1,260 thoughts on “White Smoke over Synod of Dordt”

1. White Smoke over Synod of Dordt

   Ha!

   Praying for Moderator Alison and the assembly of our church.

   LikeLike

2. Welcome back to Iowa.

   LikeLike

3. Ditto to AB, praying for the whole assembly. Enjoy that gray smoke.

   LikeLike

4. Don’t screw it up. We’re all gonna hold you accou…err….counting on you. Be brave but don’t be wrong.

   LikeLike

5. Commissioners to the 82nd General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church have unanimously elected Archibald Alison as its moderator. We did not even vote. Only one nomination and then silence.

   Awesome, Elder Hart. It”s one and it’s catholic. In this day, two out of 4 ain’t bad atall, atall. 30,000 down, 7.0006 billion to go.

   The World Factbook gives the population as 7,095,217,980 (July 2013 est.) and the distribution of religions as Christian 31.50% (of which Roman Catholic 16.85%, Protestant 6.15%, Orthodox 3.96%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 23.20% (of which Sunni 75-90%, Shia 10-20%, Ahmadi 1%), Hindu 13.8%, Buddhist 6.77%, Sikh 0.35%, …

   LikeLike

6. Gray smoke will be evident once commissioners retire for the evening.

   Nothing like a fine cigar…

   LikeLike

7. Gray smoke will be evident once commissioners retire for the evening.

   Nothing like a fine cigar…

   LikeLike

8. Am I in Iowa or South Dakota? How would you know?

   LikeLike

9. #TerryGray

   LikeLike

10. “Gray smoke will be evident once commissioners retire for the evening.” Excellent

    LikeLike

11. TVD,

    As a longtime lurker and occasional commenter here, I am curious. What would you have presbyterians do? Should they just get really discouraged by the fact that they are not the biggest game in town? Become Catholic based solely on the numbers, despite some pretty valid criticisms of RC practice, doctrine, etc.? You have some sharp criticisms of the “Establishment” here, but I’m wondering what you want them to do. Genuine question.

    LikeLike

12. Habemus moderatam?

    LikeLike

13. Last year I pronounced #OPCGA the world’s loneliest Twitter hashtag. It seems a little more active this time.

    LikeLike

14. Cw,

    Your influence at work.

    Seth, brilliant.

    LikeLike

15. Stephen, welcome.

    To perhaps coax an answer, TVD is here only to learn about roman Catholicism, the tradition he identifies with. On his better days, he says he’s here to learn about us presbys so as to defend even us in his online pursuits elsewhere.

    I think he likes the attention, and really, the way he talks makes me think he doesn’t go to church.

    Let’s see him answer. He may something now, had I not chimed in, he would have left out hanging, methinks.

    Grace and peace.
    [2]

    LikeLike

16. Tom,

    16.85% of 31.5% ain’t that impressive.

    LikeLike

17. Darryl,

    It’s all Dutch Siouxland up there.

    LikeLike

18. [Drie]

    LikeLike

19. For consider your calling, brothers: mnot many of you were wise according to worldly standards,3 not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But nGod chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; oGod chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even pthings that are not, to qbring to nothing things that are, 29 so rthat no human being4 might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him5 you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us swisdom from God, trighteousness and usanctification and vredemption, 31 so that, as it is written, w“Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

    I don’t claim this is as accurate as my PCA Venn diagram (see my profile). Have fun OPers! (google it) #OPCGA #OPC pic.twitter.com/mEvXYSE3sH (https://twitter.com/ChortlesWeakly/status/606447132740952064?s=17)

    LikeLike

20. Not mine, Venn diagram, but thine, CW.

    Well done
    Next.

    LikeLike

21. DGH,

    How did the (many?) faithful gathered outside respond? Was the media coverage a nuisance?

    LikeLike

22. Brandon, Pope Francis tweeted “we rejoice with our separated sisters” #OPCGA

    LikeLike

23. found it @oldlife

    #overmycommentlimitfor6years
    #who’snext
    #yo

    LikeLike

24. You don’t have to have a twitter account to see what people are tweeting at hashtag opcga. Click here if you like

    https://twitter.com/hashtag/opcga?src=hash&vertical=default&f=tweets

    the running daily report is here

    opc[dot]org/GA/82nd_GA_rpt.html

    enough comments from me, see you all tomorrow.

    LikeLike

25. Andrew,

    Call your commissioner and see if he can push for some kind of resolution on the sublimity of Dafne Schippers.

    Who could say “no” to that while meeting in Sioux Center?

    

    LikeLike

26. Darryl,

    How has the Sioux Center night life been?

    Retreating to the Hy-Vee Deli for fried chicken and a nice roll?

    LikeLike

27. Stephen
    Posted June 4, 2015 at 8:21 am | Permalink
    TVD,

    As a longtime lurker and occasional commenter here, I am curious. What would you have presbyterians do? Should they just get really discouraged by the fact that they are not the biggest game in town? Become Catholic based solely on the numbers, despite some pretty valid criticisms of RC practice, doctrine, etc.? You have some sharp criticisms of the “Establishment” here, but I’m wondering what you want them to do. Genuine question.

    Management seems to spend an inordinate amount of time enjoying the Catholic Church’s divisions, and of course the reference to “white smoke” here

    In point of fact, Presbyterians, who do things decently and orderly, don’t blow smoke when we elect a moderator.

    is more of the same type of snark. Which is fine, but I suppose my point is that it’s easy to keep a denomination in line when its dissidents just pack up and start a new sub-denomination down the street.

    Or perhaps this was a rare not-snarky sideways reference to the Catholic Church, in which case I withdraw the observation. 😉

    LikeLike

28. I sat in the midst of some Sioux Center High kids at the state track meet. Best argument I heard:

    Girl 1: Give me some of your popcorn.

    Girl 2: It’s Kettle Corn.

    Girl 1: Well it’s still popped.

    LikeLike

29. Erik,

    Naw, my commissioner Mr. Don Jamieson, one in the forefront, looks busy. I don’t want to upset the work of the GA the OPC. That’s a burden none of us wish to bear if we don’t have to.

    #keepingmyfingersfromtypinganymore

    LikeLike

30. Tom,

    So you admit to division in the Roman Catholic Church?

    You don’t wish Nancy Pelosi would leave and start a new sub-denomination?

    You’ve never really made a compelling case for why unity is the supreme value in Christianity.

    LikeLike

31. Darryl,

    Which scent is stronger in the Sioux County air this time of year?: Kuyperian Worldviewery or pig manure?

    LikeLike

32. Stephen, it appears that Tom is paid by the unwitty, pointless word on here.

    LikeLike

33. TVD, we coaxed you into a response.

    All one has to do is misrepresent a position, that’s how we got Christian Kingery to come in, and even jason:

    Christian
    Posted June 3, 2015 at 3:57 pm | Permalink
    Hi Andrew,

    I just didn’t want to be misrepresented. 😉

    That’s precisely why creedcode and calledtocommunion grates on us presbys, because we are misrepresented. this is not rocket science.

    so if you want someone’s opinon, just speak for them. wow, how easy, and breaking of the moral law, is that, yo?

    #samestuffdifferentday
    #doesTomgotochurch?

    LikeLike

34. Christian
    Posted June 3, 2015 at 3:57 pm | Permalink
    Hi Andrew,

    I just didn’t want to be misrepresented. 😉
    That’s precisely why creedcode and calledtocommunion grates on us presbys, because we are misrepresented. this is not rocket science.

    so if you want someone’s opinon, just speak for them. wow, how easy, and breaking of the moral law, is that, yo?

    #samestuffdifferentday
    #doesTomgotochurch?
    #threecommentperthreadperdaypeepsorelsedarrylwillneverfinishhisbookonmenckenyo

    LikeLike

35. Erik:
    You’ve never really made a compelling case for why unity is the supreme value in Christianity.>>>>

    Well, this is a statement made to Tom, but I guess from my point of view, Protestantism has never made a compelling case justifying its tendency to divide at the drop of a hat. I understand it better when the division is over something substantive doctrinally. I don’t get it when, say, Matt Chandler excommunicates 14 churches from “his” denomination because Mark Driscoll messed up big time.

    That is just a very public division from very public churches. However, that kind of thing happens quietly all the time in Protestantism. Now, you can claim special status as the remnant of the true system that Calvin invented, but that is not the same as making a compelling case for the way that Protestantism has behaved from the beginning.

    On the other hand, if you want a compelling case for unity, read John 17. No, it does not prove that the Catholic Church is the true church, but it does prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Trinity values unity. Heck, it’s in the doctrine of the Trinity – unity, not division.

    Now you will say that Jesus did not necessarily mean organizational unity. However, the OPC seems to have denied even the Nicene Creed and small “c” catholic. We can be friends, according to Machen, but not brothers in Christ.

    …and then you say that you are not OPC, and off we go into Protestant nothingness. Maybe there is no white smoke because there is no Holy Spirit to be consulted in matters of such importance and no outward sign of His presence.

    LikeLike

36. Mrs. W,

    Prove the Roman Catholic Church has a monopoly on the Holy Spirit.

    LikeLike

37. Mrs. W,

    You also can’t have it both ways.

    You can’t on the one hand tout your visible unity and on the other hand cry “foul” when we chide you over the rogues that you tolerate in your midst.

    Embrace your sister in the faith, Nancy Pelosi. Her bishop does.

    LikeLike

38. Erik Charter
    Posted June 4, 2015 at 1:05 pm | Permalink
    Tom,

    So you admit to division in the Roman Catholic Church?

    You don’t wish Nancy Pelosi would leave and start a new sub-denomination?

    …

    Embrace your sister in the faith, Nancy Pelosi. Her bishop does.

    Actually, her bishop did rebuke her.

    http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/26/catholic-bishop-rebukes-nancy-pelosi-human-life-begins-at-conception-its-scientific-fact/

    But if a church is a hospital for sinners, you don’t boot people out on the street. Your riff about “unity” is a false premise.

    You’ve never really made a compelling case for why unity is the supreme value in Christianity.
    

    Mrs. Webfoot just set you straight on that, that it’s Protestantism that needs to justify its constant schisms.

    To which I’ll append my standing challenge: Protestantism needs to justify its differences with the Christian religion as of 1054 and leave Rome’s sins post-1054 out of it. You also divided from the Eastern Orthodox too, and invented a new religion.

    LikeLike

39. Mrs. W,

    One could also make the case that you are ignoring Christian unity in splitting from the group that you were a member of. What of those Christians you are leaving behind? Aren’t you personally guilty of schism? You weren’t born into Roman Catholicism. Why are only those who separate from Roman Catholicism schismatics? Same thing for Jason, Bryan, Susan, etc.

    LikeLike

40. Tom – But if a church is a hospital for sinners, you don’t boot people out on the street. Your riff about “unity” is a false premise.

    Erik – Is there a difference for a “hospital” for repentant sinners and one for outright rebels? You’re incapable of making any moral distinction?

    Tom – Mrs. Webfoot just set you straight on that

    Erik – Ad hom and like, your opinion, man.

    Tom – Protestantism needs to justify its differences with the Christian religion as of 1054

    Erik – Make your biblical case for the truth of EO and we can discuss. You start with the wrong premises for discerning truth in religion.

    LikeLike

41. If TVD, MWF, and EC wish to engage in the same old 500+ year prot/cath polemics, there are other threads. The one posted yesterday called “Reality wins” is a great one for that. Remember, DGH’s blog wasn’t really a polemic against RCism until Jason became roman catholic and decided to blog against his former tradition (reformed protism) for the last three years, although his tone if you listen to his podcast is now more tame and he seems to have settled in to his drunk ex pastor mode/role.

    Again, if you read DGH’s published works, he’s irenic and shows freindship towards roman catholics. I quote:

    Mistakenly thinking the great Presbyterian theologian J. Gresham Machen had written a book on Catholicism and wanting to give it as an example of Protestant apologetics in yesterday’s item , I googled the subject and found that he didn’t, but he did say this in his book Christianity and Liberalism :

    Far more serious still is the division between the Church of Rome and evangelical Protestantism in all its forms. Yet how great is the common heritage which unites the Roman Catholic Church, with its maintenance of the authority of Holy Scripture and with its acceptance of the great early creeds, to devout Protestants today!
    We would not indeed obscure the difference which divides us from Rome. The gulf is indeed profound. But profound as it is, it seems almost trifling compared to the abyss which stands between us and many ministers of our own Church. The Church of Rome may represent a perversion of the Christian religion; but naturalistic liberalism is not Christianity at all.

    He had some thoughts on how such divided Christians could face their division, noted by our friend Darryl Hart . Machen’s thoughts appear in a discussion of pernicious laws against Christian schooling — which he called the clearest “attack upon tolerance in America” — being proposed in the mid-twenties:

    Against such tyranny, I do cherish some hope that Jews and Christians, Roman Catholics and Protestants, if they are lovers of liberty, may present a united front. I am for my part an inveterate propagandist; but the same right of propaganda which I desire for myself I want to see also in the possession of others.
    What absurdities are uttered in the name of a pseudo-Americanism today! People object to the Roman Catholics, for example, because they engage in “propaganda.” But why should they not engage in propaganda? And how should we have any respect for them if, holding the view which they hold — that outside the Roman church there is no salvation — they did not engage in propaganda first, last, and all the time? Clearly they have a right to do so, and clearly we have a right to do the same . . . .

    Does this mean, then, that we must eternally bite and devour one another, that acrimonious debate must never for a moment be allowed to cease? . . . . There is a common solution of the problem which we think ought to be taken to heart. It is the solution provided by family life.

    In countless families, there is a Christian parent who with untold agony of soul has seen the barrier of religious difference set up between himself or herself and a beloved child. Salvation, it is believed with all the heart, comes only through Christ, and the child, it is believed, unless it has really trusted in Christ, is lost. These, I tell you, are the real tragedies of life. And how trifling, in comparison, is the experience of bereavement of the like!

    But what do these sorrowing parents do? Do they make themselves uselessly a nuissance to their child? In countless cases they do not; in countless cases there is hardly a mention of the subject of religion; in countless cases there is nothing but prayer, and an agony of soul bravely covered by helpfulness and cheer.

    And there’s this from a weblog dedicated to Machen , about Machen’s time working with the YMCA in the trenches in WWI:

    Spiritually, he had to make do too — reading his English Bible rather than in Greek, which brought home some things with a freshness; worshipping with Roman Catholics. Of one sermon he says “It was far, far better than what we got from the Protestant liberals”.
    In conversation afterwards, he could not agree with the priest on the mass but responded to a complaint that the phrase “descended into hell” was missing from versions issued to American soldiers “I could assure him that I disapproved as much as he did of the mutilation of the creed”.

    www[dot]firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/05/gresham-machen-friend-to-catholics

    Find another thread, this one is about the general assembly. Or not, whatev.

    Grace and peace.

    LikeLike

42. Tom,

    Have Pelosi’s bishops in San Francisco or Washington denied her the sacrament or applied any form of church discipline toward her?

    If not, their alleged disapproval is toothless and is merely grandstanding for the press in order to build up credibility with the wing of Roman Catholicism from which they draw their power.

    LikeLike

43. ec, opcers know how to carry on anywhere — church as organism, no need for institutions.

    LikeLike

44. “it’s easy to keep a denomination in line” . . .

    When you try. Think index of books, inquisition.

    LikeLike

45. Scotts’ fertilizer.

    LikeLike

46. Darryl,

    But man those institutions come in handy when you want to wet your whistle. A paper sack in a dorm room just ain’t the same thing.

    When I went to Northwestern a classmate told me about how he would clean the dorms after RCA synod met on campus. Lots of liquor bottles to clean up.

    LikeLike

47. Darryl – Scotts’ fertilizer.

    Erik – Not applied on Sunday, of course.

    LikeLike

48. Speaking of Synod, I think the URCNA Synod met in a mirage in the middle of the Mojave Desert last year. No word on whether peyote was instrumental to the deliberations.

    LikeLike

49. MW: But if a church is a hospital for sinners …

    And if it’s not?

    Are we dead in our sins or merely sick?

    LikeLike

50. Erik Charter
    Posted June 4, 2015 at 8:42 am | Permalink
    Tom,

    16.85% of 31.5% ain’t that impressive.

    It’s the majority, in’t it? Meanwhile the minority splits and schisms and schisms and splits. You keep eliding that, but any Martian or Muslim would find that probative. What’s wrong with those Protestant dudes? They hate everyone, including each other.

    Erik Charter
    Posted June 4, 2015 at 2:10 pm | Permalink
    Tom,

    Have Pelosi’s bishops in San Francisco or Washington denied her the sacrament or applied any form of church discipline toward her?

    If not, their alleged disapproval is toothless and is merely grandstanding for the press in order to build up credibility with the wing of Roman Catholicism from which they draw their power.

    Not atall. Catholicism isn’t a democracy or even a republic. The bishops are part of the magisterium, Nancy Pelosi is like a drunk and disobedient child. Leviticus says she should be stoned, but the Hebrews didn’t actually do that.

    I don’t know what wisdom and prudence dictate here. Totalitarian terror doesn’t work either. You rail about the Inquisition, then rail about the lack of one. Pure sophistic genius, well done. 😉

    Pelosi is a wayward child; you are “separated brethren” from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Now, that riff is real genius.

    LikeLike

51. Erik Charter
    Posted June 4, 2015 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    Tom – Protestantism needs to justify its differences with the Christian religion as of 1054

    Erik – Make your biblical case for the truth of EO and we can discuss. You start with the wrong premises for discerning truth in religion.

    No, that’s the right premise. You’re the insurgents, the rebels, the “reformers.” The Catholic Church and the EOs already have their justifications in place, their 2000 year histories. Where was Luther’s authority to invent a new theology [the “solas”]? To chop up the Bible? To alter the Eucharist?

    Attacking the Christian religion up to 1054 isn’t gonna get it done. [And certainly not post-1054.] At some point you need to stand on your own two feet.

    LikeLike

52. Tom,

    I think I did the math wrong. It’s 31.5% Christian and the 16.85% Catholics are part of the 31.5%. Anyway…

    You still offer no proof that size means anything. Make an argument that size relates to truth.

    If Catholicism is not a democracy, why do you think it’s important how many members it has?

    ” What’s wrong with those Protestant dudes? They hate everyone, including each other.”

    Are you saying that Mrs. W hates her husband? That Susan does? They left their husbands’ churches. Since when does religious disagreement entail “hate”?

    Are you suggesting that Muslims have no schisms or splits?

    There’s no middle ground between an Inquisition and tolerating Nancy Pelosi?

    This is not proving to be your best day…

    LikeLike

53. EC: 17
    AB: 12 (including this one)
    TVD: 5
    Jack: 2
    DGH: 6
    JC: 1
    CT: 1
    Brandon: 1
    MWF: 1
    sean: 1
    Matt H: 1
    Stephen: 1
    kent: 1
    cw l’u: 1

    round two – go! 🙂

    LikeLike

54. Tom – The Catholic Church and the EOs already have their justifications in place

    Erik – Exactly – “their justifications” – Not Scriptural justifications.

    Tom – their 2000 year histories

    Erik – 1200-1500 of which are thanks to civil magistrates…and they are checkered histories at that.

    Tom – Where was Luther’s authority to invent a new theology [the “solas”]? To chop up the Bible? To alter the Eucharist?

    Erik – If I give you the Apocrypha back you still don’t get Biblical justification for Catholic & EO doctrine.

    And you can’t make an ironclad Biblical case that either gets The Lord’s Supper right.

    Tom – Attacking the Christian religion up to 1054 isn’t gonna get it done. [And certainly not post-1054.] At some point you need to stand on your own two feet.

    Erik – We stand on our own two feet…on Scripture.

    LikeLike

55. Tom,

    And if you like your religion old, why are you a fan of the Apocrypha if they were not considered to be part of the Hebrew Bible?

    The Jews predate the Roman Catholics by thousands of years.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha

    “The Apocrypha were initially long rejected by the Catholic church as inspired writings, however, after controversy were officially canonized following the Protestant Reformation during the Council of Trent in 1546 AD.”

    LikeLike

56. The Jews predate the Roman Catholics by thousands of years.

    DING

    We think of the Reformation. This was a moment in the history of the Church in which the question of authority was once more in the center of events. Luther, and consequently the whole Protestant world, broke away from the Roman Church and from 1500 years of Christian tradition when no agreement about the authority of the pope and the councils could be reached. Here, again, someone had arisen who spoke and acted with an authority the sources of which could not be determined by legal means. And here also we must ask, “Are the Catholic authorities who rejected him in the name of their established authority to be blamed for it?” But if we do not blame them, we can ask them, “Why do you blame the Jewish authorities who did exactly the same as you did when the people said of the Reformers that they spoke with authority and not like the priests and monks?” Is the same thing so different if it is done by the Jewish high priest and if it is done by the Roman high priest? And one may ask the present-day Protestant authorities in Europe and in this country, “Are you certain that the insistence on your authority, on your tradition, and on your experience does not suppress the kind of authority which Jesus had in mind?” source

    Next comment please.

    LikeLike

57. I like how the nominal RC layman gets to tell us who’s a real RC and who isn’t. If that’s his job, what is the Magisterium for?

    LikeLike

58. MW: But if a church is a hospital for sinners …

    And if it’s not?

    Are we dead in our sins or merely sick?>>>>

    Well, actually, TVD said that, Jeff, but I think MW would be yours truly, right?

    Good questions. I will try to answer them as best I can. Here goes.

    We are born dead in our trespasses and sins because of the effects of original sin inherited from Adam. In Augustinian theology, which the Church followed, baptism is the point where a person is regenerated. Later, one’s personal faith must be confirmed in the sacrament of confirmation.

    If you are asking whether or not sinners are able to come to the Church, then the answer is yes. They can and should come to the Church. There they should find help and healing in Christ. In order to be accepted into communion – or full communion in the case of Protestants converting, – there are certain rites that one goes through.

    There is a similar process in Protestant churches, but they are not generally called rites and only baptism would be called a sacrament in some churches. In others, it is an ordinance, but not a sacrament.

    In the Baptist church I grew up in, baptism and church membership were tied together if a person requested membership at the time of baptism. We were encouraged to be baptized and join the church at around age 12. Baptism was and still is an ordinance in the church of my birth. I am grateful for the faith that I was taught then, and have nothing but love for those people who cared about my soul.

    You might say church instead of Church, and you might not like Baptists or Catholics, but otherwise what would be your objection? You don’t want sinners around messing up the sanctuary? I doubt that is what you are saying. Sin sick human beings should be able to come to a church or Church and find help and healing in Christ, right? Otherwise, why not just close the doors and everyone stay home on Sunday?

    In fact, a sin sick human being should find that the Church or a church welcomes them with open arms as the father in the story of the Prodigal Son did. One of my favorite sermons on the Prodigal Son is Spurgeon’s Prodigal Love for the Prodigal Son. We should do no less in our churches or Church.

    To add a little touch of Catholicism, I will add this. Check out Pope Francis’ cross. It has special meaning to me.

    BTW, nice to see you, Jeff. I hope that all is well with you and your loved ones. We’re doing well, here.

    LikeLike

59. I ask again the rome/geneva fight be taken to another thread, but I don’t really care that much.

    What’s ironic is the more CTC/DXP/MWF/TVD try to cut down reformed protestantism, the more it only encourages us to continue doing what we are doing. I wonder if Bryan Cross considered that when he was dreaming up the idea for called to communion. That all he was doing is encouraging the next generation of committed reformed protestants to do their homework and learn about their heritage.

    Again, the roman interlocutors here are playing a valuable service. This is the training ground for the initiates – I hope MWF, TVD and others continue here long and hard. I would encourage those more senior in the circuit who have fought this battle before, try posting less, because there are younger reformed protestants taht need the experience of dialoging these truths, and who better to combat than a nominal layman or a recent convert. It’s good for everyone around, it makes our orthodoxy as Christians more robust, no matter if we are in the roman church, the genevan/philadelphian (read: OPC), or otherwise.

    Good work everyone. Keep those post comment counts high!!

    Who’s next?

    LikeLike

60. Erik,

    The Jews weren’t unified on a canon.

    “The Jews predate the Roman Catholics by thousands of years.”

    Yup. And when Christ and the Apostles came on the scene, they worked miracles. As Carl Trueman said, Rome is the default position for the West – so you better have a slam-dunk knock-down case against it in order to not give it the benefit of the doubt – saying “And you can’t make an ironclad Biblical case that either gets The Lord’s Supper right” doesn’t justify schism or separation – the burden would be upon you to show your ironclad case.

    LikeLike

61. Cletus,

    Rome lost any right to the benefit of the doubt when it had three popes at once and couldn’t figure out who was who until a binding council (that was subsequently ignored) was called to sort it out. Just saying.

    LikeLike

62. …and yes, once a part of the Church or a church, a sinner should be expected to grow in his or her progressive justification by faith working through love. Faith working through love is the only thing that matters, and that of course includes a growing hatred of all things sinful.

    LikeLike

63. Erik Charter
    Posted June 4, 2015 at 4:00 pm | Permalink
    Tom,

    I think I did the math wrong. It’s 31.5% Christian and the 16.85% Catholics are part of the 31.5%. Anyway…

    You still offer no proof that size means anything. Make an argument that size relates to truth.

    You serve ’em up, I hit ’em out.

    Really, Erik, I don’t mind rebutting your challenges, but the pattern is that once I do, you just go to another one, ignoring the fact that you just wasted my time on a point you don’t even believe yourself.

    Tom – Where was Luther’s authority to invent a new theology [the “solas”]? To chop up the Bible? To alter the Eucharist?

    Erik – If I give you the Apocrypha back you still don’t get Biblical justification for Catholic & EO doctrine.

    That’s unresponsive. You don’t know Catholic doctrine well enough to know one way or the other. Where was Luther’s authority to reinvent the Christian religion? And Calvin’s to reinvent Luther’s? And so on and so on.

    Are you suggesting that Muslims have no schisms or splits?

    They have one major one, but neither Sunni nor Shia have anything like the fractionalization of the Reformation. Something’s up with a theology that creates denominations by the sackful.

    LikeLike

64. Robert
    Posted June 4, 2015 at 4:57 pm | Permalink
    Cletus,

    Rome lost any right to the benefit of the doubt when it had three popes at once and couldn’t figure out who was who until a binding council (that was subsequently ignored) was called to sort it out. Just saying.

    Now there’s one pope. It got sorted out. Now if it had split into 3 churches like Protestantism routinely does, you’d have a point here. 😉

    LikeLike

65. Mrs. Webfoot
    Posted June 4, 2015 at 4:57 pm | Permalink
    …and yes, once a part of the Church or a church, a sinner should be expected to grow in his or her progressive justification by faith working through love. Faith working through love is the only thing that matters, and that of course includes a growing hatred of all things sinful.

    I think the dynamic is “sanctification.” Justification at baptism, sanctification over a lifetime. Not a theological hill I want to die on, but it sounds nice.

    http://www.gotquestions.org/progressive-sanctification.html

    LikeLike

66. You know Tom, we know you are serious when you link to your gravatar.

    Tom, keep the comment count high, we’re counting on you!

    Next!

    LikeLike

67. Clete – Rome is the default position for the West – so you better have a slam-dunk knock-down case against it in order to not give it the benefit of the doubt

    Erik – Two responses:

    (1) the “default” is due to the Magistrate upholding Rome’s position. No more upholding, no default.

    (2) I’ll concede Rome is one expression of the Christian faith among many, but if the Callers are to be believed, Rome claims to be THE One, superior expression. That shifts the burden to Rome.

    If I’m a man and you’re a man we are on equal footing. If you claim to be an alpha male, you need to prove it to me.

    LikeLike

68. Tom – Really, Erik, I don’t mind rebutting your challenges, but the pattern is that once I do, you just go to another one, ignoring the fact that you just wasted my time on a point you don’t even believe yourself.

    Erik – I don’t believe size matters. If I did, would I be a Reformed Protestant?

    I’ve seen you tout Rome’s size probably 100 times. Not once have I seen you prove that it means anything.

    LikeLike

69. Tom

    Don’t tell me even you want to get yourself dirty and start talking justification? Wow, Jason Stellman shows up yesterday, and TVD starts talking justification. What’s next, the rapture?

    Boy do I have the comments ready to start rapid firing start here:

    Andrew B
    Posted September 11, 2013 at 9:14 pm | Permalink
    Gee, guys, heady stuff. Making me pull out my Fesko as soon as I get home from work. In it, he writes: Namely, it is imperative that we hold together imputation and union with Christ, the priority of the legal-forensic over the transformative, all of which are relational. One might fight that same line here, and more:

    From here, we can identify three concepts that we must understand to have a proper understanding of the relationship between union with Christ and justification: (1) that the legal aspects of our redemption are relational; (2) justification is the legal aspect of our union with Christ; and (3) that justification is the ground of our sanctification.

    Here also is a good read.

    Pointing out stuff you guys already know,
    Andrew

    Go to that link, read the 3 or 4 underlying links, and report back by posting a comment here. I have a bunch of homework questions for you, and we can give you some essay assignments, and then we’ll grade your paper. No joke.

    Unless this is still to boring, and you’d rather play with daffodils, or watch some show that GtT would beat you up if he found out you watch?

    Up to you.

    LikeLike

70. Tom – Where was Luther’s authority to reinvent the Christian religion? And Calvin’s to reinvent Luther’s? And so on and so on.

    Erik – Their authority is as good and compelling as their Scriptural case is.

    Why does Harold Bloom have authority to interpret Shakespeare and Pee Wee Herman doesn’t?

    Great men and great minds shape history. You recognize this when you cite Augustine & Aquinas. Many Popes have had mediocre minds — that’s your problem, not mine.

    LikeLike

71. I would honestly welcome a debate/discussion with a Roman Catholic who can get beyond the “It’s true because the Magisterium says it’s true” mindset. I don’t accept that. Prove to me that something is true based on reason and Scripture.

    I add Scripture to reason because Rome supposedly is in submission to Scripture.

    The only guy I’ve ever see even try this is Jason Stellman early on at greenbaggins, and he’s to be commended for that.

    Reason with me, don’t just try to play your trump card that I don’t accept.

    LikeLike

72. 
    Erik Charter
    Posted June 4, 2015 at 5:19 pm | Permalink
    Tom – Where was Luther’s authority to reinvent the Christian religion? And Calvin’s to reinvent Luther’s? And so on and so on.

    Erik – Their authority is as good and compelling as their Scriptural case is.

    Where is sola scriptura in the Bible? Further, since they don’t even agree, sola scriptura becomes a tool of schism. It is not self-evidently the Will of God.

    Why does Harold Bloom have authority to interpret Shakespeare and Pee Wee Herman doesn’t?

    Great men and great minds shape history. You recognize this when you cite Augustine & Aquinas. Many Popes have had mediocre minds — that’s your problem, not mine.

    It occurs to me that unlike virtually every Protestant denomination, the Catholic Church doesn’t depend on a handful of great leaders. That’s a feature, not a flaw. John Calvin was for all purposes the creator and head of a religion, whether you admit it or not, more like Mohammed than a pope.

    Erik – I don’t believe size matters. If I did, would I be a Reformed Protestant?

    I’ve seen you tout Rome’s size probably 100 times. Not once have I seen you prove that it means anything.

    Well, you’re not going to admit it, or admit that the Reformation left its half of Christianity in tatters. But often, I’m using its size in answer to the gleeful trumpeting of liberal Catholic dissidents as proof of something.

    In Protestantism, dissidents just start their own churches down the street. If hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue, that these dissident Catholics don’t leave the Church indicates they still believe it’s the true Church.

    Once when we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a female slave who had a spirit by which she predicted the future. She earned a great deal of money for her owners by fortune-telling. She followed Paul and the rest of us, shouting, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved.” She kept this up for many days. Finally Paul became so annoyed that he turned around and said to the spirit, “In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!” At that moment the spirit left her.

    Pelosi’s the slave girl. Even demons know the truth.

    LikeLike

73. Erik, Jason’s clearly no dummy, and has known what he is doing from day one. After all, he was trained at one of the finest academies Christendom has to offer. Even Aimee Byrd quotes the man in her Housewife Theologian book, and she didn’t take it out after he poped.

    Now, I have no idea how he expects to monetize his 1929 facebook likes or hundreds/thousands of individual people who click on DXP dot com everyday, but we wish him well. I think Robert also agrees that JJS sees much of what it seems BC doesn’t, or at least B.Cross is unwilling to admit.

    I digress..

    LikeLike

74. Where is sola scriptura in the Bible?

    I stopped reading right there. He doesn’t get it!!

    all too easy:

    [1] ROM 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. PSA 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork. 2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. ROM 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

    [2] 1CO 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    [3] HEB 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets.

    [4] PRO 22:19 That thy trust may be in the Lord, I have made known to thee this day, even to thee. 20 Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, 21 That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee? LUK 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. ROM 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. MAT 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. 7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. 10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. ISA 8:19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

    [5] 2TI 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 2PE 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.

    [6] HEB 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.

    [7] LUK 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. EPH 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. REV 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. 2TI 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

    [8] LUK 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. 44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. ROM 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. 2PE 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

    [9] 2PE 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2TI 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 1JO 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 1 TH 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

    [10] 1TI 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

    [11] 1JO 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. JOH 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 1CO 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. ISA 59:21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.

    [12] 2TI 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. GAL 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. 2TH 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

    [13] JOH 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 1CO 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

    [14] 1CO 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

    [15] 2PE 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things: in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

    [16] PSA 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. 130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

    [17] MAT 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

    [18] ISA 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. ACT 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written. JOH 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

    [19] JOH 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

    [20] 1CO 14:6 Now, brethren, if I come undo you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, of by prophesying, or by doctrine? 9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. 11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me. 12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church. 24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: 27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

    [21] COL 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

    [22] ROM 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written for our learning; that we, through patience and comfort of the scriptures, might have hope.

    [23] 2PE 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. ACT 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up. [24] MATT. 22:29,31. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying. EPH. 2:20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone. With ACTS 28:25. And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Isaiah the prophet unto our fathers.

    LikeLike

75. Erik Charter
    Posted June 4, 2015 at 5:39 pm | Permalink
    I would honestly welcome a debate/discussion with a Roman Catholic who can get beyond the “It’s true because the Magisterium says it’s true” mindset. I don’t accept that. Prove to me that something is true based on reason and Scripture.

    I add Scripture to reason because Rome supposedly is in submission to Scripture.

    The only guy I’ve ever see even try this is Jason Stellman early on at greenbaggins, and he’s to be commended for that.

    Reason with me, don’t just try to play your trump card that I don’t accept.

    You’re demanding everything be argued sola scriptura. That’s your religion, not Catholicism. Now if you want to argue on your terms only, you’re the one who has to prove Catholic tenets are contrary to scripture.

    And frankly, I don’t think you’ve read enough Catholic teaching: the encyclicals, the catechism. They’re chock full of Scripture references and proofs.

    Further–and Mrs. Webfoot has noticed–there are a lot of normative Catholic teachings and doctrines rejected by modern Protestantism that if not dogma, were normative with the early church fathers and even the early Reformers.

    THE PROTESTANT REFORMERS ON MARY
    http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/mary.htm

    And of course there was the Eucharist. Martin Luther was far closer to Catholicism than Calvinism on it. Stuff like that. You turn every discussion into an attack against the Catholic Church but seem unable to justify your own religion even against itself.

    LikeLike

76. Back to bread and wine, instead of how man is right before God.

    Oh, and the co-redemptrix again, Tom?

    #TerryGrayIsNext
    #samestuffdifferentday

    LikeLike

77. Tom, we’re Augustinian:

    For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith & the manner of life – Augustine

    I’ll take it you have rejected the idea of the homework assignment on justification. How do you like continuing to flail out here for the entire reformed prot community to watch? I’m only trying to help.

    Next comment please.

    LikeLike

78. Re: hospital for sinners
    The apostle Paul instructs the church thusly,

    In my previous letter I said, “Don’t mix with the immoral.” I didn’t mean, of course, that you were to have no contact at all with the immoral of this world, nor with any cheats or thieves or idolaters—for that would mean going out of the world altogether! But in this letter I tell you not to associate with any professing Christian who is known to be an impure man or a swindler, an idolater, a man with a foul tongue, a drunkard or a thief. My instruction is: “Don’t even eat with such a man.” Those outside the church it is not my business to judge. but surely it is your business to judge those who are inside the church—God alone can judge those who are outside. It is your plain duty to ‘put away from yourselves that wicked person’.

    LikeLike

79. Re: putative unimportance of getting justification, sanctification, etc… right, consider Paul again:

    Yet I say that if I, or an angel from Heaven, were to preach to you any other Gospel than the one you have heard, may he be damned! You have heard me say it before and now I put it down in black and white—may anybody who preaches any other Gospel than the one you have already heard be a damned soul!

    LikeLike

80. sdb
    Posted June 4, 2015 at 6:03 pm | Permalink
    Re: hospital for sinners
    The apostle Paul instructs the church thusly,

    In my previous letter I said, “Don’t mix with the immoral.” I didn’t mean, of course, that you were to have no contact at all with the immoral of this world, nor with any cheats or thieves or idolaters—for that would mean going out of the world altogether! But in this letter I tell you not to associate with any professing Christian who is known to be an impure man or a swindler, an idolater, a man with a foul tongue, a drunkard or a thief. My instruction is: “Don’t even eat with such a man.” Those outside the church it is not my business to judge. but surely it is your business to judge those who are inside the church—God alone can judge those who are outside. It is your plain duty to ‘put away from yourselves that wicked person’.

    How I hate this theology-by-verse slinging thing.

    The Pharisees and their scribes began grumbling at His disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with the tax collectors and sinners?” And Jesus answered and said to them, “It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. “I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”

    LikeLike

81. Re: who gave Luther the right to protest Rome’s abandoment of the gospel? The apostolic witness. The Church is all those who are in Christ, and he alone is its head. Popes have taught heretical doctrine and councils have erred. The only infallible rule is the scriptures.

    LikeLike

82. How I hate this theology-by-verse slinging thing.

    TVD, of course. You don’t believe in the infallible scriptures as the only source of faith and life. You are an Unam Sanctum kinda guy:

    Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

    At least I think so. Do you go to church? You’ve never told us you do, so you’re an outsider looking to learn about those of us who do.

    In otherwords, you’re ponyboy. Yo?

    LikeLike

83. …baptism is the point where a person is regenerated. Later, one’s personal faith must be confirmed in the sacrament of confirmation…There is a similar process in Protestant churches, but they are not generally called rites and only baptism would be called a sacrament in some churches. In others, it is an ordinance, but not a sacrament.

    Mrs. DoubleYou, in Reformed churches there are two sacraments, baptism and the Supper. Baptism is the sign and seal of God’s initiative work (i.e. a child of believers is marked by the Spirit as belonging to God), which sets into motion a period of covenantal nurture with an eye toward a credible profession of faith at which time said child is welcomed at the table. I only point that out because in reaching to your Baptist experience, what you describe of Protestant churches seems pretty under-informed and helps to make the case that Baptists are more a product of modernity than the Reformation.

    LikeLike

84. vd, t, be careful. The Bible’s a two-edged sword:

    Then you must throw this man out and hand him over to Satan so that his sinful nature will be destroyed and he himself will be saved on the day the Lord returns. (1 Cor 5:5)

    So who are you going to believe?

    “Bishop” is the right answer.

    LikeLike

85. vd, t, and you keep denying that your church used to reign in folks like Pelosi — before Vatican 2. I bring up the Index of Books and Inquisition, not to throw dirt, but to indicate that once upon a time your church took disicipline seriously.

    What happened?

    Simply shrugging your shoulders and saying Roman Catholicism is a victim of wayward Roman Catholics is not all that impressive an argument for signing up.

    LikeLike

86. “You don’t know Catholic doctrine well enough”

    vd, t does?

    Not what the exchange with MichaelTX indicates.

    LikeLike

87. vd, t is a victim of the Reformation. If not for that, he’d being going to confession weekly and mass everyday.

    LikeLike

88. b, sd, doesn’t vd, t sound like mainline Protestants? We feel your pain. We welcome everyone. All love all the time.

    LikeLike

89. @tvd That’s sad.

    “I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”

    Those who refuse to repent and are on the way inside (the Pharisees in the passage you cite) are to be put out.

    Dismissal of God’s word as mere proof texting is lazy. You should do better.

    LikeLike

90. D. G. Hart
    Posted June 4, 2015 at 6:21 pm | Permalink
    vd, t, be careful. The Bible’s a two-edged sword:

    Then you must throw this man out and hand him over to Satan so that his sinful nature will be destroyed and he himself will be saved on the day the Lord returns. (1 Cor 5:5)

    So who are you going to believe? “Bishop” is the right answer.

    Machen, silly. He was a bishop or something, right?

    sdb
    Posted June 4, 2015 at 6:11 pm | Permalink
    Re: who gave Luther the right to protest Rome’s abandoment of the gospel? The apostolic witness. The Church is all those who are in Christ, and he alone is its head. Popes have taught heretical doctrine and councils have erred. The only infallible rule is the scriptures.

    Here’s 100 scriptural arguments against the Trinity. As a mercy, instead of C&Ping the whole thing like Rain Man doing Who’s on First, I’ll just give you the link. 😉

    http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/100-scriptural-arguments-for-the-unitarian-faith

    Anyway, you do have a point of course, that no theology is valid if it conflicts with the scriptures, but Protestantism just made a hash of it. For every uniquely Protestant theology, one Reformer can argue one side and another another. Protestantism can’t even answer itself.

    So as an example here, the Trinity simply isn’t definitively in the Bible. It’s tradition, indeed Tradition with a capital “T.” If the Christian religion starts over every time some “apostolic witness” thumbs open his King James, well, actually it does in the sola scriptura regime–that’s why you create denominations by the sackful.

    You can’t get around Tradition. There is much of your religion that rests on it, whether you realize or admit it yourself. The Protestant justification for itself is that it’s all or nothing with Tradition, but that’s a false choice: sola scriptura can’t even prove the Trinity.

    LikeLike

91. D. G. Hart
    Posted June 4, 2015 at 6:21 pm | Permalink
    vd, t, be careful. The Bible’s a two-edged sword:

    Then you must throw this man out and hand him over to Satan so that his sinful nature will be destroyed and he himself will be saved on the day the Lord returns. (1 Cor 5:5)

    So who are you going to believe?

    “Bishop” is the right answer.

    D. G. Hart
    Posted June 4, 2015 at 6:26 pm | Permalink
    vd, t, and you keep denying that your church used to reign in folks like Pelosi — before Vatican 2. I bring up the Index of Books and Inquisition, not to throw dirt, but to indicate that once upon a time your church took disicipline seriously.

    What happened?

    Simply shrugging your shoulders and saying Roman Catholicism is a victim of wayward Roman Catholics is not all that impressive an argument for signing up.

    D. G. Hart
    Posted June 4, 2015 at 6:28 pm | Permalink
    “You don’t know Catholic doctrine well enough”

    vd, t does?

    Not what the exchange with MichaelTX indicates.

    D. G. Hart
    Posted June 4, 2015 at 6:30 pm | Permalink
    vd, t is a victim of the Reformation. If not for that, he’d being going to confession weekly and mass everyday.

    D. G. Hart
    Posted June 4, 2015 at 6:31 pm | Permalink
    b, sd, doesn’t vd, t sound like mainline Protestants? We feel your pain. We welcome everyone. All love all the time.

    5 comments in a row has to break some kind of rule, Butch.

    Next.

    LikeLike

92. As a mercy, instead of C&Ping the whole thing like Rain Man

    tvd = lovable troll who does what he tells others not to. Props, ponyboy.

    #thanksforhelpingpromoteRefProtism
    #nextcommentplease

    LikeLike

93. Edgardo Mortara.

    LikeLike

94. true

    LikeLike

95. D. G. Hart
    Posted June 4, 2015 at 8:01 pm | Permalink
    Edgardo Mortara.

    He became a Catholic priest. The capper to the story.

    But isn’t Andrew’s constant troll-like harassment of me enough, Darryl? That you felt you had to add a half-dozen drive-bys of your own must mean you realize this is going really bad for your religion. 😉

    Indeed, it has brought out that even Protestantism isn’t immune from being attacked via the Protestant hermeneutic. Rabies theologorum.* Your blog is Protestantism incarnate. Interesting.
    ____________________________

    *”Rabies theologorum – literally the rage or fury of theologians – refers to the tradition of theologians being quite mercilessly abusive in their attacks on opponents, often ad hominem. Martin Luther was the master.”

    Read more: http://theconnexion.net/wp/?p=3132#ixzz3c96EkSwi

    LikeLike

96. vd, t, why don’t you step up to the plate and follow Elizabeth Scalia’s challenge:

    But, in the meantime, I had another idea, which was probably inspired by this event. How about if we take this little project outside of Patheos? How about if Catholic writers from all over the internet — bloggers, reporters, poets, aggregators, newshounds, journal editors, politicians, new-media-storming priests and nuns, Catholics in secular positions — what if they all were to take a few minutes to jot down “Why I Remain A Catholic” and post it where they can, on websites or social media?

    How great would that be — a cloud of witnesses in the ether, another kind of Communion of Saints?

    LikeLike

97. Tom,

    You love it here and you know it.

    You haven’t had this much attention since you wore your meat suit to the Beverly Hills Kennel Club.

    LikeLike

98. Erik Charter
    Posted June 4, 2015 at 9:37 pm | Permalink
    Tom,

    You love it here and you know it.

    You haven’t had this much attention since you wore your meat suit to the Beverly Hills Kennel Club.

    Mostly glad you joined the ranks of the very few worth having a discussion with, Erik. 98% of the attention hereabouts I can do without. Good onya, mate.

    As for Darryl’s endorsement of Elizabeth Scalia, I follow her on Twitter, as I do Tommy Kidd and actually a passel of evangelicals. “Why I Remain a Catholic” is good because Catholics do apologetics, positive affirmations of their faith. Still the question already admits defeat, “I remain a Catholic despite A,B,C,D,E,F and G. Plus X,Y and Zee, and half the stuff in between.”

    “Why I Remain a Protestant” [Lutheran, Calvinist, whathaveyou] of course would run toward the polemical, the anti-Catholic–although if you notice I meself don’t bag on the evangelicals. “I’m a Protestant because the Catholic Church sucks” is what I get out of whatever’s left of the Reformation like yourselves.

    The good part of The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, besides the occasional old school anti-Catholic such as John Hagee–the evangelicals are out there evangelizing, spreading the Gospel, helping the poor and sick, even.

    They’re far more motivated by the truth of the Gospel than finding errors in other Christians’ theologizing. If you know anything about me by now, I can’t help but love those who seek truth rather than error. To love truth is to love God and to give glory to Him, for all truth comes from God.

    Error? That’s common as dirt.

    So, I think I could write “Why I’m Not a Protestant” pretty easily, as easily as Darryl could type “Edgardo Montara” with his nose, but I’m not sure any of it gets anywhere.

    As for The Anchoress’s idea

    jot down “Why I Remain A Catholic” and post it where they can, on websites or social media?

    to touch back on our earlier discussion, I bet many guys would answer

    “For the same reason I remain married. She hasn’t thrown me out yet.”

    Thx for asking, Erik and Darryl, each in your own way. You love me here and you know it. 😉

    LikeLike

99. You love me here and you know it.

    Tom, the Bearded Spock Universe loves you, yes.

    LikeLike

100. sdb, Zrim,
     The only thing that matters is faith working through love.

     LikeLike

101. @mwf
     that isn’t what your church teaches.

     LikeLike

102. Mrs. DoubleYou, which is a Catholic construal of justification, in which case all that matters is that one embraces the Roman church. But isn’t prioritizing justification sort of Protestant-y? Still, other Cats say the incarnation is prior to justification. What’s a Prot to believe?

     LikeLike

103. Zrim, didn’t you know that I am Catholic?

     Galatians 5:6
     6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

     The “faith” part of “justification by faith” is “faith working through love.” You see that, right?

     You also know that the phrase “justification by faith alone” is in the Bible. Where?

     What’s a Protestant to believe? You are free to believe whatever you wish.

     Your understanding of the Church is inaccurate. Why don’t you read something from Catholic sources if for no other reason than to inform yourself. Just a suggestion.

     Take care, Zrim It’s a perfect day, here. I hope all is well with you and your loved ones.

     LikeLike

104. @erik charter, it’s predominately cow manure, particularly potent when the trucks go by on the way to market.

     BTW, Valerie Hobbs is in the house.

     LikeLike

105. Wow, back to what this thread was about, the OPC and the general assembly.

     Well done Betty, thank you, and welcome to Oldlife. We had roman catholics who are working through their convert cage phase, can’t get enough of this blog. Grace and peace.

     LikeLike

106. vd, t, you see your wife that infrequently?

     LikeLike

107. Mrs. DoubleYou, but the Catholic take on “faith working through love” is “faith formed by love,” which is a formula that imports works back into justification, i.e. a denial of sola fide. You know that, right? If not, maybe you should take your own suggestion. If so, what’s your point?

     LikeLike

108. Mermaid, if you’re Roman Catholic, why do you quote the Bible. It’s like your interpretation, woman.

     LikeLike

109. TVD
     Posted June 4, 2015 at 9:12 pm | Permalink
     D. G. Hart
     Posted June 4, 2015 at 8:01 pm | Permalink
     Edgardo Mortara.

     He became a Catholic priest. The capper to the story.

     But isn’t Andrew’s constant troll-like harassment of me enough, Darryl?

     Gotta start hashing these suckers.

     Started reading about Edgaro this morning. It’s really sad.

     #edgaromortara
     #tvd-adhoms-me
     #beardedspockuniverse
     #nextcomment

     LikeLike

110. fraternal delegate from RPCNA did a “video podcast” (wink) of the OPCGA

     https://twitter.com/andrewbuckingha/status/606855815299883008

     #letskeepthisthreadtotheGeneralAssemblyOnlyYo

     LikeLike

111. Running daily report found here: http://opc.org/GA/82nd_GA_rpt.html

     LikeLike

112. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 5, 2015 at 12:10 pm | Permalink
     vd, t, you see your wife that infrequently?

     Butch, it’s bad enough that you hide behind Andrew’s clown act. Now you’re becoming part of it. Bad. Very bad.

     LikeLike

113. TVD, you’re so silly.

     Here’s you and Darryl, in your dreams.

     Bearded spock, thy avatar is about to be erased. Keep it real.

     LikeLike

114. Erik,

     “Their authority is as good and compelling as their Scriptural case is.”

     Well, that’s a nice apologetic non-believing Jews could use in NT times against Christ and the Apostles to justify rejection of their authority.

     “Erik – Two responses:
     (1) the “default” is due to the Magistrate upholding Rome’s position. No more upholding, no default.”

     If the intertwining of the Magistrate and the Church nullifies the church’s authority or validity by virtue of that fact, then so goes Protestantism. Perhaps you’d like to go Amish now.

     “(2) I’ll concede Rome is one expression of the Christian faith among many, but if the Callers are to be believed, Rome claims to be THE One, superior expression. That shifts the burden to Rome.”

     And you don’t claim that sola scriptura and sola fide are the “one, superior expression” of Christianity? The point again, following Trueman’s remark on the default position, is that it shouldn’t even be a close call between Rome and you if your position is right in order to justify the initial separation at the Reformation along with the ongoing separation the past 500 years. You should have an air-tight “ironclad” case against Rome – if you don’t, your active separation was and remains unjustified.

     “If I’m a man and you’re a man we are on equal footing. If you claim to be an alpha male, you need to prove it to me.”

     And if the Reformers claimed to be authorized by God, they needed to prove it to justify their separation and schism. No miracles were forthcoming from them.

     Andrew,

     “I stopped reading right there. He doesn’t get it!!”

     The problem is adducing passages affirming Scriptural authority does not entail they are teaching SS. Rome affirms Scriptural authority, not SS.

     sdb,

     “who gave Luther the right to protest Rome’s abandoment of the gospel? The apostolic witness. ”

     Which of course could be said by any and every person/group you view as a heretic in history to justify their separation.

     Zrim,

     “but the Catholic take on “faith working through love” is “faith formed by love,” which is a formula that imports works back into justification, i.e. a denial of sola fide. You know that, right?”

     but the reforrmed take on “faith alone” is a “faith that is never alone” which is a formula that imports works back into salvation.

     If your characterization was true, baptized infants and deathbed conversions who have no works could not be justified. But Rome teaches they can be justified, and they aren’t special cases – they are justified via the infusion of faith, hope, and charity just as believers who live long lives are.

     LikeLike

115. The problem is adducing passages affirming Scriptural authority does not entail they are teaching SS. Rome affirms Scriptural authority, not SS.

     Sola Scriptura (us), prima scriptura (Methodists / anglicans), scripture and sacred tradition (you guys).

     We’ve all been down this road before, Mr. Young. Read any good books lately, watch any good shows? Never could get into that Better call saul but seeing as I fall asleep with just about any show I watch, whatever comes on the telly each night makes little difference. You’re our TV guy as always with that goofy moniker. Keep it real.

     Who’s next?

     LikeLike

116. #ratemycomment

     LikeLike

117. Good tweet!

     Old Life
     ‏@oldlife
     OPC is in fraternal relations with Presbyterian Church of Brazil (IPB). Old School Presbyterianism lives. #opcga

     LikeLike

118. Clete,

     Was being named “Man of the Year” by Rolling Stone Francis’s miracle?

     LikeLike

119. Clete,

     No Magistrate needs to uphold Protestantism. We do quite well in the free market, most often at Catholic expense (Latin America).

     LikeLike

120. Erik and Clete, we are doing well in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, check out some stats, read DGH’s Calvinism: A History.

     Reformed churches – 55-85 million[13][34][35]
     Presbyterianism – 40-50 million
     Presbyterian Church of East Africa – 4.0 million[36]
     Presbyterian Church of Nigeria – 3.8 million[37]
     Presbyterian Church of Africa – 3.4 million[38]
     Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDong) – 3.0 million[39]
     The Presbyterian Church of Korea (TongHap) – 2.9 million[40]
     United Church of Canada – 2.8 million[41]
     Church of Christ in Congo–Presbyterian Community of Congo – 2.5 million[42]
     Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) – 1.8 million[43]
     Presbyterian Church of Cameroon – 1.8 million[44]
     Presbyterian Church of India – 1.3 million[45]
     Church of Central Africa, Presbyterian – 1.3 million[46]
     Church of Scotland – 1.1 million[47]
     Presbyterian Church of Brazil – 1.0 million[48]
     Presbyterian Church in Sudan – 1.0 million[49]
     Presbyterian Church in Cameroon – 0.7 million[50]
     Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDongBoSu II.) – 0.7 million[51]
     Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDongChunTong) – 0.6 million[52]
     Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Ghana – 0.6 million[53]
     United Church of Christ in the Philippines – 0.5 million[54]

     LikeLike

121. …but the reforrmed take on “faith alone” is a “faith that is never alone” which is a formula that imports works back into salvation.

     CvD, but you just demonstrate that you don’t really understand the Reformed doctrine. HC 86:

     86. Q. Since, then, we are delivered from our misery by grace alone, through Christ, without any merit of ours, why must we yet do good works?

     A. Because Christ, having redeemed us by his blood, also renews us by his Holy Spirit after his own image, that with our whole life we may show ourselves thankful to God for his benefits, and that he may be praised by us; then, also, that each of us may be assured in himself of his faith by the fruits thereof, and that by our godly walk our neighbors also may be won for Christ.

     Trent does though (because it understood the Reformation).

     CANON 9: “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”

     CANON 12: “If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified . . . let him be accursed”

     Canon 14: “If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.”

     LikeLike

122. best. tweet. ever

     http://t.co/wIZRZyTqdp #opcga

     — Dan Adams ن (@We_Distinguish) June 6, 2015

     LikeLike

123. Yes, the faith that is never alone is talking about the results of having been justified by faith alone. If a person has been justified – declared righteous by the Righteous Judge based only on the merits of the finished work of Christ on the cross and by no merit of his own, but rather being a forensic righteousness, an imputed but not imparted righteousness – in that way, then there will be fruit, there will be evidence in the person’s life. That is what Paul meant when he said that we are created in Christ Jesus to do good works.

     If there are no good works following justification, then there was no justification by faith alone in the first place. This stage of our salvation is what is called sanctification, whereby a believer grows in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. It is the stage of our salvation where one practices true religion, thus showing Christ’s righteousness in our lives. We become more like Him until we see Him as He is.

     It is always about Christ’s righteousness operating in and through us. Yes, there is a personal righteousness involved as well, but it is never enough to gain God’s approval. We are always cast on the mercy of God and the imputed righteousness of Christ such that God looks at us and sees Christ and His wrath is satisfied. It is always by grace through faith. It is never because of something inherent in us, but rather even our sanctification is all about Christ’s work in us by the enabling of the Holy Spirit. We are clothed in His righteousness alone. He alone is glorified.

     Did I get it right? Is that what Calvinism teaches? Is there anything missing? I mean besides the Scripture references, but I expect that you guys know what texts I am quoting from.

     LikeLike

124. Well, of course regeneration happens before justification. Without being born from above by the miraculous inner work of the Holy Spirit we are unable to see and enter the Kingdom of God.(John 3)
     We are born dead in our trespasses and sins. We are by nature children of wrath, even as others are. We are made alive, quickened together with Christ. At some point after that quickening, after having been born from above, we will be brought to salvation by grace through faith, and all of that is a gift of God. We can offer no works of our own to God. It is all of grace, all a gift. Then we are enabled by the same Holy Spirit who birthed us, who gave us life in Christ, to walk in the works that were foreordained for us. (Ephesians 2:1-11)

     Is anything missing from what I said here? Well, you can run the whole 9 points of the ordo, but the focus is justification by faith, and you add “ alone, not alone.”

     I say there’s something missing. The Church says there’s something missing. What is the missing element that got Luther into trouble? Hint: it is what Paul says is the only thing that matters. What did Paul “add” to faith that makes it effective?

     LikeLike

125. Mermaid, what’s missing is a reason for your abandoning that account of salvation.

     I can only conclude, uninformed.

     LikeLike

126. @cvd
     ““who gave Luther the right to protest Rome’s abandoment of the gospel? The apostolic witness. ”

     Which of course could be said by any and every person/group you view as a heretic in history to justify their separation.”

     Of course. The right to protest is not a guarantee that one is right when she does. God will judge. Didn’t rome abandon the whole “error has no rights” business?

     LikeLike

127. Mrs. DoubleYou, love, which evidently is enough to at once anathematize those who leave it out and call them (separated) brethren. So which is it, accursed or in fellowship?

     LikeLike

128. Scholar of religion says we’re all Josh Duggar (but note who he says is losing members):

     http://amestrib.com/opinion/hector-avalos-politics-duggar-family-values

     Hector Avalos: The politics of Duggar family values

     Josh Duggar, a 27-year-old married father of three, recently admitted that he sexually molested young girls when he was a teen. His parents delayed informing authorities after they found out. We are now told that Josh’s victims included his own sisters. Josh Duggar is part of a family of 19 siblings that gained fame in a popular TLC reality show called “19 Kids and Counting,” which has chronicled the expanding family of Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar since 2008. An Arkansas clan that previously did not attract much attention outside of their state became a model of family values for many Christians. Prominent political figures used the Duggars as paradigms of the way a Christian life should be lived. Fans include Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, a current presidential hopeful. On social media, scholars of religion are debating whether this scandal is simply inciting our voyeurism or whether the Duggars reflect something more important about the state of American religion. Those who think the Duggars reflect something deeper about American religion might point to the recent Pew Research Center study, which found that “between 2007 and 2014, the Christian share of the population fell from 78.4 percent to 70.6 percent, driven mainly by declines among mainline Protestants and Catholics.” The causes of these trends are debated, but The Wartburg Watch, a Christian blog, concludes “(W)e believe Christianity is in decline because of the serious problems we discuss here — arrogant church leadership, refusal to deal with child sex abuse in the church, patriarchal attitudes, marginalization of over half of church attendees (women)…”Abandoning Christianity is particularly noticeable among the so-called Millennials (young people between the ages of 18 and 24). According to the Millennials Values Survey of 2012, “58 percent agree that ‘hypocritical’ (saying one thing, doing another) describes present-day Christianity very well. ”Hypocrisy is as old as human existence. However, hypocrisy can be magnified by reality television, which is never as real as it seems.The Duggars have campaigned against gay marriage, and they have mentioned child molestation as one of the potential consequences of expanding gay rights. In defending Josh Duggar, Mike Huckabee remarked on his Facebook page that Josh’s actions were “‘inexcusable,’ but that doesn’t mean ‘unforgivable.’”That statement contradicts the biblical values of Leviticus 20:17 (Revised Standard Version): “If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a shameful thing, and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people; he has uncovered his sister’s nakedness, he shall bear his iniquity.” There is no statute of limitations to absolve you of responsibility. There is no age difference used to excuse you, and forgiveness is not mentioned. You do the crime, you pay the penalty. The very belief that such offenses are forgivable by God may become an incentive to commit more such offenses. And why not let victims decide what is forgivable instead of a presidential candidate? Sarah Palin’s defense consists of comparing Josh’s actions to those of Lena Dunham, the creator of Girls on HBO. Dunham wrote that, when she was 7, she offered her 1-year-old sister candy in return for kisses and a peek at her private parts. But Dunham, whom Palin mockingly called a “pedophile,” does not claim to be a model of biblical family values. Besides, Leviticus 20:17 speaks only of brother-sister interactions.Huckabee and Palin overlook why Millennials could reject their defenses. It is not that people make mistakes. The larger lesson is about the promise that living a Christian lifestyle will somehow save our nation from the social problems that secular morality would bring. Millennials leaving Christianity, therefore, already may have concluded that this promise is a myth. Following “Christian” or “biblical values” does not produce more families free from divorce, addiction to pornography, non-marital pregnancy, domestic violence, or even the sexual abuse of children. Ample statistics show that In this context, the Duggars are not just the creation of reality television; they may truly represent the hypocritical reality of American Christian lifestyles that many Millennials are fleeing.

     Hector Avalos is a professor of religious studies at Iowa State University

     LikeLike

129. In case you missed it:

     “Those who think the Duggars reflect something deeper about American religion might point to the recent Pew Research Center study, which found that “between 2007 and 2014, the Christian share of the population fell from 78.4 percent to 70.6 percent, driven mainly by declines among mainline Protestants and Catholics.”

     Tom,

     If bigness says something about truth, is losing bigness also a mark of losing truthiness?

     LikeLike

130. Erik Charter
     Posted June 6, 2015 at 1:35 pm | Permalink
     In case you missed it:

     “Those who think the Duggars reflect something deeper about American religion might point to the recent Pew Research Center study, which found that “between 2007 and 2014, the Christian share of the population fell from 78.4 percent to 70.6 percent, driven mainly by declines among mainline Protestants and Catholics.”

     Tom,

     If bigness says something about truth, is losing bigness also a mark of losing truthiness?

     You’re not thinking. If Catholicism continues to be the majority of Christianity, and Protestantism remains not only a minority, but so completely fractured within itself that no sect is even a majority of the minority, then there’s an argument to be made that Protestantism is an incoherent mess.

     Again, you justify your religion by attacking Catholicism, but it holds up far better than your version of Christianity. But you can’t justify your religion on what it’s not.

     As for losing “market share” in America via the Pew poll, that’s completely irrelevant to anything. Christianity itself is not the majority religion worldwide. That doesn’t make Christianity as a whole false. By your own logic, if “the Christian share of the population falls” that means Christianity’s losing its “truthiness.”

     This attack fails, by your own lights.

     LikeLike

131. Zrim, my Mother calls you one of my separated brothers, so I accept you as such.

     Whether you come Home or stay where you are, you cannot avoid the words of the Apostle Paul. You dare not run from them.

     Galatians 5:6 1 Corinthians 13:13

     Why would love be left out of justification by faith when love is the greatest of the theological virtues? That is what Luther removed for the sake of his “alone.” In his rage he ran roughshod over love and trampled it underfoot.

     Paul clarifies what kind of faith he is talking about. It is always faith working through love. From the beginning of faith, it is infused with love, never faith alone without love.

     Luther wanted to have the Summa burned, but the townspeople, wiser than him, would not turn their books over to the madman.

     LikeLike

132. Mrs. W – Why would love be left out of justification by faith when love is the greatest of the theological virtues?

     Erik – It’s not. Jesus showed his love for His people when he died on the cross for them.

     LikeLike

133. Tom – then there’s an argument to be made that Protestantism is an incoherent mess.

     Erik – When I join the First Church of Protestantism, let’s talk.

     You’re the one who’s always touting your church’s size relative to mine.

     Remind me not to go to the locker room with you.

     LikeLike

134. Erik Charter
     Posted June 6, 2015 at 4:39 pm | Permalink
     Tom – then there’s an argument to be made that Protestantism is an incoherent mess.

     Erik – When I join the First Church of Protestantism, let’s talk.

     You’re the one who’s always touting your church’s size relative to mine.

     Remind me not to go to the locker room with you.

     You don’t comprehend the argument, or if you do, you’re pretending not to. Whether you’re unintelligent or dishonest here at Old Life, it doesn’t really matter. Over & out on this one.

     LikeLike

135. Tom,

     Apparently you join Greg the Terrible in being over everyone’s heads.

     Maybe he’ll send you one of his trophies.

     LikeLike

136. Tom,

     This is a complex argument, so I’m going to make it slowly so I can make sure you get it:

     Ready?

     Some Protestants could be right about things and other Protestants could be wrong about things.

     I know, hard to grasp, but true.

     There may not be any man behind the curtain who has a monopoly on all the right answers.

     LikeLike

137. Tom realizing that everybody doesn’t immediately bow down in front of his obviously superior arguments is like the guy who buys the muscle building course from the back of the comic book and is astounded that people keep kicking sand in his face…

     LikeLike

138. Mrs. DoubleYou, the row over justification has already been done. Some still hold to sola fide, others condemn it. The question is why do you accept those who affirm it as brethren when your church condemns them?

     LikeLike

139. Erik Charter
     Posted June 6, 2015 at 6:12 pm | Permalink
     Tom realizing that everybody doesn’t immediately bow down in front of his obviously superior arguments is like the guy who buys the muscle building course from the back of the comic book and is astounded that people keep kicking sand in his face…

     Puffing yourself up and declaring victory when you’re not even in the game.

     Erik Charter
     Posted June 6, 2015 at 1:35 pm | Permalink
     In case you missed it:

     “Those who think the Duggars reflect something deeper about American religion might point to the recent Pew Research Center study, which found that “between 2007 and 2014, the Christian share of the population fell from 78.4 percent to 70.6 percent, driven mainly by declines among mainline Protestants and Catholics.”

     Tom,

     If bigness says something about truth, is losing bigness also a mark of losing truthiness?

     TVD
     Posted June 6, 2015 at 3:04 pm | Permalink
     Erik Charter
     Posted June 6, 2015 at 1:35 pm | Permalink
     In case you missed it:

     “Those who think the Duggars reflect something deeper about American religion might point to the recent Pew Research Center study, which found that “between 2007 and 2014, the Christian share of the population fell from 78.4 percent to 70.6 percent, driven mainly by declines among mainline Protestants and Catholics.”

     Tom,

     If bigness says something about truth, is losing bigness also a mark of losing truthiness?

     You’re not thinking. If Catholicism continues to be the majority of Christianity, and Protestantism remains not only a minority, but so completely fractured within itself that no sect is even a majority of the minority, then there’s an argument to be made that Protestantism is an incoherent mess.

     Again, you justify your religion by attacking Catholicism, but it holds up far better than your version of Christianity. But you can’t justify your religion on what it’s not.

     As for losing “market share” in America via the Pew poll, that’s completely irrelevant to anything. Christianity itself is not the majority religion worldwide. That doesn’t make Christianity as a whole false. By your own logic, if “the Christian share of the population falls” that means Christianity’s losing its “truthiness.”

     This attack fails, by your own lights.

     LikeLike

140. Actually, Zrim, Luther denied the doctrine of faith formed by love. Are you sure you know what was condemned and what Luther threw out?

     The Church also rejects justification by works of the law. In that way, faith is alone, but it is a faith infused by love. No, it is not love that justifies, it is faith working through love that justifies.

     You ask me how. I give you clues.

     D.G. Hart mocks, but I love him as a brother.

     https://books.google.com/books?id=4BY6GDGR0k4C&pg=PA282&lpg=PA282&dq=aquinas+and+faith+working+through+love&source=bl&ots=mqifZCb4WT&sig=qFo-9f3TjMmn4HA30r06WIWVSPE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NxByVe-5DYnfoATuioDADQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=aquinas%20and%20faith%20working%20through%20love&f=false

     LikeLike

141. Tom – You’re not thinking. If Catholicism continues to be the majority of Christianity, and Protestantism remains not only a minority, but so completely fractured within itself that no sect is even a majority of the minority, then there’s an argument to be made that Protestantism is an incoherent mess.

     Erik – You’re mistake is in thinking I want to somehow defend “Protestantism” against Catholicism. I don’t. The West’s view of human sexuality is also currently an incoherent mess. That doesn’t mean I’m leaving the West or giving up sex.

     Tom – Again, you justify your religion by attacking Catholicism, but it holds up far better than your version of Christianity. But you can’t justify your religion on what it’s not.

     Erik – I don’t pick the topics. If there were no Catholics here arguing, I doubt I would think about Catholicism that much.

     If you’re interested in (American) religion, it seems to come up a lot, though. The Pope appears to have a good press agent.

     Tom – As for losing “market share” in America via the Pew poll, that’s completely irrelevant to anything. Christianity itself is not the majority religion worldwide. That doesn’t make Christianity as a whole false.

     Erik – O.K. I guess we agree that the truth of a religion has nothing to do with its number of adherents. Good to hear you won’t be bringing up how many members the OPC has any more.

     LikeLike

142. TVD
     Posted June 6, 2015 at 4:41 pm | Permalink
     Erik Charter
     Posted June 6, 2015 at 4:39 pm | Permalink
     Tom – then there’s an argument to be made that Protestantism is an incoherent mess.

     Tom – As for losing “market share” in America via the Pew poll, that’s completely irrelevant to anything. Christianity itself is not the majority religion worldwide. That doesn’t make Christianity as a whole false.

     Erik – O.K. I guess we agree that the truth of a religion has nothing to do with its number of adherents. Good to hear you won’t be bringing up how many members the OPC has any more.

     You don’t comprehend the argument, or if you do, you’re pretending not to. Whether you’re unintelligent or dishonest here at Old Life, it doesn’t really matter. Over & out on this one.

     LikeLike

143. Mrs. W.,

     No, it is not love that justifies, it is faith working through love that justifies.

     If that were true, there would be no growth in justification via good deeds of love done in cooperation with grace. But that’s what Rome teaches.

     LikeLike

144. “justify your religion by attacking Catholicism”

     Who started justifying their conversion by attacking Protestantism?

     Your brothers in the pope.

     Oh, that’s right. You don’t go to church.

     LikeLike

145. Mermaid, but I don’t have invincible ignorance (I know that’s not what some think). That makes me culpable and a heretic.

     Love me now?

     LikeLike

146. Tom,

     Or maybe your argument sucks.

     LikeLike

147. If Tom believed in the superiority of Rome, he’d spend more time at mass then hanging out here complaining that Darryl is just looking for a little honesty from the self-appointed ex-Protetant apologists for the Vatican.

     LikeLike

148. Erik Charter
     Posted June 6, 2015 at 8:56 pm | Permalink
     Tom,

     Or maybe your argument sucks.

     Until you’re able to state the argument fairly, you’re either insulting your intelligence or everyone else’s. Beating your chest doesn’t help.

     Robert
     Posted June 6, 2015 at 8:59 pm | Permalink
     If Tom believed in the superiority of Rome, he’d spend more time at mass then hanging out here complaining that Darryl is just looking for a little honesty from the self-appointed ex-Protetant apologists for the Vatican.

     You know nothing about me sir, and I’ll thank you to not pretend you do. And if you had a counterargument you would make it, instead of adding your little dagger here.

     Try again. In trying to use the recent polls to attack Catholicism, Erik’s own argument attacks Christianity as a whole. He blows himself up with his own grenade.

     Those who think the Duggars reflect something deeper about American religion might point to the recent Pew Research Center study, which found that “between 2007 and 2014, the Christian share of the population fell from 78.4 percent to 70.6 percent, driven mainly by declines among mainline Protestants and Catholics.”

     Tom,

     If bigness says something about truth, is losing bigness also a mark of losing truthiness?

     You’re not thinking. If Catholicism continues to be the majority of Christianity, and Protestantism remains not only a minority, but so completely fractured within itself that no sect is even a majority of the minority, then there’s an argument to be made that Protestantism is an incoherent mess.

     Again, you justify your religion by attacking Catholicism, but it holds up far better than your version of Christianity. But you can’t justify your religion on what it’s not.

     As for losing “market share” in America via the Pew poll, that’s completely irrelevant to anything. Christianity itself is not the majority religion worldwide. That doesn’t make Christianity as a whole false. By your own logic, if “the Christian share of the population falls” that means Christianity’s losing its “truthiness.”

     LikeLike

149. Tom,

     Have you considered that Mainline Protestantism and Catholicism declining and other groups which contain fewer nominal members staying steady or increasing might be a good thing? Maybe fewer Christians overall, but more serious ones.

     Sounds pretty good, actually.

     LikeLike

150. Think of different Christian groups like the 50 states. “Living laboratories” seeking out the best way to worship God and help Christians grow. Why does it have to be one size fits all? Over time we should be able to judge these groups by their fruit. Do they maintain biblical fidelity? Do their children stay in the faith? Do they avoid social pathologies? Do they become enamored of wealth and forget about God?

     Rome had a 1200 year monopoly, backed by the Magistrate, yet fumbled the ball. Nothing wrong with giving someone else a shot.

     LikeLike

151. Erik Charter
     Posted June 6, 2015 at 10:23 pm | Permalink
     Think of different Christian groups like the 50 states. “Living laboratories” seeking out the best way to worship God and help Christians grow. Why does it have to be one size fits all? Over time we should be able to judge these groups by their fruit. Do they maintain biblical fidelity? Do their children stay in the faith? Do they avoid social pathologies? Do they become enamored of wealth and forget about God?

     Rome had a 1200 year monopoly, backed by the Magistrate, yet fumbled the ball. Nothing wrong with giving someone else a shot.

     The Reformation had its shot. The cure was worse than the disease. Instead of rectifying error, it multiplied it. Even if Calvin had it right, it splintered and splintered and splintered from there.

     Erik Charter
     Posted June 6, 2015 at 10:18 pm | Permalink
     Tom,

     Have you considered that Mainline Protestantism and Catholicism declining and other groups which contain fewer nominal members staying steady or increasing might be a good thing? Maybe fewer Christians overall, but more serious ones.

     Sounds pretty good, actually.

     You may have landed on the truth of this matter. I heard someone say [IOW, not my original idea] that in the not too distant past, you were either Christian or you weren’t. What has decreased is the number of nominal Christians who call themselves Christian, because it’s OK to say so now. So the faith levels are more or less the same.

     Probably not the whole story but certainly part of it. You may be right about the rest, also, affluence and modernity, challenges to any religion that demands more than an affable hedonism from its adherents. Add in the corrosive effects of unbridled sex, drugs and rock’n’roll, and you see the fundamentalist cementheads of the 60s and 70s were onto something afterall–not just the end of Christendom, but of the entirety of Western Civilization itself.

     But again, relativism is the problem, not the cure. Brad Gregory was onto something: the Reformation brought about not just a rejection of theological authority, but a rejection of classical philosophy as well. The Reformation may never die, but it could be there’s no sustainable middle ground between the nondenominational evangelicals–the fundies who reinvent Christianity every Sunday from the bottom up–and Catholicism, the top-down establishment.

     I’ve always laughed at Mexico’s PRI, the Institutional Revolutionary Party, was pretty funny. Once you’re the institution, you’re no longer revolutionary. “Mainline Protestant” may be an oxymoron too: Once it’s mainline, it’s no longer Protestant. Semper reformanda. If you’re not in schism, you’re not doing it right.

     LikeLike

152. TVD’s got the rabies theologorum disease. Pure and simple.

     Next.

     LikeLike

153. D.G. Hart:
     Mermaid, but I don’t have invincible ignorance (I know that’s not what some think). That makes me culpable and a heretic.

     Love me now?>>>>>

     Well, I don’t know if you really want an answer, or just want to be nasty to nice Catholic ladies. It’s not that difficult to answer, and you probably already know the answer. However, I will inform you, hoping that you do not suffer from deliberate, invincible ignorance on this matter.

     Think about it. How can you be ex-communicated from a Church you never belonged to? The anathema had to do with ex-communication.

     For ex-Catholics who left the Church of their own volition, the door is open for their return.

     See. That wasn’t hard was it?

     Besides, your treatment of me here would not make me love you any more or any less, though it is meant to annoy and belittle. Luke 6:27-36 still applies.

     35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.

     So, no matter how you look at it, the answer is yes.

     LikeLike

154. Mrs webfoot, the cage phase convert:

     You have no point.

     LikeLike

155. vd, t, here’s why your argument sucks and you need to embrace the suck.

     Protestantism is the majority religion where you live. http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/

     Evangelicals are growing and Roman Catholics are losing members as fast as the mainline. http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

     Roman Catholics are invariably the same in their views as Americans. They don’t think like Christians. They think like you. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/03/13/strong-catholic-identity-at-a-four-decade-low-in-us/

     And you say EC doesn’t get it?

     Why do you sound like a cage phase convert? At least Mermaid goes to church and believes in Mary.

     LikeLike

156. vd, t, “The Reformation had its shot. The cure was worse than the disease.”

     Say so long to the American Creation, Locke, and Beza. vd, t wants the Inquisition and Franco’s Spain.

     LikeLike

157. Mermaid, you didn’t even address the topic. Invincible ignorance covers anyone outside the church who have never been in the church. That would apply to me if I did not know Roman Catholic teaching and then reject them.

     I know Roman Catholic claims and I reject them.

     Love me now?

     LikeLike

158. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 7, 2015 at 1:29 am | Permalink
     Mermaid, you didn’t even address the topic. Invincible ignorance covers anyone outside the church who have never been in the church. That would apply to me if I did not know Roman Catholic teaching and then reject them.

     I know Roman Catholic claims and I reject them.

     Love me now?

     She answered you, Butch. Luke 6:27-36. That’s what Christianity looks like. Your ignorance on this is vincible.

     I know Roman Catholic claims and I reject them.

     If you do know them, you’re a liar, for you continually misrepresent them.

     As for your arguments to me, they suck. The United States is not all the world, which is a lucky thing for Presbyterianism.

     LikeLike

159. Tom,

     You know nothing about me sir, and I’ll thank you to not pretend you do. And if you had a counterargument you would make it, instead of adding your little dagger here.

     Just tell us you are going to mass and confession regularly, and we’ll stop assuming that what you once said of yourself is still true.

     Try again. In trying to use the recent polls to attack Catholicism, Erik’s own argument attacks Christianity as a whole. He blows himself up with his own grenade.

     He’s not using recent polls to “attack Catholicism.” He’s using recent polls to point out the folly of thinking Rome is all that because its so big. Which appears to be your argument, or at least a big plank of it.

     I’d also like to know how, if Rome is so “coherent,” Nancy Pelosi and Mother Teresa both faithfully represent Roman Catholic theology. Both have claimed in various ways to speak for the tradition, and yet both are full members in good standing. Talk about confusing.

     LikeLike

160. The bleeding of the RC church is even worse down here in Latin America. Been doing some teaching here in Lima, Peru. Regular Mass attendance down to 10% of population and only 1% give financially to the church. They say here that electing a Latin pope was attempt to stop bleeding here because Europe a lost cause. Didn’t seem to work. Unfortunately the radical Pentecostals are filling the gap and doing a lot of damage.

     LikeLike

161. TVD, stop into a church, you pass along the way. Get down on your knees, begin to pray (begin to pray), the preacher likes to call, he knows you are gonna stay.

     LikeLike

162. Mrs. Webfoot,

     Have you told Anne about your love for Darryl?

     Like would be sufficient.

     Not even his cats love him that much

     LikeLike

163. Tom,

     At the time of the Founding we did have state churches.

     Didn’t work so well, though.

     LikeLike

164. Darryl and Tom,

     Are Evangelicals winning the world?

     #samestuffdifferentday

     LikeLike

165. I believe there’s a URCNA in Quito, Ecuador. Minister trained at MARS and interned in Pella. Good man.

     LikeLike

166. AB, he doesn’t begin to pray, he pretends to pray in the lyrics.

     And Barry McGuire put the original vocal on the song and they erased it, but you can hear him on the first two lines if you are wearing headphones.

     LikeLike

167. From that link, if nothing else, read the baptist and Pentecostal jokes at the end

     are Evangelicals Winning the World?
     PETER BERGER
     Why are parts of Germany formerly under the enforced secularism of the Communist party rediscovering charismatic religion?

     In its story of May 16, 2015, the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel carried a story tiled (on its cover at least) “Are Evangelicals Winning the World?” [That is my translation. The German wording is “Are Evangelicals conquering…” I substituted the less martial-sounding English “winning”. To the best of my knowledge, there is a remarkable scarcity of Evangelical suicide bombers.] The story states that Evangelical congregations are generally growing in Germany. But it concentrates on two congregations: one in Stuttgart, in western Germany, the other in a suburb of Dresden, in the former DDR (the defunct Communist German Democratic Republic.) The second location is particularly startling.

     The Stuttgart congregation is described as the first American-style mega-church. It is also clearly Pentecostal or charismatic. On Sunday morning some 2,000 people attend services, close their eyes and raise their hands in ecstatic prayer, “speak in tongues” (meaningless babble to outsiders), and watch their preacher perform miracles of healing. The Dresden congregation is located in a suburban area that has been called the Saxon “Bible belt”, in yet another echo of America. Both regions have a long history of Pietism, the German phenomenon closest to American Evangelicalism (but without the miracles). Whether this Pietist heritage (going back some three-hundred years) provides some links with what is happening now is an open question. But the Dresden case raises a more proximate question: how relevant is its more recent history under Communism? The Austrian sociologist Paul Zulehner has called the former DDR one of three European countries in which atheism has become a sort of state religion (the other two are the Czech Republic and Estonia). Is this wild eruption of supernaturalism a delayed reaction to the period when the Communist regime made propaganda for “scientific atheism”? Immediately after the fall of that regime there was a popular revival of the much more sedate form of Protestantism of the Landeskirchen, the old post-Reformation state churches; that revival did not last very long after these churches lost their appeal as one of the few institutions at least relatively free from the control of the party.
     According to some data, there are now about 1.3 million members of congregations united in something called the German Evangelical Alliance (the German word is “evangelisch”). To add to the confusion of any reader of this blog not familiar with the esoterica of German religion, in ordinary parlance, “evangelisch” just means “Protestant”; to distinguish ordinary Lutherans from the aforementioned devotees of the supernatural, the German term “evangelikal” has been invented. Unfortunately, some Lutheran and Scandinavian churches implanted in America have retained the European meaning of “Evangelical”, as in the biggest Lutheran denomination in the U.S.—Evangelical Lutheran Church in America/ELCA (also known in its precincts as “Aunt Elka”). Too bad, dear readers: I didn’t create the confusion, I’m trying to dispel it. (In any case, if a devout Southern Baptist stranded in the Upper Midwest goes to an ELCA service expecting to answer the call from the altar, to accept Jesus as his personal lord and savior, he will be disappointed.)
     Please take it from me, one solidly steeped in in German religious esoterica: The Alliance with 1.3 members should rightly be called “Evangelical” in the American sense of that word! Like their American cousins, these German Evangelicals insist that the Bible, Old and New Testament, should be taken literally as the highest authority in all matters of faith and morality. Oddly enough, Evangelicals on both sides of the Atlantic have an affinity with right-wing and anti-immigrant politics. Dresden in particular has seen its Evangelicals very visible in the ongoing anti-Muslim demonstrations. At the other end of Germany, in Bremen, an Evangelical pastor has attracted media attention by warning against the notion that Christians have anything in common with Islam or Buddhism—they should purify themselves from all this “Muslim nonsense”, and not put up statues of the Buddha, that “fat old gentleman”.
     Why is this happening in Germany now? I don’t know. Is this a singular event, or is it part of a larger process of desecularization in western Europe, a region more secular than any other part of the world? Possibly. The British sociologist Grace Davie has been warning us against over-estimating the degree of “eurosecularity”—as she put it, many things are happening “under the radar”. Eastern Europe, especially Russia, has undergone some dramatic returns of religion in the wake of the enforced secularism of the Communist party. But even if I must honestly say that I don’t fully understand the present situation of religion in western Europe, there is one fact that we can be reasonably sure of: Evangelical Protestantism (especially but not exclusively in its Pentecostalist/charismatic form) is going through a period of rapid growth in Africa, Latin America and parts of Asia (notably in China). Why is this? David Martin, another British sociologist who has been a kind of dean of Pentecostalism studies, has shown in great detail how this astounding development can be understood as yet another incarnation of the Protestant ethic, which was a crucial factor in the genesis of modern capitalism.
     I think he is right. But I think there is another important factor, which has been generally overlooked. Allow me to regale you with the Berger hypothesis on why Evangelical Protestantism is doing so well in much of the contemporary world: Because it is the most modern of any large religion on offer today. I am well aware of the fact that this contradicts the prevailing view of Evangelicals in academia and the media—so brilliantly expressed in President Obama’s priceless characterization of a demographic not voting for him in the 2008 election as economically challenged people “clinging to their guns and their God”. In other words, seen from the perspective of Harvard Yard these are the great unwashed out of step with modernity. But curiously this is also how diehard Evangelical fundamentalists see themselves—as defenders of the true faith against the intellectual and moral aberrations of modernity. They are both wrong.
     Evangelicals believe that one cannot be born a Christian, one must be “born again” by a personal decision to accept Jesus. What can be more modern than this? This view of the Christian faith provides a unique combination of individualism with a strong community of fellow believers supporting the individual in his decision. It allows individuals to be both religious and modern. That is a pretty powerful package. Is my hypothesis just an expression of my own faith? Definitely not. I am not Pentecostal nor any other sort of Evangelical. But if (instead of being an incurable evangelisch Lutheran), I were Evangelical but also an objective sociologist, I would look at the empirical evidence and find the hypothesis plausible, and worthy of exploration. Am I sure of this interpretation? Of course not; science, including social science, does not lead to certainties, only probabilities. This is not the place to develop my hypothesis in greater detail. Let me just suggest that to be a Saxon Evangelical is not as much of a contradiction as it may seem, and that such an individual can find congenial places of worship from Sao Paulo, to Lagos, to Seoul (not to mention Dallas).
     There is one obvious objection I should deal with: My hypothesis (a man-bites-dog story if there ever was one) seems to fly in the face of the fact that Evangelicals have great problems with many aspects of a modern, science-based worldview. How can one be a modern person who also believes that the world is only six-thousand years old, or that prayer can divert the course of a hurricane to hit my neighbor rather than myself? Or, for that matter, that the first five books of the Old Testament were written by Moses? Come with me to Dallas and you can easily meet people who manage this feat: successful petroleum engineers, heart surgeons or computer specialists. It is good to keep in mind that most people are not philosophers who want to have a logically coherent worldview. But all of us, including philosophers, operate in different “relevance structures” (to use the very useful concept coined by Alfred Schutz), and we constantly switch from one to the other. For example, I earnestly discuss sociology with a woman colleague at a scholarly conference, and find her increasingly attractive: I am switching from a professional to an erotic relevance. Alternatively, I discover that she is an ardent supporter of a politician I find very objectionable: She loses her attractiveness, as I switch from an erotic to a political or moral relevance. Probably this ability to switch relevances already belonged to our Neolithic ancestors, but it becomes specially important if one is to operate in a complicated modern society.
     Back in Dallas, our petroleum engineer does drilling in the morning, plays chess in the evening—and goes to a conservative Baptist church on Sunday morning, listening to a sermon repudiating the theory of evolution. As long as these different relevances don’t collide on the level of actual behavior (say, some Evangelical Old Testament scholar claims that a hitherto overlooked passage in the Book of Leviticus condemns chess), one can happily go on switching relevances. Perhaps the following joke is (indeed) relevant to this discussion: Why are Baptists opposed to premarital sex? Because it may lead to dancing!
     Finally, let me tell a Pentecostal joke (perhaps the only existing one): At a meeting of Pentecostals, how do you find out how many people want to stay for lunch after the meeting? You go in and say: Those who want to stay for lunch after the meeting, please lower your hands!

     LikeLike

168. Kent, you are right.

     Will Tom go to church today?

     Only in a California dream

     LikeLike

169. Erik, while me and kent are being precise, no “e” in Anne:

     Ann Hart’s journey to Hillsdale
     by Casey Harper April 11, 2013

     Ann Hart, professor in English, began teaching at Hillsdale College this Spring.

     She is currently teaching Great Books II while working part time as an editor for Orbis: A Journal of World Affairs, a quarterly journal on foreign policy.

     Hart’s love for the written word has taken her all over the country, from city to city.

     Fresh out of college, she and her best friend, an artist, headed to Philadelphia to become famous. Hart wanted to write the next great American novel.

     “We were driven by youthful enthusiasm,” Hart remarked. “And we were mugged by reality.”

     Needing cash in her pocket, Hart ended up as a procedures writer at Reliance Insurance Company – not exactly her ideal job.

     “You can focus on your vocation,” Hart said. “But you may have to make a living unless you marry well.”

     It was during her time in Philadelphia when she met Darryl Hart, professor in history, at church. He was a high school senior dating the two-years-older Hart.

     “Best thing that has happened,” Hart added. “If you are looking for a spouse, go to church.”

     Darryl Hart sensed his wife’s dissat­is­faction with her insurance job and suggested she pursue literature instead. Hart said she had always considered her older siblings the “smart” ones, but went to jour­nalism school at night, worked during the day, and wrote during her lunch breaks.

     Even­tually, she quit her day job to waitress which she said was rather risky.

     “I was a woman trying to make it in the business world, and I quit my full time job,” Hart explained.

     Nonetheless, she did earn her master’s degree at Temple University.

     “I’m really glad I did that,” Hart added.

     Hart explained she has spent the last 31 years lovingly following her husband’s lead. From Philadelphia to Boston to Baltimore to Chicago, back to Philadelphia, and even­tually to Hillsdale.

     She worked at State Street Bank, John Hopkins as a copy-editor and creative manager, she tutored for writing skills, worked at another insurance agency, wrote for a community newspaper with an editor she described as “left over from the 60s,” free­lanced, was a teacher’s assistant, became the editor for Orbis, and even­tually found herself here in Hillsdale.

     “It is like a different country,” Hart commented.

     Hart explained she had never aspired to be an editor, and, although she is not complaining, would love to simply write for a living.

     “Editing is pulling weeds,” Hart said. “Writing is landscape design.”

     During her free time, Hart has been writing a novel addressing the cultural wars throughout the last 30 to 40 years.

     Her time teaching Great Books has taught her to be careful with “all over the place” writing.

     “You have to have good char­acters that make sense, not ideas with legs,” Hart said.

     Hart said she has loved teaching the course.

     “It is like a directed book club,” Hart said.

     Freshman Claire Benz who is in Hart’s class said she has loved her teaching style.

     “She is easy to have discussion with,” Benz said. “Class is lively, and she keeps things interesting.”

     Annie Toohey, another freshman in the class said that the discussion aids her learning.

     “I never get bored in that class,” Toohey said. “It is a different style of teaching. Instead of just lecture, we share our ideas, and I am learning with the whole class.”

     Hart explained she teaches in a discussion-based style because she finds it important to continue the great conver­sations of the past in the present.

     “I was a TA at Temple and kids just weren’t that interested,” Hart said. “It is wonderful to have dialogue with the students.”

     Hart wants to do even more with the college students.

     After 9/11, Hart said she realized just how small the world is. She is currently working on forming a closer link between Hillsdale’s students and the Foreign Policy Institute, hoping for students to work as interns, help at the summer academy, and develop connection with the Foreign Policy Journal.

     She noted that the internet’s birth in 1994 and has made 2013 a wonderful time to be a budding writer.

     With the internet age, you do not have to hand deliver stories. Hart herself telecommutes with an editor in Connecticut, a publisher in Dublin, and a president in Philadelphia for Orbis.

     “A literary back­ground is great,” Hart said.

     Hart also went to the Turkey honors trip last summer and made a lasting impact on the students who went with her.

     “I loved it,” Hart said. “For most of them it was their first time out of the country, and they were already working on theses. Such energy.”

     Elizabeth Anne Odell attended the trip and said she enjoyed Hart’s conver­sations over breakfast.

     “She is very well educated,” Odell said. “She had her notebook out, sketching and taking notes, being a good example of a traveler.”

     Odell said she also attends Hart’s church and has observed her outside of an educa­tional setting.
     “I admire her success,” Odell said. “She has a wonderful rela­tionship with her husband. She is dedicated to whatever she does, whether it be church or her job or her marriage.”
     http://www.hillsdalecollegian.com/2013/04/ann-harts-journey-to-hillsdale/

     LikeLike

170. vd, t, then why do you blog at American Creation and not at Papacy Matters?

     LikeLike

171. Maybe he knows the password to papal answers dot com? We couldn’t get KW to open up, Obi wan was wise to hide her from me, if TVD will not turn to the dark said, perhaps (s)he will.

     LikeLike

172. Is this what Mermaid, Susan, vd, t, vd, c, and MichaelTX want (loser Ken is free to weigh in)?

     The Mass that most Catholics are familiar with today draws its rituals from the Ordinary Form, or Novus Ordo, which dates back to 1969, at the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council. This is the rubric that ushered out Latin in favor of the vernacular and turned the priest around to face the people.

     This supplanted the Mass of 1962, with its more formal, Latin liturgy, that was suppressed after Vatican II.

     In 1984, Pope John Paul II decided it could be celebrated with special permission from Rome.

     But that older Mass, now called the Extraordinary Form, enjoyed something of a renaissance under Pope Benedict XVI. In 2007, the now-retired pope issued instructions to bishops and priests to make the rite more available for Catholics who wished to worship in that style.

     Whereas Vatican II-era liturgists made “efforts to try to switch out smells and bells for strums and drums,” as Patrick J. Reilly of the Cardinal Newman Society put it during a lunch panel with Burke, Pope Benedict’s decree was an opportunity to reverse course.

     There aren’t numbers available on how many dioceses or parishes offer the Latin Mass, but its fans comprise a vocal minority in the Church who believe most Catholics would be on their side if they only knew of its beauty. Groups of young Catholics host the Latin Mass in dioceses from DC to Los Angeles.

     Those gathered here applaud speakers who seek to bring the Latin Mass to Catholic campus ministry centers, promote the use of Gregorian chant in parishes, and restore all-male altar server programs. They laugh at the mere mention of Vatican II hymns. They audibly gasp at projected images of Catholic churches lacking icons and statues.

     Many insist that a renewed emphasis on the liturgy — a very particular form of liturgy — will lead to the Church’s renewal and may even transform the world along the way.

     LikeLike

173. dgh, prolly.

     LikeLike

174. You know, it’s good the OPC had a peaceful GA. I remember I went to Presbytery for the PCA South Florida Presbytery. I liked it. The worship was terrible though: cheesy 80s worship coming out of a CD player. There were paintings of Jesus.

     I mean, I like El Greco, but 2nd commandment ya know? I can enjoy Renaissance and Baroque art. I can’t enjoy American Christian art. Then again, it’s all middlebrow.

     I considered reconverting to Roman-ism. I stopped because I found out that I wanted to convert for the following reasons:

     1) I valued Scriptural authority and seriousness. The Reformed churches have both.
     2) I valued good Gospel preaching. The local bishop doesn’t have that. Most priests in my diocese don’t have that. If I go to a Reformed church, I usually hear Law and Gospel preaching.
     3) I valued the historicity of the Catholic church. Calvin and Co. cite Patristics up the wazoo. His Institutes are heavily influence by Peter Lombard (at least according to some guy out of RTS) and my study of worship sees that Calvin and Luther still retained the basics of historic Christian worship.
     4) I valued grace. I wanted to be part of a Church that would tell me that Jesus loved me. I don’t see assurance of faith in Roman doctrine. I see it in Reformed doctrine. I struggle with enough anxiety as it is.

     Though the most important reason was that I wanted to feel like something bigger than myself. I wanted emotional stability. I wanted a religion to fix all my feelings so I could become unthinking. I don’t think that’s every Catholic convert, but I’ve already been through that once before.

     I still the value the first four. And I need to be okay with being “broken” with the fifth.

     Oy! Anyway, I spoke too much. I’ll just leave now. I just wanted to write this to see if I could add something of value. If it wasn’t valuable, meh.

     LikeLike

175. SJG

     It was.

     @_@

     LikeLike

176. @_@_@_@_@_@_@

     Though in all seriousness, keep me in your prayers. I’m looking for work so I don’t go to debt pursuing an MA in Theology. I wanna write a thesis on St. Athanasius’ Contra Gentiles and On the Incarnation but I don’t wanna go poor doing it. I’m also gonna propose to girlfriend in a month, unemployment be damned. Scary stuff, manhood.

     I will say this. DG Hart’s blog has more comments than his Patheos blog. That blog seems to confuse its readership. It amuses me.

     o/ (This is a handwave)

     LikeLike

177. Look me up on LinkedIn

     linkedin[dot]com/in/andrewbuckingham1

     We all felt that tug at one time

     http://wscal.edu/resource-center/resource/the-lure-of-rome

     Grace and Peace

     LikeLike

178. The Church also rejects justification by works of the law. In that way, faith is alone, but it is a faith infused by love. No, it is not love that justifies, it is faith working through love that justifies.

     Mrs. DoubleYou, the works of the law are manifestations of love, i.e. these are synonymous terms, so to say the church rejects justification by works of the law on the one hand but that love is required in addition to faith is duplicitous because it’s just another way of saying that justification is by faith and works (which is to say love). This is what your church teaches. It doesn’t deny that, as some misinformed Prots might suggest, justification is by faith. It denies that it is by faith alone.

     But the question still remains as to how the RCC can both anathematize those who hold to sola fide (and reject faith and love) and declare them separated brethren. But perhaps the same dizzying mechanism that allows it to say that justification is not by faith and love except that it is is the same one that allows a simultaneous anathema and embrace, and it’s only the bumbling and schismatic who can’t compute it.

     LikeLike

179. Hart,
     I can’t speak for anybody else, but I would like to see more parishes have a regular 1962 Latin Mass with Gregorian chant as an option. We are going I start traveling about an hour and a half once a month to participate in one. BTW, in my understanding the Tridentine Mass was never official abbrogated. Mainly just locally abondoned. But that didn’t happen universally. You have priest like st Padre Pio and others who continued to practice it in full communion with the Church. Here is a quote from a ministry to educating about it:
     
     4. Does the Latin Mass fulfill my Sunday obligation?
     Catholics of any rite can fulfill their obligation for Mass on Sundays and Holy Days at the Roman Mass in the Extraordinary Form. The traditional Latin Mass, of course, was the norm for centuries and as Pope Benedict XVI has stated, it has never been outlawed (i.e. abrogated).

     In light of the proper understanding of the documents of the Second Vatican Counsel, and the clear teaching of Pope Benedict XVI in Summorum Ponficum, who today would dare question the validity, excellence, or spiritual benefits of the Mass that for centuries nourished the souls of the great saints and martyrs!

     Mass in the Extraordinary Form (1962 Missale Romanum) fulfills the obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days, and there is no reason to doubt the authenticity or legality of the Mass that is our proud heritage.

     http://Www.santamissa.org

     LikeLike

180. http://www.sanctamissa.org

     LikeLike

181. Zrim:
     It denies that it is by faith alone.>>>>>

     Faith without love is nothing. It counts for nothing.
     Galatians 5:6 (ESV)

     6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

     Paul uses a work of the Law – circumcision- to contrast it with another kind of work. Does that start to sound like James 2:24?

     Circumcision is what binds a Jewish male to the law of Moses, yet Paul says it counts for nothing.

     There is no such thing as faith that does not work through love. It is a figment of Luther’s imagination.

     Zrim:
     Mrs. DoubleYou, the works of the law are manifestations of love, i.e. these are synonymous terms…>>>

     Evidently circumcision was not considered to be an act of faith working through love. Do you see how you contradicted the Apostle Paul? I would imagine that you fancy yourself a believer in sola scriptura. Are you really?

     Circumcision = nothing. Faith working through love = everything.

     Take care, Zrim

     …and it’s Mrs. Webfoot

     LikeLike

182. Zrim
     Posted June 7, 2015 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

     But the question still remains as to how the RCC can both anathematize those who hold to sola fide (and reject faith and love) and declare them separated brethren.

     Good question, Mr. Z. Why don’t you do some homework instead of hassling nice Catholic ladies who don’t give a spit about this legalistic hairsplitting about something 500 years ago that you may or may not understand correctly?

     If your heart is right, you’re “a separated brethren” and not an “anathema.” Let your heart not be troubled.

     LikeLike

183. The problem with Mrs. Webfoot’s exegesis of Galatians 5 is that Paul has just spent Galatians 1-4 contrasting faith & works. If our love becomes something that we think goes hand in hand with Christ’s justifying work, we’ve missed the point. The love in Galatians 5 fits in with the Fruits of the Spirit in Galatians 6. It’s an effect of justification by faith, not a cause of justification.

     If you’re counting on your love to save you, you had better be keeping the whole Law perfectly as well. That is Paul’s message.

     Who really loves anyone but themselves consistently anyway?

     LikeLike

184. At its root I fear that the Catholic scheme of “cooperation” is nothing more than an attempt to feel like we really are good people. Jesus is the only good person, though, which is why we look to Him, not to ourselves.

     LikeLike

185. Tom,

     As protestants, our head is right, and we damn straight are anathema?

     Stop appealing to people’s emotions. You’re smarter than this. How much did you drink at that tony awards party 😉

     You are fun, but a non-religionist. Enjoy life as pony boy, amigo.

     Next. I’ve got more.

     LikeLike

186. Mrs. DoubleYou, the point isn’t to rehash the sola fide debate. It’s been quite done. All that remains is to take sides. The Reformation and Trent understood one another, but one subsequent tactic since has been to suggest they didn’t, which TVD helpfully demonstrates.

     TVD, do whole Councils convene and pronounce eternal matters over legalistic hair-splitting? Maybe as a divested cultural religionist you think so. But invested doctrinal religionists beg to differ.

     LikeLike

187. Zrim, my point is that Luther was wrong, Paul was right. Do you want to go with Luther or the Apostle Paul? That is clearly my point.

     Luther stripped faith of the only thing that matters, and you are talking nonsense.

     I will leave it there, since you have no real argument against Paul. If you take Luther’s side, you are on the wrong side.

     Now, you don’t have to agree, but this is important to me. You have no argument against Paul. The Reformation has no argument against Paul. It is a red herring to try to argue James against Paul on the matter of charity. There is complete harmony without having to add “justification by faith alone, but faith is not alone” as if that explains some paradox. The paradox is a figment of Luther’s imagination.

     If you understand faith properly, you will see that it is “faith-working-through-love” faith – always, from the very beginning.

     You, my dear brother, are arguing your tradition, and ignoring Scripture. Read Galatians 5:6. There is no problem with my exegesis. Reread all of Paul with this definition of “faith” in mind – if your tradition will allow it.

     Anyway, take care, Zrim. Have a wonderful day. It is beautiful, here. Thanks for the interaction.

     The Catholic Church was defending the Gospel when she convened the Council of Trent.

     BTW, the Church is “she” not “it”. She is the Bride of Christ, therefore she is feminine.

     LikeLike

188. Luther understood Paul…and Christian Love:

     http://www.covenanter.org/Luther/luther_love.html

     LikeLike

189. If you take Luther’s side, you are on the wrong side.

     There we go. But how can you call me brother if I oppose Paul?

     LikeLike

190. Luther also reckoned with Galatians 5.6:

     http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/mlg/view.cgi?book=ga&chapter=005

     Verse 6

     For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love.

     Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.”

     LikeLike

191. Hart,
     BTW, I do like Cardinal Burke. It is mainly for his doctrinal and moral clarity of speech and not nessicarily for his possistion of liturgical renewal, though that is good too. Interesting article thanks from sharing the link.

     LikeLike

192. There’s a dissertation waiting to be written on the subject of an economic interpretation of the Council of Trent.

     If the Council has agreed with Luther, wouldn’t that have potentially deprived a lot of people of their livelihoods and cost the Roman Catholic Church a lot of money? How could they afford to agree with Luther? So much of what so many clerics did in helping people work the steps would have become unnecessary.

     You can shepherd a lot of people with a gospel preacher and able elders and deacons. The need to support an expensive church hierarchy goes away. The Federational headquarters of the URCNA is a p.o. box. Roxanne Conlin discovered this when she tried to sue the Federation. No assets besides a checking account with a small balance.

     LikeLike

193. Dg, the Catholic news/commentary site was unfimiliar to me. The article writer definitely had a position on what they were “covering”. It was not nutral.

     LikeLike

194. michaeltx, thanks yourself.

     I’m trying to take the temperature of converts on the Latin Mass.

     LikeLike

195. I’ve mentioned this before, but W.F. Buckley had a priest come to his place to perform the Latin mass for him & his staff each week — before Benedict declared it Kosher. Money plus a stubborn streak still gets a lot done inside the superior paradigm.

     LikeLike

196. EC – “You can shepherd a lot of people with a gospel preacher and able elders and deacons. The need to support an expensive church hierarchy goes away. The Federational headquarters of the URCNA is a p.o. box. Roxanne Conlin discovered this when she tried to sue the Federation. No assets besides a checking account with a small balance.”

     I admit, I laughed.

     LikeLike

197. Hey AB, I’m trying to get off the hook. I only was able to read about 2/3s of it so far. I appreciate his point of view from what I have read. I thing he may be expecting the writer to have done more than they were intending to do though. Seems to me they were only intending to find the language and positions they could speak in union on not resolve the things that still differ in language or position. It is obvious there is still a disunity. The writers were only seeking progress not perfection. I will finish reading and get back to you directly.
     Peace

     LikeLike

198. No problem Hart. Anytime.

     LikeLike

199. AB, I meant to say I was not trying to get off the hook.

     LikeLike

200. I’m posting too much, you can share on the “orthodoxy” thread, Michael. Thanks for the feedback

     The Federational headquarters of the URCNA

     LikeLike

201. here, Michael. Have a nice day.

     Next.

     LikeLike

202. Zrim,

     “86. Q. Since, then, we are delivered from our misery by grace alone, through Christ, without any merit of ours, why must we yet do good works?”

     Must? Stop earning your way to heaven.

     “Trent does though (because it understood the Reformation).”

     Well this is refreshing considering some of your cohorts assert Trent traded in nothing but caricatures and distortions in its responses.

     “CANON 9: “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”

     Yep – notice it condemns faith alone “in such wise as to mean” – that’s why Benedict and other RC theologians affirm faith alone, properly understood – that is a faith formed by and not opposed to love. Further if the notion of cooperation somehow nullifies sola fide, I hope you’ll treat all those Arminians professing sola fide as gospel deniers as well.

     “CANON 12: “If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified; let him be accursed”
     “Canon 14: “If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.”

     Well this is odd you take issue with these. Okay, so antinominians are justified according to you since they assuredly believe themselves absolved and justified by their faith alone and have confidence in mercy correct? And a regenerate in a period of spiritual crisis who has doubt and thinks he might be unjustified is actually not justified according to you as well right?

     “so to say the church rejects justification by works of the law on the one hand but that love is required in addition to faith is duplicitous because it’s just another way of saying that justification is by faith and works (which is to say love). This is what your church teaches. It doesn’t deny that, as some misinformed Prots might suggest, justification is by faith. It denies that it is by faith alone.”

     It denies that it is by a faith separate from or devoid of charity. You affirm it is by a faith that is never alone – why does HC say we “must yet do good works”? And again, if your characterization of what RC church teaches was correct, why does it teach baptized infants and deathbed conversions can be saved – they have no works.

     LikeLike

203. CvD, …in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification… which is to say, something in addition to faith is required to co-operate in order to obtain the grace of justification, which is to say that justification is faith plus works.

     So if Benedict and the others agree, then great, can we get a pardon? But they don’t, they still hold that sola fide means faith plus works, which is why the anathema still stands.

     We must we still do good works? “Because Christ, having redeemed and delivered us by his blood, also renews us by his Holy Spirit, after his own image; that so we may testify, by the whole of our conduct, our gratitude to God for his blessings, and that he may be praised by us; also, that every one may be assured in himself of his faith, by the fruits thereof; and that, by our godly conversation others may be gained to Christ.” Duh.

     LikeLike

204. Zrim:
     If you take Luther’s side, you are on the wrong side.

     There we go. But how can you call me brother if I oppose Paul?>>>>>>

     Well, brother Zrim, I, like our Mother the Church, take pity on you. I know how hard the Protestants have worked to make it all add up. I know how you beat up your brains, trying to come up with an ordo or something that includes all the parts of salvation in the right proportion and in the proper order.

     …and where love fits in – and law and grace. In the years since the Council of Trent convened, lotsa’ little and big changes have been made to Protestant thinking and theology on the subject of justification such that it bears little resemblance to what Luther created.

     Anyway, I feel sorry for ya’. There is a better way, a way that eases the mind and lets your brains rest. You can come Home, after all.

     But if you prefer, go ahead and knock yourselves out. Keep trying to make it add up and make sense. How can the will be useless, yet we much choose Christ?

     …or… Why not just throw Bondage of the Will out and pick up a little Summa? Your mind will thank you.

     I wish you all the best.

     LikeLike

205. Mermaid, “There is a better way, a way that eases the mind and lets your brains rest.”

     Is that Purgatory Way?

     Are you in mortal sin now? Venial sin? How do you know? Should you be worried? Or are you exhibiting the cheap grace that Roman Catholics condemned in the Reformation?

     If I were in you shoes, I wouldn’t be so confident.

     LikeLike

206. Mrs. DoubleYou, odd how your pity sounds so condescending. But I’m not sure your point about the ordo–confessional Prots don’t get too tied up over it. Even more unsure your point about working so hard–justification sola fide seems to be the plain reading of holy writ. The straining and tortured work comes from making it say something other than the Protestant interpretation.

     Still, there is no salvation outside the church (and where is SHE? She’s where the three marks are evident, the first being she who affirms sola fide). Instead of feigning fellowship with those outside her, Prots implore those outside to join her and have eternal life.

     LikeLike

207. Zrim,

     “justification sola fide seems to be the plain reading of holy writ. The straining and tortured work comes from making it say something other than the Protestant interpretation.”

     From this blog’s favorite site – http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/does-the-bible-teach-sola-fide/

     “When we unpack the distinction between the Protestant and Catholic positions on this subject, we find that this question rests on a deeper question, namely, whether there is any Biblical evidence that persons are justified prior to or apart from, love for God. My survey of the relevant passages in the New Testament has shown that there is no evidence that persons are justified prior to or apart from, love for God. Not only can all the passages teaching justification by faith be understood as referring to faith conjoined with agape, but as I have shown, there is a good evidence from Scripture that justifying faith should be understood as necessarily conjoined with agape in order to be justifying.

     Even if the evidence were a 50-50 toss-up, not favoring one position over the other, the Catholic position would have the benefit of the doubt. That is because a schism cannot justifiably be created or maintained, on the basis of a hermeneutical coin-flip. The hermeneutical evidence would have to be strongly tilted in favor of the Protestant position, before one could (hypothetically) even begin to make a case for causing a schism from the Church or remaining in schism from the Church.”

     LikeLike

208. Zrim,

     “justification sola fide seems to be the plain reading of holy writ. The straining and tortured work comes from making it say something other than the Protestant interpretation.”

     From this blog’s favorite site – www[dot]calledtocommunion.com

     The exact moment I stopped reading.

     Next comment please.

     LikeLike

209. Here’s my favorite Latin Mass, D.G. Hart.

     http://nyphil.org/watch-listen/audio/broadcasts/1213/the-bach-variations-alan-gilbert-conducts-bach-mass-in-b-minor

     LikeLike

210. MWF, that’s interesting.

     Didn’t click, but next time you feel the need to let it out, you can use this thread, it’s kind of a dumping ground for random links and just when you want to broadcast something to a few protestants who may read. Just a suggestion.

     Grace and peace.

     Next comment please.

     LikeLike

211. Mrs. – …and where love fits in – and law and grace. In the years since the Council of Trent convened, lotsa’ little and big changes have been made to Protestant thinking and theology on the subject of justification such that it bears little resemblance to what Luther created.

     Erik – Meanwhile I study the close to 500 year old Heidelberg each night…

     LikeLike

212. Mrs. & Tom’s biggest weakness: persisting in arguing against a straw man of “Protestantism” when 90% of guys here hold to Reformed theology that falls within very narrow boundaries that are summarized in the Three Forms and the Westminster Standards.

     It’s like debating with someone about the NFL and they keep on talking about Australian Rules Football and who won the Grey Cup last year…

     LikeLike

213. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 8, 2015 at 5:03 pm | Permalink
     Mermaid, “There is a better way, a way that eases the mind and lets your brains rest.”

     Is that Purgatory Way?

     Are you in mortal sin now? Venial sin? How do you know? Should you be worried? Or are you exhibiting the cheap grace that Roman Catholics condemned in the Reformation?

     If I were in you shoes, I wouldn’t be so confident.

     You’re sounding pretty desperate there, tough guy. Your confidence in your own fallen reason is what’s shaky here.

     LikeLike

214. Note how the “nice Catholic lady” who Tom wants us to feel pity for bears little resemblance to the snarky person we continually encounter here.

     Not buying.

     Nice manners, babe.

     LikeLike

215. TVD,

     how was the par-tay?

     LikeLike

216. Clete,

     Save the coin flip for the next time you have multiple popes.

     Might have to do multiple flips, though.

     LikeLike

217. Tom,

     Where do you come down on the doctrine of Purgatory?

     LikeLike

218. Mermaid, great. Too bad it can’t be used liturgically by Roman Catholics.

     LikeLike

219. vd, t, why do you care? Or do you not care about sin?

     LikeLike

220. Erik,

     Rudolf Clausius’ second law of thermodynamics seems to indicate a direction from order to disorder.

     The interlocutors usually start out strong, and they unravel over time. Exhibit A. : Mermaid. Exhibit B: Cletus.

     It seems to be a universal constant, perhaps even provable within the confines of a laboratory (i.e. olts).

     next.

     LikeLike

221. Tom,

     Adding on to Erik’s question, if you believe in purgatory (assuming you do), how much should christians pay the pope in order for their dead relatives to receive time off from purgatory? Is there a schedule somewhere, what did Tetzel charge again? My favorite theses is #86, they are all winners tho:

     Again: since the pope’s income to-day is larger than that of the wealthiest of wealthy men, why does he not build this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of indigent believers?

     #samestuffdifferentday

     LikeLike

222. Mrs.,

     I know you’re not a fan of Luther, but what do you think of Thesis #86 that Andrew cites?

     A fair point or did the Pope have a right to that money?

     How about you, Tom?

     LikeLike

223. great postL

     Presbyterian Revival 2015
     June 6, 2015 by D. G. Hart 1 Comment
     Revivalism and Presbyterianism have a long and complicated history. Presbyterians in the United States split twice over revivals, the first time (when they weren’t yet Americans) in 1741 after (Boy) George Whitefield invaded the North American British colonies. They split again in 1837 when Charles Finney’s preaching and methods became objectionable.
     Calvinism more generally is the faith said to produce God’s “frozen chosen.” A common complaint about Presbyterians is that they put the Holy Spirit in a box whose confines are decorum, rules, and predestination.
     So when was the last time you went to the annual business meeting of an organization where you prayed on average 15 times per day (and these are edifying prayers, not the “Lord,Ijustwanna” kind), sang 5 hymns or psalms, heard a devotional each day, and listened to reports that included regular readings from Scripture? Probably not very often. Psshaw, I doubt if you’d pray or sing that much or hear that much Bible at a week-long Billy Graham crusade set of meetings.
     But this is the pace I am on even as I write from the General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The assembly is the highest judicatory of a Presbyterian communion where elders and pastors review the work of denominational committees, set budgets, hear judicial complaints, elect representatives, and welcome ambassadors from international churches. It is, pure and simple, a business meeting. Our agenda was over 200 pages this year. We meet for close to 10 hours a day for the better part of a business week (5 days). It can be long and grueling.
     But these meetings are also amazingly revitalizing. Because of the prominence of Scripture, prayer, and singing, commissioners to assemblies likely engage in more times of worship than they do even on Sundays when they meet for morning and evening services.
     I used to be skeptical about the phrase, “bathed in prayer.” In 1992, when the Christian Reformed Church, in which I was then an elder, decided to ordain women as elders and ministers, the denominational magazine announced that the decision was “bathed in prayer.” As someone who follows Paul’s instructions to Titus and Timothy, I wasn’t so sure that these prayers were quite so cleansing.
     But after participating in another General Assembly, I have a better feeling about that phrase.

     LikeLike

224. “But these meetings are also amazingly revitalizing”

     Those are the Kuyperian smelling salts in the Sioux Center air.

     LikeLike

225. Erik, go write that on the patheos post, you have to open a disqus account, but that’s easy. Even I was able to open one and commented on DXP’s post today. Wild west, baby.

     LikeLike

226. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 8, 2015 at 5:57 pm | Permalink
     Mermaid, great. Too bad it can’t be used liturgically by Roman Catholics.

     D. G. Hart
     Posted June 8, 2015 at 5:59 pm | Permalink
     vd, t, why do you care? Or do you not care about sin?

     What you’re doing qualifies, Butch. Jerks for Jesus. Repent.

     LikeLike

227. Erik, it takes some getting used to.

     But look, tom van dyke has a disqus profile.

     Over 2000 comments, wowza!

     LikeLike

228. AB,

     I confine my mania to this site.

     LikeLike

229. Tom,

     We continue to be graced by your presence.

     Why do you care? I’m curious too.

     Grace and peace.

     LikeLike

230. Erik,

     Ok, understood.

     I’ll be sure to keep my disqus up so I can post random comments with the drunks. It’s fun getting a pic of my cat on their site (winky emoticon).

     AB out.

     LikeLike

231. Tom, I’ll be really impressed when I see your avatar show up on Darryl’s patheos blog.

     Will you grace that blog with your bearded spock avatar as well, hmm?

     Sorry for giving him the idea DGH (wink).

     LikeLike

232. vd, t, why do you defend jerks like David Barton, who loves Jesus and isn’t in fellowship with the Bishop of Rome?

     Why do you care?

     Do you care if your soul is in eternal peril?

     LikeLike

233. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 8, 2015 at 8:47 pm | Permalink
     vd, t, why do you defend jerks like David Barton, who loves Jesus and isn’t in fellowship with the Bishop of Rome?

     Why do you care?

     Do you care if your soul is in eternal peril?

     Why do you keep changing the subject? The subject is Christian love, and why you don’t have any, or if you do, show exactly the opposite. If you have faith, it is dead.

     LikeLike

234. Tom,

     MWF told Zrim to reject Luther.

     You are clueless. Why do you care?

     LikeLike

235. Tom,

     What’s with the love obsession of late?

     Flashbacks to your time in the Haight back in ’67?

     You seem awfully crabby to be a self-ordained apostle of love.

     LikeLike

236. Tom, with comments like that, we may start clamoring for sowers treatment against you, indefinitely.

     Fortunately, no one listens to you.

     LikeLike

237. I’m the blog administrator.

     LikeLike

238. Erik Charter
     Posted June 8, 2015 at 9:08 pm | Permalink
     Tom,

     What’s with the love obsession of late?

     Flashbacks to your time in the Haight back in ’67?

     You seem awfully crabby to be a self-ordained apostle of love.

     Mrs. Web peeled back the curtain on this whole smelly enterprise. Without love, all this theologizing is empty. In fact, all this theologizing is devoid of love, and this whole discussion has taken place under Darryl’s nose without him able to join it in any meaningful way. Instead, he mocks a nice lady in defense of his empty theology.

     I’m not the crabby one atall, Erik. Your aim is way off. Me, I remain fascinated by a “Christianity” that so obviously ignores the 2nd Great Commandment. I wonder what makes people like that tick.

     As for purgatory, I don’t know. Catholicism claims Biblical warrant for it*; even the EOs disagree. I shrug my shoulders. In eternity, 1000 years of purgatory would last 1 second. I’m not gonna start a theological war over it.

     *http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/is-purgatory-in-the-bible

     LikeLike

239. ec, does vd, t stay on topic?

     me: Rome has problems.

     vd, t: the OPC is small.

     me: the apologists are triumphalistic.

     vd, t: PCUSA

     me: Edgardo Mortara

     vd, t: your faith is dead.

     LikeLike

240. Tom,
     You called our religion a joke yesterday.
     I’ll link and quote if you make me.
     You are way off and only make yourself look worse with each post.
     Continue.

     LikeLike

241. Why do you care?

     LikeLike

242. But Tom, I don’t feel like you and Mrs. Webfoot are really loving Darryl.

     How about if we settle for some minimal level of civility and just talk about ideas.

     If we can get Andrew settled down that will pretty much just leave you & Darryl’s sniping to deal with.

     Thanks for the thoughts on Purgatory.

     LikeLike

243. Man have you guys been going at it today. God bless and keep you guys. If anybody wishes to hear any of this good old Texas boys ideas email me. My email is on my blog. Not much of anything else over ther though. Just some links to learn the Catholic faith from some people who really know. Me… I’m just enjoying a glass of cheap wine. God is good.

     LikeLike

244. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 8, 2015 at 9:21 pm | Permalink
     ec, does vd, t stay on topic?

     me: Rome has problems.

     vd, t: the OPC is small.

     me: the apologists are triumphalistic.

     vd, t: PCUSA

     me: Edgardo Mortara

     vd, t: your faith is dead.

     There’s more to it than that. I’m just showing how your attacks on Catholicism amount to little more than ankle-biting. Edgardo Mortara indeed.

     Actually, the love question goes directly to justification, directly to “faith without good works is in vain,” directly to sola fide and to why being Crabby for Christ is unBiblical.

     Love [agape] is rather a key that unlocks and rebuts a lot of the Old Life rabies theologorum.

     It’s also a window into what Pope Francis is up to, in fact, he’s featured that quote from Galatians and I think it’s the theme of his papacy–indeed why he took the name of Francis.

     APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
     EVANGELII GAUDIUM
     OF THE HOLY FATHER
     FRANCIS
     TO THE BISHOPS, CLERGY,
     CONSECRATED PERSONS
     AND THE LAY FAITHFUL
     ON THE PROCLAMATION OF THE GOSPEL
     IN TODAY’S WORLD

     37. Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that the Church’s moral teaching has its own “hierarchy”, in the virtues and in the acts which proceed from them.[39] What counts above all else is “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6). Works of love directed to one’s neighbour are the most perfect external manifestation of the interior grace of the Spirit: “The foundation of the New Law is in the grace of the Holy Spirit, who is manifested in the faith which works through love”.[40] Thomas thus explains that, as far as external works are concerned, mercy is the greatest of all the virtues: “In itself mercy is the greatest of the virtues, since all the others revolve around it and, more than this, it makes up for their deficiencies. This is particular to the superior virtue, and as such it is proper to God to have mercy, through which his omnipotence is manifested to the greatest degree”.

     Pope Francis: The only thing that counts for Jesus is ‘faith working through love

     Ireland is a very good example of the failure of “Crabbiness for Christ,” and why more crabbiness over the gay marriage vote would have been the dumbest thing the Church could possibly do. In fact, it rather plays to what’s correct about your “Two Kingdoms” stuff, which is not all wrong by any means. The Church–in fact Christianity as a whole–had lost the ability to make its case for right or wrong without resorting to “Because the Bible says so” or “Because the Church says so.”

     Christianity lost the language of love, and indeed, in the gay marriage issue in particular, its proponents won by couching the issue in terms not of who has sex in whose poopenshaft, but as Mrs. Obama put it, “to love whomever we choose.”

     Liberty and love, what’s to be against?

     So yes, Darryl, I hear you. But glee at the new Pew poll or Nancy Pelosi’s twisting of theology is arguing the exception against the rule, and is not honest argument, and most of all, it’s nothing that doesn’t infect Presbyterianism even worse. There is no cause for glee on any level for Christians of any flavor at any of this.

     So that’s where I’m going with all this, Erik. Not “love” in the Haight-Ashbury sense, but that Christianity has ceded the definition of “love” to modernity so fully that sodomy is more the working definition of “love” than agape is.

     Meanwhile, Christians treat each other like dogspit over theological microdistinctions that not 1 in 100 even understand. Francis is onto something here.

     LikeLike

245. Not to break what is going on here right now, but who all and how many kids everybody got?

     LikeLike

246. Tom,

     Have you gone completely softheaded partying with Hollywood types while watching the Tony’s?

     So when Francis says he loves homosexuals but still says that gay sex is a sin, is the left going to give him a pass?

     No way. They’re going to call him and his Church full of hate.

     The loving thing is to tell someone who is living in sin is that they’re going to hell if they don’t repent. To the world, that’s hate speech. To Christians, that’s love.

     You have been sold a complete bill of goods.

     LikeLike

247. Tom,

     Likewise, if Darryl thinks that Catholics teach a false gospel, he is loving them by trying to persuade them that they are believing a lie.

     LikeLike

248. Pope tells parents not to let children use computers in their bedrooms because of the ‘dirty content’ on the internet

     Such as TVD’s The Cookies music videos on YouTube. Lots of dirty language.

     Tom, pay, pray and obey.

     Next.

     LikeLike

249. Erik, I’m agreed with your 10:30 post. I would like you to search this “pope francis against homosexual marriage” in google and tell me he says nothing against homosexual union.

     LikeLike

250. Erik, I’m flattered you ask, but at some point I really hope you respond to what I write. The below completely misses everything I just said.

     Erik Charter
     Posted June 8, 2015 at 10:29 pm | Permalink
     Tom,

     Have you gone completely softheaded partying with Hollywood types while watching the Tony’s?

     So when Francis says he loves homosexuals but still says that gay sex is a sin, is the left going to give him a pass?

     No way. They’re going to call him and his Church full of hate.

     The loving thing is to tell someone who is living in sin is that they’re going to hell if they don’t repent. To the world, that’s hate speech. To Christians, that’s love.

     You have been sold a complete bill of goods.

     Your knowledge of what Francis is up to comes from what Darryl pulls out of the New York Times. that’s not just one but 2 layers of distortion.

     There’s not a single person in the Western World [or probably in the whole world] practicing the homosexual lifestyle who’s not fully aware that the Catholic Church considers it to be sin, and argues that the Bible says so too. if you know any gay people, no matter how well-adjusted they appear to be, they are filled with self-loathing. They do not choose to have these sexual attractions, and most or all would be glad to be rid of them if such a magic wand existed.

     But it doesn’t and so the challenge–through Christian love and per the dignity of the human person–is to not just “love the sinner and hate the sin” but to separate the sinner from the sin, from his sin. this is what Francis meant by “not judging.” You don’t judge an alcoholic for loving booze, you try to help him not destroy his life with it.

     This still goes back to the love thing. The Catholic Church in particular with the molestation scandals, but Christianity as a whole with its cementheaded Biblical legalism and ignorance about human nature [same-sex attraction in this case] has painted itself into a corner where it speaks only to saints, not sinners–but there are no saints, no perfect humans.

     Instead of inspiring people, lifting people to pursue the ideal of godliness, Christianity resorted to threatening people with hell. And c’mon, if you have same-sex attraction, where Justin Timberlake’s butt has a bigger “Hey Now Factor” [!] than J-Lo’s, no amount of prayer is gonna get you going on the J-Lo booty.

     So if Christianity sez that makes you a bad person, you just say, the hell with it. Then you spiral down into a whirlpool of self-destructive behavior. I’m damned anyway, so let the good times roll.

     Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale? 😉

     LikeLike

251. <i.Erik Charter
     Posted June 8, 2015 at 10:30 pm | Permalink
     Tom,

     Likewise, if Darryl thinks that Catholics teach a false gospel, he is loving them by trying to persuade them that they are believing a lie.

     Mockery is not persuasion. And it’s the opposite of love, of agape. Surely you see that.

     Mrs. Web has set this blog on its ear.

     LikeLike

252. AB
     Posted June 8, 2015 at 10:40 pm | Permalink
     Pope tells parents not to let children use computers in their bedrooms because of the ‘dirty content’ on the internet

     Such as TVD’s The Cookies music videos on YouTube. Lots of dirty language.

     Tom, pay, pray and obey.

     Next.

     Actually I used one dirty word only once. For artistic effect, and not sexually

     The world is flat
     the world is round
     the world is f—ed
     and I know it’s not your fault

     and actually it was a song about a “community organizer” type who was neglecting his family. “Mama Wants to Know When You’ll Be Home.” “Two Kingdom” types would probably approve.

     You just bore false witness against me, Andrew. Maybe one of your fellow churchpersons will give you a talking to. You’re out of control, brother, doing dirty things for Christ, or for your church or ‘helping” Darryl, as you put it once. But that’s not how this is supposed to work. You don’t dig up dirt, you don’t hurt people for Jesus.

     This is your doing, Darryl, and I know everybody can see it. These are not stupid people here. Andrew’s just following your lead. One word from Elder Hart and this madness stops.

     LikeLike

253. Erik,

     “Likewise, if Darryl thinks that Catholics teach a false gospel, he is loving them by trying to persuade them that they are believing a lie.”

     AB from other thread – “We are not seeking to convert anyone to Calvinism.”

     Called to Confusion indeed.

     LikeLike

254. Thx for reminding me, Andrew. Good f—g song.

     LikeLike

255. the one question everyone wants to know the answer to?

     why do the cookies use dirty words in their songs

     Tom, your words, not mine. I haven’t listened to all your music, so I don’t know how much and for what reason.

     Thx for clearing it up. If you say you’re clean, then we’ll go with that.

     LikeLike

256. Cletus van Damme
     Posted June 8, 2015 at 11:29 pm | Permalink
     Erik,

     “Likewise, if Darryl thinks that Catholics teach a false gospel, he is loving them by trying to persuade them that they are believing a lie.”

     AB from other thread – “We are not seeking to convert anyone to Calvinism.”

     Called to Confusion indeed.

     Actually, I believe Darryl’s mission is to stop the hemorrhaging of Reformed Protestants to Catholicism, especially the Called to Communion types who left cushy jobs in Protestantism at great cost to themselves.

     On September 23rd, 2012 (two years ago today), I was received into full communion with the Catholic Church. Humanly speaking, it was one of the worst decisions I have ever made.
     The last two years have brought me almost nothing but loss. Most of my fellow alumni and former professors at Westminster Seminary no longer speak to me, I am denied entrance into the church I planted (where my family still attends on Sundays) — I wasn’t even allowed to attend the Christmas Eve service last year and just sit and sing the hymns. To most of my old Calvinistic friends I am simply a traitor to the gospel.

     Each job I have gotten since resigning from the ministry has paid less than half of the one before it. I now have the earning potential on the open market to make one tenth of what I earned as a pastor (in fact, my latest job pays me less than half of what I was getting from unemployment, which benefits were due to dry up soon). There’s no other way to say it: I am officially poor.

     Old Life is not about converting anyone to the Reformed faith–if it were, it wouldn’t be so crabby. Nobody says, wow, Christianity is so combative and hair-splitting on theological nuances it would take me years to understand. That’s the religion for me!

     Besides, Darryl, you had the temerity to ask whether I care about my immortal soul? According to your religion I’m already saved for all eternity or already screwed for all eternity, regardless. Your Calvinism predestination “Elect” bit. Then you ask me if I go to church?

     Plus, since you’re clearly “Elect,” you get to act like a total butthole to Ms. Webfoot since you’re already on a free pass to Heaven. That’s the best part.

     Works for you. God bless you and save you, Butch.

     LikeLike

257. Tom,

     I think you’ve more than met your quota on butt-related comments in the last 12 hours.

     Clete,

     If Andrew is the official spokesman for Old Life, are you the official spokesman for the Vatican?

     LikeLike

258. Tom,

     Your 11:06 comment is good and is fodder for a lot more conversation.

     Jesus threatened people with hell. If the Pope is Jesus’ Vicar on earth, isn’t it his duty to do likewise?

     In Romans does Paul give the same diagnosis of same sex sexual relations as you do?

     Can you reconcile your positions with Scripture and the last 2000 years of Church teaching?

     LikeLike

259. Tom,

     I like women. The Bible says that I need to limit myself to one woman and that limitation stands for life, even when she gets old and I might prefer a younger woman. The Bible also says that fornicatiors and adulterers are in danger of hell.

     Oh, and Jesus makes it worse and extends the definition of adultery to lustful looking (goodbye Internet porn).

     Do you feel sorry for me? Why is Jesus being so difficult?

     LikeLike

260. Erik Charter
     Posted June 9, 2015 at 5:27 am | Permalink
     Tom,

     Your 11:06 comment is good and is fodder for a lot more conversation.

     Jesus threatened people with hell. If the Pope is Jesus’ Vicar on earth, isn’t it his duty to do likewise?

     This part of your speech needs work. The Pericope Adulterae is far more relevant here. Jesus didn’t threaten her atall.

     LikeLike

261. Go and sin no more is meant as a clear warning for the woman.

     LikeLike

262. Tom,

     You sound like a liberal again. That passage has more to do with the fitness of those particular people to act as judge, jury, and executioner. Jesus is fit to act as all three and he will someday.

     Being who the Pope claims to be, I would think he is also in a position to warn people about the dangers of sin. He used to.

     You bitch about Mainline Protestants. Guess what? They no longer offend the world by talking about sin. The UCC minister in Ames is gay. You think that there is some kind of happy medium the RCC can arrive at that honors Scripture & tradition and at the same time satisfies the world. They can’t. Something has to give.

     Chris says his followers will be hated as he was. He never sinned yet was put to death. Why do we expect a different outcome for ourselves in this life?

     LikeLike

263. Tom,

     Honest question. What is the extent of your exposure to Scripture throughout your life? Can you give me a brief religious bio? No need to tell me where you stand right now.

     LikeLike

264. My point about Christ’s fate on earth is the #1 reason I critique Keller. He tries oh so hard not to offend people with the Law of God. Eventually he’ll come around to answering the question, but there is a fear of man there that is not healthy for a gospel preacher, especially a Reformed gospel preacher. New York and Los Angeles are the pinnacle of cities that are in love with the world. Keller may have rubbed of on the city a bit, but I think that the City has also rubbed off on him. He desires to be loved.

     LikeLike

265. Erik,

     Good critique of TKNY, and comments in general.

     LikeLike

266. Andrew,

     Thanks. I have sincere concerns about this topic, as well as for Tom.

     LikeLike

267. vd, t, “glee at the new Pew poll or Nancy Pelosi’s twisting of theology is arguing the exception against the rule, and is not honest argument. . .”

     But neither is it dishonest to point out the lack of honesty on the other side. Old Life turned anti-Catholic once converts like Bryan and the Jasons began asserting their glee about the superiority of Roman Catholicism. Turns out, it’s not all that. That’s honest.

     But I appreciate the comment.

     LikeLike

268. Erik,

     Sounds good.

     Insanity is doing the same thing expecting different results.

     I fear for our antagonists. Roman and otherwise. They keep commenting in hopes that we reformed will change from our positions or show weakness.
     We may show weakness, but we ain’t changing.

     #Luther

     LikeLike

269. vd, t, “Your knowledge of what Francis is up to comes from what Darryl pulls out of the New York Times. that’s not just one but 2 layers of distortion.”

     False. You know that. Where do you think I’m reading Michael Sean Winters, or Mark Shea, or Boniface, or Pertinacious Papist?

     LikeLike

270. vd, c, why do you care? All that truth, history, charism, appearances of our Lady.

     LikeLike

271. The biggest spiritual danger we face as 21st century American Christians is how wealthy we are. We love Jesus, but we also love the security and comfort that our money brings. I think this issue of homosexuality is really going to test us in the decades to come. I think people who hate the Church believe they have found a winning issue and they are going to push it as far as they can. I would predict that within two decades churches that won’t agree that homosexuality is a positive good will be paying corporate income tax & property taxes. Contributions to these churches will not be tax deductible. People that admit membership in these churches will face social stigma and will suffer professionally because of that. Church membership will be akin to KKK membership. I could be off on my timetable, but I have no doubt it’s headed this way. It’s a perfect storm for those who hate Christmas and the Bible to make hay and they will do it. Our Constitution can be amended.

     This is why liberal Catholics are a real problem. They vote and they’re on the other side of this issue than conservative P&R people.

     LikeLike

272. vd, t, as I say, I want honesty about Roman Catholicism the way you want honesty about David Barton. In case you haven’t noticed, though if you’re just reading the NYTimes you wouldn’t, the Roman Catholic world is filled with chest thumpers who proclaim Roman Catholicism’s superiority to Protestantism. Why enable chest thumping when you’re on the side of the little guy?

     LikeLike

273. Christians, not Christmas. Spell check on a phone.

     Heck, I know P&R folks who dislike Christmas.

     LikeLike

274. Erik,

     That’s a little overstated. Nero not exactly feeding me to the lions.

     If the rev doc is around, maybe he can help. Ya know?

     LikeLike

275. We’re not constantinians.

     The sky is not falling. Life in sinful earth will always require sweat.

     We seek a better country Erik.

     LikeLike

276. Andrew,

     Tell me what you think the forces are that will prevent that kind of outcome.

     LikeLike

277. Andrew,

     Also note that I say nothing about direct physical persecution.

     The power to tax and social stigma do have physical consequences, though.

     These things can move quickly. How many legally married gay people did you know 10 years ago? It could be legal nationwide by the end of the summer.

     LikeLike

278. As with most things as I age, I fear less for myself than I do for my children and grandchildren. Will they be able to withstand? Does a Keller or Keller disciple ministry give them what it takes to withstand? They have another 70-120 years to live through. I maybe have 40.

     LikeLike

279. Keller’s sermons have been very helpful for the last few months for this believer in a big city.

     And everyone has flaws, except Jesus.

     LikeLike

280. If the Supremes give the go-ahead, test cases will start shortly therafter. This is why I thought the Rev Doc was being naive with his hypothetical. It’s upon us — it’s not hypothetical.

     We’ll have activists asking to use churches for weddings, seeking to become members, seeking to take communion, and seeking baptism for children — as test cases, not out of a sincere desire for those things.

     They’ll lose in court in every instance. The media will cover these stories heavily, however, and public opinions will shift. Churches will be the oppressors, homosexuals will be the oppressed. Eventually the first amendment will get worn down until what I am predicting comes to pass.

     LikeLike

281. Kent,

     I would contend he’s solid on 90% of what he teaches, but the 10% he’s not solid on could end up doing a lot of damage to the church.

     One can gain a lot from listening to Charles Stanley, too, but he misses some key stuff. Stanley doesn’t subscribe to the Westminster, though, so we see it coming.

     LikeLike

282. ec and kent, how much does TKNY minister the word. When you look at his review of books on gay marriage, he knows Noll, Taylor, and other important books. But he doesn’t interpret the Bible. Isn’t that his call as a minister of the word?

     LikeLike

283. Andrew,

     No need to debate, but you need to do a self-assessment and figure out why you’re incapable of serious discussion and debate. It’s not lack of smarts. It’s lack of focus. I want you to figure it out, because it’s what separates a young deacon from a seasoned elder and you should be aspiring to the latter.

     LikeLike

284. I live in a major urban situation, I’m not on Main Street or living in a village so that I can take pride in not having to take more than 60 steps from my door to Church on a Sunday.

     The issues that I personally face are not addressed remotely by my church which is mainly Dutch and married with children and living an upright and sensible life and apparently with no temporal concerns at all for the upper 2/3 present.

     LikeLike

285. Kent,

     No way I begrudge your listening to whoever is helpful to you. We all draw wisdom and edification from multiple sources (even movies).

     LikeLike

286. Erik, if that’s true I’m being groomed like Daniels for commish, I’ve read ahead and know what happens in season 5.

     I’ll just try to stay off and start with that. I appreciate the pointers, brother.

     Grace and Peace.

     LikeLike

287. One thing I become more and more convinced of is that those who claim to be trying to engage the culture as Jesus engaged the culture are not always doing a good job at looking at how Jesus engaged the culture. Sometimes Jesus comes across gentle but firm. At other times He seems more like a hellfire-and-brimstone preacher. Seems like a lot of what he does is person-specific.

     That would seem to call into question any programmatic way of reaching “the city” or reaching “the culture.” Yeah, there are commonalities between people, but not everybody responds in the same way, and we can’t really make assumptions about how some people are based on where they live. There’s always the oddball.

     LikeLike

288. @Erik
     I suspect the first thing you will see is that Christian colleges that prohibit interracial same-sex marriage among faculty/staff or interracial same-sex dating among students will be treated like Bob Jones was and will lose their tax-exempt status. Secondly, those schools will find it very hard to get accreditation in many fields (counseling, medicine, teaching, etc…). Such schools will either go the Hillsdale route and give up on federal funds, close, or change their positions. Parachurch groups on college campuses will also be denied recognized status. Parachurch groups that refuse to hire non-celibate gay men or women will also lose their tax-exempt status.

     Churches will be fine for awhile, but they will face intense scrutiny. For example, a denomination that condemns ssm and marriage for divorcees will be held up for scorn if (when?) they find a divorce couple married in a church that refused to marry a same-sex couple. Given that World Church of the Creator and Westboro Baptist were able to procure tax-exempt status as churches, I suspect that churches that teach that gay sex is sinful will not lose their status. On the other hand, as we continue to secularize (rise of the nones), political support for tax exemption of churches of all sorts will go away. I suspect that we will see this tax exemption go away…the fact that “anti-gay” churches benefit from the exemption will push things along.

     While it isn’t exactly getting fed to lions, but it is likely the first time in recent memory that being associated with a conservative church like the PCA will come with significant social and professional cost.

     LikeLike

289. We’ll have activists asking to use churches for weddings, seeking to become members, seeking to take communion, and seeking baptism for children — as test cases, not out of a sincere desire for those things.

     They’ll lose in court in every instance.

     Erik, I am not confident the test cases will lose in every instance. If ensconced as a constitutional right, the homosexual lobby will have a trump card to gut First Amendment protection for churches (and other religious entities). Canadian Christians have been warning us that they are already experiencing something similar, as they come under scrutiny of “hate crime” commissions for simply holding to the Word of God on the issue.

     LikeLike

290. Sdb & Mark,

     Thanks for making me feel worse. Ha, ha.

     We can’t claim Jesus didn’t warn us multiple times, though.

     LikeLike

291. Kent, doesn’t the pastor minister word and sacrament?

     LikeLike

292. Yes, DGH, that helps a lot with what i call the transcendent portion of life. Excellent at that.

     The immanent portion is not dealt with at all though when you go home and then go to work and dealing with life.

     LikeLike

293. kent, isn’t that the nature of confessional Reformed Protestant piety?

     LikeLike

294. Kent,

     The gist of the Confessions is that this life sucks, but will be over soon.

     There’s worse advice out there.

     LikeLike

295. @sdb’s Posted June 9, 2015 at 11:25 am | Permalink

     I can second those words.

     LikeLike

296. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 9, 2015 at 10:01 am | Permalink
     vd, t, “glee at the new Pew poll or Nancy Pelosi’s twisting of theology is arguing the exception against the rule, and is not honest argument. . .”

     But neither is it dishonest to point out the lack of honesty on the other side. Old Life turned anti-Catholic once converts like Bryan and the Jasons began asserting their glee about the superiority of Roman Catholicism. Turns out, it’s not all that. That’s honest.

     But I appreciate the comment.

     Good. At least you admit your anti-Catholicism. That’s progress.

     As for superiority, if their claim is a theological argument, you’re doing a very poor job of rebutting them by trolling the dregs of liberal Catholicism such as Sean Michael Winters, or by crowing about Pew polls. Whatever you have to say about Catholicism’s troubles with liberalism and modernity goes double for Presbyterianism.

     LikeLike

297. Tom, if you haven’t, listen to this interview between RSC and DGH on the heidelcast. It’s not long, and it’ll give you insight into what DGH’s focus is here at OLTS. the called to communion boys are just one of many of the targets in his sights, check out his patheos blog, he takes aim at everyone.

     www[dot]patheos.com/blogs/protestprotest/

     it’s what he does, RCism maybe has been in his sights given stellman’s having poped. RCs are somewhat low hanging fruit too, I think it’s good we give them a break once in a while, however, the heat should always be on. It’s part of that justification thang, you know?

     Grace and peace.

     LikeLike

298. Tom – As for superiority, if their claim is a theological argument, you’re doing a very poor job of rebutting them by trolling the dregs of liberal Catholicism such as Sean Michael Winters, or by crowing about Pew polls. Whatever you have to say about Catholicism’s troubles with liberalism and modernity goes double for Presbyterianism.

     Erik – This is a decent point.

     The fundamental disagreement I have is that these people reveal an utter lack of church discipline in the Roman Catholic Church, which is actually a forceful apologetic against the church.

     My offer stands for you or anyone at Called to Communion to provide similar figures in NAPARC churches (not the PCUSA) to the liberal Roman Catholics in apparently good standing that we cite here.

     Winters just appeared on a panel at Notre Dame. Last time I checked, Notre Dame, like the Pope, was Catholic.

     I do agree that we need to grapple with the theology of “more faithful” Catholics, however, as well. We do that. When we do so you often claim boredom.

     LikeLike

299. Tom,

     And Pew polls are aimed at your crowing about the relative size of the RCC vs. the OPC.

     Jeremy Tate of CTC has cited the size of the RCC vs. the OPC as evidence of the truth of Catholic theology.

     If you guys choose to cite “big”, it’s fair game for us to cite “shrinking”.

     LikeLike

300. Eric,
     Actually Notre Dame lost its ecclesial backing years ago to my knowledge. It is not officially a Catholic university anymore.

     LikeLike

301. Michael in Texas,

     You would really like this conference

     http://adbuckingham.com/notre-dame-conference-on-roman-catholicism/

     It was at notre dame, I first learned of it from DGH (link in my blog post).

     I would really like for you to listen to that and hear what you think. Michael Sean Winters, who EC and TVD are talking about, is featured as a speaker, and MSW runs a very popular blog with many awards. Try it!

     LikeLike

302. Michael,

     Has Fr. John Jenkins been defrocked or is he a priest in good standing?

     “Elected in 2005 as the University of Notre Dame’s 17th president, Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., has devoted himself to fostering the University’s unique place in academia, the Church, our nation and the world. A philosopher trained in theology and a member of Notre Dame’s Department of Philosophy since 1990, Fr. Jenkins earned undergraduate and advanced degrees from Notre Dame, a doctorate of philosophy from Oxford University, and a master of divinity and licentiate in sacred theology from the Jesuit School of Theology.

     As president, Fr. Jenkins has been committed to combining teaching and research excellence with a cultivation of the deeper purposes of Catholic higher education. While pursuing academic distinction, he has brought renewed emphasis to Notre Dame’s distinctive mission, rooted in the tradition of the Congregation of Holy Cross, the University’s founding community, to educate the whole person – mind, body and spirit – to do good in the world.”

     LikeLike

303. Erik Charter
     Posted June 9, 2015 at 3:08 pm | Permalink
     Tom – As for superiority, if their claim is a theological argument, you’re doing a very poor job of rebutting them by trolling the dregs of liberal Catholicism such as Sean Michael Winters, or by crowing about Pew polls. Whatever you have to say about Catholicism’s troubles with liberalism and modernity goes double for Presbyterianism.

     Erik – This is a decent point.

     The fundamental disagreement I have is that these people reveal an utter lack of church discipline in the Roman Catholic Church, which is actually a forceful apologetic against the church.

     My offer stands for you or anyone at Called to Communion to provide similar figures in NAPARC churches (not the PCUSA) to the liberal Roman Catholics in apparently good standing that we cite here.

     Winters just appeared on a panel at Notre Dame. Last time I checked, Notre Dame, like the Pope, was Catholic.

     I do agree that we need to grapple with the theology of “more faithful” Catholics, however, as well. We do that. When we do so you often claim boredom.

     Actually, the Catholic contingent won the “love” argument if only by default, the Old Life inability to engage it.

     As for “church discipline” in Catholicism, I would argue only that–especially in this moment of history–tearing apart the Church with loyalty tests is a very very very bad idea. what the Church–and Christianity as a whole–needs to do is learn how to argue normative doctrine without resorting to “Because the Bible says so,” or “Because the Church says so.” That doesn’t work.

     In fact, as more of Protestantism goes gay, you can’t even argue the Bible, since they’ve twisted it so far as to say that gay relationships and gay marriage aren’t even contrary to the Bible. In this way, you have to say that despite its dissidents, Catholicism has not fallen off that cliff. [Yet.] ;-P

     What a pickle for Protestantism, though–gay marriage is fine because the Church says so! [This is what I’ve been saying about a structural problem inherent in anti-magisterium theology.]

     LikeLike

304. No idea Erik. Just pointing out that to my knowledge Notre Dame has a catholic heritage but not a official place as a Catholic school any more.

     AB, will look into it.

     LikeLike

305. Michael, notre dame is still catholic:

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Notre_Dame

     Latin: Universitas Dominae Nostrae a Lacu
     Motto “Vita Dulcedo Spes”
     Motto in English
     Life, Sweetness, Hope (in reference to the Blessed Virgin Mary)
     Established 1842
     Type Private, coeducational
     Affiliation Roman Catholic Church (Congregation of the Holy Cross)

     LikeLike

306. Tom – Actually, the Catholic contingent won the “love” argument if only by default, the Old Life inability to engage it.

     Erik – Actually, no. You don’t get to be a partisan and the judge.

     Tom – As for “church discipline” in Catholicism, I would argue only that–especially in this moment of history–tearing apart the Church with loyalty tests is a very very very bad idea. what the Church–and Christianity as a whole–needs to do is learn how to argue normative doctrine without resorting to “Because the Bible says so,” or “Because the Church says so.” That doesn’t work.

     Erik – What if “Because the Bible says so” is the truth? I could commit heinous sins that no one knows about and that do not impact anyone I love directly. Looking at porn, for instance. God sees, though, and I risk his judgment. Utilitarian arguments are not always useful, especially when people will resort to about anything to keep disobeying the Law of God.

     Once again, you run into problems here because you are not a professing Christian. You like the usefulness of Christianity for your purposes (conservatism) but are unconcerned with the particulars.

     Tom – In fact, as more of Protestantism goes gay, you can’t even argue the Bible, since they’ve twisted it so far as to say that gay relationships and gay marriage aren’t even contrary to the Bible. In this way, you have to say that despite its dissidents, Catholicism has not fallen off that cliff. [Yet.] ;-P

     What a pickle for Protestantism, though–gay marriage is fine because the Church says so! [This is what I’ve been saying about a structural problem inherent in anti-magisterium theology.]

     Erik – Some people make poor biblical arguments to do what they want to do. No way to prevent than when the Magistrate is not supporting anyone’s particular church.

     I’m no more a member of the PCUSA or the UCC than I am a member of the RCC, though, so I don’t particularly concern myself with what they’re doing.

     LikeLike

307. Will look into it more when I can. Got the mower in the yard right now. “Type private” seems to point away from that though.

     LikeLike

308. Tom,

     Biggest thing I would encourage you to do is get a dog in the fight – for your sake and for the sake of your lovely wife (and kids, if you have them). You need to sincerely know Jesus if you don’t and teach your loved ones to do the same. If it’s Roman Catholic for now, so be it. We can continue to debate the particulars.

     Conservatism and American society are passing away. You have a soul, though, that is eternal and Judgment Day is coming. You need to prepare yourself and Jesus is the only answer.

     LikeLike

309. Michael,

     Of course it’s private – it’s not a public institution, like UC Santa Barbara, where I went. That’s a public school, under the auspices of the University of California Board of Regents. There are only two classificaitons, private (norte dame, harvard, yale, stanford) and public (UCSB, Berkeley, UCLA)

     Read this post for info on the notre dame conference:
     https://oldlife.org/2015/04/which-call/

     And then watch the video. Also, read the 500 or so comments (haha) at the blog post by DGH. After you finish mowing of course.

     LikeLike

310. The question of a “catholic” university would be what bishop does it answer to. If none then it’s not officially catholic.

     LikeLike

311. Back to mowing.

     LikeLike

312. The University of Notre Dame du Lac (or simply Notre Dame /ˌnoʊtərˈdeɪm/ noh-tər-daym) is a Catholic research university
     From wiki

     And this
     Notre Dame is located in Northern Indiana near the boundary lines of Michigan and Illinois. It is owned and directed by the Congregation of Holy Cross, whose motherhouse in the United States is located at Notre Dame, the name by which the university is most commonly known

     http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11132a.htm

     LikeLike

313. That would be major news that I missed if ND has dropped any hold to its Catholic backing…

     Sure seems like it when they put on promos during football and hoops season….

     LikeLike

314. plot thickens, who is the “congregation of holy cross”?

     Congregation of Holy Cross
     From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     Congregation of Holy Cross
     Congregatio a Sancta Cruce
     Congregation of Holy Cross.svg
     Abbreviation C.S.C.
     Motto Spes unica (Latin)
     Formation 1 March 1837
     Founder Blessed Basile Moreau
     Type Clerical Religious Congregation (Institute of Consecrated Life)
     Purpose To make God known, loved, and served, and thus save souls
     Headquarters Via Framura, 85, 00168 Roma, Italia
     Membership (2013)
     1478 (of whom 741 are priests)
     Superior General
     Fr. Richard V. Warner
     Website holycrosscongregation.org
     The Congregation of Holy Cross or Congregatio a Sancta Cruce (C.S.C.) is a Catholic congregation of priests and brothers founded in 1837 by Blessed Father Basil Anthony-Marie Moreau, CSC, in Le Mans, France.

     Father Moreau also founded the Marianites of Holy Cross, now divided into three independent congregations of sisters. The Congregations of women who trace their origins to Father Moreau are the Marianites of Holy Cross (Le Mans, France), the Sisters of the Holy Cross, (Notre Dame, Indiana), and the Sisters of Holy Cross, (Montreal, Canada).

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_of_Holy_Cross

     LikeLike

315. Kent, yeah, I think Michael in Texas in confused. He should finish mowing before issuing his judgment 🙂

     LikeLike

316. Erik Charter
     Posted June 9, 2015 at 3:11 pm | Permalink
     Tom,

     And Pew polls are aimed at your crowing about the relative size of the RCC vs. the OPC.

     Jeremy Tate of CTC has cited the size of the RCC vs. the OPC as evidence of the truth of Catholic theology.

     If you guys choose to cite “big”, it’s fair game for us to cite “shrinking”.

     You keep eliding the argument:

     In Christianity the Catholic Church is the majority of the majority. The OPC [and all the others] are a minority of the minority. Which has a more credible claim to being the “true” church?

     It’s a non-theological argument. Historically speaking the inarguable fact is that the Catholic Church remains the trunk, the rest of the sects are splinters.

     LikeLike

317. I have not seen anywhere where ND is accountable to any bishop and it is also not in the list of universities approved by Rome. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_university

     There these in the US:
     The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC
     International Marian Research Institute at the University of Dayton, Dayton, OH
     John Paul II Institute, Washington, DC
     Mundelein Seminary at the University of St. Mary of the Lake, Mundelein, IL
     Pontifical College Josephinum, Columbus, OH
     Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception (PFIC), Dominican House of Studies, Washington, DC
     St. Mary’s Seminary and University, Baltimore, MD
     Boston College School of Theology, Boston, MA
     Jesuit School of Theology of Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, MA

     LikeLike

318. I bet if I wasn’t a reformed chrisitan, it would be a lot of fun arguing against roman catholicism at called to communion as though I were one. I’d also have to have really very else of value to do with my time, if I were doing such a thing.

     Who might I be thinking of right now?

     LikeLike

319. *I’d also clearly have very little else of value that I should be doing with my time

     LikeLike

320. Michael, it’s your religion, your holy congregation or whatever. Not a major issue for me, i don’t care.

     LikeLike

321. Tom – You keep eliding the argument:

     In Christianity the Catholic Church is the majority of the majority. The OPC [and all the others] are a minority of the minority. Which has a more credible claim to being the “true” church?

     Erik – It completely depends on your criteria. When Scriptural fidelity is most important to you, you have firm grounds for saying the OPC.

     Is Verizon less of a phone company than AT&T?

     Is Netflix less of a media company than CBS?

     LikeLike

322. Just wanting to make sure I wasn’t speaking hog wash, AB. That is why I started by saying “in my understanding”. I am not saying ND doesn’t seek to be some sort of Catholic school. Just saying they aren’t official run or recognized by the Catholic Church as Catholic.

     LikeLike

323. Tom,

     In essence, the arguments you make for Catholicism against Protestant churches are the same argument a Jew could have made against the early Christian church. A Mesopotamian could have made it against Abraham. The age of a religion is not the most important criteria in determining its truth or falsehood. You need to examine more evidence than that.

     LikeLike

324. Michael,

     The point is less about what is official or unofficial as it is about how little the Church does against dissenters — be they academic institutions or Catholic journalists or intellectuals. The Church controls the sacraments, yet denies them to very, very few.

     LikeLike

325. Erik Charter
     Posted June 9, 2015 at 5:05 pm | Permalink
     Tom – You keep eliding the argument:

     In Christianity the Catholic Church is the majority of the majority. The OPC [and all the others] are a minority of the minority. Which has a more credible claim to being the “true” church?

     Erik – It completely depends on your criteria. When Scriptural fidelity is most important to you, you have firm grounds for saying the OPC.

     Is Verizon less of a phone company than AT&T?

     Is Netflix less of a media company than CBS?

     I’m not arguing theological truth claims. Every sect and cult claims it holds the theological truth.

     I’m showing why the numerical analysis is valid, whether you like it or not, and that the recent Pew polls in America don’t affect the larger argument. And since Presbyterianism is down to a blip on America’s landscape, your analogies don’t work either. If Catholicism is Verizon, the OPC is 2 soup cans and some string. 😉

     LikeLike

326. Erik Charter
     Posted June 9, 2015 at 5:10 pm | Permalink
     Tom,

     In essence, the arguments you make for Catholicism against Protestant churches are the same argument a Jew could have made against the early Christian church. A Mesopotamian could have made it against Abraham. The age of a religion is not the most important criteria in determining its truth or falsehood. You need to examine more evidence than that.

     Christ started his church. Luther started his.

     One of these things is not like the other. Your analogy doesn’t hold.

     LikeLike

327. If Catholicism is Verizon, the OPC is 2 soup cans and some string.

     Let’s go with that.

     Your religion, for all we know, is Jediism, so don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.

     You can’t tell us why you care, it’s easy why none of us care what you say, but you are silly and fun to have around all the same. Keep on jamming, dude who literally has nothing better to do with his time 😉

     Next

     LikeLike

328. Tom – I’m not arguing theological truth claims. Every sect and cult claims it holds the theological truth.

     Erik – I know, and my point is that you should and need to, both for your own sake and the sake of interesting conversation.

     No one disputes the Catholic Church is bigger. The question is what that proves.

     Tom – Christ started his church. Luther started his.

     Erik – Of course, this doesn’t prove that the Roman Catholic Church is the church that Christ founded.

     LikeLike

329. Erik,
     The Church controls the sacraments, yet denies them to very, very few.

     Agreed. In modern society this is in “deed” the case, but not in “word”. If one believes the word of the Church many more confessionals would be full before the altar would be full.

     LikeLike

330. Erik Charter
     Posted June 9, 2015 at 5:42 pm | Permalink
     Tom – I’m not arguing theological truth claims. Every sect and cult claims it holds the theological truth.

     Erik – I know, and my point is that you should and need to, both for your own sake and the sake of interesting conversation.

     No one disputes the Catholic Church is bigger. The question is what that proves.

     That the Catholic Church is the trunk and all others are splinters. I can’t keep saying it and have you pretend I didn’t.

     Tom – Christ started his church. Luther started his.

     Erik – Of course, this doesn’t prove that the Roman Catholic Church is the church that Christ founded.

     I’m familiar with the contours of the argument, something about Constantine, and the “true” Church was floating out there in the ether until Jan Hus and Marty Luther and Jean Calvin came to make it real again, but I’ve never heard the thesis put forth solidly enough to be examined and questioned.

     And even if true, it does zip, nada, doodah in proving that Hus and Luther and Calvin were correct about anything, or that their work was the work of The Holy Spirit.

     LikeLike

331. Tom – I’m not arguing theological truth claims. Every sect and cult claims it holds the theological truth.

     Some people say you should gargle with turpentine. Some say you shouldn’t.

     Who can possibly figure out a truth claim there?

     LikeLike

332. kent
     Posted June 9, 2015 at 6:02 pm | Permalink
     Tom – I’m not arguing theological truth claims. Every sect and cult claims it holds the theological truth.

     Some people say you should gargle with turpentine. Some say you shouldn’t.

     Who can possibly figure out a truth claim there?

     Only one way to tell. Go test it for yourself and report back to me–if you’re able. 😉

     LikeLike

333. Tom,

     O.K. Say I would concede that the Roman Catholic Church is a valid expression of the Christian faith.

     What would the implications of that be for you personally?

     And say I were to remain a Protestant. Would we not have more in common than we do now with me inside a Christian church (even as a separated brother) and you outside?

     Do we have any communion at all at this point?

     LikeLike

334. What are the relevant factors that would draw you into a Christian church and what are the factors keeping you out?

     LikeLike

335. Tom – I’m familiar with the contours of the argument

     Erik – I think the argument is that there have always been people looking to Christ in true faith and there have always been pretenders who have been in the church for personal gain and wrong motives. It’s been the case as far back as the 12 disciples. Think the wheat and the tares growing up together until they are separated at the last day.

     LikeLike

336. Erik, isn’t it fun, having TVD around?

     I hope he has several more years in him, at least.

     TVD and the cage phasers have made this blog quite active as of late.

     Who’s next?

     LikeLike

337. I do think Christians will struggle to make their way in the white collar world so there’ll have to be a lot of Christians like Nicodemus in the new age.

     Persecution by forces that hate us will become farce before flame, IMO. As in the Canadian couple who bought a ring from a jeweler, recommended the jeweler to their friends, said friends discovered a sign hanging in the jeweler’s shop that stated something along the lines of “let’s protect the meaning of marriage” and now the couple that bought the ring want their money back because “it hurts to look at it now” or something like that.

     The freak factor emerging confidently is more likely than not and that will influence a situation that will remain fluid for a long time to come.

     I went to a party last July (given by a bourgeois couple whose kid has/had a garage band that was the opening act for another set of seasoned musicians. All of the kids in the garage band are bourgeois
     too and in their 2nd year of college now but the opening song was the gentle mock “D-d-da Rainbow.” Many kids will still continue to think for themselves while not perturbing the ideological orbit of the world in which a living is earned. No status quo can control provoked under-currents.

     Education in areas like carpentry, plumbing, etc is probably going to become necessary but I’m not sure that might not become the better part of the contrived agreement.

     Chest-thumping means you’re DOA. It justly provokes hostility because history and language have eclipsed the possibility that it’s anything other than antics of people with monkeys on their backs. That’s true inside the Church too.

     Do you really think that Pope Francis can talk about EENS? I don’t think so.

     I remember asking a teacher the question “but who would say, ‘yes I know the Roman Catholic Church is the one and only True Church but I’m not going to join it’?” The response was “don’t be disputatious.” The non-response was fitting because the spirit behind the question was understood but if a Vatican I kid reading the language in her now very old Baltimore Catechism (and no, I’m not getting an updated one) could ask that question, where do you think that leaves Pope Francis 50 years on?

     Lastly, if I’m wrong, aren’t we supposed to take up our Cross? If we become targets, if overall we have become barren through disunity and discord -how, through us, can the world know, as Jesus wanted it to know, that God had sent Him?- could taking up our Cross lead to the re-seeding of the Church? If so, we should pray for the courage not to shrink from trials.

     LikeLike

338. Andrew,

     Tom’s a smart guy and I’m hoping for the best for him. You should do likewise.

     LikeLike

339. Erik Charter
     Posted June 9, 2015 at 6:26 pm | Permalink
     Tom – I’m familiar with the contours of the argument

     Erik – I think the argument is that there have always been people looking to Christ in true faith and there have always been pretenders who have been in the church for personal gain and wrong motives. It’s been the case as far back as the 12 disciples. Think the wheat and the tares growing up together until they are separated at the last day.

     Yeah, but Catholicism has a better historical claim to being the wheat than the johnny-come-lately churches. The Biblical warrant for semper schismata seems weak. There is also the argument that most of Protestantism as it exists today never existed at any time in the history of the Church.

     There was no “restoration” of the true Church. A new one was invented.

     Further, with the “separated brethren” riff, Catholicism isn’t condemning Protestants to tare-hood. This is a lot more “one” and “catholic” than the Protestant version of Christianity. And no, the 12 apostles didn’t each go out and start their own church either.

     The question isn’t dissent, but what the church does with it. Where there are human beings, there will be dissent.

     http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2008/07/catholic-dissent-when-wrong-turns-out-be-right

     LikeLike

340. Erik,

     I agree.

     Let’s pray.

     LikeLike

341. Yeah, but Catholicism has a better historical claim to being the wheat than the johnny-come-lately churches.

     Roman Catholicism started in 1540’s with Trent, come on, you know the drill.

     We’re the true continuation, Rome broke from us.

     Just like the OPC is the true presbyterianism in America, PCUSA broke away from us.

     Erik and I like you, and want you to stick around and want the best for you.

     How else can we help you? Keep asking, you’ll get it eventually, we pray.

     LikeLike

342. Tom, read this again, please, it should help you sort these things out, if not, ask away:

     More Doctrinal Evolution
     By D. G. HART | Published: JUNE 4, 2015
     If it’s wrong for Protestants to think that Calvin and Luther were simply reiterating what Paul and Peter taught, isn’t it also wrong for Roman Catholics to think that Trent was a doctrinal glimmer in the eye of the early church fathers? Merely waving the wand of doctrinal development won’t help you think historically, or understand that history is always moving, never static. And if history is fluid — which it is, as I, a licensed historian, can assure you — then what happened in the sixteenth century was not inevitable.

     The way to look at it is that Luther and Calvin were in the mix of theological reflection that was going on for well over five hundred years and the Council of Trent decided to go one way and not the other. And if that is true, then Roman Catholicism as we know it (minus — ahem — Vatican I and Vatican II) started in the 1540s as much as Lutheranism started in the 1530s and Reformed Protestantism in the 1540s.

     For support I appeal to Richard Muller:

     The understanding of “catholic” and “schismatic” thought in the sixteenth century must be revised away from the modern denominational approach that, on the side of historians of the Roman Church, has all too willingly denied patristic and medieval roots to the Reformation and that, on the other side of older generations of Protestant historians, has tended to view the Middle Ages as harboring but few forerunners of the Reformation. The Reformers did not view themselves as schismatic; rather, they understood themselves as representative thinkers of the Catholic church. Nor can they be seen as radicals who allowed only the Bible as their foundation to the exclusion of tradition: their approach, as easily documented from their citations, was to use scripture as their ultimate norm and tradition as a subordinate, albeit fallible, support. This approach to the relation of scripture and tradition is, of course, contrary to the views of the Council of Trent, but it is surprisingly like the position of Thomas Aquinas and a great number of other major medieval thinkers. The Protestant use of patristic and medieval sources, moreover, became more explicit in the later generations of the Reformation; the nature of that reception should be a significant element of a revised historiography. (from Seeing Things Their Way)

     Historians may not save us, but they can help.

     What’s hard to understand about this, Tom?

     LikeLike

343. Andrew Buckingham
     Posted June 9, 2015 at 6:56 pm | Permalink
     Yeah, but Catholicism has a better historical claim to being the wheat than the johnny-come-lately churches.

     Roman Catholicism started in 1540’s with Trent, come on, you know the drill.

     We’re the true continuation, Rome broke from us.

     If that were true, you’d still have apostolic succession and the 7 sacraments. Eastern Orthodoxy does, and so can make the claim you just did, but you can’t.

     See what I mean, Erik? The narrative doesn’t exist in a cohesive and coherent form, even among the crypto-clergy of the OPC.

     LikeLike

344. The theory behind apostolic succession is that God’s authority, to be meaningful and effective, must be embodied in men today who have the same kind of authority. But if you will read carefully the following passage, you will see that this is not true at all.

     In 1 Corinthians 5 Paul—who was not physically present in Corinth—wrote to them to tell them what to do with respect to a discipline case. He said (in 5:4-5): “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” So you see, Paul did not pass on his authority to another man so that he could be there in Corinth. No, Paul said, in effect, if you will do what I as an apostle now instruct you to do then I will be with you in spirit, and you will also have the power of our Lord Jesus with you, to deliver that man to Satan, etc.

     So, to put it simply, the Reformers realized that there was no need for apostolic successors. No, the need was simply to have the apostles themselves with us through their inspired and inerrant teaching. And that is what we have in the New Testament.

     The apostles never wrote anything that ever has needed or ever will need correction because they were inspired by God. Surely a person of average intelligence should be able to see that this has never been true of other men in history, no matter how strongly they may have believed themselves to be apostolic successors!

     I hope this gets you to study this further. The more church history you get to know the more obvious the conclusion of the Reformers will appear.

     #nextcommentplease

     LikeLike

345. Tom,

     Let’s go with your story.

     Why should I join the RCC instead of EO?

     All I’ve ever gotten from anyone is this.

     So yeah, staying protestant.

     #nextcommentporfavor

     LikeLike

346. Just read an article by Michael Sean Winters on NCR written about the conference. I won’t be able to watch it til later sometime. I found this statement by him interesting: “On the other hand, there has been precious little effort on the part of the leaders of the Church, be they bishops or theologians, to carve out a space in the center where the important conversations capable of transcending divisions can take place. Indeed, some bishops, mostly on the right, and some theologians, mostly on the left, have contributed to the climate of polarization in unhealthy ways.”

     Interesting… This right and left talk from a Catholic. Why not just come out and say faithful bishops and descending theologians. Seems to be an agenda. Will still try and watch the conference soon.

     LikeLike

347. @mtx
     “descending theologians”….doctors on the highway to hell?

     LikeLike

348. Here is your daily dose of love and pity from me to my separated brothers.

     How are all you guys since last time we talked? It’s a beautiful day here, and I am doing all I can to avoid anything that looks like real work. So, I thought I’d stop by to say howdy.

     You know, it wasn’t very long ago that I was pretty anit-Catholic. Well, not really against any Catholic individuals, but kinda’ like D.G. Hart in wanting people to not just look at the good things in her, but also the really bad stuff. I thought that people would be better off in Protestant churches, though I didn’t go so far as to say that there are no Christians in the Catholic Church. So, D.G.H., if I told you some of my personal experiences with the dark side of the Church, that might give you more ammunition.

     But here I am on the other side of the Tiber, now, wondering how that happened. Well, it was a definite choice, but I just couldn’t resist.

     What led me here? I felt sorry for myself, I guess. I guess my condescension caught up with me, and I took pity on myself. I just love her. The Church, I mean. Not that I have anything personal against anyone here, but it is clearer to me every day that I made the right choice. Since, as I think Zrim said, the whole justification thing is old. You guys think the die is cast. You don’t even want to go back.

     Did AB really say that Protestantism is the real church and the Catholic Church is the one that veered off into, what, apostasy? The only thing is that if you read the Church fathers, they sound very Catholic. Besides, St. Thomas Aquinas was quite a few years before the Council of Trent. You guys stripped justification of its inherent, infused love and rejected the whole infusion theory of justification, and Luther wanted to burn Thomas’ books. So, you are in trouble with the Apostle Paul, as I clearly demonstrated and Zrim knows I did. Well, not I, but Thomas.

     So, who got Thomas in the divorce? Luther didn’t want him. I guess the Protestant Scholastics did, but did they want his Marian theology, too? Did Rome get Mary and the Protestants get what?

     Well, it’s too nice a day to respond to all the comments directed at me, but I do wish you all the best. I’m not kidding when I say that I am praying for you, or that I consider you brothers and sisters in Christ. Why not?

     BTW, that’s a rhetorical ?

     So, be happy. Be well. Listen to some good music. Sing along, especially if it is in Latin.

     Best comment? It has to be this one about how lame the phone company analogy was – sorry Erik though the video dedicated to me was very cute. Sure, I can be snarky, but you guys are actually pretty entertaining and I know you are serious about your faith. I know that part isn’t a joke.

     “If Catholicism is Verizon, the OPC is 2 soup cans and some string. ”

     I used to try to compare the different denominations to a zoo. Trouble is that Jesus calls the Church His Body. How many bodies does He have? Then we could go to the invisible church, but some of you guys seem to have a problem with the Nicene Creed, so that argument disappears. In fact, Machen didn’t seem to accept any Catholics as real Christians.

     Then there is the free market business model to help explain why there are so many competing denominations, but same problem as phone companies and zoos. Jesus has one body, not many companies – small and large -, many media outlets, many phone companies, or many animals in a zoo.

     …and so have a wonderful evening. Maybe I’ll check in again tomorrow.

     LikeLike

349. Spell check. Haha. Basically quite accurate.

     LikeLike

350. Andrew Buckingham
     Posted June 9, 2015 at 7:06 pm | Permalink
     Tom,

     Let’s go with your story.

     Why should I join the RCC instead of EO?

     All I’ve ever gotten from anyone is this.

     Never said you should. In fact, I’ve said that logically, Darryl’s attacks on the Catholic Church don’t amount to anything except reasons to join the EOs. They do not justify Protestantism dumping apostolic succession and the 7 sacraments and inventing a new version of Christianity.

     Now you’re starting to catch on. Well, almost.

     LikeLike

351. Mrs DoubleYou,

     I said what I said.

     You said what you said.

     Tom, you’re next.

     LikeLike

352. @mtx

     ” Just wanting to make sure I wasn’t speaking hog wash, AB. That is why I started by saying “in my understanding”. I am not saying ND doesn’t seek to be some sort of Catholic school. Just saying they aren’t official run or recognized by the Catholic Church as Catholic.”

     They are officially run by the Congregation of the Holy Cross. You can learn of their governance structure here:
     http://www.nd.edu/about/leadership/fellows/

     I don’t think the congregation falls under the authority of the bishop of ft. Wayne/south bend, but I could be mistaken here. That being said, the university is ultimately accountable to the congregation, and the congregation exerts influence at all levels (from serving as rectors on dorm floors where mass is celebrated daily) to faculty, administrators, and board members. Further the president must be a member of csc. So they are not just formally a ministry of csc with neglected historic ties, but maintain active oversight and influence on the university.

     LikeLike

353. AB,

     “Roman Catholicism started in 1540’s with Trent, come on, you know the drill.
     We’re the true continuation, Rome broke from us.”

     This is too triumphalistic for my tastes. Where’s Darryl to reign in this chest-thumping?

     Odd that you’re the true continuation and yet both the EO and RC agree with each other far more on the nature of Scripture and justification – you know those 2 pillars of the Reformation – than either does with the Presbyterian view of either doctrine. I mean, at least the Arians and their beliefs have some historical existence and following we can document.

     LikeLike

354. Tom, I’m protestant; and fiercely proud of it.

     Why do you care?

     LikeLike

355. Keep at it Cletus, you’ll get it someday. I can tell you are wound up, like Tom, and MWF, but that’s ok. That’s what blogs do.

     Next comment please.

     LikeLike

356. Roman Catholics:

     Watch this at the 26:05 minute mark (it should go straight there). Only 30 seconds. It’s how I feel whenever I respond to your many and unending comments.

     Wink.

     Next.

     LikeLike

357. Cletus van Damme
     Posted June 9, 2015 at 8:38 pm | Permalink
     AB,

     “Roman Catholicism started in 1540’s with Trent, come on, you know the drill.
     We’re the true continuation, Rome broke from us.”

     This is too triumphalistic for my tastes. Where’s Darryl to reign in this chest-thumping?

     Odd that you’re the true continuation and yet both the EO and RC agree with each other far more on the nature of Scripture and justification – you know those 2 pillars of the Reformation – than either does with the Presbyterian view of either doctrine. I mean, at least the Arians and their beliefs have some historical existence and following we can document.

     Yes, the Eastern Orthodox add a perfect alternate overview to the Prot-Cath BS. The difference between the EOs and the Reformation tells us the theological story of Christianity without even needing to drag the Vatican into it.

     Good point about Arianism, too. In fact, it made a comeback in both Michael Servetus* and the Anglo-American Unitarian movement. Sola scriptura, baby:

     http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/100-scriptural-arguments-for-the-unitarian-faith
     ___________
     *I seem to remember a quote from the very sensible Philipp Melanchthon that the return of the Arian heresy [hence Servetus] was inevitable once the Reformation rejected the Catholic magisterium. If anybody knows the quote, I’d appreciate a pointer.

     LikeLike

358. Thanks, sdb. That is about what I was thinking after AB pointed out the ties to Congregation of the Holy Cross. I am unfamiar with them. There are lots of organizations of Catholics that work on different things.

     LikeLike

359. Tom & Mrs.,

     How do you go from history to normativity?

     For example, human beings have owned slaves for more of human history than not. Does this mean that men are meant to own slaves? How could the more recent norm of not owning slaves be correct?

     Why assume what “was” is what “ought” to be?

     And you missed the point on the phone company. It had to do with old vs. new, not big vs. small.

     LikeLike

360. Erik Charter
     Posted June 9, 2015 at 10:14 pm | Permalink
     Tom & Mrs.,

     How do you go from history to normativity?

     I’d like to understand the nature of your question, Erik. Was it related to this fascinating article

     http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2008/07/catholic-dissent-when-wrong-turns-out-be-right

     or are you pulling an Andrew G. Hart, changing the subject to bury a discussion that has not been going your way? 😉

     I ask because Old Life always seems to be asking for ammo for its gun, not actual knowledge and understanding, and so when denied the gotcha, ignores my a reply I spent 20 minues on and starts setting up the next ambush.

     LikeLike

361. Mrs.,

     Do you have other passages other than the one on faith working through love to support your view on infusion vs. Imputation?

     LikeLike

362. Tom,

     I don’t mean to be rude, but I almost never read links. I would rather you read it if you are interested, put the salient points in your own words, and make it part of the conversation.

     If we were sitting in a bar you wouldn’t hand me an article to read. That’s just my personal preference on how I engage. I use what’s between my ears. Occasionally I’ll include a link or a video, but I never demand anyone reads or watches.

     LikeLike

363. vd, t, If you were to make a case for the superiority of the Phillies and only pointed to the 1950, 1980, and 2008 teams, someone could well question your argument by bringing up Chico Ruiz and 1964.

     It’s not that complicated seeing what I do here. But Bryan and the Jasons keep saying that 1964 doesn’t disprove anything they say about the superiority of the Phillies.

     LikeLike

364. I have several thousand books and boxes of newspaper clippings and magazine articles already that I’ll likely never get to.

     Sowers’ gift of “Theonomy & Christian Ethics” is boxed up somewhere…

     LikeLike

365. MichaelTX, flat out wrong about UND. It is still a university of the Fathers of the Congregation of the Holy Cross.

     LikeLike

366. vd, t, so if the church argued for normative doctrine without resorting to “because the church is one and hasn’t divided” — for favorite apologetic — would you go to church then and confess your mortal sins?

     LikeLike

367. MichaelTX, wrong again.

     LikeLike

368. MichaelTX, sorry to be repetitive but I can’t believe you are a such a firm convert and don’t know the workings of Roman Catholicism. The various orders — of which the Congregation of the Holy Cross is an example — report to THE bishop, the pope. In fact, back in the 13th c. or so, it was the religious orders that backed papal supremacy in a big way. Why? Because local bishops were not pleased about priests in their dioceses not under the bishop’s watch.

     LikeLike

369. vd, t, Jesus was never in Rome. Jerusalem is the trunk for anyone with an ounce of historical sense. Plus, Jesus commissioned Paul to go to Rome. Acts 23. But you don’t like the Bible.

     LikeLike

370. A great movie on making arguments, poking holes in arguments, and evaluating evidence that I would highly recommend to everyone here is “My Cousin Vinny”. Try to see it on a TV channel that censors the language, because the language is bad. It’s really a fabulous movie, though.

     LikeLike

371. Michael, a pontifical university is not the same as a diocesan university which is not the same as a university run by an order. See this. And then be very afraid.

     LikeLike

372. vd, t, how can the numerical analysis be valid when you’re aren’t making a numerical claim. Rome is the trunk is a historical assertion and one that Eastern Orthodox dispute.

     LikeLike

373. vd, t, see, even you have to acknowledge the church of Jerusalem where Christ ministered.

     LikeLike

374. Mermaid, “I just love her. The Church, I mean.”

     Did she bleed and give her life to atone for your sins?

     LikeLike

375. vd, c, when do I reign in AB? Who could?

     If EO and RC are so united, what happened in 1054.

     #don’tdeny

     LikeLike

376. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 9, 2015 at 11:12 pm | Permalink
     vd, t, how can the numerical analysis be valid when you’re aren’t making a numerical claim. Rome is the trunk is a historical assertion and one that Eastern Orthodox dispute.

     Not exactly, Dr. Calvinism: A History. The EOs don’t dispute there was only one Christianity up to 1053.

     By contrast, Protestantism claims there was some “true” church out there in the ether between Constantine and Luther. Or at least that’s how your assistant Andrew Buckingham sees it. Why don’t you two OPC officers get your story straight first and then clue in the rest of us?

     I’ll wait.

     LikeLike

377. MichaelTX, “There are lots of organizations of Catholics that work on different things.”

     Have you heard of the Vatican?

     LikeLike

378. vd, t, EO’s do dispute unity if it is based on Rome’s supremacy, which is the basis for your argument.

     LikeLike

379. TVD,

     Darryl’s assistant?

     I think you mean Andrew G. Hart. That’s not me.

     LikeLike

380. Tom,

     But thanks for leaving a voicemail at OPC headquarters. My, you have a beautiful voice, and has it ever changed since your The Cookies days.

     LikeLike

381. Erik Charter
     Posted June 9, 2015 at 10:45 pm | Permalink
     Tom,

     I don’t mean to be rude, but I almost never read links. I would rather you read it if you are interested, put the salient points in your own words, and make it part of the conversation.

     If we were sitting in a bar you wouldn’t hand me an article to read. That’s just my personal preference on how I engage. I use what’s between my ears. Occasionally I’ll include a link or a video, but I never demand anyone reads or watches.

     Erik, quite right, and I also strenuously object to anyone saying, I can’t answer you in my own words, but click this link and my argument’s hiding behind it.

     Couldn’t agree more. I use links only as footnotes, to give necessary background to the reader coming in late. In this case–reciprocating your respect and honesty–I linked to an article that spoke of how certain Catholic dissidents [John Courtney Murray, John Henry Newman] came to win the day of what Catholicism holds as normative doctrine–ironically in the “Two Kingdoms” and “religious freedom” areas.

     Anti-Catholics such as Darryl G. Hart argue such developments–nay, changes–in normative doctrine are proof that the Church’s claim to guidance by the Holy Spirit is false. But this misunderstands [or misrepresents!] Catholicism’s own distinction between “normative” doctrine and “infallible” dogma.

     Darryl, you tend to elide that necessary distinction, and indeed, many or most of your attacks on the Catholic Church depend on ignoring that distinction.

     And Erik, that’s the reason I asked you to qualify your absolutely probative question,

     How do you go from history to normativity?

     In the hands of anti-Catholics, this is an ambush question, a rhetorical weapon and not a tool for understanding. I just want to know which one you’re wielding. It’s a Lucy and the football thing. 😉

     LikeLike

382. By contrast, Protestantism claims there was some “true” church out there in the ether between Constantine and Luther. Or at least that’s how your assistant Andrew Buckingham sees it. Why don’t you two OPC officers get your story straight first and then clue in the rest of us?

     I’ll wait.

     No need to wait.

     At Trent, that was the first time the institutional church anathematized the Gospel.

     It happened on other time in 1920’s and 30’s.

     I don’t believe the church is infallible. Rather, the Word of God is infallible.

     See the westminster confession of faith for further details.

     Next comment please.

     LikeLike

383. Put another way, in my traditional heritage, I was catholic until 1517, presbyterian mainline until 1936, and orthodox presbyterian up until today. And nothing you have said in your several years has changed what I believe one iota. I get you like Aquinas, I’ll look further into him, he’s on my list to read.

     Make sense?

     LikeLike

384. Andrew Buckingham
     Posted June 10, 2015 at 12:00 am | Permalink
     By contrast, Protestantism claims there was some “true” church out there in the ether between Constantine and Luther. Or at least that’s how your assistant Andrew Buckingham sees it. Why don’t you two OPC officers get your story straight first and then clue in the rest of us?

     I’ll wait…

     >>>>>>>>No need to wait.

     At Trent, that was the first time the institutional church anathematized the Gospel.

     It happened on other time in 1920’s and 30’s.

     I don’t believe the church is infallible. Rather, the Word of God is infallible.

     See the westminster confession of faith for further details.

     Next comment please.

     Andrew Buckingham
     Posted June 10, 2015 at 12:04 am | Permalink
     Put another way, in my traditional heritage, I was catholic until 1517, presbyterian mainline until 1936, and orthodox presbyterian up until today. And nothing you have said in your several years has changed what I believe one iota. I get you like Aquinas, I’ll look further into him, he’s on my list to read.

     Make sense?

     To you, perhaps. I don’t think that’s the author of Calvinism: A History Orthodox Presbyterian Church Elder Dr. Darryl G. Hart PhD’s argument, though.

     Darryl, since you “reign” here as putative blog ‘moderator,’ as a point of order perhaps you should promulgate the Old Life Theological Society’s position on this.

     If it’s OK with you, Andrew. It’s OK with me. I’ll wait.

     LikeLike

385. Tom,

     For sake of argument, let’s assume you are a catholic.

     You share a heritage with a Jewish person.

     I too share a heritage with a Jewish person.

     But I share a heritage with Presbyterian mainlners, that you do not.

     And I share a heritage with this blog’s moderator, that you do not.

     It’s religion. Nothing new under the sun. People have been discussion and fighting over it since the dawn of man (Cain and Abel). Now, we just do it on our smart phones before we go to bed.

     Nothing new Ecclesiastes 1:9
     Grace and peace (Gal 1:3).

     LikeLike

386. Hart,
     Let me see if I can recover from the pistol whipping…
     It amazes me that you think I do not know that official orders are accountable to the Bishop of Rome. Rome grants them the status of an Apostolic congregation. This does not make them “The Church”. Which is the point I was making with all that I have said. Notre Dame is not run by “The Church.” It is run by members of “The Church” which are also members of the Congregation of the Holy Cross” This is easy to think about. I am answerable to the Church, but I am not answerable to the Congregation for the Holy Cross. They hold no authority over any Catholic that does not make vows to them. The granting that Rome gives them approves their rule of life(vows) and existence, not everything they do. Rome can rescind that if it wishes, but Notre Dame is not the only thing they do. The apparently do work all over the globe. They do not do this at the direction of Rome or any bishop. Rome has rescinded many orders that got out of control before, even the Pope’s own order(Jesuits). This is not done lightly though.

     “a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench, “

     LikeLike

387. vd, t, but do you, an anti-Protestant, know what dogma is? You seem to struggle with Adam.

     LikeLike

388. MichaelTX, for you to think that only pontifical universities qualify as Roman Catholic is to go really really all all in on the papacy.

     Wow. That’s borderline Lefevrist.

     LikeLike

389. Bearded Spock (TVD),

     You have to admit – Dr. Gray chiming in on #opcga was pretty cool. I was glad to see you avatar out there. I love it how Darryl deletes yours out here, you sure are a character.

     Listen to Erik, and Darryl, they are trying to help you.

     Grace and peace.

     LikeLike

390. They hold no authority over any Catholic that does not make vows to them.

     But Catholics make vows by nature of joining the RCC, right?

     I mean, if a notre Dame professor of theology started promoting satanism, are you saying the church couldn’t stop them, if the university wouldn’t do it? I call shenanigans. At UCSB, we had some whack classes. Never would be allowed at a catholic university like UND. But they were the cheapest option for me, duh.

     Next

     LikeLike

391. @AB Notre Dame respects academic freedom…including in the academic study of theology. When I was there the chair was Episcopalian (practically a satanist amirite?) As well as jewish and muslim theologians. On campus there is also a separate seminary…no satanists allowed there. There has been ongoing friction between the university and Rome over Ex Corde Ecclesiae.

     You might find this story of interest:
     http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/pope-francis-notre-dame

     LikeLike

392. SDB,

     Thanks. I think its ridiculous for Michael to argue Notre Same isn’t a Catholic Univeristy.

     He equivocates on “catholic” of course, as do I.

     After all, I’m catholic. I just so happen to be a reformed catholic.

     http://reformedforum.org/ctc374/

     Thanks again. Fwiw, you make many good comments at Olts!!

     LikeLike

393. Hart,
     You may have missed it in my earlier comments, I talked about schools that answer to a local bishop would be a school “run” by the Church.

     LikeLike

394. Catholic in its historical meaning means universal.

     I am a member of the universal church.

     MichaelTX, you sound confused.

     LikeLike

395. Universal church
     EditWatch this page
     The phrase universal church can refer to:

     Christian Church, the whole body of Christians collectively
     http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_church

     Come get me.

     LikeLike

396. AB,
     I don’t think anybody here is confused about what Church I am talking about when I say Catholic. They in no way think I am talking about the invisible communion of all those who follow Christ with a sincere heart. There is validity to the invisible communion of Christ and yes it is universal(catholic). What is not nessicarily is part of the visible hierarchical communion of bishops sent by bishops sent by apostles sent by Christ sent by the Father. This is the Church Augustine spoke about. Please don’t take us down rabbit holes, Andrew.

     LikeLike

397. Erik:
     Mrs.,

     Do you have other passages other than the one on faith working through love to support your view on infusion vs. Imputation?>>>>

     James 2:26
     For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

     James used 2 examples of how faith and good works are bound together. Rahab the harlot as an example of true faith that justifies. He was not talking about an imputed righteousness. In James, where is the imputed righteousness?

     Remember, Luther wanted to remove the book of James from the canon of the NT. He called it an epistle of straw. He saw that James contradicted his version of justification by faith alone. He was guilty of preaching a different Gospel.

     Now, Lutherans did not follow him in his madness, particularly the madness of wanting to remove the book of James from the canon or to burn Thomas Aquinas’ books. Not all Lutherans even dumped the Apocrypha. Most Reformers held to the Immaculate Conception, even. (I love to throw that in there, since that is one thing Protestants can’t even conceive of – no pun intended.)

     Calvin followed Luther even less. Calvinists do understand that the kind of faith that Paul was talking about had to agree with James’ statement that we are justified not by faith alone. I have pointed out several times that justification by faith alone, that phrase, is in the Bible. It’s just not in the Pauline writings. You see that, right? It is in James where he says that justification by faith is NOT alone. He adds that faith without works is dead.

     How can a dead faith justify anyone? It can’t, of course. When did faith come alive such that it is able to justify? It had to be at the point of justification by faith, otherwise what good is it?

     Do Calvinists really think that a person is justified by a dead faith and then somehow it suddenly comes alive after a person has been justified? That makes no sense at all, and Luther for all his bellowing, made no sense at all.

     Anyway, where did I get the idea of faith infused with love and an infusion of righteousness rather than an imputation of righteousness? You know, right? I didn’t make that up. You can easily find whose argumentation that is. It is not original with me.

     Even if we were to go with the idea of an imputation of righteousness, the definitions remain constant. Righteousness in the NT is never divorced from the most important thing – faith working through love.

     Protestants set up a false dichotomy when they say that justification has to be either by grace through faith or by works. It can’t be both. However, the NT clearly teaches that it is both, and Paul and James are in agreement. What kind of works is the NT talking about, though?

     If you wish, go back and read my summary of Reformed teaching on this. I know what y’all believe, ‘cuz it was not that long ago that I believed it myself. Then I started reading … you know who.

     I hesitate to wish you well, since that is taken as some kind of offense by some here at Old Life. However, I really do hope you have a wonderful day, Erik. …and I have no trouble calling you guys my brothers and sisters in Christ. Even thought the OPC allows for it, you guys seem to have trouble accepting Catholics as true believers.

     No, of course not all are, any more than all members of the OPC are. All Catholics are not like Nancy Pelosi after all – though it is not mine to judge her soul. I at least entertain the thought that all might be saved, since God is not willing that any should perish, but that all come to repentance. I hope that for everyone, even Nancy.

     Anyway, let’s see how many insults this comment provokes. 😉

     LikeLike

398. Michael,

     The rabbit hole is where UND is Catholic. Even your definition of Catholic.

     You cant possibly disagree with DGH on this point, you just feel like arguing.

     LikeLike

399. AB, I actually hate arguing. This all began from Erik saying ND was just as Catholic as Pope Francis. I think I have proved it is not if no one thinks the same, I am sorry. It is not recognized by the Vatican. It is not in submission to the Pope, local bishop, or even a local parish. This is the ordinary teaching magisterium of the Church. This is what we as Catholic are in submission to as long as it is not binding us to believe or do what is unCatholic. Which can be determined by looking at what is ecumenical or in union with the Pope’s definative teaching.

     LikeLike

400. I have been reading the Q&A section at the website of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. In no way does the OPC say that it is impossible for a Catholic to be a real Christian. I had wondered about that, given the reaction of the majority here to the idea that I would consider you my brothers and sisters in Christ.

     After all, Loraine Boettner was a member of the OPC, and he is notorious for his misrepresentation of Church teachings. Fundamentalists are still using him, and Chick tracts, as their basis for understanding Catholicism. The, AB likes to quote Mechan as saying that he could be the friend of a Catholic, but not consider the Catholic a brother in Christ.

     So, I thought that maybe that was official OPC policy or something – being anti-Catholic even on a personal level as in rejecting all Catholics outright as Christians.

     I am glad to find out that is not the case. In all my years as a Protestant, I had never heard such an extreme position, so I am glad that at least in theory, the OPC accepts that there are real Christians within the Catholic Church.

     I accept that there are real Christians within the OPC. Just FWIW.

     Here is an answer to the question “Can Roman Catholics be Christians?” Notice that the man who gave the answer, when given the opportunity, shared Christ in a Catholic Church. He wanted people he loved to come to know Christ.

     I was glad to see that there are some in the OPC who are concerned for the souls of those they believe to be lost. Now, I would not make the same assumption he did, but if by some strange circumstance – like a funeral where people are allowed to eulogize the one who has passed away – I would also make sure that I shared my faith in Christ, especially how Real He is.

     Yes, this is a gentle rebuke of sorts. If the Reformed brethren here really believe that the Catholic Church is not preaching the Gospel, or is preaching a different Gospel, then why not at least try to evangelize us poor, lost Catholics interacting with your challenges put to Catholics?

     So, maybe that’s a challenge for you?

     http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=174

     LikeLike

401. Mrs. DoubleYou, the thing about converts like yourself is that you know what it is that you have rejected and affirmed. Why spend efforts on those who know what’s what and have made it clear where they stand? Maybe you’re tempted to twist that into something unloving or yet another example of how Calvinists are twerps, but have you ever heard of shaking the dust from your sandals (I’d include pearls to pigs but I don’t want TVD to accuse me of harassing ladies again)?

     LikeLike

402. I don’t think that Calvinists are twerps, Zrim. Show me where I have said that. In fact, I have said very kind things about the OPC right here on this blog, and I don’t take them back. I have said even kinder things on my blogs about Protestants and Calvinists.

     I am not crazy about Martin Luther, and have not been crazy about him for awhile, now. Call me a confused Catholic, but for awhile now – even before I became a convert like me – that the anathemas of Trent were about the person, Martin Luther. He seems to be about the only one who held firmly to his errors. …and I’ve thought that for years, now.

     I do think that this particular group has very little reason to exist if its sole purpose is to trash Catholics and Catholicism. If there is no zeal for preaching the Gospel anymore, then how can you even call yourselves Calvinists?

     You don’t even preach the Gospel with the hope that someone might read your comment and want what you have. You could ask yourselves why that is.

     The thing about Calvinists like yourself is that you think you have the correct Gospel, that you are clever in showing how everyone else is in error, that you can demonstrate how everyone else is anathema based on a misreading of the book of Galatians, but you do not feel motivated to actually share the Gospel with those you believe to be lost and on their way to Hell.

     Now, the OPC does have a zeal for the lost, even though it is a small denomination. I see that at their website, not here on this blog. No, I do not accept all their theology, but they do want people to come to Christ, I am happy to see.

     Never would have guessed it from what I read here – with the exception of Terrible.

     Who will provoke you to love and good works if I call you swine and shake the dust off my sandals? I have called you brothers. I am concerned for you.

     LikeLike

403. very kind things about the OPC right here on this blog

     Like when you said that we the OPC are dying? Don’t make me go find it. I know the thread and location.

     Just sayin, DoubleYou..

     LikeLike

404. Michael in Texas,

     Okay.

     LikeLike

405. Mrs. DoubleYou,

     You expect too much of OLTS. You need to read this, and the follow up oldlife 201 (go to the trackback section of the link here to read oldlife 201):

     Oldlife.org 101
     By D. G. HART | Published: MAY 30, 2011
     Regular readers of Oldlife likely don’t need any explanation about the nature of this site but those unfamiliar with the medium or genre of blogging may need some guidance on how to read the posts published here. Genre may sound like a high-faluttin’ word to affix to a blog, suggesting some kind of artifice or even art to the mode of communication. But genre is fitting if only because a blog is a different kind of communication from older forms of publishing and readers who look at a post as if it were another kind of publication may hurt themselves as well as the author (I’m thinking here of the lack of charity or benefit of the doubt that some readers of blogs display, thus raising questions not only about the virtue of the author but also about the motives of the reader).

     A blog – at least as I read them and participate in several – is somewhere between a Facebook page and an editorial in a magazine. Blogging is almost entirely personal since the author is his own editor in most cases; no editorial staff or marketing department oversees the writing. A blog is also a forum for thinking out loud – “here is something I read or observed, and I thought I’d write about it and see what readers think.” Magazines are in themselves ephemeral. I used to save old copies of magazines but soon gave up after several moves not only owing to sloth (or declining strength as aging happens) but also because highlighted articles were not as pertinent at the time of the move as they were when saved. If magazines lack permanency, blogs do so even more.

     In which case readers, readers should not take a blog too seriously. It is not only an ephemeral medium but often times the author’s thoughts are highly transitional – again, this is a way of thinking out loud. James K. A. Smith recently explained the tension between a blog author’s intentions and readers’ expectations during some flack he took for thoughts he wrote in passing about a review of Rob Bell:

     Um, it’s a blog post people. I wrote it in 20 minutes one morning after reading another piece of dreck by Lauren Winner. If it’s stupid, why comment on it? (There is a huge laughable irony about charges of ressentiment in the ballpark here–you can work that out for yourself.) . . . .

     I must have missed the memo about the requirements for writing a blog post. Apparently, according to the self-appointed police force of the theological blogosphere, one is not allowed to comment on a topic unless one has first completed a dissertation in the field. Who decided only specialists could speak? Is there a reading list everyone’s supposed to have mastered before they can comment on an issue?

     In other words, if readers don’t want to see what an author is thinking about, they don’t need to read the blog. But if they do, they shouldn’t expect the thoughts posted to be ready for prime time.

     A blog is like Facebook (such as I imagine since I am not networked) in that it invites comments and an informal exchange of views. For this blogger, the responses are an important facet of the medium because it functions as a built-in letters to the editor. And just as a post can go up immediately in response to a recent event or development, so readers may respond immediately. The immediacy and the responsiveness of blogging is what makes it valuable in my judgment, and unlike most other forms of publication. It is also what makes it ephemeral. Who will read a post about the Phillies’ 2008 championship three years from now and think it poignant. Of course, some blogs do not allow comments, and I do not understand the point since part of the nature of thinking out loud is to start a conversation and see what others think as well.

     At the same time, a blog is not like a magazine in that it does not reproduce well articles or material requiring hard or sustained thought. Some magazines, of course, have on-line content. But this is simply a way of reading a magazine article on-line. But a blog is more like the op-ed portion of a magazine – actually more like a newspaper because a magazine takes at least a week to be published; the newspaper comes out daily (most often) and the blog may occur semi-daily. But when bloggers are tempted to post papers or talks given at conferences, they become almost unreadable. Such material needs to be printed out, read with pen or pencil in hand, and given sustained attention – not read for three minutes before checking email or stock quotes.

     Truth be told that the Nicotine Theological Journal has been delayed considerably by the distraction of blogging. And the reason has to do with the nature and immediacy of the blog; an article that I might write for the NTJ is generally too long for a blog, and the immediacy of a blog makes it a more tempting medium than a journal to make one’s thoughts public. Why wait three months to print my latest critique of Keller when I can publish it TODAY!!! at Oldlife.org.

     In other words, readers of blogs need to lighten up. And readers of Oldlife, the on-line version of the NTJ, would best be advised to light up when reading the blog. Here at a blog, the most fitting form of smoke, as ephemeral as the medium, is a cigarette. For the journal, best to light up a pipe or cigar.

     Thanks for reading the OPC Q&A, I read those every week from about 2007 through 2014 or so, my wife and I would await the next week’s question on the website (they published one every saturday night, even hers about science in 2011, I can go find her question) so that it would give her and me something to talk about around the dinner table. Lately, it’s been all about The Wire, carcetti, daniels, and why oh why is McNulty doing what he is doing in season 5? Oh dear, that poor lost soul. You know what I mean? Anyway, we used to read the Q&A, I found theology blogs (first green baggins) in May 2012, now this is clearly where the conversation is, meaning, where reformed theology is challenged for all the world to see. So keep reading the Q&A, I’ve probably read all 570 of them or close to it. Grace and peace.

     Who’s next?

     LikeLike

406. MichaelTX, but there is only one bishop that ultimately matters and runs the whole church. Looking to local dioceses is so English Reformation.

     LikeLike

407. Mermaid, “How can a dead faith justify anyone?”

     How can an alive faith cooperate sufficiently with grace and know a mortal sin hasn’t been committed?

     LikeLike

408. MichaelTX, by that definition no religious order is Roman Catholic. I think the Jesuit pope would be surprised. Who created and who dissolved the Jesuits? It wasn’t Mary.

     LikeLike

409. Mermaid, oh, so you were one of those Protestants — zealous. You’re finding much zeal for the lost in RC circles?

     BTW, I have zeal for you.

     LikeLike

410. Hart,
     I have not said holy orders aren’t Roman Catholic. I have contended that no holy order is “the Church”, but only members of it. Holy orders may come and go the a Church remains. No Holy order can speak with the authority of the universal Church.

     LikeLike

411. Mrs. DoubleYou, I don’t think you’ve shaken off all the eeeevangelicalism. But some make a distinction between common and sacred activity. Blogs are common and evangelizing is left largely to those called and ordained to do so. Why hold common folk to ordained work?

     LikeLike

412. Mrs. Webfeet,

     Respectfully, I suggest you read about Dr. Luther’s relationship to the Canon, the Apocrypha, and the Epistle of James before you start making claims that sound like they came out of whatever SparkNotes version of Church “history” Fr. Dwight Longenecker has on his night-stand.

     Dr. Luther called into question the validity and authorship of a few books, including the Epistle of James. You’ll notice, however, that James is in the Luther Bible, as is the Apochrypha, and all the other books that gave Dr. Luther the sweats. Do some homework, look it up. Dr. Luther didn’t go into the Canon and start chopping. That’s an absurd, ignorant claim. Moreover, Luther was, for the millionth time, infallible. Look to our Confessions.

     Also, the anathemas of Trent were decidedly not just directed at Luther, but mainly at the tenants of the Augsburg Confession, and at Evangelical Catholic theology. To suggest Trent was simply an attack on Luther is reductionist and cartoonish. The Council of Trent was a reactionary attempt by the Papacy to create a consistency of theology among it’s subjects to counter-act the solid confessions of the Reformers.

     You don’t have to be a big fan of Luther. Honestly, most Confessional Lutherans find at least some of his writings annoying or embarrassing, just as they find “Lutheran” a detestable term (created by your Holy Father, no less).

     But hey, why give Luther a fair shake? He’s anathema. Or are you one of those Romanists that don’t think the anathemas really are anathemas?

     Trying to feel the love.

     LikeLike

413. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 10, 2015 at 7:53 am | Permalink
     vd, t, but do you, an anti-Protestant, know what dogma is? You seem to struggle with Adam.

     Yeah, I figured you’d dodge this one, Dr. Calvinism: A History.

     _______________

     TVD
     Posted June 9, 2015 at 11:25 pm | Permalink
     D. G. Hart
     Posted June 9, 2015 at 11:12 pm | Permalink
     vd, t, how can the numerical analysis be valid when you’re aren’t making a numerical claim. Rome is the trunk is a historical assertion and one that Eastern Orthodox dispute.

     Not exactly, Dr. Calvinism: A History. The EOs don’t dispute there was only one Christianity up to 1053.

     By contrast, Protestantism claims there was some “true” church out there in the ether between Constantine and Luther. Or at least that’s how your assistant Andrew Buckingham sees it. Why don’t you two OPC officers get your story straight first and then clue in the rest of us?

     I’ll wait.

     LikeLike

414. TVD,

     You want answers?

     Go here:

     http://adbuckingham.com/category/church-history/

     Go to the Part II, and listen to Dr. Bray’s lectures on Church History, the ones on the reformation. I recommend all four of these, but you can focus on the last two, from the biblical training dot org website:

     A Background of the Reformation
     In this course a view of the Mediterranean church to the expansion of the Roman Empire will be studied. Also, the evangelistic attempts of the Roman Empire, its challenges and what it meant for the reformation will be covered.
     2 Background of the Reformation II
     The crusades, and John Wycliffe’s challenge of the church’s authority happened before the Reformation.
     3 The 15th Century and Martin Luther
     This lesson covers the Renaissance period and the life and beliefs of Martin Luther.
     4 Reformation and Theology of Martin Luther
     The Reformation and Luther’s emphasis on salv

     Or watch the luther documentary on my twitter feed.

     As Greg knows on the bible thread from April, I could go on. I have about 100 comments ready to fire off. You really think you found something and know what 800 million protesatnts don’t?

     Keep learning, young padawan. I’ll wait for you to bring something of actual substance to these comment boxes see anyone can type for the sake of typing.

     where will you stand in that great day, tvd? where?

     grace and peace.

     LikeLike

415. Go here for the luther documentary. But Dr. Bray’s lectures are better than Liam Neeson.

     You just copy and paste over and over. Guess what, I have 100 comments lined up to copy and paste. You’re spinning your wheels, rolling that rock, sisyphus. Enjoy it, we’ve seen it all before. I saw most of this in high school philosophy class, learned some more in my first few years at the OPC. Really haven’t progessed much since about 2003, but I have read a few more authors and such. I am happy to keep control c control v, this is like a video game, truly.

     LikeLike

416. You make Darryl, his blog, and your church all look like idiots. Keep doing the Lord’s work.

     LikeLike

417. MichaelTX
     Posted June 10, 2015 at 10:31 am | Permalink
     AB, I actually hate arguing. This all began from Erik saying ND was just as Catholic as Pope Francis. I think I have proved it is not if no one thinks the same, I am sorry. It is not recognized by the Vatican. It is not in submission to the Pope, local bishop, or even a local parish.

     You did prove it, but don’t expect anyone to acknowledge that truth. In fact, within a week, somebody will be repeating that lie about Notre Dame all over again.

     LikeLike

418. Has the Pope considered suing Notre Dame for impersonating a Catholic University? Seems like he would have a good case. Maybe the Irish could sue them, too, for impersonating “Fighting Irish”.

     Good grief. Notre Dame is not Catholic…

     LikeLike

419. “This all began from Erik saying ND was just as Catholic as Pope Francis.”
     Pope Francis is Catholic?!?!? I thought he was a Jesuit!

     “I think I have proved it is not if no one thinks the same, I am sorry. It is not recognized by the Vatican. It is not in submission to the Pope, local bishop, or even a local parish. This is the ordinary teaching magisterium of the Church. This is what we as Catholic are in submission to as long as it is not binding us to believe or do what is unCatholic. Which can be determined by looking at what is ecumenical or in union with the Pope’s definative teaching.”

     @mtx I’m certainly no expert on canon law, so if I am mistaken, I will happily stand corrected. My understanding is that the Congregation of the Holy Cross has its charter from the Vatican, and that charter can be rescinded. They answer directly to the pope rather than the local bishop. Their ministries are thus “Catholic” and in submission to the pope. One of their ministries is the University of Notre Dame.

     Is everything that happens at Notre Dame congruent with church teaching? Obviously not – but then that could say about a lot of dioceses as well (San Jose?). Of course the university has no more authority over you than some crazy priest in the bay area, but that doesn’t make either less catholic. What the university does have is a significant number of theologians who I understand to be part of the magisterium even though they are neither authoritative nor infallible (important to listen to and not dismiss lightly).

     The ecclesiastical status of the university has never changed…it has always been a ministry of the Congregation of the Holy Cross. Working their way west, the missionaries stopped in South Bend with the goal of moving on when the weather improved….they are still waiting!

     LikeLike

420. You make Darryl, his blog, and your church all look like idiots. Keep doing the Lord’s work.

     Man, where’s the love?

     LikeLike

421. vd, t, and you dodged my Phillies’ apologist analogy. Dodgers all.

     My point about a church before Protestantism is the one that Trent hadn’t condemned Protestants before Trent. Trent’s definitions didn’t exist. The Western Church included Protestants before they were Protestants.

     LikeLike

422. vd, t, maybe idiots, you’re fascinated, right?

     LikeLike

423. sdb,

     Didn’t you study there? Any personal observations?

     LikeLike

424. vd, t, which lie, Michael’s that UND is not Roman Catholic. Or my lie that the Congregation of the Holy Cross is Roman Catholic.

     LikeLike

425. Darryl,

     “vd, c, when do I reign in AB? Who could?”

     Well you haven’t successfully reined in Bryan or Jason. So why should that stop you now?

     “If EO and RC are so united, what happened in 1054.”

     Which is why I qualified on the nature of Scripture and justification which is what ostensibly justified the Reformation by your lights. Read Trent on those subjects. Then read Synod of Jerusalem, Confession of Dositheus, and Patriarch Jeremias’ responses to the Lutherans on those subjects. Then read Dordt and WCF. One of these is not like the others. As Schaff wrote in his work on the creeds, “In all these important points the Synod of Jerusalem again essentially agrees with the Church of Rome, and radically dissents from Protestantism.”

     LikeLike

426. AB,

     “At Trent, that was the first time the institutional church anathematized the Gospel.”

     Excellent. So I can hold to Orange and the 18 ecumenical councils before Trent and be right as rain correct?

     LikeLike

427. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 10, 2015 at 3:30 pm | Permalink
     vd, t, and you dodged my Phillies’ apologist analogy. Dodgers all.

     My point about a church before Protestantism is the one that Trent hadn’t condemned Protestants before Trent. Trent’s definitions didn’t exist. The Western Church included Protestants before they were Protestants.

     Trent is irrelevant at this point. 1053 first, then 1517. You do not and cannot justify having a different religion than the Eastern Orthodox.

     D. G. Hart
     Posted June 10, 2015 at 3:30 pm | Permalink
     vd, t, maybe idiots, you’re fascinated, right?

     You want to let Andrew make your blog look stupid, that’s your lookout.

     LikeLike

428. Yes I was a grad student and post-doc there for nearly eight years in total. It is true that the university does not answer to D’Arcy (or whoever the current bishop is now), but that does not make it non-Catholic. The chain of command is Pope->CSC->ND rather than Pope ->bishop->ND. I guess it is an interesting question what would happen if the Pope decided to disband the congregation. Can the Pope put the university under the jurisdiction of the local bishop or directly under rome? I have no idea…I’m way out of my depth there.

     Of course, Notre Dame is not just the seminary, so not everything published by faculty at ND is consistent with (or really relevant to) church teaching. Like I noted to AB – the theology department includes several non-Catholic members and a few non-Christians. I think the direction from the Board is that they want keep the university faculty over 50% RC (at least that was what they claimed back in the early 00’s). My impression is that this is about right.

     LikeLike

429. Sdb, thanks. My total point is to say nothing more than the actions of ND or A holy order can’t be considered the actions of “the Church”. I can start an order it will not make my actions the actions of “the Church”.

     LikeLike

430. @mtx I think I see what you are getting at here…ND doesn’t establish RC doctrine. But, if we adopt the metaphor of the church as the body (obviously, ND would be the ego), then the actions of ND are actions of the body (“I” didn’t punch my brother in the backseat, my fist did). This gets at what I see as the fatal flaw in Bryan Cross’s “Catholics are Divided Too” essay. On the one hand he wants to claim numerical superiority as support for the RC church being the true descendent, but the fact that 95% of Catholic women of child bearing age dissent on church teaching doesn’t count as disunity because they have a unity of doctrine (to be a communicant RC is to believe all the church teaches).

     On the one hand, protestants can claim that kind of unity too – are statements of faith (the thing you have to believe to join) are the same…the non-essential distinctive that divide us are more a kin to what divide dominicans and jesuits. But we don’t have a common authority structure. Well OK. RCs have a common authority structure that can supposedly settle disputes. However, no one follows it (OK, 95% don’t follow) and there is no consequence. So how has the dispute been settled? Of course, this doesn’t prove that protestants are right, but it does show that Cross’s claim doesn’t have the force he claims it does.

     It seems to me that the real challenge we face isn’t coming from theology, it is coming from affluence and modernity. Neither Protestantism nor Catholicism has found a way to thrive amid plenty…I think this is the challenge being answered by the Benedict Option. 20th century protestantism in America was the counter example, but that doesn’t seem to be holding any more. The demise of the RC church in South/Latin America the past 40yrs (a loss of 1/3 of adherents) suggests that future in developing countries is going to be Pentecostalism and Islam. What happens as these countries get richer and more open? I have a hard time seeing reformed christianity or roman catholicism making significant inroads. More like Creflo -v- the Ayatollah.

     LikeLike

431. One of the criticisms that the Reformed Confessionalists around here have is of all the freelancing that goes on in Protestant circles (see the “Trending: Counter-Cultural, TKNY” thread).

     What this discussion here shows is that freelancing is by no means a Protestant-only problem.

     If Catholics have unity (led by the all time greatest unificator — sorry Chortles — the Pope), why the need for all of these freelance ministries that no one can quite figure out if they are Catholic or not and no one can quite figure out who they are or are not accountable to?

     Makes one scratch one’s head…

     LikeLike

432. vd, c, the Synod of Jerusalem? Acts 15? Compare that to the Fourth Lateran on the Jews.

     Actually, I think I have gotten through to Bryan and the Jasons. CTC is about as active as a 68-year old man.

     But why do you care about AB?

     LikeLike

433. Cletus,

     You can do whatever you want, you are a tv character.

     But claim anything other than the Word of God as infallible, and you’ll get me and any card carrying protestant worthy of the name asking for what is and is not infallible, and all you can tell us it’s whatever your church says is.

     So yeah, I’m not cool with co-remeptrix, but whatevs if you are.

     Someone here tell TVD it’s #Justablog

     LikeLike

434. vd, t, in a free country, look what happens to Bruce Jenner. I could close comments but that would have cut you off about 2 years ago.

     I don’t know what you’re claiming about 1054. I agree that Protestantism emerged from the Western Church. You seem to be doing to Protestants what the old-bad historiography did for Protestants — turn us all into Waldensians or something.

     It was all fluid in the late middle ages, except everyone sent their money to Rome where they used it not to teach but to build, carve, and paint.

     Ireland?

     LikeLike

435. sdb,

     What was your impression of the spiritual climate on campus? Of the personal piety of the students and faculty?

     LikeLike

436. MichaelTX, you can’t start an order without the pope’s approval. Once he approves, it’s the church — under the oversight of A VERY IMPORTANT bishop.

     LikeLike

437. Seth, I wouldn’t worry about Tom. He’s a fan of #DrTerryGray, who is a fan of the OPC, who we all know, the greatest church here on God’s green earth.

     #samestuffdifferentday

     LikeLike

438. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 10, 2015 at 4:22 pm | Permalink
     vd, t, in a free country, look what happens to Bruce Jenner. I could close comments but that would have cut you off about 2 years ago.

     I don’t know what you’re claiming about 1054. I agree that Protestantism emerged from the Western Church. You seem to be doing to Protestants what the old-bad historiography did for Protestants — turn us all into Waldensians or something.

     It was all fluid in the late middle ages, except everyone sent their money to Rome where they used it not to teach but to build, carve, and paint.

     Ireland?

     Bruce Jenner? Ireland? Look a squirrel!

     This has been good, we’ve got to the truth. Take away all your anti-pope railing, and your claim to the Christian religion goes up in white smoke.

     You don’t know what I’m claiming about how your version of Christianity is so different from the Eastern Orthodox whereas the Roman rite is not?

     C’mon, now, Dr. History. You’re a clever man. More clever than most, and they understand just fine.

     LikeLike

439. Erik: Good grief. Notre Dame is not Catholic…

     As I’ve said 100 times, those in that faith, when pinned down, just fly away in a dimension known only to their happy place (MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW)

     They go there when they know they are totally defeated, it might mean otherwise they’d honestly take a look…. a real deep look…. in honesty and faith

     And then they return without thinking about it at all and continue thinking they have all the truth wrapped up in their little skulls.

     LikeLike

440. Andrew,

     How can Tom be a young padawan & bearded Spock at the same time?

     You’re confusing your sci-fi.

     LikeLike

441. Tom,

     What have the Eastern Orthodox produced except for serfs, the Balkans, decades of Communism, and Putin? Nothing much to emulate, there.

     What have Catholics produced except for Spain, Italy, France, Ireland, and the Kennedy’s?

     LikeLike

442. Tom left us another voicemail, more masculine this time, it would seem.

     Keep calling 1-800-AskOPC1, tom, these are great.

     Next caller please. 🙂

     LikeLike

443. I’ll grant you the Catholics have produced Evelyn Waugh, but not much else.

     LikeLike

444. vd, t, Luther and Calvin grew up on the Western rite. Refusing it wasn’t what got Luther in trouble.

     LikeLike

445. ec, how can Rome take credit for a convert?

     Wait. I’ll give them Bryan, the Jasons, Mermaid, and vd,c.

     Since vd, t doesn’t commune, we can keep him.

     Oh the love.

     LikeLike

446. Hart, an order is not a diocese though. This is how you are describing them. They have no apostolic succesion. The pope can rescind their ability to exist, but that does not mean what they so is at the direction of the Pope. Please tell me you understand the difference in what I am talking about. We are going round and round.

     Sdb, let me read your post again and get back with you when I can later today/night.

     LikeLike

447. Erik,

     Fair enough, let’s settle on young spock being teased and applying the beat down, and we’ll call it even Steven.

     LikeLike

448. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 10, 2015 at 4:39 pm | Permalink
     vd, t, Luther and Calvin grew up on the Western rite. Refusing it wasn’t what got Luther in trouble.

     You keep see-sawing. The fact is, Luther & Calvin chose “none of the above” and invented a new religion that had no historical antecedent except some imaginary continuity with, well I don’t know what with. You don’t say. “The early church,” whatever and whenever that means.

     The fact is, if Trent is the problem, then why does your religion look so little like the Church 500 years before Trent? No, there’s something else wrong here.

     LikeLike

449. I was quite surprised by how Catholic the place was. I mean it wasn’t like a Bible College where the professor started each class with a devotion and prayer, but almost all the UGs were going to Mass, talking about religion, etc…

     I was in the Boxing Club (Bengal Bouts), though I didn’t get to fight in the tournament. There were a bit over a 100 guys in it raising money for a mission in Bangladesh (and getting a chance to pummel their buddies in front of a few thousand people…good times!). I was surprised how many of them talked about discerning a vocation…most didn’t go onto seminary, but it really was something they at least acted like they took seriously.

     Of course there was partying and lots of alcohol on campus (Saturday morning jogs meant dodging puddles of vomit when running past dorms). The biggest protest on campus was when they banned hard liquor in dorms. In the student section of football games, there were plenty of F-bombs (it was the Davie years, so perhaps that can be excused), so it wasn’t exactly Wheaton. But it wasn’t U of AZ either (where I also spent some time).

     There was a definite Christian presence on campus, and there are a lot of serious Christian intellectuals around. I miss that part the most. I was part of a pretty significant community of guys who liked to talk and think about these things (usually over scotch and cigars). These were philosophy, history, english, theology, science, sociology, psychology and law graduate students. The pastor of the PCA church in South Bend was a Ph.D. student with Marsden whose thesis was on 19th century presbyterian history. There were also stimulating speakers who came through – Rorty, Polkinghorne, van Fraassen, Pannenberg, among others who provided great fodder for discussion.

     At the land-grant where I teach now, there are a lot of bright people around, but the caliber of the humanities isn’t any where near what it was there. While I love the guys in my church, the level of interaction just isn’t the same (Francis Schaefer and Tim Keller are thought to be deep thinkers). I miss the cross-disciplinary interaction with fellow intellectual-believers.

     LikeLike

450. sdb,

     Good stuff. Thanks.

     LikeLike

451. Tom,

     Why doesn’t the Roman Catholic Church look more like the Roman Catholic Church 500 years before Trent?

     LikeLike

452. sdb
     Posted June 10, 2015 at 4:49 pm | Permalink
     I was quite surprised by how Catholic the place was. I mean it wasn’t like a Bible College where the professor started each class with a devotion and prayer, but almost all the UGs were going to Mass, talking about religion, etc…

     I was in the Boxing Club (Bengal Bouts), though I didn’t get to fight in the tournament. There were a bit over a 100 guys in it raising money for a mission in Bangladesh (and getting a chance to pummel their buddies in front of a few thousand people…good times!). I was surprised how many of them talked about discerning a vocation…most didn’t go onto seminary, but it really was something they at least acted like they took seriously.

     Of course there was partying and lots of alcohol on campus (Saturday morning jogs meant dodging puddles of vomit when running past dorms). The biggest protest on campus was when they banned hard liquor in dorms. In the student section of football games, there were plenty of F-bombs (it was the Davie years, so perhaps that can be excused), so it wasn’t exactly Wheaton. But it wasn’t U of AZ either (where I also spent some time).

     There was a definite Christian presence on campus, and there are a lot of serious Christian intellectuals around. I miss that part the most. I was part of a pretty significant community of guys who liked to talk and think about these things (usually over scotch and cigars). These were philosophy, history, english, theology, science, sociology, psychology and law graduate students. The pastor of the PCA church in South Bend was a Ph.D. student with Marsden whose thesis was on 19th century presbyterian history. There were also stimulating speakers who came through – Rorty, Polkinghorne, van Fraassen, Pannenberg, among others who provided great fodder for discussion.

     At the land-grant where I teach now, there are a lot of bright people around, but the caliber of the humanities isn’t any where near what it was there. While I love the guys in my church, the level of interaction just isn’t the same (Francis Schaefer and Tim Keller are thought to be deep thinkers). I miss the cross-disciplinary interaction with fellow intellectual-believers.

     Clearly the Catholic Church is willing to tolerate a certain amount of theological diversity [anarchy?]. This makes sense if the Catholic Church is going to spread the word to more people than just the ones who are already in the fold. And in the intellectual milieu, iron sharpens iron.

     Still, I’d say the pope is concerned that the pendulum may have swung too far.* But like Ireland, and like the Nuns on a Bus, there’s a limit to how hard the Church can come down on dissidents before the whole thing just blows up.

     There’s no question there’s been a ton of “drift” in Catholic institutions; no less protestant ones. modernity has left orthodoxy flat-footed, asking what went wrong/ Afterall, in the 1990s they were telling us that “gay marriage” was a bogus slippery slope argument, that it would never happen. in 20 years polls show majority support. What happened???

     How to fix it? There’s the conundrum: Enforce orthodoxy so hard that Notre Dame has no more intellectual credibility than Moody Bible College, or turn over the hospital to the patients.

     [To follow the Catholic lay effort to bring ND to account, google “Sycamore Trust.”]

     ________
     *Pope Francis Makes First Major Statements on Catholic Education – See more at: http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/2722/Pope-Francis-Makes-First-Major-Statements-on-Catholic-Education.aspx#sthash.InUqkrPA.dpuf

     Calling for schools and universities committed to catechesis and evangelization, Pope Francis makes his first significant statements as Pope regarding Catholic education in Evangelii Gaudium, his apostolic exhortation released Sunday.

     With significance for the work of The Cardinal Newman Society to promote and defend faithful Catholic schools and colleges, Pope Francis identifies education as a solution to secularization:

     The process of secularization tends to re­duce the faith and the Church to the sphere of the private and personal. Furthermore, by com­pletely rejecting the transcendent, it has produced a growing deterioration of ethics, a weakening of the sense of personal and collective sin, and a steady increase in relativism.These have led to a general sense of disorientation, especially in the periods of adolescence and young adulthood which are so vulnerable to change. …We are living in an information-driven society which bombards us indiscriminately with data—all treated as being of equal importance—and which leads to remarkable superficiality in the area of moral discernment. In response, we need to provide an education which teaches crit­ical thinking and encourages the development of mature moral values.

     LikeLike

453. Erik Charter
     Posted June 10, 2015 at 5:05 pm | Permalink
     Tom,

     Why doesn’t the Roman Catholic Church look more like the Roman Catholic Church 500 years before Trent?

     The Old Life tactic: Dodge a question by asking another one. How ’bout you go first for a change? let’s see how you do when you’re not on the attack.

     LikeLike

454. TVD,

     The fact is, if Trent is the problem, then why does your religion look so little like the Church 500 years before Trent? No, there’s something else wrong here.

     Why does the church pre and post Vat2 look so different?

     And by the way, how would you know what the church looks like? Have you ever even been in one? You give us nothing to go on, so we can only assume you know nothing of what you speak, in real life, I mean. That’s all we have on you, sorry.

     Next comment please.

     LikeLike

455. Tom, this is all covered in what we have talked about before

     http://adbuckingham.com/paul-tillich-on-rabies-theologorum/

     Three comments please, you are posting wildly and flailing. Making yourself and whatever you stand for look bad, for sure.

     Next comment please.

     LikeLike

456. Tom, we may be getting somewhere with you seeing as you seem so agitated and keep posting so many comments, more today than it seems in the past.

     But really, you should not post so much. Again, you only make yourself look worse. Those of us with something to defend don’t appreciate your wildness.

     http://adbuckingham.com/grace-and-peace/

     LikeLike

457. Andrew Buckingham
     Posted June 10, 2015 at 5:11 pm | Permalink
     TVD,

     The fact is, if Trent is the problem, then why does your religion look so little like the Church 500 years before Trent? No, there’s something else wrong here.

     Why does the church pre and post Vat2 look so different?

     Not different atall. The Order of the Mass, the Eucharist, the sacraments, all the same.

     Your turn. You Old Lifers are really helpless when you’re not attacking.

     The fact is, if Trent is the problem, then why does your religion look so little like the Church 500 years before Trent? No, there’s something else wrong here.

     LikeLike

458. TVD,

     Not different atall. Have you ever been in OPC church? Didn’t think so. Our church most definately feels like the church of the last 2000 years. Once you go, you’ll know.

     That was easy.

     Your turn:

     Why do you care?

     LikeLike

459. Andrew Buckingham
     Posted June 10, 2015 at 5:21 pm | Permalink
     TVD,

     Not different atall. Have you ever been in OPC church? Didn’t think so. Our church most definately feels like the church of the last 2000 years.

     I won’t insult your intelligence to suggest you believe what you just wrote.

     Darryl, I don’t think Andrew’s doing a very good job at explaining your church. Unless you want to give this the Calvinism: A History Seal of Approval here. I’ll wait.

     LikeLike

460. Tom,

     No one cares what you say.

     Why not let others chime in? You really are obsessed with this blog and Darryl to an unhealthy degree. Everyone here sees that, why don’t you?

     LikeLike

461. Why does the church pre and post Vat2 look so different?

     Not different atall. The Order of the Mass, the Eucharist, the sacraments, all the same.

     I won’t insult your intelligence to suggest you believe what you just wrote.

     easypeasy

     next comment please

     LikeLike

462. MTX, I didn’t make up the rules. Take it up with the Vatican. 888.payobey.

     LikeLike

463. vd, t, you gotta get over American creation rhetoric. Affirming the Nicene Creed is not an invention. What did Rome teach between 325 and 1543 that Protestants didn’t affirm?

     LikeLike

464. “The Order of the Mass, the Eucharist, the sacraments, all the same.”

     What traditionalists are you looking at?

     LikeLike

465. #ratemycomments

     LikeLike

466. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 10, 2015 at 5:57 pm | Permalink
     vd, t, you gotta get over American creation rhetoric. Affirming the Nicene Creed is not an invention. What did Rome teach between 325 and 1543 that Protestants didn’t affirm?

     The Eucharist. The 7 sacraments. Are you really going to try to bluff your way through with this hand? You kill me. 😉

     LikeLike

467. Darryl,

     “What did Rome teach between 325 and 1543 that Protestants didn’t affirm?”

     This cannot be real. There were many regional and ecumenical councils in that period that were held or ratified and taught/practiced by Rome. So you’re saying all the teachings from those intervening councils are all affirmed and not actively rejected within Protestantism? Come on now.

     LikeLike

468. sdb,
     per your June 10, 2015 at 4:17 pm post asking about the “body of Christ” and modernism,
     I don’t think I have read the Cross article you are talking about. If I have it has been several years.
     If you are up to it, why don’t you shoot that post to me in my email box so we can discuss some of my thoughts on the topic. I think we could keep it at a more reasonable pace for me. I will keep it here if you wish. Let me know what you think. Email is on my blog site. http:/livingwordoflife.wordpress.com

     LikeLike

469. Cletus,

     What’s not real is that you are so chicken and can’t use your real name.

     It’s simple – the church became corrupt, Luther and others made proposals to fix, and were thrown out of the church, so they started a new church. Why is this so hard to accept? They did this to Machen as well.

     Do you think Luther would have been better off accepting excommunication and just leaving Christianity? No, of course not.

     In God’s providence, Luther ushered in a religion, protestantism, with over 800 million adherents, and countless lives are changed by the Gospel. Is it ideal that the church is split like it is? No, and we can look forward to heaven when these divisions will be finally healed.

     Come on, try using your real name, James. No one is going to hurt you.

     And tell Tom to go to church. He’s the real ponyboy around here, and deep down, he knows it.

     #samestuffdifferentday

     LikeLike

470. Michael, I’m going to chime in, and say people should not be emailing roman catholics they find at this blog

     sorry 🙂

     LikeLike

471. AB,

     “Do you think Luther would have been better off accepting excommunication and just leaving Christianity? No, of course not.”

     There were RC reformers before and after Luther that saw corruption in the church and did not leave the church. Some of them were even recognized by Rome as saints. How bout that.

     LikeLike

472. And others like Hus and Wycliffe who burned.

     Come on, your moniker is silly, and we’re talking like we’re both 17. Here, have some cartoons. I’ve nothing to lose because TVD thinks I’m an idiot. I just don’t care, but as long as you want to hear from me, I’ve got plenty more to say. Though I’m working on being more mean (fyi).

     https://twitter.com/andrewbuckingha/status/608258902468096001

     LikeLike

473. Everybody is free to their opinion, AB. Kind of hurts though. I have enjoyed our emailing and talks. I like interacting with sdb.

     LikeLike

474. Michael,

     No one need listen to me if they don’t want to.

     Come on, standard roman/genevan polemics today. Look what Rod Dreher says:

     Note well that I am not a historian, and I’m not taking sides on this issue (read: I don’t want to get dragged into Catholic vs. Protestant polemics). I offer this for the sake of understanding. If we want to get out of this place, we have to know how we got into it.”

     I don’t mean to hurt, but come on. Darryl and I have a religion to promote. We weren’t born yesterday. Again, trying to be meaner, let’s see how I do.

     Next comment please.

     LikeLike

475. Hey Andrew,
     That was a great article. I appreciate your sharing it. I might even spend some time mulling through the comments. I know you are OPC. Just would appreciate not being Jehovah Witnessed.

     LikeLike

476. Hat tip to Darryl, Michael

     https://oldlife.org/2015/05/rod-carl-v-brad-let-charity-leak/

     he showed me it. and look, another thread with 500+ comments.

     just try to play along, hte xtian religion is divided almost in half, and live with it. come on, play along and don’t be like vd’ c. Everyone here likes you, I do, DGH, does, your awesome. Just figure out how to live iwth the tension, and pray for unity. I can keep typing you know, i hvae a lot more where this all comes from, honestly..

     Behold, how good and pleasant it is
     when brothers dwell in unity!
     It is like the precious oil on the head,
     running down on the beard,
     on the beard of Aaron,
     running down on the collar of his robes!
     It is like the dew of Hermon,
     which falls on the mountains of Zion!
     For there the LORD has commanded the blessing,
     life forevermore.
     (Psalm 133 ESV)

     LikeLike

477. Cletus,

     There were RC reformers before and after Luther that saw corruption in the church and did not leave the church. Some of them were even recognized by Rome as saints. How bout that.

     Oh please. Luther “left” the church? Would this be the same Luther who was promised a debate, then ordered to recant without debate? Would this be the same Luther who they had to kidnap because the pope put a price on his head?

     LikeLike

478. AB,
     I find it interesting that he leans towards wondering if the Grest Schism is in some degree the seed of the Reformation. I interesting thinking.

     LikeLike

479. Tom,

     Solid comment at 5:08.

     LikeLike

480. Robert,

     Cletus posts under the moniker of a TV character.

     No reason to give any credence to anything he says.

     LikeLike

481. MichaelTX
     Posted June 10, 2015 at 7:27 pm | Permalink
     Hey Andrew,
     That was a great article. I appreciate your sharing it. I might even spend some time mulling through the comments. I know you are OPC. Just would appreciate not being Jehovah Witnessed.

     Well, you are. That today’s Protestantism is remotely like the Catholic Church before Trent [1563] is the most bizarre whopper yet. and poor Andrew even believes it.

     I don’t mean to hurt, but come on. Darryl and I have a religion to promote. We weren’t born yesterday.

     Shame on you, Dr. Calvinism: A History. You and Andrew have a religion to promote, but misleading the poor fellow is no way to run one.

     Dreher:

     UPDATE: A Catholic theologian reader writes:

     I think that review you quoted about the Reformation wasn’t quite fair in its summary of Brad Gregory’s argument. Having actually read Gregory, Gregory is clear and honest about that the medieval Church was corrupt, and he’s more nuanced than the reviewer allows about how to solve it. Here’s Archbishop Chaput’s review of that book, which hints at Gregory’s real argument. Excerpt:

     “Many Catholics worked for reform from within. Some had success. Franciscans, Dominicans, and Cistercians owe their origins to medieval reform. Humanists such as Erasmus and Thomas More were part of an international community of letters determined to renew Christian life from the inside. Saints such as Catherine of Siena and Bernard of Clairvaux spoke truth to ecclesiastical power.

     But one key difference separated these Catholic voices from the Protestant Reformers: The Catholics believed that the Church had her teachings right. She just needed to actually live them. The Catholics believed that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and other sacraments, in the Scriptures, in the saints, and in the Church’s historic doctrines offered an authentic, all-encompassing Christian way of life sufficient to sanctify human existence—if it was actually embraced and shorn of its abuses.

     The Protestants, preaching sola scriptura, threw much of it away.”

     LikeLike

482. Thomas,

     You are one silly, silly man.

     You never told me how your par-tay went on Sunday. Care tondivulge?

     Parties and not church. What I expect from you on Sundays. Non Christian, I mean.

     Repent and live, Thomas Van Dyke.

     #next

     LikeLike

483. Zrim:
     Mrs. DoubleYou, I don’t think you’ve shaken off all the eeeevangelicalism. But some make a distinction between common and sacred activity. Blogs are common and evangelizing is left largely to those called and ordained to do so. Why hold common folk to ordained work?>>>>>

     That’s a joke, right? Do you know what the Priest says at the end of the Mass? I accept your answer about blogs. Good point. However, the other has to be a joke.

     …and Robert, thanks for the suggestion about Luther. I am sure the resources are good. I just don’t really like Luther. No offense meant. I liked Calvin better.

     …and AB, seriously?

     LikeLike

484. AB, okay, I don’t know what you mean. You are not an idiot. Have I ever called you an idiot? I am not happy that Presbyterianism is on the ropes. Not happy at all. I hope the OPC can stay alive and even grow. It looks like you have some church planting efforts going on and other evangelistic outreaches. Good for you guys! You are small, but strong, like espresso coffee.

     I’ve been trolling the website. May you live long and prosper.

     In fact, I think I’m repeating myself, here. Don’t mean to insult your sincerely held religious beliefs, and if I have, I apologize. I am a nice Catholic lady.

     Anyway, if I hope all y’all have a lovely evening, will that be taken as an insult? I will take a risk. Have a wonderful evening. See ya’ tomorrow, maybe.

     …and D.G. Hart, you didn’t answer my question about how anyone can be justified by a dead faith.

     LikeLike

485. vd, t, Luther didn’t dispute the sacraments until after the pope excommunicated him.

     Hmm. Popes used to write bulls against theologians.

     LikeLike

486. vd, c, not now. But Luther didn’t start out denying them.

     You can’t be real to think that Protestants started out in 1517 saying, yeah, let’s start the National Association of Evangelicals.

     LikeLike

487. vd, c. Which reformers became saints? Jansenists? Jesuits?

     LikeLike

488. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 10, 2015 at 9:26 pm | Permalink
     vd, t, Luther didn’t dispute the sacraments until after the pope excommunicated him.
     

     Irrelevant. Your religion is not Christianity as it existed before Trent. That was the point. If it were, you’d look a lot like the Eastern Orthodox.

     “I don’t mean to hurt, but come on. Darryl and I have a religion to promote. We weren’t born yesterday. ”

     Explain to Andrew the religion you two are promoting. It seems like at least one of you was born yesterday.

     LikeLike

489. “I like interacting with sdb.”
     You’re making me blush…

     LikeLike

490. Mermaid, no one said on my side that dead faith saves. We say faith alone justifies. It’s the way we obtain a perfect righteousness that means we bypass purgatory and don’t have to worry on our deathbeds about non-confessed sins.

     LikeLike

491. Michael,

     I would be EO before I become Romish. That is, if Apostolic succession were an issue for me.

     Read at that link. It’s not an issue, so I stay protestant.

     Roman folk, keep learning, DGH is your man.

     Tom, I don’t know why you attack me, but it has no effect. Nothing you say comes close to what others have called me. Try harder, be meaner.

     Goodbye everyone.

     LikeLike

492. vd, t, relevant. I’m talking about what was happening in 1517.

     If you want to talk about now, you have some real explaining to do about Roman Catholicism. Why don’t popes anymore write papal bulls against theologians? It’s not the same.

     Heck, Rome even needs confused non-church going cradles like you to defend it.

     Sad.

     LikeLike

493. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 10, 2015 at 9:47 pm | Permalink
     vd, t, relevant. I’m talking about what was happening in 1517.

     If you want to talk about now, you have some real explaining to do about Roman Catholicism. Why don’t popes anymore write papal bulls against theologians? It’s not the same.

     Heck, Rome even needs confused non-church going cradles like you to defend it.

     Sad.

     1517 doesn’t explain why you’re so different from the Eastern Orthodox, who are still in the 98% range with Rome. In fact, Rome recognizes their sacraments. You got rid of most of ’em and your Eucharist isn’t even the Eucharist.

     I’ll stipulate any of the complaints about Rome’s corruption. But Luther and Calvin didn’t stop there–they invented a new religion.

     Your anti-Catholicism is irrelevant, just an excuse to rant on the Vatican. Fine, but you need to justify why you bear so little resemblance to the Eastern Orthodox. Edgardo Mortara and the Inquisition can’t help you there.

     LikeLike

494. AB,
     I read the link. I notice that there was no interaction with Titus or Timothy 1 & 2. Lots in there to consider too. Much less why everybody(non-heretical) got so “confused” so quickly after the NT time, or how all the same confused Christians where the ones who fought against all the foundational Christian heresies in the early Church. Just my observations. Peace,
     Michael

     LikeLike

495. D.G. Hart:
     Mermaid, no one said on my side that dead faith saves. We say faith alone justifies. It’s the way we obtain a perfect righteousness that means we bypass purgatory and don’t have to worry on our deathbeds about non-confessed sins.>>>>>>

     Faith without works is dead. It’s obvious, as James said, that justification cannot be by faith alone. It’s the “alone” part that’s the problem, but it’s your problem. The Catholic Church teaches justification by faith. She always has.

     In fact, Paul did not say that justification by faith alone. He said that the only thing that matters is faith working through love. See the faith working part? See the love part?

     Luther took all that out. He based it on some mystical experience he had. He had what some would call a “rhema.” If you stare at the Bible long enough, you can make it say pretty much whatever you want it to say.

     At least you gave me an answer, and I thank you for that.

     Galatians 5:66
     For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

     LikeLike

496. TVD:
     I’ll stipulate any of the complaints about Rome’s corruption. But Luther and Calvin didn’t stop there–they invented a new religion.>>>>>>

     Great point, TVD. The Reformers reinvented Christianity, adapting it to their own liking. They took away things that Christians had always believed, and added things that Christians had never believed – all the while touting the sola scriptura meme.

     Thanks.

     LikeLike

497. vd, t, why are you anti-Protestant? Why do you take this personally?

     LikeLike

498. Mermaid, right. Paul didn’t say:

     Justified by Faith

     We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. (Galatians 2:15-16 ESV)

     But I know how you use the Bible. One verse is enough to think the Yankees are God’s team — “on this rock” blah blah blah. Forget the rest of the Bible and even the Apocrypha, “we have Matt 16:20 and Gal 5:22 even though we weren’t allowed to read the Bible until 1965.

     LikeLike

499. Mrs. Webfoot,

     Please read my comment above, addressed to you, about your hogwash interpretation of Luther and the Canon. Still wondering where it came from. Protestantism for Dummies: Vatican Edition?

     The Lutheran church looked mighty similar to churches in France and Italy – at least until Trent showed them that not only did Rome disagree, they wanted Lutherans dead, or in hell. That’s when we started getting a little defensive. You understand.

     We didn’t feel the love.

     LikeLike

500. Hart,
     ” we weren’t allowed to read the Bible until 1965.”

     Really come man. Act like a historian.

     LikeLike

501. MichaelTX, okay, but with the permission of your bishop.

     Have you ever wondered why Roman Catholics produce so few biblical commentaries, or that most of those accessible to the faithful are written by ex-Prots like Scott Hahn?

     People don’t convert to Rome for Peter or Paul in Scripture. More like Thomas and Jerome and Augustine. Mary? Not so much. Just ask vd, t.

     LikeLike

502. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 11, 2015 at 2:07 pm | Permalink
     MichaelTX, okay, but with the permission of your bishop.

     Have you ever wondered why Roman Catholics produce so few biblical commentaries

     Sola scriptura is something Luther made up, that’s why. Besides, the Bible is perspicacious. Why do we need commentaries?

     You really should actually read Aquinas instead of just making stuff up about him, though. Plenty of Bible, all you can eat.

     http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2111.htm

     On the contrary, The Apostle attributes both to grace, viz. to sanctify and to be gratuitously given. For with regard to the first he says (Ephesians 1:6): “He hath graced us in His beloved son.” And with regard to the second (Romans 2:6): “And if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise grace is no more grace.” Therefore grace can be distinguished by its having one only or both.

     I answer that, As the Apostle says (Romans 13:1), “those things that are of God are well ordered [Vulgate: ‘those that are, are ordained by God].” Now the order of things consists in this, that things are led to God by other things, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv). And hence since grace is ordained to lead men to God, this takes place in a certain order, so that some are led to God by others.

     And thus there is a twofold grace: one whereby man himself is united to God, and this is called “sanctifying grace”; the other is that whereby one man cooperates with another in leading him to God, and this gift is called “gratuitous grace,” since it is bestowed on a man beyond the capability of nature, and beyond the merit of the person. But whereas it is bestowed on a man, not to justify him, but rather that he may cooperate in the justification of another, it is not called sanctifying grace. And it is of this that the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 12:7): “And the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto utility,” i.e. of others.

     &c.

     LikeLike

503. MichaelTX
     Posted June 11, 2015 at 11:11 am | Permalink
     Hart,
     ”we weren’t allowed to read the Bible until 1965.”

     Really come man. Act like a historian.

     A regular Calvinist David Barton. Hey, now. 😉

     LikeLike

504. DG,
     Peter and Paul were enough for me, but I don’t need to write a commentary to you. Read your own bible. Think harder how it was carryed through the ages by children of the Church who knew which books to copy 1000 years before this great divide you guys are seeking to keep festering. God will heal us, but it will be despite us that he does it. “Love one another as I have loved you”

     Anybody can reach me at my blog or email. It has been a fun few days, but barking back and forth does not fix this bloodied body of Christ that we keep whipping. Personal searching for truth and fellowship in peace does, but you have to be willing to have the whips turned on you. Peace to all, Michael

     LikeLike

505. vd, t, this apologetics and showmanship by quotes is just so lame.

     LikeLike

506. MichaelTX, that’s funny, the Bible says that pastors are to explain the word.

     Who should I believe?

     LikeLike

507. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 11, 2015 at 9:44 pm | Permalink
     vd, t, this apologetics and showmanship by quotes is just so lame.

     You mean quoting Thomas Aquinas directly so people can see for themselves how unfair

     People don’t convert to Rome for Peter or Paul in Scripture. More like Thomas and Jerome and Augustine.

     this was. Aquinas is steeped in the Bible. In fact, he memorized it.*

     Or do you mean the bit about you being a Calvinist David Barton. Well, I was going to use “the” instead of “a.” I cut you a break.

     MichaelTX
     Posted June 11, 2015 at 7:25 pm | Permalink
     DG,
     Peter and Paul were enough for me, but I don’t need to write a commentary to you. Read your own bible. Think harder how it was carryed through the ages by children of the Church who knew which books to copy 1000 years before this great divide you guys are seeking to keep festering.

     500 years since the divorce and they’re still bitching at the ex-wife. I don’t get it either.
     _________
     *”St. Thomas’ commentary on the Gospel of St. John is unique among his many writings on Sacred Scripture. It is the work of a master theologian, delivered at the University of Paris, then the intellectual center in Christendom, when Thomas was at the height of his fame and apostolic zeal for souls…

     One of St. Thomas’ basic theological principles is that everything Jesus Christ did and said was for our instruction and imitation. Thus the sanctity of our lives is the on-going praise and glory of the Father, through the Son, by the working of the Holy Spirit. The very being of the Father is the unqualified affirmation of love for the Son and for us, in the Son. “God is love” (1 Jn 4:8). This love elicits from us an unreserved affirmation of love for God and neighbor, by which God is glorified and resplendent in us. The whole of our happiness is this eternal “glory” in tasting and seeing that the Lord is good (see Ps 34:8). This commentary is St. Thomas’ tasting and seeing the goodness of Jesus, the Word Incarnate, embodied in the tender words of St. John, the “beloved disciple,” who leaned on the breast of the Savior at the Last Supper.”

     http://dhspriory.org/thomas/SSJohn.htm

     LikeLike

508. Darryl,

     “MichaelTX, that’s funny, the Bible says that pastors are to explain the word.”

     Why didn’t Luther and Calvin get the memo and listen and defer to their pastors then?

     LikeLike

509. Cletus,
     When your pastor wants to burn you alive, you don’t have to listen to them anymore. A little exception there, you know.

     LikeLike

510. AB,

     From 1517-1521, Luther was given plenty of opportunity to recant – Diet of Augsburg, then the meetings with Miltitz, then Liepzig, then Exsurge Domine, then Worms. Lots of pastoral teaching and admonishment over 4 years, not much listening and deference – Darryl wouldn’t approve.

     LikeLike

511. Cletus,

     Is that so?

     LikeLike

512. vd, t, if Aquinas is all that, why don’t you go to church? Why don’t all Roman Catholics read Aquinas? Why isn’t he pope?

     LikeLike

513. vd, c maybe because their pastors in Rome for four centuries were more interested in politics than teaching the Bible? Alexander VI? You want him as your pastor?

     BTW, did you know that Luther’s contract at the university was to teach the Bible only, not the Bible and tradition.

     Amazing what happens when you read the Bible and don’t pay, pray, and obey. Also amazing what happens when you give up reading the Bible to pay, pray and obey.

     LikeLike

514. vd, c, was the church listening to Luther about the abuses of selling indulgences?

     I know the ten commandments don’t require intelligence but they do recommend honesty. And I thought dishonesty was a mortal sin. But who worries about that any more? Be afraid of the environment. Be very afraid.

     LikeLike

515. Sirach 34:23

     LikeLike

516. Sorry did not realize some translations number the verses of Sirach differently. Here is the one I was referencing:

     “When one builds and another tears down, what do they gain but toil?”

     https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Sirach+34%3A23&version=RSVCE

     LikeLike

517. Darryl,

     “Amazing what happens when you read the Bible and don’t pay, pray, and obey.”

     Hmm when Michael proposed reading the bible you said “that’s funny, the Bible says that pastors are to explain the word.”

     So, to modify your question, which Darryl am I to believe?

     “vd, c, was the church listening to Luther about the abuses of selling indulgences?”

     And were those abuses eventually corrected? Odd that patience, longsuffering, and “embrace the suck” are sentiments endorsed and commended to others by you, except when they’re not. That’s one of the differences between RC reformers and Luther.

     “Be afraid of the environment. Be very afraid.”

     Stewardship of the earth and prudence are biblical teachings.

     LikeLike

518. Cletus,

     Why would it be an abuse for the Pope to ask for money in exchange for indulgences? Doesn’t he hold the keys? Doesn’t key holding come with worldly expenses?

     LikeLike

519. Clete,

     Ideally the suck isn’t coming from your church. Hopefully that’s a refuge from the suck.

     LikeLike

520. Pope Francis is Catholic?!?!? I thought he was a Jesuit!

     Ding ding. Chicken dinner.

     LikeLike

521. Erik,

     Almsgiving can be an act of charity of course – “A partial indulgence is granted to that individual among the faithful who, led by a spirit of faith, mercifully expends himself or his goods in the service of needy brethren.” The problem arises when an indulgence is offered without regard to the interior disposition or repentance/contrition or motivation of the individual (e.g. just pay and you’re golden, or just live a licentious life but donate a lot in your will and you’re fine) and/or indulgences are held hostage so that the only way they may be obtained is through almsgiving.

     Ideally yes the suck is not coming from one’s church. But history is not so ideal. And if any suck justifies leaving to create one’s own church, well hello Donatism and hello endless splintering and goodbye to any notion of persevering and virtuous obedience to pastors except in name only.

     LikeLike

522. Clete,

     Thanks.

     LikeLike

523. D.G. Hart:
     BTW, did you know that Luther’s contract at the university was to teach the Bible only, not the Bible and tradition.>>>>

     Actually, as the quote I provide below shows, the Bible alone formed the basis of theological study for all students in the Middle Ages. Luther must have been hired to do just that, and it was not an unusual request.

     What happened with Luther, IMO, was that he started to get private interpretations of Scripture that allowed him to feel free to add words to the text itself and to try to remove whole books from the canon of the New Testament. James was not the only book he disagreed with. Hebrews, especially chapter 11, would not tend to support his unique version of justification by faith.

     His private interpretations were based on mystical experiences where he received what we might call in our day “rhemas.”

     I’m not crazy about the guy myself, but there are others who feel a need to defend him. He had to back down on the removal of books from the canon of the NT, but the fact that he tried tells me something about the man. Those who love the Word of God should take notice.

     If you would like to read an excellent commentary on the Gospel of John, you might try that of St. Thomas Aquinas. You can read it free online or get it for your Kindle. His discussion of the meaning of the word “with” in John 1:1 is thorough to say the least.

     ————————————————————-

     First of all, this work is a biblical commentary by a master in a medieval university. In the Middle Ages, the Bible and the Bible alone was the official basis for the teaching of theology by fully qualified masters in the major universities of Europe. In fact, one could say with some justification that the ultimate goal of all medieval education was an understanding of the Bible for those who pursued the full course in the Faculty of Theology. Such an understanding was the nature of sacred theology (fides quaerens intellectum, “faith seeking understanding”). It was the source of all preaching of the Word of God, and it was the inexhaustible font of living water for the spiritual life. In order to reach such a lofty goal, much preparation was required. First, tools had to be acquired as a means of such study. This was the role of a good liberal arts education and the acquisition of philosophy, “the handmaid of theology.” The study of the liberal arts and the acquisition of philosophy were functions of the Arts Faculty in the university or studium. Approximately eight years were devoted by medieval students to acquiring these tools—roughly equivalent to our four years of high school and four years of college. After the full course had been completed in “the humanities,” the young man, generally in his mid-twenties, would begin his study of the Sacred Text, having already heard many sermons in Church and having received much instruction at home. His study of the Sacred Text began with listening and reading.

     http://dhspriory.org/thomas/SSJohn.htm

     COMMENTARY ON
     THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN

     St. Thomas Aquinas
     Part I: Chapters 1-7
     translated by
     James A. Weisheipl, O.P.
     Magi Books, Inc., Albany, N.Y.

     LikeLike

524. vd, c, RC reformers.

     As if.

     Michael didn’t account for other things the Bible says. Like I say, amazing when you read it. You should try.

     LikeLike

525. vd, c, and if you stay, hello Ireland and Richard McBrien.

     Do you really think U.S. Roman Catholics are unified? Oh, that’s right, Jesus said he’d build his church on Peter.

     All better.

     LikeLike

526. Mermaid, so how did Aristotle get in there?

     LikeLike

527. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 12, 2015 at 10:41 pm | Permalink
     vd, c, and if you stay, hello Ireland and Richard McBrien.

     Do you really think U.S. Roman Catholics are unified? Oh, that’s right, Jesus said he’d build his church on Peter.

     All better.

     Actually, it was the Petrine regime that got the Christian religion through dozens of heresies, You built your church on Luther, Calvin, and Machen and you’re 1% as big as the Mormons. How’s that workin’ forya?

     Cletus actually answered quite well, previously. Whereas the Petrine regime got the Church through the challenges of dozens of heresies–Gnosticism, Donatism, Arianism–the Reformation regime has only multiplied them.

     D. G. Hart
     Posted June 12, 2015 at 10:43 pm | Permalink
     Mermaid, so how did Aristotle get in there?

     Critical thinking, Butch. God is logos. God makes sense. It’s a good starting point.

     Have you read Aquinas’s commentary on the Gospel of John? Did you know it exists? You were complaining about Catholicism not writing Biblical commentaries and all.

     Do you want to wrestle with Thomas? I’d like to see that. I’d pay to see that, Dr. Hart. Far less easy pickins than tomato cans like Sarah Palin or David Barton.

     Have at it.

     http://dhspriory.org/thomas/SSJohn.htm

     LikeLike

528. D.G. Hart:
     Mermaid, so how did Aristotle get in there?>>>>

     I don’t blame you for wanting to ignore Luther’s little problem with Scripture. Someone had to tell him to leave Scripture alone. You are the one who used him as an example of what happens when people start reading Scripture.

     In Luther’s case, he thought that he got to be the one to decide what Scripture passed muster. Anyone who had a problem with that could take it up with Dr. Martin Luther. Do you still want to use him as an example of what happens when people start reading Scripture for themselves?

     All truth is God’s truth, and man’s reason is worth considerably more than that of a turnip. A denial of human reason is a denial of the imago dei. Aristotle helps to understand the relationship between faith and reason. Thomas was able to use that as a way to develop his 5 ways of proving the existence of God. Of course Thomas’ foundational truths were the Divinity of the Trinity and the Incarnation, neither of which can be proven by human reason alone. Those are revealed truth.

     God’s truth clearly shown in nature can be seen even by a pagan philosopher, showing that human reason, though limited, can indeed arrive at conclusions about the physical world and even about the metaphysical.

     Romans 1.

     But in Thomas’ commentary on the Gospel of John, esp. the explanation of the word “with”, he relied on Chrysostom, Bede, Hilary, and other fathers of the Church.

     Now, you tell me what Plato is doing in Augustine? Turn about is fair play, after all.

     Take care, D.G. Hart

     LikeLike

529. Darryl,

     “vd, c, RC reformers.
     As if.”

     Hmm you keep repeating this – must I list out examples of RC reformers? I thought this was common knowledge stuff. For starters, you have Gregory the Great, Peter Damian, Francis and Clare of Assisi, Catherine and Bernadine of Siena, Catherine of Genoa, Teresa of Avila, Ignatius of Loyola, Philip Neri, Charles Borromeo, Carafa, Pole, Pius V, Vincent de Paul. I mean, there was this thing called “The Catholic Reformation”. Or do you mean RC “reformers” who reject RC doctrine and submission to ecclesiastical authority a la Protestant reformers and so actually … aren’t RC? Well, yeah – that’s kind of by definition.

     Fr Benedict Groeschel – “The Church, made up as she is of people, is constantly in need of renewal and reform. Any living thing be it a plant, a human body or a social organism needs constantly to be renewed, or it will become moribund. Spiritual renewal, when it occurs in human life and is done under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, often is also a reform, that is, a return to basic principles, a refocusing on basic goals.”
     Shades of semper reformanda – but of course completely the opposite from the Protestant notion in which “basic principles” remain perpetually up-for-grabs.

     “Like I say, amazing when you read it. You should try.”

     But I thought only pastors are to explain it per your statement? I’m not a pastor. But I do like the implication that anyone who remains/becomes RC after reading it must be stupid or willfully suppressing the truth.

     “vd, c, and if you stay, hello Ireland and Richard McBrien.”

     what if I stay and hello Africa/Asia and Cardinal Burke and Cardinal George (RIP) and Christendom College/Franciscan Uni/Mt St Marys/etc.and Relevant Radio and EWTN and so on. I can broaden my horizons, hope springs eternal you may eventually do the same.

     LikeLike

530. Clete,

     But why does a church made up of such special people (i.e. popes & bishops) need reformed?

     And why are all these non-popes & non-bishops leading the reform?

     Could history add Gary Wills & Michael Sean Winters to your list?

     LikeLike

531. Notice the number of women reformers mentioned in the list.

     I might add Pope St. John Paul II.

     LikeLike

532. vd, t, have you read the New Jerome Commentary?

     And if you’ve read Thomas on John, why don’t you fear for your soul and go to church?

     BTW, Thomas was not pope, just a guy.

     LikeLike

533. Mermaid, I’ll take Luther on Paul any day over you on Christ’s righteousness.

     You still haven’t answered the question about mortal sin and whether you know you are free from it. Unless you’ve struggled with sin the way Luther did, you really shouldn’t mock him. And if you think righteousness is easy — which was the old Roman Catholic complaint about Luther — then you’re not much of a traditional Roman Catholic. You should be in church today, confessing all your sins from this morning.

     LikeLike

534. vd, c, What exactly did they reform? Do you consider Vatican 2 a reform?

     My point was that pastors ARE to explain and preach the word in contrast to bishops who feel constrained to do everything but explain the word.

     Cardinal Burke? Yes, he is where the hierarchy is.

     Why is it so hard for Roman Catholics to admit the church has problems?

     LikeLike

535. Mermaid, why not add Laura Ingraham?

     LikeLike

536. DG,
     I’ll admit there are problems in the Church. Don’t know why others wouldn’t. We are part of the Church militant not the Church triumphant. Sin and desention will be found outside and inside the Church militant until the final judgement. we are born in Christ for spiritual war. If that is the case then there is an enemy. Every one should enjoy some Ephesians reading now. Hope that helps, Hart.

     LikeLike

537. MichaelTX, it does. Thanks.

     But I am curious about which parts trouble you. Or would you prefer an older era of the church?

     The reason this matters is not so that you confess to your Protestant blogger. It matters because I’m trying to figure out how Protestants from some kind of conservative background convert to 21st century Roman Catholicism. I respect the era of Pius IX and even Gregory VII. I can also understand some of the appeal of John Paul II. But from my perspective as someone who has studied Protestant modernism, what has happened to Roman Catholicism since Vatican II rivals what happened to American Protestantism around the founding of the Federal Council of Churches (1908). It’s one thing to tolerate goody evangelicalism. It’s another to tolerate worship of Mary (my opinion) and Richard McBrien and Cardinal Martini. With Rome you get goofy and more goofy.

     So when Bryan and the Jasons issue the call, I’m not seeing what they see. And church militant doesn’t go near the problem. More like church indifferent.

     LikeLike

538. Hart, for me that confessing is not for you it is for me because I do believe there needs to be more honesty and clarity about the difficulties being faced in the Catholic Church post-VII. I do not blaim VII for it though. I do blaim a high jacking of VII for it and feel it is not called out well. If you study Ratzinger on the off herminutic of discontinuity or rupture vs a herminutic of continuity anyone can understand what has happened, but that is for an individual to come to terms with. No one can do that for anyone else. One herminutic is historically Catholic, the other is not. It is not something I would be able to convince you of. It would be something you would have to discern yourself. There is war in the Church and I will not denign it. We could use more warriors? Sorry you get so much flack from C2C guys. I believe their heart is in the right place. I also believe the same of you. It gets sloppy on the battlefield. I wish I could spend more time interacting, but I am a family man and am remodeling. It gets fast and furious on your blog sometimes for me and some of the things that get jabbs back and forth people can find answers for themselves if they wanted answers in stead of boxing points. I really like helping people understand. Hope some of that helps, Hart.

     LikeLike

539. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 13, 2015 at 12:07 pm | Permalink
     vd, t, have you read the New Jerome Commentary?

     And if you’ve read Thomas on John, why don’t you fear for your soul and go to church?

     BTW, Thomas was not pope, just a guy.

     You were complaining about Catholics not doing Bible commentaries, Dr. Calvinism: A History. I thought you should start to correct your miseducation in Catholicism with the best, and stop trolling the dregs of the American Catholic left and doing a Loraine Bottner imitation.

     LikeLike

540. Mrs. Webfoot
     Posted June 12, 2015 at 11:09 pm | Permalink
     D.G. Hart:
     Mermaid, so how did Aristotle get in there?>>>>

     I don’t blame you for wanting to ignore Luther’s little problem with Scripture. Someone had to tell him to leave Scripture alone. You are the one who used him as an example of what happens when people start reading Scripture.

     In Luther’s case, he thought that he got to be the one to decide what Scripture passed muster. Anyone who had a problem with that could take it up with Dr. Martin Luther. Do you still want to use him as an example of what happens when people start reading Scripture for themselves?

     All truth is God’s truth, and man’s reason is worth considerably more than that of a turnip. A denial of human reason is a denial of the imago dei. Aristotle helps to understand the relationship between faith and reason. Thomas was able to use that as a way to develop his 5 ways of proving the existence of God. Of course Thomas’ foundational truths were the Divinity of the Trinity and the Incarnation, neither of which can be proven by human reason alone. Those are revealed truth.

     God’s truth clearly shown in nature can be seen even by a pagan philosopher, showing that human reason, though limited, can indeed arrive at conclusions about the physical world and even about the metaphysical.

     Romans 1.

     But in Thomas’ commentary on the Gospel of John, esp. the explanation of the word “with”, he relied on Chrysostom, Bede, Hilary, and other fathers of the Church.

     Now, you tell me what Plato is doing in Augustine? Turn about is fair play, after all.

     Heh. Don’t mess with the Catholic ladies, butch.

     LikeLike

541. MichaelTX, I appreciate the candor. I too think the problem is deeper than Vat II. It is episcopacy in my estimate. It’s an awful for of government. Not working well for Anglicans. Even worse for Romans when you invest so heavily in one bishop. And it is your warrior point that supports mine, I think. You don’t have bishops, except for maybe Cordileone in San Fran and Burke on the isle of Malta, who are warriors. And the way I read Roman church polity, warriors at lower levels are insubordinate (or become Protestant).

     LikeLike

542. Hart, I can easily agree with that point regarding the Anglican Church. As a Catholic I not only know the Holy Spirit will not infallibly protect it in its episcopal order. In the Catholic Church I cod not disagree with you more. I can only say time will prove my position right as our world becomes more hostile to the truths presented by the Church. Those in the the Church will also find union with the Church more alienating as well. I really wish I could get to you the conference I am listening to about Vatican II by Benedict Nguyen M.T.S. I listened to it four years ago and am listening to it again because of our interaction earlier. I can’t find it online any more. It is three hour or so talks about understanding VII. Maybe I can try and upload it to my blog.

     LikeLike

543. Michael – Sorry you get so much flack from C2C guys.

     Erik – This is the most genuine guy on the Catholic side here since Cletus (on his better days).

     LikeLike

544. This is the kind of dialogue I’ve been looking for.

     LikeLike

545. Erik,
     If you guys can be pacient with me and let us carry a subject for a while without going all over the place, I can do this. But please be pacient with me. Family guy over here. Got to to time into the family more that this. I’m a husband and father first.

     LikeLike

546. Here is a article set discussing VII understanding. I haven’t read it yet. But will one piece is from the guy I am listening too right now. https://www.avemaria.edu/Portals/0/Images/IPT/Xaipe/Fall%202011%20Xaipe%20Final.pdf

     LikeLike

547. Michael,

     For guys like you, hopefully everyone will be respectful and give you time to make your case.

     LikeLike

548. I might be able to check in later tonight. If not I will try to check back in as soon as I reasonably can.

     LikeLike

549. MichaelTX, “my position right as our world becomes more hostile to the truths presented by the Church.”

     So why does the world now love the pope?

     LikeLike

550. MIchael, if there’s so much consensus on Vat II, why the disharmony? Why the branching off into opposing camps? Why do we have Kasper and Burke and who has the spirit of Vat II? I grew up in this. There’s no way to sell someone like me on Ratzinger’s pollyanna wand waving that makes it all clear. It’s not like this is some 50/50 split. The article wants to sell as ‘genius’ the open-ended and flexible nature of pastoral application. That isn’t a help to your cause, it’s a capitulation to modernity and modernity isn’t coming your way.

     LikeLike

551. Michael, the article also sells the idea of a three pronged principled advance. There’s only one two headed principle of advance in rome and that’s the principle of money and vocations. Whoever brings more of those to the table has the spirit of the church.

     LikeLike

552. Hart,
     I do think at some point the media honeymoon will be over with Pope Francis and reality will set in… “Oh no! He is Catholic after all!” Just my opinion though.

     Sean, Like I told Hart earlier, ” If you study Ratzinger on the herminutic of discontinuity or rupture vs a herminutic of continuity anyone can understand what has happened, but that is for an individual to come to terms with. No one can do that for anyone else. One herminutic is historically Catholic, the other is not. It is not something I would be able to convince you of. It would be something you would have to discern yourself. There is war in the Church and I will not deny it.”

     Sean, let me see if I can get the conference I am listening to on my blog to download and we can talk more.

     The blogging gets really hard for me when everybody comes in. Me and Hart are talking. Please let us. Do some watching patiently for a little bit and see where we can go.

     LikeLike

553. Sean,

     You wait in the hall quietly. I’ll usher and will tell you when it’s o.k. to enter the seminar room.

     Bring some Power Bars and maybe a toothbrush.

     LikeLike

554. Michael, I understand what has happened. I’m familiar with Ratzinger’s hermenuetic of continuity, in all it’s glorious non-detail. Thus, the wand waving remark. But, I won’t distract.

     Spit boy, bring me a bucket and don’t move.

     LikeLike

555. MWF: “Luther took all that out. He based it on some mystical experience he had. He had what some would call a “rhema.” If you stare at the Bible long enough, you can make it say pretty much whatever you want it to say.”

     That is so wrong that I wouldn’t know how to even begin to start a combox refutation. It is just flat ahistorical. I’m used to hearing some of my Baptist brethren interpret Luther this way, saying he had a conversion experience in the outhouse, but unfortunately he wasn’t able to go far enough and junk the real presence. Seríous biographers of Luther for at least the last 50 years have shown repeatedly that Luther’s Table Talk remarks should be taken with a whole truckload of salt.

     I (all about) am not a Lutheran, nor do I consider myself Reformed in any confessional sense. Nor am I a Luther fan boy. I first learned to take him seriously from a college professor (Richard Marius) who had written a reasonably well received biography of him. His informally expressed opinion was that the world would have been a much better place if Luther had died around 1523. Luther had lots of warts.

     So, this plea is just to show a little more respect for the historical record. I mentioned in another thread that Allistair McGrath’s “Luther’s Theology of the Cross” is an excellent treatment of the origins of Luther’s greatest theological innovation, which were clearly rooted in the via moderna school taught in a number of the great Universities of the day. Was Luther innovative? Sure. Would it have been unrecognizable to his contemporaries? Not at all. Far from being what you call a rhema, he laid out his most significant breakthrough in what would be the equivalent of an academic conference in today’s world, held at a perfectly Orthodox site.

     LikeLike

556. Dan,

     So you’re saying if the Catholic apologists tell us that Luther was Joseph Smith with a worse haircut & fewer wives we should be skeptical.

     LikeLike

557. (A different) Dan
     Posted June 13, 2015 at 7:34 pm | Permalink
     MWF: “Luther took all that out. He based it on some mystical experience he had. He had what some would call a “rhema.”

     As a point of order only–If you want to keep the entire conversation going and not just pick off the cripples–and by this I mean taking a single statement outside its context of her conversation with Darryl: MWF seems to be referring to Luther’s rejection of Scholasticism–Aquinas’s Christian synthesis of Aristotelianism–and Luther did indeed his claim this rejection was based on a religious experience.

     [I found some references to that. Not an expert or even very interested in Luther the person; perhaps it’s not even true. But I take it that’s what’s she’s referring to, a specific attack on a Luther’s anti-Scholastic theologizing, not merely a hand grenade tossed into his outhouse.]

     [It is an error to take this Catholic lady lightly.]

     Her main point, in response to Dr. Hart, was in defense of Thomism [Scholasticism] and how Luther rejected it. As it it turned out, Luther’s successor Philipp Melanchthon was quite the Scholastic, as were several post-Calvin Calvinists such as Peter Martyr, and even Calvin’s immediate successor Theodore Beza!

     I think she quite refuted Dr. Hart’s to Aristotelianism ‘creeping’ into Christianity. This is elegant

     All truth is God’s truth, and man’s reason is worth considerably more than that of a turnip. A denial of human reason is a denial of the imago dei.

     and foundational. And her rejoinder

     Now, you tell me what Plato is doing in Augustine? Turn about is fair play, after all. Take care, D.G. Hart…

     is like, yo.

     Calvinist Tough Guy KOed by Catholic “Mermaid”

     LikeLike

558. The famous car chase scene in “Bullitt” is on TCM right now if you tune in.

     Joan Crawford’s last movie, “Trog” is on at 2:30 a.m. (central time).

     LikeLike

559. TVd, I don’t read the context of MWF’s historical howler in the same way you do. ‘Nuff said. Also please note that the McGrath work I cited only covers Luther’s theological development up until 1518. For the roots of JBFA, that is enough.

     Just so we are clear, I have no interest in re-litigating the Reformation. My own view is pretty simple– if Luther threatened the Popes money supply at a time when the doctrines of the Church were in more flux than is usually recognized except by history nerds, and the combination was combustible.

     I do find it interesting that I interact with lots of devout cradle Carholics on a regular basis, particularly now that I can spend more time on civic affairs in my retirement, and none of them have ever tried to convert me, though we freely discuss our religion and our churches. But I’m just a dumb Baptist.

     But enough about me. If you read the McGrath book, make sure and get the 2011 edition.

     LikeLike

560. Erik, right now Victor Buono is playing the piano while Bette Davis sings “I’ve Written a Letter to Daddy”

     LikeLike

561. Kent,

     LikeLike

562. Dan,

     They need to get that back in print. Pricey.

     http://www.amazon.com/Luthers-Theology-Cross-Theological-Breakthrough/dp/0470655305/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

     LikeLike

563. Thanks E, a great mix of comic and horror at the same time

     LikeLike

564. (A different) Dan
     Posted June 13, 2015 at 9:29 pm | Permalink
     TVd, I don’t read the context of MWF’s historical howler in the same way you do. ‘Nuff said. Also please note that the McGrath work I cited only covers Luther’s theological development up until 1518. For the roots of JBFA, that is enough.

     Just so we are clear, I have no interest in re-litigating the Reformation. My own view is pretty simple– if Luther threatened the Popes money supply at a time when the doctrines of the Church were in more flux than is usually recognized except by history nerds, and the combination was combustible.

     I do find it interesting that I interact with lots of devout cradle Carholics on a regular basis, particularly now that I can spend more time on civic affairs in my retirement, and none of them have ever tried to convert me, though we freely discuss our religion and our churches. But I’m just a dumb Baptist.

     But enough about me. If you read the McGrath book, make sure and get the 2011 edition.

     Thx, Dan. I’ll confess such a sympathy for Scholasticism and natural theology that I’m going to have to hear something compelling from its critics [Luther, Barth, Van Til?] to even begin to investigate their objections. Indeed, that Luther and Calvin’s own successors were Thomists indicates that even they didn’t take anti-Scholasticism seriously.

     MWF:

     All truth is God’s truth, and man’s reason is worth considerably more than that of a turnip. A denial of human reason is a denial of the imago dei.

     rocks my world. It rocked the world. In reconciling revelation with reason and natural theology, Thomas did nothing different than what Paul did in Romans 1 and on Mars Hill. First God, then all else follows: Quid sit deus? If there were “God,” what would it be?

     “You have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless, until they can find rest in you.”

     Our minds are restless, too; that’s what’s going on at this here “theological society.” 😉

     But to return to topic, Dan, I don’t think MWF was unfair. Now, if she was inaccurate, that Luther did not replace Scholasticism with his “Theology of the Cross,” or did not claim he did it as the result of some religious experience/revelation, then say so.

     Remember I claimed only a “Point of Order.” I yield the floor back to you. Personally, I think her imago dei argument is trump.

     LikeLike

565. Erik, interlibrary loan is your friend.

     LikeLike

566. TVD, I really have in interest in repeating what I wrote initially. The supposed mystical experience is a myth. While I did not address the issue of Luther’s hostility to scholasticism in my earlier remarks, the via moderna as a whole was opposed to the then extant versions of scholasticism. The via moderna predated Luther and was taught at many of the great Universities, sometimes by itself, sometimes as an alternative to Thomism. One gets the impression that the cool kids took the via moderna courses. Luther was hardly alone in this hostility, though the later Luther certainly came up with creative and memorable ways to express it.

     LikeLike

567. different Dan, where did you take classes with Marius. I took a course on Luther from him at Harvard. The same semester I read Christianity and Liberalism for the first time. What a time.

     LikeLike

568. (A different) Dan
     Posted June 13, 2015 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

     Just so we are clear, I have no interest in re-litigating the Reformation. My own view is pretty simple– if Luther threatened the Popes money supply at a time when the doctrines of the Church were in more flux than is usually recognized except by history nerds, and the combination was combustible.

     I have no problem with this human explanation of the combustion. Churches are full of men; not only is perfection impossible, but avarice is to be expected. In fact, in the most dynamic front of Christianity–evangelicalism–avarice is more the rule than the exception.

     There’s some serious Adam Smith free enterprise stuff going on here. 😉

     I do find it interesting that I interact with lots of devout cradle Carholics on a regular basis, particularly now that I can spend more time on civic affairs in my retirement, and none of them have ever tried to convert me, though we freely discuss our religion and our churches. But I’m just a dumb Baptist.

     I’ve done some reading on this. America wasn’t founded so much as a Christian Nation than as a Protestant one. Catholicism started out here as little better than Jews or Muslims [even “Catholic” Maryland soon got taken over by Virginia Protestants]; there were Bible wars [KJV or Jerome] in the 1800s; our “separation of church and state” court decisions in the 20th century were born of anti-Catholicism!

     http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/06/the-mythical-wall-of-separation-how-a-misused-metaphor-changed-church-state-law-policy-and-discourse

     Interesting stuff. Anyway, to your point, culturally, as theologico-political suspects [JFK, is your loyalty to America or the Vatican!!??] Catholics in America never really evangelized. You have to ask.

     What I also find interesting is most evangelization in America basically turns out to be cannibalistic, even Billy Graham. Not so many souls being brought to Christ as much as being brought out to the ballbark instead of staying home and reading the boxscores every morning.

     I digress, but you open some damn tasty cans of worms. 😉

     [Give MWF a full hearing. It only seems that she’s a polemicist. She’s got some serious apologist chops. I’m like, whoa…]

     LikeLike

569. different Dan, don’t worry about vd, t trying to convert you. This is a game (show).

     LikeLike

570. Via Moderna:

     Philosophy of language, metaphysics, philosophy of science [Latin, the modern way] A term for the nominalist movement that arose in the fourteenth century, influenced by the writings of William of Ockham. It was opposed to the via antiqua (the old way), that is, the realist schools that were dominant in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, including Thomism, Scotism , and Augustinianism. The movement emphasized logic and direct experience and rejected empty speculation and abstraction. Ockham’s razor , the principle that plurality is never to be posited without need, was the basic spirit of the movement. The advocates of the via moderna believed in the principle of the uniformity of nature and engaged actively in scientific research. The via moderna exerted a great impact on the later development of modern physics. “Ockham’s teachings had, rather, a stimulating effect. They awakened many somewhat independent thinkers who were united at least against the realism of the older scholastics. These ‘nominales’ (in the medieval sense) constituted the via moderna, which was not so much a school as a trend of thought.” Boehner (ed.), Ockham: Philosophic Writing

     LikeLike

571. DGH, had Richard Marius at the University of Tennessee. Died too young.

     Also learned my Voegelin there from a prof that studied him when he was at LSU (though he wasn’t his dissertation advisor), so I’m immune from conversion.

     LikeLike

572. Erik , your source is incorrect in that Scotus was perhaps the fountainhead of the via modera. Brad Gregory seems to say that as well as the McGrath book I mentioned.

     LikeLike

573. (A different) Dan
     Posted June 13, 2015 at 10:10 pm | Permalink
     TVD, I really have in interest in repeating what I wrote initially. The supposed mystical experience is a myth. While I did not address the issue of Luther’s hostility to scholasticism in my earlier remarks, the via moderna as a whole was opposed to the then extant versions of scholasticism. The via moderna predated Luther and was taught at many of the great Universities, sometimes by itself, sometimes as an alternative to Thomism. One gets the impression that the cool kids took the via moderna courses. Luther was hardly alone in this hostility, though the later Luther certainly came up with creative and memorable ways to express it.

     Luther’s hostility to Scholasticism is key here, even if MWF mistakenly attributed it to Luther making a religious experience claim in replacing Scholasticism with “Theology of the Cross.” But I have no problem with setting the historical record straight, Dan. I hate Al Gore, but the “earth tones” thing was a bum rap.

     But neither does everything MWF wrote rise or fall on that iffy factoid. Disregard it; move on. My “Point of Order.”

     I think Luther might well be appalled at what he started, and most all of the early Reformers as well. [In fact, I think Beza and Melanchthon tried to get the beast back in the bag, but it was too late.] As much as I give Darryl the business about his Camden Riversharks, I suspect it’s the only denomination John Calvin would want to have anything to do with. As for Luther, there are only 70 million Lutherans in the whole world, and that’s quite a mixed bag too.

     http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

     LikeLike

574. Dan,

     It was Blackwell Online.

     What was your degree in? What did you do before retirement?

     I’m picturing you as some form of Southern Agrarian a la Donald Davidson or John Crowe Ransom.

     Kind of a Chortles with better breeding.

     LikeLike

575. Marius sounds fascinating. Wikipedia says he was an avid wearer of bowties. Southern novelist & historian of the Reformation. I would like to hear more about him.

     LikeLike

576. Ok Hart, wordpress won’t let me upload mp3s so I trying to do it with google drive. I’m starting to read the peice by Benedict Nguyen in the link I dropped earlier. Hope you get a chance to read it so we can discuss it. Here is the link again to keep you from having to jump to the previous page. https://www.avemaria.edu/Portals/0/Images/IPT/Xaipe/Fall%202011%20Xaipe%20Final.pdf

     LikeLike

577. </Marius sounds fascinating. Wikipedia says he was an avid wearer of bowties. Southern novelist & historian of the Reformation. I would like to hear more about him.

     There’s no movies about Marius, so, you know that means you’ll actually have to read. It’s okay Erik, those things made of paper and binding are full of cool stuff, even if there isn’t a combox.

     /dig

     LikeLike

578. Hart, not a bad article, but he does not go into the depth of what we were talking about. He does in his talk. I will work on it.

     LikeLike

579. Ok if somebody would check and see if this gets you to my google drive files, that would be great. Should be three files called understandingvaticanii. Thanks

     https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4M1

     LikeLike

580. “At last meditating day and night, by the mercy of God, I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that through which the righteous live by a gift of God, namely by faith. Here I felt as if I were entirely born again and had entered paradise itself through the gates that had been flung open.”

     Another Dan, would you call the above a mystical experience?

     Then, in your studies, did you ever read that Luther, based on his convictions born out of his deep meditation on the Bible and subsequen, what shall we call it? I think that mystical experiences covers it, but you may have a better word. Wanted to exclude certain books from the canon of the NT?
     Did he push James, Hebrews, the Epistles of John and Revelation to the back of his Bible along with the Deuterocanonical books?

     Does any of that sound familiar to you?

     If all that is true, then my argument to D.G. Hart is more than valid. He suggested that Luther is a good example of someone who reads the Bible on his own, or words to that effect. I say otherwise.

     Please weigh in if you don’t mind.

     Then there is the matter of Luther’s wanting to get rid of Aquinas’ books.

     I’m actually a duck, not a Mermaid. Well, I am really just a nice Catholic lady.

     Kind regards

     LikeLike

581. Darryl,

     “vd, c, What exactly did they reform?”

     Many things – spirituality, clerical abuses/apathy, catechesis, religious orders, etc. – these are well-known figures and any simple googling will give you more details. Did they overhaul doctrines? No, but that was the point of the Groeschel quote – to reduce any definition of “reform” to only “what Protestant reformers did” is to rig the game before we even play; doing so makes the “Catholic/Counter Reformation” a nonsensical term but of course it isn’t.

     “Do you consider Vatican 2 a reform?”

     Yes – see the emphasis on the vocation/role of the laity as just one example. Just as I consider Trent a reform.

     “My point was that pastors ARE to explain and preach the word in contrast to bishops who feel constrained to do everything but explain the word.”

     Calvin and Luther had pastors who explained and preached the word. No obedience or submission or deference was forthcoming.

     “Why is it so hard for Roman Catholics to admit the church has problems?”

     The church has problems – who would argue otherwise given its history? Nothing new under the sun or special about this generation. Easy peasy.

     LikeLike

582. Mermaid, I’m still wondering if you know about mortal sins in your life, whether you know you can avoid them, and why you are so confident that you can spend so much time at a blog instead of going to confession.

     That was Luther’s problem. Rome couldn’t answer.

     Is your remedy Mary?

     LikeLike

583. vd, c, but not so many problems as to give anyone pause. Easy peasy.

     I mean, if bishops can err about pedophilia priests, why can’t they also err about Scripture or dogma? Or if Francis is mistaken about climate change, what about appearances of Mary?

     What I don’t see in the converts is any worry about a church that has all the earmarks of a liberal Christian church. Where is worry about sin and false teaching? It was there in spades in the days of Inquisition and Index of Books and pay, pray, obey. I don’t mean that as a cheap shot necessarily. Just an indication that the church was one time serious about sin and salvation.

     Now? And now Protestants convert to Rome thinking they have found THE truth? Hard to imagine.

     And a general wave of the hand of problems and reforms, just the way it is on planet earth hardly justifies the breast-beating that is so common among the converts-turned-apologists.

     BTW, how far did the reforms go? You’ve seen the poll numbers. You’ve seen what happened in Ireland. You’ve seen how numbers of priests and religious are declining. Where’s your reform now? You’re not worried that perhaps the reforms were a bit ephemeral? You don’t fear that Vatican II let a genie out of a bottle that gave you a lot worse than the Polka Mass?

     LikeLike

584. I was talking about teaching the Bible not deference to pastors.

     But if you want to go there, do Roman Catholics defer? Is that your model?

     LikeLike

585. Jed,

     Surely someone’s translated Marius into interpretive dance?

     Audiobook?

     LikeLike

586. I would say that bishops erred about pedophilia priests for the same reason they erred about Scripture — the #1:goal is to protect the institution at all costs. The best way to protect the institution is to hide its defects on one hand and to keep people fully dependent on it for their salvation on the other. If you publicly admit to defects, people start to doubt, they stop giving money, and many look elsewhere for salvation.

     LikeLike

587. vd, c, and let’s be clear about reform. Devising rosary beads for the hearing impaired or statues of Mary that easily transfer from one dashboard to another is not the same as reforming bishops who turn a blind eye toward mortal sin. Think Germany. Is that going to be reformed? Do Roman Catholics care that bishops are advocating that people living in mortal sin should be admitted to communion?

     LikeLike

588. Scripture never tells us that salvation is obtained through membership in a Church led by a bishop in Rome and by partaking in seven sacraments.

     That’s why the bishops get Scripture wrong. If they got it right they would be out of a job.

     LikeLike

589. Erik, MWF, et.al., I will get to the comments addressed to me this afternoon.

     LikeLike

590. Hart, about your mortal sin question, here is some stuff from an article: “The final condition for mortal sin is that the person fully consents to the action. A person who consents to mortal sin is never unsure of the consent. When we say that the consent must be full, we mean that the person chooses the ac- tion precisely because it is sinful, or because the person does not care that the action is sinful.”

     And: “Mortal sins take thought and planning. They are a true desire to rebel against God. The Church tells us about the significant things of life and calls them grave or serious matter. The elements of grave matter and knowledge that the matter is serious are still a long way from mortal sin. The issue of one’s will is what makes the difference.
     God, in his great love for us, went to a lot of trouble to save us from hell. We will never deserve heaven, so that is God’s free gift to us. While we might frequently commit venial sins, committing the mortal sins that will keep us from heaven takes planning and thought. Full con- sent of the will for evil takes a lot of trouble.
     Everyone, scrupulous or not, must make a daily effort to live a good life. Remember, God loves you and wants you to succeed. You will not go to hell by accident. You have to set your sights upon it and work at it every day.”

     Here is the link: http://mission.liguori.org/newsletters/pdf_archive/november2005sa_web.pdf

     LikeLike

591. Michael,

     This is actually good news for Protestants who sincerely believe that the Roman Catholic Church is not the true church of Jesus Christ.

     Baltimore Catechism:

     Q. 284. What does “sufficient reflection and full consent of the will” mean?

     A. “Sufficient reflection” means that we must know the thought, word or deed to be sinful at the time we are guilty of it; and “full consent of the will” means that we must fully and willfully yield to it.

     We are “unknowing” if we honestly reject the Motives of Credibility. No mortal sin committed.

     LikeLike

592. Seems odd to make the seriousness of sin contingent on the mindset of the sinner. Adam ate forbidden fruit and consigned the whole human race to damnation. Seems harsh if he merely had a momentary lack in judgment, spurred on by his (naked) wife.

     LikeLike

593. Erik, the Catholic should never presume the Protestant to be in mortal sin or anybody else for that matter. This is only a matter that God and the individual can know for certain.

     LikeLike

594. Hey, was anybody able to get to my google drive for that conference on VII?

     LikeLike

595. MIchael, just as a guide post, at some point you need to reconcile the belief/theory/development with scripture. I can make a number of doctrinal positions cohere given a certain set of premises, but I still have to make it agree with original apostolic tradition. And as regards the ‘1965 bible reading inauguration’ there’s more than a little bit of truth to that, highlighted by the fact that Vat II needed to make a point of it’s now allowance, and how to do it(read scripture). Reading scripture on one’s own was verboten in any number of RC traditions.

     LikeLike

596. Michael,

     It asks for a google sign-in, which will probably prevent most people from seeing it.

     LikeLike

597. Michael – Erik, the Catholic should never presume the Protestant to be in mortal sin or anybody else for that matter.

     Erik – This would mean Carmela Soprano was in error when she famously proclaimed to Tony, “The difference between you and me is that you’re going to hell!”.

     She might have retained a pre-Vatican II paradigm.

     LikeLike

598. Looks to me like the google drive link is not working. I will get a chance tomorrow to upload the conference talks to my youtube page. Will let you guys know then. Until then… peace.

     LikeLike

599. Erik, I really hope you are able to listen to the conference. Ill do all I can to get it on YouTube tomorrow for you and Hart. I know Sean has no hope for the existence of the Catholicism I live and believe in, but I live it everyday. Eapecially on a fine Lords Day like this. blessings to all.

     LikeLike

600. Michael,

     I’ll listen to it. I’m able to listen to all kinds of things while I work. You wouldn’t believe how boring some of it is (City Council meetings, Zoning Board of Adjustment meetings, property tax appeals…).

     LikeLike

601. Erik, I use to operate a tractor or drive all day. I listened to conferences, sermons and audio books all day long. Wish I still could sometimes.

     LikeLike

602. TVD: Actually, it was the Petrine regime that got the Christian religion through dozens of heresies

     I don’t agree. For one thing, the actions of Zosimus and Liberius during the Pelagian and Arian controversies certainly did not “get the Christian religion through.” It took bishops from Hippo and Alexandria to do that.

     Irenaeus certainly did not get much help from Rome.

     But those are heresies that were narrowly dodged. What about the ones that were accepted into the Church and codified by the Petrine regime?

     * Veneration of icons and statues
     * Forbidding of priests to marry
     * Meriting of justification by cooperation with grace
     * Placing the pope in Christ’s place as head of the church

     Those heresies were not steered around in the least.

     LikeLike

603. Then we must add the heresies that the entire rest of the Church outside Rome have not accepted:

     * Transubstantiation
     * Papal infallibility
     * Indulgences

     LikeLike

604. Michael,

     I can not complain, although I reserve the right to do so during August when I will be pulling 60-70 hour weeks, most of it sitting at the computer.

     Should get lots watched & listened to, though.

     LikeLike

605. Jeff,

     Solid.

     LikeLike

606. But those are heresies that were narrowly dodged. What about the ones that were accepted into the Church and codified by the Petrine regime?

     * Veneration of icons and statues BS
     * Forbidding of priests to marry normative doctrine, but married priests in the EOs and some converted Anglicans have apostolic succession
     * Meriting of justification by cooperation with grace zzzzzzzzzzz, that’s all you guys ever talk about

     http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

     * Placing the pope in Christ’s place as head of the church plenty of Biblical warrant for it, whether you agree or not. Protestantism is chockful of interpretation disagreements, including Election vs. Arminianism

     Those heresies were not steered around in the least.

     Jeff Cagle
     Posted June 14, 2015 at 1:47 pm | Permalink
     Then we must add the heresies that the entire rest of the Church outside Rome have not accepted:

     * Transubstantiation if you see it in terms of metaphysical “substance,” it’s no big deal; you shed the Eucharist, much worse
     * Papal infallibility I think they wish they hadn’t gone for that, although it must be possible in theory

     Still, since Rome recognizes the Eastern Orthodox’s apostolic succession and sacraments, you make a bigger deal out of it than Catholicism does.

     * Indulgences Bad idea, Luther’s reforms accepted

     As for Calvinism’s heresies, since you disagree with most of Christianity [incl other Protestants] on a number of issues, normatively speaking, you are the heretics.

     As for the Petrine regime holding Christianity together until 1517, [or at least 1053], this is just a bald fact. Again, even your valid criticisms vs. the papacy don’t explain why your religion is so radically different from the Eastern Orthodox.

     LikeLike

607. MichaelTX, does that definition explain Adam eating an apple and therefore meriting death for him and whole human race?

     LikeLike

608. MichaelTX, most Christians since Christ have worried about lusting after a woman in his heart. As bad as actually having sex.

     But now you tell me I don’t need to worry. As long as I don’t fully lust, I’m okay.

     Imagine if Luther had known. Europe would still be Christian and no world wars.

     LikeLike

609. Jeff, I love it when you get all Protestant on us.

     Kissing your backside (only).

     LikeLike

610. Darryl,

     Kissing Jeff’s shank would also pass muster.

     No higher, though.

     LikeLike

611. EC, I am by no means an agrarian– too romantic. My brother (9 tears senior) was exposed to enough of that at Vanderbilt to have inoculated both of us. My degree was in political science. I was a lawyer before retirement. I doubt I have better breeding than CW.

     Marius won awards for class room teaching when he was at UT, but Harvard stole him for his writing talents, not his historical chops. The public, when i had him,knew more about his very prominent political stands than his considerable teaching skills. Very charismatic in large settings, approachable one on one to undergrads and grad students. However, his scholarship on the Reformation is controversial. That is not a bad thing if you are familiar with other views and don’t let yourself be seduced by someone who has extraordinary facility with the written word.

     BTW, I had the McGrath book in my hand 10 days after I phoned in a request for it. Free of charge here.

     LikeLike

612. MWF- If JBFA is the doctrine that still divides the Church, then what Luther later said about James seems trivial. Likewise burning Aquinas’ books . All I have said is that (1)the critical breakthrough can be shown to have taken place in 1517/1518 ;and (2) that it occurred in a conventional academic setting; and (3) that it would not have been considered as something that would have been out of bounds in 1518– had it been a rhema, it would not have been taken seriously. Note that I have not said one thing about the post 1518 career of Luther, his allies or his opponents.

     Luther’s spirituality was not at all unusual for his time. Have you heard of Erasmus? He is an intriguing personality in his own right, but he had roots in the Brethren of the Common Life, who also gave us Thomas a’ Kempis, and were intensely spiritual and pious. Concerning Luther’s reading of the Bible, the exegesis he did for his lectures at Wittenberg were methodologically Orthodox, but they do show evidence of spiritual engagement with the text. Nothing unusual there that I can see.

     Luther’s much later recollections of how the Reformation came about or how his contributions unfolded are not reliable by themselves. As an example, and I don’t have the exact quote in front of me, Luther famously recalled that he, Melcanthon and someone else set around drinking good Wittenberg beer and the Holy Spirit did the rest of the work in bringing about the Reformation. That is manifestly ahistorical, particularly as it relates to Luther’s intense involvement in reigning in the radical elements that had emerged in Wittenberg during the period after the Diet of Worms while he was “kidnapped.” ( later development, of course, but there is a pattern in how Luther remembered things in later life)

     Insofar as your quotes are concerned, there is fortunately a substantial written record that survives from the pre-1519 period, so we don’t have to rely solely on his Table Talk. McGrath is far and away not the only scholar that has mined this treasure trove of contemporary source material. Luther was without a doubt a compelling figure, as he remains. Unfortunately, neither Catholic nor Protestant apologists seem to be able to let go of their caricatures of the man. But we don’t have to rely on confessional history. If you are aware of any source material that existed prior to the close of business on 12/31/1518 that would support your position that the doctrinal development of JBFA as Luther set it out in the Heidelberg Disputations was in any way the result of a rhema, I would be interested in seeing it.

     LikeLike

613. Dan,

     Thanks.

     Don’t underestimate Chortles’ low breeding. Might even be a Lowland Scot. Wouldn’t even surprise me if he was French.

     LikeLike

614. Dan – Luther famously recalled that he, Melcanthon and someone else set around drinking good Wittenberg beer and the Holy Spirit did the rest of the work in bringing about the Reformation.

     Erik – Good beer can have that effect on the best of us.

     LikeLike

615. Hart, it would be my understanding that Adam’s sin was mortal and therefore meriting the lost of original rightiousness(sanctify grace) for him and his race. I do not nessicarily have a clear answer about Eve though. You could probably find somewhere with a clearer answer on that. It was Adam who was the head of the household of humanity though so it would be in him that we fell and through union with the Second Adam(Christ) that we rise.

     LikeLike

616. “Some things Luther sees as wrong. But when he tears away at them he does more harm than good. No matter how hard you try humans will always make mistakes; some cures are worse than
     the disease.” (Erasmus, letter to Philipp Melanchthon, 1524)

     http://pietistschoolman.com/2011/10/31/this-day-in-history-papal-bulls-indulgences-and-transubstantiation/

     As for

     Dan – Luther’s much later recollections of how the Reformation came about or how his contributions unfolded are not reliable by themselves…Luther famously recalled that he, Melcanthon and someone else set around drinking good Wittenberg beer and the Holy Spirit did the rest of the work in bringing about the Reformation.

     since you dismiss evidence such as this for Luther’s “rhema,” there is no possibility of further debate or discussion. As for

     MWF- If JBFA is the doctrine that still divides the Church, then what Luther later said about James seems trivial.

     justification is why Protestants divide themselves from the Church. The Eucharist and the sacraments are what the Catholic Church [both Rome and EO] consider to be central to the faith, not theologizing on matters such as justification, which in the end are at best Biblically arguable and ambiguous.

     As for burning Aquinas’ books, it’s not so much abandoning Scholasticism as what Luther replaced it with.

     LikeLike

617. Dan, is it trivial for a Man of God to trash specific books of the Word of God because they desagree With him? Remembre, it wasn’t just James. It was also Hebrews, the epistles of John, and the book of Revelation, and that’s just the NT. I desagree with D.G. Hart that Luther is a good example of what happens when someone starts reading the Bible on their own.

     Then, you are okay with Luther’s attempt to pull a Fairenheit 451 on St. Thomas Aquinas.

     Besides, the kind of experiences Luther had are common today. Ever watch TBN? Been to a Gothard seminar?

     I like some of Calvin okay. His commentaries are not so bad. He left the Church under his own steam.

     I don’ get the fascination with Luther. There are better Protestant leaders than him – many of which will be featured on this blog. Luther is a liability.
     Of course I don’t react as strongly to Luther as I do to, say, a Che T shirt.

     LikeLike

618. BTW, Dan, it is easy for me to let go of Luther altogether. I am not interested in him per se. I am disagreeing with D.G. Hart.

     Yes, Luther is an important historical figure. Just don’t follow his example of how to treat Scripture. We have enough bad examples in our time. …or how to treat what even R.C. Sproul recognizes as the grestest – St . Thomas Aquinas.

     LikeLike

619. BTW, how do Protestants decide what is and what is not heretical? What is the standard?

     LikeLike

620. Jefe, you list several teachings that you consider to be heretical. Since the time of the Reformation, how much heresy has entered groups that would call themselves Christian? I would say that if the purpose of the Reformation was to combat heresy, it could be considered to be a failure.

     For one thing, no one can even come to a consensus about what does and does not constitute heresy.

     LikeLike

621. tvd and mwf,

     First, I don’t dismiss Luther’s later recollections– all I’ve said is that a written record survives that is contradictory of them in many important respects. I suppose that it is possible to read McGraths treatment of this record- he does deal with Luther’s later memories- and draw a different conclusion from it than I have, But unless someone is wiling to at least (a) read the book and propound a reasoned basis for disagreement with my reading of it; (b) cite me to another source that treats the same record; or(c) present me with other facts in the record that are contradictory,
     then I would agree that you all are engaged in pointless hand waving .

     The intellectual currents of the time were broad and deep, and Luther participated in that environment. To say that he went through anything like a Gotherd or TBN experience is not only historically ignorant, it is an insult to the memory of many good Christians, Catholics all, who were participants in movements such as the Brethren of the Common Life, who gave us such jewels of Western Civilization as Erasmus and Thomas a’ Kempis, not to mention the Italian spiritualli who deserve more attention than I have been able to find, at least in readily accessible form. Whatever weight one wants to assign to Luther’s spirituality, nothing about it would have been unrecognizable or unusual to his contemporaries at the time of his development of the doctrine of JBFA.

     And TVD, I really can’t get all that worked up over Aquinas, one way or the other. I have tried to develop an appreciation of him a few times in my life, but have failed. There really isn’t any particular reason that I can point to, and I would readily admit that I would be a better person, perhaps, if I did appreciate him, but I am too close to the grave to worry about that now.

     And MWF, lurking behind the work I cited by McGrath is, I think, a better argument for “your side” of the debate than you have made so far with your anti-Luther vitriol. I suspect McGrath knows it and just doesn’t say it out loud,. I think you are smart enough to figure it out if you can overcome your antipathy to Luther and read it.

     LikeLike

622. who gave us such jewels of Western Civilization as Erasmus

     Yes, you keep trying to let Luther hide behind Erasmus’ skirts, but that doesn’t work.

     “Some things Luther sees as wrong. But when he tears away at them he does more harm than good. No matter how hard you try humans will always make mistakes; some cures are worse than
     the disease.” (Erasmus, letter to Philipp Melanchthon, 1524)

     We have it from your own witness. By the time Luther was finished, he had set the Reformation on a course not of reform, but of the reinvention of the Christian religion.

     As for “rhema” is this or is it not an accurate quote?

     “You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word ‘alone’ is not in the text of Paul. If your Papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word ‘alone,’ say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’ and say: ‘Papist and asses are one and the same thing.’ I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text, and it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that. It is true those letters are not in it, which letters the jackasses look at, as a cow stares at a new gate…It shall remain in my New Testament, and if all the Popish donkeys were to get mad and beside themselves, they will not get it out.”

     Dr. Martin Luther will have it so? Not the Holy Spirit?

     As for Luther’s rejection of Scholasticism, again, it’s what he replaced it with that is the problem.

     It came out of its cell again, in the day of storm and ruin, and cried out with a new and mighty voice for an elemental and emotional religion, and for the destruction of all philosophies. It had a peculiar horror and loathing of the great Greek philosophies, and of the scholasticism that had been founded on those philosophies. It had one theory that was the destruction of all theories; in fact it had its own theology which was itself the death of theology. Man could say nothing to God, nothing from God, nothing about God, except an almost inarticulate cry for mercy and for the supernatural help of Christ, in a world where all natural things were useless. Reason was useless. Will was useless. Man could not move himself an inch any more than a stone. Man could not trust what was in his head any more than a turnip. Nothing remained in earth or heaven, but the name of Christ lifted in that lonely imprecation; awful as the cry of a beast in pain…

     LikeLike

623. TVD, I will make a good faith effort to respond to any facts you care to bring up that pre-date 1519, when Luther can be shown to have made the essential connections in the development of the doctrine of JBFA. (Thought it will be late tomorrow before I can do so) I simply will not relitigate the whole Reformation with you or anyone else.

     For heaven’s sake, it is possible to like both Erasmus and Luther. Aquinas I don’t really get, but Erasmus I do.

     LikeLike

624. Dan, since you invoked my breeding….on my father’s side I have wild Cornwall Methodists and drunken, fined-for-not-going-to-church Virginia Anglicans in Colonial times, followed by Revolutionary heroes and founders of Tennessee (Watauga Association). They got poorer, less educated and less valiant until they finally bogged down in the fever swamps of the Arkansas Delta. Mother’s side — early Lutherans in the Colonies. Between PA and TN they devolved to baptists, then the same downward-westward trajectory to Arkansas. I even have a parent with a cousin who used to procure bimbos for Slick Willie when he was governor. Now I’m back in the Appalachians trying to be a presbyterian…

     LikeLike

625. (A different) Dan
     Posted June 14, 2015 at 8:58 pm | Permalink
     TVD, I will make a good faith effort to respond to any facts you care to bring up that pre-date 1519, when Luther can be shown to have made the essential connections in the development of the doctrine of JBFA. (Thought it will be late tomorrow before I can do so) I simply will not relitigate the whole Reformation with you or anyone else.

     For heaven’s sake, it is possible to like both Erasmus and Luther. Aquinas I don’t really get, but Erasmus I do.

     Christianity works fine with or without Aquinas. As for the doctrine of JBFA, it works fine without that too.

     LikeLike

626. Darryl,

     “vd, c, but not so many problems as to give anyone pause. Easy peasy.”

     If that were true, there would be nobody fighting to resolve problems. And there would never have been any RC reforms and reformers throughout history. Neither is the case. This is the same problem you have with “reform” – either “reform” must be “Protestant reform” or else it’s just reform in name only. “Problems” can only exist if they are problems that entail Rome’s claims must not be true or else it’s just problems in name only. Get over the false dichotomies and definitions and then it’s easy peasy.

     “I mean, if bishops can err about pedophilia priests, why can’t they also err about Scripture or dogma?”

     Peter erred about things. Why couldn’t he also err about dogma or Scripture he wrote?

     “Or if Francis is mistaken about climate change, what about appearances of Mary?”

     Come now – you know well enough that RCism doesn’t teach the pope is infallible in all things. And btw, no Catholic is obligated to believe in Marian apparitions.

     “What I don’t see in the converts is any worry about a church that has all the earmarks of a liberal Christian church. ”

     Of course liberalism is a problem and a worry. Why do you think last year’s synod wasn’t a bff hugfest, or cardinals and theologians took people like Brown and Fitzmyer to task? RCs – be they converts or not – can worry about (and fight) these things but also have faith the church will overcome and remain the bedrock. Partly because history has already shown that to be the case when the church has successfully navigated through troubled waters even after taking a beating.

     “Where is worry about sin and false teaching? ”

     Lots of places – seek and ye shall find. Maybe not your usual haunts and go-to pundits, but don’t get frustrated if you refuse to widen your tunnel vision.

     “BTW, how far did the reforms go?”

     We were talking historical reforms spanning various centuries and contexts/cultures. This is too broad a question.

     “You’ve seen the poll numbers. You’ve seen what happened in Ireland. You’ve seen how numbers of priests and religious are declining. Where’s your reform now? You’re not worried that perhaps the reforms were a bit ephemeral? You don’t fear that Vatican II let a genie out of a bottle that gave you a lot worse than the Polka Mass?”

     This is what I mean by tunnel vision – 60% of voting Ireland is not the sum total of the church. Why did Burke and Parolin lament and chastise the Irish result if it’s just oh so obvious RCC has capitulated to liberalism? Kaspar and Winters is not the sum total of the church. Segments of America from 1965-2005 is not the sum total of the church. I’ve posted this before but apparently to no effect – http://cvcomment.org/2013/03/04/challenging-the-myth-of-catholic-decline/

     “vd, c, and let’s be clear about reform. Devising rosary beads for the hearing impaired or statues of Mary that easily transfer from one dashboard to another is not the same as reforming bishops who turn a blind eye toward mortal sin.”

     Yes, let’s. If you can tell me how the figures I listed enacted reforms that were akin to or in the same league as devising rosary beads for the hearing impaired, we can discuss that. Otherwise, I’ve demonstrated your “as if” dismissal of any concept of RC reforms is unwarranted.

     LikeLike

627. Visited the URC tonight. Looked at a couple of “Christian Renewal” issues and noticed that there is an overture in the CanRC to change Belgic 14 to stipulate the Adam and Eve were created by God without ancestors. Has anyone heard anything about this?

     Also learned there is a new Reformed Baptist church plant in Des Moines. About 10 people so far. Only RB in the area that I’m aware of.

     Regular pastor was gone and the fill in was an OPC guy who is planting a church in Davenport. Four years now and he said the work is plugging away. We had this minister several years ago when he was working nights at a boys home and trying to preach as able. He seemed much more refreshed and that was good to see. It’s good when pastors can devote all their efforts to their church ministry.

     LikeLike

628. Nice thing about conservative P&R churches. You can visit about once a quarter and get caught up with pretty much all the changes since you were last there.

     LikeLike

629. Re. Chortles:

     See, SEE!

     LikeLike

630. Clete – And btw, no Catholic is obligated to believe in Marian apparitions.

     Erik – Where do you personally come down on those?

     What are you thinking about the Synod on the family when it starts up again? Any predictions?

     Also curious – any thoughts on the next 20 years? What will be the effect of the new bishops who replace the ones who die – moving more to the right or to the left? The guys from the Vatican II generation are nearing the end of their ministries.

     LikeLike

631. Dan, if you respect Luther as an important historical figure, necessary for the church to Reform, and a good example of faith, then that is your right. Personally, I think it was a tragedy that the Church split. Was it all Luther’s fault? Not likely. Was it all the Church’s fault? Not likely. Should they have tried to resolve their differences in a less explosive way? Yes.

     Remember, there was very little difference between Luther’s theology and the Catholic Church especially at the time he was ex communicated. Look at his Marian theology, for example, and his views on the Eucharist were really, really close. I’ll bet that the average Lutheran at that time could not explain the difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation. They were eating Christ’s body and drinking His blood, as Jesus taught us to do.

     Luther made himself the issue, or the Church made Luther the issue. Which was it?

     Was the split a cross cultural issue, German culture vs. Latin culture? I think that very well may have been part of it, plus the whole mess that Europe was in at the time – and still kinda’ sorta’ is right now. The world doesn’t really change all that much, now, does it? Different players is all.

     So, for me, if I really think that the split should not have happened, then why not return to the Catholic Church? No, that is not the only reason, but it is one of the reasons. Simplistic? Maybe, but like D.G. Hart likes to remind people, I am a Mermaid, and one of the least informed converts to Catholicism he has ever seen, and he says that when he is being nice to me. 🙂

     Now, how did this get started? In 500 years we can revisit it. Oh, yeah. I don’t think that Luther is a good example of how Scripture should be used. In one case he added a word to Scripture – “alone” after he had a mystical experience that looks a whole lot like a rhema to me. Perhaps the worst was when he wanted to remove whole books from the Bible using his own criteria. He was not able to do that, but he did move the books he questioned to the back of his Bible, along with the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament.

     Sure, there have always been mystics in the Church. Who else took it upon himself to retool the canon of Scripture? I see no excuse for that, and no way to excuse him for it.

     If you believe that the Reformation was necessary, I am happy for you. If you are a Christian who practices faith working through love, then that is, after all, the only thing that matters. Well, Paul said that in the context of the book of Galatians, so faith and love have a Biblical context, of course.

     …and at least I didn’t call Luther, Mr. Beale. That would have been going too far. 🙂

     Of course when he had his Bible expositor hat on, he knew how to do a decent job. He was trained as an Augustinian monk, after all. He got all that knowledge and skill from the Church.

     Take care, dear brother, Another Dan. Thanks for the interaction.

     LikeLike

632. Chorts, that’s awesome. Went to a wake in Arkansas for a great uncle when I was a kid. Made our cajun relatives seem gentrified.

     LikeLike

633. Those Arkansas family trees have a lot of diagonal lines.

     LikeLike

634. “If you are a Christian who practices faith working through love, then that is, after all, the only thing that matters.”

     The sacraments are superfluous?

     LikeLike

635. “the Catholic should never presume the Protestant to be in mortal sin or anybody else for that matter. This is only a matter that God and the individual can know for certain.”

     I agree this is what Rome teaches now, but it is not consistent with what Rome once taught (cf. the Athanasian Creed – the bishops who taigtht that were quite certain about nonbelievers perishing everlastingly). The problem with unlimited post-hoc justifications is that the framework is unfalsifiable even if it is wrong. One can justify any view this way, so it reduces to the sort of feidism renounced by Rome (I think claims about biblical inerrancy run up against similar problems, but the claim for inerrancy isn’t as comprehensive as Rome, so it isn’t as obviously self defeating ).

     LikeLike

636. sdb
     Posted June 14, 2015 at 11:13 pm | Permalink
     “If you are a Christian who practices faith working through love, then that is, after all, the only thing that matters.”

     The sacraments are superfluous?

     Not superfluous. That was very clever, but in trying to trap her, aren’t you arguing against Jesus?

     Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

     Or perhaps you’d like to argue Paul against Jesus?

     For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

     Unless you have an actual point here I’m not seeing. Mostly it just seems like a trap, a sophistic game, not a real seeking of Biblical truth. Clearly both Bible verses are true [by definition], and therefore reconcilable.

     LikeLike

637. Mermaid, if you actually struggled with sin, you’d get Luther.

     LikeLike

638. Mrs, Webfoot, you are doing a fantastic job. Kudos to you for hanging in there!

     ” A different Dan”, you said, ”
     The intellectual currents of the time were broad and deep, and Luther participated in that environment. To say that he went through anything like a Gotherd or TBN experience is not only historically ignorant, it is an insult to the memory of many good Christians, Catholics all, who were participants in movements such as the Brethren of the Common Life, who gave us such jewels of Western Civilization as Erasmus and Thomas a’ Kempis, not to mention the Italian spiritualli who deserve more attention than I have been able to find, at least in readily accessible form. Whatever weight one wants to assign to Luther’s spirituality, nothing about it would have been unrecognizable or unusual to his contemporaries at the time of his development of the doctrine of JBFA.”

     I agree about the spirituality, but as Mrs. Webfoot said earlier when she first entered this fray, “the Reformed by in large do not believe in the transcendent”, or near about this( with which I agree). But, that aside, is Luther actually getting something out of his spiritual experience, And does that experience( if it includes God), contribute extra biblically to his faith and ecclesiology? That is the bigger question, I would think. Take the spiritual encounter that Augustine had at the seaside or when he heard the sing-song verse of children to, “tolle lege”( take up and read), since it is fundamental to his( and our) understanding about what occurs within the church post the cessation of gifts. Shouldn’t Protestants be second guessing their view since Augustine and Luther were still appealing to the subjective experience well after the apostolic age?

     LikeLike

639. Tom,

     There’s not much defense there. Let’s put your responses into two categories, rhetorical and substantive.

     Rhetorical

     JRC: What about the [heresies] that were accepted into the Church and codified by the Petrine regime?

     * Veneration of icons and statues

     TVD: BS

     <eyebrow=”Spock”>

     So a command written on tablets of stone by the finger of God is BS? I’m sorry you think that.

     Before you protest that I’m taking you out of context, stop and think. What does it mean that you take the word of a council of men over the clear and direct command of God? Do not make graven images. Do not bow to them.

     It means that you treat the command as BS, to be reinterpreted under cover of “Petrine authority.” This is what Jesus warned against.

     </eyebrow>

     JRC: * Meriting of justification by cooperation with grace

     TVD: zzzzzzzzzzz, that’s all you guys ever talk about

     Occasionally, I have students who are similarly bored with derivatives and integrals. Their boredom reflects their own state of mind, not the value of the Calculus.

     JRC: * Forbidding of priests to marry

     TVD: normative doctrine, but married priests in the EOs and some converted Anglicans have apostolic succession

     Irrelevant.

     Paul is clear that elders and bishops are free to marry (“husband of one wife”), and that their family management reflects their capability to manage the household of God. The RC church ignores Paul and creates its own rule for its own priests, which is a subspecies of forbidding marriage. That they make an exception for EOs and Anglicans is beside the point.

     JRC: * Placing the pope in Christ’s place as head of the church

     TVD: … Protestantism is chockful of interpretation disagreements, including Election vs. Arminianism

     Look! Squirrel!

     For one thing, “Protestantism” is not a church to rival Rome. I am not responsible for the beliefs of Lutherans. Nor, despite your fondest wishes, for the beliefs of the PCUSA. You might want to take some time to read up on asymmetrical warfare.

     More to the point, any number of disagreements within Protestantism do not clear Rome of the charge of adopting heresies. So even if “Protestantism” could be shown to have five times the number of heresies as Rome, it would still be true that Rome has adopted heresies as doctrine.

     The squirrel defense can’t hold.

     TVD: As for the Petrine regime holding Christianity together until 1517, [or at least 1053], this is just a bald fact.

     It’s not a bald fact, but a confusion of language. Christianity is not Christendom. You mistake some kind of political or organizational unity for doctrinal purity.

     TVD: Again, even your valid criticisms vs. the papacy don’t explain why your religion is so radically different from the Eastern Orthodox.

     Actually, they do. The EO certainly falls under the criticism of veneration, as well criticisms concerning justification (not specifically the same as those directed at Rome). The church has always had a mixture of truth and error in it. THAT is bald fact.

     TVD: As for Calvinism’s heresies, since you disagree with most of Christianity [incl other Protestants] on a number of issues, normatively speaking, you are the heretics.

     Norms are not defined by majorities. Norms are defined by Scripture. So if you can demonstrate defect from Scriptural teaching, then you can talk heresy. Else, you have nothing.

     So much for the rhetoric. You also had some substance.

     Substantive

     JRC: * Placing the pope in Christ’s place as head of the church

     TVD: plenty of Biblical warrant for it, whether you agree or not…

     I am open to seeing Biblical warrant for it. What do you have in mind?

     JRC: * Transubstantiation

     TVD: if you see it in terms of metaphysical “substance,” it’s no big deal

     Worshiping the bread and wine is a big deal. Reifying a metaphor is superstitious.

     TVD: you shed the Eucharist, much worse

     In what way? We partake of communion in the manner that Christ instituted, without added speculations that lack Biblical warrant. We do not shed the command of God, but the superstitions that have been added to it.

     JRC: * Papal infallibility

     TVD: I think they wish they hadn’t gone for that, although it must be possible in theory

     Intriguing. Say more.

     LikeLike

640. vd, c, “We were talking historical reforms spanning various centuries and contexts/cultures. This is too broad a question.”

     And you’re response is way too broad. Like I’m supposed to take your word?

     German bishops with the unction of the Holy Spirit don’t worry about sins that would have gotten Luther a papal bull and a torch at his behind. But reform happens. The church carries on. The Yankees are the Yankees.

     Show me where the fight is. At least MichaelTX tried with the church militant site.

     And if you can be so tolerant of Rome, why not be so charitable to Protestants? Looks to me like you need to insist that Rome is superior to Protestantism only to bury your head in the sand. After all, you are going to church in the U.S. not Africa.

     LikeLike

641. #seevd,tdotheologybutnotletitaffecthisunderstandingofhistory

     LikeLike

642. sdb
     Posted June 14, 2015 at 11:25 pm | Permalink
     “the Catholic should never presume the Protestant to be in mortal sin or anybody else for that matter. This is only a matter that God and the individual can know for certain.”

     I agree this is what Rome teaches now, but it is not consistent with what Rome once taught (cf. the Athanasian Creed – the bishops who taigtht that were quite certain about nonbelievers perishing everlastingly). The problem with unlimited post-hoc justifications is that the framework is unfalsifiable even if it is wrong. One can justify any view this way, so it reduces to the sort of feidism renounced by Rome (I think claims about biblical inerrancy run up against similar problems, but the claim for inerrancy isn’t as comprehensive as Rome, so it isn’t as obviously self defeating ).

     One, can of course fairly albeit uncharitably view “post-hoc justifications” as theological sleight-of-hand that disproves the Catholic Church’s claim to magisterium, i.e., the guidance and work of the Holy Spirit, and therefore [so goes the riff] to the Catholic Church’s claim to just about anything.

     However, the Bible itself is vulnerable to the same charge

     http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/08/19/an-incredible-interactive-chart-of-biblical-contradictions/

     …which leaves the anti-Catholic, sola scripturist in quite the same pickle.

     As to this particular issue, “there is no salvation outside the Church” can still be true as a principle yet nobody actually ends up in hell. God’s call. Catholicism’s understanding of what “the Church” means is one expansion, and of course one could experience the Beatific Vision at his death and, finally knowing God’s truth, becomes a member of the Church right there, at the last tick of the clock.

     Not an area of much interest to me, but I find Trent’s formulation “let him be anathema” interesting, as opposed to “he is damned.” Further that’s for anyone who says blahblahblah and not “believes.” As you know, Servetus was burned and Galileo was confined to house arrest not for their beliefs but because they wouldn’t shut up. Spreading sedition and heresy is a far graver crime than mere private belief.

     “If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”

     So that’s what happened when they burned up Servetus but it doesn’t necessarily mean he’s in hell, if you follow the argument here.

     LikeLike

643. “Mermaid, if you actually struggled with sin, you’d get Luther’

     I struggle with sin( and I have a hard time letting my conscience be rightly informed about what is and isn’t actual sin, both venial and mortal), and spend a lot of time in confession, so I get poor dear Martin Luther’s scrupulosity. But, his scrupulosity ,such as it is, led to presumption, and that is definitely a sin.
     I don’t have certitude that I will go to heaven when I die, but I know that God is merciful( he gave us Himself on the cross and in the Eucharist after all), and from that I understand that He wants men to have complete salvation. So I rest in the knowledge that God Loves us, that He gave Himself for us, and that the spiritual graces( especially the Holy Eucharist) are for our benefit. If I will be responsible for every idle word( Matt. 12:35-37), I hope and pray that the intention of my heart and my words are free of spite, and that they will impart grace to the hearer.

     LikeLike

644. Hi, Jeff,
     How are you doing? We’re doing great over here in our neck of the woods.

     Jeff said:
     There’s not much defense there. Let’s put your responses into two categories, rhetorical and substantive.>>>>

     Interesting chart, Jeff. Now, I don’t mean to be whatever someone might think I am by asking these questions. I am curious.

     1. What makes each item on the list heretical?
     2. Who has the authority to decide whether or not, say, the veneration of icons and statures of saints, or transubstantiation, or the pope as head of the church, etc, is heretical?

     How did you arrive at your conclusions? What are you measuring these doctrines against?

     LikeLike

645. Erik,

     I’m indifferent on the apparitions. Approved ones are approved because they are judged to teach nothing contrary to the faith and so can be a helpful aid to those so inclined. When people start getting obsessed with them though (or judging others who are meh about them) it’s concerning.

     As to synod, there will be no change in dogma. There will be no approvals of SSM or fornication amongst unmarried living together. There will be an emphasis on pastoral care and how to treat and reach out to such groups with more care and respect.

     Next 20 years – more to the right. “Spirit of vat2” generation is wrapping up – they had their shot but the writing’s on the wall and the conservative/traditional rebound has slowly been growing. Vocations and seminary enrollment are on the upswing after the 40-year exodus. Africa and Asia are already right-leaning and becoming increasingly larger factor so they should be able to have a positive influence and stronger presence in the church’s direction.

     sdb,

     “The sacraments are superfluous?”

     Why the false dichotomy? Faith working through love includes the sacraments. Are the sacraments superfluous in Reformed churches?

     Darryl,

     “Mermaid, if you actually struggled with sin, you’d get Luther.”

     Come on – the great spiritual RC works and writers throughout the centuries have had an acute struggle with sin. That didn’t make them realize they needed to leave RCism or give up the mortal/venial distinction. One relatively recent example, http://www.catholicpamphlets.net/pamphlets/VENIAL%20SIN.pdf – such a lax view of sin in there for sure.
     If Luther had a moment of clarity, he would’ve listened to Staupitz’s advice to look and focus away from himself – introspection plagued your Calvinist forebears and it wasn’t healthy as your side freely admits and counsels.

     “Like I’m supposed to take your word?”

     Oh brother. I listed out figures. I’m not going to spoon-feed or write an essay on each figure. They enacted reforms – simple google search will outline them. The reforms weren’t “let’s change the color of the paint in st peters” or “let’s add an extra crucifix to every church” which is basically the scale of “reform” you’re implying they did in order to salvage your claim that RC reform is “as if” and basically no such thing can ever happen.

     “Show me where the fight is. At least MichaelTX tried with the church militant site.”

     That’s one such example. Others include cardinals like Burke, George, and Parolin I already referenced (of course there’s more, those are just sample representatives). Others include media outlets like Relevant Radio and EWTN. Others include universities such as the ones I listed above. Others include little things like Africa and Asia. If your narrative was correct, there would have been zero hub-bub during the synod amongst the participants as well as the laity and media observing the event. The opposite was the case as we all saw. Same with Ireland.

     LikeLike

646. Jeff Cagle
     Posted June 14, 2015 at 11:55 pm | Permalink
     Tom,

     There’s not much defense there. Let’s put your responses into two categories, rhetorical and substantive.

     Do what you want. I object to your premise, that your list of Reformationist indictments amounts to much, and–like Erasmus–constitute sufficient reason to have fractured Christianity in the first place. Neither do I find your washing your hands of resulting theological and ecclesiastical chaos.

     For one thing, “Protestantism” is not a church to rival Rome. I am not responsible for the beliefs of Lutherans. Nor, despite your fondest wishes, for the beliefs of the PCUSA. You might want to take some time to read up on asymmetrical warfare.

     Oh, I’m quite aware you’re conducting asymmetrical warfare. Like the Scythians you attack attack attack, and defend nothing. Sweet.

     You can do the “graven images” thing. It’s a lie.

     Your “justification” thing is a lie. Catholicism does not teach salvation by works, and justification by faith alone is no Biblical slamdunk. And in the end, by your own religion [and everyone else’s] God will save whomever He wants. If he wants to save Adolf Hitler, that’s His call, not ours.

     JRC: * Placing the pope in Christ’s place as head of the church

     You’re familiar with the Catholic Biblical “proofs.” You disagree, that’s fine, but the Peter legend is not created from whole cloth, and frankly has more to recommend it than martin Luther and what he spawned.

     JRC: * Forbidding of priests to marry

     TVD: normative doctrine, but married priests in the EOs and some converted Anglicans have apostolic succession

     Irrelevant.

     Relevant. The celibate priesthood is normative practice and custom, but not infallible dogma. Married EO priests are real priests, and there have been some married converts to Rome from Anglicanism who are real priests too.

     This is and likely will be changed someday, IMO, perhaps soon. OTOH, that the Catholic laity is taking over pastoral functions [you could look it up]–everything outside the sacraments–may be the optimum development.

     JRC: * Transubstantiation

     TVD: if you see it in terms of metaphysical “substance,” it’s no big deal

     Worshiping the bread and wine is a big deal. Reifying a metaphor is superstitious.

     You haven’t been listening about what “substance” means in Thomistic metaphysics. Nobody worships the bread. And if a “Host” falls and slips under a pew, it will rot, just like any other bread. That’s not what “transubstantiation” means. The atoms of the bread do not turn into invulnerable trans-physical “Jesus Atoms.”

     The Eucharist may be a metaphor, a symbol, but that’s a Reformation ‘innovation” that went against at least 1000 years of Church tradition–and more. If you’re a Calvinist, even Luther wouldn’t be good with how you’ve “defined the Eucharist down.”

     JRC: * Papal infallibility

     TVD: I think they wish they hadn’t gone for that, although it must be possible in theory

     Intriguing. Say more.

     Well, theoretically, theologically, the claim to magisterium means that the Holy Spirit could inform the living Church the right way of interpreting scripture [and other matters of faith and morals]. That’s what Pentecost means, as Catholicism sees it, the descent of the Spirit upon the apostles, the birth of the living Church. Indeed, Peter gave the first sermon, you could look it up!

     But I get that popes after Vatican I wish they’d have just left the whole thing in the theoretical ether because it created more trouble than it sought to fix. Pardon my Wiki:

     In July 2005 Pope Benedict XVI stated during an impromptu address to priests in Aosta that: “The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know.” Pope John XXIII once remarked: “I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible.”

     So that’s what I meant on this one, Jeff. Mostly, promulgating “papal infallibility” ill-served the Catholic Church, and has more served as ammo to the anti-Catholic Protestants, and even some folks who called themselves the “Old Catholics.”

     Since I’ve already Wikied:

     A doctrine proposed by a pope as his own opinion, not solemnly proclaimed as a doctrine of the Church, may be rejected as false, even if it is on a matter of faith and morals, and even more any view he expresses on other matters. A well-known example of a personal opinion on a matter of faith and morals that was taught by a pope but rejected by the Church is the view that Pope John XXII expressed on when the dead can reach the beatific vision.

     Not “well-known” to me, to few Catholics, and even damnder few Protestants, of all this I am sure. There you have the pope rejected as in error, just as Peter was.

     That’s why I object to your central premise, Jeff, that your laundry list, the well-rehearsed bill of indictments against Rome, amounts to insufficient justification for having blown the whole thing up.

     But hey, thx for the civil reply. 😉

     LikeLike

647. “Next 20 years – more to the right. “Spirit of vat2″ generation is wrapping up – they had their shot but the writing’s on the wall and the conservative/traditional rebound has slowly been growing. ”

     Sheeeet. Ok, just say no to the hallucinogens. Ratzinger’s desperate attempt to turn back the clock just crumbled to the ground. Francis rolls in, grabs up the favorable german bishops and announces it’s time to finish carrying out the intentions of Vat II. Burke is exiled to the malta charity, but you’re gonna bet your soul on Mother Angelica and the trad seminaries? Ho ho ho, he he he, ha ha ha, rofl, lol, lmao, hee haw hee haw. Wait, wait, I gotta breath. Ho ho ho, ha, ha, ha. You’re as bad as the evangelicals looking to Liberty University to win the culture war. Wait, it’s not over! Is Ralph Reed still alive? What about the 700 club?! We’re winners, damn’t. Make sure when the Italians LET the Africans and Asians take over to remind them that what they learned about homosexuals from the pentecostals, doesn’t play. Particularly among the clergy.

     LikeLike

648. D.G. Hart:
     Mermaid, if you actually struggled with sin, you’d get Luther.>>>>

     Sometimes I think you are pulling my leg, D.G. Hart. I do get Luther as far as his struggle with sin goes. Even mermaids struggle with sin.

     What I don’t get is why Luther tried to “fix” the Bible. I can understand his desire to reform the Church. She needed it. Why did he try to reinvent God’s Word? You can’t give him a pass on that.

     I could accept that he was a complicated, even, at times, tortured man with moments of brilliance. I can accept that he, like all of us, was a sinner in need of God’s grace. What I really can’t accept is that he was a kind of savior of the Church. It doesn’t add up.

     You know the OPC would have put him on trial.

     LikeLike

649. D. G. Hart

     #seevd,tdotheologybutnotletitaffecthisunderstandingofhistory

     #standbackbutchwatch&learn

     http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/index.html?mainframe=/apologetics/classical/ant_v2n3_thomism.html

     there are two kingdoms but there is only one reality

     LikeLike

650. sean
     Posted June 15, 2015 at 1:04 am | Permalink
     Ho ho ho, he he he, ha ha ha, rofl, lol, lmao, hee haw hee haw. Wait, wait, I gotta breath. Ho ho ho, ha, ha, ha.

     This one’s all yours, Darryl. What hath Old Life wrought?

     LikeLike

651. Susan
     Posted June 15, 2015 at 12:18 am | Permalink
     “Mermaid, if you actually struggled with sin, you’d get Luther’

     I struggle with sin (and I have a hard time letting my conscience be rightly informed about what is and isn’t actual sin, both venial and mortal), and spend a lot of time in confession, so I get poor dear Martin Luther’s scrupulosity. But, his scrupulosity ,such as it is, led to presumption, and that is definitely a sin.

     I don’t have certitude that I will go to heaven when I die, but I know that God is merciful (he gave us Himself on the cross and in the Eucharist after all), and from that I understand that He wants men to have complete salvation. So I rest in the knowledge that God Loves us, that He gave Himself for us, and that the spiritual graces (especially the Holy Eucharist) are for our benefit. If I will be responsible for every idle word (Matt.12:35-37), I hope and pray that the intention of my heart and my words are free of spite, and that they will impart grace to the hearer.

     The heart that loves God aches and weeps with gladness at this.

     LikeLike

652. @TVD & cvd

     I’m just asking a question. MWF said that faith working through love is the only thing that matters. I certainly don’t believe that, and it sounds like a very strange thing for an RC to assert. Even restricting one’s view to just justification, do you guys think that’s right?

     LikeLike

653. “Dan, if you respect Luther as an important historical figure, necessary for the church to Reform, and a good example of faith, then that is your right. Personally, I think it was a tragedy that the Church split. Was it all Luther’s fault? Not likely. Was it all the Church’s fault? Not likely. Should they have tried to resolve their differences in a less explosive way? Yes.”

     The church’s split may have been a tragedy, but it is wrong to pin the blame on Luther. Several others had tried similar reforms. What made Luther’s stab at it different is that he had protections. The RCC had killed off the other attempts. Where the church lacked temporal power, splits happened (and continue to do so).

     LikeLike

654. “…which leaves the anti-Catholic, sola scripturist in quite the same pickle.”
     Kinda been my point all along. I’m not anti-Catholic, I’m anti-triumphalism.

     LikeLike

655. @Susan
     “I don’t have certitude that I will go to heaven when I die,”
     How sad. John wrote his first epistle so that his “little children” might know for certain that they have eternal life.

     LikeLike

656. “So that’s what happened when they burned up Servetus but it doesn’t necessarily mean he’s in hell, if you follow the argument here.”
     I follow your argument, but it is inconsistent with RCC dogma. Evidently, you believe the declarations from ecumenical councils are fallible which is a curious position for an RC to take (puts you in Wills’s company). Perhaps you reject the RC creeds as well? Here is the text,

     Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

     My contention is that the magisterium is not infallible and does not definitively settle disputes. This line from the Athanasian Creed was once infallible dogma. It is not consistent with the infallible dogma taught by VII. Now maybe one wants to say that the Athanasian creed is still infallibly true, but our understanding has developed so that the opening bit only applies on days that don’t end in “y”. Voila…everyone is going to heaven, or we can never be sure about those who don’t keep the catholic faith whole and undefiled Sunday through Saturday. The post-hoc justifications (even serious ones) are just too much.

     LikeLike

657. “What I really can’t accept is that he was a kind of savior of the Church. It doesn’t add up.”
     Who says that? He was a flawed human being who also had important insights and was at the right place at the right time (or vice versa) to spark major shifts of Christianity in the west. If a single curmudgeonly monk can bring down the system, maybe the system wasn’t all that to begin with.

     LikeLike

658. Whenever a supposed Roman Catholic says that _______ “is the only thing that matters”, be highly skeptical that they have any clue what they are talking about.

     If that were true the RCC Catechism wouldn’t be as thick as a big city phone book back when we had phonebooks.

     LikeLike

659. It would be more accurate to say, “The only thing that matters is guilt, grace, gratitude”. The Three Forms is thin.

     LikeLike

660. #vd,tasmarkshea

     LikeLike

661. Susan, how do you know God loves you when he hated Esau?

     LikeLike

662. wow, no one is going to hell and the pope is rarely infallible. Then why not go to church, vd, t?

     LikeLike

663. vd, c, you left out Cordileone. And look how well that’s going for him. And Francis has his and Burke’s back.

     If no dogma changes, how does Protestantism go from heresy to a separated siblings?

     LikeLike

664. Mermaid, who ever said Luther was the savior of the church? He taught Jesus was the savior.

     I have trouble understanding Alexander VI as the vicar of Christ.

     LikeLike

665. vd, t, or, how gullible do you have to be to defend the contemporary church? You should know.

     And how gullible do Susan, Mermaid, and vd, c need to be to accept vd, t as an ally?

     Universalism anyone?

     LikeLike

666. #vd,taspietist

     LikeLike

667. Susan, btw,

     “I rest in the knowledge that God Loves us, that He gave Himself for us, and that the spiritual graces( especially the Holy Eucharist) are for our benefit.”

     Do you think bishops would have anathematized Protestants if they thought about God’s love the way you do?

     LikeLike

668. Tom, it’s ok. Your virtual ally, not dissimilar to your church participation, made an outlandish comment born of too much alcohol, certainly, and I merely laughed at his joke. But, I’m certain that Pachence and Ronheiser will be relieved(not) to hear the trads are funding the coffers and consecrating their male heterosexual children to the church. Look people dress up as their favorite Tolkein characters and go out in public and Jenner is an he/she, so, anything is possible.

     LikeLike

669. “sdb@Susan“I don’t have certitude that I will go to heaven when I die,
     ”How sad. John wrote his first epistle so that his “little children” might know for certain that they have eternal life.”

     great books – 1,2,3 John (where the word love is more prevalent than any other, followed by ‘know’.) Interesting your reference of them is here, where some are seeming to refute what Jesus said “ For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.”

     LikeLike

670. sdb,

     “@Susan
     “I don’t have certitude that I will go to heaven when I die,”
     How sad. John wrote his first epistle so that his “little children” might know for certain that they have eternal life.”

     Well, I guess that I can sin and cross my fingers, or sin and repeat over and over again,”I have eternal life, I have eternal life”. I’m not sure my mind will buy it if I know that I’m guilty of grievous sin. Even the Reformed believe in a general confession, right? But if you are only reiterating to your heart by way of your mind, the doctrine of sola fide by imputation, then even that general confession should not be called a confession, for it’s not a confession in the general sense but reiteration of a doctrine held by a fragment of Christians, that may or may not be true.
     You see, my non-certainty is compatible with the theology of my faith. If I don’t die after committing a mortal sin, then I can appeal to the mercy of God—–again. If I die in a state of grace( no stain of sin on m soul) then I can have assurance that I will go to heaven either straight away or eventually. So see, my faith’s doctrine does have a place for the sinning Christian’s lack of certainty.
     So does yours, although it isn’t sin that throws a wrench in the wheel, it’s not having faith in sola fide. The thing is it’s easy to conflate faith in God and Jesus, with faith in a doctrine whereby one believes one is saved. They are not the same thing, for I can stop believing the latter and I am still a Christian. After all, when I heard that Jesus loved me, died for my sins, and rose again, my conversion experience( enlightenment, sorrow and repentance) happened, my sins were forgiven and I had no idea about sola fide, so my salvation wasn’t dependent on it. We both are really appealing to God’s mercy.
     But the scriptures are hermeneutically underdetermined to give an answer to us even though everything they say is inerrant and true. So that is why we appeal to our respective faith authorities for help.

     LikeLike

671. “But the scriptures are hermeneutically underdetermined to give an answer to us even though everything they say is inerrant and true.”

     Jesus and Paul, amongst others would disagree. So, who is practicing a faith of their own contrivance? Again, the idea that the deposit of faith is more perspicuous than holy writ is a commitment born upon the hopes of an romanticized view of history and ultimately a noumenal view of religious faith that flies in the face of evidence to the contrary. Your faith commitment is tantamount to a sleeping pill. I believe what the church believes-implicit faith. I’m sure there’s comfort there, but if it’s a false hope, you’re in trouble.

     LikeLike

672. sdb
     Posted June 15, 2015 at 7:43 am | Permalink
     @TVD & cvd

     I’m just asking a question. MWF said that faith working through love is the only thing that matters. I certainly don’t believe that, and it sounds like a very strange thing for an RC to assert. Even restricting one’s view to just justification, do you guys think that’s right?

     Asked and answered, from the Bible. And I think picking out one stray sentence and ignoring her lager point is insincere.

     For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in my name, because you are Christ’s, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.

     31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

     34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

     37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

     40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

     41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

     44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

     45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

     46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

     Move over, ye goats.

     LikeLike

673. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 15, 2015 at 8:34 am | Permalink
     Susan, how do you know God loves you when he hated Esau?

     How odd when Christians use the Bible to play games. If you have a point, you should just say it.

     LikeLike

674. MW: Hi, Jeff,
     How are you doing? We’re doing great over here in our neck of the woods.

     Doing well, thanks. My school is out, the Caglets’ school is not yet out, so I have a window of sorts.

     MW: Interesting chart, Jeff. Now, I don’t mean to be whatever someone might think I am by asking these questions. I am curious.

     1. What makes each item on the list heretical?
     2. Who has the authority to decide whether or not, say, the veneration of icons and statures of saints, or transubstantiation, or the pope as head of the church, etc, is heretical?

     How did you arrive at your conclusions? What are you measuring these doctrines against?

     I assume your curiosity concerns my own state of mind, since you no doubt already have your own opinions on both questions.

     To answer 2., I don’t take the same view as you on the function of authority in interpretation. For the Catholics I have discussed things with, authority functions as the right and ability to declare the meaning of text, and it functions by charism. So concerning the second commandment, when the text reads

     “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them …

     it is entirely possible for a Catholic that someone with the appropriate authority could come along and declare (using the charism) that this text does not preclude all making of carved images and bowing to them. And their declaration must be considered as correct.

     I do not understand authority as functioning in this way. That use of “authority” is actually a logical fallacy (the “argument from authority”). It is inconsistent with reason.

     Now, authority functions for the Confessional, Reformed Protestant as the collective wisdom of the church. It adds weight to a particular interpretation, but it cannot override the meaning of the words. This use of authority is one that is actually consistent with reason (Tom, you listening?) in that it treats deserved authority as evidence using in constructing an inductive argument for a position.

     And in this particular case, the weight of the words themselves is so overwhelming and clear, that practically no amount of authority could overturn them. It would take a radical rethinking of the meanings of the words, which are crystal-clear in both Hebrew and Greek, in order for there to be any wiggle-room to create graven images and bow down to them, leaving aside any question of “veneration” v “worship.” The bowing itself is forbidden.

     So the short answer to the question “By what authority?” is, “By direct command of God Himself, written with his own finger.” And there is no authority that can supersede that.

     So weren’t there images in the temple? Yes, in fact, there were. Those were specifically directed by God Himself to be made, in contrast to all other images that were forbidden. But the images in the temple were not bowed down to, nor venerated. And further, those images in the temple were a part of the OT worship that has clearly passed away per Hebrews, and they have no part in the NT worship.

     So while there might be an interesting (but answerable) interpretive question, there is not room for someone in authority to overrule the plain meaning of the words. I don’t need any special interpretive authority of my own to simply read what is written in this case.

     Now, I will grant that not every item on my list is of equal clarity. But each is clear enough in its own way that I am willing to say that each is clearly contrary to God’s command, and thus is heretical.

     That answer may frustrate you, for Catholics often assume that authority functions in the first manner I described, such that everyone interprets either according to their own authority or else according to someone else’s. But if that assumption is false — and it is false — then there is third possible answer: “The text is clear enough on its own.”

     LikeLike

675. So nice to just let Jeff do my reading for me.

     Who knew this selective reading could be so edifying?

     I’ll sleep like a baby all week. Thanks Jeff!

     LikeLike

676. @Erik
     “Whenever a supposed Roman Catholic says that _______ “is the only thing that matters”, be highly skeptical that they have any clue what they are talking about.

     If that were true the RCC Catechism wouldn’t be as thick as a big city phone book back when we had phonebooks.”

     My thought exactly.

     LikeLike

677. Like the Callers I’ve realized that reading those outside my paradigm who lack sufficient agape is foolish.

     More time to sit around the pool drinking fruity drinks with those little umbrellas in them.

     LikeLike

678. @tvd
     “And I think picking out one stray sentence and ignoring her lager point is insincere.” Noted. I don’t doubt you think that. You are incorrect to think that though.

     I’m not ignoring anything – I’m simply asking her a question. It is a very odd assertion for an RC to make. Not as odd as your assertion that ecumenical councils aren’t infallible, but odd nonetheless. Perhaps she means something other than what she’s written – that’s fine. If she has a rhema perhaps she can clarify.

     LikeLike

679. TVD: I object to your premise, that your list of Reformationist indictments amounts to much, and–like Erasmus–constitute sufficient reason to have fractured Christianity in the first place.

     More ADHD defense. I didn’t argue that Reformationist indictments constituted sufficient reason to have fractured Christianity. I argued that the heresies adopted by the Church falsify the claim that it has kept the Church from heresy.

     TVD: You can do the “graven images” thing. It’s a lie.

     What, specifically, is a lie? That God has commanded us not to make graven images? Or that He commanded us not to bow to them? Or that the RC church does both for its worship services?

     This is not a debate over “veneration” versus “worship.” This is a simple observation: Do not make images. Do not bow to them.

     Your defenses are pretty low for you to be stooping to accusations of lying.

     TVD: Your “justification” thing is a lie.

     What, specifically, is a lie?

     I said that the church teaches Meriting of justification by cooperation with grace. That was a summary of the CCC:

     Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. — CCC, 2010.

     Sanctification, which in Catholic theology is a part of justification (CCC 1989, Trent VI.7), is clearly merited by cooperation with grace.

     I spoke accurately about Catholic teaching. You misrepresented my words. Were you merely mistaken? I would like to hope you weren’t lying.

     TVD: Relevant. The celibate priesthood is normative practice and custom, but not infallible dogma.

     Irrelevant. So what if celibate priesthood is not infallible dogma? It is still contrary to the Word of God and has been entrenched practice in the RC church for longer than Protestantism has existed.

     You are dancing in circles to keep your eyes from seeing the obvious: Your church is in rebellion against the clear commands of God. Protestants have their own problems, and I don’t mind discussing them, but until you can own this truth, that the RC Church is in rebellion against God’s authority because it has accepted as absolute the authority of mere men — until you can admit that fact, you’re in denial. The evidence is all there.

     LikeLike

680. “More time to sit around the pool drinking fruity drinks with those little umbrellas in them.”
     Now that sounds nice…

     LikeLike

681. Darryl,

     “Susan, how do you know God loves you when he hated Esau?”

     If I told you will you read a long article and give me your thoughts without changing the subject?

     Anyways, God loves everyone and is not capable of hatred, so this can’t mean that God hates a person. Even when God is angry, it’s never a vengeful or spiteful kind of anger as if He is insecure or frustrated because we’re thwarting His plans. We’re puny in size, power, intelligence, and longevity……we’re mere creatures and are no worthy contestant against God. This knowledge alone though, will not save us. So while the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, it has to a humble fear that recognizes that God’s greatness is bound to His goodness. This means that God did not and could not make some reprobate, ever! If you mess this up, you will have a false view of God and believe that He hates some and has from all eternity determined that their free will would never out will Him( or something like this from G.K.).

     God also called all of His creatures good. Catholics are not Manicheans or Calvinists, the creation/ creature is good and God doesn’t hate anything He created.
     The contrast here in this verse is between Israel as a nation and Esau as a nation. The nation of Israel is the line God had chosen to be the line from which the Messiah would come, but the intent of that blessed advent would eventually gather in all nations. So God didn’t hate Esau, He loved him and still loves all Gentiles by telling him/us to be reconciled to God who is the Messiah through the Israel.

     LikeLike

682. <i.sdb
     Posted June 15, 2015 at 1:43 pm | Permalink
     @tvd
     “And I think picking out one stray sentence and ignoring her lager point is insincere.” Noted. I don’t doubt you think that. You are incorrect to think that though.

     I’m not ignoring anything – I’m simply asking her a question. It is a very odd assertion for an RC to make. Not as odd as your assertion that ecumenical councils aren’t infallible, but odd nonetheless. Perhaps she means something other than what she’s written – that’s fine. If she has a rhema perhaps she can clarify.

     Asked and answered. The rest above as well. Peace, off to Vegas. 😉

     [The “lie” is that Catholicism teaches salvation by works, a lie which is stated over and over on this blog, a lie by which the whole justification debate rises and falls.]

     LikeLike

683. Susan
     Posted June 15, 2015 at 1:49 pm | Permalink
     Darryl,

     “Susan, how do you know God loves you when he hated Esau?”

     The contrast here in this verse is between Israel as a nation and Esau as a nation. The nation of Israel is the line God had chosen to be the line from which the Messiah would come, but the intent of that blessed advent would eventually gather in all nations. So God didn’t hate Esau, He loved him and still loves all Gentiles by telling him/us to be reconciled to God who is the Messiah through the Israel.
     

     There you have it, Dr. Calvinism: A History. Sola scriptura, and a child shall lead them.

     LikeLike

684. Sean,

     Please provide me with a reason why Protestants are divided?

     How do you know that that anybody understands the scriptures rightly if to be faithful to scripture it was necessary to divorce yourself from the Church from whence scripture came in the first place? Can’t you see that you are also trusting in the interpretation of mere men, who are not only mere men but outside of apostolic succession to boot? I mean, if what we are both doing is trusting in the interpretation of another how do we know where mere men comes to a full stop and being led by the Holy Spirit into all truth comes into play? Did I choose the Catholic Church because I wanted her to agree with my interpretation? No, I did not. I hoped for a way to know where God’s authority was. I didn’t need a church that was wrong where I was right ,but right where I was wrong. You know all that though.

     LikeLike

685. @Susan

     I noted that the Apostle John wrote his first epistle in part so that we might “know for certain that we have eternal life”. This suggests that certainty of one’s salvation is possible. To which you responded,

     Well, I guess that I can sin and cross my fingers, or sin and repeat over and over again,”I have eternal life, I have eternal life”….

     What does sinning and crossing one’s fingers or sinning and repeating over and over again have to do with what John wrote?

     I’m not sure my mind will buy it if I know that I’m guilty of grievous sin. Even the Reformed believe in a general confession, right? But if you are only reiterating to your heart by way of your mind, the doctrine of sola fide by imputation, then even that general confession should not be called a confession, for it’s not a confession in the general sense but reiteration of a doctrine held by a fragment of Christians, that may or may not be true.

     I know what every single word you wrote there means, but I have no idea what those sentences mean together. Who says that assurance comes from the doctrine of sola fide by imputation? That’s certainly not what the Heidelberg Catechism says:

     Because I belong to him,
     Christ, by his Holy Spirit,
     assures me of eternal life
     and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready
     from now on to live for him.

     You then go on to say,

     So see, my faith’s doctrine does have a place for the sinning Christian’s lack of certainty.
     So does yours, although it isn’t sin that throws a wrench in the wheel, it’s not having faith in sola fide.

     Huh? Faith in sola fide won’t save anyone and certainly will not produce assurance of one’s salvation. That is a work of the Holy Spirit that develops as a result of one’s sanctification. Of course, if one sins grievously, one shouldn’t be assured of one’s salvation. But if you repent of your sin you should be confident of God’s forgiveness.

     But the scriptures are hermeneutically underdetermined to give an answer to us even though everything they say is inerrant and true. So that is why we appeal to our respective faith authorities for help.

     What does it mean for a text to be inerrant if it is hermeneutically underdetermined? To be sure, we turn to teachers to help, but hopefully we hold them to the scriptures. However, it isn’t the scriptures that give us assurance of salvation, but rather it is Christ, by his Holy Spirit, that assures of eternal life.

     LikeLike

686. “Please provide me with a reason why Protestants are divided?”
     The first amendment. Same reason the number of Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist sects multiplied when coming to America (and why RCs are functionally protestant now as well). Modernity brought political freedom and the end to the temporal power of the church. Insofar as she lacks temporal power, she can’t maintain her monopoly on the expression of Christianity. What remains a mystery to me is why you think protestants leaving and forming a new denomination of say 100 members is in principle different from RCs leaving and forming a denomination of one – “spiritual but not religious” or “love Jesus but hate organized religion”, etc… In the US, the nones- mostly ex RCs will be the biggest “denomination” in the US by 2025.

     LikeLike

687. The “lie” is that Catholicism teaches salvation by works, a lie which is stated over and over on this blog, a lie by which the whole justification debate rises and falls.

     This is not a lie as Jeff has ably pointed out.

     LikeLike

688. Susan, in the words of Paul, I’m afraid there must be division among you. Of course, you’ve lept from the pan into the fire when you crossed over. Francis v. Burke. The Network Vs. all male clergy and sometimes just all men, except Conrad Hilton who funds them. Ratzinger vs. his butler and the Roman curia. Ciao vs. Nein. The entire country of Ireland vs. The Vatican. The list is long and glorious.

     Well I’m relying on the original apostolic tradition and the apostles, you’re relying on a convenient construct that makes a lot of claims based on a MOC that ultimately relies on a leap of faith. In contrast, Paul anchors the faith on the death and resurrection of Christ. You don’t think the original autographs are perspicuous and/or reliable. I’ll take my chances with the Holy Spirit inspired tradition and a subordinate authority. Paul says it’s noble and I’m responsible.

     LikeLike

689. Sean,
     I asked for you to tell me of the Protestant churches( because there is not one) who disagree with each other( and they all do about something), which one is the place where the disagreements are resolved and I don’t mean people politely disagree around the potluck table either, but where the correct interpretations of all of what divides is known without a doubt. No one ever explains why there are so many denominations.

     sdb,

     Okay then, what need is there to make a personal confession or general confession if your final state cannot be thwarted? Forget everything else I said and just answer me that, please.

     Obviously you men are too smart for me, so I will just throw in other smart guys, and we can go round and round arguing into eternity, I guess Protestantism has no paradigm to settle our disagreements.
     http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/

     As for me, I realize that ( eternity wise) I am a skeleton talking to other skeletons, and in a blink of an eye we turn to dust. Some authority must not only know what the scriptures teach, but also what books belong in the canon, and the authority to decide that had to come from outside of the scriptures themselves. There’s simply no way of getting around that. Is this hard to understand, Sean…? Anybody?

     LikeLike

690. Nice half-page interview with Larry Arnn in Saturday’s WSJ.

     At some point I must have signed up for something on the Bayly’s site because now I get mail from them at the office. Their Clearnote Fellowship/Clearnote Press 20-page newsletter is called “The Warhorn” (based on 1 Cor. 14.8).

     LikeLike

691. Jeff – More ADHD defense

     Erik – Did any of your students leave any stray Ritalin behind before leaving for summer break? You could send it to Tom.

     LikeLike

692. “Some authority must not only know what the scriptures teach, but also what books belong in the canon, and the authority to decide that had to come from outside of the scriptures themselves. There’s simply no way of getting around that. Is this hard to understand, Sean…? Anybody?”

     As the scriptures tell us, the Word of God is living and active. The Holy Spirit is our authority.

     LikeLike

693. Jeff – You are dancing in circles to keep your eyes from seeing the obvious: Your church is in rebellion against the clear commands of God. Protestants have their own problems, and I don’t mind discussing them, but until you can own this truth, that the RC Church is in rebellion against God’s authority because it has accepted as absolute the authority of mere men — until you can admit that fact, you’re in denial. The evidence is all there.

     Erik – Thankful Jeff is on summer vacay. More time to write solid posts.

     LikeLike

694. sdb,

     I wish I really did that.

     A Blue Moon while in the lawn chair in the driveway is about all I can muster.

     LikeLike

695. Sean – Well I’m relying on the original apostolic tradition and the apostles, you’re relying on a convenient construct that makes a lot of claims based on a MOC that ultimately relies on a leap of faith. In contrast, Paul anchors the faith on the death and resurrection of Christ. You don’t think the original autographs are perspicuous and/or reliable. I’ll take my chances with the Holy Spirit inspired tradition and a subordinate authority. Paul says it’s noble and I’m responsible.

     Erik – Yes. Well said, especially, “you’re relying on a convenient construct that makes a lot of claims based on a MOC that ultimately relies on a leap of faith.”

     LikeLike

696. “Okay then, what need is there to make a personal confession or general confession if your final state cannot be thwarted? Forget everything else I said and just answer me that, please.”

     I would say that securing our final state is not the sole purpose of confession. Who wants to carry the burden of sin now? Why wouldn’t a child of God want to have his relationship with his Father restored? It’s not just about getting to heaven eventually, it is also about enjoying God today.

     LikeLike

697. (What I assume to be) Susan (but I wouldn’t know since she’s on the non-read list) – “Some authority must not only know what the scriptures teach, but also what books belong in the canon, and the authority to decide that had to come from outside of the scriptures themselves. There’s simply no way of getting around that. Is this hard to understand, Sean…? Anybody?”

     Erik – And what authority tells us who has the authority to know what the Scriptures teach, etc.?

     The buck has to stop somewhere on identifying authority.

     LikeLike

698. Sean,

     “You don’t think the original autographs are perspicuous and/or reliable.” Show me an original autograph, if they exist, the Vatican has them. Besides I don’t read Hebrew or Greek, so I still guess I’m at the mercy of the translator and not just the interpreter.

     ” I’ll take my chances with the Holy Spirit inspired tradition and a subordinate authority. Paul says it’s noble and I’m responsible”

     Yes, the Spirit of God is supposed to guide us into all truth. Your scenario allows for as many truths as there are denominations. What is subordinate authority anyways? I have subordinate authority from God to correct and train my kids. But, I don’t have authority to grad a bible and say that it has given me authority to start a new church when I disagree with the one I left, except when I do, per subordinate authority from the bible. Then I can by the Spirit’s wisdom and authority make a new number of sacraments and tell how they are properly administered and so forth. That’s anarchy, no thanks. Expect if it’s not anarchy how, per the bible, would you know. Plenty of conundrums to think about over cocktails with little umbrellas inside.

     LikeLike

699. “A Blue Moon while in the lawn chair in the driveway is about all I can muster.”
     Well I don’t know about the lawn chair in the driveway (you Iowans are crazy bunch), but a cold beer is a pretty good substitute for a fruity drink with an umbrella.

     LikeLike

700. Anyways, God loves everyone and is not capable of hatred, so this can’t mean that God hates a person. Even when God is angry, it’s never a vengeful or spiteful kind of anger as if He is insecure or frustrated because we’re thwarting His plans.

     Susan, wow, this is going to get me in deep with the hyperchivalrous Mr. TVD, but do you read the Bible? You know, Esau have I hated and vengeance is mine saith the Lord? If you mean God isn’t sinful, well duh. But if you mean that God doesn’t judge then hello Marcionism.

     LikeLike

701. “The buck has to stop somewhere on identifying authority.”

     Okay, where? Which visible institution( or books of doctrine) is that body of Christ where lives all of Christian belief?

     Tell me that. And if it’s in North Dakota, I’m not budging. 🙂

     LikeLike

702. Susan, were you a Jehovah’s Witness previously? Sounds like you want a certainty that just isn’t available to us as creatures. The JW’s assert the same thing – that one must have an authority beyond the Spirit of God working with the Scriptures. The JW’s external authority is in Brooklyn NY and “guides” them via their Watchtower magazines. Your authority is in Rome – who breaks the tie for the competing truth claims?

     Read what Jeff said again:

     You are dancing in circles to keep your eyes from seeing the obvious: Your church is in rebellion against the clear commands of God. Protestants have their own problems, and I don’t mind discussing them, but until you can own this truth, that the RC Church is in rebellion against God’s authority because it has accepted as absolute the authority of mere men — until you can admit that fact, you’re in denial. The evidence is all there.

     LikeLike

703. Are all the Protestants here part of the same visible body? If you aren’t way not? Who’s right on infant baptism, gay marriage, women’s ordination, the belief and frequency of the Lord’s Supper etc…? Get it together and call me 🙂

     LikeLike

704. Susan, I keep trying to give you the authority base and you keep disregarding it while holding to a less antiquated one and a dubious one in regards to it’s claims(succession), that nonetheless at least gives lip service to it’s(original apostles) authority. Paul says he fears, regrets but acknowledges that there must be division amongst you. Your insistence that there be both more certainty-sola ecclesia and less-personal lack of assurance is an interesting twist on things. It all points to this over reliance on implicit faith. I’d encourage you not to find your rest in a subordinate authority but in a risen christ who did for you, apart from you and outside of you(so you can’t screw it up). Is that possible as an RC? Sure, but you do have to cut through a lot of overgrowth(sacramentals-well intentioned as they may have been) to find Him. And that’s setting aside Rome post Vat II, which as you and I know, is a death blow to your pleasant fiction. See I can be generous. I don’t think it’s the best road to travel, I think there are more faithful oppoortunities but if you want me to choose between evanjellyfish and Rome(kissing cousins) I opt to punt and go confessional prot.

     LikeLike

705. Susan (she was concise, so I read her) – Which visible institution( or books of doctrine) is that body of Christ where lives all of Christian belief?

     Erik – The visible institutions (churches) that bear the three marks.

     LikeLike

706. Sean,

     Okay, so Francis undermined Ratzinger according to you. Given that, why can the next pope not just as easily undermine Francis?

     “Burke is exiled to the malta charity”

     Burke is not the only conservative cardinal/bishop in the world, as the synod and response to Ireland showed.

     “Make sure when the Italians LET the Africans and Asians take over”

     Wait I thought the narrative was Francis was elected because the “Italians” wanted to try to stop the bleeding in Latin America? But now they won’t try to sustain the booming growth (remember, also according to the narrative, it’s all about the money) in Africa and Asia because … uh, homosexuality?

     “to remind them that what they learned about homosexuals from the pentecostals, doesn’t play. Particularly among the clergy.”

     I see – so it couldn’t be the case that RCism actually teaches homosexual practice is sinful. Also, Africa and Asia have clergy.

     LikeLike

707. Sdb, regarding your 11:25 post yesterday talking about judging others being in mortal sin. Maybe you are missing what I am saying. I am not saying the church can’t have a creed or statement that says if you don’t hold this as true the person is no holding to the truth and therefore will parish and miss heaven. I am saying the Christian is not in the position to judge this state for his neighbor. I don’t think you can show that the Church has ever taught that one Christian should judge this state in his neighbor. Here is a quote from the Roman Catechism that was made just after Trent:

     The best alms and the most excellent act of mercy is forgetfulness of injuries, and good will towards those who have injured us or ours, in person, in property, or in character. Whoever, therefore, desires to experience in a special manner the mercy of God, should make an offering to God Himself of all his enmities, remit every offence, and pray for his enemies with the greatest good will, seizing every opportunity of doing them good. But as this subject was explained when we treated of murder, we refer the pastor to that place.

     The pastor ought to conclude his explanation of this Petition with this final reflection, that nothing is, or can be conceived, more unjust than that he who is so rigorous towards men as to extend indulgence to no one, should himself demand that God be mild and kind towards him.

     LikeLike

708. Hey Steve,

     “Susan, wow, this is going to get me in deep with the hyperchivalrous Mr. TVD, but do you read the Bible? You know, Esau have I hated and vengeance is mine saith the Lord? If you mean God isn’t sinful, well duh. But if you mean that God doesn’t judge then hello Marcionism.”

     Yes, God judges, but it is because he finds no love in the person’s soul. We actually do have a free will and so His judgment God calling it as He sees it. God looks on the heart, and that means that there is a human person involved who either loves God enough to keep His commandments or has persistently turned away from God until the end. The Catholic Church hasn’t and never can throw-away judgment, heaven, and hell.

     LikeLike

709. Susan – Are all the Protestants here part of the same visible body?

     Erik – No, but somehow we all seem to function and make it through the day. Some of us even like each other.

     Share your grounds for the requirement that the church of Jesus Christ must be one visible body. You appear to just assume that it must be true.

     LikeLike

710. How do we all eat with so many different restaurants? Shouldn’t there just be one called “Food”. How can people handle all those choices? They must be starving.

     LikeLike

711. Michael,

     Did you just say that those in a (Catholic) parish will miss heaven (perish)?

     Freudian slip?

     LikeLike

712. CVD, I think you’ve confused my pushback with your points. Even the most wishful of trads isn’t trying to hold forth that Francis is carrying forward Ratzinger’s legacy. As regards the Africans and Asians, particularly the Africans, they didn’t learn their aversion to homosexuality from the RCs. But who cares? If the trads can’t supply the priests or the money they won’t have a voice. And not for nothing, but the Vatican’s pushback on Ireland has everything to do with CYA. It’s why the Irish are so pissed. You don’t shutter the embassy to the Vatican because everything is groovy. The Roman Curia is a bastion of conservatives. Now I’ve heard it all.

     LikeLike

713. Susan,

     Why should we take your word over Sean’s? It sounds like he gave it an honest effort, but found The Church wanting. He was even on the road to becoming a priest. Waited until nearly 40 to marry, so don’t tell me he couldn’t have pulled it off.

     LikeLike

714. TVD: The “lie” is that Catholicism teaches salvation by works, a lie which is stated over and over on this blog, a lie by which the whole justification debate rises and falls.

     SDB: This is not a lie as Jeff has ably pointed out.

     Let’s nuance this further so that we can avoid some friction. It is very true that Catholicism rightly abhors Pelagian and semi-Pelagian theology in that they affirm that

     * Works done outside of grace are not meritorious, and
     * God must first provide grace in the initial calling of an individual.

     They do, however, affirm that

     * The initial grace of justification comes through baptism (CCC 1263, 1987).
     * Subsequent graces of ongoing justification (aka sanctification) are merited by cooperation with grace (per above).

     Protestants protest that this is a species of being justified by works IN THAT obedience to the Law, albeit grace-enabled, merits justification in the second place, while performance of a rite (and one parallel to circumcision at that!) obtains the grace of initial justification.

     So Tom, we understand that you are not Pelagian nor semi-Pelagian strictly speaking, and we will not charge you with that. We do, however, believe that the Catholic doctrine properly stated is still problematic.

     LikeLike

715. Sean,

     There will always be in-house fighting, but surely you don’t advocate schism, do you? Do you think that Paul wanted there to be many churches( and I don’t mean parishes)?

     ” I opt to punt and go confessional prot. ” Which confessions do you *personally* adopt as being true and necessarily deduced from Holy Scripture? Why not adopt all of them since they all claim the same subordinate authority?

     What was the straw that broke the camel’s back for you? Is it Vatican II?

     LikeLike

716. OK, so daily stupidity. I ignored the last sentence of the OP “Gray smoke will be evident once commissioners retire for the evening” and didn’t think about it until just now. I’m slow, but I get there.

     LikeLike

717. Lol, Erik. I think you caught me well. Parish as in the second death spoken of in Revelation. Eternal loss of the reason we are made, joy of God in truth by his mercy forever.

     LikeLike

718. sdb,

     “MWF said that faith working through love is the only thing that matters. I certainly don’t believe that, and it sounds like a very strange thing for an RC to assert. Even restricting one’s view to just justification, do you guys think that’s right?”

     MWF was referencing “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.” Couple that with “If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.”
     I’m sure food and oxygen are also pretty important and matter to MWF.

     “This is not a lie as Jeff has ably pointed out.”

     Okay, so is it a lie that you hold sanctification is by works?

     Sean,

     I was not asserting the curia is a bastion of conservatives or Francis was Ratzinger 2.0.

     LikeLike

719. Susan: Which confessions do you *personally* adopt as being true and necessarily deduced from Holy Scripture? Why not adopt all of them since they all claim the same subordinate authority?

     What are the stakes involved? As far as I know, confessional Protestants don’t anathematize each other.

     Not everyone gets paralyzed by choice in Bed, Bath, and Beyond.

     LikeLike

720. Jeff,

     You expect Tom to read all that boring theology?

     LikeLike

721. CVD who is not TVD: Okay, so is it a lie that you hold sanctification is by works?

     Not sure if you’re asking whether Protestants teach that sanctification is by works, but if so, then … No. Well, their confessions do not. However, sanctification by works is a common evangelical position, and it has its adherents within the PCA. The struggle never rests.

     LikeLike

722. Susan – What was the straw that broke the camel’s back for you? Is it Vatican II?

     Erik – Ask him to tell the story about the Fat Man.

     LikeLike

723. I am hoping to get working on putting together and uploading the conference talks a little later. First I have to make them video before I can put them on YouTube.

     LikeLike

724. Michael,

     I’ll get you when you spell it “perish”.

     What was the word that Kenneth always used but couldn’t spell? Oh yeah, it was “Magisterium”. He used “Magesterium”, I think.

     LikeLike

725. Susan, on once score, I think diversity, even division is necessary for expansion and on the second, I think sin is more pronounced than any of us ever account for. I don’t think we make it better or fool anyone by pretending there is a religious version of camelot, complete with roundtable, even if only in principle. That notion bears a strking resemblance to castles in the air and people read it for the fraud it perpetuates. Susan, I read the scriptures. The more I read, the worse RC I became. It really boils down to that. But it didn’t help that I proceeded to duke it out with priests who were relying on Bultmann to question the historicity of Jesus. When you’re a new protestant rallying the RC troops to the the historicity of their savior against priests taking their lead from liberal prot theologians, you know you’ve fallen down the rabbit hole.

     LikeLike

726. Clete – (I missed this originally because I was zooming past so many people I no longer read) – There will be no approvals of SSM or fornication amongst unmarried living together.

     Erik – Do you think they come to a vote? What are the percentages for and against repeal if they do?

     You may have not intended to make Sean laugh so hard, but you did, so under Old Life rules you owe him a new pair of drawers.

     LikeLike

727. @mtx I get what you are saying… let’s be very generous about our assumptions about other. I’m totally on board there.

     But tvd is arguing for a sort of universalism (perhaps not too unlike Neuhaus’s hopeful universalism – yes there is a hell, but hopefully it is empty). Evidently room for this stance was made by VII. But early dogma contradicts that – if one doesn’t keep the Catholic faith whole and undefiled, then without a doubt he will everlastingly perish. I reject several dogmas of the RCC (e.g., immaculate conception and transubstantiation), thus I don’t keep the RC faith whole and undefiled, thus if the RCC is right, I am going to perish everlastingly.

     But now, there are all these loopholes (I’m a separated brother after all). These are either a change in dogma or the weight of the post-hoc qualifications is so heavy as to render infallibility meaningless.

     LikeLike

728. Sean – That notion bears a strking resemblance to castles in the air and people read it for the fraud it perpetuates.

     Erik – Fabulous. We have a new Old Life theme song (and it’s even a great song):

     LikeLike

729. Sdb, I thought carrying farther back to Aquinus would be validating to my previous post too. sorry for the length. You know Aquinus. In the Summa II-II 60:4 he said:
     Whether doubtful matters should always be interpreted in the more favorable way

     It seems that doubtful matters should not always be interpreted in the more favorable way.

     1. For judgment seems to be more about that which happens for the most part. But for the most part it happens that people act badly, since “the number of fools is infinite,” as is said in Ecclesiastes 1:15 (Vulgate); for “the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth,” as is said in Gen 8:21. Therefore we should interpret doubtful things rather on the side of the bad than on the side of the good.

     2. Further, Augustine says that he lives piously and righteously who is an honest judger of things, turning to neither side. But he who interprets favorably that which is doubtful, turns to one side. Therefore one should not do this.

     3. Further, man should love his neighbor as himself. But concerning himself man should interpret doubtful matters in the unfavorable way, according to Job 9:28, “I feared all my works.” Therefore it seems that things that are doubtful concerning our neighbors should be interpreted in the unfavorable way.
     But against this, on Romans 14:3 “let not him who abstains judge him who eats,” the Gloss says, “doubtful matters are to be interpreted in the more favorable way.”
     I respond, it should be said that as was said, when someone has a bad opinion of another person without sufficient cause, he thereby does injury to him and despises him. But no one should despise another, or do injury to another without a cause requiring it. And therefore when manifest judgments are not evident about someone’s badness, we should consider him as good, interpreting in the more favorable way that which is doubtful.
     To the first, therefore, it should be said that it can happen that he who interprets something favorably, errs more frequently. But it is better that someone err frequently, having a good opinion about a bad man, than that he err more rarely, having a bad opinion about a good man, since thereby injury is done him, while in the first case it is not.

     To the second it should be said that it is one thing to judge about things, and another thing to judge about men. For in the judgment by which we judge about things one does not attend to good or evil on the side of the thing about which we judge, since it is not harmed however we judge about it, but one attends only to the good of the one who judges, if he judge truly, or evil, if he judge falsely, since the truth is the good of the intellect, while falsity is its evil, as is said in Ethics VI. And therefore each person should strive to judge about things as they are. But in the judgment by which we judge about men, good and evil is considered especially on the part of him about whim we judge; by being judged good he is considered more honorable, and more contemptible if he is judged bad. And therefore in such judgments we should rather tend to judge a man to be good, unless a manifest reason to the contrary is evident. And to the man who judges, a false judgment by which he judges well about another person does not pertain to the evil of his intellect, as neither does it pertain to its perfection to know the truth of singular contingent things, yet such a judgment does pertain to good affection.

     To the third it should be said that one can in two ways interpret something unfavorably or favorably. In one way, by way of a certain supposition. And thus, since we should supply a remedy for bad things, whether they pertain to us or to others, it is helpful for the sake of more surely applying a remedy, that we suppose that which is worse, since a remedy which is efficacious against a greater evil, is much more efficacious against a lesser evil. In another way we interpret something as good or evil by way of defining or determining. And thus in the judgment of things one should strive to interpret each thing as it is, while in the judgment of persons, one should interpret more favorably, as was said.

     LikeLike

730. Hi CT,

     No, I was never JW.

     Do you believe that the church was ever one visible group of people that was the Christian authority here on earth? If yes, do you believe that it had authority from God to exist as well as to write the accounts of what happened to them as a group and of the events of Jesus’s life? Or do you think church only meant “people who bear the book” ? And if the answer is yes to the first part of my question, and the initial visible group dissolved( by heresy or died out) does the given authority go with the any people who find the books?
     If you don’t think it was ever at one time visible and cohesive and correct, do you believe that anyone who reads and printed the books gets the authority from them? If you answer yes, then you have to believe that Jesus either never gave the church and with the church authority from Him( regardless if the NT was written), or it fell into error at some undermined time, and so the books are all that’s left of a society of people who’s authority died out and if authority dies, it cannot be resurrected into the hands of whoever has the books. If that’s the case then everybody has equal claim to them( and that is exactly what happened). Confessional or Evangeeeelical( nearly the same difference).

     LikeLike

731. “I’m sure food and oxygen are also pretty important and matter to MWF.”
     For justification?

     “Okay, so is it a lie that you hold sanctification is by works?”
     Lie is such a strong word.

     LikeLike

732. Susan, then I’m confused as to how Protestantism provides less comfort than Catholicism. If God indeed judges sinners, and if all people are sinners inherently deserving of judgment, and if Christ alone provides everything God requires on behalf of those sinners and is communicated to those sinners by simply having faith in his person and work, why trade that in? Unless, of course, you take exception to any of those conditions, in which it’s hard to see why anyone would hang on beyond simply having mere religious fantasies.

     LikeLike

733. Why is Susan reminding me of those creepy TV commercials for Mormonism from back in the 80s?

     “Is it possible that there’s another Testament of Jesus’ time on earth?”

     LikeLike

734. Sdb, sorry didn’t catch your post before posting Aquinus. There is great confusion over what VII teaches. I agree. I hope you try and listen to the talks I will be posting too. People try and make VII a super dogmatic council while it is the first and only council that implimented no dogmatic changes what so ever.

     LikeLike

735. Sean,

     Susan, on once score, I think diversity, even division is necessary for expansion and on the second, I think sin is more pronounced than any of us ever account for. I don’t think we make it better or fool anyone by pretending there is a religious version of camelot, complete with roundtable, even if only in principle. That notion bears a strking resemblance to castles in the air and people read it for the fraud it perpetuates. Susan, I read the scriptures. The more I read, the worse RC I became. It really boils down to that. But it didn’t help that I proceeded to duke it out with priests who were relying on Bultmann to question the historicity of Jesus. When you’re a new protestant rallying the RC troops to the the historicity of their savior against priests taking their lead from liberal prot theologians, you know you’ve fallen down the rabbit hole.

     Thanks for not answering my question again. You believe in diversity and division. Well, I see it and can’t help but believing what I see, but the you still haven’t told me what schism is. Expansion? Of what more confusion and less dogma?
     “Camelot” you say, ‘Tis a silly place. Srsly, you must be a Platonist. Don’t you *see* St Peter’s in Rome? It’s real, I’ve been there;) Sean, I trust my reason, and in my reasons to believe that whole thing went down like the scriptures say, for the Catholic Church exists and fulfills this reasonable supernatural expectation.
     I don’t have to deny fraud to believe in the papacy and apostolic authority.

     Anyways, you know where I joke an where I am serious, I hope. I have nothing but goodwill towards you even though we will have to disagree.

     Take Care,
     Susan

     LikeLike

736. Thanks, Erik. Spelling was never my strong suit. Though now that you pointed it out I understand. Me and magisterium have trouble with each other often, too.

     LikeLike

737. MWF, sorry to. take so long to get back to your response. The thread has moved on, I have not followed it since yesterday afternoon, and you are excused from replying to me if you have you hands full. I do appreciate your efforts to be irenic.

     I have repeatedly said that I was limiting my intervention to the development of the doctrine of JBFA by Luther up until his explication of it in the Heidelberg Disputations of 1518 and i have stated repeatedly that I have no interest in relitigating the Reformation. That is not a dodge, regardless of how it might seem to others, and here are my reasons for taking that stance, which I try to apply to my efforts to understand history of whatever era.

     (1) As a general rule, efforts to construct a usable past succumb to the tyranny of the present. While I would agree that there is no view from nowhere, it is very difficult to fully understand people who lived even our fellow Americans who lived, say, 150 years ago. But since we must try (human nature demands usable stories about the past), then I think humility and decency (a respect for people who actually lived in the times we look at) demand that we ask precise questions, marshall all of the primary source evidence that we can find without selection, and present our findings so that others can respond in the same manner.

     (2) More specifically, treatments of the Reformation, even in the academic world, all to often ignore its extensive and deep roots in the Renaissance. My old teacher Dr. Marius taught a year long course that covered both eras, and he was very clear that there were deep continuities. There is also a tendency to approach the Reformation in a Northern European- centric manner and leave the Renaissance to the Italians. Europeans were in this together.

     (3) History tends to be about the winners. Since the Reformation may have been fought to a draw, you could argue that it is an exception. But I think there were losers- for example, Melcanthon, Contarini, and yes, even Erasmus (who certainly didn’t deserve to have his works placed on the Index of Books). Regardless of what you think about any one of these individuals, they are part of the story, and you don’t have to cross the line to counterfactual to at least give them the respect that many of their contemporaries would have.

     (4) Even the best historians of the era tend to have not had much contact with the Political Science department. I could go on about this at great length, but I will spare you. Suffice it to say that there was a lot of thinking going on about the nature of man as a political animal that was being conducted by non-theologians. (Machiavelli, anyone? ). Historians focused on the Reformation who do try are rare. The wars in Italy of the 15th century prompted all sorts of writing about the relations of ( then nascent) states / dynasties with each other and their inhabitants (you can see citizenship emerging as a concept)

     That is why I simply decline to get involved in questions such as whether the Reformation was good or bad, necessary or not. It happened, we have to live today with some thought for what we will do tomorrow and the ultimate knowledge of our hope in the Resurrection with Him.

     Of course, another answer might be the same one that Zhou Enlai, the despicable Chinese Premier under Mao, gave when someone in the early 1970’s asked him whether or not the French Revolution was a good thing: “Too soon to tell.” (Emoticon)

     Shalom.

     LikeLike

738. Steve,

     “Susan, then I’m confused as to how Protestantism provides less comfort than Catholicism.”

     Christianity is divided but that means that it had to at one time been unified. I wasn’t looking for the doctrine of assurance( or any other) doctrine du jour. Getting to the right church was my priority.

     “If God indeed judges sinners, and if all people are sinners inherently deserving of judgment, and if Christ alone provides everything God requires on behalf of those sinners and is communicated to those sinners by simply having faith in his person and work, why trade that in?”

     You’re working within a Protestant paradigm and assuming you’re right. The world is bigger than this and scripture isn’t as clear as you would have me or yourself believe. What if there is another view on the table that is shared by a much more ancient and part of Christendom? You’re begging the question; that is, assuming what we disagree over.

     “Unless, of course, you take exception to any of those conditions, in which it’s hard to see why anyone would hang on beyond simply having mere religious fantasies.”

     Or that I go in for what the church held before the 16th century. For a look at this that isn’t just Roman Catholic, take a peek at Easter Orthodoxy.

     LikeLike

739. Susan – I don’t have to deny fraud to believe in the papacy and apostolic authority.

     Erik – O.K., admit fraud in believing in the papacy and apostolic authority, then.

     LikeLike

740. Jeff,

     “What are the stakes involved? As far as I know, confessional Protestants don’t anathematize each other.

     Not everyone gets paralyzed by choice in Bed, Bath, and Beyond.”

     Well, a divided church is a scandal to the world and another thing is that Christ wants us to be one. If you do or don’t anathematize each other it doesn’t matter so long as you fight with Catholics and ignore the EO( who are much closer to Catholicism than anywhere near Protestant divisions). What’s a division, but a division of people not united to one body; a one body that is supposed to belong to Christ. Is division a good thing or something to be hated and repaired?
     And you keep presupposing that it’s the “confessional” protestants that are the real deal. It’s you against everyone else.

     You can even change the four marks of one, holy, catholic an apostolic to mean whatever you want. That’s convenient. How can anyone follow where the marks lead if people are changing the meanings? It’s a good shell game, but not honest or nice.

     LikeLike

741. Susan, schism is what Rome did. Thus the geographical demarcation. Though, I notice you like to go plain Catholicism. Not sure what that is, but they don’t sell papal supremacy, However, Rome does after the Gregorian reforms.

     I have a reasonable expectation of ruling the world because I’m me. It hasn’t happened yet but I have MOC I’ve come up with and I meet all the criteria, very small leap(if any) necessary. Because I’m me and you’re both not AND female, I don’t trust your reason. So, you’re in schism from me. It’s not a good place to be. You are female, so, invincible ignorance may come into play but you’re pushing it.

     In the peace of me

     LikeLike

742. That may have been the comment of the year-to-date.

     LikeLike

743. Erik,

     That isn’t an argument, it’s a contradiction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

     Get back to work! 🙂

     LikeLike

744. sdb,

     ““I’m sure food and oxygen are also pretty important and matter to MWF.”
     For justification? ”

     What did MWF say that Paul did not say?

     ““Okay, so is it a lie that you hold sanctification is by works?”
     Lie is such a strong word.”

     What I’m saying is works are involved in your sanctification and those works are rewarded (e.g. merit). You presumably would not agree to someone accusing you of “sanctification by works”. Sanctification and growth in justification in RCism involves works and those works are rewarded (e.g. merit). You can see why RCs then might similarly disagree with someone accusing them of “justification by works”.

     LikeLike

745. This post will be retitled “Black Smoke Over Susan’s House”.

     LikeLike

746. Sean sells his extra testosterone to the NE Patriots and the GS Warriors.

     LikeLike

747. Come on, now. I keed, I keed. I go like dis and dis and dis and dis and gooooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.

     LikeLike

748. Goooooaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllll! Gooooaaaalllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

     LikeLike

749. Goooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

     LikeLike

750. Laughing like an idiot as I wait to get my hair cut. Not gonna try to splain it to the ladies.

     LikeLike

751. And let’s not hear any “be nice to Susan” mess. She’s like the women who want cover male professional sports. If you go in the locker room your gonna see some &#@$s.

     LikeLike

752. Sean’s the prima donna who gives the female sportsbabe a postgame interview at his locker, sans towel.

     LikeLike

753. Muddy,

     Well OL surely isn’t The Savile Club, but I used to think it was a bit more classy than fanny smacks and fist bumps. I could say a lot, but I’d better not stoop.

     LikeLike

754. Oops I meant “CW”

     Believe me, Erik, considering my upbringing I can truly say, “I’ve seen everything”. I just shouldn’t expect better behavior here than in a prison.

     LikeLike

755. Susan,

     That’s being kind of judgy looking down on fanny smacks.

     LikeLike

756. Susan – Believe me, Erik, considering my upbringing I can truly say, “I’ve seen everything”.

     Erik – Aren’t you from Florida? Do you know Chortles’ people?

     What have you seen?

     LikeLike

757. Argh! I had the first talk uploading to YouTube and the laptop died. Got to remake the video on the PC and start over.

     BTW, I did watch that ND conference on polarization in the Church other day. Man was that lady obsessed with getting some women priest. Slip on over to the Anglican communion if you think God wants fathers to be ladies. Women do great things in the Church. They don’t need to be priests to so God’s work. I did like the bishop’s first talk, but was disappointed at his clarity towards the question from the man with samesex attraction. Really? No mention of sacrifices of desires being godly and for God’s glory. I have a close family member who came into the Catholic Church after my family who is gay and she was told clearly that the Church does not consider same sex desire or temptation a sin but all homosexual action is sin. Not that had to take those opportunities bishop. Do it next time, Bishop Flores.

     LikeLike

758. Susan: Well, a divided church is a scandal to the world and another thing is that Christ wants us to be one … What’s a division, but a division of people not united to one body; a one body that is supposed to belong to Christ. Is division a good thing or something to be hated and repaired?

     Full agreement there. But what is the cost? You want to tell me to heal the breach by joining the One True Church that explains away the second commandment. Just nope.

     Susan: If you do or don’t anathematize each other it doesn’t matter so long as you fight with Catholics and ignore the EO( who are much closer to Catholicism than anywhere near Protestant divisions) … And you keep presupposing that it’s the “confessional” protestants that are the real deal. It’s you against everyone else.

     It doesn’t have to be that way. It could be (far, far in the future) that RCC, EO, and protestants could actually have church-wide councils and hash out “what does the Bible actually teach?”

     One of the big obstacles to that happening is that both RCC and EO insist as a precondition that their views will necessarily prevail. That insistence is coming through loud and clear from the Susan/MW/CVD/TVD/MTX section of the bleachers, btw.

     So who’s blocking unity, exactly?

     LikeLike

759. Jeff, I don’t know that we have interacted in the comma here, at least to my knowledge. If we have it has been so many ages that I have forgotten. Sorry if that is the case. Anyway, I am responding because you have addressed me in a way. I make it my point to not be abrasive with my understanding. I hope that come across in the combox well. I so believe what I understand about Vatholic truth to be true. It would be quite ignorant to believe anything else. I also assume you believe what you believe is truth. This mutual adherence to what we understand as ultimately true should be respected. If this keeps use separated for the time being, it just is what it is. But we can both admit that on many things we both can not be adhering the the truth and in those things we can try and understand why the other hold their particular position on a subject. We should be able to so this with respect and reverence for the fact that it is the truths of God that we are supposedly adhering to. So it is not me or you that is keeping us separated, but our love for the truth. That is ultimately a good thing that we can appreciate in each other. As a Catholic I do not look for a kumbiyah type of unity but a real unity. This is not easy. It truly take knowing our own faiths well so we can truly interact with each other about reality not suppositions. I hope you can respect that. I have not been following your discussion. I have mainly been interacting with Hart. But also with Erik and sdb a little. We are mainly discussing VII. Peace, Michael

     LikeLike

760. cw l’unificateur
     Posted June 15, 2015 at 6:21 pm | Permalink
     And let’s not hear any “be nice to Susan” mess. She’s like the women who want cover male professional sports. If you go in the locker room your gonna see some &#@$s.>>>>>

     Be kind to Susan. Be kind to one another. That is Reformed faith and practice.

     Ephesians 4:32
     Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

     LikeLike

761. Hart, Erik and any others,
     Here is the link that should get to the first VII talk. I will put the others below. These are from Dr. Benedict Nguyen from the diocese of Vience in Florida.
     https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4M1Nl-nYudJQ1RQM3BjLXk4dE0

     LikeLike

762. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4M1Nl-nYudJX2NxOTItOWh4X0E

     LikeLike

763. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4M1Nl-nYudJVU5ISG4yY0JZSms

     BTW, you will have to enjoy some good old catholic off key singing if you don’t fast forward a little.

     LikeLike

764. Michael,

     I apologize for lumping you in. I have appreciated your comments and would say that you go above and beyond to show respect without compromise.

     LikeLike

765. Jeff,

     Maybe we should spend some time hashing out one thing at a time. Is it the 2nd commandment that bothers you the most? Is the only thing that you are protesting against. After all, this split wasn’t supposed to become the new normal.

     Erik,

     Chortes sounds exactly like my family. I’m from Walton County originally. DeFuniak Springs to be exact. Is he from my neck of the woods.

     LikeLike

766. Jeff:
     That insistence is coming through loud and clear from the Susan/MW/CVD/TVD/MTX section of the bleachers, btw.>>>>

     Actually, we’re more like on the playing field. No sitting in the bleachers for us!

     You at least agree in theory that we could, someday, be more united as Christians.

     Take care, Jeff. Thanks.

     LikeLike

767. Thanks, Jeff.

     Hope the links work. Will check in tomorrow folks.

     Catholic peeps. These talks should not be limited to the Protestants. We will learn from them too. God bless all.

     LikeLike

768. Susan,

     A mutual friend clued me in to your mini-bio at CTC. Far out. Back in the 80s a dude was trying to get a Nudist Christian Church going in Ames. He was a legend among us junior high kids. He was eventually deported to Canada.

     I didn’t see that Bryan responded to your post. There might not be anything in his paradigm to process that information.

     LikeLike

769. “take a peek at Easter Orthodox”
     Does it include bunnies?

     LikeLike

770. “And you keep presupposing that it’s the “confessional” protestants that are the real deal. It’s you against everyone else.”
     My understanding from our services is that all baptized Christians who profess faith in Christ are welcome to our table. So Susan, we would not exclude you for being an RC, Erik for being Lutheran, or Dan for being Baptist. Our table is open to all who profess faith in Christ and are baptized. The bar to unity is one sided as far as I can tell, and rests on extra biblical burdens placed on believers.

     LikeLike

771. “I didn’t see that Bryan responded to your post. There might not be anything in his paradigm to process that information”

     I informed Bryan before I shared the background, asking him how I should go about giving links when there were nudes included. He responded with respect, concern for what I had experienced and a humorous remark.

     SDB,

     ” Eastern Orthodox” That was cute:)

     LikeLike

772. sdb, I thought open communion only applied to other ‘evangelical’ churches and I was under the impression that the RCC didn’t clear that hurdle. Quite frankly it’s never come up, though we accept their baptisms.

     LikeLike

773. Sdb,

     I don’t think I will ever be comfortable being called “Lutheran”.

     How about “Happy Wife, Happy Life, Reformed in Exile”?

     Only Reformed options in her current geographically acceptable range are CRC & RCA and I would drive those folks nuts.

     If I ever completely punt I’ll be a Methodist since there is one I could walk to in 5 minutes.

     LikeLike

774. Susan,

     Was Bryan’s comment saucy?

     LikeLike

775. #don’tratemycomments

     LikeLike

776. Jeff, it’s not vd, t’s church. It’s his hobby.

     Why go to church if God loves everyone?

     LikeLike

777. Susan, it is a funny kind of love that sends an only son to die on the cross for sin.

     LikeLike

778. #ihaveanumpirecomplex

     LikeLike

779. Susan, do you know how selective Roman Catholics are when it comes to apostolic succession? Alexander VI. You want to hold him up as a successor?

     Oh, well sin doesn’t invalidate apostolic succession. But neither does apostolic succession guarantee truth and rectitude. In which case, apostolic succession doesn’t give what you promise.

     Uncertainty alert!!!

     LikeLike

780. Zrim, Susan thinks God loves everyone. She went from being Reformed to being RC and became a mainline Protestant circa 1950 over night.

     LikeLike

781. For baseball fans

     The majors have cleared the delivery of Carter Capps of Miami, saw him tonight against the Yankees, minor league umps are calling g it an illegal pitch

     In his delivery, with his left foot in the air he is hop-pushing off the rubber with his back foot and sliding two feet towards the plate and uncorking a high nineties pitch with ease

     LikeLike

782. A different Dan:
     MWF, sorry to. take so long to get back to your response. The thread has moved on, I have not followed it since yesterday afternoon, and you are excused from replying to me if you have you hands full. I do appreciate your efforts to be irenic.>>>>

     Dan, that’s sweet. Thank you. Your historical perspective is interesting. Thank you for sharing it. You have studied long and hard to understand this. Nicely done.

     A different Dan:
     That is why I simply decline to get involved in questions such as whether the Reformation was good or bad, necessary or not. It happened, we have to live today with some thought for what we will do tomorrow and the ultimate knowledge of our hope in the Resurrection with Him.>>>>>>

     Yes. Well said. I think you are saying that it is time to look towards the future and not dwell on the past. Our hope is in Christ. Being with Him is what we are to look forward to. In the Catholic Church, that is called the Beatific Vision – seeing God face to face in all His glory. That is what we aim for. Meanwhile we see through that darkened glass, but our hope is that someday it will be face to face.

     I just don’t think that Luther was a good example of how to treat Scripture. 🙂 There are a lot of Protestants who are much better examples. …and I don’t think that Protestants in general even know that Catholics write commentaries, but there I go again…

     Take care, Dan, and thanks again for the exchange.

     LikeLike

783. Mrs. Webfoot – Me:
     How did you arrive at your conclusions? What are you measuring these doctrines against?>>>>

     Jeff Cagle:
     I assume your curiosity concerns my own state of mind, since you no doubt already have your own opinions on both questions.

     To answer 2., I don’t take the same view as you on the function of authority in interpretation. For the Catholics I have discussed things with, authority functions as the right and ability to declare the meaning of text, and it functions by charism. So concerning the second commandment, when the text reads

     “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them …

     it is entirely possible for a Catholic that someone with the appropriate authority could come along and declare (using the charism) that this text does not preclude all making of carved images and bowing to them. And their declaration must be considered as correct.>>>>

     Well, there are Scriptural arguments as well as arguments from tradition.

     You do have to define your terms. What is a “carved image”? It is an idol, correct? Idols represent false gods, and the Apostle Paul says that idols really represent demonic entities.

     1 Corinthians 10:20
     No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons.

     In fact, Isaiah talks about people who carve an idol in their own image. It is a kind of self worship as well as a worship of demons.

     Isaiah 44:17
     And the rest of it he makes into a god, his idol, and falls down to it and worships it. He prays to it and says, “Deliver me, for you are my god!”

     So, I think that so far we can say that both Catholic and Protestant, – and I’ll even throw the Orthodox Christians into this – all agree that idolatry is a terrible sin. It involves things like self worship, the worship of demons. God Himself is dishonored.

     Jeff Cagle:
     I do not understand authority as functioning in this way. That use of “authority” is actually a logical fallacy (the “argument from authority”). It is inconsistent with reason.>>>>

     In Christian theology, though, we have to appeal to authority. Scripture is our authority, and then our traditions guide us further. You would say that you follow sola scriptura, not solo scriptura. You would add the WCT to that if I am not mistaken, and other Reformed documents. You would also appeal to recognized Bible teachers within your tradition. So, you also have a kind of Scripture plus tradition.

     I would say that the authority is Scripture plus the teaching magisterium of the Church.

     Jeff Cagle:
     Now, authority functions for the Confessional, Reformed Protestant as the collective wisdom of the church. >>>>

     You also draw heavily from the teaching magisterium of the Catholic Church. You would quote from men like Augustine and others.

     Jeff Cagle:
     It adds weight to a particular interpretation, but it cannot override the meaning of the words. This use of authority is one that is actually consistent with reason (Tom, you listening?) in that it treats deserved authority as evidence using in constructing an inductive argument for a position.>>>>

     Okay, so I will submit to you a question, and maybe tomorrow take the next part of your excellent answer. Are there ever times in the Bible when people bowed down to things or people other than God, and it was not sin?

     Remember, I agree that a Christian should never bow down to an idol. Can a Christian ever bow down to another human being and not sin? Can a Christian or even a Jewish person ever bow down to an inanimate object and not sin?

     Take care, Jeff, and thanks for your answer. Maybe we’ll talk again if you have time.

     LikeLike

784. sdb
     Posted June 15, 2015 at 7:43 am | Permalink
     @TVD & cvd

     I’m just asking a question. MWF said that faith working through love is the only thing that matters. I certainly don’t believe that, and it sounds like a very strange thing for an RC to assert. Even restricting one’s view to just justification, do you guys think that’s right?>>>>

     sdb, pretend that someone like the Apostle Paul said that the only thing that counts is faith working through love. What would it mean then?

     Pretend that there were no Mrs. Webfoot.

     Pretend that the kind of faith that someone like the Apostle Paul was talking about had some bearing on justification. How would those two concepts work together?

     How about justification by faith working through love? Remember, justification cannot be by faith alone. (James 2)

     Then add other Scriptures like 1 Corinthians 13 and the text that TVD so kindly provided and you kind of get the picture of what God’s priorities are and what the aim of the Christian life is supposed to be.

     If you don’t believe it, then what do you believe?

     LikeLike

785. Susan, I’m working within a particular paradigm and assume I’m right because that’s what people do, including you. Why do certain converts seem to think they’re above the human condition? And if “scripture isn’t as clear as you would have me or yourself believe” (wow, bye bye Protestantism indeed) then why does it remain one of the three legs of the Catholic stool? Couldn’t the same be said of Tradition? You may be after clarity and certitude, but any claim to have found them seems easily turned against you.

     LikeLike

786. Thanks Kent. I have full confidence that post contained far more helpful & interesting information than whatever Mrs. Webfoot wrote in the three below it.

     LikeLike

787. Since I stopped reading Tom’s comments he’s stopped writing them. I knew this would work. Next up: stop taking calls at work.

     LikeLike

788. Apologies Erik. I totally get the exile bit.

     LikeLike

789. @mwf I dispute that “faith working through love is all that matters” to the RC understanding of justification. Actually, I guess I don’t really dispute it, I just find it surprising that you think that. Thus my question. My belief about justification and sanctification (and salvation more generally) are described by the Heidelberg Catechism.

     LikeLike

790. Hey, somebody let me know that the links work please.

     LikeLike

791. @mtx they work. Do you have a blog? I don’t have time to listen now and there is no chance I’ll find these a week or two from now.

     LikeLike

792. Webfoot is causing me carpeltunnelers sindrome in my thumbs from scrolling down on the BlackBerry, ignoring everything posted

     can I make a medical claim for religious and humane fraud at the same time?

     LikeLike

793. I never saw a thing from Susan that indicated she paid any attention during her alleged time in a Reformed church.

     Not a thing.

     I sometimes wonder what people are doing when they sit there and don’t take notes or pay any particularistic attention to the sermon at all

     LikeLike

794. Sdb,
     Yes, I will try and put them on there soon.
     livingwordoflife.wordpress.com

     LikeLike

795. Susan,

     We need the details on what went down between Nudism and Rome.

     Did your URC do anything on particular to disappoint you?

     Let’s discuss my junior high years sometime if we think the experiences of our early lives must determine our religious fate.

     LikeLike

796. Kent, some of us non note takers are trying to foster the long lost art of listening unencumbered (the ear as the organ of faith, etc.). We’re hoping it has some effect against that caricature of Calvinists, real and perceived, as intellectualizing faith.

     LikeLike

797. Erik :Since I stopped reading Tom’s comments he’s stopped writing them. I knew this would work.

     I think it might be because of this: TVD Posted June 15, 2015 at 1:55 pm | Permalink Peace, off to Vegas

     but I guess if one doesn’t exalt himself, who will.

     LikeLike

798. Sdb,
     The links are over on my blog now.
     https://livingwordoflife.wordpress.com

     LikeLike

799. a.,

     Not looking gift horses in the mouth.

     Do the conduct Mass on The Strip?

     LikeLike

800. Kent: I sometimes wonder what people are doing when they sit there and don’t take notes or pay any particularistic attention to the sermon at all

     One of our members upon examination for membership explained that after years of being in a PCUSA church, he finally heard the Gospel from a third party and believed. Subsequently, he contacted his PCUSA sunday school teacher to ask him why that teacher had never explained the gospel to him.

     The teacher sent him a tape of one of the sunday school classes in which he did exactly that.

     Moral: People listen poorly (including me).

     LikeLike

801. MichaelTX, Thanks for the links. But do you think Nguyen is representative. His bio does not read like a mainstream RC guy. I don’t say that to discredit him or you. But it does point to the bubble of conservatives out there who exist independently from the bishops and the large structures of Roman Catholicism.

     LikeLike

802. Right now at CTC there’s surely an article on the audacity of the pope on climate change in the works

     LikeLike

803. Black smoke and flames visible over the Roman Catholic world (thanks to our Texas correspondent):

     In the last 25 years, we have a net loss of 2,137 parishes nationwide: In 1990, there were 19,620 U.S. Catholic churches. Today, there are 17,464.

     The New York archdiocese announced the consolidation of 112 parishes in October 2014, effectively closing 31 parishes. In December, it announced that it is considering closing another 38 parishes.

     The Boston archdiocese has closed more than 125 parishes in the past 25 years. In November 2012, it announced the consolidation of the remaining 288 parishes into 135 “parish collaboratives.”

     In the Chicago archdiocese, Catholics declined from 43 percent of the population in 1980 to 35 percent in 2015. Chicago had 1,000 fewer priests in 2014 than it had in 1980. In last 20 years of Cardinal Francis George’s administration, everything was down: 2,000 fewer nuns, 21 fewer parishes, 74 fewer elementary schools and 11 fewer high schools. There were also 10,000 fewer baptisms, half as many weddings, and 33 percent fewer funerals annually.

     Nationwide, Catholic priests are an endangered species. Today, there are 3,496 U.S. parishes that have no resident pastor. There are nearly 20,000 fewer priests in the United States than there were 25 years ago, dropping from 52,124 to 38,275.

     Half the diocesan priests in the United States will retire in the next five years. Many dioceses in the U.S. do not have sufficient funds to pay their pensions.

     Religious orders of brothers and sisters are disappearing even faster than diocesan priests. There are only about 50,000 U.S. nuns today, down from almost 180,000 in 1965. The only really bright spot in the vocations picture is the permanent deaconate. We have more than 17,000 permanent deacons, up from about 900 in 1975. Maybe marriage helps.

     Sacramental participation is way down. Today, only 24 percent of U.S. Catholics go to Mass on a typical Sunday. In 1970, it was closer to 50 percent. In 2014, there were less than half as many Catholic weddings as in 1980; more than 200,000 fewer infant baptisms than in 1980; and 50,000 fewer funerals than in 1990.

     But it will be okay if we just follow Jesus:

     Are we going out of business?

     I think the answer is both “yes” and “no.” “Yes” if you think of the church as an institution in the 1950s model. “No” if you think of the church as a movement of the followers of Jesus Christ.

     This is not the Benedict Option. It is the Protestant Option. Bishops have that affect on Christians. But the converts hear and see no evil.

     LikeLike

804. Hart he is employees by a bishop in that diocese and has a Doctorate in the field of liturgy to my knowledge. Conservative/liberal whatever… He is teaching historic truth of Catholic doctrine and what he says makes sense to me. Hope u enjoy

     LikeLike

805. Michael, you mean whatever he says I will force my mind to accept it as making sense, even when it is a total contradiction of prior statements, and no explanation is provided for making the change???

     LikeLike

806. sdb
     :@mwf I dispute that “faith working through love is all that matters” to the RC understanding of justification. Actually, I guess I don’t really dispute it, I just find it surprising that you think that. Thus my question. My belief about justification and sanctification (and salvation more generally) are described by the Heidelberg Catechism.>>>>>

     2 observations, sdb. 1.) Maybe you don’t know what the Catholic Church teaches about justification by faith. 2.) Maybe your understanding of Pauline teaching is incomplete.

     I have not said anything that contradicts the teaching magisterium of the Catholic Church or the authority of the Apostle Paul.

     Why should what I said surprise you? Generally it is thought that if one reads the Bible, they will leave the Catholic Church. Not always the case.

     Take care, brother sdb, and thank you for the interaction.

     LikeLike

807. Mrs. W: You do have to define your terms. What is a “carved image”? It is an idol, correct? Idols represent false gods, and the Apostle Paul says that idols really represent demonic entities…

     I think you are trying to argue that making images of false gods is prohibited, but making images of people who are not to be worshiped is permitted.

     However, the command actually proscribes making images of anything at all, to either bow OR to worship.

     Let’s look at the language of the command, for it is specific

     Ex 20.4-5a Leningrad

     לֹֽ֣א תַֽעֲשֶׂ֨ה־לְךָ֥֣ פֶ֣֙סֶל֙׀ וְכָל־תְּמוּנָ֡֔ה אֲשֶׁ֤֣ר בַּשָּׁמַ֣֙יִם֙׀ מִמַּ֡֔עַל וַֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר֩ בָּאָ֖֨רֶץ מִתַָּ֑֜חַת וַאֲשֶׁ֥֣ר בַּמַּ֖֣יִם׀ מִתַּ֥֣חַת לָאָֽ֗רֶץ

     5 לֹֽא־תִשְׁתַּחְוֶ֥֣ה לָהֶ֖ם֮ וְלֹ֣א תָעָבְדֵ֑ם֒
     
     Ex 20.4-5a LXX
     οὐ ποιήσεις σεαυτῷ εἴδωλον, οὐδὲ παντὸς ὁμοίωμα, ὅσα ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἄνω καὶ ὅσα ἐν τῇ γῇ κάτω καὶ ὅσα ἐν τοῖς ὕδασιν ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς. 5 οὐ προσκυνήσεις αὐτοῖς, οὐδὲ μὴ λατρεύσεις αὐτοῖς·

     Ex 20.4-5a ESV
     “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them

     The first term, pesel = eidwlon = idol, is a likeness of man or animal (per BDB for Hebrew, Liddel and Scott for Greek. While it is true that the term is expanded in the New Testament to include abstract things that compete with God — e.g., Paul tells us that greed is idolatry — the expansion of the term does not eradicate its basic meaning. An “idol” in Greek and Hebrew is a likeness. That includes likenesses of people (Deut 4.22).

     The second term, temunah = homoiwma = likeness is even more generic, meaning simply a “representation” or “something resembling another”

     So it is quite clear that what is forbidden is any likeness.

     What actions are forbidden? There are two, as is clear in the structure of Hebrew, Greek, and English alike. The first is to bow, proskunew. The second is to worship or serve, latreuw.

     Now you come and suggest that we can make images as long as they are not of gods, and that we can bow as long as we are not serving.

     There’s not wiggle-room for that in the command.

     Think further. The bowing is an outward action, while the worshiping is an inward intent. This is the basis for your distinction between veneration and worship: The action of bowing is acceptable as long as the intent of the heart is correct.

     But what happened in Israel to those who bowed? They were considered idolators and punished (or should have been, according to the Law). The intent of the heart was not examined, nor could it have been. The second commandment did not permit “bowing without worshiping”, because such an action could never have been proved. The simple act of bowing was enough to be considered guilty.

     Mrs. W: So, I think that so far we can say that both Catholic and Protestant, – and I’ll even throw the Orthodox Christians into this – all agree that idolatry is a terrible sin. It involves things like self worship, the worship of demons. God Himself is dishonored.

     And of course, I’m glad that we have that common ground in principle. What you don’t yet recognize is that while venerating icons is certainly not intended to worship false gods, it is nevertheless a transgression of the clear command.

     So the obvious question is, Why did Nicea 2 not recognize this fact? And here we could go down a trail of historical factors, but here’s an important question: Why does the current Church accept the decision of Nicea 2, but reject the decision of Hieria?

     In at least one of those cases, a duly called ecumenical council got it wrong. How do we know which one? (I was tempted to snark “On whose authority?”, but that wouldn’t really be helpful)

     Could it be that the Church accepts the authority of councils when the outcome of those councils is congenial to current practice, but rejects the authority of councils when not?

     LikeLike

808. MW: Are there ever times in the Bible when people bowed down to things … and it was not sin?

     Not to my knowledge. Do you know of any such instances?

     MW: Are there ever times in the Bible when people bowed down to … people other than God, and it was not sin?

     Yes. 1 Kings 1.23 is a clear example.

     LikeLike

809. Kent,
     I don’t understand the point of your statement. But no that is not what I mean if I understand what you are saying. Listen at least to talk 1 if you wish to judge what Nguyen has to say.

     LikeLike

810. @Jeff
     The two closest example of the people “bowing down to a creating thing” without sinning that I can think of are Moses fashioning the bronze snake and the people looking to it in order to be healed. This isn’t exactly bowing down though.

     Then we have the story of Naaman and Elisha,

     “If you will not,” said Naaman, “please let me, your servant, be given as much earth as a pair of mules can carry, for your servant will never again make burnt offerings and sacrifices to any other god but the Lord. But may the Lord forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the Lord forgive your servant for this.”

     “Go in peace,” Elisha said.

     It seems to me that the exception Naaman requests reinforces the general sinfulness of bowing to idols.

     LikeLike

811. Hart, I surely don’t think Nguyen is an extremist in his understanding in anyway. Didn’t know if you saw but he is a professor a Ave Maria University where he teaches canon law and liturgy and sacremants classes. He is also an assistant to the University President. Here is his bio from Ave Maria: http://www.avemaria.edu/MajorsPrograms/GraduatePrograms/MTSinPastoralTheology/IPTFaculty/ProfBenNguyen.aspx

     LikeLike

812. Last one, then responsible citizenry calls. For one thing, I have a starving caterpillar to feed and black raspberries to harvest.

     Susan: Jeff, Maybe we should spend some time hashing out one thing at a time. Is it the 2nd commandment that bothers you the most? Is the only thing that you are protesting against.

     It’s a fair question. I actually protested against a number of items in my bullet list, but the question is still good. Now, you should be ready. My answer will possibly be hard to hear. Nevertheless, it is heartfelt and without malice.

     You have to understand that my relation with and appreciation for Catholics and Catholicism in general is actually fairly good. My Catholic relatives and I get on fine, and we can even converse about doctrine without any rancor.

     Likewise, when I teach church history, I make an effort to explain doctrinal development in an accurate and sympathetic manner, such that my Catholic students can feel properly represented and “safe.”

     So the protesting you here see does not represent a campaign to put down Catholicism. I don’t visit Catholic blogs and try to take down the system.

     My central grain of sand, so to speak, is the resurgence of a brand of epistemology reminiscent of Ignatius Loyola: We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides. CtC in particular has resurrected this in the form of the “Catholic authority or your own authority” false choice, which I call the False Choice of Authority. They have used the False Choice of Authority to target Reformed elders for conversion. Sheep-stealing, I view dimly. Shepherd-stealing is worse.

     Partly, I push back for the reason just given. It’s my church, and I am actually called to defend my church from false teaching.

     But further, the False Choice of Authority is very harmful to the individual because it undermines the authority of Scripture in the same way that Absalom undermined the authority of David. The ecclesial structure sits between the believer and God and says, “Oh, if only there were someone to interpret the king’s law for you.”

     And as side effects, the False Choice of Authority also shuts down the ability to weigh evidence and encourages in its place the use of a fallacious species of argument from authority, as well as a very subtle form of circular reasoning.

     So the reason I have made various objections, including the second commandment objection, is that those objections make clear the stakes.

     * The Church ought not contradict the plain command of God. The issue of icons is a very good example of this.

     * The Church ought not place doctrines and commandments on men which cannot be proved from Scripture. The teachings concerning Mary are in the former category, the requirement for priests to be celibate are in the latter.

     * The Church ought not make the Scriptures obscure by appealing to an unknown tradition that the apostles did not see fit to write down for us.

     There it is. That’s my objection, and thanks for listening.

     LikeLike

813. MichaelTX, thanks, I saw that. Just that in mainstream RC circles, Ave Maria isn’t highly regarded.

     LikeLike

814. 2 observations, sdb. 1.) Maybe you don’t know what the Catholic Church teaches about justification by faith. 2.) Maybe your understanding of Pauline teaching is incomplete.

     There are reasons certain papist interlocutors here at OL are viewed as hypocritical, sanctimonious and foolish old ladies, if not wicked, deceitful and malicious tools.

     Justification by Faith: Romanism and Protestantism was brought up before with the only response being the resident troll/skeptic shouting and fulminating as usual. IOW no substantive response.

     Rome evidently doesn’t teach justification by Holy Spirit enabled acts of righteousness.
     Or in a word “infusion” of righteousness versus “imputation”.

     As before, a partial list of things ex prot papists should be able to distinguish between, but can’t, even as they lecture us in their superior ignorance.

     reformed catholicism vs. Roman catholicism
     imputation vs. infusion
     separation vs. schism
     total depravity vs. partial depravity
     physical presence vs. spiritual presence
     deutero (greek) vs. canonical (hebrew)
     private judgement vs. papal judgement
     immaculate conception vs. immaculate deception
     apostolic doctrine vs. apostolic bones/succession
     walking by faith vs. walking by sight
     sacrament vs. sacrifice

     cheers

     LikeLike

815. Jeff:*
     The Church ought not contradict the plain command of God. The issue of icons is a very good example of this.>>>>

     The Church does not encourage or endorse in any way the worship of false gods or demonic spirits or even self. It does not encourage idolatry. Declaring yourself to be the winner is not the same thing as actually winning.

     You have not distinguished between an idol and a statue or a Christian icon. In effect, you have called all statues idols and all saints demonic spirits. You have called all Catholics and all Orthodox Christians idolators.

     You have not explained what is at the heart of idolatry or why Calvinists, who have removed statues from their sanctuaries, still have to spend much of their preaching time speaking out against idolatry.

     Anyway, I think you are over stating your case.

     Thanks for making the effort to explain. Take care, brother Jeff.

     LikeLike

816. 2 observations, sdb.
     1.) Maybe you don’t know what the Catholic Church teaches about justification by faith.
     2.) Maybe your understanding of Pauline teaching is incomplete.

     No maybe about it. I’m quite confident I don’t have complete knowledge of anything. But then I am also quite sure you don’t either.

     I have not said anything that contradicts the teaching magisterium of the Catholic Church or the authority of the Apostle Paul. Why should what I said surprise you?

     Because what little I know about the RC doctrine of justification, things like the sacraments, penance, etc… also matter. So saying that “the only thing that matters” is faith working through love. I would think that a lot of other things matter too. Both of our traditions share the Athanasian Creed as an authoritative, and it seems to indicate that a lot of other things matter as well…like say the object of our faith. So maybe I misunderstood what you meant, maybe you are confused, or perhaps you are just a raging heretic posing as a nice catholic lady. Thus my question.

     Generally it is thought that if one reads the Bible, they will leave the Catholic Church. Not always the case.

     Uh…OK. Thanks for clearing that up… I always wondered if any of those RC biblical scholars I went to grad school with ever read the bible.

     LikeLike

817. “You have not distinguished between an idol and a statue or a Christian icon.”
     Either does the second commandment. That’s the point.

     LikeLike

818. Hart, that wouldn’t be something I could judge without a lot more looking into it. Just pointing out that he is not some beatnik. My thought is not that he has credentials but that he presents facts that outline a true Catholic understanding of Vatican II. Let me know what you think of the talks when you get a chance to check it out. Judge his actual word within a historic Catholic paradigm. He makes sense and he is only presenting V II and statements from the actual 1989 Synod of Bishops regarding VII implementation and the popes who opened and closed the council and those we Catholic believe God placed in office to impediment it. In talks 2 and 3 he goes directly into the documents and explores them in historic context. Let me know what you think when you check it out.

     LikeLike

819. D.G. – and 33 percent fewer funerals annually.

     Erik – Ah, the silver lining!

     LikeLike

820. D.G. – Many dioceses in the U.S. do not have sufficient funds to pay their pensions.

     Erik – This is a big deal, because the cradle to grave nature of the priesthood was one of its appeals. It’s like universities moving from tenured faculty to adjuncts to do the heavy lifting. Not a healthy trend.

     LikeLike

821. Jeff – For one thing, I have a starving caterpillar to feed and black raspberries to harvest.

     Erik – Only Jeff…

     LikeLike

822. Jeff – CtC in particular has resurrected this in the form of the “Catholic authority or your own authority” false choice, which I call the False Choice of Authority. They have used the False Choice of Authority to target Reformed elders for conversion. Sheep-stealing, I view dimly. Shepherd-stealing is worse.

     Erik – Well put.

     LikeLike

823. You know something’s off when the leading Catholic apologist, who likely isn’t even Catholic, has to call “time out” to go to Vegas.

     Not sure we’re dealing with the A team here…

     LikeLike

824. JRC: The Church ought not contradict the plain command of God. The issue of icons is a very good example of this.>>>>

     MW: The Church does not encourage or endorse in any way the worship of false gods or demonic spirits or even self. It does not encourage idolatry. Declaring yourself to be the winner is not the same thing as actually winning.

     You have not distinguished between an idol and a statue or a Christian icon. In effect, you have called all statues idols and all saints demonic spirits. You have called all Catholics and all Orthodox Christians idolators.

     Dear Webfoot,

     I’m not sure whether you had a chance to read in detail my post on the meanings of words above. In it, I tried to make clear that not all likenesses are representations of false gods.

     So it is not the case that I have equated saints with demonic spirits (!!), nor have I said that the Church encourages the worship of other gods.

     What I did say, and stand by, is that the second commandment clearly forbids MORE THAN simply worshiping false gods. It rather forbids all making of graven images, and all bowing to those images. It doesn’t matter whether the bowing is also worship or not. The action is forbidden. It doesn’t matter whether the image is of a false god or not. The image is forbidden.

     So no: I don’t believe that the RCC encourages the worship of either other gods nor of demonic spirits. I do believe that it regularly violates the second commandment in other ways, in the making of graven images and bowing to them.

     LikeLike

825. Jeff, Webfoot couldn’t care less what you typed, it wasn’t read and if it was it is totally ignored.

     Keep on trying though…

     LikeLike

826. Generally it is thought that if one reads the Bible, they will leave the Catholic Church. Not always the case.

     You have a point, Mrs. DoubleYou. This is a popular but misguided sentiment in Protestant circles. It’s naive and betrays a shallow view of both abiding sin and the work of the Spirit, neither of which befit good Calvinists.

     LikeLike

827. Jeff Cagle
     Posted June 15, 2015 at 3:53 pm | Permalink
     TVD: The “lie” is that Catholicism teaches salvation by works, a lie which is stated over and over on this blog, a lie by which the whole justification debate rises and falls.

     SDB: This is not a lie as Jeff has ably pointed out.

     Let’s nuance this further so that we can avoid some friction. It is very true that Catholicism rightly abhors Pelagian and semi-Pelagian theology in that they affirm that

     * Works done outside of grace are not meritorious, and
     * God must first provide grace in the initial calling of an individual.

     They do, however, affirm that

     * The initial grace of justification comes through baptism (CCC 1263, 1987).
     * Subsequent graces of ongoing justification (aka sanctification) are merited by cooperation with grace (per above).

     Protestants protest that this is a species of being justified by works IN THAT obedience to the Law, albeit grace-enabled, merits justification in the second place, while performance of a rite (and one parallel to circumcision at that!) obtains the grace of initial justification.

     So Tom, we understand that you are not Pelagian nor semi-Pelagian strictly speaking, and we will not charge you with that. We do, however, believe that the Catholic doctrine properly stated is still problematic.

     Show where they say it. I just hear a lot of blahblah from y’all. Use direct quotes.

     Canon 1.
     If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law,[110] without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

     That’s the end of it for anyone not playing games. But what about Canon 9, they ask. Well, what about Canon 1? That one they skip right over.

     TVD: The “lie” is that Catholicism teaches salvation by works, a lie which is stated over and over on this blog, a lie by which the whole justification debate rises and falls.

     Yes, it’s all quite boring, Erik, but not for the reasons you think. Ever hear of rabbinical Judaism? Well, litigating this any further is rabbinical Christianity. Split theological hairs all you want, but it means nothing if you don’t love God and love your neighbor.

     For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.

     LikeLike

828. Jeff,

     “However, the command actually proscribes making images of anything at all, to either bow OR to worship.”

     Since we’re extolling the “plain reading”, it seems there are 2 separate commands. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them.”
     So you shall not make the image. Nor shall you bow down or serve them.

     Now earlier you say “So weren’t there images in the temple? Yes, in fact, there were. Those were specifically directed by God Himself to be made, in contrast to all other images that were forbidden. But the images in the temple were not bowed down to, nor venerated. And further, those images in the temple were a part of the OT worship that has clearly passed away per Hebrews, and they have no part in the NT worship.”

     So we now have God apparently violating His own commandment. You say such a violation didn’t happen because the images were not bowed down to, but I see no reason by the “plain reading” to justify that it *must* be the case images/likeness of things in heaven is allowed *just* as long as they are not bowed down to – it seems pretty cut and dry according to the “plain reading”, that is no images. And no bowing down. As you say, “So it is quite clear that what is forbidden is any likeness”, not “what is forbidden is any likeness that is bowed down to.”

     I would also like to know what you believe likenesses of things “in the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth” entails since “The text is clear enough on its own.”

     Secondly, you also then appeal to the NT to then contour your interpretation of the commandment and the temple use. But of course that (the Incarnation) was precisely the appeal of Nicea 2 and the iconophiles to support the use of icons and contour their interpretation of the commandment.

     “Why did Nicea 2 not recognize this fact? And here we could go down a trail of historical factors, but here’s an important question: Why does the current Church accept the decision of Nicea 2, but reject the decision of Hieria?”

     Because the church has a standard for councils being ecumenical. Hieria did not meet the RC nor EO standard. RC – no invitation, presence, cooperation, or ratification by the pope or any legates/representatives. EO – granted their standard for legitimate councils is more nebulous but I think all EO agree that at least one or more patriarchs should be present or involved or ratifying – zero were. Hieria is not some special case – you had Arian councils before and after Nicaea – there isn’t some crisis or confusion as to why they are rejected while Nicaea is accepted according to RC/EO standards.

     “In at least one of those cases, a duly called ecumenical council got it wrong. How do we know which one?”

     Answered above. Hieria did not meet the conditions Rome (or the EO) have established as necessary.

     It is also not enough to simply say “well iconoclasts met up at Hieria” – what was the reasoning behind their iconoclasm? It was not “the 2nd commandment forbids it” – it was a confused Christology – https://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/notes-to-an-iconoclast/
     and note the addendum link at end to a Lutheran pastor’s blog:
     “At the conclusion of the veneration of the cross yesterday at the Chief Service, I did what seemed the most natural thing in the world. After getting up from kneeling before our rough-hewn cross, I reached toward it and kissed it. Pastor Gleason did the same. We kiss what we love, and we love the cross of the Savior upon which our Lord offered Himself to blot out our sin and to destroy our death. I’m sure some folks might think that a bit odd (you expect odd with me, no?), but in the context of that Good Friday liturgy it seemed, well, as I said, the most natural thing to do, and it was totally unpremeditated on either of our part. I wondered if the congregation wanted to come and kiss it too – they’d certainly be welcome to if their piety suggested such.”

     Please remember to aim your idolatry-busting cannons at conservative Lutherans as well who obviously have blown the “plain reading” of the text.

     LikeLike

829. Jeff – So no: I don’t believe that the RCC encourages the worship of either other gods nor of demonic spirits. I do believe that it regularly violates the second commandment in other ways, in the making of graven images and bowing to them.

     Erik – Mrs. W’s previous incarnation as a Pentecostal showing?

     LikeLike

830. Tom,

     Wi-Fi on the casino floor?

     The Cosmopolitan or The Venetian?

     LikeLike

831. This is why Clete is a cut above. He’ll come here with an argument based on facts (and not facts he learned on the internet 10 minutes ago that he will keep harping on for two weeks after they’ve been refuted).

     A little bio, Clete, so we know a little more about you?

     LikeLike

832. Clete and Michael have some substance to them.

     LikeLike

833. Cletus,

     Answered above. Hieria did not meet the conditions Rome (or the EO) have established as necessary.

     Where are those conditions established PRIOR to Hieria. Honestly, is there a sermon you can point to, or some other document in which the church defines what makes a council ecumenical. Because from this Protestant at least, it looks like a post hoc justification.

     LikeLike

834. Robert,

     There were councils rejected before Hieria and councils accepted before Hieria. There was a pattern to the ones rejected and a pattern to the ones accepted.
     Was the identification and canonization of the bible a post hoc justification?

     LikeLike

835. Jeff:
     So no: I don’t believe that the RCC encourages the worship of either other gods nor of demonic spirits. I do believe that it regularly violates the second commandment in other ways, in the making of graven images and bowing to them.>>>

     Thanks for the clarification, Jeff. I appreciate that. I agree that in some hearts, the presence of statues and icons can turn into idolatry in spite of all the Church’s warnings.

     Also, if the use of statues or icons were what made people violate the 1st Commandment, then removing them would fix the problem of idolatry, which is not the case.

     Anyway, thanks again, Jeff. Take care, my brother.

     LikeLike

836. Erik, my reference to demonic spirits was taken from the Apostle Paul where he says that idolatry involves the worship of demons.

     How could you know?

     LikeLike

837. @kent
     Thanks. I am just a learner in the process too. I run into things I don’t yet understand all the time. If we weren’t studying things above us then we would all have it figured out and we would just be enjoying some fine brew looking at the horizon off Belize. Guiness is mine when I have the cash.

     LikeLike

838. Michael,

     In this scenario how did I end up in Belize?

     LikeLike

839. Erik, suba is great in Belize. Never been but would be nice sometime I’m sure. Me and my wife had to wait on taking a cruise this year… Maybe next time. You got problems with Belize?

     LikeLike

840. Went to Playa del Carmen for me and my wife’s honeymoon. Hope to go back to the El Dorado Royal Casitas again sometime. Got some broke folks over here though.

     LikeLike

841. Michael,

     They say Spain is pretty though I’ve never been. Daniel says it’s the best place that he’s ever seen.

     LikeLike

842. Cool. I hear the king over there is getting serious about clean house there too. Throwing out kinfolk and all.

     LikeLike

843. Jeff:
     But what happened in Israel to those who bowed? They were considered idolators and punished (or should have been, according to the Law). The intent of the heart was not examined, nor could it have been. The second commandment did not permit “bowing without worshiping”, because such an action could never have been proved. The simple act of bowing was enough to be considered guilty.>>>

     See, this is where you kind of fudge. If what you say is true, then all Catholics and all Orthodox Christians are idolators. We are all guilty.

     Yet you say you are not making that claim. Besides, I say again. The context of the commandment is the making of idols representing false gods. Those are the graven images.

     Nice linguistic work based on the original languages. Thanks.

     You do know that Israel bowed down to the pillar of fire because it somehow contained the glory of God. So, at least this case of bowing down towards a physical object that God was somehow really present in was not sin. It was not sin, either, to bow down towards the tabernacle in the wilderness or the later temple in Jerusalem.

     In fact, when the Jews went into exile, they continued to bow down towards Jerusalem where the temple had been, but now in ruins. That is what Daniel got into trouble for when he prayed 3 times a day towards Jerusalem. He was bowing down to a man made object, in fact, but one that had contained the real presence of God.

     So, the prohibition about making idols representing false gods, giving them glory instead of the one true God and then bowing down to them does not include a prohibition against bowing down in the presence of God, even if that presence was manifested or had been manifested in physical objects.

     It just seems that your explanation, though good, is incomplete. I thank you for not calling all Catholics idolators, though.

     Again, than you for your kind and thoughtful replies. I appreciate them.

     God bless

     LikeLike

844. Hart or Erik,
     Either of you guys get a chance to listen to talk 1 by Nguyen?

     LikeLike

845. MichaelTX, thanks. Not sure when I’ll have time to listen, but I’ll try.

     I’d prefer to read something if it’s available.

     LikeLike

846. #seevd,tshootcraps

     LikeLike

847. kent and ec, let’s check the love fest. Whatever the merits of vd,c and MTX, at least the latter identifies himself. Heck, vd, c could be a Protestant trapped in a Roman Catholic body.

     Plus, neither is as honest about the church’s current difficulties as Douthat and Boniface at UnamSanctam.com.

     #notriumphalismhere

     LikeLike

848. Mermaid, “Also, if the use of statues or icons were what made people violate the 1st Commandment, then removing them would fix the problem of idolatry, which is not the case.”

     Well, whatever happened to pastoral wisdom? If bishops were uptight about idolatry, heck they might have balked about priests and children and not passed the offenders along.

     Don’t let those guys off the hook. #payprayobey

     LikeLike

849. Mermaid, “If what you say is true, then all Catholics and all Orthodox Christians are idolators. We are all guilty.”

     Ding Ding.

     Mermaid goes to the next round of Reformed Jeopardy.

     LikeLike

850. Hart, pretty sure the talk isn’t anywhere online. I read on the OPC site about understanding VII. Not a bad read. It most definitely leans toward giving a not historic understanding interpretive lens to the constitutions. I did find it odd that the OPC wouldn’t explain how the tradition holding Catholic can with a clear conscience understand reject those claims about the documents. Anyway, I would thing possibly reading that book that was spoken about in the OPC article might not be bad. I might get it myself. “Vatican II: Renewal Within Tradition” by Matthew Lamb and Matthew Levering. http://www.amazon.com/Vatican-II-Renewal-within-Tradition/dp/0195332679

     LikeLike

851. Hart,
     I do hope you get a chance to listen to talk 1 though so we could interact with his claims, which I believe make clear sense.

     LikeLike

852. Michael,

     Not yet. Listening to real estate assessment appeals.

     LikeLike

853. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 16, 2015 at 8:49 pm | Permalink
     #seevd,tshootcraps

     Rolling 7s, making his points. ;-D Meanwhile, see Darryl duck out of the game as usual, talking spit from the sidelines. ;-P

     Canon 1.
     If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law,[110] without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

     LikeLike

854. Darryl,

     “Heck, vd, c could be a Protestant trapped in a Roman Catholic body.”

     “Plus, neither is as honest about the church’s current difficulties as Douthat and Boniface at UnamSanctam.com.”

     The church has difficulties – as I said earlier, who could or would argue otherwise given its history. My issue with your mode of analysis is you’re not as honest about RC moves against liberalism and to promote orthodoxy as you could be – it’s all about the narrative, hence the tunnel vision. We even see it here – I link to an article showing RCism’s increase and rebounding from decline worldwide – what do we see a few days later from you – an article focused only on decline. Michael links to a talk by a published RC scholar. What do we get in reply – skepticism and doubts with no actual interaction with the argument he presents. The narrative controls all.

     LikeLike

855. MichaelTX,

     I’ve been following the comments and I passed up the audio link when you posted it. Could you repost it? If you could, I’d appreciate not having to search through the last few hundred comments. Thanks.

     LikeLike

856. D.G. Hart:
     Mermaid, “If what you say is true, then all Catholics and all Orthodox Christians are idolators. We are all guilty.”

     Ding Ding.

     Mermaid goes to the next round of Reformed Jeopardy.>>>>

     The founder of your religion says that you are overwhelmed with the crassest ignorance.

     “From this we may gather that man’s nature, so to speak, is a perpetual factory of idols…Man’s mind, full as it is of pride and boldness, dares to imagine a god according to its own capacity; as it sluggishly plods, indeed is overwhelmed with the crassest ignorance, it conceives an unreality and an empty appearance as God.” –John Calvin, Institutes, 1.11.8

     LikeLike

857. Joel,
     Got’em posted on me blog for some other guys too.
     livingwordoflife.wordpress.com

     LikeLike

858. Here is talk 1:
     https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4M1Nl-nYudJQ1RQM3BjLXk4dE0

     LikeLike

859. Cletus van Damme
     Posted June 16, 2015 at 10:39 pm | Permalink
     Darryl,

     “Heck, vd, c could be a Protestant trapped in a Roman Catholic body.”

     “Plus, neither is as honest about the church’s current difficulties as Douthat and Boniface at UnamSanctam.com.”

     The church has difficulties – as I said earlier, who could or would argue otherwise given its history. My issue with your mode of analysis is you’re not as honest about RC moves against liberalism and to promote orthodoxy as you could be – it’s all about the narrative, hence the tunnel vision. We even see it here – I link to an article showing RCism’s increase and rebounding from decline worldwide – what do we see a few days later from you – an article focused only on decline. Michael links to a talk by a published RC scholar. What do we get in reply – skepticism and doubts with no actual interaction with the argument he presents. The narrative controls all.

     This is interesting. I don’t mind when Dr. Hart really brings it–Darryl, you were clearly onto something that engaging the culture can and will instead pervert Christianity. However, at the present time, your Presbyterian Church is the one on the mat, the Catholic Church bloodied but still unbowed.

     My issue with your mode of analysis is you’re not as honest about RC moves against liberalism and to promote orthodoxy as you could be

     Yah/ This is still Benedict’s papacy, the brains of the outfit. In fact, Cardinal Ratzinger was the theological muscle of John Paul II’s papacy too. Until Francis disrupts that continuity, this Pew poll BS and Nancy Pelosis and all the Michael Sean Winterses in the world don’t amount to a hill of spit.

     Do not fall for the liberal fallacy, confusing style with substance. Until Francis actually breaks with Benedict, there is no narrative for you here.

     LikeLike

860. vd, c, You really believe this?

     Of course what matters are not numbers but the strength and authenticity of faith — the quality, not the quantity. Where numbers are low or declining, there may be evidence of a Church that is smaller, but purer, emerging. And where numbers are high, and the institution strong, trouble may be brewing, for success can disguise a lack of fidelity.

     But one thing is clear. The Catholic Church is not in crisis, and it is not declining. There may be many reasons why the cardinals gathering in Rome may want to see reform and renewal; but it will not be because they are troubled by numbers.

     That’s not what the mainstream RC sites are saying. In fact, when have I used information that comes from a non-Roman Catholic? It’s rare.

     So this isn’t my narrative. It’s the narrative of likely 60 % of your fellow believers, if not more.

     And yet you blame the messenger. I think that shows more about how partial your position is and how much you have to be gullible to endure what it going on.

     But do remember that Jason and the Bryans started this. If they had given just one inch of candor about the communion to which they call Reformed Protestants, I might not be so obsessed. But the picture that Protestant converts paint of Rome is not the one you find when you go out and do a little reading. Not even Christian Smith, a convert, is all that optimistic:

     I’m afraid that Smith’s bleak portrayal fits entirely with my impressions. My impressions are merely anecdotal, but quite extensive.

     Undergrads in our university – and they’re mostly from the Midwest but also from across the country and world – are in a different, less engaged place than even 5 years ago in how they talk about prayer and worship and church involvement. When they turn in essays on their required attendance at 2 Catholic parish Masses, more and more of them write, “This service was at [5pm / 8am / 11 am], and at this time of day it was mostly older people and not many my age there.” When the National Catholic Youth Choir sings at parish Masses on tour across the Midwest, I look out from the sanctuary and see mostly people in their 60s and 70s and 80s, with but a sprinkling of younger folks. A diocesan priest tells me that in his 10 years in a parish, it feels like the whole parish got 10 years older. Parish musicians who attend all the Masses in a large parish report that the parish has 100 confirmations annually and hence about 600 high-schoolers, but only a few dozen of these are seen at all the weekend Masses.

     I take into account that it is here in the Midwest and on the East Coast (“out east,” as we say in these parts) that the Catholic Church is shrinking, but the growth is in the South and the West, and among immigrant and ethnic groups that I have less contact with. I also hear of really vibrant parishes with spirited youth involvement. There is that, too.

     But I also hear from colleagues in all parts of the US – people in academia, musical and liturgical ministry, publishing, and so forth – things like “Out of all my nieces and nephews, only one is a church-goer,” or “Of my six kids, all products of Catholic education, three are not having their children baptized.”

     I get it that the plural of anecdote is not data. But Smith’s work suggests that the data does perhaps coincide with my anecdotal impressions. I’d rather be wrong in this case, but alas, I fear that I’m not.

     At some point, if you want to be believable, you have to acknowledge the problems in more than just “sure there are problems (because there always are).”

     LikeLike

861. Mermaid, ding ding.

     That’s why I pray the sinners prayer on Sundays and more.

     LikeLike

862. @mwf I have a question for you. You wrote,

     Also, if the use of statues or icons were what made people violate the 1st Commandment, then removing them would fix the problem of idolatry, which is not the case.

     I don’t follow your reasoning here. I think you (though it could have been someone else) made a similar statement before. I may be missing something here, but I think the reasoning is flawed. Maybe if we replace idols with something we agree on my concern would be clearer.

     If pornography made people made men lust, then removing pornography would fix the problem of lust, which is not the case.

     Do you agree this is parallel to your objection above? We might agree that lust is a heart issue one may struggle with in the absence of porn and believe that avoiding porn is a wise thing to do to aid in the struggle against sin. Similarly while one may struggle against idolatry even in the absence of venerating relics or icons, avoiding that will aid in the struggle against idolatry. Does that make sense?

     By the way, the pillar of fire was not a graven image made by hands, and God dwelt in the tabernacle. These are different from making a picture of God and bowing to it. God doesn’t dwell in a man made temple – we are the temple of the holy spirit (you don’t have to bow to me though).

     LikeLike

863. MW: See, this is where you kind of fudge. If what you say is true, then all Catholics and all Orthodox Christians are idolators. We are all guilty.

     Yet you say you are not making that claim.
     

     If what I say is true, then Catholics and Orthodox, as well some Protestants, are guilty not of worshiping false gods, but of breaking the second commandment by making images and bowing to them.

     What of it? You seem to agree with Calvin that all humans — Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, sectarian, non-Christian — are engaged in a constant struggle with the idols of the heart, legitimate competitors for God in our affections.

     Is it so great a thing to admit that we may have sinned?

     MW: Besides, I say again. The context of the commandment is the making of idols representing false gods. Those are the graven images.

     Actually, not so. Images of the true God were also forbidden. Further, as I pointed out, both idols and likenesses are forbidden.

     LikeLike

864. @ CVD: I’m still working on getting primary source info for Nicea 2 and Hieria. There ought to be a CouncilWiki website with all of this in one place.

     JRC: So weren’t there images in the temple? Yes, in fact, there were. Those were specifically directed by God Himself to be made, in contrast to all other images that were forbidden. But the images in the temple were not bowed down to, nor venerated…

     CVD: So we now have God apparently violating His own commandment. You say such a violation didn’t happen because the images were not bowed down to, but I see no reason by the “plain reading” to justify that it *must* be the case images/likeness of things in heaven is allowed *just* as long as they are not bowed down to – it seems pretty cut and dry according to the “plain reading”, that is no images. And no bowing down. As you say, “So it is quite clear that what is forbidden is any likeness”, not “what is forbidden is any likeness that is bowed down to.”

     Understandable confusion, since I put those two sentences back-to-back, but that’s not actually my argument. That’s my fault for lack of clarity.

     There are two separate issues.

     (1) God commanded certain images to be placed in the temple. This was (apparently) not a violation of the command.

     Why not? We aren’t actually told. It may be one of several possibilities.

     * An exception per divine command. This certainly happened in the case of the conquest, in which Israelites who were normally bound by the 6th and 8th commandments were given explicit instruction to kill the Canaanites and take their things. Obviously, there is much more going on here, such as divine judgment on the Canaanites for their idolatry, but on the face of it, the commands were broken by order of God.

     And so here, it may be that God made an exception for His own purposes.

     * The images were permissible because they were not bowed to nor worshiped.

     This is the argument you thought I was making, and it’s not impossible. Such a reading would take the command to not make idols or images and subordinate it to the second sentence, such that it means “Do not make idols or images in order to bow to or worship them.”

     * The images were permissible because they were not both (bowed to and worshiped).

     This is the argument I think you’re angling for, that what is actually forbidden is to make an image AND bow AND worship.

     The problem is that the grammar doesn’t support the reading, and again as I pointed out to Mrs. W, the simple act of bowing made you guilty in Israel.

     CVD: Please remember to aim your idolatry-busting cannons at conservative Lutherans as well who obviously have blown the “plain reading” of the text.

     Well, I suppose that if there were a pack of Lutherans who ran a website entitled Called to Polka, and who repeatedly told the rest of us that unless we subject ourselves to the Highest Sacramental Magisterial Authority, we are being individualists, and that the Lutheran church is the One True Church that every other Christian has schismed from, and that it is the infallible repository of infallible interpretation of Scripture … then I would.

     Cletus, you could just step gracefully of the pedestal, you know.

     LikeLike

865. Darryl,

     In fairness to Jason, he did famously give us a list of 10 things that he found sucky about being a Catholic.

     Haven’t seen a list like that from Bryan, though.

     It’s always sunny in Cedar Rapids.

     LikeLike

866. Mrs. DoubleYou, it may have been asked and answered, but if icons and statues such as the ones found in garden variety RC and EO churches aren’t examples of idolatry, then what would be? You seem to believe idolatry is real but cannot be found in these instances. So where, how?

     LikeLike

867. Michael, I’m slogging through it. Got 55 minutes down, which I’ll never get back, but so far it listens like primer for a conservative interpretive grid, which may be right or wrong, but doesn’t reveal the diversity you get from reading Rahner or even Ratzinger’s recollections of the council. When you read Rahner or Ratzinger or Kung, you get a better understanding of why the conclusions coming out of the council were so far ranging.

     LikeLike

868. Sean – Michael, I’m slogging through it. Got 55 minutes down, which I’ll never get back

     Erik – Same feeling I was getting reading Tom, Mrs, Webfoot, Susan, etc…

     LikeLike

869. ec, can you resurrect that list? It would be useful for all of us to see again.

     LikeLike

870. Zrim
     Posted June 17, 2015 at 8:51 am | Permalink
     Mrs. DoubleYou, it may have been asked and answered, but if icons and statues such as the ones found in garden variety RC and EO churches aren’t examples of idolatry, then what would be? You seem to believe idolatry is real but cannot be found in these instances. So where, how?>>>>

     It’s pretty simple, Zrim. I have said it, but you probably missed it. An idol is a specific kind of statue, figure, icon, etc. As I showed from Scripture, using texts from Isaiah, the Apostle Paul, and the 10 Commandments themselves, a graven image represents several things – a false pagan god; the person himself or herself who made it, since it is something drawn from their own imagination and is therefore like them; a demonic spirit.

     The statues found in Catholic Churches do not represent any of that. You probably already know that the artwork found in our churches is primarily didactic and devotional, meant to teach us who God is and meant to draw our hearts upwards in worship of Him.

     For example, a person can “read” the figures of the 14 stations of the cross and even relive those Good Friday moments by following them and contemplating their meaning. They are devotional, meant to increase one’s faith and worship of Christ.

     The statue of either Christ on the cross or of the risen Christ with arms outstretched tell us that Christ gave Himself for us and we need to give ourselves to Him. The risen Christ tells us that all who wish to come to Him may come. He opened the way. Some call the risen Christ the 15th station of the cross.

     The nave itself is meant to be like Noah’s Ark where anyone who enters in is saved.

     Then there is The Blessed Virgin, Mary, who reminds us that our Savior was born of a woman. She is The Mother of God. She is venerated as such – the mother of our Lord and our mother in the faith. Abraham is the father of our faith. Mary is the mother of our faith since she can easily be called the first Christian. She welcomed Christ into her womb as we must welcome Christ into our hearts.

     Then there is often a statue of Joseph, completing the Holy Family. The Holy Family is the model for Christian family life.

     The most glorious part of the church is the Tabernacle which houses the body and blood of Christ.

     There is more, but every detail, every work of art, every image is meant to draw the worshippers attention towards the contemplation of the glory of the Triune God and the miracle of the Incarnation.

     It is all Gospel.

     So, to brush all that off as superstitious idolatry is, well, I will be kind and say uninformed.

     You have your religious beliefs that, in large part, are meant to destroy all that I have described. That is unfortunate, but you are still my brother in Christ.

     LikeLike

871. sean,
     Glad you are listening to it.
     “which may be right or wrong”
     Yes, every truth we come in contact with is this way. Including the object of our faith, the historic Resurrection of Jesus our Lord. It is not necessarily the question of conservative or progressive that I am concerned with, but how should it be understood from a truly Catholic perspective. To interpret it otherwise is just smoke it the wind and will pass with time. Hope you do plug on though and get to talks 2 and 3 where he interacts with the texts of the constitutions and implementation.

     LikeLike

872. Mrs. DoubleYou, thanks. It’s pretty clear how it is all intended to be pious and devotional, etc. And I know that I’m uninformed, but that’s kind of the point, because it seems as though you’ve crafted things in such a way as to preclude any possibility of employing otherwise pious phenomenon in impious ways. Can you see how that seems awfully convenient, not to mention how simplistic it is to think that idolatry is something only non-Christians do and in blatantly obvious ways, i.e. false gods. It suggests you haven’t really grasped the nature of sin and what it means that sinners are crafty creatures who can easily figure out ways to circumvent holiness and make it look quite pious. Have you really never contemplated that?

     LikeLike

873. Michael, I’ll endeavor to get through it, for you(no homo-freudian and all-see the What if, it’s a joke-multiple applications). But, I have to ask why Nguyen is better insight and application than the folks who were there? Or the other priestly charism that made different application and are still in good standing. Even Kung retains good standing as a priest, last I checked.

     LikeLike

874. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith a week or so before I was born ” this sacred congregation by reason of its duty is constrained to declare that Professor Hans Küng, in his writings, has departed from the integral truth of Catholic faith, and therefore he can no longer be considered a Catholic theologian nor function as such in a teaching role.”

     To my understanding he is still a priest but can not officially teach Catholic theology.
     http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19791215_christi-ecclesia_en.html

     LikeLike

875. http://www.creedcodecult.com/stuff-i-dont-like-that-much-catholicism-edition/

     D.G. Hart, this one’s for you. . . .

     Most of you won’t know this, but Darryl and I kind of used to be pals (in a professor/student kind of way, of course). He was my faculty advisor at Westminster, and he oversaw my work on a directed research project examining Calvin and Edwards on the issue of assurance (a project for which I not only earned an A, but which Darryl described as an “impressive study” [hey, turns out that when I was a Protestant I could do history to Hart’s liking!]). A few years later he even wrote a blurb for my first book.

     But it wasn’t all hoity-toity academics: Once at seminary, D.G. selected a handful of students for what he called a “Big Lebowski Night,” which included dinner at In ‘n’ Out Burger, a bowling tournament between the Caucasians and the Nihilists (which Darryl’s team won, resulting in his doing victory laps around the ball dispenser hoisting the Lebowski Cup aloft [which he had made from a Folger’s can, green paint, and stick-on letters]). The night was capped off by, you guessed it, watching The Big Lebowski and drinking White Russians.

     But these days? These days Darryl doesn’t like me too much. His reasoning has a lot to do with this idea he has in his head about how I consistently fail to tell the whole truth about Catholicism by talking up its good bits and covering up the bad ones. He even suggested in a recent comment here that if I would just admit that the Church has significant problems, his feud with me would end. So in the interest of putting this beef to rest, I will now disclose all the stuff about Catholicism that I don’t like, in random order:

     1. I don’t like it when priests molest people. They should be castrated and imprisoned, along with those who enable them.

     2. I am uncomfortable with some of the pomp and excess of the Vatican, and when the culture faults the Church for it in the light of worldwide poverty, I think, “Well, if you’re going to sit in a chair like this one, you’d better brace yourself for some justified criticism.”

     3. Same goes for Francis’s whole “Follow me on Twitter and get out of purgatory quicker” idea. Now, I know that that’s not really what he said, but it’s close enough that the unbelieving media pretty much gets a free pass to make fun of us on this one, as far as I’m concerned at least.

     4. I don’t like it when popes back in the old-timey days threw their weight around politically, or treated their office as a means for earthly wealth or power.

     5. I think Vatican 2 confused a lot of people, as evidenced by the fact that it has taken 50 years to get back to the idea that lesbian priests doing puppet shows at Mass is not what the council had in mind.

     6. Moreover, I can see that there is a lot of tension (at least at first glance) between the idea that the Church retains a single and once-given deposit of faith, and the idea that doctrine develops to the point of seeing Protestants as separated brethren. As my mate Zrim likes to say, “I liked you guys better when you just consigned me to hell. At least that I can understand.”

     7. Whatever the truth is behind this whole Inigo Montoya thing that Darryl’s been raving about, I will happily go on record as saying that no, popes shouldn’t kidnap babies. They shouldn’t kick puppies or waterboard people, either. I can’t emphasize this enough: If something is a crime, and a guy does it who’s also the pope, it’s still a crime (perhaps even a worse one). Francis, I’m looking in your direction here. Don’t go stealing any kids, or Darryl’ll never let us hear the end of it.

     8. I hate almost all contemporary Catholic art and web design. I constantly have to brace myself before clicking a new link, because my equilibrium can only handle being teleported back to 1997 so many times before I my soul starts to slowly die. And what’s the deal with that ’70s Jesus shooting rainbows at people? It’s like he’s the kinder, gentler alter-ego of the Emperor from Return of the Jedi.

     9. I really don’t like the Breaking Bread worship hymnal. I don’t like Air Supply either, for similar reasons.

     10. Lastly, the Crusades? Not a fan.

     So what am I supposed to do, given all this? The impression I get from Darryl is that he thinks I should be a SSPX-er or sedevacantist or something. But what he doesn’t understand is that I left behind the whole holding-the-church-hostage-to-my-personal-preferences thing when I ceased being a Protestant. I have only one Mother and I don’t get to choose her, and Christ has only one Bride (albeit an often wart-covered one). So rather than searching high and low for a church that has just the right hymns, just the right leadership, and just the right amount of plausible deniability so as to take credit for the Nicene Creed while blaming others for the Inquisition, I’ll just keep on believing in one holy catholic and apostolic church, blemishes and all.

     And for the record, if anyone out there is considering Catholicism and stumbles upon this post, all I can say is that being a Catholic can be one of the most rewarding, and embarrassing, things in the world.

     LikeLike

876. Michael, right. He was ‘defrocked’ as theologian but retained his priestly standing. And when it comes to pastoral application he still has charism. My broader point is that those individual’s reflections on the council has more explanatory value(thank you, paradigms) of what you now see in RC as opposed to maybe Nguyen’s more strict rendering. And I’m including Ratzinger in those reflections.

     LikeLike

877. Thanks, EC.

     What Jason was supposed to do was stop hyping Roman Catholicism. If you spot all those blemishes, you don’t beat your breast about how you kicked Protestantism and now live the victorious Roman Catholic life.

     LikeLike

878. Sean, seems like you are leaning back to that priestly charism being magic “must be right” anointing. again. Priest are only “infallible” when they teach the infallible dogmas of the Catholic faith and teaching that VII changed dogma when there are no anathemas in it is against the Catholic faith. That is just basic Catholic logic. This is the basic grid which Nguyen, myself and Benedict XVI hold and may I dare say Francis will never teach anything different.

     LikeLike

879. Zrim
     Posted June 17, 2015 at 11:48 am | Permalink
     Zrim:
     Mrs. DoubleYou, thanks. It’s pretty clear how it is all intended to be pious and devotional, etc. And I know that I’m uninformed, but that’s kind of the point, because it seems as though you’ve crafted things in such a way as to preclude any possibility of employing otherwise pious phenomenon in impious ways. Can you see how that seems awfully convenient, not to mention how simplistic it is to think that idolatry is something only non-Christians do and in blatantly obvious ways, i.e. false gods. It suggests you haven’t really grasped the nature of sin and what it means that sinners are crafty creatures who can easily figure out ways to circumvent holiness and make it look quite pious. Have you really never contemplated that?>>>>>

     Well, thank you for considering what I said. I appreciate that. Now, you cannot be expected to read everything I have written. Some think it is a lot and even a waste of time and space on the blog, here. 🙂 Anyway, I try to give the best answer I can give.

     Of course anything can become an idol. I think that both Reformed and Catholic would agree on that.

     Reformed preachers spend a lot of time warning about the dangers of idolatry.

     Catholic leaders spend a lot of time warning about the dangers of idolatry.

     Yet idolatry persists, and no less among Protestants, even Reformed Protestants, than among Catholics. It is a problem of the human heart.

     There is blatant idolatry which involves the making of idols, as I tried to explain and as I believe the 1st Commandment in its second part addresses. For you, that is the 2nd Commandment. 🙂 Neither Catholic nor Protestant would consider the worship of false gods as acceptable.

     BTW, you may or may not know, but when a Catholic enters the pew, he or she bows towards the tabernacle behind the altar. We are bowing to the Real Presence of Christ in the elements of the Eucharist. We are bowing in homage to Christ. It is a humbling experience, and an act of reverence to God Incarnate if it is done from the heart tuned to God.

     Anyway, thank you for your kind consideration, brother Zrim.

     LikeLike

880. “Reformed preachers spend a lot of time warning about the dangers of idolatry. Catholic leaders spend a lot of time warning about the dangers of idolatry.”

     I wonder who is more effective.

     But let’s switch churches for the ones that no one pays attention to.

     LikeLike

881. Zrim,

     “It suggests you haven’t really grasped the nature of sin and what it means that sinners are crafty creatures who can easily figure out ways to circumvent holiness and make it look quite pious. ”

     And might this apply to iconoclast movements/proponents themselves?

     LikeLike

882. Michael, you’re being wooden. I understand how to goose step RC style. Son of the church and all. My point is Vat II birthed something very different from what Nguyen is describing. I’m not saying he’s wrong, but his position doesn’t explain the reality. And you can cling to your no dogma has changed, but all they’re gonna do is pastorally apply your ‘no dogma change’ stance to death. I’m interested in how all this charism got it so twisted for so long, irreversibly so, and Rahner and Ratzinger and Kung seem to give a better perspective of the hows and whys. But, I’m listening.

     LikeLike

883. Mrs. DoubleYou, yes, I’m aware of all that (and perhaps not as uninformed as you might think). But you didn’t really answer my question, or at the very least seem to in good faith. I didn’t ask if anything can be an idol–that’s obvious and too easy. I asked something a little harder, if it’s possible that those images and statues in your church could be creative ways to make pious seeming phenomena appear pious.

     LikeLike

884. CvD, yes.

     LikeLike

885. sean,
     Hard not to be wooden on a screen. Let us sit down under some shade trees and that would change easily. I’d say I am being firm and why should I not be. To do otherwise would be to undermine not only what VII says itself, but to demolish a Catholic Church that could hold a VII at all.
     “Vat II birthed something very different from what Nguyen is describing.
     What was “birthed” was a child of the world and its mother was not VII. All you have to do is read the actual texts and see that. Lumen Gentium para 1- “This[to unfold more fully to the faithful of the Church and to the whole world its own inner nature and universal mission] it[this Sacred Council] intends to do following faithfully the teaching of previous councils.”

     LikeLike

886. MichaelTX, when you reclassify heretics and infidels as separated brothers and followers of other religions something is being birthed and it’s the bishops doing it.

     LikeLike

887. Erik Charter
     Posted June 17, 2015 at 9:54 am | Permalink
     Sean – Michael, I’m slogging through it. Got 55 minutes down, which I’ll never get back

     Erik – Same feeling I was getting reading Tom, Mrs, Webfoot, Susan, etc…

     So saith the emptiest barrel of all. You’re not even in this discussion but you’re all over it, Erik. Like a fungus. 😉

     D. G. Hart
     Posted June 17, 2015 at 10:42 am | Permalink
     ec, can you resurrect that list? It would be useful for all of us to see again.

     Heh. Desperate even for you, Butch. The pope wears army boots.

     “It suggests you haven’t really grasped the nature of sin and what it means that sinners are crafty creatures who can easily figure out ways to circumvent holiness and make it look quite pious. ”

     Crabby for Christ.

     D. G. Hart
     Posted June 17, 2015 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

     But let’s switch churches for the ones that no one pays attention to.

     Or even heard of.

     Believe me, Erik, considering my upbringing I can truly say, “I’ve seen everything”. I just shouldn’t expect better behavior here than in a prison.

     Now that should be on the Old Life masthead. Truth in Advertising. Keep up the crabbiness, Mold Lifers. Best commercial for Catholicism I’ve ever seen.

     LikeLike

888. Hart,
     Some of what you believe is heretical. I don’t have a problem saying that. No bishop should have a problem saying that. Some aren’t that bold. (too bad) The question the council tackles in places is are all heretics and schismatics culpable for their heresy or schism… To this the council say.. maybe yes.. maybe no. The council also teaches clearly that if one knows the Church is the Church and leaves it or refuses to enter it, then no salvation. That person is not a separated brother but an official heretic which there is no communion with. Even in approaching the sacrament of the Eucharist he or she eats their own condemnation, not communing with others in a state of grace through Christ, but instead acting sacrilegiously.

     LikeLike

889. Darryl,

     “vd, c, You really believe this?

     Of course what matters are not numbers but the strength and authenticity of faith — the quality, not the quantity. Where numbers are low or declining, there may be evidence of a Church that is smaller, but purer, emerging. And where numbers are high, and the institution strong, trouble may be brewing, for success can disguise a lack of fidelity.”

     Yes.

     “But one thing is clear. The Catholic Church is not in crisis, and it is not declining. There may be many reasons why the cardinals gathering in Rome may want to see reform and renewal; but it will not be because they are troubled by numbers.”

     The point of the article was to show while there *was* a decline in the west, there has also been a rebound and slow increase since 2000 (though not yet a full recovery – which is why the article you cited was accurate but also misleading since it was just showing there was still an absolute decline in the figures from pre-2000 and now – the article I provided gives more context). And that there has been a massive increase outside of the west which the tunnel-vision narratives conveniently ignore or dismiss.

     “And yet you blame the messenger. I think that shows more about how partial your position is and how much you have to be gullible to endure what it going on.”

     Here’s the deal – I can take your article and my article and present them both and be perfectly happy to do so – I don’t just ignore or filter out things to keep the narrative going. Will you take your article and my article and present them both and be perfectly happy to do so? You keep complaining no one is admitting the RC church has problems – I admit it – easy peasy. Now when will you admit the RC church also has successes and/or engages in battles against those problems? That’s the difference between our approaches. You’ll say “Decline!” I’ll say “yes, decline but.” You’ll say “Ireland!”. I’ll say “yes, Ireland, but…” You’ll say “Kaspar and Winters!” I’ll say, “yes, them, but …”

     “But do remember that Jason and the Bryans started this. If they had given just one inch of candor about the communion to which they call Reformed Protestants, I might not be so obsessed.”

     Erik just cited Jason’s problems. That’s not sufficient?

     “What Jason was supposed to do was stop hyping Roman Catholicism. If you spot all those blemishes, you don’t beat your breast about how you kicked Protestantism and now live the victorious Roman Catholic life.”

     Oh now I see the problem. Because he admits the church has problems, he shouldn’t promote it? This is absurd. You admit the OPC and Protestantism has problems right? Does that mean you need to stop promoting it over other systems and just shut up? Or stop beating your breast about how you now live the victorious 2k life?

     ” “I get it that the plural of anecdote is not data.” ”

     Uh yeah. This is what I mean – you’re citing anecdotal evidence that supports your narrative. Wonderful. When will we see RC anecdotal evidence referenced by you that does not support your narrative? Internet’s a big place – I’m sure you can find some.

     LikeLike

890. @mtx You wrote,

     The question the council tackles in places is are all heretics and schismatics culpable for their heresy or schism… To this the council say.. maybe yes.. maybe no.

     The RCC makes audacious claims for itself, its magisterium is infallible, dogma doesn’t change, etc… The church now teaches that maybe not all heretics and schismatics are culpable and thus not necessarily damned. The assumption seems to be that the natural state for humans is to be saved and we have to knowingly do something (be culpable) to squander that status. But earlier statements by church councils and creeds say something far more harsh. I keep pointing to the Athanasian Creed because it is such a stark example:

     Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly….This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.

     This statement stands in stark contrast to what I hear from RCs today. This strikes me as a change not just a development. If “development” can turn absolutist language like this into “maybe yes, maybe no – depends on your culpability”, then it seems to me that infallibility really doesn’t have any meaning and the rcc is functionally fallible. If that is the case, it seems to me that a major piece of the CTC apologetic has be rethought – the purported epistemic superiority of the RCC is unwarranted.

     I don’t think this argument undermines the RCC claim that they are the true, undivided church and prots and EOs should reconcile. That’s a different argument for a different day.

     I haven’t had a chance to listen to the recordings yet, so perhaps his is dealt with there?

     LikeLike

891. Clete,

     Not piling on, but the Church does have problems. Saw this in yesterday’s WSJ:

     Resignations, Criminal Charges Cloud Minneapolis Archdiocese’s Bankruptcy

     Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis grapples with abuse scandal

     By Tom Corrigan

     June 15, 2015 2:21 p.m. ET

     The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, whose top two officials resigned Monday in wake of criminal charges over the alleged failure to protect children from abusive priests, is facing an unprecedented convergence of litigation that lawyers say will continue to pose serious challenges for the archdiocese’s leadership.

     In a statement Monday, Archbishop John C. Nienstedt, who stepped aside along with Auxiliary Bishop Lee Anthony Piche, said he resigned to give the archdiocese a new beginning.

     “My leadership has unfortunately drawn attention away from the good works of His Church and those who perform them,” he said.

     The resignations and recent criminal charges come as church leaders across the country continue to grapple with widespread allegations of child sexual abuse at the hands of clergy and related lawsuits. The abuse scandal has cost dioceses and other Catholic institutions in the U.S. nearly $2.9 billion since 2004 in compensation paid out to alleged victims, according to a recent report issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

     “We’re at a new turning point, because we’ve never had criminal issues in the midst of a Roman Catholic bankruptcy,” said Patrick Wall, a former priest who now works for Jeff Anderson & Associates, a law firm representing a group of alleged abuse victims. “The system is converging and applying full pressure through civil, criminal and bankruptcy courts.”

     The Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, home to 187 parishes and 825,000 parishioners, filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in January to halt several abuse-related lawsuits from going to trial. Since then, more than 200 abuse-related claims against the archdiocese have been filed, according to victims’ lawyers.

     Earlier this month, Minnesota officials brought criminal charges, unprecedented in their scope, against the archdiocese for its alleged role in endangering children. The charges allege church officials didn’t do enough to shield children from, among others, a priest eventually convicted of possessing child pornography and sexually abusing three boys. Nearly a dozen church officials were named but not charged.

     Minnesota prosecutors said the failure to respond to allegations of child abuse implicates “the highest levels of leadership of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis over the course of decades.”

     Though the vast majority of abuse alleged in bankruptcy court claims occurred decades ago, the criminal investigation, which is ongoing, named much of the archdiocese’s recent leadership and its role in the alleged coverup of abuse as recently as 2012.

     “This is an incredibly complicated case at a very complicated and challenging time for the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis,” said Charles Rogers, one of the attorneys representing the archdiocese in its bankruptcy. Mr. Rogers declined to comment further.

     David Clohessy, the national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests or SNAP, said that Monday’s resignations would bring some comfort to Minnesota’s catholic community but noted that the criminal charges involved many other church officials.

     “Fundamentally it doesn’t guarantee reform,” he said of the archbishop’s resignation, adding that the criminal allegations against the diocese involve a number of current and former church officials.

     The criminal charges against the diocese and the recent resignation of its top officials could give lawyers representing alleged victims added leverage as they negotiate the terms of a bankruptcy-exit plan and compensation package for victims. The archdiocese, its insurance carriers and alleged victims were ordered to begin mediation shortly after filing for chapter 11 protection.

     “In terms of the archdiocese, this is going to call into significant question their credibility, and credibility is a critical aspect of any bankruptcy case,” said Robert Kugler, a lawyer representing a group of alleged abuse victims in the bankruptcy.

     Mr. Kugler said Monday’s resignations have helped to repair some of the damage to the archdiocese’s standing but only up to a point.

     “It still remains a serious issue,” he said.

     In a statement Monday, Archbishop Bernard Hebda, who is in line to succeed the Archbishop of Newark and who was appointed by Pope Francis to serve as the administrator of the twin cities archdiocese until a new archbishop is appointed, seemed to rule out any sweeping changes to the way in which the archdiocese has handled the mounting abuse-related lawsuits and subsequent bankruptcy.

     “The law of the church reminds us that an Administrator is not to introduce change, but rather to facilitate the smooth continuation of the ordinary and essential activities of the church, while advancing those positive initiatives to which the Archdiocese is already committed,” he said.

     In what could be the most far-reaching implication of the criminal charges, lawyers for alleged abuse victims are considering asking the court to authorize an outsider to take control of the archdiocese during its bankruptcy.

     Called chapter 11 trustees, such officials can be appointed either at the request of creditors or government watchdogs when corporations in bankruptcy or their officers are hit with criminal charges, according to Jonathan Lipson, a law professor at Temple University.

     Though such appointments are rare, Mr. Kugler said he hasn’t ruled out requesting a trustee, which would require approval from a bankruptcy judge and immediately raise a host of constitutional issues and other legal questions involving religious freedom.

     “We’re still reviewing the charges and analyzing their implications, but I believe all options have to be on the table,” he said.

     A spokesman for the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis declined to comment on the potential appointment of a trustee.

     The archdiocese’s legal troubles could also create distractions for alleged abuse victims and their lawyers and could complicate their efforts to obtain compensation from the archdiocese and its insurance carriers. Much of what alleged victims recover in the bankruptcy will depend on the outcome of negotiations with the archdiocese’s insurance carriers. The criminal charges could complicate potential insurance recovery, since intentional or criminal actions are typically excluded by insurance policies.

     “The insurers are always looking for an out, and I’m sure they will try to use if this gives them some added leverage,” said Paul Richler, a lawyer and insurance coverage specialist not involved in the archdiocese’s bankruptcy.

     A spokesman for the archdiocese declined to comment on negotiations with insurers.

     In total, 14 Catholic dioceses and religious orders have turned to chapter 11 in the past decade to address waves of litigation related to alleged sexual abuse by priests and others, the vast majority of which allegedly took place decades ago.

     Catholic dioceses have used the breathing room offered by chapter 11 to negotiate settlements with alleged victims of sexual abuse by clergy members and others, deals that can total many millions of dollars and include nonmonetary forms of compensation such as the release of long-shielded church documents detailing the alleged abuse and subsequent coverup.

     —Ben Kesling contributed to this article.

     Popular on WSJ

     1. Let Dad Be Dad
     Let Dad Be Dad

     2. FCC Plans to Fine AT&T $100 Million Over Speed Caps
     FCC Plans to Fine AT&T $100 Million Over Speed Caps

     3. How Obama Abandoned Israel
     Opinion: How Obama Abandoned Israel

     4. The NFL Team That Is Solving Millennials
     The NFL Team That Is Solving Millennials

     5. Starbucks to Close La Boulange Pastry Shops
     Starbucks to Close La Boulange Pastry Shops

     Videos
     1.

     [http://m.wsj.net/video/20150616/061615franbrady/061615franbrady_167x94.jpg]
     ‘Deflategate’: Fran Tarkenton Weighs In

     2.

     [http://m.wsj.net/video/20150617/061615frangreatest/061615frangreatest_167x94.jpg]
     Best QBs of All Time: Fran Tarkenton’s Picks

     3.

     [http://m.wsj.net/video/20150617/061715nbachamp/061715nbachamp_167x94.jpg]
     Golden State Warriors Defeat Cavaliers to Take NBA Title

     4.

     [http://m.wsj.net/video/20150616/061615polo/061615polo_167x94.jpg]
     Polo Gets a Blue-Collar Twist

     5.

     [http://m.wsj.net/video/20150612/061215boeing/061215boeing_167x94.jpg]
     Near-Vertical Takeoff in Preparation for Paris Air Show

     Share your thoughts
     Sign In to comment

     There are 25 comments.

     Livefyre

     LikeLike

892. Sorry for the junk at the bottom.

     LikeLike

893. sdb,
     Nguyen does talk a little about this topic. It is in talk 3. Maybe more detail though may be needed for what you are addressing. I don’t know that I would be able to give it either, but maybe I can point in search directions. One thing that must be understood is that there are those “dead” in the world and those “alive” in Christ. The “dead” in the world would be those who hear Athanasius’s Creed and ignore it without belief. Just like those who hear Christ and did not believe, they are condemned already. So what Athanasius says is true as what Christ says is true and so also the Church who holds what Christ and the Athanasius Creed says is true, but I don’t think you give Athanasius credit for being more Biblical than that creed alone. You should read Contra Gente by him. He does address some of these ideas regarding Romans 5 and natural coming to the truth with an open heart towards God without necessarily hearing the fullness of the Gospel but having a God birthed openness to it. I think this is part of what the VII fathers are getting at. There are the “Heretics, Schismatics and Deniers of truth” and the heretics or ignorance, schismatics of ignorance, and seekers of Truth all having an openness to the true as they hear it. The later would be separated bretheran while the former are the weeds to be burned up at the final harvest. Hope that help.

     LikeLike

894. Erik,

     “Not piling on, but the Church does have problems”

     Absolutely it does – never claimed otherwise. Here’s another problem – churches being shuttered in NY – http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/27/churches-closing-kennedy-dolan/24051635/ Here’s another problem – Ireland. Here’s another problem – poor catechesis and trouble retaining youth. And so on.

     LikeLike

895. Sdb, you should read this if you are get the feeling the Church has officially gone all squishy.

     http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

     LikeLike

896. #blowitoutyourear

     LikeLike

897. MichaelTX, so the point of me converting to Rome would be to be saved, right? If I have heretical ideas, then I’m in mortal sin and that’s not a good place to be.

     So why don’t converts talk about conversion to Rome in terms of getting saved?

     LikeLike

898. vd, c, I don’t see you mentioning the church’s problems. Nowhere. Do the problems outweigh the good things? Tough call. But the call of Bryan and the Jasons was based on a hands down superiority of Rome to Protestantism.

     I think the OPC’s virtues outweigh its problems. You may think that Rome’s virtues do the same. But so far the call of the apologists like Bryan and Mark Shea and Jimmy Akin is all backward and says nothing about the crisis in the church that Russell Shaw describes or the interpretation of that crisis as an opportunity by the likes of Michael Sean Winters.

     But the really scary thing for you should be that almost none of the bishops seem to care. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned from Byran and the Jasons is that bishops and especially the bishop are what make Roman Catholicism superior. If that’s so, and if they don’t care about the problems, you’ve got a problem. And you can link to all sorts of websites that give you encouragement. They don’t mean sqwattah until they come from someone in apostolic succession — unless, of course, you want to adopt Protestant notions of authority and discernment.

     LikeLike

899. Darryl,

     “I don’t see you mentioning the church’s problems. Nowhere.”

     Me from above (that’s somewhere):
     “Absolutely it does – never claimed otherwise. Here’s another problem – churches being shuttered in NY – http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/27/churches-closing-kennedy-dolan/24051635/ Here’s another problem – Ireland. Here’s another problem – poor catechesis and trouble retaining youth. And so on.”

     The church has problems. Jason mentioned problems you conveniently forgot and had to be reminded. You enjoy pointing problems out to bring converts and pie-in-sky zealots to reality. Wonderful. The problem is when you refuse to acknowledge or budge on church’s virtues or battles and successes that are pointed out. So when you say ” Do the problems outweigh the good things? Tough call.” it’s surprising – no one reading you would even know there were good things that existed in the first place – you narrative precludes it and consequently you never offer it.

     “But the really scary thing for you should be that almost none of the bishops seem to care.”

     Here we go again. I already cited conservative bishops/cardinals who care about Ireland and the synod. Oh, those don’t count for some reason because of Kaspar and pundits like Winters. Oh, a scholar like Nguyen doesn’t count for some reason because Ave Maria isn’t apparently mainstream. Oh, Africa and Asia bishops and priests don’t count for some reason because of the “Italians”. Always with the qualifiers, doubt, and skepticism when the narrative isn’t being supported.

     LikeLike

900. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 17, 2015 at 4:56 pm | Permalink
     vd, c, I don’t see you mentioning the church’s problems. Nowhere. Do the problems outweigh the good things? Tough call.

     Considering that in the case of the Catholic Church, the only choice is between a church with problems [because wherever there are human beings, there are problems] and having no church atall, this is a non-starter.

     But the call of Bryan and the Jasons was based on a hands down superiority of Rome to Protestantism.

     I think the OPC’s virtues outweigh its problems.

     The OPC’s relative lack of problems is solely attributable to the fact that a tiny number of dissidents washed its hands of the greater body, millions of other Presbyterians. The larger truth is that the OPC itself left the Presbyterian Church, in effect affirming that the Presbyterian Church’s problems outweigh its good.

     As for the tiny OPC, the Camden Riversharks have 1/1,000,000th of the problems the New York Yankees do. But to attempt to equate the two on any level, as though it might be better to be a Rivershark than a Yankee, is a risible logical error

     LikeLike

901. Clete,

     Your beef with Darryl is the same beef he has with his cats each night. Where’s the love?

     He’s just passing it on.

     LikeLike

902. Darryl,

     See Clete admit problems.

     See Erik & Kent love Clete.

     LikeLike

903. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 17, 2015 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

     But the really scary thing for you should be that almost none of the bishops seem to care. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned from Byran and the Jasons is that bishops and especially the bishop are what make Roman Catholicism superior.

     “There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing.”

     LikeLike

904. Clete,

     One of my changed ways is trying not to pick on guys who are not here. Jason and the Callers are not here, so I generally try to steer clear of them. One thing I have always found telling about the Caller website, however, is how next to no attention is given to the abuse scandal. One post is all they can point you to – by Jeremy Tate – not Bryan. This scandal has cost the Church billions. Not millions, billions. Doesn’t a credible call need to help people process that? No help is to be found at CTC.

     LikeLike

905. CVD, how can you not be skeptical? The picture is so bleak most trads write off the past fifty years as lost or a mistake. Then you get Nguyen who wants to make sure I understand Trent still holds. Somehow, I’ve got to bridge the anathemas at Trent with separated brethren and lay charism, including those laity and clergy NOT in communion with the RCC. Then I have to take into account modern contextualized pastoral applications that aren’t rupturous of encyclicals like this;”

     On behalf of Almighty God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and by the authority of SS Peter and Paul his apostles, and by our own authority, acting on the general advice of our brethren, we utterly reject and condemn this settlement [the Magna Carta] and under threat of excommunication we order that the king should not dare to observe it and that the barons and their associates should not require it to be observed: the charter, with all undertakings and guarantees whether confirming it or resulting from it, we declare to be null, and void of all validity for ever. Wherefore, let no man deem it lawful to infringe this document of our annulment and prohibition, or presume to oppose it. If anyone should presume to do so, let him know that he will incur the anger of Almighty God and of SS Peter and Paul his apostles.”

     Who’s kidding who? At least Rahner, who upheld papal authority, was willing to roll his eyes at such “hermenuetics of continuity”

     LikeLike

906. Michael,

     I think I’m going to let Sean listen to that for me. He has more background to process it than I do.

     He’s met The Fat Man, I haven’t.

     LikeLike

907. Pretty sure Mother Angelica would box Tom’s ears. Crabbiness indeed.

     LikeLike

908. Jeff,

     “(1) God commanded certain images to be placed in the temple. This was (apparently) not a violation of the command.
     Why not? We aren’t actually told. It may be one of several possibilities.”

     Hmm so already we see the “plain reading” actually has some complexities underlying it.

     “And so here, it may be that God made an exception for His own purposes.”

     So he made an exception here for the temple, He also did when he commanded Moses to put images on the Ark, He also did with the bronze serpent – the latter which Christ explicitly links with Himself.

     “This is the argument you thought I was making, and it’s not impossible. Such a reading would take the command to not make idols or images and subordinate it to the second sentence, such that it means “Do not make idols or images in order to bow to or worship them.”

     And if this reading is justified, perhaps one should take the command against images in the context of the preceding verse that “You shall have no other gods before me.” rather than simply reading it isolated.

     This would then also avoid the rather ad-hoc “exception” reading you propose initially above. The bronze serpent was commanded and allowed by God – it was later destroyed. Why? “He [Hezekiah] removed the high places and broke down the sacred pillars and cut down the Asherah. He also broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the sons of Israel burned incense to it; and it was called Nehushtan.” It had become an idol – it wasn’t just “God gave an exception for idolatry, then didn’t”.

     “The problem is that the grammar doesn’t support the reading”

     That’s not the argument I’m angling for. I was simply examining your own position.

     “Well, I suppose that if there were a pack of Lutherans”

     But how did these conservative Lutherans blow the oh-so-obvious “plain reading” of the second commandment that the RCs are disingenuously manhandling in order to support RC man-made traditions? In the comments of that same link I posted, someone said “Tenth Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia, a conservative PCA congregation, has representative art depicting angels in their sanctuary” – what happened – were they not able to understand the “plain reading”?

     “Cletus, you could just step gracefully of the pedestal, you know.”

     Let’s be frank here. You’re saying RCs are idolaters. You’re saying RCs are ignoring the “plain reading” of the 2nd commandment, by implication RCs are either just too stupid to understand it or willfully suppressing the truth. So don’t fire off volleys and not expect to get an equal degree of pushback.

     LikeLike

909. Tom lecturing people on crabbiness is like LeBron lecturing people on offensive fouls.

     LikeLike

910. Tom being surprised by poor service:

     LikeLike

911. Hart,
     If the convert is not a follower of Christ who had been baptized in to Christ, the they should. If they are a follower of Christ who is continuing their walk with Christ into the fullness of the communion of the Church, they are just living out, by God’s grace, the call to continue in His word. They are living their salvation which Christ has wrought. In your communion, did Machen get his salvation when he formed a new communion or did he continue in the work of the salvation which Christ was working out thought his life. Obviously, you would say he continued in the salvific walk with Christ. This is also what the Christian when finding his error in any area of the Christian life does, most especially those who come in to full communion with the Church. It is more like one would be withdrawing from Christ work by not coming into the Church once one has seen their error. They then choose heresy and forsake salvation. Hope that help.

     LikeLike

912. cw l’unificateur
     Posted June 17, 2015 at 5:51 pm | Permalink
     Pretty sure Mother Angelica would box Tom’s ears. Crabbiness indeed.

     Own it, Crabby. Knock down nice Catholic ladies and take their rosaries.

     LikeLike

913. Erik,
     I think you can figure things out just fine for yourself. Up to you though. If you are wanting to understand better what makes sense to a fellow like me about VII these are good talks.

     LikeLike

914. Sean,
     Correct me if I am wrong, but to a large degree you left the Catholic Church because you believed it to be liberalized. Being this is not what I believe it to be there is a disconnect in how we understand each other’s view of the Catholic Church. If I am right should not someone like Erik look at the facts of official Church statements and VII opening Pope statements and popes after the council and things like the 1989 synod of bishops to understand it? Much more the text of the council itself. This is the stuff Nguyen talks about. Do you think personal it would be good for someone like Erik to listen to Nguyen to understand a valid Catholic view of the council?

     LikeLike

915. vd, c, don’t expect a Protestant to defend Rome. Surprise.

     And I’m going to continue to point out Rome’s problems to balance Bryan and the Jasons (and all the apologists). Can you tell me they give a balanced view?

     Which conservative bishops care about Ireland aside from Burke? Is Burke on the sidelines? Lots of people who are RC and report on Rome think so. Now you tell me that’s not true? I should believe you instead of John Allen? And I still don’t know your name.

     LikeLike

916. @mtx
     thanks for the link. There was a lot there I could affirm and was indeed challenged by. Of course there were a few important items I would balk at. Particularly the idea that there are those who maybe saved mysteriously by Christ without explicit faith. I need to think more about this though.

     However this does stand in contrast to the Athanasian Creed (which I don’t think was written by Athanasius…details, details…I only mention it bc I don’t think appeal to Athanasius’s work is necessarily clarifying).

     Perhaps kw was right and I’m reading this text too “woodenly”, but I am unconvinced that 8th century xtians who recited this would think so, and I guess that is my point as it pertains to the purported epistemic superiority of the rc paradigm. If the bishops and laity took my wooden interpretation, they were in error too. How can one ever know as Susan might ask?

     LikeLike

917. vd, t, I don’t hate the Roman Catholic Church. I hate people telling me that Christianity depends on the Roman Catholic Church.

     LikeLike

918. sean, and I think Rahner has more weight than vd, c and vd, t put together. Sometimes the number 1 counts for more than 2.

     LikeLike

919. Jeff,

     Idolatry isn’t bad.

     You’re bad because you have idols.

     LikeLike

920. MichealTX, I don’t think that captures the spirit of Trent.

     LikeLike

921. Michael, I’m now 65 minutes in. I struggle with the idea of the RC faith as a propositionally based faith expression. I don’t think this is how most RC’s engage or understand their faith nor do I think it’s particularly set up for that sort of engagement. Even you prot-caths are trending hard toward the pageant and the latin(that most of you don’t engage for reasons of understanding but instead transcendent feelings) and the bells and whistles. I think you guys see all the romance and spend the rest of your time trying to explain away the sausage making that the rest of us are assailed with even when we aren’t trying-encyclicals, news cycle, scandals, etc. Darryl calls it pay, pray and obey. I see that in rome for sure but I also see the sacerdotalism and the mass at the heart of it. None of that gives itself to 890 page catechisms or becoming experts in Thomism and I don’t see Rome really pushing for it. Even Francis tends to slough it off with, ‘of course I’m a son of the church but that isn’t what I’m about’-America magazine interview. You guys(prots turned cats) are a hybrid. So, do I think Erik could benefit? Sure, but I don’t think it’s going to bring him closer to understanding what he observes. IOW, the paradigm the trads are trying to push has very limited explanatory value.

     LikeLike

922. Sean,
     I continue to say I don’t consider myself a trad but just a Catholic and you keep pressing that on me. I have been to two Tridentine Masses. Two. I do teach my kids Latin. We have it as a subject in our home school co-op. I do believe there should be more reverence at Mass. Though I don’t get the warm and fuzzies at Mass because of the whiffs and bells(which aren’t there often). I get substance out of Mass because if what I believe happens at the Mass. Heaven becomes present. I am before the Lamb slain to take away my sins and know I am unworthy. But as Christ lays down His live for me I strive to lay down my prideful life to Him. He gives Himself to me and I have nothing to give but what he has given. Sadly I am usually distracted by my four kids. I really don’t need Rome pushing me to know the Catholic faith either. That is the Holy Spirits direct job in my heart. What all this has to do with teaching a valid understanding of VII… I don’t know, but I hope is deals in some way the last post you gave. BTW, how me been a Prot-Catholic can invalidate a cradle Catholic like Nguyen I am unsure. Please explain further with details from what he actually presents so we can get somewhere.

     LikeLike

923. 77 minutes in and Nguyen confirms, at this point, what I just said. He basically affirms implicit faith as bedrock and then doubles down with continuity or ‘no change’.

     LikeLike

924. Michael, I’m not just referring to you, but didn’t you tell me you were going to start attending a latin rite mass? Maybe I’ve got you confused with someone else.

     LikeLike

925. Ok, gotta quit for the night. 81-82 minutes in and he explains aggiornamento as not merely change(so change?) but the church catching up to itself. Besides the one hand clapping nature of such phrases, somehow this isn’t change but ‘merely’ renewal. A shedding away of all the things to reveal Christ, but no change. So, somehow shedding add ons and catching up to itself aren’t change. Maybe if I smoke some pot this will work better-that’s a joke but not, if you know what I mean.

     LikeLike

926. Sean, you are right we are going to start attending a Latin Mass once a month. I have several reasons for that. 1) the reverence before God’s trone is palpable at the parish. I want my children to catch that. 2) We are learning Latin and it will be good for us to hear it more often. 3)I have some friend who are coming out of the Lutheran Church into the Catholic Church who do not like the continual changes in the Liturgy over the ages. They had been considering EO but are reconsider RC because of the protection of its prayers since the early Church as well. 4) the preaching in much better from FSSP priests. 5)it will give us a day way out of town with some friends with kids our kids age and we can all have dinner somewhere. 6) I do respect the fuller prayers at the Tridentine Mass.

     I’m sure I could find some more reasons, but I figure you can see it is more than just warm and fuzzies I’m looking at.

     LikeLike

927. Michael, I’m sure you’re about more than warm and fuzzies but you are still looking for some warm and fuzzies as well as the other things you mentioned. I think transcendent feelings is fair. I’ll substitute with palpable reverence. But it’s still trending pageant.

     LikeLike

928. Sean, to clarify what I mean by palpable reverence. I mean the people in Mass including the priest more full act like we are actually at what we believe Mass is as a Catholic (breaking the veil of time and space to touch what God wants to give us[primarily the life, death, resurrection, and assertion of Christ]) Namely his life which we did not have before His coming.

     LikeLike

929. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 17, 2015 at 10:12 pm | Permalink
     vd, t, I don’t hate the Roman Catholic Church. I hate people telling me that Christianity depends on the Roman Catholic Church.

     I think you do depend on it. The Catholic Church is still normative Christianity. “Protestantism” is so all over the map it’s difficult to even use the word meaningfully except to mean “not-Catholic.”

     But actually, my point is that Old Life is becoming a clearinghouse for misconceptions/misrepresentations of what Catholicism even is. I don’t think that’s worthy or right. Catholicism is many things, perhaps not all of them good, but one thing it’s not is simplistic or illogical, as many of the attacks on it are.

     LikeLike

930. Darryl,

     “vd, c, don’t expect a Protestant to defend Rome. Surprise.”

     I don’t. I do expect honest and fair analysis, especially by one charging others with dishonesty in their analysis. Goose and gander stuff.

     “And I’m going to continue to point out Rome’s problems to balance Bryan and the Jasons (and all the apologists). Can you tell me they give a balanced view?”

     Jason listed out problems in reply to your exact issue. Isn’t that what you wanted? Presumably so given your constant laments but then we get in response to that, well, okay but actually “What Jason was supposed to do was stop hyping Roman Catholicism.” Which as I said is ridiculous and a standard you yourself do not hold – as you said, “I think the OPC’s virtues outweigh its problems.” and so that apparently justifies your promoting of the OPC. Pretty sure most RC apologists think its virtues outweigh its problems as well, so you should be applauding their promotion of their church – they’re just following your lead.
     Nothing that Akin, Shea, CtC, et al have said implies or entails they don’t think the RCC has problems. That is further buttressed by the fact that you kept assuming I could/would identify no problems – it is quite easy to identify problems and I freely did so, and that does not make anything I’ve written go up in smoke.

     “Which conservative bishops care about Ireland aside from Burke?”

     Okay so you’re telling me you really cannot find one other bishop who spoke out against Ireland besides Burke? This is your honest and due diligence analysis? Again, tunnel vision.

     “I should believe you instead of John Allen?”

     Who cares what my status is? You don’t believe Ratzinger’s “hermeneutic of continuity” either now or when he was in office right? He’s kind of up there – but who cares since he doesn’t support the narrative so let’s dismiss him just as we do with numbers, statistics, organizations, persons, movements that don’t support it. So this is just more tunnel vision and deflection.

     LikeLike

931. vd, t, but I don’t care what you think. And your thoughts are hardly representative of much.

     LikeLike

932. vd, c, Jason writes one post and for you that covers Rome’s problems. I’m betting you really don’t want to hear about Rome’s problems.

     Name another cardinal or bishop concerned about Ireland. Floor’s yours.

     How is what I say dishonest? I read roughly 5 RC websites a day. My sources are Roman Catholic. Bryan and the Jasons never acknowledge any of those news stories. So again, how is it dishonest? You don’t like the message so it’s dishonest? That’s honest.

     Compare Called to Communion to Unam Sanctam. One is in denial and one isn’t. I disagree with both. I respect the latter because it is honest. But I you think I’m dishonest then you also think the trads are dishonest. Who are you to judge?

     Again, Bryan and the Jasons started this. They made some extraordinary claims about Roman Catholicism. Those claims are dishonest after you look at what’s going on in the churches. I can have respect for real conservatives, just as I do for any number of popes who seemed to have integrity. But this jazz of come to Rome because we are so much better than Protestantism but don’t look too closely at the church or diocese you’ll be joining because you need to keep reading Thomas or Origen is just stupid. I’m sorry for you you fell for it.

     Why do you care about OL? And why won’t you give your name? How honest is that?

     LikeLike

933. Darryl,

     Solid.

     Looking forward to a post on the Encyclical on climate change. Take the temperature of Hillsdale Catholics on that one for us.

     LikeLike

934. Cletus,

     Be honest. Are you a Caller?

     LikeLike

935. It isn’t just that the RCC has problems. It is the extent and root of those problems that are at issue as well. For example, take something as what should be uncontroversial among Christians – sex outside of marriage is sinful. Only 17% of RCs agree. That’s worse than the mainline (21%) and way worse than evangelicals (63%). On issues from the value of Creeds (and a significant number of evangelicals are explicitly anti-creedal) to the doctrine of the trinity and belief in the bodily resurrection of our savior, evangelicals are significantly more orthodox than RCs. If you want to claim that the RC paradigm is superior, you have to account for the fact that it does such a poor job cultivating holiness among its adherents (note that this is a worldwide phenomenon). Saying, “well we need to do better with the catechesis”, doesn’t cut it. How did the superior paradigm get this way world wide? Empiricism may not be everything, but it is something.

     LikeLike

936. b, sd, so are the Callers going to Rome in search of loose women?

     LikeLike

937. CVD: So don’t fire off volleys and not expect to get an equal degree of pushback.

     No objection to the pushback. And I think you’re doing a good job defending your hill.

     CVD: Let’s be frank here. You’re saying RCs are idolaters. You’re saying RCs are ignoring the “plain reading” of the 2nd commandment …

     Not precise enough. This was the same confusion that Mrs. W had. I am not saying that RCs are idolaters in the sense of making images of false gods, or the sense of worshiping images. I am saying that RCs are violating the second commandment by making religious images and bowing to them. If we have to have a term for this, we could call it something like proskuneitry.

     It’s an undeniable fact that you do those two things (make religious images, bow). The question we’re debating is whether those actions fall under the prohibition of the 2nd commandment.

     Is it an accusation? Yes, I would say so, much in the same way that you would accuse me of schism and heresy. It is an accusation directed at the position, not the person. I don’t know your heart. Heck, I don’t even know whether you are really Catholic (though I would give pretty good odds on it). So I’m not saying that you are deliberately committing mortal sin. I am saying that your church’s teaching permits and encourages the breaking of the commandment.

     Just so that we are clear, the argument runs

     * The Catholic cannot appeal to the doctrinal purity of the RC Church as evidence that the RC Church is the One True Church, because
     * There are several places in which the RC Church has failed to maintain doctrinal purity,
     * One of which is in the violation of the 2nd commandment,
     * Not in the worshiping of false gods, but in the making of icons and venerating them, which involves making images of things on earth or in heaven and bowing, which runs contrary to the plain language of the 2nd commandment.

     Now, you counter.

     (1) JRC: [A possible reading is] “Do not make idols or images in order to bow to or worship them.”

     CVD: If this reading is justified, perhaps one should take the command against images in the context of the preceding verse that “You shall have no other gods before me.” rather than simply reading it isolated.

     In other words, images that are not intended to be images of false gods are permitted. Hence (you say), Moses places images on the Ark of the Covenant, Solomon places images in the temple. You would prefer to consider those not as divinely ordained exceptions to the rule, but as illustrative of the real meaning of the 1st and 2nd commandments taken together (which are one in the Catholic numbering): That we can make images so long as they are not of false gods, and (this seems like a fudge?) we can bow so long as we are not worshiping.

     Problem: images of the true God are also forbidden.
     Problem: Not only idols, but also “any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” So the command is not limited to statues of false gods, but includes likenesses of heavenly and earthly objects.
     Problem: While it is true that those images were made, it is not the case that anyone at all was encouraged to bow down to them.
     Problem: Why would bowing without worship be permitted? The grammar in Greek and Hebrew is clear enough.

     So the most that you can get from the evidence you adduce is that images might be able to be made, but not bowed to (nor, of course, worshiped, which we agree to).

     Question for clarity: What is your attitude towards statues of Jesus? Are you worshiping Jesus when you genuflect?

     In short: We could reasonably subordinate the prohibition against idols to the command to have no other gods. We cannot subordinate the prohibition against making of images of anything at all to that command. Nor does this reading account for the fact that images of the true God are also prohibited. Nor does it explain why bowing is permitted but worship is not.

     (2) CVD: This would then also avoid the rather ad-hoc “exception” reading you propose initially above. The bronze serpent was commanded and allowed by God – it was later destroyed. Why? “He [Hezekiah] removed the high places and broke down the sacred pillars and cut down the Asherah. He also broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the sons of Israel burned incense to it; and it was called Nehushtan.” It had become an idol – it wasn’t just “God gave an exception for idolatry, then didn’t”.

     I hear and understand the discomfort with the notion of exceptions. It’s not my preferred solution, but it is logically possible given that other commandments also admitted of divinely ordained exceptions.

     Here’s one more point in that direction. God seemed to have been particular about the details of worship. Nadab and Abihu were slain because they “offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, which he had not commanded them.” (Lev 10).

     It’s not unreasonable, then, that God would ordain particular images, while yet generally rejecting all others.

     My preferred solution, however, is that the command to not make images is probably subordinated to the command to not bow and to not worship.

     (3) CVD: But how did these conservative Lutherans blow the oh-so-obvious “plain reading” of the second commandment that the RCs are disingenuously manhandling in order to support RC man-made traditions? …

     The Lutheran question is an interesting one because Lutherans actually omit Ex 20.4 entirely from their list of the 10 commandments. The prohibition against making graven images is not subordinated to the command against no other gods (as the Catholics do); it’s just not there.

     The Large Catechism discusses idolatry briefly, but makes its meaning even stronger than simple worship, involving “gaping at something else.” Luther was none too complimentary towards Catholic practice either (see bold)

     Therefore the heathen really make their self-invented notions and dreams of God an idol, and put their trust in that which is altogether nothing. Thus it is with all idolatry; for it consists not merely in erecting an image and worshiping it, but rather in the heart, which stands gaping at something else, and seeks help and consolation from creatures, saints, or devils, and neither cares for God, nor looks to Him for so much good as to believe that He is willing to help, neither believes that whatever good it experiences comes from God.

     Besides, there is also a false worship and extreme idolatry, which we have hitherto practised, and is still prevalent in the world, upon which also all ecclesiastical orders are founded, and which concerns the conscience alone, that seeks in its own works help, consolation, and salvation, presumes to wrest heaven from God, and reckons how many bequests it has made, how often it has fasted, celebrated Mass, etc. Upon such things it depends, and of them boasts, as though unwilling to receive anything from God as a gift, but desires itself to earn or merit it superabundantly, just as though He must serve us and were our debtor, and we His liege lords. What is this but reducing God to an idol, yea, [a fig image or] an apple-god, and elevating and regarding ourselves as God? But this is slightly too subtile, and is not for young pupils.

     So I don’t think the Lutherans help you here. They seem to side-step the question, and they certainly seem to think that Catholics are idolaters in spades. You don’t want friends like that for your position.

     CVD: In the comments of that same link I posted, someone said “Tenth Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia, a conservative PCA congregation, has representative art depicting angels in their sanctuary” – what happened – were they not able to understand the “plain reading”?

     Possibly. The issue of images whatsoever is a live one in the Reformed tradition. We all agree not to make images to bow or worship. Some believe that images that are not bowed to or worshiped are acceptable. Presbyteries make that call.

     CVD: You’re saying RCs are ignoring the “plain reading” of the 2nd commandment, by implication RCs are either just too stupid to understand it or willfully suppressing the truth.

     Or unable to see it. Motivated reasoning is a powerful thing and affects us all (including me). Honest, non-stupid people can have axioms that prevent sound reasoning in one area and not others. This has been demonstrated in various studies.

     Coming to the truth is not a matter of smartness, and it’s not entirely or even mostly a matter of the will.

     LikeLike

938. Hi, Jeff,
     How’s it going? All is well here, and we actually do live in a neck of the woods.

     This has been a good discussion, Jeff. Just one point this AM, for now. 🙂 Catholics do not make graven images or bow down to them. We certainly do not make graven images of God Himself, any more than of false gods.

     The statues and icons are meant to help a person’s devotion to the real God. Hey, even my friend – in some ways, but not in others – Martin Luther understood that. In fact, many Protestants also use things like statues and stained glass windows – not to mention visual aids used in children’s ministries – as devotional aids.

     Catholics also abhor idolatry. It is something that Catholics are warned about, as are Protestants. Even Elizabeth Scalia, the Anchoress wrote a fine book on the subject not too long ago. You probably have tons of reading material already, but hers is an easy read and very interesting on the subject of idolatry.

     Though I think that Calvin had a very low and dark view of humanity – which in many ways was correct – he did not invent the idea that the human heart is an idol factory. I think that can be taken to an extreme, but there is a grain of truth in that.

     http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Gods-Unmasking-Idols-Everyday/dp/1594713421

     Strange Gods: Unmasking the Idols in Everyday Life

     Take care, Jeff

     LikeLike

939. D.G. Hart:
     “Mermaid, if you actually struggled with sin, you’d get Luther’

     Susan:
     I struggle with sin (and I have a hard time letting my conscience be rightly informed about what is and isn’t actual sin, both venial and mortal), and spend a lot of time in confession, so I get poor dear Martin Luther’s scrupulosity. But, his scrupulosity ,such as it is, led to presumption, and that is definitely a sin.

     I don’t have certitude that I will go to heaven when I die, but I know that God is merciful (he gave us Himself on the cross and in the Eucharist after all), and from that I understand that He wants men to have complete salvation. So I rest in the knowledge that God Loves us, that He gave Himself for us, and that the spiritual graces (especially the Holy Eucharist) are for our benefit. If I will be responsible for every idle word (Matt.12:35-37), I hope and pray that the intention of my heart and my words are free of spite, and that they will impart grace to the hearer.

     TVD:
     The heart that loves God aches and weeps with gladness at this.

     Me, Mrs. Webfoot:
     I didn’t want this to get lost. It is beautiful. I would put this in the category of Perseverance of the Saints.

     We should not be presumptuous about God’s grace, but we should assume that He is gracious, loving, kind, and desires the salvation of our souls. Faith in His goodness keeps us pressing on. We must make our election sure.

     …and yes, Brother D.G. Hart, I am a wretched sinner but for the grace of God in Christ. We share that belief in common. Yet not utterly depraved, otherwise there would be no hope of eternal life.

     LikeLike

940. Mrs. W,

     I think you’re relying on some technical definition of “graven image.” Both the Greek and Hebrew words are generic, encompossaing statues.

     LikeLike

941. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 18, 2015 at 6:19 am | Permalink
     vd, t, but I don’t care what you think. And your thoughts are hardly representative of much.

     You care very much, because I see the holes in your narrative. As a Professional Protestant you can never back down no matter how nakedly refuted. But there are clearly readers for whom truth remains an option. Rock on, Butch–people learn a lot here, although not always exactly what you’re teaching.

     LikeLike

942. Darryl,

     “They made some extraordinary claims about Roman Catholicism. Those claims are dishonest after you look at what’s going on in the churches.”

     Can you tell me what claims they or trads/conservatives or apologists like Akin, Shea, etc. make that deny the church has problems or entail the church has no problems?

     “I can have respect for real conservatives”

     Okay so there are real RC conservatives who are also honest since you have respect for them. So what claims are the honest conservatives making that the supposedly dishonest apologists are denying?

     “But this jazz of come to Rome because we are so much better than Protestantism”

     Again, you promote OPC because its better than other options in your view. You also freely admit the OPC has problems. You also don’t write an article every day about why the OPC has problems and no one calls you dishonest for not doing so. So why again is the RC apologist being dishonest in promoting their church or why does their promotion of their church as better than other options automatically entail they don’t hold it has problems?

     LikeLike

943. vd, c if you’re not going to supply me with links about all those conservative bishops lining up against Ireland, you’re going to have to do the work of finding the disparity between Akin and Boniface or Douthat. Since you seem to be aware of my daily postings, you must have some memory.

     But you have also not been reading Old Life from the beginning. It was never and is not a “promote-the-OPC” blog. It did make a shift toward monitoring RC developments once Bryan and the Jasons started showing off their scalps.

     So the ball’s back in your court. Tell me where Boniface at Unam Sanctam is dishonest. Or tell me why some conservative RC’s seem to agree with Old Life — such as Pertinacious Papist? Could it be that you’d prefer to cover your ears and close your eyes to what is disagreeable even on your side of the Tiber?

     And don’t I get any credit for lauding Bishop Cordileone? I know, I have the wrong paradigm and can’t be expected to understand what goes on in Roman Catholic circles.

     Tell that to Bryan and maybe he’ll shut down CtC.

     LikeLike

944. Darryl,

     Let’s get down to brass tacks. What are the problems you think the RCC has that converts need to be aware of (excluding of course doctrinal issues)? I’ll start:
     Sex abuse scandal and ongoing ramifications
     Parish closures/mergings
     Decline in vocations and membership in the west since the 60s
     Liberalism and modernism
     Lack of discipline
     Ignorance and lack of knowledge/catechesis amongst laity

     Now, what claims have the dishonest trads and apologists made that deny any of these or entail they must not exist?

     “It was never and is not a “promote-the-OPC” blog.”

     I understand that. But nevertheless you do promote it (and Protestantism) do you not – be it in articles or comments. You also do not write an article a day describing and lamenting the problems of the OPC. That you do not do so or focus on that does not entail you are dishonest about the OPC/Protestantism having problems, nor does your promoting of the OPC (or 2k or whatever position you affirm that you seek to persuade others to affirm) in whatever context entail you are dishonest about the OPC/Protestantism having problems.

     LikeLike

945. vd, c — you missed the biggest problem — aside from how bad episcopal church government is (in contrast to subsidiarity). The biggest problem is the divide the separates the pre- and post-Vatican II church.

     I don’t know if bishops really care about the doctrine that hasn’t changed. Performances today like Francis’ don’t lead me to think they do. When you have a country like Ireland where most of your faithful think mortal sin is okay, and you are teaching us about the environment, say hello to the PCUSA.

     LikeLike

946. Hey Sean,
     We getting anywhere? You planning on listening to the talks where Nguyen gets into the VII constitutions a little? Let me know your thoughts.

     LikeLike

947. Darryl – When you have a country like Ireland where most of your faithful think mortal sin is okay, and you are teaching us about the environment, say hello to the PCUSA.

     Erik – Ding.

     LikeLike

948. Pope Francis must have heard rumors that Caitlyn Jenner was giving him a run for his money on those “Man of the Year” awards.

     LikeLike

949. Hart, seems like I am trying to enlighten that point right with you and, now in your absence from the discussion(probably busy… I understan), Sean. Hoped we could continue how we were discussing it. I personal thought it was going well. I understand you may not have the listening time. I did reach out to Dr. Nguyen to get the hand outs he gave for the talks. He is out of the diocese office right now. Hopefully when he gets back in we can get lucky and he still has something available.

     LikeLike

950. Michael, I’m dealing with a bunch of people with ginormous butts(very inside joke but not inside in THAT way). That is to say I’m being run over with everyone else’s village idiots who somehow managed to ‘escape’ their rightful masters supervision and landed at my front door. I’ve squashed as many as I could before I tired of it and now I’ve called pest control and set the dogs upon their rightful masters. It’s like a Norbit nightmare around here.

     LikeLike

951. Michael, I’ll try to listen to some more time tonight.

     LikeLike

952. Ok, Sean.

     LikeLike

953. 88 minutes in, ‘dialogue is not sharing it’s evangelization. But it’s not triumphalism. Triumphalism is not dialogue either, it’s patting our own back.” Go tell CtC

     LikeLike

954. Interesting point of distinction, Nguyen wants to argue that Latin(like the prots treat hebrew and greek) and letter can never be divorced from application and meaning. So, dogma is static not only in it’s essence but in it’s communication. Contrast that with Rahner who would say there’s a need to wrest the dogma(it’s essence) from it’s historical and cultural(language) limitations. So, Rahner could answer something like Darryl’s quote from Pope Innocent III, where Nguyen would be forced into a more fideistic and wooden fealty that would potentially refuse to recognize the historical context in which a statement was given. This is part of the problem of the hermenuetic of continuity and no change that Nguyen wants to champion. Anyway, still listening.

     LikeLike

955. Sean, you may be pushing Nguyen a bit farthing into a corner there than what he intentss. It is not in the context of dogma interpretation that he address understanding context later in talk three than may give greater light to his position. I don’t know though in talk three he his dealing with biblical understanding. Dogmas are quite about different if you ask me, because their genre is so direct. I would have to hear a more broad discussion for Nguyen and also Rahner to judge their neaunced differences. But you would have to point out more how truly believing historic dogmas of Catholicism is the problem with a herminutic of VII when VII calls us to believe the dogmas of all previous councils.

     LikeLike

956. Michael, it’ll be driving a wedge between spirit and letter which is what Nguyen seems to want to avoid. Rahner is going to say the letter(latin or otherwise) is inadequate to ‘contain’ the spirit. Even Ratzinger is going to list toward Rahner at this point but fall short of Kung, obviously. I need to listen to it all, but Nguyen maybe swinging too far ‘right’ in response to an anything goes application. Saying you are going to hold Trent and Vat II in unity or even Vat I is one thing, doing it is a whole nother challenge. Rahner is gonna give you a better chance, IMO.

     LikeLike

957. Jeff Cagle
     Posted June 18, 2015 at 1:51 pm | Permalink
     Mrs. W,

     I think you’re relying on some technical definition of “graven image.” Both the Greek and Hebrew words are generic, encompossaing statues.>>>>

     I’m pretty sure that this has been covered, but the Cherubim on the Mercy Seat were statues.

     The context of what you number as the 2nd Commandment is not having any gods besides God. Since Cherubim are statues, and God Himself ordered that they be made, the prohibition in the 10 Commandments cannot mean all statues. Otherwise God Himself would be telling His people to violate His Commandments.

     It does not compute.

     LikeLike

958. Mrs. W:

     You are tracking Cletus’s argument pretty closely.

     Let’s suppose for a moment that you are correct, and that not all images are forbidden.

     Then which ones are permitted? You would claim that any which do not represent false gods are permitted. But the command reads, No images of anything whatsoever, on earth or in heaven. So that won’t do.

     But even if it did, this only gets you to the making of images. Where do you find permission to bow and venerate?

     LikeLike

959. Mrs W: Otherwise God Himself would be telling His people to violate His Commandments

     If you’ve had a chance to read the interchange between Cletus and me, you’ll notice a couple of possible answers.

     (1) God does, on occasion, directly command people to do things apparently in violation of His commands.

     The Canaanite conquest is one such instance. God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac was another.

     So what you suggest is not impossible. However,

     (2) It is more likely that the command not to make images is subordinated to the bowing and worshiping.

     What cannot be true, lexically speaking, is that the forbidden images are limited to idols of false gods. Look closely at the text.

     LikeLike

960. D.G. Hart to TVD:
     But do remember that Jason and the Bryans started this. If they had given just one inch of candor about the communion to which they call Reformed Protestants, I might not be so obsessed….

     But you have also not been reading Old Life from the beginning. It was never and is not a “promote-the-OPC” blog. It did make a shift toward monitoring RC developments once Bryan and the Jasons started showing off their scalps….

     Tell that to Bryan and maybe he’ll shut down CtC.>>>>>>

     So, all this anti-Catholic rhetoric is about trying to shut down a blog that you don’t like?

     Very interesting. Started showing off their scalps?

     If they are as uninformed, dishonest, and lacking in character as you seem to think they are, why aren’t you glad they left?

     It must not be easy seeing some of your best and brightest leave your ranks. I don’t know what to say.

     Anyway, take care, Brother D.G. Hart. Not kidding. I am praying for you. We all need God’s grace, and it seems we need it now more than ever.

     God bless us, every one.

     LikeLike

961. Mermaid, best and brightest has yet to be proved.

     LikeLike

962. MWF: why aren’t you glad they left?

     Mrs W: not to speak for anyone else but just as an observer, thinking it’s because of love (1 John 4:21) and jealousy (Ex 34:14)

     LikeLike

963. D.G. Hart:
     Mermaid, best and brightest has yet to be proved.>>>

     If they are not among the best and brightest and if they have bad character, I ask again. Why aren’t you glad they left? They didn’t just leave you. They want to take along with them anyone else like them. You should be celebrating, yet you are obsessed with them – obsessed is your word.

     Meanwhile, ain’t we got fun. 🙂

     Take care, Brother D.G. Hart

     LikeLike

964. a period, or maybe not (Song of Solomon 2:4)

     LikeLike

965. Mermaid, they besmirch my religion.

     LikeLike

966. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 19, 2015 at 10:43 am | Permalink
     Mermaid, they besmirch my religion.>>>

     Okay. In what way?

     LikeLike

967. amen DG…

     1 John 3:1 See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. 2 Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is. 3 And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.

     Rev 22:17 The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.

     LikeLike

968. Mermaid, come on, you know how the internet works.

     LikeLike

969. I think it is hard for Protestants to see some of their own, especially ones who have been leaders, leave to become Catholics. The Protestant narrative is that people leave Catholicism, not the other way around.

     Then that they would have the gall to actually defend the Church and laud all her beauty is almost unbearable for a Protestant.

     This has rocked your world, Brother D.G. Hart.

     Still, the truth remains. The only thing that counts is faith working through love.

     a.:
     Rev 22:17 The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.>>>>

     Indeed! The Bride says, “Come!” , and that by the Holy Spirit.

     Canon 1.If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law,[110] without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

     LikeLike

970. Mrs W. “defend the Church”

     defend ‘the Church’ or is it contend for our faith?

     church = ekklesia = called out ones-=those who have been saved

     faith in Jesus as the Son of God (Jn 20:30-31; Jn. 8:24), repent of sin (Acts 17:30), confess that Jesus is Lord and believe that God raised him from the dead (Rom. 10:9,10), and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38).

     For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. Eph 2:7 8

     Praise the Lord alone for His greatness!

     have a great day

     LikeLike

971. Mermaid, yes, your gullibility rocked my world. I wasn’t sufficiently Calvinist.

     “The only thing that counts is faith working through love.”

     Papal supremacy? Peter doesn’t count?

     LikeLike

972. Michael, I’m still listening, but to follow up on what was said before, Nguyen, Ratzinger, JPII etc are all going to struggle interpreting Vat II outside of Rahner’s and the Nouveau(new) school. Primarily because much of that language and it’s imported meaning was utilized in the constituttions. So, to read it in ‘continuity’ with the letter is to read the German school inherent in the language. So, when Nguyen says renewal and reform and then insists on the letter and the latin, well, he’s taking the new schools use of renewal and utilizing in a way that they never intended it. Rahner and others are going to talk about renewal and reform(Ratzinger uses this language as well) and mean the kerygmatic, or the existential expression of the faith and the faithful. So, when Nguyen talks about the church ‘catching up to itself’ and then talks about the letter he doesn’t understand the theological context in which the docs are written. That’s why you have a ‘spirit of Vat II’ appeal even going on within Rome post-conciliar. The only beef Ratzinger and others can have is that without the thomistic grounding the spirit of Vat II application becomes unmoored. I think that happened. However, the seeds of that are in the actual language of the constitutions. They’re meant to be there. So, to read the letter is to read that theological context. You can’t read the letter and then interpose a new and distinct idea of continuity that essentially guts the theology in play during the council.

     LikeLike

973. Sean, I can understand to a degree what you are talking about, but the question still has to go to what word and phrases actually made their way into the docs and what those words mean. Many of those words and phrases way to believe, assume and the historic Catholic teachings, so in the docs themselves are contained a binding to a hermeneutic of continuity.

     LikeLike

974. Thought I would repeat that mistyped last sentence for clarity…

     Many of those words and phrases say to assume, believe and teach the historic Catholic faith, so in the docs themselves are contained a binding to a herminutic of continuity.

     LikeLike

975. Jeff Cagle
     Posted June 19, 2015 at 2:10 am | Permalink
     Mrs. W:

     You are tracking Cletus’s argument pretty closely.

     Let’s suppose for a moment that you are correct, and that not all images are forbidden.

     Then which ones are permitted? You would claim that any which do not represent false gods are permitted. But the command reads, No images of anything whatsoever, on earth or in heaven. So that won’t do.

     But even if it did, this only gets you to the making of images. Where do you find permission to bow and venerate?

     To your great and good credit, Jeff, you have stipulated–at least for discussion’s sake–that religious statues are not necessarily violations of Commandment 2. You’re not a brute, an iconoclast.

     The veneration of the saints–the communion of saints, and this includes Mary–must be a question of whether the venerator is praying TO the saint or praying for the saint to put in a good word with the Big G.

     Like to a friend or brother, not as a god.

     LikeLike

976. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 19, 2015 at 11:58 am | Permalink
     Mermaid, yes, your gullibility rocked my world. I wasn’t sufficiently Calvinist.

     “The only thing that counts is faith working through love.”

     Papal supremacy? Peter doesn’t count?

     Everything doesn’t count the same. Outwardly subscribing to the true church don’t mean spit if you act like a supercilious jerk, like you do to Mrs. Webfoot, Darryl. Repent.

     LikeLike

977. Tom, that’s a common response, that appealing to dead saints is tantamount to asking a living one to pray for you, i.e. prayer is simply a form of conversing and not only an act of worship. But the Bible warns against invoking the dead. And this sure sounds like a prayer TO a saint (specifically Saint Michael for Powerful Aid):

     Glorious Prince of the heavenly hosts and victor over rebellious spirits, be mindful of me who am so weak and sinful and yet so prone to pride and ambition. Lend me, I pray, thy powerful aid in every temptation and difficulty, and above all do not forsake me in my last struggle with the powers of evil.

     Is this how you ask for the schmuck next to you in the pew to pray for you? No, this is how one prays when one is worshiping.

     LikeLike

978. @tvd – On the other hand, love and faith and don’t mean a thing if you don’t keep the catholic faith pure and undefiled – per the purported infallible teaching of the RC church.

     LikeLike

979. a.:
     For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
     Eph 2:7 8

     Praise the Lord alone for His greatness!>>>>>

     Absolutely! It is Ephesians 2:8,9, BTW, but you quoted the passage correctly. You might be interested in the quote below. Notice that he did not in any way teach that neither faith nor grace can be earned by good works.

     St. Thomas Aquinas on Ephesians 2:8,9:
     Two things are requisite for faith. First, that the things which are of faith should be proposed to man: this is necessary in order that man believe anything explicitly. The second thing requisite for faith is the assent of the believer to the things which are proposed to him. Accordingly, as regards the first of these, faith must needs be from God. Because those things which are of faith surpass human reason, hence they do not come to man’s knowledge, unless God reveal them. To some, indeed, they are revealed by God immediately, as those things which were revealed to the apostles and prophets, while to some they are proposed by God in sending preachers of the faith, according to Rom. 10:15: “How shall they preach, unless they be sent?”
     As regards the second, viz. man’s assent to the things which are of faith, we may observe a twofold cause, one of external inducement, such as seeing a miracle, or being persuaded by someone to embrace the faith: neither of which is a sufficient cause, since of those who see the same miracle, or who hear the same sermon, some believe, and some do not. Hence we must assert another internal cause, which moves man inwardly to assent to matters of faith.
     The Pelagians held that this cause was nothing else than man’s free-will: and consequently they said that the beginning of faith is from ourselves, inasmuch as, to wit, it is in our power to be ready to assent to things which are of faith, but that the consummation of faith is from God, Who proposes to us the things we have to believe. But this is false, for, since man, by assenting to matters of faith, is raised above his nature, this must needs accrue to him from some supernatural principle moving him inwardly; and this is God. Therefore faith, as regards the assent which is the chief act of faith, is from God moving man inwardly by grace.

     LikeLike

980. Zrim,
     Sorry to jump in here, I haven’t been following what you folks are talking on, I would just like to point out that in the Psalms you can find David speaking to the angel. I don’t want to interact any further on this. Just wanted to point out the biblical fact. Back to my tiling the floor. Peace, Michael

     LikeLike

981. Zrim
     Posted June 19, 2015 at 2:42 pm | Permalink
     Tom, that’s a common response, that appealing to dead saints is tantamount to asking a living one to pray for you, i.e. prayer is simply a form of conversing and not only an act of worship. But the Bible warns against invoking the dead. And this sure sounds like a prayer TO a saint (specifically Saint Michael for Powerful Aid):>>>>>

     Of course you have to ignore the implications of this passage in calling those who have entered God’s presence “dead” in the sense you are calling them dead. Would that Protestants really believed their sola scriptura doctrine!

     Matthew 22:32
     ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.”

     LikeLike

982. Zrim,
     Also St Michael is invoced in the prayers of the synagogue.

     LikeLike

983. Mrs. DoubleYou, of course you’d have to over-realize the definition of “alive in Christ” to the point of saying grandma isn’t really dead. She’s both, and the problem is invoking those who are spiritually alive in Christ but also physically dead among the living. Would that Catholics could make distinctions.

     LikeLike

984. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 19, 2015 at 11:58 am | Permalink
     Mermaid, yes, your gullibility rocked my world. I wasn’t sufficiently Calvinist.

     “The only thing that counts is faith working through love.”

     Papal supremacy? Peter doesn’t count?>>>>>

     Oh, yes, D.G. Hart, the great deflection. You still have not explained why the “Callers” have besmirched your religion. Why? In what way? Aren’t they free to leave you and free to invite others to join them?

     D.G. Hart, your turtles must have been awfully weak since all it took was one, insignificant Mermaid to knock them out from under it. 😉

     LikeLike

985. “Back to my tiling the floor.”
     When you finish up, I have a backsplash that isn’t going to tile itself.

     LikeLike

986. vd, t why do you object when others butt in to a conversation you are having?

     And when did a song-writer for the Cookies become such a tattle-tale?

     LikeLike

987. “Many of those words and phrases say to assume, believe and teach the historic Catholic faith, so in the docs themselves are contained a binding to a herminutic of continuity.”

     And you’ve touched upon part of the problem. How do I use words and phrases pregnant with an anthropolgoically oriented transcendental theology(think usefulness and/or of relation to the human condition even with God as the subject, and being, thus the pastoral nature) and tie that back to dogmatic statements WITHOUT(not yelling at you) that orientation? Nguyen wants to come in and give those words and phrases something other than a ‘vehicle of kerygmatic expression’, he’s wanting it, even down to the use of the latin(think KJV only prots)to be strictly explicating prior dogmatic commitments but updated(though he resists that term as well) which had no conception of an anthropological transcendental theology. You can do what Nguyen is trying to do, but you then can’t say you’re engaging a hermenuetic, in a historical sense, but rather you’ve now reinterpreted the documents in a faith commitment sense. Thus, the trads are going to subtract from the constitutions in their intended interpretation and the spirit of Vat II liberals are going to pastorally apply without the thomistic grounding. This is why Rome is where it is. This understanding has explanatory value and is therefore more ‘honest’ than just one side or the other. You have a document in tension, purposely so, so as to accomodate anticipated change-more modernity and because of competing interests and beliefs and as a result you now you have a divided constituency, both with legit claims to the ground. Though I can’t imagine the trads are even tracking at a 20% clip, though they may, I don’t know. Trads of varying degrees, obviously.

     LikeLike

988. Mermaid, no deflection. You used “only.” That doesn’t leave much room. Qualify much?

     Read the links and you’ll see. Heck, you’ve even said nasty things about my religion. Why is it that Protestant converts wind up being more hostile to Protestantism than their popes?

     LikeLike

989. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 19, 2015 at 3:39 pm | Permalink
     Mermaid, no deflection. You used “only.” That doesn’t leave much room. Qualify much?>>>

     Only? Oh, I see! Well, it’s about the definition of faith, the kind of faith that justifies. It is the “faith working through love” kind of faith that justifies. That is why St. Thomas Aquinas talked about a fully formed faith, or an infusion of charity.

     The Calvinistic way of saying “faith alone justifies, but not a faith that is alone” is very close. You guys didn’t try to take the book of James out of the Bible, after all.

     It is kind of an answer to how the Catholic Church can just open the door and say that Protestants can come Home.

     I like to throw that phrase in to see if people recognize it as Pauline for one thing, and then as a reminder of what the Christian life really is about, whether one is a Pope, or a Mermaid, or even a Reformed Protestant. When we stand before God, we will have to give an account. How will He judge you or me, the Pope or TVD?

     Do we have a dead faith, or a living faith? When all is stripped away, that is and will be the only thing that counts.

     D.G. Hart:
     Read the links and you’ll see.>>>>>

     Well, I might see and I might not see. Why don’t you explain it to me. How have the “Callers” denigrated your religion?

     Even if they had, why don’t you forgive them?

     LikeLike

990. Many of those words and phrases say to assume, believe and teach the historic Catholic faith, so in the docs themselves are contained a binding to a hermeneutic of continuity.

     Been there, done that.
     See Perkins in his commentary on Galatians.
     “Scripture is both the gloss and the text.”

     Oops. Forgot.
     Standard excuse:
     The pope needs no interpretation. Scripture does.
     IOW Scripture is a dead letter.

     So why do the popes and councils bother to write stuff down for the rest of us to read after they are long gone?
     Thank you. Next question, please.

     How many souls in purgatory can dance on Blessed Heart of Jesus badge/angels fit in a monstrance?
     Thank you. Next question, please.

     LikeLike

991. It must not be easy seeing some of your best and brightest leave your ranks. I don’t know what to say.

     I do.
     Drunk Ex Pastor ≠ Best and Brightest

     LikeLike

992. Even if they had, why don’t you forgive them?

     Because they’re like most of the papists around here.
     Even after it is pointed out that they don’t know what they are talking about, they keep prattling on.

     Yeah, they’re free to do whatever they want, but telling blatant lies about what they claim to be experts about, reformed protestantism, doesn’t wash.

     For one, to this day, Bryan only acknowledges a false dilemma. It’s either the superior infallible magisterium or the anabaptist anarchy of solo scriptura in pumping for the only perfectly reasonable church.

     Sort of like how papists argue that if God can command images to be made in the OT ceremonial worship – done away in Christ today – we can too.

     Ask Bryan what the fallacy of the missing middle term is.

     LikeLike

993. D.G. Hart:
     Heck, you’ve even said nasty things about my religion>>>>

     Now, now, D.G. Hart, I have said plenty of good things about the OPC. I’m just not crazy about how Luther treated Scripture by trying to remove the parts he disagreed with. Come on, now. You would not have put up with that in the OPC.

     Glad Lutheranism didn’t follow his lead, except for the Deuterocanonical books. You know, there are NT passages that make more sense when those books are taken into consideration, but that topic is for another day…

     TVD:
     Everything doesn’t count the same. Outwardly subscribing to the true church don’t mean spit if you act like a supercilious jerk, like you do to Mrs. Webfoot, Darryl. Repent.>>>>

     You know, D.G. Hart, I have noticed that myself. Maybe the tone of our conversation can change. I hope so. Take care, Brother.
     ————————

     Note to a.:

     I messed up this sentence. Sorry about that.

     I said:
     Absolutely! It is Ephesians 2:8,9, BTW, but you quoted the passage correctly. You might be interested in the quote below. Notice that he did not in any way teach that neither faith nor grace can be earned by good works.>>>

     The “neither” should be “either” and the “nor” “or”! Big difference! it’s just an awkward sentence, but I think you will understand the intention of it Catholics do not believe that we have to buy our salvation by good works.

     LikeLike

994. sdb
     Posted June 19, 2015 at 2:43 pm | Permalink
     @tvd – On the other hand, love and faith and don’t mean a thing if you don’t keep the catholic faith pure and undefiled – per the purported infallible teaching of the RC church.
     

     Straw man.

     D. G. Hart
     Posted June 19, 2015 at 3:33 pm | Permalink
     vd, t why do you object when others butt in to a conversation you are having?

     And when did a song-writer for the Cookies become such a tattle-tale?

     Nobody even knows what you’re on about, Butch. And you are a supercilious jerk toward Mrs. Webfoot. I know of no Biblical warrant for that, in fact it’s the antinomian opposite of “faith working through love” [Galatians 5:6].

     As far as “butting into” conversations, it’s quite relevant to your conversation. You’re proving her point! As for whatever you’re saying about the Cookies, it’s incoherent.

     LikeLike

995. I’m just not crazy about how Luther treated Scripture by trying to remove the parts he disagreed with. Come on, now. You would not have put up with that in the OPC.

     W If you are such a knowleagable ex prot, why do you have to be told that while Luther had his opinions, James was still included in his translation of the German Bible?
     IOW this was old even before you brought it up.
     Again And Again And Again.

     LikeLike

996. When we stand before God, we will have to give an account. How will He judge you or me, the Pope or TVD?

     According to his word W, not the lost apostolic oral traditions or papal bulls.

     Do we have a dead faith, or a living faith? When all is stripped away, that is and will be the only thing that counts.

     No, you’re getting ahead of yourself.
     The question will be whether we have faith in Christ alone. Or in Christ and Mary and the saints and one’s own good works i.e. Romanism.
     IOW a dead faith with all kind of self justifying works/co redemptresses and intercessors.

     Those who find their salvation in Christ alone, by faith alone, through sovereign predestinating and electing grace alone, as found in Scripture alone, will be rewarded according to their works done out of gratitude and accepted in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone.

     IOW the wholly apostatized Roman catholic church makes a piebald mess of the matter and thereby perverts the gospel into no gospel.

     cheers

     LikeLike

997. Sean, maybe I can clarify some here. I don’t think there is “no reason” why some don’t ascribe to a firmer herminutic of continuity. I just believe not holding it is to lose a basic tenant if the Catholic identity and therefore should be rejected. Can things be taken to be departing in a degree? I think Yes. The question is should those interpretation be given validity. I say no. This also seems to be the official position of the Vatican. Things like the 1985 synod would point that out and docs like Dominus Iesus. Anyway, this type of confusion after a council has happened before. Think of the grand failure of the leaders of the Church after Nicea. It took 60 years until that mess got cleared up and it took another council in 381 in Constantinople. Maybe this quote can from Newman can say it better:

     “On the other hand, I say that there was a temporary suspension of the functions of the ecclesia docens [teaching church]. The body of the bishops failed in their confession of the faith. They spoke variously against one another. There was nothing after Nicaea of firm, consistent testimony for 60 years. There were untrustworthy councils, unfaithful bishops . . . misguidance, delusion, hallucination . . . extending itself into nearly every corner of the Catholic Church.”

     In other words at time it gets a little Athanasius Contra Mundi

     LikeLike

998. D. G. Hart
     Posted June 16, 2015 at 11:26 am | Permalink
     Black smoke and flames visible over the Roman Catholic world (thanks to our Texas correspondent):

     In the last 25 years, we have a net loss of 2,137 parishes nationwide: In 1990, there were 19,620 U.S. Catholic churches. Today, there are 17,464.

     The New York archdiocese announced the consolidation of 112 parishes in October 2014, effectively closing 31 parishes. In December, it announced that it is considering closing another 38 parishes.

     The Boston archdiocese has closed more than 125 parishes in the past 25 years. In November 2012, it announced the consolidation of the remaining 288 parishes into 135 “parish collaboratives.”

     In the Chicago archdiocese, Catholics declined from 43 percent of the population in 1980 to 35 percent in 2015. Chicago had 1,000 fewer priests in 2014 than it had in 1980. In last 20 years of Cardinal Francis George’s administration, everything was down: 2,000 fewer nuns, 21 fewer parishes, 74 fewer elementary schools and 11 fewer high schools. There were also 10,000 fewer baptisms, half as many weddings, and 33 percent fewer funerals annually.

     Nationwide, Catholic priests are an endangered species. Today, there are 3,496 U.S. parishes that have no resident pastor. There are nearly 20,000 fewer priests in the United States than there were 25 years ago, dropping from 52,124 to 38,275.

     Half the diocesan priests in the United States will retire in the next five years. Many dioceses in the U.S. do not have sufficient funds to pay their pensions.

     Religious orders of brothers and sisters are disappearing even faster than diocesan priests. There are only about 50,000 U.S. nuns today, down from almost 180,000 in 1965. The only really bright spot in the vocations picture is the permanent deaconate. We have more than 17,000 permanent deacons, up from about 900 in 1975. Maybe marriage helps.

     Sacramental participation is way down. Today, only 24 percent of U.S. Catholics go to Mass on a typical Sunday. In 1970, it was closer to 50 percent. In 2014, there were less than half as many Catholic weddings as in 1980; more than 200,000 fewer infant baptisms than in 1980; and 50,000 fewer funerals than in 1990.

     But it will be okay if we just follow Jesus:

     Are we going out of business?

     I think the answer is both “yes” and “no.” “Yes” if you think of the church as an institution in the 1950s model. “No” if you think of the church as a movement of the followers of Jesus Christ.

     This is not the Benedict Option. It is the Protestant Option. Bishops have that affect on Christians. But the converts hear and see no evil.

     When the Catholic Church shrinks, Elder Hart cannot conceal his glee. When “true” Presbyterianism shrinks to 1/100th the size of Mormonism [his own Orthodox Presbyterian Church], Elder Hart wears it as vindication, indeed a badge of honor.

     So it goes here at Calvin’s Fun House. Park your logic at the door.

     FTR, although declining birthrates and modernity have shrunk Catholicism in America, it has still grown worldwide, as befits a global religion. Not that that matters, but of course it does, Butch. 😉

     VATICAN-STATISTICS Mar-24-2015 (540 words) xxxi

     Vatican statistics show modest, steady church growth worldwide
     http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1501270.htm

     LikeLike

999. Bob,

     “Those who find their salvation in Christ alone, by faith alone,”

     Except it’s by a faith that is never alone according to your side. Now if you want to say by faith alone where faith is understood to be a faith formed by/working through love, there is no disagreement.

     “as found in Scripture alone”

     You mean as found in Scripture as interpreted by Calvinists alone.

     “will be rewarded according to their works done out of gratitude”

     Congratulations – you believe in merit.

     LikeLike

1000. 
      “will be rewarded according to their works done out of gratitude”

      Congratulations – you believe in merit.

      Faith working through love. Does not love of God precede love of one’s neighbor? I have always thought so: Our neighbor is so damned unlovable. It is only through God that he is loveable in the least.

      For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so?

      LikeLike

1001. Jeff,

      “Problem: images of the true God are also forbidden.”

      Again, ignores the iconodule argument that the OT is to be read in light of the NT and the Incarnation – the prohibition of images (and those that were commanded – the serpent is not the same as the calf) itself had a purpose in that it was pointing to Christ. You apply a similar hermeneutic yourself in reading the OT in light of Hebrews to justify your rejection of images that were commanded to be made in the temple.

      “Problem: Not only idols, but also “any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” So the command is not limited to statues of false gods, but includes likenesses of heavenly and earthly objects.”

      Here we see the issue again where you affirm the “plain reading” for this, but then later say “well it only applies to images that are also bowed to”. Okay so no statues or images of any kind are to be allowed anywhere right? So we are to live in art-less churches, homes, and societies correct?

      “Problem: While it is true that those images were made, it is not the case that anyone at all was encouraged to bow down to them.”

      And if it is true the images were made, that works against your “plain reading” contention. You can’t say “plain reading!” then say “well, okay, but actually it’s tied to bowing”. Show the “lexical analysis” that proves such.

      “Problem: Why would bowing without worship be permitted? The grammar in Greek and Hebrew is clear enough.”

      Why would making the images be permitted? The grammar is clear enough.

      “So the most that you can get from the evidence you adduce is that images might be able to be made, but not bowed to (nor, of course, worshiped, which we agree to).”

      Images were made. According to your “plain reading”, that is a violation. I contend the act of bowing is tied to worship in the context of idolatry – bowing out of respect or veneration is not worship. And of course people committed idolatry then and now without “bowing” – it’s not like they were safe from idolatry just as long as they didn’t bow. We have the divinely approved example of the bronze serpent. Later, “He also broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the sons of Israel burned incense to it; and it was called Nehushtan.” – no mention of bowing here, but obviously there was idolatry, and similarly this obviously doesn’t entail the 2nd commandment was permitting images as long as incense wasn’t being burned to it.

      “I hear and understand the discomfort with the notion of exceptions. It’s not my preferred solution, ”

      Scripture gives a reason why the “exception” reading is not needed (I think we can agree “exception” readings should be avoided if possible) as I already said – the bronze serpent. The “exception” reading would make sense if Hezekiah was told by God “Okay I’m done with accommodating these people with the bronze serpent for now and letting them violate my law, let’s flip the switch back on and destroy it” – no, it rather tells that they fell into idolatry, not that they were committing a form of idolatry already that God was allowing as some exception and then they just got “more” idolatrous.

      “God seemed to have been particular about the details of worship. Nadab and Abihu were slain because they “offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, which he had not commanded them.””

      Indeed.

      “It’s not unreasonable, then, that God would ordain particular images, while yet generally rejecting all others.”

      Of course. God did not ordain the calf. He did ordain the serpent and temple.

      “My preferred solution, however, is that the command to not make images is probably subordinated to the command to not bow and to not worship.”

      I see no justification for this from the “plain reading” or grammar. Why this uncertainty anyways now with “probably” and such? I thought the 2nd commandment was clear and had “plain language”?

      “for it consists not merely in erecting an image and worshiping it, but rather in the heart, which stands gaping at something else, and seeks help and consolation from creatures, saints, or devils, and neither cares for God, nor looks to Him for so much good as to believe that He is willing to help, neither believes that whatever good it experiences comes from God.”

      Indeed – “rather in the heart” – which is precisely what you denied earlier by saying God didn’t judge the heart and it was all just a binary question – did someone bow or not?

      “So I don’t think the Lutherans help you here. They seem to side-step the question, and they certainly seem to think that Catholics are idolaters in spades.”

      The Lutherans hosted a “veneration of the cross” service. Why isn’t that “strange fire” according to you?

      “Possibly. The issue of images whatsoever is a live one in the Reformed tradition. We all agree not to make images to bow or worship. Some believe that images that are not bowed to or worshiped are acceptable. Presbyteries make that call.”

      The issue of images is a live one? What happened to God being “particular about the details of worship” and “strange fire”? What happened to “plain language” and “no wiggle room” and “grammar is clear enough”? What happened to:
      “So it is quite clear that what is forbidden is any likeness”
      “It doesn’t matter whether the image is of a false god or not. The image is forbidden.”
      “This is not a debate over “veneration” versus “worship.” This is a simple observation: Do not make images. Do not bow to them.”
      “Those were specifically directed by God Himself to be made, in contrast to all other images that were forbidden”

      LikeLike

1002. Bob S
      Posted June 19, 2015 at 5:02 pm | Permalink
      I’m just not crazy about how Luther treated Scripture by trying to remove the parts he disagreed with. Come on, now. You would not have put up with that in the OPC.

      W If you are such a knowleagable ex prot, why do you have to be told that while Luther had his opinions, James was still included in his translation of the German Bible?
      IOW this was old even before you brought it up.
      Again And Again And Again.>>>>

      The thing is, D.G. Hart – not to hold it against him – held Luther up as a good example of what can happen when someone starts reading the Bible on their own. I disagree in two aspects. 1.) he added the word “alone” to “the just shall live by faith”. That is a grave error. 2.) He wanted to remove whole books of the NT from the canon of Scripture. Thankfully, his church was more noble than he was in that matter.

      I would never recommend that anyone follow his example.

      Me, Mrs. Webfoot:
      Even if they had, why don’t you forgive them?>>>

      Bob:
      Because they’re like most of the papists around here.>>>>

      Okay. So, you do know the consequences for not forgiving the offenses of others, don’t you?

      LikeLike

1003. Michael, I had a great response a few hours ago, now it’s gone. I’ll see if I can work it up again. Peace.

      LikeLike

1004. The thing is, D.G. Hart – not to hold it against him – held Luther up as a good example of what can happen when someone starts reading the Bible on their own. I disagree in two aspects. 1.) he added the word “alone” to “the just shall live by faith”. That is a grave error. 2.) He wanted to remove whole books of the NT from the canon of Scripture. Thankfully, his church was more noble than he was in that matter.

      #umno. You act as if Luther acted in a vacuum. Wrong. That’s ahistorical and disingenuous. Mrs. WorldWideWebfoot, if you were to read Luther with #charity, you’d find that Luther’s inclusion of “alone” in that passage was far from unique. Indeed, translations such as the 1483 Nuremberg bible include “alone” in it’s translation. The same can be found in translations from Austria and Italy, years before Luther’s version. Not even to mention that Luther saw the inclusion of “alone” not as an addition, but as an emphasis – supported by many of the Church Fathers.

      I think you just have it out for Luther, seen as how I’ve pointed out your unfair condemnations of Luther multiple times, but to no avail. C’mon, ma’am. Luther wants to know: where’s the love?

      LikeLike

1005. Love the Bible. Love Luther. But you cannot do both, unless it’s Luther’s Bible. 😉

      http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Lutherans/truth_about_martin_luther.htm

      Luther Said: The Bible Could Use Some Improvement

      “The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible.” (‘The Facts About Luther, O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 202.)

      “The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish foolishness.” (Ibid.)

      “Of very little worth is the Book of Baruch, whoever the worthy Baruch might be.” (Ibid.)

      “…the epistle of St. James is an epistle full of straw, because it contains nothing evangelical.” (‘Preface to the New Testament,’ ed. Dillenberger, p. 19.)

      “If nonsense is spoken anywhere, this is the very place. I pass over the fact that many have maintained, with much probability, that this epistle was not written by the apostle James, and is not worthy of the spirit of the apostle.” (‘Pagan Servitude of the Church,’ ed. Dillenberger, p. 352.)

      Reading these words of Luther, it’s hard to imagine that he is the same man who so often claimed that he looked upon the Bible “as if God Himself spoke therein.” How could he have claimed to believe in the inspired Word of God as the ultimate authority on religious matters if he placed himself in judgment of Scripture? In doing so, he quite clearly set himself up as judge over God himself.

      Believe it or not, in his hubris Luther even presumed to rank the gospels: “John records but few of the works of Christ, but a great deal of his preaching, whereas the other three evangelists record many of His works, but few of His words. It follows that the gospel of John is unique in loveliness, and of a truth the principal gospel, far, far superior to the other three, and St. Paul and St. Peter are far in advance of the three gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke.” (‘Preface to Romans,’ ed. Dillenberger, pp. 18-19.)

      And he complained about the Book of Revelation: “to my mind it bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character… Everyone may form his own judgment of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it.” (Sammtliche Werke, 63, pp. 169-170, ‘The Facts About Luther,’ O’Hare, TAN Books,
      1987, p. 203.)

      And finally, he admitted adding the word ‘alone’ to Rom. 3:28 of his own volition: “If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and ass are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.” (Amic. Discussion, 1, 127,’The Facts About
      Luther,’ O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 201.)

      Here he is condemned by his own mouth. For John, in Rev. 22: 18-19, declares anathema anyone who presumes to change even a single word of Scripture: “I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.” Luther, of course, didn’t add or take away mere words, but entire passages and books.

      LikeLike

1006. “Not even to mention that Luther saw the inclusion of “alone” not as an addition, but as an emphasis – supported by many of the Church Fathers. ”

      Fathers used the phrase “faith alone” approvingly – true (so did Pelagius). But to assume they and Luther meant the same thing by it is word-concept fallacy.

      LikeLike

1007. vd, t, you’re really quoting from that jesus-is-savior dot com website? That’s the same website that promote 9/11 Trutherism and currently says that Satanism is running rampant in the Vatican, right? As you would say, #umno.

      LikeLike

1008. Seth
      Posted June 19, 2015 at 8:04 pm | Permalink
      vd, t, you’re really quoting from that jesus-is-savior dot com website? That’s the same website that promote 9/11 Trutherism and currently says that Satanism is running rampant in the Vatican, right? As you would say, #umno.

      You copy Darryl’s insulting use of “VD” and then his silly “where’s the love” riff. I’m surprised you’d want to steal such a crummy act. Why don’t you get your own original crummy act?

      Do you dispute a word of what the man wrote? If anything’s inaccurate, I’ll withdraw it. But if not, then you need to withdraw your attack on it.

      Recently I asked those gathered if this is true Luther:

      “If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and ass are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.”

      Nobody denied it. True or false? Stick to the facts, por favor, #umyeah!.

      LikeLike

1009. Sean,
      BTW, I am a bit disappointed in you comparing those who go to the latin(which is the official copy by the Church) and KJV only Christians. It would be more like examining the nuances in Greek, Hebrew and Latin in Biblic studies.

      LikeLike

1010. “FTR, although declining birthrates and modernity have shrunk Catholicism in America, it has still grown worldwide, as befits a global religion. Not that that matters, but of course it does, Butch.”
      You realize they do not rigorously count conversions right. Nearly a third of LAs have left the rcc for pentecostalism, but rc stats do not reflect this. It is picked up in Pew when people are asked their affiliation.

      LikeLike

1011. “@tvd – On the other hand, love and faith and don’t mean a thing if you don’t keep the catholic faith pure and undefiled – per the purported infallible teaching of the RC church.

      Straw man.”
      You keep using that word. It doesn’t mean what you think it means. I’m referring to a church creed. It states that if the content of your faith is deficient you will “undoubtedly perish”. Sounds to me that faith and love aren’t enough. Sound doctrine matters too…at least according to the infallible teaching of the rcc.

      LikeLike

1012. Elisabeth Elliot has died at 88.

      The New York times has her obituary, which is a credit to them.

      An important evangelical.

      LikeLike

1013. Cletus, Tom: It seems to make sense to merge the conversations at this point, since they both touch on linguistic issues.

      CVD, you are taking issue with one command being subordinate to another.

      Well, no, back up. First, you are using a loose term “plain reading”, assuming that it means “woodenly literal meaning”, and then insisting that I should do that, or that my method is “plain reading” in the woodenly literal sense.

      That’s not my position. Historical-grammatical reading, which is sound exegetical method, is not the same as “wooden literalism.” Grammar matters, but so do literary and historical context, as well linguistic conventions. And that’s the issue under discussion here.

      The linguistic convention you seem hung up on is the notion that one commandment could be subordinated to another. So here, I suggest strongly that the command to not make graven images is subordinated to the commands “do not bow” and “do not worship”: Do not make graven images to bow or to worship to them.

      In this way, we avoid the exceptionizing (which you are rightly skeptical of — it’s possible, but is it likely?), and we also make sense of the legitimacy of art (which you also mention). For if it is unacceptable to make images absolutely, then all art and photography is absolutely forbidden.

      So understanding the prohibition against making images to be subordinate to the commands to not bow and to not worship seems to be the winning option here.

      But, you balk because you seem to think that the subordination of one command to another is “not plain reading.” Or perhaps, you are hoping that I might think so and be embarrassed.

      Let me assure you that subordinate commands are, in fact, a common linguistic convention.

      Consider the following familiar text block, in which two commands are subordinated to one.

      Go to Jail. Go directly to Jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200

      We all know what that means. The recipient must go to Jail. In so doing, he is not to pass Go nor to collect $200.

      Those two latter commands are not absolute — there is no permanent prohibition on passing Go, nor any permanent prohibition on collecting $200. Rather, those two commands apply during the scope of going to Jail.

      Now in Exodus 20.4, we have these commands.

      Do not make idols or graven images. Do not bow to them and do not worship them.

      It is possible that the command to not make idols or graven images is absolute. In which case, the temple images are an exception (But art in general is forbidden). Logically possible, but improbable.

      Or it is possible that the command to not make idols or graven images is subordinate to “do not bow and do not worship.” In which case, the temple images are not an exception, for they are neither bowed to nor worshiped.

      Those are the only two logical possibilities.

      You two (as well Mrs W) are hoping for a third possibility, in which the command to not bow is subordinated to the command not to worship. On your read, bowing is permissible so long as it is non-worshipful, venerative bowing.

      Sadly, this is not a possible read. Why not? Because those two commands are grammatically parallel to one another.

      Do not bow, and
      Do not worship

      Both actions are prohibited, and in a parallel manner.

      The grammar does not permit your reading. Further, and most importantly, you cannot (to my knowledge) adduce any examples of acceptable bowing to images in either testament.

      LikeLike

1014. Zrim: And this sure sounds like a prayer TO a saint (specifically Saint Michael for Powerful Aid):

      Glorious Prince of the heavenly hosts and victor over rebellious spirits, be mindful of me who am so weak and sinful and yet so prone to pride and ambition. Lend me, I pray, thy powerful aid in every temptation and difficulty, and above all do not forsake me in my last struggle with the powers of evil.

      Is this how you ask for the schmuck next to you in the pew to pray for you? No, this is how one prays when one is worshiping.

      Ding, ding. The ambiguity inherent to “venerate but do not worship” creates unstable equilibrium.

      LikeLike

1015. Jeff Cagle
      Posted June 19, 2015 at 2:10 am | Permalink
      Mrs. W:

      You are tracking Cletus’s argument pretty closely.

      Let’s suppose for a moment that you are correct, and that not all images are forbidden.

      Then which ones are permitted? You would claim that any which do not represent false gods are permitted. But the command reads, No images of anything whatsoever, on earth or in heaven. So that won’t do.

      But even if it did, this only gets you to the making of images. Where do you find permission to bow and venerate?>>>>>

      You guys are hashing this out pretty throughly, but I’ll answer the part about what images are permitted now, in our day. It is clear in the OT what images were permitted.

      Well, I would add that in a way – and you will probably not agree – the pillar of fire was a kind of image that God created and that the children of Israel did actually worship. I think that relates more to the Eucharist, though, and not statues and images of saints and angels. You have something natural – fire – that is so identified with the glory, the Real Presence of God that it is called the Shekinah, His very Presence. Well, the word Shekinah is not in the text of Scripture, but the concept is certainly there.

      I would assume that you would allow the use of images in Sunday school classes. I would assume that you would allow the use of images in Christian artwork. I would assume that you would allow the use of stained glass windows that depict a story or a character from the Bible. IOW, images that are used for teaching purposes.

      I don’t know what you would think about using statues and images for devotional purposes. That is, as you contemplate the artwork, you think about certain virtues represented and ask God to develop those in your life, to give those virtues to you as a gift of His grace – pardon the redundancy – because of what Christ has done for us. Catholics are taught to do that.

      Anyway, gotta’ go, you will be glad to know. So, thanks again for the conversation, Brother Jeff.

      LikeLike

1016. Hey, speaking of Latin. Here’s the Vulgate version of Exodus 20.4-5a

      non facies tibi sculptile neque omnem similitudinem quae est in caelo desuper et quae in terra deorsum nec eorum quae sunt in aquis sub terra. non adorabis ea neque coles …

      Do not make yourselves an engraved this nor any similitude of what is in heaven from above and what (is) in earth below nor [not even] that which is in the water below the earth. Do not adore [semantic range: adore, honor, pay reverence] them neither worship [semantic range: honor, cherish, worship] them.

      The grammatical point above is preserved in the Latin. You are to neither adore nor worship any similitude of what is in heaven, on earth, or under the water.

      LikeLike

1017. MW: I don’t know what you would think about using statues and images for devotional purposes. That is, as you contemplate the artwork, you think about certain virtues represented and ask God to develop those in your life, to give those virtues to you as a gift of His grace – pardon the redundancy – because of what Christ has done for us. Catholics are taught to do that.

      This is a good question. I need to take it up later, but I wanted to affirm the question.

      LikeLike

1018. #anti-Protestantbigotry

      LikeLike

1019. Seth, don’t forget, vd, t defends David Barton.

      LikeLike

1020. Jeff, from the RC paradigm, it’s either all in with papal supremacy or you’re a rationalist.

      vd, t is another matter.

      LikeLike

1021. D. G. Hart
      Posted June 19, 2015 at 11:11 pm | Permalink
      Seth, don’t forget, vd, t defends David Barton.

      D. G. Hart
      Posted June 19, 2015 at 11:14 pm | Permalink
      Jeff, from the RC paradigm, it’s either all in with papal supremacy or you’re a rationalist.

      vd, t is another matter.

      Butch, you keep repeating that misrepresentation of Catholic teaching. If a pope can err–and they can–they are not supreme.

      http://romancatholicism.org/duty-resist.html

      When are you going to stop repeating this whopper? Are you aiming for becoming the Calvinist David Barton? You’re sure doing a heckuva job.

      The Doctor Saint Thomas Aquinas O.P († 1274) used this incident as an indication that all superiors are to be disobeyed should their commands be against the Will of God.

      “It is written: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.” (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 104, A. 5)

      The theologian Juan Cardinal De Torquemada O.P. († 1468) expressly related that Bible passage to the duty to resist a wayward pontiff.

      “Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not, it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: ‘One ought to obey God rather than man’; therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over.” (Summa de Ecclesia)

      So, “superiors are not to be obeyed in all things”; a “pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done” and “we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things.” A pope can command “against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law” and then “he ought not to be obeyed.”

      ____________

      LikeLike

1022. sdb
      Posted June 19, 2015 at 9:24 pm | Permalink
      “@tvd – On the other hand, love and faith and don’t mean a thing if you don’t keep the catholic faith pure and undefiled – per the purported infallible teaching of the RC church.

      Straw man.”
      You keep using that word. It doesn’t mean what you think it means. I’m referring to a church creed. It states that if the content of your faith is deficient you will “undoubtedly perish”. Sounds to me that faith and love aren’t enough. Sound doctrine matters too…at least according to the infallible teaching of the rcc.

      Yes, it’s a straw man because you’re picking out one phrase from one place that does not represent the totality of Catholic teaching on the subject. This is dishonest. The Catholic Church does not teach that heretics like you and Darryl are definitely going to hell, and indeed prays that all will be saved–by a mechanism that man does not have a full understanding of.

      Therefore, you are indeed creating a straw man that does not represent the whole truth, and declaring victory over it. You do not seek truth and light here, SDB, only darkness and error. This does not glorify God.

      •1058 The Church prays that no one should be lost : ‘Lord, let me never be parted from you.’ If it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God ‘desires all men to be saved’ (1 Tim 2:4), and that for him ‘all things are possible’ (Mt 19:26).

      •1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere ‘to the end’ and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays for ‘all men to be saved.’

      Further, you’re twisting the argument, which is that even if y’all have the right doctrine, if you’re going to be a jerk about it, you’re missing the whole point.

      LikeLike

1023. vd, t, do I believe you or Peter Kreeft? (nothing I post here makes a dent in your brain. It’s all part of your truth.)

      Even doctrines not explicitly labeled infallible can be binding on Catholic belief because “[d]ivine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter,…when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a ‘definitive manner,’ they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium teaching … of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful ‘are to adhere…with religious assent’ (LG 25)” (CCC 892). Wise and good parents do not explicitly label everything they say to their children as “infallible”, yet wise and good children trust them. Similarly, we should trust Holy Mother Church, the Church of the apostles, saints, and martyrs, the Church with a two-thousand-year-long-memory, much more than we trust our own opinions.

      The sign the Church attaches to an infallible teaching is Christocentric: “When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine ‘for belief as being divinely revealed,’ and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions ‘must be adhered to with the obedience of faith’” (CCC 891). (101-102)

      LikeLike

1024. vd, t, funny. When I point to Garry Wills or Michael Sean Winters for the “totality” of Roman Catholicism, they don’t count.

      Your bigotry shows once again. Odd, though, for a guy who doesn’t go to church and believes everyone goes to heaven.

      LikeLike

1025. Cletus, it’s not a fallacy. Calling it one does not make it so. It’s a matter of emphasis, both in regards to Luther and the Church Fathers who helped inspire him.

      LikeLike

1026. vd, t, I’m not going to go dig up primary sources for an article that quotes from a mud-raking secondary source, on a blog that promotes Chick tracts and lynching homosexuals. If this is one of your main sources, then no wonder D. Hart makes a fool of you every time you come limping in here.

      Even if it all were true, who cares? Try reading some Thomas More, Erasmus, or any of your playboy popes. They had a nasty mouth, too, and said some awfully brutish things. Stop clutching your pearls, and gasping like you’re got the vapors. It’s called polemic.

      Still no response to my rebuttal of your ahistorical claims about the witch-trials. I’m sure there’s a Chick tract on the subject that is perfect for you – short enough words and plenty of pretty pictures.

      (See? Polemic!)

      LikeLike

1027. “Is this how you ask for the schmuck next to you in the pew to pray for you? No, this is how one prays when one is worshiping.”

      ,i>Ding, ding. The ambiguity inherent to “venerate but do not worship” creates unstable equilibrium.

      Jeff, right, and so one might ask the resident Cats to imagine speaking to them as militant saints the way they do triumphant saints, e.g. “Glorious Lady of the heavenly hosts and victor over rebellious spirits…” Are you comfortable with that, Mrs. DoubleYou? If not, see?. If so, um…

      LikeLike

1028. Somewhere in this comments section Erik mentioned the death of Elisabeth Elliot and an obit in the NY Times, was it? Anyway, she was a great woman. I love her books and her example. She has suffered from dementia the last few years. Anyway… here is a quote from her writings. She will be missed.

      Thanks, Erik, for mentioning her. She is worthy of honor.

      “Don’t get in touch with your feelings, submit radically to God, and do what is right no matter what. Put your love life on the altar and keep it there until God takes it off. Suffering is normal. Have you no scars, no wounds, with Jesus on the Calvary road?” The thread of suffering is not just woven through words, but through relationships.

      A Christian woman and man’s true freedom lies on the other side of a very small gate – humble obedience – but that gate leads out into a largeness of life undreamed of by the liberators of the world, to a place where the God-given differentiation between the sexes is not obfuscated but celebrated, where our inequalities are seen as essential to the image of God, for it is in male and female, in male as male and female as female, not as two identical and interchangeable halves, that the image is manifested.

      Christian higher education, trotting happily along in the train of feminist crusaders, is willing and eager to treat the subject of feminism, but gags on the word femininity. Maybe it regards the subject as trivial or unworthy of academic inquiry. Maybe the real reason is that its basic premise is feminism. Therefore it simply cannot cope with femininity.
      -Elisabeth Elliot

      LikeLike

1029. Jeff Cagle:
      Posted June 19, 2015 at 10:44 pm | Permalink
      Hey, speaking of Latin. Here’s the Vulgate version of Exodus 20.4-5a

      non facies tibi sculptile neque omnem similitudinem quae est in caelo desuper et quae in terra deorsum nec eorum quae sunt in aquis sub terra. non adorabis ea neque coles …

      Do not make yourselves an engraved this nor any similitude of what is in heaven from above and what (is) in earth below nor [not even] that which is in the water below the earth. Do not adore [semantic range: adore, honor, pay reverence] them neither worship [semantic range: honor, cherish, worship] them.>>>>>

      Oh, I really shouldn’t…

      Semantic range doesn’t mean that you can pick which word you like best and plug it in. In the context, it is the equivalent of our English word “worship.” Now we get to bicker in Latin… 😉

      If you go with honor, we would not be able to show honor to whom honor is due, and the Apostle Paul would be telling us to break the commandment. There are OT examples of people bowing down as a sign of honor to a king or someone in authority, and it is not said that they were breaking the 1st or 2nd Commandments.

      One was in my daily reading today, involving King David and the elders of Israel falling on their faces before the Angel of the Lord. Then Onan fell on his face in homage to King David. (1 Chron. 21)

      Now, you may say that the Angel of the Lord was a theophany, but how do you explain Ornan?

      He was not worshipping King David, but he was showing him proper respect as king over Israel.

      If we go with cherish, then we cannot cherish our spouses, our children, or any loved one.

      So, “worship” is the only one that makes sense in the context. If you combine your 1st and 2nd Commandments, you will see how the worship of God is contrasted with the worship of idols. It has to be one or the other – the One, True God or false gods in the form of graven images.

      Anyway…

      Jeff:
      The grammatical point above is preserved in the Latin. You are to neither adore nor worship any similitude of what is in heaven, on earth, or under the water.>>>>

      Go with worship or serve. Otherwise you have to throw out any photos you have of loved ones.
      ——————-
      I was going to post this from the Pangue Lingua, but I refrained. This was in ref. to something CVD said about the term “sola fide” being found in the writings of the Church fathers. Since you quoted Latin first, Jeff,I am going to post it. Notice the term “sola fides.” I love this hymn. No, this doesn’t relate to the graven image thing. It relates to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. I just think it’s so very cool, and it was written by guess who? 🙂

      Thanks, Jeff, for the conversation. I appreciate your contributions. Bless you, my brother.

      Verbum caro, panem verum
      Verbo carnem éfficit:
      Fitque sanguis Christi merum,
      Et si sensus déficit,
      Ad firmándum cor sincérum
      Sola fides súfficit.

      LikeLike

1030. Darryl – vd, t, do I believe you or Peter Kreeft? (nothing I post here makes a dent in your brain. It’s all part of your truth.)

      Erik – If Tom agreed he wouldn’t be arguing and he needs to argue.

      Duh.

      LikeLike

1031. See Tom write. See Tom argue.

      See people respond to Tom. See Tom write more. See Tom argue more.

      See people ignore Tom. See Tom write less. See Tom argue less.

      See people figure this out slowly.

      LikeLike

1032. TVD from the article provided:
      ” Luther, of course, didn’t add or take away mere words, but entire passages and books.”>>>>>

      Fortunately Lutheranism did not follow Luther’s example, except for now most of Lutheranism has abandoned the faith altogether. That is a tragedy.

      I know that the OPC would have put him on trial and if he had not recanted, would have shown him the door.

      LikeLike

1033. Erik Charter
      Posted June 20, 2015 at 2:31 pm | Permalink
      See Tom write. See Tom argue.

      See people respond to Tom. See Tom write more. See Tom argue more.

      See people ignore Tom. See Tom write less. See Tom argue less.

      See people figure this out slowly.

      True. Once I’ve had my say, I’m happy to leave it at that.

      See Erik write. See people ignore Erik. See Erik write more. And more.

      Heh heh, friend. Check yourself before you wreck yourself. 😉

      LikeLike

1034. Mrs. WorldWideWebfoot, aren’t you paying attention? Luther didn’t remove passages or books from the Bible. He questioned some of them but, ultimately, did not remove a single one. That quotation is a lie.

      And, despite the fact that I have responded time and time again to your absurd claims, you continue to doggedly promote them. Do you have no response?

      My suggestion: check out jesus-is-lord dot com and see what he says about the Papacy and Romanism. That might put into perspective just how reliable a source he is.

      LikeLike

1035. Seth
      Posted June 20, 2015 at 2:42 pm | Permalink
      Mrs. WorldWideWebfoot, aren’t you paying attention? Luther didn’t remove passages or books from the Bible. He questioned some of them but, ultimately, did not remove a single one. That quotation is a lie.

      And, despite the fact that I have responded time and time again to your absurd claims, you continue to doggedly promote them. Do you have no response?

      My suggestion: check out jesus-is-lord dot com and see what he says about the Papacy and Romanism. That might put into perspective just how reliable a source he is.

      I notice you didn’t deny the Luther quotes listed there are real.

      Slippery.

      LikeLike

1036. vd, t, I notice you haven’t responded to any of my arguments regarding the witch trial BS you spit out the other day, nor have you answered the question as to why, even if those quotations are true, do they even matter? Again, it’s polemic. If you had any knowledge of the rhetorical style of that day, you’d know it was common, and you wouldn’t be laid out on your fainting couch, petticoat all aflutter.

      Again, I’m not going to search for primary sources from an apoplectic article on a website that says the Vatican is controlled by Satanist lizard-people. But you, sir, have shown extraordinary ability to type “why was Luther bad?” into the Google-machine. I commend you. It’s nice to see people such yourself trying new technologies.

      LikeLike

1037. Seth, it is a well documented fact that Luther played fast and loose with Scripture. Fortunately, others in his camp were not so willing to do away with large parts of the NT. Of course, removing the Deuterocanonical books was bad enough, but the NT? You do know that the books he questioned were moved to the back of his German Bible, along with the so-called Apocrypha, right? He moved them to the back of the Bible bus as if they did not belong among the books he actually liked.

      Just admit that Luther was not infallible and that he actually did things that got him into trouble with Rome. Some of those things would have gotten him into trouble with conservative Lutherans now, not to mention the OPC – which I do mention, actually.

      He was an important historical figure, of course. No one is denying that. He is not venerable.

      LikeLike

1038. <i.Seth
      Posted June 20, 2015 at 2:58 pm | Permalink
      vd, t, I notice you haven’t responded to any of my arguments regarding the witch trial BS you spit out the other day, nor have you answered the question as to why, even if those quotations are true, do they even matter? Again, it’s polemic. If you had any knowledge of the rhetorical style of that day, you’d know it was common, and you wouldn’t be laid out on your fainting couch, petticoat all aflutter.

      Again, I’m not going to search for primary sources from an apoplectic article on a website that says the Vatican is controlled by Satanist lizard-people. But you, sir, have shown extraordinary ability to type “why was Luther bad?” into the Google-machine. I commend you. It’s nice to see people such yourself trying new technologies.

      I didn’t see whatever your talking about re witch trials. But you’re still evading the question of whether the Luther quotes are accurate while still attacking the source. Naughty.

      LikeLike

1039. Seth,

      Tom’s goal is to get a rise out of you by finding something online that you won’t like, throwing it in your face, and then moving on to the next guy to irritate. Nothing more.

      No response will be forthcoming — he doesn’t care if he was wrong.

      You getting mad is what he wants. Nothing more.

      As Christians we need to be wise enough to see guys like Tom and not waste our time with them. If he ever repents and becomes sincere, that’s another matter entirely.

      Not holding my breath, unfortunately.

      One could make the same case for Bryan and Jason. While I think they ARE sincere, there is something to be said for just shaking the dust off your feet and doing what YOU do. If they bring some guys to their side what THEY do, those guys probably weren’t long for Reformed Churches anyway.

      But if you’re having fun, I have no problem with it.

      LikeLike

1040. In Ames we have a dude who likes to walk around town in a skirt while wearing no undies. He’ll wear signs saying “Tell me how I can better love you today”, stand in front of city hall opening the door for people while wearing a Santa hat, make inane comments at city council meetings, etc. When I see him I just say “Hey, Richard” and he says “hey”, in a surprised tone, back. I don’t let him get a rise out of me.

      His best was when he appeared at a county supervisors candidate forum and asked what the candidates planned to do to promote the rights of nudists.

      Learn from Richard in dealing with Tom — the Richard of Old Life.

      LikeLike

1041. Mrs. WorldWideWebfoot,

      When have I said Luther was infallible? Not once. Moreover, Lutherans subscribe to the Book of Concord, not Luther. My only (humble) request is that you are accurate when you criticize him. You haven’t been accurate – you’ve been out to smear.

      You do know that the books he questioned were moved to the back of his German Bible, along with the so-called Apocrypha, right?

      You are correct to say that Luther moved Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation to the back of the NT, but he did place them in a separate category. They were still listed as Canon in his Bible, and still in the NT. The Apocrypha was not placed in the back of the Bible, like you falsely claim. It was placed between the OT and NT. Luther was not the only person to doubt the Canonicity of the Apocrypha. Indeed, Luther came to the conclusion mainly because Church Fathers, such as SS. Jerome and Athanasius, also did not consider them Canon. In addition, while Luther did not consider the Apocrypha to be Canon, he did encourage Christians to read and inwardly digest these “useful and good” books. You’ll also have to remember that the Canon was not actually the Canon until the Council of Trent. Prior to that, one only had conflicting and less-authoritative regional councils. Some Bibles, even prior to Luther, placed the Deuterocanonical books in separate sections. Interestingly, among the opponents of Trent’s proclamation that the Deuterocanonical books were Canon, was Cardinal Cajetan – one of the most famous of Luther’s adversaries. Guess the verdict was still out until Trent.

      All of which is to say, your reading of Luther’s work with the Canon is at best inaccurate, and, at worst, libelous.

      As for Luther not being venerable, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, ma’am.

      LikeLike

1042. Erik Charter
      Posted June 20, 2015 at 3:19 pm | Permalink
      Seth,

      Tom’s goal is to get a rise out of you by finding something online that you won’t like, throwing it in your face, and then moving on to the next guy to irritate. Nothing more.

      No response will be forthcoming — he doesn’t care if he was wrong.

      You getting mad is what he wants. Nothing more.

      As Christians we need to be wise enough to see guys like Tom and not waste our time with them. If he ever repents and becomes sincere, that’s another matter entirely.

      Not holding my breath, unfortunately.

      One could make the same case for Bryan and Jason. While I think they ARE sincere, there is something to be said for just shaking the dust off your feet and doing what YOU do. If they bring some guys to their side what THEY do, those guys probably weren’t long for Reformed Churches anyway.

      But if you’re having fun, I have no problem with it.

      Erik likes to gossip about other people in the third person. He can’t hang in actual adult discussion, so he stirs up little dramas like a schoolgirl. ;’-)

      LikeLike

1043. Tom,

      A smart friend summed it up perfectly: “It must be a shame to have a brain like Tom and nothing to do with it.”

      And he was not being mean – he was being serious. I’m not intending to be mean, either.

      LikeLike

1044. Erik Charter
      Posted June 20, 2015 at 3:36 pm | Permalink
      Tom,

      A smart friend summed it up perfectly: “It must be a shame to have a brain like Tom and nothing to do with it.”

      And he was not being mean – he was being serious. I’m not intending to be mean, either.

      Are you still here, Erik? Gossip and backbiting are all you offer–every one of your comments could be erased and nobody would even be able to tell. Reform.

      LikeLike

1045. Tom,

      Just trying to help you out. I knew to leave the Drunk Ex Pastors alone after what, 30 days? You’ve been here 2 years?

      Not normal, not healthy, not good for you.

      LikeLike

1046. Erik Charter
      Posted June 20, 2015 at 3:44 pm | Permalink
      Tom,

      Just trying to help you out. I knew to leave the Drunk Ex Pastors alone after what, 30 days? You’ve been here 2 years?

      Not normal, not healthy, not good for you.

      Thx for your concern but I fit this in inbetween doing other things. I look stuff up to find out more about what’s being discussed, and report the results for others to learn from as well. It’s quite worthwhile and educational. You should try that instead of presuming to lecture other people, Erik. You’re the only one completely wasting his time [and everybody else’s] with this gossip and backbiting crap.

      LikeLike

1047. Oh, come on, guys! It’s not as though anyone here has accused Luther of being the inspiration for Hitler’s anti-Semitism. We all know that Bonhoeffer was Lutheran, after all. Many good Lutherans opposed Nazism.

      Luther was a raving anit-Semite, though, something that Lutherans have to figure out how to explain. He was not responsible for the horrors of WW II, though.

      He did say some pretty bad things about the Pope, not unlike what they guy at that website said. Luther was a mess. There are many Reformed people and Lutherans who are much more worthy of your praise.

      I am saying that Luther is not the best example to follow if you want examples of people who read their Bibles. He just isn’t. You are allowed to have doubts about the man in your religion, aren’t you?

      LikeLike

1048. Tom,

      Can’t really be gossip if it’s written right in front of you.

      The gossip stopped for me when I got out of the inner circle. It’s all public now.

      Just consider if your time would be better spent around people you agree with. That’s what sets you apart here — you agree with so little. It gets old.

      LikeLike

1049. Erik Charter
      Posted June 20, 2015 at 3:55 pm | Permalink
      Tom,

      Can’t really be gossip if it’s written right in front of you.

      The gossip stopped for me when I got out of the inner circle. It’s all public now.

      Just consider if your time would be better spent around people you agree with. That’s what sets you apart here — you agree with so little. It gets old.

      Thank you, Erik. You can go now.

      LikeLike

1050. Seth,
      We haven’t interacted so I thought I would say hi before it jump into your comments with Webfoot. Hi. Anyway, I feel you are over stating your case against the canonical history of the seven books disputed between Reformed and Catholics. You may be right on Cajetan, but one Cardinal hardly makes a case. Trent only made it formal heresy to say the canon was anything other that what it had been throughout the last 1200 years of Church history. You are partly correct in it being largely because of local councils that the canon was set a the 73 book canon in church history. Council of Hippo would be the prominately held earliest, but the Council of Carthage had the 73 book canon list in it too. This council, which is the council that condemned Pelagianism, was ratified by the 7th Ecumenical Council in Nicea. The canon was also listed after the Great Schism at the Ecumenical Council of Florence which was reconciling East and West. Didn’t stick though. Let us also not forget the the first Bible coming off the printing press , which is before the Reformation, was printed with the 73 books. You are also overstating St. Jerome. He did have doubts, he submitted to the voice of the Church and quoted from them as Scripture after those doubts. Those doubts largely had to do with the idea of all them not having Hebrew copies to translate at his time. It has since been proved for many of them there are Hebrew originals. Athanasius is also seen to quote from them as Scripture, especially the book Wisdom. There are also quotes from them as Scripture in the Talmud after the times of the Apostles. The Jews were still arguing about OT books well into 200AD.

      I’m not trying to be argumentative here, Seth. I too think people bash Luther a little to hard in the canon issue. It was a rough time.
      Peace, Michael

      LikeLike

1051. Michael:
      I’m not trying to be argumentative here, Seth. I too think people bash Luther a little to hard in the canon issue. It was a rough time.>>>>

      Bashing Luther would be blaming him for the holocaust, which some people do. No one here has done that. So, there is no Luther bashing going on.

      Why did his name come up again? D.G. Hart told me that I had been critical of his religion. The only think I can remember is my disagreement with him over using Luther as a good example of what happens when someone begins reading Scripture on their own.

      He has not gotten back to me. In fact, I have said very kind things about his religion, the OPC. I have expressed numerous times my sadness at what has happened in Presbyterianism. I have even praised some of the OPC leaders – just not Boettner. So, I do not know what he means.

      He is not Lutheran, but all I can think of is my disagreement over Luther’s misuse of Scripture.

      Then everyone went kind of crazy over defending Luther! Wild! You’d think I’d have accused him of causing the holocaust or something.

      Anyway…

      LikeLike

1052. Erik:
      The gossip stopped for me when I got out of the inner circle. It’s all public now.>>>>

      So, there’s an inner, secret Old Life circle where the “in crowd” gossips about all the public crowd?

      Erik, maybe …. well… not saying it.

      I do appreciate your comment about Elizabeth Elliot. She was an amazing lady. Thank you for that.

      LikeLike

1053. Mrs Webfoot,
      I was not directly speaking of you. I just know it happens. I have not been reading y’all’s discussion. Just caught Seth’s com and felt it needed some correction.

      LikeLike

1054. MichaelTX
      Posted June 20, 2015 at 6:04 pm | Permalink
      Mrs Webfoot,
      I was not directly speaking of you. I just know it happens. I have not been reading y’all’s discussion. Just caught Seth’s com and felt it needed some correction.>>>>

      I hear ya’. I seem to be the one who sets it off, though, but my comments have to do only with his treatment of Scripture. There are better examples even among the Reformers and especially among Protestants in general. I mean if Protestants want good examples within their tradition.

      I also try to set the record straight about Catholics not knowing their Bibles or not reading them. Sure, there needs to be more encouragement along those lines, but we do love Scripture and read it with care.

      I try not to bash the OPC, but I know they are in a difficult position right now. I am praying for them.

      Thanks, Brother MichaelTX.

      LikeLike

1055. Seth
      Posted June 20, 2015 at 10:16 am | Permalink
      vd, t, I’m not going to go dig up primary sources for an article that quotes from a mud-raking secondary source,>>>>>

      The mud is Luther’s own mud.

      Seth:
      D. Hart makes a fool of you every time you come limping in here.>>>>>

      Actually, I disagree. I’m wondering what makes you want to make a fool out of yourself by trying to defend the indefensible. Luther was a great man in history, but he was really messed up personally. It is not thanks to him that the Word still abides I suppose that is evidence of the sovereignty of God. No matter who tries to discredit Scripture, it still stands. Yes, he also said many beautiful things about the Bible, but he also said the other.

      His actions – putting certain books in a different section of the Bible because he took issue with them was inappropriate. You can rant all you want, but that is what he did. You can try to explain it away, put a positive spin on it, but it is what it is.

      Why not just say that he messed up, but thank God the Lutheran churches fixed the problem. He was not a pope, or infallible, was he?

      Even if it all were true, who cares?>>>>

      You are sounding like Hillary Clinton. It is all true.

      I see that you are a true son of Luther. If you get time, can you check out these Luther quotes about women. What do you think? Then we can go on to his comments about the Jews that read a bit like a drunken Mel Gibson.

      I mean, since you like polemics and all.
      ——————————————————————————-
      “The following are all Luther’s words. The excerpts from Table-Talk (“TR” or Tischreden in German) were taken down by others; thus they are in a bit of a different category from his other writings, but nevertheless, Luther scholars regard what is found in Table-Talk as his words.

      * * * * *

      Men have broad chests and narrow hips; therefore they have wisdom. Women have narrow chests and broad hips. Women ought to be domestic; the creation reveals it, for they have broad backsides and hips, so that they should sit still. [WA, TR I, no. 55, p. 19; cf. Hazlitt-Chalmers translation, p. 299]

      There is no dress that suits a woman or maiden so badly as wanting to be clever. [WA, TR II, no. 1555, p. 130]

      Doctor Martin Luther laughed at his Kertha, who wanted to be clever, and said, “God created man with a broad chest, not broad hips, so that in that part of him he can be wise; but that part out of which filth comes is small. In a woman this is reversed. That is why she has much filth and little wisdom.” [WA, TR II, no. 1975, p. 285]

      . . . when women speak well, it is not praiseworthy. It befits them to stammer and not be able to speak well; that adorns them much better. [WA, TR IV, no. 4081, pp. 121-122]

      . . . what goes in through women’s ears comes out again through their mouths. For that reason a secret is to be entrusted only to a dead woman. [WA, TR IV, no. 4434, p. 311]

      (cited in Susan C. Karant-Nunn & Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks [editors and translators], Luther on Women: a Sourcebook, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 28-30)
      Although women are ashamed to admit such things, both Scripture and experience teach that among many thousands there is not one to whom God gives the grace to maintain pure chastity. A woman does not have the power [to do this] herself.

      (Letter to Three Nuns, Wittenberg, 6 August 1524, WA, BR III, no. 766, pp. 326-328; in Karant-Nunn and Wiesner-Hanks, ibid., p. 141)

      A woman is not created to be a virgin, but to bear children. In Genesis 1 God was not speaking just to Adam, but also to Eve when He said, “Be fruitful and multiply,” as the female sex organs of a woman’s body, which God has created for this reason, prove. And this was not just said to one or two women, but to all of them, with no exceptions. . . .

      When He cursed Eve, he did not take her female body or her female sex organs; He . . . said, “I will give you much trouble when you become pregnant.” This misery was not just promised to one or two women, but to all of them. The words sound as if God knew that all women would become pregnant and would carry this curse, except for those that He Himself excepted. Against this no oaths or agreements can be maintained, for it is God’s word and power. . . . if it were possible and saintly to abide by any oath you swore, then you might as well swear that you would become the Mother of God, like Mary.

      (An Open Letter to Leonard Koppe, “Why Virgins Are Allowed to Leave the Convent in a Godly Way,” 1523, WA XI, pp. 398-399; in Karant-Nunn and Wiesner-Hanks, ibid., p. 140)

      In Paradise woman would have been a help for a duty only. But now she is also, and for the greater part at that, an antidote and a medicine; we can hardly speak of her without a feeling of shame, and surely we cannot make use of her without shame. The reason is sin . . . We are in the state of sin and of death; therefore, we also undergo this punishment, that we cannot make use of woman without the horrible passion of lust, and, so to speak, without epilepsy . . .

      (Lectures on Genesis, LW, vol. 1, 118-119; in in Karant-Nunn and Wiesner-Hanks, ibid., p. 147)

      And who can enumerate all the ludicrous, ridiculous, false, vain, and superstitious ideas of this seducible sex? From the first woman, Eve, it originated that they should be deceived and considered a laughing-stock.

      (Sermon on the Ten Commandments, 1516, WA I, p. 407; in Karant-Nunn and Wiesner-Hanks, ibid., p. 231)

      Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Martin Luther on Women: Some of His Chivalrous, Gentlemanly, Complimentary Observations

      LikeLike

1056. sdb
      Posted June 19, 2015 at 9:24 pm | Permalink
      “@tvd – On the other hand, love and faith and don’t mean a thing if you don’t keep the catholic faith pure and undefiled – per the purported infallible teaching of the RC church.

      Straw man.”
      You keep using that word. It doesn’t mean what you think it means. I’m referring to a church creed. It states that if the content of your faith is deficient you will “undoubtedly perish”. Sounds to me that faith and love aren’t enough. Sound doctrine matters too…at least according to the infallible teaching of the rcc.

      Yes, it’s a straw man because you’re picking out one phrase from one place that does not represent the totality of Catholic teaching on the subject. This is dishonest.

      No. You are confusing cherry picking with a straw man. MWF asserted that faith and love were sufficient cinditions “all that matters”) for justification. This is incorrect by both prot and rc. I provided one example. I could point out other examples such as the PB declaring that the rcc teaches submission to the Pope is necessary for salvation.

      The Catholic Church does not teach that heretics like you and Darryl are definitely going to hell, and indeed prays that all will be saved–by a mechanism that man does not have a full understanding of.

      Yet it did at one time as I demonstrated from her own purportedly infallible, unchanging dogma. As you a assert, she changed.

      Therefore, you are indeed creating a straw man that does not represent the whole truth, and declaring victory over it. You do not seek truth and light here, SDB, only darkness and error. This does not glorify God.

      1) Well you are still confused on the strawman fallacy.
      2) Yes, I am interested in truth which is why I bother correcting your errors.
      3) You are way off base on what brings glory to God.

      •1058 The Church prays that no one should be lost : ‘Lord, let me never be parted from you.’ If it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God ‘desires all men to be saved’ (1 Tim 2:4), and that for him ‘all things are possible’ (Mt 19:26).

      •1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere ‘to the end’ and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays for ‘all men to be saved.’

      I agree. But this is irrelevant to the two issues I’ve brought up. The first question is whether “faith and love are all that really matters “, second has the church changed her teaching and/or councils erred. The first is obviously wrong. If you meant love is necessary rather than sufficient, a simple clarification is all that is needed. You seem to agree that legitimately called councils have erred in their teaching (the 7th ec coun goofed in their dogmatic declaration on Adam, sin, and death). The rcc consider them infallible. We prots don’t. If you are rc, you are in the same boat as Wills. It also underminds the ctc claim to superior epistemic standing.

      Further, you’re twisting the argument, which is that even if y’all have the right doctrine, if you’re going to be a jerk about it, you’re missing the whole point.

      Well that may be what you or mwf or whoever meant, but that isn’t what you said. Say love is necessary, and I will give you a hearty amen. Say love is sufficient and I will say you are a dimwitted mtdeist. I apologize if you find me pedantic or find the call for clarity frustrating…what can I say. If you are really devoted to truth and light you need to up your game. I don’t know why I enjoy engaging with you…I don’t think you have ever offered a valuable insight on this blog, yet you seem to have so much potential. Maybe its the Cubs fan in me…there is always the next thread.

      LikeLike

1057. sdb
      Posted June 21, 2015 at 12:10 am | Permalink
      sdb
      Posted June 19, 2015 at 9:24 pm | Permalink
      “@tvd – On the other hand, love and faith and don’t mean a thing if you don’t keep the catholic faith pure and undefiled – per the purported infallible teaching of the RC church.

      “Straw man.”

      You keep using that word. It doesn’t mean what you think it means. I’m referring to a church creed. It states that if the content of your faith is deficient you will “undoubtedly perish”. Sounds to me that faith and love aren’t enough. Sound doctrine matters too…at least according to the infallible teaching of the rcc.

      “Yes, it’s a straw man because you’re picking out one phrase from one place that does not represent the totality of Catholic teaching on the subject. This is dishonest.”

      No. You are confusing cherry picking with a straw man.

      You’re cherry-picking quotes from here and there in Catholicism and creating a straw man of Catholicism, which you then proceed to knock down. But you have not engaged the whole truth of Catholic teaching, therefore your enterprise is without truth or value.

      MWF asserted that faith and love were sufficient cinditions “all that matters”) for justification.

      You’ll have to take that up with her. My reading of what she has written does not say that in the least. What she does say is you’re going to be a Jerk for Jesus and be abusive and dishonest in speaking of the Christian faith, mebbe there’s something defective about your faith.

      a href=”https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+2%3A14-26&version=NKJV”>James 2:

      v. 8 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

      v. 22 Do you see that faith was working together with [Abraham’s] works, and by works faith was made perfect?

      I think that’s what’s she saying. It’s good to read the whole chapter when you read the Bible. Verse-slinging [cherry-picking] misses a lot.

      14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?

      Completely in accord with Jesus’s story of the Sheep and the Goats. The Bible must always be in harmony with itself, or it isn’t true.

      If you meant love is necessary rather than sufficient, a simple clarification is all that is needed.

      I think that’s what she means. It’s what James 2 means. We know from the story of the Good Thief that “faith alone” is sufficient, but if he were miraculously spared there and then he went back to stealing and blaspheming and murdering, well, it would be fair–per James 2–to say his faith was dead.

      But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

      So let’s keep that one in mind next time we’re tempted to be a jerk in Jesus’s name.

      “Further, you’re twisting the argument, which is that even if y’all have the right doctrine, if you’re going to be a jerk about it, you’re missing the whole point.”

      Well that may be what you or mwf or whoever meant, but that isn’t what you said. Say love is necessary, and I will give you a hearty amen. Say love is sufficient and I will say you are a dimwitted mtdeist. I apologize if you find me pedantic or find the call for clarity frustrating…what can I say. If you are really devoted to truth and light you need to up your game. I don’t know why I enjoy engaging with you…I don’t think you have ever offered a valuable insight on this blog, yet you seem to have so much potential. Maybe its the Cubs fan in me…there is always the next thread.

      We both know why you enjoy engaging with me. Peace, brother.

      LikeLike

1058. Sean, hope you are enjoying the Lord’s Day. Please don’t start working on anything, but let me know if you are intending on continuing with your lost response and moving on to more VII studying.
      Blessings,
      Michael

      LikeLike

1059. MW: Semantic range doesn’t mean that you can pick which word you like best and plug it in…

      True, but that wasn’t the point. The semantic range was given for purposes of comparison to Hebrew and Greek. However, it was probably just a distraction, in that the real point was grammatical.

      Mrs. W, I have not yet been able to focus our attention on the grammar.

      There are two commands there, and not one: Do not bow and Do not worship.

      Can you agree to that?

      MW: there are OT examples of people bowing down as a sign of honor to a king or someone in authority, and it is not said that they were breaking the 1st or 2nd Commandments.

      Certainly. For neither command forbids bowing to people, but to images.

      Do you have any OT or NT examples of people bowing to images and being approved for it?

      LikeLike

1060. Jeff:
      There are two commands there, and not one: Do not bow and Do not worship.

      Can you agree to that?>>>>

      No. 🙂 In the Catholic and the Jewish way of numbering the 10 Commandments, this is the 1st Commandment. So, I would say that there are 3 parts, not just 2. In fact, “or serve them” might be a 4th part, but that is understood in the bowing, right? “Bow and serve” go together, like making a sacrifice or bowing and offering one’s life to the god.

      Ex. 20:2-5
      I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
      1. You shall have no other gods before me. 2. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 3. you shall not bow down to them or serve them.

      I think you need to put these commands in the context of what you would call the 1st and 2nd Commandments. Don’t leave out the 1st. Otherwise the full context is lost. The 1st demands that we worship the one true God. Your 2nd, our 1st, demands that we do not worship, bow down to, or serve false gods. If you wish to bring in prohibitions about not making idols to represent even the true God, that’s fine with me.

      I do not disagree in the slightest if you say that the worship of false gods, self as god, or demonic spirits is a violation of these commands. Making any idols representing such and bowing down to then or serving them are all violations of these commands.

      Anyway…so I agree mostly,

      Bowing to images in the NT?

      It seems like you need to find a specific NT prohibition if you are going to leave out OT practice. Is it now sin to bow down towards objects that contain the Real Presence of our Lord? If so, show me where.

      You do not object to bowing to fellow human beings who are worthy of honor. My understanding about the burning of incense to the Emperor was that it went beyond a normal honor shown to a leader. It involved offering a sacrifice to the Emperor as if he were a god. That kind of honor would be prohibited. Polycarp would not burn the incense and therefore was killed.

      LikeLike

1061. Jeff,

      “Certainly. For neither command forbids bowing to people, but to images.”

      Neither command forbids burning incense to images either. So why did Hezekiah tear down the serpent when that started happening? This is what I’m getting at – you demur from “literalistic wooden interpretation” but then do that exact thing when interpreting acts of idolatry in the context of the commandment, e.g. don’t judge the heart – just did the person bow or not to the image? Similarly, I guess it’s cool to worship people by bowing to them since the commandment only pertains to images correct? By the same token, the clear commandment against idolatry apparently allows pretty much anything – just no bowing and you’re good. If you want to say “but the command calls out worship or bowing” then it would follow one could bow without worshipping, but bowing would still be condemned. By that logic, burning incense, writing hymns to images, sacrificing children to images, etc would be allowed since one could do those without worshipping. You interpret the OT by the letter of the law (and even that I stipulate you are not doing consistently), and not the spirit of the law.
      Incidentally, the argument by the iconoclasts at Hieria was centered on the eucharist being the only acceptable image to venerate – so the appeal to them to support your view doesn’t actually go through – their condemnation of “idolatry” was itself justified and due to idolatry by your lights.

      LikeLike

1062. Mrs WWW,
      My point is – Luther wasn’t an anomaly. As I said before, which you ignored completely, is that there was a precedent for placing the Apocrypha in a separate section. Other printings of the Bible did so. You act as if questioning the Canonicity of certain books is entirely unforgivable. He did not remove any books from the Bible – they were still there for the reading, despite his doubts. Stop exaggerating the case. Just stick the facts, ma’am, and realize that Luther, just like you or I, was a human being, capable of developing his opinions and beliefs. Indeed, some of his views on certain books became more positive in his later life. Again, Luther did not act as a vision-casting Bible-onlyist. His interpretations came not just from Scripture, but stemmed from the writings of the Church Fathers (please see Jerome, Eusebius, and Origen), who he quoted extensively. His doubts about the Canon, right or wrong, were based upon the discussions of the Early Church Fathers and some of Luther’s contemporaries. Painting him as a completely off-the-rails Scripture-rending lunatic is myopic and unfair. But it’s clear you don’t care about history or fairness.

      It seems like you didn’t catch the part where I said that Luther isn’t infallible. I don’t believe he was infallible. There are many things to fault Luther for, as with any sinful human being. But I don’t believe that he deserves the kind of character-maligning slander that you have been dealing up for the past couple of days. My defense of Luther is not “spin,” it’s being honest to what we know of his history. Just as you say that finding no fault with Luther is problematic, I say that finding only fault with Luther is equally wrong.

      Yeah, I’ve read all those passages on women, and, yes, they’ve been thrown in my face before (I’m Lutheran, for goodness’ sake). Where are you getting your discussion-points? From the Word Jumble on the back of the RCIA coloring-book? You can list all the passages from Table Talk all you want, WWW, but it really says nothing more than you shouldn’t have someone writing down everything you say while you’re drinking. I’m sure there are many of your beloved Saints (or your infallible Popes) that, if they had had someone writing down their every word (much less while drinking beer), they would have said quite a few things they regretted. Quoting from Table Talk is a rube move, ma’am, and not a fair representation of Luther’s theology, not least because we have no way to prove that the writers of Table Talk did not misinterpret Luther’s banter. In short, it’s unreliable. It’s full of Luther at his most earthy and loose-lipped – the blustering frivolity one sees amongst friends. Would you like your private conversations with your close friends or, perhaps, your husband to be used to indict you? I’m not sure what you’ve said to Mr. Webfoot in the privacy of your own home (lily-pad?), but I can guess. Tut, tut.

      Just because your modern sensibilities quake at this rhetoric doesn’t mean Luther was just a disgusting animal who isn’t admirable in other contexts. He was a man of his time, and I’m willing to bet such rhetoric was just a prominent amongst your beloved Papists as it was with Luther and his allies. Your pearl-clutching is quaint, but shows that, ultimately, all you have is an emotional reaction to Luther, not a theological one. If you were fair, you would perhaps admit that Luther had many good and beautiful things to say about women as well. Please see above about you not caring for fairness.

      After this I’m done. You’re clearly unwilling to admit that your condemnation of Luther is based upon personal and emotional bias, and not upon fact or history. I have admitted numerous times that Luther was not infallible, and, indeed, was a sinful human being. Luckily, Lutherans don’t submit to him. I will, however, defend Luther if he’s unfairly maligned.

      LikeLike

1063. Hi, Seth,

      Yes, Luther was politically incorrect for our time. No, the quotes do not tell all that he thought about women, or even if he said some of those things in a teasing way. In fact, we do not know what women said about men. I concede that in our day, we are way, too hyper sensitive and quick to judge someone based on a few comments made possibly in jest or in a moment of exasperation- or under the influence of too much to drink.

      I appreciate the fact that you admire Luther. I admit that I have some emotional bias going on. Maybe it is part of my demythologizing the man, Luther. Besides, my condemnation of him, as you call it, does not include hoping that he will be burning in hell. No, not at all.

      You know, this has been helpful for me, and I do not mean to insult your whole religion. I realized what Luther had meant to me when I was a Protestant. He is kind of like the father of Protestantism, even for those who were never Lutheran – though my dear Finnish grandmother was Lutheran and had all her 10 children baptized in the Lutheran Church. He is a heroic figure, and in that way, I admired him.

      So, thank you for your comments. I don’t blame you for defending him, no, not at all.

      One thing I like about him is that he seemed to maintain a high regard for The Blessed Virgin throughout his whole life. It seems he did not question either her perpetual virginity or her Immaculate Conception. Also, his view of the Real Presence in the Eucharist seems to be as close to Catholicism as can be. Not sure what you have to say about those two things.

      What interests me even more than my personal need to demythologize the man, Luther, is that at this point in time, the Church has extended the invitation to come Home, or to at least dialogue.

      Not sure what you think of that, but I accepted the invitation. D.G. Hart things I am the least informed of all converts he has seen, so take my conversion for what it’s worth.

      I’m just happy that I am now Catholic. If you find joy in your faith in Christ, then I am happy for you. Like it or not, you are my brother. My Mother tells me so. 🙂

      …and some of your comments put a smile on my face. I mean, this is priceless! “Where are you getting your discussion-points? From the Word Jumble on the back of the RCIA coloring-book?”

      So, take care, Seth

      LikeLike

1064. Someone call me when Old Life stops being all Catholic all the time.

      And why, because one tatted up PCA minister converted and joined with some other malcontents on a website that no one would read if we weren’t always pointing them to it?

      The site is becoming practically unreadable — and that’s a week after Andrew departed.

      As my 8-year-old would say, “for the love of fudge!”

      LikeLike

1065. This is how ridiculous this has gotten: I got this e-mail from a relative yesterday:

      Relative – We were talking in SS this morning about people who know a lot about God but don’t know God. A guy mentioned someone he knows, Jason Stellman, who left the Reformed church for the Catholic Church. The name sounds familiar. Isn’t that someone you know online??

      Me – Yeah, former PCA pastor, now Catholic.

      We’ve almost singlehandedly made these guys famous.

      LikeLike

1066. What, Erik, you don’t like my witty banter? C’mon.

      LikeLike

1067. Seth,

      I like you, but we’re feeding an ever growing army of trolls who I won’t read, so pretty soon I just give up reading everyone.

      Why must everything you like in life go to s**t? (Sigh)

      LikeLike

1068. Erik, nah, Mrs. Webfoot, Texas Mike, and New Kevin aren’t trolls.

      vd, t, on the other hand….

      LikeLike

1069. It would help if even one of them could make a concise, witty, or pithy comment from time to time.

      Apparently the Catholic gullible gene renders these faculties wholly inoperable from the moment of conversion, if they were ever present to begin with…

      LikeLike

1070. I can’t speak for DGH, but who else in the prot world lifts a finger against Rome? The RC is attracting a certain type of rootless, half-educated boy man from the Reformedish world. No denying this — this question is should we care? I say yes, at least until more join the fight. Meanwhile, the PCA has had a Romish sympathizer on their interchurch relations committee…

      LikeLike

1071. Chortles – The RC is attracting a certain type of rootless, half-educated boy man from the Reformedish world.

      Erik – And you’re sorry to see them go because?

      You can’t on one hand bitch about how screwed up the PCA is and, on the other hand, decry when the people most likely to screw it up leave.

      At one point I was talking to my pastor about the crisis that Jason and CTC were for conservative P&R people. His response: “No one I know is attracted to that stuff”. My thought at the time was, “wow, is he obtuse”. Now my response is “wow, was I obtuse.” He was right. No one in our circles cares about this if we’re not highlighting it and harping on it constantly.

      As it stands we give Tom Van Dyke a 24/7/365 forum to spout off in because he’s here in defense of something. If we just do what we do and leave the converts and the Catholics alone, he looks like even more of a tool if he continues to harass us just because we’re Reformed. His being a troll would be all the more apparent and Darryl could just give him the boot and add 5 years to his life.

      LikeLike

1072. cw l’unificateur
      Posted June 22, 2015 at 1:58 pm | Permalink
      I can’t speak for DGH, but who else in the prot world lifts a finger against Rome? The RC is attracting a certain type of rootless, half-educated boy man from the Reformedish world. No denying this — this question is should we care? I say yes, at least until more join the fight. Meanwhile, the PCA has had a Romish sympathizer on their interchurch relations committee…>>>>

      Well, you can’t blame Catholics for what has happened to Presbyterianism. Y’all did that to yourselves on your own.

      LikeLike

1073. I rest my case.

      LikeLike

1074. I’ve personally known one — one — convert to Catholicism in my entire life. She met her husband in a Baptist student group at Iowa State. He had grown up Catholic and “converted” to being a Baptist for a few years during college and beyond. He decided to go back and took her with him. That’s one person in 45 years of life. This is not an epidemic in the Protestant world, much less in the conservative P&R world, in spite of what CTC would like you to believe.

      LikeLike

1075. JRC: There are two commands there, and not one: Do not bow and Do not worship.

      Can you agree to that?

      MW: No. 🙂 In the Catholic and the Jewish way of numbering the 10 Commandments, this is the 1st Commandment. So, I would say that there are 3 parts, not just 2. In fact, “or serve them” might be a 4th part, but that is understood in the bowing, right? “Bow and serve” go together, like making a sacrifice or bowing and offering one’s life to the god.

      Alright, so is your position that

      (1) There are not two imperative verbs in Ex 20.5a, or
      (2) That there are two imperative verbs, but they refer to a singular action of “bowing in order to serve”?
      (3) Other?

      I’m a little confused. I would have thought that we could at least agree that there are two imperative verbs there, which is a linguistic fact.

      LikeLike

1076. L’appendage de mermaid, I never blamed you papists for presby probs, did I? Go to Central America and Spain and sort all that rank idolatry out. Swim if you can’t afford air fare.

      LikeLike

1077. “This is not an epidemic in the Protestant world, much less in the conservative P&R world, in spite of what CTC would like you to believe.”

      Good points.

      LikeLike

1078. Jeff:
      I’m a little confused. I would have thought that we could at least agree that there are two imperative verbs there, which is a linguistic fact.>>>>

      My point has been pretty much all along that this is the 1st Commandment.:

      Ex. 20:2-5
      I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
      1. You shall have no other gods before me. 2. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 3. you shall not bow down to them or serve them.

      If you split this into 2 Commandments, the force of it is lost. God is saying worship me only. Do not engage in idolatry, which is the worship of false gods.

      Protestants insist that the statues that Catholics make are false gods. Catholics insist that they are not gods.

      This has been going on a long time. No, I don’t mean that you and I have been talking about this for too long, but that the whole argument has been going on for centuries at least.

      I do not worship false gods. Catholics do not worship false gods.

      We worship the same God, Jeff – the triune God of the Bible.

      LikeLike

1079. Erik, I can understand your frustration at the constant back and forth between Prot and Cath. I guess that is partly why when I see there is truly something that a Prot and Cat are wanting to discuss that it works out better slipping into email. I was around several years ago trying to decern the canon problem and see if I could come up with a Reformed response. It was Andrew B. that told me I should check in over here at OLTS. Me and Sean chatted on that a bit in that post called If You Don’At Like Superiorty or something like that for a while three years ago then we switched to email but never really finished out discussion. Anyway, it largely was to animosity between the two camps that made it so hard to actually get anywhere in my chatting back then. It is easy for us to read each other in the worst light. I like Hart, but sometimes his jabbs make it hard to stay around. Largely I think it is because he reacts against more than just me. I appreciate several folks here In the Reformed camp and respect many for defending what is understood to be true. We have many things in common. It would be nice ever now and then to see some post from Hart that even touches that with a ten foot poll.

      LikeLike

1080. Okay. So, you do know the consequences for not forgiving the offenses of others, don’t you?

      The problem MW is that one, without repentance there is no forgiveness of sin – not penance which is how Rome used to translate things until either Luther or Erasmus cleared that up – and two, your sins or omissions are in regard to truth, if not what your own church teaches, whatever I might think personally.

      You may scroll down as you wish, but your debut here entailed accusing prots of telling lies about Romanism and the mass – i.e the fullness of the Eucharist – and then when you were apprised numerous times about what the RCC actually teaches about the mass as a sacrifice for the living and the dead, you . . . scrolled down.
      Volubility, yeah.
      Visibility, ditto.
      Credibility, none.

      But wait, Rome has come up with its own faux Aaronic priesthood to offer the sacrifice of the mass, when the Book of Hebrews is quite clear that Christ was both the priest and sacrifice to end all on both counts. No big deal. Only another blasphemous encyclical for the parrots to prate about enthusiastically over here.

      Likewise anybody who seriously suggests that since we are all prone to adultery idolatry in our hearts, therefore actual physical instances of adultery idolatry are not to be dealt with should win you a following with Missus Mister Hillary, but this isn’t a clown show like the best and brightest ex prot over at Drunk Ex Pastors. Yet.
      True, you’re working on it, but you got a ways to go.

      As for the butcher job, both you and CVD make of the Second, which are also a violation of the Ninth, bowing down to someone in a civil context is not per se forbidden. At times and places it has had and still has something to do with manners. Neither are pictures in the family photo album or of animals at the zoo forbidden.

      What is at issue, is one making a visual representation of the invisible God or anything else and then two, worshiping/honoring/venerating/treating it as God or a conduit to the same in that many times idolaters admit that their representation is not strictly speaking their deity per se, but nevertheless he is pleased/appeased by their gestures.

      Again, the First is in regard to who we are to worship, the one true God and two, the Second is all about how we are to worship him. Regardless, endemic to papists and evidently the whole fullness thing, being a member of the one perfect church means we can imitate God in the OT ceremonial worship – now fulfilled in Christ – by producing images in the NT worship.

      And if you want to fault L on the DC you got bigger fish to fry. How come Christ didn’t chide the jews for not including the Greek DC in the Hebrew canon of his day, but he did certainly go after the religious hypocrites like the papistspharisees and unbelievers like theliberal papists sadduccees?

      Yes, it can be irritating at time to watch our papist patronizers cavort so egregiously in the combox, knowing that they can’t ever be wrong/deluded or confused.
      Implicit faith = Innoculation Into Ignorance

      LikeLike

1081. CVD, your arguments are getting sloppy. I think you are hoping to make the charge of wooden literalism stick, and it’s getting you into trouble.

      In particular:

      (1) CVD: Incidentally, the argument by the iconoclasts at Hieria was centered on the eucharist being the only acceptable image to venerate – so the appeal to them to support your view doesn’t actually go through…

      As far as I can recall, I did not appeal to the iconoclasts to support my view. I *did* appeal, as a point of order, to the fact that there were two different councils both styled as “ecumenical” that came to opposite conclusions. One was accepted over time, one was not. I speculated on possible reasons for that.

      Otherwise, I have not particularly appealed to the iconoclasts.

      (2) CVD: This is what I’m getting at – you demur from “literalistic wooden interpretation” but then do that exact thing…

      So, “paying attention to grammar” is not the same as “literalistic wooden interpretation”, as a quick glance at any critical commentary could tell you.

      The grammar and vocabulary are not the whole story, but they are the ground floor. Currently, you and Mrs. W have been unable to acknowledge the simple grammatical facts. It would be one thing if you admitted, “Yes, we are commanded not to bow and not to worship, but this means X because of these reasons.” Then the grammar and vocabulary would be settled issues and we could move on to context and semantics.

      But because you are avoiding admitting facts, I find myself in the unpleasant position of having to repeatedly draw attention to them. So be it. Once attention is paid, we can move on.

      What I’m doing in this discussion mirrors what happens in critical commentaries. First, we establish the meaning of the text per grammar and literary conventions. Then we use historical and literary context to shape our understanding.

      (3) CVD: Similarly, I guess it’s cool to worship people by bowing to them since the commandment only pertains to images correct? By the same token, the clear commandment against idolatry apparently allows pretty much anything – just no bowing and you’re good. If you want to say “but the command calls out worship or bowing” then it would follow one could bow without worshipping, but bowing would still be condemned. By that logic, burning incense, writing hymns to images, sacrificing children to images, etc would be allowed since one could do those without worshipping.

      And this is where you go entirely off the rails. Even were I woodenly interpreting, you could not logically infer these things from a woodenly literal reading. “Just no bowing and you’re good” ignores the fact that there are two imperative verbs there.

      Slow down a bit. Deal with the text head-on instead of dancing around what it says. Then we can talk context.

      LikeLike

1082. (Ahem, scroll down alert.)

      From Vol. 3 Christology of Vos’s Reformed Dogmatics, a timely, if not pointed quote:

      Romanism and every hierarchical system like it, besides arrogating to itself the rights of Christ as kingly, generally places one-sided emphasis on His kingly office to the detriment of the prophetic office. The external and visible organization of he church is then pushed to the forefront, and knowledge is deemed of secondary importance (p.89).

      Can we say “implicit faith”?
      Of course we can.

      LikeLike

1083. Michael,

      It just sucks that virtually every post becomes an excuse for a 1,000 comment protestant/catholic debate that goes nowhere.

      Meanwhile Darryl writes something nuanced and poignant on a non-Catholic theme and it gets like 3 comments. I’m starting to think that with a few exceptions I’m surrounded by blockheads here.

      LikeLike

1084. We have 5 former Catholics in our church – no one has left our church for Catholicism. And Catholicism is shrinking. http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

      Webster is prone to groundless rhetoric.

      LikeLike

1085. is this site going to continue being nothing more than an endless cycle of

      TVD and Webfoot going

      “NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH”

      LikeLike

1086. TVD:
      You’ll have to take that up with her. My reading of what she has written does not say that in the least. What she does say is you’re going to be a Jerk for Jesus and be abusive and dishonest in speaking of the Christian faith, mebbe there’s something defective about your faith.>>>>>

      I wish I had said it that way, TVD. Well put.

      Actually, by paraphrasing Paul, I was also trying to get some discussion going on what the nature of true faith is – the kind of faith that justifies. It is certainly at the heart of what true doctrine is all about. I mean, we do talk about our faith all the time. What does that faith look like when it is operational?

      It looks like love. The most glorious manifestation of faith working through love that we have is Jesus Christ, the God-man dying on the cross for the sins of the world. No greater love can be found. He is the One who laid down His life for His friend and enemy alike. In fact, He laid down His life for us while we were still enemies.

      If anyone wishes to question what I say here, find the Scriptures that I am referring to and we can talk.

      See, what kind of amazes me is that the sola scripturaists – with the exception of Jeff and I think sdb as well, maybe some others – really don’t seem to even recognize it when Scripture is being quoted or paraphrased. Hence my little paraphrase of Paul to see if anyone recognized “the only thing that matters is faith working through love” as even being Pauline.

      …and I’m just an ignorant Mermaid. Really, though Mrs. Webfoot is about living in a rainy part of the country where we grow webs between our fingers and toes and turn into ducks, metaphorically speaking, of course.

      Mermaids are okay, too. I mean, is that the best insult the guys can come up with? I hate to even ask.

      LikeLike

1087. There are oh so many places to go on the internet if you want to read things that suck.

      For a time this was one of the few places that didn’t.

      It was good while it lasted…

      LikeLike

1088. When I find myself 5x more stimulated by track & field athletes and assorted normal people on Twitter than I do here you know its gotten bad.

      I’m just going to start throwing down a blanket and eating a picnic lunch on the grounds of the state hospital for the criminally insane instead. Maybe I can catch them at recess.

      LikeLike

1089. I might be persuaded to make another $1,000 donation to a worthy cause if you all can pull off the following scenario for 5 posts:

      (1) Darryl writes something on Catholicism

      (2) The usual suspects write like 10 stupid posts in response

      (3) Darryl, of course, can’t resist making several short, snarky responses, which lead to another 10 stupid Catholic apologist posts in response.

      (4) Darryl moves on to the next post on Catholicism

      (5) MEANWHILE EVERYONE ELSE REMAINS SILENT AND IGNORES THE PROCEEDINGS.

      If this can happen, I might start feeling generous.

      LikeLike

1090. Muddy Gravel
      Posted June 22, 2015 at 4:00 pm | Permalink
      We have 5 former Catholics in our church – no one has left our church for Catholicism. And Catholicism is shrinking.

      According to the church’s own data, its 79,700,000 Catholics as of 2014 is an all-time high, up from 74,600,000 in 2010.

      http://cara.georgetown.edu/CARAServices/requestedchurchstats.html

      However, even if the Pew figures are accurate, Protestantism is in far worse shape.

      Like mainline Protestants, Catholics appear to be declining both as a percentage of the population and in absolute numbers. The new survey indicates there are about 51 million Catholic adults in the U.S. today, roughly 3 million fewer than in 2007. But taking margins of error into account, the decline in the number of Catholic adults could be as modest as 1 million. And, unlike Protestants, who have been decreasing as a share of the U.S. public for several decades, the Catholic share of the population has been relatively stable over the long term, according to a variety of other surveys (see Appendix C).

      For the record.

      LikeLike

1091. Someone brought up Kevin earlier. I think Kevin is pretty good. The problem is, we needed him 3-6 months ago. Now he’s like a revivalist preacher arriving in the burned over districts at the tail end of the Second Great Awakening. The earth is scorched.

      LikeLike

1092. The Susan/Tom/Mrs. Webfoot triumvirate is a human blowtorch radiating the heat of seven suns on to the grounds of enjoyable adult discourse.

      LikeLike

1093. Somebody change Erik’s diaper. 🙂

      I’ve never seen anything like it, post after useless post accusing other people of what you’re doing yourself.
      _________

      Also for the record, Catholic Church figures worldwide. Reports of its death have been exaggerated:

      By the end of 2013, the worldwide Catholic population had surpassed 1.253 billion, an increase of about 25 million or 2 percent, modestly outpacing the global population growth rate, which was estimated at 1 percent in 2013.

      Catholics as a percentage of the global population was up less than a percentage point at around 17.7 percent.

      As it has done in previous years, the latest Vatican statistical yearbook estimated there were about 4.8 million Catholics that were not included in its survey because they were in countries that could not provide an accurate report to the Vatican; for example, China and North Korea.

      According to the yearbook, the region where Catholics make up the largest percentage of the general population is in the Americas, where they account for 63.6 percent of the inhabitants, followed by Europe with 39.9 percent. Asia has the lowest proportion, with 3.2 percent.

      During the 2013 calendar year, more than 16 million infants and adults were baptized, according to the statistical yearbook, which added that there has been “a general downward trend in the relative number of (infant) baptisms, following closely the trend of the birthrate in most countries.” The ratio of children under 7 being baptized to the overall number of Catholics has been going down on every continent since 2008, it said.

      It said the number of bishops in the world increased by 40 to 5,173.

      The total number of priests — diocesan and religious order — around the world grew from 414,313 to 415,348, with a steady increase in diocesan priests present in Africa, Asia and the Americas, and a continued decline in Europe.

      The number of permanent deacons reported — 43,195 — was an increase of more than 1,000 over the previous year.

      http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1501270.htm

      LikeLike

1094. Michael, I lost steam(that’s what she said). I’ve got family in and work and church have got me busy. Let’s see what I got,………………………………………………………….Here’s my problem with Nguyen, I can put on his glasses and see things his way, but I happen to know that the actual historical circumstances surrounding the language, theology, participants and eventual applications made from those documents don’t line up one for one with Nguyen’s view. I don’t think any of that is shocking or new. I’m willing to harmonize and ‘believe that I might understand’ when it comes to holy writ, but I don’t subscribe post-apostolic docs and councils and a magisterium in the manner you do. So, where you harmonize, I’m free to note discontinuity and dissension and it doesn’t affect my observance. We have paradigmatic differences along with actual historical accounting differences for the constitutions. I’d like to have a discussion that traces out or highlights the legitimate discontinuities and changes and differences and departures as well as the continuities, but your faith commitments might make that a difficult undertaking for you. Not that it’s all on you, I’m just mainly swamped right this moment.

      LikeLike

1095. Mrs. W – It seems like you need to find a specific NT prohibition if you are going to leave out OT practice. Is it now sin to bow down towards objects that contain the Real Presence of our Lord? If so, show me where.

      Asked and answered:

      Question 80. What difference is there between the Lord’s supper and the popish mass?

      Answer. The Lord’s supper testifies to us, that we have a full pardon of all sin [a] by the only sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he himself has once accomplished on the cross; and, that we by the Holy Ghost are ingrafted [b] into Christ, who, according to his human nature is now not on earth, but in [c] heaven, at the right hand of God his Father, and will there [d] be worshipped by us: – but the mass teaches, that the living and dead have not the pardon of sins though the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ is also daily offered for them by the priests; and further, that Christ is bodily under the form of bread and wine, and therefore is to be worshipped in them; so that the mass, as bottom, is nothing else than a [e] denial of the one sacrifice and sufferings of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry.

      Footnotes:
      [a]: Heb. 7:27; Heb. 9:12,26; mat. 26:28; Luke 22:19,20; 2Cor. 5:21
      [b]: 1Cor. 6; 1Cor 17; 1Cor 12:13
      [c]: Heb. 1:3; Heb 8:1ff
      [d]: John 4:21,22,23; Col. 3:1; Phil. 3:20; Luke 24:52,53; Acts 7:55
      [e]: Isa. 1:11,14; Mat. 15:9; Col. 2:22,23; Jer. 2:13

      LikeLike

1096. Bob S. you worry me. What does “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors” or “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” mean?

      You guys are the sola scriptura guys.

      Besides, do you know the kind of penance that is given to Catholics after the rite of reconciliation? No, you don’t. It is very personal and tailored to the individual’s need as expressed in the sins they have confessed.

      We know the penance that Zacchaeus made, and Jesus commended him. Doing penance is related to making restitution for one thing. It is also meant to help a person not continue in the same sin. It is related to our sanctification if you are willing to look at it that way.

      It is Jesus telling the penitent to go, and sin no more.

      Well, at least you didn’t insult me, Bob, and for that I thank you. Now, keep on scrolling…but I tried to answer your question. Take care, my brother.

      Penance is not a way to buy our salvation, but rather a way to put it into practice as we, by God’s grace and the empowerment of the Holy Spirit strive to avoid sin.

      LikeLike

1097. John 6:52-58

      52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

      53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

      LikeLike

1098. Jeff, I can’t find it right now, but if I didn’t make it clear that I agree with you that we are not to bow down to or worship or ever serve idols, then I say it now. I agree with you on that.

      Where I do not think we would agree is the application of your 2nd Commandment to Catholic veneration of the saints.

      I have not read much of your exchange with Cletus Van Damme.

      Thanks, Jeff, and take care, my brother.

      I’m probably done with this topic, so if I don’t answer, it’s not because I do not appreciate your concern and your efforts to demonstrate your understanding. Thank you.

      LikeLike

1099. ec, okay, let’s talk about The Wire.

      LikeLike

1100. cw l, mind you, I am writing two books about Roman Catholicism. This is research.

      Plus, I’m a better Protestant for having monitored Roman developments. You can’t make this stuff up. #tradition

      LikeLike

1101. ec, but what would happen if I gave the boot as well to Lutherans like you and Seth.

      LikeLike

1102. Mermaid, So, because you’re a convert this screw up isn’t yours?

      They[the twisted philosophical view of man and a poor view of the freedom and autonomy of man] resulted in an atmosphere being created where life would be centered around man, not God, where man is not only free to reject God (which has always been the case since Eden), but where that rejection was lifted up and applauded and enshrined in law as a natural good. From those rejections came further rejections and even further rejections. This has been the case since before the French Revolution, and has accelerated greatly in our day.

      And it has all happened and been prepared for — for all these centuries — because the Church has failed in Her God-given mission of saving the world. And it is sad to say that much of that blame lies at the feet of the Church for not exercising Her authority to discipline errant sons. Too much of the evil in the world today is directly attributable to Catholics gone bad governed by a Church leadership too naïve to understand and comprehend the depth of evil present in the human heart.

      From popes on down, for centuries, there has been too much leniency extended to traitorous sons of the Church, with the belief that not severely disciplining them is a form of mercy that would help bring them back in line. Too many times Rome has simply ignored serious grave problems in dioceses, religious orders, even the Curia itself.

      Certainly it has from time to time addressed the problems in some public fashion and even at times taken some action, but even then there has not been sufficient follow-up to ensure that what was ordered was in fact executed. It has been the case that many leaders, again including popes, have not sufficiently understood the extent of the evil, and that may be owing to some degree to their own sweetness of soul. This kind of treachery with its resultant malice is hard to imagine or even conceive of in the heart or mind of one that is not suspecting of it owing to his own sweetness of character and soul. The average person cannot really think like a psychopathic murderer. We can’t look at the world like such a man does; we don’t even consider the prospect of dismembering a victim after slowly torturing them to death.

      But if you’re going to track such people, you need to think like them, get inside their mind, as law enforcement would say. This is what many, many leaders in the Church for the past centuries have failed to do, or failed to do sufficiently.

      Too many evil-minded people have been given a pass, or a mere slap on the wrist when public excommunication was actually called for considering the depth of their spiritual mischief. Catholic souls have been corrupted not only by other Catholics who are either malformed or vicious, but it has been allowed to happen by other leaders, bishops, cardinals, popes who have not been sufficiently vigilant in the face of horror.

      Even in more recent times, consider the lack of vigilance and in some cases not just neglect but deliberate choices made by many bishops in the case of the homosexual priest sex abuse scandal. But even larger, think of the abhorrent lack of attention paid by leaders to the warping and malforming of the Faith that happens every day in parish religious education programs, RCIA classes, and Catholic schools that bishops either ignore, aren’t vigilant enough over or even in some cases support.

      LikeLike

1103. ec, it is happening to evangelicals all throughout higher education. Get out more.

      LikeLike

1104. ec, start your own darn blog.

      BTW, today’s post was actually interesting but all you can do is kvetch.

      LikeLike

1105. vd,tneedsnumberstofeelimportant

      LikeLike

1106. vd, t by those measures, you’re Roman Catholic.

      Ready to be a priest?

      LikeLike

1107. MsW you still don’t get it. Your sins, such as they are, are against the truth and against your church’s teaching. Consequently I have nothing to forgive you of nor is it my place or duty to give you a bye for the gratuitous waffling and weaseling you demonstrate in the erzatz discussion.
      Rather the honest and loving thing to do is to call you on it. (Fat lot of good it has done tho.)

      See, what kind of amazes me is that the sola scripturaists – with the exception of Jeff and I think sdb as well, maybe some others – really don’t seem to even recognize it when Scripture is being quoted or paraphrased. Hence my little paraphrase of Paul to see if anyone recognized “the only thing that matters is faith working through love” as even being Pauline.

      This is rich in irony deficiency.
      When you are not brandishing that rabbit’s foot and mantra – which no one denies per se, just the superficial understanding and use of it by you – for a change take a peek at Gal. 1:8 & 9 which precedes it.

      Faith in what pray tell? For the nth time, in the imputed righteousness of Christ alone, or an infused righteousness of Christ, Mary, the saints and one’s own good works? (In the anecdotal vein, if I had a nickel every time a priest patted me on the head and told me to “have faith” . . . . )

      It also goes without saying – except for our newb romanists – that the Book of Romans is all about justification before God; James, proof of the same before men. Yes, we know you all are papists and don’t believe that, but if you want any credibility or traction in the “debate”, you need to deal with – as in answer – the known objections to the Roman position which have been around far longer than the five minutes you have been a credulous convert to popery. (What, there are real and substantial objections to the magic silver bullet arguments I just control a/c/v-ed off the Catholic Encyclopedia website? )

      I know, crickets/scroll down.
      And then you wonder why people are ticked off.
      Or don’t bother to reply seriously.

      You can continue to suit yourself in all this, but then again, so will everybody else.

      LikeLike

1108. You know, D.G. Hart, I am not into the Church Militant stuff, but the brethren involved are true Catholics. I am under no obligation to get involved with their movement, but I hope they are a blessing to those who are blessed by them.

      I am more into people like Fr. Baron, Elizabeth Anscombe, Edward Fesser, and Peter Kreeft. I’m a lover, not a fighter. Others have a different calling.

      The Body of Christ is very large, and each member has his or her place. Besides, I am under my parish. Our RCIA leader is a good friend of our archbishop as well. So, I’m doing just fine, and this group helps me learn a lot as I have to respond as best I can to questions put to me. Nothing I say is official, you know.

      Now, I could quote from the CCC, but that draws fire. I quote from Scripture, and that draws fire. I even quote from some of the great Reformed teachers, and that draws fire.

      I am sure that everyone knows I am just one person trying to learn and practice my faith as God gives me understanding. You are all helping in that, so I thank you.

      Best of everything to you, Brother Hart.

      LikeLike

1109. D. G. Hart
      Posted June 22, 2015 at 8:15 pm | Permalink
      vd,tneedsnumberstofeelimportant

      Actually, Butch, it was your co-religionist who was crowing about numbers.

      
      Muddy Gravel
      Posted June 22, 2015 at 4:00 pm | Permalink
      We have 5 former Catholics in our church – no one has left our church for Catholicism. And Catholicism is shrinking.

      So actually, it’s you and he who seek solace [or glee] in Catholic Church’s numbers. I am sorry to spoil your fun, but the truth is they’re holding quite steady, quite amazing in this modern age.

      D. G. Hart
      Posted June 22, 2015 at 8:02 pm | Permalink
      cw l, mind you, I am writing two books about Roman Catholicism. This is research.

      I assume they’re novels, as most of what you say about Catholicism is pure fiction. ;-(

      LikeLike

1110. Darryl,

      Evangelicals read Old Life?

      I would make like the noble British officer in “The Last of the Mohicans” and go to the stake if you jettisoned the apologists as well.

      Don’t turn into an anti-Catholic crank who provides a forum for these people in your last 20 years in the academy.

      No one outside about 50 people at CTC and the P&R fever swamps care. No one respectable takes the CTC apologetic seriously — even Catholics. Ask Sean.

      LikeLike

1111. John 6:35  And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

      Ahem TVD, we hate to interrupt the colloquy, but it isn’t about literally eating and drinking. If it was, it wouldn’t be qualified as it is above by Christ. It’s about coming and believing. Big difference there and why the Roman church misses the mark chasing after things that are material rather than spiritual. Filling their carnal bellies rather than spiritually partaking by faith. Again, contra Augustine, they mistake the sign for what is signified, an amateurish and unbelieving mistake, with spiritually fatal consequences.

      Obviously Roman ex opere sacramentology is then also necessarily estranged from John 6:63:

       It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

      Not the magic bread; not the magic holy water; not the magic scapular or rosary, but the simple words of the Word become flesh in the scriptural gospel are spirit and life. Rome of course, would prefer to have all this under lock down, subject to her priests, who dribble it out to her prey faithful in the spigot of the sacraments.
      And would have, but for the Reformation.

      LikeLike

1112. The sad thing is, I’ve had stimulating e-mail conversations with Tom. He won’t do it here, though, because he’s so busy giving and receiving s**t. It accomplishes nothing. Maybe call a truce, elevate your intellectual ages to your physical ages just for fun, and start over. Anyone who can’t do it, throw out, and maybe we can get back to something worth reading.

      LikeLike

1113. Mermaid, so what happens when the next bishop is not your friend?

      Did you join the Rotary Catholic Church?

      LikeLike

1114. ec, you’re an evangelical. You read OL.

      In case you missed it, Jeb Bush and Rick Santorum have lots of traction among evangelicals.

      LikeLike

1115. Darryl,

      I would gladly talk about The Wire. This used to be a place for P&R people interested in the life of the mind. Tom & Bryan became a bur under your saddle, Greg gave you crap about seeing some boobs, and it became Jason & The Callers 80% of the time, to the point that I had to deal with a liar like apologist Ken and the Drunk Ex-Pastors when I got sucked into it.

      Just let them go on their merry way along with anyone else they sucker into it. The good ones will come back. The bad ones will goof up someone else’s church for a change.

      LikeLike

1116. If we’re 2k the fact that Bush & Santorum are Catholic should be irrelevant. Can they keep our taxes reasonable and stop Amtrak from crashing?

      LikeLike

1117. Darryl, stop throwing Erik into the briar patch!

      LikeLike

1118. Bob S
      Posted June 22, 2015 at 9:13 pm | Permalink
      John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

      Ahem TVD, we hate to interrupt the colloquy, but it isn’t about literally eating and drinking. If it was, it wouldn’t be qualified as it is above by Christ. It’s about coming and believing. Big difference there and why the Roman church misses the mark chasing after things that are material rather than spiritual. Filling their carnal bellies rather than spiritually partaking by faith. Again, contra Augustine, they mistake the sign for what is signified, an amateurish and unbelieving mistake, with spiritually fatal consequences.

      Obviously Roman ex opere sacramentology is then also necessarily estranged from John 6:63:

      It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

      Not the magic bread; not the magic holy water; not the magic scapular or rosary, but the simple words of the Word become flesh in the scriptural gospel are spirit and life. Rome of course, would prefer to have all this under lock down, subject to her priests, who dribble it out to her prey faithful in the spigot of the sacraments.
      And would have, but for the Reformation.

      I find this method so odd, and see it all the time from putative sola scripturists–grabbing a verse from here or there instead of the whole passage in context. In essence, arguing the Bible against itself. Ibid.:

      55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

      But my purpose here isn’t necessarily to get into an interpretation battle as much as to say that pace Reformed theologizing, the Catholic understanding and practice of the Eucharist is at least reasonably supported by the scriptures, whether or not you agree. Further, and this argument predates Calvinism by 1000 years,

      In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: “When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).

      Indeed, Luther met with Zwingli over the issue of the Eucharist [‘The Colloquy at Marburg’], and as you know, Luther ended the confab in disgust. To this day, the Lutheran position remains far closer to Catholicism’s than to the Reformed one–and of course the Eastern Orthodox Eucharist is accepted as licit by Rome.

      So I’m not necessarily making a truth claim for the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, but I am saying that your religion’s rejection of it is the wild card here. If normative Christian doctrine and Biblical interpretation are put up for grabs to any self-selected reformer every Sunday morning [and in a way it is], then anything goes, and usually does.

      Your interpretation could be the correct one, that the Lord’s Supper was intended by Jesus to be merely symbolic, but I’m arguing not the truth but the validity of other interpretations, and frankly, one would think that Biblical literalists such as yourselves would give a stricter reading of the language [“This is my body”] a little more leeway.

      LikeLike

1119. The fact that Tom wants you to keep going is all the proof I need.

      What else is he going to do with his time? A Cookies reunion tour?

      LikeLike

1120. Tom,

      That was actually good. Stay in that mode, even when Darryl gives you crap.

      LikeLike

1121. D. G. Hart
      Posted June 22, 2015 at 9:19 pm | Permalink
      Mermaid, so what happens when the next bishop is not your friend?

      Did you join the Rotary Catholic Church?>>>

      Brother Hart, I am not sure how to take you sometimes, but you do make me smile. What happens? As long as there is a priest serving Holy Communion, I will be there to bow in worship to my Lord and eat His body and drink His blood until He comes, or comes for me.

      I do thank you for your concern, though.

      LikeLike

1122. Sean, take care of that family you have in. We can talk some more if you wish. I most definatwly have a commitment to harmonizing other ecumenical councils with VII. I find any Catholic that does otherwise is abandoning a Church that has the right to hold VII. I don’t mind us trying to harmonize some of the things you find contradiction in. I know we never finished our canon discussion years ago. I would hate all our discussions to just fade out. Maybe we can get back to Kline and the canon some day.

      LikeLike

1123. Darryl,

      Here’s why this matters:

      You have the ability to talk and write about things like art, music, film, culture, politics, family, sex, alcohol, tobacco, sports etc. in an entertaining and engaging way. Not many Christians can do that – very few, actually.

      The Gospel Coalition and Redeemer try — with a whole stable full of Christian liberal arts graduates – and make a hash of it for the most part. Keller & Dever can name drop all they want, but its mostly just for show. There’s just not as much there there as we would like.

      So when you channel Carl McIntire with his bullhorn vs. Machen eating oranges with the fellas and go all Catholic all the time, we suffer loss.

      If a Reformed churchman really has someone under their care who is struggling with Catholic claims, it’s an hour long discussion over coffee laying out the fault lines — fault lines which really haven’t changed for 500 years save maybe for Vatican II, which is in our favor. There’s no magic bullet that is going to be discovered over 1000 comments on a article or 10,000 more comments on 10 more articles. The debate is over authority and how we recognize authority in religion — and it boils down to faith. Some will have faith in one system, others will have faith in another. All Reformed churchmen can do is offer up their system and leave the rest to God.

      So I kvetch, but I do so sincerely. You’re in a rut and I want the Old Darryl back. Maybe we can even bore Tom enough to either play it straight or go away and bother someone else.

      LikeLike

1124. I have the same beef when R. Scott Clark goes all Fox News on social media.

      I feel like all I’m left with is Carl Trueman who at least tries to be witty and charming — although I don’t follow him that closely.

      We need a deep stable of humanists — not polemicists — to sustain an intellectually robust Reformed community.

      Hell, I’m almost ready to ask Alan Strange if I can go to the Opera with him.

      All our social media outlets don’t need to resemble “Christian Renewal” (Glenda Mathes excepted – she’s always good).

      LikeLike

1125. Michael, you can’t say it’s been years, cuz then I feel old and then I associate being old with this place and that conversation and I’ll run away in denial. But, I’m game as I have time and ability. I listened to about two hours of Nguyen, I’m pretty sure I get the gist and even some of the particulars. I don’t know what more to do with his stuff. Trad or liberal, I remain unconvinced of the superiority of Rome to confessional protestantism. It’s still interesting and useful to read and be exposed to the different proponents but I haven’t heard a presentation that really changes what I understand about Vat II catholicism and what animated it and what the predominant applications were coming out of the council. I had a good twenty years in the faith and remain surrounded by RCs in my family, at work, alumni and teachers. I received and continue to receive a pretty good helping of all things RC, particularly American and Mexican and Irish cultural manifestations. I don’t personally think it gets better than Rahner when it comes to the whys and wherefores of Vat II. His stuff rings true to what I know and learned. I will own that Ratzinger post 1992 is a bit of a surprise, and was something unfamiliar and to a lot of my friends, priests and otherwise, unwelcome. Francis is much more familiar to me.

      LikeLike

1126. Sean has learned that religious profession has little to no impact on Speedy Mart purchasing patterns.

      LikeLike

1127. A swing and a miss, TVD.
      The Supper is neither carnal nor symbolic, but spiritual though the P&R actually do use bread and wine when it is administered.

      And remember context.
      A single verse like Rom 1:18 can introduce the theme of the Book of Romans contra Stellerman who wanted to grab stuff like 8:2 and argue the gospel as law or Dub’s fav Gal.5:6 contra all that goes before it.
      Likewise to sneer at Jn. 6:35 as introducing and qualifying the rest of what follows is to stumble on the chief cornerstone. The theme of the chapter is believing in Christ, not filling the Jews’ bellies with bread, though saving faith is likened to eating and drinking Christ, much more the sovereignty of God in who will and won’t believe in Christ.

      John 6:29  Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
      John 6:35  And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
      John 6:36  But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
      John 6:40  And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
      John 6:47  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
      John 6:64  But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
      John 6:69  And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

      Which is why from that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
      Because no man can come unto Jesus except it were given unto him of his Father (cf Jn. 6:65,66).

      Which means oops.
      There goes man’s free will by which he chooses to believe in Christ or no whenever he pleases.

      And since Rome still affirms the freedom of the will contra the historic protestant denial of it at the Reformation, that leaves romanists in the camp of those who went back and walked no more with Jesus.

      Not where we want to be, the much touted and supposed fullness of the Eucharistic Mystery [cursed idolatry of the mass] notwithstanding.

      cheers

      LikeLike

1128. Bob S
      Posted June 23, 2015 at 2:43 am | Permalink
      A swing and a miss, TVD.
      The Supper is neither carnal nor symbolic, but spiritual though the P&R actually do use bread and wine when it is administered.

      A grand slame.

      55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

      You verse-slingers have holes in your Bibles. Weird.

      LikeLike

1129. Cletus,

      Except it’s by a faith that is never alone according to your side. Now if you want to say by faith alone where faith is understood to be a faith formed by/working through love, there is no disagreement.

      You’re being dishonest James, and you know better. There would be no disagreement if:

      1. Rome would teach that you don’t put your faith in the church.
      2. Rome would teach that you faith is not the gift of the church.
      3. Rome would teach that there is no such thing as growth in justification.
      4. Rome would teach that you do not enjoy final justification on account of your faith and your good works.
      5. Rome would teach that you don’t put your faith in mediators such as Mary and the saints.

      That would be a good start.

      You mean as found in Scripture as interpreted by Calvinists alone.

      Well, and Lutherans and Anglicans as well, for starters. Even if you define Protestantism extremely broadly to mean any non-RC and non-EO tradition that believes in the Trinity, you’re going to find belief that our good works done in faith don’t enter into the equation for our final salvation.

      Congratulations – you believe in merit.

      Um, no, at least not in the way that Rome defines merit.

      LikeLike

1130. EC, you lost me when you said “robust.”

      Read some Marilynne Robinson. Loiter outside her Iowa City home. Get arrested, blog about it.

      LikeLike

1131. Robert:
      2. Rome would teach that you faith is not the gift of the church.>>>

      Robert, here is what St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor of the Church, says about faith. Note that he explains that there are two things needed for faith. 1.) the body of knowledge that the Church has been entrusted with and that gives to her people and 2.) faith, as in personal faith. That comes as a gift of God. It is given through God’s miraculous inward working in the individual.

      So, Rome does teach that faith is a gift of God just as the Apostle Paul taught. Remember that the Church holds Pelagianism to be heresy.

      Trent:

      Canon 1.If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law,[110] without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

      This is from Thomas’ commentary on Ephesians 2:8,9.
      —————————————

      Two things are requisite for faith. First, that the things which are of faith should be proposed to man: this is necessary in order that man believe anything explicitly. The second thing requisite for faith is the assent of the believer to the things which are proposed to him. Accordingly, as regards the first of these, faith must needs be from God. Because those things which are of faith surpass human reason, hence they do not come to man’s knowledge, unless God reveal them. To some, indeed, they are revealed by God immediately, as those things which were revealed to the apostles and prophets, while to some they are proposed by God in sending preachers of the faith, according to Rom. 10:15: “How shall they preach, unless they be sent?”
      As regards the second, viz. man’s assent to the things which are of faith, we may observe a twofold cause, one of external inducement, such as seeing a miracle, or being persuaded by someone to embrace the faith: neither of which is a sufficient cause, since of those who see the same miracle, or who hear the same sermon, some believe, and some do not. Hence we must assert another internal cause, which moves man inwardly to assent to matters of faith.
      The Pelagians held that this cause was nothing else than man’s free-will: and consequently they said that the beginning of faith is from ourselves, inasmuch as, to wit, it is in our power to be ready to assent to things which are of faith, but that the consummation of faith is from God, Who proposes to us the things we have to believe. But this is false, for, since man, by assenting to matters of faith, is raised above his nature, this must needs accrue to him from some supernatural principle moving him inwardly; and this is God. Therefore faith, as regards the assent which is the chief act of faith, is from God moving man inwardly by grace.

      LikeLike

1132. Mrs. W.

      So, Rome does teach that faith is a gift of God just as the Apostle Paul taught. Remember that the Church holds Pelagianism to be heresy.

      Rome teaches that faith is a gift given ex opere operato in baptism. So no, you all don’t really hold that faith is the gift of God. Its the gift of the church. When people come for baptism and are asked, “what do you ask of the church,” the answer is “faith.”

      I understand that the RCC holds Pelagianism to be heresy. What Rome denies is intrinsically effectual grace. That fully formed faith won’t be given to you unless you cooperate, and its possible to have true but dead faith (the mere assensus) before coming to the church. The Reformed teach intrinsically effectual grace that is the guarantor of living faith.

      So while I understand that Rome offers all sorts of qualifications about grace, God working through the sacraments, etc., in the end its not biblical. God neither justifies or grants faith ex opere operato through baptism.

      LikeLike

1133. Bob S, they couldn’t care less what you reply, they are laughing at you.

      Develop some self control, I know it’s the last of the fruit of the Spirit, but it is very vital.

      staring now, please?

      LikeLike

1134. Muddy,

      Considering it. I’m giving this place another 48 hours before consigning it to the dingoes, hounds, and jackals.

      LikeLike

1135. I occasionally encountered people like this in high school around the lunchroom, but never in class as they seemed to have their own special wing.

      LikeLike

1136. Thanks for ur rebukes on how people act Erik…befor u go… Still waiting for an apology

      LikeLike

1137. Muddy,

      And by “robust” I mean nothing more than the ability to amuse and entertain me while at the same time resisting the bait offered by Catholic apologists with the maturity level of 13 year old derelicts.

      This is not a high bar we’re talking about.

      LikeLike

1138. a.,

      Stay around. We definitely need you as a foil if I succeed in my mission.

      LikeLike

1139. Robert, your argument about faith being a gift of God is with St. Thomas Aquinas, not with me. Read carefully what he said. Remember, he is a doctor of the Church and a saint. His work forms a large part of Catholic teaching and thinking, especially since the time of the Council of Trent. He, along with Augustine and others, is liberally quoted even now in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

      A sacrament does the work it is intended to do. That is, baptism actually does wash away sin. It is not just symbolic. The adult being baptized receives the sacrament with a proper heart attitude.

      As Augustine taught, baptism washes away original sin.

      Calvinism has taken such an extreme view of our humanity that in a way, the image of God is practically obliterated. Human reason and human free will are rendered useless in Reformed theology. That is a liability, actually.

      In your theology God regenerates a person, and the regenerate is then enabled to say “yes” to God. There is no choice in the matter until and unless the Holy Spirit does His miraculous work in the heart of the believer. It is an extreme monergism, God being the only One who acts in any meaningful way, really. We can only respond with a “yes”, like a defeated foe who must submit or be damned.

      The Biblical picture is of the Bridegroom and His bride. He invites her into His chamber, and she lovingly accepts His offer. I would refer you to the book of Ruth, the Song of Solomon and Ephesians 5, as well as Abraham sending his servant to find a bride for his son, Isaac. Remember that Rebecca was invited to come, not compelled to come. She said “yes” from the heart.

      LikeLike

1140. Don ‘t know about any lofty mission Erik – it may not be lofty enough for you, but the mission I see now is…….apology.

      I

      LikeLike

1141. We need a deep stable of humanists…

      Amen to that.

      LikeLike

1142. a.,

      I’ll probably kick myself for asking, but what is it that I’m supposed to apologize for?

      LikeLike

1143. Mrs. W.,

      Robert, your argument about faith being a gift of God is with St. Thomas Aquinas, not with me. Read carefully what he said. Remember, he is a doctor of the Church and a saint. His work forms a large part of Catholic teaching and thinking, especially since the time of the Council of Trent. He, along with Augustine and others, is liberally quoted even now in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

      Aquinas, Augustine, and the CCC can all be—and often are—wrong. Just like me. Just like you. Just like everyone.

      A sacrament does the work it is intended to do.

      Sure it does. I agree. The entire Reformed tradition agrees.

      That is, baptism actually does wash away sin.

      There’s certainly a theological connection between baptism and the washing away of sin. There’s not an ex opere operato connection.

      It is not just symbolic.

      Agreed. I’m Presbyterian, not Baptist.

      The adult being baptized receives the sacrament with a proper heart attitude.

      Which generally means “as long as the adult doesn’t put up any conscious impediment and gives implicit faith.” Which means there’s no real onus on the adult convert to actually understand anything about the faith except that Rome is the church Christ founded. Get washed. Avoid the big sins, and you’re golden.

      As for the proper heart attitude for the infant, it doesn’t matter. Ex opere operato. Even a pagan can baptize and it be valid as long as he says the right words. Still trying to figure out how that’s NOT magic.

      As Augustine taught, baptism washes away original sin.

      To the extent that Augustine sees this as ex opere operato, he’s simply wrong. And the whole notion of baptism of desire or regeneration ever happening apart from water, which is a Roman position, undermines ex opere operato theology.

      Calvinism has taken such an extreme view of our humanity that in a way, the image of God is practically obliterated. Human reason and human free will are rendered useless in Reformed theology. That is a liability, actually.

      We’re not the ones who say the likeness is lost entirely, and we also don’t believe against reason in miracles that cannot be verified (Transubstantiation) even though all the biblical miracles could be seen and touched.

      In your theology God regenerates a person, and the regenerate is then enabled to say “yes” to God.

      More or less, yes.

      There is no choice in the matter until and unless the Holy Spirit does His miraculous work in the heart of the believer.

      Wrong. We have a choice, we are just guaranteed to say no. It’s because of Adam. It’s because we’re dead in sin, not mostly wounded.

      It is an extreme monergism, God being the only One who acts in any meaningful way, really.

      I’m sorry you think that. But it’s statements like these that show a poor understanding of Reformed theology.

      We can only respond with a “yes”, like a defeated foe who must submit or be damned.

      Well, don’t blame us for what Scripture says. Go back and read all of the occasions on which God fought against Israel. And the fact that we even have original sin to deal with, coupled with the certain of damnation for the impenitent, shows that in many ways we are defeated foes who must submit. God’s “defeat” of the elect, though, is a gracious one. Basically, unless you are a universalist, there has to be a notion on some level of our defeat by God.

      But you have to first believe that without Christ, we are without hope in the world. Rome doesn’t really believe that anymore.

      The Biblical picture is of the Bridegroom and His bride. He invites her into His chamber, and she lovingly accepts His offer. I would refer you to the book of Ruth, the Song of Solomon and Ephesians 5, as well as Abraham sending his servant to find a bride for his son, Isaac. Remember that Rebecca was invited to come, not compelled to come. She said “yes” from the heart.

      How are Ruth, Solomon, Eph. 5, and the illustration of Abraham sending Isaac relevant to regeneration?

      Anyone who truly believes in Christ says “yes” from the heart. So again, you aren’t evidencing an accurate understanding of Reformed thought. What I do see is standard RC theology—God gives us a little grace, but we have the final say in our salvation. Yay us!

      LikeLike

1144. “We need a deep stable of humanists…”

      We have a stable knee-deep in…never mind.

      LikeLike

1145. EC, I think a is referring to this: https://youtu.be/5CNg8WSlUjg

      LikeLike

1146. Sean, I admit I have not done much delving into Rahner. I have mainly heard him quoted on topics other than VII and ecclesiology so I would need to read some of those topics addressed by him before I could say anything about his positions. Shoot me some links that may be helpful if you have some and maybe I can get into it with a minuscule amount of competence. Hey did you ever read Benedict’s intro to Jesus of Nazareth part one where he talks about applying the historical critical method in a valid way?

      LikeLike

1147. Robert – With regard to this from Mrs. W:

      The Biblical picture is of the Bridegroom and His bride. He invites her into His chamber, and she lovingly accepts His offer. I would refer you to the book of Ruth, the Song of Solomon and Ephesians 5, as well as Abraham sending his servant to find a bride for his son, Isaac. Remember that Rebecca was invited to come, not compelled to come. She said “yes” from the heart.

      I think that’s a pretty fair application of Rome’s view of regeneration, i.e., God is sweetly luring the sinner to Himself with his goodness and mercy and through that the sinner will eventually be convinced (seduced?) of the error of his ways and accept the superior goodness of God. In that view, the sinner wants to be the center of the action and wants the final say. Unfortunately, it’s not what Scripture says. Sinner’s want only sin without the gracious action of God acting through the Holy Spirit. They can’t be convinced. That view also gives short shrift to the need for Christ – for His active & passive obedience and for his propiatory sacrifice on the cross.

      And let’s not forget that Thomas (“sainted” and “angelic” though he may be) was Aristotelian in many of his views. It’s why he is a better natural law philosopher than a theologian – he put too much stock in the persuasive power of the good. I realize that’s a really broad brush statement, but I hope you get my point.

      For anyone interested the go-to book on the subject is Thomism & Aristotelianism: A Study of the Commentary of Thomas Aquinas on the Nicomachean Ethics by Harry Jaffa.

      LikeLike

1148. Publius,

      I agree, particularly on Thomas’ view of the persuasive power of the good. Very optimistic view of human nature. Very naive view of human nature.

      And yeah, I think that those examples are a fair picture of Rome’s view of regeneration. My point to Mrs. W. was more as to why she is looking to those texts that don’t really have any bearing on regeneration. The real answer: lame Roman Catholic exegesis.

      LikeLike

1149. Publics,
      In that view, the sinner wants to be the center of the action and wants the final say.

      The Catholic view excludes this.
      Trent session 6: Canon 1. “If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.”
      One can not come to and respond to God’s wooing without God’s gracefully moving that soul to be able to move and respond.

      LikeLike

1150. Michael, I don’t know that google has much on links to Rahner. Mainly publications you have to subscribe and pay. Google books may have something available to read. Maybe First Things has something. I haven’t read the Ratzinger work you referenced, I’d heard he’d tried to pull it back from the Jesus seminar methodology and conclusions.

      LikeLike

1151. Sean, it is in the introduction to the first Jesus of Nazareth books. It can probably all be read on amazon or barns and noble preview. Worth reading for sure. Have a look at it. I am reading this right now.
      http://www.academia.edu/470398/_I_did_not_change_they_did_Joseph_Ratzinger_Karl_Rahner_and_the_Second_Vatican_Council
      It goes into Rahner and Benedict in some detail from what I’ve read so far. Maybe we can look at it together and share our thoughts?
      Here is the abstract:
      ABSTRACT With their participation in the Second Vatican Council, two German theologians have been instrumental in shaping modern Catholicism like few others, namely Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger. Both were collaborators on a wide array of issues in theology and ecclesiology, but their ways were to part after the Council, and according to many observers, one of them, Ratzinger, was to undergo a significant and absolute change of heart. This change of direction does not cease to puzzle Catholics today, which makes it worthwhile to take a closer look at it. If indeed, Ratzinger not so much abandoned as developed further his already existing views, it would be of considerable importance for how we can think of the reception of the Council and its final documents. If, however, Ratzinger did change completely, the question could be what caused this change and how does the conversion affect the Church. By comparing the development of both theologians before, during, and after the Council, the present study wants to hypothesize that Ratzinger did not change as much as became more rigid in his already existing neo-Augustinian ideas, while Rahner probably underwent a far greater change following the Council.

      LikeLike

1152. Publius,
      Also you may want to reread the councils of Carthage and Orange both are affirmed Catholic belief against Pelagianism and semiPelagianism.

      LikeLike

1153. Publius,
      These in particular from Orange II may be helpful:
      
      CANON 7 If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, “For apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, “Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5).

      CANON 14 No mean wretch is freed from his sorrowful state, however great it may be, save the one who is anticipated by the mercy of God, as the Psalmist says, “Let thy compassion come speedily to meet us” (Ps. 79:8), and again, “My God in his steadfast love will meet me” (Ps. 59:10).

      CANON 20 That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.

      CANON 22 Concerning those things that belong to man. No man has anything of his own but untruth and sin. But if a man has any truth or righteousness, it from that fountain for which we must thirst in this desert, so that we may be refreshed from it as by drops of water and not faint on the way.

      LikeLike

1154. Robert:
      Aquinas, Augustine, and the CCC can all be—and often are—wrong. Just like me. Just like you. Just like everyone.>>>>

      Yes. of course,Brother Robert. Even Aquinas, before he died, said that what he saw as he was entering the portal into the presence of our Lord said that all he had written was worthless. From this side, we are looking through a darkened glass, but we catch glimpses of the beatific vision – the very presence of God. That’s the best we can do, so, yes our knowledge is incomplete even among the best and brightest of us.

      Did you read the quote from Aquinas on Ephesians 2:8,9? See what you think.
      ———————————————–

      Mrs. Webfoot – Me :-):
      The Biblical picture is of the Bridegroom and His bride. He invites her into His chamber, and she lovingly accepts His offer. I would refer you to the book of Ruth, the Song of Solomon and Ephesians 5, as well as Abraham sending his servant to find a bride for his son, Isaac. Remember that Rebecca was invited to come, not compelled to come. She said “yes” from the heart.

      Publius:
      I think that’s a pretty fair application of Rome’s view of regeneration,>>>>

      It is the Biblical view of the response of the heart to the invitation of the Bridegroom to unite with Him. Rome didn’t make this up. This is God’s Word and the pattern that He used throughout Scripture to show what personal faith in Him looks like – it looks like the Lover of our souls with His beloved.

      Publius:
      I realize that’s a really broad brush statement, but I hope you get my point.>>>>

      Yes, I do get your point, and it is a broad brush statement. More than that, it is a dodge. It has been said by Robert that he would agree with Cletus Van Damme if, among other things, “2. Rome would teach that you faith is not the gift of the church.” Now, I don’t mean to offend Robert. I was hoping that he could see that there is little difference between Catholic and Reformed on this particular point.

      I am using the Aquinas quote to show that the Church teaches that faith involves a body of knowledge, mental ascent to that body of knowledge, and then that miraculous inner working of God in the individual as a gift of His grace.

      IOW, the Church teaches almost exactly what Reformed teachers say. Check out James Boice, Charles Spurgeon, and any number of Reformed teachers and they say pretty much the same thing. It goes something like this. 1.) knowledge 2.) mental ascent 3.) commitment or belief from the heart or other phrases to say that same thing as Thomas said hundreds of years before any of us.

      The Church, as Augustine did, puts regeneration and baptism as simultaneous. IOW, the sacrament actually does something real. It is more than symbolic, and a bit more than what Reformed teachers believe about the sacrament of baptism.

      The important point is that faith is a gift of God, and the Church has always agreed with the Apostle Paul on that.

      Then, I know that Calvinists do not like the actual Biblical language involved in making a commitment to God. It is like marriage, as you should know if you know your Bible. 🙂 That is a little challenge to you to get your sola scriptura on.

      LikeLike

1155. Mrs. W.

      The important point is that faith is a gift of God, and the Church has always agreed with the Apostle Paul on that.

      No, the RCC hasn’t always agreed with the Apostle Paul on that. It certainly doesn’t agree that we are dead in sin. It certainly doesn’t agree that no one seeks for God. And it certainly doesn’t agree that faith is the gift of God alone. It is the ex opere operato gift of the church at baptism. Yeah, they’ll be some kind of lip service that it’s God working through the sacrament, but God has no freedom to give faith to whom He will in Romanism. Get baptized and don’t put up much resistance and you’re pretty much golden. All you need is implicit faith.

      If Rome believed faith was the gift of God, it wouldn’t have condemned Luther or Calvin, because that’s what both of them believed.

      LikeLike

1156. Michael, I’m busy failing at work. But as soon as I’m done acing that, I’ll get busy being about Rahner and Ratzinger. Because, why not? Looks like an interesting read.

      LikeLike

1157. Sean,

      Do I need to fly you up here to sit at my knee for a week?

      I can witness a communal Old Life meltdown & build an empire simultaneously.

      It’s just called Tuesday.

      LikeLike

1158. Robert,
      The Church affirmed what you are basically denying it affirms at Trent. There was more than just that that many of the Reformers were denying or affirming that got them entangled in the anathemas of Trent. Total demolishing of human will would be one of them. That does not mean Trent teaches that man can come to the life of grace by his own natural will though. This it denied.

      LikeLike

1159. Sounds good, Sean. Will be watching here. Bump my email if I don’t respond fairly quick.

      LikeLike

1160. Erik, you lack the necessary effective blame worthiness and cathartic release. I need to find someone who is actually fiscally responsible to my boss, to scapegoat. Though you do feel the bill of blame as far as being the guy not currently in the room.

      LikeLike

1161. Jeff,

      “First, we establish the meaning of the text per grammar and literary conventions. Then we use historical and literary context to shape our understanding.”

      I do not dispute there are 3 commands in the text. Do not make images. Do not bow to them. Do not worship them. Does that settle the case? No, since you yourself assert making images is not a violation.

      “Even were I woodenly interpreting, you could not logically infer these things from a woodenly literal reading. “Just no bowing and you’re good” ignores the fact that there are two imperative verbs there.”

      Which is why I wrote “If you want to say “but the command calls out worship or bowing” then it would follow one could bow without worshipping, but bowing would still be condemned. By that logic, burning incense, writing hymns to images, sacrificing children to images, etc would be allowed since one could do those without worshipping.”

      Let’s reset – you are stating there are two commands (aside from the forbidding of images): 1) Do not bow to images and 2) Do not worship images.
      You are stating that these 2 commands are not linked together. That is, even if one bows before images without worshiping them, it is still a violation, just as one can worship without bowing and still violate it.

      Correct above if wrong. If it is accurate, here are my issues with the reading and position you’ve advanced so far.
      1. You assert bowing to men – without worshiping them – is fine. Now if that’s the case, it does not seem farfetched to me that a similar sentiment could inform our understanding of bowing to objects that are not people. Otherwise we could read the command (which is meant to curb idolatry) as allowing idolatry of men or animals or mountains and rivers, since it only speaks to images.

      2. You assert bowing to images – without worshiping them – is a violation because it is called out explicitly. But burning incense to images is not called out by the commandment. So by this logic, burning incense (or any number of acts aside from bowing) is not a violation of the commandment if it is not done out of worship. That would seem rather odd for God to just call out this one specific action, but then allow any other act. Or, perhaps the bowing is tied to worshiping, just as the burning of incense was tied to worshiping resulting in the destruction of the serpent – that is, perhaps there’s an underlying principle that informs our understanding of the command rather than God just apparently focusing on a single binary act (this is what I mean by letter vs spirit).

      3. I still don’t see how your position makes sense of the serpent. People looked to it – presumably with some degree of honor and regard. This was either not considered a violation by God, or was a violation but just overlooked as an exception for some reason. The serpent was then destroyed because incense was offered to it; the people fell into idolatry, thus its destruction. It is not said they were committing a “lesser” form of idolatry before the incense and then became “more” idolatrous which led to its destruction, nor is it said God was rescinding a longstanding exception he had temporarily allowed for whatever reason which led to its destruction. Rather, they fell into idolatry and the idolatry in their heart was linked to and led to their outward actions – that is the burning of incense and offerings.

      LikeLike

1162. ec, if you like reading carl, you like reading about sex?

      LikeLike

1163. sean and michael,

      Reno on Rahner. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/05/rahner-the-restorationist

      LikeLike

1164. Thanks, Hart. So far it doesn’t look like Rahner would be my go to theologian. Clearly I am more a Ratzinger child.

      LikeLike

1165. Hart, really appreciated the article. Thanks again.

      LikeLike

1166. D. G. Hart
      Posted June 23, 2015 at 7:56 pm | Permalink
      sean and michael,

      Reno on Rahner. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/05/rahner-the-restorationist

      MichaelTX
      Posted June 23, 2015 at 9:56 pm | Permalink
      Thanks, Hart. So far it doesn’t look like Rahner would be my go to theologian. Clearly I am more a Ratzinger child.

      MichaelTX
      Posted June 23, 2015 at 11:01 pm | Permalink
      Hart, really appreciated the article. Thanks again.

      Thx also, Darryl. Whenever you want to punk Catholicism, if RR Reno is your bludgeon or victim or whathaveyou, you have stepped into the ring with the real thing, not a counterfeit. this is worthy.

      LikeLike

1167. kent
      Posted June 23, 2015 at 9:31 am | Permalink

      Bob S, they couldn’t care less what you reply, they are laughing at you.

      Develop some self control, I know it’s the last of the fruit of the Spirit, but it is very vital.

      staring now, please?

      OK kent. Just saw this.
      Ever heard about the last laugh?
      Two, imo contra yours they make a good foil.
      That’s the only reason I pipe up.
      cheers
      besides MsW is way too nice to laff behind anybody’s back.
      Tvd diff. story.

      LikeLike

1168. Mrs WF: invited to come, not compelled to come.

      invited AND compelled AND and from the heart
      I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. Ez 36:26-27
      I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. John 1014 -15

      Mrs WF :the sacrament actually does something real

      Man can baptize with water but Jesus saves
      John (the baptist) answered and said to them all, “As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. Luke 3:16

      aww CT, that u-tube…bad…didn’t Erik convict you when talking about everyone here acting like 13 yo’s (not meaning including himself though)

      Eric – oh,ok, forget it then, wouldn’t want you to kick yourself in the a. ….

      LikeLike

1169. Bob S
      Posted June 24, 2015 at 12:11 am | Permalink
      kent
      Posted June 23, 2015 at 9:31 am | Permalink

      Bob S, they couldn’t care less what you reply, they are laughing at you.

      Develop some self control, I know it’s the last of the fruit of the Spirit, but it is very vital.

      staring now, please?

      OK kent. Just saw this.
      Ever heard about the last laugh?
      Two, imo contra yours they make a good foil.
      That’s the only reason I pipe up.
      cheers
      besides MsW is way too nice to laff behind anybody’s back.
      Tvd diff. story.

      Bob, I don’t laugh atall. I parry Darryl’s thrusts, is all, a bit of judo only turns around the attacker’s own force. I take all this quite seriously, never a game, here to learn, not to “win.” To test, and hold onto what is good: We are to seek out truth, not error. Error is as common as dirt; truth as rare as pearls.

      LikeLike

1170. TV, your problem is the same as that of the Jews. You don’t think the spiritual is as real, if not more real than the loaves and fishes.

      Two, contra the special pleading of MTx and MsW, Trent also teaches:

      CANON IX.—If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified, in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will: let him be anathema.

      This is semi pelagian (the Council of Orange’s previous condemnation of pelagianism notwithstanding). The will, dead in its trespasses and sins according to Scripture, must cooperate or salvation is a no go.

      CANON XI.—If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favor of God: let him be anathema.

      Infusion of righteousness versus imputation.
      But the sauce goes both ways. The sins of men must also be infused into Christ, because imputation won’t do, before he can “really” atone for them.

      LikeLike

1171. TV, we can’t judge your heart, but speaking of blowing hot and cold, one, you are on record as thinking Suze is the second coming of Bellarmine.
      As they say. Res ipsit dixit.

      LikeLike

1172. Darryl, thanks for the article. Michael, it brings us back to my tension. Nguyen’s reading is anachronistic. Rahner and his transcendental theology underlies much of the constitutions. It’s the why of the applications for the past 50 years, it’s the why of Francis. It’s also true to the spirit and letter of the constitutions. I’ll grant, as before, that Rahner assumes thomistic moorings but Ratzinger is the one who changed in response to what was loosed. I don’t necessarily agree with all of Reno’s conclusions but he doesn’t try to harmonize what was not intended. Vat II did what it intended to do. One may not like what it accomplished but let’s not be dishonest and say the letter was true but the devil twisted it- Pope Paul.

      “But it’s not 1965 anymore. Then, the Catholic Church was led by men born in the nineteenth century, most of whom had difficulty even imagining Christianity on the margins of Western culture. They wanted an updated integralism, and that’s what Rahner’s theology promised. He was alluring because his transcendental method and its muddy middle voice seemed to make hard choices unnecessary.”

      LikeLike

1173. Bob S
      Posted June 24, 2015 at 12:38 am | Permalink
      TV, your problem is the same as that of the Jews. You don’t think the spiritual is as real, if not more real than the loaves and fishes.

      Brother you do not know me. In fact, You seem to have not even read the other thread.

      Because My flesh is real food and My blood is real drink.

      Keeping it very real.

      LikeLike

1174. Bob,

      “This is semi pelagian (the Council of Orange’s previous condemnation of pelagianism notwithstanding). The will, dead in its trespasses and sins according to Scripture, must cooperate or salvation is a no go.”

      Um, no. First, the will cannot cooperate at all unless it is first enabled and prepared by grace as was already pointed out above. Secondly, Orange dealt with both P and SP – people on your own side freely agree to as much. Orange affirmed cooperation. But a council condemning a heresy was itself affirming that same heresy? We’re not in Kansas anymore.

      LikeLike

1175. Ditto Clete to Bob.

      Read Orange and Carthage they are thoroughly Catholic. Think it is hard for most Protestants to grasp that Catholics believe so closely to the essence of Reformed Justification just not the letter of how they put it together. None of us are ever able to save ourselves but God by his mysterious ways doesn’t demolish ourselves as we move out of darkness into the light. We actual find who we were created to be, His and free.

      LikeLike

1176. Sean,
      I read the rest of the peice I post the abstract to yesterday before reading the Reno piece. It is worth reading. You should read it before completely settling your mind. Anyway, I can’t say for certain because I am not fimliar enough with Rahner’s works, but I see nothing wrong with having a transcendental bent in his works as long as in is bound to the dogmatic faith. This is what the dogmas allow to happen. One is able to explore reality to its depths within the dogmatic framework. I also see no problem with the contemplative and transcendental language in VII at times. It is when application of a transcendental or contemplative idea is removed from the dogmatic structure which VII also required. VII requires a binding to tradition like what Nguyen, Benedict XVI, Balthasar, Hahn and myself and others would avocate for. Seems like “Liberal” Rahnerians took the transcendental wind out of the “open window” and flew away. That is where the problem in the last age since VII has been, not the existence of the transcendental language itself. It is the cutting if the reigns of dogma from the language that caused the problem. Hope you will read the Putz article. I think you wi find it interesting. It only takes about 30 or 40 minutes to read.
      Peace,
      Michael

      LikeLike

1177. vd, t, is it good to go to church?

      LikeLike

1178. Sean, “make hard choices unnecessary.”

      As if anyone could have thought that the 1960s weren’t raising all sorts of hard questions that disallowed having your cake and eating it too. Does charism include discernment?

      LikeLike

1179. MichaelTX, you believe in faith alone justifies?

      I don’t think so.

      Be careful also invoking vd, c defends synergism.

      LikeLike

1180. Hart,
      Depending on your meaning of “faith alone” I can say yes. If you mean by “faith alone” intellectual assent alone, no. If you mean life giving abondoning trust to the One who enables us to do so by His loving grace to me the unworthy sinner, then yes.

      LikeLike

1181. D. G. Hart
      Posted June 24, 2015 at 1:22 pm | Permalink
      vd, t, is it good to go to church?

      Is it good to be gracious to people or is it OK to be Crabby for Christ? Same answer I suppose. You’re Elect. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t matter either way. You’re in.

      Same is true if you’re mal-Elect. You’re screwed either way.

      By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestined unto eternal life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.

      http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=229

      LikeLike

1182. Cletus,
      I think you should do your own clarifying, if you wish, to Hart regarding the post he has pointed to. I am a synergistic only if one says that it is God gracefully empowering the synergism to occur. God does not demolish the sinners will but transfigures it by His own mysterious work and will.

      LikeLike

1183. vd, t, but that’s the sort of fatalism that allows Calvinists to resist tyrants. You know, preserve the good?

      LikeLike

1184. D. G. Hart
      Posted June 24, 2015 at 3:11 pm | Permalink
      vd, t, but that’s the sort of fatalism that allows Calvinists to resist tyrants. You know, preserve the good?

      It’s that sort of smugness over their own election that allows some Calvinists to mentally edit out those parts of the Bible that don’t fit their theology.

      Galatians 5:61599 Geneva Bible (GNV)

      6 [a]For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, neither [b]uncircumcision, [c]but [d]faith which worketh by love.

      LikeLike

1185. Michael,

      I agree with your statement. Darryl cannot conceive of a synergism that does not entail Pelagianism or detract glory from God. This is why he also rejects synergism in his view of sanctification – a position other Reformed past and present disagree with him on and who assert monergism only properly applies in the context of regeneration/justification. And yet their affirmation of synergism somehow does not entail they reject the gospel or exalt man – go figure.

      Btw when he asks “you believe in faith alone justifies?” he has already been answered before with Benedict’s statement:
      “The wall is no longer necessary; our common identity within the diversity of cultures is Christ, and it is he who makes us just. Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love.
      Paul knows that in the twofold love of God and neighbour the whole of the Law is present and carried out. Thus in communion with Christ, in a faith that creates charity, the entire Law is fulfilled. We become just by entering into communion with Christ who is Love.”

      But this has no effect, hence his repeated question.

      LikeLike

1186. Michael,

      Depending on your meaning of “faith alone” I can say yes. If you mean by “faith alone” intellectual assent alone, no. If you mean life giving abondoning trust to the One who enables us to do so by His loving grace to me the unworthy sinner, then yes.

      If you believe in faith alone, then you would deny that your good works play any role in your justification and you would confess that there is no such thing as growth in justification. But Trent won’t allow RCs to say either.

      LikeLike

1187. I could have answered the same question three years ago when I was hanging around chatting here. I have to be sure to say certainly though. If I had I can see why Hart would have forgotten by now.

      LikeLike

1188. Michael, I read Putz’s article. I agree there were liberties taken, but you can’t sell me on no rupture. You can’t sell Trent and Vat II held in continuity with no change. That wasn’t the intention and that’s not what happened. I don’t believe Ratzinger was the same guy with the same commitments(only development in continuity) in ’65, ’85 and 2005. I don’t think that makes him a bad guy, at all. It does make trad hermenuetics, like Nguyens, hard to reconcile to the documents. It’s well intentioned but it’s revisionist.

      LikeLike

1189. TVD:Is it good to be gracious to people or is it OK to be Crabby for Christ? Same answer I suppose.

      not what Jesus says TVD
      For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. 2 Cor 5:10
      ie. bema seat judgment

      LikeLike

1190. a.
      Posted June 24, 2015 at 6:34 pm | Permalink
      TVD:Is it good to be gracious to people or is it OK to be Crabby for Christ? Same answer I suppose.

      not what Jesus says TVD
      For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. 2 Cor 5:10
      ie. bema seat judgment

      But you’re still Elect. Or mal-Elect.

      By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestined unto eternal life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.

      LikeLike

1191. was there something you wanted to council the Lord about ?

      LikeLike

1192. vd, c, I also repeatedly ask you to identify yourself and not be dishonest. No effect.

      Here’s what Calvin says about this much repeated phrase, “faith working through love,” by those whose pay grade does not allow for biblical interpretation:

      The contrast here introduced, between ceremonies and the exercise of love, was intended to prevent the Jews from thinking too highly of themselves, and imagining that they were entitled to some superiority; for towards the close of the Epistle, instead of this clause, he uses the words, a new creature. (Galatians 6:15.) As if he had said, Ceremonies are no longer enjoined by Divine authority; and, if we abound in the exercise of love, all is well. Meanwhile, this does not set aside our sacraments, which are aids to faith but is merely a short announcement of what he had formerly taught as to the spiritual worship of God.

      There would be no difficulty in this passage, were it not for the dishonest manner in which it has been tortured by the Papists to uphold the righteousness of works. When they attempt to refute our doctrine, that we are justified by faith alone, they take this line of argument. If the faith which justifies us be that “which worketh by love,” then faith alone does not justify. I answer, they do not comprehend their own silly talk; still less do they comprehend our statements. It is not our doctrine that the faith which justifies is alone; we maintain that it is invariably accompanied by good works; only we contend that faith alone is sufficient for justification. The Papists themselves are accustomed to tear faith after a murderous fashion, sometimes presenting it out of all shape and unaccompanied by love, and at other times, in its true character. We, again, refuse to admit that, in any case, faith can be separated from the Spirit of regeneration; but when the question comes to be in what manner we are justified, we then set aside all works.

      With respect to the present passage, Paul enters into no dispute whether love cooperates with faith in justification; but, in order to avoid the appearance of representing Christians as idle and as resembling blocks of wood, he points out what are the true exercises of believers. When you are engaged in discussing the question of justification, beware of allowing any mention to be made of love or of works, but resolutely adhere to the exclusive particle. Paul does not here treat of justification, or assign any part of the praise of it to love. Had he done so, the same argument would prove that circumcision and ceremonies, at a former period, had some share in justifying a sinner. As in Christ Jesus he commends faith accompanied by love, so before the coming of Christ ceremonies were required. But this has nothing to do with obtaining righteousness, as the Papists themselves allow; and neither must it be supposed that love possesses any such influence.

      Seems about as pertinent then as it is now even with all the changes of Vatican 2.

      LikeLike

1193. Robert,
      If you believe in faith alone, then you would deny that your good works play any role in your justification and you would confess that there is no such thing as growth in justification. But Trent won’t allow RCs to say either.

      I do completely believe in the faith which I described to Hart. Our terms begin to get jumbled though when we just start throwing them out there at each other. Can I say that my justification does not grow per RC language? No. What I can say is that I become no more an accepted child of God because of what Christ has done for me because of the works that God works through me, which do make for a greater reward in heaven. I am no more “justified”[Reformed language] than the thief on the cross that could do nothing more than abondon himself in faith to Christ. God can make that man a child through faith without baptism and He can do the same today. It is we who are bound be the Sacraments not Christ. Hope that helps. Maybe reading this could help:
      http://jimmyakin.com/righteousness-and-merit

      LikeLike

1194. Sean,
      Let me ponder a bit and get back. I and other respected Catholic do what you are claiming is impossible just fine. I pray a bit and do some more searching to see if we can move forward. While I do why don’t you show me some of the things in the VII docs(especially the constitutions) that you feel are irreconcilable.

      LikeLike

1195. D. G. Hart
      Posted June 24, 2015 at 7:26 pm | Permalink
      vd, c, I also repeatedly ask you to identify yourself and not be dishonest. No effect.

      Here’s what Calvin says about this much repeated phrase, “faith working through love,” by those whose pay grade does not allow for biblical interpretation:

      The contrast here introduced, between ceremonies and the exercise of love, was intended to prevent the Jews from thinking too highly of themselves, and imagining that they were entitled to some superiority; for towards the close of the Epistle, instead of this clause, he uses the words, a new creature. (Galatians 6:15.) As if he had said, Ceremonies are no longer enjoined by Divine authority; and, if we abound in the exercise of love, all is well. Meanwhile, this does not set aside our sacraments, which are aids to faith but is merely a short announcement of what he had formerly taught as to the spiritual worship of God.

      There would be no difficulty in this passage, were it not for the dishonest manner in which it has been tortured by the Papists to uphold the righteousness of works. When they attempt to refute our doctrine, that we are justified by faith alone, they take this line of argument. If the faith which justifies us be that “which worketh by love,” then faith alone does not justify. I answer, they do not comprehend their own silly talk; still less do they comprehend our statements. It is not our doctrine that the faith which justifies is alone; we maintain that it is invariably accompanied by good works; only we contend that faith alone is sufficient for justification. The Papists themselves are accustomed to tear faith after a murderous fashion, sometimes presenting it out of all shape and unaccompanied by love, and at other times, in its true character. We, again, refuse to admit that, in any case, faith can be separated from the Spirit of regeneration; but when the question comes to be in what manner we are justified, we then set aside all works.

      With respect to the present passage, Paul enters into no dispute whether love cooperates with faith in justification; but, in order to avoid the appearance of representing Christians as idle and as resembling blocks of wood, he points out what are the true exercises of believers. When you are engaged in discussing the question of justification, beware of allowing any mention to be made of love or of works, but resolutely adhere to the exclusive particle. Paul does not here treat of justification, or assign any part of the praise of it to love. Had he done so, the same argument would prove that circumcision and ceremonies, at a former period, had some share in justifying a sinner. As in Christ Jesus he commends faith accompanied by love, so before the coming of Christ ceremonies were required. But this has nothing to do with obtaining righteousness, as the Papists themselves allow; and neither must it be supposed that love possesses any such influence.

      Seems about as pertinent then as it is now even with all the changes of Vatican 2.

      So what’s your problem then?

      LikeLike

1196. vd, t, if you can agree that Roman Catholics are tortured and dishonest in their interpretation of Gal 5:6, then nothing.

      LikeLike

1197. D. G. Hart
      Posted June 24, 2015 at 8:54 pm | Permalink
      vd, t, if you can agree that Roman Catholics are tortured and dishonest in their interpretation of Gal 5:6, then nothing.

      If you have a point, why don’t you say it?

      LikeLike

1198. D. G. Hart
      Posted June 24, 2015 at 8:54 pm | Permalink
      vd, t, if you can agree that Roman Catholics are tortured and dishonest in their interpretation of Gal 5:6, then nothing.>>>>

      Galatians 5:6
      For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

      What would those words mean if Calvin or his hatred for the papists had never existed. What did they mean when Paul wrote them?

      The Holy Spirit did not inspire them as a weapon to be used against Calvin’s bugbears “the papists.”

      He said nothing about love; nothing about faith; nothing about uncircumcision. So, he really said nothing.

      LikeLike

1199. A phone is NOT the right tool here. So if my previous fragmentary post lands here, please disregard.

      @ Cletus: Your post of 6/23 is clarifying and helpful. I am mostly out of pocket until Tues, so I may not have a chance to reply until then. You aren’t being ignored.

      @ Webfoot: Your question about art comes to this: How do I know when I’m slipping into idolatry? Answer: I can’t, infallibly. One man may listen to Christian music (or *gasp* secular) and derive spiritual benefit by meditating on the Word by faith. Another man might also listen but idolize the performance, the experience, or even the system of doctrine. Compare here to Rom 14.5-8, 1 Cor 8.

      Here’s where the regulative principle comes in. Suppose for argument that you are completely correct, and that venerating icons CAN be acceptable IF the heart is free of idolatry and superstition. A tall order, as Zrim pointed out. But let’s suppose.

      Even so: should the church be commanding it, encouraging it, inserting it into the Mass?

      Even if you do have freedom to venerate, which I still contest, it seems a clear abuse of that freedom to require it of all, even those who are prone to superstition.

      LikeLike

1200. Just a comment, Jeff. The only thing required in the Mass is the sign of reverence by bowing ones head or kneeling before the reception of the Body or Blood of Christ. All other piety is at the layman’s
      discretion.

      LikeLike

1201. Jeff:
      @ Webfoot: Your question about art comes to this: How do I know when I’m slipping into idolatry? Answer: I can’t, infallibly. One man may listen to Christian music (or *gasp* secular) and derive spiritual benefit by meditating on the Word by faith. Another man might also listen but idolize the performance, the experience, or even the system of doctrine. Compare here to Rom 14.5-8, 1 Cor 8.>>>>

      Jeff, I think that’s a fantastic answer. Thank you.

      Michael answered you about the bowing during Mass.

      No one is obligated to bow to statues. I know this is a weird thing for Protestants, but we really are warned a lot about idolatry. This discussion has been excellent, and I thank you for your genuine concern for others.

      LikeLike

1202. That does not mean Trent teaches that man can come to the life of grace by his own natural will though. This it denied.

      Think it is hard for most Protestants to grasp that Catholics believe so closely to the essence of Reformed Justification just not the letter of how they put it together.

      If you knew what the reformed faith taught it would be one thing, but this is pathetic MTX.

      I’ll see you the Council of Orange and raise you Luther’s Bondage of the Will.

      Rome taught free will at the Reformation and Rome teaches free will today.
      And that’s not even any where close to the essence of the reformed view of justification.

      Next.

      LikeLike

1203. Mrs. Webfoot
      Posted June 24, 2015 at 10:32 pm | Permalink
      D. G. Hart
      Posted June 24, 2015 at 8:54 pm | Permalink
      vd, t, if you can agree that Roman Catholics are tortured and dishonest in their interpretation of Gal 5:6, then nothing.>>>>

      Galatians 5:6
      For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

      What would those words mean if Calvin or his hatred for the papists had never existed. What did they mean when Paul wrote them?

      The Holy Spirit did not inspire them as a weapon to be used against Calvin’s bugbears “the papists.”

      He said nothing about love; nothing about faith; nothing about uncircumcision. So, he really said nothing.

      Yes, and he says a lot of it.

      Calvin’s anti-Catholic rant is rather bizarre. I’ve never understood this religion-by-polemic. By contrast, the quote from Benedict is quite affirmative, and Darryl, you evaded it with an ungrounded rant [“Roman Catholics are tortured and dishonest in their interpretation of Gal 5:6”] of your own.

      “The wall is no longer necessary; our common identity within the diversity of cultures is Christ, and it is he who makes us just. Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love.

      Paul knows that in the twofold love of God and neighbour the whole of the Law is present and carried out. Thus in communion with Christ, in a faith that creates charity, the entire Law is fulfilled. We become just by entering into communion with Christ who is Love.”

      LikeLike

1204. “He said nothing about love; nothing about faith; nothing about uncircumcision. So, he really said nothing.”
      @MWF What Calvin (and later reformers, and our confessions) is saying is that while faith alone justifies, that faith is never alone – it “is invariably accompanied by good works”. In other words, we are not justified because we have faith and love. We are justified by the gift of faith which “invariably” produces love. We don’t cooperate in our justification (no one can come to me unless the Father draws him) – our response to God’s effectual call is irresistible (“all that the father gives to me will come to me”, “I shall lose nothing of all that he has give me”) and that produces good works including love (Christ, by his Holy Spirit assures us of Eternal life and makes us heartily willing and ready to live for him). Our ongoing sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit in our life.

      We can lie (especially to ourselves), so how do we know we have true faith? Because of the fruit that purported faith produces – faith alone justifies, but faith is never alone. If we don’t have love, we are nothing and certainly not justified.

      Of course, no one (protestant or catholic) thinks that faith working through love is “all that matters”. For example, the object of our faith matters. And no one here thinks that love doesn’t matter. The question is whether it is a characteristic that causes (or contributes to) justification or whether it is a characteristic that represents that justification has happened. If I am reading you correctly (which may not be the case), you believe that love is causal. I disagree.

      LikeLike

1205. Michael,

      I do completely believe in the faith which I described to Hart. Our terms begin to get jumbled though when we just start throwing them out there at each other. Can I say that my justification does not grow per RC language? No. What I can say is that I become no more an accepted child of God because of what Christ has done for me because of the works that God works through me, which do make for a greater reward in heaven. I am no more “justified”[Reformed language] than the thief on the cross that could do nothing more than abondon himself in faith to Christ. God can make that man a child through faith without baptism and He can do the same today. It is we who are bound be the Sacraments not Christ. Hope that helps. Maybe reading this could help:
      http://jimmyakin.com/righteousness-and-merit

      I appreciate that, but the issue remains that if you can grow in your justification then there are people who are more acceptable to God than others. Some people get to skip purgatory and go straight to heaven. They’re more acceptable to God. Mary never sinned and is the Queen of Heaven. She is more acceptable and more fit before God than my wife.

      The fact that you can fall out of the grace of justification also indicates differences in acceptability before God. If Christ is the only basis for your standing before God, then there’s nothing else you need to do. His work is perfect, so there’s no falling out of grace.

      There’s no possible growth in a legal status, either in justification or adoption. You are either reckoned as having met God’s standard or not. You are either a child or not. Roman theology allows for some to have met God’s standard better than others. They pass purgatory. Roman theology allows some to be better children than others. They get to be saints.

      If justification is only on account of who Christ is and what He has done, we’re all equally righteous before God and all who trust in Him are equally His children. Nobody goes to purgatory. Everyone in Him goes straight to heaven. Nobody falls out of grace because Christ is praying for all those who are in him.

      LikeLike

1206. sdb:
      @MWF What Calvin (and later reformers, and our confessions) is saying is that while faith alone justifies, that faith is never alone – it “is invariably accompanied by good works”>>>>

      Hi, sdb,
      Did you read the Benedict quote? It seems like he is agreeing.

      Thinking about Calvin, though, he wrote that at a time of great conflict. It would be a bit like reading something politically charged from the height of the Cold War. In that context, I still don’t think his is a good commentary on what the Apostle Paul speaking under the Holy Spirit meant.

      There are better. What surprises me is that D.G. Hart uses similar rhetoric in our day. The “papists” are not out to get him, or any Protestant. In fact, the Church has spent quite a bit of time explaining why, at least as far as she is concerned, the war is over.

      Hey, even the OPC in their version of the WCF has taken out references to the pope being antichrist.

      Anyway, D.G. Hart a few weeks back asked me how the anathemas of Trent could be undone. IOW, how can the Church just throw open the doors and invite Protestants to come Home?

      Well, this subject is part of that “why”. Benedict explains it beautifully. Reformed theologians do not take “love” out of Christianity. Well, some are still grumpy, but theologically speaking, love is there.

      I mean, all you have to do is read Jonathan Edwards on Charity and its Fruits to see, as well as Dr. Don Carson’s work on The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God – he is a member of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.

      Anyway, even though Reformed teachers technically have us being justified by a dead faith – one without love-charity at the moment of believing – the love does kick in, so to speak, right away.

      You do know that the Church teaches that faith is a gift from God, don’t you? That faith is a faith that is alive with love when it is given. The faith infused with love is the gift. We then respond to our Bridegroom with a “yes”!

      Christ dying on the cross is the most perfect, most sublime example of faith working through love. He had to live by faith during the time of His humiliation, after all. Out of love for the Father and the Father’s love for the world, Jesus said “yes” to God, and laid down His life.

      We say “yes” to God, and lay down our lives in service to the One who loved us and gave Himself for us.

      Take care, sdb

      LikeLike

1207. vd, t, Rome twists the Bible. Clear enough?

      LikeLike

1208. Mermaid, not a charitable response. You interpret Calvin as merely expressing antipathy for Rome. You don’t consider his point.

      Your brain is now sealed.

      LikeLike

1209. vd, t, then for the guhzillionth time love MEEEE.

      LikeLike

1210. DG –

      I’m wading into waters you swim in daily, but:
      Is the below basically correct in your view?
      (“->” indicating causation)

      a) Reformed: Faith -> Salvation + Good Works
      b) Catholic: Faith + Good Works -> Salvation

      So in both cases, all three elements are present?

      LikeLike

1211. Mermaid, if you want to construe so charitably the Protestant position as justification by dead faith, then how do you like my describing your position as justified by works (read love)?

      Fun, isn’t it.

      But how do you know you have enough love to be justified? Judging by the way you evaluate Benedict’s “beautiful” statement, I’d caution you against you evaluating your own loveliness.

      LikeLike

1212. Mrs. W.,

      Did you read the Benedict quote? It seems like he is agreeing.

      Not unless he denies that our works of charity are accounted to us in our justification.
      Not unless he denies that love is the instrumental cause of justification.
      Not unless he believes that we are justified only by what Christ does outside of us.

      LikeLike

1213. Kevin, basically correct, though I know RC’s believe that works are the result of grace, not merely human natural effort.

      Also, I’d qualify this to say that Protestants generally live more moral lives than Roman Catholics. I don’t mean that as a slur. But it would be hard to find toleration for whiskey priests or mafia dons in Protestant churches. That makes the Roman Catholic charge of Protestantism = antinomianism so — how to put this — funny.

      In other words, I see a lot more nominal RC’s than I do nominal Protestants. And nominal Protestants generally conform to good middle-class standards.

      LikeLike

1214. Bob S,
      I really recommend you reading the link I shared before disrespectfully responding to me. We have gone through this before two and an half years ago in If Can’t Stand Superiority… Please treat me like a person rather than a combox doctrine which you just wish to belittle. Bash me if you wish, but that will not get me to interact with you. I will be happy to interact with any of your thoughts and concerns if we can di that respectfully.

      Robert,
      I will get a chance to address your thoughts and questions a little later today. Thanks for your patience.

      LikeLike

1215. @MWF You wrote,

      Anyway, even though Reformed teachers technically have us being justified by a dead faith – one without love-charity at the moment of believing – the love does kick in, so to speak, right away.

      Wow. It strikes me that you saw papist in Calvin’s commentary, immediately saw red, and your reading comprehension skills immediately shut down. Your pride is keeping you from seeing clearly… if you aren’t careful it will destroy your faith.

      LikeLike

1216. Robert,

      “I appreciate that, but the issue remains that if you can grow in your justification then there are people who are more acceptable to God than others.”

      One is either accepted by God or not. One is either justified (i.e. has sanctifying grace) or does not. That there is a degree of righteousness and participation that differs amongst the elect no more entails one is “more acceptable to God than others” than the Reformed affirmation that there are degrees of glorification/sanctification that differ amongst the elect entails one is more acceptable, favored, etc to God than others.

      “Mary never sinned and is the Queen of Heaven. She is more acceptable and more fit before God than my wife.”

      The Reformed affirm a differing degree of glory/reward amongst the elect. Edwards wrote a whole treatise on it and Piper and others echo him.

      “If Christ is the only basis for your standing before God, then there’s nothing else you need to do.”

      Do you need to do good works, pray, attend to the sacraments, attend church, read Scripture, be charitable, affirm the gospel, not fall into sin so grievous or for so long that would show you never actually believed in the first place, etc?

      “There’s no possible growth in a legal status, either in justification or adoption. You are either reckoned as having met God’s standard or not. You are either a child or not.”

      Yup. All the elect are children of God and are justified.

      “Roman theology allows for some to have met God’s standard better than others.”

      Nope – the standard is whether you have sanctifying grace or not.

      “Roman theology allows some to be better children than others.”

      Reformed theology allows some to be better children than others.

      LikeLike

1217. D. G. Hart
      Posted June 25, 2015 at 2:37 pm | Permalink
      Mermaid, if you want to construe so charitably the Protestant position as justification by dead faith, then how do you like my describing your position as justified by works (read love)?

      Fun, isn’t it.

      But how do you know you have enough love to be justified? Judging by the way you evaluate Benedict’s “beautiful” statement, I’d caution you against you evaluating your own loveliness.>>>>

      Are you able to take the Pauline statement out of the 500 year civil war among Christians and interpret it?

      Are you able to see Christ’s work on the cross as the prime example of faith working through love?

      Besides, neither you nor I are justified by our love. We are justified by faith, as the Apostle Paul clearly teaches. That faith is not alone as if it there were no love involved. It is alone in the sense that faith is always infused with love.

      You may not say it that way, but you do believe that love is the natural result of faith.

      Of course I am not lovely enough to merit justification. I am a sinner. Christ is the altogether lovely One.

      You see, the Reformed way of interpreting Ephesians 2.1-10 is very close. The only caveat is that instead of seeing the flow of the passage as being linear, see it as being a kind of a loop. We are raised together with Christ, and that is when we are created in Christ Jesus unto good works which we were foreordained to walk in. The good works are preloaded. Thus the faith that justifies is infused with good works from the moment it is given by God as a gift.

      Actually, this is fun. Sorry it is not for you. Love to you and yours.

      Take care, Brother D.G. Hart

      LikeLike

1218. But how do you know you have enough love to be justified?

      If you put it this way, isn’t it.. because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us. Rom 5: 5

      LikeLike

1219. D. G. Hart
      Posted June 25, 2015 at 2:01 pm | Permalink
      vd, t, Rome twists the Bible. Clear enough?

      Your anti-Catholicism has always been clear. Your ability to defend it unpsychotically, not so much. Cutting & pasting a John Calvin rant is more like Rain Man doing “Who’s On First” when he gets stressed.

      Whatever Calvin’s point is, it’s not worth breaking up Christianity over. That’s pride and ego, not faith or love.

      D. G. Hart
      Posted June 25, 2015 at 2:13 pm | Permalink
      vd, t, then for the guhzillionth time love MEEEE.

      I feel bad for you, that your religion is such a misery. That’s love, I reckon.

      LikeLike

1220. Darryl,

      Okay so given you agree with Calvin, it should be clear from Scripture we are justified by a faith apart from love and prior to love (though it will necessarily result in love) since “when you are engaged in discussing the question of justification, beware of allowing any mention to be made of love or of works, but resolutely adhere to the exclusive particle” correct? And since this was the main plank of the Reformation to justify (and continue to justify) separation from Rome, it should be a slam-dunk airtight case right?

      But, http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/does-the-bible-teach-sola-fide/

      “The question that I have examined here is whether there is Biblical evidence for the claim that we are justified by faith alone. When we unpack the distinction between the Protestant and Catholic positions on this subject, we find that this question rests on a deeper question, namely, whether there is any Biblical evidence that persons are justified prior to or apart from, love for God. My survey of the relevant passages in the New Testament has shown that there is no evidence that persons are justified prior to or apart from, love for God. Not only can all the passages teaching justification by faith be understood as referring to faith conjoined with agape, but as I have shown, there is a good evidence from Scripture that justifying faith should be understood as necessarily conjoined with agape in order to be justifying.

      Even if the evidence were a 50-50 toss-up, not favoring one position over the other, the Catholic position would have the benefit of the doubt. That is because a schism cannot justifiably be created or maintained, on the basis of a hermeneutical coin-flip. The hermeneutical evidence would have to be strongly tilted in favor of the Protestant position, before one could (hypothetically) even begin to make a case for causing a schism from the Church or remaining in schism from the Church. But what I have shown here is that the evidence tilts in the direction of the Catholic position. And that has important implications for the reconciliation of Protestants with the Catholic Church.”

      LikeLike

1221. Cletus,
      I don’t mind if you drop a little add in, but addressing someone’s whole comment to me point by point is a bit much. I would like a person to be able to hear my response. Hope you understand.

      LikeLike

1222. DG –

      Then I would certainly praise the Protestants you describe for those good works (moral practice), and your other points are noted.

      If I may prevail upon you further (since you are so good as to permit all of us into your living room for a chat):

      If we stick with the artificial little formula above for a minute (however it might be tweaked and whatever its fundamental virtues or deficiencies), then in both cases, where Salvation is present, both Faith and Good Works are as well?

      Either way, it seems to me somewhat cavalier to apply the word “Faith” to two different concepts (even if I did so in my prior post) – Catholic (with the Pope, teaching that grace can be lost and regained, etc.) and Reformed (with predestination, etc.).

      Is there any good and accepted word for the body of propositional statements non-contentiously shared within what each terms “Faith”? I mean propositions a respected, authoritative member of each would assent to almost without fail. If you need me to nominate a Catholic representative given the confusion reigning amongst Catholics, think Benedict at his most clear and traditional.

      (Perhaps more or less when writers at The Remnant were giving him cautious praise- I would assume you have more than a passing familiarity with that publication; if not, no problem, you might find it interesting if you were to give it its due).

      -A secondary difference would be interpretation of specific practices (Catholic Works? Devotional Works?) as being acceptable or not acceptable for various reasons (e.g., veneration of saints, use of icons, whether the Mass is blasphemous).

      -Perhaps a tertiary would be what are today relatively minor ethnic or cultural issues.

      Is the OPC Reformed position that faithful, practicing, orthodox Catholics (there are some, believe it or not) can potentially possess Salvation (i.e., despite their Catholic Faith and Catholic Works)? Do opinions in the OPC diverge here? Is it a controversial topic, or not really?

      Caveat: I can understand why the Catholic Church’s teachings on its authority come across as offensive or insulting, unfair, etc. – at the moment I’m not interested in discussing Catholic claims.

      Whether you prefer to answer directly or drop a few links (whatever the reason), count on my appreciation.

      And apologies if these come across like the questions of a 12-year old, I am sure this has all been covered well more than once over the centuries, but getting straight, to-the-point, non-academic, non-fluffy answers in Catholic-Protestant ‘dialogue’ is not something I’ve ever experienced.

      LikeLike

1223. vd, c, “The Reformed affirm a differing degree of glory/reward amongst the elect. Edwards wrote a whole treatise on it and Piper and others echo him.”

      What is this “you-do-it-too” meme? Then why did you switch teams when both play the same way?

      I get it. You have more world championship rings. Poor church for the poor. tee hee hee.

      LikeLike

1224. Mermaid, cradle Roman Catholics are not justified by faith. by baptism.

      To what church do you belong?

      LikeLike

1225. vd, t, to what address shall I send the kleenex?

      LikeLike

1226. vd, c, So?

      So what’s your name?

      LikeLike

1227. Kevin, I’d be a lot more impressed with Benedict if he wrote a systematic theology. I can’t really decide what he writes. Same with Edwards. Wasn’t systematic. Wasn’t trying to answer questions directly.

      Protestant theologians still try to do what Abelard and Aquinas did? Why did Roman Catholics stop?

      Before answering a question about a Roman Catholic’s faith, I need to hear his or her profession and ask follow up questions. Don’t trust but verify.

      So I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. That Prot’s and RC’s really agree at some basic level? Why would you want to say that? Trent didn’t.

      LikeLike

1228. D.G. Hart, at baptism a person is baptized into Christ. In the adult, this involves not just mental assent to a body of doctrine, but also a heart response to the grace of God. Yes, the Church believes as did Agustine that baptism actually washes away original sin, making a person then able to receive the grace of God in other sacrament, especially that of the Eucharist – as well as other spiritual gifts that the Holy Spirit gives. It is the entry point of our salvation.

      You do know that it is not required that an ordained priest perform this sacrament, correct? Generally it is done by a priest, but not exclusively. My Church accepts any baptism performed with the Trinitarian formula as per Matthew 28:18-20. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

      I was accepted into the Church on the basis of my Christian baptism.

      BTW, I don’t think that you are personally lacking in love. I assume that you are a faithful Christian in your daily life and walk with the Lord. I can’t figure out the anti-Catholic bent. That part puzzles me.

      I think that the Calvin quote you chose, though correct in many ways, lacked the love that the passage talks about. Does that mean I think he was not a real Christians? I would not make that judgment. He was fighting a battle and the enemy in his mind was “the papitsts.” His writing reflects that. No one disagrees that the Church was in great need of reforming especially at that time. It is a tragedy that she was divided at that time.

      There are other Reformed teachers who handle the subject of God’s love and the life of the believer in less vitriolic ways than did Calvin at that time.

      Anyway, take care, Brother Hart

      LikeLike

1229. Robert,
      I appreciate your waiting. Your questions are good ones. The just of them have to do with the differences of how the Chruch uses the term justification differently than you would Reformedly understand it. Partly it is understood the same, partly it is not. This why I switched over to the accepted child if God language. The Blessed Virgin Mary, St Peter or Paul, the person in purgatory, or myself(as long as I am in a state of grace) are all equally acceptable to God the Father as His child because of the work of Jesus Christ. Purgatory is not for the less justified. It is for the incompletely sanctified. The man on the cross beside Jesus could skip purgatory as easily as me or St Francis. All are to be saints of heaven, whether they are proclaimed by the Church on earth or not. Being justified at any degree guaranties sainthood.
      
      The fact that you can fall out of the grace of justification also indicates differences in acceptability before God. If Christ is the only basis for your standing before God, then there’s nothing else you need to do. His work is perfect, so there’s no falling out of grace.

      While it is truth that there is nothing we can do to make ourselves acceptable or a child of God it is possible to make ourselves rejected and unacceptable. This can be found in scripture in several places. But let us just look at the beginning. Adam was not able to make himself acceptable and a child of God in the beginning but he was able to lose that status. This has not changed. There is sin that lead to spiritual death.

      There’s no possible growth in a legal status, either in justification[reformed language] or adoption. You are either reckoned as having met God’s standard or not. You are either a child of God or not.

      Completely agreed. RC agrees.

      If justification is only on account of who Christ is and what He has done, we’re all equally righteous before God and all who trust in Him are equally His children.

      If you can exchange rightious for adopted or acceptable here we can agree. But someone can be just as accepted as me while being more rightious than me, but this doesn’t make then more God’s child than me just more “grown up” than me.

      Nobody goes to purgatory.
      Technically I agree, but that is because purgatory is not a spatial location but a spiritual state. It also is not chronologically numbered either. I could go into more depth, but unless you want to I won’t.

      Hope that helps some. I really think reading the Jimmy Akin piece would be helpful for you to understand more. I hope you will read it, Robert.
      Peace,
      Michael

      LikeLike

1230. DG –

      Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying we are going to talk our way from the Resurrection to the Incarnation to Predestination-is-really-just-Purgatory-or-something to Happy Reunion 2016.

      I am building to a point, but I don’t know yet what it is. At the moment, I’m just trying learn. Blame the fact I have a library degree.

      Perhaps it would help if I defined what I consider “Catholic” in Faith and practice, with reference to useful contemporary guides:

      I take the Church’s teachings to be very clear when it comes to what to believe and how to act. I would prefer if we could for the moment just stipulate that the Faith is Baltimore Catechism #3 (because marvelously simple and clear) with supplements for reference purposes (the current catechism, the one from Trent, Ludwig Ott, the Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org, …)- in an imprecise but potentially useful way, I would like to just call this “The Catechism.” I take this as non-controversial amongst Catholics (and would prefer it be accepted for the sake of argument).

      To address a variety of current and historical cultural and ecclesiastical issues, this would then be informed by writers at The Remnant Newspaper, the speakers at http://www.keepthefaith.org, Culture Wars (www.culturewars.com), Michael Davies, Dietrich von Hildebrand, William Marra, rorate-caeli.blogspot.com, … I am holding back from naming living authors and speakers just at the moment. This list is, on the other hand, somewhat controversial – although absolutely ought not to be. I would really, really prefer the discussion not go in the direction of “but Cardinal Balloon Mass and Sister Revolution don’t agree with that- the questions below are what I think will be more productive).

      More important than all of these would be the actual Church at its most healthy, particularly the Institute of Christ the King, the FSSP, the Eastern Province (US) Dominicans, Pallottines, the Society of Jesus Christ the Priest, the Sisters of Life, the Nashville Dominican Sisters, etc. There are others, these are just some of the ones that have mattered to me.

      The Pope teaching the Catholic faith clearly and acting in accordance with it is fundamental to absolutely everything I listed above; everything above is fully within the good graces of the papacy (even the present papacy).

      I feel silly listing all of this, and it invites a polemical counter: “what-about-the-Pope” – so I put forward Benedict-at-his-best as something relatively familiar. But Benedict is anything but essential to my argument.

      Non-controversial:
      1) Catholics who depart from “the Catechism” (essentially Baltimore Catechism #3 + the new catechism) don’t qualify as holding the Catholic faith.
      2) Catholics who give intellectual assent but don’t satisfy the Church’s bare minimum of precepts (weekly Mass, Mass on Holy Days, annual Confession & Eucharist, fasting, financial support – that’s it) aren’t practicing.
      3) I would prefer to take these for granted.

      All of that said, here are my questions in summary:

      1) What do you call the “overlap”, if you like, of the the Catholic Catechism (Baltimore Catechism #3 +) and the Westminster Larger Catechism (or whichever you put forth)? Like a Venn Diagram. Not in terms of subject matter (i.e., a table of contents comparison is absolutely not what I mean) but in terms of real agreement. I sketched a potential list below at question 3.

      This is a straightforward if philosophical question – each book is literally a collection of sentences making statements. I’m not proposing a big project here, just asking what the word is for the elements of Faith which are acknowledged on both sides; surely there must be one. What is held in common won’t be regarded by either as sufficient to constitute either the Catholic Faith or the Reformed Faith. I absolutely don’t mean simplify, generalize, and call it “Christian.”

      2) If someone possesses Salvation, whether Catholic or Reformed, do they therefore invariably possess Faith (including the “overlap”) and do they both do Good Works?

      3) Do both Catholics and the Reform conceive of the following things identically?:
      i) Salvation (not the process of getting to Heaven, which seems constantly debated here, but the being in Heaven);
      ii) the Incarnation;
      iii) the Resurrection;
      iv) the Trinity;
      v) Christ as two-natures-in-one-person;
      vi) the Virgin Birth of Christ;
      vii) anything else obviously missing.

      4) Is the OPC Reformed position that a faithful, practicing Catholic (Baptism + Confirmation + the Catechism + the Church’s precepts) can potentially possess Salvation (i.e., despite their Catholic Faith and Catholic Works)? Do opinions in the OPC diverge here? Is it a controversial topic, or not really?

      LikeLike

1231. It might have been useful for me to abbreviate “Baltimore Catechism #3 +” as BC3+ for brevity’s sake. But frankly, I like simply “The Catechism” much better.

      LikeLike

1232. D. G. Hart
      Posted June 25, 2015 at 4:35 pm | Permalink
      Kevin, I’d be a lot more impressed with Benedict if he wrote a systematic theology. I can’t really decide what he writes. Same with Edwards. Wasn’t systematic. Wasn’t trying to answer questions directly.

      Protestant theologians still try to do what Abelard and Aquinas did? Why did Roman Catholics stop?

      They have one that works. Protestantism is still trying to find one. And even if they had one, they’d keep screwing with it. Semper schismata.

      Before answering a question about a Roman Catholic’s faith, I need to hear his or her profession and ask follow up questions. Don’t trust but verify.

      Anything you say can and will be used against you, Kevin. The search for error, not for truth. Catholicism has apologists but Darryl’s brand of Christianity only has prosecutors.

      D. G. Hart
      Posted June 25, 2015 at 4:29 pm | Permalink
      vd, t, to what address shall I send the kleenex?

      I feel bad for you but not that bad. We all get the religion we deserve, Butch. God is merciful but he is also just. If your religion is a misery it’s because that’s the way you like it.

      LikeLike

1233. Kevin, first, I think you are acting like a Protestant when YOU decide how you’re going to define the Roman Catholic faith. Sorry. But to choose the Baltimore catechism over the pope’s seems arbitrary.

      But where Baltimore and Westminster overlap is in some sense on the Nicene Creed. But explanations of the creed vary and differ. And it took Protestantism for Rome to define itself over against Luther and Calvin. Trent would have been unthinkable in 1400.

      The thanks we get.

      But which Roman Catholics who regularly receive communion ever assent to Trent or even care? And if Rome tolerates so many loose Roman Catholics, why should Protestants take Rome seriously?

      LikeLike

1234. #vd,t’spiousthoughts

      LikeLike

1235. Michael,

      I appreciate your waiting. Your questions are good ones. The just of them have to do with the differences of how the Chruch uses the term justification differently than you would Reformedly understand it. Partly it is understood the same, partly it is not. This why I switched over to the accepted child if God language. The Blessed Virgin Mary, St Peter or Paul, the person in purgatory, or myself(as long as I am in a state of grace) are all equally acceptable to God the Father as His child because of the work of Jesus Christ. Purgatory is not for the less justified. It is for the incompletely sanctified. The man on the cross beside Jesus could skip purgatory as easily as me or St Francis. All are to be saints of heaven, whether they are proclaimed by the Church on earth or not. Being justified at any degree guaranties sainthood.

      I appreciate that. I just question how it works out in practice. Nobody is making a procession to my grandmother’s grave, but she was certainly saintly. The way Mary is spoken of in documents by the church and in personal piety, there’s no question that she’s better in God’s sight than any one else. That’s the issue.

      While it is truth that there is nothing we can do to make ourselves acceptable or a child of God it is possible to make ourselves rejected and unacceptable. This can be found in scripture in several places.

      And of course, the question is whether those passages refer to those who actually had saving faith or not. If Christ really is better than Adam, then the latter option is required.

      But let us just look at the beginning. Adam was not able to make himself acceptable and a child of God in the beginning but he was able to lose that status. This has not changed. There is sin that lead to spiritual death.

      Then Christ has not brought us anything better, however the NT says that He has. If we can lose salvation, we are put into a state where we are potentially savable. Christ actually saves no one. He puts in a position to make the final determinative choice of our eternal destiny. Ultimately, we have the final vote. Our choice is the most significant one. We save ourselves with God’s help.

      Completely agreed. RC agrees.

      But if you’ve been reckoned as meeting God’s standard, there’s no growth in justification. You’re either guilty or not guilty. You aren’t guilty of one kind of sin but not guilty of another. If you are God’s child and He loves you with the same love as He loves Christ (John 17), then there’s nothing that can separate us from that love. No such thing as mortal sin. The Father’s love does not fail to elicit love from the Son. If He loves us in the same way, there is no loss of salvation.

      If you can exchange rightious for adopted or acceptable here we can agree. But someone can be just as accepted as me while being more rightious than me, but this doesn’t make then more God’s child than me just more “grown up” than me.

      Righteousness, in Pauline categories at least, is a legal status. You’ve either met it or you haven’t. You’re either innocent or guilty. You can’t be more innocent than someone else. Consequently, there is no growth in justification. There’s no atonement for one’s sins temporally. There’s no purgatory.

      Technically I agree, but that is because purgatory is not a spatial location but a spiritual state. It also is not chronologically numbered either. I could go into more depth, but unless you want to I won’t.

      No matter how it is viewed, if you are righteous in God’s sight, there is no spiritual or spatial state of purging. It’s pass purgatory and go straight to heaven. Otherwise some are more acceptable to God than others. Those who are more acceptable get to bypass purgatory entirely. I understand that all who are in purgatory will get to heaven at the end of the day, but they will ever be second class citizens. They’ll always be the ones who couldn’t meet God’s standard even if they fail only by a nose.

      LikeLike

1236. Robert,
      I will have to try and address most of that later, but I will say that I did not intend to say that some people like Mary are not special in God’s eyes and plans in salvation. My intent is to say none are more God’s child or more accepted by Him in heaven and on earth. Regarding your grandmother, I would hope you do make a “procession” with flowers or something to her and ask for her prayers. I ask my grandmother to prayer for me often, almost every time I conscientiously notice her picture in our house or go past the cemetery where she is buried. I probably ask for her prayers more clearly than I ask for Mary’s a lot of the time. Mary clearly has a universal connection to your and my salvation history in a way that neither your grandmother has for me or my grandmother has for you though both of us could go to either for prayer. Other saints may have greater or lesser impact on us and this will impact the reasons or lack of reasons that we go to them for prayer. While reading St. Paul one aught ask for his prayers and like wish for other NT writers or even Church fathers or writers of the faith. Anyway, will try and address your other thoughts later. Do you get a chance to read Akin?

      LikeLike

1237. TVD:
      Anything you say can and will be used against you, Kevin. The search for error, not for truth. Catholicism has apologists but Darryl’s brand of Christianity only has prosecutors.>>>>

      That is a good point, TVD. The search for error. Error will always be found. Faith working through love, though, is rare and irrefutable.

      Oh, my Jesus, grant me that grace!

      Thank you, dear Brother Tom

      LikeLike

1238. DG –

      Thanks for the reply.

      where Baltimore and Westminster overlap is in some sense on the Nicene Creed. But explanations of the creed vary and differ.

      The Nicene Creed may be the basis for each, but they diverge – what I’m interested to know is what they still retain in common (i.e., with the same meaning). Maybe I should read Westminster and do my own analysis.

      The thanks we get.
      Sincere thanks to you for running this blog, encouraging systematic theology, and taking your time to reply to questions.

      But which Roman Catholics who regularly receive communion ever assent to Trent or even care? And if Rome tolerates so many loose Roman Catholics, why should Protestants take Rome seriously?
      There are many problems, agreed, and they lead to further problems.

      If you don’t want to respond to my other questions for whatever reason, that’s fine, but can you at least point me to a contemporary OPC source?

      2) If someone possesses Salvation, whether Catholic or Reformed, do they therefore invariably possess Faith (including the “overlap”) and do they both do Good Works?

      3) Do both Catholics and the Reform conceive of the following things identically? […]
      
      4) Is the OPC Reformed position that a faithful, practicing Catholic (Baptism + Confirmation + the Catechism + the Church’s precepts) can potentially possess Salvation (i.e., despite their Catholic Faith and Catholic Works)? Do opinions in the OPC diverge here? Is it a controversial topic, or not really?

      LikeLike

1239. D. G. Hart
      Posted June 26, 2015 at 8:51 am | Permalink
      But which Roman Catholics who regularly receive communion ever assent to Trent or even care? And if Rome tolerates so many loose Roman Catholics, why should Protestants take Rome seriously?

      “Protestantism”–Presbyterianism!–ordains lesbian couples as ministers.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27/presbyterian-church-lesbian-couple_n_6952330.html

      You’re tut-tutting in quite the wrong direction. Who’s supposed to take whom seriously? “Protestantism” is a madhouse.

      LikeLike

1240. Robert,
      I will thoroughly agree Christ has brought us something greater than was in the beginning. The Incarnation is no little change. God is with us, but that does not mean that one like the “older brother”
      can not separate himself from the feast. There can be true faith that does not persevere. This you apparently would not call saving faith and to a degree I can agree with that, but that does not mean that it did not begin as saving faith that one abandoned and rejected. This a interpretation difference. Without common church structure between us I don’t see us being able to settle that difference, at least in a combox conversation. It would probably take a lot more time than I have the ability to pour into in, as a layman father if four.

      Ultimately, we have the final vote. Our choice is the most significant one. We save ourselves with God’s help.

      I can’t disagree with this understanding of my understanding more. I do not have the final vote in weather I am saved, though I do have the final vote in whether I am damned. If I assert that it is I who save myself, then I am surely damned and don’t know what grace and salvation is.

      Righteousness, in Pauline categories at least, is a legal status. You’ve either met it or you haven’t. You’re either innocent or guilty. You can’t be more innocent than someone else.

      Basically I agree you are right about the “status” bit in Paul. I disagree about the innocent bit though. In Paul we are all guilty and John would point out that if we deny this we are liars and the truth is not in us. I disagree that one can’t be not of less innocent than someone else. That does not mean that I think I can be more God’s child than then the one who indulges or struggles against porn every day. I am grateful God has grown my righteousness in that area.

      No matter how it is viewed, if you are righteous in God’s sight, there is no spiritual or spatial state of purging. It’s pass purgatory and go straight to heaven. Otherwise some are more acceptable to God than others. Those who are more acceptable get to bypass purgatory entirely. I understand that all who are in purgatory will get to heaven at the end of the day, but they will ever be second class citizens. They’ll always be the ones who couldn’t meet God’s standard even if they fail only by a nose.
      You think there is no difficult changing in the soul that occurs apon coming int the pure truth of God ‘s almighty wonder?

      I also think you thinking of the type of souls in heaven having a downward or second class view of other is contradictory to the essence of who God creates us to be.

      LikeLike

1241. Kevin, go to OPC.org for our confessional standards. That might help.

      I did answer #4. potentially but we would need to verify that said baptized etc. person trusted Christ alone.

      LikeLike

1242. Crusades.

      Edgardo Mortara.

      Spanish and Roman Inquisitions.

      Live it.

      Love it.

      Learn it.

      LikeLike

1243. On 2nd thought, I kind of like these threads. Seems to keep the contagion pretty well contained so we can have adult discussions on other threads. Kind of like the kiddie table in the basement at Thanksgiving.

      Carry on.

      LikeLike

1244. Glad you approve, Erik. BTW, why could somebody tell me about the Supreme Court going loopy on samesex “marriage” yesterday? At least Ireland had a vote. One justice decided for us all.

      LikeLike

1245. Michael,

      That decision surprises absolutely no one.

      The fun will occur over the next two decades as the Court sorts out the competing fundamental rights of freedom of religion and gay marriage.

      Tell your Bishops to be ready to bring their A games.

      LikeLike

1246. Erik,

      I just saw a headline of Franklin Graham warning that Christians should prepare for persecution. I’m sure those in Asia and the Middle East share and empathize with the pain over the soul-crushing dilemma of baking cakes.

      LikeLike

1247. Here is what my local bishop released today to be read in all our diocese churches:

      Bishop Strickland’s Statement on U.S. Supreme Court Decision
      Diocese of Tyler Communications June 26, 2015 Marriage & Family

      Joseph Edward Strickland
      By the Grace of God and the Apostolic See
      Bishop of Tyler

      TO THE PRIESTS, DEACONS, CONSECRATED RELIGIOUS AND CATHOLIC FAITHFUL OF THE DIOCESE OF TYLER, OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS OF OTHER FAITH TRADITIONS, AND ALL PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL IN THE THIRTY-THREE COUNTIES OF NORTHEAST TEXAS THAT MAKE UP THE DIOCESE OF TYLER:

      On the morning of June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a 5-4 decision establishing the legal right of two individuals of the same sex to legally marry in all 50 states. By doing so, the Court has acted in contradiction to their duty to promote the common good, especially what is good for families. I join with the Bishops of the United States in calling this decision a “tragic error.”

      Let me unambiguously state at the outset that this extremely unfortunate decision by our government is unjust and immoral, and it is our duty to clearly and emphatically oppose it. In spite of the decision by the Supreme Court, there are absolutely no grounds for considering unions between two persons of the same sex to be in any way similar to God’s plan for marriage and the family. Regardless of this decision, what God has revealed and what the Church therefore holds to be true about marriage has not changed and is unchangeable.

      Marriage is not just a relationship between human beings that is based on emotions and feelings. Rather, our Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Traditions tell us that God established true marriage with its own special nature and purpose, namely the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of children.

      While taking a strong stand for marriage is the duty of all who call themselves Christian, every type of unjust discrimination against those with homosexual tendencies should be avoided. We must treat these individuals with loving kindness and respect based on their dignity as human persons. Christ rejects no one, but he calls all of us to be converted from our sinful inclinations and follow the truth He has revealed to us. Nevertheless, our continued commitment to the pastoral care of homosexual persons cannot and will not lead in any way to the condoning of homosexual behavior or our acceptance of the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

      While some of us may have family members who have same-sex attraction, and there are even some who are members of our local churches, this decision to require the legal recognition of so-called marriage between homosexual persons should in no way lead us to believe that the living out of this orientation or the solemnizing of relationships between two persons of the same sex is a morally acceptable option.

      We know that unjust laws and other measures contrary to the moral order are not binding in conscience, thus we must now exercise our right to conscientious objection against this interpretation of our law which is contrary to the common good and the true understanding of marriage.

      Given this and recognizing my responsibility and moral authority as the shepherd of this Church of Tyler, I will shortly issue a decree in this Diocese establishing, as particular law, that no member of the clergy or any person acting as employee of the Church may in any way participate in the solemnization or consecration of same-sex marriages, and that no Catholic facilities or properties, including churches, chapels, meeting halls, Catholic educational, health or charitable institutions, or any places dedicated or consecrated, or use for Catholic worship, may be used for the solemnization or consecration of same-sex marriages.

      Finally, I call on the Catholic faithful of the Diocese to turn in prayer to the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph, asking their intercession for our nation that all of us may come to a greater understanding of the beauty, truth and goodness that is found in marriage as revealed to us by our Savior.

      I instruct that this letter is to be publically read by the priest-celebrant following the proclamation of the Gospel at all Masses of obligation in the parishes, missions and chapels of Diocese of Tyler on the weekend of July 3-4, 2015.

      Given at the Diocesan Chancery
      On the 26th day of June
      Friday of the 12th Week in Ordinary Time
      In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Fifteen

      Most Reverend Joseph E. Strickland
      Bishop of Tyler

      LikeLike

1248. D. G. Hart
      Posted June 26, 2015 at 2:49 pm | Permalink
      Crusades.

      Edgardo Mortara.

      Spanish and Roman Inquisitions.

      Live it.

      Love it.

      Learn it.

      Cheap excuses. Doesn’t explain how your religion became so radically different from the Christianity still practiced by the Eastern Orthodox, who parted ways with Rome in 1054.

      Think about it.

      Think about it some more.

      Then clean up your act.

      LikeLike

1249. Michael,

      That’s interesting. A few things for a Calvinist and 2K person to pick on, but pretty solid.

      Hopefully Joseph can get right on that.

      LikeLike

1250. Guess it has taken some changes to make Rin Paul’s thought that the state should not preform marriages at all to make aense to me. I don’t want all of the Texas Justices of the Peace to be forced to go against their morals. I also don’t want to be force to only have Justices of the Peave that have no morals. Bit of a catch 22. Guess I should have been for only Churches doing marriages anyway. I still don’t think we in Texas should be forced to accept samesex papers.

      LikeLike

1251. MichaelTX
      Posted June 26, 2015 at 5:44 pm | Permalink
      Guess I should have been for only Churches doing marriages anyway. I still don’t think we in Texas should be forced to accept samesex papers.

      Too bad. The US govt has declared war on the Bible and those who still believe in it. Darryl got what he wanted: Two Kingdoms. Except the one is at war with the other, as it always has been.

      http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-investiture-conflict-rulers-vs-the-centralized-church.html

      LikeLike

1252. Michael,

      Maybe this is the one that leads to Texas seceding from the Union.

      If I come down can you put me up?

      LikeLike

1253. Probably for a little bit Erik. Family of six in a three bedroom here though. My oldest boy is ten. Did you say your son is 8? I’m sure those two would have fun. Got a nice pond you could park a RV by for a while. Don’t know if our wives could handle the late night visiting around a fire though.

      LikeLike

1254. Erik,
      I would say there is a great LCMS congregation with a great pastor for you to join up in here local, but the pastor, who is a friend, has stepped down and is going into the mission field in Africa. They are not doing right at he congregation now. They are trying to stick them with someone who isn’t ordained yet praying the liturgy and giving communion and doing a bunch of contempary music and stuff.

      LikeLike

1255. Michael,

      All I need is a river to have the van towed to.

      A pond could work.

      LikeLike

1256. #poundsand

      LikeLike

1257. vd, t, it’s you who advocate a figurative interpretation of the Bible. Scripture doesn’t really disapprove of homosexuality any more than it teaches Adam.

      Way to go, vd, t.

      LikeLike

1258. Robert,
      Just making sure you caught my response…

      LikeLike

1259. @ Cletus: I’m sorry that this is way overdue. We were discussing bowing to images and worshiping them. I asserted that bowing itself is forbidden; you countered that bowing is forbidden inasmuch as it is worship, but bowing without worshiping is not forbidden. You then raised these issues.

      CVD: 1. You assert bowing to men – without worshiping them – is fine. Now if that’s the case, it does not seem farfetched to me that a similar sentiment could inform our understanding of bowing to objects that are not people.

      That seems to me to require proof. A counterexample to your method: Men lying with women can be fine. A similar sentiment could not inform our understanding of men lying with men.

      (This is obvious because there’s a command against men lying with men. Turns out, there’s also a command against making images and bowing to them.)

      CVD: 2. You assert bowing to images – without worshiping them – is a violation because it is called out explicitly. But burning incense to images is not called out by the commandment. So by this logic…

      Nope, that’s not logical. “If X is forbidden, then X is forbidden” is not logically equivalent or even related to “If X is not forbidden, then X is permissible.”

      CVD: 3. I still don’t see how your position makes sense of the serpent. People looked to it – presumably with some degree of honor and regard.

      No, I don’t think so. I find it difficult to imagine that the people believed that there was a real serpent in heaven “behind” the image of the serpent, who was interceding on their behalf. If they did believe that, then they were guilty of superstition (if not outright idolatry).

      And this is really the issue with veneration. The bowing to statues is forbidden, we agree grammatically. Why? We can speculate several possible reasons behind the command.

      (1) The RCC speculation is that bowing is forbidden insofar as it is worship; else permissible.
      (2) One possible speculation could be that to bow to a statue is to treat it as if it were a person, or a representation of a person.
      (3) Another could be that to bow to a statue is ipso facto evidence of idolatry, just as burning incense to the snake was ipso facto evidence of idolatry.
      (4) …

      Any of these speculations is possible, and it doesn’t really matter which, if any, is correct. The point is that the command stands.

      What the RCC has done is to speculate about the reason for the command, then to trim that command to fit the speculation. No longer does the command read “Do not make images and bow to them”, but “Do not make images and bow to them, unless you make images and bow to them without worshiping them.”

      That procedure is identical to the one by which the Pharisees created the exception to the fifth commandment that Jesus rebuked in Matt 15. The RCC nullifies the command of God.

      LikeLike

1260. Jeff,

      “That seems to me to require proof.”

      As I already said, otherwise we could read the command (which is meant to curb idolatry) as allowing idolatry of men or animals or mountains and rivers, since it only speaks to images. If you want to then say, well the second commandment is subordinate to or to be taken in the context of the first (about general idolatry), I’d agree and say that would inform the prohibition against bowing as well.

      “Turns out, there’s also a command against making images and bowing to them.”

      There’s a command against making images. There’s also a command against bowing them. You continue to nullify the first and even admit the Reformed can’t get it right and debate about it even as you also say God is “particular about the details of worship” and condemns “strange fire” and also that: “So it is quite clear that what is forbidden is any likeness”
      “It doesn’t matter whether the image is of a false god or not. The image is forbidden.”
      “Those were specifically directed by God Himself to be made, in contrast to all other images that were forbidden”

      And also say:
      “It is possible that the command to not make idols or graven images is absolute.”

      So you agree it is possible you are nullifying the commandment given your own “lexical analysis” and “clear grammar” of the text.

      “Logically possible, but improbable.”

      What in the text makes it improbable? If improbable, why the debate amongst your brethren on this “live issue”?

      “Nope, that’s not logical. “If X is forbidden, then X is forbidden” is not logically equivalent or even related to “If X is not forbidden, then X is permissible.””

      I agree. But you are arguing since bowing is explicitly called out, it is condemned. Other actions are not explicitly called out. They are forbidden where then? If you want to say other Scripture informs our interpretation of what the commandment permits, then great, iconodules agree – hence their arguments on the NT and Incarnation regarding veneration and icons.

      “If they did believe that, then they were guilty of superstition (if not outright idolatry).”

      Again, you are the one positing the exceptional reading regarding the commandment. As I said, [the serpent] was either not considered a violation by God, or was a violation but just overlooked as an exception for some reason. The serpent was then destroyed because incense was offered to it; the people fell into idolatry, thus its destruction. It is not said they were committing a “lesser” form of idolatry before the incense and then became “more” idolatrous which led to its destruction, nor is it said God was rescinding a longstanding exception he had temporarily allowed for whatever reason which led to its destruction. Rather, they fell into idolatry and the idolatry in their heart was linked to and led to their outward actions [note internal disposition is something you have denied applies in interpreting the commandment; it’s simply a binary matter of whether the external act of bowing occurs or not] – that is the burning of incense and offerings.

      “What the RCC has done is to speculate about the reason for the command,”

      Yes, God does not just arbitrarily give commands. Something about spirit and letter. Christians aren’t still following the purity and ceremonial and civil OT laws because they understood the reason for the commands and how the NT recasts the understanding and purpose of those commands.

      “No longer does the command read “Do not make images and bow to them””

      You have yet to substantiate the command actually reads as you interpret it, so the “no longer” is unjustified. You admit the absolute prohibition against all images is a possible reading.

      “The point is that the command stands.”

      Do the NT commands for women to wear head coverings, men to not have long hair, women to remain silent in church and only ask theological questions of their husbands, people not to eat blood or meat of strangled animals, and so on stand? If not, why not and on what grounds?

      LikeLike