significance of the perfect tense is in Greek. One might ask at what point in the past did the gracing happen, and until what future point does it continue?
Remember, Jesus had not yet been conceived by the Holy Spirit when the angel addressed her by the title Kecharitomene. So, she was graced in the past, and that gracing continues into the future.
Now, that does not prove that the gracing went back to her own sinless conception, but you do see that the angel showed her great respect. He title has something to do with something that happened in the past. Besides, the word “favored” does not really convey the meaning of the word charis, right?
Jeff Cagle:
(3) Where does the notion of “full” come from?
It is an interpolation from Jerome. It is not present in the meaning of the Greek word itself. This is objective fact.>>>>
Objective fact. Favored does not convey the meaning of the Greek word itself. We are working with translations, here.
Jeff Cagle:
(4) On what ground do Tom and Web continue to insist on “full”?>>>>
On what grounds do you continue to insist on “favored”? O, favored one does not carry the strength of the original Greek word, Kecharitomene.
Jeff Cagle:
Tom is relying on Keating, who confuses perfect tense with “perfection.” Web is making a more complex argument, that the use as a title (which is clear with Chrysostom, but not in Luke) somehow adds “fullness” to the meaning. But the logic here is unclear. Perhaps she could lay it out plainly?>>>
We are dealing with translations. Your translation does not do justice to the original language. I contend that Chrysostom understood the full weight of the greeting – that the angel addressed Mary by a kind of official title. That the gracing happened before the angel appeared to her. That the gracing could not have been about the conception of Jesus, since He had not yet been conceived by the Holy Spirit.
No, that does not put the time of her gracing by itself back to the time of her own conception, but it does show that the gracing happened at some point before the angel appeared.
That is a problem for your tradition, but not for mine.
Jeff Cagle:
(5) Why does it matter?
Good question. The topic began with the proposition that Luke 1.28 lends support to Marian doctrines. In order for this to be true, it is necessary that
* Luke 1.28 mean “full of grace”
* That “full of grace” mean “God’s grace given to prevent stain of original sin, since birth”
I hold that the first is dubious, but even if Web and Tom were to win that hill, they have to climb the mountainous second proposition.>>>>
Remember, thought, that I am not arguing from sola scriptura. That is your tradition, not mind. I am saying that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is not without biblical support. It is not a dogma that the Catholic Church cut out of whole cloth in order to deify Mary, as Protestants seem to think.
Great theologians of the Church have contemplated this mystery. It is about the Incarnation and the miracles surrounding it. So, add the whole testimony of the Church, both East and the West, and even the Reformers early on – as well as some random Protestants even now – and you get the picture.
What I don’t get is why Protestants reject this doctrine outright. That makes no sense to me.
At the very least, Protestants should be able to say that the Church has always believed that Mary was sinless, and present both sides of the issue. Why was I never taught that? Were you ever taught that, Jeff? Were you ever taught the history of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and how many great men and women of God have believed this without problem?
Anyway… There are so many things like this in Protestantism. Why so dogmatic about something that Christians of all kinds have believed for millennia, now?
LikeLike
@Tom,
“No, death. God doesn’t have to save anybody if He doesn’t want to. You die, you’re dead.”
This is not a place where reformed protestants and roman catholics are divided. Death entered the world and we taste death because of sin. If we were sinless we would not face death (indeed, some Christians may not). As Paul points out in the 1Cor15,
The reason Christ died was because he took on our sin otherwise he would have never perished. A person without sin would not die.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted May 27, 2015 at 10:16 pm | Permalink
@Tom,
“No, death. God doesn’t have to save anybody if He doesn’t want to. You die, you’re dead.”
This is not a place where reformed protestants and roman catholics are divided. Death entered the world and we taste death because of sin. If we were sinless we would not face death (indeed, some Christians may not). As Paul points out in the 1Cor15,
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive….So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
The reason Christ died was because he took on our sin otherwise he would have never perished. A person without sin would not die.
D. G. Hart
Posted May 27, 2015 at 9:58 pm | Permalink
vd, t, maybe you haven’t heard, but death is the wage for sin. No sin, no death.
That’s right. You’re the product of RC catechesis.
No, I’m the product of freshman logic class, which apparently you skipped. All squirrels are animals, but all animals are not squirrels.
Sorry for not speaking like a fundamentalist, that there was no death until Adam sinned. I forgot you’re the church who tried Dr. Terry Gray over evolution. I forgot what I’m dealing with here.
But once again y’all don’t even have a point. Mary is something to bash Catholics with, is all.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle, I didn’t even thank you for taking the time to engage in discussion of this subject. My bad.
🙂 Thank you for your work on this, and your gracious responses.
It kind of bothered me that you would call me Web. I call everyone here by the name they use in their avatar. Why does my avatar name get corrupted? I get it going from D.G. Hart, and I expect it from him.
It surprised me that you would do it, since you are a gentleman. Still, I should not have accused you of making this subject as clear as mud. Your post was helpful and thoughtful. I was unkind, so I apologize.
So, anyway…
LikeLike
Dear Mrs. Webfoot,
I came to post with the intention of apologizing for being haughty, and I found that you were moving in the same direction, so thank you.
The “Web” was intended kindly, but I will revert to standard practice of full name or initials MW when quoting. Does that work?
Let’s assess points of agreement.
(A1) We agree that Chrysostom uses κεχαριτωμένη as a title, and that he views her as sinless. And we agree that Chr. carries weight.
(A2) We agree that “she was graced in the past, and that gracing continues into the future. ”
This is the standard understanding of the perfect. It is been challenged somewhat (google for recent SBL articles on perfect), but I’m content to stay with the standard.
(A3) We agree that “that does not put the time of her gracing by itself back to the time of her own conception, but it does show that the gracing happened at some point before the angel appeared. ”
So those are our points of agreement. (A3) is significant, and I appreciate the candor.
Now you asked some questions:
MW: On what grounds do you continue to insist on “favored”? O, favored one does not carry the strength of the original Greek word, Kecharitomene.
Actually, the word “charis” carries the range of both grace and favor. And that is in some measure because it is used in the LXX to translate “hen”, which is Hebrew for both grace and for favor.
But here is another way to answer your question. It is not dispositive, but it does indicate what the serious translation scholars think. Using our friend Biblegateway, let’s take a look at what translators have done with Luke 1.28. We will ignore paraphrase translations (eg NLT), and divide the translations into “generally used by Catholics” and “Generally used by both or by Protestants.”
Catholic
κεχαριτωμένη => “full of grace”
Douay-Rheims 1899
RSV, Catholic Edition
κεχαριτωμένη => “favored” or “highly favored”
NAB, Revised Ed
NAB, 2002 (text found on the Vatican website)
NRSV, Catholic Edition
Protestant or both
κεχαριτωμένη => “full of grace”
Wyclif
κεχαριτωμένη => “favored” or “highly favored”
ASV
ESV
Geneva 1599
KJV
NKJV
NRSV
RSV
NASB
NIV
I think you see the point immediately. Overwhelmingly, translation scholars of both Protestant and Catholic persuasions think the word means “favored” or “highly favored”, especially as one moves into the 20th century and beyond. This includes the translations approved by the RC for use by the faithful.
Those scholars could be wrong. I can see “one who has been graced” as an awkward-yet-accurate translation. But my money is on “favored.”
Here’s the thing, though. Even if you get “grace”, you still have a slog to get to “the kind of grace that the Catholic church teaches” (i.e., a supernatural bestowment) as opposed to its more literal meaning of “good-will, lovingkindness, favor.”
So you’d have to fight that hill.
Then there’s the whole question of what the content of that (hypothetical) supernatural endowment was.
And all of that has to be established before you can claim that Luke 1.28 provides support for your position.
This isn’t a sola scriptura thing. It is a “what does it mean for evidence to support a position” thing. To do that, the evidence has to knock out competing hypotheses.
And my competing hypothesis is that God has indeed previously bestowed favor or grace upon her, continuing into the present, in that He has chosen her to be the mother of the Lord. It is, after all, what the angel says that the Lord will do for her…
—
MW: You do know that you are out of step with all of Church history, the early Reformers, and Scripture itself, right? I wish I knew why.
In what specific way? Not to be coy, but as I think through the various points of my position, I can’t see one that is in conflict with early Reformers or Scripture. I can see that I don’t agree with Chrysostom or Augustine on sinlessness.
So what specific out-of-stepness do you have in mind?
Thanks,
LikeLike
TVD:
But once again y’all don’t even have a point. Mary is something to bash Catholics with, is all.<<<<<
That is the great mystery. Why do Protestants do that, use Mary that way? She was never disrespected until the time of the Reformation, except by unbelievers.
She was never disrespected in Scripture. The angel who greeted her knew he was not talking to just any woman. She herself was special. What made her special?
LikeLike
Mrs. Webfoot
Posted May 28, 2015 at 12:06 am | Permalink
TVD:
But once again y’all don’t even have a point. Mary is something to bash Catholics with, is all.<<<<<
That is the great mystery. Why do Protestants do that, use Mary that way? She was never disrespected until the time of the Reformation, except by unbelievers.
Some people are men of violence. The only thing they can do with a lantern is try to beat somebody over the head with it.
Jeff Cagle
Posted May 27, 2015 at 11:59 pm | Permalink
I can’t see one that is in conflict with early Reformers or Scripture. I can see that I don’t agree with Chrysostom or Augustine on sinlessness.
Honest of you. Why not leave it there? It doesn’t need to be a dealbreaker in Christian unity unless some people make it so. [Actually, the question of Chrysostom or Augustine is far more interesting on many levels, including why we would listen to the Reformers instead of them.]
LikeLike
tom, we listen to scripture.
not the fathers
not the church
^^source
next
LikeLike
Whose scripture? Whose translation? You’re not reading the discussion.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “Why so dogmatic about something that Christians of all kinds have believed for millennia, now?”
You mean, like the Donation of Constantine?
LikeLike
Mermaid, remember, vd, t was the one who said, “Even most Catholics are like, so what?, when it comes to this Mariology stuff. It makes zero difference in the larger scheme of things.”
LikeLike
Mary needs a savior.
DGH needs a savior.
Mary was sinless.
DGH is perfect.
LikeLike
Tom,
How have I bashed Catholics with Mary. I have had two questions for mwf & susan…. which prot sects reject theotokos? And how they square their belief that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is obvious given how the EOs reject it. Your belief that we would need a savior even if we were sinless is contradicted by RC dogma and protestant consensus. It is not mere fundamentalism to believe humans were created to be immortal and death is a curse (C. S. Lewis has compelling things to say on that).
I only brought up my rejection of Mary’s sinlessness to avoid being disingenuous. My claim was that protestant theology is cocompatible with theotokos, not that our belief about Mary is fully congruent. Mwf asked why and I sketched out a few reasons. I am not trying to prove anything….just being responsive to a question asked. What am I missing?
LikeLike
Final footnote for the OCD in me. Douay-Rheims is an English translation of the Vulgate, so its translation of Luke 1.28 reflects Jerome’s opinion of the Greek and not the translator’s.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart:
Mermaid, remember, vd, t was the one who said, “Even most Catholics are like, so what?, when it comes to this Mariology stuff. It makes zero difference in the larger scheme of things.”>>>>
Oh, but it does, D.G. Hart. It does make a difference. You see, in Protestantism, who are the female role models? Who are the great female Protestants? What Biblical characters are Protestant women supposed to emulate?
Mary has inspired women, and men to expect great things from God, and to do great things for God.
Mary is the Favored Lady. The Graced Lady, if you will. Protestants have forgotten that. Why?
Mary is The Woman, the one promised in Genesis 3:15. She is not a nobody.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart:
Mary needs a savior.
DGH needs a savior.
Mary was sinless.
DGH is perfect.>>>>
Well, you and I are in the process of progressive justification which will result in the Beatific Vision if we persevere in the faith – and Christ has sent His Holy Spirit to us to make sure that the process reaches its perfection as we submit to Him. So, yes, someday – as hard as it is to imagine 😉 – you will be like Christ because you will see Him as He is.
In the case of Mary, as part of her preparation to be the Mother of the sinless Son of God, she was protected from inheriting sin from her father and ours, Adam. She was also given the grace necessary not to fall into sin during her earthly life.
You ask how that can be? Remember, another miracle related to the Incarnation is the fact that an unborn child was filled with the Holy Spirit inside his mother’s womb when he was in the presence of His unborn Savior.
Contemplate the mystery, D.G. Hart.
And if this doctrine doesn’t matter, then why does it matter to you? Is it your underlying Boettnerism that is getting the best of you, so you, as TVD said, are using Mary, the Mother of God, to beat up nice Catholic ladies?
LikeLike
sdb, I have answered you on the question of which – well, you call them sects, Protestants tend to call agrupaciones of Protestants “denominations” – Protestants deny that Mary is the Mother of God. Dr. Carson is Evangelical Free, you know, so I thought you’d connect the dots.
Here is something from your own Calvin. Look it up if you like. This is your guy, not mine.
“I cannot think such language either right, or becoming, or suitable. … To call the Virgin Mary the mother of God can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions.”
– Calvin
…and I answered the other one as well. You have a problem with the answer, and that is your problem, not mine. I am Catholic, not Orthodox. Please note that the Orthodox Church has always believed that Mary was sinless, but they have different reasons for believing that.
That Chrysostom poem is pretty powerful evidence, don’t you agree?
“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”
-Ineffabilis Deus
Notice that Mary’s Immaculate Conception was not because of any intrinsic merit in her, but is solely because of the merits of Jesus Christ. That is the way all are saved. Protestants are confused, thinking that the Immaculate Conception is all about Mary when it is and always has been all about Jesus.
…and you guys think you do not venerate anyone, but just because you do not call it that, doesn’t mean that you do not practice the veneration of your heroes of the faith, including the Apostle Paul, not to mention Calvin and Luther.
Didn’t D.G. Hart say recently that Presbyterians got their form of church government from Calvin? Did he really mean that?
Lotsa’ honor given to a mere man.
LikeLike
Wait a minute! Well, first, I want to thank you guys for helping me think this through. It’s not that your arguments are completely without merit, they are just incomplete about the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, and Graced Lady.
Okay, I realized a bit more of why Mary is called the Second Eve. She did by the grace of God what Eve failed at doing. Eve did not have original sin. She sinned freely and fell along with Adam. Eve was protected from the taint of original sin. She also, by the grace of God, always chose obedience to God throughout her earthly life. She did what Eve should have done. In that way, Mary too was perfected through obedience. She entered the presence of God without any further purification necessary. I’m sure I will grow in my understanding as time goes on. This is thrilling to me, and so what? to you guys. :- ) No problem.
It might be fun for some of you to look up the Marian teaching of both Luther and Calvin. It might surprise you. Calvin seemed to have mixed ideas about her. Luther seems to have held onto a more strict Catholic understanding his whole life.
Thanks, Jeff Cagle, for your comments. It looks like the translators in English followed the lead of the KJV. You know that happens in translations. They are not strictly free of interpretation and the influence of older traditions. I would think that rendering κεχαριτωμένη as Favored Lady or Graced Lady might be better, given Chrysostom’s understanding of that term – as a title of honor given to Our Lady.
The tense doesn’t really matter, and I have thought myself for quite awhile now that the traditional way of understanding the perfect tense in Koine didn’t make a lot of sense in all cases. However, that is kind of standard, so I went with it. What is interesting to me is the timing of the angel’s announcement. He addressed her as the Favored Lady before Jesus was conceived.
It is not outlandish to ask what grace she had been given pre the conception of our Lord, and why.
So, thank you for helping me be a better Catholic. :- )
LikeLike
Webfoot, that’s a lot of words.
Do try to show restraint and keep it to 3 per thread per day. We understand if you feel the need to let it all out. Its OK
LikeLike
TVD, which church are you, again?
LikeLike
Mrs. Webfoot: That is the great mystery. Why do Protestants do that, use Mary that way? She was never disrespected until the time of the Reformation, except by unbelievers.
Actually, the position we’re advocating is “Respect, not Veneration.”
Somebody above opined, “If you get Mary, you get Catholicism.” And that’s very true. If you “get Mary”, then you accept
* The Catholic view of grace
* The Catholic view of veneration
* The Catholic view of saints
* The Catholic view of prayer
There’s a whole lot packaged in there.
If on the other hand you “get Respect, not Veneration”, then you “get Protestantism.” Specifically, you get
* The regulative principle
* The proper understanding of sola (not solo) scriptura
* The principle of exalting God and not man
For my part, I think if people in heaven could be sad, Mary would be quite sad to see how people have exalted her in such a way that it obscures the glory of her Son. John the Baptist had it right: He must increase, I must decrease.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “Oh, but it does.”
Tell vd, t.
LikeLike
Mermaid, if Mary could be made sinless that way, why does Jesus die the death that sinners deserve?
And if Mary could be saved that way, why not Cain? Abel?
Forget mystery, I want answers and that’s what Roman Catholicism is supposed to give.
But when the going gets tough, say “mystery.”
LikeLike
Mermaid, “Lotsa’ honor given to a mere man.”
Is the pope human?
LikeLike
Let me try to help Mrs. Webfoot Catholic Lady.
Yes, and he likes pizza, and wants catholics to stop acting like bunnies, if memory serves.
Who’s next?
LikeLike
So? You’re not going to church. That’s much worse, and you are leading nice catholic ladies astray with your bloviating.
Repent and live.
LikeLike
@MWF – I didn’t know Don Carson was evangelical free. It is curious that you conclude that the denomination condemns this view (which was what my question was) given that their statement of faith has nothing about Mary in it and the head of their denominational seminary actually advocates for this position as I noted earlier. I’m not really interested in digging up quotes of this person or that. I was curious whether you knew of any denominations that formally rejected “theotokos”. It isn’t a test or anything, I’m just curious. I take it that you don’t know of any denominations that reject “theotokos”… no biggie. I’m sure they are out there, I just find it surprising.
Regarding explicit rejection of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception by the Orthodox, you keep changing the subject to Mary’s sinlessness. Pointing out that Chrysostom believed that Mary was sinless is not evidence that the Orthodox really believed that she was conceived immaculately. We seem to be talking past one another here. The teaching on the Immaculate Conception is not simply that Mary was sinless… it entails more than that. I’m curious how you square the obviousness of this teaching with Orthodoxy’s rejection of it (and original sin for that matter). Maybe your answer is that you don’t worry about what those schismatic Orthodox heretics teach? Fair enough… Again, I don’t have a point to prove here. It isn’t a test. I’m just curious how you square the conflicting interpretations of history here.
My concern is not that the teaching is “all about mary”. If humanity could be shielded from the consequence of the fall apart from the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, then the Father’s refusal to take away the Son’s cup as he pleaded to the father in the garden is cruel. I can’t accept that. No one can be saved apart from the Son’s sacrifice because all have inherited Adam’s sin, all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory…even Mary, as blessed as she was, needed a savior. No sin, no need for a savior. I understand you disagree and perhaps I am wrong, but I can’t escape this conclusion.
I don’t doubt the temptation of idolatry is very real and I’m as prone to anyone to sin in this way…I’m a natural. That’s why veneration is explicitly condemned…not because we never do it or are never tempted to do so, but because we are. Not all disagreements are just ignorance.
I didn’t see it if he did. It doesn’t sound like something dgh would say particularly since prebys claim that we take our form of church government from the NT example. I suspect that if pushed, he would conceded that we did not get our ecclesiology from Calvin, though he may have been the clearest expositor of what the scripture teaches here. But dgh is right here, so you could ask him instead of me to clarify if you are interested.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Mrs. Webfoot,
Before you started posting comments here, Tom Van Dyke maybe mentioned you 50 times, about how this blog was a key catalyst in your leaving evangelicalism. Is that true? If so, it’s ironic since you have now become one of the most volumnious contributors to this site in the last couple weeks, with no signs of your slowing down. Does your experience actually getting to know us by talking with us instead of taking Tom’s second hand attacks against us still make you think that because we are so base and awful in how we talk to one another here, that you would point people to this site in order to help them get out of the protestant way of things which you view as so heinous and against what you believe to be true? Just curious for you to relate and reflect on your experience here, I have now waded through a lot of your prose and have a sense of how you like to promote your religion, so I am curious for your response to any of this as you see fit. Grace and peace.
LikeLike
If you get Mary, you get Jesus, Jeff Cagle. 🙂 Just had to add that. Think about it. Jesus wasn’t teleported from heaven to earth, you know. That is part of the mystery of the Incarnation. The Son of God because vulnerable and in that way, dependent on a woman for His very human life. No man enters the world any other way.
1 Corinthians 11
11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
Now if you say that God could have used any women, and that it didn’t have to be Mary, you are in heap big trouble with your own religion. I doubt that you would say that.
Jeff Cagle:
So what specific out-of-stepness do you have in mind?>>>>>
…and to answer your question, I will give you an assignment if you are willing to accept it. Study the Marian theology of both Calvin and Luther. Then study Marian theology in the history of Protestantism, with special emphasis on Lutheranism and even Methodism. Then give me a full report. 😉
Hey, I might do that myself. Then we could compare notes.
I agree with what Tom said, though. This is not something that we should divide over. In fact, Marian theology per se was not one of the points of division from the Church for the early reformers. They basically accepted the Church’s teaching on the Immaculate Conception and the perpetual virginity of Mary.
There seems to have been some change in Calvin’s thinking, but not so much with Luther.
Take care, Jeff Cagle, and thank you for the thoughtful exchange.
LikeLike
And the only other thing, Webfoot, is that emoticons are somewhat frowned upon around here. Not a big deal, just try to show restraint, and it helps keep our host from getting grumpy.
Are you retired such that you have all this time to devote to your online endeavors? Just curious, that’s how I reasoned someone named Curt Day is able to keep going and going without stopping. This blogger happens to think only retired people should be commenting in blogs, take a read if you are interested. I’m out.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted May 28, 2015 at 6:32 am | Permalink
Mary needs a savior.
DGH needs a savior.
Mary was sinless.
DGH is perfect.
Another Logic 101 fail. This explains a lot.
sdb
Posted May 28, 2015 at 6:43 am | Permalink
Tom,
How have I bashed Catholics with Mary. I have had two questions for mwf & susan…. which prot sects reject theotokos? And how they square their belief that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is obvious given how the EOs reject it. Your belief that we would need a savior even if we were sinless is contradicted by RC dogma and protestant consensus. It is not mere fundamentalism to believe humans were created to be immortal and death is a curse (C. S. Lewis has compelling things to say on that).
I only brought up my rejection of Mary’s sinlessness to avoid being disingenuous. My claim was that protestant theology is cocompatible with theotokos, not that our belief about Mary is fully congruent. Mwf asked why and I sketched out a few reasons. I am not trying to prove anything….just being responsive to a question asked. What am I missing?
Your rejection of Mary’s sinlessness is more interesting than the off-topic deviation on Mary itself, since Augustine is a first call authority to justify Reformation theology against 1500 years of tradition.
My other observation is that Protestants seem to know Mariology as much as Catholics, but as a truncheon, not a lantern.
As for the discussion of Adam and sin = death, that requires a fundamentalism and rejection of natural theology I’m not prepared to deal with. If there is no God, when we’re dead we’re dead, no metaphysics required. Sin need not even exist either.
LikeLike
TVD:
My other observation is that Protestants seem to know Mariology as much as Catholics, but as a truncheon, not a lantern.>>>>>
Yes! That’s it!
Peter is not used as a truncheon. Why pick on Mary?
LikeLike
Mermaid, “I agree with what Tom said, though. This is not something that we should divide over.”
The Holy Father wants you to be coherent.
LikeLike
vd, t, so why are my observations about Roman Catholicism anti-Catholic and yet when you question Notre Dame’s religious identity it’s truth?
LikeLike
TVD, I have to make a small comment here about this, “Sorry for not speaking like a fundamentalist, that there was no death until Adam sinned. I forgot you’re the church who tried Dr. Terry Gray over evolution. I forgot what I’m dealing with here.”
Just because the Catholic Church has not put anybody on trial over certain doctrinal issues about evolution does not mean there is not some clear teaching about the issue that lots of people in the Church ignore and believe different from Church teaching and the Tradition of the Church. Anyway, my point is putting death before Adam’s sin is quite against Church teaching. Might want to look that one up in actual Church documents. Special creation is still what the Church teaches. One Adam. One Eve. One type of each animal in the beginning. Ex nihilo. Then the fall from grace at some point. What is not dogmatic at this time is in what way all this happened and when this happened.
LikeLike
TVD,
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
Peace,
Michael
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted May 28, 2015 at 1:25 pm | Permalink
vd, t, so why are my observations about Roman Catholicism anti-Catholic and yet when you question Notre Dame’s religious identity it’s truth??
You question Notre Dame’s religious identity, Dr. Hart. So do others.
http://www.projectsycamore.com/
But you revel in it, as it feeds your anti-Catholic animus. I only question your use of that fact against the Catholic Church itself.
You’re not being logical.
___________________
D. G. Hart
Posted May 28, 2015 at 1:21 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, “I agree with what Tom said, though. This is not something that we should divide over.”
The Holy Father wants you to be coherent.
So does the Apostle Paul.
But Protestantism’s not coherent, not even with itself. Why your obsession with Catholicism?
LikeLike
MichaelTX,
Thanks for chiming in. TVD over the years brings up terry gray when he’s up against the ropes. Your posts are most apropros. I woulnd’t expect TVD to respond to you, he’s more about just making reformed protestantism look bad, he’s here to denigrate Darryl and the system Darryl and I support. TVD has never actually read any books, he really likes to bring up the same topics over and over and over and over and just google and find quick links. He’s sometimes funny, but more often, just a troll. We’re used to him.
Uhm, 1.3 billion members, Bryan Cross and his trophy case of converts, really Tom? What’s your obsession with DG Hart. Man crush much, yo?
LikeLike
MichaelTX
Posted May 28, 2015 at 1:53 pm | Permalink
TVD,
humani-generis.html
Peace,
Michael
Easy there, fella. Without getting into the tall weeds of the creation story, encyclicals are not necessarily presented as infallible. Nor does the creation story have to be taken literally.
http://biologos.org/questions/early-interpretations-of-genesis
LikeLike
Nor does tom represent any point of view, except his own.
Imagine an atheist coming into a religious blog and taking pot shots left and right because he gets off on feeling smart.
zrim posted this, it seems appropriate.
TVD has a history of being run off other blogs, this is what he does. Anyway, who’s next?
LikeLike
As you see, Michael, I have a lamprey that attaches itself to my every comment. Darryl apologizes to you for that.
Special creation is still what the Church teaches. One Adam. One Eve. One type of each animal in the beginning. Ex nihilo.
Um, I don’t think so. The Catholic Church is OK with evolution.
http://www.newsweek.com/pope-franciss-remarks-evolution-are-not-controversial-among-roman-catholics-281115
Pope Francis told an audience from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Vatican City on Monday that theories of evolution and the Big Bang are not inconsistent with creationism and biblical teaching. “The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve,” Pope Francis said, according to a Vatican newswire transcript of the event.
LikeLike
#ratemyblogger
LikeLike
#seevd,t,theologize
LikeLike
AB:
Mrs. Webfoot,
Before you started posting comments here, Tom Van Dyke maybe mentioned you 50 times, about how this blog was a key catalyst in your leaving evangelicalism. Is that true? >>>>>>
Yes, but not just you, and not any of you personally, exactly. Your group was a kind of confirmation.
A few of the guys are great. Others I don’t get at all. Guys like to fight and insult one another? Maybe that’s it. Don’t want to change you, just want to not be you. I’m sure you don’t want to be me, either.
AB:
Does your experience actually getting to know us by talking with us instead of taking Tom’s second hand attacks against us still make you think that because we are so base and awful in how we talk to one another here, that you would point people to this site in order to help them get out of the protestant way of things which you view as so heinous and against what you believe to be true?>>>>
Are you asking me if I like you, AB? Yes, you are kind of like a cute kid. A little annoying, but not a bad kid. Underneath I see a sincere brother who really wants to follow the Lord and raise his family to love God.
AB:
Just curious for you to relate and reflect on your experience here, I have now waded through a lot of your prose and have a sense of how you like to promote your religion, so I am curious for your response to any of this as you see fit. Grace and peace.>>>>
I like to put out Catholic arguments as best I understand them and see what you guys have to say. Sometimes it is very worthwhile. I am not trying to convert you guys. As I interact with your arguments, I understand the Church better, and like her more all the time.
If you are happy where you are, then be happy and be blessed. I have said a number of times that I accept the Church’s teaching that we are all one Church, like it or not. You are my brothers in Christ if you know Him as I assume you do. You are not in full communion with your Mother, the Church, though, and don’t you feel her attraction? She is Christ’s body and Christ’s bride. I think you do feel her call to come home.
If you are convinced, as I was, that the Catholic Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, then you need to come Home. It’s nice over here. It really is. Have you even asked God’s will in the matter?
Thank you for wading through my prose. I appreciate that, AB. Not sure how long I’ll be around. It depends. If and when I disappear, it won’t be because I am angry or upset – just done here. Maybe I’ll stick around, even. You must have a song about that. And, here’s a smiley face just for you, AB.
🙂
Blessings and love to you and yours
LikeLike
…and maybe I am trying to convert you, AB!
TVD, you are right about the Church and evolution.
LikeLike
Mrs. Webfoot,
Thanks for the kind reply. Know that I have no desire to convert you or any other RC here, so your desire is only one way. Would I be flattered if there were more OPCers? Sure. But you in my mind are exhibiting lay agressive evanglism:
LikeLike
TVD,
I didn’t say the encyclical was infallible. Nor did I say the Church was against all forms of understanding “evolution”. Nor did I say Genesis does not use figurative language. I put forward specific statements. One Adam. One Eve. One type of each animal in the beginning. Ex nihilo. One specific fall before which there was no death. I have no problem with Pope Francis saying both can be reconciled. The problem I have is when someone says by reconcile they mean throwing out Church Dogma and the Biblical witness. Sorry that is not reconciling. That is ignoring the Author of life and history and making up your own story. Don’t mean to be harsh, TVD. Just wanting to be clear. BTW, I am quite aware of St Augustine’s idea on this. I just don’t think he would have put death before sin either. Look at Pope Francis’s words again, “evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.” Key word…”beings”. Plural. Not from one single celled organism to everything that is, through eons of death before the fall. Don’t put words in Francis’s mouth. He is not a Darwinist. I believe in evolution too. Just not the type we are taught in school.
TVD, Sorry I come on this so strong. This just can’t be ignored. It is a cancer in Christ’s body.
PS email me if you want to chat some more. Don’t want to take over Harts blog with a Catholic to Catholic internal debate.
LikeLike
From Humani Generis, “…there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”
When the then pope says, “the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty,” and, “the faithful cannot embrace,” he is teaching with the full force of the papal office. If they could not hold it then we can not hold it.
LikeLike
@MichaelTX It was my understanding that while the RCC accepts evolution as a fact (as do I), it is dogma that there was a historical Adam specially created and his death (and thus that of all people) is a consequence of sin (a curse that will be reversed in the resurrection). Am I mistaken? I thought this played a pretty important role in “theology of the body”.
LikeLike
Glad I haven’t completely bored you. Augustine is great about many things, but he isn’t infallible. In my experience, most prots are utterly clueless about Mary and just don’t care. I do think her role as the bearer of God is important, but I think the trepidation expressed by both JPII and B16 about over-elevating her is a real concern. While not consistent with official dogma, in much folk practice, Mary is worshiped and syncretism is a concern for the RCC. I don’t think that is a controversial statement. I think we prots share that concern, but go a step further (and perhaps incorrectly) conclude that it isn’t just co-redemtrix that is problematic, but the ascension and immaculate conception that buttresses these problems. Not as big a problem as Roman ecclesiology, sacramentalism, and soteriology (in increasing order), and I suspect the attention prots pay to RCC – it is the arguments over justification, transubstantiation, and primacy of the pope that get far more attention than Mary.
Regarding Adam… the death was human (bearers of the image of God) death that is the issue. No conflict with animal evolution, naturalistic account for the origin of life, big bang, etc…
LikeLike
sdb,
From what I read in your post I do not see anything against a Catholic understanding. The problem that is usually run into is the meaning of the word evolution has different meaning in peoples understanding. Basic tenets of natural selection is proven fact and accepted by near all Catholics, but when tenets of natural selection is extrapolated into origin of all species and origin of life is when the Catholic can and should jump ship.
LikeLike
Mrs. Webfoot,
I’ll be happy to put in a couple of hours on it, but it will have to be sometime between now and August.
LikeLike
sdb,
BTW, there are many in the Catholic camp which agree with your primis about it only being human death which began to occur after the fall. I am nondogmatic on the subject. I think the Scriptures point away from that view, but I am uncertain. I’m still in the process of discernment on that issue.
LikeLike
sdb, I appreciate your comments. They are substantive and sincere. I don’t want to ignore you, but I feel like I have answered all your questions to the best of my ability. Don’t mean to dodge questions, ignore you, or leave you wondering about anything I said.
I’m just repeating myself at this point, and if I keep answering you, AB might take that as lay aggression, or worse. I’d do the smiley face, but I don’t want AB to feel threatened.
Just kidding, AB!
LikeLike
MichaelTX,
By the way, I’ve missed you, man. Hope you and your family are holding up. You really were a great help to me back in 2013 as I was first encountering Roman Cathollicism. You gave me a voice that I wasn’t hearing from Bryan Cross and his team, although I know would be closely aligned with him, and his solo/sola argument. Your thoughts here are a breath of fresh air, and for that, you have my most sincere thanks.
Grace and peace.
LikeLike
Mrs. Webfoot,
I grew up in a tradition where we were required quite regularly to apply the tenets of lay aggressive evangelism constantly and with regular zeal. I found Calvinism my first year in college, I am in great debt to the 5 or so OPC ministers who have helped me along since I found the reformed tradition. Your comments about wanting to convert me, again, are taken in the light that you mean them, in a spirit of jest. However, I’ve experienced people desiring me to become roman catholic now for over 3 years. So get in line, so far Bryan Cross already has a corner on that market. I would propose you go combox with him for a while, but since comments are open here, I understand if you prefer here than there.
Gotta run,
Andrew
LikeLike
Thanks for your heart felt and generous words, AB. I am grateful to have you in the faith, though we lack a degree of sorrowful separation. May our separation decrease evermore as we approach glory.
In the peace of Christ,
Michael
LikeLike
sdb
Posted May 28, 2015 at 3:35 pm | Permalink
“Your rejection of Mary’s sinlessness is more interesting than the off-topic deviation on Mary itself, since Augustine is a first call authority to justify Reformation theology against 1500 years of tradition.
My other observation is that Protestants seem to know Mariology as much as Catholics, but as a truncheon, not a lantern.”
Glad I haven’t completely bored you. Augustine is great about many things, but he isn’t infallible. In my experience, most prots are utterly clueless about Mary and just don’t care. I do think her role as the bearer of God is important, but I think the trepidation expressed by both JPII and B16 about over-elevating her is a real concern.
I think it may be overblown. I agree devotion to Mary could take the place of devotion to God, but I’m not sure that’s the case. As Ken [?] pointed out, look at the Rosary. It’s about Christ.
While not consistent with official dogma, in much folk practice, Mary is worshiped and syncretism is a concern for the RCC. I don’t think that is a controversial statement. I think we prots share that concern, but go a step further (and perhaps incorrectly) conclude that it isn’t just co-redemtrix that is problematic, but the ascension and immaculate conception that buttresses these problems. Not as big a problem as Roman ecclesiology, sacramentalism, and soteriology (in increasing order), and I suspect the attention prots pay to RCC – it is the arguments over justification, transubstantiation, and primacy of the pope that get far more attention than Mary.
FTR, Jesus Ascended; Mary’s is the Assumption. I’m afraid I’m not up on the theology, but it goes to the “sinless” bit. I see now problem with Catholics accepting it and the Immaculate Conception provisionally, based on their faith that the Holy Spirit guides the magisterium.
One need not give it much assent or dissent either way. As you allow, it’s not key to salvation, so that’s why I say it need not become a battlefield for Christians.
Regarding Adam… the death was human (bearers of the image of God) death that is the issue. No conflict with animal evolution, naturalistic account for the origin of life, big bang, etc…
That pre-humans didn’t have souls seems theologically workable. Gen 2:7, “Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”
The breath of life would be “ensoulment.” That this “Adam,” The First Man, was immortal until The First Sin is a little too literalist for me to spend much concern over. Again, it’s tangential to the question of salvation.
Thx for the thoughtful and courteous reply.
LikeLike
TVD,
“That this “Adam,” The First Man, was immortal until The First Sin is a little too literalist for me to spend much concern over. Again, it’s tangential to the question of salvation.”
St Paul in Romans 5 would not agree with you. “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned—sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.”
You are chipping at the theological foundation to salvation, TVD. Just one servant of Christ to another… just think through it and pray about it a bit before you say it’s all a bit to literal of a way to read the Scriptures.
Peace,
Michael
LikeLike
MichaelTX
Posted May 28, 2015 at 4:24 pm | Permalink
TVD,
“That this “Adam,” The First Man, was immortal until The First Sin is a little too literalist for me to spend much concern over. Again, it’s tangential to the question of salvation.”
St Paul in Romans 5 would not agree with you. “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned—sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.”
You are chipping at the theological foundation to salvation, TVD. Just one servant of Christ to another… just think through it and pray about it a bit before you say it’s all a bit to literal of a way to read the Scriptures.
Peace,
Michael
Not going to play dueling Biblical quote-mining. Is this “death” literal? If you’re going to argue as a Catholic, stop arguing like a Protestant! ;-D
LikeLike
TVD,
You have created a false dichotomy of argument. Like I said, If you wish to continue. Email me.
LikeLike
Being a consistent Protestant is what caused me to become a Catholic.
LikeLike
My wife wrote in to galactic headquarters a few years back now, got her question published, matters pertaining to science, as she is a scientist, fwiw.
Lates.
LikeLike
MichaelTX
Posted May 28, 2015 at 4:45 pm | Permalink
TVD,
You have created a false dichotomy of argument. Like I said, If you wish to continue. Email me.
I don’t think it’s false, and no, I don’t wish to continue. You commented @ me; I replied. I’m with Augustine on this one, not as a matter of doctrine, but as a matter of prudence–don’t paint yourself into a corner on something that science may prove to be untrue.
MichaelTX
Posted May 28, 2015 at 4:46 pm | Permalink
Being a consistent Protestant is what caused me to become a Catholic.
Now THAT’S interesting. As Peter Kreeft wrote:
and
Good luck. Yes, Catholicism reads the Bible too.
http://chnetwork.org/2011/10/hauled-aboard-the-ark-conversion-story-of-peter-kreeft/
LikeLike
Tom, I’m a little bit of the reason Michael showed up. I knew when he gets a hit on his blog, he tends to notice.
I e-mailed back and forth with Michael several years ago, for a good while, several months, we have even talked over the phone a few times. I haven’t gotten him golfing yet, but I just may someday. Call it lay aggressive evangelism, golf style (hi Webfoot).
LikeLike
TVD, I apreaciate the prudence. Just beware if ignoring dogma. We are a dogmatic faith that descends from above through Tradition and the Word.
Peace
Michael
LikeLike
Andrew Buckingham
Posted May 28, 2015 at 5:07 pm | Permalink
Tom, I’m a little bit of the reason Michael showed up. I knew when he gets a hit on his blog, he tends to notice.
I e-mailed back and forth with Michael several years ago, for a good while, several months, we have even talked over the phone a few times. I haven’t gotten him golfing yet, but I just may someday. Call it lay aggressive evangelism, golf style (hi Webfoot).
MichaelTX
Posted May 28, 2015 at 5:18 pm | Permalink
TVD, I apreaciate the prudence. Just beware if ignoring dogma. We are a dogmatic faith that descends from above through Tradition and the Word.
Peace
Michael
I hope you do appreciate the prudence. Insisting on a literal immortality until The First Sin is in my view not prudent [even if true].
As is a Catholic using the word “dogma” in front of strangers. Except in rare ex cathedra cases, it is prudent to stick with “doctrine.”
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-the-difference-between-doctrine-and-dogma
LikeLike
just stick to the classic reformed four fold state of man, and we’ll be fine:
We continue to chase down rabbit trails, Mary, Evolution, what’s next now? Republication? Oh, that’s right, that’s a reformed in house issue, sorry you cool cats, that topic doesn’t concern you. Short and long though, read Meredith Kline, and get back to me. He’s rad.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle:
Mrs. Webfoot,
I’ll be happy to put in a couple of hours on it, but it will have to be sometime between now and August.>>>
Wonderful! Thank you. I didn’t think you’d really go for it. I had just assumed that the Immaculate Conception and the perpetual virginity of Mary were doctrines that were automatically tossed by both Luther and Calvin. I had also assumed that all Protestants rejected both doctrines. It is much more interesting than that.
No, it doesn’t prove either doctrine either way, but the history of Protestantism and Marian theology is not what I had expected. …and like I’m probably one of the very few on either side who even cares!
Take care,
Mrs. Webfoot
LikeLike
#seevd,t,theologize
LikeLike
#samestuffdifferentday#who’snext
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted May 28, 2015 at 6:05 pm | Permalink
#seevd,t,theologize
AB
Posted May 28, 2015 at 6:08 pm | Permalink
#samestuffdifferentday#who’snext
What a cute couple.
LikeLike
TVD:
I hope you do appreciate the prudence. Insisting on a literal immortality until The First Sin is in my view not prudent [even if true].>>>>
I had no idea that even in the early church there was a variety of views about the early chapters of Genesis. This article from Catholic Answers gives a number of quotes from Church fathers on this subject.
It is still a matter open for discussion, as far as I understand. I like that word “at liberty to believe.” There are certain parameters at the same time.
“Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator” (CCC 283). Still, science has its limits (CCC 284, 2293–4). The following quotations from the Fathers show how widely divergent early Christian views were. “
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis
LikeLike
Tom, I’m impressed padawan.
#JesusLives#TheCookiesAreGoodMusicians
LikeLike
Mrs. Webfoot
Posted May 28, 2015 at 6:12 pm | Permalink
TVD:
I hope you do appreciate the prudence. Insisting on a literal immortality until The First Sin is in my view not prudent [even if true].>>>>
I had no idea that even in the early church there was a variety of views about the early chapters of Genesis. This article from Catholic Answers gives a number of quotes from Church fathers on this subject.
It is still a matter open for discussion, as far as I understand. I like that word “at liberty to believe.” There are certain parameters at the same time.
“Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator” (CCC 283). Still, science has its limits (CCC 284, 2293–4). The following quotations from the Fathers show how widely divergent early Christian views were. “
What’s also fascinating is contrary to “Inherit the Wind” making William Jennings Bryan into a complete fundamentalist dolt, here’s the REAL transcript of his cross-examination by Clarence Darrow:
Now that’s not just prudent, it’s wise.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day7.htm
LikeLike
TVD,
The reason I began to address this topic is because you, in my view, imprudently attacked the view that you can stand against evolution and not be “fundamentalist”. In this crowd I think you will get more respect when you side with Catholic teaching that stands in line with a dogma like there being a historic Adam who before the fall was lacking the consequence of death( physical or spiritual). Just be careful attacking a “fundamentalist” for holding to Catholic teaching. Just bad practice in my view.
LikeLike
MichaelTX
Posted May 28, 2015 at 6:42 pm | Permalink
TVD,
The reason I began to address this topic is because you, in my view, imprudently attacked the view that you can stand against evolution and not be “fundamentalist”. In this crowd I think you will get more respect when you side with Catholic teaching that stands in line with a dogma like there being a historic Adam who before the fall was lacking the consequence of death( physical or spiritual). Just be careful attacking a “fundamentalist” for holding to Catholic teaching. Just bad practice in my view.
I’m not sure a literal guy named Adam is Catholic dogma–even less that he was physically immortal until The First Sin–even if it might be normative doctrine. In either case, I think you should be sure before telling a bunch of hostile Protestants anything about “dogma” as they don’t dig the concept, especially of the Catholic variety.
If you’re going to give advice on how to be received as a Catholic, take some: Ix-nay on the ogma-day. As for myself, I don’t speak on behalf of the Catholic Church: Mostly I look up the attacks made on it to see if they’re accurate and they’ve very often not. I report the results. I hope everyone double-checks for themselves, Catholic or Protestant, and report back themselves. I decline to discuss my own affiliations in fora such as this, for they are quickly weaponized.
LikeLike
Michael,
See what we are dealing with?
I’ll shoot you an e-mail to fill you in on more of what’s going on here, my opinions of these interlocutors, etc. Again, it’s great to have you here!!
LikeLike
Any Prots want to say whether a Catholic should admit be dogmatic about simple things like a real Adam? I’d be glad to hear the opinion.
LikeLike
Michael, I’ll pass. I wouldn’t listen to TVD if I were you, he has no eclessiastical moorings, yet feels qualified to speak and present the catholic case on things. If I were you, I would keep an eye on him, he is doing harm to your faith here, so I would focus on him instead of us prots, just sayin.
LikeLike
AB
Posted May 28, 2015 at 6:59 pm | Permalink
a bunch of hostile Protestants
Michael,
See what we are dealing with?
I’ll shoot you an e-mail to fill you in on more of what’s going on here, my opinions of these interlocutors, etc. Again, it’s great to have you here!!
MichaelTX
Posted May 28, 2015 at 7:23 pm | Permalink
Any Prots want to say whether a Catholic should admit be dogmatic about simple things like a real Adam? I’d be glad to hear the opinion.
Good. I can go now. Good luck with that. You two have a nice chat talking about me behind my back. But do check the difference between doctrine and dogma, Michael. No use dying on a hill that’s not worth it.
LikeLike
I have found Tom to be reliable in what he reports. I do check everything. See, the Cathilic Church is not a matter of private interpretation. She does allow certain latitude on some doctrines.
Now if we talk Trinity or Incarnation or the canon of Scripture or the Virgin Birth or the Niceness Creed or the Real Presence, etc. that’s a different matter.
If she gives latitude in this area, we are wrong to be dogmatic.
LikeLike
vd, t, and in Roman Catholic Ireland B, A and I could get married.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “I had no idea . . .”
Hey now.
LikeLike
MichaelTX, if a Roman Catholic wants to affirm the Bible, a real Adam seems pretty important. But if you want to be a modernist . . .
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted May 28, 2015 at 10:26 pm | Permalink
vd, t, and in Roman Catholic Ireland B, A and I could get married.
Do you have a point, Dr. Hart? You can save the plane fare and get married in the Presbyterian Church, USA [membership 1.8 million, more or less, less lately]!
D. G. Hart
Posted May 28, 2015 at 10:27 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, “I had no idea . . .”
Hey now.
Dr. Darryl G. Hart, Ph.D, reduced to monosyllables by a nice Catholic lady. Calvinism: A History.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “I have found Tom to be reliable in what he reports.”
Not sure that speaks well for the papacy.
LikeLike
vd, t, but they are Larry Sanders monosyllables.
LikeLike
Not sure Michigan allows this. Certainly not every state in the union.
#TVDFailsAgain
LikeLike
And that minor hiccup of California having recentlt votes to rejoin Mexico. Doh!
D. G. Hart
Posted May 28, 2015 at 10:27 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, “I had no idea . . .”
Hey now.
Dr. Darryl G. Hart, Ph.D, reduced to monosyllables by a nice Catholic lady. Calvinism: A History.
D. G. Hart
Posted May 28, 2015 at 10:42 pm | Permalink
vd, t, but they are Larry Sanders monosyllables.
Dr. Darryl G. Hart, Ph.D, reduced to monosyllables he learned on TV by a nice Catholic lady. Calvinism: A History.
LikeLike
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/05/28/liverpool-to-see-biggest-marian-procession-in-decades/
The biggest Marian procession for decades will take place in Liverpool on Saturday.
Archbishop Malcolm McMahon of Liverpool and Sisters from the Missionaries of Charity, the congregation founded by Mother Teresa, will lead children who have made their First Holy Communion on a procession from St Peter’s Square to Queen’s Square.
The procession will stop several times to sing a hymn and say the rosary. The statue will be placed on the ground, and the children, in their First Communion dresses and suits, will scatter rose petals around it.
At the end a benediction will be said, and Archbishop McMahon will give each child a remembrance card and a set of rosary beads.
Such processions were common in the past, organiser Jim Ross told the Catholic Herald, but they died out in the 1960s and 1970s. When it was revived five years ago, about 50 people took part; last year there were 200, and many more are expected this year.
“It’s what we used to do as children, honouring Our Lady in May. It gives something to the children for their memory,” said Mr Ross, a semi-retired builder.
————–
Where is Christ?
LikeLike
Muddy, can you imagine a parade to your door just to ask you to pray for aunt Betty?
LikeLike
Watching real Catholics try to keep Tom in line is going to be amusing.
LikeLike
Tom,
If you read the Pope’s twitter posts, there’s a lot of antagonism against him. and Christianity in general.
The fact that you play the role of antagonist in DGH’s comment box just means that DGH is influential and popular, that you feel the need to try to denigrate him to people who don’t already know better.
I don’t know why you feel the need to tear him down, other than you feel there’s something to what DGH has to say, even if you know not what. Again, I hope you find your peace, I fear this commenting is not healthy for you, and there’s really not much we can do to help you. I hope you are going to church, is all.
Who’s next?
LikeLike
@mwf how do you square the “latitude on some doctrines” with the requirement to submit ones intellect and will to the teaching (not infallible ) of ones bishop. I understand this isn’t “full assent of faith” as in ex cathedra pronouncements or results from councils. If there is latitude doesn’t that suggest it isn’t a doctrine? Or am I mistaken? I was under the impression the historicity of adam was doctrine. I don’t think Augustine discounted that in his commentary on Genesis. I don’t see evolution, a natualistic account of life, or pre-human hominids problematic myself (I am an astrobiologist afterall), but I do have trouble with Adam…the historicity of the fall and entrance of human death seems pretty important to western Christianity and the NT witness.
LikeLike
sdb, one of my favorite comments from you, i’ll never forget (just like “cargo cult science”):
Oh, and anyone else, reading along, go to that link, and read the convo.
We’ve discussed everything out here at this blog one time or another, just like Bryan Cross of CtC, we need only keep a record of when and where, and link when the topic comes up again for new comers. Im trying to systematize how they have done,in other words, not that DGH needs help in his endeavor.
LikeLike
Muddy Gravel, you may not know this, but the Rosary is all about Christ. Yes, I understand that it is like a holy obligation in the Protestant religion, especially in its confessional forms to mock Mary and the devotional traditions related to her,but I will take a risk, here. I am sure you guys will not disappoint. I’d put the smiley face, but you guys even have something against that! No matter, Protestants protest, so protest away.
See, I look at a group like this and ask “Where is Christ?”, so I understand your question. I am glad to provide some answers about the faith and practice of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, MuddyGravel.
The Sign of the Cross is made first. You probably do not know the meaning behind that sign, but it is a way to preach the Gospel. The Father sent the Son all the way down to death on the cross and the Holy Spirit unites us in that sacrifice with one another and the Holy Trinity.
Online you can find the prayers associated with the Rosary, and the Christian virtues that those who pray are supposed to ask God for. Scripture is also read for each mystery. Praying the Rosary is not an obligation for Catholics. It is a kind of devotional.
I am glad to see that there is a bit of a of revival of Catholic practice, including this procession, in England.
Mysteries of the Rosary
The Church has used three sets of mysteries for many centuries. In 2002 Pope John Paul II proposed a fourth set of mysteries—the Mysteries of Light, or Luminous Mysteries. According to his suggestion, the four sets of mysteries might be prayed on the following days: the Joyful Mysteries on Monday and Saturday, the Sorrowful Mysteries on Tuesday and Friday, the Glorious Mysteries on Wednesday and Sunday, and the Luminous Mysteries on Thursday.
The Joyful Mysteries
The Annunciation
Mary learns that she has been chosen to be the mother of Jesus.
The Visitation
Mary visits Elizabeth, who tells her that she will always be remembered.
The Nativity
Jesus is born in a stable in Bethlehem.
The Presentation
Mary and Joseph take the infant Jesus to the Temple to present him to God.
The Finding of Jesus in the Temple
Jesus is found in the Temple discussing his faith with the teachers.
The Mysteries of Light
The Baptism of Jesus in the River Jordan
God proclaims that Jesus is his beloved Son.
The Wedding Feast at Cana
At Mary’s request, Jesus performs his first miracle.
The Proclamation of the Kingdom of God
Jesus calls all to conversion and service to the Kingdom.
The Transfiguration of Jesus
Jesus is revealed in glory to Peter, James, and John.
The Institution of the Eucharist
Jesus offers his Body and Blood at the Last Supper.
The Sorrowful Mysteries
The Agony in the Garden
Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane on the night before he dies.
The Scourging at the Pillar
Jesus is lashed with whips.
The Crowning With Thorns
Jesus is mocked and crowned with thorns.
The Carrying of the Cross
Jesus carries the cross that will be used to crucify him.
The Crucifixion
Jesus is nailed to the cross and dies.
The Glorious Mysteries
The Resurrection
God the Father raises Jesus from the dead.
The Ascension
Jesus returns to his Father in heaven.
The Coming of the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit comes to bring new life to the disciples.
The Assumption of Mary
At the end of her life on earth, Mary is taken body and soul into heaven.
The Coronation of Mary
Mary is crowned as Queen of Heaven and Earth.
LikeLike
Tom is reeling back to his corner after another round of uppercuts and haymakers by AB.
Will he quit on his stool?
LikeLike
ec, keeping vd, t in line. Think Ireland.
LikeLike
Thanks kent.
I uploaded a new avatar, should appear soon. I hope it brighten’s dgh’s day.
Off to golf at 1pm, yo.
LikeLike
Mermaid, this is like giving up Sam Adams (not great) for Miller Lite. Keep your Mary in your prayer closet.
LikeLike
Webbster, adding the rosary and an hand signal is not adding Christ to the Mary celebration, it’s adding superstition and ritual to the Mary celebration. Get real: do you think the abiding memory of those children will be Jesus? In the big picture, my problem with RCC is not that Jesus is entirely absent – it’s that he gets lost in the crowd.
LikeLike
BTW, MuddyGravel, I don’t blame you or even resent you for posting the article. Not long ago I would have agreed with you. Besides, you do not need to agree with this tradition or with praying the Rosary.
Your concerns are legitimate, but not really informed. Christ should not get lost or buried in our traditions. They should be a help towards greater devotion to God and more consistent Christian practice in our lives. If not, then the focus is wrong or the tradition is wrong.
What concerns me a bit is that Protestants don’t always see the dangers of their own traditions. So, we are here to point one another towards a greater devotion to God Himself. Even your honored 5 solas can cloud the face of Christ and the glory of the Holy Trinity.
BTW, I am sure that MichaelTX is a wonderful Christian Catholic guy, but what he was saying yesterday about the Church’s views on the first chapters of Genesis is his own, not the Church’s. The Church has supported a form of Theistic Evolution for a long time, now.
Even so, she has not taken a dogmatic stand, contrary to what Micahel was alleging here yesterday. Again, the truth about it is easy to find. It’s not like the Church and her beliefs are hidden in some dark corner.
Y’all have a wonderful day, brothers. May Christ be exalted and glorified in all we do and say today!
LikeLike
Mermaid, “BTW, I am sure that MichaelTX is a wonderful Christian Catholic guy, but what he was saying yesterday about the Church’s views on the first chapters of Genesis is his own, not the Church’s. The Church has supported a form of Theistic Evolution for a long time, now.”
All that papal authority, so little agreement.
LikeLike
The behavior of the Irish means nothing.
Never mind that they’ve been marinating in Roman Catholicism for centuries…
The paradigm remains untouched.
LikeLike
Trueman, Van Drunen, and him in one New Horizons?
God help us.
LikeLike
Sdb, you are quite correct. A historic Adam is a required belief in the Catholic faith. I appreciate the comment above from Mrs Webfoot and have appreciated TVDs comments before and we have emailed a bit. He need not fear me talking badly behind his back. There is latitude in Catholic belief on many subjects one of which is the age of the earth, but whether there was a historic Individual couple Adam and Eve and an actual temptation and fall into sin(probably alligorical in Scripture) is not one of them.
LikeLike
MichaelTX,
Dr. Terry Gray is a frequent commenter here at OL, he met the strong arm of ecclesiastical law in 1996.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/humans-opc.htm
Ask him about his experience.
LikeLike
Hart, I really understand your point. “…if you want to be a Modernist…” Someday the harvest will occur and the weeds will get burned and the wheat will go happily into the barn. Until that day I will keep growing the the Masters field.
LikeLike
MWF: “ to mock Mary and the devotional traditions related to her”
I don’t think there has been mocking here has there? I think the statements here have been 1) Mary was not sinless; 2) Mary is not to be idolized nor worshipped (nor prayed to) 3) Christ is the only One we proclaim
as you say: “Christ should not get lost or buried in our traditions.”
LikeLike
@AB I think the odds of finding life via remote sensing of other planets is unlikely to be accomplished in the next decade. I do think it will happen eventually though. First we need to get TPF funded. I suspect a more likely place to go to look for life is Europa. It will be very interesting to learn how life there compares to what we have here (assuming there is any). I suspect there are thermophiles below the surface, but if there aren’t it will significantly contain pathways for the origin of life.
Detection of intelligent (communicable) life outside of Earth I put very close to 0. I find Fermi’s paradox dispositive. We have the technology to completely colonize the galaxy robotically (with craft flying at the speed of voyager with nano-robots programed to build new craft and relaunch to two planet bearing stars, etc… would be capable of colonizing the entire galaxy in just a few million years. Obviously that hasn’t happened. About 3000 generations of intelligent life among about 1E11 stars in a galaxy have given no indication of technology. This strongly suggests we are it – whether the great filter is behind us and we just got lucky to get through it or is a head of us and we are all doomed is an open question. It could be the great filter is behind us and is the Imago Dei, and we are the only ones. Fermi’s paradox isn’t proof, but it is strongly suggestive.
LikeLike
I’ll post this to twitter.
Its fun.
Thanks SDB. If my name we Sandrew, we’d have the same initials. Just sayin’
LikeLike
Now THAT is something protestants can agree with.
LikeLike
Pope Francis 2014 “I have therefore decided to reflect with you, this year, precisely on the family, on this great gift that the Lord has made to the world from the very beginning, when he entrusted Adam and Eve with the mission to multiply and fill the earth (cf. Gen 1:28); that gift that Jesus confirmed and sealed in his Gospel.” Sounds like a historic link to the past from our current reality of family life.
Synod on the Family 2014
“In the beginning, there is the original family, when God the Creator instituted the first marriage between Adam and Eve as the solid foundation of the family. God not only created human beings male and female (Gen 1:27), but he also blessed them so they might be fruitful and multiply ”
World Day of Peace 2015 “In the Book of Genesis (cf. 1:27-28), we read that God made man male and female, and blessed them so that they could increase and multiply. He made Adam and Eve parents who, in response to God’s command to be fruitful and multiply, brought about the first fraternity, that of Cain and Abel. Cain and Abel were brothers because they came forth from the same womb. Consequently they had the same origin, nature and dignity as their parents, who were created in the image and likeness of God.”
Pope Francis to German altar servers “Our ancestors, Adam and Eve, moving away from the divine will fell into sin, that is, into the misuse of freedom.”
I could continue but it is clear where these phrases put the idea of a historic Adam and Eve who are our actual parents who fell into sin “in the beginning”.
I am sorry Mrs Webfoot and TVD, you both need to read more Church teachings on this matter if you wish to say there were no historical individual Adam and Eve who fell into sin in the beginning. ask any near any Catholic apologist on this. They may vary on how long ago this may have been, but that it was the actual history case of our belief and history is quite agreed on and attested to by Church teaching.
LikeLike
Muddy Gravel:
Webbster, adding the rosary and an hand signal is not adding Christ to the Mary celebration, it’s adding superstition and ritual to the Mary celebration. Get real: do you think the abiding memory of those children will be Jesus? In the big picture, my problem with RCC is not that Jesus is entirely absent – it’s that he gets lost in the crowd.>>>>
Well, Muddy Gravel, Jesus is Really Present. However, I do note that you, a Reformed Christian is concerned about the salvation of children who are not part of a covenant family. Well, I assume you are Reformed and I assumed that you hold to covenant theology. I commend you for that.
In general, I have not seen your religion reaching out to lost children.
Yes, superstitious religion is a problem of the human heart, and you are also human. No, the hand signal and the Rosary do not add to Christ, they show Christ and teach us who Christ is and what God requires of us.
Do you not teach your children to fold their hands and bow their heads in prayer? That is, if you have children. Can they not pray with eyes wide open, looking all around them? What purpose do the hand and head motions serve, then, since God is everywhere?
LikeLike
Michael, our stance is that VatII modernized your denomination.
The OPC rejected modernism by becoming the spiritual successor of presbyterianism in America by pulling out of the PC(USA) in 1936.
That’s all Darryl meant, playful jab mostly. Our church is better than your church kind of thing, ya feel me?
Peace.
LikeLike
Again, terry gray’s blog, or twitter handle, @grayt5.
Michael, you should join twitter, with @BryanRCross, no joke, yo.
N
e
x
t
.
LikeLike
“In general, I have not seen your religion reaching out to lost children.”
Alas, we lose many on account of what we don’t or can’t do. You lose many on account of what you do.
“Do you not teach your children to fold their hands and bow their heads in prayer? That is, if you have children. Can they not pray with eyes wide open, looking all around them? What purpose do the hand and head motions serve, then, since God is everywhere?”
Whatever such practical advice we give, it is intended to eliminate clutter between the one praying and God. Your practices *are* clutter between the one praying and God.
LikeLike
Michael, a big demand for irony and the willingness to enter jousts with self-deprecating humour is essential to get the balance right on here.
But it is fun to spark up the Jiffy Pop and sit back and watch people act like its Thunderdome once in awhile….
LikeLike
AB, I took it as a playful jab and jabbed a parable back. All is fare in love and war.
BTW, here is that blasted new modernist Catholics Church’s catechism statement on this topic. “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).
I do hope the quote will settle this.
LikeLike
@MWF You wrote that, “In general, I have not seen your religion reaching out to lost children.” That’s too bad. Here are a few examples of reformed presbyterian churches (PCA) involved with Operation Christmas. Here is a PCA church involved with Child Evangelism Fellowship.
So now you have seen our religion reaching out to lost children.
LikeLike
MichaelTX:
I am sorry Mrs Webfoot and TVD, you both need to read more Church teachings on this matter if you wish to say there were no historical individual Adam and Eve who fell into sin in the beginning. ask any near any Catholic apologist on this. They may vary on how long ago this may have been, but that it was the actual history case of our belief and history is quite agreed on and attested to by Church teaching.>>>>
Well, MichaelTX, I do believe that both Adam and Eve were historical persons. No, I do not nor ever have said that Adam and Eve were not real individuals. I see what you mean. I understood you to be promoting a kind of fundamentalist creationist view and calling it the Church’s absolute teaching.
Thank you for clarifying your position. I see that you are not trying to force your own, private interpretation on Catholics, pretending that it is the one, true, view of the Church. You are trying to communicate Church teaching.
Please look at the link I provided and you will see what I was arguing.
You and Tom can discuss whatever point of disagreement you may have. If you are here to side with the anti-Catholics who hold to the traditions of Boettnerism, then maybe you need to take a look at your own motives for being here.
LikeLike
Kent, hope all has been good. Glad you are enjoying the show. I did not intend on being hog wild but I keep getting a push back from my own brothers and sisters and Mommy always said solve your problems with words and I you can’t come talk to me or daddy. Daddy Scripture sakes clear enough to me but maybe momma Church will clear their mind.
TVD and Webfoot, my intent is to be a charitable correction. Please don’t bash people who believe not only what the Church teaches but also what she allows to be believed.
LikeLike
MTX, you have never been a problem with your contributions…
LikeLike
Michael, you are doing awesome out here. I wish I could talk with you more or give you a call, I have to attend to my day job.
Grace and peace.
LikeLike
Mrs Webfoot, thank you for your words. I was defending a fellow human being who was being belittle for holding a view allowed by the Holy Church of Christ from an attack by TVD and you jumped on me too. I thank you for your correction. I will continue to defend the freedom the Church allows from anyone, Reformed or Catholic.
Thank you again. God bless. I am glad we are at the Euchristic table together.
Michael
LikeLike
BTW Mrs Webfoot, I do lean more towards acknowledging a “fundamentalist” understanding of the Genesis account and time table lain out in the genealogies, but I am not in a definitive position on the matter. But not is the Church so I am still in the study period on this matter. Currently I am reading this book on the topic if any one is interested. Used ones are pretty cheap. Couple cents plus shipping. http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Rediscovered-Evolution-Importance-Origins/dp/0895556073
LikeLike
Thank, MTX. Again, I did not mean to bash you. In fact, I have nothing against AB, except that he needs to tone it down on his obsession with Tom. That gets kinda’ outta’ control. Tom is a sweetheart.
I had a great conversation with some of the guys here on Marilogy. Of course, that interests me more than it does the guys, so I appreciate their taking the time to let me bounce ideas off them. Jeff and I tabled it while we look for quotes from the early Reformers about both the Immaculate Conception and the perpetual virginity of Mary. Luther was downright Catholic his whole life on that, it seems, and even Calvin was more Catholic than most Protestants are in our day. Even some Protestants now, especially in the Lutheran churches, still hold to those dogmas, but for them they are doctrines. What does it matter? It’s interesting history.
The Church did not divide over Mariology. I guess that’s the interesting historical point.
I’m not real interested in most of what’s discussed here. I do wish the guys would at least try to understand the Catholic teachings, even if they do not agree. I was more on the Reformed side of Protestantism, and there are still some Reformed teachers that I love. To my delight, I recently found out that 2 of my favorites, Jonathan Edwards and R.C. Sproul were or are both Thomists of sorts. R.C gives him high praise, even. Sproul thinks that Thomas really supported the Reformed view of justification by faith, and I can see his point somewhat. Reformed teaching substitutes progressive sanctification where Thomas had progressive justification. I think that Thomas was consistent in the way that the word is used in Scripture, and Trent followed him on that. Anyway, I love Thomas Aquinas and am glad to see that he was influencing me even before I knew much about him. So, what I think or don’t think is just that – what I think or don’t think – and D.G. Hart is likely to pick up on the “don’t think” part. Hi, DGH. 🙂
Anyway, the more I look at this, the more I come to believe that the split was not necessary. Jesus really meant it when He said He died to make us one like He and His Father are one. One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. One body of Christ. One Nicene Creed – One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. So, if I believed that, I needed to go Home. I am so happy!
…and all y’all here are part of her whether you like it or not. 🙂 That is, those who believe in Christ and are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. That’s why Protestants can enter full communion. They are already partially in communion with their Mother who loves them, even thought they are separated brethren.
Anyway, I hear ya’ on the Genesis stuff. Shhh. Don’t tell anyone, but I’m probably more on the fundy side myself. However, many Reformed people accept the idea of an old earth and some kind of evolutionary model, so I had already accepted the idea that there is more going on. I have been a fan of the ID movement for awhile, now, but I guess there are problems with that as well as far as Catholic theology goes.
I don’t feel a need to nail it down, though, but I am working on understanding Thomism. I was and still am caught in wonder at the first way. Maybe I’ll get to the other 4, but the 1st is breathtaking. I read a few parts of the Summa and I knew I was in the presence of a Saint.
Anyway, nice visiting with you. Again, not my intention to bash anyone. Not at all, or anyone’s sincerely held religious beliefs. Good to be reminded of that from time to time. Thanks, brother.
BTW, I am a Texas A&M Aggie mom. Gotta’ tone down the “Gig em’!” 😉 Don’t tell me you’re a Longhorn!
LikeLike
Mrs Webfoot,
I don’t hold a bull in the Aggie Horns fight. I appreciate both schools. Got folks living in both towns and both city have a strong Catholic presence. Though Bryan is supposedly stamping out the priests here in Texas. I like that. We need more Texas priests around the world.
I dig St Thomas too. I fall in the Dominican camp regarding the ever so slightly held differences in Catholic though on freewill and predestination stuff. There is a difference in Calvin and Thomas, but I think more Calvinist should read more Thomas to get a clearer picture of Catholic thought. Just my thoughts and recommendations though.
Pax Christi,
Michael
LikeLike
10-4
LikeLike
MichaelTX, thanks.
See, Tom is the one who posts things about Thomism. I have followed him on Twitter and on his American Creation blog. Very fascinating stuff. So, I had assumed that all Thomists are Catholic, but now I see that even some Reformed people are, as far as they way they reason and present truth, could also be classified Thomists. So, I had assumed that Tom is Catholic, but Thomism covers a lot of territory.
I think that Thomas should not be feared by Protestants.
AB, I see that hand. Love to you and yours, all y’all.
LikeLike
my cat sees your hair
LikeLike
kent
Posted May 29, 2015 at 10:02 am | Permalink
Tom is reeling back to his corner after another round of uppercuts and haymakers by AB.
Will he quit on his stool?
Um, no. I was sleeping and working. Nor is Andrew even in the ring, unless you count holding Darryl’s spitbucket. ;-P
_____________________
MichaelTX
I am sorry Mrs Webfoot and TVD, you both need to read more Church teachings on this matter if you wish to say there were no historical individual Adam and Eve who fell into sin in the beginning. ask any near any Catholic apologist on this. They may vary on how long ago this may have been, but that it was the actual history case of our belief and history is quite agreed on and attested to by Church teaching.
I’m not sure you’re recognizing the distinction in Catholicism between doctrine and dogma. Only the latter is non-negotiable, and the list is not all that long.
LikeLike
And Tom bounces back in right rum form.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “I do wish the guys would at least try to understand the Catholic teachings…”
I wish you would too.
LikeLike
“the distinction in Catholicism between doctrine and dogma. Only the latter is non-negotiable, and the list is not all that long.”
Exactly what the Irish say.
LikeLike
TVD, I am quite aware there is a difference between doctrine and De fide dogma. I also realize I can be incorrect. Professional theologians can be to, but here is one that is quite respected.
Dogmas and teachings on Creation and the Fall from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott (TAN Books, 1974), pages 79-122 on “The Divine Act of Creation” and “The Divine Work of Creation” :
God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)
The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)
The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)
God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)
God has created a good world. (De Fide)
The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)
God alone created the world. (De Fide)
God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)
The first man was created by God. (De Fide)
Man consists of two essential parts — a material body and a spiritual soul. (De Fide)
Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De Fide)
Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De Fide)
The donum immortalitatis, i.e. the divine gift of bodily immortality of our first parents. (De Fide)
Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De Fide)
Through the original sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De Fide)
Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De Fide)
Please observe those last four.
Thanks,
Michael
LikeLike
Michael,
If Tom agrees with you he’s going to have to apologize to Darryl and the OPC for chiding them over how they handled Terry Gray.
In other words, don’t hold your breath.
LikeLike
Erik, I’m unfimiliar with the details of the Terry Gray ordeal, so I don’t know that I can comment or assume what TVD might need to do. But he should acknowledge that it is de fide dogma that Catholics are to believe in a historic parentage to the entire human race that was previously immortal until the fall into sin.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted May 29, 2015 at 4:05 pm | Permalink
Michael,
If Tom agrees with you he’s going to have to apologize to Darryl and the OPC for chiding them over how they handled Terry Gray.
In other words, don’t hold your breath.
And now you owe me an apology, smart guy, for sliming me in advance. What’s with you people? Can’t you just discuss ideas?
____________________________
MichaelTX
Posted May 29, 2015 at 4:00 pm | Permalink
TVD, I am quite aware there is a difference between doctrine and De fide dogma. I also realize I can be incorrect. Professional theologians can be to, but here is one that is quite respected.
Dogmas and teachings on Creation and the Fall from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott (TAN Books, 1974), pages 79-122 on “The Divine Act of Creation” and “The Divine Work of Creation” :
Thanks,
Michael
Thx, but I don’t think you’re trolling the internet deep enough. You need to look to disprove your argument instead of just find “proof” for it if you’re honestly seeking the truth.
Recently, on a Q & A Forum, Fr. Joe Horn, O.Praem.[2] requested of an enquirer the source of a particular statement; the reply was from Fundamentals Of Catholic Dogma, by Dr. Ludwig Ott. As the particular matter appeared to be questionable, Fr. Horn’s response was: “Good book. But it’s not an official document of the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, on the other hand, is an official document. It is my duty in this forum (and as a priest) to clarify the official doctrines of the Church, not the opinions of Father X, Theologian Y, or Book Z.”
The wisdom of such a statement may be supported by the following article, which was written in 1960:
Etc.
http://jloughnan.tripod.com/critott.htm
Now if you go to the Catechism
Does this demand a literal belief in a literal guy named Adam? The use of “symbolism of Biblical language” here suggests otherwise.
LikeLike
Tom,
If you can convince Michael that his Church (and yours?) is theologically liberal, you’re off the hook.
The liberals that Machen battled also wanted to wiggle their way out of having to deal with a literal Adam and Eve.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted May 29, 2015 at 4:32 pm | Permalink
Tom,
If you can convince Michael that his Church (and yours?) is theologically liberal, you’re off the hook.
The liberals that Machen battled also wanted to wiggle their way out of having to deal with a literal Adam and Eve.
Interesting can of worms.
Accommodation, Fundamentalists argued, came with too high a price. As J. Gresham Mechan, a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, wrote in Christianity and Liberalism (1923):
To which I would note that a slavish literalism and insistence on scientific absurdity serves only to bring the Gospel into disrepute. I’m not the first to think this.
Augustine, of course.
Your can of worms is completely interesting: Machen, Mencken, Adam & Eve, the Scopes Monkey Trial. It’s all here.
http://www1.assumption.edu/ahc/scopes/
LikeLike
Tom,
You run into some serious soteriological problems without a literal Adam. If Christ is the second Adam and Adam was just made up, where does that leave Christ? Similarly, what becomes of the doctrine of original sin?
What did Aquinas say?
LikeLike
Tom,
Since you like links:
http://www.memoryhole.net/~chris/research/original_sin.html
LikeLike
TVD,
You will have to explain how we can have non-literal “constituted” “first parents” without completely making void the meaning of words from the CCC. “…New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted…”
You are actual wrong in seeking truth. I don’t have to doubt and try and prove it wrong to believe it. The “serpent” in the garden attempted the same argument. “Did God really say?” Sorrow no bits here TVD. Don’t make us enemies because you will not hear the simple teaching of the Church. It is easy to hear and be believed without doubt. The Biblical witness is clear… the Tradition of the Fathers is clear… the Magisterium is clear. Christ’s Church has been clear enough for any Catholic to assent. NonCatholics are free to do anything they wish, but not the Catholic. I have presented enough quotes to be believed.
LikeLike
Tom learning that Catholicism, while useful as a club against Reformed Protestants, may not be as appealing when he’s faced with the task of dealing with actual Roman Catholics:
LikeLike
Michael,
Is that Pidgin English or did Google type that based on you speaking into your cell phone?
LikeLike
Tom,
Obviously no one’s explained to you that, if you’re going to be a Roman Catholic, you’re going to have to believe a lot of stuff that, if explained to the average 21st century American man-on-the-street, is going to sound like a lot of freaky sounding s**t.
Welcome to Christian theism with a ton of other baggage added on.
LikeLike
MichaelTX
Posted May 29, 2015 at 5:14 pm | Permalink
TVD,
You will have to explain how we can have non-literal “constituted” “first parents” without completely making void the meaning of words from the CCC. “…New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted…”
You are actual wrong in seeking truth. I don’t have to doubt and try and prove it wrong to believe it. The “serpent” in the garden attempted the same argument. “Did God really say?” Sorrow no bits here TVD. Don’t make us enemies because you will not hear the simple teaching of the Church. It is easy to hear and be believed without doubt. The Biblical witness is clear… the Tradition of the Fathers is clear… the Magisterium is clear. Christ’s Church has been clear enough for any Catholic to assent. NonCatholics are free to do anything they wish, but not the Catholic. I have presented enough quotes to be believed.
You haven’t satisfied me–or even yourself–that a literal Adam and Eve is a non-negotiable dogma in Catholicism, perhaps because it’s not. I don’t see why you need me as an interlocutor for this: You can do it all on your own.
Erik Charter
Posted May 29, 2015 at 5:09 pm | Permalink
Tom,
You run into some serious soteriological problems without a literal Adam. If Christ is the second Adam and Adam was just made up, where does that leave Christ? Similarly, what becomes of the doctrine of original sin?
What did Aquinas say?
Ed Feser is my go-to guy on Aquinas. Frankly, I haven’t researched the topic, and frankly my interest in it is not that deep. I would read a discussion between, say, you and Michael with great interest, although I suppose you’re both locked into roughly the same [literalist] position. Still, I trust y’d both benefit reading Feser on the subject [and I will too]. He addresses Pope Pius XII’s Humani Generis.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-i.html
Basically, he reasonably gets to where I went, “ensoulment.” In that respect, there can be a pair of “first parents” without getting into scientific absurdity.
I find the Mencken/Machen/Scopes nexus more interesting, meself, but thx for asking.
LikeLike
Tom,
You’re going to have a hard time watching me and Michael when he is taking you to task, not me.
Show some respect for your Catholic brother. Learn from your betters.
LikeLike
Yeah Erik, there was a bit of key fumbling in there. This: “Sorrow no bits here TVD” was suppose to be this: “Sorry no bites here TVD” as in go tempt someone else to ignore or seek to disprove clear teaching.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted May 29, 2015 at 5:42 pm | Permalink
Tom,
You’re going to have a hard time watching me and Michael when he is taking you to task, not me.
Show some respect for your Catholic brother. Learn from your betters.
MichaelTX
Posted May 29, 2015 at 5:52 pm | Permalink
Yeah Erik, there was a bit of key fumbling in there. This: “Sorrow no bits here TVD” was suppose to be this: “Sorry no bites here TVD” as in go tempt someone else to ignore or seek to disprove clear teaching.
Have a good time, you two.
But your source was crap, Michael, and you do owe me an apology, Erik. This tactic of shooting your mouths off and going on to the next bleat after you get busted is tiresome and dishonest. There’s no end with you.
TVD
Posted May 29, 2015 at 4:20 pm | Permalink
Erik Charter
Posted May 29, 2015 at 4:05 pm | Permalink
Michael,
If Tom agrees with you he’s going to have to apologize to Darryl and the OPC for chiding them over how they handled Terry Gray.
In other words, don’t hold your breath.
And now you owe me an apology, smart guy, for sliming me in advance. What’s with you people? Can’t you just discuss ideas?
____________________________
MichaelTX
Posted May 29, 2015 at 4:00 pm | Permalink
TVD, I am quite aware there is a difference between doctrine and De fide dogma. I also realize I can be incorrect. Professional theologians can be to, but here is one that is quite respected.
Dogmas and teachings on Creation and the Fall from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott (TAN Books, 1974), pages 79-122 on “The Divine Act of Creation” and “The Divine Work of Creation” :
Thanks,
Michael
Thx, but I don’t think you’re trolling the internet deep enough. You need to look to disprove your argument instead of just find “proof” for it if you’re honestly seeking the truth.
Recently, on a Q & A Forum, Fr. Joe Horn, O.Praem.[2] requested of an enquirer the source of a particular statement; the reply was from Fundamentals Of Catholic Dogma, by Dr. Ludwig Ott. As the particular matter appeared to be questionable, Fr. Horn’s response was: “Good book. But it’s not an official document of the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, on the other hand, is an official document. It is my duty in this forum (and as a priest) to clarify the official doctrines of the Church, not the opinions of Father X, Theologian Y, or Book Z.”
The wisdom of such a statement may be supported by the following article, which was written in 1960:
Etc.
http://jloughnan.tripod.com/critott.htm
Now if you go to the Catechism
375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”. This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”
Does this demand a literal belief in a literal guy named Adam? The use of “symbolism of Biblical language” here suggests otherwise.
LikeLike
TVD,
I don’t think it is a matter of my sources. You clearly have a predetermined reason for not allowing the possibility of a physical father in your line of descendants that goes to the beginning which was complete human one day and before that he was not and this was a father whom sinned against God and original sin to us all.
LikeLike
MichaelTX
Posted May 29, 2015 at 6:05 pm | Permalink
TVD,
I don’t think it is a matter of my sources. You clearly have a predetermined reason for not allowing the possibility of a physical father in your line of descendants that goes to the beginning which was complete human one day and before that he was not and this was a father whom sinned against God and original sin to us all.
Actually the Feser article I linked–and you apparently didn’t read–gives an elegant reconciliation of a Biblical Adam and biological reality. I have no “predetermined” anything, and I get enough ad homs from the Calvinists around here, so please, mercy. Here’s Part II so you can not read that as well. ;-P That faith is opposed to science and logic is what I do strenuously reject.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-ii.html
[Feser speaks of Catholicism here, but not all Thomists need be Catholic.]
LikeLike
Tom,
What’s with this “you owe me an apology” crap the last few days? Have you taken up watching The Hallmark Channel or something? Did you get some lilac scented bath salts for your birthday?
LikeLike
Tom,
O.K. If we’re talking faith & science, explain transubstantiation to me in scientific terms.
LikeLike
Tom,
You could converse faster if you would just converse as opposed to having to compile an annotated bibliography with every response. It’s a tic that actually gets in the way of reading you. People who care can follow the conversation and pick up context without you quoting, italicizing, forgetting to italicize, etc. ad nauseam.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted May 29, 2015 at 6:25 pm | Permalink
Tom,
What’s with this “you owe me an apology” crap the last few days? Have you taken up watching The Hallmark Channel or something? Did you get some lilac scented bath salts for your birthday?
Erik Charter
Posted May 29, 2015 at 6:28 pm | Permalink
Tom,
O.K. If we’re talking faith & science, explain transubstantiation to me in scientific terms.
You are neither serious nor sincere. Nor is this the place. Mt 7:6. And you do owe me an apology.
Now, I give you the last word. Good day, sir.
Erik Charter
Posted May 29, 2015 at 1:34 pm | Permalink
Greg,
Your fundamental mistake is thinking that sincerity and sound logic work here. Have you not noticed that the mean emotional age of the male commenters on this site (including the host) is roughly 14 and the female contributors, with the exception of Lutheran Katy, are channeling some spaced out chick from “Serial”.
What the site is good for is screwing around and having a few laughs to break up the work day (unless you’re a government employee, in which case you need to stop screwing around cuz I’m paying your salary).
If you have some kind of serious religious objective this is the last place in the world that you should be pursuing it.
LikeLike
Tom,
I will read the article. I did not. I have kids that keep me from just reading everything tossed this way. If you feel it is quite important though I will read it and get back to you.
LikeLike
Tom,
How’s certainty working out for you in the last 24?
Turns out you need an infallible interpreter for your infallible interpretations.
LikeLike
Tom,
When you’re serious, I’m willing to be serious, too. You’ve seen that in private conversation. You’re only serious in fits & starts, though.
I think you have a problem reconciling the church’s stance on transubstantiation with not wanting church dogma to offend science. I want to hear how you get around that.
You do make some good contributions here. If other Catholics won’t show up to debate, you are to be lauded for doing so. I just don’t think you quite have it all together yet, which is o.k.
I would take you and Greg into a foxhole with me before several of the reformed dilettantes that hang around here, and I’ve said as much in the past.
LikeLike
Tom,
See. You even get snark out of Jeff, and that’s an accomplishment.
LikeLike
TVD,
Read article 1… no substantial argument from him against my premises. He just presents speculative theology which is possibly, though borderline in my opinion, within allowable Catholic opinion. I’m not his Bishop or the Church so let them sort that out. Moving on to article 2…
LikeLike
TVD,
Finished reading article 2. Enjoyed reading it more than the first, at least he was explaining in a positive manner the doctrine of original sin, but I still do not see why you have suggested it to me being it lacks any positive case against an original parentage for the human family which is clear Catholic teaching.
LikeLike
MichaelTX
Posted May 29, 2015 at 8:03 pm | Permalink
TVD,
Finished reading article 2. Enjoyed reading it more than the first, at least he was explaining in a positive manner the doctrine of original sin, but I still do not see why you have suggested it to me being it lacks any positive case against an original parentage for the human family which is clear Catholic teaching.
Sure he did, elegantly. What makes you think I’m fighting? I’m helping you out here. You need not be scientifically absurd to hang on to your fundamentalism. But neither do you have to insist on some actual guy named Adam who never died until he sinned. The “death” can be metaphysical, it need not be physical and hence defy the laws of nature. It’s an unnecessary insistence.
The origin of man
What has been said so far is along the lines of the sort of views you’ll find in Scholastic writers of the period of Pope Pius XII’s Humani Generis, and it reflects the pope’s teaching in that encyclical that:
However, the pope goes on to say:
This is the passage John highlights as problematic. Perhaps he thinks that what the pope is saying is that enquiry into an evolutionary explanation of human origins is permissible only to the extent that it might confirm, or at least be compatible with, the claim that evolution somehow generated exactly two human beings, one male and one female, from pre-human ancestors. And since such a claim has been falsified (so John’s argument continues), Pius’s concession can be seen to have been too modest. Given that the earliest human population could not have numbered less than 10,000 or so, a much more radical rethinking of human origins is now necessary.
But in fact no such rethinking is necessary, and Pius XII was making no such claim. Notice that what the pope opens the door to is the possibility in principle of an evolutionary explanation of the human body, specifically, not of human beings full stop. Nor does the pope say that exactly two such bodies will have to have been generated by evolution for an evolutionary explanation to be reconcilable with Catholic doctrine. He also insists that the human soul can only have come from God.
The implications of all of this should be obvious. There is nothing at all contrary to what Pius says in Humani Generis in the view that 10,000 (or for that matter 10,000,000) creatures genetically and physiologically like us arose via purely evolutionary processes. For such creatures — even if there had been only two of them — would not be “human” in the metaphysical sense in the first place. They would be human in the metaphysical sense (and thus in the theologically relevant sense) only if the matter that made up their bodies were informed by a human soul — that is, by a subsistent form imparting intellectual and volitional powers as well as the lower animal powers that a Planet of the Apes-style “human” would have. And only direct divine action can make that happen, just as (for A-T) direct divine action has to make it happen whenever one of us contemporary human beings comes into existence.
Supposing, then, that the smallest human-like population of animals evolution could have initially produced numbered around 10,000, we have a scenario that is fully compatible with Catholic doctrine if we suppose that only two of these creatures had human souls infused into them by God at their conception, and that He infused further human souls only into those creatures who were descended from this initial pair. And there is no evidence against this supposition.
LikeLike
Michael,
Do we send checks to a P.O. box or street address?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted May 29, 2015 at 6:50 pm | Permalink
Tom,
How’s certainty working out for you in the last 24?
Turns out you need an infallible interpreter for your infallible interpretations.
I don’t know what you mean, Jeff. I don’t think you’re reading me with care.
Why do y’all devote so much time to backbiting?
LikeLike
Tom,
Transubstantiation is dogma so the church is backed into a corner. They have to deal with science by punting and declaring it a “mystery”, as if that solves anything.
Meanwhile, Adam & Eve are apparently not dogma so the Church is free to bob & weave and do gymnastics to accommodate evolution.
Why not just get around evolution by declaring Adam & Eve to be a mystery in light of evolution?
Does this really all ring true to you?
LikeLike
TVD,
Don’t worry about me and my freedom. I am doing just fine. I fear that you consider yourself theologically free where the Church would not have you believe what is taught. But that is for you to discern. Maybe you should ask a priest in the confessional? Just a thought.
I’ll continue doing what the Pope said in Humani Generis and not ” spurn the teaching office of the Church, which has been instituted by Christ, Our Lord, to preserve and interpret divine revelation. This attitude is not only plainly at variance with Holy Scripture, but is shown to be false by experience also. For often those who disagree with the true Church complain openly of their disagreement in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly bear witness to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority.”
I will also continue to study this matter as recommended by the Pope as he continues saying that “this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.”
LikeLike
Fesser! This has gotten good.
I don’t get the backbiting, either. I wonder if it because so many in the Reformed religion have identified an allegorical or non-literal interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis with unbelief and Modernism.
On the other hand, the Apocalypse is taken figuratively, and they have no problem with that. They understand that there are different genres in the library that is called the Bible. Does taking the last book of the Bible figuratively lead to Modernism? If not, then why should taking the first chapters of the Bible figuratively in a similar way lead to Modernism?
So, it is a kind of knee-jerk reaction to what they have seen in mainline Protestantism. Modernism leads to apostasy, or Modernism is apostasy. Modernists take the first chapters of Genesis figuratively. Therefore anyone who takes them figuratively must be a Modernist.
A man like Fesser is anything but a Modernist. C.S. Lewis was not a Modernist, but he did not take the early chapters of Genesis literally. G.K. Chesterton was not a Modernist, but he did not take the early chapters of Genesis literally. Fr. Robert Baron of the Catholicism series fame does not take the early chapters of Genesis literally, and he is not a Modernist.
All of them hold to or held to a form of theistic evolution, which is indeed compatible with Church teaching.
It does not add up in the minds of many in the Reformed religion, since they believe that Modernism has gutted their religion.
Take a closer look, though. Modernism is a problem for all of us, not just Protestants, but Protestants in a way are their own downfall. You can’t be constantly protesting everything and everyone and expect your religion to survive. Eventually, it will collapse in on itself.
Now, those here on this blog claim that Catholicism is collapsing, but that is a misunderstanding of what the Church actually is. The constant protests make it almost impossible for a Protestant to even be able to articulate what One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the 4 marks of the Church, even mean.
Protestants think that their way of dividing constantly is somehow biblical. So, there are many barriers that have been erected over the years. So, the OPC has had to take the sad position that the few of them that are left that have not caved to modernism in their beloved Presbyterian religion are the chosen remnant. Now, that is approaching a cult like mentality. I hate to say that, but think about it.
LikeLike
Did someone release a genie and use one of their three wishes on this?
LikeLike
I will add one more quote. It is from Vatican II.
“Although the mystery of death utterly beggars the imagination, the Church has been taught by divine revelation and firmly teaches that man has been created by God for a blissful purpose beyond the reach of earthly misery. In addition, that bodily death from which man would have been immune had he not sinned(14) will be vanquished, according to the Christian faith, when man who was ruined by his own doing is restored to wholeness by an almighty and merciful Saviour.
LikeLike
@MWF The problem is not the “literalness” of the first two chapters of Genesis (or even the role of allegory in Genesis 3). The question is whether human beings created in the image of God would die had they not sinned. Tom said yes. I say no. The problem doesn’t rest with an allegorical interpretation of Genesis. The problem is with the NT and the hope of the bodily resurrection of whom Christ is the first fruit. To be sure there is mystery here, but the great hope for Christians is that even though we die now as a consequence of the sin we have inherited from Adam, we look forward to a new body that will never perish because it will be free from the curse of sin and death (This is threaded throughout Paul’s eschatological writing and of course in John’s work, but I think the clearest statements are of course Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15). This is at the heart of Christian hope…we will have new bodies that will never die.
@MTX Here is a reader’s digest version of how we got started on this tangent while talking about Mary: I asked MWF which protestant sects rejected her proper title of “Theotokos” and pointed out most reformed denominations formally adhere to this even if many balk at other aspects of Mariology (I full embrace Mary as the mother of God, but I reject her status as sinless, co-mediatrix/redemptrix, etc…). Part of the barriers I have to accepting a sinless Mary is that if there were a way for Adam’s descendants to be shielded from the curse of original sin apart from Christ’s atoning work, it is rather cruel of the Father not to take away his Son’s cup when the Son pled for that in the garden…I know, not a very original objection, but there you go…anyway somewhere in there I said something about death coming from Adam (no sin, no death) which Tom apparently objects to on the basis of science (is that about right Tom?).
LikeLike
Looks like standard stuff went on here today while I was golfing. I am going to the A’s / Yankees game tomorrow.
Since RCatholics are just like Yankee fans, just sayin’
MichaelTX, if you want to stay and chat for an extended period of time, anytime here, I got your back. You are to me the most level headed and thoughtful Roman Catholic interlocutor here. Congrads. You do Darryl and this blog a great service by your presence, don’t take this as flattery only. Grace and peace.
LikeLike
Mermaid, so you think all of Rome’s 1.2 billion are solidly saved?
Have you not been reading the news?
Anyway, what’s wrong with being a remnant? Poor church for the poor, remember? But then that Yankee triumpalism and we have more pennants than anyone rears its head.
Say five hail Mary’s and get back to us in the morning.
LikeLike
TVD: Why do y’all devote so much time to backbiting?
Oxford: Backbiting (n): malicious talk about someone who is not present.
Nope. You are certainly present, and my comment, while snarky, had no considered malice.
It did certainly have a point. And that point, if it must be spelled out, is that a large part of the Catholic apologetic (including yours) is that Protestants lack certainty because they cannot point to an infallible interpretation of the infallible text.
“We have such an infallible interpretation!” is the message.
But it turns out that, even provided an infallible interpretation of Scripture within the dogma of the Church, you now have trouble interpreting that interpretation. Hence, you and Michael are engaged in (a healthy) discussion of what the church dogma of creation entails and doesn’t entail. And in so doing, you are sounding just like Protestants discussing the Bible. “Here’s an expert opinion.” “That one doesn’t address my argument.” “Here are the non-negotiables.”
The only difference is that you are Catholics discussing the Magisterial teaching in the same manner in which Protestants discuss the Bible.
This is not actually surprising. The OT Jews produced a set of commentary designed to elucidate the difficulties in the Torah. This was the Talmud. Yet the Talmud itself had its own difficulties, leading to various schools of interpretation and eventually into picayune commentary on the Talmud called pilpul. And that led…
The point behind the snark was not to bite you in the back while you face forward, but to alert you to the fact that the Catholic method simply pushes the discussion back one level. Instead of having evidence-based discussions of Scripture, you now have to have evidence-based discussions of the Catechism.
LikeLike
MichaelTX
Posted May 29, 2015 at 9:35 pm | Permalink
I will add one more quote. It is from Vatican II.
“Although the mystery of death utterly beggars the imagination, the Church has been taught by divine revelation and firmly teaches that man has been created by God for a blissful purpose beyond the reach of earthly misery. In addition, that bodily death from which man would have been immune had he not sinned(14) will be vanquished, according to the Christian faith, when man who was ruined by his own doing is restored to wholeness by an almighty and merciful Saviour.
Yeah, but that’s quote-grabbing now, and even if it’s normative doctrine [which I’m not litigating here], it’s not dogma. Come up with an explicit ex cathedra anathema that if you don’t believe there was some guy named Adam you’re excommunicated and going to hell and you win your point. Winning seems important to you.
Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn, so if the fate of my eternal soul rests on believing there was a literal immortal human being named Adam who ate some fruit he shouldn’t’ve, then OK, fine, I believe, I believe. Mercy.
You’re getting this Catholic thing down, good, dude. Submit or be damned. You just done saved my soul.
Next!
LikeLike
@Tom
I’m not following your distinction between dogma and doctrine. I mean, I know the difference, but I don’t see why that difference is relevant here. While dogma demands the full assent of faith, all doctrine requires submission of the intellect and will. What am I missing?
LikeLike
Come on Tom. If the only thing you’re willing to consider dogma are ex-cathedra statements, you ain’t got much dogma. You need to better than that. That’s a recipe for cafeteria Catholicism if there ever was one.
LikeLike
TVD, Ok for clarity, this is a canon from the Council of Carthage(419-18) which received general imprimatur by the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nicea.
Canon 109.
That Adam was not created by God subject to death
That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body— that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.
LikeLike
Jeff,
If I may comment on the need for an interpreter of the interpreter idea… At first blush it has a valid point to it. I would say on a deeper look though there are at least three principle ideas I think that would help clarify the trouble.
1) The Church is a living interpreter which progressively clarifies doctrine and dogma as time moves forward from age to age as problems face earlier dilemmas in different ways and with different arguments. This makes for a more limited latitude in unclear areas as time progresses and theological discernment continues to unfold the truth relayed in the beginning.
2)Requires a initial discernment of the motives of credibility of the Church being the Body of Christ in which the Holy Spirit “leads into all Truth.” This of course is a premise the Catholic accepts while the non-Catholic has to discern. Once excepted though, this creates the atmosphere in which the boundaries of dogma create a playground of thought freeing the inquirer to dig deeper into the mine of Truth for greater treasures.
3) Lastly, the Catholic in no wise abandons Scripture in his endeavor for the search of truth. This make it where he has the added tool of Holy Spirit inspired and protected dogma to clarify faulty interpretations of Scripture and move to understand the truth which he seeks in the discernment process and leads him to be at peace in the quiet contemplative Christian devotion life with the Lord, whom we meet in and through the Scriptures.
Just some thoughts. Peace,
Michael
LikeLike
Jeff,
“The point behind the snark was not to bite you in the back while you face forward, but to alert you to the fact that the Catholic method simply pushes the discussion back one level. Instead of having evidence-based discussions of Scripture, you now have to have evidence-based discussions of the Catechism.”
I don’t know any RCs who claim there is no interpretation going on or must be alerted to that fact – that’s silly – no interpretation or refinement would mean there could never be any theological development whatsoever but obviously Rome affirms and practices that, so perhaps that’s a clue that the fact everyone must interpret doesn’t actually interact with the substance of her claims in contrast to Protestant claims. If the Catholic method always merely pushed the discussion back one level to the level of Protestant disputes, there could never be any infallible dogma. But there are infallible dogmas per Rome’s claims, and only one such example of infallible dogma is needed to illuminate the difference in what the two system’s claims/principles can yield.
LikeLike
Michael and Tom,
I don’t think I’ve read everything that you have said to each other over the last couple of days, so I could have missed something important, but isn’t it the case that all we have to recognize is an individual “adam” and an individual “eve” as being the one’s to whom God gave spiritual bodies ( The first man, Adam, was made into a living soul… 1Cor 15:45), and who represent the human race, even if their forefathers were hominids and not yet evolved enough to be made Image bearers? Correct me if I’m wrong.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted May 29, 2015 at 10:10 pm | Permalink
TVD: Why do y’all devote so much time to backbiting?
Oxford: Backbiting (n): malicious talk about someone who is not present.
Nope. You are certainly present, and my comment, while snarky, had no considered malice.
Oh, there’s plenty of big talk behind my back, Jeff. And talking about me in the 3rd person qualifies too. Let’s stay real.
It did certainly have a point. And that point, if it must be spelled out, is that a large part of the Catholic apologetic (including yours) is that Protestants lack certainty because they cannot point to an infallible interpretation of the infallible text.
“We have such an infallible interpretation!” is the message.
Not my understanding of “infallible interpretation,” Jeff, because I’m discussing the difference between doctrine [proposed, propositional] and dogma [infallible].
This is a productive discussion between you and me, you being a manifestly reasonable man.
But it turns out that, even provided an infallible interpretation of Scripture within the dogma of the Church, you now have trouble interpreting that interpretation.
Well no, that’s not what happened, see above. Michael is insisting that a literal Adam is Catholic dogma; my studies of Catholicism suggest that it’s OK to believe Adam is figurative.
Hence, you and Michael are engaged in (a healthy) discussion of what the church dogma of creation entails and doesn’t entail. And in so doing, you are sounding just like Protestants discussing the Bible. “Here’s an expert opinion.” “That one doesn’t address my argument.” “Here are the non-negotiables.”
Well, thanks for your interlocution between Brother Michael and me, Brother Cagle, but that’s not what’s up here atall, atall. We are discussing only what the Catholic Church holds as dogma or as doctrine.
The only difference is that you are Catholics discussing the Magisterial teaching in the same manner in which Protestants discuss the Bible.
This is a discussion anyone could have, Catholic or not. In fact they should have, if they are honest seekers. This particular discussion has nothing to do with the Catholic Church or its magisterium. It’s actually a sola scriptura discussion, and how literally we should take genesis, and how grave the penalties might be to not take the story of Adam literally.
This is not actually surprising. The OT Jews produced a set of commentary designed to elucidate the difficulties in the Torah. This was the Talmud. Yet the Talmud itself had its own difficulties, leading to various schools of interpretation and eventually into picayune commentary on the Talmud called pilpul. And that led…
Yes, that is Protestantism, of your stripe, I make it. No temple, no Eucharist. No sacrifice. The Reformation per Calvinism*, shed of the Eucharist, is as the Jewish synagogue, debating every jog and tittle of the scriptures.
The point behind the snark was not to bite you in the back while you face forward, but to alert you to the fact that the Catholic method simply pushes the discussion back one level. Instead of having evidence-based discussions of Scripture, you now have to have evidence-based discussions of the Catechism.
I’m glad there was no malice intended, Jeff. I’ll take you at your word. You have been a principled and engaging fellow.
_______________
* Did John Calvin shed the Eucharist, or just his successor church? I’m not sure yet–reading up on it. Good question, don’t you think? This is fascinating, Jeff. I come here to learn, or failing that, to be spurred to look up stuff. Hope it’s the same with you. Cheers.
LikeLike
You need to read this
http://www.amazon.com/Post-Reformation-Reformed-Dogmatics-Development-Orthodoxy/dp/0801026180
Tom, your new name is ad-hom Tom. Thanks for attacking me in this thread. Don’t think I’m not reading.I know your opinions and your desire to learn. I have volume one of Richard Muller’s Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. What do you want to know? Like Ragu, its all in there.
LikeLike
Please elaborate. Reformed ecclesiology is stronger because itnuses the example of Jesus (“for it is written”) and hence the wildly successful movement started by Martin Luther in the 16th century (with Hus and Wycliffe as proto protestants) in bringing the truths of the Christian religion to the masses for the saving of many souls. I beg your pardon, but just what good does the roman scheme yield that is prevented by our sides ecclesiology? Per our view, yours is deficient, we see no where in the OT or NT precedent for the the outlandish claims such as papal infallibility or co-mediatrix. Sorry, but your system only breeds more error, and simply given the stamp “infallible” when hardly anyone in your church follows it, believes it, much less follows what she says. Different our respective ecclesiologies may be, one is better, one worse. It’s clear which is which, ya feel me?
LikeLike
(Not Melody, Meghan Maloney, was her name, I remember being quite flummoxed, that was just weird).
I think tom just needs attention, mainly. I think he “drunk duals” too, on occasion. I mean, that mouth of his, sometimes. Good grief Charlie Brown.
LikeLike
^^^wrong thread please delete ^^^
LikeLike
#payprayobey
LikeLike
vd, c, and the fact that only two infallible dogmas exist, where papal infallibility was used, that’s supposed to explain all the certainty that Protestants converts think they have by becoming Roman Catholic? At least the doctrine of papal infallibility (not the actual teaching of popes) and the bodily assumption of Mary prove Roman Catholic superiority.
At least the Yankees have more championships than that. And at least more evangelicals believe in the Trinity than U.S. Roman Catholics. So much diversity, so little infallible dogma.
What possibly do the converts sees that Protestants don’t?
LikeLike
vd, t, “No temple, no Eucharist. No sacrifice. The Reformation per Calvinism*, shed of the Eucharist, is as the Jewish synagogue, debating every jog and tittle of the scriptures.”
So Rome is the OT Temple? Of course.
#readHebrews
LikeLike
Well, I appreciate all that you, MichaelTX, have shared. I also recognize that you are within the parameters set out by the Church. However, not to offend you, but it seems that you are more Catholic than the Pope on this. Here is what Fesser pointed out about Pope Pius XII’s Humani Generis.
“Notice that what the pope opens the door to is the possibility in principle of an evolutionary explanation of the human body, specifically, not of human beings full stop. Nor does the pope say that exactly two such bodies will have to have been generated by evolution for an evolutionary explanation to be reconcilable with Catholic doctrine. He also insists that the human soul can only have come from God. “
The special creation has to do with the human soul, not necessarily the human body, or even two specific human bodies. It is the human soul that makes us human. Yes, we need a human body as well, but it is the soul that bears the image of God.
What Fesser said in the article Tom linked to is similar to what Susan said above as well, and I think also consistent with what Tom said.
Also, check the sources you quoted. Are they not focusing on the human soul as well as the human body? Not sure.
Again, not to show you disrespect, or to even disagree with you, but to point out that the others here are also well within the limits set out by the Church.
This may not be settled for a couple hundred years, even, since we know very little, really. It may never be settled.
In the meantime, the opening chapters of the book of Genesis teach us the same theological truths they always have. That does not change. That is a big difference between the modernistic Protestant churches – and Protestant has a very wide range of meaning – and the Catholic Church. The modernists threw out the theology and were left with nothing.
The Church has not caved to modernism just because she is allowing a certain liberty in the discussion of the doctrine of the origin of man. There is no liberty when it comes to the human soul created in the image of God. There is no liberty when it comes to the human soul needing a human body. Otherwise, the resurrection of the dead makes no sense, nor does the Incarnation for that matter.
LikeLike
@MWF Just to be clear, my original statement that started all this was “no sin, no death”. Tom rejected this as fundamentalism. I clarified that I only mean the death of human beings. Tom rejects this. Are you saying that the Catholic dogma does not proscribe the belief that death among humans is a consequence of the fall?
If so, this is really interesting in light of the discussions that have occurred here among CVT, KW, Susan, and the CtC – their claim has been (and lurkers here, please correct me if I am wrong) is that the RC paradigm is superior to the protestant paradigm because she can settle theological disputes with certain as her magisterium is infallible. When dogma is declared (either by a pope speaking ex cathedra, a council stating something definitively, or the bishops and pope speaking in unison definitively) it cannot change. Thus the RC has a certainty the protestant lacks.
Now MTX cites the seventh ecumenical council where the bishops spoke in unison and declared the belief (infallibly) that,
This seems pretty clear to me, but you seem to be saying that this belief is not necessary any more. But if the others I noted above are correct, this is still binding and cannot change. In fact, one who rejects this has excommunicated himself. Am I missing something?
LikeLike
b, sd, don’t you know you can believe whatever you want in fellowship with the Bishop of Rome? No modernism here.
LikeLike
Sounds like he’s protestant.
LikeLike
Mrs Webfoot,
I wish you had waited for my response to Susan, but I realize you are not writing to be disrespectful. The “more Catholic than the Pope” things is a bit borderline. I hope it was in jest. Anyway, I do know the Church “allows” liberty in this discussion in both the Catholic scientist and Catholic Theologian, but that is within certain parameters. One of which is the entirety of the human family existing is descents of a single fallen couple than in the beginning were immortal. This is the problem I am running into with TVD admitting as Catholic teaching.
Susan,
That area of study is allowed in the Church. It is not taught by the Church. That is why I posted the line from Humani Generis which says, “Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.” And then clearly it move on to limit what things can be in question saying “there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”
Now if in some way it can be explained how excluding polygenism the Pope is not precisly talking about the idea that all human being alive can not be descendants from more than one couple and how it being required to believe all living humans today descending from one couple, then there is something interesting regarding this discussion. I do not see how that can be done without emptying out the meaning of words and there original intent.
This quote may also be interesting from Humani Generis: “In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.”
My main point in continuing here is to let it be recognize among the Catholics here that our first parents were created immortal in body and soul.
I restate this anathema from the Council of Carthage(418-19) which was received into the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nicaea, “That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body— that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.”
LikeLike
@ MichaelTX:
Thanks for your explanation. It is clear and consonant with what I have heard from other Catholics. In the spirit of taking a deeper look, let’s have a second blush.
This is a good way of putting it. It describes Catholic doctrine as a structure similar to Euclidean Geometry. We begin with premises (in this case, the central axiom being that the Church is guided by the Spirit into all truth) upon which are built various theorems.
The caution, however, is that such a structure does not guarantee truth or certainty. Rather, it provides a contingent truth: My theorems are all true if I have correctly understood the motives of credibility.
In other words, the act of accepting the MOC does not make them true. It simply establishes a system, the Catholic system of doctrine. The truth value of the statements in your system is still contingent upon the truth value of propositions concerning the MOC.
In a way, this is a side-point or new front in the discussion. However, it will be relevant below.
MTX: 1) The Church is a living interpreter which progressively clarifies doctrine and dogma as time moves forward from age to age as problems face earlier dilemmas in different ways and with different arguments. This makes for a more limited latitude in unclear areas as time progresses and theological discernment continues to unfold the truth relayed in the beginning.
That is the theory. But here’s the reality on the ground. Neither you nor Tom has access to the infallible living interpreter of which you speak. Rather, you have access to
* Documents produced by the Church, and
* Verbal statements produced by the chain of command (priests-bishops-archbishops…)
Those now all require interpretation, and at each point of interpretation, fallibility creeps in. And since there is fallibility at each point in the process, it is entirely possible that there might be additional latitude as time goes on, rather than less.
Two examples:
(1) Was there greater latitude in the Catholic understanding of the salvation of Protestants (a) after Trent but before Vatican II, or (b) after Vatican II? Without having exhaustive historical knowledge, I would suggest that Catholics after Trent were pretty clear that Protestants were going to Hell. After Vatican II, the situation is hopelessly murky. Protestants are separated brethren, hence not necessarily going to Hell; yet they are outside the Church, and there is no salvation outside the Church; and further, they do not partake of the sacraments, so they cannot have the stain of sin cleansed from them in any event; and further…
Now, you may think (probably do think) that the clarity that reigned from Trent to V2 was illusory. Catholics were clear but simply wrong. And that’s fine. I would actually agree!
But the point is that V2 actually opened up considerable latitude that no-one had perceived before, and frankly cannot be the final word on the matter, since the boundaries keep being pushed (“What about muslims? atheists who are good people?”)
(2) Recent developments in the church teaching on homosexuality have led to greater, not lesser, latitude. The third and fourth Lateran Councils (article 11, canon 14 resp.) were unequivocal on what should happen to priests who sinned, and Catholic writers were clear in condemning both the orientation and the act.
More recently, there has been a refinement: The orientation is disordered, but the act is sinful.
Well, OK, but that now leads to greater latitude, not less. Witness the proliferation of statements from Francis that clarify, then clarify the clarification, etc.
Here’s the relevance of the “contingent” part of your system. It should read,
Assuming that the Catholic’s understanding of the MOC is correct, then he is in no wise abandoning the Scripture, …
But if it is not correct, then the Catholic might well be abandoning Scripture by trying to force it to cohere with an additional set of propositions, some of which might over-determine the text.
So the MOC contingency has an effect not only on the truth value of your system, but also on its clarity. It might well be that the Catholic ends up muddying an otherwise clear text of Scripture in an effort to force a fit with Catholic doctrine.
And if that is the case, then the Catholic has “abandoned Scripture” — or at least confounded it.
That’s my deeper look. Perhaps you have a deeper one still?
LikeLike
Without reading, MichaelTX, learn about Dr. Poythress, PHD in Mathematics at Harvard, professor at WTS, interviewed about his book redeeming mathematics. The science/faith issue is my favorite pet project since I was in college in 2001 and found the opc. Roman Catholicism didn’t hit my radar until I heard the name Jason Stellman for the first time over 3 years ago now. One more comment..
LikeLike
@ CVD: I don’t know any RCs who claim there is no interpretation going on or must be alerted to that fact – that’s silly – no interpretation or refinement would mean there could never be any theological development whatsoever but obviously Rome affirms and practices that, so perhaps that’s a clue that the fact everyone must interpret doesn’t actually interact with the substance of her claims in contrast to Protestant claims.
Sorry, I didn’t fully catch this? The “interpretation” I was speaking of is the interpretation that the layman must do, whereas doctrinal development happens far up the hierarchy at councils.
CVD: If the Catholic method always merely pushed the discussion back one level to the level of Protestant disputes, there could never be any infallible dogma.
This is not an obvious inference to me. We would agree that Romans is infallible, yet we would still have to hash out its meaning. How is it different if we were to hypothetically agree that Vatican 2 is infallible?
I’m not sure, but you seem to be talking about something related but different from the topic.
LikeLike
I got over 100 comments on this thread, in case my positions are of interest. The whole convo of about 260 comments is worth checking, or at least seeing how it ended.
LikeLike
Andrew,
I am thoroughly Catholic on this, but a Catholic who has his conscience bound by Scripture, Tradition , the Magisterium and sound reason sounds a lot like a Protestant who has his conscience bound by Scripture and sound reason, as Luther would contend. I just have more sources of conviction to back me up, which I believe is supported and acknowledged by Scripture, but that is a tangent we could get into some other time I suppose.
LikeLike
MichaelTX, noted.
It’s a playful dig, I steal from DGH, to be honest:
Jeff,
I do not want to get much deeper. The only point I will make is that you are correct that if the MOC are improperly discerned then Catholic truth falls like a house of cards. Point agreed, but the same applies to discerning the historical claims of the New Testament authors and the foundations of Christianity and Judaism upon which we are built. We are a historical MOC religion, Catholic and Protestant alike. Descernment is required, but “fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”. God will in no wise abandon His children to despair whom seek Him with all their heart.
LikeLike
@ MTX: Fair enough. Thanks for the interactions!
LikeLike
Oh Jeff,
I did forget to mention one thing. TVD and myself, can go to the living office holders of the Magisterium to settle our dispute, though it is possible that we will be told that this clarity is not defined at this time and we must accept each others position as a valid possibility at the current time in Church history. Even if we don’t have a common Bishop we can go to, we can write to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and get clarification. This is done quite regularly. Even with things as simple as, are all the faithful in the US require to receive Holy Communion in the hand or not. Clarification does come.
LikeLike
MichaelTX, but wouldn’t it be great if you could meet with bishops (overseers) in your own parish for the answer. Subsidiarity has its appeal, especially in a centralized and bloated bureaucracy (for the poor, of course).
LikeLike
Well, it was an attempt to get you to acknowledge that what Fesser was arguing in his article is thoroughly Catholic. Check out Fr. Barron as well on this. If you have a problem with them, then you have a problem with your Mother.
So, I am not convinced that you are worthy of my respect. That depends on your answer to my question. Do you accept both Fesser and Fr. Barron as being thoroughly Catholic and well within the parameters that our Mother sets out for us?
http://www.wordonfire.org/resources/video/misreading-genesis/174/
You need to earn my respect, not demand that I respect your position just because you are you and you have it all figured out.
LikeLike
@ MTX: I did forget to mention one thing. TVD and myself, can go to the living office holders of the Magisterium to settle our dispute, though it is possible that we will be told that this clarity is not defined at this time and we must accept each others position as a valid possibility at the current time in Church history.
Right, so that goes back to my point on (1). You mention that it is possible that you will be told that clarity is not defined, in which case you know that you don’t know.
But what if the living magisterium is simply confused or mistaken? Then you will get an answer, believe that you have truth, and yet do not.
Anyways, I don’t want to drag this out, but I did want to emphasize that my response to (1) was trying to address precisely that situation.
LikeLike
Mrs. WebFoot,
I have yet to figure out how we keep getting off of the wrong foot. I do not expect you to respect my position, I expect we all should be discerning the Church’s position of the topic. Namely, was there an individual couple through whom sin entered the world than prior to they were immortal in body and soul. Many things can be discussed and studied, but that is clear in Church teaching. I can’t see how I can make that more clear.
Now concerning Fr. Barron, I have a great deal of respect for Fr Barron and appreciate his work in the Body of Christ, especially in regards to the New Evangelization. I completely agree with Barron that the initial chapters of Genesis have theological and mystical truth that are being relayed and are not to be taken as a science text book, but when he says Adam is not to be taken as a individual… I say he is outside of Church teaching. I am not the Pope. I am responsible for believing the truth presented by the Church though and that to all my understanding is a truth presented by the Church to be believed as de fide dogma. Please correct me if I am wrong. Of course I am not infallible and can be wrong, but so can Fr Barron.
I will add, what Fesser speculates on is within the area of allowable theological speculation. Now if he seeks to say that is the absolute truth, then he will be outside of his bounds.
So we can possibly get on a slightly similar page will you acknowledge this as truth:
“That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body— that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.”-Council of Carthage(the same council that condemned Pelagianism and was ratified at the 7th Ecumenical Council)
LikeLike
Tom must be off hobnobbing at some L.A. garden party this afternoon. Either that or down at the yacht club.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Nice comment on latitude.
If Francis is making Catholic life more stringent, not less, he’s going to have to give back a lot of those man-of-the-year awards.
LikeLike
Michael,
From what you know of Tom & Mrs. Web foot from here, would you say you are comfortable with them being Roman Catholic apologists?
LikeLike
Erik,
I don’t know that I could judge such a matter. It has been a few years since I hung out in here. I am here just defending one point of Church teaching. I will say I hope and pray they can come to acknowledge and submit to a Church anathema.
LikeLike
Michael,
Thanks.
They come here claiming to be protecting the Church against Darryl’s smears, so it’s helpful for us non-Catholics to know if they are misrepresenting Catholic teaching themselves. Pretty serious if they are not in submission to a Church anathema.
LikeLike
We Catholics can always run into a Church anathema we were unaware of. The question is what we do when we find it in our face. That is what makes or brakes the Catholic.
LikeLike
MichaelTX, then if you say that Fr. Barron is outside Catholic teaching on this, then I say you are outside Catholic teaching on this. No, your position is not outside Catholic teaching, but you are being dogmatic where the Church is not.
I would encourage you to listen to Fr. Barron and read Fesser carefully.
Thinking in terms of the creation of the human soul – and “ensoulment” vs. “embodiment.” Think in terms of what being human means and what makes us human instead of merely animal. Our bodies make us animal. Our human soul is what is made in the image of God.
Take care, brother
LikeLike
Is that no comment on the anathema then, Mrs Webfoot. I would ask Fr. Barron the same thing. This is no disrespect to you or him. Is that statement Church teaching or not?
LikeLike
Mrs. Webfoot,
I don’t have the quote handy, but I think it was aristotle who said that animals live by instinct.
We humans do not live by instinct alone.
You guys looking for unfettered theological discussion most certainly need to check out the subreddits for religious dialogue, we reformed have our outlets, there’s a protestantism channel, catholic channel, christianity channel, everything you could possibly want. There’s even www[dot]reddit.com/r/Treknobabble/
no offense, but I hope Darryl doesn’t give 2 seconds to most comments posted at this blog. It’s insane to see how people just go on and on and on. Glass houses, I know I know, but still. I hope he doesn’t even read my comments anymore. Anyone feel me?
LikeLike
MichaelTX, isn’t it your bishop’s responsibility to acquaint you with church anathemas? Not trying to get you. I just continue to be amazed at how ineffective episcopacy is.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted May 30, 2015 at 1:54 pm | Permalink
Now MTX cites the seventh ecumenical council where the bishops spoke in unison and declared the belief (infallibly) that,
This seems pretty clear to me, but you seem to be saying that this belief is not necessary any more. But if the others I noted above are correct, this is still binding and cannot change. In fact, one who rejects this has excommunicated himself. Am I missing something?
This is a very good argument. But is every single statement made by every single council over 2000 years absolute dogma, infallible?
I don’t believe that’s Catholic theology. I would think there’s an anathema somewhere about the sun revolving around the earth, so is that still in force?
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=6712451&postcount=126
in 1893, Pope Leo XIII produced his all encompassing encyclical letter on the Bible, Providentissimus Deus. In it, as well as setting out all the rules, advice and warnings as to how the Scriptures should and should not be interpreted, in a paragraph entitled ‘natural science’, gave approval to an exegesis that had been advocated first by Galileo. This new hermeneutics allowed certain interpretations of the Fathers to be ignored; ‘for it may be that, in commentating on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect.’
Sorry, but arguing with someone who trolls Google seeking not the whole truth, but only to prove his understanding of it, is not only unproductive but boring.
And sorry, Michael. By not researching this properly, all you’re doing is giving ammo for the blog host and others to sneer at the Catholic Church, at contradictions that don’t actually exist.
LikeLike
Anyone here catch my comment about trolls? Anyone come to mind?
Anyone?
LikeLike
Speaking of episcopacy, article in the WSJ yesterday about U.K. Methodists apologizing for nearly 2,000 cases of alleged sexual & emotional abuse over more than 60 years.
This might not be a Catholic vs. Protestant issue as much as it is an issue of the episcopal form of church government. I don’t think Presbyterians & Baptists are generally guilty of moving abusers from church to church.
LikeLike
Tom,
It’s about time. Who gave you the day off?
LikeLike
Tom,
You’re not familiar with schadenfreude?
LikeLike
@ TVD: I didn’t say any of what you quoted me as saying. Just take a look at the permalink.
LikeLike
“contradictions that don’t actually exist”
Ireland doesn’t exist.
What the UK has said for years.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted May 30, 2015 at 4:41 pm | Permalink
@ TVD: I didn’t say any of what you quoted me as saying. Just take a look at the permalink.
So sorry, Jeff. I’m trying not to get sucked into this again, for as you can see, as long as the distinction between normative doctrine and non-negotiable dogma is elided, this serves only to make Michael’s own church fodder for ridicule.
__________
D. G. Hart
Posted May 30, 2015 at 4:48 pm | Permalink
“contradictions that don’t actually exist”
Ireland doesn’t exist.
What the UK has said for years.
Formerly “Catholic” country Ireland goes gay. Presbyterian Elder Darryl Hart cannot conceal his glee, drags it in even when it’s totally irrelevant to the discussion.
Darryl Hart’s actual “parent” Church of Scotland goes gay. Crickets from Elder Hart. Calvinism: A History.
LikeLike
Anyone!?
LikeLike
DG,
Well said. Catechesis in the American Catholic Church is so poor in general it is ridiculous.
“Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. In this case, moreover, it is required of stewards that one be found trustworthy. ” 1 Cor 4:2
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Heb 13:17
I have enough to deal with in teaching my kids… Glad god had not called me to be a Bishop.
LikeLike
Tom,
As outsiders how are we to know who is right between you & Michael?
I thought the point of Catholicism was to alleviate disagreements & division?
Are you ready to stand hand-in-hand with Michael without rancor? You seemed kind of irritated with him last night.
He thinks you’re ignoring an anathema. That’s a big deal in your religion. Doesn’t that put your soul in danger?
LikeLike
Of course we listen to Michael. He self idenfies RC.
Tom identifies as undeclared. Always take horse’s mouth.
Michael, thanks again for being here. Don’t listen to Tom. We can share emails offline if we need to. Take care of yourself.
LikeLike
TVD,
I don’t know how to get anywhere here. That anathema is not a encyclical or a statement by a Pope off the cuff or in some papal bull or somebody in an arm of some curia under a lone bishop some where or some theologain of report interpreting the Bible. Those would be the types of things Pope Leo was talking about in the 1897 encyclical, which is a great read. That is a Ecumenical Council approved anathema. Every other anathema in that council is right inline with Catholic teaching. Why ignore this one? Did the Holy Spirit take off that day at the 7th Ecumenical Council and just allow this to be approved by the Bishops of the Church, including the Pope’s approval, while it had a erroneous anathema in it. Did the bishops forget to read it? How do we excuse something that clear. Of course we can expect things including anathemas to receive elucidation though the ages, but how do you elucidate that to say the original parent(Adam) of the whole of the human race was not bodily immortal?
TVD, I want to see a valid anathema reguarding the circling of the sun. That would be interesting. Please share your source.
LikeLike
I’m not resting until Tom & Michael make beautiful music together, with Mrs. Webfoot on backup vocals:
LikeLike
From the Catechism(360):Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for “from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth”
Then the Catechism footnotes these Scriptures for clarification:
Acts 17:26 And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,
Tobit 8:66 Thou madest Adam and gavest him Eve his wife as a helper and support.From them the race of mankind has sprung.Thou didst say, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.’
LikeLike
I do thank you for your graciousness, MichaelTX, and recognize that as a sign of our Mother’s influence. In that way I respect you, since you are truly my brother. I also respect your hard work in trying to understand and embrace the truth. Yes, there is a lot to respect there, so I hope you understand what part I think you have misunderstood.
You’re okay, brother, and thank you for coming here to share what you have discovered. You are gracious to Fr. Barron, even though you think he is outside the bounds set by the Church. That shows good character and maturity. I noticed.
It is nice to meet you.
Warmest regards,
Mrs. Webfoot, not a mermaid
LikeLike
Erik, you didn’t honestly ask whom between MTX and TVD to listen to….
LikeLike
(O.K. – Now lets see if Michael lets Mrs. Webfoot off the hook and if Tom can muster a similarly gracious response…not betting on the latter…)
LikeLike
Kent,
I’m just George Webber watching all this through my telescope.
LikeLike
MichaelTX
Posted May 30, 2015 at 5:41 pm | Permalink
From the Catechism(360):Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for “from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth”
Then the Catechism footnotes these Scriptures for clarification:
Acts 17:26 And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,
Tobit 8:66 Thou madest Adam and gavest him Eve his wife as a helper and support.From them the race of mankind has sprung.Thou didst say, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.’
Michael, you’re not listening to anything I say, and playing the Bible verse game like any brain-dead fundie does. You’re trolling the internet only for arguments that help you “win.” You have not researched this properly, and now all you’re doing is bringing your own church into disrepute with people who will turn on you and rend you tomorrow at the drop of a theological hat.
Please let me go now. A literal Adam as you understand one is not scientifically viable. I’ve given you a theological out per Feser and Thomism that leaves the Bible’s metaphysical truth unmolested. Per Augustine, to insist on scientific absurdity as the price of faith is neither necessary nor wise. Further,
19. The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect.
Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith-what they are unanimous in. For “in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,”(55) according to the saying of St. Thomas. And in another place he says most admirably: “When philosophers are agreed upon a point, and it is not contrary to our faith, it is safer, in my opinion, neither to lay down such a point as a dogma of faith, even though it is perhaps so presented by the philosophers, nor to reject it as against faith, lest we thus give to the wise of this world an occasion of despising our faith.”,/B>–Leo XIII, PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, 1893
http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-
Do not give to the wise of this world an occasion of despising your faith, brother. Rule One.
LikeLike
Mrs Webfoot,
Please look at the above quotes. Is Fr Barron teaching what the Catechism and the Scriptures say, when he says there is no original Adam like first parent? In this particular area I believe him to be heterodox.
Here is some articles regarding his stance on this issue:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/09/fr-robert-barron-denies-that-adam-was.html
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2013/11/fr-robert-barrons-denial-that-adam-and.html
http://catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2012/05/another-reason-to-avoid-fr-barron.html
If you are needing a respected priest to speak on this[individual Adam], this last small article is from Fr John Hardin, a deceased priest who has a very strong cause going for canonization.
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/God/God_012.htm
I really am confused as to why admitting there was an individual Adam who fell into sin in the begin is such a hard thing to admit.
LikeLike
Erik – O.K. – Now lets see if Michael lets Mrs. Webfoot off the hook and if Tom can muster a similarly gracious response…not betting on the latter…)
Tom – Michael, you’re not listening to anything I say, and playing the Bible verse game like any brain-dead fundie does
Erik – Nope.
LikeLike
Michael,
Ask Tom how he scientifically defends transubstantiation to the wise of this world.
Is he free to believe that Christ is only symbolically or spiritually present and not violate Church dogma?
LikeLike
Erik, you’re not part of this discussion. You’re not part of the discussion on the other thread [neither am I] either, but there you are, stirring up drama and ill will there too. Further, your habit of reading the first sentence or two then merrily typing away is unfair and dishonest. My reproof about verse-slinging was accurate, but then I conclude, substantively and authoritatively in the words of Pope Pius himself:
____________________
Please let me go now. A literal Adam as you understand one is not scientifically viable. I’ve given you a theological out per Feser and Thomism that leaves the Bible’s metaphysical truth unmolested. Per Augustine, to insist on scientific absurdity as the price of faith is neither necessary nor wise. Further,
http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-
Do not give to the wise of this world an occasion of despising your faith, brother. Rule One.
LikeLike
Tom,
When I saw that you had likened Michael to a “brain-dead fundie” I had to go to press.
LikeLike
Tom,
You are truly THE Lance Cashman of the thological blogosphere. No awareness whatsoever at how you come off.
LikeLike
Mrs Webfoot,
I missed your last post until now. I have a post in moderation that will show up as DG gets to it that I posted before I saw your previous post. Thank you for your brotherly/sisterly acceptance and I am glad that I am not coming off as rude or disrespectful. That is most definitely not my intent. I did not wish to show up here and cause a ruckus. I just find the idea of disreguarding Scripture/Tradition/Magisterium teaching because of an unproved scientific theory that we must have come from multiple progenitors ridiculous. The science has not proved the dogma wrong. Why are we retreating in advance. Just seems unChristian to me, and most definitely unCatholic. I will ask that you seek the Lord in prayer and ask your priest before you ignore the anathema from the Council of Carthage. You have heard it now. You best make sure it is not valid. My conscience is at peace about it.
Pax Christi,
Michael
LikeLike
Mrs. Webfoot,
Being a prot I can’t go as far as Michael, but I would like to wish you a hearty “good luck” on ignoring the anathema from the Council of Carthage.
I have heard that Purgatory is painful and lasts a long time.
LikeLike
MichaelTX
Posted May 30, 2015 at 6:41 pm | Permalink
Mrs Webfoot,
I missed your last post until now. I have a post in moderation that will show up as DG gets to it that I posted before I saw your previous post. Thank you for your brotherly/sisterly acceptance and I am glad that I am not coming off as rude or disrespectful. That is most definitely not my intent. I did not wish to show up here and cause a ruckus. I just find the idea of disreguarding Scripture/Tradition/Magisterium teaching because of an unproved scientific theory that we must have come from multiple progenitors ridiculous. The science has not proved the dogma wrong. Why are we retreating in advance. Just seems unChristian to me, and most definitely unCatholic. I will ask that you seek the Lord in prayer and ask your priest before you ignore the anathema from the Council of Carthage
Clearly, in PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, 1893, Pope Pius XIII releases the Catholic conscience from assenting to scientific absurdities from the 5th century CE. Now if “winning” this debate [you have not] is more important to you than bringing your own faith and church into mockery and disrepute from its enemies, perhaps you should read Pius’s words again.
And the substantive fact is, according to Pius, church pronouncements on the physical world from over 1000 years ago are not in force if there is contrary scientific evidence. Whew, that’s a relief.
As to you, Erik–and this is the last time I’ll help you hijack this thread, for your every comment serves only to disrupt principled discussion and to fan bad feeling–I did gather some explanations on transubstantiation but decided not to post them, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces. Which is the rule, not the exception, at this here “theological society.”
As always, you get the last word.
Erik Charter
Posted May 29, 2015 at 1:34 pm | Permalink
Greg,
Your fundamental mistake is thinking that sincerity and sound logic work here. Have you not noticed that the mean emotional age of the male commenters on this site (including the host) is roughly 14 and the female contributors, with the exception of Lutheran Katy, are channeling some spaced out chick from “Serial”.
What the site is good for is screwing around and having a few laughs to break up the work day (unless you’re a government employee, in which case you need to stop screwing around cuz I’m paying your salary).
If you have some kind of serious religious objective this is the last place in the world that you should be pursuing it.
Mt 7:6 exactly.
LikeLike
Tom – As to you, Erik–and this is the last time I’ll help you hijack this thread
Erik – I think you did help me again. Did you just accuse Michael of “assenting to scientific absurdities from the 5th century CE”?
That’s hurtful.
You should share your stuff on transubstantiation if it’s good. That is a tough one to overcome using the criteria you’ve spelled out on Adam. Come on, for old time’s sake?
LikeLike
“We are fools for Christ’s sake” 1 Cor 4:10
“I do not care much what men say of me, provided God approves of me.” – St Thomas Moore
LikeLike
Tom,
You need to not lose heart with me, because when we get going we do get a lot of ground covered. I’ve seen it on e-mail, I’ve seen it on my blog, I’ve seen it here. I might mess around more than what you’re comfortable with, but I won’t take personal cheap shots. If you give me an opening, I’m taking it, though. All this stuff with Michael is an opening and you know it.
LikeLike
“I do thank you for your graciousness, MichaelTX, and recognize that as a sign of our Mother’s influence.”
But, Webster, you don’t overdo the Mary thing at all, do you?
But you have a point about MTX. Note that he is a devout Catholic who is not a propagandist. And note how the locals treat him. There’s a connection there.
LikeLike
MichaelTX strikes me as a man who goes to church with his family.
Others (no one in particular, no, really, no one, just talking here, randomly), I wonder how long it’s been and how much longer it will be.
LikeLike
Muddy Gravel,
I assumed Mrs Webfoot was speaking of Holy Mother the Church, through which Christ instructs the faithful. I could be wrong though. Mary is a “type” of the Church, so it can be easily assumed either way.
LikeLike
TVD,
Please read more of PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS and please do consider that the purpose of the document according to itself is, “the desire to give an impulse to the noble science of Holy Scripture” (not how to interpret dogma); and also to keep Scripture from “any attempt to defile or corrupt it, either on the part of those who impiously and openly assail the Scriptures, or of those who are led astray into fallacious and imprudent novelties.”
PD later says:
The opinion of the Fathers is also of very great weight when they treat of these matters in their capacity of doctors, unofficially; not only because they excel in their knowledge of revealed doctrine and in their acquaintance with many things which are useful in understanding the apostolic Books, but because they are men of eminent sanctity and of ardent zeal for the truth, on whom God has bestowed a more ample measure of His light. Wherefore the expositor should make it his duty to follow their footsteps with all reverence, and to use their labours with intelligent appreciation.
15. But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires;(40) a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate. Neither should those passages be neglected which the Fathers have understood in an allegorical or figurative sense, more especially when such interpretation is justified by the literal, and when it rests on the authority of many. For this method of interpretation has been received by the Church from the Apostles, and has been approved by her own practice, as the holy Liturgy attests; although it is true that the holy Fathers did not thereby pretend directly to demonstrate dogmas of faith, but used it as a means of promoting virtue and piety, such as, by their own experience, they knew to be most valuable. The authority of other Catholic interpreters is not so great; but the study of Scripture has always continued to advance in the Church, and, therefore, these commentaries also have their own honourable place, and are serviceable in many ways for the refutation of assailants and the explanation of difficulties.
LikeLike
MTX, OK. But then Mrs. W is going with the influence of The Church rather the Holy Spirit, which invites another question as to what or to whom we should give thanks. So does the RC focus on Christ and the godhead or does it divert/diffuse the focus? Ms. Webster?
LikeLike
@tvd you are misreading your sources. If the bishop’s teaching in unison with an ecumenical council is falsified (not what Leo or Feser was touching on), then the roman church is not infallible. Distractions about Galileo (heliocentrism was never condemned in an ecumenical council or in an ex cathedra statement). Simply put, Lutger was right and councils have erred. And as I will note again, thus goes to NT teaching and the foundation of the hope for tge resurrection.
I hope I am misreading you and you aren’t asking mtx to not contribute because it may help a particular perspective… not what i woyld expect to hear from someone just looking for truth.
LikeLike
@dgh
“b, sd, don’t you know you can believe whatever you want in fellowship with the Bishop of Rome? No modernism here.”
Reminds me of a buddy in grad school who saw no confluct between his atheism and catholicism (“I’m a cradle, I can believe whatever”).
LikeLike
MichaelTX
Posted May 30, 2015 at 8:13 pm | Permalink
“provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires”
Augustine:
Please, man. Quote-slinging is not genuine understanding. If you’re going to have a proper debate–which I’m not–we don’t jump to another section of the encyclical and then argue PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS against itself! You must engage the section I found and quoted, section 19, and argue that it doesn’t say what I believe it clearly and explicitly says, that
that we are not bound by the understanding of the physical world that the early church fathers [say, of the Council of Carthage held in 419], unless you want to argue this passage means something else.
Pope Leo foresaw in 1893 how the Christian religion would increasingly come to be brought into disrepute by arguing against reality, and indeed in 1925, the Scopes Monkey Trial did indeed, as Aquinas put it 700 years before
“give to the wise of this world an occasion of despising our faith.”
That trial was the watershed, when the Christian religion passed from being the foundation of Western Civilization to being a laughable reminder of how far modernity had lifted us above our embarrassing past, ruled by superstition and willful ignorance.
So I agree with Leo, and with Augustine and Aquinas as well, and I think they’d agree: If you’re going to be a fool for Christ, make sure it’s for Him and not for your own reasons.
Peace, Michael. I believe it was you who accosted me, and I have given you sincere reply; I hope you’ll let me go now. And keep them from spitting on my grave, if you would.
LikeLike
vd, t, the OPC tried to do something about the PCUSA. When will Pope Francis speak about Ireland?
LikeLike
“I do thank you for your graciousness, MichaelTX, and recognize that as a sign of our Mother’s influence.”
Wait, MichaelTX and Mermaid are siblings?
LikeLike
“not scientifically viable”
Welcome to the PCUSA, vd, t.
LikeLike
Tom,
You are misreading Leo. He was not referring to ecumenical councils. The idea that dogma (e.g., affirmations from ecumenical councils) may be in err is protestantism. I am pretty sure you are as wrong about your reading here as you are about orthodoxy being in communion with rome and mariology a side issue for RCs. Perhaps less refereeing some one elses blog and a bit more humility is in order?
LikeLike
I am taking my Sabbath leave and will check in on Monday.
TVD, I would not mind if you would answer one thing. I’ll look at it on Monday. Do you believe I can believe the plain sense of canon 109 from the council of Carthage and be completely within Catholic teaching today?
LikeLike
sdb
Posted May 30, 2015 at 9:53 pm | Permalink
Perhaps less refereeing some one elses blog and a bit more humility is in order?
Actually, SDB, it was Michael who addressed me first, not vice versa.
It’s your “refereeing” that’s out of line here. You’re not part of this discussion atall, and as for your opinion as to what Pope Leo meant, you’re welcome to it.
D. G. Hart
Posted May 30, 2015 at 9:45 pm | Permalink
vd, t, the OPC tried to do something about the PCUSA. When will Pope Francis speak about Ireland?
What is the difference between the Republic of Ireland and the Presbyterian Church?
One’s a country, one’s a church.
Further, I addressed your challenge previously, Darryl. The Catholic Church had dug such a hole for itself in Ireland that Francis was wise to stop digging. It’s not as though a single Irishman didn’t already know the Church’s position on this.
MichaelTX
Posted May 30, 2015 at 10:09 pm | Permalink
I am taking my Sabbath leave and will check in on Monday.
TVD, I would not mind if you would answer one thing. I’ll look at it on Monday. Do you believe I can believe the plain sense of canon 109 from the council of Carthage and be completely within Catholic teaching today?
Well, I dunno about the anathema part, but you’ve shown that belief in a literal Adam is still within the bounds of normative Catholic doctrine. Is it a dogma that binds every Catholic’s conscience? No, I don’t think so. That was the limit of my engagement with this issue.
Peace. Out.
LikeLike
@tvd
“It’s your “refereeing” that’s out of line here. You’re not part of this discussion atall, and as for your opinion as to what Pope Leo meant, you’re welcome to it.”
You are wrong again. First, it was your response to my comment, “no sin, no death” that started this. Second, just a few comments back you responded to my own comment with,
“This is a very good argument. But is every single statement made by every single council over 2000 years absolute dogma, infallible?
I don’t believe that’s Catholic theology. I would think there’s an anathema somewhere about the sun revolving around the earth, so is that still in force?”
A curious lack of involvement to be sure. Work on your reading comprehension skills and spend less time playing blog referee.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted May 30, 2015 at 10:40 pm | Permalink
@tvd
“It’s your “refereeing” that’s out of line here. You’re not part of this discussion atall, and as for your opinion as to what Pope Leo meant, you’re welcome to it.”
You are wrong again. First, it was your response to my comment, “no sin, no death” that started this. Second, just a few comments back you responded to my own comment with,
“This is a very good argument. But is every single statement made by every single council over 2000 years absolute dogma, infallible?
I don’t believe that’s Catholic theology. I would think there’s an anathema somewhere about the sun revolving around the earth, so is that still in force?”
A curious lack of involvement to be sure. Work on your reading comprehension skills and spend less time playing blog referee.
Actually my response was to Michael’s very good point. And it’s you who are playing referee between Michael and me on Pope Leo. And I don’t believe your argument intimating that every word issued by every council for 2000 years is considered infallible to be Catholic teaching. If a pope can err,
http://romancatholicism.org/duty-resist.html
I would think a council can too–especially on scientific questions in the year 419! I see no reason that Pope Leo would have excluded stuff like that, indeed that he wasn’t speaking precisely of stuff like that.
As for Catholic Church being in communion with the Eastern Orthodox, I’ve still been reading on that. The answer is yes and no. The CCC:
BF mine. In the context of the discussion we were having, this was what I meant: Unlike with Protestantism, The Catholic Church recognizes all of the sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox as licit because it views its apostolic succession [of the ordination of its priests] as licit.
[The EO position is not unified the other way around, in no small part because they don’t have a united magisterium that speaks for all of the Eastern church.]
The churches are in “communion” in the eyes of Rome, but as we know, not “full” communion, since there are also some doctrinal differences such as original sin, purgatory, and of course the papacy.
LikeLike
Who knew playing Catholic apologist on the fly could be such a bitch…
LikeLike
“A literal Adam as you understand one is not scientifically viable”.
Hey, Tom, a literal man who Eve called Adam isn’t necessary, but a literal first man is necessary. We can know that ” modern genetics has confirmed that the human race is a single, close genetic family”( Evangelium p 3).
Now I would agree with you that “forbidden fruit” and “Human fall” is figurative language to denote actual, personal sin of mankind’s first parents. But “first parents” are necessary, for all that they did possess before the fall event( gifts and graces) should have passed onto us, including bodily mortality.
LikeLike
Susan, you may have missed this [buried under all the nonsense]. Prof. Feser, besides being an elegant philosophical scholar on Aquinas and metaphysics, is also an able Catholic apologist. Here he he shows how there could be an “ensouled” First Man but still a biological pool of more than one pair of parents–thus accommodating both the findings of modern science and the Bible as metaphysical truth.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-i.html
I love stuff like this. As Pope Leo noted in 1893, truth cannot contradict truth. Reason and revelation need not be an either/or.
LikeLike
Tom & Susan,
So what kind of creature was Adam’s dad?
LikeLike
Thanks Tom,
Yes, it looks like I did miss a lot:) I haven’t read it, but be sure, I will. Fesser helped me through my quasi-atheism( because I didn’t want to be a-theist”, so I appreciate the man. Hey, he’s in Pasadena, maybe I should drop in and tell him how he helped save my faith.
Before I read it though, I’m trying to imagine how this would work… So his philosophical hypothesis is that there existed many advanced hominids( for lack of a better word) that got to a point advanced enough where “souls” could be imparted from their Creator thus making them human persons, but God only “ensouled” two people, and so the potential survival of what would become the “human race” after that point is an admixture of human persons( ensouled) and those who could “receive” the gene pool from the first humans? I’m off on a tangent and should read the article before I get carried away, but I foresee a problem with the “actual personal sin” part. This would mean that the Bible was always speaking of a collective Adam, I think.
Okay…..better go read 🙂
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted May 30, 2015 at 11:19 pm | Permalink
Who knew playing Catholic apologist on the fly could be such a bitch…
Actually, it’s very easy. When one of its detractors attacks it with a charge that seems patently absurd, it invariably proves to be so once you actually look it up. This is the church of Aquinas, and whenever Catholicism is accused of self-contradiction or idiocy, it’s the accuser who’s the idiot.
One need not agree with the Catholic Church, of course, but this is the church of Aquinas and a hundred almost as brilliant. Even if its positions aren’t God’s truth, Catholicism’s are internally coherent and logically valid. Those who search for “gotchas” on that level are wasting their time. For every objection its supposedly clever enemies come up with, there’s already a bookshelf full of rebuttals in the Vatican in reply. The critic simply has not done his homework.
Which is why I keep going back to Thomas More’s debate with the early reformer William Tyndale. His position still holds; there is nothing new under the sun, at least in 500 years.
Click to access moretyndale.pdf
I’m an apologist for a lot of things, Erik. Including creationism, at least on the grounds of religious liberty, and on the grounds that it really makes no difference in the real world: Jason Lisle’s fundamentalism didn’t prevent him from being an effective astrophysicist. I’m funny that way. Funny.
LikeLike
Susan
Posted May 31, 2015 at 12:01 am | Permalink
Thanks Tom,
Yes, it looks like I did miss a lot:) I haven’t read it, but be sure, I will. Fesser helped me through my quasi-atheism( because I didn’t want to be a-theist”, so I appreciate the man. Hey, he’s in Pasadena, maybe I should drop in and tell him how he helped save my faith.
Before I read it though, I’m trying to imagine how this would work… So his philosophical hypothesis is that there existed many advanced hominids( for lack of a better word) that got to a point advanced enough where “souls” could be imparted from their Creator thus making them human persons, but God only “ensouled” two people, and so the potential survival of what would become the “human race” after that point is an admixture of human persons( ensouled) and those who could “receive” the gene pool from the first humans? I’m off on a tangent and should read the article before I get carried away
Uh…you nailed it. Skip down to “The origin of man” section.
That’s the beauty of Thomism and the Thomistic method. It makes sense because God makes sense. Truth can never contradict truth, on earth as it is in heaven. Verrrrrry cool.
Yes, like Aquinas, Feser quiets the restless mind. You are not alone.
LikeLike
Tom,
This would help with the question of who it was that Cain and Seth, procreated with. However, it would also mean that humans( in full sense of the word) were procreating with less than humans. There would be morality issues whichever way you look at it( I think), because the arrangements are far from proto-type “families” with all the dignity that should come with that.
Is there a Part II?
LikeLike
Susan
Posted May 31, 2015 at 12:53 am | Permalink
Tom,
This would help with the question of who it was that Cain and Seth, procreated with.
I had the same thought! But hey, it beats procreating with your sister, doesn’t it?
However, it would also mean that humans( in full sense of the word) were procreating with less than humans.</i.
Now this is interesting, Susan, because new gene studies are indicating
http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2015/01/humans-and-neandertals-likely-interbred-middle-east
Now there's a disturbingly huge monkey wrench in the Adam and Eve, one pair of human parents, story! But Feser's "ensoulment" theory actually absorbs that complication. Pretty cool.
There would be morality issues whichever way you look at it( I think), because the arrangements are far from proto-type “families” with all the dignity that should come with that.
Yah, well, if you want to believe the Bible is inerrant, I don’t see why settling for inerrant metaphysical truth is all that bad. You still get the metaphysical truth of an Adam & Eve, the First Man and First Woman.
And me, I’d rather discuss classical theism and Aquinas’s Five Ways and Jesus and stuff with unbelievers than explaining why we have traces of Neanderthal genetics, whether the sun actually stood still, or whether Cain, Abel and Seth were banging their sisters, howboutyou?
Oy.
Is there a Part II?
Yah, but it gets into original sin, and I see no reason to let yourself get dragged into the tall weeds here on that. OTOH,with Feser and Aquinas getting your back, you’re more than a match for this bunch. And as always with Feser, he argues metaphysical truth rather than physically literal truth, and of course the result is elegant and moving.
LikeLike
Darryl runs a blog for catholics to sort out their diffs.
TVD’s avatars still appearing for me, they’ll be gone when Darryl wakes.
#samestuffdifferentday
LikeLike
I decided to check out happenings here before turning in for the night. Interesting.
By the way, do Catholics believe in a literal Adam and Eve? I can’t figure it out from the discussion. For the record, I with Pete Enns on this one.
LikeLike
Tom,
“And me, I’d rather discuss classical theism and Aquinas’s Five Ways and Jesus and stuff with unbelievers than explaining why we have traces of Neanderthal genetics, whether the sun actually stood still, or whether Cain, Abel and Seth were banging their sisters, howboutyou? ”
Of course, buuut, there has to be a way to keep morality always and everywhere universal( as in metaphysically true).
This reminds me of a line from Paradisio,
” Let not men take vows lightly: keep your oath,
But not with stubborn wall-eyed foolishness,
As Jephthath pledged his first-met, and kept troth;
Whom more behoved to say : “I did amiss”
Than keep it and do worse ……………….”
IOW’s, if incest and beastiality are forbidden later, then God must have provided a different way earlier, that Feser ( for all his genius), didn’t yet consider.
We’ll see:)
LikeLike
Susan
Posted May 31, 2015 at 2:43 am | Permalink
Tom,
“And me, I’d rather discuss classical theism and Aquinas’s Five Ways and Jesus and stuff with unbelievers than explaining why we have traces of Neanderthal genetics, whether the sun actually stood still, or whether Cain, Abel and Seth were banging their sisters, howboutyou? ”
Of course, buuut, there has to be a way to keep morality always and everywhere universal( as in metaphysically true).
This reminds me of a line from Paradisio,
” Let not men take vows lightly: keep your oath,
But not with stubborn wall-eyed foolishness,
As Jephthath pledged his first-met, and kept troth;
Whom more behoved to say : “I did amiss”
Than keep it and do worse ……………….”
IOW’s, if incest and beastiality are forbidden later, then God must have provided a different way earlier, that Feser ( for all his genius), didn’t yet consider.
We’ll see:)
Well, you’re onto something, Susan, though I don’t know what yet! What a great discussion.
First, though: Guys are guys, Susan. C’mon. They’ll bang anything, even some Neanderthal chick. This is human [male] nature. They’ll even bang a tree. Hell, even a gal might give in to a…
OK, OK, let’s stop here. An acceptably cute Homo Neanderthalensis female will do it for the male, especially at the bar at 2 in the morning. She doesn’t even have to be cute, just willing. There was this time that I
LikeLike
Tom,
I enjoyed your link to Fesser, has he written at any more length on human origins. It’s always been an area of particular interest to me. FWIW, I think Rome has dealt with scientific matters far better than we Prots. bave since they stopped imprisioning and burning heretics at least. NAPARC could never produce a de Chardin, and we ran off Terry Gray, which saddens this scienceophile.
LikeLike
Confirmation.
“Yes, it looks like I did miss a lot”
LikeLike
“This is the church of Aquinas.”
Well Peter or Jesus might have something to say about that. But I suspect Aquinas believed in a literal Adam. That might cause discomfort for Fesser’s mind.
But you’ve found your modernist self, vd,t. That non-literal figurative business of adapting theology to science. Welcome to the PCUSA.
LikeLike
Bobby, that means you’re with vd, t. And it means vd, t is with the PCUSA.
LikeLike
Tom & Susan,
So why did Adam’s ancestors die if sin had not yet entered into the world?
LikeLike
Susan,
You try a lot of things to assuage your doubts. Ever tried heroin?
You do realize that everything you & Tom are relying on here is complete speculation?
LikeLike
@Erik Exactly.
@Susan The comment I made that started this whole thing is that humans would not die if there were no sin. Tom decided that I was implying some kind of Genesis literalism and responded accordingly with what are really red herrings. MTX noted that the seventh (and final?) ecumenical council declared as Dogma several items such as the historicity of Adam and Eve, the Fall, and death as a consequence of sin. My understanding of the magisterium is that it is infallible and catholics are required to give their full assent of faith when one of two things happen:
1) The Pope declares something ex cathedra
2) When the Bishops and Pope define doctrine at a general council.
The seventh ecumenical council established doctrine on the fall and Adam & Eve. Tom has decided that since their declarations contradict science, the council erred.
Now I happen to agree with Tom. Even ecumenical councils that propound doctrine are not infallible. They can err. But this is not consistent with Catholicism as it has been presented by CtC, KW, CVD, or as I recall you.
LikeLike
@tvd You wrote, “Actually my response was to Michael’s very good point.”
That is really curious as I wrote,
To which you responded,
I guess I misattributed the “this”? But to answer your question, according to what I’ve read about the magisterium, doctrine taught by ecumenical councils in unison with the pope is infallible. It was Luther who suggested that councils can err. I do not think that any of the councils formally condemned Galileo. Perhaps you don’t like being told you are wrong, but in this case you most definitely are.
Remember the initial item you balked at is that human beings die because of sin. Feser, Leo, and Baron do not address the doctrine of Original Sin (which you seem to deny) in anything you’ve linked. I’ll say again, no sin, no death.
LikeLike
@dgh So I guess the historicity of Adam and Eve are required for officers in the OPC based on Terry Grey’s trial. Does the OPC require that A&E were individuals or may one believe that they represent the first group of humans? Can A&E have descended from previous primates who were “ensouled?
Is Klein’s framework hypothesis for understanding the seven days of creation acceptable still? I seem to recall that the PCA was quite down on it, but I think it is still acceptable.
LikeLike
While we’re critiquing Tom the Catholic Apologist’s fitness for office, I’m pretty sure that he’s never renounced his universalism.
LikeLike
Public Service Announcement: Erik (read: you) is not actually promoting this, he’s just being snarky.
Erik, let’s just try to get Susan and Tom to arrange a meet and go to church together.
SDB, the OPC creation report has your answers. I used up my one link and not sure I want to post another comment. Remember, these issues are ferretted out in individual sessions, and presbyteries. In my ordination interview, my creation view was most certainly on trial because my wife is a professional geologist licensed by the state of CA, coming from a family of scientists. The elders knew the right buttons to push 25 year old me, and they got me riled up, but the moderator/pastor quelled the situation because my initial answer, “i don’t know how long the days of genesis are” was truly sufficient for ordination.
The matter is much different for ruling elder, and minister, to be sure, than deacon, and it varies from presby to presby. Just relating, I’ve told about this many times, we can wait for dgh to weigh in. He’s probably off to church to teach sunday school or some other.
LikeLike
For about the 20th time, my wife did the heavy lifting to procure and answer from galactic headquarters, go to the link and find the OPC creation report. Like prego, it’s in there:
I found out how annoying Yankee’s fans are last night at the Oakland A’s game. I was about 5 rows back from home plate, best seats I have ever had, courtest of someone gifting to us two days ago, and the place was filled with yankee’s fans. A’s lost, but boy did I root my team on as I sat next to the yankee fan right next to me. Seeing A-Rod strike out twice and cheering on my team was almost as fun as golf on Friday at San Jose Muni. Almost.
Yeah, RCs are the christian religion’s yankee fans. So true, everyone needs to go to a yankee game when they come to play your home team and experience that. It’s true on many levels, I have thus now just digressed enough. Who wants to comment next? How about ↓↓↓↓↓↓↓ You, right there↓↓ ↓↓↓↓↓ Hi!
LikeLike
Look, I have one more. Oh, and Hi there, Bobby. Nice to hear from you.
There’s lots of sycretists, people should go read what’s out here:
http://bylogos.blogspot.com/2010/08/were-warfield-and-machen-reformed.html
I happen to think Machen and Warfield were indeed reformed Christians, oh, and note the words above in my comment, historicity of the creation account and special creation of Adam.
To me, the tension lies in upholding the value of what science is and has given us and continues to give, while not giving in to submitting to a scientific worldview, but instead letting our consciences in matters of faith and practice only be dictated by the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.
This (calteches[dot]library.caltech.edu/49/2/Religion.htm) has problems (just read it for yourself, and what the late Dr. Richard Feynman says near the end of about the Word of God, but he ends thusly, which to me, puts a point on why this topic is so interesting to all of us. This he gave in 1956, if I understand:
Next comment please. We are about 100 away from having 20,000 comments in the are the ctcers paying attention? I think the answer to that question is no. Who’s next?
LikeLike
Tom,
Using your “don’t let the world despise you” standard, where do you see the Church going on homosexuality?
Not many social scientists saying that there’s anything wrong with it any more. Lots of people despising the Church’s position.
LikeLike
Andrew,
You’ve had a good weekend!
LikeLike
Yeah, VIP parking passes, I really can’t complain. I’ll send you a couple pics of yesterday.
As for science, Machen’s The Christian View of Man is his later work and most mature thoughts on the issues of evolution, so much so, that Tim Keller in his interview with Mark Dever says he (Tim Keller) is more conservative than Machen on the issue. That sounds like a good sound byte, but Machen was anything but liberal on the matter, now having read what Machen said regarding evolution in that book.
And Jed, we NAPARCERS are fine with Science, I’m happy with where we are now, at least the eggheads in ivory towers, by and large. If you mean the rank and file NAPARCer, I’ve seen improvement over the typical naparcer view of science, and remember Terry actually recanted his position, accepting their ruling and stating:
Terry still blogs and comments out here, he seems to have found a home in the CRC, we wish him well
grayt2[dot]wordpress.com/
LikeLike
Tom & Susan,
If I accept your evolutionary presuppositions, why should I believe the part in your narrative where “God” gives the pre-human animal a soul? Everything seemed to be going along fine to that point without God doing anything special. Just matter in motion, doing what it does. And if I can conceive of a system without God, what in heavens name do I need the Roman Catholic Church for? That’s just unnecessary baggage upon unnecessary baggage.
LikeLike
+1 to Michael, sbd on the reading of Providentissimus Deus.
— PD, para 18, emph add.
Michael cites the 7th Ecumenical Council’s anathema as well as the CCC.
TVD replies that the 7th Ecumenical Council doesn’t necessarily count as dogma.
TVD to MichaelTX: Please, man. Quote-slinging is not genuine understanding. If you’re going to have a proper debate–which I’m not–we don’t jump to another section of the encyclical and then argue PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS against itself! You must engage the section I found and quoted, section 19, and argue that it doesn’t say what I believe it clearly and explicitly says, that
for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, [the early church Fathers] have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect.
that we are not bound by the understanding of the physical world that the early church fathers [say, of the Council of Carthage held in 419], unless you want to argue this passage means something else.
It is clear to see you’ve misconstrued the passage, Tom. For in PD, there is a clear distinction made between Church teaching (which is held to be inerrant even in the face of scientific opinion) and the opinions of various individual fathers (which are not).
Yet you have speculated that PD releases the Catholic from opinions of councils. It clearly does not.
And even if it did, you would have a jurisdictional problem, for Leo XIII was not speaking ex cathedra, and has no authority to overturn the anathemas of a council, per Nicea 2.
So your argument fails within the Catholic system on two counts, Tom.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted May 31, 2015 at 8:01 am | Permalink
“This is the church of Aquinas.”
Well Peter or Jesus might have something to say about that. But I suspect Aquinas believed in a literal Adam. That might cause discomfort for Fesser’s mind.
But you’ve found your modernist self, vd,t. That non-literal figurative business of adapting theology to science. Welcome to the PCUSA.
The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.
By church of Aquinas of course I meant the one he gave assent to, not like the church of Calvin, which he invented.
As for Aquinas, as a natural lawyer he would of course go where the evidence leads.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/09/robert-bellarmine-vs-thomas-aquinas
LikeLike
Erik,
“If I accept your evolutionary presuppositions, why should I believe the part in your narrative where “God” gives the pre-human animal a soul? Everything seemed to be going along fine to that point without God doing anything special. Just matter in motion, doing what it does.”
I don’t know if my presuppositions about human evolution are very extensive. Most of what I espoused was my own theorizing about how it could be possible that man procreated if there were only two humans on the earth, and science that theorizes a genetic population of 10,000(?). I was not saying that God gave a pre-human animal a soul. The creature that God made into a living being was made in His own image, but I have not read enough of either Augustine or Aquinas to parse it out in my own understanding. I get that there is a gloriousness about man in his physical image that makes him a fitting receptacle to grace and gifts, so I don’t believe that the first humans were like apes in the move Planet of the Apes. Look, man stands upright and his face is designed with mathematical proportions that make him beautiful. His head, which is encircled by a halo, is at his top like a great church spire, signaling both faith and reason.
Evolution doesn’t just go along, it has to have a goal or it’s purposeless progress( a contradiction!). Telos is God’s artful direction as well as His keeping it all in motion.
LikeLike
Susan – The creature that God made into a living being was made in His own image,
Erik – But if Adam evolved did God “make” him in any way that he did not make his predecessors?
Was Adam’s father and grandfather also made in God’s own image? Are they in heaven or hell or were they just animals without souls who died and are dead?
Genesis said God made Adam from dirt. Why do you think he had animal parents?
LikeLike
Why can’t I just join these folks and imitate a bad church service on Sunday morning without going to church?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/opinion/sunday/molly-worthen-wanted-a-theology-of-atheism.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
I’ll ask again, given what you & Tom are talking about, why add God in? At what point is He even necessary? Can you prove to me that what you label a “soul” is nothing more than a highly evolved brain which makes humans seem different from animals?
LikeLike
Tvd, wrong word:
There. Much better.
Next!
LikeLike
“…by church of Aquinas of course I meant the one he gave assent to, not like the church of Calvin, which he
invented reformeddeformed.”Done. But the FIFY game is boring.
Erik Charter
Posted May 31, 2015 at 3:51 pm | Permalink
I’ll ask again, given what you & Tom are talking about, why add God in? At what point is He even necessary? Can you prove to me that what you label a “soul” is nothing more than a highly evolved brain which makes humans seem different from animals?
Can’t prove anything to you. However,
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/04/animal-souls-part-i.html
See also Anselm. Animals cannot conceive of such things. There’s your difference.
[link]
The Classic Version of the Ontological Argument
a. The Argument Described
St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (1033-1109), is the originator of the ontological argument, which he describes in the Proslogium as follows:
LikeLike
Tom,
Not trying to be difficult, but your speculations raise difficulties.
So your Adam obviously had a dad if he wasn’t created from the dirt.
I think you would say Adam had a soul, dad did not.
Was this a miraculous work of God? If Adam and dad sat down to dinner together after “ensoulment”, what would the conversation have looked like? Carl Sagan sitting down to dinner with Koko the Gorilla?
Or did Adam still have a lot of evolving to do after he got his soul (i.e., him and dad still weren’t all that different)?
Once again I ask, why do you need God in this and not just an increasingly evolving brain?
LikeLike
Tom,
If you will allow me to get personal for a minute (and this isn’t a trap), I understand why Susan has a psychological need to uphold the notion of God, but why do you? Do you honestly believe that that’s where the evidence leads?
LikeLike
Tom,
And I don’t really find Anselm to be persuasive. Man’s just a creature with a big brain and a big imagination goes with that.
LikeLike
TVD, your avatar is about to be erased.
Must be rough.
This blog game is fun, innit?
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted May 31, 2015 at 4:33 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Not trying to be difficult, but your speculations raise difficulties.
So your Adam obviously had a dad if he wasn’t created from the dirt.
I think you would say Adam had a soul, dad did not.
Was this a miraculous work of God?
Clearly. The Bible’s metaphysical truth holds. And a Talmudic scholar friend thinks that God creating man “from dirt” is a fine and accurate description of the evolutionary process put in terms of the minds of men 3000 years ago, that physically, man was raised from the base elements. He’s quite satisfied.
Breath: Ensoulment, human consciousness of the type–unlike the animals–that can conceive of God’s existence, and to love Him. I find it all elegant.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted May 31, 2015 at 4:35 pm | Permalink
Tom,
If you will allow me to get personal for a minute (and this isn’t a trap), I understand why Susan has a psychological need to uphold the notion of God, but why do you? Do you honestly believe that that’s where the evidence leads?
Yes. I’m an unapologetic theist and it’s certainly not unfair to call me a Thomist. Thank you for asking. I’m not inclined to disclose anything further about myself and thank you for not asking.
LikeLike
@Erik
Couldn’t you ask your question about anything science explains? If science (meteorology) explains why we are having a thunderstorm, does that mean God isn’t necessary? It seems to me a more for fruitful way to think about it is as God working through regular means (i.e., natural) that we can explain using science. He isn’t restricted to natural means – he may tell the storm to stop causing the weather to change in a way that science cannot explain. I don’t see why evolution should cause problems that any other scientific explanation may cause.
LikeLike
Tom – The Bible’s metaphysical truth holds
Erik – What criteria do you use for separating “metaphysical truth” from physical reality?
Is it essential, for instance, to believe that Jesus Christ was actually physically raised from the dead or does the metaphysical truth of his message still stand apart from that detail?
LikeLike
sdb – I don’t see why evolution should cause problems that any other scientific explanation may cause.
Erik – O.K. Take a stab at answering the questions I’ve been asking Tom and Susan.
I think a lot of Christians have used speculations to quiet their dissonance and unease on this topic and I like to probe those speculations a bit to see how well they hold up under scrutiny.
LikeLike
The biggest thing that I am interested to find out with people is, once you go down the road with evolution, at what point do you stop and why?
Obviously people can and do completely do away with the need for God using evolution as a justification. Why are they wrong?
Interestingly, this all ties into the other discussion with Greg on certainty. More on that later as we progress.
LikeLike
Tom, every roman catholic / Protestant polemic was hashed out here already.
Do you only like talking about America and Roman Catholicism? I try to have more interests than must history and religion.
Do you play cricket, and if so, how’s your game going?
LikeLike
Erik, this is the best book on evolution/faith topics.
LikeLike
Andrew,
Thanks. It was on my Amazon list.
LikeLike
Erik, I’ll send you a link, you can borrow mine.
LikeLike
Erik,
“Was this a miraculous work of God? If Adam and dad sat down to dinner together after “ensoulment”, what would the conversation have looked like? Carl Sagan sitting down to dinner with Koko the Gorilla?”
This is a funny picture; I imagine Nickolas Cage trying to talk to Encino Man, “Dad, I spent two hours slaving over an open fire to make you this beautiful dinner, so would you please stop trying to eat lice off the dog.”
Anyways….. all of creation is a miracle.
Oh, and would you kindly stop talking about my having doubts and psychological needs. I do have a need it to be true that God exists, so does everybody, for if He doesn’t exist neither does anything else. God is Pure Actuality.
I’d be interested to hear how you or your tradition interprets Genesis. It was the Reformed Church that first told me that the book of Genesis wasn’t a scientific book. I learned about more about hominids through this http://www.reasons.org/blogs/take-two/of-hominids-and-human., and I think they have a lot of helpful biblical and scientific knowledge. But I honestly don’t know what I am required to believe, because as you can see, there is mixed information and different interpretations.
So while I believe in the inerrant scriptures and I believe in God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ Our Lord…, and in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son, Who with the Father and Son is adored and glorified……. I don’t know if Adam was descended from an ancestor that Neanderthals also descended from, and that is the way God wanted to arrange things, OR if Adam was a singular species with no other genes added to his makeup, OR if God literally fashioned him in a moment, and then caused him to sleep and took a rib and fashioned Eve in a single moment.
I will defer to the Catholic Church, because I just don’t know.
Summa Theological Q. 93:
Reply to Objection 3.
“Although the image of God in man is not to be found in his bodily shape, yet because “the body of man alone among terrestrial animals is not inclined prone to the ground, but is adapted to look upward to heaven, for this reason we may rightly say that it is made to God’s image and likeness, rather than the bodies of other animals,” as Augustine remarks (QQ. 83, qu. 51). But this is not to be understood as though the image of God were in man’s body; but in the sense that the very shape of the human body represents the image of God in the soul by way of a trace”
LikeLike
Well looks like it has been a ride folks.
Erik,
Great question about Adam and his “dad”. How does that go well? One with no rational soul being taught be one with a rational soul. Just don’t know about that idea. Sounds like a bad road to ride down theologically,philosophically or plain animal kingdom wise. Accouding to Scripture wouldAdam not then have dominion over his “dad”. Scripture seems pretty clear on the subject. God was considered the Father of Adam according to the Luke 3:37.
Susan,
Our moral repugnace that exists today against incest is the result of the Law given by Moses. We can reproduce with our sister/brother we do not because God says not to. Though I would think that moral repugnance against bestiality would be from the beginning. Among none of the animals was found a “suitable partner”, as the NAB puts it. Therefor for Cain for Seth there would be no suitable partner among the “animal” kingdom for them either.
AB,
Thanks for sharing that bit for the OPC creation report, expecially this part:
Some young earth creationists paint those who hold the earth is very old as liberals who deny the authority and perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture. Likewise, some who hold that the earth is very old treat young earth creationists as scientific neanderthals (pun intended) who simply need to get with the program and accept the obvious. Both attitudes lack charity and do nothing to further the cause of Christ and his gospel. Dialogue, then, regarding this subject must be done with humility, realizing that we are utterly dependent upon God for any knowledge we have about his creation.
Hope everyone is enjoying the Lord’s Day. God bless and keep you all.
Michael
LikeLike
Susan – Oh, and would you kindly stop talking about my having doubts and psychological needs. I do have a need it to be true that God exists, so does everybody, for if He doesn’t exist neither does anything else.
Erik – I don’t mean it as an insult. You’ve volunteered many times that this or that saved you from unbelief. This honestly concerns me. It’s why we talk about QIRC (quest for illegitimate religious certainty). I think the Called to Communion guys play on this and I don’t think that’s a healthy thing. I don’t mean that as a putdown to them, either. I just think a lot of well meaning people are going to end up disappointed and probably end up as unbelievers when that “magic bullet” that saved them also lets them down.
LikeLike
MichaelTX, ditto.
Erik, my kindle copy won’t allow me to lend. Plantinga covers basically all of it in this video if you or anyone is interested.
LikeLike
Susan – I will defer to the Catholic Church, because I just don’t know.
Erik – That’s the center of the debate between Tom & Michael. Just what does the Catholic Church teach?
As far as what my church teaches (“my church” is a bit ambiguous at the moment – ha, ha) – I’ve always been a member of churches that teach the Bible without apology.
LikeLike
Thanks, Michael.
LikeLike
Michael,
I appreciate your comments, so thank you for being here and adding to the different discussions.
“Our moral repugnace that exists today against incest is the result of the Law given by Moses”
I understand you, but at the same time I don’t want to ignore what seems like a primal aversion. Second cousins, maybe, but brother or sister, parent and child?
“We can reproduce with our sister/brother we do not because God says not to”
To me this is like the “which came first, the chicken or the egg?”, question.
It raises the question of why Moses would give this law in the first place if there wasn’t a need to stop a practice that God didn’t want.
LikeLike
On the other thread we have got Greg comparing Tom & Susan to hindus rubbing their bodies with cow dung. Ouch.:
Erik – “Right now on the other thread we have Catholics questioning the existence of a real Adam. Even for people who agree that there’s a God, almost everything else is contested.”
Greg – And right now in India there are Hindus rubbing their bodies with cow dung because they think it has spiritual significance for them. How pray tell dear brother does the uncertainty of the truth of the one true and living God somehow follow from the mere fact of somebody denying it? They’re SUPPOSED to deny it. His very truth itself, divinely certain as it is, promises us they will.
LikeLike
Erik,
“I’ve always been a member of churches that teach the Bible without apology.”
Well though the RCC teaches the bible without apology too. Would you mind telling me how you understand the age of the earth, and the creation of Adam and Eve? How much evolution do you allow in, and at where? Sorry to put you in the hot seat, but I’d really like to hear how you think about these things 🙂
LikeLike
Susan,
I really don’t think about it much since I’m not an evolutionary biologist or a geologist.
I have found the Scriptures to be reliable throughout my 45 years of life and I don’t question them.
LikeLike
Susan,
I think the Catholic Church erred when they issued statements indicating that they felt the need to accommodate evolution (if Tom and not Michael is to be believed). Once you’ve entered accommodation mode, the game is basically over.
“The Synod on the Family” raises the same concerns and there are parallels. The Church is hated and will be more hated because of their stance on homosexuality and SSM. What can they do to make that hatred go away? It’s a huge temptation.
It’s this bent toward accommodation that makes many of us accuse the Catholic Church of being corrupted by modernism.
LikeLike
Forgot about the “moderation” on posts with more than one link….I’m reposting separated everybody.
For those wanting to ponder some Catholic teachings on this have a look at these two links:
http://m.whatistruth.webnode.com/articles/creationism-and-evolution/catholic-dogma-and-teaching-on-creation/
LikeLike
http://kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-catholic-doctrine-of-creation/
I’m still weighing all this myself, but I’m not seeing how a Catholic can get around canon 109 in the Council of Cathage concerning the bodily immortality of Adam before the fall at least. Peace,
Michael
LikeLike
Erik,
Okay, I wasn’t trying to antagonize you, Erik. Please know that. I just wondered how you harmonize the things that science teaches with the different thoughts coming from the different pulpits out there. We are all impacted my our respective teaching communities because they all people who have thoughts, opinions, or perhaps wisdom concerning it.
I only mean, if your pastor say, believes in a literal 6 days creation, would you tell him that that wasn’t reasonable based on science? OR say it is you who believe in a literal 6 days, would you be convinced with the scientific data that is to the contrary? What does the bible say?
LikeLike
Susan,
The prohibition by Moses would have a practical reason in genetics. After the fall the genetic code of humanity would be subject to progressive decay. As time progressed in a common family a genetic defect would become common and therefor would be subject to highly probably replication and sicknesses if those with common parents. This is a very practical Law given by Moses. The question should be why did God even need to give the Law if there was a innate aversion to it in all brothers and sisters.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted May 31, 2015 at 6:47 pm | Permalink
Susan,
I think the Catholic Church erred when they issued statements indicating that they felt the need to accommodate evolution (if Tom and not Michael is to be believed). Once you’ve entered accommodation mode, the game is basically over.
“The Synod on the Family” raises the same concerns and there are parallels. The Church is hated and will be more hated because of their stance on homosexuality and SSM. What can they do to make that hatred go away? It’s a huge temptation.
It’s this bent toward accommodation that makes many of us accuse the Catholic Church of being corrupted by modernism.
No, you are afflicted with fundamentalism, which pits reason against revelation–unnecessarily.
LikeLike
Thanks Michael,
I will read the links you’ve provided. And I will ponder what you said “) I’m off the church!
Blessings All!
LikeLike
Susan,
The only ones who antagonize me these days are the guys on “my team”. Ha, ha.
All is well.
LikeLike
TVD,
I could be some crazy assumption of mine, but I would imagine Erik can agree with everything said there in your quotes; as can I.
LikeLike
Tom,
I think the CCC was written in what – the 90s? And they don’t really resolve anything here. They just say some modernist things that are supposed to make us think they’re enlightened.
What say you on the (unscientific?) historicity of Christ’s resurrection?
Or transubstantiation?
LikeLike
I think the Catholic Church frequently gets itself in a pickle over faith and reason — beginning with the Motives of Credibility. They’re not all plainly reasonable, as we’ve covered here in great detail.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted May 31, 2015 at 7:12 pm | Permalink
Tom,
I think the CCC was written in what – the 90s? And they don’t really resolve anything here. They just say some modernist things that are supposed to make us think they’re enlightened.
What say you on the (unscientific?) historicity of Christ’s resurrection?
Or transubstantiation?
Stuff about Jesus goes into a sui generis category. Jesus as man was bound by the laws of nature, but as Christ he is not. So you don’t lump the Resurrection or the Eucharist in with evolution.
For the rest, physical reality and metaphysical truth are compatible. Truth cannot contradict truth, for all truth comes from God and nowhere else. This is Thomism in a nutshell.
As for Catholicism, I think their motto is No More Galileos! Which I think is prudent, which is what Pope Leo was saying in 1893, and what Augustine and Aquinas both warned about. What I find most interesting is the case here at Old Life: Mencken, Machen, the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925, the Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.
You and your church continue down that path as you want, but the Catholic Church already found out what happens some 400 years ago, just as Augustine warned more than 1000 years before that.
LikeLike
BTW, I’ll throw another plug for this book. I am enjoying it so far. I’m in chp 2. Intro and all of chp 1 can be read on amazon for free. It is also free if you have kindle unlimited. 3 cent used paperback.
http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Rediscovered-Evolution-Importance-Origins/dp/0895556073/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1433108083&sr=1-1&keywords=creation+rediscovered
LikeLike
Tom – Stuff about Jesus goes into a sui generis category. Jesus as man was bound by the laws of nature, but as Christ he is not. So you don’t lump the Resurrection or the Eucharist in with evolution.
Erik – So you do think he was physically raised or you don’t?
So Christ’s body is physically present in the bread or it is not?
LikeLike
Tom,
Are you sure in your statement above that you’re not violating the Hypostatic Union?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union
LikeLike
Here is a good review of the book:
Click to access gerard-keanes-creation-rediscovered-book-review.pdf
LikeLike
Free google books preview right about <——– there, yo.
LikeLike
Tom,
If you hedge on stuff like this because you don’t want to “come out” as not being an orthodox Christian, I don’t think you need to.
You can still argue “The Catholic position” without being a Catholic, and I’ll defend your right to do so (as long as you’re accurate). That’s why I’m interested in your debate with Michael — are you being accurate?
This is why I quit bringing up whether or not you go to church. It really doesn’t matter in these debates (other than to reveal that you yourself may not personally believe in some of the things that you are arguing for).
LikeLike
Wow AB,
Put that post on there, man. I got to scroll back up and keep reading now.
LikeLike
Michael, there really were a lot of yankee fans there last night at the game. You can spot a couple of them there as A-Rod came up, only to strike out of his two times, yo.
LikeLike
Michael:
I’m still weighing all this myself, but I’m not seeing how a Catholic can get around canon 109 in the Council of Cathage concerning the bodily immortality of Adam before the fall at least. Peace,
Michael>>>>
Well, just to ease your mind, I have no problem with the Church’s traditional teaching on he historicity of Adam and Eve. Your question is a good one. How can anyone get around the anathema in the document you presented?
It looks like a denial of original sin that is being called anathema.
I don’t see that Fesser or Fr. Barron or even Tom, – who is undeclared as far as his personal religious beliefs are – have come under this anathema. Now, maybe my respect for all three of them in different ways clouds my opinion, so factor that in as well. If I understand Tom right, his interest in Catholicism has to do with Thomas Aquinas, who maybe was more Catholic than the Pope. Just a joke, there.
So, the real concern has to do with both Fesser and Fr. Barron, who are both Catholic apologists. Fesser for theism and Catholicism. Fr. Barron as a priest and evangelist for the Church.
Do they come under this anathema from the the 5th Century? Well, I just want to assure you again that I definitely do not come under it. In fact, I may be out of step with the Church the other direction, and be too much of a literalist, though I have known for a long time that men like C.S. Lewis, Chesterton, and others have taken the first chapters of the book of Genesis as allegory. They were certainly not modernists, and in fact wrote very powerfully against the dangers of things like modernism and Lewis especially, of scientism. So, I repeat what I said the other day. Taking the first chapters of Genesis as allegory does not automatically mean that a person is a modernist.
So with that in mind, look at the canon 109. BTW, what key was this Canon in?
“That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body— that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.”
As an example, the whole Luther and justification by faith alone anathema may be similar. It is a specific condemnation of a very specific teaching. It is not a condemnation even of all forms of justification by faith alone. Right? I hope people know that, but I am not saying it to open that can of Worms.
This looks like the same kind of thing. Canon 109 is not even addressing the issue of faith vs. reason, or how to reconcile modern scientific discoveries – that are demonstrably true – with God’s inspired Word. Both have to be true. What science has proven to be true cannot be denied. What God says is true, cannot be denied. That is what is at stake, here. That wasn’t a part of canon 109 as far as I see or know. I am not sure about that, but in the quote provided, nothing is said about evolution, faith vs. reason, scientific discoveries and the rest.
Neither Barron nor Fesser deny that death entered the world because of sin nor do they deny original sin. It seems to me those were the concerns back in the day – denials of the effects of sin on mankind and original sin.
Not sure if I am right or if this helps, but maybe?
Remember, I have no problem with believing that Adam and Eve were our first parents and that they are historical individuals. I have no problem believing that death entered the human race because of sin. I have no problem believing in original sin. So, all y’all can use the brazier to Bar-B-Q some steaks. Sounds good, doesn’t it?
Anyway…
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted May 31, 2015 at 7:48 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Are you sure in your statement above that you’re not violating the Hypostatic Union?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union
No, that would be monophysitism, I think. In Trinitarian theology, Jesus is true man and true God.
Erik – So you do think he was physically raised or you don’t?
So Christ’s body is physically present in the bread or it is not?
These are functions of Jesus as Christ, for whom there is no division between the physical and metaphysical. This is how he can be Risen, and be Present in the Eucharist. Sui generis. This is true of no mere man.
LikeLike
I cut my teeth on Christology back in 2011 when my OP pastor told me, “no more Paul Tillich, to the Eastern Orthodox you must go.”
https://bayouhuguenot.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/a-few-sites-until-i-finish-mcguckin/
So yeah, St. Cyril and the Christological Controversy(www[dot]svspress.com/saint-cyril-of-alexandria-and-the-christological-controversy/) is required reading for the aspiring theologian of orthodox christian christology, ping me when one of y’all’s has finished that book, I have an e-book format, glad to re-read it. I’m still thinking about the implications of a fully God and fully man Jesus Christ. Blew my mind back when I read it, almost as much as when I read John Owen’s Communion with the Triune God, but there I go, getting ahead of myself again..
LikeLike
Tom,
O.K.
So will we rise physically as Christ did?
And could our resurrection bodies be simultaneously in one place and in many places at the same time?
Or are our resurrected physical bodies different because we are not Christ?
LikeLike
lots for you folks to read
https://bayouhuguenot.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/cyrils-connection-between-eucharist-and-christology/
LikeLike
fellow calvinists, note: we are not bullies, yo.
cw l’u be the most cuddly amongst us, truuue dat.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted May 31, 2015 at 8:25 pm | Permalink
Tom,
O.K.
So will we rise physically as Christ did?
And could our resurrection bodies be simultaneously in one place and in many places at the same time?
Or are our resurrected physical bodies different because we are not Christ?
Dunno. Christ rose under his own power, yes? We don’t. Whatever we do when resurrected is the result of God’s power, so I guess there are no limits once the barrier between the physical and the metaphysical is permanently erased. Will I be able to play the violin? That would be cool, because I can’t now. 😉
I did find it interesting that many Christians believe a sort of Manichaeism, sort of that we are “spirits living in the material world.” But that’s not what Aquinas says
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2008/12/oderberg-on-hylemorphic-dualism.html
“hylemorphism, the Aristotelian-Thomistic-Scholastic view that material substances are composites of form and matter. ”
and why Christianity teaches the [physical] resurrection of the dead. [Why, even Calvinism!]
At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed: and all the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies, and none other (although with different qualities), which shall be united again to their souls forever.–WCF 32
LikeLike
Good work here, cw l’u.
LikeLike
Tom,
So just to make sure we’re clear. Christ’s physical body is not in the Eucharist, but his “mystical” body is?
Do you think that is Catholic doctrine?
LikeLike
Mrs Webfoot,
Hope your Sabbath has gone well. I am glad that you readily accept those things. I have not interacted with Fr Barron in this way or Fesser, so I do not know what they would say to admitting in this area definitively. They must judge themselves in regards to Catholic teaching. I do not feel called to reach out to either of them to correct them. I did slip into this blog and see someone being attacked for “fundimentalism” that was inline with Catholic teaching, to my understanding. I believe I have made that case with the things I have quoted and linked.
The one thin you have say that concerns me is this: ” What science has proven to be true cannot be denied. What God says is true, cannot be denied.”
What do you mean when you say “What science has proven cannot be denied.”
Is this not the question we are asking and discerning. What exactly has science proven in your view. That is what I am still studying and seeing where the evidence rests. Current popular scientific study has many assumptions that I am not nessicarily ready to conceed. Though I am not prejudging those assumptions either. I just would like to hear them out from both sides of the arguments, as Pope Pius XII said. Humani Generis- ” For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.
This is what I am seeking to do, listen to “those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution”. We hear those favorable to evolution easily in our culture(Christian & Non), but how often to do we seek faithful Christian and non who are unfavorable to evolution and hear their side to this debate and weigh the evidence ourselves as thinking persons.
So like I said Mrs Webfoot, what do you mean when you say “What science has proven to be true cannot be denied.” I have yet to see science prove Adam existed among myriad of other hominids, or that immortality was impossible before original sin, or that “Neandrethal” wasn’t just human with certain features, or that some of the other supposed ape-men found weren’t just an extinct ape species which could never evolve into men. Just my current understanding though. Let me know if you have some scientific evidence you would like me to read up on. Like I have said I am reading the book “Creation Rediscover”. Seems good so far. You may want to check it out.
LikeLike
@Erik
“The biggest thing that I am interested to find out with people is, once you go down the road with evolution, at what point do you stop and why?”
I suspect that a complete scientific description of our physical origin is possible. I have no doubt that the cosmological lambda-cold-dark model is the best description of the universe and any theory that supplants it will have deal with the age of the universe which is 13.8 billion years old. I do not believe that God is fooling us and making the universe look much older than it is, and there are no non-standard cosmologies that try to circumvent the age of the universe worth taking seriously. I don’t know if the apparent fine-tuning of the cosmological parameters is significant or not, nor am I sure that some flavor of multiverse theory may prove correct (but that is way outside of my area of expertise).
Closer to home, we have a very mature and nearly complete description of the formation of the cosmic abundances of atoms and their isotopes – galactic chemical evolution has a few interesting problems left, but it is hard to see how the field is going to be revolutionized. The molecular evolution of the interstellar medium is reasonably mature as well – our ion-neutral reaction networks have been validated by observations of every molecule abundant enough to observe thus far. There are very big questions about what of this material survives accretion onto circumstellar environments during star-formation and whether any of that influences the early chemistry of subsequent planets (particularly icy bodies and terrestrial planets – this is a major part of my own research).
How we go from relatively basic pre-biotic chemistry is a huge unknown. We have a lot of ideas, but no way to test them. Detecting life elsewhere would go a very long way towards helping us understand the origin of life. Once life gets going though, it seems to me that we have a very mature and nearly complete account of how life can start from fairly simple organisms to give rise to the rich bio-diversity we observe today. While I think life may be plentiful in the galaxy, I do not think intelligent life exists beyond us (at least intelligent life capable of interstellar travel – Fermi’s paradox strikes me as dispositive). It also seems that evolution can account for a lot of our behavior and our ethical standards sociobiology is the true successor of Aristotle’s natural law…natural law that does not account for the insights from sociobiology is obscurantist. It is also evident that non-human primates (neanderthals) made music, altars, and had burial ceremonies, so the religious impulse may not be unique to humans. I have no idea if that is significant or not.
My view is the primeval history of Genesis is largely ahistorical and intended more to provide the Israelites a religious identity in light of their interactions with the Canaanites and Egyptians (for non-experts the stuff from thirdmill.org, a PCA effort, on laying out the connection between what Moses was dealing with among the Israelites and the themes in Genesis 1-11 is quite good).
My sense is that God’s breathing life into Adam is the start of the human race and that this race would have been immortal and in a state of paradise had our first parents not sinned. I do not know whether our first parents were two individuals that evolved from prior species, two specially created people, or representative of a group of people that were give the ability to commune with God and then used this newfound ability to blow it and plunge the human race into sin. Whatever the case we are natural born sinners now.
I do not believe that science has disproven that humans would not die if not for original sin. This I take to be fundamental to the gospel — particularly our hope in a bodily resurrection. Giving up belief in the natural immortality of human beings is to give up the hope of a new heaven and a new earth and we are left with a messiah with a perishable body. That strikes me as undermining Christianity. So I guess this is where I draw the line. I’ve been wrestling with these views since my high school days (about 25years), and I am more or less comfortable where I am now though what exactly to make of Adam remains a question. This is the too long, unedited, stream of consciousness answer to your question.
tl;dr Science is right about evolution, the big bang, etc…, but I don’t think Christianity can give up “no sin, no death” and remain Christianity, so human beings have to be a special case.
LikeLike
sdb,
Thanks. I don’t think Greg’s going to like that…
In summary, what parts of all this do you feel God is necessary for? In other words, if you take God out of the equation, which steps could have still taken place naturally using only matter, time, and chance?
LikeLike
Sayeth Dr. Hart in Lost Soul of American Protestantism,click <————- there, please (emoticon).
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted May 31, 2015 at 8:56 pm | Permalink
Tom,
So just to make sure we’re clear. Christ’s physical body is not in the Eucharist, but his “mystical” body is?
Do you think that is Catholic doctrine?
I didn’t say what you seem to think I said, or at least mean what you thought I meant. In Catholic doctrine [and crossing into dogma, I would think], Christ is Present in every Real respect. I’m told Elizabeth Anscombe–who was Wittgenstein’s leading pupil, IOW she was a genuine philosopher of the first order–is excellent “On Transubstantiation.”
http://www.secondspring.co.uk/articles/anscombe.htm
Personally, this is not an area I’m prepared to or an interested in litigating. I don’t know if this passes official Church muster, but I find nothing but unanimous approval on Google.
It seems to me reasonable that whatever the Risen Christ was, whatever appeared to the apostles is the same principle as the Eucharist, a real presence, the Real Presence of Christ, not symbolically, not just spiritually, or even like a “ghost” of some immaterial matter or other tertium quid. To litigate the petty details [did the Risen Christ’s body stink after a week?] is to bog down and miss the whole point of these things.
The claim is clearly that Christ bridges the physical and the metaphysical, as did the Incarnation itself, when God became man. Compared to the Incarnation, the claims of the Resurrection and the Eucharist are only corollaries.
LikeLike
Tom,
That’s certainly a good effort. We’ll see if anyone else chimes in on that topic.
LikeLike
cute and cuddly, yo.
LikeLike
Michael:
What do you mean when you say “What science has proven cannot be denied.”>>>>
Lots of things, like manmade global warming, for example. Just kidding! That is an example of how “science” can make dogmatic statements about something before all the evidence is in – and that for idealogical reasons, it seems. Well, I think it is for idealogical reasons that “science” is so adamant about what they now call climate change. So, “science” also needs to be held to the standards that they claim they have.
Another example of something that has become very popular in our day, but that really has no empirical evidence to back it up is multiverse or string theory – or theories, because I guess there are many. What the ideas are based on are complex mathematical formulas.
Here is how Fesser addressed this issue, and it is fascinating. He has a series of posts where he completely debunks the book The Atheist’s Guide to Reality.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/11/reading-rosenberg-part-iii.html
Anyway, I am not presenting either string theory or climate change as examples of “science” that is demonstrably true.
I am talking about things like the fact that the earth rotates around the sun, not vice versa. This was what the Gallileo controversy was about.
Now, this is where I really don’t know what is proven and what is not. However, it is pretty well established fact that the earth is old – very old. How does that fact square with the account in Genesis?
Then, there is the fossil record, which is actually helping to refute parts of Darwinian evolution.
However, it seems pretty clear that there was some kinda’ evolution going on there. Tom has brought up the matter of our animal ancestors who left traces of DNA in the human genome. Neanderthal man is one of those. What’s his DNA doing there?
So, Fesser and a few others are willing to tackle those issues head on, but without budging on Catholic faith. Just like it took most of Church history up until the early 1800s to understand the mystery of the Immaculate Conception enough to make it dogma, it may take awhile to sort all this out. In the case of the IC, the Church had always believe it, even the early Reformers. It wasn’t a doctrine that was questioned as to authenticity, it just wasn’t settled.
The Church, as you know, trusts the Holy Spirit to guide her into all truth. That is part of what the teaching magisterium does. Discern the leading of the Holy Spirit into all truth and help the whole Church understand. Some think it is a kind of top down, do or die, accept this or burn kind of process. Our Mother leads us, she doesn’t drive us. Yes, our Mother, the Church.
No, I don’t see that she is demanding that you or I reject the teaching that Adam and Eve were historical characters.
I think that Fesser – but I have not asked him – is working with what “science” claims to have proven, and that they can produce evidence for. The human genome evidence is pretty interesting. We would have to deny that a creature like Neanderthal ever existed. If we accept that it existed, then we have to accept that it was not fully human, and that it did mate with humans. Otherwise, what’s its DNA doing in our DNA? Stuff like that. Fesser is trying to give answers that are consistent with Catholic faith.
I think that’s what he is addressing, anyway. Of course, sometimes I wonder if Neanderthal is extinct, and not just in its male form. Well, sometimes I wonder about myself, too, so I should not be unkind.
Don’t know. I think that he is within what the Church allows for now, but greater minds than mine will have to sort it all out. Just knowing his work tells me that he is not a modernist, nor is he trying to deny Church dogma or undermine our faith. It goes over my head, Michael.
Yes, our Lord’s Day has been fantastic. How about yours?
LikeLike
Dr. Gray sayeth:
I can keep going? I’ve got more.
LikeLike
Erik,
What TVD has presented is Catholic look be be clear Catholic teaching to me.
LikeLike
Mrs Webfoot, I appreciate your response. Lords Day has been just fine. Thanks. I don’t know that I am willing to concede the ages old Earth. Just where I am in my study. I have seen several arguments againt several of the assumptions that can give pause to current scientific assumptions. I could be wrong. I am still studying.
LikeLike
SDB, that sure sounds like Dr. Richard Pratt to me, RTS on ItunesU was important for me around 2009-2010 as I recall, listening to every class on each book of the Bible took several months on my commute but was well worth it. Big Pratt fan here, good stuff.
My simple accountant brain (emoticon) still likes this, its old now
http://www.amazon.com/A-Short-History-Nearly-Everything/dp/076790818X
LikeLike
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel
That also is old. But in was reminded of it reading webfoot here. People need to read/listen/be aware of that one.
I’ve got more.
LikeLike
Let me get this straight. As a Calvinist, I’m no longer under the anathemas of Trent?
Let’s clear one thing up – Webfoot originaly brought up the joint declaration, to which I responded:
and I have my several pages of JV Fesko to explain to me how I as a reformed protestant am to approach the joint declaration. now you all can continue your theologizing, you have moved on from Justification, but just know, that I am aware why I brought MichaelTX in here, although I didn’t actually know if he (read: you, Hi Michael) would be monitoring his blog. All this being said, I’m glad this convo has happened since I brought Michael in, just remember, grace and peace:
n
e
x
t
?
LikeLike
Tom,
“It seems to me reasonable that whatever the Risen Christ was, whatever appeared to the apostles is the same principle as the Eucharist, a real presence, the Real Presence of Christ, not symbolically, not just spiritually, or even like a “ghost” of some immaterial matter or other tertium quid. To litigate the petty details [did the Risen Christ’s body stink after a week?] is to bog down and miss the whole point of these things.”
Beautifully done. Amen and amen!
LikeLike
Michael:
Mrs Webfoot, I appreciate your response. Lords Day has been just fine. Thanks. I don’t know that I am willing to concede the ages old Earth. Just where I am in my study. I have seen several arguments againt several of the assumptions that can give pause to current scientific assumptions. I could be wrong. I am still studying.>>>>
I hear ya’. Have a wonderful week, brother Michael.
LikeLike
b, sd, those questions about creation may likely be too specific. But ensouled primates would likely lose at an presbytery — and it’s up to the discernment of the presbyters. The denomination has no official position beyond the Confession of Faith and Catechisms.
You may want to look at the report of the study committee on creation, though it’s a long read.
LikeLike
vd, t, say hello again to the PCUSA. You can’t follow the evidence wherever it leads if it leads you to deny dogma. If you think Aquinas was a proto-Protestant, then I’m not sure about your qualifications as a historian.
LikeLike
Susan, “Well though the RCC teaches the bible without apology too.”
Mary?
LikeLike
vd, t, “These are functions of Jesus as Christ, for whom there is no division between the physical and metaphysical. This is how he can be Risen, and be Present in the Eucharist.”
And you have trouble accepting a literal Adam?
LikeLike
“DG Hart: “Susan, “Well though the RCC teaches the bible without apology too. Mary?”
and in clarification from a prior comment about Mary, while greatness is truly only ascribed to God , He does talk about it for His human creation; learning what He is saying seems important.
Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. Matt 11: 11
LikeLike
Darryl makes a good point.
When it comes to Adam, Catholics are rationalists.
When it comes to Jesus, however, it’s. o.k. to suspend reason because he’s like, magic.
Lots of secular rationalists don’t find Jesus any more reasonable than Adam, though.
Why does Jesus get a pass?
LikeLike
Erik,
That was essentially Machen’s point in The Christian View of Man. Wake me up when Susie and TVD go to church together.
LikeLike
a. Jesus also said, “you unbelieving and perverse generation.”
Can I use that on you?
LikeLike
@Erik “In summary, what parts of all this do you feel God is necessary for? In other words, if you take God out of the equation, which steps could have still taken place naturally using only matter, time, and chance?”
I believe that the existence of all things is contingent on God; however, I am not a scientific realist. Essentially, I want to strip all metaphysics from science so that to say that a scientific theory is true, is simply to say that the theory is empirically adequate. It need not be a unique description of reality (two inconsistent scientific theories may do equally well at predicting observables) nor need the theory be complete.
Insofar as science is the construction of models that synthesize data and make predictions about new phenomena, reference to God in a scientific theory is superfluous (sort of like reference to God in understanding how to fix a lawnmower that won’t start is superfluous…one need not recognize God to know how to make the lawnmower work). By stripping science of metaphysics (i.e., adopting the view that science does not give a literally true or complete description of reality), one need not fall into the god-of-the-gaps trap (i.e., I believe in God because science can’t explain _______________).
In someways, I see constructive empiricism (and the attending empirical stance) as analogous to what I understand 2k to be. Of course, at the margins politics bumps into even the 2k’er (what if the government outlawed sunday worship?) and science intersects with religion (what to do about Adam and the introduction of sin into the world), but I’m not sure it is prudent to build our system around the most extreme cases.
LikeLike
Not sure what you are saying DGHart, can you clarify so I can consider?
Does it tie with my comment that for those who say to Mary* ‘“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness for who is your equal in greatness” they might search the Scriptures to see what the Lord has to say.
*not just saying it about her but to her (a deceased person)
LikeLike
Erik and guys,
Guess I’m clearly with you… No historic Adam, then no historic Jesus, then no us Christians. Just makes sense. No humans can come from no humans, right? Logic 101. Nothing comes from nothing it never could.
LikeLike
@dgh Thanks for the link. I’ll need to read up there…
LikeLike
sdb – I believe that the existence of all things is contingent on God
Erik – Why? Because matter had to come from something non-material?
One question on Adam: If God constructed Adam over time through evolution, how is the belief in the resurrection of the body reasonable? God is really going to take our rotting corpses (or our dried up bones) and make them instantly new again, better than they were when we were alive?
LikeLike
Hart and others,
Being this post started with the Catholic failure in Ireland, I thought I would share two links that sums up my view relatively well.
Here is part one: http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/who-is-responsible-for-the-collapse-of-the-irish-church
LikeLike
Here is part two: http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/who-is-responsible-for-the-collapse-of-the-irish-church1
LikeLike
sdb:
Of course, at the margins politics bumps into even the 2k’er…>>>>
Here’s a thought for you, sdb.
The Westminster Confession of Faith was a political document, draw up by order of English Parliament.
You see that the margins of politics bumps the 2Kers. I say it is much more than the margins of politics that bumps the Presbyterianism that these 2Kers believe so strongly in.
I don’t know where you are personally on 2K theology, or even if you are Presbyterian.
I can think of how a 2K er might respond to that historical fact.
LikeLike
MTX, MW, Susie, and TVD:
If you want your points to have more effect, try linking to the source, and calling out only that part you wish to accentuate, because almost no one is going to click on your links and go searching for whatever peice of evidence you think you have found. That said, keep contributing, we appreciate your opinions and ideas on how to improve presby-ism. But here’s a flavor of what I mean:
Next comment please.
LikeLike
And guys, stop posting on a thread with over 700 comments. Ireland is covered in a more recent post, try posting on threads which are more recent, they should be better and more fresh. Just trying to help. ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ The next commenter on this thread is ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
LikeLike
@erik The origin of matter from energy is not a problem. Big Bang nucleosynthesis works really well. The conversion of matter to and from energy is not a problem at all. My reason for believing that everything in the universe is contingent on God’s will is based on the biblical witness for example, Paul writes,
Or as my daughter’s toddler catechism goes:
1) Who made you? God
2) What else did God make? All things
3) Why did God make you and all things? For his own glory.
I’m not sure I see the problem you are getting at. Whether Adam was set apart and “ensouled” or a group of people referred to Adam was called apart and “ensouled”, when they were ensouled, they were immortal. But they sinned and in doing so became mortal. Those who die in Christ will be resurrected when he returns and will be given, new imperishable bodies that will never die. I don’t know any more about the mechanism than what Paul gives us in 1 Cor 15, but I certainly look forward to it! God could have specially created human beings, but the evidence indicates that he chose not to. I’m not sure why he works the way he does other than to say that it must be for his own glory.
LikeLike
@MWF I’m not following your point? You are correct that parliament approved the WCF, but here in the US, we presbys approved a modification of the WCF (it isn’t infallible after all – it is the prerogative of the GA to do such things) that addresses the issues over the magistrate.
However, the overwhelming majority of political discourse is mundane and irrelevant to religion:
should the speed limit be this or that, should the lots on hwy 157 be rezoned commercial or kept residential, should people be restricted to 6 chickens or 12 chickens in city limits, should the high school push back their start time or not, should we raise the minimum wage or not, what should the sales tax be, how should tax from income, property, and consumption be divvied up, and on and on it goes. Unlike theonomists, I don’t think there is a “biblical” or “christian” answer to most political questions. Even on hot button issues like abortion, gay marriage, and health care mandates I can imagine that when it comes down to the nitty gritty of lawmaking, good christians can come to different conclusions on all of these issues, and it is improper for churches (speaking in their official capacity as churches) to appeal for one political position over another or to discipline a member for the way she votes.
LikeLike
@mtx I’m curious. By way of background, we have heard from several apologists around here that Rome is a superior paradigm to protestantism because it has a mechanism for adjudicating theological questions and providing certainty. Namely the infallible magisterium comprised of scripture, holy tradition, and the on going teaching of the bishops. Catholics are required to give full assent of faith to dogma. And while the Pope not speaking ex cathedra is not infallible and individual bishops are not infallible, their words still require submission of the intellect and will (correct me if this is not a fair summary).
If the collapse of the church in Ireland is the result of the hierarchy going wobbly on doctrine, where does that leave the layman under the care of those Bishops. When does the layman have the right (and perhaps duty) to withhold her submission of her intellect and will to the Bishop? Isn’t this a first step in calling for reform by the bishops? But if one does this, isn’t exercising private judgement…something protestants are criticized for? Now if the the archbishop and other bishops refuse to cede and Rome doesn’t move, at what point (if ever) is a faithful catholic able to stop attending a church that advocates heretical ideas? If the protestant church in your neighborhood is proclaiming the gospel more fully than the catholic church, is one still obligated to continue with the heretical church? This is the issue that Dreher describes in his parish where he was excoriated by his confessor for *not* using birth control and Sunday after Sunday had to explain to his son that what the priest said in the homily is not what the church teaches. Given these realities, I’m curious how you understand a legitimate approach to dealing with such situations?
LikeLike
@cw Now that is pithy!
LikeLike
Not so sure about this one, any Lutherans or Catholics want to take a stab?
Martin Luther’s pro-sex shocker: “Does the pope set up laws? Let him set them up for himself and keep hands off my liberty”:
sdb, that is one of the responses I expected. Sure. Your WCF is different. Still, you are avoiding the true history of the document you base your religion on. I hope you do not avoid the fact that a radical 2K position is not necessary to your religion. I mean, will you be put on trial for opposing 2K theology?
——————————————————–
BTW, Michael, have you seen this article about why Thomists do not get on board with the ID movement? However, I have seen nothing that prohibits Catholics at this time to consider the biological information that the IDers, especially Behe, have been presenting. It’s pretty complicated. I like the ID movement, but I think that Thomists show its weaknesses. Hey, I like Creationism, but don’t tell Tom that. What I like is the Church’s willingness to allow some latitude in this area at this point in time.
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/aquinas-vs-intelligent-design
LikeLike
sdb,
“If the collapse of the church in Ireland”
And how does one – be they RC or not – know there is a “collapse” in the first place? The magisterium and RC apologists didn’t somehow forget the Arian controversy happened when arguing against Protestant claims and private judgment. There are more options than the 2 you think are apparently the only ones (Protestant private judgment or blind robotic obedience to local priest/bishop).
LikeLike
Cletus, glad to see you are still wrestling with these issues, like the other Roman Catholics who post here. Interesting about JJS shutting down his old blog, I guess now the only way to talk with him is to come to his DXP podcast with a few shots in the bloodstream. Hope you are well, amigo, I remember the good times fighting with you over infallibilty. Grace and peace. Who else is lurking around here? Kenneth, you there?
LikeLike
sdb – My reason for believing that everything in the universe is contingent on God’s will is based on the biblical witness
Erik – You don’t believe it based on logic? Don’t tell Greg.
Do you see biblical evidence for the concept of “ensoulment” of a created being that was previously soul-less?
LikeLike
Ireland “going gay” (thanks, Tom) does nothing to disprove Catholicism, but it does cast doubt on the ability of Catholicism to preserve a country against the forces of secularization. See also: Italy.
LikeLike
sdb,
Thanks for the inquiry. What you said here is the point of concern to me: “And while the Pope not speaking ex cathedra is not infallible and individual bishops are not infallible, their words still require submission of the intellect and will (correct me if this is not a fair summary).
In my understanding submission of the intellect and will to a bishop,pope or priest is not require unless expounding dogma regarding theological truth or morals or within the order of canon law(which is the working out of that moral and theological order within eccleseastical context that includes current Church disciplines). The only thing that would go around this is the obedience in the confessional regarding penances, but we believe that to be a direct interaction with the protection of Christ’s promise of our good. For the in the Catholic faith in the confessional the priest works “in persona Christi/in the person of Christ). No priest, pope or bishop can induce any layman to sin or believe contrary to what the Church has definitively taught. Even under pain of death the layman obeys God rather than men. Sound Protestant don’t I?
I recently had to deal with things with our local priest in regards to current canonical Church disciplines he was teaching against wrongly. The priest was teaching all Catholic’ in his parish to receive our Eucharistic Lord only in the hand. This is clearly against Church disciplines. I would have just ignored his “command” until he tried to stop me from receiving Holy Communion(this is a terribly wrong action of a priest in this regards), but I had my daughter going through First Communion classes at his parish. As my daughter was taught how to receive Holy Communion in the hand, I followed the chain of command. I first went to the class teacher(she said talk to the Religious Ed Director and she would), I talked to the Religious Ed Dir(He said he would talk with the pastor/priest and said the priest refused and that he said I could talk to him personally if I wished), I, while confirming my understanding with the local bishops office, talked to the priest(he freely allowed me to teach and instruct my daughter in both forms of reception as I wished and he would never refuse us), though he believed I was doing something taught against by Vatican II (which it is not). I never had to go to the Bishop to have my and my daughters rights protected to act in accord with our conviction and understanding of tradition and disciplines in the Church, but I would have. I if need be would have reached out the Congregation for Divine Worship or the Pope himself if needed. If the Pope contradicts the teaching of the Church, you act like St Paul did and you rebuke him to his face. This is Catholicism. You are willing to be persecuted even by the whole Church before leaving Her. Let her sinful children kill you first. I don’t go to my local parish for a good sermon or teaching. I go to love God,receive Christ and live in obedience to the Holy Spirit. I hope that helps.
Peace,
Michael
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted June 1, 2015 at 6:38 am | Permalink
vd, t, say hello again to the PCUSA. You can’t follow the evidence wherever it leads if it leads you to deny dogma. If you think Aquinas was a proto-Protestant, then I’m not sure about your qualifications as a historian.?
You’re coming in at the end of the discussion and clearly didn’t read the links, nor absorb much of about the difference between the physical and the metaphysical. You have much catching up to do if you want to participate in what has been a very good discussion.
As for your logic, that the only alternative to fundamentalism is completely loss of faith such as the PCUSA, well, you should know I don’t answer questions based on false premises. You bring your own ability to be an fair and impartial scholar into question, not mine. That the price of faith is the abandonment of reason is a fundamentalist trope, not necessarily a Christian one.
D. G. Hart
Posted June 1, 2015 at 6:46 am | Permalink
vd, t, “These are functions of Jesus as Christ, for whom there is no division between the physical and metaphysical. This is how he can be Risen, and be Present in the Eucharist.”
And you have trouble accepting a literal Adam?
Actually, the proper question is if you can accept Christ’s Real Presence after the Resurrection, why is it implausible in the Eucharist? Not that the question about your religion’s truncation of the articles of Christian belief interests me all that much. It’s more a rhetorical question.
LikeLike
No one reads links put in here by Roman Catholics, or apologists for her system.
You clearly don’t understand what this blog is about or why we are here or why we want you here in order to boost our propoganda.
But I like your music, Tom.
LikeLike
Cletus:
There are more options than the 2 you think are apparently the only ones (Protestant private judgment or blind robotic obedience to local priest/bishop).
Yes, a third way: blind robotic obedience to the Magisterium of the moment
LikeLike
Michael:
No priest, pope or bishop can induce any layman to sin or believe contrary to what the Church has definitively taught. Even under pain of death the layman obeys God rather than men. Sound Protestant don’t I?>>>>>
No. You sound Catholic, in the fine tradition of men like Chrysostom, Athanasius and even Thomas Aquinas. One of the things that I noticed about the serious Catholics is that they will dare to disagree with the Pope, or will dare to ask for clarification – and the Pope clarifies. It is done in love and with respect for his office.
A Protestant would just blow off the Church or the church he or she is in and start another group whenever there is disagreement or misunderstanding.
Michael:
I don’t go to my local parish for a good sermon or teaching. I go to love God,receive Christ and live in obedience to the Holy Spirit. I hope that helps.>>>>>
Yes!
LikeLike
Mrs Webfoot,
Thanks for the link. I’ll check it out. I have a lot I am reading right now though.
LikeLike
Mrs Webfoot,
In all fairness to many Protestant communions that began, many did everything in their understanding to rectify a legitimate(even according to the Catholic) problem and discovered a dead end in there ecclesiastical structure and were by conviction left with nothing else to do but leave. The conscience is very important to the human being.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted June 1, 2015 at 1:20 pm | Permalink
Ireland “going gay” (thanks, Tom) does nothing to disprove Catholicism, but it does cast doubt on the ability of Catholicism to preserve a country against the forces of secularization. See also: Italy.
I don’t think there is a defense against modernity and secularization. Except theocracy, and the Catholic Church showed how that comes out. The Puritans were a quasi-theocracy as well, but within 100 years, that was all gone. Cromwell’s England.
To close the loop on our previous discussion, Erik, I think Christians should be prepared to account for stuff like our Neanderthal DNA and still keep the Bible metaphysically true. Why anyone would want to get Galileo-ed or Monkey Trial-ed again is beyond me. If the choice is narrowed to between only superstition or science, it’s gonna be science.
“In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.”
The question isn’t that to take some parts of the Bible figuratively is a rejection of the Bible, it’s the insistence that the Bible must be literally true, that it’s all or nothing. If science shows the Bible is not literally true, even in the most insignificant matter, the fundamentalist falls, and his claim of the truth of the Bible with it.
LikeLike
And Tom, it’s funny to think you told DGH that he is coming in at the tail end of a convo.
You do know any comment here, despite who you think you are directing it to, is really only directed at Darryl, right? How do you like posting comments to give DGH ideas for his next blog post, New Horizons article, or book? Must be a pretty big fan seeing as you comment as much as you do every day. It’s not like the points people make out here have much if any meaning. Just ask Jason Stellman, why do you think he keeps opening and shutting down blogs? To the archives:
D. G. Hart
Posted June 1, 2015 at 6:46 am | Permalink
D.G. Hart:
vd, t, “These are functions of Jesus as Christ, for whom there is no division between the physical and metaphysical. This is how he can be Risen, and be Present in the Eucharist.”
And you have trouble accepting a literal Adam?>>>>>
TVD:
Actually, the proper question is if you can accept Christ’s Real Presence after the Resurrection, why is it implausible in the Eucharist? Not that the question about your religion’s truncation of the articles of Christian belief interests me all that much. It’s more a rhetorical question.>>>>
Why no Real Presence? I have wondered that, too, I know that there is some kind of “real presence” in the OPC’s WCF, but it is not really real in the way the Catholic Church means it. Why not?
——————————–
Thanks, Michael.
Anyway, I am past my 3 per day limit. Have a good week all of you.
LikeLike
Michael,
Are you sure you’re not Reformed?
You would get along great with Alexander.
LikeLike
Mrs. Webfoot,
The way Tom explains it Catholics say Jesus is no more physically present than we do, so no gloating is warranted.
Unless you have a different definition of “physically”.
LikeLike
Tom,
You assume that the judgments of judges, juries, and the media are what matter.
How’s that working out for the Church on homosexuality?
You’re the one always telling us that the Church is not a democracy.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted June 1, 2015 at 3:26 pm | Permalink
Mrs. Webfoot,
The way Tom explains it Catholics say Jesus is no more physically present than we do, so no gloating is warranted.
Unless you have a different definition of “physically”.
Either I said it wrong or you read it wrong. Oh well, we tried.
http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/the-real-presence-of-jesus-christ-in-the-sacrament-of-the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm
LikeLike
Erik,
Quite sure. Though I suppose I should take that as a compliment. Thanks. I guess. Not fimiliar with Alexander. Is he new around here within the last year or so? I do know I had a strong affinity to Steve Martin. Is he still around some times?
LikeLike
So, Erik, do you accept transubstantiation? You know you do not.
The real presence you talk about is a spiritual real presence. So, I think Tom is asking why you accept the resurrection as real, but not transubstantiation?
I think the OPC calls transubstantiation an idolatrous superstition. Not sure what your church affiliation is.
So, I suppose that your religion also thinks that the whole Church, – including Orthodox churches,- has always been guilty of idolatrous superstition. You can think that way if you like, but you really have to explain why the Holy Spirit allowed the Church to be in such grave error until Calvin and Luther came along to set her straight. I understand that the Church at the time of the Reformation had some serious problems that needed to be addressed. I get that.
Why go after transubstantiation, though, and call it idolatrous superstition? Why spiritualize it, and at the same time, call it real? After all, modernists do that with the resurrection. It is curious.
This goes to the sufficiency of Christ, after all. Was He unable to build His Church for 1500 years? Well, I guess the idolatry started in the 4th century, right?
You can believe that if you wish. I just can’t believe it anymore.
LikeLike
I know he is more the Lutheran stripe than the Calvin stripe Reformed type guy.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted June 1, 2015 at 3:30 pm | Permalink
Tom,
You assume that the judgments of judges, juries, and the media are what matter.
How’s that working out for the Church on homosexuality?
You’re the one always telling us that the Church is not a democracy.
This is probably a good time to bring this very good discussion to a close. I do think that Christianity lost its ability to explain itself [even to its faithful!] through arrogance, laziness or both. “Because the Bible says so” or “Because the Church says so” is inadequate against the corrosion of secular modernity–hence my interest in classical theism and natural law, not coincidently Aquinas’s strong points.
That Christians should withdraw from the world and content themselves with arguing their presuppositions and jogs and tittles among themselves, well, that seems to be the opposite of the Great Commission.
More here. Thx for the discussion.
LikeLike
…and AB, I do apologize for going over my limit. If anyone asks me something, and I don’t respond, well, I’m not ignoring you, nor do I dislike you or find you boring or your questions irrelevant.
I want to do better at respecting the wishes of the blog owner. Thanks, D.G. Hart and AB
So, again, have a wonderful week, and I will lurk here and learn.
LikeLike
@mtx,
Thanks. That does clarify things.
This is one reason why I could never be RC. I’m responsible for the spiritual nurture of my children and hearing God’s word proclaimed is an important means of grace. I could never attend a church that compromised that teaching, which means I could not in good conscience join the RCC. If attending meant subjecting my kids to the homilies of a heretical priest, I would leave for a sound church in my community. I’m incurably protestant…what can I say.
I’m in the PCA now which is a sort of compromise with my wife – to be sure I disagree with a lot of what goes on in my denomination and there are more than a few times when I just have to grit my teeth, but at least I don’t have to work against the church in the spiritual formation of my family. That would be a deal breaker for me.
LikeLike
@mwf “Why spiritualize it, and at the same time, call it real?”
Why is the spiritual somehow not real?
Philosophically, the detailed working out of transubstantiation rests in an Aristotelian metaphysic that I find unconvincing.
Theologically, I have a hard time treating Christ’s resurrected body as something that isn’t a physical body subject to the limitations of a physical body – omnipresence is not a characteristic of our bodies (pre-fall or post-resurrection) as far as I can tell. Thus if Christ’s body is seated in heaven and we are awaiting his return, then that implies he isn’t bodily here now. His spirit is an altogether different matter, but we await his physical return and the resurrection of the dead.
Exegetically, I think JCs discussion of the relevant texts was convincing.
I’m not so sure modernists just “spiritualize” the resurrection, they allegorize it. There is a big difference. However, spiritualizing the resurrection is quite problematic for reasons laid out by Paul in 1 Cor 15. Of course the same could be said for denying that human death is a consequence of sin.
LikeLike
MWF, no biggee. It’s fun having non-protestant western christians around these quadrants of webernetic space. I hope you enjoy yourself with other western christians here, prot and non-prot.
Grace and peace.
LikeLike
Mrs. W – The real presence you talk about is a spiritual real presence. So, I think Tom is asking why you accept the resurrection as real, but not transubstantiation?
Erik – When Christ appeared post-resurrection he was in one place at a time. He was and is a real man. If transubstantiation was true his physical body would have to be all over the world simultaneously. That’s not possible.
What Tom has explained as I read it was a spiritual, not physical presence. That’s why I say he is not positing anything different than what we do.
When we are resurrected will we be able to be in multiple places at the same time?
LikeLike
Christ being a real man is a critical point because if he isn’t real, how could he be our substitute? How could God punish Him for our sins? If his physical flesh was different from ours, would he have necessarily suffered on the cross as we would? If it’s “magic flesh”, why does he still bear the scars in his hands and side?
LikeLike
sdb – I’m in the PCA now which is a sort of compromise with my wife
Erik – There’s a lot of that going around…(ha, ha)
LikeLike
sdb
Posted June 1, 2015 at 4:02 pm | Permalink
@mwf “Why spiritualize it, and at the same time, call it real?”
Why is the spiritual somehow not real?
Philosophically, the detailed working out of transubstantiation rests in an Aristotelian metaphysic that I find unconvincing.
If you find it unconvincing, that’s fine. The issue here is intelligibility, explaining the matter as the Catholic Church itself frames it.
Once you’re talking metaphysics, and not just physics, the whole thing is no longer absurd. The controversy rests on the meaning of “substance” in “transubstantiation.” Since in Aristotlelian-Thomistic metaphysics a “substance” is composed of both matter and form, as an “ensouled” being and as a truly rational conscious being, man is of a “substance” that mere animals are not.
So too, the Eucharist is seen to be of a metaphysical “substance” that the mere bread was not. It’s only when we improperly take “transubstantiation” in physical terms rather than metaphysical ones that it becomes absurd. [The “accidental” vs. the “essence.”]
So too, the idea that Christ cannot be both in “heaven” and in the Eucharist on earth makes the same category error, judging a metaphysical proposition in physical terms which are inadequate to the task.
And if the whole metaphilosophical enterprise gives you a headache, you can just call the Eucharist the “Real Presence” of Christ and go your merry way.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/02/whats-black-and-white-and-misread-all.html
LikeLike
MWF, TVD, MTX, vd, c, and Susie,
You eventually want to end up with what appears to be the happy peace where this young man has found himself:
I mean look at him – posting on a thread not very old, not driving up comment counts into the 700+ range, he drops a note to Darryl for his appreciation, and moves on. Kenneth took some heavy beating here, and now he’s come out just a cool as a cucumber could be. He used to run a blog about being an inquisitor in a coffee house, but now look at him, he’s closed that down, and just posts a nice picture of himself with his wife and young son, and expresses appreciation. You could learn something from Kenneth, he appears to be on the final stages or has left the roman catholic convert cage phase. Surprising is the CVD, who I do not believe is a convert, still appears stuck in a cage phase. I wonder what his story is..Food for thought, you cage fighters. Rawr.
Who’s next?
LikeLike
Mrs. W,
The biggest way to make sense of the “1500 years” is to understand the impact of the Constantinian paradigm. No rivals surfaced during that era because the magistrate backed the Church and stamped them out before they could get a footing.
As far as the Holy Spirit’s role, that can be turned around. If the Holy Spirit was on the side of the RCC, why did his favor depart in allowing an end to the Constantinian paradigm?
The Spirit moves as it wills so it’s hard to pin him down in history.
LikeLike
Tom,
Narrow path and few will find it, my sheep hear my voice, Christ will not lose those the father has given him, etc.
If you change your “big church” paradigm these things become easier to grasp.
LikeLike
Michael,
I think Steve Martin went back to stand up.
He was a bit antinomian for my taste. His extremely sharp law/gospel distinction made me uneasy. Sometimes guys like that are up to something and are trying to over-comfort themselves.
LikeLike
Whoops, TVD is not a cage stage roman catholic convert, he’s more on a quest to figure out what his love of Thomas Aquinas will mean for him on that great day. Tom, may you have peace on your journey and quest, thanks for letting us know how that’s going for you. Will your journey have you go to church some day with Susie? Time will tell, let us know if you do! And keep jamming, man. You got a good beat and sound, amigo, better than just okay…
LikeLike
Tom,
How would you differentiate between “metaphysical” and “spiritual”?
LikeLike
Tom – And if the whole metaphilosophical enterprise gives you a headache, you can just call the Eucharist the “Real Presence” of Christ and go your merry way.
Erik – We do claim the Real Presence in our communion.
It’s Mrs. Webfoot who is chiding us for not being up to her standard. Can you mediate?
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted June 1, 2015 at 4:49 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Narrow path and few will find it, my sheep hear my voice, Christ will not lose those the father has given him, etc.
If you change your “big church” paradigm these things become easier to grasp.
Drop “one,” “holy,” “catholic” and “apostolic,” you mean, or mutate their meanings into insensibility. Including what a “church” is. Substitute some “remnant” theology for the four marks of the church, some “narrow path” justification on how everybody’s confused except you, go off and start your own religion and like all other schismatics, claim to be the “true” religion.
Wash, rinse, repeat. There is not one Protestant sect that remains unfractured. You cannot “reform” what you have broken.
Thx for the discussion, Erik. Our work is done here. 😉
LikeLike
a. now you know the effect of your scriptural bromides. not sure what you’re saying.
LikeLike
vd, c, “how does one – be they RC or not – know there is a “collapse” in the first place?”
hear, see, speak, know no evil. Just close up all orifices.
LikeLike
MTX, you aren’t in the roman catholic convert cage phase either, but I think you are wise to state that with these matters about science you are still working through your thoughts here. Remember my history, my opinion of the lenght of days was most certainly on trial for my ordination, some elders most certainly wanted me to affirm a young earth position, this was in 2007, and I refused, only to have my pastor come down in support of me, and against his session in order to protect me and see my ordination through. Thus, my personal history. Thanks a lot for your voice and help on this thread. I don’t know what we would have done without you. Grace and peace. Who be next?
LikeLike
“The four marks of the Church are that it is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.”
I don’t question the “one” as much as some do here, but I do continue to note that the lack of church discipline and the number of nominal members makes me attach an asterisk.
“Holy” is problematic since we can point to much unholiness in the Church throughout history. Same problems with the Church’s “wondrous sanctity” being a Motive of Credibility.
“catholic” = universal, worldwide. Lots of churches have geographic and chronological diversity.
“Apostolic”- All the apostles died not long after Jesus.
I’ll stick with the three marks – 2 biblical sacraments, gospel preaching, church discipline.
LikeLike
Hart: “ scriptural bromides”
Bromide?
1. a salt –NaBr; 2. a platitude or trite saying
if you are saying 2., with all due respect, one has to really wonder;
if you are saying 1….. salt is good; but if even salt has become tasteless, with what will it be seasoned? It is useless either for the soil or for the manure pile; it is thrown out. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” Luke 14:34-35
LikeLike
Tom,
If you don’t like the “narrow path”, hopefully you can take that up with Jesus someday. His words, not mine.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted June 1, 2015 at 5:28 pm | Permalink
Tom,
If you don’t like the “narrow path”, hopefully you can take that up with Jesus someday. His words, not mine.
Quote-slinging is a useless game.
LikeLike
Erik, go easy on Tom, he’s on a quest.
LikeLike
AB,
That was a pretty good post by DGH that Kenneth commented on.
LikeLike
I think it’s sweet he carries a picture of his wife and son around with him while he blogs. I like Kenneth, I hope he is doing well in school, hopefully finals are over for him, probably are. Good guy, that Kenneth. Glad to see him post here today, and such a nice comment. Good all around.
LikeLike
Tom,
That’s Paul? (On my phone).
That’s his hope, but he would never advocate violating apostolic teaching for the sake of unity.
I actually like quote slinging. They’re not all created equal.
LikeLike
Andrew,
I like Tom. He stimulates me. I’m glad he’s here.
LikeLike
Yeah, Tom and I have had some pretty good times, we emailed a lot back 1.5 years ago or so, showed him all my favorites, like this quote on Cyriline Christology. The best counter I think to Romanists who contend protestants need to convert to Roman Catholicism is to ask: “why not Constantinople instead?” Roman Catholics, especially the ones stumping for their church, and yankees fans, period, full stop, however you want to say it. Wouldn’t it be nice if Tom realized that no one will hurt him if he told us which church he goes to, and in fact, it would gain him an immense amount of street cred? As it stands, he’s still figuring himself out, sweet, and musical as he is. We should pray for him Erik.
LikeLike
@tvd,
I’m not sure why the issue is intelligibility. I understood the issues to be:
1) Can one understand Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper as spiritual and still consider his presence real?
2) Why does one accept the resurrection and not transubstantiation?
I don’t think the RCC position on transubstantiation is “absurd”, but once one rejects Aristotle’s metaphysics, the whole justification falls apart. This is not true for the resurrection. I reject Aristotle’s metaphysics, therefore, I don’t buy the explanations for transubstantiation. I don’t see any conflict between the rejection of this doctrine and belief in the bodily resurrection. Am I missing something here?
LikeLike
sdb,
I’m responsible for the spiritual nurture of my children and hearing God’s word proclaimed is an important means of grace. I could never attend a church that compromised that teaching, which means I could not in good conscience join the RCC. If attending meant subjecting my kids to the homilies of a heretical priest, I would leave for a sound church in my community. I’m incurably protestant…what can I say.
Please don’t get me wrong. I will talk to a priest directly about heresy. This particular situation was about a Church discipline. The Word is regularly read and the preaching is usually pretty good. I am quite aware I am responsible for making sure my children get the true teaching of the Church of Christ. I primarily feel this is my duty as a father though. I will always add to or if needed clarify an easily misunderstood concept to my children. The thing with Holy Communion, my son who is old enough to receive Holy Communion was not paying attention when the priest said it, so he was ignorant of his direction and received in the traditional manner, which he always has done. My son did notice a shadow that came over me when the priest said it, and I just told him not to worry about it. I just want you to know that if I hear heresy from the priest it is my responsibility to do the same thing I did with the required Communion on the hand taught to my daughter. I will make sure they can hear and do the correct teaching from the Church.
BTW, my moving to do what I did, caused the Religious Ed Director’s conscience to get in gear and he has since gone to the priest again and is in communication with the Bishop’s office to get the teaching of 1st communicant restriction situation corrected. This is how the Holy Spirit uses episcopacy in my understanding. I will say I agree there should be some great preaching going on, but God is the primary teacher of us all. We can be taught just fine without hearing a good sermon if we are listening to Him.
Peace,
Michael
LikeLike
sdb
Posted June 1, 2015 at 6:37 pm | Permalink
I don’t think the RCC position on transubstantiation is “absurd”, but once one rejects Aristotle’s metaphysics, the whole justification falls apart. This is not true for the resurrection. I reject Aristotle’s metaphysics, therefore, I don’t buy the explanations for transubstantiation. I don’t see any conflict between the rejection of this doctrine and belief in the bodily resurrection. Am I missing something here?
Not at all, and it’s to your great credit that you actually understand the theology. That’s more than 1 Catholic in 1000 does, I bet. Props.
If you reject Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics as metaphysical truth, then if you accept its definition of “substance” on its own terms as a sort of poetry, “transubstantiation” is really nothing to schism over. In Catholicism–including the Eastern Orthodox–the Eucharist IS Christ, not a symbol. Jesus said, “This is my body,” and Catholicism takes that more literally than many Protestants do.
It’s not as though by “transubstantiation” the Catholic Church claims that the bread won’t rot if you leave it out because its atoms have turned into Jesus. I don’t see the big deal here–the Eastern Orthodox don’t really buy the transubstantiation stuff either, yet the Catholic Church considers the EO Eucharist still valid and licit. Transubstantiation is an ex post facto explanation, and as such doesn’t change the Eucharist itself.
Me, I find the Luther-Zwingli powwow over the Eucharist far more interesting and probative in the history of Christianity than the “trans-” vs. “consubstantiation” tiff.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/marburg_colloquy.htm
Oy.
LikeLike
AB,
In that quote when the positive statement about those who “receive worthily” are spoken about, the Catholic can basically yell a hearty “Amen!”, but when this is said:
…these are only received by those partakers who eat worthily (i.e., repentantly) with faith.
The Catholic has to jump ship fast, for it is the very receiving of the innocent, but condemned by the reciever, Lamb of God that is the judgement on the unworthy recipient that is the cause of his/her condemnation. It is a real reception, therefore a real condemning action of sacrilege.
And of course the Catholic can’t accept this either just to be clear:
elements may be disposed of without ceremony, as they are not changed in an objective physical sense
Peace,
Michael
LikeLike
hello sdb,
I probably shouldn’t be doing this right now, because I won’t be able to have a continuous conversation tonight or even this week. I have a class that is almost over, so I need to hunker down.
I’m curious though about your remarks. Would you mind answering my question and just letting me get back to you when I have more time?
You said: “I don’t think the RCC position on transubstantiation is “absurd”, but once one rejects Aristotle’s metaphysics, the whole justification falls apart. This is not true for the resurrection. I reject Aristotle’s metaphysics, therefore, I don’t buy the explanations for transubstantiation. I don’t see any conflict between the rejection of this doctrine and belief in the bodily resurrection. Am I missing something here?”
Would you tell me why you reject Aristotelian metaphysics? It seem that whomever it is that learns truth in the world, should have a voice. Or do you reject Greek thinkers entirely? What do you reject precisely?
Remember Aquinas was a son of The Church and like a good, and brilliant, son he rescued Aristotle from Averroes. He “wasn’t reconciling Christ to Aristotle; he was reconciling Aristotle to Christ”
( that’s from Chesterton’s “Saint Thomas Aquinas-The Dumb Ox!” .
Thanks!
Susan
LikeLike
Basically that last bit about “disposal” would be because the Tradition recieved from Christ and the Apostles never gave a liturgical method of saying “This is no longer My body”, therefore…
LikeLike
BTW,
Looks like we may breach 700.
LikeLike
MichaelTX, thanks.
I’d prefer to talk about the doctrine of Justification, but Tom thinks what makes us reformed protestants tick is boring.
So here we are talking about bread and wine. As special as they are, and as real as the presence is, they stay bread and wine. That is that.
LikeLike
for a “ha ha”. I appreciate your dogmatic clarity. “they stay bread and wine. That is that.”
Peace dude. We know we have a different view. I just wanted to be clear.
LikeLike
Catch everybody later. Gotta enjoy some supper and get some rest.
LikeLike
a. I’m saying “tip off”.
LikeLike
@Susan
This is a very big question that probably won’t fit into a commbox discussion. Just a few points of clarification… I don’t reject Greek thinkers as a group. Aristotle was genius to be sure, but I think he was ultimately wrong about many, many things. I agree that “whomever it is that learns truth in the world, should have a voice”, but I don’t think much of Aristotle survives close scrutiny. In short the nominalists were right and Hume and Kant’s criticism of metaphysics are about as dispositive as one can be in philosophy. I’ve read Adler, Lewis, Maritain, and Feser and remain unconvinced that there is anything of use to salvage from Aristotelian/Thomist thought. It is interesting in a historic sense of showing how philosophy developed, but it is sort of like looking at Ptolemy’s work… Brilliant guy, but nothing of use left.
I find constructive empiricism a much more compelling account of knowledge and the success of science. I think it also makes room for the rationality of religion. van Fraassen’s “The Empirical Stance” is particularly helpful for showing how one might reconcile religious beliefs and an empirical stance. Definitely worth a read if you are interested in epistemology (and my an adult convert to the RCC no less).
LikeLike
I like Tom. He stimulates me. I’m glad he’s here.
Like — how ’bout love? Like Peabo and Roberta. Or is it Peabo and Peabo?
LikeLike
Whatever kind of love it is, don’t tell Doug or Greg.
LikeLike
Tom and Andrew have stuck by my side through thick-and-thin, kind of like an itchy, but oddly charming skin rash.
There are no two guys I would rather ride llamas across the Andes with.
I’d take Kent, too, but it sounds like his girth would tax the llama.
LikeLike
Sounds like a horrifying example of man’s inhumanity to llamas.
LikeLike
sdb,
Happy to see that you’ve read such great thinkers! You’ve made me very curious about constructive empiricism, so I will definitely be reading about it. Have you read Etienne Gilson?http://www.ignatius.com/Products/MR-P/methodical-realism.aspx
I will read, but I’m leery of anyone who poo-poos Thomistic thought. I’m in favor of science (that’s why I like Aquinas), but science doesn’t write physical reality, it explains it.
You said this: “It is interesting in a historic sense of showing how philosophy developed”
Now wait a darn minute. Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy is only a pit stops on the way to bigger and better ideas?
And you said: “I find constructive empiricism a much more compelling account of knowledge and the success of science.”
Could you tell me how it is better answers the way we know reality, than does Aristotle? What are the shortcomings of Aquinas to do this?
LikeLike
I say one of these days, we all switch e-mail addresses and post as each other. For example, I want to post as Erik for a day, Erik can post as Susan, Susan as cw l’u, cw l’u as Tom, and Tom as Mrs. Webfoot.
And Mrs. Webfoot posts at Darryl. Or any combination thereto. sdb and MichaelTX can switch spots too. If I forgot anyone, my bad, but those are the names I’ve seen in the latest 10 lately.
LikeLike
Greg and Jeff C switch spots too.
LikeLike
That leaves Darryl, he’s not going to post for me, since I need to stop posting for six weeks.
Darryl gets to be Doug Sowers.
LikeLike
AB – Greg and Jeff C switch spots too.
LOL
LikeLike
Chortles,
After 48 hours I imagine the llamas would conspire to dump us all into a 15,000 foot gorge.
LikeLike
@susan “science doesn’t write physical reality, it explains it”. I agree with the first phrase, not the second…I am an anti-realist after all.
” Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy is only a pit stops on the way to bigger and better ideas?” Not sure about bigger, but I could go with simpler and better.
“Could you tell me how it is better answers the way we know reality, than does Aristotle? What are the shortcomings of Aquinas to do this?”
Not in a commbox typing with my thumb on a cell phone. Constructive Empiricism and a voluntarist epistemology addresses the nominalist, Humean, & Kantian criticisms of metaphysics best….do away with metaphysics and save objectifying inquiry for science. Thomism has no good answer to skepticism (devastating critiques of foundationalist epistemologies, causality, etc…).
LikeLike
If nothing else, we have 2 foursomes for 4 on 4 golf.
Mrs. Webfoot, MichaelTX, Tom, and Susan (Team RCism)
vs
Erik, Andrew, Sdb, and Darryl (Team Protism)
If that’s not a funny image in all of our minds right now, I don’t know what is. I think these are the 8with the most comments on this thread. And don’t worry, Susan and Mrs Webfoot, the ladies tees are there for you and should even out our teams. I’ll set up the tee times and send around the confirmation number. Scramble format ok for everyone? It’s easier.
Smile everyone.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted June 1, 2015 at 10:51 pm | Permalink
“Could you tell me how it is better answers the way we know reality, than does Aristotle? What are the shortcomings of Aquinas to do this?”
Not in a commbox typing with my thumb on a cell phone. Constructive Empiricism and a voluntarist epistemology addresses the nominalist, Humean, & Kantian criticisms of metaphysics best….do away with metaphysics and save objectifying inquiry for science. Thomism has no good answer to skepticism (devastating critiques of foundationalist epistemologies, causality, etc…).
I was reading your previous, and looking it up, “constructive empiricism” seems to hold all knowledge as provisional, and rejects [obviates, ignores] metaphysics.
Seems more reductionist than anything new, more driving around Thomas’s edifice rather than through it. As for knowledge being provisional, in his exhortation for Biblical faith to remain open to physical reality, Pope Leo also had a caution that
So we might invoke the philosophical genius CS Peirce in his “fallibilism,” that if man does have Neanderthal genes [or if it turns out he doesn’t, afterall], our pontifications on the origin of man work either way so we don’t get left holding the bag.
As for Thomism [per classical theism] having no answer to skepticism, besides Ed Feser’s able dismantling of the New Atheists
http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/3422040-the-last-superstition-a-refutation-of-the-new-atheism
I recall Britain’s leading scholar on Buddhism Paul Williams “reverting” to Christianity simply over the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
You might want to give Thomas another look. That said, SDB, in case you missed my previous comment, props for being up on this stuff and on the whole explaining Aristotelian-Thomistic-Catholic metaphysics honestly and informedly. Nice.
LikeLike
“one of these days, we all switch e-mail addresses and post as each other. For example, I want to post as Erik for a day, Erik can post as Susan, Susan as cw l’u, cw l’u as Tom, and Tom as Mrs. Webfoot.”
I’m going to post as Mudlyn, free at last.
LikeLike
Comment count – who has the most on this thread? (I was bored putting my son to sleep, me in the rocking chair, him lying in bed, fighting to stay awake, what can I say):
Name amt
AB 153
EC 94
TVD 90
MTX 82
MWF 62
DGH 62
SDB 61
JC 32
Susan 30
a. 11
MG 6
Zrim 5
Kent 5
sean 4
cw l’u 3
Robert 2
CVD 2
SJG 1
Jed 1
Greg 1
Bobby 1
Alexander 1
LikeLike
TVD:
I was reading your previous, and looking it up, “constructive empiricism” seems to hold all knowledge as provisional, and rejects [obviates, ignores] metaphysics.>>>>
What do you think of this quote? It may be an example of how metaphysics is ignored. Like you said, Tom, the big question is why is there something instead of nothing? Or maybe you didn’t say “big question”, but it is an obvious question to ask.
Somebody’s gonna’ ask that question, even if they know nothing about Aristotle or Aquinas. How will the constructive empiricist answer? Maybe the author addresses that in the book.
“Any literal construal of a theory cannot change the logical relationships among the entities claimed by the theory — “most specifically, if a theory says that something exists, then a literal construal may elaborate on what that something is, but will not remove the implication of existence” (1980, 11).”
I am all in favor of whatever helps a person understand the relation between faith and reason, science and the Bible, or whatever.
Very interesting, though, sdb. Thanks.
LikeLike
SDB,
Thank you for the friendly conversation. You are honest and informed…. I really appreciate your thoughts and responses.
Tom linked you to “The Last Superstition”, and I hope you read it. I read this about 2yrs ago.( Josh Lim, ordered it for me through Amazon. Here’s his storyhttp://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/05/joshua-lims-story-a-westminary-seminary-california-student-becomes-catholic/).
I was in a real epistemic mess after reading Kant. I don’t know if this makes sense, but I was stuck in the empirical distrusting my senses to be able to inform me that God existed. I couldn’t figure out how I could have faith( a “faith gene” wouldn’t account for a world that was predominantly and historically religious) yet that I could doubt at the same time. I wondered what was clueing me in. Was beauty( light filtering through the branches, the wind caressing my hair), order, goodness, causation, actually informing my person through my senses or was mankind duped by an anthropological social construction? I was closed in upon myself, and everyone else was closed in upon themselves. The JW, the Mormon, the Isalamist, the Methodist, the EO, the Catholic, the Hindu…. were all locked into their respective presuppositional frameworks and nothing could break them/us out because no one had an objective way “to know”. Everyone cast their line into the cosmos and when they reeled it back it, they had different answers( though I still believed that the deity was one and couldn’t head to the East in that I denied dualism and the law of noncontradition; thank God that reason is reasonable)
Now if you can imagine all of that and then being told that the scriptures alone( and through some obscure tradition) was how we learn of the Christian religion, then maybe you can see how I couldn’t be sure that my Christian forefathers had encountered God or if they too were duped by a “faith tribe” passing on its own social construct and expectation motif( NT fulfilling the OT).
You’ve probably heard my story before, but I wanted to retell it in context of what we are discussing:) Do you grasp what I’m saying?
Anyways, I was that book that saved my faith….St Thomas, in other words.
“St Thomas wanted to recover what was in essence the body of Christ itself, the sanctified body of the Son of Man which had become a miraculous medium between heaven and earth. And he wanted the body, and all its senses, because he believed, rightly or wrongly, that it was a Christian thing. It might be a humbler or homelier thing than the Platonic mind that is why it was Christian. St Thomas was, if you will, taking the lower road when he walked in the steps of Aristotle. So was God, when He worked in the workshop of Joseph.” ~ thought it was a lovely quote:)
LikeLike
Susan
Posted June 2, 2015 at 1:34 am | Permalink
SDB,
Thank you for the friendly conversation. You are honest and informed…. I really appreciate your thoughts and responses.
…
Anyways, it was that book that saved my faith…
God became man, in Trinitarian terms. Broke the barrier between the physical and the metaphysical, in other terms. And the Eucharist follows, as just that “miraculous medium” in living and daily terms.
IOW, “Aristotelian metaphysics” wasn’t Aquinas’s hi-fallutin way of elevating Christ to meet philosophy’s standards, it was a way of explaining Jesus to “the learned,” the hi-fallutin, the “philosophers.”
Aristotle was “the lower road,” accessible even to those without the gift of faith. All they needed was to love truth, which since all truth comes from God, is to love God.
The gals around here are like, whoa. No disrespect to us dudes but like whoa.
LikeLike
Haha, Tom
The book that saved my faith was The Last Superstition. Chesterton has, for years, kept me sane.
Have you read this?
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/05/joshua-lims-story-a-westminary-seminary-california-student-becomes-catholic/).
LikeLike
Susan
Posted June 2, 2015 at 3:08 am | Permalink
Haha, Tom
The book that saved my faith was The Last Superstition. Chesterton has, for years, kept me sane.
Have you read this?
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/05/joshua-lims-story-a-westminary-seminary-california-student-becomes-catholic/).
No ,but I will out of respect. You probably should have figgered out how to shoot that link to me privately. “Called to Communion” around here is like waving a red flag to a bull, like saying “Ronald Reagan” to a Democrat. You’re gonna get some serious grief.
On the other hand, since Old Life is just a bunch of white male Caucasians congratulating each other about how saved and justified they are, I so adore your courage walking into the lions’ den. You and that other nice Catholic lady come to share, to discuss, but not to debate. All here gathered, and I include meself in this, are awed and humbled whether they admit it or not. Tell it, sister. Men are such assholes.
LikeLike
“Thomism has no good answer to skepticism.”
uh oh.
LikeLike
vd, t, ever heard of 2k?
LikeLike
Neat article in that stream of thought Hart:
AGAINST THE SKEPTICS
HOW THOMISTIC REALISM REFUTES RADICAL SKEPTICISM
BY
MARIO DERKSEN
Outline
I. Introduction
II. Skepticism and Modernity
1. Origin, Nature, and Scope of Modern Skepticism
2. Skepticism and the Critical Problem
3. Realism and Skepticism
III. The Workings of Human Knowledge According to the Aristotelian-Thomistic Tradition
4. The Nature of Man as Key to Understanding Knowledge
5. How We Know Things
6. Knowledge and Existence
IV. Response to the Skeptical Challenge
7. Presuppositions and their Justification
8. On Truth
9. The Representative Theory of Perception
10. Of Dreams and Illusions
11. Of Brains and Vats
12. Possibility and Probability
13. Artificial Problem, Artificial Solutions
V. Conclusion: Summary and Evaluation
Here is a quote:“Since St. Thomas Aquinas did not have to battle with the issues and questions that were raised when Descartes set his axe to the tree of knowledge, we cannot easily find the answers Thomas himself would have given to Descartes if he had lived in the seventeenth century. Nevertheless, we have a solid foundation in the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition from which we can draw to evaluate the critical problem and answer directly the challenges put forth by today’s radical skeptics.
“It is certain,” says Jacques Maritain (1882-1973), “that today reason can work usefully at the general reform everyone feels so necessary only if it first of all cures itself of Cartesian errors.”[78] The Cartesian errors are numerous, of course, but the most fundamental of them is Descartes’ irrational desire for absolute certainty, which has driven modernity into this vicious predicament of never-ending skepticism, to which all of the post-Cartesian philosophies are a response in one way or another.
Opening his Posterior Analytics, Aristotle writes: “All teaching and all intellectual learning come about from already existing knowledge.”[79] When Descartes, however, began his critique of knowledge by tearing down, as it were, the house of knowledge, doubting anything he was logically able to doubt, he prided himself on investigating the foundations of knowledge without presuppositions of any kind. “Presuppositionless philosophy” came to be an object of desire in modernity, and it is still very much taken to be a high ideal in certain circles today. That, however, is precisely a grave error in Cartesian philosophy: the attempt to presuppose nothing.
7. PRESUPPOSITIONS AND THEIR JUSTIFICATION
The reason it is erroneous to try to have absolutely no presuppositions or assumptions whatsoever is that it is not possible. Moreover, it is not necessary. It is not possible because human intellection would be without foundation and therefore could not operate if there was nothing whatsoever that grounds and guides intellectual judgment. Even if someone were to try as hard as possible to presuppose nothing at all and as a result would remain entirely idle and not do anything, his inaction would still betray his holding to some assumed premises or principles, because he would be judging that it is better to remain idle than to do anything if one assumes nothing, and this judgment is a conclusion that has come about as the result of an inferential chain. But every conclusion is based on premises, which are necessarily presupposed.[80] So, the fact that he makes the judgment to be idle reveals that he holds to some presupposed premises, or else he could not judge that he should be idle—and a judgment he must make, one way or another, namely, the judgment of whether to be idle or not. It is akin to the choice of not choosing.
Seeing that it is impossible to be totally “presuppositionless,” we need not panic, however, for it is simply not necessary to start philosophical inquiry without any assumptions whatsoever.[81] The reason for this is that presupposing certain things is not an obstacle to sound philosophical reasoning—what is an obstacle is presupposing the wrong things. If we assume dubious contentions, half-truths, or downright errors, then philosophical inquiry will be inhibited, and we will most probably end up with a false conclusion.[82] Thus, rather than purging our intellects of all presuppositions indiscriminately, we ought to take care to eradicate only any false or unjustifiable presuppositions we might have.
In order to be able to distinguish true presuppositions from false ones, we must first understand the nature and necessity of first principles. The necessity of first principles arises out of the fact that all reasoning needs a foundation: “[I]f it were necessary to prove every statement, an infinite series of reasons would be required.”[83] This should be obvious not only to the realist but also to the idealist. If the idealist wishes to deny this foundationalism, he can only do so by giving reasons for his denial—and this would involve him in giving tacit approval to the very foundationalism he denies. He would thus be trapped in a vicious circle. This shows that anyone who argues against foundationalism does so by using arguments that, if they are to be forceful at all, presuppose its truth. Thus we can see the necessity for a foundation of all reasoning, and this basis is provided in first principles and certain axioms and postulates[84] that are self-evident.
For our purposes, we need to enumerate only two of the first principles, namely, the principle of non-contradiction and the principle of identity. “[T]he firmest [i.e., most certain] of all principles,” says Aristotle, “is that about which it is impossible to make a mistake,”[85] and that is the principle of non-contradiction. It states that “the same attribute cannot both belong and not belong to the same subject at the same time and in the same respect. . . .”[86] On this, all other principles depend.[87] An easier way of putting it is that nothing can be and not-be at the same time in the same sense. Everyone believes this, even if he denies it in his speech.[88] In fact, his speech already betrays him, for he can only speak against the principle of non-contradiction if the words he uses have the intended meaning and not the opposite, and so he who claims he denies the principle of non-contradiction could never speak against it. In fact, he could not even be silent, for even understanding what is meant by the principle of non-contradiction presupposes its truth. This is what Aristotle means when he says that “he who destroys reason upholds reason.”[89] It is really and truly impossible to deny this fundamental principle of all being and thought.
The principle which follows from that of non-contradiction is the principle of identity, which simply says that a thing is what it is, that everything is identical to itself. In mathematical terms it is simply the necessary truth that A = A. It would be literally absurd to deny this, and it would also be impossible, for to deny it one must understand it, and if it were not true, it could not be understood, for then it would not be what it is but it would either be nothing at all or whatever anyone might want it to be. Like the principle of non-contradiction, it is therefore likewise impossible to deny the principle of identity.’
Here is where the article can be found: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/catholicteaching/philosophy/askeptic.htm
LikeLike
There’s a book (well, really, the Person who that book is about) that saved me and no one here knows my faith journey. Here let me link:
http://legacy.esvbible.org/esv/browse/
Susan, you shared some pretty personal stuff over at CtC. I hope your epistemic crisis is over. If you have a good priest and parish, that helps. My church plant for example is excellent, pastor has really helped me. I don’t spill my guts on the internet as much as I am able. But we all have a history. The problem with the internet is it is public and we never know who might be reading. But these things get buried by other comments so fast it matters little what we say. Just be careful sharing your story, don’t put the pearls before swine, I’ll get my best too. Peace to you on your journey.
LikeLike
True!! No game shows.
Thanks Darryl, and thanks that your comments show up yellow, I can usually skip the others and find your quick. Grace and peace.
LikeLike
My thoughts on it are summed up simply with the words, the radical skeptic fails in his venture for true understanding because he lacks a well reasoned skepticism of his radical skepticism. His radical skepticism is a poor and irrational presupposition.
LikeLike
Can we set some kind of quota for Californians on here?
LikeLike
With Van Til, I’m a TAG kinda gal, myself:
There’s my three comments. See you all tomorrow. Who’s next?
LikeLike
I’d love nothing more than to have the time to suffer an epistemic crisis.
LikeLike
I guess me again… Morning AB, Erik and anybody else that has enjoyed their coffee.
LikeLike
Nope… Erik jumped in quick.
LikeLike
Erik, I spent a year going through the Bible. The church I was I was heavy on the puritans. Every day 4-5 chapters reading the Bible until I finished it all in one year. I struggled with some anger at God issues stemming from my childhood I wrote about in general terms here here.
It was John Owen and his Communion with the Triune God that eventually did me in. I’ve had some pretty personal religious experiences but none as deep and abiding as that one about 2 or 3 years ago now. Haven’t been the same since. I was always a Xrian, but all of the sudden, I really believed God loved me, in deep and personal way. As Machen says,
For me it started with the Bible, and John Owen. Sorry for the personal stuff (emoticon).
Just finishing exercising, no coffee yet Mtx. Soon tho. Then off to work.
LikeLike
Erik, I spent a year going through the Bible. The church I was I was heavy on the puritans. Every day 4-5 chapters reading the Bible until I finished it all in one year. I struggled with some anger at God issues stemming from my childhood I wrote about in general terms here.
It was John Owen and his Communion with the Triune God that eventually did me in. I’ve had some pretty personal religious experiences but none as deep and abiding as that one about 2 or 3 years ago now. Haven’t been the same since. I was always a Xrian, but all of the sudden, I really believed God loved me, in deep and personal way. As Machen says,
Just finishing exercising, no coffee yet Mtx. Soon tho. Then off to work. Dgh has shared a lot of personal stuff out here as well, I’d go find them, but that’s for him to share how and when he wants. Good stuff.
LikeLike
Just to be clear, constructive empiricism was developed to provide an account of scientific knowledge. It seems to me that there are important lessons here for knowledge more generally. The “Empirical Stance” sketches one approach to applying its implications to non-objectifying inquiry.
Constructive empiricism threads the needle between the comprehensiveness of realism and skepticism of logical positivism. Essentially it allows that observables are not provisional (the Earth really is going around the sun, the moon really exists, I really am 5’11” tall). Alternatively, electric fields, quarks, chemical bonds, and dark matter are not observed – they are theoretical entities that help us make sense of readings on instruments. The distinction between observable things and non-observable things is perhaps the most controversial part of constructive empiricism.
Yes. Empiricism is the rejection of metaphysics. Hume’s critique was devastating. Kant’s strengthening of Hume’s arguments and then noble attempt to salvage metaphysics of a form doesn’t really work. Since metaphysics fails at things we can understand and observe, it is not clear that one should turn to metaphysics to answer more difficult questions like “Why does anything exist?”.
CS Pierce is one of my favorites. One can see van Fraassen’s work as following a direct line from Pierce, James, and Dewey. van Fraassen is not simply a restatement of their work, but there are clear connections.
I did read the last superstition…shooting fish in a barrel. Don’t get me wrong, Hitchens was a talented wordsmith and Dawkins’s science writing can be elegant, but refuting those guys is like the atheist who refutes Josh McDowell. It isn’t exactly taking on the best arguments the other side has to offer. Dennett’s debate with Plantinga was frankly embarrassing (to Dennett that is, or at least should have been if he had an ounce of self-awareness). There does seem to be a cottage industry in showing how wrong, wrong, wrong, these guys are (D.B. Hart, Plantinga, McGrath, etc… have all taken their shots into the barrel). I don’t think this is a bad thing, but I don’t think it addresses the strongest critiques of metaphysics. I think Peter van Inwagen is a much more formidable defender of metaphysics and takes on the more serious critics. On the other hand, his stuff isn’t directed towards a popular audience and there is certainly a place for that.
Thanks for your kind words.
LikeLike
Yet another benefit of college, it moves you quickly from one epistemic crisis to a competing one. You learn to relax about it all.
LikeLike
Muddy Gravel I’m going to post as Mudlyn, free at last.
“Jenner posted a “birth” announcement on Twitter, making the name change official.” “I’m not doing this to be interesting,” Jenner said. “I’m doing this to live.”
Sorrowful really that he likely does not know about the true re-birth that enables life.
LikeLike
Hey while I am thinking about it. I’ll throw out a recommendation to everybody. About three months back, me and about six other guys started getting together every second and forth week of the month to chat about a religious/political/idealogical/family/personal idea together. We host at each others house. Host picks the topic, open with prayer, buys some brewskies and snacks, and we usually enjoy some cigars. Makes for a great time and good for the soul. God enjoys to see his children enjoy each other. We are all married guys with kids. Wives are usually so kind as to run off with the kids for several hours so we can just be guys together. We gave our group the Latin term Ibidem Christian’s Men Group. We sound all professional… we aren’t. We aren’t limited to Catholic or anything, just, as CS Lewis would put it, “mere Christian”.
Anyway, just wanted to share the idea.
LikeLike
Sean, hi.
LikeLike
AB, I worry about whether y’alls circle is going to be round.
LikeLike
@MWF
Asked,
“What do you think of this quote? It may be an example of how metaphysics is ignored. Like you said, Tom, the big question is why is there something instead of nothing?”
And answered by Peter van Inwagen… I’m not sure this is a fruitful approach, but ymmv…
LikeLike
@mtx
“My thoughts on it are summed up simply with the words, the radical skeptic fails in his venture for true understanding because he lacks a well reasoned skepticism of his radical skepticism. His radical skepticism is a poor and irrational presupposition.”
Great line! I don’t think it is possible to function as a radical skeptic. I just don’t find the aristotelian/thomist/realist line of thought a convincing refutation. That isn’t to say there isn’t a way around the challenge laid out so well by Hume and those who follow his method.
LikeLike
Sean, and that’s the right response.
I hope my 150 comments show I don’t engage much, more like Dgh, I poke in to promote what I like, and poke at people mostly.
But this thread is mostly harmless. I am sorry how Greg treats you, though I know you have seen it before. Just know I’m reading FWIW. Take care. College? Zactly.
LikeLike
Along with my purtian church and bible reading, I learned to “journal out” my thoughts.
I think some people could benefit from that, read your bible daily, journal out your thoughts, and then pray. Its a daily dialog with the Almighty. It worked for me.
Pray adoration, confession, thanksgiving, supplication. (ACTS).
next.
LikeLike
Thanks sdb, but don’t make habit about pattin’ my back too much. I am prone to pat it too and that is no good. I appreciate your kind words.
LikeLike
More on TAG
https://oldlife.org/2015/04/the-bible-cant-speak-to-all-of-life/comment-page-17/#comment-324521
For any lurker or interlocutor.
Next.
LikeLike
AB, I’ve been victimized. I’m waiting for my hero.
LikeLike
Andrew,
I’ll dig into the Puritans right around the same time I start working out with Richard Simmons on VHS.
LikeLike
I don’t do it anymore. Straight up Luther, Calvin, Hodge, Warfield, Machen, Hart, Kline, Fesko, Horton, RSClark now. Those are my generals. Owen is nice historical personal history. I don’t recommend him, unless the situation is deaparate. He is too hard to read. Instead, read someone on Owen like this.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0851515037?ie=UTF8&force-full-site=1&ref_=navm_ftr_fullsite
I could keep going?
LikeLike
@Susan “Do you grasp what I’m saying?” I think so, and I hope the path you are on settles your doubts.
I’ve spent a lot time around RC converts who followed a path similar to yours…the ones whose faith become over intellectualized led to an off-putting triumphalism and many have fallen away. The whole CTC approach seems to me to encourage this which is why I have a big problem with what they do (not so much with the RCC more generally).
I’ve pointed several times to Rod Dreher’s experience of losing his catholic faith — not as a cudgel with which to pound on catholicism, but rather as a warning from one who has publicly (and bravely I might add) discussed how his approach to catholicism following his conversion planted the seeds for his loss of faith when the storms came. His experience is representative of something I have witnessed many times – of course I’m just some random commenter on the internet, so take it for what its worth…
LikeLike
“I’ll dig into the Puritans right around the same time I start working out with Richard Simmons on VHS.”
HA! That reminded me of that old show, “Whose line is it anyway?”. Getting up at all hours with baby #1, we would watch re-runs and there was a guest appearance by Richard Simmons… evidently “little richard” was slipping out of his shorts in the skit. The reaction from the actors was hilarious.
LikeLike
sdb, I guess my feeling about the refutation of skepticism by Thomism/Aris/Realism, that you are talking about, is that to a degree you are right. Assertion of Realism is not the answer, but Realism is where you should land after logic dismantles radical skepticism. Thomas and Aristotle were logical thinkers. In that way we use the same ideas they used to come back to were Thomas substantially landed. That is just my tentative view on the situation though. You sound like you have read much more philosophy than me.
LikeLike
@AB
“Comment count…” How about a word count?
LikeLike
Microsoft word can do that, SDB
Though I fear I would be losing that battle to a few out here. As it stands, I’ve got 50 comments in TVd and EC. This jockey is not gonna lose this horse race with out a fightm staying a head of you all, hya!
LikeLike
I still dig Johnathan Edwards. Not the politician, but that probably need not be said.
LikeLike
Mtx,
Stick around. FYI, we aren’t big on JE.
A few months back, we sat around and asked, “who is yoirbleast favorite theologian?
One elder said, John Frame.
Our pastor?
He said
Jonathan Edwards
LikeLike
AB,
No biggie. Not everybody likes him.
LikeLike
I will say, I did not care a lot for Religious Affections.
LikeLike
Timothy Keller (@timkellernyc) tweeted at 3:20pm – 20 Dec 14:
Reading some Saturday evening Edwards. (https://twitter.com/timkellernyc/status/546445141398257664?s=17)
LikeLike
I’ve got maybe 5 more, working on few others.
Who’s next?
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/05/05/social-media-obsession-costing-some-people-their-marriage/
LikeLike
MichaelTX, isn’t that what Old Life does? Just light up before browsing.
LikeLike
Sean, Omar.
LikeLike
I’ve been wanting to read the book Jonathan Edwards and the Catholic Vision of Salvation by Anri Morimoto for years now. http://www.amazon.com/Jonathan-Edwards-Catholic-Vision-Salvation/dp/0271014539
Here is an Amazon reviewer: Morimoto seeks to recast Edwards theology of conversion, justification, sanctification, and glorification in a more ecumenical context than what he calls “textbook protestantism”. In a way, this makes sense, in that Edwards is without a doubt the foremost American theologian yet to emerge. On the other hand, it’s a little weird, in that Edwards himself did not interact much with Roman Catholicism. In fact, most of Edwards works are very much defined by the intellectual climate of 18th century New England, and the theological confrontation with New England “Arminianism”.
Morimoto compares Edwards primarily to Roman orthodoxy as defined by Aquinas and the Council of Trent. In doing so, he shows that many of the differences stem from an inability or unwillingness of both protestants and the defenders of Roman orthodoxy to understand the terminology being used by the other side.
Morimoto also offers frequent comparisons between Edwards and the first generation of reformers (Luther, Calvin, Bucer, etc.). The examples he chooses suggests that Edwards formulations are more in line with historical protestantism than much of modern protestantism, and that the very things (such as his definition of faith) that have embarrassed some Edwards scholars like Perry Miller because they seemed to lean toward Roman doctrinal formulations are in fact the points at which Edwards most strongly echoes the early reformers.
Morimoto observes that recent Edwards scholarship has been more cognizant of this fact. From this, he suggests that the current Protestant and Roman understandings of salvation are closer than they have been at any time in the last three centuries.
Morimoto’s thesis is an interesting one, and he supports it well from primary sources. If nothing else, this book should stimulate the thought of its readers and perhaps some interesting debate.
LikeLike
I’m joining your Mudlyn.
LikeLike
Hart,
Basically, yeah. It is still missing that tangible face to face gut laugh in the midst of talk dispersed with critical thinking by a pile of guys sittin’ around under a shade tree until the stars come out. Computers connect us in a small way, but in the flesh is far beyond what we can achieve here.
LikeLike
MichaelTX:
I still dig Johnathan Edwards. >>>>
Of course you do. He was a Calvinistic Thomist. His sermon series On Charity and Its Fruits is masterful. Loved his presentation of Christ in his sermon The Excellency of Christ. Then there’s A Divine and Supernatural Light. When I started to read the Summa I thought, hmm, some of this sounds like Jonathan Edwards. Hmm.
It’s no accident. Anyway, …
LikeLike
Seems like Edwards was not a Thomist in techical language, but in essence. I’m not a professional student of either though.
LikeLike
EC: I’d take Kent, too, but it sounds like his girth would tax the llama.
C’mon, I’ve downsized 30 pounds in the last 2 months…
Able to wear suits again that went out of style 15 years ago.
LikeLike
Edwards and Spurgeon make a somewhat decently read Reformed bookworm wonder why they get automatically grandfathered onto certain recommended reading lists….
just sayin’
LikeLike
Our pastors make us breakfast, Saturday mornings usually, once a month. We have our first at http://providencepresbyterianchurch.org this Saturday, if anyone is in the silicon valley area, tweet me for details. I’ve been going to monthly men’s breakfast since I was 23 or so, when they had them at the SJ OPC (covenantopc[dot]org) which they still do. The average age was about 60, I was being groomed to be a OLTSer I suppose, I’m still way under the average, as are you MTX. Like I said, stick around.
Hi webfoot.
Next?
LikeLike
MWF, here is a quote out of that book I have been wanting to read that I posted earlier: Being is, for Edwards, essentially a network of laws that prescribe certain actions and events to take place on specified occasions. These laws are active and purposive tendencies, or dispositions, that automatically come into “exertion” when the specified circumstances are met. A chair in a room, for example, is not a chair by itself that has certain qualities. It is rather a result of the exercise of laws governing the nature of that particular chair to exist in such and such a manner. This dispositional conception on being can therefor mediate between various categories traditionally thought to be antithetical–such as substance and accident, being and action, or being and becoming. Of course the Christian believes all these laws are held in place by the providential, all powerful hand of God. Miracles are the suspension of one or more of the particular laws at the good will of the God who holds them in place, including the believer “seeing” that “divine and supernatural light”.
It seems this idea of understanding Edwards also plays into sdb’s principle of the importance of empiricism in dealing with reality, especially in the scientific study. Anyway, I could continue musing but….
LikeLike
that’s [16] on the day for me, now [17] on this thread.
have a great day michael, i need to stop posting for 6 months. i’ve used up way too many of my 3/day.
enjoy oldlife everyone.
who’s next?
LikeLike
Sorry about the squished paragraph above. All the non-italicized words are mine.
LikeLike
Kent,
We’ll commandeer you a husky Alpaca.
LikeLike
Audio of Edwards complete sermons could have come in handy at Gitmo.
Who needs waterboarding?
LikeLike
Most definitely the digital voice ones, Erik.
LikeLike
Yes. Edwards used a Thomistic approach to argumentation. See in The Excellency of Christ how he puts himself in the place of different kinds of people who may have this or that doubt or misunderstanding of who Christ is. He then explains how Christ’s excellency responds to that doubt or misunderstanding. It’s in the last part of the sermon.
He also carefully deals with people’s misunderstandings about what charity is and what the gifts of the Holy Spirit are and are not. He interacts effectively with all arguments, even ones he was not in agreement with. It’s that ability to put oneself in the place of someone else, understand what they are saying, accurately explain it, and then refute it carefully and then present his understanding that is so Thomistic.
No, it’s not so much that all of his philosophy was Thomistic. It’s the way he presented truth that is Thomistic. He makes reasonable and even common sense arguments that appeal to the whole person. It’s like the hammer that breaks the rock in pieces, but with carefully laid blows and loving appeals and warnings that actually can make the rock say thank you.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted June 2, 2015 at 6:50 am | Permalink
vd, t, ever heard of 2k?
Do you have a relevant point, Butch, or do you just like quoting yourself? 😉
LikeLike
TVD still calls him names, as if an emoticon heals all wounds.
Read some about our host, his post today was quite personal. You might rething your strategy, TVD.
Grace and peace.
Next?
LikeLike
If Butch doesn’t like it, Butch can tell me himself. I don’t like “vd” and have told Butch so, but Butch doesn’t care.
LikeLike
Tom, it only makes you look worse.
It’s the one about his father Jay that has me rethinking him, he’s quite the gentlemen to put up with all the attacks he gets out here:
If I were DGH, I may not necessarily tell someone that name calling bothered me. It reveals a level of maturity if someone can figure out proper behavior without being told. Just sayin.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted June 2, 2015 at 9:03 am | Permalink
“and rejects [obviates, ignores] metaphysics.”
Yes. Empiricism is the rejection of metaphysics. Hume’s critique was devastating. Kant’s strengthening of Hume’s arguments and then noble attempt to salvage metaphysics of a form doesn’t really work. Since metaphysics fails at things we can understand and observe, it is not clear that one should turn to metaphysics to answer more difficult questions like “Why does anything exist?”
Empiricism seems to be even less equipped to answer the questions that really matter. For instance, even leaving out “religion,” the question of consciousness, of mind, of why we are not merely animals and brute intellect.
LikeLike
TVD, I probably won’t update the comment count, but of the antagonists, you have the most comments on this thread. And if you include the words in your quotations, I am sure your word count is the highest of us all. Just so you, I don’t read your comments any more. Learn to say what you want in more terse forms if you desire to be read. You have the common RC Bryan Cross wordy disease, hoping you will be heard for your many words. Keep trying, man. From the BSU (look i’m good, emoticons, 😀 so nothing of what I said has meaning!)
and TVD, keep posting. We love watching you dance, expecially since we are Zen Calvinists, along with C Trueman (did you see his first things post today, yo?)
Who’s next? I’ve got 10 more comments pre populated ready to go, let’s see what y’all got!
LikeLike
“The founders of modern philosophy and science overthrew Aristotelianism, and common sense along with it. On the new view of nature inaugurated by Galileo and Descartes, the material world is comprised of nothing more than colorless, odorless, soundless, meaningless, purposeless particles in motion, describable in purely mathematical terms…”
You might find the CE dismantling of materialism interesting. The rejection of metaphysics entails the rejection of materialism.
While I don’t find intelligent design arguments ultimately cinvincing, I think they’ve been treated quite unfairly for the most part. One happy exception is Bradley Monton, who while an atheist, finds most criticisms of ID wanting. Certainly worth reading if this stuff interests you. I bring him up as he is also a CE and a student of vf.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted June 2, 2015 at 6:47 pm | Permalink
“The founders of modern philosophy and science overthrew Aristotelianism, and common sense along with it. On the new view of nature inaugurated by Galileo and Descartes, the material world is comprised of nothing more than colorless, odorless, soundless, meaningless, purposeless particles in motion, describable in purely mathematical terms…”
You might find the CE dismantling of materialism interesting. The rejection of metaphysics entails the rejection of materialism.
While I don’t find intelligent design arguments ultimately cinvincing, I think they’ve been treated quite unfairly for the most part. One happy exception is Bradley Monton, who while an atheist, finds most criticisms of ID wanting. Certainly worth reading if this stuff interests you. I bring him up as he is also a CE and a student of vf.
Not much on ID, meself. “Irreducible complexity” would indeed indicate a deus ex machina, but I find the examples [the eyeball, flagellum] acceptibly easy to explain without one.
As for van Frassen, I’m not wrapping my mind around what’s particularly fresh about it, and of course it’s a creature of modern analytical philosophy and its attendant jargon. My first impression was exhoed by this reviewer
https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23164-the-empirical-stance/
and of course, as with Hume, I can only say “If he is right, that leads us…nowhere.” Which is fine I guess. I like Leo Srauss even though in the end–atheist that he was–the means is the end: The goal of philosophy is philosophizing, the goal of knowledge is in the learning, the purpose of the journey is the journey itself.
Thx for the discussion.
LikeLike
MichaelTX, but OL is there daily.
LikeLike
vd, t, try a different vowel.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted June 2, 2015 at 6:47 pm | Permalink
“The founders of modern philosophy and science overthrew Aristotelianism, and common sense along with it. On the new view of nature inaugurated by Galileo and Descartes, the material world is comprised of nothing more than colorless, odorless, soundless, meaningless, purposeless particles in motion, describable in purely mathematical terms…”
You might find the CE dismantling of materialism interesting. The rejection of metaphysics entails the rejection of materialism.
While I don’t find intelligent design arguments ultimately convincing, I think they’ve been treated quite unfairly for the most part.
EPILOGUE:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/05/aristotle-watches-blade-runner.html#more
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Was megababe Sean Young made of the human “substance?” Does “constructive empiricism” have to sit this one out? Are all automatons created equal?
What about the suggestion that Blade Runner’s replicants, like humans, have rationality? Here things are a little more complicated, but only because replicants are, of course, fictional. There is no “fact of the matter” about what a replicant is; hence it’s not entirely clear what to say about them. What we are told about them makes the situation highly ambiguous. On the one hand, superficially they seem to be like robots or androids. And in that case I would say that they are metaphysically on all fours with computers, clocks, toaster ovens, etc. That is to say, they have mere accidental forms rather than substantial forms, and are thus not true substances. On the other hand, on closer consideration they are far more human-like than the stereotypical android or robot is. Not only are they at least partially made out of biological material, but they are so close to human beings in their appearance that it seems that a physical inspection (including an X-ray or the like) wouldn’t reveal something to be a replicant.
Hence Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) has to administer a complex psychological test to determine whether Rachael (Sean Young) is a replicant. But then replicants seem to have an organic unity that indicates that they have substantial forms rather than merely accidental forms, and thus are true substances. (I have discussed the difference between substantial and accidental form in many places, such as here, here, and here. For the full story, see chapter 3 of Scholastic Metaphysics.)
Now, either way we interpret them, replicants will not be true counterexamples to the Aristotelian claim that what is distinctive about human beings is that they are rational animals. For suppose that replicants have only accidental forms, and thus are not true substances. They are in this case merely mechanical systems, like computers running software or clocks which have been designed to display the time. And in that case, for reasons I’ve stated many times (e.g., recently, here) they would from the Aristotelian point of view no more literally have rationality than a statue of a man literally has eyes. They would merely behave as if they had it. The rationality would all be observer-relative — a projection of the human programmers of the replicant’s imitation brain, rather than something really in the replicant itself.
Suppose instead, though, that replicants have substantial forms and thus are true substances. Then it is much more plausible to say that they have genuine rationality, as well as true sensation, appetite, locomotion, and the other functions we share with non-human animals. But in that case they would be rational animals — in which case they would be human beings. True, they would be human beings with very exotic origins, but that is a question of where they came from, and that is a different question from the question of what they are. On this scenario, they would be more like clones of human beings (even if not exactly like clones) than they would be like robots or androids, and clones of human beings would certainly be human beings. But if replicants are just exotic human beings, then, once again, they are not counterexamples to the claim that being rational is what is distinctive of human beings…
[insert Youtube clip here]
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted June 2, 2015 at 8:45 pm | Permalink
vd, t, try a different vowel.
Dullyrl Hurt.
LikeLike
Tom, go to church this weekend.
#payprayandobey
LikeLike
Hart,
I agree that is an asset. And not the only one.
Peace. See you guys around.
Michael
LikeLike
sdb:
You might find the CE dismantling of materialism interesting. The rejection of metaphysics entails the rejection of materialism.>>>>>
Okay, this thread is probably done, but…
What you said, here, caught my eye, sdb. If you do not have metaphysics or materialism, what is left? At least materialism gives some meaning to the universe.
How is CE anything but a fancy sounding version of nihilism? …or “Shut up, and calculate!”
Looks like a dead end. Besides, not to open up discussion involving me on trying to refute Hume, but you have seen the refutations of Hume, correct, including ones from his own time period. Hume was saying what skeptics wanted him to say, so they declared him the winner and went their merry way, it seems to me.
Anyway, still not seen any reason to dump Thomism, but if you like CE, sdb, it’s all yours.
Take care, and this has been a very interesting conversation. Thanks.
LikeLike