For some it happened recently. This blogger doesn’t refer to the Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage, but it’s hard not to think he has it in mind:
The 350-year marriage of Protestant Christian theology and American popular culture is over. Christianity, it may be sadly said, is no longer the preeminent social influence in American life. We Christians who dared to presume that America was ever all and only ours are, apart from some God-ordained awakening, unlikely to “get our country back.” We will live and work henceforth, as do most other Christians around the world, amidst a public square hostile to our beliefs.
The odd wrinkle to Christian readings of the American revolution is that the United Kingdom was a Christian nation. Presbyterians were the established church in Scotland. And King George was head of a church that claimed George Washington as a member (and he was an orthodox Christian, you know). Plus, it seems that King George III wasn’t all that bad a king.
What the United States did was to establish itself without a Christian church. Advocates of a Christian America may not like the language of the separation of church and state, but what the United States did in comparison to Europe and 1500 years of history (and even compared to France where Napolean eventually made Roman Catholicism the established church) was to create a nation without a state church (at the national level — hello) and that prohibited religious tests for holding office. That also meant the churches (except for Congregationalists in New England) had to pay as they went on the basis of their own creative schemes for finding parishioners and persuading them to give (till it hurts — I mean, tithe).
So even though American has been secular for a long time — as long as the U.S.A. has existed — the events of two weeks ago seem to be decisive for making Christians of all kinds abandon the United States as a blessed, favored, or welcome place.
No one except for Rusty Reno seems to recall that in 1996, a time when the Internet was just catching on, Christians were also worried about “The End of Democracy”:
The prospect of a purely political decision from the Court led me back to the famous First Things symposium published in November 1996: “The End of Democracy?” The occasion for that symposium was a federal circuit-court decision finding a right (subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court) to doctor-assisted suicide. The reasons given were identical to those used to justify America’s abortion regime. Richard John Neuhaus and the others who participated in the symposium were deeply concerned about the perverse way in which our constitutional system was turning liberty into an enemy of life.
No matter what the higher courts decided, physician-assisted suicide is still on the books in Oregon. And the number of Americans — since we are after the 14th Amendment now citizens not of the states but of the nation — dying with the help of doctors in Oregon is growing — from 16 in 1998 to 105 last year.
So what I wonder is whether Christian America ended in 1998. I also wonder why more Christians have not been outraged by a federal government that allows Oregon to persist in this law. Maybe secession is unconstitutional, but can’t the Union kick states out? And why single out same-sex marriage? Wasn’t Roe v. Wade worse?
Is it simply that the Internet now gives Americans more room to hyperventilate about Outrage Porn?
Old Life 
The problem with declaring that America was a Christian nation in any way is that that status was in effect during some of America’s most horrendous crimes–i.e., slavery and the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land. This was followed by Jim Crow and the beginning of American overseas Imperialism. That we say America is no longer a Christian nation because of this or that court decision regarding personal morality while maintaining its Christian status during the crimes of the past does leave a bad taste in the mouths of many to whom we would preach the Gospel.
LikeLike
@ Curt: Good points.
LikeLike
Hey Curt, Nice Xian American ended when they kicked out Howard Zinn out of the public uni curriculum. Oh, wait — they didn’t. Get to work on those reparations. I have Native American blood so send my a check while you’re at it.
LikeLike
The end was in 1986 with the first episode of Pee-wee’s Playhouse.
But aren’t Christians just prone to what is apocalyptic? I’d gladly buy a book that chronicles all the different end-times scenarios, including the year 1000, the year 2000, the coming of the Soviet President with a splotch on his head to cover “666,” and, of course, various SCOTUS decisions that surely signal the end of all things.
LikeLike
Xian America ended when a Catholic was elected president, duh.
LikeLike
MG – you’re on to something with Pee Wee
Another relevant question is “When did Christian America begin?”
LikeLike
Nate, the first time Billy Sunday slid on stage and was “SAFE with Jesus!” I mean, baseball and Jesus – there you have it.
LikeLike
I thought Christian America ended when Buddy Holly died.
LikeLike
Christian America ends when you finally realize that not everyone you meet in the world is going to be as kind and protective as your dear old Mom.
LikeLike
What Oregan has going on with ignoring the SC ruling and not enforcing, but instead allowing doctor assisted suiside is what I am advocating for in our local and State governments in Texas. This principle in not new to the American system of governance. Jefferson and Madison acted on this “nullification” principle against the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams presidency which the SC upheld as constitutional but Kentucky and Virginian by state law called void in their territory because the state government as builders and signers of the Constitution disagree with the SC view of constitionally of those laws. Good book on this by Thomas Woods Jr call “Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 20th Century”
http://www.amazon.com/Nullification-Resist-Federal-Tyranny-Century/dp/1596981490
LikeLike
Of course I’m not advocating for assisted suiside. I’m advocating for calling void the Ssm ruling. Some might find this interesting. http://tomwoods.com/blog/is-nullification-unconstitutional/
LikeLike
Maybe Xian ‘Merica ended when the CCF’s preferred partners Spain and France failed to dominate our part of the New World. But there are remains of a couple of missions in Florida, DeSoto’s ghost — that’s why the South is supposed to be Christ haunted, to use O’Connor’s term. Sure.
LikeLike
Future Roman saint Flannery O’Connor, that is.
LikeLike
I’m all for Rome taking the blame for California, though.
LikeLike
@MichaelTX
I don’t think Oregon is engaging in the nullification for which you are arguing. Oregon has a statute that permits physician-assisted suicide. The Supreme Court merely held in Glucksberg there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide — not that a state could not permissibly enact such a law.
LikeLike
Nate,
Another relevant question is “When did Christian America begin?”
When Washington and Jefferson started the first evangelical television network. Seriously, just ask David Barton.
LikeLike
JP, if you continue to insist on accuracy over bumper stickers everyone who wants you to DO SOMETHING will hate you.
LikeLike
Chortles,
Not that I am against piling on the papacy, but depending on what kind of blame we are talking about in CA, the Bros. Paschall are responsible for a swath of destruction from San Luis Obispo to San Diego, and the I-5 corridor up to the Oregon border (and beyond, not wanting to spare our home state to the north from our cacophony of ruin).
LikeLike
MG-
This won’t help me with the bumper sticker folks, but my sense is most of them would be running to the Supremacy Clause if states were nullifying a law or court decision they liked.
LikeLike
Muddy,
Speaking of bumper stickers, I happened to see one reading “Nuke the Gay Whales” on the back of TVD’s ’81 Honda CVCC. What was more curious was the Truck Nutz hanging from below the bumper.
LikeLike
Jed, didn’t you and the family load up the truck and head to Cali after oil was struck on the family farm in the Ozarks? Or am I confusing my stories?
LikeLike
To answer the question of the post seriously, I’d be inclined to say that the Salem Witch Trials was the beginning of the end of Christian America. By the time Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote The Scarlet Letter, it seemed pretty clear that the American consciousness was rejecting an outright Christian state. The secular nature of the Constitution, especially the establishment clause pretty much ensured that no such thing as a Christian Nation would exist so long as the Constitutional Republic endured regardless of how many Christians existed in America.
LikeLike
Unificator,
Oddly, that’s not too far from the truth, but after my well-to-do Plantation owning anscestors lost their lands and wealth in the War of Northern Aggression we scattered westward, migrating from the border of North Carolina and Tennessee.
LikeLike
JP,
You could be right. I was just going by the way Hart was presenting the situation. It would most likely be a more parallel situation how medical marijuana was rejected by the SC but is still practiced and not effectively illegal in California.
Regarding the Supremacy Clause, is not what is in question whether the SC decision is “made in pursuance thereof” the actual text and intent of the Constitution what is in despite?
LikeLike
Jed, I counter your Salem Witch Trials with that Pyrrhic victory, The Scopes Trial.
Yesterday I saw Nutz on a Toyota pickup. They were small.
LikeLike
I thought it happened when the Beatles played Ed Sullivan.
LikeLike
Beatles — that’s what my late father-in-law said.
LikeLike
JP,
To whom does the Constitution give to be the judge of whether a law or decision of the federal gov is “in pursuant thereof”, not a branch of that same federal government, but it would be those who are allowing the Federal government to exercise the rights given to it in the Constitution. We have a limited federal government. This is our system from the beginning.
LikeLike
When the movie The Grapes of Wrath came out and removed all the bad and honest parts of the book, like Grampa really being the only nice one (yet he had an autroerotic thing going at the dinner table)
Poor Curt must have the movie running 24/7 in his house so he can get weepy if he starts to feel okay.
LikeLike
What does “Christian America” as a noun even mean? Unless God declares America, or any nation under heaven, a godly nation then all any government can be is one that legislates ethical principles as they are drawn from the moral law; and all any governed people can be are people who follow those laws. The laws are Christian if they are good/ godly being that Jesus is the Messiah( Christ) of God. You can only use Christian as an adjective to describe America’s values, and if the percentage of the population doesn’t value the virtues anymore the country itself will cease to be a nation that thinks and behaves predominately like Christ wants.
LikeLike
Jeff,
“I thought Christian America ended when Buddy Holly died.”
I like your answer 🙂
And in the streets, the children screamed
The lovers cried and the poets dreamed
But not a word was spoken
The church bells all were broken…
LikeLike
I don’t think the RC’s are really in sync with the Friday fun that’s going on here. Does it have something to do with eating fish today?
LikeLike
C-dubs,
Our family tree has a couple branches that come back on itself too. And the Bros. Paschall are native Oregonians.
Jed’s case is getting stronger…
LikeLike
Half-Way Covenant – off the rails before it started.
LikeLike
Hi Dr. Hart,
Thank you for this post. I have a question to ask and then 2 comments:
1. Would it be proper to say that the colony of Virginia was once “a Christian nation” -viz., an Anglican nation? (Dale’s code, mandatory church attendance, punishment for denying the Trinity, etc.)
2. Whether America is “a Christian Nation” or not, I think the recent events are simply the full flowering of thinking and action that has been occurring for many decades now- even before 1973’s Roe v. Wade. Recent events simply show the erosion that was already there- viz., an un-tethering from truth and fact. In short, Psalm 2 illustrated.
Praise God, though, for the way Psalm 2 ends. Also Isaiah 40:22-23.
3. Our citizenship is in heaven. (Philippians 3:20).
LikeLike
Susan,
Don McLean- “Bye, Bye, Miss American Pie!”
LikeLike
Susan,
This is what the “Advocates of Christian America” mean by a Christian nation:
http://americanvision.org/4122/if-there-cant-be-a-christian-nation-can-there-be-anything-christian-at-all/
LikeLike
@MichaelTX
I’m familiar with the anti-Judicial Supremacy argument. Something tells me you wouldn’t have been such a big fan of it after Bush v. Gore.
LikeLike
Chuck, re: Colonial Virginia — I had ancestors fined for not attending the established church and for attending the established church in a state of beverage-induced intoxication. No matter, they devolved into ignorant, teetotaling baptists as the moved south and west.
LikeLike
Jeff, that’s when the rock music died. Isn’t that how a Christian nation is actually revivalized?
Susan, to the extent that the Code of Hammurabi reflects the Law of Moses (which was good/godly), does that mean Babylonia was “Christian”? The exiles might differ. But your Van Tilian slip is showing with whatever is good is Christian, i.e. borrowed capital. Are you sure you’ve shaken of all the Protestantism, or is worldviewery lurking with the paradigmism?
LikeLike
Hart, don’t you know that your real “vocation is to dwell within the ruins of Christendom”?
http://whyimcatholic.com/index.php/conversion-stories/anglican/86-episcopal-convert-r-r-reno
It’s not about separation of churches and the state, because it’s more about your not be trusted with any religious liberty.
“Are we sinful men and women equipped to embark on a project of deciding which churches are best? When church becomes a choice, will we not guide ourselves to our own self-destruction?”
Hart, if you want to “stay put”, then you are going to need to give up your “mere idea” about “mother kirk” and convert back to the always reforming yet never changing papist riches….
“St. Benedict followed St. Augustine by insisting that the grace of God is real and concrete. The spiritual arrows of divine love take the form of real people, actual texts, and specific institutions.”
“A Pentecostal friend came to the Mass of reception at the Jesuit Martyrs’ Chapel. He is a close friend and a man whose faith I admire. After the Mass we talked for a while. He asked me, “So, what did it feel like to become a Catholic?” I told him, “It felt like being submerged into the ocean.” He reacted with a look of thinly disguised horror. That look reminded me that, while I sometimes suffer from an attraction to Emersonian fantasies of self-reliance and disdain for hierarchy, I have never wanted to be alone with God. It has always seemed to me that such a desire too easily turns into a longing to be alone with one’s idea of God, and that is the same as being alone with oneself.”
LikeLike
Xian ‘Merica. According to FB, Rabbi Cain via Nigeriacamera are gonna tell us how to reclaim it, but they need your bank information first. Xian ‘Merica is one of those prot things, or as Susan proves, prot-rc things. First I ever heard about it was some video by Peter Marshall I was subjected to at a Baptist college group. I’m still looking for a refund on those years.
LikeLike
JP,
Guess that would be more of a Florida question. They were the ones with the desire to recount. I was 20 at the time. Just barely legal. It would be a question for the Floridian people to decide if their state’s laws had been violated by the SC going beyond constitutional bounds and whether it was worth denouncing the rest of the state’s president and therefore government of the USA. I am one of those radicals who believes it is right to allow a state to succeed if they wish.
LikeLike
“I don’t think the RC’s are really in sync with the Friday fun that’s going on here. Does it have something to do with eating fish today?”
I’m lucky to live close enough to Baja to get authentic fish tacos! I do not trust the Gordon Fisherman. Now you got me thinking….maybe I will make salmon on the grill with capers and onion.
LikeLike
Sean, Spurs—-Aldridge, West, now Mccallum
LikeLike
Mark, we’re closers. We don’t drive Hyundais and we’ve got everyone’s street address and their loved ones as well (just in case).
LikeLike
ZRIM,
“Susan, to the extent that the Code of Hammurabi reflects the Law of Moses (which was good/godly), does that mean Babylonia was “Christian”?
Yes, in as far as it was obeying God it was.
The exiles might differ. But your Van Tilian slip is showing with whatever is good is Christian, i.e. borrowed capital.
I’m a proud Catholic, and don’t need Van Til in order to have a W-W that makes sense, but if he and I agree that’s nice….I don’t mind at all:)
“Are you sure you’ve shaken of all the Protestantism, or is worldviewery lurking with the paradigmism?”
Why should I apologize for holding a worldview? You got to believe in something or you’ll fall for anything( more borrowed capital I guess). The Church came before America though, so if I’m borrowing, it’s okay. It’s a very Old Religion.
LikeLike
Jed Paschall
Posted July 10, 2015 at 12:37 pm | Permalink
Muddy,
Speaking of bumper stickers, I happened to see one reading “Nuke the Gay Whales” on the back of TVD’s ’81 Honda CVCC. What was more curious was the Truck Nutz hanging from below the bumper.
Eerie, man. I actually did have a ’91 Civic with a very faded Lamar Alexander sticker on it.
FTR, America was mostly a Christian nation–religion was left to the states. The First Amendment reads
States continued to have established churches, and almost all had religious tests for statewide office. We were a recognizably Christian nation, although the secular “Godless Constitution” crowd like to pretend otherwise.
For most of her history, American law and Biblical morality were compatible, but Justice Kennedy just declared religion [and philosophy!] as unconstitutional in public policy, just as Richard John Neuhaus and the First Things crew foresaw in the 1990s.
Now shut up and bake me a cake.
http://christiannews.net/2015/07/09/christian-bakers-who-declined-to-make-cake-for-gay-wedding-to-seek-stay-of-135000-order/
LikeLike
Our kids will never hear this, and will learn for themselves too late. This is the tragedy, and the scandal of the gay agenda conquering our society.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/
LikeLike
And of course, the other answer to the question is that America didn’t change, American Christianity did. We’re still a Christian nation, it’s just that Christianity has gone gay.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/05/the-new-post-homophobic-christianity.html
“Will anti-gay Christians be politically and socially ostracized? I sure hope so.”
LikeLike
When was there a beginning of a ‘christian america?http://www.westminsterconfession.org/a-godly-society/israels-theocracy.php
LikeLike
Good video from Hillsdale at You Tube – Consequences of an Idea: The Social Cost of Redefining Marriage – Robert P. George
Eugenics was embraced by the elite at one time.
The pro life cause was, at one time, thought to be a total loss.
Robert P. George makes an appeal to all of us who believe in the Christian, Biblical view of marriage to pray, to speak out, to not assume that the debate is over, and especially to band together to defend the truth no matter how long it takes and no matter how much it costs.
I know that this great debated between Catholic and Protestant has been going on for 500 years and will not end anytime soon.
However, what I do not get is why, at this point in time, with secularism ready to use all of its considerable power to silence us, good men like Dr. Hart and others continue to rail against Catholicism as if that were the greatest threat to the common good at this point in time.
It makes no sense to me. Anyway, this speech is worth a listen.
LikeLike
Tom,
Rest assured, I only kid because I love amigo, but please take the Truck Nutz off of your Honda, it’s unbecoming of a Jeopardy savant.
LikeLike
The Honda is dead and buried, alas. But I wrung every ounce of life out of her when she finally went to the knackerman after 19 years–the battery was dead, the tires were bald, the gas tank was empty and the ash trays were full.
Revenge for Pearl Harbor.
LikeLike
Truck nutz, Honda, Savant…………………What is Dirty Mike and The Boys.
LikeLike
Susan, yes, your home team pride (giddiness?) is unmistakable. But have you considered that a worldview isn’t a faith? One’s inherently all about this world and things seen, the other about the next and things unseen. The Bible never mentions worldview but Hebrews can’t stop talking about faith. Modernity gave us worldview. But historically (I know you guys love your appeals to ancientness) it’s called the Christian faith and for good reason–it’s about transcending this world (even as its very goodness is maintained). Christian worldview has the ring of being way too tied to the goings on of this world. Must be why all the worldviewers and paradigmers have knocking knees over the recent goings on. Not a great witness, I must say.
LikeLike
Now THAT’S a worldview. A Universe-view!
LikeLike
ZRIM,
” Susan, yes, your home team pride (giddiness?) is unmistakable.”
I hate this medium. Steve, aren’t you proud of your creeds? I went through hell to become Catholic, and am still considered to be on the losing side by people that I love, and made fun of by people on this blog and I can’t boast a little? I apologize for coming off as cocky, but if you were sitting across from me you’d have come back with a quick “good one” as you usually do and neither you or I would be offended by the other. I will try harder.
LikeLike
Posted July 10, 2015 at 6:40 pm | Permalink
““There is not a square inch in the whole domain of existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!”
Now THAT’S a worldview. A Universe-view!”
Yes! That’s it!
LikeLike
Hey, I had a ’91 Honda Civic. Got replaced with an ’01 Honda Civic. Love those cars.
LikeLike
Susan
Posted July 10, 2015 at 7:04 pm | Permalink
Posted July 10, 2015 at 6:40 pm | Permalink
““There is not a square inch in the whole domain of existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!”
Now THAT’S a worldview. A Universe-view!”
Yes! That’s it!
Whose Calvinism is it, anyway? 😉
LikeLike
““There is not a square inch in the whole domain of existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!”
Now THAT’S a worldview. A Universe-view!”
It’s so strange, it was the god pep rallies that drove me to the brink but others seem invigorated by them. #FBFeelgoodism’mericaporn
LikeLike
The chief problem here is that the author’s premise is wrong. Many conservative Christians mistake indifference for hostility. I don’t think that the culture in the US is hostile to orthodox Christian belief and practice. The culture is simply indifferent to it. The culture only becomes hostile when Christians try to make it care about Christianity. But this isn’t hostility to the Christian faith; it’s hostility to being bothered by a bunch or religious busy-bodies who can’t seem to mind their own business.
The overwhelming majority of Americans still believe that marriage is rightly something that exists between man and woman. Even so, many such people see no cost to themselves by allowing the benefits of civil marriage to be extended to commitments between two members of the same sex. And if granting same-sex couples such rights may lead evangelicals to do a better job of minding their own business, the average Joe may see a silver lining there.
But, no, America is not hostile to Christianity. It’s just hostile to being badgered about Christianity.
LikeLike
Bobby,
Dont you remember? https://youtu.be/Qh2sWSVRrmo
This poor generation will be so corrupted now unlike previous generations of Americans that have been so pure and paragons of virtue.
LikeLike
TVHS, how’d that u–w work out for Kuyper’s Amsterdam?
LikeLike
Bobby
Posted July 10, 2015 at 9:47 pm | Permalink
The chief problem here is that the author’s premise is wrong. Many conservative Christians mistake indifference for hostility. I don’t think that the culture in the US is hostile to orthodox Christian belief and practice. The culture is simply indifferent to it. The culture only becomes hostile when Christians try to make it care about Christianity. But this isn’t hostility to the Christian faith; it’s hostility to being bothered by a bunch or religious busy-bodies who can’t seem to mind their own business.
The overwhelming majority of Americans still believe that marriage is rightly something that exists between man and woman. Even so, many such people see no cost to themselves by allowing the benefits of civil marriage to be extended to commitments between two members of the same sex. And if granting same-sex couples such rights may lead evangelicals to do a better job of minding their own business, the average Joe may see a silver lining there.
But, no, America is not hostile to Christianity. It’s just hostile to being badgered about Christianity.
It’s just hostile when Christianity doesn’t know its place–behind closed doors, out of sight, out of mind.
LikeLike
Susan, pride is not a way I’d describe my own take, no. Having done it, I can appreciate the kind of struggles one might have in moving through these things. And it’s not making fun, it’s to say that when one comes to a place where one still has critics the glee comes off less as confidence than a zeal not according to knowledge.
Still, the question re worldview v. faith stands. My guess is that you want to contend for both but here’s another instance of contending for faith alone.
LikeLike
Jeff, but wouldn’t it be a good point to say that Curt expects the United States to exhibit sanctification for it to qualify as Christian? Maybe the U.S. is neither sanctified nor backslidden. It’s just a nation.
LikeLike
Nate, when Jesus visited Joseph Smith, of course.
Duh.
LikeLike
cw, xianmerica ended today when SC furled the Confederate Flag.
LikeLike
jed, ’81 cvcc hondas had bumpers?
LikeLike
Susan, and what does the Eternal City mean?
Think about it.
LikeLike
Chuck, if our citizenship is in heaven, Christian America died when Jesus ascended to prepare a home for his people.
LikeLike
“I’m a proud Catholic.”
Oops, going to hell.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 11, 2015 at 12:36 am | Permalink
cw, xianmerica ended today when SC furled the Confederate Flag.
Dr. Hart slimes Christianity in America via America’s racism. How ironic that Frederick Douglass found the Presbyterians in America most guilty not in their racism, but in their weak-kneed opposition to it. Dr. Hart continues the fine American Presbyterian tradition of faint protest in the face of evil, and self-satisfaction in swinging its tiny balls.
Douglass [1846]: Slavery in the Pulpit of the Evangelical Alliance
Two Kingdoms theology triumphant.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 11, 2015 at 12:42 am | Permalink
Susan, and what does the Eternal City mean?
Think about it.
The Great Commission
…19″Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
[St.] Thomas More made this a centerpiece of his argument against the early Reformer William Tyndale, Dr. Hart.
That Christ would abandon His Church for the 1000 years between Constantine and Martin Luther is contrascriptual, and then waiting another 500 years for JG Machen and his epigone DG Hart to perfect THAT is even more contrascriptural, you big sola scriptura lug, you.
“Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall not build my church, and then within 50 years it will be bogus for 1500 years until a psycho named Martin Luther shows up, and then my church will at last get it right.”—The Gospel According to St. Bastard.
LikeLike
ZRIM,
“Susan, pride is not a way I’d describe my own take, no. Having done it, I can appreciate the kind of struggles one might have in moving through these things. And it’s not making fun, it’s to say that when one comes to a place where one still has critics the glee comes off less as confidence than a zeal not according to knowledge.”
I will always have critics, but that’s okay “now”( I’m better). Catholicism isn’t liked, and I have been( as I’ve said) a little harangued, but I do have confidence that, not only have I made the right decision, but that Jesus has led me to this decison( MOC), so if I have zeal, it’s good, but when I have glee (as in gloating), I am behaving as if I have no knowledge. But I do have knowledge( and confidence which I have provide proof for) and that’s why I apologized. All that said, I am proud to be Catholic since it is the church Jesus founded. I say it like that because that it not what I could put my confidence in before. Before I was like
Orestes Brownston:
“I had joined the [Presbyterian] church because I had despaired of myself, and because despairing of reason I had wished to submit to authority. If the Presbyterian church had satisfied me that she had authority, was authorized by Almighty God to teach and direct me, I could have continued to submit; but while she exercised the most rigid authority over me, she disclaimed all authority to teach me, and remitted me to the Scriptures and private judgment. ‘We do not ask you to take this as your creed,’ said my pastor, on giving me a copy of the Presbyterian Confession of Faith; ‘we do not give you this as a summary of the doctrines you must hold, but as an excellent summary of the doctrines which we believe the Scriptures teach. What you are to believe is the Bible. You must take the Bible as your creed, and read it with a prayerful mind, begging the Holy Ghost to aid you to understand it aright.’ But while the church refused to take the responsibility of telling me what doctrines I must believe, while she sent me to the Bible and private judgment, she yet claimed authority to condemn and excommunicate me as a heretic, if I departed from the standard of doctrine contained in her Confession.
This I regarded as unfair treatment. It subjected me to all the disadvantages of authority without any of its advantages. The church demanded that I should treat her as a true mother, while she was free to treat me only as a step-son, or even as a stranger. Be one thing or another, said I; either assume the authority and the responsibility of teaching and directing me, or leave me with the responsibility [of] my freedom. If you have authority from God, avow it, and exercise it. I am all submission. I will hold what you say, and do what you bid. If you have not, then say so, and forbear to call me to an account for differing from you, or disregarding your teachings. Either bind me or loose me. Do not mock me with a freedom which is no freedom, or with an authority which is illusory. If you claim authority over my faith, tell me what I must believe, and do not throw upon me the labor and responsibility of forming a creed for myself; if you do not, if you send me to the Bible and private judgment, to find out the Christian faith the best way I can, do not hold me obliged to conform to your standards, or assume the right to anathematize me for departing from them. (pp. 23-25) (Thanks to T. Ciatoris for bringing this to my attention.)”
LikeLike
“Brownson” correction.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03001a.htm
LikeLike
TVHS, be kind and please rewind — how’s that Kuyperian u–w working in Amsterdam these days? For that matter how is the CCF and it’s w–w doing? Have you ever been to Rome? I have. And it’s rancid. Have you been to Catholic-dominated Central America? I have. It’s mostly a violent, immoral sewer. The ‘views aren’t working for the world.
LikeLike
cw l’unificateur
Posted July 11, 2015 at 8:10 am | Permalink
TVHS, be kind and please rewind — how’s that Kuyperian u–w working in Amsterdam these days? For that matter how is the CCF and it’s w–w doing? Have you ever been to Rome? I have. And it’s rancid. Have you been to Catholic-dominated Central America? I have. It’s mostly a violent, immoral sewer. The ‘views aren’t working for the world.>>>>
I don’t understand your point, cw l’unificateur. Do you think that less Christianity is better, or worse? The more people turn from the truth of the Gospel and a Christian worldview, the worse a society gets.
All of your examples show what happens when people either accept or have other world views forced on them. We have yet to see the full impact of that here in the US, but we have seen a lot already.
Why is Central America so violent? Do you know what world views are competing with Catholicism and all kinds of Christianity in, say, Honduras? Do you understand why San Pedro Sula is one of the most violent cities in the world?
The more the formerly Christian world turns its back on Christianity, the more violent and miserable it becomes. It is our choice, and we are making some very wrong choices. I am not sure what you are trying to prove, but that is what I see happening in all the places you mention.
Besides, why don’t you go preach the Gospel in those places?
LikeLike
TVD:“There is not a square inch in the whole domain of existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!”
Now THAT’S a worldview. A Universe-view!
Or Psalms -He who sits in the heavens laughs; scoffing at the nations; He sees his day is coming
LikeLike
D. G. Hart :if our citizenship is in heaven, Christian America died when Jesus ascended to prepare a home for his people.
yet from His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron Rev19:15a
Yet too, No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier. 2 Tim 2: 4
LikeLike
TVD:Now shut up and bake me a cake.
“The Kleins have been struggling financially ever since they were forced to close the doors of their bakery in 2013 as their income was basically cut in half. The couple has been notified that they must pay the 135K damages by next Monday or risk having a government lien placed on their home.”
LikeLike
Something far more devastating than gay marriage occurred last night, I witnessed a Led Zeppelin cover band entertaining a whole horde of boomers decked out in their children’s arena rock/club attire. #Diealready
LikeLike
To use biblical language in addressing this subject, one could say that Christian America is without end because it is without beginning.
Now for D.G.’s point. Would anyone say that a “social Gospeler” is sanctified regardless of their personal morals simply because of their concerns for social justice?
LikeLike
Senora Webfoot, I’ve been to Tegucigalpa. The point is that w-w does not fix everything. Rome owned Central America for centuries and that ownership did little or nothing to fix the problems, prevent wars, lift the people out of poverty, etc. And what is this Romanist w-w anyway? Which one?
– Marxist Liberation theology
– Embarrased-with-Marxism Liberation theology
– SSPX trads
– Liberal German
– NPR liberal nuns-in-slacks
– Central American syncretistic folk version
– Franco-fascist law-and-order style
– Swiss forget-Rome-we’ll-do-it-our-way style
– Fox News Repblican culture warrior style
– KoC buzzed bar-b-q style
– Increasingly-embattled Irish
– CTC fairly land
Unificating minds want to know.
LikeLike
C-Dubs, nice list. You can tack on to the nuns in slacks, priests in Lavender backdrops.
LikeLike
#seevd,tslimechristians
or
#seevd,tslimethewrongkindofchristians
or
#seevd,tslimehypocriteswhothinktheyarechristian
or
#seevd,tslimefellowAmericans
LikeLike
Zrim: Still, the question re worldview v. faith stands.
isn’t it, not worldview vs. faith but worldview = faith; either in one’s gods or the one true God
while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” Acts 17:23-31
LikeLike
Following up on my indifference comment above…
I went “home” to Tennessee last weekend. My extended family is split about evenly between evangelicals and conservative mainliners. The two hottest topics at the holiday cook-out were: the Obergefell decision and my cousin’s anti-GMO-eating girlfriend.
In observing the host of opinions expressed over these two issues, I began to wonder whether the chief difference between evangelicals and conservative mainliners lies in how to react to silly ideas. Put another way, I wonder whether the chief difference lies with whether you believe that cultural is fundamentally stable or fundamentally fragile.
The conservative mainliners in my family generally believe that culture is fundamentally fairly stable. They’re willing to let silly ideas run their course and flame out. They may think that same-sex marriage is silly, but they’re willing to give it its day in the sun and let it die under its own weight. The same goes for 30-somethings who come to the family picnic and don’t partake of pulled pork and cheesy potatoes. In fact, in the minds of most conservative mainliners, giving too much attention to opposing silliness only gives it credibility that it doesn’t otherwise deserve.
By contrast, the evangelicals in my family believe that culture is about to collapse tomorrow, if it hasn’t done so already, and that we have to fight every little cultural shift that threatens to upset the apple cart. They believe that the Obergefell decision ushered in a kind of post-Christian apocalypse, uttered while lounging on a veranda wearing a Lilly Pulitzer dress and sipping Viognier. They’re also certain that my aunt should simply instruct my cousin that his sweet girlfriend has no place in a pork-eating family.
The frustration that many of us conservative mainliners feel toward evangelicals is that the evangelical penchant for cultural pugilism tends to undermine our efforts to let silliness die a slow death. So, we fear that evangelical overreaction often gives undue credibility to things like same-sex marriage and GMO avoidance and thereby perpetuates them beyond when they would have died a natural death.
I’m generally pretty favorably disposed to evangelical theology, although I can do without certain prophylactic concepts like biblical inerrancy and biblical manhood/womanhood. But I just can’t be convinced that culture is fundamentally fragile. I also don’t believe that this world is my home, which frees me to take life as it comes. That’s probably what attracts me to 2k evangelical theology: It represents a brand of evangelicalism that doesn’t suffer from the henny-penny syndrome that seems to afflict the rest of the movement.
LikeLike
bobby, “The conservative mainliners in my family generally believe that culture is fundamentally fairly stable. They’re willing to let silly ideas run their course and flame out. They may think that same-sex marriage is silly, but they’re willing to give it its day in the sun and let it die under its own weight.”
I’m hurt. This is the position that several at Old Life have expressed and they have enough sense to leave the mainline.
Plus, the conservatives in the mainline have been hyperventilating. See the site Juicy Ecumenism.
LikeLike
1. Dr. HART, thanks for the connecting of Christ’s ascension with our citizenship. Good and clear.
2. ZRIM- I really appreciate your thought on faith v. worldview. I agree: it is one’s faith, and not one’s worldview. (This is not to say I am fussy about people who use the word “worldview.” I sympathize with what they are wanting to say. Yet, I think to use the category, “one’s faith” is much more accurate and helpful.)
3. CW, thank you for sharing on July 10 at 3:19 pm about your ancestor. I enjoyed it. By the way, I wonder if you are a closet Huguenot?! (Your name, I guess, along with your comments, make me think so…) I appreciate the Huguenots.
LikeLike
a period, so a conflating synonym? But if worldview aligns with provisional life and faith with eternal life then welcome to kingdom confusion. Also welcome to Nero’s world where the persecution of the faithful depends on kingdom confusion, not America where saying “Jesus (not Caesar) is Lord” is still protected. Do worldviewers who both conflate kingdoms and love America understand that the 2k distinction between worldview and faith is what will keep them safe and not conflating?
LikeLike
Chuck, I realize you’re a rookie but the term “closet” is a dirty one around here, lately at least. No French blood since a paternal ancestor who allegedly came over the Channel with William in 1066. I assume he emptied slop buckets or some such.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 11, 2015 at 2:41 pm | Permalink
bobby, “The conservative mainliners in my family generally believe that culture is fundamentally fairly stable. They’re willing to let silly ideas run their course and flame out. They may think that same-sex marriage is silly, but they’re willing to give it its day in the sun and let it die under its own weight.”
I’m hurt. This is the position that several at Old Life have expressed and they have enough sense to leave the mainline.
Semper schismata. Take your ball down the street and start a new game. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Plus, the conservatives in the mainline have been hyperventilating. See the site Juicy Ecumenism.
You prefer to stop breathing. How admirable.
LikeLike
a.
Posted July 11, 2015 at 10:10 am | Permalink
TVD:Now shut up and bake me a cake.
“The Kleins have been struggling financially ever since they were forced to close the doors of their bakery in 2013 as their income was basically cut in half. The couple has been notified that they must pay the 135K damages by next Monday or risk having a government lien placed on their home.”
Stop hyperventilating.
LikeLike
CW- Haha! I’ll avoid inappropriate verbiage.
LikeLike
Tom, let’s pretend you finally got serious one day. Would you need a paper bag if I refused to bake you a First Communion cake?
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 11, 2015 at 6:25 pm | Permalink
Tom, let’s pretend you finally got serious one day. Would you need a paper bag if I refused to bake you a First Communion cake?
I’m always serious. I just seem like I’m joking because most of the Old Lifers are so dull.
As for your question, I think you’re asking how much I value religious freedom. Answer: a lot. Now shut up and bake, Christian Boy. Obey your new pagan masters.
LikeLike
DGH:
I didn’t suggest that the mainline was like that as a whole. The conservatives are certainly a minority. It’s probably also more characteristic of the South too.
LikeLike
TVD: a. Stop hyperventilating.
Bobby:undue credibility to things like same-sex marriage and GMO avoidance
just sympathizing with the Kleins right now, TVD, since it sounds like their life is very difficult and in financial ruin at this moment ; oh wait, never mind, Bobby says it is just affecting them the same sitting as around having a debate about GMO
LikeLike
Bobby can still be lucid if we just steer the conversation away from parading phalli in Japan.
LikeLike
I have a comment in moderation though it has just one link. In any case, there is a fundraising website for the Kleins that indicates they have raised $339,000. It’s a “Continue to Give” website.
LikeLike
Tom, not really. I’m asking how you’d feel if instead of a moral protest against a gay marriage, I made a doctrinal protest as a Calvinist baker about participating in your (finally serious) plunge into the popish mass. Just to be clear, we Calvinists not only find humble vocations like baking admirable but also aren’t keen on said plunges. If you want the Kleins free to withhold their products from homosexuals on moral grounds, what happens when I withhold from Catholics on doctrinal grounds? Will you come to my aid, or will you use it as more proof that Calvinists are world class jerkholes?
LikeLike
I’m seeing a number of Christians saying businesses should be able to deny service for any reason they want. So, in their world we are always checking signs on stores to see what race, religion or sex they won’t serve? And if you’re a disfavored class in a small town maybe you can’t buy groceries? This is disturbing push back.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 11, 2015 at 9:27 pm | Permalink
Tom, not really. I’m asking how you’d feel if instead of a moral protest against a gay marriage, I made a doctrinal protest as a Calvinist baker about participating in your (finally serious) plunge into the popish mass. Just to be clear, we Calvinists not only find humble vocations like baking admirable but also aren’t keen on said plunges. If you want the Kleins free to withhold their products from homosexuals on moral grounds, what happens when I withhold from Catholics on doctrinal grounds? Will you come to my aid, or will you use it as more proof that Calvinists are world class jerkholes?
Yes, and yes. 😉
LikeLike
Muddy Gravel
Posted July 11, 2015 at 9:39 pm | Permalink
I’m seeing a number of Christians saying businesses should be able to deny service for any reason they want. So, in their world we are always checking signs on stores to see what race, religion or sex they won’t serve? And if you’re a disfavored class in a small town maybe you can’t buy groceries? This is disturbing push back.
An equivalence between race and sexual conduct is a false premise.
This is how traditional morality lost the debate, on a clever trick. Once Black = Gay, a tidal wave of historical examples and arguments [see Loving v. Virginia] swept traditional morality away.
LikeLike
TVD, stop doing what you always do if only briefly. If you support that businesses should be able to deny service for any reason then make your defense of that practice. Also, if you think grocery stores should be able to deny service to gays defend that as well.
LikeLike
Muddy Gravel
Posted July 11, 2015 at 11:03 pm | Permalink
TVD, stop doing what you always do if only briefly. If you support that businesses should be able to deny service for any reason then make your defense of that practice. Also, if you think grocery stores should be able to deny service to gays defend that as well.
You’re arguing a false premise again. Mr. Gravel. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind? Which is it, can’t think straight, or don’t listen carefully?
Gay ≠ Black.
Sexual conduct ≠ Skin color.
Same-Sex Attraction ≠ We have to make a social institution out of it.
Rejection of gay marriage ≠ Discrimination against persons attracted to members of the same sex
Are you completely unacquainted with these concepts, this argument? If so, what rock do you live under, MG?
LikeLike
Cw il Unificatorio
Posted July 11, 2015 at 10:50 am | Permalink
Senora Webfoot, I’ve been to Tegucigalpa.>>>>>
You have been in one city in Central America, then? I will ask you again. Why don’t you go preach the Gospel in those places?
BTW, did you know that San Pedro Sula has a first rate music conservatory? Do you think the place is completely uncivilized?
Liberation theology and nuns in pants are not what caused the surge in violence in the country. Our abandonment of Christian values, – especially manifested in our insatiable desire for illegal drugs – has done more than anything else to create present day Honduras.
Would more Christianity in the US hurt Honduras, or help Honduras?
I guess that for a radical 2Ker, the Catholic Church is the go to trouble maker in the world. If you could just get her to go away, the world would be better off. Never mind that you guys are not very interested in preaching the Gospel you claim as your own.
Oh, never mind…
LikeLike
So which is it – preaching or w–w(s)? And Cats are big on preaching now? Really.
LikeLike
Tom, gay may not be equivalent to black but what do either have to do with groceries? There is such a thing as living in a society among those whom you take any number of great exceptions. But your hyper sense of religious liberty leads you to say some pretty dumb things, Mr. Smarty Pants.
LikeLike
TVD, you totally skipped by the issue: an extreme libertarian view that businesses should be able to refuse anyone for any reason. Then you take objection on the fact that others have made homosexuals a protected class. Well, it wasn’t the overall point and anyone who has not been in a coma for the last ten years or took an SAT prior to being in a coma knows that homosexuality has significant dissimilarities with being black.
In other words, you added nothing and were simply Captain Obvious. But you did annoy and that’s your pellet here anyway. Congrats, I hope it’s a savory one.
LikeLike
Muddy Gravel
Posted July 12, 2015 at 9:04 am | Permalink
TVD, you totally skipped by the issue: an extreme libertarian view that businesses should be able to refuse anyone for any reason. Then you take objection on the fact that others have made homosexuals a protected class. Well, it wasn’t the overall point and anyone who has not been in a coma for the last ten years or took an SAT prior to being in a coma knows that homosexuality has significant dissimilarities with being black.
Then why did you go there?
How annoying.
Zrim
Posted July 12, 2015 at 9:02 am | Permalink
Tom, gay may not be equivalent to black but what do either have to do with groceries? There is such a thing as living in a society among those whom you take any number of great exceptions. But your hyper sense of religious liberty leads you to say some pretty dumb things, Mr. Smarty Pants.
You can’t see the difference between refusing to bake a cake for an individual with same-sex attraction and baking a cake for a gay marriage? Between refusing to sell groceries and not wanting to give an orphan to be raised by a pair of gay “parents?”
This shows why principled discussion became impossible in America and was reduced to absurdity before it could ever start.
LikeLike
Tom, actually I do see a difference (you’re not reading closely). MG is concerned about a hyper sense of religious liberty that leads to allowing the barring of homosexuals and blacks from purchasing groceries, and you’re not protesting. You keep throwing down something about how to be black isn’t to be gay (duh), not any reasoning that would protect our fellow citizens. I though you were the good guy who came to everyone’s aid, even a jerkhole Calvinist?
LikeLike
Cw,
The political and cultural issues of Centrall American countries stem from two main sources:
1) The tiny number of families who owned the land, the resulting abuses of justice (given their hostility to Crown and Church influence), and subsequent difficulties in developing a just society;
2) US cooperation with these families to promote revolution (successful) and incorporation as US states (unsuccessful).
Would you care to apply your argument to Brazil? Has any country on Earth been simultaneously as prosperous, peaceful, united such diverse populations (Sao Paulo is half Italian, majority of the South is German, Polish, Ukrainian, etc.), and channeled its economy to spread a good life widely? It’s not all favelas- and their favelas beat most of our inner cities.
Brazil’s successes are largely Catholic successes. It’s a great comparison to the US.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 12, 2015 at 5:06 pm | Permalink
Tom, actually I do see a difference (you’re not reading closely). MG is concerned about a hyper sense of religious liberty that leads to allowing the barring of homosexuals and blacks from purchasing groceries, and you’re not protesting.
Because it’s a stupid argument. We all know that theoretically anyone should be able to decline service to anybody, but as we just saw, once you compare anything to segregated lunch counters in the South, the discussion’s over.
Same ol’ same ol’ debate tactics, never getting near the actual issue, the state coercing people against their religious conscience. And it’s not just bakers, it’s photographers, florists, etc.
And it’s going to extend to religious schools and organizations. Have you been paying attention?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/schools-fear-impact-of-gay-marriage-ruling-on-tax-status.html
The spitstorm is just beginning.
You keep throwing down something about how to be black isn’t to be gay (duh), not any reasoning that would protect our fellow citizens. I though you were the good guy who came to everyone’s aid, even a jerkhole Calvinist?
The jerkholiness here has nothing to do with Calvinism. 😉
LikeLike
Zrim, Muddy,
SSA is unfortunate, but s. are other aspects of our genetics.
Do you believe sexual acctivity outside of Christian marriage reinforces lust?
Do you believe lust blinds? I.e., that immorality diminishes the ability to act well?
If so, then homosexual behavior (and pornography, and inappropriate ‘straight’ sexual behavior) have an impact on others.
SSM scandalously sanctions and facilitates lust. It is immoral to facilitate sin, particularly when that sin affects others.
LikeLike
TVD you get no more pellets from me. Nudge the lever however many times you wish, I’m not giving you any more.
Kevin, I think you’re in a different category but still I have to say that long-term immersion into the culture wars addles the brain. I say Christians are going into dangerous territory by saying businesses should be able to refuse anyone for any reason and you ask a series of questions on lust, immorality, and pornography? Please point out anything I’ve said that makes your questions anything but a series of non sequiturs.
But if want to talk along that line you can put your cards on the table first. A hotel owner undoubtedly profits from illicit sex happening on beds that he provides. We all know it. Can a Christian own a hotel?
LikeLike
To reiterate the obvious.
Again.
IOW distinguish between selling generic groceries/bakery goods to one and all vs. pointedly aiding and particularly abetting someone in their idolatry/immorality.
Refusing to bake communion wafers for Romanists or wedding cakes for sodomite/lesbians is not a violation of their civil rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Free exercise of one’s religion covers the first and free exercise of one’s liberty in regard to another’s perverted pursuit of “happiness” covers the second.
As for the question of when did
Christian2k America end? arguably, after we got rid of chattel slavery when Roe Wade enshrined legal murder.But is it one thing according to natural law to make the illegal legal; another to make participation mandatory which is what the Hobby Lobby/Sisters of Charity cases were all about, never mind the most recent decision on yet another egregious violation of the natural law where again, what is not forbidden, is mandatory in principle for all.
LikeLike
Kevin in Newark
Posted July 12, 2015 at 5:30 pm | Permalink
Cw,
The political and cultural issues of Central American countries stem from two main sources:
1) The tiny number of families who owned the land, the resulting abuses of justice (given their hostility to Crown and Church influence), and subsequent difficulties in developing a just society;
2) US cooperation with these families to promote revolution (successful) and incorporation as US states (unsuccessful).
Would you care to apply your argument to Brazil? Has any country on Earth been simultaneously as prosperous, peaceful, united such diverse populations (Sao Paulo is half Italian, majority of the South is German, Polish, Ukrainian, etc.), and channeled its economy to spread a good life widely? It’s not all favelas- and their favelas beat most of our inner cities.
Brazil’s successes are largely Catholic successes. It’s a great comparison to the US.
I’d be very comfortable arguing that the Protestant countries have done far better than the Catholic ones. The worst EU economies–PIIGS [Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain]–are all Catholic.
The Catholic countries, for better or worse, have historically been more communitarian, which has translated into a bigger public sector and less dynamic private business economies.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18789154
OTOH, I’d also be comfortable arguing that the further you are from the tropics, the more industrious you have to be. The “Catholic Zone” is to the south of the Protestant one.
LikeLike
Muddy Gravel
Posted July 12, 2015 at 6:12 pm | Permalink
TVD you get no more pellets from me. Nudge the lever however many times you wish, I’m not giving you any more.
Go in peace, Mr. Gravel. But first read and learn.
Bob S
Posted July 12, 2015 at 6:18 pm | Permalink
To reiterate the obvious.
Again.
IOW distinguish between selling generic groceries/bakery goods to one and all vs. pointedly aiding and particularly abetting someone in their idolatry/immorality.
Refusing to bake communion wafers for Romanists or wedding cakes for sodomite/lesbians is not a violation of their civil rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Free exercise of one’s religion covers the first and free exercise of one’s liberty in regard to another’s perverted pursuit of “happiness” covers the second.
As for the question of when did Christian2k America end? arguably, after we got rid of chattel slavery when Roe Wade enshrined legal murder.
But is it one thing according to natural law to make the illegal legal; another to make participation mandatory which is what the Hobby Lobby/Sisters of Charity cases were all about, never mind the most recent decision on yet another egregious violation of the natural law where again, what is not forbidden, is mandatory in principle for all.
Dunno about the slavery part, but the remainder is nice and sparkling clear.
LikeLike
Tom, some don’t share your assumptions (we all know that theoretically anyone should be able to decline service to anybody). When in the service of the public, one forfeits certain luxuries. If you’re a Catholic pharmacist and you have a moral objection to birth control, maybe instead of whining about personal accommodation you should find other work? Kevin wonder about the effects of lust on broader society. Do radical libertarians ever consider the effects of individualism, i.e. it’s all about me and my creaturely comfort and ease?
Kevin, what MG said. You’re doing that thing I mentioned somewhere around here recently of making a moral point and assuming it contributes to and even settles the political questions. It doesn’t. Yes, lust is morally bad. Clearly R-rated movies and bikinis should be banned, right?
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 12, 2015 at 6:57 pm | Permalink
Tom, some don’t share your assumptions (we all know that theoretically anyone should be able to decline service to anybody). When in the service of the public, one forfeits certain luxuries.
Natural rights are not luxuries, they are essential, they are unalienable. Neither is the “public” my master. I do not “serve” the public. I am not an agent of the state. Once again, the premises are all false.
If you’re a Catholic pharmacist and you have a moral objection to birth control, maybe instead of whining about personal accommodation you should find other work?
No, perhaps I should put up a sign “This pharmacy does not dispense contraceptives.” Although a more honest example is abortifacients. Catholics to my knowledge don’t refuse to dispense contraceptives, however Christians of all stripes have problems with killing an embryo, since life begins at conception.
Indeed, I should be able to put up a sign to just that effect and perhaps discourage someone from killing their embryo.
Kevin wonder about the effects of lust on broader society. Do radical libertarians ever consider the effects of individualism, i.e. it’s all about me and my creaturely comfort and ease?
My problem is with radical individualism. I’m not a social libertarian, which is the same thing as asociality, and radical individualism. The whole point of a society is its self-preservation, and that means the cycle of life, raising kids. In fact, according to Vattel, I think it was, the fact that we don’t raise ourselves is the foundation of society, and the source of our obligation to it.
If there were no such thing as children, society would not be necessary except for self-defense against animals and murderers. However, it’s not, and that’s where Michael’s plea for community morality comes in. I think the sexual revolution is often injurious, and I don’t want our kids to be encouraged by the government to ‘experiment’ with their lives and souls.
At the moment, we know precious little about homosexuality,
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/02/same-sex-science
but we have just uprooted thousands of years of social norms without any idea of what we’re doing, via Justice Kennedy’s twisted notions of “liberty” and “dignity.”
LikeLike
Clearly R-rated movies and bikinis should be banned, right?
I don’t think DGH and Chortles would appreciate having their banana hammock privileges revoked. The Men in Outrageous Bathing Suits Convention is meeting this year at La Jolla Shores.
LikeLike
I’m thinking about employing a mixed confederate and rainbow flag on FB and see if everyone will defriend me. Wish me luck.
LikeLike
@Kevin
interesting what you say about Brazil in light of something I just came across. Let’s just say things aren’t so great economically:
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/07/latin-american-productivity-problems.html
LikeLike
Of course nearly a third of South Americans have left the rcc since 1960 and it seems to have accelerated of late. So maybe the dismal state of south America isn’t all the RC’s fault….
http://www.pewforum.org/2014/11/13/religion-in-latin-america/
LikeLike
What is particularly interesting is that internationally, as the share of catholics increases in a country so does support for divorce and ssm. This suggests that the relative moral licentiousness of Catholics relative to prots is not someyhing peculiar to the west or America. Instead it is systemic.
Perhaps the ecclesiastical chaos of prots results in a more robust Christianity in the same way the economic chaos of a free market results in stronger economies than centrally planned ones. The socialist paradigm has unassailable syllogisms that never seem to pan out in practice…kinda like certain other paradigms we’vebeen called to.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/catholics-are-more-progressive-than-the-vatican-and-almost-everyone-else/
LikeLike
Tvd-
I’d be very comfortable arguing that the Protestant countries have done far better than the Catholic ones. The worst EU economies–PIIGS [Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain]–are all Catholic. The Catholic countries, for better or worse, have historically been more communitarian, which has translated into a bigger public sector and less dynamic private business economies.
The key counter-case is West Germany (1948-1991). Majority Catholic, but more importantly led by largely Catholic party, the Christian Democratic Union. Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and Finance Minister Ludwig Erhard (Lutheran, I think) created the so-called German Economic Miracle through sound economics based in Catholic Social Teachings.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy
Gen. Lucius Clay of Georgia:“Herr Erhard, my advisers tell me what you have done is a terrible mistake. What do you say to that?”
Erhard:“Herr General, pay no attention to them! My advisers tell me the same thing.”
The only reason the US permitted Adenauer to take power was that he was unimpeachably antiNazi.
Poland is also doing well, and I hope the Visegrad group (Poland, Czech R, Slovakia, Hungary) will have long-term significance. It has its own army now.
Austria under Dollfuss and pre-WWII Portgual were trying for something similar – Nazism and Communist uprisings kept it at bay.
One of the wealthiest regions in Europe is Emilia-Romagna, another is the Tyrol- northern Italy is doing well. The South would have been doing well if not for unification. Italy really shouldn’t be one country, but the international business interests made it happen and preserve it.
Spain is a sad case. Greece hasn’t been Catholic since the Genoese and Venetians left and the Turks took over.
LikeLike
Tom, then you wouldn’t do very well on “The Roman Catholic Church and Birth Control” (for $600, Alex).
In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, “Human Life”), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.
Contraception is “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control
So the more relevant example isn’t abortifacients but contraception. While (some) Prots and (some) Cats agree that life begins at conception, evidently (some) Cats think it begins even before that. But the point is that while family and not religious liberty is the cornerstone, there’s more to society than kids. What about married heteros who don’t have children? Should they be allowed to retain their marriage licenses? Sure seems by your reasoning they’re not helping society.
LikeLike
The cake baker merely provided pretty food for practicing gays who want to enter into legal entanglements. The hotel owner is actually renting the bed they will use for their honeymoon celebration. I’m waiting for Christians to vent in prophetic rage against hotel owners as well as the maids who clean their rooms.
LikeLike
There’s seems to be an unbiblical and unrealistic notion of how far we must/can separate ourselves from sin. How are we linked to sin?
– Paying taxes (like we did to the Roman empire)
– Investing – supporting unknown causes
– Selling condoms – some of which will be used sinfully
– Selling guns – some of which could be used sinfully
– Being an administrator in a hospital (abortions? sex changes?)
– Doing business (as a customer) with companies who could use their profits for various sinful things
– Running a motel knowing there will be sinful activity
– Selling table cloths – maybe for a gay wedding
– Constructing a home for a gay couple
– Constructing a home for unmarried heteros
– Catering food – maybe for an activity of a false church
– Providing paper for books – all kinds of possibilities
– Building military weapons that may be unjustly used
– Serving in a deeply flawed government like Daniel did
The monastery is a flight from the Christian life. For those who have to live it, get used to a messy world.
___________
18 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.”
19 “Go in peace,” Elisha said.
LikeLike
TVD
Posted July 12, 2015 at 10:41 pm | Permalink
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Zrim
Posted July 12, 2015 at 9:46 pm | Permalink
Tom, then you wouldn’t do very well on “The Roman Catholic Church and Birth Control” (for $600, Alex).
In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, “Human Life”), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.
Contraception is “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.
So the more relevant example isn’t abortifacients but contraception. While (some) Prots and (some) Cats agree that life begins at conception, evidently (some) Cats think it begins even before that. But the point is that while family and not religious liberty is the cornerstone, there’s more to society than kids. What about married heteros who don’t have children? Should they be allowed to retain their marriage licenses? Sure seems by your reasoning they’re not helping society.
The more relevant example is abortifacients, because it’s reality.
http://www.tldm.org/News11/NewJerseyLawRejectsConscientiousObjection.htm
Neither did you answer my argument in the slightest, so this is really getting annoying.
As for childless married heteros, there are exceptions to every rule that can upend any discussion, in this case, that centuries later, the infertility protection for women in marriage means we must institute gay marriage for couple who by nature will never reproduce.
Do you have a point?
LikeLike
Kevin in Newark
Posted July 12, 2015 at 9:45 pm | Permalink
Tvd-
“I’d be very comfortable arguing that the Protestant countries have done far better than the Catholic ones. The worst EU economies–PIIGS [Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain]–are all Catholic. The Catholic countries, for better or worse, have historically been more communitarian, which has translated into a bigger public sector and less dynamic private business economies.”
The key counter-case is West Germany (1948-1991). Majority Catholic, but more importantly led by largely Catholic party, the Christian Democratic Union. Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and Finance Minister Ludwig Erhard (Lutheran, I think) created the so-called German Economic Miracle through sound economics based in Catholic Social Teachings.
Except that Germany was an economic powerhouse before Hitler and the East/West split, and is now again.
As for Brazil, it’s still not a first world country, with a GDP per capita down around 75th, about the same as Iran. The lowest ranked “Protestant” country is around 30th.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
LikeLike
All-
SDB, the Cowen article brings to my mind what I’d mentioned on the worldview thread (thanks for your thoughtful reply, apologies for not having time to respond). The reply below is really to the group, though.
Latin America cannot be understood without understanding the US’s role in it. From even before the Monroe Doctrine, this role has been determined by our Capitalistic system.
Capitalism (rightly defined) is “state-sponsored usury.” (Disclaimer: I am not, nor have ever been, a Marxist).
That is to say, an individual advocating a Capitalist worldview is advocating a “plutocratic” society in which the government functions to protect:
a) the interests of those who control the wealth of that society, at the expense of those who possess no wealth beyond their own labor;and further
b) the ability of the plutocrats to do whatever they can get away with without endangering the short-term stability of the state.
Our American Way of Life rests on a theft of “third world” labor– 2 examples:
1) Hanes got Obama to pressure the Haitian government to set the minimum wage for garment workers at $0.31 per hour – a special concession, below the $.61 per hour standard. http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-haiti-minimum-wage-the-nation-2011-6
2) Nafta has been a disaster for Mexico and boon for US corps seeking cheap factory labor there:
Nafta has cut a path of destruction through Mexico. Since the agreement went into force in 1994, the country’s annual per capita growth flat-lined to an average of just 1.2 percent — one of the lowest in the hemisphere. Its real wage has declined and unemployment is up.
As heavily subsidized U.S. corn and other staples poured into Mexico, producer prices dropped and small farmers found themselves unable to make a living. Some two million have been forced to leave their farms. – NY Times opinion piece, Nov 24, 2013
Time to Descend the High Horse: It seems to me terrifically self-centered and arrogant to then point to these countries as failures, betrayed as they have been by their own governments to international business interests (the support of which is the raison d’etre of our government) so that we might live cushy lives. We bully them.
In the cases of Mexico, Columbia, and Trinidad, the bulk of problems in the country (how’s that for clear social impact of “private behavior” -?) stem from insatiable US demand for drugs.
Sense of history, please: Further, how does projected -1% growth in a single year invalidate the obvious well-being on a mass scale Brazil has generated over generations, while basically refraining from the institutionalization of nefarious activities we Americans at times lament but take for granted in our own government?
You might also consider source and context – the Economist editorial board and readership have an interest in seeing Brazil accommodate Anglo-American economic policies (they want to invest their strong dollars in other economies and see quick growth). They do not care at all about what is in Brazil’s best interest on-the-ground- which at times an official contraction can be.
LikeLike
TVD-
kc – Except that Germany was an economic powerhouse before Hitler and the East/West split, and is now again.
tvd – As for Brazil, it’s still not a first world country, with a GDP per capita down around 75th, about the same as Iran. The lowest ranked “Protestant” country is around 30th.
True on the first point – but to jump to a defining event in German identity, Bismarck eventually gave up his Kulturkampf at the urging of Bishop von Ketteler (ending German emigration to the US, Brazil, etc.). I think his motivation was not fundamentally religious (Protestant), just a desire to conserve traditional Prussian social order which encountered difficulties following Prussia’s post-Napoleonic expansion.
When he saw that wasn’t going to work and that he would have to accommodate Catholics (which included maintaining, reinforcing, and adapting the Catholic economic structures in the newly conquered lands, above all the Rhineland), I don’t see how his policies or the German Empire can be described as Protestant. Indeed, I think Kaiser Wilhelm was, on the whole, an admirable ruler.
Prussia may have been Protestant, but I don’t think “Germany” ever really has been. But you didn’t mention Germany; I’ll grant you Norway and Sweden – peaceful countries with lots of books and medium-sized families.
But is GDP per capita (PPP) really the best measure of economic success? I’d rather start with median family income and assets (PPP).
I also think one really has to consider selected ‘quality-of-life’ factors – is the population above replacement rate? Can you walk to work? Do people practice a religion? How many cafes are there per capita? How long is the typical vacation and do people go to Italy at every opportunity?
LikeLike
You tell me.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/11411907/Italy-is-a-dying-country-as-babies-no-longer-replace-people-who-die-says-health-minister.html
LikeLike
TVD-
Well sure, I wouldn’t gloss over the problems, even Brazil’s birth rate is way down. The West is in Decline, etc.
Just found this (for what it’s worth):
Median Net Worth (2011, Credit Suisse)
1. Australia >$200k
2. Italy $150k-$200k
3. Japan $150k-$200k
4. UK $150k-$200k
5. Switzerland $100k-$150k
6. Ireland $100k-$150k
7. France $75k-$100k
8. Canada $75k-$100k
9. Norway $75k-$100k
10. Finland $75k-$100k
11. Spain $50k-$75k
12. New Zealand $50k-$75k
13. Netherlands $50k-$75k
14. Israel $50k-$75k
15-16. China & Taiwan $50k-$75k
17. Germany $50k-$75k
18. US $50k-$75k
19. Sweden $0-$50k
20. Denmark $0-$50k
By my count:
Catholic: 4 (Italy, Ireland, France, Spain)
Protestant: 7 (Australia, UK, Norway, Finland, New Zealand, Sweden, Denmark)
Mixed: 5 (Switzerland, Canada, Netherlands, Germany, US)
Other: 4 (Japan, Israel, China, Taiwan)
“It is mind boggling that median Australian net wealth per adult is
four times that of the U.S., and Italy is three times as high.
Ireland and Spain, meanwhile, are also higher despite having housing
busts similar to that in the United States. What is going on here?”
In short, poor people and debt.
Next step might be to check populations. But what are we trying to
prove? Something about individuals or government policy?
http://www.middleclasspoliticaleconomist.com/2012/07/us-trails-at-least-15-oecd-countries-in.html
LikeLike
Next step might be to check populations. But what are we trying to
prove? Something about individuals or government policy?
http://www.middleclasspoliticaleconomist.com/2012/07/us-trails-at-least-15-oecd-countries-in.html
Well, start with PIIGS, where I did. The Catholic countries are the weaker sisters, and that’s the first world. Then look at the second and third worlds, like Latin America and the Philippines, and they quite suck.
Now, the correlation is probably stronger for proximity to the tropics, as I noted previously. The closer to the equator, the more you tend to suck.
FTR, I’m not a big fan of the way the OECD jiggles its figures, which is to make the socialist eurostates always look better than the USA. Now that the OECD countries are circling the bowl, there’s not so much bragging from the eurowienies.
[And let’s remember they’d all be speaking German or Russian but for the Pax Americana, the smug parasites.]
LikeLike
@Kevin Your definition of capitalism is highly idiosyncratic to say the least.
I realize you were asking Tom, but I’ll answer for myself anyway. First two observations:
1) Roman Catholic adherence in a country does not correlate with material or economic success
2) Roman Catholic adherence in a country is anti-correlated with some moral views
3) Roman Catholic adherence is in decline in many former strongholds according to sampling. The UN and Pew numbers are are about 10pts lower than the RCC’s numbers – largely of how they count those who convert to other religions (generally they don’t).
From this I conclude that any sort of RC triumphalism (e.g., Brazil’s success is a Catholic success) is misplaced. I do not conclude from these observations that the RCC is therefore false or that the protestant revolt is therefore justified. There are of course similar problems with the old protestant work ethic thesis which is analogous to the claims you are making for the RCC. It seems to me that reality is far more complicated than stabs at monocausal explanations for our current state of affairs allow.
LikeLike
Muddy Gravel: “Go in peace,” Elisha said.
Notice that he does not ask Elisha’s sanction to his intended compromise, but simply announces his intention, and hopes for forgiveness. It looks ill when a man, in the first fervour of adopting a new faith, is casting about for ways to reconcile it with the public profession of his old abandoned one. We should have thought better of Naaman’s monotheism, if he had not coupled his avowal of it, where it was safe to be honest, with the announcement that he did not intend to stand by his avowal when it was risky. It would have required huge courage to have gone back to Damascus and denied Rimmon; and our censure must be lenient, but decided.Naaman was the first preacher of a doctrine of compromise, which has found eminent defenders and practisers, in our own and other times. To separate the official from the man, and to allow the one to profess in public a creed which the other disavows in private, is rank immorality, whoever does or advocates it. The motive in this case was, perhaps, not so much cowardice as selfish unwillingness to forfeit position and favour at court. He wants to keep all the good things he has got; and he tries to blind his conscience by representing the small compliance of bowing as almost forced on him by the grasp of the bowing king, who leaned on his hand. But was it necessary that he should be the king’s favourite? A deeper faith would have said, ‘Perish court favour and everything that hinders me from making known whose I am.’ But Naaman is an early example of the family of ‘Facing-both-ways,’ and of trying to ‘make the best of both worlds.’ But his sophistication of conscience will not do, and his own dissatisfaction with his excuse peeps out plainly in his petition that he may be forgiven. If his act needed forgiveness, it should not have been done, nor thus calmly announced. It is vain to ask forgiveness beforehand for known sin about to be committed.Elisha is not asked for his sanction, and he neither gives nor refuses it. He dismissed Naaman with cold dignity, in the ordinary conventional form of leave-taking. His silence indicated at least the absence of hearty approval, and probably he was silent to Naaman because, as he said about the Shunemite’s trouble, the Lord had been silent to him, and he had no authoritative decision to give. Let us hope that Naaman’s faith grew and stiffened before the time of trial came, and that he did not lie to God in the house of Rimmon. Let us take the warning that we are to publish on the housetops what we hear in the ear, and that, if in anything we should be punctiliously sincere, it is in the profession of our faith. MacLaren
LikeLike
and
But, as to us, I am sure, (1.) If, in covenanting with God, we make a reservation for any known sin, which we will continue to indulge ourselves in, that reservation is a defeasance of his covenant. We must cast away all our transgressions and not except any house of Rimmon. (2.) Though we are encouraged to pray for the remission of the sins we have committed, yet, if we ask for a dispensation to go on in any sin for the future, we mock God, and deceive ourselves. (3.) Those that know not how to quit a place at court when they cannot keep it without sinning against God, and wronging their consciences, do not rightly value the divine favour. (4.) Those that truly hate evil will make conscience of abstaining from all appearances of evil. Though Naaman’s dissembling his religion cannot be approved, yet because his promise to offer no sacrifice to any god but the God of Israel only was a great point gained with a Syrian, and because, by asking pardon in this matter, he showed such a degree of conviction and ingenuousness as gave hopes of improvement, the prophet took fair leave of him, and bade him Go in peace,. Young converts must be tenderly dealt with. Matthew Henry
LikeLike
and
Elisha’s permission must not be misunderstood. He did but hand over this semi-heathen convert to the grace of God….The bowing in the house of Rimmon under such conditions probably seemed to him no more than an act of outward respect to the king and to the national religion in a case where no evil results could follow from Naaman’s example. But the general principle that we must not bow in the house of Rimmon remains unchanged. The light and knowledge vouchsafed to us far transcend those which existed in times when men had not seen the days of the Son of Man. The only rule which sincere Christians can follow is to have no truce with Canaan, no halting between two opinions, no tampering, no compliance, no connivance, no complicity with evil, even no tolerance of evil as far as their own conduct is concerned. No good man, in the light of the Gospel dispensation, could condone himself in seeming to sanction-still less in doing-anything which in his opinion ought not to be done, or in saying anything which implied his own acquiescence in things which he knows to be evil. Expositor’s Bible Commentary
LikeLike
@a.
Buy a paragraph break. Maybe even a block quote.
Your expositor seems to think that Elisha wishing Naaman “shalom” was not meant to acquiesce to Naaman’s request. That is a particularly convoluted reading of the text. Your source goes on to say “…no tampering, no compliance, no connivance, no complicity with evil…” and yet Paul tells us that financially supporting idolatry by buying meat offered to idols is not necessarily sinful… Good thing we have you to correct Elisha and Paul.
Maybe that whole liberty of conscience thing is overrated? Or maybe things that are sinful for one person aren’t sinful for another? Paul was just so like totally post-modern…
LikeLike
Good thing we have you to correct Elisha and Paul.
Me? I gave no personal opinion
I realize you would have preferred to let Muddy’s opinion stand alone unchallenged which if so would be hypocrisy, so maybe I’m reading you wrong?
just sending 3 more opinions from respected saints and btw didn’t find another one who disagreed either; but you and Muddy can have whatever opinion you want. Just don’t add Paul to your side, as your one quote of him here is partial and incomplete of his whole instruction.
LikeLike
ps., no need for you to channel Muddy’s hostility. You seem civil otherwise generally in these conversations as far as I see.
LikeLike
@a.
No hostility intended. Just pointing out your posts were tough to read. Wasn’t clear what was yours and what was quoted. I remain unconvinced. Not sure why you think I don’t want to see MG’s post challenged? I just don’t find the exegesis you quote compelling.
LikeLike
SDB-
@Kevin Your definition of capitalism is highly idiosyncratic to say the least.
Agreed it seems such to contemporary Americans. But I think it fits the data. We need to come to grips with the US economic system in order to address the obvious problems within it. Turning a blind eye is willfull ignorance (= negligence).
“Free market economy” is often applied, but doesn’t really fit upon inspection. “Capitalism” is often applied; but the concept isn’t used with a clear definition. I am passing on a definition with a respectable history which I believe to be useful and accurate. The usual position today it to dismiss it since “Successful Americans don’t talk that way,” and in this country we certainly value apparent success as a proof.
1) Roman Catholic adherence in a country does not correlate with material or economic success
Disagree. I believe it does in the sense that a society formed over generations/centuries by the principles taught by the Church will generally experience material success (although is of course subject to disasters and foreign attack) – in short, as a result of justice between citizens and a sense of the ‘organic’ nature of society (c.f. Edmund Burke). If we narrow the temporal scope too much we lose the ability to understand what is of value. This may be a weaker formulation of the claim than you’re looking for, but it is all I am advocating – that the Church teaches good economics based on natural law – open to Protestants, Confucianists, etc. – and that it contrasts with other models (socialist, Capitalist, anarchosyndicalist) which are less successful.
2) Roman Catholic adherence in a country is anti-correlated with some moral views
Strong disagreement. “Adherence” entails sticking to teachings – Catholics must be orthodox and practicing to count as “adherent” if the term is to have useful meaning. CiNOs are not adherent, by the Church’s own standards. If you discover a correlation, what you’ve in fact discovered – by definition – is faithlessness.
3) Roman Catholic adherence is in decline in many former strongholds.
Absolutely it is. The Catholic Church is in freefall Mass attendance in France, Italy, etc. is abysmal; fewer than 1 in 3 French children are baptized. Haiti is on its way to being Protestant. Brazil may not be even nominally majority Catholic in a generation. Some Central American countries are already majority Protestant. Even Poland is starting to drop off in observance, just as Ireland did. All a symptom of post-VII foolishness.
From this I conclude that any sort of RC triumphalism (e.g., Brazil’s success is a Catholic success) is misplaced.
I reject being triumphalist. Also, what I said was “Brazil’s successes are Catholic successes” – pluralizing to indicate there are failures as well (indicated just above as relating to post-VII errors, i.e., ascribable to Catholics).
There are of course similar problems with the old protestant work ethic thesis which is analogous to the claims you are making for the RCC. It seems to me that reality is far more complicated than stabs at monocausal explanations for our current state of affairs allow.
I expect we agree substantially here; you may disagree, and either way may find my ‘worldview’ vexing.
LikeLike
Tom, who said the public was your master? Is this the same tick that makes you say citizens in republics are also the magistrates? So there’s no such thing as public servants? You say you’re not a radical libertarian but you sure sound like one, where there is little room for the individual sucking it up for the sake of society actually working. This is actually how things work in the real world.
As for childless married heteros, there are exceptions to every rule that can upend any discussion, in this case, that centuries later, the infertility protection for women in marriage means we must institute gay marriage for couple who by nature will never reproduce.
There’s always adoption, but some don’t even choose that. Should they be allowed to retain their licenses? The point? It’s that those with lofty ideals need to figure out how to live in the real world. The ideals of marriage and family have taken plenty of hits throughout history but society endures even so.
LikeLike
sdb, moralists will have a tough time presenting a plausible explanation of 2 Kings 5:18. But I think Leithart handles it pretty well:
“Elisha gives permission to continue to fulfill this part of his service to the king of Aram….Elisha’s response is remarkable and shows something of God’s gentleness in dealing with believers in tricky moral and political circumstances. Elisha does not expect Naaman to abandon the world or withdraw into a ghetto where he can escape moral dilemmas and difficulties. As Paul says “let each one remain with God in that condition in which he was called” (I Cor. 7:20). If one can leave that condition, one should; but there is no sin in remaining in the condition in which one was called. There are clearly times when converts must must be exhorted to find a new place: a converted prostitute [for example]…But many Christians are zealots, insisting on far more “purity” than do Paul or Elisha – not to mention God.”
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 13, 2015 at 11:52 am | Permalink
Tom, who said the public was your master? Is this the same tick that makes you say citizens in republics are also the magistrates? So there’s no such thing as public servants? You say you’re not a radical libertarian but you sure sound like one, where there is little room for the individual sucking it up for the sake of society actually working. This is actually how things work in the real world.
You don’t have to be a “radical libertarian” to know that the government forcing people to do stuff that violates their religious beliefs is seriously messed up.
I see how we lost this battle.
“As for childless married heteros, there are exceptions to every rule that can upend any discussion, in this case, that centuries later, the infertility protection for women in marriage means we must institute gay marriage for couple who by nature will never reproduce.”
There’s always adoption, but some don’t even choose that. Should they be allowed to retain their licenses? The point? It’s that those with lofty ideals need to figure out how to live in the real world. The ideals of marriage and family have taken plenty of hits throughout history but society endures even so.
The ideals of marriage and family are seriously on the ropes, and is a disaster for the children.. Where have you been?
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/the-decline-of-marriage-and-the-rise-of-unwed-mothers-an-economic-mystery/274111/
As for gay adoption, it’s now illegal for a [Christian] adoption service to prefer a child have a mother and a father instead of two of one or the other–although there are indications the former is best.
As for your sneering at “lofty” ideals, the alternative has become to have no ideals atall. I don’t think your way is better, in fact I know it’s not.
LikeLike
Muddy, Zrim,
Society is a partnership between its past members, its current members, and those who are to come. It gives us our jobs, our neighborhoods, our entertainments, our language, our support, our troubles. It is the field in which we practice justice and charity. We find in it our friends, our spouses, we raise our children in it. We have an obligation to it.
I don’t propose that laws somehow replace morality, but they can foster it. We cannot eliminate the messiness, but we should strive for order.
long-term immersion into the culture wars addles the brain. –
I say Christians are going into dangerous territory by saying businesses should be able to refuse anyone for any reason – you are defending the expansion of legal protections (statutory or judicial) for immoral behavior.
and you ask a series of questions on lust, immorality, and pornography? Please point out anything I’ve said that makes your questions anything but a series of non sequiturs. – I say laws exist to foster justice, and sexual sin causes injustice.
A hotel owner undoubtedly profits from illicit sex happening on beds that he provides. We all know it. Can a Christian own a hotel? – he should be able to reject guests who engage in immoral behavior on his property.
LikeLike
Kevin, you seen to not be able to resist imputing views to me. I suspect it is because I don’t do straight-line culture wars so you fill in the blanks with whatever the bad guys say. But if you want to explain it otherwise, I’m all ears.
But I think there is a key difference between what you and I are doing. You are arguing for why things should be as they were in the past whereas I am recognizing that things have changed and that we need to deal with that reality. This has been a slow train coming from the SCOTUS since 2003 when anti-sodomy statutes were declared unconstitutional. Also, a number of states have had gays as a protected class for years, so it’s a little puzzling why everyone is so stunned and ill-prepared to think through these issues.
So far, Kevin, you have hotel owners turning away those who may do immoral acts in their buildings. By extension, that would include people who rent apartments, yes?
LikeLike
Muddy, Zrim,
long-term immersion into the culture wars addles the brain.
Virtues are moral habits, vices are immoral habits. We become what we practice.
1) If we practice being frantic about these issues, then we will become addled;
2) If we approach in a strong, patient, organized, measured, manner, then that is what we become. We can effect change (or at least preservation of the good) without becoming “addled.”
If you are interpreting my position #2 as not-my-position #1, then you are mistaken.
My questions for you, then:
a) I think your position is to habitually avoid finding common ground with those who advocate Catholic positions on anything. Correct?
b) Do you advocate the development of a habit of mind which is aware of social problems and seeks to resolve them through appropriate means, which at times includes making or setting aside laws and judicial judgments?
c) Do you agree that if we practice impotence, indifference, cowardice, or another blameworthy characteristic, e.g. if this is what motivates our not habitual non-engagement, that this then is what we become?
LikeLike
Mencken, courtesy of an OL tweet,
What about businesses that are social clubs?
Furthermore, RSC on public and private. This seems very sympathetic with 2K also. The Bible doesn’t tell you who to enter into business dealings with, so people should be free to deal with who they want.
LikeLike
Muddy,
Just read your 4:27 post (I was writing my 4:30 post at the time).
Kevin, you seen to not be able to resist imputing views to me. I suspect it is because I don’t do straight-line culture wars so you fill in the blanks with whatever the bad guys say. But if you want to explain it otherwise, I’m all ears.
Just trying to understand- interpret, not impute. I try to be very straightforward, and when employing irony hope the meaning is clear.
I truly don’t know what “bad guys” you are referring to, or how I would be making use of what they say. I don’t have any idea what you mean by “straight-line culture wars” – is it helpful to know I don’t watch TV or listen to the radio (aside from Calypso and Greek Rebetika from time to time)?
So far, Kevin, you have hotel owners turning away those who may do immoral acts in their buildings. By extension, that would include people who rent apartments, yes?
My wife and I own and manage 7 rental units, so this isn’t academic. Absolutely. File this post away at the NSA Utah data center, please.
LikeLike
Kevin, on this point you are neither Catholic nor Prot – you are simply a right wing culture warrior.
The addling refers to a propensity to mimic the left by participating in a zero sum game in which each side adheres to an agenda, is very suspicious of anyone not on that agenda, and uses misleading soundbites to characterize positions and events; the cumulative effect is a loss of the ability or even interest in nuance that goes off script. Accurately representing the bad guys is not a concern, the desire to understand them withers, and the agenda is taken to be equivalent to the Christian ethic.
LikeLike
Walton, you are certainly free to prefer something that no longer exists and has not for some time now. But here’s the nuclear bomb: do you support the right of a business owner to put up a sign that says “We don’t serve blacks”? Or maybe “We don’t serve Christians”?
LikeLike
Kevin, much agreed actually. However, my point is that sometimes legislation just falls down and society simply has to muddle through, and what I don’t see from a large balance of Christians is the kind of sanity that grasps that. What i see is the kind of hand wringing that suggests they think legislation does more than help foster society, that it in fact creates and maintains it. Ironic because this is the same crowd that says civil powers do not in fact do so…
LikeLike
Tom, right, lofty ideals or none at all. Your fundie slip is showing.
LikeLike
Muddy: moralists
Muddy, Jesus had to die to save us from our ‘immorality ,so it’s hard to understand what you are saying when you denigrate ‘morality’ ?
LikeLike
Muddy,
Absolutely. Everybody was fine with people discriminating against racists (think Donald Sterling). The NBA has the right to do business with whomever they want.
LikeLike
a, moralIST, related to moralISM. Think of what changes when you put “ism” at the end of a word.
LikeLike
Gee, Walton, I wonder why people (including blacks) would be antagonistic against someone who says it’s fine to deny them service. But here’s the deal: the magistrate disagrees with you. You lose. Submit to the magistrate in anything that does not require you to sin.
LikeLike
Muddy,
Kevin, on this point you are neither Catholic nor Prot – you are simply a right wing culture warrior. – this is the first time anyone has called me “right wing.”
The addling refers to a propensity
I follow your point clearly, but I don’t think it at all characterizes me. I laid out the basis for my as:
To approach in a strong, patient, organized, measured, manner; developing a habit of mind which is aware of social problems and seeks to resolve them through appropriate means; based upon a view of society as a partnership between its past members, its current members, and those who are to come.
I don’t see how that indicates a narrow ideology, dishonesty (intent to mislead or mischaracterize), or addlement.
But here’s the nuclear bomb: do you support the right of a business owner to put up a sign that says “We don’t serve blacks”? Or maybe “We don’t serve Christians”?
I’m not presuming to speak for Walton, but that is not only not a bomb, it packs no punch at all. Those signs would be indicating a readiness to practice injustice (unjust discrimination) – if such a readiness were to be sufficiently widespread in society, I think a statutory remedy (reinforced judicially) would be appropriate.
LikeLike
Zrim,
my point is that sometimes legislation just falls down and society simply has to muddle through, and what I don’t see from a large balance of Christians is the kind of sanity that grasps that. What i see is the kind of hand wringing that suggests they think legislation does more than help foster society, that it in fact creates and maintains it.
It looks like we agree on the underlying principle, then.
I think few things are more misguided than the idea that if you get all the laws right, all of society flows from it without hitch. It is related to the obsession with written constitutions in my mind – and we have adequate post-WWII examples of written docs imposed on society which fall flat.
I still don’t see how you can think SSM isn’t a problem, though; unless you reject that SSM will result in further change of human behaviors.
Kids imitate what they see on tv. I can imagine a teen show about two boys in love. I can imagine two young teenagers being confused and mistaking friendship for sexual attraction. This would be to strike at the very heart of human friendship.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 13, 2015 at 4:49 pm | Permalink
Tom, right, lofty ideals or none at all. Your fundie slip is showing.
And you resent labels? Heal thyself.
As for your sneering at my argument as ‘lofty’ ideals, that’s just a rhetorical trick. Your preference for “reality” is nothing more than knuckling under.
Now shut up and bake me a cake.
Muddy Gravel
Posted July 13, 2015 at 5:06 pm | Permalink
Gee, Walton, I wonder why people (including blacks) would be antagonistic against someone who says it’s fine to deny them service.
There you have it. Gay marriage = being black. This is how they won.
LikeLike
Tom,
Gay marriage = being black. This is how they won.
You’re probably right, but the law has consistently moved toward elevating sexual orientation and gender identity to the same protected status as race. Right or wrong, I don’t see anyone un-ringing that bell.
When it comes to commerce, I don’t see how businesses licensed to practiced by the state can provide a defensible basis for discrimination. Muddy will know better than I would, but I doubt commerce is protected like speech or religion. Unless bakeries and wedding photographers want to operate as 501c3 religious non-profits, I don’t see how they can make the case that their business is religious in nature, since it is a) for profit, and b) regulated under commercial codes. It gets even stickier when interstate commerce is considered, because if one state allows discrimination and others do not, it will cause huge problems at the federal level.
LikeLike
they won…..
now on to ….“Polygamy is about marriage equality,” Collier told the AP… Support for polygamy has increased from 5% in 2006 to 16% today according to Gallup…Today, arguments in favor of polygamy focus more on sexual autonomy and individual choice. Because the definition of marriage or the form of marriage has changed and we’re open to constitutional change, it’s inevitable for this to be contested,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/07/10/heres-why-people-are-arguing-over-whether-polygamy-is-the-next-gay-marriage-debate/
LikeLike
a period, gong. Jesus saved us from our morality, as in self-righteousness.
Kevin, I never said SSM wasn’t a problem. I’ve been hinting that it is: homosexuality should not enjoy the sanction of marriage. Families aren’t much helped in fostering certain morals when other facets of larger society foster the opposite. But, and here’s my point again, that’s always been the case. And one virtue I think worth instilling is in learning how to live in a society that doesn’t see it your way. That’s actually the crucible where character is made, not in the bubble where everyone is alike. I don’t think the culture warriors understand this one bit. Compromise has become a four-letter word, but it’s a virtue. Tom provides the example: “Your preference for “reality” is nothing more than knuckling under.” See, learning to live in the real world = cowardice. Fubar.
Tom, resent labels? Huh?
LikeLike
Jed Paschall
Posted July 13, 2015 at 6:07 pm | Permalink
Tom,
“Gay marriage = being black. This is how they won.”
You’re probably right, but the law has consistently moved toward elevating sexual orientation and gender identity to the same protected status as race. Right or wrong, I don’t see anyone un-ringing that bell.
True, it’s moot. Which leaves only religious freedom.
When it comes to commerce, I don’t see how businesses licensed to practiced by the state can provide a defensible basis for discrimination.
Does an occupational license make you an agent of the state? Frankly, I don’t think these government clerks are going to get away with refusing to process gay marriage applications, but at what point does the state own everybody?
“Discrimination” of course is a rhetorical winner. We use it solely in terms of race, and now of course with gay marriage, discrimination always = bad. Another way the war of words was lost.
Muddy will know better than I would, but I doubt commerce is protected like speech or religion.
The Hobby Lobby decision says this battle is not lost yet.
Unless bakeries and wedding photographers want to operate as 501c3 religious non-profits, I don’t see how they can make the case that their business is religious in nature, since it is a) for profit, and b) regulated under commercial codes.
How does that justify violating my First Amendment right of the free exercise of religion? Again, this is how the battle was lost.
It gets even stickier when interstate commerce is considered, because if one state allows discrimination and others do not, it will cause huge problems at the federal level.
This was actually where I thought gay marriage would win fair and square–although it was never argued. States give “full faith and credit” to marriages in other states, even between cousins or with 14-yr olds. I never saw how gay marriages wouldn’t slip in the same way.
But as far as forcing a photographer to participate in a gay wedding, I’m hoping this last ditch can be defended.
LikeLike
Kevin, agreed on the potential negatives of SSM on our culture.
Having said that, you’re wasting your time. You’re fighting a battle that has been decisively lost. The government values open access to commerce and it makes the laws. So rather than argue as if we can go back to a pre-civil rights era in which businesses can choose whom to serve, shouldn’t you be concentrating on your ethical duty to submit to the magistrate, and sorting out when you will have to say “I must obey God rather than man?” It seems your propensity is to narrowly define the former and broadly define the latter.
LikeLike
Zrim: a period, gong. Jesus saved us from our morality, as in self-righteousness.
Zrim – amen; yet morality-bashing talk can get confusion, can’t it – in the ‘it’s all about me’ – Jesus dies.. I do whatever I want. If one thinks we’re ‘saved from morality’ they won’t like the kingdom to come much
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 13, 2015 at 6:19 pm | Permalink
a period, gong. Jesus saved us from our morality, as in self-righteousness.
Kevin, I never said SSM wasn’t a problem. I’ve been hinting that it is: homosexuality should not enjoy the sanction of marriage. Families aren’t much helped in fostering certain morals when other facets of larger society foster the opposite. But, and here’s my point again, that’s always been the case. And one virtue I think worth instilling is in learning how to live in a society that doesn’t see it your way. That’s actually the crucible where character is made, not in the bubble where everyone is alike. I don’t think the culture warriors understand this one bit. Compromise has become a four-letter word, but it’s a virtue. Tom provides the example: “Your preference for “reality” is nothing more than knuckling under.” See, learning to live in the real world = cowardice. Fubar.
Tom, resent labels? Huh?
You called me a fundie. [As if.]
And yes, knuckling under to the real world certainly is cowardice. What else would it be?
This is how the battle was lost, good men doing nothing, letting the Falwells and Palins take all the flak–and not just lamely sitting on the sidelines, but throwing a few rocks yourselves.
http://www.amazon.com/From-Billy-Graham-Sarah-Palin/dp/080286628X
LikeLike
Jed, there is an ongoing argument among federal court judges as to whether having a corporation strips the business owners of rights they would have as individuals. The Tenth Circuit held that Hobby Lobby could be protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act notwithstanding that it is a for-profit corporation, so there’s that. But in general I think you correctly say that you pay a price when you enter into commerce, and that price includes compliance with civil rights laws.
LikeLike
Muddy,
I also said people can discriminate against me. And they have every right to be antagonistic towards anyone. Or are you saying it’s only okay to discriminate against meanies?
I am submitting. But I am also disagreeing that the government has the authority to say who you can refuse business to. Here’s Ron Paul on whataburger’s new gun policy.
So, it is strange that I am asking you this, because you seem like the morality imposer here, but by what standard do you determine what can and cannot be discriminated against?
LikeLike
Jed, I do think people will have a hard time saying their business is religious in nature. That’s another problem with RFRA and the like. It conveys the idea that the government has authority over everything except religion. It doesn’t have to be religious for you to have personal freedom to do what you want. It just has to be yours.
LikeLike
Walton, this is one of the things I’m trying to emphasize: it doesn’t matter what I think. It is a constitutional right for homosexuals to marry and a number of states – including mine – also have civil rights statutes that include gays. I didn’t make the laws and I don’t enforce them. Armchair magistrates aren’t terribly helpful in this situation. Do you remember what Paul told Titus? “Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities.” Well, are our pastors doing this? It seems like Christians have become magistrate wannabes.
LikeLike
Muddy Gravel
Posted July 13, 2015 at 7:50 pm | Permalink
Walton, this is one of the things I’m trying to emphasize: it doesn’t matter what I think. It is a constitutional right for homosexuals to marry and a number of states – including mine – also have civil rights statutes that include gays. I didn’t make the laws and I don’t enforce them. Armchair magistrates aren’t terribly helpful in this situation. Do you remember what Paul told Titus? “Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities.”
Moral imbecility. What if the ruler requires you to build altars to false gods? To beat another slave to death? Perform abortions? Participate in celebrating sham “marriages?”
Further, we are not subjects or slaves, we are not “ruled” as were the Christians of the first century CE. Under our system of government, we are free men, with unalienable rights. The government is not our master, neither are we servants of the “public,” whatever that is.
More muddy thinking, the bankrupt kind that Frederick Douglass spoke of when the Presbyterians cravenly surrendered to slavery.
http://www.yale.edu/glc/archive/1083.htm
LikeLike
Maybe Christian America ended when American broke the “City on a Hill “one way covenant with God.”
Winthrop;;Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission. The Lord hath given us leave to draw our own articles. We have professed to enterprise these and those accounts, upon these and those ends. We have hereupon besought Him of favor and blessing. Now if the Lord shall please to hear us, and bring us in peace to the place we desire, then hath He ratified this covenant and sealed our commission, and will expect a strict performance of the articles contained in it; but if we shall neglect the observation of these articles which are the ends we have propounded, and, dissembling with our God, shall fall to embrace this present world and prosecute our carnal intentions, seeking great things for ourselves and our posterity, the Lord will surely break out in wrath against us, and be revenged of such a people, and make us know the price of the breach of such a covenant. http://americanvision.org/11199/carl-truemans-total-surrender-exile-theologians/
LikeLike
Muddy,
You’re right. And so is Paul. We need to be reminded of that.
So what do we do with our political views?
LikeLike
TVD,
I think Muddy already covered those things in emphasizing the importance of “sorting out when you will have to say I must obey God rather than man”
But I’m totally with you on the so-called “radical” libertarianism.
LikeLike
Walton, it seems to me that we all have political views and we are free as citizens to get politically involved to promote them. There are limits and there are pitfalls in so doing – we need to be always aware of them. But I wonder what happened to the idea of submission to the will of God as he raises up rulers who might be good or wicked, wise or foolish. I can’t read the New Testament and think that its writers or actors assumed governments will reflect the moral law of God and that we are called to revolution if they do not.
LikeLike
Mud, ain’t nobody talking revolution. At least I’m not.
But when the takeaway is if you are an adoption agency and the great god Caesar has said homosexuals can lawfully adopt children and the moral consensus here from the in group (?) seems to be ‘hey man up and obey or find something else to do for a living’, we begins to wonder.
Since when has Caesar been the bottom line for the last word on slavery or killing Jews or babies, never mind blessing an egregious violation of the natural law by assuming sodomites and lesbians can get married? Can we say Erastianism? Compromise? Confused? Sure we can.
Frankly I don’t really care what the S&L crowd want to do. If they want to believe in little green men from Mars, that is their business per se. But when I have to believe in little green men at the point of a gun wielded by the civil magistrate, then there’s a war on reality going on, never mind culture, Christianity or what “the lawyers say” about the constitution.
If you don’t understand what mass hysteria/stupidity/idiocy is; a moral version of the Tulip mania, our very own Twitter take on the Red Guard or a social media witch hunt, you are not competent to the question. (Likewise distinguishing between groceries and communion wafers/wedding cakes.)
The S&L bunch already got a civil right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and have had for some time. What they want now is not only a special right to pervert a creation/natural law ordinance that applies to everybody, but also the promotion of their version over anybody else’s to the front of the line. Frankly, I don’t think the Big Lie for 1-3% of the country is necessarily a done deal or slam dunk. Maybe, maybe not. But we are called to go down gambling on the truth regardless.
FTM if trannies are the next in line for secular sainthood, the firestorm that greeted anybody who thought Bruce Jenner was one sad and sick puppie, just might provoke a further reaction to the stupid and unconstitutional over reach that we now have with the S&L. (And the Confederate flag. Do we really think these proven and despicable hypocrites in govt. and the media wouldn’t shoot on sight anybody burning the rainbow flag, gun control notwithstanding?)
IOW the bad bad Religious Right are not the only clowns who believe in and worship at the altar of transformationalism. Neither do 2k Christians have to kiss the foot that kicks them in quite the obsequious fashion some here seem to be urging.
ciao
LikeLike
Bob, you are angrier than I am – you win. I’m glad someone has shown their Christian bona fides by speaking out against trannies. A true pioneer you are.
LikeLike
Bob S
Posted July 13, 2015 at 11:05 pm | Permalink
There’s a war on reality going on, never mind culture, Christianity or what “the lawyers say” about the constitution.
Dude. All of what you wrote, but esp this. You’re on a roll.
Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. Does that include the definition of reality? Romans 13 = The Emperor’s New Clothes?
LikeLike
Mark Mcculley
Posted July 13, 2015 at 8:12 pm | Permalink
Maybe Christian America ended when American broke the “City on a Hill “one way covenant with God.”
MarkMc, I agree with this completely. As Mr. Lincoln said,
Man is often confused–and even more often, he lies to his own mind and own heart about what God’s will might be [as in slavery and Jim Crow]–but Justice Kennedy has just abolished theology and even philosophy in public life. Our new god is “liberty,” whoever that might be.
And while he’s at it, why not some BS perjoratives [‘disparage’, ‘diminish’] and new age gobbledygook [‘choices’ and most absurd of all, ‘personhood’]
Plus ‘deny’ only works if you assume the conclusion, that gay marriage is a ‘right.’
No wonder they won. Every key word is a distortion or a lie.
LikeLike
Huh?
Angry?
What are you talking about, Mud?
I think the whole argument being promoted such as I understand it here is ridiculous/sad/pathetic.
Likewise re. the former Olympic champ.
That’s all.
Of course in some circles that still qualifies as hate speech, but I didn’t think we were there yet here. Obviously I am behind some kind of curve.
Anyway an interesting article Administrative “Law” and the Tyranny of “Tolerance”.
Fine print: Your mileage MAY vary all other things being EeQull
cheers
LikeLike
Muddy- what Bob S said.
Zrim- I guess we agree, then, but I don’t think I could have been expected to know this from your prior comments on the subject.
Tvd- we have the Goddess of Liberty on NJ soil in NY harbor. She can be worshipped in person from Jersey City, or in passing from the NJ Turnpike or Staten Island Ferry. The US Bishops were not impressed at time of installation, I believe.
LikeLike
Kevin in Newark
Posted July 14, 2015 at 2:20 am | Permalink
Tvd- we have the Goddess of Liberty on NJ soil in NY harbor. She can be worshipped in person from Jersey City, or in passing from the NJ Turnpike or Staten Island Ferry. The US Bishops were not impressed at time of installation, I believe.
To the American Founders, who believed in a natural law, “liberty” meant the freedom to do the right thing. Now, it’s the freedom to do the other.
Not that I care who performs sex on whom, but when they use the power of the government to drag us and the children into their moral cesspool, that’s not right, and I think we should stand up and say something.
Your Romans 13 mileage may vary, but with rare exceptions I think it’s just a rationalization for gutlessness.
LikeLike
Bob, too bad because I thought you were on to something. I’m thinking of a church sign “Be Ye Transformed, Not Be Ye Trannies.”
With that I’ll just wait for a blog article warning about people like me. “2ks For Trannies” maybe.
LikeLike
When an authority commands unjustly, the commands are illegitimate (contrary to God’s law) and he need or must not be obeyed. Insofar as the authority requires immorality, he loses that authority.
Edited from a posted over at Rorate Caeli:
“Human law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason or , it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence.” (Thomas A.)
“If the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with the divine law […] then, truly, to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey, a crime; a crime, moreover, combined with misdemeanor against the State itself, inasmuch as every offense leveled against religion is also a sin against the State.
Here anew it becomes evident how unjust is the reproach of sedition; for the obedience due to rulers and legislators is not refused, but there is a deviation from their will in those precepts only which they have no power to enjoin. (Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Sapientiae Christianae, n. 10)
“The one only reason which men have for not obeying is when anything is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or the divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated.
If, therefore, it should happen to anyone to be compelled to prefer one or the other, viz., to disregard either the commands of God or those of rulers, he must obey Jesus Christ, who commands us to “give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” and must reply courageously after the example of the Apostles: “We ought to obey God rather than men.”
And yet there is no reason why those who so behave themselves should be accused of refusing obedience; for, if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, they themselves exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice; nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null.” (Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Diuturnum Illud, n. 15)
“Church cannot stand by silent or idle, while a people is destroying itself by lawlessness, even if the lawlessness be clothed in the garment of the highest judicial authority.” – Cardinal Burke in Ireland, July 5th 2015
“The law of the land is the law of the land,” says Archbishop of Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl. “We certainly follow what the law says. That doesn’t mean we change the word of God. That doesn’t mean we change the scriptures, or the church’s millennia-long tradition of what marriage is.”
And for the wedge-drivers, while Wuerl’s words are softer than some of those previously quoted, it’s not like he is departing from Catholic tradition – he is simply not (here) addressing the the points made above about the illegitimacy of unjust commands and potential resulting forfeiture of authority.
LikeLike
Kevin, I’m not so sure you needed to do all that to establish “We must obey God rather than men.”
But in what sense is SSM requiring Kevin to sin?
LikeLike
My earlier comment was based on ” Insofar as the authority requires immorality, he loses that authority.” But you went much further than that. Still, let’s start with that initial question: “how does the legalization of SSM coerce Kevin to sin?”
LikeLike
Kevin, in your heart of hearts, you’d like to see the state submitting to the Catholic church. Admit or deny?
LikeLike
TVD:when they use the power of the government to drag the children into their moral cesspool, that’s not right, and I think we should stand up and say something.
Religious liberty is no longer just a concern we face in our churches or businesses—it’s quickly becoming an issue that affects us in our homes. Increasingly, our desire to bring up our children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Eph 6:4) will conflict with the state’s desire to increase individual and sexual autonomy.
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/oregon-allows-15-year-olds-to-get-state-subsidized-sex-change-operationswithout-parental-consent
LikeLike
How is the Statue of Liberty not an idol to a false god?
It is based on a (minor) pagan goddess Libertas, which appeared on ancient Roman coinage.
What are the minimum conditions for America’s treatment of it to qualify as false worship? I.e., if we’re not there already, what more would need to be done?
The Statue was given “consecration” by the NY State Masonic Lodge (following a ‘tradition’ going back to Washington’s Masonic consecration of the US Capitol).
‘The cornerstone being found square, level and plumb, the Grand Master applied the mortar and had the stone lowered into place. He then struck the stone three times, and declared it duly laid. Then the elements of consecration were presented, corn, wine, and oil.’
The Statue’s cornerstone contains articles a sociologist could argue indicate a civil religion and its spread in politics and the media:
A copy of the United States Constitution; George Washington’s Farewell Address; the Constitution and Statutes of the NY Lodge; twenty bronze medals of Presidents up through Chester A. Arthur (including Washington, Monroe, Jackson, Polk, Buchanan, Johnson and Garfield, who were all Freemasons); copies of New York City newspapers; a portrait of Bartholdi; poetry and song (“Liberty Enlightening the World,” “Poem on Liberty,” “Song of Liberty”); and a list on parchment of the Grand Lodge officers.
The Anglican/Episcopal Bishop blessed the statue.
Catholic Archbishop Corrigan of NY (born in Newark) and McQuaid of Buffalo did not, and were critical – can’t find the quotes at the moment.
The ceremony is detailed in the 1885 Proceedings of the NY State Lodge on google books: https://books.google.com/books?id=_1ZLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA50
LikeLike
“How is the Statue of Liberty not an idol to a false god?”
Coming from a guy who venerates statues, this irony here is rich. We’re talking chocolate cake with chocolate chips with chocolate frosting, chocolate ice cream and chocolate fudge on top rich.
But you want the President to have a dedicated Pope Phone, don’t you? Kevin? You want to say it. Say it.
LikeLike
Muddy-
Come now, give me some credit for selecting words which will stimulate a reply.
If public sources are to be believed (and the West Wing, if you like), the President has quite easy access to the Pope. This shouldn’t surprise. I do wish he’d use it for guidance.
What I am interested in is your response to the questions I posed. Publius’s, too- where has he gone?
LikeLike
Kevin, I don’t actually see any recent questions of yours. I only see questions of mine left unanswered. So why don’t you answer then and I’ll check back in a couple hours?
LikeLike
Muddy –
—Previously answered:
MG: So far, Kevin, you have hotel owners turning away those who may do immoral acts in their buildings. By extension, that would include people who rent apartments, yes?
kc: My wife and I own and manage 7 rental units, so this isn’t academic. Absolutely.
MG: shouldn’t you be concentrating on your ethical duty to submit to the magistrate, and sorting out when you will have to say “I must obey God rather than man?”
kc: Muddy- what Bob S said.
—Current:
kc: How is the Statue of Liberty not an idol to a false god? / What are the minimum conditions for America’s treatment of it to qualify as false worship? I.e., if we’re not there already, what more would need to be done?
MG: [pending]
MG: But in what sense is SSM requiring Kevin to sin? / how does the legalization of SSM coerce Kevin to sin?
kc: If I am renting out an apartment, an SSM couple views it, and I deny them (because I don’t want that immoral behavior on my property, on grounds I would be facilitating sex outside of marriage and therefore cooperating with sin), even if I withheld my reasoning they could at least file for discrimination.
Let’s say the court finds this very comment (perhaps checking with the NSA regarding my record) and uses it as evidence of my position. In NJ, I suspect I would lose this case and be liable for loads of cash in fines, plus lawyer fees, plus it would be time-consuming. Not far-fetched! The state would then compel me to facilitate sin.
MG: Kevin, in your heart of hearts, you’d like to see the state submitting to the Catholic church. Admit or deny?
kc: Not only in my heart of hearts, but in my speech, arguments, and comments on this blog. I have not been at all reticent on this point. It would be a great boon for all Americans to desire and acquire this.
But that submission would need to come voluntarily, not be unjustly imposed, and not voted on by a bare majority (requiring state suppression of the large minority dissenting) – which is as likely to happen as a Supreme Court ruling or Senate invitation to the House of Wittelsbach of Bavaria to serve as ruling dynasty. Far-fetched.
Did I miss any of your questions?
LikeLike
Kevin, do you rent to Moonies, hardened papists, people who only shop at IKEA, people who sell products made by slave labor, purveyors of high-fat fast food slung by underpaid people who have to work on Sunday? Asking for a fiend.
LikeLike
I sell a financial service that is required by the state and is necessary if someone wants to operate a car (and hence, in most places, hold a job), rent an apartment, or buy a home. Are you telling me that I should be turning gay-married people away? Where does the “good neighbor” thing come in?
LikeLike
And yes, knuckling under to the real world certainly is cowardice. What else would it be?
It would be knowing how to live in an imperfect world. Like marriage, you know, the cornerstone of society where selves learn to swallow their pride and sacrifice self, etc., etc. What good is that if it never translates into living in broader society? But, TVD, you wanted our stance to be in marriage what you want it to be in society, I only see divorce. Oh, the irony.
What if the ruler requires you to build altars to false gods? To beat another slave to death? Perform abortions?
That’s not happening. Join the real world and quit drawing pictures that only make the already wound-up hysterical go completely bonkers.
LikeLike
Cw ille unificatorius –
Kevin, do you rent to Moonies, hardened papists, people who only shop at IKEA, people who sell products made by slave labor, purveyors of high-fat fast food slung by underpaid people who have to work on Sunday? Asking for a fiend.
I absolutely try to choose tenants based upon the good I perceive them to do in life, if that’s what you are getting at. There are various reasons – I’ll again raise my argument that virtues rise (& fall) together. Owner-managers of old multifamily houses in my neck of the woods cannot afford to not judge the moral characters of those they admit.
A deadbeat tenant can easily get 6 months free rent if they take a landlord to housing court, or can neglect or damage the property in all sorts of ways.
I would prefer to rent only to young Catholic families whose parents live in the neighborhood, but that’s not always an option. So I rent to apparently-trustworthy, good-natured, hard-working people of various backgrounds (even a few ex-suburbanites, I am loathe to admit; and further was chagrined to discover patronize the local Dunkin Donuts rather than the numerous family-owned cafes).
I am very picky and feel a serious sense of responsibility in choosing tenants. The character of my neighborhood depends upon it. It’s a part of the messiness of life, and calls for prudence.
LikeLike
Cool, a pious slumlord. I like it.
LikeLike
kc: How is the Statue of Liberty not an idol to a false god? / What are the minimum conditions for America’s treatment of it to qualify as false worship? I.e., if we’re not there already, what more would need to be done?
MG: You are now officially in orbit.
Kevin, if you were a Prot I guess you would be a theonomist. I find it difficult to talk with them because they want to talk about particular laws ad infinitum but it’s all a waste of time because I reject the initial premise that Mosaic laws are intended for us. Now you would have our country under the Pope with all that entails and your prescriptions are either consistent with that or divert from it only the extent that they must given our present situation.
So I may get back to you but I’ll have to mull it over to find an approach that would entertain me.
Meanwhile, I have to say I would prefer Obama’s America over Kevin’s America.
.
LikeLike
They always seem so normal starting out of the gate then we end up with: I evict you in the name of the Lord – you filthy sinner.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Kevin, I think your occupation is a good example of the picking and choosing that should go on in business. Certainly you must do business with sinners, but there are certain sinners you would rather (or rather not) do business with. It doesn’t really seem to me that you’re denying their business on religious grounds, but on personal opinion which could be anywhere from very loosely to very closely linked to religion depending on the person and the issue.
LikeLike
Unificatorius, CW-
What is this, violate the so-called Separation of Church and State and lose your right to be treated with respect?
The even stronger case would be with medical workers – doctors, emergency room staff, etc. I think it’s clear denying medical care to those in need is unjust. Similarly with refusing to serve food. I don’t know your industry so can’t comment in detail.
I am trying not to find your reference to my neighborhood as a “slum” offensive. I will pit my neighborhood and neighbors against yours on any criteria you like-
local cultural amenities (social clubs, musical performances), park space (right across the street), river access (10 min walk), a large number of high quality restaurants, numerous cafes, trustworthy neighbors, grocery stores filled with imported products, parishes with parades and street festivals all summer long, etc. There is nothing I could want to buy that isn’t within walking distance (try me).
It’s a trilingual neighborhood vast-majority European, and still markedly Catholic. Se voce querar apprendar falar portugues, nao existe um bairro melhor nos estados unidos- ambos as variedades da lengua de portugal e brasil.
This is what America was like for a great many Americans until after WWII. It’s called civilization. The WASP elite killed it because it was a threat to big business, promiscuous warfare, and birth control.
CT, why the third-person treatment? I’ve never evicted anyone in my life – and spend most of my weekends improving the properties (regularly weeknights as well). Margins are narrow- but it allows my wife to stay home with the baby, and when the mortgages are paid off in 12-14 years we’ll have college and retirement in hand. Plus something of value to pass on to my son.
LikeLike
Walton-
I don’t disagree on this point – although I do disagree with you regarding race-based discrimination. If it were only a minor problem, racial discrimination wouldn’t be worth the trouble of the laws.
But in our society it has been much more than that – I think certain anti-discrimination laws are for the best. Some of the legislation and judicial tradition has gotten out of hand, perhaps, but on the whole I think we’re muddling through the issue alright as a society.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 14, 2015 at 12:17 pm | Permalink
“And yes, knuckling under to the real world certainly is cowardice. What else would it be?”
It would be knowing how to live in an imperfect world.
The rationalization of all cowards, like the smug and useless Presbyterians who said and did nothing in the old South, who disgusted Frederick Douglass so, and rightfully.
http://www.yale.edu/glc/archive/1083.htm
Perhaps if more of the decent people in the South had spoken up, the Civil War mightn’t have happened. But that sort of thinking leaves the Turnips for Christ unmoved.
What if the ruler requires you to build altars to false gods? To beat another slave to death? Perform abortions?
That’s not happening. Join the real world and quit drawing pictures that only make the already wound-up hysterical go completely bonkers.
I’m trying to find the point where you don’t make excuses for moral cowardice, if nay.
Like marriage, you know, the cornerstone of society where selves learn to swallow their pride and sacrifice self, etc., etc. What good is that if it never translates into living in broader society? But, TVD, you wanted our stance to be in marriage what you want it to be in society, I only see divorce. Oh, the irony.
You only see divorce because you’ve lost sight of the ideal, and mock it as “lofty.” But the reality is that the ideal represents the vast majority of successful families and non-screwed up kids. The natural law and Biblical morality are the same, and for good reason: They both come from God, and truth can not contradict truth.
So I don’t buy your smug excuses for silence and inaction while your society and fellow man are ground up in the wheels of the sexual revolution. In fact, like Douglass, I’m disgusted.
LikeLike
Mud
Get it right:
Be Ye Not Transgendered, But Be Ye Transformed
Rom. 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
That ought to get Madame DeFarge fired up and the tumbrils rolling.
Got your ticket yet?
You gonna be riding or rooting for the
homehomo team?LikeLike
Kev, I never thought your were an actual slumlord. Help me understand the continuum: You who provide shelter can discriminate, but Doctor Evangelicus should sew up the gaping wound of Steve (whose husband is also named Steve). I sell insurance which might pay for the medical care of Steve (of Steve & Steve) or might allow him to drive a car and thus hold a job and buy and do all kinds of gay and non-gay stuff. What am I to do?
LikeLike
Maybe what we have here is 3K: Kingdom of Christ, kingdom of the world/nation, etc, and kingdom of Kevin (in but not of Newark).
LikeLike
Not that Steve. I was thinking of the old saw “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”
LikeLike
cw-
Sorry if I was touchy – I’m defensive of working-class families and love my neighborhood. Reminds me of what the neighborhoods of my grandparents’ formative years were like in East St. Louis and North St. Louis (largely swamps and wastelands today).
Regarding the ethics of insurance sales (my maternal grandfather sold life insurance), it seems to me you should provide the services you are mentioning. We live in a society where it is hard to imagine getting by without it. Different fields call for different decisions. For me, people can find another place to live if I don’t rent to them – no harm done to them.
More importantly, it’s up to me to determine 30-35 individuals who have a real impact on my little corner of society- if I decided I only wanted to rent to SSM couples, believe me, I could market appropriately and do so. A whole gay bar could open just to serve my tenants. The neighbors would despise me- rightly.
My tenants are the ones patronizing businesses and determining which succeed, going to neighborhood events (or not), looking out for intruders (v. being noisy street drunks), voting for the city councilmen who determine taxes and budget, raising families who attend the schools my own child will attend, and generally being good neighbors (or not).
I determine whether to contribute toward preserving the Lusophone majority, contribute to the expanding Hispanic population, or admit “normal American” Anglophone suburbanites who go to Dunkin Donuts.
LikeLike
DGH: So what I wonder is whether Christian America ended in 1998. I also wonder why more Christians have not been outraged by a federal government that allows Oregon to persist in this law.
AdD: There was a tremendous push back amongst the Northeastern chattering class to the First Things Symposium’s mere (timid and tentative, in my estimation) suggestion that civil disobedience and resistance would be a justified response to the Supreme Court’s rulings on abortion and euthanasia. In the almost 20 years since, I can’t recall any similar publication of any stature devoting so much ink to these options. As a Southerner who lived through the civil rights movement and participated in ant-Vietnam war protests, I am left to make a harsh judgment— if the culture war isn’t worth filling up the jails over, it isn’t worth spit. 1998 is as good a time to point to as any.
LikeLike
Kevin,
You having trouble loading the comments on “The Court Gives”?
LikeLike
Just checking to see if my regular email was working yet.
LikeLike
Tom, go get ’em, tiger.
LikeLike
comments on the other thread are only accessible (at this moment) on pp 1-9, 12, 13, 16, 20. why? don’t know. overloaded…
LikeLike
Kev, you sound like a social engineer. What could go wrong?
LikeLike
mtx, yes. Anyone else?
LikeLike
Cw,
It’s just the fact of my station in life. We all have a responsibility to do the best we can in our own spheres of influence. I could rent out my apartments to section 8 tenants on welfare if I wanted to. Or market to those relocating to the NYC metro from out of town. It’s up to me- since I have to decide, I have to try to decide rightly by my own lights.
Same for you in your own sphere. Or a lawyer determining what cases to take on. Or a blog moderator deciding whether or not to permit open comments.
LikeLike
I guess we found the limit on a thread!
LikeLike
Waiting to see if Muddy Gravel & Zrim have their MSNBC talking points yet on how Planned Parenthood selling the body parts of aborted babies is nothing we should be concerned about.
Someone please put Old Life out of it’s misery – 24/7 Catholic apologetics plus Presbyterian & Reformed men telling us how evil is no cause for concern.
Never been worse.
LikeLike
I can access no comments at all on that thread on iPad or iPhone.
LikeLike
And with the addition of Kevin the Catholics are coming off so much better of late that I’m about ready to convert.
Pitiful.
LikeLike
And with the addition of Kevin the Catholics are coming off so much better of late that I’m about ready to convert.
Pitiful.
Indeed. K finally got around at last to actually stating the question instead of bloviating, while DonQuixoteinTx is still banging the drum about people being converted by apostolic preaching rather than apostolic words on paper. (So what?)
Nobody including CVD seem to be able to comprehend that we don’t live in the apostolic era. (Duh.)
Hence the preservation of the entire apostolic teaching in the inspired, sufficient and perspicuous NT Scripture as per the same (2 Tim. 3:17).
Again Scripture either equips us to “every/all” good work in 2 Tim. 3:17 or it does nothing of the sort.
Of course if you can define Scripture to include “Tradition” as Rome historically has done – or make Scripture teach the existence of an alternative authoritative tradition equal to it as the recent rash of romanists are doing here contra Rome’s historic position and without its imprimatur – then it’s all good.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 14, 2015 at 7:28 pm | Permalink
Tom, go get ’em, tiger.
Oh, well. Can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip. Not that I was trying, but I am a bit surprised at how militant the moral inertia is.
LikeLike
Bob S
Posted July 14, 2015 at 9:36 pm | Permalink
And with the addition of Kevin the Catholics are coming off so much better of late that I’m about ready to convert.
Pitiful.
Indeed. K finally got around at last to actually stating the question instead of bloviating, while DonQuixoteinTx is still banging the drum about people being converted by apostolic preaching rather than apostolic words on paper. (So what?)
Nobody including CVD seem to be able to comprehend that we don’t live in the apostolic era. (Duh.)
Hence the preservation of the entire apostolic teaching in the inspired, sufficient and perspicuous NT Scripture as per the same (2 Tim. 3:17).
Again Scripture either equips us to “every/all” good work in 2 Tim. 3:17 or it does nothing of the sort.
Of course if you can define Scripture to include “Tradition” as Rome historically has done – or make Scripture teach the existence of an alternative authoritative tradition equal to it as the recent rash of romanists are doing here contra Rome’s historic position and without its imprimatur – then it’s all good.
There’s a vagueness about this discussion that discomforting. As far as I know, Catholicism doesn’t claim any new prophetic visions after the apostolic era, it just claims to clarify via the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The Immaculate Conception is an inference, and some theologizing, based on scripture, but it’s not made up from whole cloth. True it’s “Tradition,” capital “T,” but so is Jesus’s divinity.
Once you send Tradition to the dustbin, you get Servetus.
LikeLike
Hart,
Do you have a limit on threads? Did you you get tired of our discussion and put the plug on us?
LikeLike
Appalled, I fully support your need to emote over recent events. Moreover not everyone has the ability to reason through them, so if that includes you then that’s just fine.
Is Obsessive Blog Disorder really a thing? I don’t think it’s in the DSM but maybe it just hasn’t caught up. But if money gets involved and a guy tries to assert control under a super duper top secret new screen name then I wonder.
LikeLike
@ MTX: I doubt it. There is no “comments are closed” message, and old comments are either entirely inaccessible (for me) or randomly accessible (for others).
That would be quite an unusual blog feature for wordpress to offer.
LikeLike
@ Tom, Kevin, Appalled, and anyone else who is indignant:
I don’t suppose it’s occurred to you that Christians who aren’t actually *in government* don’t actually have a mandate for activism. They do, however, have two mandates.
(1) Not forsaking worship, as in keeping the Sabbath, loving God, etc.
(2) Loving neighbor by fulfilling their common callings.
Nowhere in there is a mandate to go politically organize. Now, if being a politician *is* your common calling, then go for it. Somebody has to be a politician, and bless you.
I’m not, and never could be. God does not want me to spend my time and energy trying to unring the gay marriage wedding bells. He *does* want me to spend time and energy trying to make my own marriage and family work.
Where in the Bible is activism mandated?
LikeLike
According to this blog, I’m an incoherent dishonest bloviating right-wing social-engineering apologist in orbit at risk of becoming an addled tool of the state. Further, I sound to three separate commentators like a Protestant and in another universe might be a theonomist.
Care to add anything?
-Bob S., Appalled, CT,
Email DG and ask him to dis-invite me from the blog if you like- nothing wrong with that if you have just grounds I’m given a chance to gracefully depart. I don’t appreciate the disparagement.
Bob S., you and others demonstrated what MichaelTX charitably termed a logic problem- it isn’t clear to me why it was so difficult to admit that the Church was functioning after Pentecost and before the epistles of James and Paul. That was holding up any advance in the conversation- we need to be able to agree on basic historical facts.
LikeLike
Kevin, no one’s stopping you and I doubt it has even occurred to DGH. If someone still talks to you I’m sure you can keep on talking. You just have to realize that not everyone is going to be interested in talking about social issues with a guy who wishes the Pope called the shots in the USA and thinks the Statue of Liberty is idolatrous. But it’s a free country (as long as you and the Pope don’t get to make the laws) so you have every right to your opinions.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Where in the Bible is activism mandated?
Perhaps nowhere. I agree with your comment above.
But I think we are obligated on behalf of love of neighbor and desire for justice between men to take our civic responsibilities seriously (try to be informed voters) and encourage the good-faith efforts of those who feel called to seek just laws or attempt to address through private action immoralities in the culture (such as abortion or SSM).
Further I don’t see how trying to understand the impact of one’s actions counts as “social-engineering” or “activism” or is indeed in any way contemptible. Any light you can shed on why anyone would think this (perhaps with reference to the landlord case I described) would be appreciated.
And did you get a chance to read the reply on the I.C. I wrote you on the other thread? Spent a lot of time on it.
LikeLike
Muddy’s not being honest.
Throughout all this he’s said “I don’t enforce the law”.
He does. He’s a government lawyer and this all hits close to home for him.
He needs to admit his conflict of interest or bow out.
See also: what’s happening in Oregon.
LikeLike
Muddy Gravel
Posted July 14, 2015 at 10:16 pm | Permalink
Appalled, I fully support your need to emote over recent events.
You really need to read CS Lewis’ The Abolition of Man, brother. In fact it changed my life. The main section, “Men Without Chests” is the act you’re pulling here, those who sneer at honest human emotion, passion, and all things transcendent.
That humanity, that passion, that love and care and all the rest, are the best part of us.
This is the world you have made, my dear Men without Chests, you Turnips for Christ.
LikeLike
Sean,
I combined the last two of my posts over in “The Court Gives…” Maybe posts 1533 and 1535.
Let me see if I can go through those Scripture passages you wanted me to see. I will put my thoughts on them and maybe we can see if they exclude me believe in Apostolic Traditions that do not contradict what is taught in Scripture, but not found in Scripture. This is what I see you must provide Biblical warrant for. If the Scriptures anywhere teach that I am to reject Apostolic Traditions that I can’t be deduce or explicitly found in Scripture, then Sola Scriptura wins. Remember we both believe no Tradition can be received that contradicts Scripture. You just believe the Church can’t teach as true doctrine and practice what can’t be deduced or explicitly found the Scripture. This is what is in question. That from your Sola Scriptura position you must prove from Scripture Alone, because it is you who are limiting where you get your deduced or explicitly received doctrines from.
2 Peter 1:16-21Revised Standard Version (RSV)
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son,[a] with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
I am not sure where you are coming from in this passage excluding Apostolic Traditions, because the verse 21 in this passage does not limit itself to the written Word. “…men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. ” The people who heard them would of course require that what they were saying was “in accord” with the Scripture and Covenants, but these men were always saying things that weren’t previously contained in Scripture. Therefor the hearers were not “deducing or explicitly receiving” teachings from Scripture, so if the hearers believed in Sola Scriptura they would have rejected the extra biblical parts of what the one sent from God with a message to give His people. This passage does clearly point out the importance the historic truth of what the Apostles witness. If
this “You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place…” is what you are talking about, those of us who believe in Sacred Traditions believe this to. What it does not say is “only pay attention”. That would make it teach Sola Scriptura.
2 Timothy 3:16Revised Standard Version (RSV)
16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Quite agreed with everything in this passage. All Scripture absolutely true and is “profitable” or “useful” as some translations put it. It does not say Scripture is the “only” thing inspired by God though which would be also “profitable” or “useful”. In verse ten just before this Paul points out the importance of more than receiving what is written by him, saying “Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, 11 my persecutions, my sufferings, what befell me at Antioch, at Ico′nium, and at Lystra, what persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. 12 Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived.” He later in the chp 4 says, “14 Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will requite him for his deeds. 15 Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message. ” This “message” was not completely inscripturated yet, therefore Paul was speaking Ill of this man for not receiving unwritten Apostolic Tradition and fighting against it.
Galatians 1:8Revised Standard Version (RSV)
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
This is why the Catholic Church has pronounced some Reformed beliefs and adherence outside of the faith. We believe it is outside of the Gospel preached by the Apostles, including Paul. Either way, don’t know how this one teaches Sola Scriptura. You may have to explain. The Gospel wasn’t received by Scripture when those he was writing to first believed it, they received it from Apostolic Tradition. I can’t see Paul condemning how he regularly preached here. He is only pointing out the Gospel he has taught is the only true Gospel. It should be believed.
1 Corinthians 14:37-38Revised Standard Version (RSV)
37 If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. 38 If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized.
To start with Paul is specifically speaking about his commands the in Corinthians, but of course I have no problem with this applying to all the commands or statements of the NT books or OT for that matter. This still does not exclude believing Apostolic Traditions that aren’t contradicted by any Scripture of the Old or New Testaments. It is also in the next chapter which Paul points out the importance of the fact that he teaches Apostolic Tradition saying, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.” Both the “I delivered to you” and ” I also recieved” have the Greek root “παρέ” and “παρέδωκα” was translated by St Jerome in the Vulgate as “tradidi(I delivered) enam(for) vobis(you)”. Obviously “tradidi” is the origin and root of our English “tradition”, our word meaning something handed down or passed on. Another thing to notice is, Paul has no problem admitting the Church of God existed, and people were even dying now as members of it, before he even knew the Gospel much less had wrote anything down as an Apostle.
2 Thessalonians 2:15Revised Standard Version (RSV)
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
Really don’t know how you are excluding the possibility of Apostolic Traditions being received and believed with this verse. Should we believe all Apostolic Traditions or just the ones we can find in the NT writings? This verse seem to say we aren’t limited by just what can be found in the NT to me.
So you know I will be out of pocket for the next few days. Don’t know how quick I can respond, but God willing I will.
LikeLike
Kevin,
I respect your position but am interested in its consistency. You say health workers and food workers have a duty to serve all people whereas workers in other industries such as yours do not share such a duty. I think you said your justification for this is because the customer/patient might have no other option? But surely there are many restaurants and grocery stores and clinics in many areas. And even if there is only one surely there is more than one employee there who can likely perform the same service if another employee refused. So I am still comfused on what basis you can deny any worker in any field the option to refuse service to any customer or client on any grounds whatsoever he deems appropriate.
Secondly your position seems to conflate all kinds and species of cooperation with evil to a single one. You are an informed RC – Im sure you are aware of the distinctions between immediate, mediate, material, formal, remote, proximate and the permutations thereof RC moral theologians make in discussing culpability and liberty/discretion. We live in a fallen world; all of us have to cooperate to some degree with evil – oftentimes unknowingly – the only consistent way to avoid that is to retreat entirely and become a hermit and live off the land.
LikeLike
Erik, you have been asked to leave. Are you really this out of control?
And you are clueless about my work. Please exhibit maturity and self control.
LikeLike
Appalled
Posted July 14, 2015 at 11:05 pm | Permalink
Muddy’s not being honest.
Throughout all this he’s said “I don’t enforce the law”.
He does. He’s a government lawyer and this all hits close to home for him.
He needs to admit his conflict of interest or bow out.
See also: what’s happening in Oregon.
Dude, I don’t think it’s fair–or good–to “out” someone who prefers to remain anonymous in the blogosphere. Let the ideas rise or fall on their own. I hope the discussion is shaking his tree, because it needs a shake-up. And if he protests too much, then that’s between him and his God. Hopefully the two of them are discussing it privately.
[Um, want him to take a guess as to who you are, Mr./Ms. “Appalled”? Mr. Gravel is manifestly a smart fellow. ;-)]
LikeLike
Muddy Gravel
Posted July 14, 2015 at 11:22 pm | Permalink
Erik, you have been asked to leave. Are you really this out of control?
Or mebbe not, Mr./Ms. “Appalled.” ;/-)
LikeLike
Egads, Michael! I’m already two drinks and some drugs into this evening. I’ll try to give it some time manana. Still, thanks for the effort.
LikeLike
“Im sure you are aware of the distinctions between immediate, mediate, material, formal, remote, proximate and the permutations thereof RC moral theologians make in discussing culpability and liberty/discretion.”
CVD, these are indeed useful. They are also utilized on the Reformed side, FYI.
LikeLike
Bob,
Well hopefully the other thread will come back to life so this one isnt polluted but Ill indulge for now.
“Nobody including CVD seem to be able to comprehend that we don’t live in the apostolic era. (Duh.) Hence the preservation of the entire apostolic teaching in the inspired, sufficient and perspicuous NT Scripture as per the same (2 Tim. 3:17).”
Your hence doesnt follow which is the point, youre just asserting it. Secondly you believe revelation has ended and the apostolic age is over based on Tradition. As is your identification of Scripture in the first place. So your argument fails on 3 counts.
“Again Scripture either equips us to “every/all” good work in 2 Tim. 3:17 or it does nothing of the sort. ”
Again Scripture is useful and profitable but that verse nowhere condemns tradition as not binding which we expect since the same author affirms binding unwritten tradition. And since SS was not operative during apistolic times Paul couldnt have meant to teach such when penning that verse. So 2 more strikes.
“Of course if you can define Scripture to include “Tradition” as Rome historically has done”
I already cited Ratzingers thoughts on Tradition encompassing Scripture in the church and being the interpretive lens through which Scripture is viewed and lives. None of the arguments made so far necessitate a partim partim view.
LikeLike
BTW Sean,
You are welcome to respond back in “The Court Gives…” In a day or so, if it gets functional anyway. Just wanted you to get my response to start your own.
LikeLike
Kevin: But I think we are obligated on behalf of love of neighbor and desire for justice between men to take our civic responsibilities seriously (try to be informed voters) and encourage the good-faith efforts of those who feel called to seek just laws or attempt to address through private action immoralities in the culture (such as abortion or SSM).
I generally agree BUT
* “encourage” is open-ended. How much encouragement is obligatory? $10? $100? $1000?
* I might agree with the direction that someone wants to get, yet have a problem with their particular plan.
Take Abby Johnson, pro-life advocate. She does unique and really neat work, encouraging abortion clinic workers to quit.
She and I disagree about whether it would be a good idea or not to pass a pro-life law with a rape and incest exception. In her mind, no exceptions are acceptable. In my mind, a 99% reduction in abortions now is preferable to holding out for 100% and getting 0%. A rape-and-incest exception is likely to be a compromise necessary to get actual buy-in from American voters.
So does she have an obligation to support me, or vice-versa?
That’s the “compromise” issue that makes politics unlike church. In church, you don’t compromise on doctrine. In politics, you do. You must, in order to get anything at all.
Kevin: Further I don’t see how trying to understand the impact of one’s actions counts as “social-engineering” or “activism” or is indeed in any way contemptible. Any light you can shed on why anyone would think this (perhaps with reference to the landlord case I described) would be appreciated.
I was thinking about the false choice that keeps coming round:
(1) One seeks to bring Biblical ethics as norms for the common sphere, OR
(2) One admits to not caring about righteousness.
Let’s take your landlording. You say,
KC: Let’s say the court finds this very comment (perhaps checking with the NSA regarding my record) and uses it as evidence of my position. In NJ, I suspect I would lose this case and be liable for loads of cash in fines, plus lawyer fees, plus it would be time-consuming. Not far-fetched! The state would then compel me to facilitate sin.
Of course, the state can’t compel you. They can make life uncomfortable for you, fine you, jail you, execute you (not happening in this situation, but think Babylon and Daniel). They can’t compel you to facilitate sin.
So now we ask a question: Is “facilitating sin” a sin itself? That’s not an easy question. Clearly, buying bullets for my friend makes me an accessory to whatever he does with those bullets.
Let’s say that it is in fact a sin to rent to a gay couple. Then, my friend, you have an obligation to not rent to that couple no matter what the state does to you. If it REALLY IS a sin to rent, don’t do it.
But while you’re chewing on that, is it a sin to facilitate the sin of opposite-sex fornication? Adultery? Sex while using contraception?
What if the gay couple rents the room, but has no intercourse in the room?
You can see that this is getting out of hand. If indeed it is a sin to facilitate sin, then you need to police all possible sins that might happen in that rented room. Heck, that room might be used for tax evasion! Or worshiping false gods.
Or if you aren’t willing to police all possible sins, then the hard question is, Why do I draw a hard line on same-sex intercourse, but relax my standards where it comes to opposite-sex sins, theft, idolatry, etc.?
And why do I protest about the government compelling me to facilitate sin, and then turn around and let them? Shouldn’t I be the Daniel here?
Could it be possible that I am selective in bringing the Bible to bear on civic life?
Kevin: And did you get a chance to read the reply on the I.C. I wrote you on the other thread? Spent a lot of time on it.
I did indeed. I was looking for it in order to respond to it when I discovered that the comments on that thread are inaccessible to me.
Short reply: Given that you admit to two possible alternatives (Jesus was supernaturally protected from transmission of sin, or Mary was), IC is not a “good and necessary” inference but rather a “speculative” inference.
Which happens. We all try to fill in the gaps. But here’s the rub: Given that IC is speculative, what sense does it make to put people outside the church for thinking otherwise? This is the flip side of your renting-to-gays issue.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted July 14, 2015 at 11:17 pm | Permalink
Kevin,
I respect your position but am interested in its consistency. You say health workers and food workers have a duty to serve all people whereas workers in other industries such as yours do not share such a duty. I think you said your justification for this is because the customer/patient might have no other option? But surely there are many restaurants and grocery stores and clinics in many areas. And even if there is only one surely there is more than one employee there who can likely perform the same service if another employee refused. So I am still confused on what basis you can deny any worker in any field the option to refuse service to any customer or client on any grounds whatsoever he deems appropriate.
Secondly your position seems to conflate all kinds and species of cooperation with evil to a single one. You are an informed RC – Im sure you are aware of the distinctions between immediate, mediate, material, formal, remote, proximate and the permutations thereof RC moral theologians make in discussing culpability and liberty/discretion. We live in a fallen world; all of us have to cooperate to some degree with evil – oftentimes unknowingly – the only consistent way to avoid that is to retreat entirely and become a hermit and live off the land.
Y’know it’s funny–actually it’s not, it’s probative. I had a close friend and blogbrother who was steeped in the rabbinical tradition–Yeshiva University, went to Israel and found a wife on a kibbutz and they raise their kids Jewish and kosher and according to The Law–
Anyway, Jay [he wouldn’t mind me sharing this] told me yes, of course they intensively studied the scriptures [first learning Hebrew, so they could study the scriptures in their true language!].
But when Dad got home, he posed not a Bible quiz, but an ethical problem for them to work on and sort out–of course in accordance with the scriptures. Christians [not just the Bible-bots but clearly the Catholics too] have no problem-solving ability in morality and ethics and so argue either Bible or US constitutional law–and now, one against the other.
Morality and ethics constitute the natural law, constitute God’s plan for “How Shall We Then Live?”
Christians are as ethically and morally illiterate as the pagans who are burying them.
To return to topic, and Michael’s benign tyranny over his apartment house–I suspect he’s violating numerous US Govt housing laws, but on the other hand isn’t his first duty to his slumlord employer and his fellow slumdwellers? To make sure the rent’s paid and the building’s not scumified, the meth lab is kept out of Apt. 3-G, and the kids [including his own since he lives there too] have the best nuclear family examples to look up to, instead of the too-common alternatives?
LikeLike
Muddy-
not everyone is going to be interested in talking about social issues with a guy who wishes the Pope called the shots in the USA and thinks the Statue of Liberty is idolatrous.
I don’t too much mind the disinterest, it’s the repeated accusations of bad faith that get me. I’m not thrilled on third-person disparagement, either.
Your assumption on what it would mean for the U.S. to submit to Catholic moral guidance is a misunderstanding of my position- I didn’t raise the issue for discussion, you asked me, so I answered. You and others reacted quite hastily (as George Will did on the same subject several years back).
I don’t want to write a full explanation right now, although I think you’d find it interesting, nuanced, and still completely unacceptable. But I’m not saying let’s have the College of Cardinals do double duty as the Electoral College.
LikeLike
All-
When I asked What are the minimum conditions for America’s treatment of [the S.o.L.] to qualify as false worship? that is literally all I meant- perhaps I have a thought or intuition, but I have no argument (at least yet). Fair replies might be “is anyone praying to it?” or “I don’t see incense being sacrificed.”
He then struck the stone three times, and declared it duly laid. Then the elements of consecration were presented, corn, wine, and oil
Idolatry is a popular topic around here, and I remain interested to know what views there are about a statue which:
a) was “consecrated” in a para-religious rite;
b) with “corn wine & oil” – to my mind ingredients associated with religious rites, Christian and pagan;
c) following prayer to “the Great Architect of the Universe” (not a Trinitarian God, since they admit non-Trinitarians);
d) is clearly in the form of a pagan goddess,
e) and is addressed to a concept which has been abused to lead people away from following God’s commandments.
It is my belief that an image can serve as a reference to another entity (person, idea, etc.)- the real question is regarding the quality of that entity:
If someone prays the Our Father while imagining or viewing an image of Christ from the 3rd century Roman Catacombs, I believe that the image serves as a reference (basically in the same way a word refers to a concept, a stop sign means stop, or a baby smiling means he is happy) and tool in directing my attention and prayer (I acknowledge that most here see clear scriptural proof that this is forbidden).
Similarly, an image of a false god (e.g., Shiva) directs one’s attention and prayer to a false god.
So, given the S.o.L. is clearly of a pagan Roman goddess, which was “consecrated” in a paraliturgical ceremony in the name of the non-Trinitarian Great Architect of the Universe, and which calls people’s attention to a false (un-Christian, anti-Christian) understanding of “liberty” – what is missing for it to qualify as idolatry or blasphemy? – Explicit theology, prayer, and worship?
Perhaps a case could be made that many in today’s society worship false liberty.
So philosophy, idolatry, American culture, and it’s still July so many still have the image of the S.o.L. in their minds. Not timely or of interest? Is implicit acceptance of the S.o.L. a sign of the decline of Christian America?
And did our captain go down with the ship on the other thread?
For reference: “consecration” proceedings 1885 (original source):
https://books.google.com/books?id=_1ZLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA50
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted July 14, 2015 at 11:48 pm | Permalink
Kevin: But I think we are obligated on behalf of love of neighbor and desire for justice between men to take our civic responsibilities seriously (try to be informed voters) and encourage the good-faith efforts of those who feel called to seek just laws or attempt to address through private action immoralities in the culture (such as abortion or SSM).
I generally agree BUT
* “encourage” is open-ended. How much encouragement is obligatory? $10? $100? $1000?
* I might agree with the direction that someone wants to get, yet have a problem with their particular plan.
Take Abby Johnson, pro-life advocate. She does unique and really neat work, encouraging abortion clinic workers to quit.
She and I disagree about whether it would be a good idea or not to pass a pro-life law with a rape and incest exception. In her mind, no exceptions are acceptable. In my mind, a 99% reduction in abortions now is preferable to holding out for 100% and getting 0%. A rape-and-incest exception is likely to be a compromise necessary to get actual buy-in from American voters.
So does she have an obligation to support me, or vice-versa?
That’s the “compromise” issue that makes politics unlike church. In church, you don’t compromise on doctrine. In politics, you do. You must, in order to get anything at all.
Excellent framing of the issue, Jeff. The ideal vs. the achievable.
My own problem with Mr. Zrim is that the good should never be the enemy of the perfect. He is given to mock the perfect. This is not good.
LikeLike
@ Kevin: Are you asking about current Americans or the original founders and dedicators?
For my part, I view it as just another statue with a somewhat inspiring motto. That’s probably not idolatry.
LikeLike
@ TVD: Zrim and I have gone many rounds about these very issues. He’s more nuanced and intelligent than you’re giving him credit for.
Try discussong categories a bit.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted July 14, 2015 at 11:33 pm | Permalink
Bob,
Well hopefully the other thread will come back to life so this one isnt polluted but Ill indulge for now.
“Nobody including CVD seem to be able to comprehend that we don’t live in the apostolic era. (Duh.) Hence the preservation of the entire apostolic teaching in the inspired, sufficient and perspicuous NT Scripture as per the same (2 Tim. 3:17).”
Your hence doesnt follow which is the point, youre just asserting it. Secondly you believe revelation has ended and the apostolic age is over based on Tradition. As is your identification of Scripture in the first place. So your argument fails on 3 counts.
“Again Scripture either equips us to “every/all” good work in 2 Tim. 3:17 or it does nothing of the sort. ”
Again Scripture is useful and profitable but that verse nowhere condemns tradition as not binding which we expect since the same author affirms binding unwritten tradition. And since SS was not operative during apistolic times Paul couldnt have meant to teach such when penning that verse. So 2 more strikes.
“Of course if you can define Scripture to include “Tradition” as Rome historically has done”
I already cited Ratzinger’s thoughts on Tradition encompassing Scripture in the church and being the interpretive lens through which Scripture is viewed and lives.
That’s what I thought the Catholic position is, not that the Pope can “reveal” tomorrow that God now wants us to wear our underwear on the outside.
“Tradition” is a lens, no more, but without it, everything is up for grabs. But the lens itself sees nothing.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted July 15, 2015 at 12:28 am | Permalink
@ TVD: Zrim and I have gone many rounds about these very issues. He’s more nuanced and intelligent than you’re giving him credit for.
Try discussing categories a bit.
Blessed are thou in your peacemaking, Jeff, But I think I hit Mr. Zrim’s nail right on his puddin’ head. He hath elevated the low, the achievable, above the high, the ideal.
In fact, Brother Z, you mocked ideals as I wrote them as “lofty.” What are your ‘unlofty” ideals? You have not said.
It’s not good. Especially the mocking part. Mr. Z is all yours. Turnips for Christ.
LikeLike
Cvd-
I respect your position but am interested in its consistency.
I don’t have a full analysis of everyone’s moral obligations to society worked out- I do think we have them, though. This is the realm of the prudential at its most rich. I think tvd is right most people (he says Christians) are lousy att it. It takes practice and reflection.
Re: health workers and food workers v.landlording and denying service-
There are huge differences in all three cases:
A) Emergency medical prefers life- we shouldn’t allow people to die based on being sinful (at least in this case; the state has in principle the right to administer capital punishment).
B) selling groceries to two men I have reason to think are SSMd doesn’t promote anything immoral- catering their wedding does- it spreads the scandal of SSM.
C) Renting an apartment admits to a community those who are hostile to its values (e.g., if the residents endorse Christian morality).
D) These cases could be multiplied indefinitely- ethics based in moral theology is complex (c.f. The Abuse of Casuistry.
[…] to refuse service to any customer or client on any grounds whatsoever he deems appropriate.
I have only advocated morality-based discrimination. Race-based discrimination is an injustice.
You are an informed RC – Im sure you are aware of the distinctions between immediate, mediate, material, formal, remote, proximate and the permutations thereof RC moral theologians make in discussing culpability and liberty/discretion.
~Oy, you trying to make me look bad?~ I wish I had a grasp on these and the permutations thereof. Sure, I know OF them, and have read a little. Did you list all that off the top of your head? If so, good for you.
We live in a fallen world; all of us have to cooperate to some degree with evil – oftentimes unknowingly – the only consistent way to avoid that is to retreat entirely and become a hermit and live off the land.
Agreed, but I insist we try to do good rather than build an idealogy justifying moral inertness – embrace the struggle (I think Zrim agrees).
I assume this fails to satisfy. Sorry.
LikeLike
Tvd-
To return to topic, and [Kevin]’s benign tyranny over his apartment house–I suspect he’s violating numerous US Govt housing laws, but on the other hand isn’t his first duty to [himself amd his wife as owner-managers] and his [neighbors]? To make sure the rent’s paid and the building’s not scumified, the [saxophonist doesn’t play after 11], and the kids [including his own since he lives there too] have the best nuclear family examples to look up to, instead of the too-common alternatives?
Just a few edits. The neighborhood is one of the premiere restaurant districts in the NYC metro area: Portuguese, Brazilian, Galician, Azorean, Spanish, Basque, Catalan, Ecuadorian, etc.
And I don’t mind being mistaken for Michael, but must correct for his sake.
LikeLike
K, CVD the questions still remain which you haven’t touched in the main.
When the 2 Tim. 3:17 says every/all good works it means just that. Or it means nothing at all.
(First K, then DQinTx ran thru the gamut of overlooked alternative fallacies in trying to find some support for a continuing and inspired apostolic tradition along side Scripture in apostolic Scripture.)
Otherwise we are in lala land and the pope is sucking stuff out of his thumb. (Immaculate Conception, the mass as a sacrifice, the necessity of a faux Aaronic priesthood etc.)
When the Bereans heard Paul, they searched the what? OT scriptures to see if what Paul said rang true. Why? Because man does not live by bread alone Deut. 8, Matt. 4. The Word of God is the only/supreme infallible standard.
And in that the New is a fulfillment of the Old, there was no problem per se before the NT was finally written down as the apostles exited the scene.
But God’s way of revealing himself in the past have ceased so what we are left with his record in the apostolic NT.
Anything beside it is redundant, as in unnecessary. (You know, kind of like the quotes in the deuterocanonicals of the OT which are also quoted in the NT, which some how according to Roman misology “prove” that the deuterocanonicals are inspired.)
End of story.
That’s the prot position and until you can get it right, you’re really not worth wasting that much time on per se. This is all WCF Chapt. 1/ fundamental principium stuff, much more you are over here arguing your position without knowing ours – which most of you claimed to believe at one time. That’s not too classy. If we were on a Roman website then the shoe would be on the other foot.
But it’s not.
Statue of Liberty?
Get serious.
Who gave it and why?
Neither does the abuse of something like a 3rd century catacomb painting or the SoL rule either out or necessitate an iconoclastic Taliban approach.
Idols and images are teachers of lies when it comes to the triune God Hab. 2:18.
Likewise Christ’s divinity cannot be separated from his humanity, which necessarily happens in any human attempt to portray him.
LikeLike
Your hence doesnt follow which is the point, youre just asserting it. Secondly you believe revelation has ended and the apostolic age is over based on Tradition. As is your identification of Scripture in the first place. So your argument fails on 3 counts.
CVD get back to me after you have read WCF Chapt.1:1 and can adequately articulate its argument and scriptural basis.
Then you might get an audience for your proposition about squaring circles.
But not until.
LikeLike
Kevin in Newark
Posted July 15, 2015 at 1:51 am | Permalink
Tvd-
To return to topic, and [Kevin]’s benign tyranny over his apartment house–I suspect he’s violating numerous US Govt housing laws, but on the other hand isn’t his first duty to [himself amd his wife as owner-managers] and his [neighbors]? To make sure the rent’s paid and the building’s not scumified, the [saxophonist doesn’t play after 11], and the kids [including his own since he lives there too] have the best nuclear family examples to look up to, instead of the too-common alternatives?
Just a few edits. The neighborhood is one of the premiere restaurant districts in the NYC metro area: Portuguese, Brazilian, Galician, Azorean, Spanish, Basque, Catalan, Ecuadorian, etc.
And I don’t mind being mistaken for Michael, but must correct for his sake.
Sorry. I sometimes get confused telling if it’s Mr. muddy or Mr. Z crawling up my ass too. 😉
In this case, my apologies. Since there are no slums in Texas and Newark is nothing but, my error is inexcusable. 😉
Still, back to the point, about where your first duty lies–Is it to the US Gov’s anti-discrimination housing laws or to the rest of the people in your building [including your own family] who have to live cheek-by-jowl with whomever you let in?
LikeLike
@kevin
I would put your reticence to rent to the wrong folks in the category of “buying meat sacrificed to idols”. If it offends your conscience, then doing so is sinful. If not, it isn’t. The point of 2k is that on such issues, the church shouldn’t try to bind your conscience.
LikeLike
TVD
You had a great turn of phrase a while back. Something to the effect that while America may not have been a Christian nation, she provided special accommodation to it. Can you remind me what the right wording was? Also, was that your statement or were you quoting someone?
LikeLike
Mitch,
You’re not the boss of me.
I’ll oppose the 2k Pol Pot and his stooges as long as technology allows.
Plus. I’m not the one here all day, every day demanding that everyone submit to unelected judges. That’s you.
Self-control by Old Life participants? That ship sailed months ago. As Sean would say, “go cry in your pilla”.
LikeLike
Darryl’s brand of 2k has him holed up in Cambodia a la Col. Kurtz with Muddy & Zrim tag teaming the Dennis Hopper role.
I’m Captain Willard, traveling the river on the way to get him out.
You guys are getting older and winning no new disciples that I can see.
How long until Darryl’s 2k is condemned by the churches as the mirror error of Theonomy?
LikeLike
My experience with the 2k movement is similar to the one that David Horowitz described in “Radical Son”.
They’ll suck you in with sophisticated arguments about “the spirituality of the church”, but the framework with which to understand these guys is simple: They’re political liberals with a chip on their shoulder against conservatives. Their #1 goal is to silence conservatives in the church.
The final straws for me were Zrim’s lack of integrity in selling me out behind my back to (supposed enemy, but actually fellow liberal) Jason Stellman, Zrim’s disdain for the pro-life cause, and the utter cluelessness/defense of the Supreme Court gay marriage decision by Darryl, Muddy, and Zrim.
In other words, these guys are nothing more than liberals acting like liberals with some stuff against Catholicism thrown in to play to the P&R masses.
Like liberals on domestic policy, though, it’s the intramural fight over politics that really lights their fire.
Now they attract some Grover Dill hangers-on (i.e. useful idiots) to their Scut Farkus, but the core group here are just plain liberals.
They’re liberals.
LikeLike
Let me see if I’m reading you correctly here Erik. You’re saying they’re liberals? Liberals, right? I’m thinking you mean they’re liberals. Plain liberals…now I’m a bit confused. Define “plain liberals” — ugly, ordinary? And you mean political, not theological, right. Liberals you say? Hmmmm.
LikeLike
Erik, as someone who used to be on friendlier terms with you, I’m just going to say you are embarrassing yourself. But that’s all I’m going to do – if you want to dominate the site with comment after comment as if doing so is somehow a good or praiseworthy thing, it’s your reputation on the line.
It seems really important to you to shout down people here as if that’s an accomplishment. I really hope you can step back and get some perspective on what you are doing.
And you still do not at all understand my job.
LikeLike
Let me write your next comment for you, Shrieker: Chortles, you’re really a conservative but you don’t have the guts to stand up to the LIBERALS. You just defend then and you know better, which makes me sick. You need to grow a spine and get right.
(Frank Burns wants his schtick back.)
LikeLike
Typical liberal faux sympathy plus typical liberal condescension plus an assist from a stooge (who lives with a HARDCORE liberal and appears to be manifesting Stockholm Syndrome).
I know these guys inside out.
Darryl appears to be on vacay so this could be fun!
LikeLike
My reputation is by no means at stake, it’s you guys who are on an island in your churches, and you know it.
Thus the cult-like behavior, circling the wagons, etc.
Most people in P&R churches would give me a medal.
LikeLike
Nice. Keep digging.
LikeLike
Appalled,
I think I have profited in my short time here, and not just concerning TV show and movie recommendations. All I previously knew about 2k was from John Frame’s Escondido Theology! I think I have better understanding of the church and the Sabbath and worship. Having a very close friend who recently converted from Baptist Fundamentalism to Methodism to RC, this is helpful for learning about RCism too.
And the fact that there are sinful people in this corner of the Internet too is not really surprising or deterring.
LikeLike
Walton,
You need these guys for none of that.
Attend your local church faithfully, fellowship with the saints, and learn your Confessions.
The Catholic stuff here is so overblown. It starts and ends with the rejection of the Motives of Credibility. Everything else is just open forum for Catholics to proselytize.
The obsession honestly makes me question if the host is struggling with Catholic claims himself.
P&R churches are not suffering a mass exodus to Catholicism.
LikeLike
About now there are frantic “what do we do?!” E-mails going back & forth combined with attempts to get Darryl online in The Hamptons…
LikeLike
Appalled,
You’re right, I don’t need them–I need the church. But I have been pushed toward the local church and encouraged to read my confessions and to fellowship with the saints (kinda like you are encouraging me now!).
LikeLike
Walton,
O.k. just don’t get sucked in or you’ll wake up in 3 years by the side of the road with a Keith Olbermann tattoo and compromising photos from a gay wedding chapel.
It’s “The Hangover” meets Reformed theology.
LikeLike
The local church jazz is mostly just the candy to get the well-meaning seeker into the 2K cave:
They especially need young guys. Average age of hardcore 2K men is in the 50s.
LikeLike
Erik, the imagery you’re deploying is amazing — you’re the Martin Sheen character headed down the river of death to kill(?) Col. Darryl and his henchmen-apologists (Zrim and Mitch). You also deserve a medal and your reputation is unquestioned. Oh, and DG is Pol Pot. Let the discerning reader take note.
This is my last transmission to you on that under-armed little gunboat drifting down some nameless Cambodian River…self-imposing the Sowers rule.
LikeLike
Tom, what I mock are not lofty ideals but those who cannot learn to simultaneously maintain them and live in the real world where those lofty ideals don’t always get put into practice. Go down to your local town hall and peruse the books. Plenty of laws that don’t match up with one’s lofty ideals. This is where life is actually lived and you compromise (good thing) a lot more than you seem to think. I don’t see a theory for it, though. I see a lot of theorizing for living a life nobody actually leads on planet earth. Nor do I see any theory that allows one to think more like a human being than an idealogue.
LikeLike
That’s the “compromise” issue that makes politics unlike church. In church, you don’t compromise on doctrine. In politics, you do. You must, in order to get anything at all.
Ding, Jeff, ding indeed.
LikeLike
KiN – no disparagement of your internet persona meant by the use of the third person, ignorance on my part that third person usage would or could be taken as offensive – now I know. The post was meant for comic relief. How in the world can you afford to post as much as you do?
MTX – there is no conspiracy to make your posts unavailable. The host pretty much lets anything fly in the combox, even things that make him come off looking quite bad.
Appalled, you are right, they do come off looking like liberals in some respects. Some brands of 2K as the mirror image of theonomy, interesting.
LikeLike
If I say it’s safe to read this site, then it’s safe to read this site. I mean, I’m not afraid to read this site. I’ll read this whole blog.
LikeLike
There’s a notion in the URCNA, PCA, OPC etc. that we took a principled stand and departed from the liberals in the CRC & PCUSA. If you were a hardcore liberal in one of those churches, though, what would be the best course of action? Stay behind with your fellow liberals and make toothless political gestures that pretty much everyone but NPR, The Nation, and the New York Times editorial page ignores,
OR
Move with the conservatives to the new denominations and be a thorn in their side, all the while claiming conservative theological orthodoxy (i.e. Confessional subscription).
Which move creates more frustration for conservatives?
It’s like liberals from California moving to Austin, Texas in order to tick off a majority red state population.
Sinister, but brilliant in a twisted way.
LikeLike
@Kevin
Just for the record, I would not support erecting a model of the Statue of Liberty in church (I would say the same thing about hoisting flags in the sanctuary).
LikeLike
@appalled So you’re saying one should be on the political right to be part of a confessionally serious P&R church? There’s no room for libertarians and democrats in your church?
LikeLike
So of course we also get Chortles with the “speech is murder” schtick. Typical liberal tactic. He’s learning from his masters.
No, I’m not physically threatening anyone. Duh. You guys are like a gaggle of panicked women when anyone matches your rhetoric and actually challenges you.
This is the brilliance of Van Dyke. The same persistent (and valid) criticism of 2K for two years now, on a daily basis. Criticism that has reduced Darryl to acting like a child towards him day after day.
The Sowers rule would be great, but you guys can’t hold the line. Darryl will likely delete all this when he returns anyway, so the Sowers rule is likely not an option.
LikeLike
sdb, ask him where he’s going to church.
LikeLike
sdb – @appalled So you’re saying one should be on the political right to be part of a confessionally serious P&R church? There’s no room for libertarians and democrats in your church?
Appalled – Great question.
There is room for libertarians and certainly for the apolitical. I have a really hard time with pro choice, pro gay marriage Democrats in a NAPARC church.
What I object to is the liberal attempt to mock conservatives for acting according to their conscience in the public sphere, the workplace, etc. Zrim and Chortles are the two here who primarily do that consistently. They would prefer that people’s faith remain toothless and harmless to their agendas.
Darryl is rarely as direct as them — he prefers to be more clever and nuanced — but he provides the forum for them and he also provides the springboard with his posts and ambiguous positions on topics like gay marriage and allowing married gay members of OPC churches.
He’s the gadfly and they’re the hardened ideologues who benefit from his game playing.
LikeLike
Muddy, not Chortles.
Chortles won’t buck those guys, though, because he covets their love and approval.
LikeLike
Muddy,
LCMS.
Did Zrim add Lutherans to his list of Christians who are as bad as murderers? Last I heard only Baptists were on that list.
Anyone else up for beating up on Confessional Lutherans (who basically gave birth to 2K, by the way)?
You guys are getting this desperate?
LikeLike
Here’s a Rorschach test for you:
Yesterday’s news featured a story on Planned Parenthood selling the body parts of dead babies:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/15/shock-video-planned-parenthood-sells-dead-baby-body-parts.html
Can you fathom Darryl writing a post about this, calling attention to it and perhaps even lamenting it? If not, why not.
Will Zrim just dismiss this as overheated Pro Life rhetoric?
What gives with these guys if they’re not hardcore liberals disguised as NAPARC church officers?
LikeLike
Having read some of the notes here, I am compelled to say that the Pope has taken a role that those of us from the Reformed tradition should have also taken in the world. In that without trying to offer the ‘right’ or ‘Christian’ solution to our larger problems, he has spoken prophetically to the world about what is wrong in areas of economics, the environment, and such.
I am not saying that the Pope has spoken inerrantly. But that he has tried to address the system and societal sins that are often under the control of those with wealth and power is very legitimate and necessary for the Church to do. Instead of just being concerned with personal sins, the Pope has called people out for societal sins and that is what we should also be doing regardless of how much agreement we have with specifics of what the Pope has been saying.
LikeLike
Erik, if you’re gonna take it down the personal route, you should really do it in person. It’s yellow bellied to go at it on a blog. Everyone loses their cool and steps on it, but each time you reengage you start naming names and going scorched earth and acting butt hurt. Do the guys here a service and give them the chance to deal definitively with you if you want to take pot shots and demean them. Blog beligerence is so dissatisfying at this level.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle :don’t suppose it’s occurred to you that Christians who aren’t actually *in government* don’t actually have a mandate for activism. They do, however, have two mandates.(1) Not forsaking worship, as in keeping the Sabbath, loving God, etc. (2) Loving neighbor by fulfilling their common callings.
mandate:
Romans 11 36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.
12 1Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect…
LikeLike
Curt – In that without trying to offer the ‘right’ or ‘Christian’ solution to our larger problems, he has spoken prophetically to the world about what is wrong in areas of economics, the environment, and such.
What does this even mean?
How do you speak prophetically w/o speaking in a “right” or “Christian” manner?
Or he’s speaking to itching ears that are itching to hear.
LikeLike
a.
A mandate for personal holiness does not equal a mandate for activism, regardless of the overarching truth of of Him, through Him, to Him. God reconciles the world to Himself in Christ (i.e. through the Church). Not activism. Are you postmillenial by any chance?
LikeLike
Or what I mean to say is, how is such prophetic speech which may (not) be Xian or correct be of any value whatsoever?
I’ve already said too much.
LikeLike
d4v34x:
ACTIVISM:: a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous actions especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue
direct vigorous action -present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect…
LikeLike
Sean,
Fair point made in a substantive way.
The only personal part is continued dismay and disappointment over Zrim being a snake. No apology from him, no correction from others, in spite of multiple appeals on my part to multiple guys. You all own him — he’s your problem. He’ll sell you out at some point, too.
The non-personal part is the public positions that Darryl, Zrim, and Muddy take day after day, which has only gotten worse with the Supreme Court decision. That’s absolutely fair game for as long as technology allows me to comment.
LikeLike
This is blogdom Matthew 18 in practice.
I’ve appealed to the offender and to others in the inner circle — to no avail.
So the next step is to make it known to the internet church.
LikeLike
It’s been beyond sad the last month on here.
Us good old 2K folk will withdraw and take a sabbatical and let those posting with nothing to say, and say it 10,000 times, wear out.
And they will, posters with 10 times the zeal and more than one thing to say 10,000 ran out of steam and disappeared through the years.
Then the good folks will return.
LikeLike
kent
and…Romans 12 3 For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith…
LikeLike
a.
Key portion of your (cherry-picked?) definition being: especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue.
Doing it for and before God in service to Him is different than doing so before the world in order to effect social change/conformity. Whoever charged moralism was spot on.
Some other definitions of activism that don’t dovetail as well as yours (which, as I’ve shown doesn’t do so quite like you thought it did):
-the policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change.
-efforts to promote, impede, or direct social, political, economic, or environmental change, or stasis.
LikeLike
Many of you guys have allowed the liberals here to tie you in knots. They did it to me over three years, but the guy who first met them is back — the spell broken.
It’s really simple. As Christians we take a stand for the truth wherever we find ourselves — in the church, in our homes, in our workplaces, in the voting booth, in the public sphere as we feel led. We’re the same guy all the time. It’s really simple.
And when others do likewise, we don’t harass them for following Scripture and their consciences. We pray for them, support them, and maybe occasionally appeal to them if we think they’re a little off.
Everyone but liberals get this. Liberals hate it.
LikeLike
And if you’re in a job where you can’t do that, maybe you need to go work someplace else. Better to work on an assembly line than forfeit your soul. You’re not living that much longer anyway and you can’t take your toys with you. Just live consistently for Christ and allow him to supply your earthly needs during this brief sojourn.
Then watch how your wives and kids change and grow spiritually as well.
LikeLike
Erik, Z gave his apology and you publicly accepted it, saying you would not mention it again. Your Christian obligation is now to walk away from it, and you sin every time you re-hash it.
LikeLike
d4v34x:cherry-picked? definition
How about generic definition
how about we let the Spirit of the living God in each of us who are His, rather than man, compel each of us to the certain action or not just as He sees fit wherever, however according to His word
how about this action of each man though as instructed us : let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near. Hebrews 10:24-25
have a great day
LikeLike
Muddy,
There was no apology. Just a rambling e-mail with a conclusion that it was somehow my fault. Ask him to send it to you. Darryl has seen it, but as Pontius Pilate he will do nothing.
None of you are man enough to call him out, either.
LikeLike
OK, I’m done with this but it is a fact that you posted you would not mention it again. Are you a man of your word or not?
LikeLike
It is relevant because it was a huge part of my wakeup call. If a leading figure in a movement is that lacking in humility and integrity, that’s a red flag for (1) what the movement is about, and (2) what it does to its adherents. But again, that’s your guys problem. I’m no longer part of the movement.
LikeLike
Muddy,
When he continued his behavior after his non-apology, all bets were off.
Obviously you guys just twisted his arm to confess because I was putting heat on all of you.
If you could re-twist his arm to apologize with no caveats and chime in that what he did was wrong, I’ll go away. Apparently you all knew he was the leaker before he came to me. That makes you all accomplices.
LikeLike
a.
Great day yourself. You going somewhere?
Your problem is that you keep refering to instructions given to Christians for personal observance (Romans 12) or for observance between brothers within the Church (Heb 10) and saying they tell us to get pagans to act like Christians.
Non-sequitur, yo!
LikeLike
@Appalled
Jeff-
Thanks for your detailed reply.
* “encourage” is open-ended. How much encouragement is obligatory? $10? $100? $1000?
$0. The minimum I would consider obligatory is: not to attack the just desires of others to affect law for the benefit of society, when their desires are consistent with Christianity.
This discussion was coming out of:
a) DG’s ‘gay marriage is 2 steps forward’ and implications that civil law is unimportant,
b) Zrim’s apparent attack on pro-life activities (which came out in discussion to be more measured than his initial comments suggested); and particularly (at least on my part)
c) The advocacy of many here of a view that Christianity entails complete submission to a magistrate on any issues not touching worship, and that any attempt to change laws counts as contemptible “activism”.
* I might agree with the direction that someone wants to get, yet have a problem with their particular plan.
Great, let them know you appreciate their intentions but think they are taking the wrong approach. I don’t think Zrim’s comments on the dedicated, soft-spoken prolife worker exhibited the right approach.
Take Abby Johnson […] She and I disagree about whether it would be a good idea or not to pass a pro-life law with a rape and incest exception.
I agree with you on this one rather than her. She can duke it out in the media and political realm with the official you and I vote for. But we pass on to others (including our children) the basic principle that governments shouldn’t legalize the killing of embryos.
(This is, by the way, [apologism alert, I guess] precisely the position of most of the RCC:
a) – #13 at http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/cardocqanda.html
b) – “But we recognize it’s an imperfect world,” Cardinal O’Connor said. The legislation, he explained, was the result of “sincere, knowledgeable, reasonable people who recognized the complications in the issue and came up with the best bill they could.”)
In church, you don’t compromise on doctrine.
Agreed. That approach has always been a complete failure – I think of Byzantine gov-sponsored monothelitism, 18th century ‘noble simplicity’ rationalism, and the contemporary mess Western Christianity is in.
I was thinking about the false choice that keeps coming round:
(1) One seeks to bring Biblical ethics as norms for the common sphere, OR
(2) One admits to not caring about righteousness.
Perhaps some have raised that false choice, but I’m not sure most have. Whatever the case, I think a measured approach to #1 is the way to go – and I believe Zrim, yourself, tvd, Appalled, and probably almost everyone else here present agrees with it.
Some, however, seem to imply a deficiency in one’s Christian faith if one is not dogmatically impotent.
a) – Of course, the state can’t compel you. They can make life uncomfortable
b) – Is “facilitating sin” a sin itself? That’s not an easy question.
c) – Let’s say that it is in fact a sin to rent to a gay couple. Then, my friend, you have an obligation to not rent to that couple.
Agreed, and all the distinctions cvd pointed out come in handy. My habit is, perhaps, to zoom in and simplify a bit, and focus on the black and white when I am dealing with those who distinctions are impossibly difficult.
1) Renting to a gay couple isn’t murder or worshiping false gods;
2) it is bad for a neighborhood whose denizens wish to live by Christian morality (or most of them most of the time);
3) not sure how the moral theologian would describe it, cvd might be able to advise;
4) at some point fines from the state can imperil my ability to provide for my family,which would be a problem as well.
However, if the state required a child to recite a non-Christian prayer at school (imagine a schoolteacher in a majority Hindu area like some parts of NJ deciding in the name of diversity to teach kids a ‘traditional Hindu folksong’ which on inspection turns out to be to Shiva or something), this would be something firmly to resist.
You can probably come up with better examples, but I agree that we are required to undergo persecution rather than sin.
But while you’re chewing on that, is it a sin to facilitate the sin of opposite-sex fornication? Adultery? Sex while using contraception? What if the gay couple rents the room, but has no intercourse in the room?
If any two individuals wish to rent a room, and give no indication of sexual impropriety, I don’t think the owner has an obligation to ask whether they observe sexual morality. But if these two individuals make obvious a contempt for morality, the landlord certainly has a right to refuse them – and in some cases an obligation.
What if a polygamists’ organization is looking for a hotel to hold a convention at, and announce they intend to engage local media, use local park space, etc. to promote their message- you’re the hotelier and are in a position to permit the spread of their message in your community, or else to say “Sorry, I don’t believe your position is good for the town. Find another location.” I don’t think this is getting out of hand.
Why do I draw a hard line on same-sex intercourse, but relax my standards where it comes to opposite-sex sins, theft, idolatry, etc.? –
I emphatically don’t, and am not sure why you think I do. Subjects recently raised by the moderator are SSM and the ending of “Christian America”, so that is the course discussions have taken. He could also be writing about morality in economics.
Could it be possible that I am selective in bringing the Bible to bear on civic life?
I will repeat like a mantra if need be – it calls for prudence, and isn’t necessarily easy. People can disagree.
Great point on the IC. I’ll consider and reply later.
LikeLike
CT –
no disparagement of your internet persona meant by the use of the third person, ignorance on my part that third person usage would or could be taken as offensive – now I know. The post was meant for comic relief.
I saw that it was intended as comic relief, but it seemed to me I was the butt of the joke. Apologies if I was too quick to react.
How in the world can you afford to post as much as you do?
What, personal info? Intent is to:
a) generate good faith;
b) make plain I take the ideas discussed here seriously;
b) indicate I consider ideas in the context of real circumstances (abstractions can dilute);
c) thereby provoke people to consider ideas with relation to their own lives;
d) hopefully stimulate others to talk about where they are from – what their communities are like, what challenges they are facing- and build a shared sense of what a Christian is to do in present-day circumstances.
My city this morning ran up a gay flag at city hall to celebrate our 9th officially-declared Gay Pride Week (i.e., a gay flag at city hall for a full week). Anyone else encountering this?
Our Mayor:
“We are seeing the transformation of our City and nation into an America we can all believe in, and I am proud to join with Newark’s LGBTQ community this week by rejoicing in these gains, supporting their drive for equality, and celebrating their culture.” It is involving the NJ Performing Arts Center (state-funded), Rutgers University (state funded), a state senator, church groups, etc.
The only plus is that they are handing out decals for store windows – useful in determining which businesses to avoid.
LikeLike
Far be it from me to get involved in this squabble among the inner circle, but Erik, what is your end game? Is it just to make this site unreadable? As long as I’ve been lurking and occasionally commenting on OL and other Reformed blogs (probably going on 5 or 6 years), folks like DGH and Zrim have been pretty consistent in their views. You may disagree with their emphasis (or lack thereof) on certain issues like abortion, but as far as I know they’ve never said anything outside the bounds of confessional orthodoxy. And DGH is one of the few, along with Scott Clark, who has consistently defended the gospel against subtle attacks from within the Reformed community on imputation, justification, etc.
And, I’m hardly a fanboy. I agree with much of 2k theory, but probably land in a different place on the 2k spectrum than they do. Isn’t that part of the point of 2k? I share your views on abortion and gay marriage, but I should have Christian liberty in how I engage the issues. I’m not a culture warrior. I wear a lot of hats – father of 2 (soon to be 3), husband, son, employee, church member, neighbor – and I don’t have a lot of time left to run for office or campaign door-to-door. And, judging from past results, I’m really skeptical about what kind of inroads a Christian parachurch organization is going to make in “winning” the culture wars.
Would this riff on “liberals” equally apply to someone like Carl Trueman, who is fairly left of center on political issues last time I checked? I don’t doubt his commitment to the Reformed confession.
LikeLike
mboss,
Have I mentioned that Old Life is a hideout for liberals?
Not that familiar with Trueman, although I’m not aware of him attracting a group of vocal, cult-like followers. If he does, call me. He podcasts with a chick, which gives him two strikes right off the bat with me (sorry, Aimee) so there is that.
A problem the Old Lifers have is that there pretty much all low T (with the exception of Sean), so they stir things up and then balk when they get a strong reaction (like from Tom Van Dyke or me), because they really don’t want to summon the energy to deal with it. The answer is, just keep your head down and don’t poke hornets’ nests with sticks. If they’re really 2K and not just liberals, just shut up about it and go about your business.
LikeLike
mboss – And DGH is one of the few, along with Scott Clark, who has consistently defended the gospel against subtle attacks from within the Reformed community on imputation, justification, etc.
Appalled – Yet they’re 180 degrees apart on the degree to which gay marriage is a threat to the church, so one of them is off base on that.
I might have missed it, but when I started here I don’t remember Darryl being a mouthpiece for left wing causes to the degree he his now. Perhaps he’s still evolving?
LikeLike
What kind of male person slings accusations of low-T and GAY! around? Any psychology experts care to weigh in?
LikeLike
Bob,
“When the 2 Tim. 3:17 says every/all good works it means just that.”
Yes Scripture equips believers for good works. That doesn’t get you SS.
“First K, then DQinTx ran thru the gamut of overlooked alternative fallacies in trying to find some support for a continuing and inspired apostolic tradition along side Scripture in apostolic Scripture.”
Unwritten tradition was operating prior to and concurrently with the process of inscripturation. That’s the point and why the apostles extoll it in their writings. The church began at Pentecost, not in 95 AD when John penned Revelation.
“When the Bereans heard Paul, they searched the what? OT scriptures to see if what Paul said rang true.”
Yup. Examining Scripture to see if its compatible with claims and teaching doesn’t get you SS. If the Bereans rejected Paul’s message, they would not have been commended.
“Why? Because man does not live by bread alone Deut. 8, Matt. 4. The Word of God is the only/supreme infallible standard.”
There you go again with the non-sequitur conclusions.
“But God’s way of revealing himself in the past have ceased so what we are left with his record in the apostolic NT.”
There you go again with the non-sequitur conclusions – revelation ceasing does not entail SS. And again you rely on Tradition for knowing God’s way of revealing himself in the past has ceased, and you rely on it for your recognition of the extent and scope of the apostolic NT.
“Anything beside it is redundant, as in unnecessary.”
Just like the NT is redundant and unnecessary in your continued attempts to paint NT believers and apostles as OT SS’ists.
LikeLike
I might have missed it, but when I started here I don’t remember Darryl being a mouthpiece for left wing causes to the degree he his now. Perhaps he’s still evolving?
I’m not an unqualified DGH fanboy, but I have read 4 of his books now, and most of his main posts on OLTS (I don’t attempt to follow every comment thread), but I haven’t seen anything that would justify that remark. What I see here is completely consistent with his books. How you see such a change is simply beyond my comprehension. That is all I care to say on the mater, and I hesitate to say even that as there seems to be more going on here than I can, or care to, fathom.
LikeLike
ADD, this is exactly why I’m glad you’re around. Sound wisdom & good advice.
LikeLike
AN,
Pretty sure you can be high T and gay. The T is just aimed in another direction.
I followed up on the gay thing and it was denied so we can just let that one go.
LikeLike
Dan,
“A Secular Faith” was a bit…out there. It was not Van Drunen on 2K.
If you were a leader in the OPC wouldn’t you seek to make very clear statements on the topic of gay marriage and, when questioned to clarify your unclear statements, wouldn’t you clarify as opposed to continuing to be purposefully unclear.
This is what liberals do. Slippery stuff.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“Re: health workers and food workers v.landlording and denying service-
There are huge differences in all three cases:”
Okay so the distinction is not that one industry provides necessary services while others do not which I had thought was your rationale.
“A) Emergency medical prefers life- we shouldn’t allow people to die based on being sinful (at least in this case; the state has in principle the right to administer capital punishment).”
But are the medical professionals facilitating and enabling sin by saving known sinful and immoral people? What if it isn’t an immediate life-and-death situation – should the medical professional still be allowed to refuse service and say “there are other nurses and doctors here” or “there are other clinics across town – please try them”?
“B) selling groceries to two men I have reason to think are SSMd doesn’t promote anything immoral- catering their wedding does- it spreads the scandal of SSM.”
Aren’t you facilitating their sin by giving them food to eat and survive? What if they are waiting in line and talking about their sexual exploits or how they can’t wait to go pick up some girls or guys this weekend and get wasted with the alcohol or have a big party with the food they are buying from you?
“C) Renting an apartment admits to a community those who are hostile to its values (e.g., if the residents endorse Christian morality).”
But this seems to just be arbitrarily grading sin or selecting which ones you’ll look out for? So known SSM couples are “bad” for the community, but people who hold grudges, gossip, are angry with or neglectful of their immediate or extended families, co-habitate or use contraception, divorced or remarried without annulment, are devout and caring muslims or mormons or hindus, etc. are fine?
“D) These cases could be multiplied indefinitely- ethics based in moral theology is complex”
Absolutely.
“I have only advocated morality-based discrimination. Race-based discrimination is an injustice.”
Many in the past and today view racial discrimination as Christian and morality-based – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinism
“Oy, you trying to make me look bad?”
Heh, hardly. I am no moral theology expert – I just know that those distinctions along with the principle of double effect are always brought up in complicated discussions on our cooperation with evil since such cooperation seems to be so inevitable and unavoidable if we are to function in society and those concepts can be a helpful guide in at least getting some handle on things. And even with them in play, the answer is not always clear-cut – just google around and you can see the extended discussions or essays covering those themes in various cases. All I am saying is that a position that ignores or conflates all those distinctions immediately jumps out at me as a red flag which is why I brought up the hermit solution – if you don’t make the necessary distinctions, becoming a hermit is the only consistent and viable way I see to live.
LikeLike
Compare Van Drunen on 2K in “New Horizons”. Serious, sober, pastoral, clear. Also an OPC officer, professor, and attorney. Additionally an ordained ministerr. Now Darryl will respond, “That’s ‘Ordained Servant’ and this is “just a blog”. Show me where the vows of an OPC officer can be turned off and on at will, though.
http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=854
New Horizons
The Christian’s Place in Society
David VanDrunen
Conservative American Christians seem to feel culturally adrift and morally isolated today in ways they have never before experienced. While each generation needs to be careful about exaggerating the magnitude of its own challenges, certain moral sentiments have shifted markedly in a short period of time, in ways that raise difficult questions for Christians seeking to understand their place in civil society and their responsibilities within it.
This article does not analyze these recent cultural shifts, but reflects more broadly on how Christians should understand their identity in the world. Scripture indicates that the discomfort and homelessness that many American Christians now feel is in fact the ordinary and expected state of affairs. This is sobering, but it is heartening to know that Scripture prepares us for these circumstances, providing theological perspective and guidance for faithful life in our changing societies.
Sojourners and Exiles
How does Scripture describe Christians’ place in society? First Peter 2:11 presents two important concepts: “Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul.” Peter’s terminology is worthy of special attention since 1 Peter 2 as a whole addresses matters pertinent to American Christians’ concern about society’s changing moral ethos: the nature of the church, opposition from unbelievers, the legitimacy of authority structures, and suffering for righteousness’ sake. In this context, Peter instructs Christians to think of themselves as sojourners and exiles. Both concepts draw upon a rich Old Testament background.
A sojourner is one who has temporary residence in a place, but no permanent home. In the Old Testament, Abraham and his family were the paradigmatic sojourners (Gen. 12:10; 15:13; 20:1; 21:34; 23:4). God set apart Abraham’s house by establishing the covenant of grace with him (Gen. 15; 17), but he did not command separation from his pagan neighbors in the common affairs of this world. Even while giving up idols and clinging by faith to the true God, Abraham remained an active participant in the broader cultural life of the cities in which he wandered. He joined a military campaign (allied with Sodom and Gomorrah!) (Gen. 14), participated in legal proceedings initiated by Abimelech, king of Gerar (Gen. 20), entered into a civil covenant with Abimelech (Gen. 21:22–34), and engaged in a real estate transaction (Gen. 23). Abraham had no permanent home in these regions, yet was involved in their affairs.
Exile is a similar concept in important respects. Exiles are people banished from their homeland and compelled to live in foreign places. In the Old Testament, the people of Judah taken into Babylonian captivity were the paradigmatic exiles, and Peter directs his readers to their experience as well. Jeremiah wrote a letter to some of the early exiles, providing perspective and instruction about how to live in Babylon. The prophet encouraged them to continue pursuing the ordinary things of life in exile: building houses, planting gardens, getting married, and having children (Jer. 29:5–6). He also exhorted them to “seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (29:7). This is remarkable: Jeremiah urged them to promote the welfare of the arrogant pagan city that was destroying Jerusalem. Now their own fortunes were tied to the political and economic fortunes of their host city. But at the same time they needed to remember that Babylon was only a place of exile, not a new homeland, for Jeremiah proceeded to prophesy that God would end their exile and bring them back to Jerusalem after seventy years (29:10–14). Like Abraham the sojourner, the exiles were to be active participants in the affairs of their city of residence without embracing the religion of their pagan neighbors or mistaking this city for their permanent home. Daniel and his three friends exemplified this sort of life (Dan. 1–6).
Practical Implications
Given this Old Testament background, what does Peter communicate by calling New Testament Christians “sojourners and exiles”? Obviously our situation is not absolutely identical to that of the sojourners and exiles of old. We who live on this side of Christ’s cross and resurrection enjoy the Spirit’s redemptive blessings in much greater measure than did the Old Testament saints. One privilege the church has that Abraham’s household and the Israelite exiles lacked is God’s call to be a missionary community by actively inviting unbelievers to join us.
Despite these and other differences, Peter indicates that our similarities are profound. Perhaps at the most basic level, Christians, as sojourners and exiles, should view their societies as places of temporary residence, not as permanent homes. Believers have a homeland, but it has no earthly address. Our citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20), and we are looking for a city that is to come (Heb. 13:14). As with Abraham, our “homeland” is “a better country, that is, a heavenly one” (Heb. 11:14, 16). John Calvin asked, “If heaven is our country, what can earth be but a place of exile?” (Institutes, 3.9.4). Yet Peter’s terminology also suggests that Christians should be active participants in their communities of exile, promoting their welfare without mistaking them for “the city that has foundations” (Heb. 11:10).
In the rest of this article, I offer four reflections upon our Christian identity as sojourners and exiles that ought to be encouraging in our own time.
First, we may have great confidence in God’s providential government of our exilic societies. Our communities would not exist at all were it not for the covenant of common grace that God established with Noah after the great flood (Gen. 8:21–9:17). In this covenant, God addressed all human beings (9:9, 12)—along with all living creatures (9:10, 12, 15–17), the earth (8:21; 9:13), and the cosmic order (8:22)—and promised to preserve them for as long as “the earth remains” (8:22). God’s common grace preservation entails the basic maintenance of human society. He blesses human procreation (9:1, 7), provides food (9:3–4), and commissions the pursuit of justice (9:5–6). Thanks to this covenant, Christian sojourners may view their earthly societies as legitimate and God-ordained, while at the same time temporary, rather than permanent. Gerar, Babylon, Rome, and the United States have all existed under Noah’s rainbow, serving God’s providential purposes while being “like a drop from a bucket” and “as the dust on the scales” (Isa. 40:15). God superintends the rise and fall of nations (Isa. 40:22–24).
Second, our identity as sojourners and exiles reminds us that historical circumstances change drastically from time to time and place to place, and thus provides a proper perspective on our own situation. In his sojourns, Abraham had to deal with both the king of Sodom and the king of Gerar, rulers of two very different cities. The former was so wicked that God made it a type of the final judgment (Gen. 19:1–29; cf. Luke 17:28–30), while Genesis 20 presents the latter as a place of surprising propriety and justice. Today God calls Christians, having no earthly homeland, to live in a variety of places and circumstances. American Christians have long enjoyed extraordinary privileges and opportunities, but Scripture never guarantees their indefinite continuance. While they continue, we should be very thankful people, especially when we consider what our fellow believers now face in Syria or North Korea, for example. How shameful it is that conservative Christians so often gripe and complain about the state of America, rather than express gratitude for having so many temporal blessings that most Christians throughout history have lacked.
Third, our identity as sojourners and exiles reminds us of important differences between our ecclesiastical and civil associations. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul exhorts the church to discipline an unrepentant sexually immoral person, but then immediately distinguishes ecclesiastical from civil relationships: “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler” (5:9–11). The church must maintain its merciful discipline in the midst of cultural moral change in its cities of exile—as Peter said, “as sojourners and exiles” we must “abstain from the passions of the flesh” (1 Peter 2:11)—but Christians are not therefore to shun association in civil affairs with their non-Christian neighbors who fall into such sins.
Finally, our identity as sojourners and exiles encourages us to pursue excellence in our vocations and strive to bless our neighbors, albeit with modest expectations. Jeremiah urged the Israelite exiles to take up a variety of occupations and to seek the welfare of Babylon, while simultaneously reminding them that Babylon would remain Babylon, and that in seventy years they would leave Babylon for Jerusalem. In similar fashion, God calls New Testament Christians to work hard (1 Thess. 4:11–12; 2 Thess. 3:6–12) and to work well—for Christ’s sake (Col. 3:23), God’s glory (1 Cor. 10:31), and our neighbors’ good (Gal. 6:10), even enjoying our labor as its own reward (Eccl. 5:18–19). But God does not promise how or in what measure we will see fruit from our work. Whether the outward signs are encouraging or discouraging, and whether our ambient social ethos is improving or worsening, we labor on as faithful exiles, confident that the all-wise God will prosper the work of our hands as he sees fit.
The author, an OP minister, is a professor at Westminster Seminary California. New Horizons, June 2015.
LikeLike
AN,
If you doubt his denial, you can take it up with him. I definitely didn’t want to probe the matter any further. He remembered his weird comment to me and provided a defense.
You guys rehash stuff and it just blows up in your face over and over again. That’s what happens when facts aren’t on your side.
How are things going, Sean??
LikeLike
I just stepped in to see what was going on.
LikeLike
How did I get lumped back in here? I was busy doing hypermasculine things and being threatened with violence over the phone. I may have to take up Kevin’s renting policies.
LikeLike
Appalled
Posted July 15, 2015 at 3:57 pm | Permalink
Dan,
“A Secular Faith” was a bit…out there. It was not Van Drunen on 2K.
If you were a leader in the OPC wouldn’t you seek to make very clear statements on the topic of gay marriage and, when questioned to clarify your unclear statements, wouldn’t you clarify as opposed to continuing to be purposefully unclear.
This is what liberals do. Slippery stuff.
Sigh. So, now it is DGH’s fault that he is not Van Drunen? All I said was that I can’t see anything he has written in his main posts that is inconsistent with his own publication history– very definitely including A Secular Faith.
I have absolutely no idea what the OPC requires of its officers. As it purports to be Presbyterian, they have their own ways of handling this sort of thing. I am, after all, a Baptist.
LikeLike
Cvd,
Okay so the distinction is not that one industry provides necessary services while others do not which I had thought was your rationale.
Not in these cases, at least. Perhaps in a case where there is only one masseuse in town (non-essential service) the owner can refuse to serve whereas the only grocery store can’t.
“A) Emergency medical [services preserve
preferslifeAutocorrect error, sorry.
But are the medical professionals facilitating and enabling sin by saving known sinful and immoral people?
Sounds like murder or something similar to me- denying emergency medical care. We can’t murder people a la Nazis or Soviets.
What if it isn’t an immediate life-and-death situation – should the medical professional still be allowed to refuse service and say “there are other nurses and doctors here” or “there are other clinics across town – please try them”?
I think that would be generally alright. An old-fashioned GP/family doctor should be able to choose the families he gets to know and cares for over a long period of time. Lawyers too.
“B) selling groceries to two men I have reason to think are SSMd doesn’t promote anything immoral- catering their wedding does- it spreads the scandal of SSM.”
Aren’t you facilitating their sin by giving them food to eat and survive? What if they are waiting in line and talking about their sexual exploits or how they can’t wait to go pick up some girls or guys this weekend and get wasted with the alcohol or have a big party with the food they are buying from you?
I’d ask them to quiet down and behave appropriately or leave. I’d give them several opportunities to improve behavior. If they didn’t conform, I’d bar them until they indicated a readiness to behave. A store owner has a responsibility to other customer not to permit scandalous behavior.
“C) Renting an apartment admits to a community those who are hostile to its values (e.g., if the residents endorse Christian morality).”
But this seems to just be arbitrarily grading sin or selecting which ones you’ll look out for? So known SSM couples are “bad” for the community, but people who hold grudges, gossip, are angry with or neglectful of their immediate or extended families, co-habitate or use contraception, divorced or remarried without annulment, are devout and caring muslims or mormons or hindus, etc. are fine?
All of that can or should be taken into account as well. I addressed this in my recent reply to Jeff. Not sure why you two think I would apply this only to SSM, the issue which was under discussion.
“I have only advocated morality-based discrimination. Race-based discrimination is an injustice.”
Many in the past and today view racial discrimination as Christian and morality-based – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinism
And many people have been wrong on many things in the past. The Church has never countenanced race-based moral discrimination. I believe ethnos is primarily based on logos, in any case- religion is the primary unifier in an ethnicity. Family ties, language, a shared legal framework or polis or state, proximity of social ties- all these are important determiners as well.
All I am saying is that a position that ignores or conflates all those distinctions immediately jumps out at me as a red flag
I agree, but I don’t have a succinct principle here other than what the Appalled Nightfly wrote very well above (although I don’t at all appreciate his scornful remark on my posts earlier- I think he was fondly hoping it would help get him back in the graces of his critics; but maybe he is just rude).
Nevertheless, a back-and-forth like this can be productive in developing such theories. Happy to keep discussing cases.
LikeLike
d4v34x: a. Your problem is that you keep refering to instructions given to Christians and saying they tell us to get pagans to act like Christians.
I guess you can say that, but I think you would have a hard time showing where I said that, but that seems to be neither here nor there, sometimes here at OL
anyway, we care foremost for brothers and we also care for ‘pagans’ –that they might come to a knowledge of the truth; if judgment begins with the household of God; what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?
LikeLike
“The Church has never countenanced race-based moral discrimination.”
KiNNY, are you sure about that? Were Jews a race? Check your sources.
LikeLike
Appalled – A problem the Old Lifers have is that there pretty much all low T (with the exception of Sean), so they stir things up and then balk when they get a strong reaction (like from Tom Van Dyke or me), because they really don’t want to summon the energy to deal with it. The answer is, just keep your head down and don’t poke hornets’ nests with sticks. If they’re really 2K and not just liberals, just shut up about it and go about your business.
mboss – Come again?
As to Dr. Clark and DGH, it’s possible they’re both right. DGH could be making the entirely reasonable point that Joe and Jim down the street getting hitched isn’t the existential threat to the church that some people are making it out to be. Sinful and sad? Yes. Cause for panic? No. Dr. Clark could be making the entirely reasonable point that the church is living through an increasingly hostile and intolerant climate of political correctness that could easily lead to concrete ways that the church and Christians will be threatened in the not too distant future. I wouldn’t say they’re 180 degrees apart on this issue.
And I didn’t know theologians shouldn’t podcast with chicks.
LikeLike
mboss – DGH could be making the entirely reasonable point that Joe and Jim down the street getting hitched isn’t the existential threat to the church that some people are making it out to be. Sinful and sad? Yes
Appalled – He doesn’t say its “sinful and sad”. That would be far too provincial and un-nuanced for Darryl. That’s not an Ivy League sentiment, it’s a Mid-American Conference sentiment. He says it’s nice that “Christian norms now govern gay marriage”
And if you think they’re not 180 degrees apart, you lack reading comprehension. Clark’s to the right of me. I spent Saturday morning trying to talk him off the ledge on Twitter.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted July 15, 2015 at 7:31 am | Permalink
TVD
You had a great turn of phrase a while back. Something to the effect that while America may not have been a Christian nation, she provided special accommodation to it. Can you remind me what the right wording was? Also, was that your statement or were you quoting someone?
Thx for asking. Yes it was mine, in short that for our first 200 years,
The courts have taken a strong turn to “strict separation” in the past few decades, and now as we see with Obama going after the Little Sisters of the Poor, we’re now in a state of open hostility and indeed open warfare against religious conscience. the government forcing us to choose one or the other.
[A corollary is that the nation was founded on an acceptance of natural law, which of course is not in conflict with the Bible, so the accommodation of Biblical sensibilities was an easy one. It wasn’t necessary to spell out the obvious, say that marriage is between a man and a woman, and in large part for the protection of the woman and whatever children sexual relations might produce.
But we have abolished the natural law in the public square, and as such reduced marriage to no more than sexual gratification, untethered from the reproductive function. Therefore gay marriage is the only “fair” thing to do, and by George, there it is in the Constitution!]
LikeLike
@tvd
Thanks.
LikeLike
a.: we also care for ‘pagans’ –that they might come to a knowledge of the truth; if judgment begins with the household of God; what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?
So we proclaim the gospel. Which is different from activism (see the New Testament). One brings people to God, whom to know is life eternal. The other might get them to act a little more like people who know God, but their outcome on judgment day ends up being the same as those who obey not the gospel.
LikeLike
cw,
KiNNY, are you sure about that? Were Jews a race? Check your sources.
Jews who reject Jesus as Christ are Jews. Jews who embrace Him are Christians, and have always been accepted as such.
Newark is in NJ not NY.
Hope that helps.
LikeLike
Appalled
Posted July 15, 2015 at 5:26 pm | Permalink
mboss – DGH could be making the entirely reasonable point that Joe and Jim down the street getting hitched isn’t the existential threat to the church that some people are making it out to be. Sinful and sad? Yes
Appalled – He doesn’t say its “sinful and sad”. That would be far too provincial and un-nuanced for Darryl. That’s not an Ivy League sentiment, it’s a Mid-American Conference sentiment. He says it’s nice that “Christian norms now govern gay marriage”
Man, that’s some major league genius, defending Christian morality without ever actually defending Christian morality and pissing off your liberal pals. Word up, all. This is how it’s done, how to be Christian and still keep your skirts clean.
Appalled
Posted July 14, 2015 at 8:41 pm | Permalink
Waiting to see if Muddy Gravel & Zrim have their MSNBC talking points yet on how Planned Parenthood selling the body parts of aborted babies is nothing we should be concerned about.
But where is it in the Bible that’s wrong? Where in the Bible does it say we should get upset about it?
Puzzled,
Turnips for Christ
LikeLike
Tvd,
Keep it up and don’t falter. It only took a week to establish Pentecost came before Galatians, and that’s in the Bible. Proof you can wring blood… from a tulip.
LikeLike
DGH: No matter what the higher courts decided, physician-assisted suicide is still on the books in Oregon. And the number of Americans — since we are after the 14th Amendment now citizens not of the states but of the nation — dying with the help of doctors in Oregon is growing — from 16 in 1998 to 105 last year….I wonder why more Christians have not been outraged by a federal government that allows Oregon to persist in this law.
did anyone address this question?
LikeLike
Kevin in Newark
Posted July 15, 2015 at 8:49 pm | Permalink
Tvd,
Keep it up and don’t falter. It only took a week to establish Pentecost came before Galatians, and that’s in the Bible. Proof you can wring blood… from a tulip.
Thx. I’ve been studying religion and the American Founding for the past 5+ years, but unfortunately events overtook the possibility of principled argument, as the courts became more aggressive and frankly Christian America as a whole knuckled under to the social shitstorm, for fear of being called “bigots,” or worse, “Christians.”
I must admit my heart isn’t in my groupblog so much anymore
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/
although we all must gird our loins for this coming round of outrages, the final assault on freedom of religious conscience. I’ve decided that the real enemy is the cowardly and traitorous Christians, who don’t just stand by and do nothing, but actually help the forces who despise religion and the Bible, despise the idea of a natural moral law, and who sneer at anyone who has the guts to stand up against the flow, and who keep the undecided undecided, gutless and inert.
LikeLike
A,
I wonder how someone could get legal standing to file a case which would overturn that. Someone with power of attorney to the deceased? A creditor? Or maybe a botched job resulting in a ruling that it is an ‘unsafe procedure’?
LikeLike
a.: ACTIVISM:: a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous actions especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue
direct vigorous action -present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect…
The first sign of a problem is that you wrest Rom 12.1 far, far out of its context. How is this clear? Because Paul goes on to lay out what it means to renew one’s mind and prove what the will of God is. It is to love one’s neighbor within the church, according to one’s abilities (Rom 12.3ff). There is nothing there at all about getting involved in a political process, which was virtually unknown in Paul’s time anyways (outside of armed rebellion).
The second sign of a problem is that you have to broaden the meaning of “activism” to mean “any direct, vigorous action.”
Competitive swimming, apparently, is activism.
What you miss is the back half of that definition: “…especially in support of or in opposition to one side of a controversial issue.”
Everyone repeat after me:
Living in obedience is not the same as political activism
The first is enjoined in Scripture, in spades. The second is not enjoined anywhere.
LikeLike
a. , I haven’t seen much ink or many pixels devoted to the Oregon outrage. Euthanasia was, though, one of the primary motivating factors behind the First Things symposium “The End of Democracy” that DGH alluded to. If you are not familiar with that episode, particularly the reaction to it on the right, it is instructive. Google is your friend.
None of this stuff is all that new to some of us. I made my first contribution to John Whitehead’s Rutherford Fund back in the mid- 80’s. As I recall, he critiqued decisions such as Roe from both a technical constitutional law and a natural law perspective, at least in his early fund raising materials and speeches, specifically mentioning the likelihood of court approved Euthanasia.
LikeLike
JRC: [This is a false choice:] (1) One seeks to bring Biblical ethics as norms for the common sphere, OR
(2) One admits to not caring about righteousness.
Kevin: Perhaps some have raised that false choice, but I’m not sure most have. Whatever the case, I think a measured approach to #1 is the way to go – and I believe Zrim, yourself, tvd, Appalled, and probably almost everyone else here present agrees with it.
No, actually, and that’s the point. There is a #3: One uses the natural law to guide the common realm. I’m certain that’s where DGH and Zrim are.
I’m at a somewhat different place. I think the first table of the law belongs exclusively to the church, but the second table has a 2nd-Use utility, mainly in clarifying the content of natural law. (In Reformed nomology, the 1st use of the Law is to reveal and expose sin, the 2nd is to restrain wrongdoing, and the 3rd is to guide our obedience. 1 and 2 are sometimes switched. IIRC, Aquinas has a similar categorization)
The point of 2k, however, is one of jurisdictions. The state and church are both ordained of God. Both may do their jobs well or poorly, but they are both ordained of God. Hence, it is improper for one to intrude on the jurisdiction of the other.
And as a practical matter — and here, a Roman Catholic who knows his history cannot help but agree — if the two try to overlap their jurisdictions, there inevitably follows corruption in the wake.
LikeLike
I don’t see a way to “overturn it” in court. The statute would need to be repealed.
LikeLike
(A different) Dan
Posted July 15, 2015 at 10:27 pm | Permalink
a. , I haven’t seen much ink or many pixels devoted to the Oregon outrage. Euthanasia was, though, one of the primary motivating factors behind the First Things symposium “The End of Democracy” that DGH alluded to. If you are not familiar with that episode, particularly the reaction to it on the right, it is instructive. Google is your friend.
Google also the EXIT euthanasia group in Switzerland, and most appalling, “euthanizing” children and the mentally depressed in the Netherlands.
The final outrages are just beginning, folks, a return to barbarism in the name of progress. Let’s not get caught flat-footed this time. Read. Think. Study.
Pray. Then speak. Speak out. this much, any of us can do.
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/02/doctors-euthanize-650-babies-under-assisted-suicide-law-in-the-netherlands/
LikeLike
Christian America began on April 26, 1607.
LikeLike
Once upon a time a
noviceyoung man got religion and became a real fanboi of ScoldLife.Then again, he got religion again and became a scorner.
In between, he counseled another born again convert of sorts, one Jase Stellerman, to calm down, shut up and not make an ass of himself in public on the internet.
Moral of the story: Grow up, pay for your own crayons and shut up in the meantime until you can follow your own directions.
I am not a fan of all that OL espouses by any means. At times I think playing the devil’s idiot lapses into outrageous stupidity.
But then again the stated purpose of the bwog is to fire people up.
(And boy do they get fired up.)
That said, it would be nice if politics got out of the church. I don’t really care to hear off the pulpit that NMandela was a great man or that we need to be concerned about the “War on Terror” or ISIS (a group funded, if not provoked by American foreign policy or lack there of a coherent version imo). Modern media is the electronic version of Plato’s cave and is not driving the agenda or the public prayer.
We know abortion is wrong; how we are to vote – Dim, Repug or not is a different question. That is the point of 2k. We are not to judge those outside of the church 1 Cor.5 but the civil magistrate can know and reward the good. Church/state.
Which is not to say 2kers can’t get tied up looking over their shoulders at the RRight, all the while ignoring the atheists who for all practical purposes think the state is the church.
Which is what’s going on here, again imo.
Correct big picture, wrong application.
FWIW
LikeLike
Catholicus Von Devious.
Get a dictionary and tell me what the definition of “all” is, as in the “every/all good works” that Scripture equips the man of God unto 2 Tim. 3:17.
(You know, “all” the word which somehow got left out of the quote in your reply.)
Hint, since “all” covers all the bases, yeah there could be alternatives to Scripture that repeat it, but then that would Obviously mean they are redundant i.e. UnNecessary.
I know, a novel concept in your neck of the woods, but you need to get out more often.
Whether in a dream, vision, spoken or on a page, it’s all the inspired Word of God,
But since we don’t have the apostles and the signs and wonders that accompanied their ministries and bridged the transition from oral to written in the NT era, guess what?
We are left with the infallible, perspicuous and sufficient Bible.
Which is why Rome again claims the apostolic chrism and miracles for herself in an effort to add unto the canon of Scripture, NT and OT.
In direct contradiction to Scripture.
Neither have any of our amateur papists been able to tell us how we are to know they are the correct traditions, since the lost apostolic oral traditions are lost, much more that Rome according to the same is the last word on the same.
Vicious. Circular. Confusion.
Rome, along with Islam, and Joseph Smith make claims for their additions to Scripture that contradict Scripture in that Scripture is sufficient and the canon is closed.
True, Rome didn’t get around to authoritatively verifying the last until Trent, but the early church is not the Roman church and the Word of God is living and active, not a dead letter like Called to Confusion would have us believe. Ultimately tradition doesn’t tell us what is Scripture, the Holy Spirit does.
Besides, which of the 3Ms are you gonna believe? Rome’s magisterium, mohammed and Mormonism all claim inspiration for their additions to Scripture supposedly taught in Scripture, but really, obviously contrary to Scripture. (The Immaculate Deception Assumption for
onetwo.)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:
Matt. 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
LikeLike
Tom,
although we all must gird our loins for this coming round of outrages, the final assault on freedom of religious conscience. I’ve decided that the real enemy is the cowardly and traitorous Christians, who don’t just stand by and do nothing, but actually help the forces who despise religion and the Bible, despise the idea of a natural moral law, and who sneer at anyone who has the guts to stand up against the flow, and who keep the undecided undecided, gutless and inert.
And what do you plan to do with your enemies sir? I think it’s actually quite easy to stir up moral outrage, and so very much harder to understand what can and cannot be done about it. I am personally convinced that conservative Christians in the West of any sort of stripe (Prot or Catholic) have been fighting against the tide of history, seeing their culture go to hell in a hand basket in the modern era and trying to figure out what can be done about it. So the war drums have been beating over one cause or another for over a century, and we have only lost cultural ground, being continually marginalized by the historical moment that has little use for our beliefs.
I know you don’t like this Tom, but 2k in all its flavors is an attempt to address this very problem. For the first time since pre-Constantinian Christianity, the church in the modern era is loosing ground to the culture, and whereas they were gaining cultural momentum in fits and starts, we are loosing it slowly and steadily. Those concerned with the orthodoxy of their Christian traditions find themselves more and more on the outside of culture looking in, loosing legal and political clout to stem the tide. I also agree with some of the more cynical sentiment that this could put conservative Christians in a real bad way in the days to come. The glaring fact of the matter is none of this has happened outside the Providence of God, if he wanted it to be different, it would be so. It is for us here, on the ground without insight into the mysterious workings of Providence who must figure out what we must do as a result with an understanding of both our limitations and our own fallibility.
I am of the opinion that the culture in the West broadly will probably continue its slide to the most absurd manifestations of individualism and progressivism can concoct no matter how much or how loudly we protest. Caitlyn Jenner will be hailed as a hero, blurring our understanding of not only gender but of heroism, and weirder stuff I am sure is coming down the pipeline. My concern, and that I think of many who sympathize with the 2k POV, is not to stop the downward lurch of culture, but to be faithful as a church in understanding that our calling as the Body of Christ is spiritual, and we are to be stewards and witnesses to that spiritual calling. Let the world have it’s depraved vision of marriage, but let those that belong to the church model what God’s grace looks like in marriage (between a man and a woman) and the family that proceeds from that marriage. As abominable as abortion is, I don’t think the church can eliminate it, but let us be caring parents who choose life for our own, and seek any and every opportunity to prevent any abortion we can by presenting alternatives to young women who feel like they have no other choice.
I could go on and on with examples here Tom, but I am convinced that if Christians spent 1/10th of the energy they do on moral outrage over the current cultural and political situation that they could simply in being faithful to the vocations and stations in life God has called them to, we’d probably do more good in the culture. Is gay marriage wrong? Yes. Is abortion wrong? Yes. Nobody here that I know would say anything to the contrary, but how we approach these matters in the broader culture is a) a byproduct of our own personal consciences and b) may or may not be a good use of our time as we seek to be faithful to our own callings.
So what if Darryl, Muddy, or Zrim don’t think the sky is falling over the recent Supreme Court ruling? By their presence on the Lord’s Day in worship, they are lodging their protest against the world and it’s fallen system, and eagerly awaiting the return of Christ to make all things new; by passing this on in their families, strengthening bonds within their churches, and serving as appropriate witnesses to the testimony of Jesus they participate in the bringing in of the Kingdom of God. I know it isn’t sexy, doesn’t get the press, and won’t rile up the constituency, but generation in and generation out that is how Christ built his Church and will do so until he returns.
So, I’ll ask you again – are they really the enemy?
LikeLike
Erik,
For those of us who have been here commenting for years before you came on the scene, it’s hard not to watch this bizzare scenario and scratch our heads. Whatever your realization about 2k commenters here entailed, it’s awfully hard to separate this from what looks like wounded pride on your part. I don’t defend or condemn the actions of any of the guys you have interacted with here or outside of here, and I don’t doubt that they might have done you wrong in some way, people can sin, screw up, and let us down in a million different ways. That is immaterial to my contention here –
You got called out over your your aggressive and prolific commenting by Darryl and others here (me included) who at the time at least were on the same ideological page as you. Instead of simply taking the cue, and turning it down a notch or two, you opted for the nuclear option and started going after people personally – and haven’t really stopped even after your realization, or reformation, or whatever it was. This could have all been prevented if you could simply have checked yourself, and said maybe I have gone too far with this. Instead it was a study in deflection as you went after the guys here, starting with Darryl and going on down the list.
Only after this did your big “wake-up” happen, and all you proved is that you can change ideas like hats and still snarl and gristle, and go way personal on anyone you happen to disagree with. Erik’s the same Erik he always been here at Old Life (which is the only place I know you), only his ideological jersey has changed. You’re still the same guy – you are capable of some valuable and keen insight, but you can’t get out of your own way because of how often you escalate disagreements that are supposed to be about the ideas not the individuals who hold them, but you keep going personal. Like I said, the only Erik I know comments at Old Life, and I don’t have any insight into who you are away from here and I am not speaking to that.
I am simply asking you that aside from the sort of banter that always passes here (pot-shots, calling people funny names, and other stuff that shows that we never quite outgrow our inner 8 year old), can you stop going after guys personally here? Can you stop bringing in discussions you have had with guys outside of the combox just to settle whatever score needs settling? It’s made a soap opera of this combox that it was never intended to be – and it’s made it difficult for those of us who simply like to pass a little time enjoying discussion and debate over these matters. It’s kind of sucks even typing this out. This is the only time I’ll comment on this here on a public forum. If you feel like I have slighted you or have grossly misrepresented you in some way, I think you have my e-mail, I’ll hear you out as open minded as I can.
LikeLike
The disappointment in someone failing to give wise counsel when needed, or the complete betrayal of trust that someone relied upon from a brother in the Lord, is very painful.
Worse than the sting of a million who shake their first at God.
LikeLike
Jed Paschall
Posted July 16, 2015 at 2:16 am | Permalink
Tom,
although we all must gird our loins for this coming round of outrages, the final assault on freedom of religious conscience. I’ve decided that the real enemy is the cowardly and traitorous Christians, who don’t just stand by and do nothing, but actually help the forces who despise religion and the Bible, despise the idea of a natural moral law, and who sneer at anyone who has the guts to stand up against the flow, and who keep the undecided undecided, gutless and inert.
And what do you plan to do with your enemies sir? I think it’s actually quite easy to stir up moral outrage, and so very much harder to understand what can and cannot be done about it. I am personally convinced that conservative Christians in the West of any sort of stripe (Prot or Catholic) have been fighting against the tide of history, seeing their culture go to hell in a hand basket in the modern era and trying to figure out what can be done about it. So the war drums have been beating over one cause or another for over a century, and we have only lost cultural ground, being continually marginalized by the historical moment that has little use for our beliefs.
I know you don’t like this Tom, but 2k in all its flavors is an attempt to address this very problem. For the first time since pre-Constantinian Christianity, the church in the modern era is loosing ground to the culture, and whereas they were gaining cultural momentum in fits and starts, we are loosing it slowly and steadily. Those concerned with the orthodoxy of their Christian traditions find themselves more and more on the outside of culture looking in, loosing legal and political clout to stem the tide. I also agree with some of the more cynical sentiment that this could put conservative Christians in a real bad way in the days to come. The glaring fact of the matter is none of this has happened outside the Providence of God, if he wanted it to be different, it would be so. It is for us here, on the ground without insight into the mysterious workings of Providence who must figure out what we must do as a result with an understanding of both our limitations and our own fallibility.
I am of the opinion that the culture in the West broadly will probably continue its slide to the most absurd manifestations of individualism and progressivism can concoct no matter how much or how loudly we protest. Caitlyn Jenner will be hailed as a hero, blurring our understanding of not only gender but of heroism, and weirder stuff I am sure is coming down the pipeline. My concern, and that I think of many who sympathize with the 2k POV, is not to stop the downward lurch of culture, but to be faithful as a church in understanding that our calling as the Body of Christ is spiritual, and we are to be stewards and witnesses to that spiritual calling. Let the world have it’s depraved vision of marriage, but let those that belong to the church model what God’s grace looks like in marriage (between a man and a woman) and the family that proceeds from that marriage. As abominable as abortion is, I don’t think the church can eliminate it, but let us be caring parents who choose life for our own, and seek any and every opportunity to prevent any abortion we can by presenting alternatives to young women who feel like they have no other choice.
I could go on and on with examples here Tom, but I am convinced that if Christians spent 1/10th of the energy they do on moral outrage over the current cultural and political situation that they could simply in being faithful to the vocations and stations in life God has called them to, we’d probably do more good in the culture. Is gay marriage wrong? Yes. Is abortion wrong? Yes. Nobody here that I know would say anything to the contrary, but how we approach these matters in the broader culture is a) a byproduct of our own personal consciences and b) may or may not be a good use of our time as we seek to be faithful to our own callings.
So what if Darryl, Muddy, or Zrim don’t think the sky is falling over the recent Supreme Court ruling? By their presence on the Lord’s Day in worship, they are lodging their protest against the world and it’s fallen system, and eagerly awaiting the return of Christ to make all things new; by passing this on in their families, strengthening bonds within their churches, and serving as appropriate witnesses to the testimony of Jesus they participate in the bringing in of the Kingdom of God. I know it isn’t sexy, doesn’t get the press, and won’t rile up the constituency, but generation in and generation out that is how Christ built his Church and will do so until he returns.
So, I’ll ask you again – are they really the enemy?
Yes, you are. I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one at my back.–George Patton, more or less. Did you get that one?
This “Radical Two Kingdoms” theology is moral cowardice writ large, and worse, is evangelical, contagious. Shooting Billy Graham in the back then saying “Christian norms now govern gay marriage”?
What went wrong with the sense God gave you?
The largest Presbyterian church in the United States isn’t just gutlessly sitting out the debasement of the natural law–it’s ordaining “lesbian marriage” as ministers in the church.
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Lesbian-Couple-Ordained-Jointly-in-Presbyterian-Church-Delaware-297184461.html
They have no problem with debasing the Presbyterian religion. What are you doing? Nothing, of course. Forget the USA, and the moral sewer your children are about to grow up in. Your whole argument is in defense of doing nothing.
If you can’t stand up to defend your own religion, what better should we expect of you about anything else?
I expect nothing from you, brother. And that’s what you’ve given us, brother, in spades.
LikeLike
Bob S
Posted July 16, 2015 at 1:19 am | Permalink
Once upon a time a novice young man got religion and became a real fanboi of ScoldLife.
Then again, he got religion again and became a scorner
Actually, the gentleman learned to scorn the scorn. The scales fell from his eyes. Good for him. He’s kicking scornful ass with passion and sincerity.
[ScoldLife is funny, though, Bob, and not an insult atall–I get your meaning. Good one, although scolding is too damn accurate: You can’t build a religion on scolding another one. In the end, you just scold each other for ever and ever amen.]
LikeLike
Everyone repeat after me:
Living in obedience is not the same as political activism
The first is enjoined in Scripture, in spades. The second is not enjoined anywhere.>>>>
Where is political activism prohibited?
I am sure you know that the Old Testament prophets were quite politically active. Sometimes their activity even got them into big trouble.
The 2K position comes dangerously close to making a prohibition where the Bible makes none. It is as if the 2Kers believe that the Bible tells us not to get involved in politics at all. As far as the effect you may have on culture you may as well be Amish.
Luke 13:34
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!
LikeLike
Tom, please do not accept that people speaking authoritatively on behalf of a religious system are exhaustively capturing the application of the faith in the real daily lives of believers.
I know you know how empty it can be when we do it to other systems.
LikeLike
Tom,
How did Jesus oppose the evil of his day? The apostles? Anyone in the NT? You understand that Peter and Paul told Christians to submit to the very Emperor that would crucify and behead them respectively? If God was in such a hot hurry to solve the worlds problems, don’t you think he would have already.
Oh, I get it, he’s just been in heaven twiddling his thumbs until 2015 when finally a few brave souls would finally step up and set things aright. I am all for engaging in politics, its a perfectly responsible thing to do, but I have no illusions whatsoever that history is a byproduct of great men – it’s a current that sweeps us all, and we aren’t going to divert the flow now – the critical mass of momentum is already pretty darn close to terminal. Being faithful is hard enough without the added pressure of altering history.
LikeLike
@ MW:
And here’s where we have to think very carefully, especially including Tom, who is very far off in the weeds.
There is no prohibition whatsoever against political activism.
If you go back and look carefully, I have never said a cross word against activists. When I talked about disagreeing with Abby Johnson, I did not fault her activism.
So what’s the beef? It’s two-fold:
(1) Political activists should act as individuals carrying out their common calling. They should not rope the church as an institution into their causes.
Reasons: jurisdiction, binding of conscience, mission of the church.
(2) Political activists would do better to appeal to natural law, and in particular should not wrap their causes in the label “Christian”
Reasons: politics involves compromise, involves seeking allies (who might not be Christian), politics involves ways-and-means (which particulars might not be commanded in Scripture)
All of which to say is this: Activism is not enjoined in Scripture. It is permissible, but not mandatory.
LikeLike
Jed,
I know it hurts you to learn your 2k idols are phonies. Sorry.
I’ll speak the truth about these guys as long as I’m able (and motivated). If you don’t like it, don’t read it.
They know where they dropped the ball and they know how to fix it. To a man, it’s their pride that won’t let them.
As long as they continue to spout out pious advice here on how Christians should live their (2k) lives, I’ll call them out as phonies.
Darryl the non-censor will censor me when he gets back from wherever he’s at, though, you might get your wish that way.
In the end you’re just a naive, uninformed guy with an opinion, so get in line.
LikeLike
Jed,
Note that the one guy I never give crap to is Kent. He knows what went down and fully understands the implications of it. Learn from him. You’re a fan of the wrong guys.
LikeLike
Jasitek,
It’s very simple. The Pope, without offering a solution, has said where our way of life and economy is sin and thus is wrong. He has presented the Christian solution in terms of what precise economic system we should follow. Instead, he has said most of what is wrong with what we are doing now. Because he is calling us to repent from that, he is speaking prophetically.
LikeLike
Note how little Scripture is ever referred to by those making the 2k case. This is a philosophy of men who don’t want to get their hands dirty. Pontius Pilate is the patron saint.
What Scripture teaches us is to do what we can while we have breath and to leave the results to God – whether that’s offering a cup of cold water, helping an injured man by the road, or using our talents vs. burying them.
2k is a philosophy for bored, disillusioned, and ultimately, cowardly men who want the approval of their peers. This is where my personal experience was relevant. A guy broke a trust and committed a cowardly act. Rather than confess and seek forgiveness, he hid and let others reputations be sullied. Finally when he came clean he did not apologize or admit fault. His allies, also being small men and cowards, did not rebuke him or speak the truth to him, but rather reviled me, as they had throughout the situation.
Cowardice is the common thread. Liberalism is cowardice.
LikeLike
I had earlier commented that Zrim apologized to Erik. That was incorrect.
Here’s my understanding of what happened. First, Erik said something about another man’s marriage being shaky/on the rocks/ something to that effect. This was Erik’s gossip and sin. Not David/Bathsheba sin mind you, but sin it was. Then Z asked the man if it was true. Well, it wasn’t true and Z told the man that Erik was the source of the gossip.
Sorry, but Z did not sin. He is not compelled to apologize. Erik’s feelings are not the law of God.
On the whole, this is really small potatoes. Erik has not handled this well (he said with understatement.)
LikeLike
Mrs. W: Where is political activism prohibited?
Ah, isn’t that the Catholic way?
Where is/are confession/indulgences/inquisitions/mariolatry/incense swinging/insert any of a hundred other Catholic inventions here prohibited?
LikeLike
To clarify, Mrs. W, the point we’ve been making is that activism is nowhere mandated, but lots of Prots act and talk like it is. Making nearly the opposite error of the one you charge us with, namely, if it isn’t prohibited, it must be mandated.
LikeLike
But I see now that Jeff said all that better than I did, so hear him, at least.
Also, do you think we can carry over from Israel, a theocratic monarchy in which the kings were supposed to inquire of the Lord via the prophets, to our democratic republic which shall have no established religion? How does that work?
LikeLike
Just one more thing (I wish).
Erik, I think you know how to contact the Sessions of all the men you have accused of various things. If you have accused falsely, to what Session are you accountable?
LikeLike
Wow, talk about not handling things well.
What you now piously call gossip is what you and Zrim willingly participated in on a daily basis for a year. About guys here, about NAPARC church officers, about people under your care in your church, about all kinds of people.
It was ugly, but at no time did the rules of the game entail taking things outside the sordid, little group. I’ve never said what Zrim did was sin, I said it was cowardice. We were all sinning, me included.
I have no problem exposing the entire ugly mess because I’m out of it. You guys are still in it.
And how dumb are you repeating the rumor and dredging the victim’s name through the mud needlessly? Are you o.k.?
LikeLike
Erik, to which Session are you accountable?
LikeLike
Muddy,
I have filed a lengthy complaint with Darryl’s Presbytery over Old Life.
As for the rest of you, you don’t even use your real names and never have so I don’t see you seeking accountability from anyone for your activities here, nor do I particularly want to take the time and effort to hold you accountable off of Old Life. I’m content to let problems that arose on Old Life be settled on Old Life. If you can’t take that heat to your fake identity, maybe just step away.
You know where to reach my Consistory so don’t play dumb. I’m still a member. I suspect what you would get is eye-rolling and an admonition that “you all deserve each other”. I know you are bluffing, but do what you want. Think about it: for years here I did business under my real name, you guys did not. Who has more to hide?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: Living in obedience is not the same as political activism
Jeff – you might have missed my point. Don’t think I made any statement about political activism. While it seemed we could be on some common ground of basics at a blog “reformed faith and practice’.; that’ s not always so clear here; so I was just stepping back and sharing reminder of ‘a living sacrifice’ – a term which could be quite convicting if one let the Spirit get His way.
Another basic is that we believers actually believe Jesus and agree that righteousness truly is the desirable path, what His calls a peaceful fruit – not something we mock and disdain; also one thing Kevin might have been getting at about the goal of his rental policy ideas.
LikeLike
Muddy,
I’ll say this one time. You use my name once more and henceforth every referral to you, Chortles, Sean, Zrim will be full first and last names. Not screen names. You panic and play dirty. You must be awful in court.
LikeLike
More 2k relevance.
Muddy’s hairsplitting over what is or is not sin is so typical of the pharasaical 2k way of thinking that (surprise) always leaves the 2k proponent with clean hands.
Right or wrong I trusted a group of Presbyterian and Reformed men for a year and shared intimate details of my life, my work, my faith, my family, my relationships — and they did likewise. On a daily basis with sometimes as many as a hundred e-mails a day going back-and-forth.
Now a reasonable man with common sense, probably even an unbeliever, would agree that breaking that trust was wrong, even if all the topics of discussion were not all right.
Not a 2k man, though. As always a 2k man can twist things so the other guy is wrong and he comes off smelling like a rose. Yet another example of how ugly and twisted this philosophy is at its root.
LikeLike
a 2k man can twist things so the other guy is wrong and he comes off smelling like a rose
Assuming you’ve met other humans, you should know that this is not peculiar to 2K types.
LikeLike
A good many of us were not involved in the personal dealings discussed here. There might be a time and place to hash this dispute out like Christian men should. I suggest that this isn’t the place. Obviously this dispute has gone personal, it’s best to handle these matters personally, not publicly.
LikeLike
Jed,
Attempts have been made and continue to be made. When all you get is stubborn obstinacy you take it public in an attempt to warn others.
An offer is on the table to make me go away, but it entails swallowing some pride and admitting some fault. 2k men are some of the most prideful men in all of Christendom.
LikeLike
The only pride we can control is our own. How you doing there? I don’t know and don’t want to know the inner workings of your relationships with commenters outside of here, it is none of my business. But, is salting the fields and poisoning the well for the rest of us who had no involvement prudent? I am ok with your rejection of 2k, if that’s what you felt in your own conscience you had to do, fine. I welcome the discussion over that even though we won’t agree. But, again I am asking you for the sake of all who weren’t involved in these outside discussions, keep them outside of here most of this is between you and the guys you were involved with anyway.
LikeLike
Jed,
You make fair points. Consider that I consider my salting the fields to be an act of charity, though. I think the leaders of the 2k movement are deceived at best and dangerous to the faith at worst. I don’t want to see young guys like you get caught up in that like I did.
Make no mistake, the inner circle has cult-like elements to it.
I have no desire to continue on with this, though, even though I perhaps should. I’m only one guy. Others will need to get burned, see it for themselves, and come out the wiser for it. That’s life.
LikeLike
I get it, but there are better ways of opposition than going after one’s character here, even if you think lowly of the character of some of the commenters here. There’s an inner circle to about every movement and school of thought, and because of the human component they can have a dark underside, so I am not shocked or dismayed. I see most of these as an outworking of interpersonal problems.
I would also venture to say that your problems beyond the personal disputes are not with 2k in general (as outlined and defended by scholars like DVD, Horton, RSC, et.al., rather by it’s particular expression here. Before you became a fixture here I did lock horns with Zrim and Darryl over substantive applications of 2k when it comes to the matters you are discussing even now (slavery in the Confederacy, abortion, Christians in political Revolutions, etc.), we haven’t rehashed these discussions, but there is areas where we all differ on matters of conscience and application of shared ideological convictions.
As a 36 year old man in my own right, I don’t think I was somehow duped by DGH or anyone else, I am a big boy and can think for myself, as are the other commenters here (some being grown women). I get you feel the need to oppose certain ideas you see as crossing the line, but I don’t think you need to protect others in a way that drags the personal lives of other commenters (who would prefer to keep those personal) out into an open forum. Attack away at the ideas – that’s absolutely fair game, and even if there’s disagreement it can be an intellectually fruitful process for all involved. I am just saying keep the personal stuff personal as much as possible.
LikeLike
Appalled,
You know me and Andrew had a good connection. It was he who told me to come hangout over here three years ago and he is to my understanding in the 2k camp and looks up to Hart a lot. I do agree that there had been a change in how he interacted with the debating here though once I recently got back. Anyway I am glad he has some peace from OL right now. He seemed to be heavily burdened by it. Hard to shoulder the theological blogosphere on one set of shoulders.
LikeLike
TVD, my reasons for pointing to the contretemps that followed the publication of the First Things symposium were twofold:
(1) Even among conservatives who were favorably inclined to a natural law critique of the judiciary, there was a furious push back at the mere suggestion of concrete measures such as civil disobedience and resistance to the regime (the mere use of that word was provocative to the faint of heart, reminiscent as it was of the New Left that had driven many of them to the right in the first place).
(2) Many among the conservatively inclined chattering class took the occasion to express profound disagreement with the whole idea of a return to natural law as a way forward in 20th century America.
If there was any consensus among those of us on the right as to the way out of this mess, then your jihad against the relative handful of proponents of 2k theology might at least be relevant. The lack of even the hint of such a consensus, clearly evident many years ago, can hardly be blamed on DGH or the commenters here.
LikeLike
Should correct my language… Me and Andrew “have” a good connection.
LikeLike
Erik,
I echo Jed’s thoughts. For your sake, I urge you to handle matters properly, either privately or through church courts. The ongoing complaints and accusations will not end with peace for you, no matter what the outcome.
As an example: Until this page of comments, I did not know and did not want to know what the specific offense was or who the specific offender was. To the extent that you felt embarrassed by Zrim’s revelation, that embarrassment was amplified here because you made it known to a larger audience.
Please, please, let the matter drop, or pursue it in a biblical manner. I’m not asking you to go away, but rather to put away your anger.
LikeLike
Jed and Jeff, thanks for jumping in without all sides of the issue.
Job couldn’t have asked for better counsel.
LikeLike
Sean,
Don’t know if you are reading, but have you had a chance to look at my reply to you yet?
https://oldlife.org/2015/07/when-did-christian-america-end/comment-page-5/#comment-335745
LikeLike
Michael, not yet. I will. My boss is making me earn my money. Darn bosses.
LikeLike
In other news, I hope you are all basking in the warmth of Caitlyn’s courage this morning. Heck, if I knew a few turns of the scalpel could make me more courageous than a Purple Heart Army vet, and a brave young cancer victim, and get me one of those fancy trophies I might have considered under the knife. Of course I’d probably not opt for a sex-change, something even more corageous, since I no longer identify as human, I am going full KLINGON.
Live long and prosper muchacos, I’ll collect my trophy next year at the Intergalactic Dork Commission Awards Show, AKA the Dorkies.
LikeLike
Jeff,
JRC: [This is a false choice:]
(1) One seeks to bring Biblical ethics as norms for the common sphere, OR
(2) One admits to not caring about righteousness. […]
#3: One uses the natural law to guide the common realm. [Zrim & DGH]
[#4?] I’m at a somewhat different place. I think the first table of the law belongs exclusively to the church, but the second table has a 2nd-Use utility, mainly in clarifying the content of natural law.
I stand corrected, and appreciate seeing the distinction drawn. Let me be sure I understand. So you’ve actually laid out a total of 4 distinct positions?
Do you draw any essential and significant distinction in the definition of natural law from, say, the Thomistic tradition?
The natural law applies to both the Church and the non-Christian realm? Or the law given to the Church somehow supercedes?
So non-Christians have no moral obligation to hold the faith and worship God? I suppose that could be consistent with their being predetermined to damnation. I wonder then what would be the grounds of their damnation if failure to hold the faith is not an obligation. God saves and damns (&/or lets be saved, lets be damned, but with all foreordained) who he pleases, but I would want to probe this a bit.
[uses of the law] – can you point me to a source that expands on this? Perhaps ideally a thomistic treatment from someone who is Reformed?
The point of 2k, however, is one of jurisdictions. The state and church are both ordained of God. Both may do their jobs well or poorly, but they are both ordained of God. Hence, it is improper for one to intrude on the jurisdiction of the other.
Theology can’t be voted on, a court can’t redefine marriage, religious leaders shouldn’t be selected by the state; ecclesiastical leaders should be spending their time on ecclesiastical issues, not running a government. Dual office-holding is generally a bad idea. Particular historical circumstances can complicate this- emergency measures, etc. (a bit like the post 2008 gov bailouts and corporate stock purchases).
Before anyone jumps on me, though (the mockery gets old fast)- why such passion on the issue? Is it that big a problem if a group of monks run a brewery, owns farms and hires tenants, or even hires guards to protect the property from theft? I just don’t see this as an issue of fundamental importance, even if I might (or might not) concede other ways of doing things might be better for society and the salvation of souls.
And as a practical matter — and here, a Roman Catholic who knows his history cannot help but agree — if the two try to overlap their jurisdictions, there inevitably follows corruption in the wake.
Well, maybe. My vision of Church & State is a bit different- all of mankind stands in an essentially similar relation to God, although quite few perhaps take advantage of (or are selected via) God’s offer. I would argue Church and State cooperate in helping man fulfill his God-given nature and ultimate destiny, preparing man for a virtuous life in this world and (ideally) everlasting bliss in the next.
There are of course important distinctions to be drawn in terms of the roles appropriate to each – but how is the State in a unique position as far as this goes, as compared to other social institutions from the family to businesses? I think these each have particular roles to play which provide a moral framework to practice virtue, and protect the more fundamental role of Christian worship.
LikeLike
The side of 2K that isn’t broadcasted consists of encouragement for real people that you actually are making eye contact with.
Agreeing with someone that it is a bad thing that the universe is unfair, that the government probably isn’t going to enforce the first table of the Ten Commandments to your level of satisfaction, that money is a major pursuit and tramples on little people. But also noting that’s not a reason to do less than your best on that thermodynamics exam for a course that has been giving you the biggest academic challenge in your life.
The giving and receiving of quiet and wise counsel of very decent and concerned people, some of them would be considered total losers by the world (and sometimes they look at me with pity), is what makes it click.
Along with Word and Sacrament and acceptance of discipline.
Just sayin’
LikeLike
Not a problem, Sean. Just checking in. I wouldn’t have time to reply today or anything anyway. I’m in your town right now. Headed to Spashtown with my crew today.
LikeLike
Splashtown in Spring TX?
LikeLike
“So, I’ll ask you again – are they really the enemy?”
Jeff, I think this is the crucial question. In the OT, it seems that moral laxity was preceded by problems with proper worship. Since worshiping God rightly is one of our most important duties, it seems to me to be critical to get this right.
In the NT, Paul (and the other writers) are quite clear that moral behavior is crucial. But not just personally, but as a group – so that Paul instructs to church to “have nothing to do with the sexually immoral”. Church discipline up to and including shunning errant members is crucial. Seeking moral purity really matters. However, Paul goes on to say that when he said to shun the sexually immoral, he did not mean those outside of the church. Church discipline does not apply to the heathen.
Further, while there are moral absolutes, not every moral issue has an absolute answer. Is it sinful to buy meat sacrificed to idols and thus subsidize idolatry? It is if it violates your conscience, but it isn’t sinful if you aren’t causing a brother to stumble and your conscience is clear.
Those who do not know Christ do not need to become more moral people. The problem with the man in a same-sex relationship is not that he is having sinful sexual relations. The problem with the woman who aborted her baby is not that she killed a human being. The problem with the genocidal maniac who killed thousands isn’t that he is a murderer. The problem is that these people are spiritually dead and separated from God. They need the gospel. But even if they reject the gospel, we still have to live with them (peacefully insofar as it depends on us) and we need to work with our hands and mind our business so that we aren’t a burden.
Our goal should not make more whitewashed tombs so that we can experience personal peace and prosperity. Our goals should be to worship God rightly, pass along our faith to our kids, and be ready to give an account of our hope to those around us. But in doing so we also have temporal concerns and in our own day we aren’t just subjects, we are citizens with a voice. But how best to use that voice is a prudential question that we can (and should!) debate with the realization that disagreement does not necessarily constitute sin. Further, the church’s job is prescribed – preach the gospel, administer the sacraments, apply discipline. On common matters, where it has no jurisdiction the church should remain silent.
That doesn’t mean that her members shouldn’t attend school board meetings, run for political office, campaign, write their representative, contribute to a PAC, etc… It does mean that there is wide latitude for Christians to remain members in good standing and hold widely divergent views about what issues are most important, which can be compromised on, and how involved one should be. Thinking that advocating for a total ban on abortion would be imprudent is not necessarily cowardice (and frankly in some circles it takes quite a bit of guts to suggest that such a ban would be imprudent). One may disagree with Misty Iron’s suggestion that ssm should be supported by Christians, but it would be foolish to call her view cowardly. Thinking that one has more important responsibilities than fighting a public war against ssm or that doing so is no prudent is not sinful. This is the essence of 2k.
However, we in P&R and evangelical churches face a different problem that I believe has been exacerbated by the push for cultural relevance generally (and a push for political engagement in particular). Namely, we have lost our way and become remarkably worldly. In doing so we have jettisoned core biblical values while holding onto a emaciated list of “essentials”. The big Southern Baptist church in our state was playing Lynyrd Skynyrd prior to the start of worship. At a PCA church I attended in Arizona, the pastor read the “Thank A Soldier” as part of the Sunday morning worship service (it isn’t the minister who gave you freedom of religion, it is the soldier). Wondering why we don’t sing Psalms in my southern PCA church, the response was, “Your not one of those TR (truly-reformed) are you?”. As far as I can tell, in my PCA church, sabbath observance is broadly seen as an anachronism (insofar as it extends beyond going to church Sunday morning). Now you might ask, who care about singing Psalms and Sabbath observance? These were really crucial elements of P&R churches just two generations ago, and they’re gone. We are basically where the mainline was 100yrs ago (and RC parishes aren’t in better shape).
Modernism is a corrosive acid eating away at the Church. The answer is not to be a conservative modernist, the question is how to reform our practices so that we get the most important things right even if they make us culturally irrelevant. Insofar as we are committed to being culture-making creatives. Agents of change in our sphere, etc…. we are asking the wrong question and our churches will continue to grow ever more worldly while they dwindle.
Conservative prots are proud at how they have held steady relative to mainline and RC churches, but this pride is misplaced. We are largely absorbing refugees from there while losing our kids at alarming rates. Raising the bar to church membership and saying that in addition to believing the gospel you have stop being a democrat or politically liberal is wrong in my estimation.
LikeLike
This whole thing is weird and embarrassing. I see the wisdom of Ref21 closing its blogs to comments.
LikeLike
sdb,
Well said. I began to make the move to Reformed churches in ’08-09, even before I knew what 2k was or was aware of the broader rifts in the community, I had read Misty Irons and came to basically the same conclusion. By ’09 2k had given the linguistic and conceptual format that seemed to comport with my understanding of biblical ethics. I wrote this up back in 2009:
Rethinking Proposition 8
Even then there wasn’t consensus amongst 2kers on how to proceed, as evidenced by RubeRad’s comments (speaking of what happened to him?). As I recall, I know of no-one else outside Misty Irons who had taken that position publicly. 6 years later I might revise certain things, but substantially I stand by this position still.
The reason why I think 2k is right is because I think it comports with what the New Testament teaches about the Christian’s duties to the two kingdoms – how they overlap and how they depart from each-other.
LikeLike
Mboss,
Exactly. One of the things I am asking Darryl’s Presbytery for is that all commenters must provide real names and church memberships (if applicable). Hello accountability, goodbye habitual 9th commandment violations.
Now they’ll probably reject that, but, guess what? It’s on their conscience and not mine from that point forward.
LikeLike
sdb,
The answer is not to be a conservative modernist
Totally agree with you here. One point of curiosity: I see you depart from advocating some form of NL which is different than most 2kers (I do think that 2k and NL are divisible), yet modernism is, if anything a rejection of Natural Law among other axioms. Do you reject NL and Natural Theology outright like the dialectic theologians and Van Tilians do, or do you simply maintain that though NL is operative we shouldn’t expect it to norm human legal systems?
LikeLike
Please stop making Misty Irons the end-all-and-be-all of Reformed Theology, huh?????
If you really know better, what the **** are you trying to pull invoking her name?
LikeLike
Kevin: Do you draw any essential and significant distinction in the definition of natural law from, say, the Thomistic tradition?
I don’t know, because Thomistic NL is not an area I’ve studied. Natural law as I understand it is the law of God written on the heart.
I think of it as rather hard to read, which I accept as a weakness of my position.
KNW: The natural law applies to both the Church and the non-Christian realm? Or the law given to the Church somehow supercedes?
It applies to both the Christian and non-Christian in their common-realm endeavors. The Bible is given to the church and is binding on Christian and non-Christian alike, but only the Christian will (genuinely) receive it by faith.
KNW: So non-Christians have no moral obligation to hold the faith and worship God?
No, actually, they very much do. That obligation is written on the heart, and is thus a part of natural law. However, natural law doesn’t get very far beyond just the obligation. Scripture is needed to give the content of the faith.
KNW: can you point me to a source that expands on this? Perhaps ideally a thomistic treatment from someone who is Reformed?
Jed, do you know of any? Van Drunen is a strong proponent of natural law and is Reformed, but I don’t know that he takes a thomistic treatment.
KNW: why such passion on the issue?
In the Reformed world, there are two different pressures. From the theological right, you have theonomists, who hold that government ought to enforce the Decalogue. I call them “theological right” because they tend to want to revert to the 1646 Confession.
From the theological left, you have evangelicals, who are very mushy in their thinking but tend to try to merge America and the Church.
The point of being vocal about 2k is to resist those forces.
Within the Catholic church, likewise, there is the Liberation Theology movement, a strong tendency to try to identify “Christian” political positions, even “Christian Democratic Parties” in Europe. Those forces could use a little (or a lot) of 2k. The Pope’s recent encyclical on the environment is a good example of modest overreach.
KNW: Is it that big a problem if a group of monks run a brewery …
Not as long as they bottle under the label Ale Mary.
KNW: …owns farms and hires tenants, or even hires guards to protect the property from theft?
But seriously, why monks at all? There is an underlying theology of the superiority of “sacred callings” that I find suspicious. Adam was perfectly righteous and yet was no monk.
KNW: I would argue Church and State cooperate in helping man fulfill his God-given nature and ultimate destiny, preparing man for a virtuous life in this world and (ideally) everlasting bliss in the next.
And I think that’s my point of disagreement. The State can’t help man fulfill his God-given nature or his ultimate destiny. The State’s job, per Rom 13, is to restrain evil.
Why can’t the State help with God-given nature?
(1) Not its jurisdiction. That’s what elders are for.
(2) No expectation of Christian leadership.
(3) No expectation of Christian citizenry.
(4) No ability to preach the Word or administer Sacraments, which are the things God has given us to help with God-given nature and prepare for our ultimate destiny.
The State that tries to do what you describe is playing out of position.
LikeLike
Sorry about the blundered link…
LikeLike
Jed & Jeff,
Good appeals. I appreciate that. I’ll shift from the personal since everything I’ve ever considered making public is now public for those who care. If the inner circle can refrain from personal attacks against me, I’ll confine my criticism to 2k and the general impropriety of the Old Life project (the focus of my formal complaint).
LikeLike
Appalled,
That seems a bit much. Imaging a church requiring members or elder forcing everybody in a coffee shop to list their names and church affiliation before they could talk with each other. Like I said just sounds a little unrealistic and tyrannical.
LikeLike
Erik, wait. You’re asking a presbytery to order the reformed leaning Ohio Baptist kid use his real name when he parodies Steely Dan lyrics on an OPC elder’s semi-recreational blog.
Overreach is the nicest word I can use. There’s another one, and it starts with “L” and ends with St. Paul wishing you would emasculate yourself.
LikeLike
Appalled,
I will say, anybody here who has email interacted with got a formal introduction and the diocese and bishop I am under.
LikeLike
Jed,
You brought up Horton, DVD, and RSC. All of these guys have either avoided taking strident 2k positions from the beginning or have walked them back (Horton & Clark, in particular).
Darryl never has and, in fact, grows more strident. I think he’s headed for a fight with the OPC and probably even welcomes it.
He came into the church weaned on Machen. Should we expect any less?
The only question is whether or not the OPC has the resolve to address it. Old Life is clearly a problem.
LikeLike
D,
The OPC has no jurisdiction over you. They have jurisdiction over the host as an officer who has made vows if Presbyterianism means anything at all.
The host can control who interacts here and how. The OPC can control the host’s public religious activities when he’s trading on his OPC credentials.
Open up a convenience store an call it 7-11 when you have no legal affiliation with 7-11 and see how that goes.
LikeLike
A,
I concede his public theological teaching is subject to the jurisdiction of his Presbytery. The choice to identify his commentors by full name and religious institution affiliation is not, not by any stretch of reason.
LikeLike
I know of nowhere that Clark or Horton have “walked back” their views on 2k. They have always been more politically conservative than Hart and more outspoken in their defense of those conservative views. They are theologically and ecclesiasticaly on the same page as Hart. 2k is accommodative of all of them.
As for the allegation that Hart’s 2k is headed for the church courts, I seriously doubt it. It would be far more reaching than Hart and could create a major rift between the OPC and WSC, which supplies a good deal of her ministers. Whatever your complaint is, I think it will be considered as a personal complaint against an officer, I don’t think 2k will be considered based on the content disputed here.
LikeLike
Guys,
Time will tell HOW Old Life gets under control, but it WILL get under control — I’d bet money on it. Oddball professors have their day in the sun, but OPC history shows it doesn’t last forever. Those who aren’t warped by being steeped in the culture here see it clearly and immediately and any church that hopes to have credibility with serious Christian people will not let that go on forever. Biblical Christianity is not an undisciplined freak show and that’s what this has become, even when I’m not here. Ha, ha.
LikeLike
Something between wild west and Ref21 would probably be appropriate especially when people start commenting that they found this site while looking for the OPC – a. and KiN are examples. While the all over the map nature of this blog and comments is interesting and provocative it isn’t representative of a typical OPC officer or church. That said the host, as an officer of the OPC, certainly does represent Christ and this branch (OPC) of His church to this age and the age to come. Some of the comment threads, including this one, have been truly cringe worthy.
LikeLike
I’ll further predict that Darryl’s takes on gay marriage will be the breaking point. He can’t resist stepping in it and won’t be able to resist continuong to step in it as things unfold.
That will further rile up the comment section and the downward spiral will be unending.
LikeLike
@Appalled
Note of clarification. DGH is not a minister in the OPC, but is a ruling elder. Therefore the court of original jurisdiction is not a presbytery but the session of the church of which he is a member. That being said, as DGH is a ruling elder, his session cannot receive a charge against him unless it is presented by no less than two people who have standing to do so. Generally speaking that would require 2 communicate members (in good and regular standing) of the OPC preferably from his own congregation. Otherwise any communication on the matter is not actionable.
So unless you are a member of the OPC and can get another OPC member to present charges and specifications to his session, you’re not likely to get very far. That being said, it can be argued that the church is without authority to censure accept to admonish, rebuke, suspend from the table and excommunicate. Also one can’t ask for specific a remedy like forcing DGH to require those who comment to supply their real names and church affiliations. Getting a conviction on “failing to promote truth between man and man, and/or protecting the name of one’s neighbor” based on the way he runs a blog site it pretty unlikely.
LikeLike
CT, allow me to point out that the blog owner is vacationing and is apparently off the grid and thus unable to do much about what’s occurred the last few days. This thread is the responsibility of the participants.
LikeLike
Not for nothing, but what’s cringe worthy is all the handwringing and sky is falling and I’m offended b.s. Btw, the last name is Moore and I’d invite you to come after me through my church or presbytery, but I don’t think that appreciate the nonsense when they have actual pressing matters to contend with, not overwrought blog drama.
LikeLike
Also, to make sure that you have a good sense of where the OPC is (generally speaking) on public morality, please see
http://opc.org/GA/abortion.html
Please take specific note of the minority report by Paul Woolley an OPC minister and professor at Westminster Theological Seminary (original). Given Woolley on abortion, why would anyone in the OPC even think of disciplining DGH on SSM?
LikeLike
sean,
Agreed, I don’t think the OPC is going to get into policing the blogosphere or her officers politics. The fact is DGH holds to the Standards, and he would affirm that gay marriage is a violation of the general equity of the 7th commandment. His political musings are going to be very hard to pin a violation on. This is getting blown way out of proportion.
LikeLike
And those who would demand strict culture warrior RW political correctness are as ridiculous as the left-wing college campus and Social Justice Warrior (trigger warnings, safe places, speech codes, etc.) mobs. Do you want Fox News with a dash of WCF? Do you want to think?
LikeLike
The left has dictated what the Christian right will do. It’s like a mirror: they play a zero sum game, we play a zero sum game. They glibly attack character, we glibly attack character. They see the political solution as ultimate, we see the political solution as ultimate (with empty talk of God’s sovereignty). They do witch hunts with PC weaponry, we do witch hunts with a right wing PC. If you want to do politics and you are good at it, then good for you. But if you are captured by the spirit of today’s politics woe unto you.
Her’s a crrrrraaaaazy proposal: think about we should conduct ourselves before God and man. This is a different concern than thinking about how loud we should shout or about what our next political move should be. And if you can’t see the difference you’re in pretty deep.
LikeLike
CW – thanks for noting that DGH is away. My comment had to do with the multiple recent threads airing dirty laundry or GtT’s coming clean about his criminal past on a public blog, posting a link to pornographic material to prove a point, etc – that kind of cringe worthy stuff. As for the provocateur wacktardery – I thought that was what the blog was semi-about.
LikeLike
Paul,
Helpful.
This is not about me winning. It’s about me trying to clear my conscience over something that I was intimately involved in for three years that I now consider to be heinous. If I alert authorities in the OPC, then the burden shifts from me to them. What they do at that point is out of my control.
I don’t want to win – I want to see guys here clean up their lives, return to (or discover) a sincere faith, and have their families and churches benefit from that. These are some sad, hurting guys and I say that to humiliate no one.
Greg called me out on some stuff, as did Tom, and I have benefitted from that. Flawed messengers? Yes, but God can use strange people to get our attention. That’s what makes the Christian life so interesting.
LikeLike
Jeff and Kevin,
Jed, do you know of any? Van Drunen is a strong proponent of natural law and is Reformed, but I don’t know that he takes a thomistic treatment.
Van Drunen hits on it somewhat, but Richard Muller is a better source for the historical material. The Reformed Scholastics take on Natural Law is broadly a development from Thomas, wrt to NL I couldn’t cite a substantial difference. I’ll try to pull up some sources when I get back home. Eventually if you are dealing with any Western NL construct (prot or roman) you will have to deal wit th Aquinas.
LikeLike
In Greg’s defense, his “criminal past” was pretty mild (theft) and his sharing clips from “The Wire” was well — The Wire. If we don’t like the clips, why celebrate “The Wire”? There were some other clips from other shows, but we need to cut him some slack — he’s not up to speed on this stuff. He requested it taken down when he realized what he had done.
Many guys here like to dabble with sin, but flip out when it smacks them in the face. That’s the deceptiveness of sin.
LikeLike
Fwiw, the comments in the last few weeks at OLTS, with the back/forth from the reasoned Cat folks and the more thoughtful OLTS commenters, has been solid and thought-provoking. Thanks to each one who has invested the time to make good arguments, and ask good questions on the issues at hand. I (and I suspect others) have benefitted.
As to the intramural P&R personal catfights that eat up airtime here…I’m guessing no one is going to benefit.
LikeLike
“not about me winning…clear my conscience…I now consider to be heinous…alert authorities….clean up their lives, return to (or discover) a sincere faith, and have their families and churches benefit from that. These are some sad, hurting guys and I say that to humiliate no one.”
Senator Joseph McCarthy would be impressed with this. Well done, sir.
LikeLike
App, I think GtT is right about the media stuff – no argument from me on that front. Some of you guys get so freaking worked up and then post crazy accusations or all sorts of personal information (like the GtT reference).
Send a note to Hart’s session with your concerns and as you said, your part in the lot is done. Do that for each of the men in question. Maybe nothing immediate comes of it but they will be on the radar and perhaps scrutinized further if necessary. Then as you said, you have done what you could.
LikeLike
Just to piggyback on my last comment, the Reformed Scholastics we’re trying to establish themselves and Reformed Christianity in the broadly (not Roman or papal) catholic tradition. Obviously they differ with Thomas on crucial issues, but much of their method and even the substance of their theology is built off of Thomas. Their theology proper for example is largely congruent with Thomas, and Protestants still would benefit greatly from reading and grappling with this brilliant saint, so much so that I would assert we must have darn good reasoning for where and why we depart from him.
LikeLike
CT, have you done discipline? It can be quite draining and cause a lot of trauma. It needs to be done at times, but to just say “file against them all” is a bit casual given the nature of discipline. Based on the description I’ve seen here, the complaint against DGH sounds frivolous, and filing frivolous complaints should never be encouraged.
LikeLike
Also – and I’m just generally speaking without pointing fingers – a person who brings unwarranted charges is potentially subject to slander charges. So it’s all very sober.
LikeLike
CT,
I’m not charging any commenter here with anything. I’m not even trying to get Darryl “In trouble”. I’m just trying to find someone to provide proper oversight.
Even the notion of Darryl just leaving town and letting all this go on completely unmoderated speaks volumes.
“Hey kids, Mom and I are headed to the coast. Leave the kegs of beer alone and we’ll see you in a week.”
Good grief…
LikeLike
let’s go out to the middle of this contraption and start swaying it…
http://www.capbridge.com/
oh to be 11 again….
LikeLike
Maybe the answer is just, “We give our officers wide latitude in (blogging/writing/speaking) on matters of the faith in public and have no control over what they say or how they do that.”
Fine, that’s an answer, and grown Christian people who support OPC churches and OPC-affiliated institutions are free to accept it or not. People can always vote with their feet (and their money).
Maybe the internet has caught the churches off-guard, though, and some thinking needs to be done about how these activities should be conducted and managed so that the churches are built up and not torn down?
Show me Clark’s, Horton’s, and Van Drunen’s blogs. Do they look anything like this? If not, why not?
LikeLike
MG – no but I am at a church where it has been done and it certainly is a lot of trauma. My thought was one would have to:
– Think through the charges and determine if one really should continue and has exhausted the personal recourse available
– Discover the clerks / contact info for each session involved
– Draft a coherent document articulating the offenses and the charges
– Send the document and/or email
– Interact with the sessions
At each step along the way there is an opportunity to think it through and think do I really want to go forward with this – certainly beats airing it on a public blog and provides an opportunity for the offended party to be ministered to.
You are one of the men he’s referring to aren’t you? Torpedo away anonymously sir.
LikeLike
Appalled:
Who’s stirring the pot:
Darryl appears to be on vacay so this could be fun!
if you are so concerned about Darryl’s house while he is gone, explain yourself..
LikeLike
“This is not about me winning. It’s about me trying to clear my conscience over something that I was intimately involved in for three years that I now consider to be heinous. If I alert authorities in the OPC, then the burden shifts from me to them. What they do at that point is out of my control.”
“I don’t want to win – I want to see guys here clean up their lives, return to (or discover) a sincere faith, and have their families and churches benefit from that. These are some sad, hurting guys and I say that to humiliate no one.”
“In Greg’s defense, his “criminal past” was pretty mild (theft) ”
As you may recall Erik, Daryll told you not to mention this ‘elusive’ supposed ‘Inner-old life” that was going on behind the scenes… You agreed and said you would never do it again, yet time and time again today that is what you have done. Over and Over ad nauseum. You aren’t helping anyone. You continue to ‘Out’ people for various things YOU see as sin , and threaten when you feel attacked. The only complaint anyone has about whats going one here…is about YOU.. Take that as your cue…. None of this would be being done publicly if you actually gave two cents about anyone but yourself..you can tell me to stick it cause you don’t think you know me… but i know YOU. You looooove this attention and I’m feeding it long enough to say, nobody cares anymore what kind of slanderous bs you wanna spew. Look to your own secret sins Erik…. worry about that
LikeLike
“Send a note to Hart’s session with your concerns and as you said, your part in the lot is done. Do that for each of the men in question.”
A few minutes later this is transformed into a careful 5 step process with “this is what I meant.”
Then, “CT” says “Torpedo away anonymously sir” as if there is an obvious problem (to “CT”) with being anonymous.
CT, you are bit too casual with other people’s lives. But here’s the deal: Erik knows me. He’s eaten in my house and smoked a cigar on my back deck. And if he wants to hassle me, well it’s a free country and my Session will give full attention to whatever he has to say.
LikeLike
O.K. The inner circle (4 guys – Muddy, Sean, Zrim, Chortles) are spooked and flipping out under fake names so I’ll retreat for now. Jed, if I say something that’s not true, by all means, correct me. Otherwise I don’t fear these men and I don’t seek their approval. That’s what sent me down the wrong path here in the first place. Later.
LikeLike
I am none of those men—I am not lucky enough to be one of the ‘inner circle guys” which i do not believe anyway–so I do not want them or my wife and family to catch your wrath which is why I am not giving my name. You don’t deserve my name. You are not to be trusted and I think you are delusional and possibly worse.
LikeLike
Appalled, I have previously suggested to you that nothing DGH has said in any of his main posts (I don’t pretend to read all the comments) is inconsistent with his extensive published record. The sum and substance of your response to my assertion was essentially that you prefer another author’s writings. I honestly have no earthly idea of how the OPC decides who can or can’t be a ruling elder, or under what conditions they can continue to serve, but don’t you think they had at least a nodding familiarity with his published positions before his selection?
LikeLike
Let your yea by yea and your nay be nay….
“One of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie is that a cat has nine lives”?
And a lie has 70 times nine lives for some on here….
LikeLike
One more I can’t resist pointing out:
“As you may recall Erik, Daryll told you not to mention this ‘elusive’ supposed ‘Inner-old life” that was going on behind the scenes… You agreed and said you would never do it again, yet time and time again today that is what you have done. ”
First off, If I had a conversation with Darryl, how would you know?
Second off, the very thing I told Darryl is that I would say what I want, that’s why he started blocking me.
And people doubt there’s an inner-circle that is talking amongst themselves constantly behind the scenes?
LikeLike
MG – App has serviced as an Elder in a reformed church – you know that. Isn’t it reasonable to expect that he (an elder in a reformed church) should know what I articulated as being what I meant regarding the first post? I make it a point to post under my real name, “Chris Townsend” on each thread with the same avatar as CT so that folks know who I am and to, hopefully, refrain from posting crazy shit.
You anonymous peeps, elder-or-no, go psycho at the drop of a comment though. Look blood in the water – bite’em!
LikeLike
Dan,
(Good grief, can I ever get out of here)
I think his recent public statements on gay marriage have crossed the line and there are other complaints less about what he says than how he goes about saying them here that I won’t get into now.
He was likely ordained many years ago. Things have not gone quite as expected since then. Hillsdale is a fine school, but it’s not Westminster East or West or any other Presbyterian or Reformed institution. That means something.
LikeLike
Thanks Appalled. I think it would be wise to put a moratorium on any further discussion of this specific dispute until Darryl returns and can make some judgment calls as to how to proceed with his own blog. I’ll only say this, before anything is reported to consistorys or sessions, we all need to think long and hard about its implications. Not too long ago this was a pretty tight group. I get that things happen and personalities clash. To bring a charge against a fellow Christian is a grave matter and should not be taken lightly. As much as some of this is emotionally charged, I say sit on it and pray and search your own hearts before God and seek wisdom. It is better to endure a thousand wrongs than to rashly place any man before Christ’s examination through his fallible but duly called officers.
Let’s just put a pin in this until we’ve had the chance to cool off and seek wisdom. If there is any amicable way to resolve this and not drag our brothers through the mud, let’s pray we can make that happen, even at the cost of egos, pride, and personal hurts.
LikeLike
Appalled,
Honest questions: Why aren’t you a ruling elder any longer? Why don’t you worship at the congregation at which you hold membership.
LikeLike
Appalled, I can’t decipher all of your response, but what I have read of his reaction to the SSM ruling seems in keeping with his very extensive record of critiquing Evangelical involvement in politics. And as someone not involved in the conservative P &R academic world, my impression would be that Hillsdale is a better posting for a historian than Westminster, East or West.
LikeLike
Andrew Duggan: Also, to make sure that you have a good sense of where the OPC is (generally speaking) on public morality, please see http://opc.org/GA/abortion.html Please take specific note of the minority report by Paul Woolley an OPC minister and professor at Westminster Theological Seminary (original). Given Woolley on abortion, why would anyone in the OPC even think of disciplining DGH on SSM?
Thank you Andrew. eye-opening
“That some instances of abortion are sinful is obvious. That they all are is not. Yet, with one minor possible exception, the report of the committee concludes that they are. This is quite illicit.” Paul Woolley
LikeLike
“Hillsdale is a fine school, but it’s not Westminster East or West or any other Presbyterian or Reformed institution. That means something.”
I’m not sure what this means, but if it’s a reference to DGH’s credentials as an academic, I’m trying to figure out how many other church historians in the P&R world are being published by Yale University Press and given space in the WSJ. If it’s a suggestion about continued qualifications to hold church office, that’s about as serious a charge as you can make, and not one that seems to be supported by the evidence or appropriate for this forum.
But I’m with Jed, let’s simmer down and take this offline for a while.
LikeLike
What your dealing with:
Appalled
Posted July 15, 2015 at 8:42 am | Permalink
Typical liberal faux sympathy plus typical liberal condescension plus an assist from a stooge (who lives with a HARDCORE liberal and appears to be manifesting Stockholm Syndrome).
I know these guys inside out.
Darryl appears to be on vacay so this could be fun!
https://oldlife.org/2015/07/when-did-christian-america-end/comment-page-6/#comment-335847
and
Appalled
Posted July 16, 2015 at 3:06 pm | Permalink
CT,I’m not charging any commenter here with anything. I’m not even trying to get Darryl “In trouble”. I’m just trying to find someone to provide proper oversight.
Even the notion of Darryl just leaving town and letting all this go on completely unmoderated speaks volumes.
“Hey kids, Mom and I are headed to the coast. Leave the kegs of beer alone and we’ll see you in a week.”
Good grief…
That’s called being a disingenuous twat with zero credibility where I come from.
LikeLike
A few weeks (or months?) back Trueman mentions this on Mortification of Spin.
The Wooley abortion piece, as True-dawg is the Wooley chair at WTS.
LikeLike
Here’s the thing, CT – most of the problems here have been by people who use their real names. And now you, with the shining virtue of your real initials, imply that I am a psycho. Show that I am a psycho or retract what you have said.
LikeLike
Jed,
I agree to a moratorium. Thanks for the suggestion.
I filed my complaint two weeks ago, so that genie is out of the bottle. As mentioned, no more complaints are forthcoming, nor do I expect them. The issue is the root of all this drama, not the branches.
LikeLike
Mike,
I was made an elder in a newly formed church with few qualified men. Young pastor and two other elders (older men than me). I served two years, stood once for re-election and lost to a good man. Was asked to run again but declined. I live a ways away from the church and it’s hard to do the job like I should, plus there are other qualified men now. URCNA elders serve for terms, not for life like OPC elders.
Moving churches is mostly a family decision, largely because of where our daughters live for school. I miss many elements of the URCNA – namely the preaching, people, and church discipline – but have enjoyed the LCMS services and people thus far.
Thanks for asking.
LikeLike
Yawn. Who and what exactly am I supposed to be worried about? It’s hard to keep up with everyone’s quiet time convictions. My father has a good line about not letting others saddle you with their monkeys. I think it applies in spades here. But, just cuz, I don’t ever post under a pseudonym unless it’s ‘wounded sean’ or ‘awesome sean’ (redundant, I know) or some such cleverer than thou moniker. But, don’t worry(I know you are/were) you’ll always know it’s me. Unless, I feel like changing my mind, then you won’t know but I will and I’ll feel good about that too. However, if anyone wants a rule of thumb for moi(and I know you do), if it’s a fight, I have yet to not sign my name to it. That’s how High-T rolls. And now, I feel no different than I did when the day started. Gay marriage, SCOTUS, Obama, Iran, inner-circles, FB…errr….blog drama, the beat goes on. Maybe the Spurs signed another awesome FA? Now, there’d be something to get excited about.
LikeLike
Appalled thanks again. To the rest of us involved in this particular dispute, can we agree to speak no more of this until Darryl has addressed this in the way he sees fit? I’m more than happy to wait on this and I think inasmuch as part of this discussion has turned personal we can at least anide by a cease-fire until Darryl is back and has the ability to govern his own blog. The other substantive non-personal stuff is still fair game. If anyone feels like the terms of this ‘cease fire’ are being violated, please simply say so and why and refer back to the agreement. Can we at least all agree to this (in this case silence will be interpreted as agreement unless otherwise noted).
LikeLike
CT, the guy who runs the blog allows pseudos and he knows who I am. I’m wondering how you think it’s your job to wag your finger about it.
LikeLike
Jed Paschall
Posted July 16, 2015 at 2:53 pm | Permalink
Just to piggyback on my last comment, the Reformed Scholastics we’re trying to establish themselves and Reformed Christianity in the broadly (not Roman or papal) catholic tradition. Obviously they differ with Thomas on crucial issues, but much of their method and even the substance of their theology is built off of Thomas. Their theology proper for example is largely congruent with Thomas, and Protestants still would benefit greatly from reading and grappling with this brilliant saint, so much so that I would assert we must have darn good reasoning for where and why we depart from him.
Amen.
http://verticallivingministries.com/2012/05/15/r-c-sproul-on-thomas-aquinas-was-he-the-most-brilliant-of-all-the-theologians/
LikeLike
Jed, don’t tell me what to do. Do you need some water? I have a deal for you! Cheap. You like.
LikeLike
MG: Here’s the thing, CT – most of the problems here have been by people who use their real names.
CT: Good point – laughingly true.
MG: And now you, with the shining virtue of your real initials, imply that I am a psycho. Show that I am a psycho or retract what you have said.
CT: I do hereby solemnly swear that to the best of my knowledge the online persona known as Muddy Gravel is not actually psycho and that if anyone thought as much, or was lead to believe such, by my comment – you should hereby cease and desist from holding such an opinion about the online persona, Muddy Gravel, as my intent was to communicate hyperbole and in no way cast unwarranted insinuations on the mental state of the man known in these parts as Muddy Gravel.
Piously initialed,
CT
Apologies for stepping into the poo with you guys. The crew and App have been great posters with, often, great comments and interactions with others. I hope and will pray it all gets resolved.
LikeLike
Sproul on Aquinas, a bullseye:
LikeLike
Here’s something to cheer urrbody up, especially you impertinent papists.
LikeLike
Jed, don’t tell me what to do. Do you need some water? I have a deal for you! Cheap. You like.
Yes sir. Well, we have a lovely Tynant sparkling water, and a Voss flat. Both have a lovely bog-swamp finish and an axle grease mouthfill. And sir, I noticed that you have $350 worth of foie gras in your goatee, typically we recommend our guests use utensils while partaking of this specialty, may I get a comb to get thay out and box it up for you? Your lobster nachos with a side of ketchup will be out shortly. Can I bring anything else for you?
LikeLike
@Jed
“I see you depart from advocating some form of NL which is different than most 2kers (I do think that 2k and NL are divisible), yet modernism is, if anything a rejection of Natural Law among other axioms. Do you reject NL and Natural Theology outright like the dialectic theologians and Van Tilians do, or do you simply maintain that though NL is operative we shouldn’t expect it to norm human legal systems?”
I guess I would distinguish natural law theory (NLT) of the sort that developed from Aristotle->Aquinas->modern day advocates like Maritain and George. If by natural law you only mean some sort of universal moral intuition, then I believe in natural law. That isn’t NLT though. I think appealing to natural law (though I don’t like calling it that because of its confusion with NLT) can tell us why we feel vaguely guilty about bad things we do. I don’t think we can use it to articulate normative standards of conduct. Similarly, nature may tell us that there is a higher power that we should submit to (or natural law may tell us why we have these feelings of transcendence), but it doesn’t tell us that we need to place our faith in the God of Abraham, Jacob, and Moses
I take modernism in the context here to be shorthand for the view that our experience and reason should stand in judgment of Biblical normative claims on matters of faith and morality while the traditionalist view is that the normative claims on us coming from the Bible should stand in judgement of us and we should conform to those standards. Not very technical I know…I should probably come up with a better label.
LikeLike
sdb,
Thanks, philosophically I would quibble. Practically, we end up in the same place. I could draw a line from common sense realism to similar arguments as you propose, and so long as the ethical force of passages of Rom. 1 are held in tact, I don’t get my boxer-brief in a bind.
LikeLike
Bob,
Scripture is useful and profitable for *all* good works so that should allay your concern. Still no SS though. Which we would expect since Paul affirms unwritten tradition elsewhere, even in that same passage as Michael already pointed out: “Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness…”
“Hint, since “all” covers all the bases, yeah there could be alternatives to Scripture that repeat it”
Another non-sequitur. Scripture equipping the man for all/every good work and being profitable does not mean anything else is unnecessary or just a repeat.
“But since we don’t have the apostles and the signs and wonders that accompanied their ministries and bridged the transition from oral to written in the NT era, guess what?
We are left with the infallible, perspicuous and sufficient Bible.”
Or we are left with the infallible Bible as interpreted through Tradition and protected and handed down via apostolic succession. You know, that whole laying of hands thing and commanding to receive, pass down, and teach tradition that the apostles were doing for some boneheaded reason apparently when they should have just trained a bunch of scribes to furiously copy and distribute Scripture as much and as quickly as possible.
“Rome, along with Islam, and Joseph Smith make claims for their additions to Scripture that contradict Scripture in that Scripture is sufficient and the canon is closed.”
Rome does not add to Scripture or think revelation is ongoing after John’s death so your comparison to Mormonism and Islam fails.
Where does Scripture claim Scripture is formally sufficient and identifies the canon and teaches said canon is closed? I see Scripture claiming its authoritative. I see Scripture claiming unwritten tradition is authoritative. I see Scripture affirming succession. I see Scripture affirming the church operating and functioning prior to and during the process of inscripturation.
On the other hand, I do not see Scripture identifying the extent and scope of the canon. I do not see Scripture identifying said canon as inerrant. I do not see Scripture claiming revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Those teachings are simply assumed by you. As is the teaching associated with SS that any unwritten tradition operating in parallel with written tradition was at some point either converted to writing, or if never inscripturated is unnecessary and may be discarded; nowhere do we see the content of the faith limited to the written text of Scripture.
“True, Rome didn’t get around to authoritatively verifying the last until Trent”
Trent’s decision on the canon was informed by Tradition which is authoritative.
“Ultimately tradition doesn’t tell us what is Scripture, the Holy Spirit does.”
So apparently all the previous generations of Christians who held books or passages you reject (check those asterisks in your bible) as Scripture weren’t guided by the HS. On this basis, you have no defense against someone claiming the HS is telling them the gnostic gospels are Scripture or rejecting some other book in your canon.
“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:”
You’ll have to tell me where Rome added new verses to the book of Revelation. I suppose you are also guilty of violating Deut 4:2;12:32.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, I would say that my manner of engagement here over the years I was taking Catholics and non-2k people to task disqualified me from serving in office. Quarrelsome, not promoting the peace of the churches, violating the 9th Commandment, slandering non-combatants. In my charges against Darryl I in no way absolve myself — I’m guilty as charged as well.
I’m TRYING to get out though, and he remains engaged in the same manner as always, “full regalia”, as Tarantino would say.
I was never actually sure how one resigns, though, and by the time I was convicted I should, we were already gone or close to gone.
LikeLike
Thanks CT. The next news about me will be that I drowned while rafting the Kennebec River.
Cheering is impolite.
LikeLike
@Jed you are a coward! A compromising coward. No more of this indecisiveness. You need to pick a side and make your stand…boxers or briefs. None of this hybrid nonsense.
LikeLike
@jed btw thanks for your comment too. Rereading what I wrote, I’d quibble too. I guess I need to read up more on common sense realism. I might have mentioned before that I am particularly keen on empiricism. I’ve found Hume really quite compelling and find engagement with James, Pierce, Rorty, & van Fraassen providing a path forward in reconciling my life as a scientist and faith. Maybe that makes me modern or post… I dunno. I’m sure my views don’t internally cohere, but I’ve always thought an obsession with consistency was a sign of impending madness (not that there’s anything wrong with that!).
LikeLike
The 2K position comes dangerously close to making a prohibition where the Bible makes none. It is as if the 2Kers believe that the Bible tells us not to get involved in politics at all. As far as the effect you may have on culture you may as well be Amish.
She whose feet are webbed, not that Jeff’s response (and those of others) need any additions, but it isn’t that 2kers of the more cultural participant than transformative stripe have anything against political involvement. It’s that we take a more agnostic view of the power of politics to do for human society what transformers apparently assume. We also don’t assume that human society works the same way (again, see the first part of Hunter’s “To Change the World” for that) nor what its purpose is.
Some years back the host wrote a tidy piece which always seemed to me to be a precursor to “A Secular Faith.” The bit that captures the point is here. (When he says liturgical Prot, think the sort of 2kers with whom you seem put out. When he says evangelicals, think, well, a little more broadly):
Liturgical Protestantism offers a way around this impasse. A different way of putting it is to say that liturgical Protestantism represents a way for Protestant believers to support the wall between church and state. By looking for religious significance not in this world but in the world to come, liturgical Protestantism lowers the stakes for public life while still affirming politics’ divinely ordained purpose. The public square loses some of its importance but retains its dignity. It is neither ultimately good nor inherently evil; politics becomes merely a divinely appointed means for restraining evil while the church as an institution goes about its holy calling. For some evangelicals, the liturgical Protestant approach to public life is not a solution but rather a sell out. Religious convictions demand unswerving allegiance in all spheres. In fact, the moral absolutes of Christianity require the same kind of conduct at home and city hall. To admit otherwise is inconsistent and leads inevitably to moral relativism. But if Daniel Bell is right about the nature of modern society, liturgical Protestantism may very well be the best approach for Protestants. In his 1978 foreword to The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, Bell described himself as a socialist in economics, a liberal in politics, and a conservative in culture. “Many persons might find this statement puzzling,” he explained, “assuming that if a person is radical in one realm, he is a radical in all others; and, conversely, if he is a conservative in one realm, then he must be conservative in the others as well.” But modern capitalistic society does not permit such ideological consistency. According to Bell, “[S]uch an assumption misreads, both sociologically and morally, the nature of these realms.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~edgoodwi/Hart.html
LikeLike
Regarding anonymity. There have been several thoughtful criticisms of anonymous commenting on the internet over the years. Alan Jacobs and Joe Carter both come to mind. The two main thrusts of these criticisms are:
(1) online communication is impersonal. We miss inflections, tone, etc… which means that we don’t always interpret things the right way. It is easy to take offense and respond in nasty ways that we never would face to face with someone. Anonymity provides a cloak, a sort of consequence free environment, where we can be as nasty, cruel, or hateful as we want with no real repercussions.
(2) when we talk to people, we interpret what they have to say and decide how much time to invest (i.e., how charitable and serious we take the person we talk to) based on what we know about that person. We lose all that when we interact anonymously. We would never carry on a serious conversation with someone at a bar who refused to tell us their name, why would we do that online?
I understand where these criticisms are coming from, but I ultimately disagree. I choose to remain relatively anonymous (my email address is real and obviously identifies me, so I assume at least Darryl knows who I am) for two reasons:
1) I prefer to keep my digital footprint to a minimum. There are a lot of crazy people out there, and you never know what will set them off. For all I know Jeff is actually a psychopath who will doxx me if I offend him in someway. He seems reasonable, but who can really tell. More seriously though, there are a lot of lurkers out there and people who can stumble across this site – I prefer to control what these people learn about me.
2) I have published quite a bit over my career and continue to do so. These peer-reviewed journal articles have gone through anonymous refereeing, peer editing, and professional scrutinizing by copy editors at the journal before being turned loose on the community. This is work that reflects countless hours of careful thought and I am happy to have my name associated with these publications and see them cited. Not so with comments on a blog post. I don’t edit, I’m not particularly careful, etc… I see these as a conversation, so I am as careful about what I type as I am what I would say if we were chatting over a pint…which is to say not very careful at all. But the difference between chatting over a pint and commenting on the internet, is that the words I type here are saved for posterity and public. I don’t want my scholarship tainted by ill advised blog comments.
Of course, this is Darryl’s blog. As far as I am concerned, he can do whatever he wants. I appreciate the free for all nature of the discussions here. Dreher’s blog is heavily moderated, but the resultant lag really puts a damper on extended discussions. I’ve benefitted greatly from the discussions here…even with people with whom I have had pointed disagreements. Commenting on a blog and telling the blog owner how to run his blog is like going to someone’s dinner party and complaining about the food. That’s why I’ve found the attempts by some here to referee the blog really strange. I guess I’ve fallen in to the same trap of refereeing someone else’s blog, so shame on me too.
The initial objections to anonymous posting are well taken, and it seems to me that we should be aware of the pitfalls. If we can’t handle an unmoderated medium, then perhaps it is best to stay away. We also have to recognize our need to be particularly charitable and our own potential for nastiness. Perhaps it is good to have referees to call us out when we cross that line? There I go again… But since I’ve gone there, perhaps two minor suggestions are in order: add an ignore poster button, so we can personally block folks who get under our skin. Require registration to post… ndnation.com has a pretty slick setup in that regard. Maybe we can make this site a little more catholic? Now I’ve really gone too far with advice on this, so I’ll sign before I get too far.
LikeLike
Sdb,
Good thoughts. Good thoughts.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted July 16, 2015 at 10:53 pm | Permalink
Regarding anonymity. There have been several thoughtful criticisms of anonymous commenting on the internet over the years.
…
Maybe we can make this site a little more catholic? Now I’ve really gone too far with advice on this, so I’ll sign before I get too far.
You went exactly far enough. Catholic with a small “c,” first.
Anonymity has become necessary for some, especially among the academic and business elite who have families to feed and cannot afford to lose their jobs
Does Mozilla Dumping Its CEO Over Prop. 8/Anti-Gay-Marriage Stance = McCarthyism?
http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/06/does-mozilla-dumping-its-ceo-over-prop-8
Internet anonymity is a shield.
In the context of Dr. Hart’s blog here, it’s too often used as a sword, and you know who you are.
LikeLike
Jeff, Jed, Sdb,
Thanks for the replies. I started with an essay by Van Drunen and will look up Richard Muller as well (and any other names you care to send, Jed).
Kevin: I would argue Church and State cooperate in helping man fulfill his God-given nature and ultimate destiny, preparing man for a virtuous life in this world and (ideally) everlasting bliss in the next.
Jeff – And I think that’s my point of disagreement. The State can’t help man fulfill his God-given nature or his ultimate destiny. The State’s job, per Rom 13, is to restrain evil.
Isn’t the combo of the State restraining evil and the Church worshiping cooperative in nature, with the goal to provide man what we needs to fulfill his God-given nature? If the State allows chaos or excessive immorality, the Church’s mission is impeded.
I wouldn’t ask the State to license ministers, teach theology, or discipline clergy or the citizenry for improper worship. I would like Catholic holidays to be government holidays (already in Newark & NYC alternate-side parking, i.e. the semiweekly need to move a car for street cleaning, is suspended on the feast of the I.C., so that’s something).
Q – Biblical Ethics: I’m not clear on what all is contained within “Biblical Ethics” – can you point me to a source? I look to “Christian Ethics” or “Moral theology” organized around the virtues to form my habitual mode of thinking on ethics, and I wouldn’t have thought to draw a distinction between these two and “Biblical Ethics”- is it an exhaustive accounting of all of the moral actions of those portrayed in the bible?
Qs – State Exceeds Jurisdiction? – I think you would say yes to 1-3:
1 – It would be inappropriate for a civil government to implement legislation or for courts to make rulings based upon truths of theology, idolatry, blasphemy, or Sabbath Day observance (worship and rest). Anything else?
2 – If the State (assuming an observance of the natural law) interferes with the ability of Christians to live by the First Table, Christians resist the government in these specific areas, but do not revolt.
3 – The government must protect the divinely-instituted right/obligation of Sunday worship, but it cannot compel businesses to be closed Sunday.
4 – Imagine a country which rates as pious by Pew-like measures (they have certainly existed in living memory). What if its government proclaims (in, say, a written constitution) that its people constitute “a Christian Nation”, and there emphasizes its Christian past by making reference to authentically pious and patriotic heroes who helped to lead the nation in the past?
Please note that this constitutional declaration has no obvious legal impact. Also by “nation” I don’t mean the current government or system of government – those celebrated could be from ages in the past.
LikeLike
sdb,
Didn’t know you were in the sciences, that’s pretty cool. I’ve got no problem with anonymity, it can be important for some who couldn’t otherwise interact. The only reason why I attach my name is because I can, and it’s a way to remain accountable for my words. I am sure I have crossed lines in the past, and am willing to answer for any I might have. At the end of the day, if I act like a jerk it simply reflects poorly on me.
Agreed on the matter of being totally internally coherent in our ideology – the only people who have the time are academics and internet hacks both of whom can be a little nutty. I think that NL in the Aristotelian/Thomistic tradition only works if certain universals are granted, which certainly are up for debate. My problem is that after Kant, the whole basis for viewing reality objectively went out the window – which has created much of the confusion in modernism regardless of the phase. The fact of the matter is reality is objective, and we as subjective observers know this implicitly, which is why we don’t jump off of cliffs or walk in front of speeding buses. One could claim that the external world is simply a construction of the subjective mind and be totally coherent, but in the real world where most of us live things tell us otherwise, whether through common sense intuitions, naive realism, or more elaborate epistemological structures like Thomism.
LikeLike
From the theological right, you have theonomists, who hold that government ought to enforce the
Decaloguecivil law of Israel, if not aspects of the ceremonial law . I call them“theological righthyper conservative biblicists” because they tend to want to revert to a reading the 1646 Confession does not support.There, fixed it, Jeff.
[WCF Chapter XIX. Of the Law of God.
III. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the
people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several
typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions,
sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral
duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.
IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired
together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than
the general equity thereof may require.]
Hey wait a minute. Do you mean to tell me that Misty Irons is neither the epitome nor acme of reformed theology. I’m
shockedappalled, appalled I tell you. I gonna send a letter toMistythe editor/call 911 right now. Right now, I tell you, this cannot stand . . . .LikeLike
“Hey kids, Mom and I are headed to the coast. Leave the kegs of beer alone and we’ll see you in a week.”
Maybe you is a kid,
appalledEC, you certainly are behaving like one in large part, but lets not smear everybody else here just because you want to.Frankly, I am with Jed and Jeff(?). I don’t know what the sam hill you are talking about and don’t care, but I do know this. You pursue church discipline in the proper channels and don’t blab off about it while it is underway. You got a beef. Take it to DG or his elders or whoever and stop grandstanding about it in public on or off a bwog.
Oh, you’re interested in prejudicing the court, if not conducting an end around and trying your case in public?
Res ipsa loquitur. Shut up while you are ahead, before somebody that’s got skin in the game takes you to the cleaners for false charges/slander/libel. [Deut. 19:19 If you can’t prove the crime, you do the time.]
Never been thru process? Figures.
And now you are at an LCMS. Interesting.
If you blew hot and cold when you showed up here as the suckup, now as the anti-suckup you’re doing the same. (Mostly steaming hot horse manure imo, but hey, we 2K. I won’t bind your conscience per se. Never mind the fallacy of overlooked alternatives, something our papist correspondents seem to own outright lately. IOW no mention, ahem, of low IQ in all the fingerpointing by our less than barefoot Cinderella.) Regardless, do you mind giving us the contact info we might need, if we decide to press charges with your elders? Or is this only a one way street?
Yeah, the premise for the sweetmeats post was a non sequitur and likewise among others, the one about Christian norms governing ssm. IOW the OL brand of 2k does get kind of schizo when it seems like it’s trying to divorce NL from 2K which can’t be done.
But you want bible verses for 2k, not big picture/concepts. OK, fundamentalists always do, but then again they never seem to get beyond a few fragmented verses or know more their Bible in more than a piece meal fashion. (System? What’s that? Particularly since the whole system of fundamentalism clashes with the preaching the whole counsel of God – arguably a system in the P&R paradigm – as called for in Scripture.)
What does Rom 13 tell us? The civil magistrate, who was pagan across the board in Paul’s day, knows and will reward the good. Granted, Paul is talking in the abstract/about the ideal, but the gloss is that the natural man, even as he seeks to obliterate the image of God in man still cannot entirely do so on the account of self interest/ self preservation and civil society represents some kind of standard of righteousness. We see that when Paul appeals to certain aspects of Roman law and indeed insists on being tried in a civil court, rather than the kangaroo
comboxreligious court of the Jews.LikeLike
Disqus is a useful service for registration (works across sites, too). It has a feature potentially useful here of aggregating within each user’s account replies to comments so you don’t miss when people reply to you.
I’m not much for anonymity (as is likely apparent), but would prefer not Google not raise my blog comments when someone searches me – which is common enough in my day job (i.e., not my Christianization-of-the-neighborhood-via-real-estate-investment project). My photo here is the same as for Linkedin (Oldlife connections welcome).
Last name is the bird in this Frost poem:
” The way a crow
Shook down on me
The dust of snow
From a hemlock tree
Has given my heart
A change of mood
And saved some part
Of a day I had rued.”
LikeLike
Rome does not add to Scripture or think revelation is ongoing after John’s death so your comparison to Mormonism and Islam fails.
You sir, are a liar or a nincompoop know nothing, if not indeed both.
The RCCatechism says otherwise in so many words. Both Scripture and Tradition are considered to be inspired/how God speaks to his church. Previously we actually quoted the RCC to the anonymous individual who goes by TVD, but obviously we has to do it again. Some of our gentle readers is not too good at reading comprehension.
II. The Relationship Between Tradition and Sacred Scripture
One common source…
80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal.”40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age.”41
…two distinct modes of transmission
81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”42 (113)
“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching.”43
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”44
Of course Rome doesn’t add words to Scripture.
She doesn’t have to.
She merely makes Tradition equal to Scripture.
But Rome never adds words to Scripture.
Never.
Three and we done.
ciao
LikeLike
Tom,
Thanks for the Sproul citation, quite excellent.
LikeLike
Kevin,
One source that I hear is excellent but I haven’t got around to reading yet is Stephen J. Grabill’s
Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Ethics.
The reviews on Amazon are quite helpful in introducing Grabill’s arguments and approach.
The good news in the Reformed world is that there are several theological and historical scholars re-assessing the Reformed tradition and it’s roots in medieval and patristic Christianity. During the 19th through the 20th centuries much of our own Orthodox heritage was obscured if not totally lost. By the time we get to conservatives like Van Til and non-conservatives like Barth we see the themes of earlier Reformed Orthodoxy lost or totally re-defined. In many ways the Reformed church has lost its ability to critique Roman Catholocism in this process, as it became unhinged from its catholic moorings that it was rooted in far back into the patristic period. To the extent we rediscover our own catholicity, the better we can answer those from Rome or the East about our place in the great tradition.
LikeLike
Chuck, Virginia colony was part of a “Christian” nation, England, and the U.S. rebelled against said “Christian” nation.
No nation after Christ is Christian. The only nation that had a redemptive mission was Israel. Everyone else is just mimicking Constantine, who was an orthodox Christian just like George Washington.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “However, what I do not get is why, at this point in time, with secularism ready to use all of its considerable power to silence us, good men like Dr. Hart and others continue to rail against Catholicism as if that were the greatest threat to the common good at this point in time.”
When Paul anathematized the Judaizers was he worried about the common good? Did Jesus and the apostles die at the hands of the Roman authorities for the “common good”? Christian truth trumps common good.
So by becoming a Roman Catholic you became utilitarian about religion?
LikeLike
Bob S.,
You’ve asked a number of times for a list of dogma which Catholics claim derive from the teachings of the apostles or subsequent teaching authority. Are you familiar with Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott? (the Tan Books edition is probably the best).
It is a brilliant, standard, authoritative, and indispensable basic reference book of Catholic theology, both concise and comprehensive, exceptionally well organized, with various propositions graded in how certain they are:
With Christ and the Apostles General Revelation concluded sent. certa.)
The categorization is not very complicated:
”
DE FIDE is the highest level of theological/doctrinal truth. They are INFALLIBLE statements by their very nature, like the Holy Trinity, The Real Presence, etc.
Next, are VERITATES CATHOLICAE (catholic truths) like the existence of God which can be known through reason alone.
Finally, there are four types of THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS:
1. SENTENTIA FIDEI PROXIMA (proximate to the Faith) like the Trinity can be known only through Revelation.
2. SENTENTIA CERTA (theologically certain) like Monogenism, i.e., that the human race came from one set of parents.
3. SENTENTIA COMMUNIA (common teaching) like the Church’s prohibition & proscription of artificial contraception.
4. SENTENTIA PROBABILIS (probable teaching) like the premise that the Virgin Mary died before being Assumed into Heaven
”
https://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/TRIGINFL.HTM
It specifically discusses the Scriptural basis (or apparent lack thereof, e.g. for the Assumption) for each proposed dogma.
Dogma does not develop from private revelation (this is explicitly condemned), even to the Pope.
It develops in several distinct ways (5 in Ott’s classification) and isn’t by any means a free-for-all. One is the explication of implicit truths of the faith (#1).
Jeff made reference on the other thread to ‘good and reasonable inferences’ from Scripture, which may not be very different from #1 or perhaps #3:
1) Truths which formerly were only implicitly believed are expressly proposed for belief; or
3) To facilitate general understanding, and to avoid misunderstandings and distortions, the ancient truths which were always believed […] are formulated in new, sharply defined concepts.
It can take centuries but ultimately this process can yield truths which are quite fundamental- the Filioque was added to the Creed by the Franks in the time of Charlemagne, added by the pope in Rome centuries later, and later confirmed by and for the Reformed. It’s worthwhile noting that many Orthodox do not believe it is a ‘good and necessary inference’ from Scripture – although a great many do (particularly amongst their theologians, much less often so with their monks and bishops), but still don’t think it warrants touching the Creed.
LikeLike
Kevin:. I would like Catholic holidays to be government holidays
Thomas Jefferson’s federalism led him to judge it inappropriate for the President to proclaim days of religious observance, but he recognized the authority of state officials to issue such proclamations. So the “wall,” for him, was between the federal government and the state governments when it came to religion.
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2015/07/16/the-urban-legend-that-thomas-jefferson-believed-in-a-wall-separating-church-and-state/
LikeLike
A.
Quite agree from this Texan. Me and Jefferson would have been buds. He had Sabbath laws and was for them in Virginia to my knowledge.
LikeLike
I also believe we in our states should be able to have blue laws, in which businesses of unnecessary nature wood be closed on Sundays.
LikeLike
I also believe Congress as reps of the people should be able to set religious holidays and sabbaths for federal employees.
LikeLike
a. –
It is indeed interesting to look at the many different things “Separation of Church and State” has meant and been made to mean.
Just to be clear to all, having the Fed or State governments declare Christian festivals holidays doesn’t have to mean anything more than a State proclamation that the Church (or groups of Christians, at least certain of them) recognize these as days of worship, and therefore it is proper for the State to treat them as it does Sundays:
(Holiday)- (Example Geo)
Easter Monday- in the Caribbean
The Ascension- in Germany
St. Andrew’s Day- Scotland
St. Paul’s Shipwreck (Feb 10)- Malta
Feast of the Annunciation/Incarnation (March 25th)- in Lebanon and regions of Spain
The last would be the one I’d be enthusiastic to advocate- commemorating one of the most important events in universal history. Christmas was not when Christ became incarnated.
LikeLike
“Christmas was not when Christ became incarnate“, sorry.
LikeLike
We can be co-belligerents and find good ways to band together to fight glaring social evils. It isn’t going to work out in theology though.
LikeLike
MTX,
There is a very significant blue law in northern NJ in Bergen County (just across the Hudson from Manhattan). It covers one of the most profitable shopping malls in the state (and NY tristate area). Law has been in place since 1959.
New Yorker article: http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/americas-last-ban-sunday-shopping
A rare example of successful representative democracy (perhaps):
“Governor Chris Christie once claimed that Bergen’s blue laws cost the state sixty-five million dollars in annual sales-tax revenue, and he included a rider in his proposed 2010 state budget that would have permitted Sunday shopping statewide, but he backed down just one week later in the face of a pushback that included Bergen Republicans.”
To be honest, most Bergen Co. residents are probably motivated by the desire to have at least one day per week free of excessive traffic. But then, isn’t that part of the point – a day of rest?
So I have your vote for the Annunciation/Incarnation (March 25th) as a federal holiday, Kent? FWIW, up until 1752 in England and the colonies, that’s when the New Year began.
Wiki “New Year”: the UK tax year which begins on 6 April (March 25 + 12 days) still reflects its Julian calendar and new year heritage.
LikeLike
I can see him getting some push back on that. It is hard to imaging a state saying “no community in our bounds may have businesses close on Sundays”, but then again I couldn’t imagine a federal government saying to local communities they have to endorse and provide channels to preform ssm. Where has freedom gone?
LikeLike
Kevin, don’t confuse me with someone who wants to get wrapped up in your endless and tendentious worries and stresses.
I have to live in the real world.
LikeLike
I see there are a few more comments on The Court Gives. Who has been able to load the comments?
LikeLike
@mtx I was able to post a few comments by going to page 32. I can only access pages 1-23. Page 32 is blank, but there is a place to comment. Looks like it is still dead.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 17, 2015 at 6:46 am | Permalink
Chuck, Virginia colony was part of a “Christian” nation, England, and the U.S. rebelled against said “Christian” nation.
No nation after Christ is Christian. The only nation that had a redemptive mission was Israel. Everyone else is just mimicking Constantine, who was an orthodox Christian just like George Washington.
This of course is theology per Dr. Hart. You should get your history somewhere else. One of the major founders of the Presbyterian Church in America, Rev. John Witherspoon [chairman of the committee that revised the Westminster Confession for American use] was a signer of the Declaration of independence and is known for his influential sermon of 1776, “The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men.”
http://www.kneelingmedia.org/one/johnwitherspoon.htm
LikeLike
I just love the smell of no napalm in the morning. And everybody.
LikeLike
Jed Paschall
Posted July 17, 2015 at 2:16 am | Permalink
Tom,
Thanks for the Sproul citation, quite excellent.
Cheers. We’ll all find out who’s right about justification on Judgment Day. In the meantime, natural law is applicable only to the here and now, and Lord do we need some. As you note, all roads pass through Thomas.
LikeLike
Sdb,
I am able to access 1-15 and was able to post a comment from my other email address. Weird. Really odd that you are able to go to page 32. I didn’t even think of trying to access a page that shouldn’t exist.
Hart,
Have you checked in with WordPress on the problem?
LikeLike
Kevin, I don’t get it. What’s with the hankering need for the State to recognize any religious observations? And why particularly Christian ones? And what’s your biblical precedent? Somehow I can’t imagine Paul pining for Nero to formally recognize the day he ran aground in Malta.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Just to be clear on my position, I am for the people or the people’s state congress representative being able to. Not the president by fiat to the states. He might be allowed to do such for federal employees but not much other than talk about it other wise.
LikeLike
MTX, thanks, but the question isn’t so much how but why. So if all the how’s are answered in a localist sort of way, and the question come to you (and Kevin), why do you want the civil authorities to make some sort of formal public recognition of when Paul washed up on Malta? What hath Athens to do with Jerusalem?
LikeLike
Zrim, Kent-
I just want the time of work to celebrate events of religious significance. Boston public schools didn’t observe Christmas as a day off until the late 19th c.- so there is precedent for progress.
As is, I take days off of work. Which is ok, but not everyone who’d want to can.
Nothing wrong with this in your eyes, is there?
LikeLike
Zrim,
Not sure where the Malta event is coming from. How about we say Christmas or the annunciation? It is not so much “state” or civil authorities “recognizing” as it is “we the people” setting the state and beat of OUR own community. We the people of the “states” have said we don’t want the U.S. gov setting these things for us in the Constitution, amendment 1. We have not limited ourselves for setting these things. I would like to make sure I’m not making Texans work at the Texas government offices or my county offices on Sunday or Christmas or the Annuciation. What I do not want is the U.S. Gov having the ability to do that to California, because the Constitution which we Texans and Califorians have entered into rightly reserves that to us who approved the Constitution. We all could put it in a Constitional amendment if we wanted to, but why not just let the states or locals take care of their own business. Let them go Muslim if they wish and add a local rest day on Friday. This is the beauty of the U.S. System that is getting so distorted as we get away(or allow to be gotten away) from the original intent interpreting of our duly passed laws and constitutional amendments. If “we the people” do not begin to stand against these things, it will not change.
To get directly to your question of why, because “we the people” deem it fit for our community or state. That is enough in my book.
LikeLike
Sometimes when I wake up feeling grumpy (hard to picture, work with me) I wonder “What do assorted papists have to say, and say, and say?” Granted, I could just turn on Fox News or EWTN. Or maybe even visit the local Federal pen and ask for last names that end in “o” and “i”. But, no, I just come to OL. Thanks, papists.
LikeLike
Granted, cw, you couldn’t ask us a question there. Fire away.
Peace,
A greatful papist since Easter 2012
LikeLike
I said thanks. GOSH!
LikeLike
I am being sincere. Not being trite. God willing I always will be here, cw. Sorry if my comment came across harsh. We both by grace love Christ and seek His glory from our best understanding I assume.
LikeLike
MTX, the Malta event is coming from Kevin’s list above of festivals he would like to see civilly enshrined. I get your procedural point, but the question is still, If “we the people” deem it fit then why do YOU as part of those people see it as fit? I am part of those people and I don’t see it as fit.
Kevin, I like days off work, too. But where does it stop? If I employ you and other sorts of religionists who want their particular days off, I could be up a creek. And what about sacrifice in the Christian life? If certain feast days are that religiously significant to you, what about taking it on the chin? Or is your desire another instance of Christendom’s way of making friends of the world and the Spirit?
LikeLike
Zrim,
I have no problem with you thinking “we the people” should not shut down nonessential business activities on Sunday’s or certAin religious holiday “we the people” legally put in place, but do you feel you should prohibit or allow the majority of the “we the people” from setting those rhythmic days of rest and worship in place. Can you allow it or will you get upset. Can you Roman 13 or 1 Peter 2:13 the will of the people in a community toward such a religious festival day of rest from work that is not against Gods law? The people aren’t making one go to a temple or certain church, just not work on certain activities. I don’t think this would qualify as needing to obey the will of God over men. Do you?
LikeLike
Michael, what else did you do besides Splashtown? And how come not Schlitterbahn?
LikeLike
Sean,
Splashtown is a little smaller scale. We have the younger kids some it is nice at Splashtown to be able to let the older ones bounce from ride to ride and jump back to a center point with us and the younger two. We thought about Fiesta Texas but decided against it for the same reason and we are are budgeted too.
LikeLike
MichaelTX
Posted July 17, 2015 at 5:28 pm | Permalink
Zrim,
I have no problem with you thinking “we the people” should not shut down nonessential business activities on Sunday’s or certAin religious holiday “we the people” legally put in place, but do you feel you should prohibit or allow the majority of the “we the people” from setting those rhythmic days of rest and worship in place. Can you allow it or will you get upset. Can you Roman 13 or 1 Peter 2:13 the will of the people in a community toward such a religious festival day of rest from work that is not against Gods law? The people aren’t making one go to a temple or certain church, just not work on certain activities. I don’t think this would qualify as needing to obey the will of God over men. Do you?
If you’re interested in the constitutionality, acc to the ACLU
“the Supreme Court has ruled that even though blue laws originally had a religious purpose, they now exist to promote the secular purpose of securing a common day of rest. Thus, they are permissible regulations for a secular government to make and are safe from legal challenges on Establishment Clause grounds.”
OTOH, Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, not vice versa, so you can get there that way.
Basically, the First Amendment ban on Congress passing religious establishment has been “incorporated” against the states as well via twisting the 14th Amendment, which was designed to make ex-slaves equal, but is now used as a weapon against anything religious, even by the states.
This isn’t always a bad thing. Think of being ruled by Catholicism or Islam. That’s where natural law comes in, where the business of salvation gets left for the next world and to the individual [as Locke pointed out, the government can’t save anyone’s soul]. But How Shall We Then Live? is answered by “natural law.” [Unfortunately, Francis Schaeffer was anti-Aquinas and on an important level, I understand so was Van Til.]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/02/critique-of-presuppositionalist.html
LikeLike
Sean, we are on the North side of town. I think we will probably go to St Goerge’s Marionite Catholic Rite Church this Sunday. We will probably be leaving Monday.
LikeLike
Michael, I understand. Maybe when they’re older you can take ’em tubing. The water is high right now, so, I just figured it would’ve been a good time to go. Interesting about St. George, I figured you woulda visited OTS or go see the historic Missions.
LikeLike
Been to the river walk mission a year back. OTS?
LikeLike
Oblate Theological Seminary. Also has a retreat center, prayer grotto, gift shop etc. I attended the Jr. Seminary(St. Anthony’s) and took courses at OTS and have friends who’ve gone through there.
LikeLike
San Fernado Cathedral is quite beautiful and the liturgy was well done and we enjoyed the day when we went. It was a good day with the family. St. George’s is really close to where we are. I have been to a Marionite rite Church in Houston which was all in Arimaic, but here the liturgy is in English. I really liked the Arimaic Liturgy, but my mother in law is less likely to appreciate not understanding the liturgy than I.
LikeLike
Interesting. My latest son is named after St. Anthony.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Some feastdays are more appropriate to some countries (and states and counties via dioceses) than others. But you seem to suspect I have a motivation other than that stated. I don’t think I do. Where does it stop? At the most important (class 1) feasts, perhaps.
If Muslim localities (I don’t know of any majority Muslim counties, yet) want to blue-law Fridays, I think that is well within the bonds of toleration (as long as essential services are protected). We need to be conscious of long-term potentials (likelihoods) for clashes, though, and decide as ‘we the people’ on what type of society we want to live in. FWIW, here in NJ I interact with Muslims all the time (coworkers, interns, and in shops; I offered an apartment to a Muslim family).
Need a money argument? We work more than is good for productivity (youth and family problems arise, creating social problems). Companies can hire those with no or part time jobs to get more done done on other days. If it touches on corporate profitability (a premise I don’t assume), take it out of executive salaries and corporate investments.
Seems to work for Germany.
LikeLike
MTX,
I went to a Syriac/Aramaic liturgy here in NJ awhile back, had tea and Iraqi pastries afterwards with the Bishop and congregation. They come from Baghdad, parish Our Lady of Deliverance, the one Sunni (not Shia) Muslims invaded awhile back, killing half the congregation present (40 or so including the priests).
Truly lovely Christians. Tales of Muslims putting bombs in their gardens and garages, giving up their houses, all their possessions, more importantly family – but focused on the good in life and the ultimate purpose of life.
Syriac/Aramaic Christians predate Muslims in the area by 7 centuries (as Christians). The Bishop said they identify strongly with those Jonah was sent to- millenia more.
That experience solidified for me the evil of both the neocon project that creates chaos, and the mindset that enables it (present in both parties and beyond).
It also made very clear to me the fundamental justice of the Crusades, whatever mixed motives came into play in specific historical circumstances.
I learned the Abun D-bashmayyo – Our Father in Syriac/Aramaic- from Youtube (100s of listens) and say it several times daily- to my baby as well.
LikeLike
MTX, no problem with a majority going in a direction from the one I’d want. But I’m still unclear on why you think the state recognizing religious observances fosters religious belief. I understand it can give the particular adherents a warm feeling, but I don’t see how that resonates with Christianity in particular.
Kevin, there are ways to push back against hyper busy-osity that don’t include treating Paul’s ship wreck as a reason to sleep in. Is that really what was in mind when it happened? Your reasoning seems like the same one that eventually makes Xmas all about Xboxes (the pious theorizing nothwithstanding).
LikeLike
Zrim,
I would assume the reason you think that is because you think Christians can’t have a community or state that is their own. I disagree. I believe we can voice our desires among each other as humans and form a real community that is ours. So I guess my point is that state preference can be the voice of the religious community just like any other community and I don’t have a problem with that.
LikeLike
Old Life with RC’s and 2kers is way more interesting than Erik and Greg the Terrible on sanctification.
LikeLike
Appalled, go ahead, convert. I triple dare ya.
LikeLike
Muddy, “a guy who wishes the Pope called the shots in the USA and thinks the Statue of Liberty is idolatrous”
But at least we know a real RC conservative when he pines for the pope.
LikeLike
Appalled, yes a state worker who happens to be a lawyer is now a cop. Brilliant.
LikeLike
Appalled, that’s right. You’re a movie character in a bad Coppola movie made forty years ago. Way to keep it real.
LikeLike
Walton, “Attend your local church faithfully, fellowship with the saints, and learn your Confessions.”
Except when Appalled doesn’t attend his local church faithfully.
Doh!
LikeLike
MTX, thanks for hanging in. Agreed on real community. But my point is that there is both provisional life and eternal life–both are very good but one is even better–and it would seem that for Christians it’s better to follow Paul’s hope for a better country whose architect is God than to waste resources on trying to get his ship wreck legislatively solemnized, which seems unduly focused on this passing life.
LikeLike
Appalled, why were you so weak to get “sucked in” (file that in Margaret Gray’s filth file)? Are you a victim?
And how did you ever leave the cave? If you were so weak to get sucked in, maybe you’re still weak and now sucked in a different direction.
LikeLike
Zrim, remember, vd, t has the lofty (or sort of lofty) ideals of Roman Catholicism but doesn’t go to church. That’s mortal sin. But everyone’s saved.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 17, 2015 at 9:33 pm | Permalink
Zrim, remember, vd, t has the lofty (or sort of lofty) ideals of Roman Catholicism but doesn’t go to church. That’s mortal sin. But everyone’s saved.
You better hope so, tough guy.
LikeLike
Appalled, “gaggle of panicked women”
And who is going ape bleep over a blog post at a blog that he used to adore?
Again, I ask who is going ape bleep over a blog post at a blog that he used to adore?
LikeLike
Appalled, I don’t do Drudge or Rush.
And how did you get sucked in without the Drudge or Rush? Was it the OPC video that showed me to be so good looking (your words)?
LikeLike
Curt, just watch CNN and you’ll find that they’ve been saying for a while what Pope Francis is only saying now. And they don’t need a charism for that.
LikeLike
Appalled, ” Zrim being a snake.”
Ah, the come-out-of-the-cave moment.
LikeLike
Appalled, if the folks at the AME church in Charleston can forgive. . .
LikeLike
b, sd, you’d be preferred insider territory to Appalled.
LikeLike
diff Dan, “mouthpiece for left wing causes.”
Why, because I can’t stand outrage porn? Why, because I think Jesus and the apostles faced a more hostile world and didn’t go on and on and on about Caesar?
LikeLike
Appalled, and listen to the president of Westminster California who says this hardly constitutes persecution of the church. Then tell me how WSC is responsible for all that’s wrong in Reformed Protestantism.
BTW, have you heard that Lutherans are 2k?
LikeLike
mboss, ring a ding a ling a ding.
LikeLike
Appalled, saying it’s sinful and sad would be obvious. Who wants to be like Drudge and Rush? (well, if it got me an audience, ratings, and money. All it gets me is Appalled, Doug Sowers, and some other difficult souls. And that makes me a liberal. Brilliant!)
LikeLike
“If America wasn’t a Christian nation, it lived in deliberate accommodation with it, few ever having to choose their nation or their religion”
Which western Christianity?
Tell that to the Irish Roman Catholics whom the descendants of the Puritans referred to as n-word.
LikeLike
a dot, “did anyone address this question”
The Bible did.
LikeLike
“Grow up, pay for your own crayons and shut up in the meantime until you can follow your own directions.”
word
LikeLike
Zrim,
The realization that sabbath rest is good for mankind and the “total” culture in which he lives and the fact that God has eternally know this can lead some to say “wow, maybe this God of the Christians knows what He is talking about?” Let the Spirit use things. Maybe having the joy of Christmas celebrated “publicly” is good even for those who might question why the birth of Christ is important and look into it. These small contributions to society are not inconsequential to evangelization of our neighbors. It is all part of it. The liturgy of the Christian celebrations permiating a society can’t be bad for it. If you think so you have a poor view of living and proclaiming the truths of the Christian faith publicly and leaving the rest to God, even if the rest means you are hated.
LikeLike
“This “Radical Two Kingdoms” theology is moral cowardice writ large, and worse, is evangelical, contagious. Shooting Billy Graham in the back then saying “Christian norms now govern gay marriage”?”
But, heck, everyone is going to heaven. That’s a relief.
LikeLike
@dgh
Welcome back!
LikeLike
Funny how little Appalled cites Scripture to slay the 2kers who are indifferent to Scripture. At least Doug Sowers could open the Bible once in a while.
LikeLike
“you don’t even use your real names”
hmmm
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 17, 2015 at 10:02 pm | Permalink
“This “Radical Two Kingdoms” theology is moral cowardice writ large, and worse, is evangelical, contagious. Shooting Billy Graham in the back then saying “Christian norms now govern gay marriage”?”
But, heck, everyone is going to heaven. That’s a relief.
Whenever he’s busted, Butch takes a swing at the cop.
LikeLike
“I’ll say this one time. You use my name once more and henceforth every referral to you”
“you don’t even use your real names”
hmmm on testosterone
LikeLike
Let the word go forth, what Appalled revealed by email was not much more intimate than he reveals to the masses here in the comm box. Readers may notice that Appalled doesn’t hold back or deal in subtlety.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 17, 2015 at 9:56 pm | Permalink
“If America wasn’t a Christian nation, it lived in deliberate accommodation with it, few ever having to choose their nation or their religion”
Which western Christianity?
Tell that to the Irish Roman Catholics whom the descendants of the Puritans referred to as n-word.
You do realize that as a polemicist, you habitually argue the exception against the rule?
And since there is an exception to every rule, in the end there are no rules. You deconstruct every conversation, every concept, into nonsense. Clever gamesmanship, but useless.
LikeLike
” I am a big boy and can think for myself”
hooray
pass the testosterone
LikeLike
Hart,
I hope you will accept my apologies in thinking you had blocked my email. I hope you will understand my situation though. You did stop talking to me about our topic we had been talking about for days when all the sudden my email stopped allowing me to post in The Court Gives.
Peace,
Michael
LikeLike
“One of the things I am asking Darryl’s Presbytery for is that all commenters must provide real names”
Sincerely,
Appalled
LikeLike
d4, and so does every pastor and elder who has a Facebook page get similar scrutiny?
LikeLike
Andrew, thanks for the clarifications and links. As you know, I believe homosexuality is a sin and believe marriage is between one man and one woman (though the patriarchs had their moments). I just don’t think the sky is falling any more than it was in Nero’s day.
Is that so sinful?
LikeLike
“Even the notion of Darryl just leaving town and letting all this go on completely unmoderated speaks volumes.”
It speaks more volumes that someone who thinks the blog needs more oversight and editing will make as many comments as she — see what I did there with the pseudonym — did.
LikeLike
CT, do you think my session should visit my classrooms? When I present a paper at a professional conference? When I meet with gay friends over drinks?
LikeLike
Jed, you’re always one step ahead, even when medicated.
LikeLike
Well, that’ll just about cover the fly-bys.
LikeLike
vd, t, so whenever I say something disagreeable, it’s theology.
And whenever you do theology, it’s agreeable.
Alex, I’ll take Consistency for $600.
LikeLike
mtx, no. It’s a fallen world.
LikeLike
Right, vd, t, and you still don’t go to church nor can you answer Consistency for $200.
LikeLike
Butch means high-T.
LikeLike
vd, t, no, I was calling you out on imprecision. Christian doesn’t make sense of the historical situation in 1789 or today, unless you’re a correspondent for Fox.
LikeLike
mtx, and please also understand that I can hardly be expected to respond to every comment here.
LikeLike
Hart,
A bit confused… No you won’t accept my apologies or no you are not offended because of the fallen world?
LikeLike
Hart,
Please don’t worry. When you don’t comment to me, that is exactly what I assume. You have a lot going on here and elsewhere I assume.
LikeLike
MTX, so “our lives are the gospel” thing. But they aren’t. The gospel is the gospel. Sorry, but yours is the reasoning that brings us those corny mega church outreach plays at Xmas. Why not be content to live quiet and peaceful lives among the heathen? Why is that “a poor view of living and proclaiming the truths of the Christian faith publicly”? It’s what Paul prescribed. Where’s the advice to put his ship wreck on the calendar?
LikeLike
Logorrhea.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 17, 2015 at 10:34 pm | Permalink
vd, t, so whenever I say something disagreeable, it’s theology.
And whenever you do theology, it’s agreeable.
Alex, I’ll take Consistency for $600.
You’re consistent all right, Butch. You consistently pass off your theology as history, or more accurately, edit out whatever history doesn’t suit your theological agenda–like the Calvinist influence on what used to be an arguably Christian America, on what used to be religious liberty.
And anytime you want to back up your slam at me, Butch, try some specifics. I’m quite able to argue in your synagogue per the Bible or in the political forum via natural law. I don’t say that we were a Christian nation because God was on our side [although GWash suspected that], but that as Mr. Lincoln said, and John Winthrop meant, that we mean to be on God’s side. The natural law is God’s side.
This of course is no longer true: Obergefell has broken that trust, even that possibility that America is on God’s side. And although you smugly blame the Catholic population, it was the Protestant churches going gay that turned the tide.
You turned out to be quite right that this was all coming, Darryl, although never explicitly, and by sitting safely on the sidelines [sometimes attacking our own], we all helped you bring this about by our own lack of courage. The only question is what we’re going to do now. You seem to have come back refreshed, to double down on such moral cowardice and clever theologizing.
is imbecilic, ignorant, or disingenuous. Gay marriage looks nothing like the real thing. If you’re going to put yourself out as a public intellectual and some sort of scholar, Dr. Hart, you gotta hit the books and stop spouting off like some sophomore passing the bong.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/06/26/most_gay_couples_aren_t_monogamous_will_straight_couples_go_monogamish.html
C’mon, dude. This is serious. Get your Machen on. Dude had balls.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Why judge folks for putting on visual representations of the texts of God’s Word and “you are the light of the world” was proclaimed over the disciples by none less than God Himself. You may want to rethinks those accusations and judgements. What happens when “the heathen” convert and are willingly voting to have Christian Holy days? Can you allow that or why not want it?
LikeLike
The guy who’s claim to fame is Joker’s Wild, played in a band called the Cookies, stays connected, even tangentially, with Hollywood and lives in LA, wants someone else to get serious and stop hitting the bong. Yeah, ok.
LikeLike
DG,
Welcome back… Sorry we trashed the place while you were gone. It was quite the party, just bill us for the clean up. Here’s the highlights:
sean set some kind of record for consecutive keg-stands…
Tom was entertaining the gallery with his mad Trivial Pursuit skills and crushing PBR cans on his forehead after each correct answer…
Zrim was pretending he was Jimmi Hendrix with his tennis raquet (whilst wearing an LSD soaked headband…
Muddy and sdb were debating philosophy while passing a joint back and forth…
Michael and Kevin were pounding Jaimeson and Caffery’s like good Catholics…
Appalled blacked out on goldschlager so the Unificator covered him in shaving cream…
And I was over the toilet after eating a bad burrito before the night started and missed most of the fun…
So basically a normal couple of days at Oldlife.
LikeLike
Sean,
Hate we are sitting down with pint and a cigar being we are in the same town tonight.
LikeLike
MTX, “accusations and judgments”? Let’s not get carried away here. I said corny and I’ll add misguided (and leave the huffing and puffing to more high strung Calvinists).
But you’re asking a logocentric Protestant what’s misguided about visual representations of the biblical text? It undermines the logo-o-sity of it all. But if I’ve said I can as one morally and politically opposed to elective abortion live with a civil majority who sees it otherwise, why would I as a logocentric Christian have any problem when the heathen convert in your iconographic direction and want as citizens a civil religion? But in both cases, when it comes to the sacred society, less tolerance.
LikeLike
Someday I will get my negatives to type… That was suppose to be ” hate we aren’t sittin down with a pint…”
LikeLike
Michael, had I known you were gonna be in town…………… But, you’ve got my email. I’ll be running around tomorrow fixing all the things that need fixing in my world.
LikeLike
Jed, butterflies and zebras and moonbeams, and fairy tales, that’s all she ever thinks about…
LikeLike
sean
Posted July 17, 2015 at 11:19 pm | Permalink
The guy who’s claim to fame is Joker’s Wild, played in a band called the Cookies, stays connected, even tangentially, with Hollywood and lives in LA, wants someone else to get serious and stop hitting the bong. Yeah, ok.
Thank you for your so-quick reply, Sean. Darryl thanks you more. He used to have Erik to wipe his butt with personal attacks on anyone who saw through his BS but then Erik got wise.
I make no claim to any fame, although it’s flattering that you try to use my life against me. I was some sort of all-time champ on The Joker’s Wild and The Cookies were a kickass band.
squelchers.net/Cookies/Cookies.htm
I also recorded and produced all the audio tracks in my studio. “Such Brave Men” wails. So thanks for the pub, brother, making me look good, or at least better than my attackers like you, whoever you are. Darryl thanks you. But only mebbe, I think. As one of his sycophants, your cheap ad hom here actually makes him look worse, not better.
But let’s return to the subject.
D. G. Hart
Posted July 17, 2015 at 10:34 pm | Permalink
vd, t, so whenever I say something disagreeable, it’s theology.
And whenever you do theology, it’s agreeable.
Alex, I’ll take Consistency for $600.
You’re consistent all right, Butch. You consistently pass off your theology as history, or more accurately, edit out whatever history doesn’t suit your theological agenda–like the Calvinist influence on what used to be an arguably Christian America, on what used to be religious liberty.
And anytime you want to back up your slam at me, Butch, try some specifics. I’m quite able to argue in your synagogue per the Bible or in the political forum via natural law. I don’t say that we were a Christian nation because God was on our side [although GWash suspected that], but that as Mr. Lincoln said, and John Winthrop meant, that we mean to be on God’s side. The natural law is God’s side.
This of course is no longer true: Obergefell has broken that trust, even that possibility that America is on God’s side. And although you smugly blame the Catholic population, it was the Protestant churches going gay that turned the tide.
You turned out to be quite right that this was all coming, Darryl, although never explicitly, and by sitting safely on the sidelines [sometimes attacking our own], we all helped you bring this about by our own lack of courage. The only question is what we’re going to do now. You seem to have come back refreshed, to double down on such moral cowardice and clever theologizing.
is imbecilic, ignorant, or disingenuous. Gay marriage looks nothing like the real thing. If you’re going to put yourself out as a public intellectual and some sort of scholar, Dr. Hart, you gotta hit the books and stop spouting off like some sophomore passing the bong.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/06/26/most_gay_couples_aren_t_monogamous_will_straight_couples_go_monogamish.html
C’mon, dude. This is serious. Get your Machen on. Dude had balls.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Let’s go wih what you have now clearly said then, “misguided”. Can you please provide biblical mandate that providing a play presenting the life and death of Christ is not possibly Holy Spirit guided?
LikeLike
Tom, I just want you to get serious is all. Remember, you have to go to confession tomorrow if you want to take the wafer on sunday. No confession, no wafer. That’s how the observant get serious.
LikeLike
Sean,
It is just too hard to fit a guys night in the midst of a family vacation. Maybe in a few years when my wife won’t have such problem getting the kids settled while out of town. Right now I have one asleep on my side while my wife has another asleep on her side. Just how it is right now. I knew I wouldn’t be able to work out catching up with you. Though I promise I would like to some time around the bend.
LikeLike
sean
Posted July 17, 2015 at 11:40 pm | Permalink
Tom, I just want you to get serious is all. Remember, you have to go to confession tomorrow if you want to take the wafer on sunday. No confession, no wafer. That’s how the observant get serious.
If Dr.Hart’s congregation is reduced to supercilious ex-Catholics attacking his critics as though they must be Catholics–and he lets them–Dr. Hart is in bad shape.
Which I think you are, Darryl. You were right about many things, but you need to update your act, based on your own success. There is now no “Christian America.” The thing you were always wrong about as a historian is that, yes, there once was, in some fashion.
And I won’t let your surrogates do your dirty work. [Nice dirty work, though, Sean.] This blog is all about you, Darryl Hart, by your own admission. Even your fans can’t defend your ideas.
LikeLike
Kevin, how come it took so long to get these dogmas? Scripture got nailed down pretty early, but the Traditions? Two, I asked for the lost apostolic oral traditions, not what the faux church of Rome got around to supposedly deducing from the same.
And is Ott the pope? How come we are supposed to listen to him instead of the little papa?
Mike, the one day rest in seven is a creation ordinance/4th commandment. “Christian” holidays, not so much, having been fulfilled in Christ Col. 2:16,17. Therefore efforts to implement the same are judaizing.
Hey, wait a minute. Judiaizing is the Roman church’s forte.
Figures.
Come on, Jed. The very first rule here at OL is never, ever apologize.
And that means even if the place is in smoking ruins.
Obviously you are not in the in group.
But the inmates are ready to give ‘er another go when they get a chance.
Count on it.
. . . listen to the president of Westminster California who says this hardly constitutes persecution of the church. . . I just don’t think the sky is falling any more than it was in Nero’s day.
Then respectfully, DG, the good professor doesn’t have a clue. And it is this in part which provoked the childish display we saw last night, the butcherwork of Matt. 18 notwithstanding. For all the flailing and railing, App and TVD know something is up. Abortion, euthanasia, pornography are all bad enough, but it is one thing when the magistrate legalizes sin; another when the magistrate requires people to sin at minimum by approving sin. After all the early church was persecuted for refusing to recognize polytheism, not worshipping Christ per se.
It remains to be seen if there is enough backbone in the country to call nonsense by its name and that enough is enough. If the S&L bunch want to do their thing, fine, but leave the rest of us alone instead of what looks like a witch hunt gearing up.
Neither do we live in the days of the apostles and Christ, whether that has to do with SS or ssm.
IOW the practical affirmation or denial of NL is the hinge. How else does one end up closer to the romanists on one thread than the 2kers on the other?
cheers
LikeLike
Bob S
Posted July 18, 2015 at 1:49 am | Permalink
Abortion, euthanasia, pornography are all bad enough, but it is one thing when the magistrate legalizes sin; another when the magistrate requires people to sin at minimum by approving sin.
Elegant.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 17, 2015 at 6:52 am | Permalink
Mermaid, “However, what I do not get is why, at this point in time, with secularism ready to use all of its considerable power to silence us, good men like Dr. Hart and others continue to rail against Catholicism as if that were the greatest threat to the common good at this point in time.”
When Paul anathematized the Judaizers was he worried about the common good? Did Jesus and the apostles die at the hands of the Roman authorities for the “common good”? Christian truth trumps common good.
So by becoming a Roman Catholic you became utilitarian about religion?>>>>>
Am I to understand you as saying that Christianity has nothing to do with the common good?
Christian truth involves speaking out in defense of the most vulnerable in our society. The early Church did not have a whole lotta’ political power, granted, but Christians sure thought it was their duty to rescue abandoned babies.
When they did gain greater political influence, they helped make infanticide illegal. That did help the common good.
I submit for your consideration the following.:
—————————————————————————————
B. Christianity’s Rise to Preeminence
Yet so long as Christianity was an illegal religion, persecuted by the same culture that murdered their own babies, it had little chance of enacting policies against infanticide. Finally, however, with the Edict of Milan–which legalized the practice of Christianity–Christian leaders began to exert their influence on the Roman emperors regarding infanticide. Immediately after his conversion, Constantine–the first Christian Emperor–enacted two measures targeting the problem of infanticide: 1) Constantine provided funds out of the imperial treasury for parents over burdened with children; and 2) Constantine gave all the rights of property of exposed infants to those who saved and supported them. But more generally, Constantine broadened the scope of imperial charity and provided assistance for the poor and needy. “He also acknowledged the new ideal of charity. Previous emperors had encouraged schemes to support small numbers of children in less favored families, the future recruits for their armies. Constantine gave funds to the churches to support the poor, the widow and orphans.” And according to Robin L. Fox, the church used those funds for charity. “Swollen by the Emperor’s gifts, it helped the old, the infirm, and the destitute.” Fox, op. cit., page 668.
Although the church, with the assistance of the government, was working to address many of the causes of infanticide, it continued to pressure Rome for a ban on infanticide. Bishop Basil of Caesarea argued persistently and persuasively for such a ban. Finally, he convinced Emperor Valentinian (364-375 CE)–a Christian–to outlaw the practice of infanticide in the Roman Empire. Finally, infanticide was banned.
Conclusion
Although ancient and pagan Greek and Rome had practiced and encouraged infanticide for hundreds and hundreds of years, Christianity fundamentally altered those societies. Christianity eliminated the promotion and encouragement of infanticide by government and leading societal institutions in Western Civilization. Clearly, one unique and valuable contribution of Christianity to Western Civilization was its opposition to infanticide.”
http://www.christiancadre.org/member_contrib/cp_infanticide.html
LikeLike
TVD/Bob,
“Abortion, euthanasia, pornography are all bad enough, but it is one thing when the magistrate legalizes sin; another when the magistrate requires people to sin at minimum by approving sin.”
Are you approving sin when you pay taxes that go to sinful programs, policies, institutions, projects? What about when you patronize corporations and businesses or invest in companies that are engaging in sinful or immoral practices?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 17, 2015 at 9:32 pm | Permalink
Appalled, why were you so weak to get “sucked in” (file that in Margaret Gray’s filth file)? Are you a victim?
And how did you ever leave the cave? If you were so weak to get sucked in, maybe you’re still weak and now sucked in a different direction.
Leaving Erik out of this, mebbe all your remaining followers and buttwipers are weak, too, D. The real question is whether you’re building strong Christian men or using your clever mind to prey on the confused.
LikeLike
Tom,
Come off of it man, you have some good things to say, but impugning those who are substantially in agreement with Darryl as somehow intellectually or spiritually weak is, well weak sauce.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted July 18, 2015 at 2:57 am | Permalink
TVD/Bob,
“Abortion, euthanasia, pornography are all bad enough, but it is one thing when the magistrate legalizes sin; another when the magistrate requires people to sin at minimum by approving sin.”
Are you approving sin when you pay taxes that go to sinful programs, policies, institutions, projects?
Wank argument. Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s means pay your taxes.
What about when you patronize corporations and businesses or invest in companies that are engaging in sinful or immoral practices?
Now you’re getting somewhere. I deleted the Firefox browser from my computer and it didn’t cost me a thing.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/06/does-mozilla-dumping-its-ceo-over-prop-8
The lefties are all over “social awareness.” This is the battlefield. Fuck Firefox.
LikeLike
Man, the California guys stay up late (and I wake up early). Many comments from Darryl, and I don’t begrudge him that.
He raised the question of me being weak, and it’s a fair question. I would say I was weak. Probably still am weak.
I sincerely believe I got drawn in to a serious cult of personality and, as a member of that cult, I bullied a lot of people. All weak, ugly stuff.
Hopefully in the future I do better. The first step is to put no mere man on a spiritual or intellectual pedestal – not a local pastor, not Hart, not Machen, not Calvin, not Luther. All men are flawed, and putting them on a pedestal hurts them (if they’re living) as much as it does us.
I owe Darryl an apology for that. Darryl – I apologize. My expectations for you were too high. You’re just a guy, and that’s o.k.
That’s all I’m asking your Presbytery for — To help you to be just a guy who needs oversight and pastoral care like all of us.
LikeLike
Darryl,
You raise the question, should church officers be overseeing your classroom or presenting of papers? I would say, maybe, as long as you are an OPC elder and hold yourself out as one publicly (as you do here).
Academics are a blessing to the church, but they are also a danger to the church, and as an historian, you know that.
Norman Shepherd, Peter Leithart, Calvin Seminary. Professors do helpful things, but they also do novel things that may need scrutiny. It’s a healthy thing for pastors and elders (who may be quite common men) to be overseeing academics.
If you want complete academic freedom untethered from your ordination vows, I assume you can surrender your ordination and still remain an OPC member in good standing. You don’t even have to fully agree with the Westminster Standards to be a simple OPC member, so obviously there is a lot of latitude there.
If Old Life and the wild west comment section is the product of an OPC member I think that’s a lower bar than if it’s the product of an OPC officer.
One might assume that being an officer gives you more freedom, but if Presbyterianism is taken seriously it gives you less. You’re bound by your vows and accountable to your fellow elders. What you do and allow reflects on them.
LikeLike
If this was sufficient evidence of your leaving forever I would tip toe away. But since you have failed to leave in the past (multiple times) after saying you would, I have to say this isn’t enough.
“I sincerely believe I got drawn in to a serious cult of personality and, as a member of that cult, I bullied a lot of people.”
The second part is true. As for the first part, there is no cult – there is only Erik. Stop blaming your problems on outside forces. Whatever your problems are, they are serious and you need to own them.
Then you filed some weak sauce charges against Darryl. It’s not for his good, it’s more of your bullying. Own it.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I think the truth is, you’re as at a loss as to how to get the place under control as anyone else here is. Maybe some wise, neutral men who aren’t wrapped up in the heat of battle here would have some good ideas.
The three comment rule was not a terrible idea, but you didn’t enforce it. Plus, as long as people are allowed to anonymously break the 9th commandment with impunity, human passions will make sticking to three comments nearly possible. As I made the point back then, if someone slanders me, I’m not just stewing on that for 24 hours before responding.
Whatever the solution is, it just has to involve more accountability and promote more common decency. People could point at me as the problem, and there’s certainly truth there, but flare ups are going to continue on a regular basis after I’m gone, and I think you know that. The subject matter and the medium is the perfect recipe for that.
You might be amused by that. Not everyone in the Presbyterian & Reformed world is. I have received calls and e-mails of support throughout all this ordeal.
LikeLike
Muddy,
I’m not getting into it with you. You’re welcome to your opinion. I’m trying to resolve this peaceably and you trying to fire things back up is not helpful. You’re also an OPC elder and I would appeal to you to back off and let me address Darryl. He can speak for himself (when he wakes up, ha, ha.)
My cult of personality assertions are based on a small group of guys (you are one) who have commented pretty much daily here for years and have exchanged emails pretty much daily for years. You may say you are all “just buds”, but I think it is something deeper than that and I don’t think it’s good. You’re free to disagree. I don’t know how that question gets resolved unless we all chip in to hire a neutral psychologist or psychiatrist to evaluate the situation, and I doubt anyone’s up for that. Even Jed’s consulting fee would probably be too high.
I do promise to leave when this all dies down, but Darryl had a lot of comments and I feel it’s fair to respond and clarify. I may never win you over, but that’s not really my goal.
LikeLike
Cletus, I would applaud you living the courage of your convictions and refuse to pay taxes as you are suggesting on here.
That is if you actually make any income…
LikeLike
We have repeatedly heard you say you would never go after people in their real lives. But you have. You have tried to damage Darryl in his church, And I will not mention their names but a couple in my church left this week and you know why. Own it.
LikeLike
Stop telling people to back off. That’s your inner bully talking again. If you have seen the light just walk away from your technique of dominating the comments and shouting people down until you’re the only one left.
LikeLike
Muddy, maybe you are drawing on too many presuppositions, choosing to allow yourself to get frustrated that your deeming of the way things ought to be for an Internet blog site isn’t unfolding?
Don’t let the grain of salt that you throw over your shoulder lose its saltiness.
It’s only sad when this kind of place gets boring…
LikeLike
Muddy,
My charges are pretty simple and I would copy them verbatim here if Darryl consented. He has them and can reproduce them here if he wants. Here’s a summary: The Old Life comments section is a disgrace and since Darryl is an OPC officer that is not right. There’s a little bit about his gay marriage take, but it’s 90% about how business is carried on at Old Life. There’s nothing about Darryl’s personal life, no e-mail discussions, none of that. All his Presbytery has to do is read Old Life and make a judgment call — does this concern us or not and do we have jurisdiction over this or not? Pretty simple. Nothing sinister going on.
The people who left are my parents. They like their pastor, but the relationship between you and me is badly broken and that does not sit well with them. Not saying that’s all your fault at all, but that’s just where we’re at.
LikeLike
Kent, no idea what you are saying. But clarification is not necessary – I’ll just let your comment stand.
LikeLike
As for “going after people in their personal life” goes, I think Darryl’s blogging on theological topics is fully under the sphere of his church-related activities. He presumably disagrees. Maybe that’s part of what gets sorted out.
If I had called Hillsdale or his publishers with these charges I sincerely hope that they would just hang up on me. None of the issues I am raising are relevant to those activities.
Hopefully his cats would hang up on me, too.
LikeLike
Muddy, CHILL!!!!
You aren’t the boss of anyone on here.
Plain enough?
LikeLike
Kent, I will again just let your advice stand without comment. How chill is that?
Here’s mine for you: don’t be an enabler.
LikeLike
D.G.,
Since I am not a big watcher of CNN, I couldn’t challenge your claim. But I’ve never seen CNN say what the Pope is saying now when I have watched it.
But whether CNN is saying it or not, if the Reformed Churches are concerned about sin and calling sinners to repentance, then the Reformed Churches would also be challenging society, the nation, and the world about the sins of economic exploitation, destruction of the environment, and the reliance on war and militarism as much as they challenge individuals and society about sexual sins.
LikeLike
DGH, just so the record is clear, I was quoting an accusation made by someone else re: your becoming a mouthpiece for left wing causes
I actually thought your original post was most provocative and that, by referring to the (in?)famous First Things symposium, you might have been encouraging a little study of history. Too bad no one else was interested in pursuing that inquiry, though I tried.
LikeLike
If I can offer a newcomer’s/outsider’s take:
Really Uninteresting
-Criminal histories;
-Litigation threats;
-Personal problems;
-Threats to reveal personal information;
-Talk of a secret Old Life – this is just 4-6 guys emailing each other, isn’t it? Who cares? Do they have authority to tax, raise an army, and suppress or tolerate religious practice?
Interesting:
-Erik recently made one of the best concise and simple statements of a Christian’s day-to-day role with regard to the public realm;
-He may or may not be on to something with his criticisms of “2k” (am still learning, and enjoying doing so);
-I do not think those given authority by a religious group should publicly or even systematically express positions which are contrary to Christianity (e.g., Woolley)- which can call for debate to determine, of course.
Briefly Interesting but let’s not drag it out:
-Erik is not behaving unjustly (as far as I can tell) in filing a complaint- he believes the matter is grave (I, respectfully and cognizant of my minimal standing here, don’t disagree);
-If church officers express positions arguably contrary to their sworn responsibilities, they can be asked within the bounds of civility to account for their ‘advanced opinions.’;
-I would appreciate an apology, Erik, for your mild mockery several days ago, even if that’s a tiny issue compared to the other interpersonal issues flying around.
In summary, continuing to discuss these melodramatic issues in the blog is tedious and distracting from other conversation which I, for one, think DG has provided a valuable forum for.
LikeLike
tx, no, I haven’t tinkered with the website (as if I could).
LikeLike
zrim, but remember, Roman Catholics have a gospel of creation, a gospel of the family, a gospel of service. Just plug “gospel” in and it’s all better.
LikeLike
vd, t, and where did the norms of fidelity and monogamy, two attributes not readily associated with gay men — at least younger ones, come from?
If you can defend David Barton, why not me?
Also, Aristotle believed in Natural Law. He wasn’t Christian. Oh, wait. There’s the gospel of Aristotle.
LikeLike
jed, you left out Susan and Mermaid, inhaling helium, and making their saccharine voices sound even higher.
LikeLike
Kevin,
Good analysis.
What mockery are you referring to? I do apologize if I mocked you. I think you’re a bright guy.
I do have a problem with the amount of space given to Catholics here to proselytize. Darryl asks for it, though, by writing on Catholicism so often. In my mind the way to deal with Reformed/Catholic disagreements is twofold:
(1) Like determining a true dollar bill from a false one, you shouldn’t spend more time denouncing an expression of the Christian faith that you consider to be false (Roman Catholicism) than you spend simply holding forth an expression of the Christian faith that you consider to be true (Reformed Protestantism). Doing so just invites endless 1000 comment + threads, rabbit trails, and eventually, personal disputes and insults. It feeds people’s fire, in other worlds.
(2) As Reformed people our focus, if we are going to focus on Roman Catholicism, should probably be confined to the Motives of Credibility – the entry point to the Roman Catholic faith. All of the details of what the Pope does or does not do is pretty irrelevant unless it weighs on the truth or falsehood of the Motives. Do we spend time discussing the latest actions of Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu spiritual leaders? We don’t, because we don’t take their truth claims seriously. Why do we worry so much about Roman Catholics?
LikeLike
-I do not think those given authority by a religious group should publicly or even systematically express positions which are contrary to Christianity (e.g., Woolley)- which can call for debate to determine, of course.
KiN, will you hold Roman Catholics to this standard? I ask because (and you may not know this) the RC has about the widest imaginable range of doctrine, practice, and social engagement of any religious body on Earth. From hardcore liberals, to Marxists, to quasi Fascists, to NPR nuns, to homosexual members of clergy and orders, to syncretists who practice the most abominable things. What’s the Roman track record on dealing with error? Is the on-the-ground application of the massive and malleable doctrinal and procedural corpus even possible given the diversity of the “Church”?
LikeLike
sean, vd, t doesn’t have to worry about church as long as he can mock sideline Presbyterians.
LikeLike
vd, t, funny how bad it is when the magistrate legalizes sin, as in the United States legalizing blasphemy (I mean religious freedom). Remember, the bishops, those apostolic successors, were suspicious of religious liberty all the way down to John Courtney Murray who had to write under a pseudonym during the 1950s. Now Garry Wills and Michael Sean Winters write under real names.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “Christians sure thought it was their duty to rescue abandoned babies.”
Is that story in the Acts of the Apostles or the apocrypha?
LikeLike
Chortles challenge is spot on and is a testament to the fact that everyone shouldn’t flip out over me taking Darryl to task with his church. Church discipline is a mark of a true church. If my charges are false, trust the OPC to sort that out. If they’re true, trust the OPC to take appropriate action.
Either way, there’s no reason to demonize the messenger (me) with a “nuts & sluts” defense of Darryl.
As Tom would say, let the argument breathe.
LikeLike
“I deleted the Firefox browser from my computer and it didn’t cost me a thing.”
So I don’t need to go to confession on Saturday, but didn’t matter since I wasn’t going to mass on Sat. night or Sunday anyway. You know, life in L.A.
LikeLike
Appalled erik, being just a guy is what Presbyterianism does. Read much?
LikeLike
No, for the record your little jihad is stupid, ill-advised, and self-serving. Do the honorable thing: Go away as you have repeatedly promised, and get on with applying your new views and perspective to your life.
LikeLike
Newark has made the fastest transition from total newbie to Assistant to the Manager. Social engineer indeed.
LikeLike
Darryl’s interaction with Tom is part of my case. We’ve witnessed what we are witnessing this morning pretty much daily — for two years.
Tom does not claim to be a Christian. Darryl does, and is a church officer.
Should their method of communication be on the same level in terms of seriousness and respect or do we have a right to expect one to show more maturity than the other?
I would contend that Tom is often equally mature or more mature than Darryl, and that’s not right. We should expect it to be the opposite.
And if Tom is under Darryl’s skin to the extent that he just can’t summon the will to be mature, then Darryl should give Tom the boot and say publicly that he’s given Tom the boot.
To go on like this for ___ more years is not good at all, for anyone.
LikeLike
Appalled by Erik, Read Much II: I haven’t designed Old Life as a church blog or platform. What I teach in Sunday school (which you’ve heard) is different from what I teach in the classroom and what I write for OPC publication or even in the history of the OPC is different from what I write for academic publishers. Here is how I explained Old Life.
And to add, if w-wers can weigh in on everything under the sun and give it a Reformed spin, why can’t 2kers just talk out loud about stuff they see and consider?
Your problem Appalled by Erik was thinking that because I wrote books I was something. My wife knows I am not.
Your second problem was never leaving behind pietism. You want Christians to sound Christian all the time. That’s so boring and so unhuman.
LikeLike
Darryl,
That’s for fellow officers to decide. Chortles is in the PCA so he has no vote. Neither do I. Muddy has a vote and is a lawyer so he can probably defend you ably if you ask him to.
If people in the right places take this seriously, you could make OPC history. How ironic would that be?
LikeLike
“The three comment rule was not a terrible idea, but you didn’t enforce it.”
And who melted down when I announced it? Erik by Appalled.
What did you miss? I intend to leave comments open and hope people will somehow honor that. I like to see how people think, especially when they disagree. It might actually help me figure out a better argument or how to be clearer. I enjoy q & a after a presentation more than the lecture itself. I already know what I prepared. What I don’t know is how people will react or engage.
What a guy.
LikeLike
“You may say you are all “just buds”, but I think it is something deeper than that and I don’t think it’s good.”
Erik by Appalled, ever considered that you were the one who thought there was more than “just buds” and felt betrayed when that’s all it was?
As if Muddy is a cult follower of anyone. Get real.
LikeLike
Curt, do you have a text for economic exploitation that doesn’t attribute to the United States the status of Old Testament Israel?
LikeLike
diff Dan, Thanks.
LikeLike
“Doing so just invites endless 1000 comment + threads, rabbit trails, and eventually, personal disputes and insults. It feeds people’s fire, in other worlds.”
Erik by Appalled, see comment above about the value of comments.
Some people want to be challenged.
LikeLike
“To go on like this for ___ more years is not good at all, for anyone.”
So why do you keep coming back?
LikeLike
Darryl,
Your 9:01 comment is spot on and I think you are understanding me.
The question is, do your fellow officers agree with you? Do the members of your churches? If your take is 5% of the OPC, Houston, we have a problem.
If it’s 50%, then you’re fine. My complaint gets bogged down and goes nowhere.
That’s what I want to find out — and it’s not a game. I think it’s serious.
One concern I have is that what goes on here could someday end in physical violence — maybe even the loss of life. We oftentimes have no idea who we are dealing with (and insulting) here and many people take religion (and politics) very seriously. You have first hand experience meeting an adversarial OL commenter in person and it shook you up, you know that.
We’ve had commenters who are homeless, we’ve had commenters with substance abuse issues, we’ve had commenters with mental illness, we’ve had commenters who don’t claim to be Christian. I’ve had people contact me by phone who read & takes sides, but never comment. We don’t know who is reading and reacting.
Many post under pseudonyms, but identities slip out, sometimes through back channels. I know who pretty much everyone who has been here for any length of time is, where they worship, who their wives are, where they work. Many people know the same things about me. It’s pretty scary, really.
If something happens and it could have been prevented with reasonable comment moderation (like at CTC) that’s on you & the OPC to some extent if nothing is done. Even if you just shut off comments you would still have your say and no one would be at risk but you.
It’s not the church, but you honestly see no wisdom in inserting more church-like standards?
LikeLike
Erik by Appalled, my session follows Old Life. Can’t say they read everything. But they read it. They don’t see a problem. They distinguish Old Life from the church. Imagine that.
LikeLike
“One concern I have is that what goes on here could someday end in physical violence”
If only.
LikeLike
“We”?
Erik by Appalled, do you apply church-like standards to everything you do and every forum in which you participate? Email? Facebook? Reading books? Watching movies?
Erik by pietist. All this time at Old Life and you still don’t have a clue about 2k.
Physical violence. Another pietist rationale. You may be weaker than you think.
LikeLike
Darryl – Erik by Appalled, ever considered that you were the one who thought there was more than “just buds” and felt betrayed when that’s all it was?
A/E – It’s possible. That’s why I want neutral parties to weigh in on what goes on here.
Don’t you think it’s a bit odd that those four guys (used to be a few more) never disagree with you or take you to task publicly? Is that normal. If you enjoy disagreement, why do they never give you any? 5 grown men agree on every point of religion and politics? That’s where I get the “cult of personality” theme.
They’ve also been highly offended that I’ve changed sides and taken you to task. That also resembles a cult rallying around their charismatic leader.
LikeLike
Sean, stop — it hurts when I laugh so, er…violently.
LikeLike
Erik by Appalled, ever consider that Muddy has disagreed with me repeatedly and still hasn’t given up jazz. Ever consider that Zrim mocks me about cats and bow-ties, and ribs the OPC about contemporary worship? Ever consider that Chortles is desperate in the PCA for some collegiality?
You thought it was a club. They are offended I think over the way you have reacted since having your comments limited and deemed uninteresting. You took it personally and going to church officers is just one way of trying to be taken seriously.
Man up. You loved the banter here until the slightest pinch. Now you have a pietist makeover and renounce your former ways and all your friends. And then you come back. And then you go away. And then you come back. . .
For the record, I wish I were charismatic. I wish I could begin sentences with “look.” I got providential help with writing books. But I’m still the insecure kid from the armpit of Bucks County.
So (see, not look), for the record, you’re wrong yet again.
LikeLike
Darryl – Erik by Appalled, do you apply church-like standards to everything you do and every forum in which you participate?
A/E – Good question. I would point to James 3 and my challenge to you to maybe consider giving up your ordination.
As far as your Session goes, that’s why I complained to your Presbytery. You’re a member of your Session. Maybe I was being a bad Presbyterian, but, hey, I’m not a Presbyterian.
Some of what will be on trial here, if it goes that direction, is 2K — that’s why it could be historic. It’s bigger than just you and me.
Taming the Tongue
1 “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. 2 For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body. 3 If we put bits into the mouths of horses so that they obey us, we guide their whole bodies as well. 4 Look at the ships also: though they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. 5 So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things.
How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire! 6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life,a and set on fire by hell. 7 For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, 8 but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. 10 From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers,c these things ought not to be so. 11 Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and salt water? 12 Can a fig tree, my brothers, bear olives, or a grapevine produce figs? Neither can a salt pond yield fresh water.”
I’ve said a lot and I need to go coach cross country & then go to work so I’ll let what I’ve written today settle, like yesterday. The floor belongs to you guys. If the conversation dies out, so be it, if I check tomorrow and there are more responses, questions, or challenges, I can continue on. Thanks for the engagement.
One more thought – I read “New Horizons”. You have plenty of “pietists” in the OPC, and I don’t think that’s bad.
LikeLike
(One more since I just saw this)
Darryl – You thought it was a club. They are offended I think over the way you have reacted since having your comments limited and deemed uninteresting. You took it personally and going to church officers is just one way of trying to be taken seriously.
Erik – I was wrong to get offended when you limited comments when I was debating with Greg, especially since I am suggesting you do that very thing now. I apologize for that, you were on the right track and I helped to derail that. I was in the heat of battle and took offense.
That honestly has nothing to do with my complaint, though. If it did, wouldn’t my complaint be that you wrongly censored me, not that you need to do more censoring?
In other words, if that’s what you and those guys think is going on, that’s not logical. I’ve honestly just had a change of heart about what goes on here and remorse that I was a part of it for so long. I’ve continued to be aggressive — against what used to be “my side” — because I think you guys are so off base, so I understand their (and your) reaction against me. Try to separate the message from the messenger, as hard as that is.
LikeLike
Erik by Appalled, and tell us how James 3 applies to you. What recent email exchanges have you had? Are you on Facebook? Do you read books or watch movies that violate James 3?
LikeLike
Erik by Appalled, “That honestly has nothing to do with my complaint, though.”
Ever heard of mixed motives?
Ever watched a Coen Brothers’ movie (or will that also get me in trouble since some of their movies are rated — wait for it — R?)?
Ever engaged in self-examination?
LikeLike
Darryl,
If my self-assessment means anything, it’s gotten better since I switched sides. Still a long ways to go, though. Not on Facebook. If you think I offend people who debate theology every day, just imagine what I do to amateurs on Facebook (not pretty…).
If by e-mail exchanges you mean with you and these other guys, that’s why I’ve insisted that church officers be copied in. No point in just being mad and ugly with each other. That accomplishes nothing and just makes matters worse.
I know you’re ticked off right now, but what if what I am saying has validity. Could you envision the next 20-30 years of your life being radically different than what’s come before and could that be a good thing for you & the people who matter to you? Who says the course we’re on is always the best one and the one we have to stay on?
What if Darryl with all his brains was a more positive, sincere, encouraging person to others in ALL facets of his life?
LikeLike
Darryl,
I’m not a credible accuser on movies and that’s why it is no part of my complaint. Others can take that up if they wish.
My standard is caution and some degree of discretion in making recommendations to others. I’ve been terrible on both counts in the past.
There are tons of sexual traps out there for Christian men and movies are but one of them.
LikeLike
Erik by Appalled, “What if Darryl with all his brains was a more positive, sincere, encouraging person to others in ALL facets of his life?”
Boring.
Was Jesus positive, sincere, and encouraging?
LikeLike
Eric doing what he says he is going to do? He is an unstoppable Terminator of broken vows at this point. As the great Kylie Reese once said: You still don’t get it, do you? He’ll break his vows! That’s what he does! That’s ALL he does! You can’t stop him! He’ll wade through past promises and break every single one of them.
Now that is over with…
I have said in the past, a little eye rolling behind someone’s back goes a long way. Not every distasteful thing said by my uncle deserves a complaint to presbytery. Just with any Steely Dan album, not every song is going to be “Reelin’ in the Years”. But to enjoy Reelin’ you are going to have to put up with “Peg” or “Rose Darlin'”. I am certainly not going to waste my time or energy writing ABC Records about how I use to be a fan but “Third World Man” was a bridge too far. Have you considered none of this is worth getting worked up about and that perhaps this is fueled by you taking this all way way way too personal and seriously. But, that’s like my opinion, man. I know.
In a related note, I was in the record store the other day and saw “The Nightfly” LP in the bargain bin. Of course I picked it up and of course I enjoyed it. Fantastic album.
LikeLike
“I know you’re ticked off right now”
How about since March? How long, O Lord, how long?
LikeLike
Jed Paschall :”DG, Welcome back… Sorry we trashed the place while you were gone”.
not sure you need to apologize ,he mentioned before that he enjoys watching cat fights.
Muddy Gravel: “It’s not for his good, it’s more of your bullying”
not acknowledging anything credible in what Erik said = makes you look less credible
Kent: “It’s only sad when this kind of place gets boring…”
probably that is the standard: is it boring? =then sinful
Kevin:” Really Uninteresting; Interesting;Briefly Interesting”
your version of 2K?
LikeLike
One more and then I really have to go.
Some observations about the “inner circle” of which I used to be apart.
* Very talented guys
* Wickedly funny guys
* All outsiders
* All contrarians
* All sincere believers (as far as I can tell)
* All serious tempers when challenged or offended
* All good debaters
In short, all these guys are valuable members of a consistory or session — IF they’re in the minority. A church where one of these guys is the ONLY elder or a church where ALL these guys are elders is likely a nightmare.
It’s certainly the most unique, interesting, and dangerous group I’ve ever been a part of in 45 years of life and some of the guys I ran with in high school were real characters.
LikeLike
DGHart: Boring. Was Jesus positive, sincere, and encouraging?
Jesus can be said to be always ‘ positive , sincere, encouraging’ because He was perfectly righteous in all His dealings ,thankfully for us, else we’re doomed
LikeLike
a dot, is this positive? Pretty sure it’s sincere. Doesn’t sound encouraging.
LikeLike
WHIPLASH ALERT! BULL$H!T ALERT!
Just a day or two ago on this thread you contradicted almost every statement made here:
* Very talented guys
* Wickedly funny guys
* All outsiders
* All contrarians
* All sincere believers (as far as I can tell)
* All serious tempers when challenged or offended
* All good debaters
In short, all these guys are valuable members of a consistory or session…
In fact, you questioned (in the last days or weeks) the character, veracity, ethics, Xian profession, value (implying absolute doom and detriment) to local churches, and even (amazingly) the sexual persuasion of some or all of this “group”. Anyone who can read who still gives any credence to your toxic effusions is a fool and a dupe.
LikeLike
a dot, is this positive?
DG – truth is ALWAYS positive.
Positive= explicitly stated, stipulated, or expressed; stated; express; emphatic;confident in opinion or assertion; fully assured; without relation to or comparison with other things; not relative or comparative; absolute; downright; out-and-out
I’ll have to go look up ‘encouraging’ again for the exact wording – but the principle in the word has to do with spurring one on to a course of action
LikeLike
Bob,
The judizers would have you get circumcised and resetup the temple for sacrifices. You are saying the NC community can’t have feast days or ordinances. Those are two different ideas. Clearly the new covenant community can have ordinances. Examples in the Acts council. You just assume the same thing can’t happen regarding calendars and holy days now. This is an assumption which the NC does not prohibit.
LikeLike
morning cw, I think I might have misunderstood your temporary name change the other day, thinking it Spanish, but I think it might actually have been Italian? so, maybe I picked out the wrong song just for you today ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh7ATWk15fA
LikeLike
DGH: d4, and so does every pastor and elder who has a Facebook page get similar scrutiny?
Not sure which of my comments this is in reference to, but probably not. I think that might have been the point I was getting at.
LikeLike
a, yes, absolutely, I totally yield to your superior knowledge of the situation. It’s like worldview – who needs actual knowledge?
Would you help me write a brief this week?
LikeLike
Muddy: Would you help me write a brief this week?
sure, just let me know when and how I can help!
LikeLike
Comment of the day on ESPN: could you imagine if they made Curtis Strange play a few holes and exempting others under these conditions? Would have needed to rebuild the locker room.
LikeLike
a., (who actually — ironically — has a better sense of humor than many here) thanks for noticing. I have Italian, Spanish, French, and Anglo variants to deploy as appropriate.
LikeLike
Erik,
1) This is what I took to be extremely well-stated- I like it more each time I re-read it:
As Christians we take a stand for the truth wherever we find ourselves — in the church, in our homes, in our workplaces, in the voting booth, in the public sphere as we feel led. We’re the same guy all the time. It’s really simple.
And when others do likewise, we don’t harass them for following Scripture and their consciences. We pray for them, support them, and maybe occasionally appeal to them if we think they’re a little off.
2) This is somewhat complexly ironic statement is what I took issue with, although I on re-reading it could be taken as a compliment as well and I think your main point was contra the so-called inner circle:
And with the addition of Kevin the Catholics are coming off so much better of late that I’m about ready to convert. Pitiful.
Whatever the case, no harm done. I think the grumpiness around here is just rubbing off on me. Just wish the interpersonal arguments could take place via email.
3) I do have a problem with the amount of space given to Catholics here to proselytize. Darryl asks for it, though, by writing on Catholicism so often
Entirely fair – I for one am not intentionally trying to proselytize, and if people would stop raising Catholic issues unnecessarily, or making untruthful statements about the RCC, I’d be happy to just comment on issues and learn. I have a perspective (worldview if you like) which informs my thoughts, so at times I’ll explain things from that perspective- I don’t think DG has a problem with that.
Muddy – Newark has made the fastest transition from total newbie to Assistant to the Manager. Social engineer indeed.
Well, I’ve invested .001% of the time on this blog you have, but a significant portion of my free time over the last month. I like the blog, think DG is making a decent contribution in providing the forum, and don’t like seeing it turn into interpersonal bickering.
I acknowledge minimal standing, ignore it if you like.
LikeLike
And to answer the question raised by the post title “When Did Christian America End?” — well, obviously on this thread in the last few days if not before.
LikeLike
“Wickedly funny guys”. Roger that.
Fwiw, DGH, in his own inimitable style, is the classic provocateur-extraordinaire, as good professors are. He, and many of the commenters here (including outsiders – thank you Kevin and TVD, in particular), makes me reconsider issues from new and different perspectives. Incisive points, mixed with piss/vinegar and a fair bit of wit, and never boring.
LikeLike
D.G.,
Never did associate America with OT Israel. Plus I find the question irrelevant because all have sinned. Certainly that was written to apply to individuals, but since nations are made of individuals, there is no reason to question the fact that all nations sin.
The question regarding economic exploitation is this: Are we willing to speak out against it and suffer the necessary changes to eliminate it? The answers to that question tells us about the love of money that exists in all of us.
LikeLike
“resetup the temple for sacrifices”
sort of like priests who perform the mass?
LikeLike
d4, that’s what I thought.
LikeLike
kevin, so far I appreciate your comments even if I reserve the right to disagree.
LikeLike
Hart,
Can’t recall the last time I took some turtle doves to sacrifice on the altar. That is all I wod be as to afford. Anyway, one sacrifice which is eternal present which we join into is the teaching of Mass. We get to transcend time and space. The vail is open for everyone to be present for the real deal not OT shadows pointing forward to it.
LikeLike
Curt, it’s the implication of what you’re saying since the NT writers and our Lord did not kvetch about the economic injustice of their day (including Christ’s healing of the guy with slaves’ slave — servant; Luke 7). No mention of economic exploitation there.
So you need to go to the OT prophets who were warning the Israelites that they weren’t following OT teaching. So if you go there, you’re going in the direction of America is the New Israel.
LikeLike
Petros, thank you, thank you very much.
LikeLike
mtx, but Christ’s sacrifice was once for all. The Supper is in remembrance of Christ’s death. It’s not a representation or in older iterations a redoing of Christ’s sacrifice. The Reformers weren’t stupid.
LikeLike
Curt Day:The question regarding economic exploitation is this: Are we willing to speak out against it and suffer the necessary changes to eliminate it? The answers to that question tells us about the love of money that exists in all of us.
but Curt, isn’t what DG was asking in this post – are we caring about the murder of human God image- bearers?
I also wonder why more Christians have not been outraged…dying with the help of doctors in Oregon is growing….Roe v. Wade
LikeLike
Hart,
I am quite aware the Reformed churches do not hold I the traditional view, as you are quite aware(I’m sure) that we don’t believe there are more than one sacrifice of Christ, so what is the point of the talk here? How about we get back to someone providing the biblical arguments for Sola Scriptura? Still believe it is a manmade tradition not taught in the Scriptures over here. Do you still believe that is an oxymoron?
LikeLike
Here is my response to Sean’s Biblical passages he wanted me to look at. You are will come to take over.
MichaelTX
Posted July 14, 2015 at 11:14 pm | Permalink
Sean,
I combined the last two of my posts over in “The Court Gives…” Maybe posts 1533 and 1535.
Let me see if I can go through those Scripture passages you wanted me to see. I will put my thoughts on them and maybe we can see if they exclude me believe in Apostolic Traditions that do not contradict what is taught in Scripture, but not found in Scripture. This is what I see you must provide Biblical warrant for. If the Scriptures anywhere teach that I am to reject Apostolic Traditions that I can’t be deduce or explicitly found in Scripture, then Sola Scriptura wins. Remember we both believe no Tradition can be received that contradicts Scripture. You just believe the Church can’t teach as true doctrine and practice what can’t be deduced or explicitly found the Scripture. This is what is in question. That from your Sola Scriptura position you must prove from Scripture Alone, because it is you who are limiting where you get your deduced or explicitly received doctrines from.
2 Peter 1:16-21Revised Standard Version (RSV)
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son,[a] with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
I am not sure where you are coming from in this passage excluding Apostolic Traditions, because the verse 21 in this passage does not limit itself to the written Word. “…men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. ” The people who heard them would of course require that what they were saying was “in accord” with the Scripture and Covenants, but these men were always saying things that weren’t previously contained in Scripture. Therefor the hearers were not “deducing or explicitly receiving” teachings from Scripture, so if the hearers believed in Sola Scriptura they would have rejected the extra biblical parts of what the one sent from God with a message to give His people. This passage does clearly point out the importance the historic truth of what the Apostles witness. If
this “You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place…” is what you are talking about, those of us who believe in Sacred Traditions believe this to. What it does not say is “only pay attention”. That would make it teach Sola Scriptura.
2 Timothy 3:16Revised Standard Version (RSV)
16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Quite agreed with everything in this passage. All Scripture absolutely true and is “profitable” or “useful” as some translations put it. It does not say Scripture is the “only” thing inspired by God though which would be also “profitable” or “useful”. In verse ten just before this Paul points out the importance of more than receiving what is written by him, saying “Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, 11 my persecutions, my sufferings, what befell me at Antioch, at Ico′nium, and at Lystra, what persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. 12 Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived.” He later in the chp 4 says, “14 Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will requite him for his deeds. 15 Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message. ” This “message” was not completely inscripturated yet, therefore Paul was speaking Ill of this man for not receiving unwritten Apostolic Tradition and fighting against it.
Galatians 1:8Revised Standard Version (RSV)
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
This is why the Catholic Church has pronounced some Reformed beliefs and adherence outside of the faith. We believe it is outside of the Gospel preached by the Apostles, including Paul. Either way, don’t know how this one teaches Sola Scriptura. You may have to explain. The Gospel wasn’t received by Scripture when those he was writing to first believed it, they received it from Apostolic Tradition. I can’t see Paul condemning how he regularly preached here. He is only pointing out the Gospel he has taught is the only true Gospel. It should be believed.
1 Corinthians 14:37-38Revised Standard Version (RSV)
37 If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. 38 If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized.
To start with Paul is specifically speaking about his commands the in Corinthians, but of course I have no problem with this applying to all the commands or statements of the NT books or OT for that matter. This still does not exclude believing Apostolic Traditions that aren’t contradicted by any Scripture of the Old or New Testaments. It is also in the next chapter which Paul points out the importance of the fact that he teaches Apostolic Tradition saying, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.” Both the “I delivered to you” and ” I also recieved” have the Greek root “παρέ” and “παρέδωκα” was translated by St Jerome in the Vulgate as “tradidi(I delivered) enam(for) vobis(you)”. Obviously “tradidi” is the origin and root of our English “tradition”, our word meaning something handed down or passed on. Another thing to notice is, Paul has no problem admitting the Church of God existed, and people were even dying now as members of it, before he even knew the Gospel much less had wrote anything down as an Apostle.
2 Thessalonians 2:15Revised Standard Version (RSV)
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
Really don’t know how you are excluding the possibility of Apostolic Traditions being received and believed with this verse. Should we believe all Apostolic Traditions or just the ones we can find in the NT writings? This verse seem to say we aren’t limited by just what can be found in the NT to me.
LikeLike
a full-stop- Kevin:” Really Uninteresting; Interesting;Briefly Interesting” – your version of 2K?
Muddy’s already granted me 3k status and said I’m in “another category” (not sure whether from just tom, or in general), so I’ll defer to his superior standing as Assistant Manager / participant categorizer and accept.
Petros – reconsider issues from new and different perspectives – as a result of reading well-expressed thoughts on this blog (less so the uncharitable “jokes”), I am aware of a great many things I wasn’t previously, in my own thinking and in that of others. I am already permanently grateful for it. It facilitates the sort of interactions that were probably uncommon outside of scholarly circles before the internet. Hats off to DG.
DG – kevin, so far I appreciate your comments even if I reserve the right to disagree – muito obrigado a voce, estao meus sentimentos tambem. Did I read you spent some time in Brazil? Onde e por quanto tempo?
LikeLike
Tex, did God promise to protect his word or his oral tradition? Which is more liable to twisting, speculation, nefarious manipulation, and well-intentioned (but horribly wrong) modification — scripture or tradition?
LikeLike
Michael, I’m pretty sure the ‘prophecy of scripture’ in 20 sets the context for ‘prophecy’ in 21
It does not say Scripture is the “only” thing inspired by God though which would be also “profitable” or “useful”
Prove what you have in RC is apostolic oral tradition and prove RC apostolic succession
Gal. 1:8 Again, the burden is on you to prove your deposit is both apostolic and NOT in contradiction to inscripturated tradition. We (prot) argue it is. Ex: Mediation of Mary and Saints eclipsing mediatorial role of Jesus. The solas are polemical against Rome.
1 cor 14 and 2 thess 2:15. Established simultaneity(written and oral) and, again, you’ve made apostolic claim for deposit and apostolic succession of persons. Prove it. You can’t. It’s a faith claim.
Sorry to be brief, I’m running around. But there’s the gist.
LikeLike
Cw,
I’ve already admitted tradition is not as easy to decern as Scripture. That does chance the fact that Christ and the Apostles impacted the world with more than the written NT book. Please try to make the case from Scripture that I should reject all Apostolic Traditions that do not contradict Scripture, but only can’t be found in the NT books.
Sean,
Will respond when I get a chance later.
LikeLike
“but only can’t be found in the NT books.”
Where I come from that’s what we call a “big but”.
LikeLike
Trying to get a real Protestant to imagine that scripture is not enough/suficient is like saying to a fish: “OK, what if there was no water? How would that work?”
LikeLike
@ MTX: I doubt you’ll get any takers. It has been mentioned once or twice that the form (oral v written) is not the problem. Authenticity is the problem.
In other words, my position is that the set of Apostolic oral traditions is empty.
LikeLike
cw o unificatorio-
(in portuguese those final Os make a “u” sound)
[Kevin:] I do not think those given authority by a religious group should publicly or even systematically express positions which are contrary to Christianity
[cw:] KiN, will you hold Roman Catholics to this standard? I ask because (and you may not know this) the RC has about the widest imaginable range of doctrine, practice, and social engagement of any religious body on Earth. […] What’s the Roman track record on dealing with error? Is the on-the-ground application of the massive and malleable doctrinal and procedural corpus even possible given the diversity of the “Church”?
Yes, of course- anyone who isn’t faithful or practicing should not have any public voice within or outside of the RCC (on RCC matters). The requirements to be practicing are quite clear. The faith is well-defined. Probably fewer than 10% of US Catholics fall in this category – but the RCC isn’t a democracy or redefinable in each generation.
Sure, there is room for diverse applications (e.g., economic conditions); but there are certainly groups out of hand right now, in need of discipline. I’m ‘covering no nakedness.’ The Vatican has disciplined the Neocats for an improper liturgy, and is slowly dealing with other problems. Toughest (or impossible) will be reforming US politicians.
LikeLike
Cw,
Is it not true that at one poin in church history all means of receiving the Apostolic Traditions was unwritten?
If the fish could believe the Traditions of the Jews they would know of a time there was no water. Can you admit the Church operated and baptized into the Church with no written Gospel to test Church teachers/leaders against?
LikeLike
The earliest church(es) had the OT (which foreshadows the Gospel) and living apostles and Paul, the one born out of time. The living apostles wrote the NT/Gospels. See how easy that was?
And sorry to say, but Peter was kind of minor dude compared to Paul who rightly busted his chops. At least that’s what the book says.
LikeLike
I, too, was idolizing DGH until one day I made an ugly discovery. Henceforth I will never use an academic’s picture as my wallpaper until I know he digs this: http://youtu.be/vmgelf8kpmE
LikeLike
Jeff,
Are saying it is quite easy for me to look in the written Apostolic Tradition, the NT books, and see the Church operated not excluding unwritten Apostolic Traditions and you don’t have a decent or easy case for one of the principle tenants of the Reformed faiths from Scripture, Sola Scriptura?
LikeLike
Cw,
Can you please show me in the OT where we can even deduce we need to be “baptized for the forgiveness of” our sins or “do this in rememberance of Me”? Or be baptized to enter the new covenant community? Who the Apostles were is part of the Apostolic Tradition you would have to know apart from the NT texts if that is the way you are going to find the NT texts.
LikeLike
Chorts,
Trying to get a real Protestant to imagine that scripture is not enough/suficient is like saying to a fish: “OK, what if there was no water? How would that work?”
Roman Catholics – the African lungfish of Christendom.
LikeLike
Goofy stuff, Tex. Apostles received direct revelation. Francis or SSPX do/did not.
LikeLike
Let’s go wih what you have now clearly said then, “misguided”. Can you please provide biblical mandate that providing a play presenting the life and death of Christ is not possibly Holy Spirit guided?
MTX, the onus is actually to demonstrate biblical warrant for piety plays. I don’t see one. I see sermons, sacraments, worship, and discipline.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 18, 2015 at 8:50 am | Permalink
Mermaid, “Christians sure thought it was their duty to rescue abandoned babies.”
Is that story in the Acts of the Apostles or the apocrypha?>>>>>
So, for you the history of the Church ended when the Gospel was taken over the threshold and into the Jewish, Samaritan, and Gentile world? Close curtain.
That may explain why you have so little interest in preaching the Gospel and ministering to the poor.
Or am I mistaken? There is some reason that your minuscule denomination is not reaching the ends of the earth. So, what options do the elect really have, then, if they cannot find you on any spiritual map?
Maybe God will have to just go ahead and elect those you despise, namely pietists, Pentecostals, and Papists.
LikeLike
Not getting much of substance so I think I can wrap this up (you never know for sure).
Kevin (quoting me) – “And with the addition of Kevin the Catholics are coming off so much better of late that I’m about ready to convert. Pitiful.”
A/E – I wasn’t saying you were pitiful, I was saying those who were opposing you were losing and I thought that was pitiful.
Chortles – “In fact, you questioned (in the last days or weeks) the character, veracity, ethics, Xian profession, value (implying absolute doom and detriment) to local churches, and even (amazingly) the sexual persuasion of some or all of this “group”. Anyone who can read who still gives any credence to your toxic effusions is a fool and a dupe.”
A/E – Nothing inconsistent. When you guys get together (in cult mode) it’s pretty ugly. That’s why I say all of you together (and me, back in the day) on a Consistory or Session would be a disaster. You guys would all over keeping a worship band out of the church (good), but if someone came to you all with a practical problem in their marriage or with their faith I think you would just all stare at each other dumbfounded as to what to do (bad). Interesting, eccentric guys, very little Christian maturity. Sorry.
Ask the group about the “gay” thing. The guy I had the issue with can tell you about it if he chooses. As I said, he had an explanation that I accept. Not sure why you keep bringing it up. He made a comment to me centered on the ejaculation of semen at what I considered to be a very odd time and place.
I’m content to let someone else hammer this rock for now pending any more flare ups from the inner circle.
Amish,
Your a good Steely Dan fan. Potential church officer? Not so much. Anger issues like all these guys.
LikeLike
@mtx I posted a response to your question about sola scriptura whose brilliance and clarity would have ended 500 years of debate and brought Pope Francis into the reformed fold. Unfortunately, it broke that thread. It was only like 50,000 words, so I’m not sure why it caused a problem.
In short (or not), to make the biblical case for Sola Scriptura, it is crucial to properly understand what is entailed by Sola Scriptura. First, Sola Scriptura is not a rejection of tradition, the magisterium, or need for teachers/authority in the church. Sola Scriptura is not the view that the bible is our only information about religious matters. The westminster divines references the ECF and medieval theologians freely for example. The Belgic confession contains its famous section on the two books of nature. SS is the recognition that all of these things must be judged in light of scripture, but that scripture (and scripture alone) is never to be judged.
Further, Sola scriptura is not the view that you need a bible verse that states X in order to believe X. Hermeneutics can be complicated, and a proper understanding of this or that issue may emerge from a narrative that is woven across books (and perhaps even testaments). While the bible represents many authors, the final author of scripture is the holy spirit. As the bible has one author, it is to be interpreted in light of its other parts as a coherent whole.
Finally, a related reformed understanding of God’s Word is the perspicuity of scripture. This is not the view that all of the scripture is equally plain (indeed our confession says exactly the opposite). Instead, it is the view that those things one must know to be saved is sufficiently clear. Sin may lead us to reject this, but our rejection of that teaching (that we need to repent of our sins, place our faith in Christ, be baptized, and worship him alone) is not because scripture is so gosh-darn complicated.
So what is the biblical case for Sola Scriptura? I would say its foundation is the example of our savior’s use of scripture. While the OT certainly emerged from an oral tradition of sayings by the prophets, the inscripturated word was the gold standard by which traditions from God and traditions of men were to be distinguished. While the OT leaders certainly had authority, that authority could err and was to be corrected by scripture. Similarly, the NT emerged from the sayings and writings of our Lord and the apostles. Those sayings that were inscripturated from the basis of our only final authority on matters of faith and morals. Thus the NT refers to the foundation of the church as being the prophets and apostles with Christ as the chief corner stone. There are certainly other traditions that have emerged and are valuable. There are other traditions that are less so. These traditions must be judged on the basis of scripture if we are to follow the example of our savior. When he was tempted by the devil and challenged by the Jewish authorities, his refrain was, “It is written”. The inscripturated tradition played a foundational role (dare I say “only”) as the final authority. We also see in the epistles, cross references to one another (take for example Peter) and the general use of “scriptures” and “word of God” elsewhere in the NT indicating a holistic of God’s revelation comprised of what we have come to understand as the old and new testaments.
Concomitantly, we see in the NT that believers are given really quite wide latitude in terms of practice. While there are moral absolute, not every moral question has an absolute answer (it is sinful if your conscience accuses you as Paul notes). Paul’s insistence on Christian liberty explicitly restricts the authority church leaders have over Christians (requiring fasts, feast days, and other holiday celebrations is an illegitimate exercise of power on the part of church leaders). That being said, we see in the OT that God is really quite particular about how he is to be worshiped…thus the regulative principal which states that we are only to worship him as he has decreed. If he doesn’t tell us to do it, then it really shouldn’t be part of our worship service. For example, if he wanted us to bow to his presence in the communion bread and wine, he would have told us so. As we see from John, churches can fall into grievous errors, and as we see from the example of Elijah, being the biggest and most material successful is not evidence of holiness or being the true heir.
The church, as imperfect as she is, is the vessel by which the scriptures have been passed down (just as Israel was the vessel of the OT). The imperfect, fallible church is also an authority to which we must submit, though this submission is contingent. The heart of the CtC apologetic is that the belief that if our submission is contingent, that means that our real submission is to ourselves. In other words, if my conscience or my judgement is the standard by which I decide whether to submit to some teaching of the church, then I’m not submitting to the church, I’m submitting to my conscience (or private judgement, or my interpretation of scripture). I think this reasoning is really quite faulty.
In scripture we are commanded to submit to all sorts of people and offices (wives to husbands, slaves to masters, subjects to kings, one to another, children to parents, believers to elders/bishops/presbyters, etc…), but it is clear that in each of these cases, that submission is contingent. As Peter noted when he was told to stop preaching the gospel by the authorities, he had to obey God rather than man. If scripture is calling us to something other than a charade, then contingent submission is real submission. Thus my submission to the church is contingent on the church not requiring me to violate my conscience or burdening me with extra-biblical requirements (as was forbidden in Paul’s letter to the Colossians for example). That doesn’t undermine the authority of the church or mean that my submission is really to myself. The final judge (and only final judge) is only the scriptures.
LikeLike
Cw,
No arguments with those statements. Apart from the “goofy stuff” one. It was you who said that it could all be deduced from the OT shadows though. Which you did not answer those questions. The NT books are received through Apostolic Traditions not totally contained in the NT Scripture, though. Who the Apostles are and what their message was was not completely contain in the OT certainly. This is completely received from the Traditions received from the Apostles, including their claim to direct revelations from God.
LikeLike
Mrs. Webfoot
Posted July 18, 2015 at 3:02 pm | Permalink
Maybe God will have to just go ahead and elect those you despise, namely pietists, Pentecostals, and Papists.
Heh heh. That’s the part they don’t figure into their calculations.
LikeLike
And I do stand by my contention that the #1 way to make sense of 2K at Old Life is that….
they’re liberals.
LikeLike
Hey all,
Put together some good posts using Scripture to argue for Sola Scriptura and I will get back to them sometime soon. I’m sitting down around a BBQ pit with my fam enjoying the TX heat and a couple cold beers.
Peace,
Michael
LikeLike
Watch the contractions, Tex. I said they had the OT and (AND) the apostles.
LikeLike
Jed Paschall
Posted July 18, 2015 at 4:40 am | Permalink
Tom,
Come off of it man, you have some good things to say, but impugning those who are substantially in agreement with Darryl as somehow intellectually or spiritually weak is, well weak sauce.
It’s a very bizarre theology that attacks the defenders of Biblical morality and lends comfort to the enemies of it. There’s something craven about appeasing the Harvard faculty lounge elite and joining in the sneering at the poor schlubs trying to keep their kids from growing up in a moral sewer.
The enemy is Jim Wallis, not Sarah Palin, the PCUSA, not Pope Francis.
LikeLike
“Or am I mistaken? ”
Yes. About everything and yet so proud. Funny how ignorance and pride seem to go hand in hand.
You can read up on the OPC missionary efforts here. I’ve linked it so you can correct your repeated mischaracterizations of this denomination. I wonder how the ratio of missionaries to church members of the tiny 30,000 OPC to the RCC. In the PCA, the number is 500 members per longterm foreign missionary in MTW. This of course does not count the number of missionaries individual congregations support independently or through independent mission organizations.
LikeLike
TVHS, should we ease up on the Mormons and Muslims, too?
LikeLike
TVHS, the law has two tables, one mostly about worship and theology, the other about everything else. Do you worship God?
LikeLike
@tvd
That’s funny, I thought the fight was not against flesh and blood?
LikeLike
cw l’unificateur
Posted July 18, 2015 at 3:23 pm | Permalink
TVHS, should we ease up on the Mormons and Muslims, too?
cw l’unificateur
Posted July 18, 2015 at 3:25 pm | Permalink
TVHS, the law has two tables, one mostly about worship and theology, the other about everything else. Do you worship God?
Do the Mormons and Muslims? Your answer is pivotal.
LikeLike
No, nein, nyet, nei, non, oxi, unhh-uh…
LikeLike
TVHS, are you a pagan with a cultural-utilitarian preference for certain elements of Xian morality? Your answer is mega pivotal.
LikeLike
cw l’unificateur
Posted July 18, 2015 at 3:30 pm | Permalink
No, nein, nyet, nei, non, oxi, unhh-uh…
cw l’unificateur
Posted July 18, 2015 at 3:35 pm | Permalink
TVHS, are you a pagan with a cultural-utilitarian preference for certain elements of Xian morality? Your answer is mega pivotal.
They don’t worship God? Interesting.
The next question is whether Jim Wallis and the PCUSA do, since they teach contrary to the Bible and contrary to the natural law.
“But what do you think about this? A man with two sons told the older boy, ‘son, go out and work in the vineyard today.’ The son answered, ‘No, I won’t go,’ but later he changed his mind and went anyway. Then the father told the other son, ‘You go,’ and he said, ‘Yes, sir, I will.’ But he didn’t go. Which of the two was obeying his father?”
They replied, “The first, of course.”
Then Jesus explained his meaning: “I assure you, corrupt tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the Kingdom of God before you do. For John the Baptist came and showed you the way to life, and you didn’t believe him, while tax collectors and prostitutes did. And even when you saw this happening, you refused to turn from your sins and believe him.”
LikeLike
TVD: “The enemy is Jim Wallis, not Sarah Palin, ”
DGH has spilled a lot of ink over the years explaining that American Evangelism is inherently unstable and is as likely to throw up a Palin as a Wallis. A trailer is a trailer, regardless of what neighborhood you put it in.
LikeLike
(A different) Dan
Posted July 18, 2015 at 4:39 pm | Permalink
TVD: “The enemy is Jim Wallis, not Sarah Palin, ”
DGH has spilled a lot of ink over the years explaining that American Evangelism is inherently unstable and is as likely to throw up a Palin as a Wallis. A trailer is a trailer, regardless of what neighborhood you put it in.
If you can’t make the necessary distinction between simpletons like Palin and quislings like Wallis, we have nothing to talk about.
LikeLike
D.G.,
The question is why they made no such reference to economic justice. This is where we need to pay attention to the different historical contexts to see if economic justice is an implied concern. A refusal to examine if such an implied concern exists presupposes that any different historical context between then and now is moot.
Considering the OT concern for justice, , including economic justice, such an assumption appears to be reckless. We should note that the OT concern for justice reached past God’s covenant people.
LikeLike
A.,
Is D.G. talking about the murder of any humans or just some? And what about when that murder is carried out by some society or state indirectly by how that society or state maintains its way of life?
LikeLike
TVD: “If you can’t make the necessary distinction between simpletons like Palin and quislings like Wallis, we have nothing to talk about.”
Why is the distinction necessary? Why can’t I say a pox on both of them? (I do.) They are both just particularly exuberant exemplars of the American Civil Religion.
LikeLike
muddy, jazz, blues, it’s all African American. Give me that German techno minimalism.
LikeLike
Mermaid, psshaw. I teach the history of Christianity for a living.
The issue is “thus, saith the Lord.” Unless you can show mmmeeeEEEEE a biblical justification for the common good, it’s like your opinion.
LikeLike
MTX: Jeff, Are [you] saying it is quite easy for me to look in the written Apostolic Tradition, the NT books, and see the Church operated not excluding unwritten Apostolic Traditions and you don’t have a decent or easy case for one of the principle tenants of the Reformed faiths from Scripture, Sola Scriptura?
No, I’m saying it is quite easy for both of us to look in the written Apostolic Tradition, period.
We can’t look in or listen to the unwritten apostolic tradition because nobody has bothered to preserve it with any degree of integrity.
Again: Can you produce any proposition contained in the apostolic deposit that is not contained in the Scripture, with evidence that such proposition is in fact contained therein, rather than a later addition?
LikeLike
NORM!
LikeLike
Yes, my alma mater, Harvard Divinity School, has published long, positive review essays of From Graham to Palin and A Secular Faith.
Wait. . .
LikeLike
vd, t, think about Machen. Rinse. Repeat.
LikeLike
Curt, go ahead. Please note where the Israelites rampaged through the middle East in pursuit of social justice. Note away.
LikeLike
mtx, acquire this. It’ll keep you busy.
LikeLike
TVD: If you can’t make the necessary distinction between simpletons like Palin and quislings like Wallis, we have nothing to talk about.
Sure, I can see some differences. But can you see the similarities? That’s the point. We’ve taken political allegiance as a proxy for being religious co-belligerents.
Palin accepts (apparently) speaking in tongues and credo-baptism. Wallis thinks Jesus’ social teachings trump the rest of the Bible. Which one sounds more Catholic to you?
LikeLike
Jeff– trick question!!!
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted July 18, 2015 at 5:49 pm | Permalink
TVD: If you can’t make the necessary distinction between simpletons like Palin and quislings like Wallis, we have nothing to talk about.
Sure, I can see some differences. But can you see the similarities? That’s the point. We’ve taken political allegiance as a proxy for being religious co-belligerents.
Palin accepts (apparently) speaking in tongues and credo-baptism. Wallis thinks Jesus’ social teachings trump the rest of the Bible. Which one sounds more Catholic to you?
The PCUSA, et al., have perverted your religion. Palin has done no such thing. It’s a necessary distinction, not just a “difference.”
LikeLike
D.G.,
Isn’t taking such a strict approach to imitation a legalistic approach to the Scriptures? Or is it that you don’t care about anyone who is the victim of economic exploitation?
See, your position fails in two ways. First, when trying to associate any emphasis today on Social Justice to Israel and the Old Covenant, you forget or overlook the fact that the prophets preached against injustice to more than just Israel. They preached against injustice to Egypt and Babylon, just to name a couple. Thus, according to your logic, one doesn’t have to designate a nation being preached to today about social as a second Israel. Social justice was preached by prophets to more than just the covenant children.
In addition, wasn’t one of the reasons why God gave the land to Israel was because of the sins of the people there and that included injustice?
Finally, and this is the troubling failure. How is it that economic exploitation was a sin in OT Israel but is no longer a sin today? How? People are hurt, abused, and even die because of economic exploitation and your views of Israel and the Old Covenant as well as your 2k view says that such economic exploitation does not involve sin.
Your approach of being obligated to only imitating what was done in the Scriptures does not fully prepare people for following God’s Word today. The differences in historical contexts between now and then means that we need to go back to the Scriptures to see how we should apply principles from the Scriptures and some of them are abstract principles. That much of the Great Commission has been fulfilled in that the Gospel has been preached in almost every part of the world and that we now have different political structures than what was face in Biblical times tells us that we need to do more or other than just imitate what was done before.
Here is a question from the past that you never answered. Please list all of the actions that the Good Samaritan performed that were imitated from what was done in the OT when he took care of the person who was robbed.
LikeLike
That makes zero sense, Tom. Since when does Wallis have anything to do with the PCUSA? And since when do I?
Ready, fire, aim.
LikeLike
Aaannnnnd the winning comment on this thread goes to the Unificator (as usual):
And to answer the question raised by the post title “When Did Christian America End?” — well, obviously on this thread in the last few days if not before.
Somehow I missed this one, and nearly spit a whole plug of Copenhagen on the screen when I read it. Pure gold sir, pure gold.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted July 18, 2015 at 6:35 pm | Permalink
That makes zero sense, Tom. Since when does Wallis have anything to do with the PCUSA? And since when do I?
Ready, fire, aim.
I’m using Palin as an example of the religious right. I’m using PCUSA and Wallis as examples of Christian clergy who have perverted Biblical theology yet for some reason the religious right is the enemy. But forget it. This is going nowhere.
To return to Darryl’s topic, America didn’t move away from Christianity, Christianity moved away from Christianity.
LikeLike
And our point is that Palin, while a part of the political right, is a part of the religious *left*, as in an adopter of a multitude of theological innovations.
Chew on that for a bit.
LikeLike
TVD: To return to Darryl’s topic, America didn’t move away from Christianity, Christianity moved away from Christianity
No. The American Civil Religion changed, as it always has and always will. That it may have, at some point in the past, resembled a form of Christianity that you would find congenial is mere coincidence. But be patient, it may again.
LikeLike
Jeff, SDB, (anyone else interested),
I have found comments by the two of you to be most helpful.
Would you each agree the following statement reflects your thoughts? I would welcome your comments and corrections.
The distinction between the I.C. and the Filioque is that there is no scriptural support at all for the former, while the latter is implicit in Scripture and was made explicit through analysis of Scripture.
While the I.C. is not necessarily in conflict with Scripture, as there is no support for it, it would be improper to believe in it.
A few questions (I’m truly not building an argument or trying to back anyone into a corner, just trying to understand):
Is this true whether or not there is support amongst the Fathers including Augustine and Irenaeus? (which the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the I.C. at newadvent argues).
I believe we have examples of persons of undoubted sanctity who believed in it- does their sanctity provide any evidence for accepting a belief? (I’m guessing you’ll say no).
How would you deal with the Council of Jerusalem’s maintenance of the prohibition on not eating animals improperly slaughtered or containing blood? This is an action of the apostles which appears to be requiring of the Church something not required by God in N.T. times.
Can you grant there were likely apostolic writings which did not survive? Would you say the content of these writings (non-Scriptural since not surviving) would be identical to statements contained in Scripture (the meanings if not the words)?
Could they have contained explicit statements of things which Scripture leaves implicit (such as the Filioque)?
Could they have explicitly taught the I.C.? I don’t mean could God have made the I.C. a part of Scripture (I think you’d agree with the statement that he could have included it in Scripture had he wanted to)- I mean do you think (e.g.) Paul or John could in fact have written a letter which explicitly affirmed the I.C., which did not survive?
Perhaps some of this is speculative, but if you can indulge I’d appreciate it.
LikeLike
sdb @3:05
Excellent! I kept being tempted to jump in and say what you said, but not as well (and maybe with some Lutheran nuances and vocab which would distract or confuse everyone). I’m just sorry I missed the long version on the other comment thread.
LikeLike
Kevin,
Good question. The fact that IC is not in the Bible is no obstacle to believing it. Rather, it is an obstacle to the church teaching it, especially as required dogma.
SS is not a guidebook to constructing an entire system of belief, but rather a matter of church polity: What may be taught as authoritative? Only what God has said.
That said, IC may be problematic Scripturally. But let’s temporarily assume that its problems have a hypothetically solvable.
LikeLike
Curt, could you define “justice”?
LikeLike
Jeff,
Interesting, thanks- so you would view it as potentially true but unlikely (I acknowledge there are issues such as all men needing redemption which require being dealt with).
I absolutely understand your objection to requiring belief in it.
If you’re interested enough to answer the other Qs, I’d appreciate your thoughts- all have been on my mind.
LikeLike
Tom, does it help to know that during the 2008 Presidential campaign when Bill Maher suggested that Palin’s religious beliefs should keep her from office (during an interview on NPR to plug his recent “Religulous”) that some of us 2kers howled, booed and hissed?
But just because there shouldn’t be a religious test for political office as Maher implied, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a religious test for church membership. And should Palin seek membership at one of our P&R churches, she’d have a fair amount of repenting to do first.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 18, 2015 at 7:50 pm | Permalink
Tom, does it help to know that during the 2008 Presidential campaign when Bill Maher suggested that Palin’s religious beliefs should keep her from office (during an interview on NPR to plug his recent “Religulous”) that some of us 2kers howled, booed and hissed?
But just because there shouldn’t be a religious test for political office as Maher implied, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a religious test for church membership. And should Palin seek membership at one of our P&R churches, she’d have a fair amount of repenting to do first.
Palin is irrelevant. Wallis, the PCUSA, all those who have perverted Christianity–and America as a result–relevant. To Dan: The American “civil religion” was still Christian/monotheistic in its sensibilities, as it was harmonious with natural law [and of course natural law and the Bible come from the same “adorable” source].
Today, the natural law is abolished. Classical philosophy and its central question “what is good,” is abolished. Metaphysics is abolished, any higher natural order is abolished. Man is the measure of all things.
As they say about out new national religion, Morally Therapeutic Deism, God exists to make man feel good about himself.
LikeLike
TVHS, “America didn’t move away from Christianity, Christianity moved away from Christianity” is a good line, but it points to no new thing. Rome did it ages ago. The Unitarians were doing it in Colonial times. The Finneyites of all stripes were doing it nearly 200 years ago. The liberals were doing it 100 years ago in this country and earlier in Euriope. Has TVHS ever been close enough to Christianity to discernibly move away?
LikeLike
* The apostolic fathers add weight to a belief, yes.
* IC is possibly true, in the sense of confidence of less than 100% of its falsity. That’s not much, though.
* Undoubtedly there were apostolic writings. To be accepted as inspired Scripture, they would need to be accepted as such by the entire church — which for all practical purposes means the canon is closed.
Peter’s shopping lists weren’t Scripture.
* If we found and verified the authenticity of an apostolic writing, that writing would give tremendous exegetical advantage even if it were not enscripturated. First on my wish list would be more writing from James to explain why he deliberate turns Pauline phraseology on its head in Jas 2.
So yes, that could nudge the needle on IC or filioque.
And that’s another point of sola scriptura: dogma and church teachings are revisable. What would happen to the Tridentine system if a hypothetical apostolic work were found that repudiates Catholic soteriology? Seemingly, a Catholic would have to reject the apostolic teaching in favor of the CCC.
LikeLike
Tom, the American civic religion is not new. It has always been hostile to orthodoxy. Read the first amendment to the constitution, which gives men the legal right to what the natural law forbids: to worship a false god.
That legal right was practiced in spades from 1789 on, which is how we got both Wallis and Palin … And you and me.
LikeLike
“How would you deal with the Council of Jerusalem’s maintenance of the prohibition on not eating animals improperly slaughtered or containing blood? This is an action of the apostles which appears to be requiring of the Church something not required by God in N.T. times.”
The Mosaic rites were upheld for the generation after Christ until the fall of the Temple. So, you have circumcision, feasts, etc. continuing until God ends it by removing the Temple. The decision is to allow Gentile liberty, but to acknowledge the Jewish keeping of the rites until that time. In practice, the Church *at that time* should not eat meat offered to idols for the sake of the consciences of the Jews that are practicing the Mosaic rights. These aren’t commands for all time, but pastoral guidance for a generation. The command for all time is to recognize Christian liberty and love the church, which is found throughout the NT.
I think you can see how that shows the council’s authority that isn’t set in the same place as Scripture itself.
LikeLike
Sorry, I intended to address that previous comment to Kevin.
LikeLike
Hart,
I’ve actually read the BB piece before. To my rememberance it does not adres a Scriptural argument condemning Apostolic Tradition apart from what is revealed in the the NT writings. I will look at it again though just to be sure.
Zrim,
I am not the one condemning life of Christ plays as misguided. You are the one who needs to justify your judgement of others, not myself. I am judging no one. If you don think you should b involved, that is your call, but it is you who is calling those who do misguided. Put some biblical meat on that bone if you are going to stand by it. Otherwise allow Christian freedom to reign.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted July 18, 2015 at 8:23 pm | Permalink
Tom, the American civic religion is not new. It has always been hostile to orthodoxy. Read the first amendment to the constitution, which gives men the legal right to what the natural law forbids: to worship a false god.
That’s not what natural law means.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/04/primer-on-natural-law.html
[Further, the Constitution left religion to the states; read the First Amendment again–it limits only Congress.]
LikeLike
TVD, Ever read Bellah??
I first read his 1967 Daedalus article for a seminar around 1971-2. I thought then, still do, and always have, that the ACR was no friend of Orthodox Christianity. And I say that as a consistent, life long, non-libertarian right winger. Always have been happy to have Religious folks as allies (and $ contributors) in any campaign I’ve been associated with, but few show up for two campaigns in a row. But I try not to go to the same churches they frequent
LikeLike
(A different) Dan
Posted July 18, 2015 at 9:04 pm | Permalink
TVD, Ever read Bellah??
I first read his 1967 Daedalus article for a seminar around 1971-2. I thought then, still do, and always have, that the ACR was no friend of Orthodox Christianity. And I say that as a consistent, life long, non-libertarian right winger. Always have been happy to have Religious folks as allies (and $ contributors) in any campaign I’ve been associated with, but few show up for two campaigns in a row. But I try not to go to the same churches they frequent
Well, it’s all over now, I just wanted to set the record straight. When you take a clocser look at the sensibilities of the Founders’ “civil religion,” it’s a lot more Christian than given credit for, and with its recognition of a natural law, never explicitly in conflict with Biblical morality, since they are the same.
That there was a law higher than man’s was never questioned.
Unfortunately, even orthodox/Biblical morality Christians lost the only solid foundation for a polity in harmony with the Bible, natural law. By the time Protestants started rediscovering it, it was too late. We had left the culture war to the Jerry Falwells, who could only argue from the Bible, and that wasn’t good enough. We lost the ability to argue that law higher than man’s.
Sodomy became synonymous with love, the orthodox view of the Bible synonymous with hate and intolerance.
Ironically, it was liberal Christians who swung the balance, achieved the critical political mass, by finding homosexual unions somehow endorsed by the Bible, and then institutionalizing them, like the PCUSA ordaining that lesbian couple. Unfortunately, this is a structural flaw in “private” interpretation, the priesthood of all believers, or whatever you want to call it. The PCUSA’s view of the Bible is just as valid as yours, or the pope’s.
God is love. I love you, you love me, we’re a happy family…
And so it was, how Barney beat Thomas.
http://www.pcusa.org/news/2015/3/20/what-same-sex-marriage-means-presbyterians/
LikeLike
Archbishop Lefebvre has perverted yours.
LikeLike
Curt, great, I’ll take legalism.
Or maybe I have a way of being a real Christian who is not going to accept Marx’s definition of economic exploitation and who also notices that Jesus didn’t condemn the “exploitation” of his day.
Why not accept that it’s not as easy as you think it is.
Define exploitation.
Show me that God spoke against Egypt and Babylon for exploitation.
Explain why Jesus and the apostles who knew their OT didn’t measure up to your level of sanctity.
LikeLike
vd, t, why is it that people on the right like Palin and Barton don’t pervert “biblical theology” on your view? And why do you insist that yours alone is the proper understanding of Christianity and the perversions of it? The issue of your skin in this game and your lack of fidelity to your own church keeps coming up.
LikeLike
tvd-
[Further, the Constitution left religion to the states; read the First Amendment again–it limits only Congress.]
Imagine a sharply divided Senate but with a majority of the President’s party – the President could pack the SC in his favor, declare a state religion by executive order – and when a challenge arises (suggestions as to how?), the SC would confirm it.
The only way “We the people” could repeal it would be to elect a different president or institute a constitutional amendment.
(And Muddy, this is not a social engineering plan, I’m just temperamentally playful- blame my loving parents).
LikeLike
vd, t, deism is more Christian than the PCUSA? At least those Presbyterians didn’t carve up the NT the way Jefferson did (and I like Jefferson).
LikeLike
TVD, what the Founders said by way of explanation and justification for what they did may, on a charitable reading, support your reading. But the jet fuel that made the whole thing go was an inherently unstable mix of two elements: a version of Protestantism anchored in the sovereignty of individual experience and an unbounded belief in ever greater material blessings. And the former took a backseat to the latter whenever there was a conflict. People weren’t debating Aquinas, they were too busy hustling. Maybe that is an explanation for why non-gaycake bakers get so little sympathy.
LikeLike
I guess no one here is going to rise to the defense of the PCUSA, and I certainly won’t defend the national body, but I really feel for what some of the folks I know who attend the two I am familiar with are going through right now. Probably a majority in each congregation would vote to leave, but not the super majority that would be required to take their property with them (with a significant exit fee even if they could pull it off). When your family has called one Church home for four or five generations, it is hard to just leave.
LikeLike
“Further, the Constitution left religion to the states; read the First Amendment again–it limits only Congress.”
Not after the 14th amendment. Now the rights guaranteed under the constitution apply to all citizens regardless of what state they live in, so in effect state legislatures (and other government entities) have their hands tied by the 1st amendment just like congress.
LikeLike
“The PCUSA, et al., have perverted your religion.”
Yep. Maybe someone should write a book pointing out how liberalism is a different religion than Christianity?
LikeLike
@kevin
What Jeff said. Here are my own answers to your questions
I think it would be better to say that if such speculation is not in conflict with scripture, it is not required to believe it.
Augustine was a great guy to be sure. But he wasn’t infallible. I seem to recall that he had pretty crazy ideas about the lack of human civilization south of the sahara or some such (maybe that is apocryphal, or maybe I have him confused with someone else). But whatever, just because he wrote something in his Confessions or City of God and was an amazing guy, doesn’t make it true. Maybe Origen is a better example of an ECF with a lot of good things to say who clearly got a lot wrong? This is why criticisms of Calvin the man are a bit bizarre…Calvin doesn’t define Calvinism. Tom likes to ask whose Calvinism, and the answer is really the creeds and confessions of the reformed faith. Just because Calvin or Beza had this thought or that, if it didn’t make it into the Belgic Confession, Canons of Dordt, Heidelberg catechism, westminster confession, or shorter/larger catechisms (and finding conflicting doctrines here is pretty tough), then it isn’t Calvinism. Now if there is some idea bubbling around and a lot of the reformers bought into it, we should probably take it more seriously than some random guy commenting on a blog. I would say the same about other theologians as well. If Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, Iraeniaus, Tertullian, the ecumenical councils, etc… all speak on unison about something, then we should be very careful about our rejection of that something. The Real presences is something that we prots should be very circumspect about, Mary’s title as theotokos is another that we really should believe. The IC, transubstantiation formulation of the real presence, and Petrine primacy don’t rise to the same level as there isn’t the same level of unanimity.
The apostolic office was unique. Their successors were not apostles (e.g., Timothy). The apostles revealed God’s word of which this was part. Thus this was something required by God in N.T. times. Not that prudential issues arise too (Paul’s advice about marriage, Paul’s advice about eating meat sacrificed to idols, etc…).
There are almost certainly letters from Paul that did not survive inclusion in the canon (I believe one example is referenced in 2 Corinthians). My suspicion is that if God wanted to preserve those words for his church, he would have done so. The fact that he has not suggests that they are not his word.
These are interesting speculations. I suspect that if the answer is yes, then God did not intend for us to believe in I.C. What is interesting is to ask if that teaching were truly apostolic, why isn’t it dogma among the eastern orthodox? I don’t think agreement is necessary or sufficient to prove a doctrine is true, but it does lend weight and should guide our exegesis of scripture. Anyway, just my musings. I reserve the right to change my mind after a good night sleep.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 18, 2015 at 9:32 pm | Permalink
vd, t, why is it that people on the right like Palin and Barton don’t pervert “biblical theology” on your view?
Because Wallis and the PCUSA are clergy/churches, Butch, speaking on behalf of the Christian faith. Palin and Barton are marginal political figures.
Why do you keep committing the same category error? It’s not the religious right who are chasing people away from Christianity as much as the “religious” left perverting it into something that is no longer Biblical.
And why do you insist that yours alone is the proper understanding of Christianity and the perversions of it?
I thought there was a general agreement among those here gathered that gay marriage is unBiblical. I’m speaking only of Biblical morality and its beneficial affect here on earth.
That’s the natural law argument, the natural law proposition, that following the natural law is good for man.
More here, by moi:
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2008/11/ben-franklin-was-not-deist-ok.html
The issue of your skin in this game and your lack of fidelity to your own church keeps coming up.
You mean you keep bringing it up. 😉
You don’t know what church I attend or don’t attend and it’s none of your goddamn business, Darryl. And your better correspondents around here don’t play that game, and don’t care; they meet my ideas fair and square, challenge them, and let them challenge their own.
As it should be at any “theological society.”
All you have said has come true with a vengeance, the crowd turned against Him, you’ve backed the right horse.
LikeLike
@Joel
I just noticed your comment. That’s a really interesting way of looking at it. (Kevin, what Joel said too!).
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 18, 2015 at 9:40 pm | Permalink
vd, t, deism is more Christian than the PCUSA? At least those Presbyterians didn’t carve up the NT the way Jefferson did (and I like Jefferson).
I don’t like Jefferson so much, especially the more I learn. All talk, no action.
There’s a discussion to be had on this, whether those who love God and follow the natural law are more “Christian” than the PCUSA, more pleasing in the eyes of God per Matthew 21:28-32.
Which is more pleasing in the eyes of the father, Darryl, to talk the talk or walk the walk? What do you think, me brother? You’re clever, but you’re not stupid. 😉
LikeLike
Katy, Jeff, Joel –
Joel- Many thanks for the response- that opens up new areas to contemplate. Initial Q: the Council of Jerusalem’s retention of this specific law is stronger than just pastoral guidance in the sense of a recommendation, though, correct? How is it then different from pastoral guidance today regarding, e.g., fasting? A church’s right to command fasting seems to be fiercely rejected around here.
Jeff – And our point is that Palin, while a part of the political right, is a part of the religious *left*, as in an adopter of a multitude of theological innovations. – I recall a Paul Gottfried lecture (Youtube) where he referred to Leddihn’s considering Mussolini to be leftist.
Katy – I kept being tempted to jump in and say what you said, but not as well (and maybe with some Lutheran nuances and vocab – I’ve enjoyed your comments, and given the other commentors DG seems willing to put up with (ahem), I’m sure your nuances and vocab would be appreciated.
LikeLike
@TVD
“natural law, never explicitly in conflict with Biblical morality, since they are the same.”
No. The whole point of the sermon on the mount is to upend exactly this sentiment. It is this belief that leads to “whitewashed tombs”. For example, Jesus says,
All human beings have a vague moral intuition, a nagging feeling of guilt when they do something wrong. This is sufficient to condemn them for their sins. It is not sufficient to determine the right civil policy for what kinds of coupling should be allowed, what kinds of benefits should be afforded for which kind of couplings, and what taboos have bigger benefits than costs. Natural Law Theory pretends to be purely rational and objective. It is not. Of course, if you have a natural law argument to make for some moral view we should have, go ahead and make it. I’ve never seen a convincing argument along these lines before…and no a link to Feser (with an infinite circle of further links doesn’t count either).
LikeLike
Kevin,
Imagine a sharply divided Senate but with a majority of the President’s party – the President could pack the SC in his favor, declare a state religion by executive order – and when a challenge arises (suggestions as to how?), the SC would confirm it.
The only way “We the people” could repeal it would be to elect a different president or institute a constitutional amendment.
The Jeffersonian and Madison approach would be for the State to declare to US gov outside of its constitutional jurisdiction and void/nullify the order/law in the stated jurisdiction. Organized civil disobedience in other words. Principles of 98′.
LikeLike
sdb-
[kc:] Could [lost apostolic writings] have contained explicit statements of things which Scripture leaves implicit (such as the Filioque) [or arguably omits, such as the I.C.]?
[sdb:] I suspect that if the answer is yes, then God did not intend for us to believe in I.C. What is interesting is to ask if that teaching were truly apostolic, why isn’t it dogma among the eastern orthodox? I don’t think agreement is necessary or sufficient to prove a doctrine is true, but it does lend weight and should guide our exegesis of scripture.
I expect the E.O. response (or at least that of the monks on Mt. Athos; I believe non-monastic E.O. theologians are often more willing to engage with western theology) would be that if God intended us to believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and the Son, the Filioque would be explicit in Scripture.
But as you say, (if you’ll permit me to slightly rephrase), agreement lends weight but does not prove. I think your Scripture-based reasoning are quite reasonable, and appreciate your “musings.”
It’s always been a puzzle to me how Origen ran so far off the rails, and in so many different directions. Still, I’ve heard it put that he basically invented the discipline of theology, so kudos for that.
LikeLike
kc – I think your Scripture-based reasoning
arequite reasonableYou can see I was going to add an additional reasonable element or two- but decided to leave them implicit pending discovery of lost blog comments.
(or else it was careless editing, apologies)
LikeLike
MTX,
If there is a state willing to give Nullification a shot, it ain’t NJ.
Good luck Lone Star State, I’ve no idea how it would play out, but it would be interesting to see.
Does anyone ever speculate about the division into 5 states and how that might impact the country?
LikeLike
sdb
Posted July 18, 2015 at 10:45 pm | Permalink
@TVD
“natural law, never explicitly in conflict with Biblical morality, since they are the same.”
No. The whole point of the sermon on the mount is to upend exactly this sentiment. It is this belief that leads to “whitewashed tombs”.
…
All human beings have a vague moral intuition, a nagging feeling of guilt when they do something wrong. This is sufficient to condemn them for their sins. It is not sufficient to determine the right civil policy for what kinds of coupling should be allowed…
Now, now. You were doing fine until that last sentence went haywire.
Please state your argument in the form of an argument. Work backwards from that last sentence about “coupling.” What the fluck does “coupling” mean?
LikeLike
coupling=sexual partnerships of all sorts including but not limited to domestic partnerships, civil unions and marriage.
LikeLike
Sean,
sean
Posted July 18, 2015 at 1:15 pm | Permalink
Michael, I’m pretty sure the ‘prophecy of scripture’ in 20 sets the context for ‘prophecy’ in 21
The text clearly says “spoke”. If you don’t think one like Isaiah by the inspiration of God “spoke” more than was written you have a very short view of his ministry and the other prophets. The text in we read, “…men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. What you are doing is not receiving from the text, but reading into it.
It does not say Scripture is the “only” thing inspired by God though which would be also “profitable” or “useful”
Prove what you have in RC is apostolic oral tradition and prove RC apostolic succession
I have already pointed out I am not arguing form any tradition, only defending the idea that I believe Sola Scripture is a man are tradition that is not in Scripture and should be rejected.
Gal. 1:8 Again, the burden is on you to prove your deposit is both apostolic and NOT in contradiction to inscripturated tradition. We (prot) argue it is. Ex: Mediation of Mary and Saints eclipsing mediatorial role of Jesus. The solas are polemical against Rome.
Again lets get the proof for Sola Scriputa first and then we might be able to discuss its merit in condemning a lot of things. If you can show it is not a man made tradition it will save many Catholics from error here.
1 cor 14 and 2 thess 2:15. Established simultaneity(written and oral) and, again, you’ve made apostolic claim for deposit and apostolic succession of persons. Prove it. You can’t. It’s a faith claim.
I willingly admit I believe in Apostolic Succession and a deposit of faith that is the total of the teaching and practices implemented by Christ and the Apostles. I also this is held by faith, but it is not blind faith. This is not the discussion here though. Make a biblical case from Sola Scriptura if you want people to believe it other than the traditional belief of the Church.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted July 18, 2015 at 11:28 pm | Permalink
coupling=sexual partnerships of all sorts including but not limited to domestic partnerships, civil unions and marriage.
Thx for the straight answer. The natural law definition is the sex that makes babies. Coitus. Natural law makes the necessary categorical distinction between coital partnerships and all other alleged “partnerships.”
LikeLike
natural law definition of what? I’m don’t understand what you are writing here.
I wrote, “[natural law] is not sufficient to determine the right civil policy for what kinds of [sexual unions] should be allowed, what kinds of benefits should be afforded for which kind of [sexual unions], and what taboos have bigger benefits than costs. ”
You wrote, “The natural law definition is the sex that makes babies. Coitus. Natural law makes the necessary categorical distinction between coital partnerships and all other alleged “partnerships.” ”
I’m not sure what you mean. Are you saying that natural law tells us only sex that makes baby should be legal? How does one go from the fact that sex that can make babies is different from the sex that doesn’t (say an infertile couple?) to public policy or even moral taboos? I see how revelation gets us there. I don’t see that natural law has much to say. What am I missing.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted July 18, 2015 at 3:05 pm https://oldlife.org/2015/07/when-did-christian-america-end/comment-page-15/#comment-336709
Thank you for the well thought out and reasoned thoughts. I appreciate a lot of your point of view. With your high view of Scripture and your partial appreciation of Tradition, your position does give things to talk about and question. How does one judge a Tradition not condemned by Scripture when a tradition that has nothing to do with feast days or what you are talking about there? I’ll think on the feast day stuff more and get back to you. Anyway, Let’s go to something foundational to the problem I see. The traditional canon of Scripture is the 73 book canon, to the extreme majority of Christians prior to the Reformation. How does one discern the canon apart from Apostolic Tradition and the historic developmental discerning reception of it by the people of God?
LikeLike
TVD,
“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s means pay your taxes.”
Well, right. So my question is how is the act of the magistrate forcing you to pay taxes that go towards immoral or sinful policies, programs, institutions, projects not requiring you to approve of sin but the SSM ruling is requiring you to approve of sin?
“I deleted the Firefox browser from my computer and it didn’t cost me a thing.”
Okay. So are you now on a quest to do due diligence on all companies and organizations you support and patronize to make sure they have no connection directly or indirectly to immoral or sinful activities?
kent,
“Cletus, I would applaud you living the courage of your convictions and refuse to pay taxes as you are suggesting on here.”
I think you’re misunderstanding – that’s what I would think TVD and Bob would want to do in order to be consistent with their position. Since they presumably don’t refuse, it’s likely I’m misunderstanding their position.
LikeLike
,i>sdb
Posted July 18, 2015 at 11:58 pm | Permalink
natural law definition of what? I’m don’t understand what you are writing here.
I wrote, “[natural law] is not sufficient to determine the right civil policy for what kinds of [sexual unions] should be allowed, what kinds of benefits should be afforded for which kind of [sexual unions], and what taboos have bigger benefits than costs. ”
You wrote, “The natural law definition is the sex that makes babies. Coitus. Natural law makes the necessary categorical distinction between coital partnerships and all other alleged “partnerships.” ”
I’m not sure what you mean. Are you saying that natural law tells us only sex that makes baby should be legal? How does one go from the fact that sex that can make babies is different from the sex that doesn’t (say an infertile couple?) to public policy or even moral taboos? I see how revelation gets us there. I don’t see that natural law has much to say. What am I missing.
Yes, predictably someone would bring up infertile man-woman couples. This is a well-rehearsed tactic. But it argues the exception against the rule. All rules have exceptions, thus if this tactic wins, all rules, all norms, are bullshit. OK, fine you just overturned the chessboard.
But the only “coupling” that matters before God and man is the one that makes babies. or are you arguing oral and anal sexual gratification are to be given equal status with the coital act that makes babies?
Are you standing up for the ‘dignity’ of sexual gratification as equal to that of the procreative act? I know you’re not. At least I hope not.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted July 19, 2015 at 12:27 am | Permalink
TVD,
“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s means pay your taxes.”
Well, right. So my question is how is the act of the magistrate forcing you to pay taxes that go towards immoral or sinful policies, programs, institutions, projects not requiring you to approve of sin but the SSM ruling is requiring you to approve of sin?
Give to Caesar means pay your taxes, despite what Caesar does with them.
The second part is the important part. Don’t lose why they were amazed at Him.
LikeLike
TVD,
“Give to Caesar means pay your taxes, despite what Caesar does with them.”
Right. So why can’t a Christian baker bake a cake for a gay wedding, despite what the gay couple will do with it (by eating it with family and friends! horrors!)
LikeLike
cvd,
Okay. So are you now on a quest to do due diligence on all companies and organizations you support and patronize to make sure they have no connection directly or indirectly to immoral or sinful activities?
Clearly complete diligence is impractical – but some diligence is possible and perhaps praiseworthy. Again, Hanes and Levi’s had the Obama administration pressure the Haitian government to make an exception to its minimum wage law ($.62/hr) for garment workers ($.31/hr).
A starter cell phone plan on Digicel (big Caribbean telecom provider) is $15/month (plus usage costs). That’s 24 hours labor at min wage, or 48 hours labor if you are working for Hanes or Levi’s – one week’s labor.
Is this how we want our government and corporations behaving? It’s worth considering before purchasing Dockers or Nautica.
http://www.thenation.com/article/wikileaks-haiti-let-them-live-3-day/
LikeLike
sdb,
“SS is the recognition that all of these things must be judged in light of scripture, but that scripture (and scripture alone) is never to be judged.”
There had to have been a judgment as to what Scripture consisted of in the first place. Secondly, “things must be judged in light of Scripture” does not answer the question of whose judgment is normative and binding on others.
“Their successors were not apostles (e.g., Timothy).”
Their successors were not inspired, but they certainly had apostolic authority:
1 Thess 1:1 “Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you.”
1 Thess 2:6 “nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others, even though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority.”
Jeff,
“To be accepted as inspired Scripture, they would need to be accepted as such by the entire church – which for all practical purposes means the canon is closed.”
but
“And that’s another point of sola scriptura: dogma and church teachings are revisable.”
Yikes. Well at least it’s out in the open. Divine teaching isn’t revisable and is infallible by definition I would assume most would agree. So this seems to be a freely offered assertion that no Protestant doctrine can ever amount to divine teaching – including the identified extent, scope, and closure of the canon as stated above, which also then extends to SS itself as the rule of faith.
Joel,
“I think you can see how that shows the council’s authority that isn’t set in the same place as Scripture itself.”
This is strange. Scripture sure seems to imply a divine authority and character to the council given Acts 15:28. There are many divine commands and prescriptions in Scripture that are contingent or temporary but that does not mean such commands and applications weren’t authoritative or somehow inferior to Scripture by mere virtue of that fact – Scripture records them after all.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted July 18, 2015 at 3:22 pm | Permalink
“Or am I mistaken? ”
Yes. About everything and yet so proud. Funny how ignorance and pride seem to go hand in hand.
You can read up on the OPC missionary efforts here. I’ve linked it so you can correct your repeated mischaracterizations of this denomination. I wonder how the ratio of missionaries to church members of the tiny 30,000 OPC to the RCC. In the PCA, the number is 500 members per longterm foreign missionary in MTW. This of course does not count the number of missionaries individual congregations support independently or through independent mission organizations.>>>>
Look, man, I am not ignorant of what is happening in foreign missions. I have been to a lot of places and seen a lot of things.
500 missionaries spread out among some 7 billion people is NOTHING! You guys need to get on the stick if you want to preach the Gospel to the world and try to make the case that you are the true church. If the Gospel you preach is the true Gospel, then get up off your rears and go to the ends of the earth and preach it to a lost and dying world!
…and the Pietists, Pentecostals, and Papitsts will have been there long before you guys even get out of the gate no matter where you go, no matter where “there” is. Take up the challenge, and quit calling everyone else proud and ignorant.
LikeLike
(A different) Dan
Posted July 18, 2015 at 9:56 pm | Permalink
I guess no one here is going to rise to the defense of the PCUSA, and I certainly won’t defend the national body, but I really feel for what some of the folks I know who attend the two I am familiar with are going through right now. Probably a majority in each congregation would vote to leave, but not the super majority that would be required to take their property with them (with a significant exit fee even if they could pull it off). When your family has called one Church home for four or five generations, it is hard to just leave.
[Bold face mine.]
And gay marriage is still 50-50 [actually 45-45, with the undecided still undecided, and always will be, depending on which way the wind blows].
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/07/18/has-same-sex-marriage-support-dropped-since-the-scotus-ruling/
This anti-republican sense of ‘democracy’ is of course “majoritarianism.” 51% crush the other 49. And in political or theological–in this case both, ecclesiastical–once you ordain a lesbian couple, they will never become un-ordained.
Papism is not a democracy. The hilarious thing about your attack, Darryl, is that you demand a foolish consistency over whether Protestants are anathematized or not. Why should you give a shit either way? You have earned anathemematiztion because you’re a heretic and you’re also an asshole.
But Jesus loves you and I’m trying. I’d rather meet you in heaven than in hell, and if you’re in heaven and I ain’t, you’ll miss me, bro. Because that ain’t heaven, tough guy. Because for me, a heaven without Darryl Hart in it would be disappointing, and thus no heaven atall. But that’s just me.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“Clearly complete diligence is impractical”
Why? Isn’t this a (convenient) excuse? Can’t you become a hermit and live off the land? Many do so now and did so in the past. Are you equating impracticality with laziness and to justify avoiding sacrifice?
“but some diligence is possible and perhaps praiseworthy.”
I agree. I’m just teasing out implications of positions.
“Again, Hanes and Levi’s had the Obama administration pressure the Haitian government to make an exception to its minimum wage law ($.62/hr) for garment workers ($.31/hr).”
Some economists argue abolishing a minimum wage entirely would actually benefit society and the poor more than keeping (or increasing) it.
“Is this how we want our government and corporations behaving?”
Right. But you’re still living here and paying taxes. You’re not sticking it to the man or becoming some Occupy zealot because of the government’s pressure on Haiti. So are you approving of the government’s immoral activities?
“It’s worth considering before purchasing Dockers or Nautica.”
What if your ideals conflict with providing for yourself or family? Is it better to compromise and patronize or invest in companies and businesses you know are linked to immoral and sinful activities so you can live and function in society comfortably?
LikeLike
@mwf
I don’t call everyone else proud and arrogant. Just you on this thread. The ratio of members to full time missionaries in my tiny denomination is 500. What is it in yours?
Second, as I have noted several times we don’t claim to be “the” true church. We claim to be “a” legitimate local manifestation of the visible church. Others who preach the gospel correctly, administer the proper sacraments, and exercise discipline are also true churches. From assembly of god to zion episcopal global outreach. The fact that chuches get important things wrong doesn’t make them not churches. But it doesn’t make them immune from criticism either.
As usual you are wrong. If I am wrong about your arrogance prove it. Admit you are wrong about our view of the church and missionary activity. The participation of our members in foreign missions is about a factor of 10 higher than yours….but who’s counting? That would be prideful.
LikeLike
Last ten comments by baby Cats or faux Cats. Go to a shrine, light a candle or do that bead thing — offline. Sheesh.
LikeLike
Well we see in Peter’s 2nd epistle that he already saw Paul’s writing as scripture. I suspect that Paul understood his letters similarly. The scope of the canon is a tough one, but I would understand it in analogy to the OT scope. Again, I think tradition is authoritative, but it can err. Maybe I’m wrong not to include the apocrypha as inspired scripture? I can live with that. Maybe the RC canon is too restricted and 3 Ezra and Psalm 151 should be included following the Orthodox church? One might ask whether the protestants are right to turn to the Jewish Tanakh for the OT canon? Definitive statements on the scope of the canon came quite late. Somehow Christianity stumbled along for its first 1500 years without a definitive articulation of the entire scope of the canon. I’m not so sure this is a problem.
I wholeheartedly agree that elders/bishops/presbyters/&c have authority to which we are called to submit (a church without discipline is not a church), but these men aren’t infallible. I think we agree on this. Where we diverge is on the fallibility of the tradition to which they contribute.
LikeLike
I am not the one condemning life of Christ plays as misguided. You are the one who needs to justify your judgement of others, not myself. I am judging no one. If you don think you should b involved, that is your call, but it is you who is calling those who do misguided. Put some biblical meat on that bone if you are going to stand by it. Otherwise allow Christian freedom to reign.
MTX, so the idea is that anybody can come up with any pious exercise and it’s on those who cringe to justify why it’s cringe-worthy, not on those who wake up one day and say, “Hey, I know what’ll gather them in, a corny play about heaven and hell written and directed by ME!” But let me get this straight, Protestants are the ones who have the problem of individualism and autonomy, but here you are as an apostolic succession Catholic defending piety plays. I’m the one as a Protestant saying pious playwrights should pack it in on biblical grounds and let the church do the work of evangelizing, and you want all manner of mukety-mucks running around embarrassing the church?
LikeLike
diff Dan, but imagine when you’re family has been in “the church” for 1500 years. Sometimes the truth calls and Machen gave their grandparents plenty of opportunity to hear truth.
LikeLike
@mtx
“The traditional canon of Scripture is the 73 book canon, to the extreme majority of Christians prior to the Reformation. How does one discern the canon apart from Apostolic Tradition and the historic developmental discerning reception of it by the people of God?”
I think this is the same question cvd had. I don’t think the canon (including the OT stuff) was definitive until the 16th century. I think there is a great deal of uncertainty at the edges (even divergence between EO and RC on a few items and further divergence among other ancient sects). For the OT, I would turn to the Jewish canon as it existed at the time of Christ. Maybe we are wrong in our judgement about what that canon was, but it seems to me a pretty good case for adopting the Tanakh can be made (which is the protestant OT). Of course there was disagreement about the scope of the OT canon among the Jews in the first century, so what can you do?
Regarding the NT canon, I believe that the fallible church was the vessel chosen by God to preserve his Word. The fact that we have that reliably today doesn’t make the church infallible any more than the OT traditions (including the scope of the canon) were infallible.
LikeLike
@mwf I just saw that you misread my comment. In the PCA, there are 500 church members for every missionary we send as part of denomination missions organization to foreign mission. Further, our churches also sponsor independent missionaries (going as part of a non-PCA mission organization). That’s a rate of full time vocational missionaries, not a total.
LikeLike
vd, t, I keep bringing it up because your antagonistic stance defies belief unless you have some position or institution you back. It’s called playing fair. Other people show their cards. You don’t. So why take you seriously?
Palin as VP candidate and governor of one of the states is hardly marginal.
It’s so obvious to say that the PCUSA is bankrupt. The OPC has been saying that for 80 years. Dog bites man.
But to raise questions about the liberal character of evangelicalism, now that’s arresting. And that’s what keeps you coming back to Old Life.
LikeLike
quoting the Bible is so arbitrary, right?
LikeLike
“So are you now on a quest to do due diligence on all companies and organizations you support and patronize to make sure they have no connection directly or indirectly to immoral or sinful activities?”
#Laudatosi
#vaticanbank
LikeLike
Kevin, “Clearly complete diligence is impractical”
Then don’t bring up incomplete diligence as an example of integrity or holiness.
LikeLike
vd, c, you know church teaching is revisable. It’s called Vatican 2. Heretics become separated brothers. You gotta revise some theology for that to happen.
Oh, I get it. It’s only pastoral. Isn’t male clergy also pastoral, not dogma?
LikeLike
Michael, the point of the prophecy in scripture citation was the ‘in scripture’ part. I’ve cited you apostolic writings, Jesus’ own words, and the very existence of an old testament. If you want to add to it, the burden is on you to show it forth and prove it’s apostolic authority. I don’t have need to prove what your communion and my communion hold in common. The RCC wants to add to and crown it with apostolic authority. Prove it. Gal. 1:8. Claiming is not proving.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: quoting the Bible is so arbitrary, right?
not sure what you are saying to whom about this, but that has been an attitude here?
DG Hart: Show me that God spoke against Egypt and Babylon for exploitation.
The Lord does say this: And the nations were enraged, and Your wrath came, and the time came for the dead to be judged, and the time to reward Your bond-servants the prophets and the saints and those who fear Your name, the small and the great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth. Rev: 11:18 (which doesn’t need to exclude also those who are physically destroying?)
LikeLike
DG, CVD,
kc – “Clearly complete diligence is impractical” – “but some diligence is possible and perhaps praiseworthy.”
Dgh- Kevin, Then don’t bring up incomplete diligence as an example of integrity or holiness
That’s an argument? Whyever not? What’s wrong with considering the impact of the money we spend?
cvd – [kc:] “Is this how we want our government and corporations behaving?” – [cvd:] Right. But you’re still living here and paying taxes.
No offense intended, cvd, you write plenty of smart things – but I feel like I’m in a mad house at this blog sometimes. My question couldn’t be more literal as to its meaning. I keep forgetting the regnant dogma here is that we can’t have any preferences as to how our government or others behave.
cvd – Isn’t this a (convenient) excuse?>/i>
Why the rush to impugn motives? Firstly, it’s an epistemological fact. Secondly, more immediate responsibilities take precedence- to family, etc.
Can’t you become a hermit and live off the land? Many do so now and did so in the past. Are you equating impracticality with laziness and to justify avoiding sacrifice?
Living in the world is a part of my vocation – community has value – it’s hard to raise a 6 month old or sing choral music as a hermit living off the land – government has a role and it is our duty to pay taxes – you raised a number of ethical distinctions previously which would come in handy here if you’re looking for theoretical backing.
[kc:] “Again, Hanes and Levi’s had the Obama administration pressure the Haitian government to make an exception to its minimum wage law ($.62/hr) for garment workers ($.31/hr).”
[cvd:] Some economists argue abolishing a minimum wage entirely would actually benefit society and the poor more than keeping (or increasing) it.
The reason I kept the Digicel example (48 hours’ work to pay your phone bill) is to keep the situation grounded in reality. Is it appropriate for a US corp to cause significant gov-to-gov (g2g?) collusion resulting in an interference of another country’s political process?
I think the ideal is to make informed decisions we are comfortable with. SDB has several times mentioned Paul’s example of meat slaughtered for idolatrous sacrifice. Seems right to me.
LikeLike
What is this papist penchant for going on and on and on, over and over and over. Is that how they conquered Central and South America? No, wait — that was smallpox.
LikeLike
Joel,
What justice demands depends on the sphere in which one operates in. Justice becomes applicable to situations and issues with the application or denial of someone’s or some groups’s rights. And what those rights are depends on the context. For example, what can be unjust in terms of how God judges us can be quite just in terms of society. The freedom of religion provides many examples here.
LikeLike
D.G.,
take legalism. Also realize that how much I agree or disagree with Marx on economic exploitation is a mystery to you.
Now what I find legalistic is for someone to say well Jesus didn’t define economic exploitation, so what right do others have to. Exploitation is a harmful taking advantage of someone. Such as when employees are underpaid. I believe an economic ethicist who tackled that problem was James, the brother of Jesus. So when those who have so much money pay such low wages to at least some of their employees so that they must rely on gov’t assistance to survive, that counts.
Or when one nation attempts to intrude on another nation in order to keep the minimum wage for workers in the 2nd nation low so that businesses or investors from the first nation accumulate more wealth, that is economic exploitation (see http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-haiti-minimum-wage-the-nation-2011-6 ).
Or when immigrant labor is trafficked and is enslaved to do work such as picking produce for the nation while robbing these laborers of their pay, that is exploitation ( see https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I+Timothy+1%3A8-10&version=NIV and http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/business/in-florida-tomato-fields-a-penny-buys-progress.html?_r=0 and http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/publications/Human_Trafficking_Final_Report.pdf ). Note that where laws come into effect, it is after a long period of time and constant reminding by citizens.
Now I could go on, but my gut feeling is that you really don’t care about the subject. That seems to be the only explanation for your answers and your neglecting to answer certain questions. And one possible reason for that is that you prefer a life where you limit the number of people you are involved with and that you wish to shut the rest of the world out. There is just no Christian theological teaching that supports that. For the same book that tells us to live quiet lives in a time when Christianity is first starting under a repressive government, also tells us that God loved the world and that we, like Paul, are to become all things to all people.
BTW, regarding Babylon, have you read Jeremiah 51. Or did you read Nahum 3 regarding Nineveh? And do you mean to tell me that Egypt was not judged for how they abused the Hebrews? Or why not read Isaiah 58-59 or Amos 1?
Go ahead and live that quiet life without the counterbalance of loving your neighbors in the world–remembering the Good Samaritan definition of the word ‘neighbor.’ That is your choice. Just ask yourself how can you or a church made up of people with that mentality bring the Gospel to people who are suffering from the status quo or who are political nonconservatives?
LikeLike
Kevin,
” the Council of Jerusalem’s retention of this specific law is stronger than just pastoral guidance in the sense of a recommendation, though, correct? How is it then different from pastoral guidance today regarding, e.g., fasting? A church’s right to command fasting seems to be fiercely rejected around here.”
I think of Romans 14 as spelling this idea out with a little more detail. Yes, the council is authoritative (though the final authority that they appeal to themselves is the Scriptures), but it is spelling out how love is to be demonstrated in this context. I assume that there is still liberty to participate in some of these things in unusual situations, because some of the restrictions do pass away. Yet, I don’t think we fully understand from Acts 15 how this worked out in practice.
My denomination does require fast days, so I know there is some disagreement here. Fasting is a difficult question. However, what’s going on at the Jerusalem Council seems similar to the church seeing fit to meet at 10 at James’ house rather than creating a new command about the church itself. These were not new commands, first off, nor was the command for unity and love within the church. The Church does have authority (it isn’t pretend authority, like many RCC folks seem to caricature the Protestant view) to guide the Church in following scriptural commands. It would be incorrect to say that because an individual does not see that meeting at 10 in Scripture that he has authority to disobey his elders. He would be abusing both the Church’s and Scriptures’ authority in doing so. However, if the Church contradicts Scripture, he absolutely must disobey the Church. The Jerusalem Council doesn’t give us an example of that happening.
LikeLike
Curt,
I get that it can be messy, but could you try to give me some sort of definition? I think that civil justice is not doing harm to another, but if harm is done that an equal retribution is paid to the person acting in harm. Justice in the OT seems to carry the idea of moral righteousness as well, but I don’t think anyone would say that social justice includes obeying the first table of the law, for instance. I also do not think it is useful to important the OT idea of complete morality into the idea of civil justice in this era- because not all people are a part of the Church.
LikeLike
sdb,
“Not after the 14th amendment. Now the rights guaranteed under the constitution apply to all citizens regardless of what state they live in, so in effect state legislatures (and other government entities) have their hands tied by the 1st amendment just like congress.”
Do you agree with the Obergefell decision?
I agree with Lysander Spooner on the Constitution: “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
LikeLike
Sdb, Sean, others,
Will get back at it tomorrow maybe. Enjoying a day of rest and still visiting at family’s house.
Peace,
Michael
BTW Sean, St. George’s Maronite Catholic Church was great this morning. It turned out to be the first Mass for a newly ordained priest. Glad we went there.
LikeLike
I just saw TVD’s 1:53 am and DGH’s 8:22 am on 7/19 to my feeble attempt of 9:22 pm 7/18 to be irenic towards some members of some PCUSA churches.
I am left to conclude that there may well be an as yet undiscovered link between the spleen and the penis that leads to priapism.
Emoticon.
LikeLike
JRC: …which gives men the legal right to what the natural law forbids: to worship a false god.
TVD: That’s not what natural law means.
“…even though God did not exist, or did not make use of His reason, or did not judge rightly of things, if there is in man such a dictate of right reason to guide him, it would have had the same nature of law as it now has.”–Suarez
Paul: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Rom 1.18-23
Aquinas: Hence this is the first precept of law, that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” All other precepts of the natural law are based upon this:… Thirdly, there is in man an inclination to good, according to the nature of his reason, which nature is proper to him: thus man has a natural inclination to know the truth about God, and to live in society: and in this respect, whatever pertains to this inclination belongs to the natural law — Summa Theologica II-1.94.
The very first thing about natural law is that it directs us to worship God and not false gods.
Are you sure you want to fight for this hill?
LikeLike
JRC: “And that’s another point of sola scriptura: dogma and church teachings are revisable.”
CVD: Yikes. Well at least it’s out in the open. Divine teaching isn’t revisable and is infallible by definition I would assume most would agree. So this seems to be a freely offered assertion that no Protestant doctrine can ever amount to divine teaching – including the identified extent, scope, and closure of the canon as stated above, which also then extends to SS itself as the rule of faith.
That’s correct, and I’m glad we cleared that up. It wasn’t a secret.
— WCF 31
CVD: There had to have been a judgment as to what Scripture consisted of in the first place.
Yes, there did. As has been explained, the canon is a fallible list of infallible books. It goes without saying that “fallible” does not mean “wrong”, but “theoretically capable of being wrong.” Atomic theory is fallible, but only a fool would bet against it.
CVD: Secondly, “things must be judged in light of Scripture” does not answer the question of whose judgment is normative and binding on others.
Yes, it does: None. There is no human judgment that is normative and binding on others. There is judgment that is authoritative (see WCF Ch 31 above), but authority does not function infallibly.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted July 19, 2015 at 3:02 pm | Permalink
JRC: …which gives men the legal right to what the natural law forbids: to worship a false god.
TVD: That’s not what natural law means.
“…even though God did not exist, or did not make use of His reason, or did not judge rightly of things, if there is in man such a dictate of right reason to guide him, it would have had the same nature of law as it now has.”–Suarez
Paul: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Rom 1.18-23
Aquinas: Hence this is the first precept of law, that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” All other precepts of the natural law are based upon this:… Thirdly, there is in man an inclination to good, according to the nature of his reason, which nature is proper to him: thus man has a natural inclination to know the truth about God, and to live in society: and in this respect, whatever pertains to this inclination belongs to the natural law — Summa Theologica II-1.94.
The very first thing about natural law is that it directs us to worship God and not false gods.
Are you sure you want to fight for this hill?
You just died on it. Your quote-mining misses the point here: Although the natural law proceeds from God, it exists on its own. Worshiping a false God doesn’t enter into it unless you want to call instituting gay marriage some sort of idolatry, since it’s contrary to the natural law.
Which you could make work somehow, I suppose, but it has nothing to do with this conversation.
LikeLike
DGH, I wasn’t suggesting that you approved of SSM. If the OPC was OK with Woolley on abortion, than why would it have a problem with you on SSM, since we have no record of you taking exception to WCF 24, or the WLC/WSC’s teaching regarding the 7th commandment. It was to amplify the idea that getting ecclesiastical sanctions against you was a dog that would not hunt — that was all.
LikeLike
a dot, good. go occupy wall st. with Curt.
LikeLike
Curt, “Now what I find legalistic is for someone to say well Jesus didn’t define economic exploitation, so what right do others have to.”
Who said others can’t define e.e.? The problem is with those who say that opposing e.e. is a Christian duty, even the gospel, when they don’t have a shred of thus saith the Lord behind them. Occupy Wall St. till the cows come home. Just don’t make mmmmeeEEEE feel like I’m am less of a Christian or even guilty of sin if I don’t.
And just because I don’t join you, don’t conclude that I don’t love my neighbors. You don’t know how I live. But lefties and pietistic lefties love to show their holiness before men.
LikeLike
Priapism. Word of the day. But maybe not Sabbath-day appropriate.
Then again, in Lev. 21 this morning we learned about the dangers of crushed testicles. Ouch.
LikeLike
dg, cvd,
dg – The problem is with those who say that opposing e.e. is a Christian duty, even the gospel, when they don’t have a shred of thus saith the Lord behind them.”
I’m not saying the gospel says don’t buy Dockers or boycott Levi’s.
Would you acknowledge inappropriate acts on the part of any of the following parties in the Hanes-Haiti case?
a) Hanes toward US gov/people (requesting an unjust act of bullying) —
b) US gov to American people (unjust extension of principle of free trade, therefore abuse of role of government) —
c) US gov to Haitian gov (bullying) and people (interfering with their sovereignty) —
d) Haitian gov toward Haitian people (giving in).
cvd –
I realize you were asking the questions from a speculative mindset (you indicated as such), but I work with Caribbean people all day long so the issue is not to me abstract. Sorry if I was overly-heated.
The bigger point is US corps have a huge impact on the world (including the US). They are given this power via the money we spend. I think this is worth keeping in mind as we make economic decisions. I’m not saying we can eliminate all evil in the world.
To break it out:
1) should someone desire to pay attention to what another does with their cash once freely exchanged, there isn’t a problem with that;
2) cases can arise in which to give someone money in free exchange is to give them something with which they can harm another;
3) US corps shouldn’t be using their muscle to bully the US gov;
4) the US gov shouldn’t be using its muscle to bully other govs when it comes to special exemptions for US corps;
5) it is worth considering whether we wish to enable this by becoming consumers of a particular product.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart a dot, good. go occupy wall st. with Curt.
Curt: Jesus didn’t define economic exploitation
nice deflection DG; you were saying the Lord doesn’t speak on these things, as if you don’t want to acknowledge He does? (DG Hart: Show me that God spoke against Egypt and Babylon for exploitation”).
eg. Do not rob the poor because he is poor; He who oppresses the poor taunts his Maker; a false balance is an abomination to the LORD; Is this not the fast which I choose, to loosen the bonds of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free Prov 14:31:11:1;22:22; Isa 58:6
D. G. Hart: quoting the Bible is so arbitrary, right?
Apparently; ought you not say: what I”M saying is completely arbitrary (contingent solely upon one’s discretion)
LikeLike
Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Dunno Mikey. Sounds like judaizing to me, ie. returning to ANY of the ceremonial aspects of the OT worship all of which were fulfilled in Christ. (Note bene. “All”. You know. Kind of like the All good works that Scripture equips the man of God unto 2 Tim. 3:17. )
Put together some good posts using Scripture to argue for Sola Scriptura and I will get back to them sometime soon.
Please, the regnant doctrine in this madhouse is the presumption and patronization of the papists of well known and previously discussed positions of Protestantism and their poverty stricken replies, whether regarding Scripture, reason or history/tradition.
IOW don’t bother/do you bother reading any of the other posts, Mikey? We’ve already been there and done that for a previous unanswered reply to KiN over at the Court Gives/Takes away thread. Yeah, it’s down now, but we’ve also been down this road before with CVD also.
**************
Various biblical quotes demonstrating the necessity of
Holy Traditionacknowledging the fallacy of overlooked alternatives.Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.John 20:30-31
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
IOW Scripture is sufficient.
Neither does the Word tell us these other signs were passed on. That is an unproved assumption.
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. John 21:25
So what?/Ditto above. Presumes what needs to be proved.
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 1 Corinthians 5:9-10 (Note: Here Paul makes a reference to a letter written to Corinth before the letter we know today as 1st Corinthians. This letter is unknown to modern scholars.
So what? Assumes what needs to be proved. From Scripture. [After all, that’s what you are appealing to in the first place, right? [[Duh.]]
Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 1 Corinthians 11:2
Presumes what is needed to be proved. See 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Tim 3:17.
Scripture is sufficient for all good works, even determining what is the true church and gospel, much more the entire NT tradition. [Sorry Charlie . . . ] Of course, we have yet to see in the internet discussion beginning with Bryan and Jase, anyone willing to honestly wrestle w. 2 Tim. 3:16-17.
And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea. Colossians 4:16
(Note: The “epistle from Laodicea” is not available to us today is [sic] written form.)
Which is the Epistle to the Ephesians some argue.
So then, brothers, stand firm, and cling to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter. 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Again, descending subordinate clauses, the last modifying the middle (the method of teaching), not the first (the traditions themselves). [IOW the Thessalonians are told that they were taught the truth, two different ways, not that they were taught two different things. If you can’t tell the difference, you’re in real trouble. ]
Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. 2 Thessalonians 3:6
Which regardless of how you received it is the same, the point being it is an apostolic tradition/teaching, not something assumed by papists and parroted as proof for Rome’s non sequiturs.
Then we get to 2 Tim. 3:17:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
If inspired Scripture equips the man of God for every (or all) good works, what’s left out?
But if the lost apostolic oral traditions contain anything not in the written NT tradition, then Scripture is NOT inspired or infallible and only prepares the man of God for “some” good works.
[And we only bring this up again and again, because papists can never deal with it.
Because Isaiah 6:9,10 (quoted in part in each gospel, Acts and Romans) tells us that God intends to harden some people to the truth?
And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. ]
LikeLike
TVD, since you tell us that natural law is never explicitly in conflict with Biblical morality, since they are the same, then you need to get up to speed pronto on the third commandment/blasphemy.
There’s no call or excuse for it.
LikeLike
CVD, distinguish between the civil magistrate, who is an ordinance of God Rom. 13, paying taxes as commanded, his calling to restrain evil (though he is not able to eliminate it), and the civil magistrate requiring citizens to actually participate in the evil which the civil magistrate has allowed/legalized.
Likewise distinguish between sinning by attending idol worship in the temple and later outside of the temple, eating meats that have be offered to the idol. 1 Cor. 8, 10
The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof. 1 Cor. 10:28 Creation is inescapably – outside of God’s mercy – stained with sin through and through. But Scripture calls us to faithfulness, not perfectionism, otherwise we would never get out of bed, being paralyzed for fear of being involved somehow in some way with sin.
IOW there is a profound difference in principle between RoeWade and HobbyLobby/Little Sisters of Charity, as bad as the first decision is.
For instance, after the recent SCOTUS decision what’s to stop anybody on the same logic from demanding pro life hospitals to perform abortions in order that their “civil rights” are not violated. (Yes Virginia, the civil right to both affordable and easily accessible abortion is a civil right
egregiously inserted intofound in the constitution.) Ans. Nothing at all in principle in the New (Gay) World Order where “whatever is not forbidden is mandatory”.The Immaculate Deception Assumption?
There is a reason the P&R condemned anything contrary to, apart from or along side of Scripture being required of Christians.
What we have here is the usual papist argument that tradition does not contradict Scripture, it is only along side of it or that it teaches other things that Scripture does not touch on.
But if Scripture does not touch on it, it is not required, much more Scripture is not sufficient if Tradition can add to it. And the RCCat. plainly teaches they are equal.
But somehow, Tradition is not a carbon copy of Scripture per se, but teaches other/new things. Therefore it is contra Scripture and to be condemned.
Acts 15?
A temporary and binding joint decision by the apostles and uninspired elders that in the transition from the Old to the New, the gentiles should not scandalize the jewish believers with their freedom in Christ by totally ignoring the Mosaic ceremonial law in certain respects.
After all Paul still circumcised Timothy, whose mother was a Jew, even though Paul condemns the Judaizers for wanting to circumcise the Gentiles that they might be saved.
LikeLike
Bob S
Posted July 19, 2015 at 5:48 pm | Permalink
TVD, since you tell us that natural law is never explicitly in conflict with Biblical morality, since they are the same, then you need to get up to speed pronto on the third commandment/blasphemy.
There’s no call or excuse for it.
Thx for the reply but this is getting deeper into the theological waters than is necessary or helpful re natural law in public life. In fact, the more we drag God in, the less it’s an argument from reason and more one dependent on faith, the opposite of what we’re trying to achieve.
If you wish to disagree with my assertion that the natural law is concordant with Biblical morality, then please give examples. Otherwise, this line has become entirely too uncooperative an inquiry to be worth any of our time.
http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/may/faith-natural-law.htm
LikeLike
Andrew Duggan:we have no record of you taking exception to WCF 24
Andrew, don’t you think if someone’s point is that homosexuals are agreeing with God’s law of monogamy (DG paraphrased); it is essentially disagreeing with WCF24 I. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman
LikeLike
Is this the record post for the number of comments at oldlife? It brought back bad memories. I might have dreams tonight after watching episode 5 of True Detective. It’s all connected:
LikeLike
Way to evade the point TVD.
That’s not what I am talking about and you should know it.
Come on.
Fess up.
You lost it in your response to DG p.16, 7/18/15 @ 10:28 pm and we don’t need to see it happen again.
LikeLike
I didn’t lose anything to Darryl’s ad hom @ 10:28, and I have no idea what your argument is, except to argue.
TVD
Posted July 18, 2015 at 10:28 pm | Permalink
D. G. Hart
Posted July 18, 2015 at 9:32 pm | Permalink
vd, t, why is it that people on the right like Palin and Barton don’t pervert “biblical theology” on your view?
_____________________________
Because Wallis and the PCUSA are clergy/churches, Butch, speaking on behalf of the Christian faith. Palin and Barton are marginal political figures.
Why do you keep committing the same category error? It’s not the religious right who are chasing people away from Christianity as much as the “religious” left perverting it into something that is no longer Biblical.
“And why do you insist that yours alone is the proper understanding of Christianity and the perversions of it?”
I thought there was a general agreement among those here gathered that gay marriage is unBiblical. I’m speaking only of Biblical morality and its beneficial affect here on earth.
That’s the natural law argument, the natural law proposition, that following the natural law is good for man.
“Revelation had indeed no weight with me, as such, but I entertained an opinion, that, though certain actions might not be bad, because they were forbidden by it, or good, because it commanded them; yet probably these actions might be forbidden because they were bad for us, or commanded because they were beneficial to us, in their own natures, all the circumstances of things considered.”—Ben Franklin
More here, by moi:
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2008/11/ben-franklin-was-not-deist-ok.html
_________________________
“The issue of your skin in this game and your lack of fidelity to your own church keeps coming up.”
You mean you keep bringing it up.
You don’t know what church I attend or don’t attend and it’s none of your goddamn business, Darryl. And your better correspondents around here don’t play that game, and don’t care; they meet my ideas fair and square, challenge them, and let them challenge their own.
As it should be at any “theological society.”
All you have said has come true with a vengeance, the crowd turned against Him, you’ve backed the right horse.
LikeLike
On the slippery slope front, polygamy isn’t so bad…
http://religiondispatches.org/whos-scared-of-polygamy-a-restrained-case-for-the-slippery-slope-argument/
LikeLike
kevin,
3) US corps shouldn’t be using their muscle to bully the US gov;
me – why not?
4) the US gov shouldn’t be using its muscle to bully other govs when it comes to special exemptions for US corps;
me – why not?
Maybe Christians shouldn’t, but the papacy did lots of bullying in its day.
But why call it bullying? Why shouldn’t companies or governments exert influence? Isn’t that how the world works?
LikeLike
a dot, did God send the prophets to Babylon or Egypt?
LikeLike
a dot, monogamy is a Christian ideal, right?
LikeLike
vd, t did you know that Roman Catholics appeal to tradition to justify contraception and abortion?
LikeLike
@Joel
Given the SC precedents from Casey -> Lawrence ->Windsor, it seems that the Kennedy’s logic leads inexorably to the current decision. I think this chain of reasoning is flawed, but it is definitely the spirit of the times (and has been for quite some time). One would have to show a concrete harm caused by treating same-sex unions the same as opposite sex ones to convince most people the should be treated differently in law. No one has been able to do that as far as I can tell. I disagree with the premise, but we lost that argument a long time ago. By fighting the way ssm-opponents did, we have played into the hand of those who want to brand traditionalists bigots. Had ssm evolved the way no-fault divorce did, we would likely have a more peaceful and tolerant climate. That being said, such a climate is not necessarily more conducive of passing on the faith.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 19, 2015 at 10:20 pm | Permalink
vd, t did you know that Roman Catholics appeal to tradition to justify contraception and abortion?
Yes, Butch, but what dissident websites like catholicsforchoice.org think doesn’t matter in the least. By contrast, in the “priesthood of all believers,” all opinions are equal.
Fortunately Reformationists really don’t believe that, which is why you exiled Bernardino Ochino and burned up Michael Servetus. You rely on tradition too; you just don’t like to admit it.
And I’m not sure you’re observing the necessary distinction between tradition and Tradition. Your adversarial approach to knowledge that values “winning” over truth makes things too sloppy sometimes.
LikeLike
@tvd
I’m just looking for clarification from you. You keep repeating “natural law” as an answer to something. Lots of people do that. But no one ever seems to be able to connect the dots and on how this supposed law turns into public policy.
Dismissing evidence that doesn’t fit your theory as an inconsequential “exception” undermines your theory (that’s falsification in action). If there are to be exceptions, you have to justify these. But if it makes you feel better, ignore the exceptions and show how a natural law warrants your conclusion. My goal isn’t to “win” anything. I just want to understand where you are coming from. Just as a reminder here is what I wrote,
In response, you wrote,
Here’s my question,
Now maybe I wasn’t clear. My contention is that natural law is not sufficient to determine civil policy. There are no self-evident facts of nature that leads us inexorably to optimal public policy outcomes. You said that the natural law definition is “sex that makes babies”. But definition of what? Definition of the kinds of unions that should be recognized by the state? The kinds of unions that should be legal? the kinds of unions that shouldn’t be stigmatized? What are you defining? I’m not really arguing with you, I just don’t understand you.
Now you closed with the following question,
I don’t think “dignity” is a helpful adjective here. Standing in a statue of liberty costume in from of a used car dealership isn’t very dignified, but that doesn’t mean the state shouldn’t recognize it as legitimate employment or that doing this kind of job is somehow sinful. In my estimation only two considerations matter – is the behavior sinful (a judgement for Christians only) and is it prudent to circumscribe the behavior (a judgement for the state). Some behavior may be sinful, but it wouldn’t be prudent for the state to outlaw said behavior. Other behavior may not be sinful per se, but would be imprudent to allow (driving your motorcycle without a muffler). What does natural law add? Does it tell us what would be prudent to legislate against? How? I’d like to see the chain of reasoning that goes from observations of nature to ssm should be banned without reference to revelation. I can make the case from revelation, I haven’t seen a purely secular one that is compelling.
LikeLike
I didn’t lose anything to Darryl’s ad hom @ 10:28, and I have no idea what your argument is, except to argue. . . . . You don’t know what church I attend or don’t attend and it’s none of your [blankety blank] business, Darryl.
Res ipsa loquitur.
TVD is either a liar or so blind he can’t read what he writes.
Or maybe we are supposed to believe that he doesn’t know what is meant by blasphemy.
LikeLike
John Yeazel
Posted July 19, 2015 at 6:59 pm | Permalink
Is this the record post for the number of comments at oldlife?
Nah, that might be the 1541-comment, which somebody broke… (i’m lookin’ a’choo)
https://oldlife.org/2015/06/the-court-gives-the-court-taketh-away
LikeLike
One would have to show a concrete harm caused by treating same-sex unions the same as opposite sex ones to convince most people the should be treated differently in law. No one has been able to do that as far as I can tell.
No one has been allowed to do that, sdb.
Right off the get go, treating ssm the same as the historic version is discrimination against the children adopted into such arrangements. There were more than a few amici briefings by children raised in the same that never saw the light of day in the media, never mind that discrimination is one of the unforgivable sins in the modern secular world.
Rather the whole fiasco has not been subjected to a fair and honest debate or examination and very possibly never will be.
It still might be one judicial over reach too far.
LikeLike
My contention is that natural law is not sufficient to determine civil policy. There are no self-evident facts of nature that leads us inexorably to optimal public policy outcomes.
No 2k then, sdb.
What does natural law add? Does it tell us what would be prudent to legislate against? How? I’d like to see the chain of reasoning that goes from observations of nature to ssm should be banned without reference to revelation. I can make the case from revelation, I haven’t seen a purely secular one that is compelling.
If the family is the fundamental building block of society and where the next generation comes from, it behooves the state, if it has any common sense to in some way acknowledge that and foster it. Watering down/widening the franchise doesn’t help for starters.
Neither is it wise to tinker with something that elemental by introducing a complete novelty in history, equating homosexual unions with marriage, even though homosexuality has been around since the beginning of history, ie. Sodom and Gomorrah.
LikeLike
CW – thanks for noting that DGH is away. My comment had to do with the multiple recent threads airing dirty laundry or GtT’s coming clean about his criminal past on a public blog, posting a link to pornographic material to prove a point, etc – that kind of cringe worthy stuff. As for the provocateur wacktardery – I thought that was what the blog was semi-about.
I never hid my criminal past and it is well known to those who know me and a joke compared to many of theirs. I got into details by request.
I know it’s an honest mistake by Appalled above, but I never posted anything about “The Wire”. It was scenes of some actress, which I watched a grand total of one literal second of. Yes, it was to make a point. It actually did make that point, but still a lapse in judgement that even my own research partner told me was a bad idea and I asked Dr. Hart to remove it.
I know many of you have been weeping at my absence lately, but I have been unavoidably detained elsewhere.
Jed, no hurry still , but drop me an email when that response it done. I don’t check here constantly, but more when I’m not hung up somewhere else.
You might find it interesting that I was called upon to preach the interchurch men’s meeting last Thursday night. Col. 3. The first time I have gone after media entertainment from the pulpit. Brought it hard and wholesome. Full range of responses from enthusiastic hugs and thank yous to aggravated scowls and cold shoulders. Easy to tell who the idolators are.
For the record. I’ve revised my view of Darryl over time. I have higher hopes for him than I at first thought I ever would.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted July 19, 2015 at 11:22 pm | Permalink
@tvd
“I’m not sure what you mean. Are you saying that natural law tells us only sex that makes baby should be legal? How does one go from the fact that sex that can make babies is different from the sex that doesn’t (say an infertile couple?) to public policy or even moral taboos? I see how revelation gets us there. I don’t see that natural law has much to say. What am I missing.”
“Yes, predictably someone would bring up infertile man-woman couples. This is a well-rehearsed tactic. But it argues the exception against the rule. All rules have exceptions, thus if this tactic wins, all rules, all norms, are bullshit. OK, fine you just overturned the chessboard.”
But the only “coupling” that matters before God and man is the one that makes babies. or are you arguing oral and anal sexual gratification are to be given equal status with the coital act that makes babies?
“Are you standing up for the ‘dignity’ of sexual gratification as equal to that of the procreative act? I know you’re not. At least I hope not.”
I’m just looking for clarification from you. You keep repeating “natural law” as an answer to something. Lots of people do that. But no one ever seems to be able to connect the dots and on how this supposed law turns into public policy.
Dismissing evidence that doesn’t fit your theory as an inconsequential “exception” undermines your theory (that’s falsification in action). If there are to be exceptions, you have to justify these. But if it makes you feel better, ignore the exceptions and show how a natural law warrants your conclusion. My goal isn’t to “win” anything. I just want to understand where you are coming from. Just as a reminder here is what I wrote,
[natural law] is not sufficient to determine the right civil policy for what kinds of [sexual unions] should be allowed, what kinds of benefits should be afforded for which kind of [sexual unions], and what taboos have bigger benefits than costs.
In response, you wrote,
“The natural law definition is the sex that makes babies. Coitus. Natural law makes the necessary categorical distinction between coital partnerships and all other alleged ‘partnerships.'”
Here’s my question,
I’m not sure what you mean. Are you saying that natural law tells us only sex that makes baby should be legal? How does one go from the fact that sex that can make babies is different from the sex that doesn’t (say an infertile couple?) to public policy or even moral taboos? I see how revelation gets us there. I don’t see that natural law has much to say. What am I missing.
Now maybe I wasn’t clear. My contention is that natural law is not sufficient to determine civil policy. There are no self-evident facts of nature that leads us inexorably to optimal public policy outcomes. You said that the natural law definition is “sex that makes babies”. But definition of what? Definition of the kinds of unions that should be recognized by the state? The kinds of unions that should be legal? the kinds of unions that shouldn’t be stigmatized? What are you defining? I’m not really arguing with you, I just don’t understand you.
If you’re sincere, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize how much remediation Christians need on natural law. I assumed too much and this is not your fault. The irony is that that America was founded on natural law, claimed their rights according to it, but the Christians in it forgot it as the years went on.
I do think this is the key to your question, Darryl, “When Did Christian America End?”
When we rejected natural law for “positive liberty.” This blog, or at least its comments section, continues to be of great value, if not utility. We must learn how to communicate the natural law not just to the pagans but the Christians as well. In fact, the Christians with all their theological cases and cudgels, are probably more immune to reason!
So to bidness, then, brother SDB:
Are all sexual acts created equal?
—Clearly not.
Does the state have a compelling interest in sex acts that can make babies?
—Yes.
Does the state have a compelling interest in sex acts that cannot make babies?
—No.
Does the state have a compelling interest in institutionalizing sex acts that don’t make babies?
—Clearly not.
Does the 14th Amendment, ratified with the understanding that blacks are endowed with the same civil rights as all men, dictate the creation of gay “marriage?”
—Well, 5 SC justices mangled all logic and human history to decree so, but that of course was a lie.
Something like that. As for banning sodomy, I’m fairly indifferent except how it might affect children. The key to Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down anti-sodomy laws, was that they believed the state had the constitutional power to do so, to dictate public morals. Clarence Thomas noted in dicta that he would vote to repeal the “silly” anti-sodomy law, but did not find it unconstitutional.
Indeed, sodomy laws hadn’t been enforced in decades, so there’s a prudential question here, that perhaps the laws should reflect prevailing social norms, but those social norms should not be enforced at the point of a gun. That would be Aquinas’s prudential opinion, I think, since he was against persecuting prostitution while still not giving it a stamp of approval–which of course is what Obergefell just did–by judicial fiat, homosexual acts are now the social, civic, legal and metaphysical* equal of the procreative sexual act.
Since the “cool” Christians lacked the guts to speak out, the state has seized dominion over reality. Nature abhors a vacuum. All sex acts are created equal.
________
*Justice Kennedy based his majority opinion [behind which the 4 liberal bantamweights hid] on some “dignity.” I chose the word quite purposefully, so it’s incumbent upon you to be up to speed on the case before you dog me. You’re a smart and thorough fella. I don’t expect that from everyone here, in fact, practically nobody.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/06/no-justice-kennedy-there-is-no-dignity-in-sodomy/
LikeLike
Bob S
Posted July 20, 2015 at 1:02 am | Permalink
One would have to show a concrete harm caused by treating same-sex unions the same as opposite sex ones to convince most people the should be treated differently in law. No one has been able to do that as far as I can tell.
No one has been allowed to do that, sdb.
Right off the get go, treating ssm the same as the historic version is discrimination against the children adopted into such arrangements. There were more than a few amici briefings by children raised in the same that never saw the light of day in the media, never mind that discrimination is one of the unforgivable sins in the modern secular world.
Rather the whole fiasco has not been subjected to a fair and honest debate or examination and very possibly never will be.
You & I are tooth and nail about most things, Bob, but you’re as an unmuddied lake on this one. Gird up. We’re just getting started.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/02/same-sex-science
LikeLike
sdb
Posted July 19, 2015 at 7:44 am | Permalink
@mwf
I don’t call everyone else proud and arrogant. Just you on this thread. The ratio of members to full time missionaries in my tiny denomination is 500. What is it in yours?>>>>
Are we bickering, sdb?
sdb:
Second, as I have noted several times we don’t claim to be “the” true church. We claim to be “a” legitimate local manifestation of the visible church. Others who preach the gospel correctly, administer the proper sacraments, and exercise discipline are also true churches. From assembly of god to zion episcopal global outreach. The fact that chuches get important things wrong doesn’t make them not churches. But it doesn’t make them immune from criticism either.>>>>>
Well, as long as you are willing to let your denomination be criticized, then okay. I noticed that you left out the Catholics. Do you call Catholicism a true Church, but apostate – which is R.C. Sproul’s take?
All I can see from this particular blog – including the owner and Reformed participants – is that everyone but the OPC is a mess. If you do not think that way, then I acknowledge my impression of you, sdb, is wrong. Hence, my conclusion that you believe yourselves to be the one, true, church. I mean, if everyone else is criticized, and the OPC always held up as the example of how churches should operate, what am I supposed to think?
sdb:
As usual you are wrong. >>>>
Wrong as usual? Hmmm. Have you been talking to my daughter?
sdb:
If I am wrong about your arrogance prove it.>>>>
Okay. I am not arrogant.
sdb:
Admit you are wrong about our view of the church and missionary activity. The participation of our members in foreign missions is about a factor of 10 higher than yours….but who’s counting? That would be prideful.>>>>>>
You go first. Admit that you are counting and bragging about your church. You are being prideful. Come on. Admit it.
Okay, the Catholic Church sat on its laurels for a long, long time, basking in her past glories. She lost many members that way. In recent days – since the initiation of the New Evangelization of Pope St. John Paul II – things are better.
You guys win on the percentages. We all need to do more. However, the typical Protestant propaganda about how big a failure the Catholic Church has been is greatly exaggerated. Every Mass I have been to in many parts of the US and Canada is well attended. This evening, in spite of the beautiful weather we have been enjoying, the church was full. It wasn’t just old people, either. Lots of families with children were there as well.
Peter’s Bark may be riding on rough seas, but she’s still very much afloat.
…and it’s okay for you to brag a little about your church’s efforts to reach the world for Christ. Just don’t trash everyone else in order to make yourselves look better – though that may not be what you, sdb, have done. I commend you for what you are doing, and hope you do more. Is that better? 🙂
I read very little of what anyone writes here, and I know that hardly anyone reads what I write, either. I do tend to take a look at what you have to say, but I don’t read it all.
Hey, Brother, sdb, you have a great week, okay?
LikeLike
vd, t, sloppy? Are you kidding?
You continue to lump all Protestants or Presbyterians into one box so you can score points (and perhaps rest assured that your Roman Catholic background remains untouched even though your Roman Catholic practice doesn’t “matter in the least” and you are apparently as much a Cafeteria Roman Catholic as the Catholics for Choice). Baptist opinions don’t matter in the OPC. Orthodox Presbyterian opinions don’t matter to Missouri Synod Lutherans.
So your claim about Protestantism is as bigoted as you think mine.
LikeLike
“Gird up. We’re just getting started.”
Maybe we’ll hit 2,000 comments with this thread.
That’ll show ’em.
LikeLike
Mermaid, in case you haven’t noticed, Old Life is not Called to the OPC. It is the apologists in your communion along with Jason and the Bryans who preen about the superiority of Roman Catholicism even without noticing that pride sends you not to purgatory but to hell (by Roman Catholic teaching about sin). Many of your comments imply a similar sense of superiority. And you get this when Roman Catholicism is at an all time low when it comes to the faithful showing obedience and submission to the apostles’ successors. Aren’t we supposed to notice?
And seriously, be serious about your faith. Good attendance at Mass is not an indication of Roman Catholic vitality. If people didn’t go to confession, what are they doing at Mass? Does your priest want people about communing if they are living in sin?
I get it. You’re pleased with your new church. Reality check — not everyone else is, and not everyone else thinks that your put downs of Protestantism are all that becoming or informed.
LikeLike
Jeff, Here’s the latest from Mark Shea on tradition:
And the canonization and veneration of saints has nothing to do with elevating local customs to sacred tradition.
LikeLike
DGHART: a dot, did God send the prophets to Babylon or Egypt?
Then the LORD said to Moses, “See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet.Ex 7:1
would have to look up His OT word to ancient Babylon but how about Rev 18 And he cried out with a mighty voice, saying, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has become a dwelling place of demons and a prison of every unclean spirit, and a prison of every unclean and hateful bird. 3 For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the passion of her immorality, and the kings of the earth have committed acts of immorality with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich by the wealth of her sensuality.”4 I heard another voice from heaven, saying, “Come out of her, my people, so that you will not participate in her sins and receive of her plagues; 5 for her sins have piled up as high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. .. For this reason in one day her plagues will come, pestilence and mourning and famine, and she will be burned up with fire; for the Lord God who judges her is strong.9 “And the kings of the earth, who committed acts of immorality and lived sensuously with her, will weep and lament over her when they see the smoke of her burning, 10 standing at a distance because of the fear of her torment, saying, ‘Woe, woe, the great city, Babylon, the strong city! For in one hour your judgment has come.’21 Then a strong angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, “So will Babylon, the great city, be thrown down with violence, and will not be found any longer.
DG HART :a dot, monogamy is a Christian ideal, right?
“don’t bring up incomplete diligence as an example of integrity or holiness.” (by DG HART)
monogamy= one union= great mystery of the depiction Christ and the church = FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. Eph 5:31-32
of course you know any monogamy is not a Christian ideal, and you should not twist the Lord’s word like that, since we know this is what the enemy does this, and we know his servants likewise disguise themselves as servants of righteousness 2 Cor 11:15
LikeLike
not that we shouldn’t also be sorrowful and speak against the disregard of true ‘monogamy’ and the casualness about fornication, adultery,divorce in the church today
LikeLike
@ DGH
It’s funny. Shea has the exact right idea on Christian liberty. Then he refuses to apply it to Catholic tradition because it’s a foregone conclusion that Catholic tradition is God-ordained, as if no other sect ever thought theirs was. And then he doesn’t notice that Catholics are at the forefront of raising Human Political Ideas to matters of church teaching.
Textbook Special Pleading.
LikeLike
a dot, have you studied Lost Soul of American Protestantism that carefully? Have you thought about a dot life?
God’s people being in Egypt doesn’t count and any good historian or theologian would know that.
LikeLike
@ DGH
I think you can make a reasonable case that allowing businesses to have undue influence over government is a form of despising the ordained authorities. Generally speaking, shadow governments are at best extraordinarily imprudential at best.
The practical problem is that moves to limit business influence over government inevitably lead to favored businesses having influence over government.
LikeLike
Double “at best” = “at besterest.”
iHate mobile devices.
LikeLike
DG:a dot, have you studied Lost Soul of American Protestantism that carefully?
never yet read it,nor any of your books… are they as confusing as this blog can be?
DG:Have you thought about a dot life?
yep.
DG:God’s people being in Egypt doesn’t count and any good historian or theologian would know that.
Doesn’t count for what?
LikeLike
“I noticed that you left out the Catholics”
(A)ssembly to (Z)ion… I figured I’d leave filling in the alphabet as an exercise for the reader. Have a good one.
LikeLike
DG, a.,
Concerning Babylon and Egypt (and most other nations in prophecies) it seems that the prophets were normally sent to God’s people within those nations and that judgment was proclaimed concerning (not to) the pagan nations, to Israel. Actually as a message to Israel, that Babylon is being condemned and Israel is being saved.
So, the more problematic example though seems to be Nineveh, not Babylon or Egypt.
Thoughts?
LikeLike
Walton, right. Was Jonah protesting economic exploitation? I’m asking (redundantly).
LikeLike
@tvd
1 – I agree. Therefore?
2 – I agree. Therefore?
3 – I disagree. non procreative sex can be of interest to the state. There are public health concerns for example.
4 – I don’t know about this one either. Just because the sex doesn’t lead to babies doesn’t mean the state doesn’t have an interesting in ameliorating behavior that has negative consequences.
5 – what does that have to do with natural law?
I don’t see NLT adding anything to the decision making here. Where’s the telos?
Bob S,
Appeal to tradition and prudence can do a lot of work without getting bogged down in metaphysics and Aristotelian/Thomist/Maritain flim-flam.
LikeLike
Walton, judgment was proclaimed against the pagans for harsh treatment; though the Lord used it also for Israel’s judgment ; also,the Lord loves the world and desires pagans be saved.
LikeLike
a.,
That’s why Nineveh is a good example of prophets speaking to the nations. Jonah goes and calls them to repent and turn to God, and they do. So maybe the church should say to the US, “repent and believe the gospel.”
But the manner in which this happened for Jonah is this: Jonah 3:4-6
He preached to all the people, and it reached the king. If transformationalism was just preaching the gospel to the people and then the “nation” believing and repenting (everyone believing and repenting), I don’t think anyone would be objecting.
LikeLike
Walton:If transformationalism was just preaching the gospel to the people and then the “nation” believing and repenting (everyone believing and repenting), I don’t think anyone would be objecting.
“Part of the reason that Hart’s version of the two kingdoms doctrine is somewhat controversial is that at times Hart has pressed the distinction between the two kingdoms to the point of separation… This tendency becomes all the more marked in Hart’s more polemical moments. For instance, while Luther or Calvin argued that even in their vocations Christians serve Christ, are bound by his moral law, and are to do everything that they do in service to him, Hart sometimes speaks as if faith and Scripture have little to say about life in this world. To be sure, in key moments, Hart admits that Christianity does teach certain truths about the image of God or about the temporal nature of life in this world. For Hart, these are truths that should shape the way in which Christians engage politics. Indeed, Hart defends his very concept of secularity on the basis of orthodox Christian eschatology. Likewise, he acknowledges that Jesus is Lord over both the eternal and the temporal kingdoms, and that in every area of life Christians are to obey God according to their consciences. But often, Hart’s criticism of the misuse to which American Protestants have framed Christian claims obscures these basic commitments.” from http://www.reformation21.org
LikeLike
a.
Yeah, but:
This churchly piety extends through our week as well; its not just something reserved for Sundays, but, we, in our vocations, in our secular callings, we try to serve God and honor him in those, and then also in our family life, we try to have family worship and other times of prayer and Bible reading that also sustain us.
~DG Hart
LikeLike
a dot, that’s not the Bible.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted July 20, 2015 at 11:05 am | Permalink
@tvd
1) Are all sexual acts created equal?
—Clearly not.
2) Does the state have a compelling interest in sex acts that can make babies?
—Yes.
3) Does the state have a compelling interest in sex acts that cannot make babies?
—No.
4) Does the state have a compelling interest in institutionalizing sex acts that don’t make babies?
—Clearly not.
5) Does the 14th Amendment, ratified with the understanding that blacks are endowed with the same civil rights as all men, dictate the creation of gay “marriage?”
—Well, 5 SC justices mangled all logic and human history to decree so, but that of course was a lie.
1 – I agree. Therefore?
2 – I agree. Therefore?
3 – I disagree. non procreative sex can be of interest to the state. There are public health concerns for example.
4 – I don’t know about this one either. Just because the sex doesn’t lead to babies doesn’t mean the state doesn’t have an interesting in ameliorating behavior that has negative consequences.
5 – what does that have to do with natural law?
I don’t see NLT adding anything to the decision making here. Where’s the telos?
True, you don’t see. First I’m leveling the playing field, and stripping the pro-SSM side of their own sentimental BS and own counterfeit of metaphysics [“dignity”]. This is how to start making a case without “because the Bible says so.”
But this is a waste of time at this point. The idea was to let Christian readers know that there are rational alternatives to Falwell-type fideism. There’s far more to this than a combox exchange with an Immovable Object can ever reasonably reveal.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/10/13939/
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/10/13939/
LikeLike
Mr Hart – your article certainly jumps around a lot, and it seems that you did not really write what you meant to say.
Regarding your question of “when did Christian America end,” I think your initial answer was the correct one: 1789 (U.S. Constitution).
But if you want to fast-forward to the present, why pick on Oregon (where I reside) or raise the inane question of the U.S. “kicking out” certain states (I assume you want Oregon removed from the union)?
Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states that, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” The basic idea of a self-governing people or popular sovereignty of people is the important contribution of republicanism to modern democracy. A compelling example of this is the Death with Dignity law strongly supported by the majority of Oregon voters twice, sustained by two federal lawsuits, given broad support from two-thirds of the American people, and ultimately upheld by the SCOTUS. If you or others think it is unChristian or unAmerican, you have the right to hold and express those views.
But your weak complaints and implausible solution (kick Oregon out of the U.S.) demonstrates why the founders created a secular government amidst a deeply Protestant culture. It is the right of individual Oregonians, not doctors, religions (yours or mine) or politicians (those liberty-loving, small government, states’ rights adherents like George and Jeb Bush, John Ashcroft or Alberto Gonzales), to govern their own end-of-life, pain management and palliative care choices.
Last, if you want to pick a galvanizing series of shocking revelations from the 1980s or 1990s that “ended Christian America,” my pick would be the Roman Catholic priest child sexual molestations (and church hierarchy coverups). This scandal had a greater impact globally, especially in Ireland. The Republic of Ireland (as entrenched a Catholic country as you can find), just voted to approve same-sex marriage (which you deplore, and consider some sort of watershed event) is another example of self-governing democracy ignoring norms espoused, but not followed, by church hierarchies. So, when you examine why religious adherents lose their faith, it is usually religious institutions that do it, rather than any external forces (e.g., liberal secular humanists) you fear or dislike.
LikeLike
JMS, who said blogs are supposed to stay on point? But thanks for letting me express my views.
I personally like Oregon and think that American popular culture would be diminished without Portlandia.
In case you haven’t noticed, I’m more concerned with Outrage Porn than with Portland. But I wouldn’t mind it if in the land that celebrates freedom every July 4th it didn’t act like the Union was prison.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart a dot, that’s not the Bible.
Good point. If it’s not in the Bible= not true
where else could one cut & past a criticism of the blog author and not have it deleted. I think the word admire would be too strong a word to use, but there is some amount of appreciation about that.
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke
Posted July 20, 2015 at 4:15 pm | Permalink
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
sdb
Posted July 20, 2015 at 11:05 am | Permalink
@tvd
1) Are all sexual acts created equal?
—Clearly not.
2) Does the state have a compelling interest in sex acts that can make babies?
—Yes.
3) Does the state have a compelling interest in sex acts that cannot make babies?
—No.
4) Does the state have a compelling interest in institutionalizing sex acts that don’t make babies?
—Clearly not.
5) Does the 14th Amendment, ratified with the understanding that blacks are endowed with the same civil rights as all men, dictate the creation of gay “marriage?”
—Well, 5 SC justices mangled all logic and human history to decree so, but that of course was a lie.
1 – I agree. Therefore?
2 – I agree. Therefore?
3 – I disagree. non procreative sex can be of interest to the state. There are public health concerns for example.
4 – I don’t know about this one either. Just because the sex doesn’t lead to babies doesn’t mean the state doesn’t have an interesting in ameliorating behavior that has negative consequences.
5 – what does that have to do with natural law?
I don’t see NLT adding anything to the decision making here. Where’s the telos?
True, you don’t see. First I’m leveling the playing field, and stripping the pro-SSM side of their own sentimental BS and own counterfeit of metaphysics [“dignity”]. This is how to start making a case without “because the Bible says so.”
But this is a waste of time at this point. The idea was to let other Christian readers know that there are rational alternatives to Falwell-type fideism. There’s far more to this than a combox exchange with an intractably Immovable Object [“I don’t see, “I’m not convinced,” and so forth] can ever reasonably reveal.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/10/13939/
LikeLike
3) Does the state have a compelling interest in sex acts that cannot make babies? —No.
I’d have to disagree – infidelity and pornography both have significant social impacts. Lustful people contribute to creating a lustful culture. Social standards need the force of law protecting them or else culture descends. If we’d continued implementing anti-pornography and anti-birth control laws, we wouldn’t have orchestras doing endless Beatles tributes.
[kc:] 3) US corps shouldn’t be using their muscle to bully the US gov; [dg:] why not?
[kc:] 4) the US gov shouldn’t be using its muscle to bully other govs when it comes to special exemptions for US corps; [dg:] me – why not?
Justice and Charity.
The Latin American people get pushed around by their governments’ collaborations with ours and the US. It’s bad for the health of their economies and political processes. They are Christians, giving us a special duty to them (more so than, e.g., the Indonesians).
Particularly in the case of the Caribbean islands, the economies are extraordinarily dependent on ours (and we depend on them for tourism and, repeatedly over the centuries, musical influence)- we may not share a political entity with them, but enough relevant cultural ties are present to dictate that they deserve special consideration.
Or one could point out NAFTA has been great for well-positioned US/global companies, but it has led to millions of Mexican farmers losing work (due to US agriculture flooding their market with cheaper, gov-subsidized goods) and the further elimination of factory jobs from the US to Mexico.
This has played a role in immigration from Mexico to the US and been generally destabilizing- it isn’t smart or just to destabilize a large neighbor (even when you’re – by far – the tougher guy).
What about these non-rigorous arguments (quick thoughts really) makes them fail by 2k standards (as I am sure they do)?
Maybe Christians shouldn’t, but the papacy did lots of bullying in its day. But why call it bullying? Why shouldn’t companies or governments exert influence? Isn’t that how the world works?
If you want to hunt down examples of the papacy acting outside of its realm of responsibility, you can find them – ~ for a couple centuries there it looked like they thought protecting control of grain production in Sicily was a part of the divine mandate. ~ (make sure you don’t miss that one, Bob S).
Influence can be exerted justly or unjustly – think mob ‘protection.’ I can imagine Hanes-Obama telling Haiti they’ve got the deal of the century on the table – implement a lower minimum wage or lose foreign aid.
I’ve no idea what specifically happened, though. Probably they didn’t threaten to assassinate anyone.
LikeLike
D.G.Hart:
I get it. You’re pleased with your new church. Reality check — not everyone else is, and not everyone else thinks that your put downs of Protestantism are all that becoming or informed.>>>>>
So, this is not about truth? You are not willing to take an honest look at the state of Protestantism. You refuse to see how a divided church is a dishonor to Christ. You call any criticism of Protestantism done by a Catholic as being a put down? Maybe you need a reality check.
I actually defend everyone who is preaching the Gospel. I think that it is time we lay aside our fighting and join forces. We have common enemies. I know that we won’t ever all be under one organization until Christ returns. However, we are all in this together.
Christ died for His body, and He has only one. There is only one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
I have said that numerous times – or words to that effect. Sure, if you do not wish to be Catholic, fine. Catholicism is not a threat to you. Catholicism is not your enemy. We do have enemies. Do battle against the real enemies. Do not be offended if your religion is criticized, especially if you spend most of your time criticizing other Christians.
LikeLike
Bob S –
A fat-finger error took away a detailed response to several points of yours. So, here’s a quick re-write without your quotes pasted in (only so much time in life, sorry):
Study what SDB and Jeff said on tradition, I think it is measured and adequately supportive of what you want to defend without requiring you to rely on contestable interpretations of Scripture.
Apostolic teaching, to my mind, probably included the Trinity (i.e., explicitly, as may well have Jesus on the road to Emmaus) and a statement that Mary was forever without sin. No proof to either point, but both were present (obviously the Trinity more than the IC) in the fathers.
Ott was working within the main of Catholic – it is a false dichotomy to say him or the Pope. If you’re serious about attacking RCC claims, order the book from Tan and study it carefully.
Paul to Timothy on scripture – Paul was referring to the OT, since the NT hadn’t been written. The OT isn’t sufficient. Regardless, a key word is “perfect” – Scripture perfects the Man of God (arguably a Bishop – this was special instruction from Paul to Timothy). To perfect a thing isn’t to make it entire – it is to add a crucial element.
Another crucial element is Paul’s enjoining of Timothy to always recall from whom he learnt the faith – to keep present it present in his mind and pass it on similarly –
“What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”
Emphasis is on the oral.
You can maintain the oral tradition in no way exceeded Scripture, I think, and be true to your beliefs; also that the oral tradition was just a vehicle to creating the written, although I would take issue with the latter claim on grounds of how human beings learn and understand.
LikeLike
Kevin in Newark
Posted July 20, 2015 at 6:13 pm | Permalink
3) Does the state have a compelling interest in sex acts that cannot make babies? —No.
I’d have to disagree – infidelity and pornography both have significant social impacts.
NB: The key words here are “compelling” and “cannot,” provided for clarity’s sake and not getting caught in the tall weeds. “Significant” is a more subjective term, and unhelpful here.
[Scalia and Thomas certainly agree that things like anti-sodomy laws are constitutional even if unwise. Indeed, we legislate morality all the time. You can’t Michael Vick your dog or screw on the sidewalk. But that’s a separate issue.]
LikeLike
dg – omit “and the US” in an early paragraph following “collaborations”, was rushing to get out of work.
And I’m not thrilled with foreign aid dependence or think a country is entitled to it, although Haiti is arguably a special case given recent disasters. The government has a duty to its people, and we as individuals have a duty to their people on the grounds I listed. Our well being does not require Haitians work 48 hours to have telephones when their government legislated 24 (and note Digicel is giving huge price discounts to Haiti).
Hanes and Levi’s also have a duty to their workers- which our government shouldn’t assist in being neglected. They are profitable companies, and the motivation was greed.
LikeLike
Accepted, Tom- I’ll say explicitly that due to negative impacts on society, the state is obligated to prohibit some non-procreative sexual activities and things like pornography strongly associated with them.
It also has an obligation to tolerate evils when political and social support is not adequate for just laws to be accepted.
Happy to be corrected if this is still not quite to-the-point.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “I think that it is time we lay aside our fighting and join forces.”
So, this is not about truth?
LikeLike
Kevin in Newark
Posted July 20, 2015 at 7:57 pm | Permalink
Accepted, Tom- I’ll say explicitly that due to negative impacts on society, the state is obligated to prohibit some non-procreative sexual activities and things like pornography strongly associated with them.
It also has an obligation to tolerate evils when political and social support is not adequate for just laws to be accepted.
Happy to be corrected if this is still not quite to-the-point.
I think in the legal realm, that ship has sailed. There is only the “harm principle,” and since harm is impossible to prove in these things, the burden of proof is on the fence.
These days of course, the destroyer walks up to the fence and says, justify yourself, for you are in my way! And the fence, being a fence and not a person, has no satisfactory answer because it cannot speak, and so it gets turned into firewood.
LikeLike
@Kevin
We agree on #3…great minds and all that. But I would take it a bit further. It isn’t just about prohibiting bad things, it is also about “taking an interest”.
The state may have an interest in prohibiting drugs, but because drugs are disruptive to society. It may also have an interest in giving away clean needles to ameliorate infectious diseases. One might argue (following folks like Rauch and Sullivan) that by applying heterosexual norms (e.g., monogamy) to same-sex unions, the state can curtail the excesses of the gay subculture. Of course one may disagree too. These are prudential considerations that should be grounded in empirical evidence.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 20, 2015 at 8:59 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, “I think that it is time we lay aside our fighting and join forces.”
So, this is not about truth?>>>>
Here is truth. If you reject it, you reject Christ. Your religion is not to the point where it calls the Catholic Church a false Church. Your religion believes at some level in something called catholicity. Your religion teaches that all who believe in Christ are part of the universal church.
We are not enemies.
Ephesias 4
4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
Then, check out the Nicene Creed – which we recite at every Mass and Liturgy of the Word – and the Apostles’ Creed.
Your religion claims to believe all that. Yes, the truth is that we are all in this together if we are part of the Body of Christ, His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
We do have common enemies who want to destroy us. It is shameful for us to be at war with one another.
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke:
These days of course, the destroyer walks up to the fence and says, justify yourself, for you are in my way! And the fence, being a fence and not a person, has no satisfactory answer because it cannot speak, and so it gets turned into firewood.>>>>>
Here is another fence that could very well become firewood – pedophilia, or euphemistically speaking, cross-generational love. How could Justice Kennedy and the others on the Supreme Court oppose this kind of love? At this point in time in our legal system a child is not able to consent to sex. On what basis can our courts continue to call it illegal? They have thrown out appeals to nature and nature’s God, so that line of argumentation would not help them.
Besides, we have the example of Mary Kay Letourneau to help prove that there are times when cross-generational sex works out just fine in the long run. She was even featured on Oprah.
The following is from 2008 and seems quite conservative given the nature of other academic articles that can be found online. Are we ready for this debate? Will the radical 2Kers sit on the sidelines and criticize those who dare to at least try to sway public opinion?
Then there is the ongoing debate on infanticide as well. Is that something that should interest us?
——————————————————-
Love versus Abuse
Crossgenerational Sexual Relations of Minors: A Gay Rights Issue?
Abstract
The question discussed is how far crossgenerational sexual relations with or by minors could be considered to be a gay rights issue. The author discusses the issue from the perspective of general principles found in the case-law of the European Court on Human Rights. These principles suggest that the basic right to privacy should be interpreted as providing comprehensive protection of the right of children and adolescents to sexual self-determination, namely both the right to effective protection from (unwanted) sex and abuse on the one hand and the right to (wanted) sex on the other. The analysis is based upon the findings of natural and social science as well as an extensive international survey of national legal provisions and it leads to the conclusion that consensual sexual relations of and with adolescents over 14 (out of relations of authority) should be qualified a gay rights issue; likewise (as the exception to the rule) the possibility of filtering out cases from prosecution where a contact/relation is proven (beyond reasonable doubt) as consensual and harmless even though the minor involved is under 14. The legalization of (objectively consensual) sexual relations with persons under 14 as such, however, should not be considered to be a gay rights issue.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v37n04_03#.Va3INHhH3Vo
LikeLike
Mermaid, if my religion believes Christ, why your need to convert? Conversion from Christ to Christ? Huh?
LikeLike
Darryl,
Presumably youd like Arminians and other non Reformed to convert who you consider to believe in Christ but are still in error. So why?
LikeLike
Jeff, I left this out:
Funny how the Sacred Roman Story elevates a bishop and his administrative apparatus.
LikeLike
vd, c, I’d also like you to use your real name. Why can’t you do that?
For many non-Reformed, it would not be conversion.
So why call Protestants becoming Roman Catholic converts?
And why call yourself a pseudonym?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 21, 2015 at 6:25 am | Permalink
Mermaid, if my religion believes Christ, why your need to convert? Conversion from Christ to Christ? Huh?>>>>
Not sayin’ what you have to do convert. Just sayin’ that we are all in this together, and we have common enemies. You are not my enemy, and I am not your enemy. Your obsession with Catholicism makes no sense to me. Sure, a post now and then on what you see as wrong with the Church makes sense, but so much attention? What are you afraid of?
At least lately you have posted about what you actually do believe in – 2K theology.
Why did I convert? Well, that’s a bit personal. 🙂 I came to believe that the divisions within orthodox and Bible believing Evangelicalism are unjustified in light of John 17. I came to believe the Scriptures and creeds I quoted for you. I came to believe that the Catholic Church is the only one that takes John 17 seriously. I came to believe that Jesus really meant what He said about the bread and wine of the Eucharist being His body and blood in a real way.
I came to believe that the Catholic Church was the Church up until the time of the Reformation. So, if I believe that the separation was wrong, that the Catholic Church is the Church, then I needed to go Home to my Mother and leave the separated brethren category.
I also, and especially came to believe that there really is very little place for women in Protestantism. That is a more complicated and touchy subject. In fact, Protestantism does not have a coherent theology and philosophy of human sexuality. Pentecostals do a bit better in that regard. The Reformed movement, not so much. I tried hard to accept the traditional Reformed view of male and female, but it just doesn’t work quite right.
Now, none of that may be important to you, but you did ask me why I converted and I have given you a summary of why. So, prof. I completed the assignment. 😉
LikeLike
Mermaid, so you got an upgrade — Christianity 10.0. You already had Jesus, but now you have so much more.
Beware the Gypsy curse.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 21, 2015 at 12:16 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, so you got an upgrade — Christianity 10.0. You already had Jesus, but now you have so much more.
Beware the Gypsy curse.>>>>>
So, Jesus and His body, His Bride are not inseparable? Your religion warns about the dangers of any kind of Jesus + religion.
At the same time, you have Jesus + the Westminster Confession of Faith + John Calvin + 2K theology + obsession with the Papists + lotsa’ other stuff that a person can be put on trial for. Except that allegedly, your conscience is free.
So, be happy with what you have, ‘cuz it’s not just Jesus. If you’re happy, then I’m happy for you. The question still remains.
Why are you so obsessed with Catholicism? Why, after 500 years, are you still complaining about the Papists? Does our very existence keep you up at night, worrying that the Pope might try to make you believe something you don’t want to believe?
Be at peace. Be happy.
There are real enemies out there who really do want to destroy you and me, and the Pope is not one of them.
LikeLike
Mermaid, I need to cut through a lot of Mary to get to Jesus over on your side of the Tiber. If Jesus is enough, and I have him, why swim to the other side?
Oh, because I can’t have him outside your church?
That’s not what your church says.
You’re stuck in the middle of the river. I hope you can float, the flippers aren’t doing any good.
LikeLike
@Jeff
Jeff Cagle
Posted July 18, 2015 at 5:39 pm | Permalink
MTX: Jeff, Are [you] saying it is quite easy for me to look in the written Apostolic Tradition, the NT books, and see the Church operated not excluding unwritten Apostolic Traditions and you don’t have a decent or easy case for one of the principle tenants of the Reformed faiths from Scripture, Sola Scriptura?
Jeff: No, I’m saying it is quite easy for both of us to look in the written Apostolic Tradition, period.
We can’t look in or listen to the unwritten apostolic tradition because nobody has bothered to preserve it with any degree of integrity.
Again: Can you produce any proposition contained in the apostolic deposit that is not contained in the Scripture, with evidence that such proposition is in fact contained therein, rather than a later addition?
Jeff,
It is not was not so clear at all times in the Church’s history though that Christians could just look at the written Tradition in the NT books. Though basically all of the earliest of Church history all the NT books weren’t even spread throughout the evangelized and founded on Apostolic Tradition communities. These communities had “ordained” through Tradition leaders guiding and teaching them relying on what they had been taught. What they had “recieved”. Maybe they had some NT books, maybe none. I am in no way claiming we don’t need the NT books. I am claiming they even correct poor and faulty claimed traditions from the Apostles. God providentially providing the NT books show the necessary place of them in the life of the Church.
What I see also though is that if Sola Scriptura is to be the foundational truth by which we ascertain doctrine in the Church and all other Traditions found among the churches founded by the Apostles are to be rejected, why did God not guild one phrase in any of the NT books to teach that clearly. None of the Apostles who wrote in the NT books wrote one phrase, to my knowledge, teaching this fundamental shift in where the Apostolic Traditions were to be received. None wrote that if it was not written in the written Tradition of the Apostles it no longer counts. You don’t find it odd that the Holy Spirit never saw that shift a signification truth to have inscripturated. You also can’t find it in any of the immediate post Apostolic writers in the Church. If the teaching is in Scripture, OT or NT, I have not seen it and if it is so foundational, why not? Would this not qualify as a manmade tradition contrary to what we see exampled in Scripture, as you have admitted?
I also have given you some examples of Apostolic Traditions not completely ascertained from Scripture; episcopal governance, Apostolic succession, importance of communion with Peter and the Apostolic Churches. Here is another one: Peter and Paul died in Rome.
The importance of the extent of the Tradition is not what is important with my question though. That should be left to God’s plan. If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura can’t be ascertained clearly from Scripture, it collapses under its own requirements. It requires perspicuity of important doctrines for salvation, therefore per its own definition Sola Scriptura must be taught in itself perspicuitively. I have not had anyone do this yet. Therefore I will look to what I see happening and exampled in the Scriptures and the early Church. Operation of Apostolic Tradition alone from which we received the inerrant written Tradition of both the Old and then NT books and the witness of an authority structure that was function authoritatively with divinely given authority which a person could submit to and be truly accountable to for the fullness of the faith once for all delivered to the saints.
The Catholic or Orhodox paradigm is what is see working in Scripture. If the Reformed position is to teach Sola Scriptura to the exclusion of receiving Apostolic Traditions(which the NT teaches is good), I just want to see the Biblical case for it. I have yet to get a reasonable one.
…nobody has bothered to preserve it with any degree of integrity.
This is what we as Catholics claim the Holy Spirit has done in our Church and to lesser degrees in the Orthodox Churches and in even lesser degrees in other Christian communions. What we do not claim is that everything we do is part of the Tradition from the Apostles. Some things are just traditions from our less than Apostolic Church members and these can be good to, just not a part of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith. Like your belief, any of these that are found to be contrary to what is taught in Scripture should be removed from among the Church’s practice.
Hope some of that helps you see where I am, Jeff.
Peace,
Michael
LikeLike
@Zrim
Zrim
Posted July 19, 2015 at 8:16 am | Permalink
I am not the one condemning life of Christ plays as misguided. You are the one who needs to justify your judgement of others, not myself. I am judging no one. If you don think you should b involved, that is your call, but it is you who is calling those who do misguided. Put some biblical meat on that bone if you are going to stand by it. Otherwise allow Christian freedom to reign.
MTX, so the idea is that anybody can come up with any pious exercise and it’s on those who cringe to justify why it’s cringe-worthy, not on those who wake up one day and say, “Hey, I know what’ll gather them in, a corny play about heaven and hell written and directed by ME!” But let me get this straight, Protestants are the ones who have the problem of individualism and autonomy, but here you are as an apostolic succession Catholic defending piety plays. I’m the one as a Protestant saying pious playwrights should pack it in on biblical grounds and let the church do the work of evangelizing, and you want all manner of mukety-mucks running around embarrassing the church?
Yep Zrim, that is basically what I am saying. If you believe in Sola Scriptura and Scripture does not condemn or prohibit a person for putting on and organizing a play about the life of Christ, who are you to judge. Yes, I am being more free and individualistic than you,but can the Church use it’s authority to condemn a certain play for false representations of the story of salvation? Yes. Don’t know where that leaves us, Zrim. Sorry for the delay in responding.
Peace,
Michael
LikeLike
@sdb
sdb
Posted July 19, 2015 at 8:22 am | Permalink
@mtx
“The traditional canon of Scripture is the 73 book canon, to the extreme majority of Christians prior to the Reformation. How does one discern the canon apart from Apostolic Tradition and the historic developmental discerning reception of it by the people of God?”
I think this is the same question cvd had. I don’t think the canon (including the OT stuff) was definitive until the 16th century. I think there is a great deal of uncertainty at the edges (even divergence between EO and RC on a few items and further divergence among other ancient sects). For the OT, I would turn to the Jewish canon as it existed at the time of Christ. Maybe we are wrong in our judgement about what that canon was, but it seems to me a pretty good case for adopting the Tanakh can be made (which is the protestant OT). Of course there was disagreement about the scope of the OT canon among the Jews in the first century, so what can you do?
Regarding the NT canon, I believe that the fallible church was the vessel chosen by God to preserve his Word. The fact that we have that reliably today doesn’t make the church infallible any more than the OT traditions (including the scope of the canon) were infallible.
It seems your position leaves you where RC Sproul’s “fallible collection of infallible books” is.
Hope this doesn’t come across harsh. It is just how it is viewed from my understanding.
You are “fallibly” believing a different canon than the 73 book canon was “anathematized” at Trent by duly appointed Church leaders, but it had been proclaimed over and over again through out Church history in the Catholic Church. I don’t doubt ancient sect had divergent canon, but the Church has been consistent. The councils of Hippo and Carthage(around 400AD) state the 73 book canon. Cathage(council against Plagius) was adopted by the Sixth or Seventh Ecumenical Council(can’t remember which). St. Jerome submitted and later used the 73 book canon authoritatively in his translation of Vulgate which he was translating per the pope of the time. The 73 book canon was also stated in the Ecumenical Councils of Lyon and Florence dealing with the Orthodox union and reform. The first bible ever printed had the 73 books, dispersed with no divisions except OT/NT, around 1480. The truth of the canon of the 46 book old and the 27 book new has been know and taught long before Trent’s anathema.
I also agree their was Jewish sects in disagreement regarding the OT Canon. What I don’t believe is that Christ or the Apostles had disagreement about which OT canon was right. I believe the early church kept the Apostolic Tradition protected and keep the 46 book canon of the Septuagint. Clearly you at this point disagree and follow the tradition of the Reformer and the Jews who settled the Tenakh, post OT authority structure and after the Apostles. This would be the same Jews who rejected other Holy Spirit inspired inerrant Scripture from their closed canon of inerrant books. I see a problem with all of that, sdb. I do believe the Jews were given all the oracles of God. I do not believe they have “received” all the oracles of God, therefore believe we should not just accept the canon on Jewish post Apostolic authority. I believe those who follow the example and teachings of the Apostles, written or unwritten, have all the oracles “given” to the Jews.
Sorry for the delay.
Peace,
Michael
LikeLike
mtx, “why did God not guild one phrase in any of the NT books to teach that clearly”
By that criterion, bodily assumption of Mary?
Wow!
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 21, 2015 at 2:05 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, I need to cut through a lot of Mary to get to Jesus over on your side of the Tiber. If Jesus is enough, and I have him, why swim to the other side?
Oh, because I can’t have him outside your church?
That’s not what your church says.
You’re stuck in the middle of the river. I hope you can float, the flippers aren’t doing any good.
You don’t have Jesus, O Calvinist tough guy who mocks nice Catholic ladies.
You claim to have the Word, but your Bible has holes in it.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 21, 2015 at 2:05 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, I need to cut through a lot of Mary to get to Jesus over on your side of the Tiber. If Jesus is enough, and I have him, why swim to the other side?
Oh, because I can’t have him outside your church?
That’s not what your church says.
You’re stuck in the middle of the river. I hope you can float, the flippers aren’t doing any good.>>>>
I am happy if you just stay where you are, wherever that may be.
No, you cannot have Jesus outside the Catholic Church. Even Pope Francis shocked people by affirming that. He also exhorted Christians to preach the Gospel, since that is the only way people will know about Jesus and be able to believe in Him. That is apostolic teaching.
Since the Church actually wants people to be saved, she includes all who believe in Christ, but you know that. You just don’t believe that is what the Church teaches, or you choose to misrepresent her teachings.
So, stay in Calvinism, where all are predestined for hell except for a very small remnant. You cannot really be sure you are part of that remnant. You cannot be sure that Jesus has chosen you.
An about Mary. Without her, there would be no Jesus. It is God’s will that she be the Mother of God. Prophecy fulfilled according to God’s perfect plan. You owe a lot to her, certainly more than you owe to John Calvin.
LikeLike
Jeff,
“That’s correct, and I’m glad we cleared that up. It wasn’t a secret.”
So why should I bother considering or assenting to Protestant claims and teachings in the first place?
“the canon is a fallible list of infallible books. It goes without saying that “fallible” does not mean “wrong”, but “theoretically capable of being wrong.””
Right. But divine revelation and divinely authorized teaching is not “theoretically capable of being wrong”. That’s what Protestantism can never offer as you freely agreed above. Secondly, how can a fallible collection serve as the foundation for the sole infallible and ultimate authority and rule of faith per SS?
“Atomic theory is fallible, but only a fool would bet against it.”
Are all the previous generations and current Christians who held to the deuteros as canonical or held to passages you dispute as authentic fools?
“CVD: Secondly, “things must be judged in light of Scripture” does not answer the question of whose judgment is normative and binding on others.
Yes, it does: None. There is no human judgment that is normative and binding on others. There is judgment that is authoritative (see WCF Ch 31 above), but authority does not function infallibly.”
So “things must be judged in light of Scripture” but there is no binding and normative judgment on others that can ever be issued or definitively settled. But I thought things *must* be judged – so how does this process work out if there can never in principle be a final definitive judgment? If there is judgment that is authoritative, but the authority does not function infallibly, were Christ and the Apostles various judgments that were normative and binding on others authoritative but did not function infallibly? Was the Jerusalem Council’s judgment authoritative but not functioning infallibly?
Is there a difference between an accurate judgment and an authoritative judgment – that is, can one teach accurately without having authority? But can one teach with divine authority without also teaching accurately? Given Protestantism’s claims, can it or its agents ever consistently hold it is teaching with authority, or can it only at best hope for teaching accurately? If the latter, what distinguishes the “authority” of Protestant pastors and elders from a layman teaching accurately?
LikeLike
Mermaid, but without the church, there’d be no Mary.
LikeLike
Sean,
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
sean
Posted July 19, 2015 at 9:05 am | Permalink
Michael, the point of the prophecy in scripture citation was the ‘in scripture’ part. I’ve cited you apostolic writings, Jesus’ own words, and the very existence of an old testament. If you want to add to it, the burden is on you to show it forth and prove it’s apostolic authority. I don’t have need to prove what your communion and my communion hold in common. The RCC wants to add to and crown it with apostolic authority. Prove it. Gal. 1:8. Claiming is not proving.
So are you saying you don’t have any clear Scripture that prohibits me from believing Apostolic Traditions not contradicted by Scripture but not found in Scripture?
To repeat, I am not arguing for any tradition, only defending the idea that I believe Sola Scripture is a manmade tradition that is not taught in Scripture and should be rejected. It is contrary to what I see happening in the NT community.
LikeLike
Bob S,
“Then we get to 2 Tim. 3:17:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
If inspired Scripture equips the man of God for every (or all) good works, what’s left out?
But if the lost apostolic oral traditions contain anything not in the written NT tradition, then Scripture is NOT inspired or infallible and only prepares the man of God for “some” good works.”
If I’m getting you right you are building your entire argument for Sola Scriptura on this one verse and ignoring all the other verses speaking of things being taught, done and received directly from the authoritative Apostles regarding the life and ministry of Christ and to operation of the Church. I do not say you can’t do this. I am just wondering why do this. Logic says Paul would have done more than he wrote. This example would be part of Apostolic Tradition. Anyway, your tower falls when considering when this was written. Paul is telling this to Timothy while Paul is still alive. Paul died before all the NT books could be read by Timothy. Before this verse Paul says to Timothy, “… from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” It is faith in Jesus from the teaching of the Scriptures Paul is pointing to. That is only my minor point though. The major point is Timothy had no access to “All Scripture” at the time of this writing by Paul, therefore in your view would not have been able to be perfect or thoroughly equip for all good work. When Paul said ” the sacred writings” he would have been talking about the OT books which Timothy was acquainted with from childhood. Your system leaves ages of Christians ill equip for salvation because they lacked access of the totality of the Scriptures. The Paul’s written Tradition just a few verses latter tell Timothy exactly what to do to help others receive the salvation he has received.
2 Timothy 2:1-2
2 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
In other word, keep the faith by grace and pass on the Apostolic Traditions.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 21, 2015 at 5:08 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, but without the church, there’d be no Mary.
That’s even dumber than usual, Butch.
LikeLike
MichaelTX
Posted July 21, 2015 at 6:01 pm | Permalink
If I’m getting you right you are building your entire argument for Sola Scriptura on this one verse and ignoring all the other verses speaking of things being taught, done and received directly from the authoritative Apostles regarding the life and ministry of Christ and to operation of the Church. I do not say you can’t do this. I am just wondering why do this
This tactic of arguing the Bible against the Bible mystifies me as well. I think it’s an autoreply built into their programming.
LikeLike
Hart,
D. G. Hart
Posted July 21, 2015 at 4:17 pm | Permalink
mtx, “why did God not guild one phrase in any of the NT books to teach that clearly”
By that criterion, bodily assumption of Mary?
Wow!
I see your point quite easily, but it is not my paradigm limiting what is important for our salvation and that we can believe as doctrine to what can only be deduced from Scripture. That is Sola Scriptura. It is the teaching of Sola Scriptura that requires all major doctrines to be found in Scripture. That is the point of why I find not being able to easily find in Scriptura the teaching of Sola Scriptura so troublying for Sola Scripturist. You say we must find our doctrines that must be believed in Scriptura alone and won’t show me in Scripture where that is taught. Your position is nullifying itself or empty of its own claim.
LikeLike
BTW Hart,
Have you tried deleting sdb’s “50,000” word post he was talking about that might have crashed “The Court Gives…”? I’d hate to lose the post to me he is talking about, but at least we could get back to the rest of the comments.
LikeLike
vd, t, if the church can take credit for giving us the Word of God, why not Mary? The church did, after all, go way beyond Scripture to arrive at the immaculate conception and the bodily assumption.
Now tell me, you man of science, that you swallow that.
LikeLike
mtx, so you need to believe in the bodily assumption of Mary for salvation? Why?
Notice how Paul refers to writings:
Notice also what he says about how your ears itch.
There’s a lot more to go on there regarding sola scriptura than anything you can produce about Mary. And if Mary is so important, why isn’t her doctrine in the books the church “gave” us?
LikeLike
@mtx im on a cell, so I will write more tomorrow. I was kidding about geniius 50,000 word thread crasher (well exaggerating anyway). Post might have a few loose ends that may not totally settle 500yr debate…alas.
I think you oversell lack of biblical basis for sola scriptura. Again the key is to look at interplay bn trad and word. One stood in judgment of other….were not equal.
Also note fallible is not the same as errant. A book comprised of only 2+2=4 isn’t infallible bc I ciuld have gotten it wrong even if I didn’t. God couldn’t have gotten His word wrong though we may misinterpret or misidentify it…church wasn’t unaminous, so someone was wrong before E/W split. Don’t see why identificaton is prob for ss.
Note also that Peter saw Paul’s letters as scripture. So it isn’t clear that nt Paul’s pastoral appeals to scripture don’t inc apostolic writing.
Finally while scrip limits authority of church, that doesn’t mean you need verse that states x. Regulative principle comes from scrip and tlls us God should be worshipped as He commands…not free to do whatever in church. The fact that not every moral question has an objective absolute answer doesn’t mean every thing is relative (cf meat to idols).
LikeLike
Hart,
I say amen to those passages. I have addressed that 2 Timothy passage already. It teaches Scriptural truth, inspiration and authority. It also teaches the authority of leaders of the Church. It does not teach rejecting Apostolic Traditions that do not contradict Scripture but aren’t contained in Scripture.
Yes, I believe in all the dogmas of the Church, including the Assumption. I do believe this is connected to my salvation, because I believe the dogmas of the Church are revealed and protected by God. I believe chiefly the Catholic Church is Christ’s Church and bride.To reject a truth revealed by God is to not trust God which is to reject God which is to forsake the Truth which is to be without hope and the love of God. Which is the greatest of the commandments for which Christ died to fulfill in us. Basically I have no faith therefore I have no salvation. Jesus didn’t just give us a book. He gave us a Church to which he gave promises, which the books that are a fruit of the Apostolic community record “for the sake of our salvation.”
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 21, 2015 at 8:58 pm | Permalink
vd, t, if the church can take credit for giving us the Word of God, why not Mary?
That’s still makes no sense, Butch.
The church did, after all, go way beyond Scripture to arrive at the immaculate conception and the bodily assumption.
You concern yourself with matters that have nothing to do with salvation or justification or any of that boring shit you’re always on about. Mary has nothing to do with the essentials.
These doctrines will not get anyone into heaven, nor keep them out. You use theology as a weapon, not a tool.
Now tell me, you man of science, that you swallow that.
Frankly, as Ben Franklin said of another doctrinal controversy
Of course, Franklin died just a few months later, and found out the Truth with no Trouble atall.
We should really be thinking about not being a Goat [Matthew 25:31-46]. We should be thinking about your faith being barren of fruits, “faith working through love” [Galatians 5:6].
There’s nothing in the Bible about a Mary test. We get upset at the smallest of things and lose the thread.
LikeLike
TVD,
Beware of what you teach Hart. A Catholic denouncing Catholic dogma can sacrifice his salvation. The Assumption is a dogma of the universal Church.
…by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
I, PIUS, Bishop of the Catholic Church, have signed, so defining.
LikeLike
MichaelTX
Posted July 21, 2015 at 10:09 pm | Permalink
TVD,
Beware of what you teach Hart. A Catholic denouncing Catholic dogma can sacrifice his salvation. The Assumption is a dogma of the universal Church.
…by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
I, PIUS, Bishop of the Catholic Church, have signed, so defining.
You make it too easy for Dr. Hart.
let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
You have let him know. In his pride he sneers, and challenges the Catholic Church to damn him.
All I’m saying is that if Marian theology is true, when Darryl and the Sneerers are on their deathbed, they’ll have a chance to see and know for themselves.
LikeLike
The church did, after all, go way beyond Scripture to arrive at the immaculate conception and the bodily assumption.
I think Jeff and sdb covered this very well earlier.
Scripture on its own does not explicitly state either, it merely calls her blessed. In the words of the C.E.: “No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.”
Nevertheless, for me it is enough that:
1) If Christ was Son of Man and son of Mary, she can’t have passed original sin to him- original sin passes through human generation. Either sin was removed from her at the Annunciation/Incarnation, or she was herself conceived without sin.
2) Augustine said he would hear nothing of sin where Mary is concerned- and there is other strong support amongst the Fathers.
3) Many pious Christians over the ages through argumentation, reflection, and prayer believed in it. Indeed, it became a public feast of the Church.
4) Those less inclined to believe in it recognized its possibility (Aquinas).
I understand the objection regarding the right of the RCC to proclaim it as dogma. But this is a discrete issue.
It seems to me quite inappropriate to ridicule the IC or those who believe in it.
LikeLike
mtx, when the church had three popes, what would you do then? If your bishop (say like Cardinal Martini) teaches contrary to the bishop of Rome, who do you believe? It’s not like Rome’s voice is uniform. Papal supremacy didn’t emerge until after 1,000. See Brian Tierney. If you’re going to claim tradition, you’re entering the world of historical scholarship and that is quicksand my friend.
LikeLike
vd, t, nothing to do with salvation? Not what mtx says:
If you went to church, you might be on mtx’s page.
LikeLike
mtx, btw, is that how your church sounds today? You don’t notice a difference. Boniface does.
LikeLike
mtx, surely you know that vd, t is a selective Roman Catholic. What shepherd in your communion is coming along side him?
LikeLike
Kevin, it’s not enough for Christ to be conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virgin Mary — according to Nicea?
LikeLike
Mtx, DG,
dg- If you’re going to claim tradition, you’re entering the world of historical scholarship and that is quicksand my friend.
dg – mtx, btw, is that how your church sounds today? You don’t notice a difference.
Fortunately we have historians we can rely upon to identify the good, the bad, and the in-development.
The papal office has remained the same (in the sense of duties entailed); its ability to be expressed in history has varied, and the skill and sanctity with which it is expressed depends upon the man occupying the throne and the cooperation of the rest of the Church (clergy and lay).
A Catholic should be quick to admit that “Trent in no way resolved all the doctrinal issues that the late medieval world had engendered, the ecclesiological question of the exact authority of the Holy See prominent among them.”
Leo XIII was a glory of the Church – but it isn’t as if Catholics need claim every Pope as a saint. Some were weak, and at times a series of weak popes succeeded each other, allowing other leaders in the hierarchy to compromise with the world. The 18th century is an example:
“Very few contemporary Catholics realize that the half-century before the outbreak of the French Revolution saw popes as well as literally armies of bishops weakly and willfully backing away from support for everything that hinted of reliance on “supernatural” learning and guidance, allowing for the dominance of a Poor Richard’s Almanac, “cleanliness is next to godliness” version of “natural Christianity” to take their place.
St. Thomas Aquinas was exiled from seminaries, processions and devotions that we take for granted prohibited, liturgical splendor ridiculed in the name of “noble simplicity”, and effective religious orders suppressed or reduced to purely utilitarian tasks. Quite frankly, all that the French Revolution did was more violently to pursue what was already being done as an “insider job”.
Rome herself teemed with Jansenists and naturalists busily at work pulling the supernatural rug out from underneath seemingly hapless, supine popes behaving themselves by listening to their masters from the world outside.”
So what is a Catholic to do with the fact that even the Pope and hierarchy can err – in the sense they can fail to do their jobs?
“Eyes that can be focused on “the Whole Christ” will readily see what the Papacy’s authority and mission truly are and are not. […]
Opening those eyes will not be a task for sissies. It will take a manful Catholic Faith and Reason with a proper sense of the true hierarchy of values.”
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/02/is-papacy-in-turmoil-call-in-outsiders.html
LikeLike
Mary (the RC creation, not the real one) is a diva, the brand, the franchise. She rightly screams “You’re nothing without me!!!. Take her away (or down a notch or two) and the whole edifice would crumble. Cult.
LikeLike
Mary, bad ventriloquist.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3170287/The-amazing-footage-Sydney-parishioners-say-shows-Virgin-Mary-s-lips-moving-painting-pray-local-church.html
Cats, please own it.
LikeLike
Kevin, it’s not enough for Christ to be conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virgin Mary — according to Nicea?
Depends what you mean by “enough” – charity calls us to take seriously the claims of the Magisterium.
cw – Mary (the RC creation, not the real one)
What are your thoughts on ‘the real one’ – aside from Hart’s statement of fact above?
LikeLike
My thoughts on the real Mary are formed by what the Gospel writers have to say about her.
LikeLike
Cw-
What does it mean that she is full of grace?
How did she not pass on original sin if she had it?
“I don’t know” would be a sensible answer, but why do you find it ridiculous to believe she never had original sin?
LikeLike
cw, I’m throwing the flag on that one. Cats are not Cats.
LikeLike
KiN, the NT does not say she was sinless. Seems like something they would not have omitted under the inspiration of the HS. To quote Ron Burgunday — kind of a big deal. If Jesus had been only fully man I can see the impossibility of his being sinless if his mother (and father) were not sinless. But he was also fully God. You’re making a type of logical/inference argument. We’re using the biblical evidence.
LikeLike
Kevin, because Jesus’ father was the Holy Ghost. If you can concede that God will save whom he will, why do you need to be a rationalist about preserving Mary from sin? And why not do logical cartwheels to protect Mary’s mother from sin? And Mary’s mother’s mother? And Mary’s mother’s mother’s mother?
you get the point.
LikeLike
Kevin: What does it mean that she is full of grace?
Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people.
Luke 1:41When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
Luke 1:67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying:
Acts 2:4And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.
Acts 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers and elders of the people,
Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place where they had gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God with boldness.
Acts 9:17So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 13:9But Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze on him,
Acts 13:52And the disciples were continually filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.
Ephesians 5:18And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit,
LikeLike
a., yes — that too. Silly RC biblicist-speculationists.
LikeLike
Kevin: sinless Mary
for ALL (even Mary) have sinned and fall short of the glory of God Rom 3: 23
only One didn’t – the God Man Jesus Christ!
LikeLike
CW, DG,
cw – KiN, the NT does not say she was sinless. Seems like something they would not have omitted under the inspiration of the HS.
The Bible does not explicitly define the Trinity, which is certainly a big deal. What would you say is the difference in the two cases?
If Jesus had been only fully man I can see the impossibility of his being sinless if his mother (and father) were not sinless. But he was also fully God.
Thanks for taking a stab at a “logical/inference argument,” but his dual nature means he had all of the essentials of both. I don’t take the question to be “silly” or “speculationist” in the sense of requiring a starting point beyond biblical evidence and God-given reason.
How does his being fully God result in his human nature not taking on original sin, if it took on the other aspects of humanity – growth, nutrition, etc. ?
As an aside, if good works are evidence of salvation, what are false accusations of frivolity, ridicule of those acting in good faith, and a preference for “winning arguments” rather than engaging in reasonable discourse?
We’re using the biblical evidence.
See my reply to a full-stop.
LikeLike
“Chaire, kecharitōmenē, ho kyrios meta sou!” Luke 1:28
a full-stop, the quotes you use would only count against the uniqueness of the angel’s word to Mary if that were the word used in those quotes (and accounting for Greek/Hebrew linguistic issues).
But the word applied to Mary is unique in Scripture – and does not even exist in secular writings. Luke appears to have been invented in order to describe her.
I believe you either must grant that the Holy Ghost inspired Luke to do so while he was writing, or else he received the word orally. Surely this is invention of a word is significant, and indicates something conceptual worth trying to understand.
I would also suggest that the not-lacking support for the I.C. amongst the Fathers reflects an appreciation of the significance of the word which was obviously apparent to those fluent in Koine Greek (as well as those not, like Augustine).
Further, the formulation is a salutation – a title (grammatically like Hail Caesar or Hello Dolly) “It is remarkable–in fact it is of utmost importance–that kecharitomene is clearly used by the angel Gabriel–the messenger of the most High God–as a proper noun, as Mary’s heavenly name.”
What, then, is the significance of the word? That’s the question the Fathers, Doctors, and Church over centuries worked out, arriving at the I.C.
“Hail Mary: Kecharitomene, A Unique Word for a Unique Lady”
http://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=50095
LikeLike
Kevin, next time I see a nun with a ruler I’ll ask her to rap me on the back of the hand. Lighten up. No one is presenting a new argument on either side. You’re on Prot turf here, not a convent.
LikeLike
CW,
“the NT does not say she was sinless.”
Not explicitly. Which presumably you shouldn’t have a problem with in principle – after all you hold to “good and necessary consequence” and all that jazz (which makes your complaint about a “logical/inference argument” all the more strange).
“Seems like something they would not have omitted under the inspiration of the HS. To quote Ron Burgunday — kind of a big deal.”
Other things you hold that are kind of a big deal that were “omitted” – SS as the rule of faith (which is what is driving your objection to IC in first place), the identification of the canon and its inerrancy, public revelation ending with the death of the apostles.
LikeLike
Kevin, the Great Commission actually mentions Father, Son and Holy Ghost? It doesn’t mention the immaculate conception or bodily assumption of Mary.
You’re a smart guy. Mentioning and explaining are different things.
LikeLike
The serious and thoughtful Catholics on here still are under the impression that they hold the 100% truth by simply believing their denomination holds the 100% truth.
It is basically impossible to discuss ANY matter WHATSOEVER with someone who holds this view on ANY topic unless one is willing to completely capitulate to them every single time.
It doesn’t matter when you prove that their church has been wrong and has contradicted (or corrected) itself and has had 3 popes at once (assuming they differed on anything at all), they just fly away to their happy place and have a drink or erase the argument from their mind. Then they fly back like it never happened.
LikeLike
Kevin, what’s it mean that Mary was full of grace? Simply that she was lavished with the favor to bear the Son of God. But let her speak for herself:
“My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.
For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
50 And his mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
51 He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;
52 he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
and exalted those of humble estate;
53 he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.
54 He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
55 as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his offspring forever.”
That doesn’t sound like a woman who thinks she is without original sin. Actually, it sounds like a woman who finds it incredible to believe that despite her being a sinner God has chosen her for this great and unique purpose. Why make more of it than that? Oh wait…
LikeLike
Signor Professore –
I’m just a guy – a library-trained business development guy who knows how to use the internet and standard reference books, and has a decent sense of whom to trust.
I certainly acknowledge the significant difference in Scriptural support for the Trinity and the I.C. (Jeff and SDB and others covered this over the past week or so)- but there is much else in the doctrine of the Trinity that is accepted as fundamental to Christianity beyond just its existence. I probably should have narrowed my reference to just the Filioque (as I had in several posts prior).
LikeLike
Zrim –
That doesn’t sound like a woman who thinks she is without original sin. Actually, it sounds like a woman who finds it incredible to believe that despite her being a sinner God has chosen her for this great and unique purpose. Why make more of it than that? Oh wait…
I can see what you’re saying, but even sinless humanity is lowly compared to God.
Kent –
It is basically impossible to discuss ANY matter WHATSOEVER with someone who holds this view on ANY topic unless one is willing to completely capitulate to them every single time.
Well, why not consider discussing the matter instead of making untrue generalizations?
CW –
No one is presenting a new argument on either side. You’re on Prot turf here
No, but I’ve continuously discovered things new to me while reading and posting here. Perhaps that has happened to you as well from time to time. I see value in it, which I hope is true for all participating. The value I see causes me to take it seriously.
DG –
There can be other logically possible explanations, but the same questions come up – what level of support is there in Scripture (e.g., the semantic analysis of the angelic salutation), the Fathers, widespread belief by the faithful, what philosophical implications are there in terms of other known truths, does the logic successfully account for the points in question, etc.
LikeLike
Well looks like the arguments for Sola Scriptura from Scripture are being drown by distractions. Should be an easy one if it is so foundational to right theology.
Hart,
D. G. Hart
Posted July 22, 2015 at 6:37 am | Permalink
mtx, btw, is that how your church sounds today? You don’t notice a difference. Boniface does.
Teachings on mortal sin have not changed in the least. I is a mortal sin for a Catholic to abstinately with full knowledge reject a dogma of the Church. You can look up mortal sin in the Catechism. Make sure and read down to the last paragraph below.
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH(2000)
“DOMINUS IESUS”
ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY
OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE CHURCH
INTRODUCTION
1. The Lord Jesus, before ascending into heaven, commanded his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to the whole world and to baptize all nations: “Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk 16:15-16); “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the world” (Mt 28:18-20; cf. Lk 24:46-48; Jn 17:18,20,21; Acts 1:8).
…IV. UNICITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH
16. The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5). Therefore, the fullness of Christ’s salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27),47 which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18).48 And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single “whole Christ”.49 This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).50
Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”.51 Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church’s integrity — will never be lacking.52
…Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”.77
…22. With the coming of the Saviour Jesus Christ, God has willed that the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity (cf. Acts 17:30-31).90 This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism “characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ‘one religion is as good as another’”.91 If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation.92 However, “all the children of the Church should nevertheless remember that their exalted condition results, not from their own merits, but from the grace of Christ. If they fail to respond in thought, word, and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be more severely judged”.93 One understands then that, following the Lord’s command (cf. Mt 28:19-20) and as a requirement of her love for all people, the Church “proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life (Jn 14:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself (cf. 2 Cor 5:18-19), men find the fullness of their religious life”.94
…23. The intention of the present Declaration, in reiterating and clarifying certain truths of the faith, has been to follow the example of the Apostle Paul, who wrote to the faithful of Corinth: “I handed on to you as of first importance what I myself received” (1 Cor 15:3). Faced with certain problematic and even erroneous propositions, theological reflection is called to reconfirm the Church’s faith and to give reasons for her hope in a way that is convincing and effective.
In treating the question of the true religion, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council taught: “We believe that this one true religion continues to exist in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus entrusted the task of spreading it among all people. Thus, he said to the Apostles: ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you’ (Mt 28: 19-20). Especially in those things that concern God and his Church, all persons are required to seek the truth, and when they come to know it, to embrace it and hold fast to it”.99
LikeLike
@mtx here’s a somewhat more coherent version of the response I sent last night….
I don’t think that’s quite right. The EOs from what I understand include books that the RCs don’t include (3Ezra, an extra Maccabees, and an extra Psalm or two as I recall). So prior to the reformation (and today) non-prots disagree on the scope of the canon. Further, very important early church fathers such as Jerome, Athanasius, and perhaps Terutullian (though I could have him mixed up) disagree. That’s not dispositive, only meant to point out that the consensus wasn’t as solid as you suggest. Further, even those who accepted the deuterocanonical books noted that they weren’t as “useful” as others. Also, there is the problem that even the deuterocanoical books recognize the lack of prophets during the time. Yet the according to the apostles, the word of God stands on the prophets and apostles. Non-prophetic/apostolic origin is a problem for canonicity it seems to me.
Not at all. I’ve not heard Sproul’s position, but I think I would demur on fallible collection of infallible books. Or at least qualify that quite a bit.
That is a hagiographic summation of the state of canonicity in my estimation. There are differences between the EOs, Copts, and RCC that persist. I don’t see these edge cases as problematic though.
Well omniscience is cheating…
This is a contentious issue as I’m sure you’re aware. It seems that the establishment of the Tenakh is debatable and has been put as early as 200BC. Not prior to the apostles. While the Septuagint included the deuterocanonical books, the authority of these books was not universally accepted at all – kind of like their status in the AV.
Fair enough. Perhaps I’m wrong. That’s the beauty of being protestant – we can correct our errors without calling it a development! I’m not sure folding in the deuterocanonical books is going to change any doctrine… or even our reading of Jude!
I will say that I think this discussion is a bit of red herring. We all have to lean on fallible knowledge to gain access to infallibility. Your grasp of language is fallible, yet you rely on it to understand the magisterium. This isn’t a problem though… we trust the Holy Spirit to guide us.
The more interesting issue is the charge that sola scriptura is an extra-biblical tradition (and thus self refuting). This charge is false (or at the very least is not tautologically true).
I think you oversell lack of biblical basis for sola scriptura. Again the key is to look at interplay bn trad and word. One stood in judgment of other….were not equal. The basis of this is seeing the parallelism between the OT prophets and NT apostles as they are laid out in scripture. To be sure, not everything Moses said was inscripturated, tradition mattered, and tradition was authoritative. Further, Abraham was given a promise that would not be broken (and wasn’t). However, that promise (analogous to the promise Christ gives us about about the gates of hell not prevailing) did not preclude the institution from going astray. This parallel is central to Paul’s warning about the status of us gentiles as those grafted in – look what he did to the natural born ones…don’t get cocky (my translation…). Clearly, the institution could fall away (it was warned) just as Israel did. However, as the reformers note, God will always preserve a people for himself (i.e., the church – those called out). How do we know when the traditions have gone awry? How do we know when the leaders are pushing traditions of men rather than God’s word? The example of Christ is by appeal to the scriptures. This is my understanding of the biblical case for sola scriptura.
I’ve seen a lot of challenges posed towards this case, but I haven’t seen a treatment that adequately addresses the example of Christ. The kind of comments I’ve seen look to a difference in pentecost…before it was only the inscripturated word, but now that there is a church with the holy spirit, tradition receives protection that didn’t previously exist. I find this line of reasoning specious. Others have tried to point to the judgement seat of moses as a sort of proto-throne of peter. I think this fails as as a challenge too.
LikeLike
Thanks sdb. Will read through and get back. Probably be tomorrow. Maybe afternoon.
LikeLike
D.G.,
When you write, ‘Who says others can’t,’ that is what you have been implying by your notes.
Even though OWS can’t say ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ when it talks about instances of exploitation, realize that unless we quote the Scriptures, no one can say ‘Thus saith the Lord.’ Does your minister begin his sermons with ‘Thus saith the Lord’ outside of quoting the Scriptures? So why do you write that? NonChristians can recognize injustice and have no need to say ‘Thus saith the Lord’ to point out injustice. This objection is makes no sense because you want apply a standard to those pointing out injustice that any Christians, outside of quoting the Scriptures, can meet. Just because we are fallible doesn’t mean that we, that is any person, cannot point out injustice.
And I never said you have to join me to love your neighbor. Why do you even write that than to distract people from the subject. But your denial of the existence of economic injustice in the first place could very easily hamper you in loving as many neighbors as you could. After all, one has to admit that there is a problem before they can work to solve it.
So stick with your viewpoints, don’t change. Why do you need to when you are so confident in your position? Just admit that you are not taking this discussion very seriously. And you are not alone there. We all have pertinent issues we need to address which we fail to address.
LikeLike
MichaelTX
Posted July 22, 2015 at 4:02 pm | Permalink
Well looks like the arguments for Sola Scriptura from Scripture are being drown by distractions. Should be an easy one if it is so foundational to right theology.
Meanwhile, 500 years after the Reformation, it’s still dodging the primary questions
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/07/fulford-on-sola-scriptura-part-i.html#more
…Some readers of my post on Feyerabend responded to the Jesuit criticisms Feyerabend cites by criticizing the Catholic position. This is fallacious for two reasons. First, I was not trying to give an exposition and defense of the Catholic position in the first place. That’s a separate topic. Second, even if the Catholic position were wrong, that would not show that sola scriptura is correct. It might only show instead that both positions are false. So, critics of the points summarized by Feyerabend should try to answer those points, rather than changing the subject by attacking the Catholic view.
Anyway, Fulford does try to answer the Jesuit points. However, as we have just seen with respect to point (a), he does not do so successfully. Neither does he succeed in answering points (b) and (c), as we’ll see in a follow-up post…
LikeLike
Zrim:
That doesn’t sound like a woman who thinks she is without original sin. Actually, it sounds like a woman who finds it incredible to believe that despite her being a sinner God has chosen her for this great and unique purpose. Why make more of it than that? Oh wait…>>>>
I commend you, Zrim, for having a high regard for Mary. So, I hate to pick on you specifically, but I hope that what I say will be food for thought for all you Protestants. 🙂 I think we’ve covered most of this ground before.
Well, even Luther accepted the Immaculate Conception of Mary and her sinless life. The fact of her perpetual virginity was also accepted by Luther. It seems that even Calvin, until possibly later on in his life, also accepted these doctrines as being true. He held to a high view of Mary throughout his whole life, in fact. These two dogmas were not questioned until later, after the Reformation produced teachers and theologians who questioned just about everything that the Church had ever taught.
Well, one caveat. The Orthodox churches do believe that Mary was sinless, but they reject the Augustinian doctrine of original sin. So, the Catholic way of explaining the Immaculate Conception is different from Orthodox churches for that reason.
Most of Christianity still accepts these doctrines – her sinless life and her perpetual virginity – about The Blessed Virgin, so it is Protestantism that is out of sync with the rest of Christianity. Protestants always have the doctrine of the remnant to fall back on, though, so just because all of Christianity until about 500 years ago, and most of Christianity right now accepts Mary’s sinless life and perpetual virginity doesn’t prove a dang thing. It is pretty strong evidence in favor of those traditions, however. It certainly can’t be said that these dogmas are something new. They are very ancient teachings of the Church, and many great men and women of God have held to them without wavering.
However, it is fairly easy to point out that salvation doesn’t always mean salvation from sin. It also means deliverance, and Mary identified herself with her people when she spoke of God, her Savior. We can arrive at that interpretation by sola scriptura, even. We can also arrive at the conclusion that Mary was perpetually virgin through scriptural evidence. After all, the Greek word for brothers and sisters can also refer to cousins and other relatives, as you must know. Also, all Jews called one another brethren. So, the sola scriptura, linguistic arguments can go either way – for or against her perpetual virginity.
But, for the sake of argument, I will say that you are correct. Even though the Bible does not call her a sinner, and even though “God my Savior” doesn’t have to be about salvation from sin, and even though Scripture does not specifically say that she had other children, let’s go with the Protestant tradition for a moment – at least your particular tradition that has developed over the last 500 years. It is not necessarily the tradition of the Reformers.
Why do many Protestants feel a need to practically ignore her? I mean, you talk on and on about the Apostle Paul – and you should – about John, Peter, and all the other men in the NT. How many Protestant preachers have you heard make the point that without Mary, there would have been no Incarnation? How many Protestant preachers in our day call her The Blessed Virgin?
Even Jonathan Edwards called her The Blessed Virgin, so it has not been that long ago that important preachers spoke of her respectfully. No, Edwards did not accept her perpetual virginity or freedom from original sin, but he did show a great love and tenderness for her.
Now, maybe you can point me to some sermons where she is highly spoken of. Generally she is said to be an ignorant, uneducated teenager.
How many times have you heard her referred to as the first Christian, the first believer? How many times have you heard her submission and obedience held up as an example for all believers? How many times have you heard her referred to as a princess, a noble woman? She was, after all, a direct descendent of King David.
You don’t even hear it from Protestant women, especially. Mary is the prototypical Christian mother, but who is preached about on Mother’s Day? The Proverbs 31 woman, not Mary. In fact, most women can’t abide sermons about the Prov. 31 woman anymore.
Which leads me to two of my main disagreements with Protestantism. 1.) There is no coherent philosophy or theology of human sexuality, especially as to what it means to be a woman. The absence of teaching about who Mary is, as far as I am concerned, part of that. 2.) Protestant sola scriptura is not enough. It can be used in any way that a particular Protestant theologian – male or female – wishes to use it.
So, anyway… Protestants lock themselves into their traditions, and then use those traditions to judge the orthodoxy of everyone else. Sola scriptura is not so alone after all. Here’s where the Reformed people say they believe in sola sciptura, not solo scriptura… So, it is Scripture + tradition.
LikeLike
Sdb,
I actual had a little time to read and do some commenting. Anyway, I don’t mind stepping back from the canon. It truly was not meant to be a red herring. It was just the problem I saw with the ideas you presented. It seems you have kept yourself right where I thought you would be though, having the possibility of being wrong about the canon. “Fair enough. Perhaps I’m wrong. That’s the beauty of being protestant – we can correct our errors…” I don’t know that many Protestants know this or are willing to admit this about the canon of books used for Sola Scriptura to function. The canon is something most Reformed confessions include though and therefore would exclude someone who disagrees with it. But…. Getting away from that red herring…
Christ most definately spoke using the authority of the OT Scriptures. He also spoke from His own authority, which would mean His hears would not be able to be Sola Scripturist to believe Him. They had to accept Him on MOC. Same would have been the case for the hearers of the Apostles. Just like the Catholic had/has to deal with the authority of the Church of Christ. In my knowledge you have to put Christ and the Apostles rejecting traditions of the people of Israel that can’t be found in the OT books. For the Reformed or Jew this has to be the 39 books. As a Catholic I see in the life of Christ him and His family living out the Law in Israel with the Temple of that day. I also see him being part of the Festival of Lights. This is an eight day feast commemorating the redetication of the temple after is desicration during the Maccabean period. There was a miracle involved regarding one days worth of sacred oil consecrated by the last high priest lasting the eight days required by the Law. This is a tradition Christ did not denounce as a manmade religious festival, but instead like many other of the festivals during his ministry in his celebration of it uses it to teach how he is “the light of the world.” If Christ wanted to denounce manmade tradition not found in the 39 book OT then would have been a great time to do it. Instead Christ shows how He is the fulfillment of the feast. He is the light of the universal temple of God, the world. He practices traditions not found in the 39 book OT and does not teach others to stop them. I’m sure there were other traditions of the Jews which he practiced that were not found in the OT books. When he denounces a tradition it is because it is against Scripture, but it does not seem he has a problem with the practice of traditions not contradicted by Scripture. This is why your position is more neaunced than what others are saying. It is similar to this, but what if in dealing with Apostolic Tradition we are dealing with a “tradition” of believing Apostolic Tradition is authoritative and dicernable by the Church and this Tradition includes the Scriptures. If this itself is a tradition, can you accept that in the Scriptures Christ, the Apostles and writers don’t condemn that? You seem to want to say Tradition is authoritative, sbd. Can you say it’s possible that Tradition is?
LikeLike
mtx, if teaching on sin haven’t changed, and if people go to hell for committing them, why is your pope spending his influence on things that are — even by Leo XIII’s views — passing away?
The PCUSA still affirms the Westminster Confession. Big wup.
LikeLike
d, sb, sola Scriptura is to Christianity what Scalia’s originalism is to Constitutional interpretation. Funny how Roman Catholics can get originalism about a secular document but not God’s word.
LikeLike
Curt, how can I deny economic injustice when you haven’t defined it.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “How many times have you heard her referred to as the first Christian, the first believer? How many times have you heard her submission and obedience held up as an example for all believers? How many times have you heard her referred to as a princess, a noble woman? She was, after all, a direct descendent of King David.”
Except for Roman Catholics saying it and saying it and saying it, never.
LikeLike
@mtx
This isn’t quite right. Most reformed confessions include it, but to be a member of a reformed church (at least the PCA), the bar is set pretty low. I said more about this on the other thread. Also an important stream of the reformation, the Anglicans, do not hold to sola scriptura – they along with the Wesleyans and their dscendents the pentecostal movement most hold to prima scriptura (quadrilateral and all that). I only mention it here in case you see this post first.
Well of course, he is God the son. But, you’ll notice how big a deal he makes of the centrality of the scriptures and the fact that he makes the scriptures the final ultimate authority for judging their traditions. I can’t think of a single place where he criticizes the errors of the clerical leaders of the day where he doesn’t appeal to scripture. Consider the example of his interaction with the Sadducees. They challenge him on the resurrection. He doesn’t say – you are faithful to tradition, the magisterium, the faithful authorities of the church. He says,
The ultimate authority is the scriptures.
Let me be as crystal clear as possible. Tradition is authoritative. A fallible authority, but an authority nonetheless. I’m no canon law expert, but my understanding of the magisterium of the RCC is that there are various levels. First there is the extraordinary level – this would be things like the Pope speaking ex-cathedra or the resolution coming from a council called by the Pope and so forth. These are purportedly infallible and demand full assent. Then there are the ordinary teachings of the Pope and the Bishops. These would be things like encyclicals, official declarations from the bishops, and so forth. These are fallible, but authoritative. Even though these are fallible, they still demand the “religious submission of the intellect and will”.
Like the magisterial reformers, I place tradition in something like the category of “ordinary teachings”. I should submit to tradition and I owe tradition deference, but since it isn’t infallible, it can be challenged. We in the reformed world have a process of doing that… In case you have doubt that the magisterial reformers took tradition to be an indispensable teacher, consider,
Now not all tradition has the same pedigree. The more universal the tradition and the further back it goes, the more weight it carries. But it must always be judged against scripture. This is sola scriptura and it is taught in scripture by the way our savior is reported to have interacted with the religious leaders of his day.
Secondly, there are prudential traditions that are really helpful. I for one find advent and the christmas season wonderful. But I don’t think one should be lambasted for not getting into the spirit of it all. I wonder what the penalty was for a jew who didn’t get into Hanukkah? Was it like blowing off the 4th of July or a big deal like blowing off Easter Sunday? I suspect the former, but I could be wrong.
The problem I have with traditions like the IC is that appear to have been developed to patch up the RCCs theory of revelation. I tihnk this was a mistake. The biggest concern I have is how Mary was born sinless. Jesus cried out to his Father in the garden that his cup be taken away from him. If there was some other way for the Father to call out a people unto himself, then the sacrifice of his son was superfluous and that makes God a monster. The sacrifice of the Son had to be necessary. Yet, evidently that sacrifice wasn’t necessary for Mary to be born without sin. If she could be born without sin, why not Cain, Abel, and Seth? Why allow sin to be transmitted to the entire human race save one person.. Mary? And if Mary could be born without sin from sinful parents, why couldn’t Christ be born without sin from sinful parents? Or in his case a sinful parent? While I think we protestants (particularly evangelicals) have made a mistake in underemphasizing the “mother of God”, I think the RCC has erred in over elevating her.
LikeLike
She whose feet are webbed, you could just as easily be asked, and with fewer words, What is to be gained by embracing this Catholic notion of no original sin and perpetual virginity (and vice versa, What is to be lost by denying it)? I can follow Edwards and call her the blessed virgin, but only because she was indeed blessed and a virgin. How any of that means something about no original sin and perpetual virginity is staggering. And if you read her own inspired words, they are about magnifying God, not bringing attention to herself, which is what all this immaculate conception jazz does. More blessedness.
So tell me, what have I lost here? A theology of womanhood? Am I a misogynist for shrugging? But I don’t need a trumped up theology of manhood by doing something similar with Joseph. And so here is some irony: your type has a lot of criticism for something like feminist theology, yet the RCC is the original feminism with all this bloated BVM stuff. Some might even go so far as to suggest hypocrisy.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 22, 2015 at 11:17 pm | Permalink
She whose feet are webbed, you could just as easily be asked, and with fewer words, What is to be gained by embracing this Catholic notion of no original sin and perpetual virginity (and vice versa, What is to be lost by denying it)? I can follow Edwards and call her the blessed virgin, but only because she was indeed blessed and a virgin. How any of that means something about no original sin and perpetual virginity is staggering. And if you read her own inspired words, they are about magnifying God, not bringing attention to herself, which is what all this immaculate conception jazz does. More blessedness.
So tell me, what have I lost here? A theology of womanhood? Am I a misogynist for shrugging? But I don’t need a trumped up theology of manhood by doing something similar with Joseph. And so here is some irony: your type has a lot of criticism for something like feminist theology, yet the RCC is the original feminism with all this bloated BVM stuff. Some might even go so far as to suggest hypocrisy.
The Catholic answer of course is what do you have to lose? Why is your pride and ego more important than a belief that the Holy Spirit guides and has guided the Church Christ founded for 2000 years now? Why do you place your own admittedly failed and corrupt reason ahead of the miracles of the Spirit?
LikeLike
Tom, I have the sole sufficiency of Christ’s life and death alone to be compromised, undermined and quite possibly lost altogether, that’s what. How in thee heck could that be construed as pride and ego?
LikeLike
KiN
I am not too impressed nor do I agree with Jeff and sdb on tradition from what I remember.
Two, briefly the OT Scripture was sufficient for the Bereans to test Paul’s gospel against and he commended them for it. Even thought the NT was finished yet. Imagine that. Scripture was the final authority at every stage of the game as it was being written and now that it is finished . . . connect the dots.
And well, yeah, the emphasis in Scripture is on the oral presentation/lively preaching and teaching of the truths of Scripture. Of the traditions, outside of the same apostolic traditions aka teachings that were written down in the NT, not a whisper. IOW you guys keep pointing to Scriptural references to traditions, but you can’t nail one down outside of Scripture, outside of your own opinion of what one would be or outside of what Rome declares as if she can find her ironclad infallibility in Scripture to declare the same.
Mikey, you got lots of reasons for what you believe but none of them hold water for anybody that hasn’t predetermined the answer. No, I haven’t brought up alot of Scripture, but then again, there’s no use flooding the combox. None of you have demonstrated any great ability to understand the ones that have been brought up. We are after all talking about a definite infallible objective record i.e. Scripture in contrast to an amorphous and vague vapor that Romanists keep appealing to, but can’t definitively explain. It’s all speculation and I think. Maybe that’s good enough for you, but in the real world, forgettaboutit.
And then there’s this little gem:
All I’m saying is that if Marian theology is true, when Darryl and the Sneerers are on their deathbed, they’ll have a chance to see and know for themselves.
Hilarious. On our deathbeds we gonna learn that what? the 13th commandment is that Mary is a CoRedemptrix – that there is not only one name under heaven by which men might be saved Acts 4:12? (Yet another reason why the RCCatechism is sufficient to condemn Rome, without following rabbit trails in Ott, KiN.)
Of course no mention of the second commandment against idol and image worship/veneration or the third commandment against blasphemy.
Figures.
Arguably in the federal scheme, as regards the second Adam, the sin of Adam not Eve comes through the male line.
LikeLike
The state may have an interest in prohibiting drugs, but because drugs are disruptive to society. It may also have an interest in giving away clean needles to ameliorate infectious diseases. One might argue (following folks like Rauch and Sullivan) that by applying heterosexual norms (e.g., monogamy) to same-sex unions, the state can curtail the excesses of the gay subculture.
And what exactly would be the excesses of the gay subculture, sdb?
If you are going to abuse drugs, we’ll give you clean needles.
If you are going to abuse sex, we’ll stop calling it perverted and let you adopt kids just like you were a real family. No disconnect there?
But for the record, this wasn’t the argument for the recent Big Lie. It was more that equality before the law has been redefined as equality of results/outcome. Everybody has a right to fill in the blank and if need be, we’ll get big govt. to make things right.
Along with the other lie about heterosexuals being supposedly able to marry anybody they wanted to, which was discrimination against homosexuals. So now polygamy and incest are on the docket. Yippee.
Discrimination against children? again, like with abortion, an unmentionable topic and despicable hypocrisy on the part of the advocates of ssm, who consider it a hatecrime if anybody contradicts their crusade.
Natural law? I think Romans 2:14,15 is sufficient without parsing Acquinas and the scholastics:
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:
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;
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 22, 2015 at 10:05 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, “How many times have you heard her referred to as the first Christian, the first believer? How many times have you heard her submission and obedience held up as an example for all believers? How many times have you heard her referred to as a princess, a noble woman? She was, after all, a direct descendent of King David.”
Except for Roman Catholics saying it and saying it and saying it, never.>>>>>
Exactly, yet all of that, and more, can be arrived at by sola scriptura. Protestants tend to be very selective in their traditional interpretations, and not because of some kind of absolute commitment to sola scriptura.
Selectivam scriptura is more like it. In fact, Protestants are not even using the Scripture that Jesus Himself used. You must know that. You are not using the Scripture that your beloved Augustine used, either.
Here’s a little test for you. ´When Jesus rebuked the Jewish leaders for not knowing the Scripture or the power of God, what specific Scripture was He referencing?
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 22, 2015 at 11:17 pm | Permalink
She whose feet are webbed, you could just as easily be asked, and with fewer words, What is to be gained by embracing this Catholic notion of no original sin and perpetual virginity (and vice versa, What is to be lost by denying it)?>>>
Gained? A connection with historical Christianity for one thing. A deeper understanding of the Incarnation for another.
Lost? A connection with historical Christianity for one thing. A deeper understanding of the Incarnation for another.
Zrim:
I can follow Edwards and call her the blessed virgin, but only because she was indeed blessed and a virgin. >>>>
You missed the point. He called her The Blessed Virgin. That is one of her titles, not just a description. At what point did Protestantism, especially Calvinism, stop showing a high regard for Mary? I don’t know, but at least until the time of Edwards she was held in high regard.
Zrim:
And if you read her own inspired words, they are about magnifying God, not bringing attention to herself, which is what all this immaculate conception jazz does. More blessedness.>>>>
Why do you think that the Catholic Church teaches anything different from what you say? Mary does not glorify herself. The Immaculate Conception is not about how Mary is glorified. It is about how Christ could be born sinless. It is about how God is able to save a person completely, from the power and presence of sin in their lives. He did that with Mary in order to protect His Son from the effects of inherited sin. All the glory goes to God for His work of redemption in the life of Mary.
Protestant tradition has explained this by the idea that sin is passed down through the male. Therefore Jesus could be born without sin because He did not have a human father.
That doesn’t quite work. We inherit our sinful nature from both father and mother, since both Adam and Eve fell into sin. So, Mary was redeemed at the moment of her conception, thus protecting Christ from the taint of original sin.
The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was “ ‘enriched from the first instant of her conception’ comes wholly from Christ: she is: ‘redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son’ .136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person ‘in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places’ and chose her ‘in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love’.”
– from the Catechism of the Catholic Church – Holy See website
Zrim:
So tell me, what have I lost here? A theology of womanhood? Am I a misogynist for shrugging? But I don’t need a trumped up theology of manhood by doing something similar with Joseph. And so here is some irony: your type has a lot of criticism for something like feminist theology, yet the RCC is the original feminism with all this bloated BVM stuff. Some might even go so far as to suggest hypocrisy.>>>>
Well, Protestantism’s insistence that it does not need Mary and Joseph as role models for the Christian family is a problem, actually. Who are Protestantism’s role models or prototypes for fatherhood and motherhood?
I know that Protestants, – especially of the Reformed variety – are good at calling others hypocrites. I find that odd myself, but I am almost used to it. My type gets it all the time, actually. It’s a cheap shot, but one to be expected.
Brother Zrim, thanks for the interaction, and have a wonderful rest of the week.
LikeLike
D.G.,
You found a way didn’t you with some of the questions you asked, didn’t you. After all, we haven’t been quibbling over how to define it, we’ve been debating as to whether it exists.
To use the dictionary definition one would simply say to use someone unfairly to gain an economic advantage. So when employers underpay people or give employees unsafe working conditions in order to save money, those are example of economic exploitation.
So do you believe that it is possible for employers to underpay employees?
LikeLike
“The Catholic answer of course is what do you have to lose?”
Truth, honesty, ninth commandment.
Or what do you have to lose by believing in Adam?
LikeLike
Mermaid, ” Protestants are not even using the Scripture that Jesus Himself used.”
And Roman Catholics are?
LikeLike
Mermaid, “Gained? A connection with historical Christianity for one thing.”
How do you feel about the Crusades? The Inquisition?
No cherry picking.
LikeLike
Curt, epic fail.
When in the history of the world before child labor laws did parents — with sanction from Scripture — not rely on children to do work in the home or on the farm and not pay them?
Go back to the drawing board.
LikeLike
@bob s
“And what exactly would be the excesses of the gay subculture, sdb?
If you are going to abuse drugs, we’ll give you clean needles.
If you are going to abuse sex, we’ll stop calling it perverted and let you adopt kids just like you were a real family. No disconnect there?”
There is a huge difference, from a public health standpoint, between promiscuous, anonymous sex in bath houses and a monogamous gay couple…even if they cheat. This is the crux of the argument from the two most influential advocates of ssm. Both are sinful to be sure, but the consequences of one is worse and affects us in terrible ways. Just like using heroin is sinful, providing clean needles restrains the worst effects. No disconnect at all. Do not misunderstand my point though. I am not saying that this makes a valid case for ssm. I do think a Christian who sincerely believes ss relations are sinful can nonetheless support state recognition.
I agree with what Paul says. We have an innate conscience that allows spiritually dead people to form functional nations. This innward knowledge is sufficient to condemn them. This isn’t NLT. I do not believe you can go from natural law to love your enemies, just war theory, the sinfulness of condoms but uprightness of the rhythm method, the right economic system, the right political system or the other things NLTs tell us they can do. You certainly can’t justify their approach from what Paul says in Romans and the NLTs inevitably end up running roughshod over liberty of conscience…in violation of scripture. If politics is about prudence and order as opposed to ideological commitments to morality, then custom and prudence is sufficient…2k works without NLT.
LikeLike
Hart,
I haven’t had a chance to read the new encyclical yet, so I can’t speak much on that. To my knowledge though, plain secular stuff is not the only things spoken of in it. Let’s also remember this is not Pope Francis’ first letter or teaching. Maybe the first one would point out the things that are of higher priority to Pope Francis? Lumen Fidei:
1. The light of Faith: this is how the Church’s tradition speaks of the great gift brought by Jesus. In John’s Gospel, Christ says of himself: “I have come as light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness” (Jn 12:46). Saint Paul uses the same image: “God who said ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts” (2 Cor 4:6). The pagan world, which hungered for light, had seen the growth of the cult of the sun god, Sol Invictus, invoked each day at sunrise. Yet though the sun was born anew each morning, it was clearly incapable of casting its light on all of human existence. The sun does not illumine all reality; its rays cannot penetrate to the shadow of death, the place where men’s eyes are closed to its light. “No one — Saint Justin Martyr writes — has ever been ready to die for his faith in the sun”.[1] Conscious of the immense horizon which their faith opened before them, Christians invoked Jesus as the true sun “whose rays bestow life”.[2] To Martha, weeping for the death of her brother Lazarus, Jesus said: “Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?” (Jn 11:40). Those who believe, see; they see with a light that illumines their entire journey, for it comes from the risen Christ, the morning star which never sets.
LikeLike
mtx, where’s sin? If church teaching hasn’t changed on mortal sin, and if polls are any indication of Roman Catholic practice, why is Pope Francis more concerned about temporal and fading matters like the environment and not the souls of those for whom he will have to give an account?
LikeLike
She whose feet are webbed,
Why do you need a sinless person in addition to Christ? To make the mystery of the incarnation work logically? How was he born under the law yet without sin? Why not accept this by faith instead of sight and agonizing a way to make it make sense? Where is the mystery of faith? And you don’t see the danger in formulating another sinless creature which can co-opt the uniqueness of Christ?
Protestant tradition has explained this by the idea that sin is passed down through the male. Therefore Jesus could be born without sin because He did not have a human father.
That doesn’t quite work. We inherit our sinful nature from both father and mother, since both Adam and Eve fell into sin. So, Mary was redeemed at the moment of her conception, thus protecting Christ from the taint of original sin.
That’s the first I’ve ever heard of Protestantism’s Christological theorizing about males passing down sin. As I’ve always heard it, we inherit it from both mother and father (i.e. in sin did my mother conceive me). How is it obvious that Mary needs to circumvent original sin in order for Jesus to?
Who are Protestantism’s role models or prototypes for fatherhood and motherhood?
How about the ones God gives us, as in the fifth commandemnt? Or is that not spiritual enough for thee?
LikeLike
Hart,
D. G. Hart
Posted July 23, 2015 at 10:50 am | Permalink
mtx, where’s sin? If church teaching hasn’t changed on mortal sin, and if polls are any indication of Roman Catholic practice, why is Pope Francis more concerned about temporal and fading matters like the environment and not the souls of those for whom he will have to give an account?
Like I said, I have not read the encyclical, so I can’t judge how much it is focused on “temporal and fading matters”. Have you read it? Their more in his first encyclical that does speak to what we are talking about. I just figured if you were interested you would scan it yourself. I don’t mind doing a little leg word though, if it helps. Pope Francis points both to the Catechism to know the faith and the requirement to believe each truth of the faith.
These… are the four elements which comprise the storehouse of memory which the Church hands down: the profession of faith, the celebration of the sacraments, the path of the ten commandments, and prayer. The Church’s catechesis has traditionally been structured around these four elements; this includes the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is a fundamental aid for that unitary act with which the Church communicates the entire content of her faith: “all that she herself is, and all that she believes”.[39]
…48. Since faith is one, it must be professed in all its purity and integrity. Precisely because all the articles of faith are interconnected, to deny one of them, even of those that seem least important, is tantamount to distorting the whole. Each period of history can find this or that point of faith easier or harder to accept: hence the need for vigilance in ensuring that the deposit of faith is passed on in its entirety (cf. 1 Tim 6:20) and that all aspects of the profession of faith are duly emphasized. Indeed, inasmuch as the unity of faith is the unity of the Church, to subtract something from the faith is to subtract something from the veracity of communion.
From those two things directly from Pope Francis first encyclical, Lumen Fidei. His priority would be implied there. If you are looking for the things Pope Francis is “more concerned about”, here is where to look. He said look to that “fundamental add”, the Catechism.
CCC:
88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.
1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”121
1871 Sin is an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law (St. Augustine, Faust 22:PL 42, 418). It is an offense against God. It rises up against God in a disobedience contrary to the obedience of Christ.
1872 Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man’s nature and injures human solidarity.
1873 The root of all sins lies in man’s heart. The kinds and the gravity of sins are determined principally by their objects.
1874 To choose deliberately – that is, both knowing it and willing it – something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death.
Pope Francis doesn’t have to go around telling everyone they are required to believe and act according to the truth. Right reason and God has done this already, though in my own words Francis has said to all, “grab your catechism if you are confused about what is taught” and he has said, “I am a faithful son of the Church”.
Hope that helps.
Peace,
Michael
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 22, 2015 at 11:27 pm | Permalink
Tom, I have the sole sufficiency of Christ’s life and death alone to be compromised, undermined and quite possibly lost altogether, that’s what. How in thee heck could that be construed as pride and ego?
The Catholic reply is:
http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/2e.htm
Basically, you cut out half of the Christian religion. By whose authority? Luther’s? Calvin’s? The Holy Spirit’s?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 23, 2015 at 6:27 am | Permalink
“The Catholic answer of course is what do you have to lose?”
Truth, honesty, ninth commandment.
Whose truth indeed, Pilate, whose truth indeed. The 2000-year old church’s or that of your own fallen, corrupt reason?
Or are you going to claim the Holy Spirit’s on your side? Let’s have it, Elder Hart, come out of your duck blind where you do all the shooting. Let’s test your truth claims against Catholicism’s.
Or what do you have to lose by believing in Adam?
As with most of Genesis, it can be metaphysically true without having to be physically true.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/12/knowing-ape-from-adam.html
I’m certainly not going to rerun the Monkey Trial with you fundies and give the Menckenites out there more reason to laugh at your religion.
LikeLike
vd, t, but why do you think the teaching of your church is laughable (on Adam and Mary)?
And sure the Holy Spirit is on my side (according to you). Everyone’s saved, a friend of Jesus and His Spirit.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 23, 2015 at 3:46 pm | Permalink
vd, t, but why do you think the teaching of your church is laughable (on Adam and Mary)?
And sure the Holy Spirit is on my side (according to you). Everyone’s saved, a friend of Jesus and His Spirit.
That makes no sense, Butch.
LikeLike
mtx, oh come on. “Pope Francis doesn’t have to go around telling everyone they are required to believe and act according to the truth.”
I thought you believed the Bible. You’ve read the Great Commission. Imagine telling Peter and Paul they didn’t have to go around telling everyone the are required to believe and act according to the truth.
I thought the bishops were successors to the apostles. I thought they were supposed to carry on the message of the apostles.
And now you say they don’t have to.
That’s exactly where elevating tradition leads.
LikeLike
vd, t, the Holy Spirit is on everyone’s side, right? Doesn’t that include me?
LikeLike
sdb,
Let me be as crystal clear as possible. Tradition is authoritative. A fallible authority, but an authority nonetheless.
What happens when the authority of the Church uses its God given authority and makes a binding decision on a discernment of one of those Apostolic Traditions in the history of the Church? Say on the canon used to measure suspect traditions by or the definition of the Trinity? On extrabiblical grounds do you say they can’t do this?
Now not all tradition has the same pedigree. The more universal the tradition and the further back it goes, the more weight it carries. But it must always be judged against scripture.
This is basically the Catholic view. The reason it must always be judged against Scripture though is because Scripture is not because it is above other Apostolic Traditions it is because it is part of that authoritative Apostolic Tradition which the Church has received. Tradition judges and knows Tradition. The Holy Spirit fulled Church just receives, discerns, believes, and proclaims it.
I’m going to repeat what i asked,
… what if in dealing with Apostolic Tradition we are dealing with a “tradition” of believing Apostolic Tradition as authoritative and discernible by the Church and this Tradition includes the Scriptures. If this itself is a tradition, can you accept that in the Scriptures Christ, the Apostles and writers don’t condemn that?
sdb, can this be, as you have said, an “authoritative” tradition?
It is not as though this is a novel idea in the early Church.
Papias, Bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor (60-130AD):
“Unlike most people, I felt at home not with those who had a great deal to say, but with those who taught the truth; not with those who appeal to commandments from other sources but with those who appeal to the commandments given by the Lord to faith and coming to us from truth itself. And whenever anyone came who had been a follower of the presbyters [i.e. apostles], I inquired into the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other disciple of the Lord, and what Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord, were still saying. For I did not imagine that things out of the books would help me as much as the utterances of a living and abiding voice.” (Quoted by Eusebius).
Hegesippus (110-180AD):
“When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).
Letter to Diognetus (150-190AD):
I am not speaking of things that are strange to me, nor is my undertaking unreasonable, for I have been a disciple of apostles, and now I am becoming a teacher of the Gentiles. The things that pertain to the tradition I try to minister fittingly to those who are becoming disciples of the truth.
Irenaeus of Lyon (125-202AD):
“We should not seek from others the truth which can easily be received from the Church. For in her, as in a rich treasury, the Apostles placed in fullness all that belongs to the truth, so that whoever wishes can receive from her the water of life. She is the entrance to life.”
“It is within the power of all, therefore, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world.”
“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).
“For although the languages of the world are different, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul.” (1.330, 331).*
“When, however, they [the Gnostics] are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn around and accuse these same Scriptures as if they were not correct….But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles.” (1.415).*
“In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles and the preaching of the truth have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same life-giving faith, which has been preserved in the church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.” (1.416)*
“Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition” (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).
“In the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man had seen the blessed apostles and had been conversant with them. Therefore, he might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears] and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone in this. For there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. (1.416)*
Now all these [heretics] are of much later date than the bishops to whom the apostles committed the Churches; which fact I have in the third book taken all pains to demonstrate. It follows, then, as a matter of course, that these heretics aforementioned, since they are blind to the truth, and deviate from the [right] way, will walk in various roads; and therefore the footsteps of their doctrine are scattered here and there without agreement or connection. But the path of those belonging to the Church circumscribes the whole world, as possessing the sure tradition from the apostles, and gives unto us to see that the faith of all is one and the same, since all receive one and the same God the Father, and believe in the same dispensation regarding the incarnation of the Son of God, and are cognizant of the same gift of the Spirit, and are conversant with the same commandments, and preserve the same form of ecclesiastical constitution, and expect the same advent of the Lord, and await the same salvation of the complete man, that is, of the soul and body. And undoubtedly the preaching of the Church is true and steadfast, in which one and the same way of salvation is shown throughout the whole world. [Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Ch. 20]
Clement of Alexandria (150-215AD):
“Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition” (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).
“The dogmas taught by strange sects will be brought forward. And against these dogmas will be opposed all those things that should be premised in accordance with the profoundest contemplation of the knowledge that will advance to our view, as we proceed to the renowned and venerable canon of tradition. (2.302).*
“It is necessary for men to abandon impious opinion and turn from there to the true tradition. (2.530).*
“He, who has spurned the ecclesiastic tradition and darted off to the opinions of heretical men—he has ceased to be a man of God and to remain faithful to the Lord. (2.551).*
“The tradition of the apostles was one. (2.555).*
Tertullian (160-220AD):
For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions. [Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, Ch. 19]
Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition? [Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, Ch. 28]
Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, as many as walk according to the rule, which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures. [Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, Ch. 37]
Where diversity of doctrine is found, there, then, must the corruption both of the Scriptures and the expositions thereof be regarded as existing… What we are ourselves, that also the Scriptures are (and have been) from the beginning. Of them we have our being, before there was any other way, before they were interpolated by you… One man perverts the Scriptures with his hand, another their meaning by his exposition.” [Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, Ch. 38]
“We are in communion with the apostolic churches because there is no difference of doctrine….This test will be applied to those churches of a later date, which are daily being founded. Though they cannot therefore produce an Apostle or an apostolic man for their founder, still, if they unite in holding the same faith, they equally are reckoned apostolic because of the kinship of their teaching.” [The Prescription Against Heretics]
“If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of the them….These instances, therefore, will make it sufficiently plain that you can vindicate the keeping of even unwritten tradition established by custom. The proper witness for tradition is its demonstration by long-continued observance.” (3.95).*
“You [the church] lay down a rule that this faith has its solemnities appointed by either the Scriptures or the tradition of the forefathers. No further addition in the way of observance must be added, because innovation is unlawful.” (4.111).*
Origen (185-254AD)
“The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).
Cyprian of Carthage (martyred 258AD):
“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian [a schismatic], she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (Letters 75:3 [A.D. 253]).
“Know that we do not depart from the tradition of the Gospel and of the apostles. Rather, with constancy and firmness, we…maintain the discipline of the church.” (5.357).*
“The bishops who are set over the churches of the Lord by divine grace, throughout the whole world, maintain the plan of evangelical truth and of the tradition of the Lord. They do not depart, by human and novel institution, from that which Christ our Master both commanded and did.” (5.359).*
“You must diligently observe and keep the practice delivered from divine tradition and apostolic observance, which is also maintained among us and almost throughout all the provinces.” (5371).*
Eusebius of Caesarea (263-339AD):
“At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition” (Church History 4:21).
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.
Athanasius of Alexandria (293-373AD):
“Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord. Thus giving thanks unto him, and being followers of the saints, ‘we shall make our praise in the Lord all the day,’ as the psalmist says. So, when we rightly keep the feast, we shall be counted worthy of that joy which is in heaven” (Festal Letters 2:7 [A.D. 330]).
“But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able” (ibid., 29).
Epiphanius of Salamis (320-403AD):
“It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).
St. Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, Ch. 27) (born 330AD):
“Of the domas and sermons preserved in the Church, certain ones we have from written instruction, and certain ones we have received from the Apostolic Tradition, handed down in secret [i.e. private]. Both the one and the other have one and the same authority for piety, and no one who is even the least informed in the decrees of the Church will contradict this. For if we dare to overthrow the unwritten customs as if they did not have great importance, we shall thereby imperceptively do harm to the Gospel in its most important points. And even more, we shall be left with the empty name of the Apostolic preaching without content. For example, let us especially make note of the first and commonest thing: that those who hope in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ should sign themselves with the Sign of the Cross. Who taught this in Scripture? Which Scripture instructed us that we should turn to the east in prayer? Which of the saints left us in written form the words of invocation during the transformation of the bread of the Eucharist and the Chalice of blessing? For we are not satisfied with the words which are mentioned in the Epistles or the Gospels, but both before them and after them we pronounce others also as having great authority for the Mystery, having received them from the unwritten teaching. By what Scriptures, likewise, do we bless the water of Baptism and the oil of anointing [i.e. Chrism] and, indeed, the one being baptised himself? Is this not the silent and secret tradition? And what more? What written word has taught us this anointing with oil itself? Where is the triple immersion and all the rest that has to do with baptism, the renunciation of Satan and his angels to be found? What Scripture are these taken from? is it not from this unpublished and unspoken teaching which our Fathers have preserved in a silence inaccessible to curiosity and scrutiny, because they were thoroughly instructed to preserve in silence the sanctity of the Mysteries [i.e. Sacraments]? For what propriety would there be to proclaim in writing a teaching concerning that which it is not allowed for the unbaptised even to behold?
Augustine (354-430AD):
“…just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).
“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from [oral] Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).
John Chrysostom (349-407):
“‘So then, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by Epistle of ours’ (2 Th. 2:15). Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no further.” (Homilies on Second Thessalonians)
Vincent of Lerins (died 445AD):
“I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the catholic Church. (Commonitory, Chapter II).
“But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason, – because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters.
For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of ecclesiastical and catholic interpretation.” (Commonitory, Chapter II).
“Moreover, in the catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.” (Commonitory, Chapter II).
LikeLike
It can not authoritatively add to what the apostles said and it cannot violate what the apostles said. From my understanding, the RCC has done so. It has misapplied its authority in seeking to bind the consciences of her members in ways that violate the apostles’s teachings. I’m not sure why you insist that the trinity is grounded in tradition rather in scripture. To be sure the doctrine of the trinity developed, but it can be clearly discerned in apostolic teaching as expressed in scripture. The canon seems to be the only other tradition that we have, but it seems to me this fails as well as it is simply the repository of apostolic teaching. If there were non-canonical apostolic writing, we would have a problem, but otherwise I see no trouble.
I’m not sure what you are asking here. Perhaps I’m just being dense. I do believe that tradition is authoritative. Are you asking if there are things we are required to believe not found in scripture? I don’t think so. I do think that tradition can err though and those errors can go back pretty deep into history. The development of the priesthood, the development of the mass, the additional sacraments not instituted by Christ, and the doctrine on purgatory are a few with an ancient pedigree that are mistaken. These have been an occasion for grave sin by the hierarchy of the catholic and orthodox churches and continue to cause division – the fall of christianity in the ottoman empire and then in Europe was largely driven by their worldliness empowered by their (including established protestant sects) unwillingness to submit their traditions to the authority of scripture. Tradition is an authoritative and indispensable teacher, but for those in power, it is also a dangerous one. This is why the Bible must stand alone in judgement of all of our thoughts and traditions. And we must always commit to never standing in judgment of the scriptures. We may misunderstand them, we may think other’s interpretations are blinkered. But we can never, ever say “Here Paul was mistaken – he was after all a man of the times”. We can say that about say Eusebius. This is the difference.
LikeLike
@mtx
If you look at Basil’s quote do you notice the traditions he references? Many of these are no longer in effect:
Which Scripture instructed us that we should turn to the east in prayer?
Where is the triple immersion and all the rest that has to do with baptism, the renunciation of Satan and his angels to be found?
And others do in fact have a basis in scripture:
What written word has taught us this anointing with oil itself?
The entire OT, followed by the example of Christ and then instruction form James.
LikeLike
Tom, what are you talking about? The point was about Mary (and how ascribing her traits that only Jesus has undermines Jesus) and you come back with something about the Eucharist? But for the zillioneth time, why do you even care when you have no skin in the game? Free-wheeling-bachelor-giving-long-time-husband-marriage-advice alert. Hashtag: awwwwwkwaaaaard.
LikeLike
“If this itself is a tradition, can you accept that in the Scriptures Christ, the Apostles and writers don’t condemn that?”
Again with the “if it isn’t forbidden, its fair game.” Can you accept that that was one of the major sticking points that resulted in the reformation?
LikeLike
sdb,
If there were non-canonical apostolic writing, we would have a problem, but otherwise I see no trouble.
This is the point. There doesn’t have to be non-canonical apostolic “writting”s, there are non written practices and truths. There is a problem. You are rejecting things the Scriptures don’t reject and from which they are gathered using, Apostolic Tradition.
sdb
Posted July 23, 2015 at 5:46 pm | Permalink
@mtx
If you look at Basil’s quote do you notice the traditions he references? Many of these are no longer in effect:
Which Scripture instructed us that we should turn to the east in prayer?
Where is the triple immersion and all the rest that has to do with baptism, the renunciation of Satan and his angels to be found?
I have all the crucifixes in my home on the East wall. We say our family prayers facing the East. Most Catholic Church’s pews face the East. All my non infant children were immersed three times in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit. My infant had water poured over him three times. The Renunciation of Satan and his angels is still part of every baptism. All Catholics say it at every baptism in renewing their own baptismal vows. Catholics practice these things.
LikeLike
D.G.,
The trouble your answer has is in conflating all child labor and of all times to be the same implying that there is no abusive child labor practices. We have child labor now as well as when I was a kid, but getting a job requires working papers and there are regulations so that work hours do not interfere with education because interfering with education can rob children of their future. Also, the number of hours or the working conditions could put children at risk. Then when you add trafficked labor, such as that used to harvest what produces chocolate, you have other issues too such as kidnapping and slavery.
So perhaps it is you who would like to return to the drawing room.
LikeLike
sdb,
Sorry I did not address this question immediately.
MTX:… what if in dealing with Apostolic Tradition we are dealing with a “tradition” of believing Apostolic Tradition as authoritative and discernible by the Church and this Tradition includes the Scriptures. If this itself is a tradition, can you accept that in the Scriptures Christ, the Apostles and writers don’t condemn that? sdb, can this be, as you have said, an “authoritative” tradition?
sdb: I’m not sure what you are asking here. Perhaps I’m just being dense. I do believe that tradition is authoritative. Are you asking if there are things we are required to believe not found in scripture? I don’t think so.
The particular question is could Holy Spirit protected Apostolic practices/teaching discernable by the Church leadership be a tradition you that could be authoritative and witnessed in the early Church? This is why I posted all the quotes.
Maybe I can come at it from a different way: Is it possible the way things are “practiced” could be part of the authoritative Apostolic teaching inspired by the Holy Spirit, in the same way Scripture is Spirit inspired and protected, that should never be changed or rejected?
This is what I don’t see the Scriptures telling me to reject, but actually to embrace.
LikeLike
Curt, and you’re not conflating ancient near eastern economic exploitation with global capitalism?
Do you think this stuff through?
LikeLike
I disagree. The traditions are things that built up in the post apostolic era. That isn’t necessarily a problem unless they are made binding or they contradict the scriptures. If there were a letter from Paul that didn’t make the cut, then we prots would have a really big problem. What would we do with it? How would we know if Corinthians 1.5 (for example) should be authoritative or not? Traditions that may stretch back to with a century or so of the apostolic era aren’t a problem. As John and Paul note, churches can fall into error. Some time the error is a biggie and it is obvious. Sometimes the error is subtle and it grows gradually over a long period before the error is recognized. We see examples for both the Northern Kingdom under evil kings like Ahab. They go off the rails in really obvious ways. But the “good guys” who really were committed to keeping the Law erred too with their traditions. The plumb line, the only plumb line against which to judge these traditions (and to be sure not all traditions were bad because they were tradition) was the scriptures.
I didn’t realize the RC church immersed infants. I hear the EOs do, though I’ve never attended an EO baptismal service. The RC baptisms I’ve witnessed were triune of course, but there was no immersion. Perhaps this is bad practice? Curiously, our trinitarian prot baptisms are acceptable even if they don’t include triple immersion.
The eastern wall bit is curious too. I was under the impression that was an EO thing too. The main portion of the pews at the Basilica at Notre Dame faces north. It is a beautiful church. The Tenebrae service there really is something. But I’ve learned something new! At any rate it doesn’t seem that the custom of east facing pews is *required*. Again, customs and traditions aren’t a problem. It is when one oversteps his bounds and requires the custom.
LikeLike
@mtx
“Sorry I did not address this question immediately.” I’ll let it slide this one time. Next time you get an automatic F.
“Maybe I can come at it from a different way: Is it possible the way things are “practiced” could be part of the authoritative Apostolic teaching inspired by the Holy Spirit, in the same way Scripture is Spirit inspired and protected, that should never be changed or rejected?”
I think I get what you are asking. Sure there *could* be practices that we should continue that are essential for salvation that the Apostles failed to write to the churches. But how do I know which traditions are good and which ones are not good? And why did God choose to reveal his will differently in this way on this side of the cross? Why write some and not write others? It seems terribly arbitrary.
The final arbiter it seems to me has to be the scriptures (sola scriptura). I will say that on the question of tradition the EOs are on much stronger ground than the RC church, and if I was worried about being properly grounded in apostolic tradition necessary for salvation, I would have to turn east (ahem). Anyway, I remain convinced that the example of our savior provides a sound basis for sola scriptura.
LikeLike
Zrim:
That’s the first I’ve ever heard of Protestantism’s Christological theorizing about males passing down sin.>>>>>
Zrim, this is a standard Protestant answer to the dilemma of how Jesus Christ could be born without sin. Maybe you need to inform yourself. I am not sure that Reformed Christians even have a coherent or consistent answer to the dilemma.
Me:
Who are Protestantism’s role models or prototypes for fatherhood and motherhood?
Zrim:
How about the ones God gives us, as in the fifth commandemnt? Or is that not spiritual enough for thee?>>>>
Well, if your parents were good role models, then by all means follow their example of fatherhood and motherhood.
The 5th Commandment applies to all parents, not just ones who were good parents. We honor our parents because through them we have life.
Besides, Mary and Joseph are not just good role models as Christian parents. They are good role models for all believers because of their faith in God and submission to His will in spite of the difficult circumstances that obedience put them in. Do you have some objection to seeing them as role models for Christian parents and for all believers in faith and submission to God’s will?
That should not be a problem for a Protestant, but maybe it is for you.
LikeLike
Here’s a little test for you. ´When Jesus rebuked the Jewish leaders for not knowing the Scripture or the power of God, what specific Scripture was He referencing?
(Mark 12:24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?)
And your point is, Mrs W?
It was not so much a specific Scripture, but the implication/good and necessary consequences of Scripture.
Mark 12:25-27 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob [Ex.3:6]?
He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.
Note that Christ appealed to what the Sadducees believed in, Scripture, not his own authority, which they denied.
But then the appeal is always to (previous) Scripture when we are talking about a true prophet or apostle. Or true church.
That doesn’t quite work. We inherit our sinful nature from both father and mother, since both Adam and Eve fell into sin. So, Mary was redeemed at the moment of her conception, thus protecting Christ from the taint of original sin.
Yet again, an ex prot lecturing us on what they know not, as well as displaying their grievous lack of knowledge when it comes to the Scripture (and the power of God).
There’s the first Adam and there’s the second Adam.
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned . . .
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
IOW there is no mention of Mary, Eve or even Pope Peter in the Book of Romans.
Hmmm. . . .
LikeLike
The primary Biblical source of the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is John 6:35-71 – in here we read the clear words of Jesus “if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in you”. This is very clear indeed when read in a literal manner, but many Protestants seem to think that this passage should not be read in a literal manner.
Been there and done that, Mr.vD
Repeatedly.
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.
Come=never hunger
Believe=never thirst
IOW eating and drinking
The passage continues:
But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
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 36-40
And the emphasis is on what, believing and coming, much more the sovereignty of God in salvation or eating and drinking?
To ask is to answer.
LikeLike
sdb, dunno. Free Dept. Public Health bathhouse condoms might be the parallel to clean needles. The argument proves too much, but then again consider the source. It was hardly unbiased.
NLT or nl?
“We have an innate conscience that allows spiritually dead people to form functional nations.”
That’s nl as far as I am concerned.
LikeLike
The reason it must always be judged against Scripture though is because Scripture is not because it is above other Apostolic Traditions it is because it is part of that authoritative Apostolic Tradition which the Church has received. Tradition judges and knows Tradition. The Holy Spirit fulled Church just receives, discerns, believes, and proclaims it.
IOW MiT, Isaiah was all wet.
Is. 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.
… what if in dealing with Apostolic Tradition we are dealing with a “tradition” of believing Apostolic Tradition as authoritative and discernible by the Church and this Tradition includes the Scriptures. If this itself is a tradition, can you accept that in the Scriptures Christ, the Apostles and writers don’t condemn that?
What if somebody asks you to believe that Tradition includes Scripture, but can’t demonstrate that from Scripture? What then?
How about willfully blind, implicit and ignorant faith.
. . . because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved 2 Thess. 2:10?
Indeed.
It is not as though this is a novel idea in the early Church.
That’s not the question. It is a novel idea in Scripture.
You are rejecting things the Scriptures don’t reject and from which they are gathered using, Apostolic Tradition.
d4v34x alluded to this. It is enough that Scripture declares itself sufficient for all/every good work and that Timothy even before he became a bishop/presbyter, knew the same from infancy/brephos 2 Tim.3:15-17.
In the real world you then connect the dots and anything contra or alongside Scripture is forbidden; the last because it is redundant and takes away from Scripture. If not ends up by supplanting Scripture. Which is exactly what happened. Facing east, crucifixes, mariolatry, the blasphemous sacrifice of the mass etc.
But you don’t see the logical coherence here, because you have a hard time stating a logical argument to begin with, if not that you seem to think as a lot of papists do, that the sincerity of your belief validates it. Or that the truth is decided by majority vote.
But let God be true and all men liars Rom.3:4.
What saith the Scripture?
LikeLike
I said:
Here’s a little test for you. ´When Jesus rebuked the Jewish leaders for not knowing the Scripture or the power of God, what specific Scripture was He referencing?
(Mark 12:24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?)>>>>>>
Bob S.:
And your point is, Mrs W?
It was not so much a specific Scripture, but the implication/good and necessary consequences of Scripture.>>>>>
Well, you probably know that the story of the woman with 7 husbands comes from the book of Tobit. Jesus did not object to their use of the story, but He did, as you pointed out, correct them on their theology. They did not believe in the resurrection of the dead, so Jesus took them to the Torah to correct their error.
He accepted their reference to the deuterocanonical book of Tobit. This, and other such NT references do not quite fit in with Protestant tradition.
What are quotes from these books doing in the NT?
You must know as well that Augustine in his City of God quoted from the book of Tobit as the Word of God. Here is a quote from Book 1, ch. 13
“And Tobit, according to the angel’s testimony, is commended, and is said to have pleased God by burying the dead. Tobit 12:12
I do not know if you are Reformed or not. However, there were and are great Christian theologians, loved and quoted extensively by both Protestant and Catholic that accepted these books as Scripture. You reject them, of course, because your religion tells you to. Not all Christians do. In fact, most Christians accept them as the Word of God. Whose tradition is correct? Who will decide?
It is quite well documented that the early Christians used the Septuagint, which included the deuterocanonical books. The Catholic Church’s case for their inclusion in the canon of Scripture is strong.
Bob S.:
But then the appeal is always to (previous) Scripture when we are talking about a true prophet or apostle. Or true church.>>>>
Yes, and if the early Church was a true Church, then what Scripture did they use? Would the Holy Spirit allow the Church to be in error for some 1500 years on such an important matter?
I said:
That doesn’t quite work. We inherit our sinful nature from both father and mother, since both Adam and Eve fell into sin. So, Mary was redeemed at the moment of her conception, thus protecting Christ from the taint of original sin.>>>>>
Bob S.:
Yet again, an ex prot lecturing us on what they know not, as well as displaying their grievous lack of knowledge when it comes to the Scripture (and the power of God).>>>>
Bob, for one thing, I am not lecturing you or anyone else. I am discussing the subject of the place of tradition in both Protestantism and Catholicism. I say that Protestants rely heavily on your traditions. It is a tradition that each person decides for himself or herself. There is no unity in the protestant tradition. In fact, the lack of unity is one of the main Protestant traditions. It is more than just in-house debates and discussions. Each Protestant group claims that theirs is the right way, the correct interpretation, and that everyone else gets it wrong.
Machen tried to bring some kind of unity based on certain fundamentals of the faith. That helped quite a bit for awhile, but now fundamentalism has fallen on hard times. He did contend for the most basic doctrines such as the Trinity and the literal bodily resurrection of Christ.
Bob S.
There’s the first Adam and there’s the second Adam.
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned . . .
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
IOW there is no mention of Mary, Eve or even Pope Peter in the Book of Romans.
Hmmm. . . >>>>
Hmmm, indeed! What are you trying to say? Do you think that sin is passed through the father, and therefore Jesus was without sin since He had no human father? Are you trying to say that Mary was not involved at all in His humanity? Are you trying to say that you don’t know how Jesus was born sinless from a human mother?
What is your point?
Well, thank you for the conversation, Brother Bob S. You have a good weekend.
LikeLike
MsW
Nobody argues that traditions are not inescapable.
Rather the question is can they ever be on par with Scripture as Rome says they are.
Essentially the assertion masquerading as an argument we have heard so far ad infinatum is that the bare mention of tradition in Scripture necessarily means what the Roman church means by tradition, if not that there are apostolic oral traditions parallel to those inscripturated in the apostolic NT, which are not a contradiction, but an addition to the NT.
Which needs to be proved from Scripture, not assumed and there in lies the problem, never mind what those elusive traditions exactly entail similar to book, chapter and verse in the Bible.
That the story of the man w. 7 wives is from the DC proves nothing.
Rather we need to see Jesus or the apostles quoting the DC authoritatively as Scripture in the NT whether to the Sadduccees, the devil in the wilderness or whomever. But we don’t.
Because they are not Scripture.
True, the universal catholic church – not the Roman church – has always considered the DC worth reading. Yet they come from the intertestamental period, after the cessation of prophecy (Malachi) and are written in Greek, not Hebrew and are not included in the Hebrew Bible, though they are included in the Greek Septuagint.
Rom. 5? First and second Adam?
Yeah. Brain fade/highly erroneous speculation on my part.
(Hey, I could say I am just arguing like some of the romanists around here.)
Better what Turretin says:
(T)here is no necessity to have recourse to the immaculate conception of Mary. For although there is no creature of whatever power possessed who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean (Job 14:4), still the power of God is not thus to be measured (with whom nothing is impossible [Lk.1:37] and who calls those things which are not. [Rom.4:17]) Inst. II:342
LikeLike
b, sd, meanwhile, the RC exhorters think we need to recover the clarity and courage of being biblical:
Can you imagine him saying, we need to return to the “tradition mindset”? The Bible always trumps tradition when it comes to RC exhortation. But you need tradition to justify not being biblical.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 23, 2015 at 4:53 pm | Permalink
vd, t, the Holy Spirit is on everyone’s side, right? Doesn’t that include me?
Don’t let your mockery extend to the Holy Spirit, Butch. That’s bad, man.
LikeLike
vd, t, and imagine what it’s like disobeying your holy father.
LikeLike
Besides, Mary and Joseph are not just good role models as Christian parents. They are good role models for all believers because of their faith in God and submission to His will in spite of the difficult circumstances that obedience put them in. Do you have some objection to seeing them as role models for Christian parents and for all believers in faith and submission to God’s will?
SWFW, but since no woman will ever bear the Son of God and no man will join her in upbringing, how does Mary really help women to role model bringing him up? Nothing against Mary and Joe, but there is pretty scant biblical data to help real human beings know how to bring up regular human beings. Besides, this method of reading the Bible for role models reduces the text from a revelation of how God saves sinners to some sort of glorified Book of Fables. Instead looking for role models to emulate, how about fellow sinners for whom the Son lived and died?
LikeLike
sdb,
sdb:If there were non-canonical apostolic writing, we would have a problem, but otherwise I see no trouble.
MTX:This is the point. There doesn’t have to be non-canonical apostolic “writting”s, there are non written practices and truths. There is a problem. You are rejecting things the Scriptures don’t reject and from which they are gathered using, Apostolic Tradition.
sdb: I disagree. The traditions are things that built up in the post apostolic era.
Is it possible the way things are “practiced” could be part of the authoritative Apostolic teaching inspired by the Holy Spirit, in the same way Scripture is Spirit inspired and protected, that should never be changed or rejected?”
I think I get what you are asking. Sure there *could* be practices that we should continue that are essential for salvation that the Apostles failed to write to the churches. But how do I know which traditions are good and which ones are not good? And why did God choose to reveal his will differently in this way on this side of the cross? Why write some and not write others? It seems terribly arbitrary.
This is the crux of what I have been trying to get across. It is your assumption which I bolded above. That is the problem. You assume things like Apostolic succession and Holy Orders or episcopal governance are “built up in the post apostolic era.” While the practice and tradition of the churches who had the Holy Spirit shows otherwise. These Traditions are also not against what Scripture has written. You are the one who is saying you believe tradition is authoritative, sdb. If it is you must show from Scripture how these received Traditions need to be rejected. Otherwise they should remain unchanged, by your own admission they “*could* be practices that we should continue that are essential for salvation that the Apostles failed to write to the churches.” It should take a solid biblical case to reject what one has received from Tradition. Otherwise from your own admission they are authoritative even without a biblical case for them.
But how do I know which traditions are good and which ones are not good? And why did God choose to reveal his will differently in this way on this side of the cross? Why write some and not write others? It seems terribly arbitrary.
I don’t think God did reveal His will differently on this side of the Cross except that we have a Kahal/Ecclesia with the Holy Spirit in it now, but those question above are not for me, sdb. Those are questions for God. Arbitray…maybe. Or maybe it is so we rely on Him and His “one” unified body from which the Tradition including the Scriptures are carried through and we all stay unified as His people as we wander through this desert on pilgrimage.
LikeLike
mtx, “You assume things like Apostolic succession and Holy Orders or episcopal governance are “built up in the post apostolic era.” While the practice and tradition of the churches who had the Holy Spirit shows otherwise.”
Even believing RC historians know that these matters came later in the church. It’s the believing converts who can’t handle the past because the conversion narrative makes no sense unless Jesus appeared in Vatican City the way he did to Joseph Smith in up-state New York.
LikeLike
Bob S,
What if somebody asks you to believe that Tradition includes Scripture, but can’t demonstrate that from Scripture? What then?
Was Paul not an Apostle. Peter. Mathew. John. Luke not a partner Paul. Mark not a helper of Peter. Much of the NT books show their Apostolic origin, therefore give reason to believing they are part of the Apostolic Tradition. But the Church didn’t just use internal evidences to proclaim the Scriptures, they knew the Tradition from which they are part. We don’t require all things to be proved from Scripture to be doctrine, Bob. That is Sola Scripturist.
Bob, who wrote the first book listed in the NT?
LikeLike
Hart,
“believing RC historians” are not the Church. When you write a book is it the OPC making a statement and requiring the faithful to believing?
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – Dominus Iesus
The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ… which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15).
The “Joseph Smith” moment happen in Caesarea Philippi and on the Sea of Galilee’s shores recorded in the written Apostolic Tradition you are suppose to believe. Can you show from Scripture Peter did not die in Rome? The early Church believed it. Which is suppose to hole more weight of historical merit earlier witnesses or later changes of opinion?
LikeLike
No. The testimony of the gospels and the epistles is not at all consistent with that. The historical record is problematic as well. The rebuttals I’ve seen of Wills on this point really boil down to “it can’t have happened that way”. This is a big, big problem for your case. It violates the example of Christ and the instructions from Paul for how the church should be run. The post-hoc histories developed to justify that power are strained to say the least. Further, your tradition violates scripture on several fronts (call no man father as you have one Father in heaven, no one should be able to tell us whether to keep a feast, celebrate a holiday, or avoid certain foods yet your tradition imposes required fasts and holy days of obligation outside of the sabbath) then there are the more modern innovations that diverge even further from the NT witness. Your traditions are wrong and and this sin has invalidated the authority of those who require it. If the Pope and Bishops would repent of following the Pharisees and creating burdens for the people that are heavy to bear, agree not to require of Christians what the scriptures do not require, and agree to submit all of their teachings and traditions to the authority of scripture, then I would have to seriously reengage the Roman Catholic Church as it would be truly universal and a Catholic Church. Until that day, I will remain planted in a local body where the word is faithful preached, the sacraments instituted by Christ are administered, and discipline is administered – even if all imperfectly – all the while resting on Christ’s finished work alone for my salvation and teaching my children to do the same.
What I will not do is forsake the clear exposition of the gospel, for the sake of my soul and that of my family for whom I answer, to attend an RCC where the gospel is not clearly taught, where the priest teaches heresy and the Bishop is indifferent all for the sake of being part of an institution that claims to be the real McCoy. My church is small, the congregants are ornery, the architecture is depressing, the coffee is terrible, and the music leaves much to be desired but the gospel is truly preached and believed. I’ll take that trade-off.
LikeLike
mtx, like I keep trying to tell you and your convert friends, not many are listening to your magisterium. Didn’t you realize that when you signed up?
Peter was not Jesus. I suspect you know that. But the church Jesus founded literally was Jerusalem.
LikeLike
Bob S
Posted July 24, 2015 at 4:53 am | Permalink
MsW
Nobody argues that traditions are not inescapable.
Rather the question is can they ever be on par with Scripture as Rome says they are. >>>>>
What do Protestants put on a par with Scripture, even though they do not admit it? Is it not one’s own conscience? Each one must decide for himself or herself what is and what is not the correct interpretation. If you get 10 Protestants in a room, you will have 11 or more differing interpretations of any given doctrine.
Well, yes, that is a bit of an exaggeration, but not far from the truth. How do you get any 2 Protestants to agree on anything? Start with the extent of the atonement and see what impassioned arguments ensue. Then what about the meaning of the Greek word “kephale” – head. It really doesn’t matter how many quotes from ancient Greek sources that a good man like Wayne Grudem puts forward that should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that fact that head implies hierarchy. He is branded an abusive patriarchalist all the same. These and more are never-ending points of disagreement – to put it mildly – in the Protestant world.
I balked when among very learned Evangelicals the discussion turned to the meaning of the Trinity. Maybe the old language for describing this is archaic and needs to be changed.
In Protestantism, nothing is nailed down for very long, really. How long did it take for Presbyterianism to almost completely apostasize. No, I am not happy at all about that. Yes, I am happy that there are some outposts of orthodoxy that are doing their best to contend for the faith.
Now, you can say that there are many apostates within Catholicism, and I will not disagree with you. However, what I care about is official dogma especially on the fundamentals. Apostates among us is nothing new. Even our friend Augustine commented on that in his City of God.
Not saying that you have to convert to Catholicism. Just explaining why I find her a refuge from the chaos that is Protestantism. Of course, that opens me up to all kinds of “friendly” criticism, but hey, that’s what I’m here for. 😉 Now to give you more ammunition, I will say that the Protestant teachers that I loved before becoming Catholic I still love.
Thanks for the conversation, Brother Bob S.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “what I care about is official dogma especially on the fundamentals. Apostates among us is nothing new.”
Say hello to evangelicals who stayed in the PCUSA.
And don’t Protestants who affirm Nicea also believe “the fundamentals”?
LikeLike
Just reposting you over here,sdb. Will reply soon.
sdb
Posted July 24, 2015 at 12:48 pm | Permalink
Part of the “work” of a church is to evangelize and spread its beliefs.
Not for everyone. For some people, the work is to keep the nursery and take meals to shut ins. We all have different callings within the body. So while I dissent from some beliefs (and thus cannot do some things…like serve as an officer) I can still, to the best of my ability support the church in its worship and work.
Sola Scriptura is a belief of your community. I couldn’t promise to help with that “work” because I believe it is in error. Being I believe it is error believe myself to be called to stop it. Your community is requiring me to do a “work” I don’t believe in to the “best of my abilities”. Could not promise that.
Now this is a bit different. It is one thing to say that you aren’t convinced. It is something else to say that you are convinced it is wrong and must work against it. That is where you are at. You want to make it a rule that one cannot adopt sola scriptura. Funny how this works…
As far as “proving” it from scripture, it is clear from Christ’s (and the Apostles’) use of the scriptures how we should use them. You evidently remain unconvinced. I think Mark’s account of Jesus’s interaction with the Pharisees is worth pondering,
“And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!”
Here we see how Jesus repudiates the leaders. Taken in context with Matthew 6, 15, and Luke 11 we see a theme here and have to ask how we should handle traditions and scripture. Scripture always gets the benefit of the doubt – we can never say, “that passage is wrong”. We can say that about traditions. We can (and must!) subject them to scrutiny, and the example we are given by Jesus is that the plumb line is scripture. When the Saducees tried to trap him on the resurrection by appealing to questions about marriage, Jesus’s answer was not – here is the (T)raditional understanding of that text. It was an appeal to scripture.
But the danger of tradition goes further. The OT did not forbid the tradition passed on by the elders. But it was used as cover for sin – scripture taught that what really mattered was the heart and the tradition got in the way of that. Thus Jesus repudiated the tradition. Then he pointed out how traditions could evolve in such away to lead to justifying the rejection of part of God’s law! Think about the tradition of eating fish on friday – a tradition to point people to sacrifice (giving up meat for the cheaper fish), but this tradition has had pernicious effects – now the lenten traditions are more about losing weight and carry all the solemnity of new year’s resolutions (I’m giving up chocolate and beer for lent so I’ll look better for spring break). At some point traditions can become so unhelpful, it is time to scrap it. How do we know which practices should be scrapped and which are binding? Jesus always turned to the scriptures. They stood alone as the final judge of all we do – this is sola scriptura. It is not the tossing of tradition, it is not to say that tradition should never bind our conscience,it is not saying that tradition is bad. It is saying that traditions may go astray and the unmovable, ultimate standard to which we are always called to judge these things is the scriptures alone. Sola scripture is not the belief that we have to have a bible verse that says “sola scriptura” which still seems to be what you are waiting for. That is an illegitimate demand.
LikeLike
Hart,
“mtx, like I keep trying to tell you and your convert friends, not many are listening to your magisterium. Didn’t you realize that when you signed up?”
I didn’t sign up to make others listen. I signed up as a listener.
LikeLike
Sdb,
I’m going to hold off on replying to your post at the top of this page for now. https://oldlife.org/2015/07/when-did-christian-america-end/comment-page-21/#comment-338131
I think that will get us to far off topic and too polemic for what we have been addressing. Let’s keep following the road we are on and try and stay away from forks in the road. I did it with the canon. I could respond to these things, but our topic is big enough by itself. Think we can do that?
LikeLike
mtx, you signed up because you had a bishop with power to make people listen.
If you wanted to be simply a listener, you could do that anywhere.
LikeLike
Mrs. Webfoot
Posted July 24, 2015 at 2:29 pm | Permalink
Now, you can say that there are many apostates within Catholicism, and I will not disagree with you. However, what I care about is official dogma especially on the fundamentals. Apostates among us is nothing new. Even our friend Augustine commented on that in his City of God.
And that answers that tactic.
True.
LikeLike
@tvd & mwf – the problem among the mainline (even the UCC) is that many members there say “However, what I care about is official dogma especially on the fundamentals.” They are right. The official dogma hasn’t changed, but the practice and discipline still has. Depressing…
LikeLike
@mtx – That’s fine. I’m probably offline most of the weekend, so no rush.
LikeLike
Hart,
“If you wanted to be simply a listener, you could do that anywhere.”
Not if I wishes to listen to the Holy Spirit protected Apostolic Tradition. The topic we are on should show that.
Sdb,
I may take the delay myself. Headed to the kids soccer games and Sunday is my oldest’s first Mass as a altar server.
Peace all,
Michael
LikeLike
sdb,
Forgot to correct something earlier. I said all my “non infant” children were immersed three times. My infant was born after we came into the Church. He had baptismal waters poured three times over him.
LikeLike
but actual my youngest at the time of coming into the church was 1 1/2, so I just he would maybe count as an infant too
LikeLike
Mtx, so is the Holy Spirit speaking through Leo XIII when he says that souls matter more than physical reality, or through Francis when he talks about the environment?
LikeLike
Hart,
I already said I haven’t read the new encyclical yet. Maybe you could quote something you are concerned about. I agree with the Leo XIII quote. The Church’s highest priority is the salvation of souls. I’m not confused about that.
LikeLike
And your point is, MTx?
You got it backwards. You want to argue that Scripture includes Tradition, but you can’t show it from Scripture. Ditto the RCCatechism.
Then you want to argue that Tradition includes Scripture because Tradition says so. You know, the tradition/teachings of the apostles and prophets and popes. Because Rome is the true church etc. etc.
Huh?
So who wrote the first book in the NT?
Better yet who wrote Scripture?
Answer: God.
Who wrote tradition?
Well, they’re unwritten and umm the church and the apostles and the prophets and the pope says so.
Huh?
In so many words that’s what your argument is.
And it is incoherent, if not a fallacy of the missing middle term (ask Bryan buddy what that is, he’s an expert sophist and word monger). You need to prove that the pope is an apostle/prophet before lumping him in with the human authors of Scripture or assuming since he is the human author of tradition, it’s all good/on par with ScripturebecauseRomesaysso (sic).
IOW your whole schtick, indeed Rome’s whole schtick, is assuming what you need to prove.
Circular, thou art the mangled assertion masquerading as a done deal argument.
Can you show from Scripture Peter did not die in Rome?
This is called proving a negative which is impossible, much more is an attempt to switch the onus from Rome, who cannot show that Peter died in Rome full stop, never mind from Scripture.
IOW it’s dirty pool and you need to start listening to the lifeguard when he tells you to stay in the shallow end.
I already said I haven’t read the new encyclical yet. . . . The Church’s highest priority is the salvation of souls. I’m not confused about that.
So what does the
gulliblefaithful papist do, if the new encyclical contradicts what he thinks is the church’s highest priority?And what about explicitly affirming something and implicitly doing something else or even just plain old lying? That can never enter the picture because we always know who the true pope is even when we don’t.
IOW we is confused about the self evident naivety in statements like these, much more are these new encyclicals added onto the Douay Reims Bible, kind of like the Book of Mormon coda to the NT in the bibles carried around by the guys that freaked Bryan out, when they go door to door?
And what about those people who say they are not confused, when they are so confused they don’t know they are confused? What then? Is implicitly ignorant faith the cure all?
And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.John 9:40,41
LikeLike
MsW
Obviously your prot evangelical teachers didn’t say anything about scandals.
Of course, if you believe in triumphalism, they are a problem.
But forget about protestantism for a moment ( I know it’s hard, they’re an easy whipping boy) what does the Corinthian, or even the early church look like to you? Lots of schism, partisanship, heresy and dissension, yet still a church. The gospel is preached, sacraments are administered and there is discipline, however imperfect on all counts.
IOW don’t let the visible obscure the invisible; the carnal the spiritual.
Genuine protestantism affirms SS and JBFA. Genuine Romanism denies both. And there’s a bunch of people in the middle that go by one name or the other and deny what the respective name stands for, if they even know it.
Likewise your private judgement/conscience is unavoidably involved in determining which of the two is true unless you want to play the vegetable and deny that God gave us reasonable souls and made us personally accountable for our thoughts, words, and actions.
Choose you this day.
LikeLike
Bob S
Posted July 25, 2015 at 12:34 am | Permalink
MsW
Obviously your prot evangelical teachers didn’t say anything about scandals.
Of course, if you believe in triumphalism, they are a problem.>>>>>>
Actually, I listen to the news. They let me out from time to time, you know. 😉
Bob S.:
But forget about protestantism for a moment ( I know it’s hard, they’re an easy whipping boy) what does the Corinthian, or even the early church look like to you? Lots of schism, partisanship, heresy and dissension, yet still a church. The gospel is preached, sacraments are administered and there is discipline, however imperfect on all counts.>>>>>
Actually, Protestants spend a whole lotta’ time whipping one another, but I understand what you are saying. The church at Corinth had serious issues, yet they were beloved by God. They found grace in Christ.
Yes, and they were one visible church, not many. Everybody stuck together. Paul wrote to one church in Corinth, not many. He also gave thanks to God for their faith and the evidence of the gifts of the Holy Spirit operating among them.
So, I think that the church at Corinth is a good example of how, in spite of their imperfections, there was only one Church. The reasonable conclusion is that Christ has only one body, not many. The divisions are caused by the flesh, not the Spirit. The church at Corinth was visible, though of course, not every person attending was a true believer.
I keep sayin’ that our Mother includes all believing Protestants as separated brethren. So like it or not, we are all in this together. We have common enemies as well. We do not have to be at enmity with one another. We are not enemies.
Thanks, Bob S. , for the conversation. You have a wonderful weekend.
1 Corinthians 1
1 Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes,
2 To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:
Ephesians 4English Standard Version (ESV)
Unity in the Body of Christ
4 I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
LikeLike
mtx, you’re not following Pope Francis:
Nothing to see, keep moving along.
LikeLike
Bob S,
That is a lot. Sorry you don’t believe my thoughts are coherent. It is a simple answer to the first listed NT book. Matthew. It is not any where in the inspired text that he is the writer though. We get that from Tradition. Anyway, I know I am a sinner. Christ knows this better than me. Apart from Him I see nothing and can do nothing. Again sorry my points are incoherent to you. The Apostolic Tradition contains Scripture, therefore we do not need to prove Apostolic Tradition exists, if we believe Christ and the Apostles exist.
LikeLike
Hart,
I meant a quote from Francis, someone’s take on what Francis wrote.
LikeLike
If you believe in Sola Scriptura and Scripture does not condemn or prohibit a person for putting on and organizing a play about the life of Christ, who are you to judge. Yes, I am being more free and individualistic than you,but can the Church use it’s authority to condemn a certain play for false representations of the story of salvation? Yes.
MTX, you’re thinking of the Lutherans who have the descriptive principle (whatever isn’t prohibited). We Calvinists have the prescriptive principle (whatever is prescribed). We want the biblical warrant for piety plays, and if there isn’t one we say refrain. We see warrant for sermon and sacrament dispensed by ordained officers and so are content with that arrangement, cringing at laity who think they can add to or do better with their piety plays, even ones that are completely accurate (it’s not so much accuracy but warrant that’s the issue). I still marvel how the one with the authoritarian ecclesiology which balks at the fragmented and individualistic world of Protestantism is the one also defending lay piety plays instead of using it against us.
“Who are you to judge,” good one.
LikeLike
Zrim,
To my knowledge the Scriptures don’t prescribe shaving and by nature men grow beards are you going to judge men for shaving in the same way you are judging those who use there God given freedom to put on a play about the life, death and resurrection of Christ?
LikeLike
MTX, the Bible is silent on personal grooming but not on how to speak on behalf of God. Apples and oranges. Or fish and bicycles.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Actually the bible is not silent on that point. Cross dressing? And beard grooming is specifically addressed in the OT as well. Peter even addresses personal adornment in the NT. But never the less I have not said anything about a play speaking for God. If having religious matter invovled is what you are talking about, did God prescribe Hart to write “secular faith” or Calvin to write the institutes?
LikeLike
MTX, the NT interprets the OT. Fulfilled in Christ, ceremonial things have been abrogated, the upshot being that something like beards are liberty. So what that you haven’t said anything about a piety play speaking on behalf of God? That’s what piety plays do–they say Word and sacrament aren’t sufficient and need supplementation. Maybe that’s why you promote them, since Catholicism is all about giving God a helping hand?
LikeLike
Zrim,
“the NT interprets the OT…the upshot being that something like beards are liberty.”
From the NT: “Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.”
Btw what is the prescriptive Scripture for the prescriptive principle?
LikeLike
James Young, And what is the prescriptive magisterial teaching for papal supremacy? You’re familiar with Brian Tierney, right?
Makes Scripture look pretty “cool”, no?
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted July 25, 2015 at 8:38 pm | Permalink
Zrim,
“the NT interprets the OT…the upshot being that something like beards are liberty.”
From the NT: “Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.”
Btw what is the prescriptive Scripture for the prescriptive principle?
D. G. Hart
Posted July 25, 2015 at 10:32 pm | Permalink
James Young, And what is the prescriptive magisterial teaching for papal supremacy?
Changing the subject. I don’t blame you, he nailed you clean. Apologetics is not one of your talents or dispositions, only attack and counterattack and attack some more. Not much to build a religion on, in the end.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Yep – know about Tierney, just as I’m sure you know about liberal scholars and their attempts to undermine the OPC view of Scripture. Did you know there are some that disagree with Tierney’s analysis and conclusions? But I’m not surprised he would appeal to those who think that just because there is not an exhaustive list/agreement on everything that is infallible, that entails there is and can be no agreement on any thing that is infallible. And of course magisterial infallibility and teaching is not limited to simply ex cathedra statements.
Now that we’re out of the rabbit hole, you’re free to actually engage the post at any time, or leave it for zrim.
LikeLike
James Young, but the difference is that Rome’s hierarchy still maintains the infallibility of the magisterium even when it knows that it was a creation at times of church politics. The apostles and the prophets don’t do that. Yes, historical criticism undermines both Scripture and tradition. But when you defend tradition (haven’t seen you defend Scripture yet — only skepticism), you’re more like a Mormon than a Protestant because you’re in the land of defending ongoing revelation.
Plus, you’re still in the rabbit hole because if infallibility extends beyond ex cathedra statements you have a lot of contradictions and inconsistencies. I’m surprised you’d run back so fast.
LikeLike
CvD, there isn’t one, at least one you’re suggesting. But the problem with your zetz pistol is that it’s set on “biblicism,” which sola scriptura isn’t. The Reformed have no problem with extra-biblical formulations as fallible grids by which to read and interpret the only divinely infallible source. So while the Bible doesn’t say something specifically about piety plays, we do have good reason to avoid Mel Gibson’s tacky attempt to tell the gospel better than God. But why should you care–more seats for you and the eeeevangelicals on opening night.
LikeLike
Btw what is the prescriptive Scripture for the prescriptive principle?
JY, the Second Commandment, as in its good and necessary consequences which both the Heidelberg and Westminster Catechisms acknowledge:
Whatsoever is not commanded – explicitly or implicitly in Scripture – is forbidden in the worship of God.
Which is why Rome is so diligent to make sure that the Second is swallowed up by the First as Jonah by the whale. Properly understood the Second undermines Rome’s whole agenda in making carnal additions to the worship of God (never mind the true doctrine and govt. of the church), which end up obscuring, if not contradicting the true worship of God.
And of course, if magisterial infallibility and teaching is not limited to simply ex cathedra statements, there is no end what Rome may bind unto the consciences of its True Believers, cf. Matt. 23 and its application to post NT era Pharisees/Roman Tradition.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I also have not been promoting them. I have been defending those who feel called to them or even a movie like The Passion or The Gospel of John. They should be free from your unbiblically warranted judgement. Read back over my posts. I have not said we need to do them or God has called for them or even that you should support them or participate in them. I am saying you have no biblical grounds to judge them as against God’s will or judge those who do feel it would be good for themselves or others to participate in or view them. Do like them if you wish, but don’t judge them as against God’s will.
Sdb,
Got part of a reply, but have basically taken the whole weekend to enjoy family time. Will finish it up and get it to you. Maybe tomorrow sometime.
LikeLike
That is a lot. Sorry you don’t believe my thoughts are coherent. It is a simple answer to the first listed NT book. Matthew. It is not any where in the inspired text that he is the writer though. We get that from Tradition. Anyway, I know I am a sinner. Christ knows this better than me. Apart from Him I see nothing and can do nothing. Again sorry my points are incoherent to you. The Apostolic Tradition contains Scripture, therefore we do not need to prove Apostolic Tradition exists, if we believe Christ and the Apostles exist.
If it is a lot, Mike then that means you are in over your head.
If we don’t know who wrote the Book of Hebrews, why do we need to know if Matthew – or his secretary – wrote the gospel attributed to him?
And if apart from Christ you can see or do nothing, does that include the works that according to Romanism add to your justification? No disconnect or confusion there, right?
IOW Christ’s life and once for all sacrificial death on the cross wasn’t sufficient. You must add to it even such works of uncommanded devotion as attending the supposed re-sacrifice of Christ in the popish mass, purportedly “offered” by faux/pseudo priests which “sacrifice” is necessary to forgive sins committed after baptism and which can – conveniently for a price – also be offered for the dead.
LikeLike
M, as regards your last remark, one might just as well say:
The Apostolic Tradition contains Scripture, three gallons of unleaded and misc. dead bones, therefore we do not need to prove Apostolic Tradition exists, if we believe Christ and the Apostles exist.
But that trailer was never hitched to the tractor and your argument is atrocious.
Rather we believe Christ and the apostles first existed because Scripture exists and testifies to the same. Without Scripture we would have no infallible way of knowing that Christ and the apostles existed.
How do we know that?
Because Scripture says that without faith it is impossible to please God Heb.11:6
Much more whatsoever is not of faith is sin Rom. 14:32.
Therefore if faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God Rom. 10:17 – not tradition – what’s left?
Nothing other than Rome must ground her assertions on her own authority, i.e. her amorphous, vague and ethereal Traditions, not Scripture.
But then here we go again.
Let God be true and all men liars, what saith the Scripture Rom 3:4, 4:3?
Do not pass go/do not collect any more indulgences for sinful evasions of Scripture than Scripture allows. Tradition is not of faith and therefore is sin.
That’s the 3M quandary. The magisterium, Mohammed and Mormonism must all demonstrate from Scripture where Scripture justifies any of the 3M claims to additional infallible revelation.
Needless to say we’re all still waiting to hear something more than your heartfelt affirmation of sincerity and assurance that Rome’s claims are true.
IOW that you’re drinking the kool aid is a given. That we should also, remains to be proven.
And if you think that is all a bunch of trash talking bravado, I can remember all kinds of potshots I heard from evangelical arminian and pentecostal prots when I was on my way out of the Roman church. At the time, I didn’t understand all of them because as a true child of Rome, if not Vat2, ignorance is the mother of devotion/implicit faith is good enough. Later I would get the message, despite the at times compromised messengers. You had better hope and pray you get the message.
LikeLike
I also have not been promoting them. I have been defending those who feel called to them or even a movie like The Passion or The Gospel of John. They should be free from your unbiblically warranted judgement.
Come on, Snow White. Get your mirror on.
You may not/cannot make images of God. It is forbidden, as well as impossible, because the godhood cannot be pictured,even if Christ’s humanity can be faked, but then his humanity, such as it is fallibly portrayed, is separated from his divinity.
Neither again contra Rom. 10:17 does faith – without which we cannot please God Heb. 11:6 – come by pictures, plays or puppets.
Rather it comes by preaching and teaching the Word of God.
The apostles were not players in some Shakespearian vaudeville show, they were preachers.
LikeLike
Bob S,
Not what I meant by saying “a lot there”. Enjoy the rest of this day of rest, Bob
Rather we believe Christ and the apostles first existed because Scripture exists and testifies to the same. Without Scripture we would have no infallible way of knowing that Christ and the apostles existed.
This has basically been my point all along. The NT Scripture show there was a pre existing to themselves preached by completely Apostolic Tradition Gospel and pre existing to themselves authoritative Church from which the NT Scripture came and the Scriptures do not teach us to reject their human nor divine origin. Them witness to them. I repeat, show me from Scripture we are to reject Apostolic Tradition taught by the authoritative Church that do not contradict Scripture but are also not contained in Scripture. Which ever church one thinks that might be.
Also I’m quite fimliar and love all those Scripture references you are alluding too. God is worth of all our love and trust.
Let’s save all of this for Monday though.
Peace,
Michael
LikeLike
Oh I did forget. Another way to know Christ and the Apostles existed even wih out the Scriptures would be the existence of the Christians who died for those truths and continue to do so to this day.
LikeLike
MTX, there you go again with all that alleged judgmentalism. Tacky, misguided, poor form, lame, unnecessary–these are the categories invoked. Maybe you have that modern tick which chaffs at being somewhere between license and condemnation and there really is such a thing as a bad question and junk art? Do you really think that just because someone feels “it would be good for themselves or others to participate in or view” piety plays it’s not only enough but that others can’t have good reasons for critique or dissent? If so, your nice world is boring.
LikeLike
It seems like someone should write a whole book about the regulative (prescriptive) principle. Oh wait, I remember a good one: http://www.amazon.com/Reverence-Awe-Returning-Reformed-Worship/dp/0875521797/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1437961051&sr=8-1&keywords=with+reverence+and+awe
I think it’s odd to argue at length on a Reformed blog without having any real familiarity with the basic premises of the Reformed about the church and her worship. To each his own, I suppose.
LikeLike
Mtx, don’t you think Paul rejected non-canonical teachings of Peter (Gal. 2:11)? And if Peter could be wrong, how would we know which oral teachings to believe?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 21, 2015 at 5:08 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, but without the church, there’d be no Mary.>>>>
Without Jesus there would be no Church. Without Mary, there would be no God-man; there would be no God with us; there would be no Incarnation. There would be no God made flesh dwelling among us. She was the chosen vessel.
Are you ignorant of Scripture and the power of God?
You know, I suspect that the Catholic Church is who really believes in sola scriptura, or at least the authority of all of Scripture. You seem weak on the doctrine of the Incarnation.
The Lord has taught us two truths, namely, the divinity of the Blessed Trinity and the humanity of Christ.
– St. Thomas Aquinas
LikeLike
Zrim,
If my understanding of you being judgmental is unjust, I am sorry. I don’t mind you dessenting from then and any of your categories are taste oriented which are fine, but “misguided” and “We want the biblical warrant for piety plays, and if there isn’t one we say refrain aren’t simple taste statements. At least from my understanding of those words. You seem more to be saying people who are involved in a religious play or show are outside of following God’s will and you are condemning there actions. In my understanding you are being judgemental and seeking to correct something God has given you no warrent to correct. Please correct me if my understanding of your position has been mistaken.
LikeLike
MTX, it may be the difference between a context of formal, stated public worship where the categories can start moving in the direction of condemn and the informal where they’re more a matter of ordinary prudence. But they’re ill-advised all around. Some of us Reformed think of piety plays the way others think of regular plays (and vice versa)–at best silly wastes of resources and at worst dangerous.
LikeLike
A comparison between historical criticism of the Bible and of the papacy is really an apples and oranges comparison. Historical criticism of Scripture is, more often than not, built on theorized reconstructions of the text, unprovable theories of authorship, etc.
Criticism of the papacy, on the other hand, gives us a lot more substantial and verifiable material to work with. IOW, there’s actually evidence for criticism of the papacy in so many places where it doesn’t exist for Scripture.
LikeLike
This has basically been my point all along.
Which probably means it’s pointless to continue to point out to you that you don’t know what your point is even if it is pointed out to you.
The NT Scripture show there was a pre existing to themselves preached by completely Apostolic Tradition Gospel
Mikey, for the nth time nobody denies that a lot of what we read in the NT was first of all preached/taught by Christ and the apostles by word of mouth. (The book of Revelation would be one exception.) When the events described in the gospels and Acts actually occurred, the gospels and Acts had yet to be written. Again, nobody denies that.
and pre existing to themselves authoritative Church from which the NT Scripture came and the Scriptures do not teach us to reject their human nor divine origin.
No, the preaching and teaching of the apostolic traditions or teachings, i.e the gospel, called that church into existence. IOW no apostolic teaching and preaching, no church. Once the NT church came into existence, that same church was charged by the apostles to obey the Scripture, not lord it over Scripture or assume since the church were called to preach, prize and preserve Scripture, that the church was the source of Scripture. The axe does not boast itself over the hand that wields it. Is.10:15 (Likewise Mary the supposed “co-redemptrix”.)
They witness to them. I repeat, show me from Scripture we are to reject Apostolic Tradition taught [not by the authoritative Scripture, but] by the authoritative Church, that do not contradict Scripture, but are also not contained in Scripture. Which ever church one thinks that might be.
(Here we go again.)
Without faith it is impossible to please God.
Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
Faith comes by the preaching and teaching of
tradition along with passion plays, puppets and picturesthe Word of God.Let’s save all of this for Monday though.
No, your errors are too stupid and egregious, however much you repeat them. Consequently they don’t deserve a stay of execution.
Oh I did forget. Another way to know Christ and the Apostles existed even wih out the Scriptures would be the existence of the Christians who died for those truths and continue to do so to this day.
Yeah, you forget the salient distinction. The only infallible way we know that Christ and the apostles existed is from Scripture. Tradition, the martyrs etc. are only fallible means of knowing the truth as it is in Christ and his Word.
IOW an idolater can be lead to the Word of God, but unless God is pleased to open their eyes, they cannot and will not affirm anything beyond their own abject confusion.
He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. . . Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. Mark 7:6-9,13
Think rosaries, co redemptrix, passion plays etc.
LikeLike
Webfoot, you’re underselling the church. It gave us the doctrine of the immaculate conception. It gave us the doctrine of the God-man — Nicea.
You really are too modest.
LikeLike
Bob S,
Think rosaries, co redemptrix, passion plays etc.
Rosary – no commandment or Apoatilic Tradition there
Co redemptrix- not a dogma of the Church required to be believed by Catholics there
Passion plays- also not a Apostolic Tradition or required by the Church
Peter died as leader in Rome. That would be an example of an Apostolic Tradition.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I have most definately not said these type plays or movies are a form of “stated public worship”. The laity couldn’t even do that if they wanted to. Worship is liturgy of the Word and Sacrements. Over which the laity have no say nor ability to add to or take away from. Maybe this is where our difficulty is. I see a play or movie possibly being encouraging or helpful and this is where the laity can be helpful to each other. The world is full of disencouraging presentations we “can” fill it with different things. I do not see that as ill advised.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“But when you defend tradition (haven’t seen you defend Scripture yet — only skepticism), you’re more like a Mormon than a Protestant because you’re in the land of defending ongoing revelation.”
Defending Tradition in no way entails defending ongoing revelation. Part of Tradition is that revelation has ended (which is also why we see same echoed in Magisterial docs). You know, that same doctrine you still haven’t shown you derived from Scripture.
“Plus, you’re still in the rabbit hole because if infallibility extends beyond ex cathedra statements you have a lot of contradictions and inconsistencies.”
What did you just say again? “Yes, historical criticism undermines both Scripture and tradition.” I’m sure you’re swayed by all the atheists and non-believers asserting all the contradictions and inconsistencies in Scripture, and then when you offer a nuanced doctrine of inerrancy just assert you’re evading and engaging in special pleading.
Zrim,
“CvD, there isn’t one, at least one you’re suggesting. But the problem with your zetz pistol is that it’s set on “biblicism,” which sola scriptura isn’t.”
No it’s set on Darryl’s criticism that something not derived from Scripture is not binding or is to be considered manmade tradition.
“The Reformed have no problem with extra-biblical formulations as fallible grids by which to read and interpret the only divinely infallible source.”
Great so can you tell me where the only divinely infallible source prescribes your prescriptive principle? If it doesn’t, that’s a possible indicator it’s a man-made tradition right?
Also, I’d still like to know where you’re deriving your stance on liberty and grooming/beards given Paul’s statement from the NT (which interpets the OT as you said) I cited.
Bob,
“JY, the Second Commandment”
Really? The second commandment states “whatever is prescribed” is binding and the descriptive principle of “whatever isn’t prohibited” is to be rejected? And since Zrim already pointed out the Lutherans hold to the latter, I’m sure they’ll be glad to know you consider them idolaters, and I guess along with other Reformed who disagree with your stance on the RPW.
“as in its good and necessary consequences”
Please tell me how the prescriptive principle is derived from good and necessary consequence of the 2nd commandment.
LikeLike
James Young, does it bother you at all that when you defend tradition or Mary you wind up having to discredit to some degree the sufficiency of Scripture and the sufficiency of Christ respectively? When Protestants tackle tradition and Mary, it’s not like we are challenging the authority of God’s word or the work of Christ too.
And that’s the problem with bringing up atheists and non-believers. You accuse me of special pleading just like they do.
It’s hard enough to believe the Bible and Jesus. Why add the Crusades, Inquisition, and perpetual virginity of Mary?
LikeLike
Bob S,
Forgot to address this.
And if apart from Christ you can see or do nothing, does that include the works that according to Romanism add to your justification? No disconnect or confusion there, right?
I assume you realize the Catholic position is that it is God who reveals and leads the believer to seek and attain to being involved in the works you are talking about. God only crowns his own work in us. So no I have no disconnect. What I have said is total in line with the Catholic position on reward/merit and justification and the new life created by God in the believer.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“does it bother you at all that when you defend tradition or Mary you wind up having to discredit to some degree the sufficiency of Scripture and the sufficiency of Christ respectively?”
So when you defend sola scriptura against biblicists and fundamentalists, are you swayed if they charge you with discrediting to some degree the sufficiency of Scripture? When you defend Calvinism against hyper-Calvinists, are you swayed if they charge you with discrediting to some degree the sufficiency of Christ?
I am discrediting the formal sufficiency of Scripture, yes, in part because I believe Scripture itself discredits it. I am discrediting what I consider an improper use of Scripture – it’s authority was never intended to function the way SS proposes.
And given any Marian prayers are always to be taken in the context of intercession, I fail to see how it takes away from the sufficiency of Christ, especially when those eeeevil Rosary prayers are full of devotion and direction to Christ.
“When Protestants tackle tradition and Mary, it’s not like we are challenging the authority of God’s word or the work of Christ too.”
Actually, you are in both cases.
LikeLike
Sdb,
<MTX:Sola Scriptura is a belief of your community. I couldn’t promise to help with that “work” because I believe it is in error. Being I believe it is error believe myself to be called to stop it. Your community is requiring me to do a “work” I don’t believe in to the “best of my abilities”. Could not promise that.
Sdb: Now this is a bit different. It is one thing to say that you aren’t convinced. It is something else to say that you are convinced it is wrong and must work against it. That is where you are at. You want to make it a rule that one cannot adopt sola scriptura. Funny how this works…
Let me clarify. I don’t want to. The Church teaches against it and I just want to be able to believe Sola Scriptura is a man made tradition not proved from the Scriptures. For this I was awarded the oxymoron of the day award here. No one has said I do not deserve such a award, therefore I hold my ground in defense. It is your church that has Sola Scriptura in its confession which makes me unable to be a member by my understanding of the promises your community requires of its members.
MTX:Part of the “work” of a church is to evangelize and spread its beliefs.
Sdb:Not for everyone. For some people, the work is to keep the nursery and take meals to shut ins. We all have different callings within the body.
Most definitely we all have different callings in the body. Your community requires me or to be members to promise to “support the church in its worship and work to the best of your ability”. If your community is supported by me monetarily or otherwise, I am being required to “support and work” to spread an idea, Sola Scriptura, which I find to be contrary to the faith.
IOW, all I am asking for is my position to not be persecuted by you or your community. At least, if you can’t be consistent with your own position and prove it from Scripture, that is.
sdb:As far as “proving” it[SS] from scripture, it is clear from Christ’s (and the Apostles’) use of the scriptures how we should use them. You evidently remain unconvinced.
They use them the same way Catholics and the Church use them is why I am unconvinced.
sdb: I think Mark’s account of Jesus’s interaction with the Pharisees is worth pondering,
And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!
I have in no way ever been saying we should reject any teaching of Scripture to establish any tradition. In fact I have repeatedly say “Apostolic Tradition that are not contradicted by Scripture but only not contained in Scripture”. Of course you believe some of the Catholic Apostolic Traditions do, but that is a different discussion.
Sdb:the example we are given by Jesus is that the plumb line is scripture.
Actually the example we are given is the authoritative Christ taught things not contained completely in Scripture and corrected those rejecting Him and those teachings with the Scriptures. It was often when His teaching was being rejected that he then used the Scriptures to protect the Tradition he was creating. The authoritative Apostles sent by Christ were also teaching things not completely contained in the Scriptures. Paul used the Scriptures to establish his Apostolic Traditions. He taught Timothy to do the same.
Think about the tradition of eating fish on friday – a tradition to point people to sacrifice (giving up meat for the cheaper fish), but this tradition has had pernicious effects – now the lenten traditions are more about losing weight and carry all the solemnity of new year’s resolutions (I’m giving up chocolate and beer for lent so I’ll look better for spring break). At some point traditions can become so unhelpful, it is time to scrap it.
I have never heard anybody say the “look better for spring break” bit. This seems very presumptive and judgemental on your part, sdb. I seek things that will be difficult and will cause me to seek God for help more in keeping away from it during Lent or things that will remind me of those who have less. BTW, fish on Fridays is not an Apostolic Tradition so it would not even apply to our conversation.
I remain on the defense of my position, sdb. I have still not seen your position show that me believing SS is a manmade tradition to be in error. What I believe is that SS can not remain consistent with itself to correct this idea, therefore should be rejected. If others do or do not reject SS because of that that is up to them, but I will defend my position. Showing that the Church completely operated on Apostolic Tradition before the NT would seem to put the burden of proof of SS proponents, but maybe you disagree.
Thanks for waiting over the weekend.
Peace,
Michael
LikeLike
Great so can you tell me where the only divinely infallible source prescribes your prescriptive principle? If it doesn’t, that’s a possible indicator it’s a man-made tradition right?</i?
The question is, Where are piety plays commanded or forbidden? The answer is no where, which means they are liberty. My point has been that when it comes to this particular adiaphoron, wisdom says there is more harm than good come of them.
LikeLike
James Young, you don’t see how my praising Chase Utley to get him to praise Cole Hamels is detracting from praise to Cole Hamels? A Roman Catholic intellectual tradition?
Scripture discredits Scripture. Just confirms my point that Rome is a liberal communion. Only a PCUSA pastor addicted to the church always reforming could make sense of that. I’ll submit to Scripture so I can submit to tradition. uh huh.
LikeLike
Hart,
“D. G. Hart
Posted July 26, 2015 at 10:01 pm | Permalink
Mtx, don’t you think Paul rejected non-canonical teachings of Peter (Gal. 2:11)? And if Peter could be wrong, how would we know which oral teachings to believe?”
Let’s look at it.
Galatians 2:11-21Revised Standard Version (RSV)
Paul Rebukes Peter at Antioch
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13 And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” 15 We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, 16 yet who know that a man is not justified[a] by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we 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 shall no one be justified. 17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we ourselves were found to be sinners, is Christ then an agent of sin? Certainly not! 18 But if I build up again those things which I tore down, then I prove myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law died to the law, that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification[b] were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose.
“He stood condemned”- he was not condemned by the OT scriptures. He was condemned by the Apostolic teaching that had yet to be inscripturated in any NT books.
“he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself”- this is not Peters teaching which is wrong. It is his action contrary to the previously taught uninscripturated Apostolic Tradition/teachings which is the problem.
“when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel” – Paul sees they are not acting in accord with authentic Apostolic Tradition and he holds them accountable. Paul gives a great example for Catholics and all of good will of today in dealing with those leaders who fail to live the faith or in in accord with justice. The question is when the faithful are confronted with the sin of leaders will they rebuke them to their face or just quietly let the practice of the leaders decay. Often we live like Peter… in fear of those who we dine instead of having the fear of God. I pray nether me nor you would do that, Hart.
LikeLike
mtx, even if your reading were correct — go on and on and on about canonization, why don’t you — the passage raises all sorts of red flags about the oral tradition. Peter’s oral teaching was off. Now you’re going to believe a bishop, just because he’s a successor to the pope that erred on the gospel, what oral tradition (now written?) to believe.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“you don’t see how my praising Chase Utley to get him to praise Cole Hamels is detracting from praise to Cole Hamels?”
Were your parents kind of annoyed at people when they praised you for your achievements? Did they sit in the corner heads down, glum and grumbling “Hey we raised the kid and gave him that work ethic, instilled those virtues, disciplined him to get him where he’s at – jerks”. Or did those praising you assume that praise obviously redounded on your parents as well in how they raised you and your parents were happy and proud of the praise you received?
“Scripture discredits Scripture.”
Please. Scripture discredits SS, not its inspiration, infallibility, or authority.
“I’ll submit to Scripture so I can submit to tradition. uh huh.”
You keep viewing them as in tension with each other, as opposed to them being parallel and concurrent and mutually interdependent and attesting authorities. That’s why you keep having your chicken and egg problem.
LikeLike
James Young, no one prayed to me or my parents.
Doh!
They are in tension when the best the catechism for this assertion, “As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”44, is a reference to the Second Vatican Council.
How gullible do you have to be?
LikeLike
Darryl,
“no one prayed to me or my parents.”
I agree. That’s a separate point from the one you were raising I was responding to.
“does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”
“How gullible do you have to be?”
Not gullible at all, considering you *do the exact same thing* but then keep claiming you don’t and kicking the ladder that got you to the roof. Unless you’d like to stop assuming those 5 doctrines you hold as foundational come from the Scriptures alone.
LikeLike
Hart,
Have yet to get to canonization with you. So I would not say I have been going on and on about it. Are you saying my understanding of the historic situation and/or exegesis of Scripture is off. Please clarify and show in which way and how. The passage addresses sin against the Gospel which was not inscripturated at the time. The Gospel was known only by Apostolic Tradition at the time of the incident between Peter and Paul. It is still only known by Apostolic Tradition, though all the Scriptures are included in that Tradition now.
LikeLike
James Young, see if you can follow. It’s hard enough to believe in the virgin birth of Christ. I get it.
Now you want to take the supernatural and turn into Homer Simpson’s Land of Chocolate.
The supernaturalism of the NT is enough, thank you. Contrary to Thomas Howard, Roman Catholicism is too much.
LikeLike
mtx, where do you get the modem to channel apostolic tradition? Why isn’t the gospel now known by mmmmeeeEEEEE? I know it thanks to the Word and the Holy Spirit, which is something you guys don’t talk about too much but God is generally the casualty when it comes to Mary and the church who constructed her.
Maybe we need to start with the gospel. Imputed righteousness of Christ, received by faith alone, faith wrought by God’s Spirit, in the ones God the Father predestined. Ephesians 1:3-14.
Oh, but I wouldn’t know that except for the church. And the church came before you knew Jesus. So the church gave you Jesus (and Mary).
LikeLike
Hart,
Get back to me when you actually want to deal with the history and exegesis of the text. Then maybe we could move on to next steps. I don’t bring these up for my own good, Hart. Peace,
Michael
LikeLike
MTX, Peter was betraying the gospel that he witnessed himself, not apostolic tradition. Isn’t a tradition something that is handed down over generations, not something you saw with your own eyes twenty years ago? Or are you trying to say that it hadn’t occurred to Protestants that the gospel happened in history before it was written about? And how does that affect SS?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 22, 2015 at 10:05 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, “How many times have you heard her referred to as the first Christian, the first believer? How many times have you heard her submission and obedience held up as an example for all believers? How many times have you heard her referred to as a princess, a noble woman? She was, after all, a direct descendent of King David.”
Except for Roman Catholics saying it and saying it and saying it, never.>>>>>
I don’t think that is something to be proud of, Brother Hart.
LikeLike
Joel, at least the higher critics were trying to put hundreds of years between the oral tradition and scribal tradition. Now, apparently, we’re down to the time between it leaving the apostles mouth but before the scribe takes the dictation. And have you seen how much the prot-RC’s are trying to pack into that time frame?! Yowza. But If I can diagram it on a board, or on the internet, then apparently it’s tru….errrr……. possible. It’s become the “what if” game. It’s a bit like watching Inspector Clouseau reasoning to a conclusion. Not to say I don’t enjoy Inspector Clouseau for what he is/was.
LikeLike
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/07/fulford-on-sola-scriptura-part-ii.html#more
LikeLike
Joel,
Not sure if you have been following this conversation. We have been on it for probably three now. You may want to scan back over the thread. Sorry you can’t see he beginning of the conversation in The Court Gives.. thread. It crashed. Anyway, mainly when I say Apostolic Tradiion I am speaking of what is also called the Deposit of Faith. Basically the life, teachings and implementations of Christ and the Apostles. This is carried through the life of the Church and in Catholic belief is protected by the Holy Spirit. It eventually contained the NT Scriptures, but this is no the case in the beginning of the ministry of he Church. All these things being passed and recieved among he Church, even in he beginning, is the speading of Apostolic Tradition. “Tradidi” is the Latin term we get tradition from. It does not require generational passing. It is just the handing on of a teaching or practice recieved. Peter as an Apostle just happens to be an individual in which his memory is part of what has been passed on through Tradition to us. We just mainly think of generational passing of traditions. Paul in 1 Cor 15:3 says, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.”
Vulgate of verse 3: Tradidi(I passed on)
This is the Latin word we get our English word tradition from. The Greek word translated by Jerome here has the same root in both the words for “I delivered and “I also received” in the verse 3.
This passing idea without requiring generations can be seen in how Paul speaks to the Thessalonians here:
2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
Latin: traditiones
Greek: παραδοσεις
2 Thessalonians 3:6
[ Warning against Idleness ] Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
Latin: traditionem
Greek: παραδοσιν
These are the two terms for “I delivered” and “recieved” in 1 Cor 15:3 above in Greek:
παρεδωκα
παρελαβον
Notice all the roots are the same that Paul uses: παρε
Jerome uses the root tradi. We get the word tradition from it.
Hope some of that wondering helps.
Peace,
Michael
LikeLike
mtx, I’m here.
Inspiration is different from inscripturation is different from canonization.
You’re not pope. You don’t make up — see what I did there? — the rules.
The point stands. Galatians 2 raises all sorts of problems about papal supremacy and oral tradition.
LikeLike
Mermaid, that’s like your opinion.
LikeLike
sean, meanwhile, apply prot-rc’s time frame game to papal supremacy, or to the church Jesus founded. Cherry picking.
LikeLike
Show me the exegesis for transubstantiation.
LikeLike
MTX, you rely on something other than tradition and Scripture. The gospel was witnessed by women before the apostles knew about it or it was written about in Scripture. The Gospel was passed down as tradition and inscripturated after it had already occurred. What’s your third category of where we derive things that we must believe?
(I’ve read much of the comments, but not like I’d read a book.)
LikeLike
Hart,
If you are here and want to interact with the text and history and the way I wrote about it, please do so. Don’t just say “I’m here”. Peter was not teaching, he was sinning. No Catholic would ever claim a pope or Peter can’t sin against the teaching of the Church. We should imitate Paul and rebuke him not break fellowship with him. This is the example we get from Paul.
Joel,
If you could rephrase your question I would appreciate it. I’m not completely sure what you are inquiring.
LikeLike
mtx, “Peter was not teaching, he was sinning.”
How do you know? Will tradition resolve this? I have it on God’s Word that Peter denied Christ three times. The first pope was prone to wobble.
LikeLike
MTX, the gospel happened before it became tradition, right?
LikeLike
Hart,
Let’s look at it. This is before the great commission and the sending of the Holy Spirit to start with.
Luke 22
31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you,[d] that he might sift you[e] like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” 33 And he said to him, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34 He said, “I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you three times deny that you know me.”
Yes Peter denied Christ before the resurrection and sending of the Holy Spirit into his life, but he is also the only Apostles with this special prayer and prophesy of his turning and call to strengthen brothers. Also the only Apostle called by Christ to “tend My lambs” in the end of John’s Gospel and of course you are familiar with the rock, keys and binding and loosing synario in Matthew. It is quite obvious the Peter who died in Rome as a martyr was a bit of a different guy than the guy hiding his relationship with Christ around a fire before the Crucifixion. Didn’t take long after the coming of the Spirit to get the guy preaching in the open on Pentacost and when he is with “the apostles” saying “We must obey God rather than men” to authorities. We are to be with Peter and keep him consistent with his own and the Apostolic teaching. He is not sinless. This is what we see happen between Peter and Paul. Paul loves Peter enough to rebuke him and trust in that prayer and prophecy of Christ, the great high priest. He believe in a Peter whose “faith will not fail” and will always “turn again” and is called by Christ to “strengthen your brothers”.
If you have concerns, Hart, about Laudato Si or Francis’ priorities being out of line with Leo XIII’s teaching, write his office dealing with the faith. He has even been known to directly contact people who have reached out to him with concerns. I’ll get you the address to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, if you wish to be like Paul.
Official Web Site: http://www.doctrinafidei.va/
Mailing Address: Piazza del S. Uffizio, 11, 00193 Roma, Italy
Telephone: 06.69.89.59.11
Fax: 06.69.88.34.09
LikeLike
No Catholic would ever claim a pope or Peter can’t sin against the teaching of the Church. We should imitate Paul and rebuke him not break fellowship with him.
MTX, then how do at the same time maintain papal infallibility? How can a source be both infallible and fallible? It’s as if you do with popery what the Jesus Seminar (or Jefferson) does with the Bible–play marbles to determine this part over here is all good, but that part over there isn’t. Of course, Crossan and crew do this to mock orthodoxy’s idea of infallibility, but you all seem quite serious about a papal source being at once infallible and fallible. Water is wet in some places and only on certain days at particular times. Talk about cafeteria Catholicism. The biblical equivalent would be to do as Crossan but only seriously–the Bible is sometimes infallible and sometimes not, and only in some places and only on certain days at particular times. So it looks like a double standard for infallible sources, which make some wonder if you really understand what infallible means.
LikeLike
Joel,
“the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.” Yes, Tradition, Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church are consequences of the love and eternal attributes of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit affecting the world through the covenants and the incarnation. Yet, the Gospel is only Gospel when someone has “received” it, when one has gained sight. Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” [John 9:39] It is what is passed from the Father to the world by means of the first passer of the “new and eternal covenant”, Christ. He is the passer of authentic divine Tradition, the Gospel. The “Author and Finisher of our faith”. Hope that answers in some way your question, Joel. I believe I speak as a sinner who’s eyes are now opened.
LikeLike
So, that’s a no then? The message of the event (tradition) and the event (Christ’s death/resurrection) are the same thing?
LikeLike
Zrim,
Was Paul infallible 24/7 and when he was writing his grocery list? Or was he infallible under certain conditions?
LikeLike
see? papal infallibility is just like apostolic infallibility.
LikeLike
CvD, but if Francis has Peter’s infallibility then whence 3 Peter or 2 Revelation? One would think if infallibility continues that we’d have more books of the Bible. Until that happens, papal infallibility looks like a lot of religious fantasy.
LikeLike
Zrim,
You’re jumping around points just like Darryl does. Your concern was: “then how do at the same time maintain papal infallibility? How can a source be both infallible and fallible?”
You hold that Paul was infallible and fallible; he wasn’t infallible 24/7 – he was infallible under certain conditions. So you then should have no problem with the concept of something being infallible only under certain conditions a la PI. Now you jump to “well infallibility must entail ongoing revelation then”. No, that doesn’t follow – infallibility does not entail inspiration – you’d have to argue that separately from your point above about some source being both infallible and fallible.
LikeLike
@mtx just a few quick comments while I take a short break…
I don’t think I follow the logic here. It seems pretty strained… first, the PCA is not a strict subscriptionist denomination (I don’t know about the OPC). If you dissent on SS, you can still be a member as far as I know, though you couldn’t be an officer (same is true on paedobaptism for example). Now, if you think tithing to a congregation that teaches something you disagree with is support for an idea that you can’t do, that seems to be a different problem. Of course, I’m not sure Paul would agree with you – think about buying meat sacrificed to idols. He didn’t seem to be too worried about how that money would be used to subsidize the worship of false gods. I think we can be too scrupulous about such things.
I don’t follow the IOW here. Maybe I’m misreading you or there is a typo in there I’m not catching? I think I have proven SS from scripture, but even so I don’t see how the action of our denomination would be seen as “persecution”.
I wouldn’t think so. That would be a truly remarkable statement! But your church binds the consciences of her members in ways that violate scripture (one example is requiring feast days, holy days of obligation, and fasts when scripture explicitly forbids the church from doing so).
To be sure there was new revelation. But when we read about Christ’s criticize the religious leaders of the day, it is almost always by appealing to scripture. Even when he is interacting with Nicodemus where you might argue that he is providing new revelation, he turns back to the scriptures. I do think Christ revealed new things in his preaching, but he was divine after all. I would say that the apostles revealed new things too (like the prophets before them). But just as the prophets certainly said more than they wrote, it is what they wrote that we have to correct everything else…including traditions that may be rooted in what they said.
I’m not making that up. I paraphrasing a friend at ND. There were also similar tie-ins between lenten sacrifices and getting fit on the bulletin boards at Rolfs. I seem to recall Golic kidding along the same lines on Mike&Mike around Lent every year. This was not an uncommon sentiment at all. Criticisms of treating lent like a new year’s resolution were common fodder for the student paper.
Well, I hope the example I’ve sketched out for you convinces you that this is not merely a manmade tradition, but the fruit of faithful exegesis of the full biblical counsel. You may think our exegesis is mistaken (we aren’t infallible after all!), but it is not just made up either. I don’t think you can demonstrate that the church operated completely on “Apostolic Tradition” before the NT in the same sense that the RCC appeals to Tradition today. To be sure, the apostle’s teachings were not immediately inscripturated, but their writings were recognized immediately as scripture (following Peter’s letter for example). Given the requirements to be an apostle, it seems quite clear that this was a unique office. Later teaching could err (doesn’t mean they did, but they could).
To be sure, tradition was, is, and will be an important teacher, but (T)radition is not only the oral words of the apostles that didn’t make it into print passed down by word of mouth. The tradition developed. These developments are not coming from the Apostles, they are obviously later. These developments are fallible. Since we can’t peal back the layers of these developments to arrive at the pristine words spoken by the Apostles, our understanding of the original apostolic tradition is fallible. Now various branches of the church have developed theories on how the church might be protected from such errors, but the scriptures do not give us any such warrant for these theories and the divergence (and errors) among the early church make this case very hard (in my case impossible) to buy. As I’ve noted, some of these traditions contradict scripture, some have developed quite late, and some are really helpful. It’s a mixed bag in other words. This is why scripture alone is our infallible guide that bind the conscience.
LikeLike
” infallibility does not entail inspiration ”
Yes it does.
LikeLike
“You hold that Paul was infallible and fallible”
No. Paul was always fallible.
LikeLike
Just to follow up, being right doesn’t make you infallible. I can write a book that only contains the line 2+2=4. This book is still fallible because I *could* have gotten it wrong. I *could* have written 2+2=5. The Holy Spirit inspired Paul and preserved the inspired words he wrote. The collection of the inspired words is infallible because errors made by fallible men like Paul would not have been passed on by the Holy Spirit.
To be sure Paul had authority – even when he wasn’t writing. But he could have made a mistake which is why the Bereans were commended for checking out what he said against the scriptures. Perhaps that lost letter to the Corinthians contained a whopper?
My stopped watch isn’t sometimes fallible and sometimes infallible because under certain conditions (like it being noon and midnight) it tells the right time.
LikeLike
Joel,
It’s a temporal and eternal thing. A divine and human union. A “once for all.” A “Christ will be all in all” transformation. We will get pretty esoteric and over my abilities to relay if we travel this road to far. You might do better with someone like Ratzinger here. Could always read over Dei Verbum too. It is not long.
Die Verbum:
This plan of revelation is realized by deeds and words having an inner unity: the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation manifest and confirm the teaching and realities signified by the words, while the words proclaim the deeds and clarify the mystery contained in them. By this revelation then, the deepest truth about God and the salvation of man shines out for our sake in Christ, who is both the mediator and the fullness of all revelation. (2)
LikeLike
Cletus,
You hold that Paul was infallible and fallible; he wasn’t infallible 24/7 – he was infallible under certain conditions. So you then should have no problem with the concept of something being infallible only under certain conditions a la PI.
I don’t think the problem isn’t infallibility under certain conditions. The problem is that the conditions are vague and ever shifting. I think it is safe to say that we would affirm that the Apostles were infallible whenever they were teaching under the inspiration of the Spirit or whenever they were teaching any doctrine. But this does not apply to popes. We’re supposed to listen to them as if they were infallible even when they’re not promulgating faith and morals dogmatically. And, there’s no agreed standard on when we can figure out when they’re teaching dogmatically, which is why you can’t get RCs to agree on the extent of what is infallibly taught by the popes, let alone the entire Magisterium.
Now you jump to “well infallibility must entail ongoing revelation then”. No, that doesn’t follow – infallibility does not entail inspiration – you’d have to argue that separately from your point above about some source being both infallible and fallible.
So fallen human beings are by nature infallible or even possibly infallible? Really. I have the gift of infallibility? If inspiration is not required for infallibility, then why aren’t all human beings capable of teaching infallibly? If, after the fall, all human beings are fallible, then you need inspiration. Otherwise, many of us aren’t fallible.
That really is where the wheels start to fall off. The pope can do what the Apostles do, teach infallibly, although He doesn’t have the inspiration that would make that happen. But Paul says that reason why Scripture is sufficient is BECAUSE it is God-breathed, i.e., inspired.
Infallibility without inspiration doesn’t add up.
LikeLike
sdb,
“Just to follow up, being right doesn’t make you infallible.”
Right – it makes you accurate. Now can you tell me how Protestantism can ever escape conflating authority with accuracy and how its churches’ and councils’ “authority” can ever be greater than merely accurate? Divine authority entails accuracy, but accuracy does not entail divine authority. Is it possible one can teach accurately without being authorized? Is it possible one can be divinely authorized without teaching accurately? If one can teach and preach accurately without being authorized, what differentiates the authority of Protestant pastors, churches, and councils from the authority of laymen?
LikeLike
I am trying to get back to a point from your discussion of Galatians 2. You seem to be saying that Peter wasn’t condemned from OT Scriptures and (presumably) that the passages of NT Scripture that would condemn him hadn’t been written yet, so therefore SS doesn’t work. I was pointing out the gospel happened before tradition as well, but now you say tradition isn’t temporal (isn’t something that is passed down something that is temporal?) I could say that the Word of God also has eternal/temporal elements, so Peter was condemned through Scripture, even Gal 2. So what’s the beef?
LikeLike
Robert
Posted July 28, 2015 at 5:03 pm | Permalink
But this does not apply to popes. We’re supposed to listen to them as if they were infallible even when they’re not promulgating faith and morals dogmatically.
This is what happens when people get their information on Catholicism from Loraine Boettner and Darryl G. Hart.
LikeLike
I could be wrong in my understanding, Clete or somebody could correct this, but Catholics speak of “inerrancy” and “inspiration” not infallibility regarding the Scriptures. No writing of the Church or popes are ever inerrant and inspired in the scriptural sense in the Catholic view, to my understanding. It is the difference of all things in a dogma of the Church can irrevocable be true but also clarified that is the difference. Basically, no statement of the Church or Pope even in the infallible circumstances contain all the truth on that subject or is necessarily worded in the best way for all generations. Infallibility of the Church or Pope’s infallible statements only are Holy Spirit protected from speaking a lie in its context. This is why we don’t use the word infallible regarding the Scriptures.
Maybe that helps the conversation. Maybe it just opens a whole new can of worms.
Peace,
Michael
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted July 28, 2015 at 4:34 pm | Permalink
Zrim,
You’re jumping around points just like Darryl does. Your concern was: “then how do at the same time maintain papal infallibility? How can a source be both infallible and fallible?”
You hold that Paul was infallible and fallible; he wasn’t infallible 24/7 – he was infallible under certain conditions. So you then should have no problem with the concept of something being infallible only under certain conditions a la PI. Now you jump to “well infallibility must entail ongoing revelation then”. No, that doesn’t follow – infallibility does not entail inspiration – you’d have to argue that separately from your point above about some source being both infallible and fallible.>>>>>
Protestantism is hopelessly confused not only about what the Bible teaches, but about what papal infallibility actually means.
Get 10 Protestants in a room and ask them about the extent of the atonement and see what happens.
Get 10 Catholics in a room and ask them what papal infallibility refers to. They will all give the same answer. The Pope is infallible under certain conditions, just like you have tried to explain here, Cletus van Damme.
Ask them in Latin America. Ask them in Spain. Ask them in Canada. Ask them in Texas. Ask them in California. Ask them in Oregon. Ask them in anyplace on the face of the earth, and you will get the same answer.
No, he is not alway infallible. Only when he speaks ex cathedra is he infallible. Amazing consistency that Protestants do not seem to be able to handle. Why is that? These guys are smart, so it must be some other reason.
LikeLike
CvD, what sdb said. I’m not jumping around points but right to them. It just doesn’t follow that if Francis is as (ahem) relatively infallible as Paul and Peter that he can’t also do what they did, namely write a book of the Bible. You want the claims and benefits of papal infallibility without having to deliver the goods.
C’mon, give us 3 Peter and we’ll hang it up already.
LikeLike
Robert,
“So fallen human beings are by nature infallible or even possibly infallible? Really. I have the gift of infallibility? If inspiration is not required for infallibility, then why aren’t all human beings capable of teaching infallibly? If, after the fall, all human beings are fallible, then you need inspiration. Otherwise, many of us aren’t fallible.”
Another jump to conclusion – humans are not by nature infallible obviously nor have I ever argued otherwise. Inspiration is a gift of the holy spirit and is what ensured the apostles’ infallibility. The protection and guidance of the church in defining dogma and giving normative and binding judgments is also a gift of the holy spirit which ensures its infallibility. You’re assuming basically that the only way God could provide for infallibility is via inspiration. That may be true, but it would have to be argued for, not just begged at the outset to then criticize Rome’s claims.
“But Paul says that reason why Scripture is sufficient is BECAUSE it is God-breathed, i.e., inspired.”
Right, and he also claimed his successors had apostolic authority, even as they weren’t inspired.
LikeLike
Zrim,
” It just doesn’t follow that if Francis is as (ahem) relatively infallible as Paul and Peter”
Apostolic authority which Rome claims does not entail inspiration any more than the apostolic authority given to Paul and Peter’s successors entailed they were inspired. And again, your criticism was how can a source be both infallible and fallible? It was addressed.
“You want the claims and benefits of papal infallibility without having to deliver the goods.”
Rome already delivered the goods. It’s called dogmas, not semper reformanda and incoherent systems.
LikeLike
Quite a bit of comments here, and without exhaustively reading each one, I seem to notice that most are debating some aspect of Roman Catholic / /Protestant thinking not related to the theme of the article.
Which is “When Did Christian America End?” First, to set a point of reference for giving meaning to the term “Christian Nation”, let’s ask the question:
Was America ever a “Christian Nation” ? And what did that mean, if anything, in the worldview of the Framers?
USSC Justice David Brewer clarified the issue in his 1905 book, “The United States, A Christian Nation”.
Might be worth a read, since he cites original documents… .
Click to access unitedstateschri00brew.pdf
LikeLike
“Get 10 Catholics in a room and ask them what papal infallibility refers to. They will all give the same answer.”
Cough, Bullsh, cough, cough
“Ask them in Latin America. Ask them in Spain. Ask them in Canada. Ask them in Texas. Ask them in California. Ask them in Oregon. Ask them in anyplace on the face of the earth, and you will get the same answer. ”
Septuple bullsh..cough, cough.
LikeLike
Joel,
I wouldn’t say I am saying therefore SS won’t work. I’m saying that Christ and the Apostles didn’t practice SS, therefore if someone is going to get there they are going to have to do it from some other way than by looking at the example of Christ and the Apostles.
I was pointing out the gospel happened before tradition as well, but now you say tradition isn’t temporal (isn’t something that is passed down something that is temporal?) I could say that the Word of God also has eternal/temporal elements, so Peter was condemned through Scripture, even Gal 2. So what’s the beef?
No doubt we can look at the actions of those previous to the written scripture and see how those scriptures are teaching against them, but we can’t reverse time and use the unwritten scriptures to condemn them using SS. We can’t condemn the Israelites for their lack of faith and not keeping the Passover for all the years in Egypt. I’m not saying Tradition isn’t temporal. I most definitely believe it is, but Tradition teaches eternal realities. You asked about the Gospel. I replied with the verse about Christ being the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. The Gospel happened in time and space, but it is also an eternal reality. As Catholics we go to Mass in time and a certain space, but we believe we come into contact with our eternal God and Heaven itself in that time and space. We come to the incarnate, crucified, resurrected and ascended Son of the Father. Tradition is carried in time and space, but it carries a eternal reality. Questions just aren’t so easy to answer when you ask questions about these things and it is easy to be misunderstood or even misunderstand the question. Hope that clarifies.
Peace,
Michael
LikeLike
Sdb,
Will try and respond soon.
LikeLike
Sean, try some cough drops — Ricola or Fisherman’s Friend. Or maybe whisky.
LikeLike
MTX, that’s satisfactory. As DGH said, “Inspiration is different from inscripturation is different from canonization.”
LikeLike
Joel
Posted July 28, 2015 at 8:33 pm | Permalink
MTX, that’s satisfactory. As DGH said, “Inspiration is different from inscripturation is different from canonization.”
Not as brilliant as you might think since all scripture is canonized or else it ain’t scripture.
LikeLike
Mermaid, in what bubble do you live?
You don’t understand Protestantism and you surely don’t know the church to which you belong.
But Protestants are the bad guys!?
LikeLike
CvD, by “goods” I meant the Word of God (that you think of “goods” as mere dogmas says oh so much). You all did it once with selectively infallible apostles so why not again with selectively infallible vicars? With the audacious claims you make of yourselves, is more Word of God really that hard to come up with?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 28, 2015 at 9:06 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, in what bubble do you live?
The poll suggested that the papacy no longer occupies the exalted position it once did. Asked whether the pope is infallible when he teaches on matters of morality and faith, 40 percent said yes, 46 percent said no, and 14 percent said they did not know. Nearly 8 in 10 Catholics polled said they would be more likely to follow their conscience on “difficult moral questions” than to follow the pope’s teachings. . . .
On every other hotly debated issue, Catholics wanted the next pope to lead the church in an about-face. Seven of 10 Catholics polled said the next pope should let priests marry, let women become priests and allow the use of artificial methods of birth control. Nine of 10 said they wanted the next pope to allow the use of condoms to prevent the spread of H.I.V. and other diseases.
Sixty-two percent of Catholics said they were in favor of legalizing marriage for same-sex couples. Catholics approved of same-sex marriage at a higher rate than Americans as a whole, among whom 53 percent approved. . . .
You don’t understand Protestantism and you surely don’t know the church to which you belong.
But Protestants are the bad guys!?
Mrs. Webfoot was
a) Speaking of Catholics she knows all around the world, not just Americans and
b) The normative Church teaching, not whether Americans in a poll agree with the teaching
Dr. Hart continues to confuse theology and ecclesiology with sociology and media polls [of questionable accuracy*], an inexcusable categorical error for an academician of his stature.
Geez, dude. Junky riff.
__________
*https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/07/about-those-religion-surveys
LikeLike
sean
Posted July 28, 2015 at 6:20 pm | Permalink
“Get 10 Catholics in a room and ask them what papal infallibility refers to. They will all give the same answer.”
Cough, Bullsh, cough, cough
“Ask them in Latin America. Ask them in Spain. Ask them in Canada. Ask them in Texas. Ask them in California. Ask them in Oregon. Ask them in anyplace on the face of the earth, and you will get the same answer. ”
Septuple bullsh..cough, cough.>>>>>>
Sean, I know many Catholics in many parts of the world, and none of them believe that the Pope is without sin or that every word he says is infallible – and that would include St. Peter.
I do not know how to interpret the insistence by this small group of men that the Church teaches otherwise.
You may reject the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility, but to be so ignorant is, well, it reflects on you, not on the Church.
Now, show by using the Protestant tradition of sola scriptura what the extent of the atonement is. Let’s see sola scriptura in action if it is such a reliable way to arrive at irrefutable doctrine.
But I am assuming you really care about truth, and that this is not just a big joke for you.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart:
You don’t understand Protestantism and you surely don’t know the church to which you belong.>>>>
I understand Protestantism very well. Your ignorance on the subject of the Rosary, and then your unwillingness to admit your obvious error makes anything you say suspect.
You are an academic and a published author, yet you made the most rudimentary error in your “research” of the subject.
You are the one with credibility problems, Brother Hart.
LikeLike
TVD:
Mrs. Webfoot was
a) Speaking of Catholics she knows all around the world, not just Americans and
b) The normative Church teaching, not whether Americans in a poll agree with the teaching>>>>>
Yes. Catholics know what the dogma is.
I would love to hear the good Protestants here explain the extent of the atonement using scripture alone. How many are able to define the word “atonement” relying on scripture alone? How many are then able to tell what Scripture alone says about the extent of the atonement?
IOW, who did Christ die for? Can you answer the question using only Scripture? How long before one of the good Calvinists resorts to quoting Calvin,- the attorney, not priest or theologian – the one who invented the system that is called Calvinism?
Then lets hear from the Lutherans, the Methodists, the Baptists, the independents, and why not throw in the JWs for good measure. They are also sola scripturaists.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Part of the problem with Rome making that audacious claim of additional revelation would be that it contradicts the STM triad. If you notice Rome hasnt canonized the book of mormon or the Koran nor will it. Now since you brought it up would you like to show me how you derive from Scripture that revelation has ended with the death of the last apostle?
LikeLike
@cvd
looks like you are taking three on one. You inspire me, though I am txting left handed.
You asked,
“Now can you tell me how Protestantism can ever escape conflating authority with accuracy and how its churches’ and councils’ “authority” can ever be greater than merely accurate?”
I don’t think we do, but I could misunderstand your question.
“Divine authority entails accuracy”
I disagree. The Pharisees&c got tradition wrong, wrong, wrong. They were obviously fallible & led the people astray. But the people were still called to submit to them.
“but accuracy does not entail divine authority.”
Agreed
” Is it possible one can teach accurately without being authorized?”
Yep. Think about those who preached the gospel for dishonest gain. Unauthorized scum bags could preach the gospel and see sinners saved. Even a heathen like Aristotle could have gotten something right (he was wrong about everything of course, but he could have been accurate given common grace and all that).
” Is it possible one can be divinely authorized without teaching accurately?”
Yep. I mean who, save Aristotle, could be wrong about everything? So almost everyone will be right about something. But even the best make mistakes.
“If one can teach and preach accurately without being authorized, what differentiates the authority of Protestant pastors, churches, and councils from the authority of laymen?”
Ordination. I have a SIL who is into all that complementary medicine non-sense. As she tells it, doctors make mistakes and don’t know everything, so she trusts her intuition. To which I respond, doctors may not know everything (they aren’t physicists after all), but they know more than you and are right more often. Submitting to the doctor is usually the best option. Of course that submission is contingent (like my submission to my fellow christians, government, parents, and other folks the bible tells us to submit to), so if he told me he needed to amputate my arm to cure my cold, I might demur and find a different doc. Similarly I submit to my session not because the never get things wrong or they are smarter than me, but because God has ordained their headship over me. When there are disputes, we have an orderly process for resolving them. Of course my submission is contingent, but it is no less real. If I can’t accept the resolution of a dispute and my conscience compels me, then just as in the case of parents, governments, or fellow Christians I would have to follow God rather than man.
LikeLike
@mwf Do you really think sola scriptura means the only interpretive aid for deducing doctrine is the Bible? Can one’s doctrine be a logical consequence of scripture and still count as sola scriptura? I hope you aren’t inferring prot doctrine from cherry picked polemical statements as opposed to what our confessions actually say. I’m sure if you are really interested in the justification of the limited atonement you can follow the proof texts in the canons of Dordt and see if their inference was valid (or at least consistent with their doctrine of scripture ). But I am not sure you are sincere. You were wrong about prots recognizing Mary as Theotokos, but mined quotes instead of admitting you were mistaken. Then you threw down the gauntlet over the exegesis of the Greek in John 6. Jeff laid out your erroneous understanding in some detail. Then you make a bizarre claim about 10 catholics being in better agreement than 10 prots which is obviously false. But when called on it of course you really meant something else. You are always wrong about everything you write about everything, but never in doubt. It really is something to behold. I keep thinking you must be a brilliant parody of the annoying zealous convert. It was amusing, but it is more than a bit worn out.
LikeLike
@mtx thanks. I look forward to it. appreciate your patience with this discussion. I am learning from it even if I don’t end up agreeing with you.
LikeLike
Webfeet, I know a lot of RC’s too. You couldn’t get two of them to explain papal infallibility to you if their life depended on it, much less agree upon it in all it’s nuance. You have COMPETING schools of Canon law interpretation and you’re selling unanimity? You’re a fraud. The observant participate in the sacraments. Full Stop. The only place you guys can sell this catechized, dogma based RCism is on the web.
LikeLike
sean
Posted July 29, 2015 at 12:18 am | Permalink
Webfeet, I know a lot of RC’s too. You couldn’t get two of them to explain papal infallibility to you if their life depended on it, much less agree upon it in all it’s nuance. You have COMPETING schools of Canon law interpretation and you’re selling unanimity? You’re a fraud. The observant participate in the sacraments. Full Stop. The only place you guys can sell this catechized, dogma based RCism is on the web.
Sean, ethically, you should have disclosed in the first sentence you’re an ex-Catholic, ex “you guys.”
LikeLike
Dropping back in on lala land in the combox it’s hard to pick out the over all winner in tedious and infuriating audacity, but hey this one is certainly up there:
You may reject the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility, but to be so ignorant is, well, it reflects on you, not on the Church.
Hubris much?
Ever heard of implicit faith?
No?
I didn’t think so. But hey, we gotta run. So little time, so many big lies to repeat
LikeLike
vd, t, “ethically, you should have disclosed in the first sentence you’re an ex-Catholic, ex “you guys.””
So vd, t, everything you have written here is ethically questionable since you don’t reveal your church status.
LikeLike
Mermaid, what’s the point of defending papal infallibility when it doesn’t even matter for almost everything a pope says (only 2 infallible dogmas in 2 millennia)?
Do you agree or disagree with this?
If you do, then the papacy is not what the converts say. It hardly resolves debates or instill unity.
If you don’t, then one out of two Roman Catholics disagree about infallibility.
LikeLike
James Young, and part of the problem with your rendering of sola scriptura is that you think papal supremacy is superior.
But look at this:
So infallibility doesn’t do anything except give you maybe the Nicene Creed and doctrines about Mary. It doesn’t put limits on what popes blab on about.
And you think we are weird to believe in sola scriptura. Someone like Zmirak believes in sola basic doctrine and then judges popes accordingly. How Protestant. Heck, how fundamentalist.
LikeLike
CvD, it may contradict the tidy logic and pristine paradigm but it doesn’t do much to persuade those actually listening to the audacious claims and thinking about them for more than two minutes. But it follows pretty naturally that if the only inspired and infallible source is the Bible that revelation ends with the death of the last apostle.
LikeLike
TVD, “Not as brilliant as you might think since all scripture is canonized or else it ain’t scripture.”
Says who? I figure that the process that has left errors in our modern Bibles could just as well affect the transmission of a verse, chapter, epistle, or even book.
LikeLike
Joel
Posted July 29, 2015 at 10:50 am | Permalink
TVD, “Not as brilliant as you might think since all scripture is canonized or else it ain’t scripture.”
Says who? I figure that the process that has left errors in our modern Bibles could just as well affect the transmission of a verse, chapter, epistle, or even book.
You’d have to give an example of what you’re talking about.
LikeLike
Joel, sdb-
Why not admit the Didache or Shepherd of Hermas to Scripture? A number of Fathers did.
Why not add SS to the Nicene Creed? You accept the addition of Charlemagne’s administration, approved by Rome centuries later, of the Filioque
LikeLike
sdb,
“Now can you tell me how Protestantism can ever escape conflating authority with accuracy and how its churches’ and councils’ “authority” can ever be greater than merely accurate?”
– I don’t think we do, but I could misunderstand your question.”
So authority in Protestantism equates to accuracy, correct?
“Divine authority entails accuracy”
– I disagree. The Pharisees&c got tradition wrong, wrong, wrong. They were obviously fallible & led the people astray. But the people were still called to submit to them.”
Right and Christians are called to submit to the state. That doesn’t mean the state is always right or has divine authority. Christ and the apostles and prophets were divinely authorized. Were they only accurate by coincidence and because they got lucky?
“but accuracy does not entail divine authority.Is it possible one can teach accurately without being authorized?”
– Agreed…Yep.”
Okay good.
”Is it possible one can be divinely authorized without teaching accurately?”
Yep … even the best make mistakes.”
So Christ and the Apostles and Prophets made mistakes in their teaching?
“If one can teach and preach accurately without being authorized, what differentiates the authority of Protestant pastors, churches, and councils from the authority of laymen?”
– Ordination.”
Right, but a laymen can preach and teach accurately. And since accuracy apparently equates to authority in Protestantism, I fail to see how the “authority” of pastors and councils is any different from the “authority” of laymen teaching accurately – ordination seems completely superfluous. Further I see no precedent in Scripture for treating divine authority and authorization in this manner of reducing it merely to accuracy.
Darryl,
Part of your problem is you keep thinking infallibility only applies to ex cathedra statements. Or that PI is the only leg I’m standing on in order to reject SS (hint: The EO don’t hold to PI and also reject SS). There are not only 2 dogmas in RCism.
“It doesn’t put limits on what popes blab on about.”
Yep. So what?
“Someone like Zmirak believes in sola basic doctrine and then judges popes accordingly.”
How many times have you been told popes have been rebuked or corrected in the past? That’s not news to RCism (nor was it news to Vat1 fathers crafting the definition) nor some type of nuclear bomb – it’s quite unextraordinary and mundane.
Zrim,
“But it follows pretty naturally that if the only inspired and infallible source is the Bible that revelation ends with the death of the last apostle.”
I see. It follows pretty naturally that if SS is true, then SS is true.
LikeLike
Cletus,
You’re assuming basically that the only way God could provide for infallibility is via inspiration.That may be true, but it would have to be argued for, not just begged at the outset to then criticize Rome’s claims.
Sure. Now show me where the Apostles teach that God provides for human infallibility in a manner other than inspiration. That’s the tacit assumption, of course, namely that the Apostles don’t ever promise a perpetual gift of infallibility to the church, let alone one that is possible apart from the kind of inspiration given to the biblical writers. Where do the Apostles teach what you are assuming?
Right, and he also claimed his successors had apostolic authority, even as they weren’t inspired.
Where does Paul claim that his successors have apostolic authority of the nature that Rome believes in?
LikeLike
@Kevin
I don’t know. Was it the Didache that was lost for a long time and only reintroduced to the west like a 100 yrs ago? Maybe I have that mixed up with something else. If I have that right about the Didache, perhaps the fact that it wasn’t preserved for the church through the ages is a strike against it? Just a guess… Shepherd was a later work wasn’t it? Valuable perhaps, but no direct apostolic connection?
Regarding the creeds, I’m not sure why we would need to add to the creed. The Filioque was a clarification of something in there already. It doesn’t really touch on a doctrine of scripture – I think our statement in the confessions is good enough. I guess I could ask the same question about why the dogma about papal infallibility and stuff about Mary wasn’t added to the creed?
LikeLike
James Young, yep, that’s a great response. Popes blab on but who cares? It’s a great way to assert superiority over Protestant gullibles. But when it comes to actually heading the vicar of Christ with the charism of the charismist, well, why bother?
How many times have I been told that popes have been rebuked or corrected? None. Show me where you or Bryan and the Jasons have.
Weak stuff.
LikeLike
I disagree. Authority is not based on accuracy. As I noted in my response, my session has authority even though they may make mistakes.
The state does have divine authority. Take a look at Romans 13 again,
Note that the state has divine authority because it has been so ordained by God. But the state is not infallible and our submission to the state is contingent. So being divinely authorized does not guarantee infallibility. Jesus was accurate because he was God the Son. The apostles were accurate when they wrote the scriptures because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. The apostles were not infallible and thus accurate, rather the Holy Spirit was infallible in collecting and preserving those works that are accurate.
Well I don’t know. Jesus did grow in wisdom and stature. Perhaps he had misconceptions that were corrected? I’ve heard some argue that Jesus’ interaction with the Canaanite woman recorded in Mt 15 provides an example of Jesus learning. I’m not so sure. If I had to be pinned down, I would say that Jesus never erred, but then he is God the Son. The Apostles and Prophets certainly could err and need to be corrected. They weren’t infallible, the Holy Spirit who inspired them, collected those inspired writing, and preserved those writing is infallible.
I’m not sure where you got the idea that I think accuracy = authority. As I noted the Pharisees were authorities and they were wrong. Further one can be be accurate and have no authority (stopped watch and all that). Is it the contingent nature of authority that is the problem. Here again, I think my analogy to the doctor is helpful. The doctor has authority that I submit to. But if he tells me to eat rat poison to cure my sore throat, I’m going to demur. That isn’t to say that his authority is simply dependent on accuracy though. Of course he is going to get things wrong, but I’m still usually going to defer because he is going to be right more often than me and usually I have no way of predicting in advance what he is right about and what he is wrong about. But if he does give me bad advice and I know it, then I’m not going to follow it.
Same with session of my church. I don’t submit because they are always right or even necessarily because they know more than me. I submit to them because God has ordained their governance. Now if they require me to believe or do something I *know* is wrong, I will demur. But the hurdle is pretty high. Similar to submitting to other governing authorities God has ordained like parents, husbands, and governments.
LikeLike
CvD, you mean how it follows that if SS isn’t true that SS isn’t true (and continuing revelation continues)?
LikeLike
TVD,
“You’d have to give an example of what you’re talking about.”
Perhaps the Church of Laodicea disobeyed God and Paul and chose to destroy rather than circulate the epistle written to them. Hypothetically, this letter could have become a part of the canon had it not been destroyed.
Perhaps the disobedience of Israel, that Josiah later corrected, led to the destruction of some book that had been understood as Scripture up to Josiah’s day.
It also seems that the warnings to not add or take away from Scripture were for the purpose of preserving Scripture and that Scripture could indeed be taken away by fallible men. I don’t think that this denies the Word will always do what it is providentially intended to do.
LikeLike
<i.D. G. Hart
Posted July 29, 2015 at 4:34 pm | Permalink
James Young, yep, that’s a great response. Popes blab on but who cares? It’s a great way to assert superiority over Protestant gullibles. But when it comes to actually heading the vicar of Christ with the charism of the charismist, well, why bother?
How many times have I been told that popes have been rebuked or corrected? None.
You have the cart before the horse. First prove when they were in error. Another well-rehearsed script, long on abstractions, short in actual fact.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility
LikeLike
sdb,
“As I noted in my response, my session has authority even though they may make mistakes.”
When your session makes mistakes and is inaccurate according to your judgment, are you bound to follow them? Why or why not?
“Note that the state has divine authority because it has been so ordained by God.”
So there’s no difference between the state being ordained by God with divine authority and the divine authority of Christ, prophets, and apostles? There’s no difference between the state being ordained by God and the teachers ordained by God and sent out by Christ in the NT?
“But the state is not infallible and our submission to the state is contingent.”
Was submission to Christ, prophets, and apostles and divinely authorized successors and teachers contingent? If so, on what?
“So being divinely authorized does not guarantee infallibility. Jesus was accurate because he was God the Son. The apostles were accurate when they wrote the scriptures because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.”
Why did Christ and the apostles and prophets claim divine authority in their teaching and message then? It apparently is a superfluous claim and should have had no impact in swaying their audience. Were the teachers sent by Christ and successors of the apostles who were not inspired but taught with the authority of Christ not infallible and only had contingent authority?
“The Apostles and Prophets certainly could err and need to be corrected. They weren’t infallible, the Holy Spirit who inspired them, collected those inspired writing, and preserved those writing is infallible. ”
Right, but they did not err in their teachings you take as infallible. And that preservation and collection and identification of writings occurred via tradition; it wasn’t (and can’t be) derived from Scripture.
“As I noted the Pharisees were authorities and they were wrong.”
Right, just as the state can be. But the Pharisees and state do not have the same authority as Christ, prophets, apostles, and the commissioned successors/teachers.
“Further one can be be accurate and have no authority (stopped watch and all that).”
Right but divine revelation is infallible and assented to/taken on the authority of another.
“but I’m still usually going to defer because he is going to be right more often than me”
On what grounds do you believe that in the context of a Protestant pastor or church?
“I submit to them because God has ordained their governance.”
But God has ordained the governance of many mutually exclusive and contradictory churches in your view. So on what grounds do you believe you must submit to this one? Based on your claims above, and the church’s own claims (i.e. no divine authority, we’re sure to get some things wrong, semper reformanda, etc.) I see no good reason for you to do so.
Zrim,
“CvD, you mean how it follows that if SS isn’t true that SS isn’t true (and continuing revelation continues)?”
Nope because as was already said, Rome (i.e. the STM-triad) says there is no continuing revelation past the death of the last apostle. Now if you can tell me where Scripture says, or where it is derived from Scripture, that there is no continuing revelation past the death of the last apostle, we might start being on even ground. Orrrrr you could say you get such teaching from tradition. But then you’d have to retract the “all binding doctrine must be derived from Scripture” criticism.
LikeLike
vd, t, it’s not a question of error. Popes give like their opinion. Opinions don’t err. And they don’t bind assent.
You should know.
LikeLike
CvD, wait, what? If there is no continuing revelation past the death of the last apostle, and if you also want to maintain that no Catholic would concede that the pope is ever without error (both pretty Protestant sounding claims), then why describe any speech of the magisterium as “infallible”? According to Catholic definitions, infallible means:
…exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
It would sure seem to me that any person who was infallible so described above could be said to then provide continuing revelation and/or be immune from error. If not, then your choices seem to be 1) quit with the infallible rhetoric or 2) quit with the pseudo-Prot stuff.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 29, 2015 at 7:18 pm | Permalink
vd, t, it’s not a question of error. Popes give like their opinion. Opinions don’t err. And they don’t bind assent.
You should know.
Opinions not offered ex cathedra can certainly err, Butch. That’s the whole point. In fact, if it’s ex cathedra, it’s not an “opinion.”
What high school did you graduate from? Must be Wilson. Even a Pennsbury grad knows his bass from a mole in the ground.
LikeLike
vd, t, great. two millennia and two infallible dogmas.
I guess you’re safe.
Oh wait. You think Mary isn’t a big deal (and you know the Rosary).
Hilarious.
LikeLike
Tvd,
The categories of papal teaching aren’t opinions and ex cathedra announcements. Of course an opinion can’t err…to suggest so is a category mistake. The ordinary teaching of bishops (including the one in Rome) is fallible by Rome’s own reckoning, but it still commands the “religious submission of the intellect and will”. The *magisterial* reformers more or less agree.
Where we part is that popes and councils can be infallible and command the “full assent ofaith” on items not revealed in scripture. Evidently you agree as you reject the 7th ec council’s dogmatic statement on the historicity of Adam. Feser’s attempt to render the Genesis acct as “metaphysical” makes sense to a protestant who recognizes councils may err. Not so much for the RC scheme.
Of course we all contain multitudes as it were and people maintain loyalty to their communion for a lot of complicated reasons. Perhaps a bit more humility is in order?
LikeLike
Cletus,
Was submission to Christ, prophets, and apostles and divinely authorized successors and teachers contingent?
The simple answer to this question, at least for prophets, apostles, and “divinely authorized” succesors is, “yes”:
“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him. 5 But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of slavery, to make you leave the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil[a] from your midst. (Debut. 13)
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1)
28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God,[d] which he obtained with his own blood.[e] 29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. (Acts 20)
And there’s a lot more. Simply put, the only person to whom our submission cannot in any way be contingent is God. And He’s given us a way to determine when authorities are acting in accordance with Himself. It’s not a group of men saying “This is infallible.” It is prophetic and Apostolic tradition. It is what the Apostles and prophets actually taught, their words. It is a definite and defined content. That content judges any doctrines deduced from it.
So if Rome wants to support it’s claim, it has to give us a tradition from the Apostles or prophets to that effect. It doesn’t have biblical backing, so the bar, if Rome is right, is to show us some actual unwritten words from the Apostles and their provenance. But Rome has not once defined anything that the Apostles said outside of Scripture. Heck, it hasn’t even defined the perfect text of what we do know is from the Apostles.
LikeLike
@cvd Your own church teaches that the ordinary teaching of the popes and bishops is not infallible. When they err (by say teaching Arianism), are you bound to follow them? Does the office lose its authority? You are required to submit your intellect and will to the ordinary teaching of your bishop, but what if your bishop teaches heresy? Are you required to submit to that? I’m not sure the authority of ordinary teaching in the RCC operates all that differently than among protestant churches. What we reject is the category of extraordinary teaching that is infallible. We reserve that for God’s Word alone.
LikeLike
Zrim,
“According to Catholic definitions, infallible means:
…exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals.
It would sure seem to me that any person who was infallible so described above could be said to then provide continuing revelation and/or be immune from error. If not, then your choices seem to be 1) quit with the infallible rhetoric or 2) quit with the pseudo-Prot stuff.”
Right – the correct choice is “immune from error” – not “provide continue revelation”. But if you’d like to keep arguing that infallibility must entail ongoing revelation/inspiration, that merely reinforces and emphasizes the fact that Protestantism can never offer doctrine that amounts to divine teaching and everything remains revisable. This would of course include the doctrine that revelation has ended with the death of the last apostle.
How then Protestant churches or pastors can ever claim to teach with the authority of Christ escapes me – I don’t see Scriptural precedent for those teaching with such authority saying “well, we might be wrong”.
Robert,
“And He’s given us a way to determine when authorities are acting in accordance with Himself.”
We have two Scriptural patterns for ministers sent by God – sending them directly with attending miracles/prophecy, or sending them via those who were called by God ordaining and sending them. The former we both reject as applicable today. The latter I fail to see how Protestantism follows given how your line of argument empties the act of ordination/succession of any meaning. A third method could exist, but would seem to be absent from Scripture, thus violating SS.
Further, this line of argument seems to make Christ/Apostles claims to divine authority completely useless and superfluous – they certainly didn’t seem to think those claims were worthless or had no bearing on the content and transmission of their message. Divinely authorized teachings are accurate, but they aren’t divinely authorized merely because they are accurate.
“It is prophetic and Apostolic tradition.”
The prophetic and Apostolic tradition that you reject when you confine it to written only and which remains provisional and is not infallibly identified or defined according to you.
“It is what the Apostles and prophets actually taught, their words. It is a definite and defined content.”
A definite and defined content that remains provisionally identified and defined by Protestantism.
“That content judges any doctrines deduced from it.”
Okay. So please explain how the following doctrines are deduced from Scripture:
The extent and scope of the canon
The inerrancy of said canon
Public revelation ended with death of last apostle
SS is the rule of faith and any binding unwritten tradition would be inscripturated
Semper reformanda is a noble principle
LikeLike
sdb,
When they err (by say teaching Arianism), are you bound to follow them?
Nope. Ask St. Athanasius. We are called to die first instead of obeying an erring bishop. Including Rome’s. The difference is the Catholic can know without a doubt he is following the teaching of God, say regarding Arianism, because he believes the Holy Spirit protects dogmatic statements regarding faith and morals from the ecuminical councils and the Pope from error. All it takes is one dogmatic statement of one Pope truly against another or one ecuminical council truly against another and the Catholic tower falls. Paradoxes? Yes. Contradiction? No. Protestant’s didn’t get the idea of dissent from themselves in the 15th? Good Catholics have been doing it since the beginning. Look at Paul in Gal 2. Personally I like Luther for his dissent. Where me and him disagree now is the ecumenical council a Trent. He had to change his view of the Church to reject it. He lost the Holy Spirit’s protection of dogma. He didn’t have to while dealing with a bad pope and terribly weak Church at the time. In loosing the Holy Spirit’s protection at Trent he lost it in them all.
LikeLike
sdb,
Still planning on getting to your post. Just haven’t gotten to it yet. Thanks for your patience.
https://oldlife.org/2015/07/when-did-christian-america-end/comment-page-22/#comment-338849
LikeLike
CvD, so in other words you don’t see biblical precedent for teaching authority and humility co-existing in one person? I guess that is part of the territory in authoritarian assumptions. But how is it that you have more chutzpah than Pope “who am I to judge” Francis?
So you want to maintain “immune from error”? That’s not what MTX has been maintaining, which only reinforces the point made along the way here that even those who claim the Catholic faith don’t agree on what infallible means or if the magisterium has it. Prots aren’t bothered by disagreement in the ranks, but it does make faces seem eggy when the prior claim is how papal infallibility settles doctrinal disputes among the faithful.
LikeLike
Zrim,
“so in other words you don’t see biblical precedent for teaching authority and humility co-existing in one person?”
Yes both co-exist. Why you think humility would then entail everything is revisable or makes teaching with Christ’s authority just some nice-to-have airy platitude without any real meaning escapes me.
“But how is it that you have more chutzpah than Pope “who am I to judge” Francis?”
It’s not more chutzpah to restate Rome’s own claims for herself. The same pope who said he was a son of the church. If you can find Francis saying, “there are no dogmas or infallible teachings – it’s all whatever you want maaaan” that would be more pertinent.
“So you want to maintain “immune from error”? That’s not what MTX has been maintaining,”
Only if you characterize “immune from error” as “immune from error 24/7 under every condition” which you just smuggled in. Otherwise, MTX and I and Francis are quite on the same page.
LikeLike
James Young, before Robert has to respond to yet another comment that Protestants are just as bad as Roman Catholics (ss is just as arbitrary as papal infalliblity) but Rome is superior about it, whatever do you mean by “Protestantism can never offer doctrine that amounts to divine teaching and everything remains revisable.”
So Rome can offer doctrine that is divine apart from Scripture? How come that teaching isn’t on-going revelation? If it’s divine, isn’t it revelation?
And how come it’s fallible a lot of the time since you admit that bishops are fallible for most of what they teach and say?
LikeLike
Texas, “We are called to die first instead of obeying an erring bishop. Including Rome’s. The difference is the Catholic can know without a doubt he is following the teaching of God, say regarding Arianism, because he believes the Holy Spirit protects dogmatic statements regarding faith and morals from the ecuminical councils and the Pope from error.”
So is it your contention that Christian truth transcends the teaching office of the magisterium? They cannot depart from divine truth? But how is that divine truth known apart from the church’s authority?
In which case, the bishops who got to speak first wind up being the ones to determine what’s true. The ones who come later have to measure up to what the first ones say — this is Scalia’s originalism (and Protestant biblicism) applied to the magisterium.
But if later popes have as much power and infallibility as the first, why couldn’t a pope today declare that earlier bishops had erred?
If it’s about the authority of the office, that’s always possible.
If it’s about the truth of the teaching, then office loses its potency and everyone, including schlubs like you and me knows what is true and can just erring bishops.
But in a Roman Catholic universe (pre-vatican 2), who are you to judge?
LikeLike
zrim, it bothers me when you disagree with mmmmmeeeeEEEEEEEE.
LikeLike
James Young, so popes aren’t infallible 24/7. That won’t resolve when Texas thinks the pope was infallible at 2:00 but you think it happened at 4:30. And what if Francis thinks he was infallible fro 7:00 to 9:55?
Who decides? Who knows? Where’s all the epistemic certainty that makes Protestantism so inferior?
LikeLike
CvD, and how you think the very office of pope isn’t inherently arrogant escapes me. Still, what is so difficult about an authority that makes space for being revisable? How does humility undermine authority? Even an 8-year-old knows the difference between the parent who says “I could be wrong but I’m pretty sure I’m not (so get in line)” and the one who says “I’m right because it’s impossible for me to be wrong (so sit down and shut up about it).”
No, I’m talking about your brand of infallibility, i.e. selective infallibility, the kind where the magisterium is infallible only on this day and on only that topic. If you claim infallibility even for one second on one statement, you have problems. Claiming a man is immune from error at any moment in time and place on any given topic is as problematic as claiming the Bible is fallible in any place on any matter. The whole thing comes tumbling down, because infallibility goes all the way down.
LikeLike
Darryl, you must hate it when I say cigars and bow ties aren’t Reformed.
LikeLike
Clete
We have two Scriptural patterns for ministers sent by God – sending them directly with attending miracles/prophecy, or sending them via those who were called by God ordaining and sending them. The former we both reject as applicable today. The latter I fail to see how Protestantism follows given how your line of argument empties the act of ordination/succession of any meaning. A third method could exist, but would seem to be absent from Scripture, thus violating SS.
Protestants, at least of the Reformed type around here, believe that ministers sent by God are called by him and sent via others he has called. We just deny that said calling necessitates infallibility. That seems relatively simple to me. They’re to be judged by what God has revealed, just like the OT prophets were. Heck, even Rome has a place for that, because bishops can be cast out for being Arians or other such thing.
Further, this line of argument seems to make Christ/Apostles claims to divine authority completely useless and superfluous – they certainly didn’t seem to think those claims were worthless or had no bearing on the content and transmission of their message.
Not useless, just insufficient apart from other things, such as inspiration.
Divinely authorized teachings are accurate, but they aren’t divinely authorized merely because they are accurate.
Sure.
The prophetic and Apostolic tradition that you reject when you confine it to written only and which remains provisional and is not infallibly identified or defined according to you.
I don’t infallibly identify that 2+2=4, but that doesn’t make that theorem eternally provisional. And since you claim that tradition is not written only, the burden of proof is on Rome to produce that unwritten tradition because from how the Apostles use the term in the NT, it is clear that it consists of a defined body of content found in the actual words that they speak.
A definite and defined content that remains provisionally identified and defined by Protestantism.
No more so than your identification and definition of the church remains provisional because you are fallible.
For starters:
Okay. So please explain how the following doctrines are deduced from Scripture:
The extent and scope of the canon
Jesus gives us the Jewish OT canon (death of Abel in Gen. to death of Zechariah in 2 Chron.)
Paul quotes Luke as Scripture in 1 Tim. Peter says Paul’s letters are Scripture in 2 Peter.
The Law was written by Moses, an authorized representative of God during a period of revelation that is the paradigm for the NT period of revelation. So we have every reason to expect that authorized representatives would give us written revelation, and that only those books given by authorized representatives are written revelation. All of the NT is written by authorized representatives (ie, the Apostles).
The inerrancy of said canon
I don’t know what you mean here. Inerrancy of the content or the canonical list.
Public revelation ended with death of last apostle
Paul is pretty clear that Timothy, who was not an Apostle, is to teach what Paul taught. Nowhere is He told to look for new revelation.
SS is the rule of faith and any binding unwritten tradition would be inscripturated
Semper reformanda is a noble principle
Figures such as Hezekiah are praised up and down for bringing reformation according to the Word of God.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“(ss is just as arbitrary as papal infalliblity)”
Nope, the point is whether SS is coherent with itself. PI is consistent with STM-triad. I’m hardly giving a tu quoque.
“whatever do you mean by “Protestantism can never offer doctrine that amounts to divine teaching and everything remains revisable.””
I mean what Protestantism means by “semper reformanda” and what it means by rejecting the types of claims to infallibility and divine authority Rome makes.
“So Rome can offer doctrine that is divine apart from Scripture? How come that teaching isn’t on-going revelation?”
Rome having divine authority to offer normative and binding judgments on Scripture and Tradition does not entail it is adding to revelation or the deposit of faith was not fixed with the death of the last apostle.
“so popes aren’t infallible 24/7. That won’t resolve when Texas thinks the pope was infallible at 2:00 but you think it happened at 4:30. And what if Francis thinks he was infallible fro 7:00 to 9:55?”
So how do you explain that both Texas and me agree popes aren’t infallible 24/7 is an infallible teaching? Did we just get lucky?
“Who decides?”
The STM-triad. This is not difficult but this is just more of the “because we don’t have an exhaustive list of every infallible teaching, that entails we cannot know any infallible teaching” illogical thinking that plagues some here. Magisterial teaching lies along a spectrum and can clarify past magisterial teaching if necessary as it develops, as the history of heresies and councils shows.
Zrim,
“CvD, and how you think the very office of pope isn’t inherently arrogant escapes me.”
Were the apostles arrogant because they claimed divine authority and didn’t walk around writing or saying “you know, we might be wrong, but if you think we’re cool, come along, no big deal”.
“Still, what is so difficult about an authority that makes space for being revisable?”
Because divine revelation is infallible by definition, that is not revisable.
“How does humility undermine authority?”
It doesn’t, which is my point. But humility does not entail semper reformanda.
“Even an 8-year-old knows thedifference between the parent who says “I could be wrong but I’m pretty sure I’m not (so get in line)””
Can you tell me where Christ and the Apostles or their successors acted like this? SS remember.
“No, I’m talking about your brand of infallibility, i.e. selective infallibility, the kind where the magisterium is infallible only on this day and on only that topic.”
We already went over this and you already agreed the apostles were not infallible 24/7 under every condition.
LikeLike
zrim, yes, because to say that is evangelical.
LikeLike
James Young, triad must sound so civilized and reasonable at Starbucks. But it’s not like it’s a three-legged stool. What you leave out is the papal audacity of Bryan and the Jasons. The magisterium is trump and you are deceitful not to admit it. Scripture is not on a par but is subservient to the magisterium which has the keys to canonization, publication, interpretation, and biblical truth.
But Scripture owes more to the church. If the church doesn’t say it’s in the Bible, it’s not in the Bible.
So yet again, you undermine Scriptural authority to do PR for the hierarchy.
LikeLike
James Young, plus the Scriptures are fixed (read dead). But the magisterium is aLIVE!!
The church judges them more than they judge the church.
Who is Scripture to judge?
LikeLike
Darryl,
“The magisterium is trump and you are deceitful not to admit it. ”
The magisterium trumps my judgment, that’s true. That’s the point and what can never happen in Protestantism.
“Scripture is not on a par but is subservient to the magisterium”
Hmm I guess Dei Verbum got it all mixed up when it said the exact opposite.
“to canonization, publication, interpretation, and biblical truth.”
Yup. SS doesn’t give you the extent and scope of the canon. And the Apostles and Christ gave normative and binding judgments/interpretations of OT Scripture and tradition – I guess that entails they were masters and overlords of both.
“The Bible had been committed to the care of the living magisterium.”
Right, as was pointed out ad nauseum in this thread – the church was operating before and concurrent to the process of inscripturation, and that church and tradition is the proper context and community in which it functions and is to be interpreted – it was never meant to be wrenched outside of it to function as a separate isolated ultimate authority.
“It was the Church’s part to guard the Bible to present it to the faithful in authorized editions or accurate translations, it was for her to make known the nature and value of the Divine Book by declaring what she knew regarding its inspiration and inerrancy, it was for her to supply the key by explaining why and how it had been inspired, how it contained Revelation, how the proper object of that Revelation was not purely human instruction but a religious and moral doctrine with a view to our supernatural destiny and the means to attain it, how, the Old Testament being a preparation and annunciation of the Messias and the new dispensation, there might be found beneath the husk of the letter typical meanings, figures, and prophecies.”
This is very evil apparently.
“This is the debt of Scripture to the living magisterium.
On the other hand the living magisterium owes much to Scripture.”
STM-triad again. Mutually interdependent and attesting. Shocking we see it affirmed in CathEnc.
“So yet again, you undermine Scriptural authority to do PR for the hierarchy. ”
Actually Protestantism does that all on its own by undermining Rome’s claims. Semper reformanda applies to the doctrines of SS and inspiration and inerrancy just as much as it does to any other doctrine.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 30, 2015 at 4:15 pm | Permalink
On the other hand the living magisterium owes much to Scripture.
But Scripture owes more to the church. If the church doesn’t say it’s in the Bible, it’s not in the Bible.
At last he gets it.
LikeLike
James Young, Nope. Because Scripture owes more to the Church than the Church does to Scripture. Why the Encyclopedia says only “much” not everything. The three-legged stool is out of balance.
And now almost no Roman Catholic in the United States pays attention to the magisterium unless it affirms liberty, personal choice, and takes on global corporations — which is sort of hard for a global corporation to do.
Whoever said semper reformanda? But to try reform is better than never reformanda (because we are the living magisterium). Creepy.
You haven’t yet explained how a church can be infallible and fallible at the same time. If the magisterium is alive and apostles are dead, then how do we know the magisterium isn’t in a better position to reveal divine truth than the apostles? You may not call that on-going revelation. Living magisterium is a nice euphemism. But it amounts to the same thing.
#immaculateconception
LikeLike
Cletus,
Right, as was pointed out ad nauseum in this thread – the church was operating before and concurrent to the process of inscripturation
Divine revelation birthed the church, so divine revelation always has priority. Now, prove that the unwritten tradition is divine revelation. Should be easy. Just give us something Paul or Peter or Jesus said that never got written down.
and that church and tradition is the proper context and community in which it functions and is to be interpreted
And the Reformed tradition agrees.
iit was never meant to be wrenched outside of it to function as a separate isolated ultimate authority.
Which, as been pointed out ad nauseum, is not the Reformed position. Scripture certainly isn’t an isolated authority, and its no more “separate” or “ultimate” for Protestants than the Magisterium is for you. When you have popes who are quite willing to say “I am the tradition” (and why is that not an infallible statement?), you have an isolated ultimate authority.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 30, 2015 at 4:46 pm | Permalink
James Young, Nope. Because Scripture owes more to the Church than the Church does to Scripture. Why the Encyclopedia says only “much” not everything. The three-legged stool is out of balance.
And now almost no Roman Catholic in the United States pays attention to the magisterium unless it affirms liberty, personal choice, and takes on global corporations — which is sort of hard for a global corporation to do.
There you go again, conflating sociology with theology and ecclesiology.
LikeLike
Darryl, an eeeevangelical would say cigars aren’t Christian.
LikeLike
CvD, the apostles were never infallible in their persons. They never claimed that of themselves, unique apostolic authority, yes, but never infallibility. But their “successors” do? And they can’t give us 3 Peter?
But humility does entail semper reformanda, that’s the point. If Peter (the first pope!) can be corrected by Paul then surely we can say we’re vulnerable to getting something wrong. I don’t think you understand humility any better than you do infallibility.
LikeLike
Right, as was pointed out ad nauseum in this thread – the church was operating before and concurrent to the process of inscripturation, and that church and tradition is the proper context and community in which it functions and is to be interpreted – it was never meant to be wrenched outside of it to function as a separate isolated ultimate authority.
Troll.
While the church may proceed Scripture, the Word of God written, it cannot proceed the Word of God as it is spoken by the prophets and apostles which calls the church into existence in the first place.
IOW no Word of God, no church. And now that the apostles are gone and Christ is on the right hand in heaven until he returns, we have an infallible and sufficient record of apostolic gospel and Christian doctrine, sufficient unto every good work 2 Tim. 3:17.
But Rome claims the apostolic chrism and the corresponding signs, wonders and miracles that accompany an apostle in order to lend some credibility to its traditions and magisterium as being essentially equal to and alongside Scripture.
Neither did anybody claim Scripture is an isolated authority, but rather it is the supreme authority according to its own testimony.
I know. Where does Scripture say it has to be written? Traditions are just as inspired yadda yadda yadda.
Ex. 24:12 And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.
Prov. 22:19-21 That thy trust may be in the LORD, I have made known to thee this day, even to thee.Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, 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?
Luke 1:3,4 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, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Matthew 4:4,7,10 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.
Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
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.
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.
I know. Where does it say you can’t add traditions to Scripture? Besides Rome’s traditions are apostolic traditions just like the ones you ummm, find in the Bible.
Deut. 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
So the command for Rome’s equally infallible and authoritative traditions is where?
Actually Protestantism does that all on its own by undermining Rome’s claims. Semper reformanda applies to the doctrines of SS and inspiration and inerrancy just as much as it does to any other doctrine.
Been there, done that.Troll
Posted January 9, 2014 at 5:00 pm | Permalink
Come on CVD, let’s get it right if we are going to be plausible reps fronting the propaganda for an unreformable and infallible church.
The original statement which first appeared in 1674 from Jodocus van Lodenstein, an important Dutch Reformed pietist reads:
“Ecclesia reformata est semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei”.
The
RomanReader’s Digest gloss:Semper reformandum.
Contra the popular notion, that “the reformed church is always being reformed according to the Word of God” does not mean that we get to reinvent the confessional wheel in every generation. There are such things as attainments. Fallible men can come up with infallible truths. You know, the 2+2=4 thing: There are three person in one God. The Scripture is an infallible rule for faith and life.
Troll.
LikeLike
For the benefit of the DVD bros.
If without faith it is impossible to please God. Heb. 11:6
and faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Rom. 10:17
traditions are not the word of God and therefore can produce faith, much more please God.
Again, if whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Rom. 14:23
and faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Rom.10:17
the infallible and authoritative Roman traditions are not the Word of God.
Therefore they are sin.
Because the point I have been trying to make. Reality decides.
Nope. Revelation decides.
The Church who could Acts 15 speak as “us and the Holy Spirit” is of direct divine origin and did not operate on SS and those who believed the message of the Gospel apparently did not need the Scriptures, though as the Bereans show it is commendable to search them. The Church was called out before the NT Scriptures, and the only way to get the canon of Scriptures in my hand is from Tradition witnessed to by the authoritative Church witnessed to in those Scriptures. You can’t have Scripture with out the Church. You don’t get either except by Sacred Tradition. Scripture witnesses to the existence and operation of the Church
and the Churchmuch more Scripture witnesses to its own the divine inspiration and inerrancy . . .Somebody can’t see their own nose in front of their own face, much more Scripture for all their mindless assertions. The decision by both the apostles and uninspired elders after much disputation, is based on an appeal (Act 15:14-17) to Amos 9:11,12 or ummm . . . . Scripture.
IOW there went the whole argument.
Two, again God calls his church into being by the preaching of his word. No word of God, no church. IOW the axe does not boast itself over the hand that wields it Is.10:15.
Three, the Scripture gives rules on how one is to know a true prophet from a false one.
A big one is not contradicting previous revelation.
Is. 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.
When the apostles show up with their signs, wonders and miracles preaching the gospel, the Bereans understand from the OT that this is the promised fulfillment of the same.
If Sola Scriptura is right the infallibility of the Catholic Church is out. This would include the infallibility of the pope that is stated Catholic dogma by a ecumenical council.
ROTFL. It was packed with handpicked bootlickers. Read what Acton has to say about the council, who opposed the dogma and feared for his life while in Rome.
You know, Acton. The historian responsible for “Power tends to corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely( Selected Writings, III:383)”. Written in the context of papal supremacy and the divine right of kings in correspondence with the Anglican Creighton, who’s History of the Papacy, the Romanist A had reviewed.
cheers
LikeLike
Sounds like Aquinas makes ss plausible:
On Galatians 1:8:
On John 21:24:
Right or wrong, Aquinas reasons on these passages the way Protestants do about the uniqueness and authority of the canonical Scriptures.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Whoever said semper reformanda? But to try reform is better than never reformanda (because we are the living magisterium). Creepy.”
And again, rejecting semper reformanda does not entail there can never be internal reform. Many recognized saints have reformed aspects of the church from within. In doing so, they didn’t make everything perpetually up for grabs.
“You haven’t yet explained how a church can be infallible and fallible at the same time.”
The HS protects and guides the church to make infallible statements under certain conditions. Not difficult.
“If the magisterium is alive and apostles are dead, then how do we know the magisterium isn’t in a better position to reveal divine truth than the apostles?”
Because the same magisterium says the apostolic deposit was fixed with the death of the last apostle. Infallibility plus development does not equal divine revelation. As Newman wrote: “What then is meant by the Depositum? is it a list of articles that can be numbered? no, it is a large philosophy; all parts of which are connected together, and in a certain sense correlative together, so that he who really knows one part, may be said to know all …. Thus the Apostles had the fullness of revealed knowledge, a fullness which they could as little realize to themselves, as the human mind, as such, can have all its thoughts present before it at once. They are elicited according to the occasion. A man of genius cannot go about with his genius in his hand: in an Apostle’s mind great part of his knowledge is from the nature of the case latent or implicit… I wish to hold that there is nothing which the Church has defined or shall define but what an Apostle, if asked, would have been fully able to answer and would have answered, as the Church has answered, the one answering by inspiration, the other from its gift of infallibility; and that the Church never will be able to answer, or has been able to answer, what the Apostles could not answer…”
Onto Aquinas.
“I answer that nothing is to be taught except what is contained, either implicitly or explicitly, in the Gospels and epistles and Sacred Scripture.”
Which Rome agrees with.
“The reason for this is that only the canonical scriptures are the standard of faith. ”
As understood by the Church and Tradition. Ratzinger affirms Aquinas held to material sufficiency, that doesn’t get you SS.
Do you agree with these writings of Aquinas:
“Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff….Hence our Lord said to Peter whom he made Sovereign Pontiff: “I have prayed for thee,” Peter, “that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” The reason of this is that there should be but one faith of the whole Church, according to 1 Corinthians 1:10: “That you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you”: and this could not be secured unless any question of faith that may arise be decided by him who presides over the whole Church, so that the whole Church may hold firmly to his decision. Consequently it belongs to the sole authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to publish a new edition of the symbol, as do all other matters which concern the whole Church, such as to convoke a general council and so forth.”
“This prohibition and sentence of the council was intended for private individuals, who have no business to decide matters of faith: for this decision of the general council did not take away from a subsequent council the power of drawing up a new edition of the symbol, containing not indeed a new faith, but the same faith with greater explicitness. For every council has taken into account that a subsequent council would expound matters more fully than the preceding council, if this became necessary through some heresy arising. Consequently this belongs to the Sovereign Pontiff, by whose authority the council is convoked, and its decision confirmed. ”
“The universal Church cannot err, since she is governed by the Holy Ghost, Who is the Spirit of truth: for such was Our Lord’s promise to His disciples: “When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will teach you all truth.” Now the symbol is published by the authority of the universal Church. Therefore it contains nothing defective.”
“Hence it is not human knowledge, but the Divine truth that is the rule of faith: and if any of the learned stray from this rule, he does not harm the faith of the simple ones, who think that the learned believe aright; unless the simple hold obstinately to their individual errors, against the faith of the universal Church, which cannot err, since Our Lord said: “I have prayed for thee,” Peter, “that thy faith fail not.””
“The various conclusions of a science have their respective means of demonstration, one of which may be known without another, so that we may know some conclusions of a science without knowing the others. On the other hand faith adheres to all the articles of faith by reason of one mean, viz. on account of the First Truth proposed to us in Scriptures, according to the teaching of the Church who has the right understanding of them. Hence whoever abandons this mean is altogether lacking in faith.”
“Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error. Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.”
LikeLike
James Young, you should head the State Department. Nothing is ever difficult for you. It’s not becoming.
Anyway, Aquinas affirms divine teaching, not the magisterium and a living breathing thing. He’s about God, not the church as your quote shows:
You may interpret that in your easy-peasy way as “magisterium.” But it doesn’t mention the magisterium and actually regards it as a fixed rule, a deposit, which the Catholic Encyclopedia article pushed back against.
LikeLike
Robert,
“Divine revelation birthed the church, so divine revelation always has priority.”
Yup. Christ founded the church.
“Now, prove that the unwritten tradition is divine revelation. Should be easy.”
You agree written and unwritten tradition were both operating concurrently in the operation of the NT church. You obviously hold that the written tradition is divine revelation and given that written tradition is paired and extolled with unwritten tradition in the same breath by the apostolic writers, by that same logic you would hold that unwritten tradition is divine revelation. So at a minimum, we have binding written and unwritten tradition operating in parallel for some time. The burden it would seem to me would be upon those who are contending that the pattern suddenly ended and shifted at some point (i.e. when John died) and all unwritten tradition became inscripturated or if it was never inscripturated, either became redundant or unnecessary.
“Just give us something Paul or Peter or Jesus said that never got written down.”
I’ve already given 5 doctrines you hold to that never got written down you hold as foundational.
“and that church and tradition is the proper context and community in which it functions and is to be interpreted
-And the Reformed tradition agrees.”
Okay so which church and based upon which claims that church is making?
“iit was never meant to be wrenched outside of it to function as a separate isolated ultimate authority.
– Which, as been pointed out ad nauseum, is not the Reformed position.”
Only that’s exactly what the Reformers did to separate from Rome.
Bob,
“IOW no Word of God, no church.”
Yup.
“I know. Where does Scripture say it has to be written?”
Thanks for the verses extolling written tradition. But what to do with the many verses also extolling unwritten tradition?
“If without faith it is impossible to please God. Heb. 11:6”
Yes
“and faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Rom. 10:17”
Yes
“traditions are not the word of God and therefore can produce faith, much more please God.”
And you just jumped from A to C again without providing B.
Zrim,
“CvD, the apostles were never infallible in their persons.”
Was Christ? Did he also teach “I might be wrong, but probably am not”?
“They never claimed that of themselves, unique apostolic authority, yes, but never infallibility.”
Really? So they were preaching “we might be wrong, but we’re probably not, so submit to our teaching as long as you think we’re cool”? Is there some Scripture you can support that with?
“But humility does entail semper reformanda, that’s the point. If Peter (the first pope!) can be corrected by Paul then surely we can say we’re vulnerable to getting something wrong.”
Yes the practice of popes can be corrected, as the history of RCism shows (so it should no longer be accused of not being humble by your yardstick). No, that type of humility does not entail the best we can ever get is “we might be wrong, but probably aren’t” or “everything is revisable” or semper reformanda.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Anyway, Aquinas affirms divine teaching, not the magisterium and a living breathing thing. He’s about God, not the church as your quote shows”
He says the universal church cannot err and its teaching is an infallible rule of faith. You constantly place things in opposition to each other – God against church, Scripture against magisterium. That’s not derived from Aquinas’ words.
“against the faith of the universal Church, which cannot err, since Our Lord said: “I have prayed for thee,” Peter, “that thy faith fail not.”””
Why do you think he appealed to the Petrine passage in supporting the infallibility of the church? Odd if he’s sidelining the magisterium.
And you seem to have overlooked:
“Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff….Hence our Lord said to Peter whom he made Sovereign Pontiff: “I have prayed for thee,” Peter, “that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” The reason of this is that there should be but one faith of the whole Church, according to 1 Corinthians 1:10: “That you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you”: and this could not be secured unless any question of faith that may arise be decided by him who presides over the whole Church, so that the whole Church may hold firmly to his decision. Consequently it belongs to the sole authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to publish a new edition of the symbol, as do all other matters which concern the whole Church, such as to convoke a general council and so forth.”
“This prohibition and sentence of the council was intended for private individuals, who have no business to decide matters of faith: for this decision of the general council did not take away from a subsequent council the power of drawing up a new edition of the symbol, containing not indeed a new faith, but the same faith with greater explicitness. For every council has taken into account that a subsequent council would expound matters more fully than the preceding council, if this became necessary through some heresy arising. Consequently this belongs to the Sovereign Pontiff, by whose authority the council is convoked, and its decision confirmed. ”
I’m not sure I see Protestants getting on board with that.
LikeLike
Robert,
“Now, prove that the unwritten tradition is divine revelation. Should be easy.”
You agree written and unwritten tradition were both operating concurrently in the operation of the NT church. You obviously hold that the written tradition is divine revelation and given that written tradition is paired and extolled with unwritten tradition in the same breath by the apostolic writers, by that same logic you would hold that unwritten tradition is divine revelation
The unwritten tradition to which the Apostles refer in the NT is the same as the written tradition, so I have no problem affirming that unwritten tradition is divine revelation. What Rome needs to do is prove that the unwritten tradition it holds to, if different from the written tradition, is divine revelation. To do that, we need actual tradition from the Apostles. Specific words, actions, reasonable provenance. Otherwise, its hearsay.
So at a minimum, we have binding written and unwritten tradition operating in parallel for some time. The burden it would seem to me would be upon those who are contending that the pattern suddenly ended and shifted at some point (i.e. when John died) and all unwritten tradition became inscripturated or if it was never inscripturated, either became redundant or unnecessary.
No, the burden is to prove that when the Apostles refer to oral tradition, it consists of content different than what was taught “by letter,” to quote Paul. If it doesn’t consist of different content, it’s unnecessary. We have everything infallible we need for faith and life in the Bible.
But of course and again, Rome won’t tell us what the tradition is. “Want to believe the Apostles said a whole bunch of stuff that never got written down and is different, then go ahead. Want to believe in material sufficiency, go ahead. All we know at the Vatican is that the Protestants are wrong. We can’t delimit what in the world we mean by tradition.”
“I’ve already given 5 doctrines you hold to that never got written down you hold as foundational.”
All of which can be demonstrated from Scripture. But in any case, we wouldn’t say that SS, strictly speaking, is Apostolic Tradition. Paul and Peter never spoke Latin, presumably. It’s a principle deduced from the actual Tradition, the actual words they spoke, the actual content they delivered.
You want me to believe that the IC is actual Apostolic Tradition. Now demonstrate it. Where do any of the Apostles teach it. If not in the Bible, where and when?
This is where it gets so hazy. It’s supposed to be part of the deposit of faith. Well, what is the deposit of faith. The Apostles only ministered for 50 odd years or so. There’s a limit to what they taught, what they actually deposited. They could only say and do so much. What is that. Where do they tell us to venerate Mary et alia. What does their liturgy look like and how do we know its’ from them. And on and on and on.
Apostolic tradition isn’t what the RCC church is doing today. It’s what the Apostles did and said. What the RCC says and does might legitimately reflect it, but it certainly isn’t identical, as we all agree there’s been development.
So, what is the tradition? We’ve been waiting since at least Trent for Rome to delineate it.
Okay so which church and based upon which claims that church is making?
Any church that does not teach a gospel other than what Paul taught, is a good start. Which means you don’t simply say “well that church claims to teach the truth, it must be right.” You evaluate evidence, kinda like what thinking RCs do.
Only that’s exactly what the Reformers did to separate from Rome.
Uh, no. Calvin quotes Augustine and Bernard extensively, for example. The point of the Reformation was that the medieval church strayed far from its roots. Now you may disagree with the Reformers exegesis of church history, but plenty of people at Trent were willing to concede that Luther was right. Too bad their institutional loyalty trumped their commitment to the Scriptures and to history.
Kinda like we see with Rome’s apologists.
LikeLike
1 Corinthians 1:10: “That you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you”
Oooops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Reformed_denominations
LikeLike
TVD,
Newsflash—Rome is full of schism. Nominal same-home-office unity ain’t unity.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted July 31, 2015 at 5:37 pm | Permalink
TVD,
Newsflash—Rome is full of schism. Nominal same-home-office unity ain’t unity.
Repeating Darryl’s poor thinking doesn’t make it true. Unlike much of Protestantism, Catholicism isn’t poll-driven, not a democracy or even a republic. It is full of dissent–as has been Christianity since the days of the Early Church Fathers vs. a list of heresies as long as your arm–but it is not full of schism.
This is what schism looks like.
http://www.opc.org/machen.html
LikeLike
So they were preaching “we might be wrong, but we’re probably not, so submit to our teaching as long as you think we’re cool”? Is there some Scripture you can support that with?
CvD, the burden is yours to show where the apostles spoke of themselves the way they did Jesus:
Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Where did they ever speak of themselves in this way?
Yes the practice of popes can be corrected, as the history of RCism shows…
When speaking “ex cathedra”? No. But if he ever has moment where he is unable to be corrected, then any claim to be revisable is lame. He’s not immune from error except when he is. A break to me give.
LikeLike
Hart,
Texas, “We are called to die first instead of obeying an erring bishop. Including Rome’s. The difference is the Catholic can know without a doubt he is following the teaching of God, say regarding Arianism, because he believes the Holy Spirit protects dogmatic statements regarding faith and morals from the ecuminical councils and the Pope from error.”
Hart:”So is it your contention that Christian truth transcends the teaching office of the magisterium? ”
Yes in a way. The magisterium is bound by transcendent truth to attest to truth and can in no wise is allowed to attest contrary to what it has previously dogmatically attested to otherwise. This includes the truths revealed in the Scriptures which it has attested to previously as the inerrant Scriptures which are inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Hart:”They cannot depart from divine truth?”
In official dogma? Yes. One bishop, a group of bishops, even the Bishop of Rome when he is not teaching a universally binding dogma on faith or morals? No.
Hart:”But how is that divine truth known apart from the church’s authority?”
Good question. Are you infallible certain the Biblical canon is the 66 book canon over the 73 book one?
I finally brought up the canon with you, Hart. That is the question that brought me into the Church. How do we know? How did Luther or Calvin? Or the WCF divines? Both Eastern and Western Christianity had agreed and reaffirmed at the ecumenical council of Florence(1445) a different canon than they chose. Same canon printed by Gutenberg around 1480. Same canon dating back to the formative reception process of the NT books around 400 and translated into the Vulgate 1000 years earlier. The reformers already were taking the position of believing a church does not have the promised protection of the Holy Spirit from error in dogma. All I have been able to come up with that makes sense is they fallibly chose the books of the canon. That is a big fallibly choice to me. How do we believe we don’t have protection from error and fallibly say “God has spoken here and not there”. This leaves the canon not only fallibly discerned, but knowledgable fallibly discerned and proclaimed as true. Like I said big fallible choice to me. Now I don’t think it is a small fallible choice to say ” I believe this is Christ’s only authoritative Church” either, but only a few make such an audacious claim. The thing is, when one is fallibly discerning the infallible Church we fallibly cast ourselves on His mercy to receive Him who is Truth and be united with Him and hopefully His people. In remaining outside of a possibly infallible Church we are fallibly casting ourselves on His mercy to abstain from certainty or fallibly assume there is no Holy Spirit protected and guided Church in which we can visibly be united with His people. I find one of these with a greater reward. Either way we are hoping for mercy. It is faith, hope and love that makes one abandon oneself to join the Church. It can also be love of truth that keeps one outside of the Catholic Church. I hope that is where you and others here are. I just hang and chat so that we can both be sure we are where God wants us to be and we have clear consciences about it. Just some thoughts, Hart.
LikeLike
The STM-triad. This is not difficult but this is just more of the “because we don’t have an exhaustive list of every infallible teaching, that entails we cannot know any infallible teaching” illogical thinking that plagues some here. Magisterial teaching lies along a spectrum and can clarify past magisterial teaching if necessary as it develops, as the history of heresies and councils shows.
Jimmy,
This is not difficult indeed.
When we are told by Christ himself (actually he is refuting the devil, which might give you an idea of where somebody is coming from if they can’t/won’t grasp this truth) that “it is written: Man shall not live by bread alone, but every word that proceeds from the mouth of God Matt.4:4″ do you really think that something as important as God’s apostolic NT word won’t get written down; that God neither intended to inscripturate his Word NT or OT – something Romanists balk at admitting – , nor can he providentially make it happen; that we will find it necessary to turn to oral traditions in order to please God or know the full revelation of his will?
To ask is to answer, if not that if the answer is yes, then reasonable discourse and genuine discussion is impossible. (See comment above on insane asylum.) You truly are a prisoner of your own romish deceits and have no one to blame but yourself.
Thanks for the verses extolling written tradition. But what to do with the many verses also extolling unwritten tradition?
This is not difficult. The written trump the unwritten.
(Or perhaps you would prefer to have this discussion over the phone and so we would find it harder to hold your feet to the fire and feed your doctrine through the paper shredder.)
LikeLike
James Young, “This prohibition and sentence of the council was intended for private individuals, who have no business to decide matters of faith: for this decision of the general council did not take away from a subsequent council the power of drawing up a new edition of the symbol, containing not indeed a new faith, but the same faith with greater explicitness.”
yup.
Not many Roman Catholics believe that either. Heck, you decide matters of faith all the time and you’re not even a famous apologist. You don’t have a pay grade.
When Roman Catholicism measures up, get back to me. You constantly see things the way the Chamber of Commerce does.
LikeLike
vd, t, pcusa yourself. Have you heard of Germany?
Maybe you should move to Germany. They’d take you in.
LikeLike
zrim, yup.
cool!
LikeLike
texas, you didn’t answer the question, how do you know divine truth apart from church authority. Protestants don’t have to answer that question. But you do especially with your contention that truth transcends the church, that you can judge the church to see if she maintains the truth. In that conception, truth is above the church. In James Young’s conception, truth comes from the church.
But if truth comes from the church, and if the church isn’t always teaching truth, if they can depart from divine truth when they are not teaching a universally binding dogma, how can you tell which is binding dogma and which isn’t? They are both coming out of the same mouth or printer. Of course, if truth is over and above the church, you can tell. Not if the church is the conduit of truth, which is how you are relating oral tradition to Scripture.
Meanwhile, you have a problem with Ratzinger’s assertion, courtesy of James Young:
That seems to be your understanding of truth. What comes first is true. Except the assumption of Mary didn’t come first. Uh oh.
But Ratzinger saves you sort of.
But if that’s true, you can’t judge the church and tell what’s error from truth. You need to rely on the church which is the divine mediator of truth.
So please don’t think your conversion to Rome solves epistemological problems. It only raises them — or turns you into a mystic.
LikeLike
TVD,
Repeating Darryl’s poor thinking doesn’t make it true. Unlike much of Protestantism, Catholicism isn’t poll-driven, not a democracy or even a republic. It is full of dissent–as has been Christianity since the days of the Early Church Fathers vs. a list of heresies as long as your arm–but it is not full of schism.
The German bishops want to go full on liberal. The bishop in San Francisco does not. Francis writes a letter on global warming that ticks off conservatives in America. As the percentage of a population that is RC increases anywhere in the world, biblical moral standards are less likely to be believed. Nancy Pelosi stands with Planned Parenthood while Mother Teresa condemned the UN for supporting it.
But of course, there’s no trouble here. Remember, you’ve got the defined dogma and that’s not going anywhere. Odd how Protestants are accused of holding to a paper pope when Roman apologists have to result to dogma on paper when the theological and moral chaos of their church stands revealed.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted August 1, 2015 at 3:30 pm | Permalink
TVD,
“Repeating Darryl’s poor thinking doesn’t make it true. Unlike much of Protestantism, Catholicism isn’t poll-driven, not a democracy or even a republic. It is full of dissent–as has been Christianity since the days of the Early Church Fathers vs. a list of heresies as long as your arm–but it is not full of schism.”
The German bishops want to go full on liberal.
So? Dissent is permitted, up to a certain point. If they start disobeying, they get bounced. I know it makes you Protestants all giddy when the Catholic Church doesn’t behave like the Borg, but this stuff has been going on for 2000 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresies
LikeLike
bob s- just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they are insane or acting in bad faith.
dg-
So is it your contention that Christian truth transcends the teaching office of the magisterium? They cannot depart from divine truth? […] But how is that divine truth known apart from the church’s authority?
There is a bit of a puzzle here – theology and ecclesiology transcend human understanding – but I don’t think you’ve reached the unknowable parts (e.g., why didn’t God permit audiovisual recording to be invented before Christ came? Why didn’t Christ give us a Catechism and Creed? Why inscripturate in Greek, a little-spoken language these days?).
My smartphone-by-the-River Passaic-at-twilight thoughts are that of course a Pope can correct Bishops- but these Bishops were reneging from their offices in teaching heresy. We have tradition, Scripture, logic, and some ability to identify virtue and vice.
A Pope is infallible when reiterating divine truth. If he says something false, the body of the Church can’t accept it (in the case, almost certain, that they can identify that something is off)- including the laity. The laity’s duty is to practice the faith, being teachable, ready to believe as with a student to professor that ‘black is white’ but necessarily evaluating and forming judgments – that’s basic human epistemology.
It could be a Scintillating Grid Illusion (click the dropdown in the link): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_illusion
This isn’t just VII, although it has been emphasized in recent decades.
But with 2000 years to choose from, where are non-contentious examples of contradiction in teachings? Or raise something debatable, but enter with an open mind into the debate.
In which case, the bishops who got to speak first wind up being the ones to determine what’s true. The ones who come later have to measure up to what the first ones say — this is Scalia’s originalism (and Protestant biblicism) applied to the magisterium.
I think a much better example is progress in mathematics.
LikeLike
Zrim,
“the burden is yours to show where the apostles spoke of themselves the way they did Jesus”
The apostles claimed authority. You seem to think that meant they either claimed to be incarnate God and sinless (hence my “burden”) or they taught their message by saying “we could be wrong, but probably aren’t, so go ahead and submit to us if you feel like it” (still waiting for Scriptural precedent for the latter). Christ giving the apostles and the other teachers He sent His authority does not entail they suddenly became divine. So your demand misses the mark.
“Where did they ever speak of themselves in this way?”
No where. Why you think I’m arguing that they would escapes me.
“Yes the practice of popes can be corrected, as the history of RCism shows…
-When speaking “ex cathedra”? No.”
So the apostles infallible teaching as recorded in Scripture should have been and remain open to correction right? Since otherwise that entails arrogance and a lack of humility on their part.
“He’s not immune from error except when he is. A break to me give.”
So the apostles were infallible 24/7. Wait, you already said they weren’t. Give me a break indeed.
Bob,
“When we are told by Christ himself (actually he is refuting the devil, which might give you an idea of where somebody is coming from if they can’t/won’t grasp this truth) that “it is written:”
Yes, Christ appealed to Scripture. Rome appeals to Scripture. Doesn’t get you SS. Are you contending Christ and faithful Jews did not follow any binding unwritten tradition? (and saying “no, but only tradition that doesn’t contradict Scripture” doesn’t get you SS).
“Thanks for the verses extolling written tradition. But what to do with the many verses also extolling unwritten tradition?
– This is not difficult. The written trump the unwritten.”
That’s interesting – any citations for such a view? In many verses I see the unwritten and written extolled in the same breath – so why think written trumps the unwritten instead of the unwritten trumping the written? Or, you can take the RC view that neither “trumps” the other but that they rather work in parallel with each other.
LikeLike
Kevin, “A Pope is infallible when reiterating divine truth. If he says something false, the body of the Church can’t accept it.”
I know, but how does the church know the difference between truth and error for evaluating the vicar of Christ who is the infallible source of divine truth?
You don’t see that puzzle?
LikeLike
DG –
I know, but how does the church know the difference between truth and error for evaluating the vicar of Christ who is the infallible source of divine truth? You don’t see that puzzle?
I’m not sure that in particular is a puzzle – I thought I’d addressed it in the sentence immediately preceding the ones you quoted:
[kc:] We have tradition, Scripture, logic, and some ability to identify virtue and vice. A Pope is infallible when reiterating divine truth. If he says something false, the body of the Church can’t accept it.
If a pope taught universal salvation, the rest of the Church would have plenty to turn to in order to refute him.
LikeLike
@KiN A source of information that is only infallible under vaguely predetermined conditions (or worse, post-hoc) isn’t infallible. Infallible doesn’t mean “didn’t err”. It means “cannot err” (at least among us prots). So to say that some times the Pope is infallible and some times he is fallible creates a major problem. One way to solve that problem would be to infallibly define the conditions under which he is infallible and then catalog the infallible items. Of course, the group who defined those conditions would have to be infallible or there could always be the possibility that the conditions met by the Pope (or council) were misdefined and the previously believed infallible statement was in fact fallible.
The problem we prots have with this definition of infallibility (which should have its basis in Apostolic teaching) is that something so fundamental to the magisterium wasn’t defined until the 19th century, and even then there were big problems with certain heretical popes. The special conditions look less like clarifying the teaching of the apostles handed down orally through the church and more like attempts to define papal infallibility without making Honorius an exception.
I mostly agree with you here, but of course there aren’t any non-contentious examples of contradicting in teaching. That’s the point of the protest- our protest is contested. Maybe something that is in the spirit of what you are asking for is found in the Athanasian Creed that I brought up before. The Creed makes the statement that we can know undoubtedly that no one can be saved unless they believe all of the teachings contained therein. Now the RCC teaches that there are qualifications – one has to be culpable and we can never know for sure. So the teaching has shifted from, “these beliefs were necessary for salvation” to “not rejecting these beliefs are necessary for salvation”. This is a change in dogma.
LikeLike
“Yes, Christ appealed to Scripture. Rome appeals to Scripture. Doesn’t get you SS. Are you contending Christ and faithful Jews did not follow any binding unwritten tradition? ”
I think the example of Christ’s interaction with the religious authorities of his day is much stronger than you allow. My contention is that when he corrected their binding traditions, he only appealed to inscripturated revelation. But maybe I’m missing a counter-example.
If someone is sometimes fallible and sometimes not, then they are not infallible. Peter and Paul were not infallible – even when they happened to get things right. The Holy Spirit some times inspired their writings, and that collection of writing that has been preserved, passed down, and testified to by the Holy Spirit is infallible.
LikeLike
Kevin, just because CVD has already been answered on most of this, but continues to yammer on just like Texas did, does not give one a favorable impression of his love for the truth. IOW we jus sayin.
And my dumbphone by Fishtrap Creek evening thought says of course Scripture can correct popes.
Especially when they front for an organization that claims its traditions are equal to Scripture.
But your previous remarks on co-redeemers in defense of Mary as co-redemptrix was simply incoherent. I’d turn off that phone if I were you and get busy sticking my nose in The Book.
Yes, Christ appealed to Scripture. Rome appeals to Scripture. Doesn’t get you SS. Are you contending Christ and faithful Jews did not follow any binding unwritten tradition? (and saying “no, but only tradition that doesn’t contradict Scripture” doesn’t get you SS).
DVD,
Christ both appealed to Scripture and declared what Scripture teaches about itself.
One, it is written, two it is indispensable, much more three, it equips the man of God for every/all good works.
If you want to keep spitting into the wind and arguing for Rome’s unwritten traditions, feel free, but let’s not appeal to Scripture to substantiate that non sequitur, much more argue that because SS is not explicitly stated in Scripture that what? Christ and the Jews followed binding unwritten traditions?
Coherence much?
That’s interesting – any citations for such a view? In many verses I see the unwritten and written extolled in the same breath – so why think written trumps the unwritten instead of the unwritten trumping the written? Or, you can take the RC view that neither “trumps” the other but that they rather work in parallel with each other.
Yo Snow White, got any citations for your view?
Care to tell us what the word concept fallacy is? You know, the NT mention of teaching/traditions has to be equal to Rome’s traditions because Rome says so
How about anachronism or reading Rome’s definition back into the NT usage?
Drive by assertion vs. genuine argument?
To ask is to answer.
Again we know the Word of God is written. We know it is indispensable. Christ makes that only too clear in Matt.4:4 when he doubles down on Deut. 8:12.
But if the Word of God is indispensable and also unwritten in part as per Rome’s traditions, Rome is asserting her supremacy over Christ, all the hypocritical window dressing to the contrary.
Ah, but then maybe if we choose Christ’s word over Rome’s, what is contained in the unwritten traditions is neither the Word of God or necessary. Imagine that.
But then why does Rome keep telling us it is? Particularly when those traditions are used to argue for stuff that is blatantly contra Scripture, i.e. the sacrifice of the mass, mariolatry etc. . Could it have anything to do with AntiChrist?
Oral traditions by definition are not written and consequently their very existence is in question, never mind their infallibility, sufficiency or clarity (duh) not to mention they are an addition to the written Word of God
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:
John 10:35 . . . the scripture cannot be broken;
Since Rome’s traditions in principle and practice impugn both Scripture and Christ, she stands condemned by her own testimony, however much her blinded acolytes try to finesse the obvious.
LikeLike
Bob S
Posted August 2, 2015 at 3:23 am | Permalink
Kevin, just because CVD has already been answered on most of this, but continues to yammer on just like Texas did, does not give one a favorable impression of his love for the truth. IOW we jus sayin.
And my dumbphone by Fishtrap Creek evening thought says of course Scripture can correct popes.
Especially when they front for an organization that claims its traditions are equal to Scripture.
But your previous remarks on co-redeemers in defense of Mary as co-redemptrix was simply incoherent. I’d turn off that phone if I were you and get busy sticking my nose in The Book.
Yes, Christ appealed to Scripture. Rome appeals to Scripture. Doesn’t get you SS. Are you contending Christ and faithful Jews did not follow any binding unwritten tradition? (and saying “no, but only tradition that doesn’t contradict Scripture” doesn’t get you SS).
DVD,
Christ both appealed to Scripture and declared what Scripture teaches about itself.
One, it is written, two it is indispensable, much more three, it equips the man of God for every/all good works.
If you want to keep spitting into the wind and arguing for Rome’s unwritten traditions, feel free, but let’s not appeal to Scripture to substantiate that non sequitur, much more argue that because SS is not explicitly stated in Scripture that what? Christ and the Jews followed binding unwritten traditions?
Coherence much?
That’s interesting – any citations for such a view? In many verses I see the unwritten and written extolled in the same breath – so why think written trumps the unwritten instead of the unwritten trumping the written? Or, you can take the RC view that neither “trumps” the other but that they rather work in parallel with each other.
Yo Snow White, got any citations for your view?
Care to tell us what the word concept fallacy is? You know, the NT mention of teaching/traditions has to be equal to Rome’s traditions because Rome says so
How about anachronism or reading Rome’s definition back into the NT usage?
Drive by assertion vs. genuine argument?
To ask is to answer.
Again we know the Word of God is written. We know it is indispensable. Christ makes that only too clear in Matt.4:4 when he doubles down on Deut. 8:12.
But if the Word of God is indispensable and also unwritten in part as per Rome’s traditions, Rome is asserting her supremacy over Christ, all the hypocritical window dressing to the contrary.
Ah, but then maybe if we choose Christ’s word over Rome’s, what is contained in the unwritten traditions is neither the Word of God or necessary. Imagine that.
But then why does Rome keep telling us it is? Particularly when those traditions are used to argue for stuff that is blatantly contra Scripture, i.e. the sacrifice of the mass, mariolatry etc. . Could it have anything to do with AntiChrist?
Oral traditions by definition are not written and consequently their very existence is in question, never mind their infallibility, sufficiency or clarity (duh) not to mention they are an addition to the written Word of God
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:
John 10:35 . . . the scripture cannot be broken;
Since Rome’s traditions in principle and practice impugn both Scripture and Christ, she stands condemned by her own testimony, however much her blinded acolytes try to finesse the obvious.
Without the late great Erik and Andrew [RIP] doing your dirty work, Darryl, Bob’s all you’ve got left, nothing but bald and ugly anti-Catholicism, Darryl.
LikeLike
Bob S –
But your previous remarks on co-redeemers in defense of Mary as co-redemptrix was simply incoherent. I’d turn off that phone if I were you and get busy sticking my nose in The Book.
I was using it to read the Didache as well, so it isn’t all bad. Mind if I give another shot at explaining the earlier point?
Argument: all of the elect are co-redeemers-
God predetermines the elect for salvation, perhaps from the creation of the world, but redemption isn’t complete until all souls have been saved. Redemption is a process, not a one-time act.
The elect choose to worship God, obey His commandments, love their neighbors, etc. – in so doing they are using their “free will” – even if it is predetermined that they will do so. I acknowledge this is mysterious (i.e., fundamentally unknowable by man), but the question of free will has always been a tough one, and always will be.
Throughout the course of their lives they are sanctified as a result of their salvation and simultaneously with their actions in obedience to God. This is the process of redemption in each individual soul.
Since they are using their free will, they are agents of God’s plan for redemption – they are co-redeemers.
Is that acceptable to your understanding?
(“co-redemptors” (masc.) & “co-redemptrices” (fem.) to be more latinate – like “matrix” and “matrices”).
And my dumbphone by Fishtrap Creek evening thought says of course Scripture can correct popes.
Montana? Washington?
LikeLike
vd, t, love me the way Pope Francis does.
LikeLike
Kevin, but you seem to think the truth is settled. James Young says the magisterium is living and that even if the apostles didn’t teach the assumption of Mary the magisterium could and did. So how do you know when a pope teaches universal salvation it isn’t true. Maybe it’s just a later insight.
You are in the position of Protestants. Truth transcends the pope and the faithful and decide when he is true or false. That doesn’t cohere with the notion that you don’t know the truth unless the church tells you (i.e., you don’t know Scripture unless the church tells you what Scripture is.)
That’s your puzzle.
LikeLike
Sinless Mary, Jesus an angel, etc… I don’t know..though we reason from Scripture like Paul, experience tells us when JWs come to our door, when we talk with our Mormon neighbors and with our Catholic family members there just seems a common element of downgrading Jesus’s utter uniqueness and God’s sole majesty and somehow elevating man? Is that an unfair statement?
LikeLike
Darryl,
“even if the apostles didn’t teach the assumption of Mary the magisterium could and did”
Why you keep thinking I or Ratzinger said that escapes me. So ill just keep saying “… yet was already handed down in the original Word” till it sinks in.
LikeLike
Christ giving the apostles and the other teachers He sent His authority does not entail they suddenly became divine.
Neither does it entail that they became unable to err. Peter did. How is that not one simple death blow to your theory of papal infallibility?
LikeLike
A Pope is infallible when reiterating divine truth.
So when I say “God is one” I’m infallible (and how do I know that, because the church declared it or because the Bible says so)? Or just right? Why must a speaker be considered infallible in his person before what he says can be believed? Do you really need to think of me as immune from error in my person before affirming me in saying 2+2=4?
LikeLike
Tom,
Dissent is permitted, up to a certain point. If they start disobeying, they get bounced.
The German bishops haven’t been bounced. John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi haven’t been bounced. Boston University and Notre Dame haven’t been bounced. The only significant person that’s been bounced since V2 that I can think of was Kung, and even he wasn’t excommunicated.
This isn’t permission of dissent on teachings that are up in the air. This is allowing out and out heretics to be in good standing with God. So either Rome doesn’t care about its people or it hasn’t really settled all that it’s claimed to have settled. A pastoral or dogmatic failure.
Actually, it’s both.
LikeLike
Robert for the win. Up top!
LikeLike
Robert
Posted August 2, 2015 at 1:33 pm | Permalink
Tom,
“Dissent is permitted, up to a certain point. If they start disobeying, they get bounced.”
The German bishops haven’t been bounced.
Are they disobeying or just dissenting?
I don’t know exactly what Francis is up to yet. Perhaps he’s letting the heretics smoke themselves out, perhaps letting them put their cards on the table so they can be refudiated. I watch with interest.
As for not bouncing Kerry or Pelosi or Garry Wills, perhaps it’s not adjudged as prudent at this time. There is no rule the Church should be a circular firing squad, and certainly accusations of a “witch hunt” would be unhelpful in the present environment.
Neither am I sure the Old Life commentariat is aware the Vatican has and does suspend the teaching authority of clerical dissidents such as John Courtney Murray and Hans Kung, both of whom accepted the restriction to a sufficient degree that neither was defrocked. [See also Benedict’s shot across the bow of the Nuns on a Bus.]
This sort of thing would come as a surprise to those who see the Vatican as a mindless tyranny, as well as many who like to exploit dissent in the Church as some sort of ecclesiastical or theological failure. A third possibility is that the Church isn’t as dumb as it looks.
http://protectthepope.com/?p=2673
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 2, 2015 at 8:20 am | Permalink
You are in the position of Protestants. Truth transcends the pope and the faithful and decide when he is true or false. That doesn’t cohere with the notion that you don’t know the truth unless the church tells you (i.e., you don’t know Scripture unless the church tells you what Scripture is.)
That’s your puzzle.
Who tells you what scripture is? You’re the one with the puzzle. “Sola scriptura” can’t tell you what scripture is; that’s circular.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/07/empiricism-and-sola-scriptura-redux.html#more
LikeLike
vd, t, if the Vatican has legitimate authority, why don’t you believe in the assumption of Mary or her immaculate conception?
You’re in worse shape than Michael Sean Winters.
LikeLike
vd, t, the Holy Spirit says what Scripture is.
LikeLike
Is that acceptable to your understanding?
No K, Luther’s Bondage of the Will, if not Packer’s historical and theological introduction should clear up your misconceptions, never mind that as per Romanism you conflate justification and sanctification. Yet, while we may cooperate with the Holy Spirit, the work of redemption is of the Triune God in full and never of man. Rom. 9:16
Of course one must never underestimate the power of a steady diet of the Jesuitical dialectic in which Ignatius’s Rule 13 trumps Isaiah 5:20, to hornswoggle those who think black is white.
Fishtrap? Washington not DC
TVD,
I get it. Really.
If Matt.4:4 does prove that the Word is both written and indispensable, a little ad hom won’t distract anybody from the truth. IOW keep up the good work. That’s your job around here.
Fr Hans Kung goes on to claim to know that Jesus would not uphold many aspects of the Catholic Church’s teaching and discipline:
‘If Jesus of Nazareth returned, he would not prohibit contraceptives, he would not shut out divorced people, and so on’.
But not JBFA?
Luke 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.
Luke 18:42 And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee.
What? no mention of works?
Who does Jesus think he is to contradict the magisterium?
Who tells you what scripture is? You’re the one with the puzzle. “Sola scriptura” can’t tell you what scripture is; that’s circular.
Of course Rome thinks the Scripture a dead letter, which is why it sees fit to insert itself in Scripture’s place, while the good and necessary consequences of Scripture must be relegated to the extra Scriptural traditions in order again, that Rome may not find itself unemployed.
The Westminster Confession, in obedience to the admonition in Scripture to ‘speak things becoming of sound doctrine’ Tit.2:1 (cf. 1Tim.1:10 2 Tim.4:3,Tit. 1:9) says otherwise:
Chapt. I. Of Holy Scripture
IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God. 2 Pet. 1:19,21, 2 Tim. 3:16, 1 Jn. 5:9, 1 Thess. 2:13
V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.1 Tim. 3:15
And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.1 John 2:20, John 16:13, 14, 1 Cor. 2:10,11,12, Isa. 59:21
Chapt. II. Of God and the Holy Trinity
III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. I John 5:7; Matt. 3:16, 17; Matt. 28:19; II Cor. 13:14.
The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding: the Son is eternally begotten of the Father: John 1:14, 18.
the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.John 15:26; Gal. 4:6.
Think the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the Scripture; not traditions in conjunction. That’s the diff.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 2, 2015 at 5:34 pm | Permalink
vd, t, if the Vatican has legitimate authority, why don’t you believe in the assumption of Mary or her immaculate conception?
You’re in worse shape than Michael Sean Winters.
You don’t know what I believe and neither is this the place.
D. G. Hart
Posted August 2, 2015 at 5:34 pm | Permalink
vd, t, the Holy Spirit says what Scripture is.
Then the only question is who the Holy Spirit talks to, you or them. Neither will sola scriptura be of any help, as Edward Feser shows. At least the Catholics understand logic well enough to realize this.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/07/empiricism-and-sola-scriptura-redux.html#more
LikeLike
Tom,
Advocates of sola Scriptura as it is properly defined all affirm the Trinity. Radical liberals don’t. They don’t practice sola Scriptura. Rome’s got plenty of them as well. They don’t practice sola ecclesia like they’re supposed to.
Then the only question is who the Holy Spirit talks to, you or them. Neither will sola scriptura be of any help, as Edward Feser shows. At least the Catholics understand logic well enough to realize this.
But of course the Roman Church can’t tell you this either if you apply the same standard to Rome that you apply to Protestants. Because Rome can’t ever get you outside of yourself to know whether or not Rome is the true church. It’s all like your interpretation, man.
As for not bouncing Kerry or Pelosi or Garry Wills, perhaps it’s not adjudged as prudent at this time. There is no rule the Church should be a circular firing squad, and certainly accusations of a “witch hunt” would be unhelpful in the present environment.
It wasn’t really prudent for Jesus to condemn the Pharisees. It got himself killed. It wasn’t prudent for Paul to condemn the Corinthian church for accepting the incestuous man. This is special pleading for apologetic purposes.
No one expects the church to be a circular firing squad. We’re talking about people who have on record, for decades, not only vocally contravened what RCs tell me is church teaching AND also use their positions in the US government to fund family planning programs and abortion around the world.
Neither am I sure the Old Life commentariat is aware the Vatican has and does suspend the teaching authority of clerical dissidents such as John Courtney Murray and Hans Kung, both of whom accepted the restriction to a sufficient degree that neither was defrocked. [See also Benedict’s shot across the bow of the Nuns on a Bus.]
Suspending “teaching authority” without defrocking is toothless, which is why it’s pointless. They still got the charism. And shots across the bow? Heck, the Vatican just conducted a thorough investigation and discovered that heretical nuns were a-ok (Council of Women Religious).
The source you quoted said:
It could be that the Holy See has come to the judgement that any action taken against Fr Kung would only serve to put him back into the media spot light, resulting in the wider dissemination of his dissent and giving him greater influence…
Didn’t stop them with Luther. Again, this is special pleading by apologists who just can’t accept that Rome can ever be wrong and yet know that Rome is wrong not to take real action against these dissidents.
As Bob said, it’s a paper tiger. I don’t think Rome knows HOW to discipline without the sword.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted August 2, 2015 at 7:58 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Advocates of sola Scriptura as it is properly defined all affirm the Trinity.
The word “proper” cheats Feser’s entire argument, which is that the Trinity belongs to Tradition, not sola scriptura.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say “Jesus is God.” In fact,
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/100-scriptural-arguments-for-the-unitarian-faith
“Then the only question is who the Holy Spirit talks to, you or them. Neither will sola scriptura be of any help, as Edward Feser shows. At least the Catholics understand logic well enough to realize this.”
But of course the Roman Church can’t tell you this either if you apply the same standard to Rome that you apply to Protestants. Because Rome can’t ever get you outside of yourself to know whether or not Rome is the true church. It’s all like your interpretation, man.
Not my interpretation, but the 2000-year old Catholic Church’s. That’s the argument from “outside myself,” that Protestantism is only 500 years old, and makes truth claims that are no better, and arguably worse.
–By what authority did Luther monkey with the canon?
–By what authority did Calvin mutate the Eucharist into something unrecognizable?
–As Peter Kreeft asks, why did Christ leave his church in such error for 1500 years?
Etc.
Thomas More and William Tyndale had this argument at the very beginning of Protestantism, BTW if you google it. In the end, the average person is going to have to take somebody else’s word for translating and interpreting the original Greek and Hebrew. What confidence can Protestantism offer for divine authenticity when they disagree so much among each other?
I don’t think Rome knows HOW to discipline without the sword.
As for this lesser issue, perhaps it would be prudent to look at some other time and not confuse this thread any more. I would say that as important as abortion is, it’s secondary to issues such as the Eucharist and the Bible, so first things first.
Thus my initial take is that teaching heresy has always been seen as a different crime than simply believing heresy. Think Luke 17:2, the bit about the millstone.
LikeLike
vd, t, I know you believe in the infallibility of the magisterium and don’t believe in the bodily assmumption of Mary. So far, Michael Sean Winters has one more hit than you.
LikeLike
Kill this thread. It’s an old dog with one eye, three legs, and two teeth. It’s tired of life. It’s begging for euthanasia. KILL IT!
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 2, 2015 at 9:41 pm | Permalink
vd, t, I know you believe in the infallibility of the magisterium and don’t believe in the bodily assmumption of Mary. So far, Michael Sean Winters has one more hit than you.
You know nothing one way or the other, DG Hart. But I would say that as a formal objection, a one-time miracle such as the Assumption is far easier to believe in than the Scopes Monkey Trial-type rejection of all biological science it takes to believe in a literal Adam and Eve.
As a formal objection, mind you, if you know what that means. Each requires a belief in divine intervention but one is far more radical and extensive than the other.
LikeLike
Tom,
The word “proper” cheats Feser’s entire argument, which is that the Trinity belongs to Tradition, not sola scriptura.
No, the word “proper” shows that Feser hasn’t a clue as to what sola Scriptura actually is. More than one has taken him to task for this. Nothing “belongs” to sola Scriptura, and no thoughtful theologian thinks that the doctrine of the Trinity was derived from absolutely nothing else except the Bible. The fact that Feser apparently thinks that sola Scriptura means the only possible source in any way for theology is the Bible shows his ignorance.
Sola Scriptura is not really about the sources of theology; it’s’ about the nature of our sources of theology. Creeds, tradition, history, are all possible sources of theology.
The Bible is the only INFALLIBLE source, kinda like how at the end of the day the Magisterium is the only infallible source for Rome. All RC apologetic arguments assume that, including the “how do you know what the canon is without an infallible magisterium?”
Nowhere in the Bible does it say “Jesus is God.” In fact,
Well if quoting some unitarians proves the Bible ain’t clear, I guess quoting some Roman heretics proves that the Magisterium isn’t clear. Is the double standard all Rome has?
Not my interpretation, but the 2000-year old Catholic Church’s. That’s the argument from “outside myself,” that Protestantism is only 500 years old, and makes truth claims that are no better, and arguably worse.
That’s like your interpretation, man. Not one of us thinks that Protestantism is only 500 years old in the strict sense, and not one RC historian worth his salt thinks RCism is 2,000 years old in the strict sense.
–By what authority did Luther monkey with the canon?
What are you talking about? Luther’s Bible has the same canon as Jesus’ canon for the OT and the same NT canon as Rome.
–By what authority did Calvin mutate the Eucharist into something unrecognizable?
By denying transubstantiation, a doctrine that was at best only a few hundred years old at the time of the Reformation?
–As Peter Kreeft asks, why did Christ leave his church in such error for 1500 years?
The pre-Reformation church was not monolithic, so to say it was “in such error” for 1500 years is bad history argued for apologetic points.
Thomas More and William Tyndale had this argument at the very beginning of Protestantism, BTW if you google it. In the end, the average person is going to have to take somebody else’s word for translating and interpreting the original Greek and Hebrew. What confidence can Protestantism offer for divine authenticity when they disagree so much among each other?
When Rome can agree, get back to me. Otherwise, this is tired argument. Protestantism claims divine authenticity for itself only insofar as it accurately reflects Scripture. We don’t think we have the right to demand faith simply because we said so.
As for this lesser issue, perhaps it would be prudent to look at some other time and not confuse this thread any more. I would say that as important as abortion is, it’s secondary to issues such as the Eucharist and the Bible, so first things first.
If abortion is a mortal sin, it is by no means a secondary issue. Heck, the whole issue of sin is why there’s a church professing to follow Jesus.
Thus my initial take is that teaching heresy has always been seen as a different crime than simply believing heresy. Think Luke 17:2, the bit about the millstone.
Teaching it, of course, is far worse. But you’ve got plenty of RCs that teach abortion is okay, and Rome does nothing.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted August 2, 2015 at 11:18 pm | Permalink
Tom,
The word “proper” cheats Feser’s entire argument, which is that the Trinity belongs to Tradition, not sola scriptura.
No, the word “proper” shows that Feser hasn’t a clue as to what sola Scriptura actually is. More than one has taken him to task for this. Nothing “belongs” to sola Scriptura, and no thoughtful theologian thinks that the doctrine of the Trinity was derived from absolutely nothing else except the Bible. The fact that Feser apparently thinks that sola Scriptura means the only possible source in any way for theology is the Bible shows his ignorance.
The rest of what you wrote is interesting, but I believe you just made Feser’s argument.
LikeLike
Tom
I believe you just made Feser’s argument.
No, what I’ve done is shown that Feser is arguing against a position that doesn’t exist, at least among those who actually first said “sola Scriptura.”
So again, sola Scriptura doesn’t tell us which sources are available for theology; it tells us which of the available sources is infallible. That is the important difference, and the one that apologists such as Feser consistently miss.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted August 2, 2015 at 11:31 pm | Permalink
Tom
“I believe you just made Feser’s argument.”
No, what I’ve done is shown that Feser is arguing against a position that doesn’t exist, at least among those who actually first said “sola Scriptura.”
This has not a single specific.
You really need to explain all this, especially since Feser isn’t trolling crap Protestant websites or his own comment boxes in search of a cheap win, he’s playing in the major leagues
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/07/fulford-on-sola-scriptura-part-i.html
You really need to read everything he wrote on this, not just the excerpts I provide and calling them bogus. In fact, I invite Darryl to put on his big boy panties and do the same.
Try your luck. This was posted twice before and nobody’s laid a glove on it.
Refudiate away. Saying Feser doesn’t understand your arguments is lazy and cheap. He understands you just fine as did the Jesuits, centuries ago.
LikeLike
Nowhere in the Bible does it say “Jesus is God.” In fact,
Getting desperate are we?
Must be close to extermination day at the pound; even the three legged one eyed dogs can smell it.
But even if it did say it, would you believe it? That’s the question.
Thus my initial take is that teaching heresy has always been seen as a different crime than simply believing heresy. Think Luke 17:2, the bit about the millstone.
Then the Roman hierarchy ought to be shivering in their dainty little slippers. Schism with the truth is their raison d’etre.
Meanwhile back on the farm, the infallible magisterium has got so many lay, fey and not so gay internet interpreters spamming and jamming the channel, the real thing can’t get through. Whatever it is. Oh, right. The pope is infallible. When he’s speaking ex cathedra. No list available, just believe the recent retroactive dogma. Or something like that.
But again if Rome’s STM is so infallibly perspicuous, why the a-z on the ground?
Oh, it’s only the hierarchy that counts as the church, whatever TrentVat2theRCCencyclical says about the laity. O doesn’t.
Enter stage left, Francis, who is what, happy or unhappy with some bishops, but not all?
Maybe, maybe not.
Whatever. As per the Screwtape Letters, whatever you do, don’t let your yea be yea. Baffle em with baloney and give them plenty of pomp and circumstance. When challenged, thump on the infallible thing and deny, deny, deny.
Got it.
Will do.
Sweet dreams.
ciao
LikeLike
Saying Feser doesn’t understand your arguments is lazy and cheap. He understands you just fine as did the Jesuits, centuries ago.
Ah, Veron speaks, so ineffably and infallibly, so effortlessly and effulgently.
All hail and genuflect at his pronunciamento.
We truly are honored.
a)the Holy Spirit
b)ditto
c)natural light of reason rightly understood, which both papists and protestants use, without which we descend to the level of clothed apes and monkeys in britches and ties.
Or if you prefer half baked jesuitical bread worshippers.
LikeLike
Zrim,
“Neither does it entail that they became unable to err. Peter did.”
Did Peter err when he wrote 1/2 Peter? If not, why not?
“How is that not one simple death blow to your theory of papal infallibility?”
Because the RC theory of PI allows for popes’ practices and opinions to be corrected; it merely stipulates under certain conditions he won’t err (again).
sdb,
“My contention is that when he corrected their binding traditions, he only appealed to inscripturated revelation.”
He also appealed to his own authority – Matt. 7:28-29, 28:19, John 7:46. Regardless, are you contending Christ and the Apostles as faithful Jews followed *no* binding unwritten tradition or oral law? I see no evidence for them affirming the Sadducees’ rejection of oral torah.
“Peter and Paul were not infallible – even when they happened to get things right.”
Can you cite from Scripture where they wrote saying “we’re just probably getting this right”? 1 Cor. 14:37, 1 Cor. 7:10-12, 1 Thess 4:2, 2 Thess 3:16 don’t seem very tentative (or “humble” by Zrim’s lights).
LikeLike
vd, t, I know you defend the pope and say Mary isn’t a big deal.
LikeLike
CvD, Peter did not err when writing not because he was somehow made selectively infallible in his person but because God preserves his own word. Your emphasis is on the human side (in order to prop up this highly tortured and tenable theory of PI), not the divine. Work smarter, not harder.
LikeLike
Zrim,
“because God preserves his own word. ”
Right. God worked through and with fallible instruments to infallibly do so. Why you think PI rejects that model or puts “emphasis on the human side” – I dont even know what that means, the apostles were human and not automatons – escapes me.
LikeLike
James Young, because PI claims to be divine in an office, and that office can arrive at truths on a par with divine revelation. The border between new revelation and Scripture is razor thin. Yup.
But you want to say PI is not divine revelation. Well, where in the history of redemption do we have an officer who is infallible even some of the time unless not writing Scripture by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
You need ss or else you do verge on Mormon territory. But you also need to conceive of the magisterium in ways remarkably similar to the authors of holy writ to get infalliblity.
It doesn’t work.
Cool.
LikeLike
CvD, the point is that your theory of infallibility is trying to make the human agent infallible, as opposed to emphasizing how God preserves his word despite fallible human agency. I don’t recall ever seeing anything about the latter in the conversation. Peter in his person was fallible even when writing infallible text. God makes his own word (not his agent) infallible. Why anyone would be compelled to defend selective human infallibility escapes me.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“You need ss or else you do verge on Mormon territory. ”
Nope. The two options are not a) no way or authority to issue definitive and normative judgments concerning the apostolic deposit (including making implicit teachings explicit) that are binding on all and protected from error by God or b) revelation is ongoing and being added, changed, or eliminated a la Mormonism.
“Well, where in the history of redemption do we have an officer who is infallible even some of the time unless not writing Scripture by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”
The prophets and apostles were only infallible when writing Scripture and not when teaching/preaching in person that was then recorded in Scripture?
Zrim,
“CvD, the point is that your theory of infallibility is trying to make the human agent infallible, as opposed to emphasizing how God preserves his word despite fallible human agency.”
Why in the world would you think that? Where did you get that PI doesn’t utterly depend on God protecting the church despite fallible human agency? Why do you think RCism always emphasizes PI is a negative protection against error (i.e. the teaching will not contain error, not that it will be the wisest or most articulate formulation, or a teaching might not be defined when in retrospect it may have been more prudent to define it) – how much more emphasis do you need?
LikeLike
Cletus,
The issue is what is infallible. It would seem that the “what” in regards to RCC teaching would have to finally be not the individual but the words themselves. Otherwise, a pope or bishops that are fallible on some occasions would ruin the whole thing. And yet Rome wants to locate infallibility in the person.
Properly speaking, any human being COULD have erred when they wrote Scripture. The Spirit kept them from doing so. He didn’t transmit them to an infallible state; he prevented errors from entering the word. Translation: the Spirit and word are infallible, not the human agent.
IOW, Paul himself never became infallible. The Spirit didn’t take away his infallibility; he preserved a fallible man from making error (because being fallible doesn’t make error certain). The end result: It’s not the Apostle who is infallible but His words. Rome seems to make the bishops and their words infallible. What gives?
LikeLike
CvD, because you’re the one trying to maintain that human agents possess some degree of infallibility at some point in time in their persons. What’s to be gained by that? An inflated view of the magisterium, which is an undermining view of God. You can’t have it both ways. To maintain a theory that puffs up the magisterium can only degrade God, even if utter dependence on God is claimed in its service. I know you’ll never concede that, but you asked.
LikeLike
Hart,
Sorry for my delayed response to: https://oldlife.org/2015/07/when-did-christian-america-end/comment-page-24/#comment-339397
“texas, you didn’t answer the question, how do you know divine truth apart from church authority. “
I answered your main questions in the beginning of the post and assumed you could see how they resolved your later questions in the post. I don’t have to know divine truth “apart from church authority” because one and the same work together. Part of divine truth is that there is a church authority by which we can know divine truth. If one believes the scriptures, this can be seen even with the SS starting point.
“The ones[popes] who come later have to measure up to what the first ones say — this is Scalia’s originalism (and Protestant biblicism) applied to the magisterium.”
Basically right. Last popes and bishops are not allowed to teach different than earlier dogma. The later magisterium is more bound not more free.
“But if later popes have as much power and infallibility as the first, why couldn’t a pope today declare that earlier bishops had erred?”
I assume you are talking about later bishops of Rome. If the later ones dogmatically could/did, then infallibility is out the window and the Holy Spirit is not protecting the See of Rome/Peter from error. No pope has ever taught dogma against dogma. Many popes have critiqued previous pope’s weakness, activity, application and even pointed out bad teaching, though these were never regarding universally binding dogma. To these the later pope must submit because it is to the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit which he submits, not the previous pope, no matter how bad a pope he may have been.
“But if truth comes from the church, and if the church isn’t always teaching truth, if they can depart from divine truth when they are not teaching a universally binding dogma, how can you tell which is binding dogma and which isn’t? “
I never said “the church” can depart from the truth. I have said members of the Church can, even the Bishop of Rome. It is relatively easy to tell what is “universally binding dogma”. It will have an ecumenical origin with an anathema attached or be a universally binding statement by the Bishops of Rome on all the faithful of the Catholic Church. These are what is often repeated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to clarify issues or used in encyclicals for instruction dealing with things of the day. Every anathema in every ecumenical council is the error protected voice of “the church”. The bishop of Rome can be ignored if he teaches something against one of them. In such a case one can, and in some cases is duty bound to, address the holder of Peter’s See just like Paul did to Peter. Either way the Holy Spirit will not allow him to teach error in a universally binding way. This is the Catholic faith. Nether will a ecumenical council be allowed by the Holy Spirit to anathematized any previous dogma. Also a council can’t be ecumenical without the approval of the Bishop of Rome. He will always be one of the bishops of the universal Church. This is the whole point of a peter among the group, so we can know we have not left the group.
“you can’t judge the church and tell what’s error from truth. You need to rely on the church which is the divine mediator of truth.”
Basically right, but why separate what God has desired to bring together, His voice and the voice of the Church. “Who ever hears you, hears Me” Like a good King and His Bride, they rule as one over those which are placed in their care by the Father though the Son by the Holy Spirit. They[King and Bride] do so over even the bishops and priests, including Rome’s. More so than any bishop He is to be most submitted to dogma of the faith. As he fails to proclaim those truths and know them, he is judged the more severely than any man on earth. This is why where the newly elected pope is clothed for office the first time is know as “the crying room”. The reality of the responsibility God has give him often comes crashing around a new pope in that moment.
To address your previous concern directly,
“But in a Roman Catholic universe (pre-vatican 2), who are you to judge?”
Just a man accountable to God with will, intellect infleshed. This is what the Church has always taught that we are.
Anyway, sorry again for the delay. Seems like you guys have got along just fine. Looks like I have lots of reading to catchup on. Peace,
Michael
LikeLike
Bob S,
When I was speaking to Hart in the “A Church I…” the other day, answering his post:
“mtx, “If Sola Scriptura is right the infallibility of the Catholic Church is out.”
Exactly.
Who decides?
On your system, it’s above your pay grade. So why do you go on the way popes blabber?
I replied:Hart,
Because the point I have been trying to make. Reality decides. The Church who could Acts 15 speak as “us and the Holy Spirit” is of direct divine origin and did not operate on SS and those who believed the message of the Gospel apparently did not need the Scriptures, though as the Bereans show it is commendable to search them. The Church was called out before the NT Scriptures, and the only way to get the canon of Scriptures in my hand is from Tradition witnessed to by the authoritative Church witnessed to in those Scriptures. You can’t have Scripture with out the Church. You don’t get either except by Sacred Tradition. Scripture witnesses to the existence and operation of the Church and the Church witnesses to the divine inspiration and inerrancy of the Scripture and they both witness to the love and sacrifice of the Son for my sins along with God’s enduring openness to my and the worlds repentance for our sins to be forgiven in and through Christ that we may have life by His grace and union with Him who is “love”, “light”. and “a consuming fire” forever. God’s plan in salvation will always be above our pay grade. It is from Him, by Him, and to Him, but for us. We get sucked into His plan as we give up on having our plan.
You were concerned with part of it and replied:
“Because the point I have been trying to make. Reality decides.
Bob,S:Nope. Revelation decides.”
Revelation is part of the reality which I was speaking about. Nature, reason, time and space is also part of it. Sorry if there was any confusion.
LikeLike
Sdb,
Finally responding to your post. Sorry for the delay. Hope this doesn’t get to jumbled to respond adiqately. I’ll try and keep all of your last post italicized and have your quotes of me cited in quotes.
https://oldlife.org/2015/07/when-did-christian-america-end/comment-page-22/#comment-338849
@mtx just a few quick comments while I take a short break…
I don’t think I follow the logic here. It seems pretty strained… first, the PCA is not a strict subscriptionist denomination (I don’t know about the OPC). If you dissent on SS, you can still be a member as far as I know, though you couldn’t be an officer (same is true on paedobaptism for example). Now, if you think tithing to a congregation that teaches something you disagree with is support for an idea that you can’t do, that seems to be a different problem. Of course, I’m not sure Paul would agree with you – think about buying meat sacrificed to idols. He didn’t seem to be too worried about how that money would be used to subsidize the worship of false gods. I think we can be too scrupulous about such things.
Yes, I think monetary support when there is some other “church” who agrees with my understanding could be supported would be against my conscience on such a fundamental issue. I also believe as a father and husband to call my family to submit to a leadership which disagrees here would be wrong. I would be raising my children in a faith environment that if they follow what I teach them would make it where none of my descendants could ever hold office would be wrong. They would have to decide between their father’s teaching and the church’s. Not a good spiritual place to put your children.
I don’t follow the IOW here. Maybe I’m misreading you or there is a typo in there I’m not catching? I think I have proven SS from scripture, but even so I don’t see how the action of our denomination would be seen as “persecution”.
“Persecution” was too strong a word on my part. Let’s just go with “rejection as possibly true”.
I wouldn’t think so. That would be a truly remarkable statement! But your church binds the consciences of her members in ways that violate scripture (one example is requiring feast days, holy days of obligation, and fasts when scripture explicitly forbids the church from doing so).
I do have a response to the holy days stuff. Just don’t want us to get bogged down in specifics right now.
To be sure there was new revelation. But when we read about Christ’s criticize the religious leaders of the day, it is almost always by appealing to scripture. Even when he is interacting with Nicodemus where you might argue that he is providing new revelation, he turns back to the scriptures. I do think Christ revealed new things in his preaching, but he was divine after all. I would say that the apostles revealed new things too (like the prophets before them). But just as the prophets certainly said more than they wrote, it is what they wrote that we have to correct everything else…including traditions that may be rooted in what they said.
Again I am in no way saying we can ever allow any tradition to contradict Scripture. No authentic Apostolic Tradition would. You keep pointing to Christ and the Apostles use of the Scriptures though and you admit they were doing more than SS and say we use SS following their example. Both can’t be true. Catholics use the Scriptures to correct bad traditions too.
I’m not making that up. I paraphrasing a friend at ND. There were also similar tie-ins between lenten sacrifices and getting fit on the bulletin boards at Rolfs. I seem to recall Golic kidding along the same lines on Mike&Mike around Lent every year. This was not an uncommon sentiment at all. Criticisms of treating lent like a new year’s resolution were common fodder for the student paper.
I do not doubt the idea exists. Universalizing it seems overly judgmental to me and then to say the Church should drop encouraging a sacrificial spirit during Lent because of it seems bad practice.
Well, I hope the example I’ve sketched out for you convinces you that this is not merely a manmade tradition, but the fruit of faithful exegesis of the full biblical counsel. You may think our exegesis is mistaken (we aren’t infallible after all!), but it is not just made up either. I don’t think you can demonstrate that the church operated completely on “Apostolic Tradition” before the NT in the same sense that the RCC appeals to Tradition today. To be sure, the apostle’s teachings were not immediately inscripturated, but their writings were recognized immediately as scripture (following Peter’s letter for example). Given the requirements to be an apostle, it seems quite clear that this was a unique office. Later teaching could err (doesn’t mean they did, but they could).
I think it is a stretch to say with no hold back that the NT books were “were recognized immediately as scripture”. Were they immediately Scripture? Yes. Could new convert so and so know that? No. I think we can both admit that took some time for that set of Apostolic Tradition settled for new convert so and so to know the canon.
To be sure, tradition was, is, and will be an important teacher, but (T)radition is not only the oral words of the apostles that didn’t make it into print passed down by word of mouth. The tradition developed. These developments are not coming from the Apostles, they are obviously later. These developments are fallible. Since we can’t peal back the layers of these developments to arrive at the pristine words spoken by the Apostles, our understanding of the original apostolic tradition is fallible. Now various branches of the church have developed theories on how the church might be protected from such errors, but the scriptures do not give us any such warrant for these theories and the divergence (and errors) among the early church make this case very hard (in my case impossible) to buy. As I’ve noted, some of these traditions contradict scripture, some have developed quite late, and some are really helpful. It’s a mixed bag in other words. This is why scripture alone is our infallible guide that bind the conscience.
The tradition that is added on or “developed” as you put it, is not what would be considered “Apostolic Tradition”. That would be ecclesiastical tradition and yes it is fallible and can be corrected and evolve. And this: “Since we can’t peal back the layers of these developments to arrive at the pristine words spoken by the Apostles, our understanding of the original apostolic tradition is fallible.” Remembering that we aren’t just talking about words.. This is a job the Holy Spirit can do and Christ has said He will do in the Church. “These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. 26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” When connected with the great commission which is incomplete: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
I quite agree that Scripture is a binding guide, but we fallibly interpret that inerrant truth contained in it. Scripture even states anyone can do so “to their own destruction” particularly regarding the writings of Paul.
Again sorry for the late response.
Michael
LikeLike
Sorry for the really sloppy formatting. I’ll repost if needed for you or anybody at request.
LikeLike
Michael,
I’d be interested in reading it reformatted – it’s tough on the eyes as-is.
LikeLike
Will do, KiN.
LikeLike
Here:
MTX:If your community is supported by me monetarily or otherwise, I am being required to “support and work” to spread an idea, Sola Scriptura, which I find to be contrary to the faith.
Sdb:I don’t think I follow the logic here. It seems pretty strained… first, the PCA is not a strict subscriptionist denomination (I don’t know about the OPC). If you dissent on SS, you can still be a member as far as I know, though you couldn’t be an officer (same is true on paedobaptism for example). Now, if you think tithing to a congregation that teaches something you disagree with is support for an idea that you can’t do, that seems to be a different problem. Of course, I’m not sure Paul would agree with you – think about buying meat sacrificed to idols. He didn’t seem to be too worried about how that money would be used to subsidize the worship of false gods. I think we can be too scrupulous about such things.
MTX:Yes, I think monetary support when there is some other “church” who agrees with my understanding could be supported would be against my conscience on such a fundamental issue. I also believe as a father and husband to call my family to submit to a leadership which disagrees here would be wrong. I would be raising my children in a faith environment that if they follow what I teach them would make it where none of my descendants could ever hold office would be wrong. They would have to decide between their father’s teaching and the church’s. Not a good spiritual place to put your children.
MTX:IOW, all I am asking for is my position to not be persecuted by you or your community. At least, if you can’t be consistent with your own position and prove it from Scripture, that is.
Sdb:I don’t follow the IOW here. Maybe I’m misreading you or there is a typo in there I’m not catching? I think I have proven SS from scripture, but even so I don’t see how the action of our denomination would be seen as “persecution”.
MTX:“Persecution” was too strong a word on my part. Let’s just go with “rejection as possibly true”.
MTX:I have in no way ever been saying we should reject any teaching of Scripture to establish any tradition.
Sdb:I wouldn’t think so. That would be a truly remarkable statement! But your church binds the consciences of her members in ways that violate scripture (one example is requiring feast days, holy days of obligation, and fasts when scripture explicitly forbids the church from doing so).
MTX:I do have a response to the holy days stuff. Just don’t want us to get bogged down in specifics right now.
MTX:Actually the example we are given is the authoritative Christ taught things not contained completely in Scripture and corrected those rejecting Him and those teachings with the Scriptures. It was often when His teaching was being rejected that he then used the Scriptures to protect the Tradition he was creating. The authoritative Apostles sent by Christ were also teaching things not completely contained in the Scriptures. Paul used the Scriptures to establish his Apostolic Traditions. He taught Timothy to do the same.
Sbd:To be sure there was new revelation. But when we read about Christ’s criticize the religious leaders of the day, it is almost always by appealing to scripture. Even when he is interacting with Nicodemus where you might argue that he is providing new revelation, he turns back to the scriptures. I do think Christ revealed new things in his preaching, but he was divine after all. I would say that the apostles revealed new things too (like the prophets before them). But just as the prophets certainly said more than they wrote, it is what they wrote that we have to correct everything else…including traditions that may be rooted in what they said.
MTX:Again I am in no way saying we can ever allow any tradition to contradict Scripture. No authentic Apostolic Tradition would. You keep pointing to Christ and the Apostles use of the Scriptures though and you admit they were doing more than SS and say we use SS following their example. Both can’t be true. Catholics use the Scriptures to correct bad traditions too.
MTX:I have never heard anybody say the “look better for spring break” bit. This seems very presumptive and judgemental on your part, sdb.
Sdb:I’m not making that up. I paraphrasing a friend at ND. There were also similar tie-ins between lenten sacrifices and getting fit on the bulletin boards at Rolfs. I seem to recall Golic kidding along the same lines on Mike&Mike around Lent every year. This was not an uncommon sentiment at all. Criticisms of treating lent like a new year’s resolution were common fodder for the student paper.
MTX:I do not doubt the idea exists. Universalizing it seems overly judgmental to me and then to say the Church should drop encouraging a sacrificial spirit during Lent because of it seems bad practice.
MTX:I have still not seen your position show that me believing SS is a manmade tradition to be in error. What I believe is that SS can not remain consistent with itself to correct this idea, therefore should be rejected. If others do or do not reject SS because of that that is up to them, but I will defend my position. Showing that the Church completely operated on Apostolic Tradition before the NT would seem to put the burden of proof of SS proponents, but maybe you disagree.
Sdb:Well, I hope the example I’ve sketched out for you convinces you that this is not merely a manmade tradition, but the fruit of faithful exegesis of the full biblical counsel. You may think our exegesis is mistaken (we aren’t infallible after all!), but it is not just made up either. I don’t think you can demonstrate that the church operated completely on “Apostolic Tradition” before the NT in the same sense that the RCC appeals to Tradition today. To be sure, the apostle’s teachings were not immediately inscripturated, but their writings were recognized immediately as scripture (following Peter’s letter for example). Given the requirements to be an apostle, it seems quite clear that this was a unique office. Later teaching could err (doesn’t mean they did, but they could).
I think it is a stretch to say with no hold back that the NT books were “were recognized immediately as scripture”. Were they immediately Scripture? Yes. Could new convert so and so know that? No. I think we can both admit that took some time for that set of Apostolic Tradition settled for new convert so and so to know the canon.
Sdb:To be sure, tradition was, is, and will be an important teacher, but (T)radition is not only the oral words of the apostles that didn’t make it into print passed down by word of mouth. The tradition developed. These developments are not coming from the Apostles, they are obviously later. These developments are fallible. Since we can’t peal back the layers of these developments to arrive at the pristine words spoken by the Apostles, our understanding of the original apostolic tradition is fallible. Now various branches of the church have developed theories on how the church might be protected from such errors, but the scriptures do not give us any such warrant for these theories and the divergence (and errors) among the early church make this case very hard (in my case impossible) to buy. As I’ve noted, some of these traditions contradict scripture, some have developed quite late, and some are really helpful. It’s a mixed bag in other words. This is why scripture alone is our infallible guide that bind the conscience.
MTX:The tradition that is added on or “developed” as you put it, is not what would be considered “Apostolic Tradition”. That would be ecclesiastical tradition and yes it is fallible and can be corrected and evolve. And this: “Since we can’t peal back the layers of these developments to arrive at the pristine words spoken by the Apostles, our understanding of the original apostolic tradition is fallible.” Remembering that we aren’t just talking about words.. This is a job the Holy Spirit can do and Christ has said He will do in the Church. “These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. 26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” When connected with the great commission which is incomplete: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
MTX:I quite agree that Scripture is a binding guide, but we fallibly interpret that inerrant truth contained in it. Scripture even states anyone can do so “to their own destruction” particularly regarding the writings of Paul.
Hope that helps, KiN.
LikeLike
4th paragraph from the bottom is part of my response from today too. Sorry.
LikeLike
Zrim, DG-
[kc:] A Pope is infallible when reiterating divine truth.
[Zrim:] So when I say “God is one” I’m infallible (and how do I know that, because the church declared it or because the Bible says so)? Or just right?
[DG:] You haven’t yet explained how a church can be infallible and fallible at the same time
I wasn’t offering a definition, just a true statement. Without looking anything up, I’d say Papal Infallibility (as a special case of the Infallibility of the Church generally) is operative only within the context of a pope doing the job he was elected for and confirmed in – of the three areas of responsibility, we’re at the moment talking teaching.
The following are in the scope of teaching duties for a pope which I take to be protected by PI:
-repeating Scripture and its traditional interpretation (literal, moral, perhaps typological);
-repeating statements of moral principles (& to some extent applying them to specific circumstances);
-repeating the Creeds;
-repeating the Catechisms;
-repeating other traditional statements on various matters (e.g., the I.C.);
-repeating logical inferences from the above which have attained support throughout the Church.
The grounds of our knowledge in these cases can be Councils, Scripture, broad consensus amongst Bishops and faithful (i.e., not dissenters or apostates), and established papal teaching. Obviously nothing can be in opposition to statements of Scripture. And obviously popes don’t make something true by stating it – they are making statements which correspond to reality.
If he is doing anything else, there is no such guarantee –
-arithmetic and tautologies;
-excommunicating;
-offering his thoughts on the harm an overly comfortable lifestyle has done modern societies in which God is largely absent;
-involving himself in historical contingencies like protecting political control of the grain supply in Sicily;
-endorsing a specific work of musicology (e.g. Pius X on chant);
-ordering liturgy be translated into the vernacular (the Novus Ordo may be protected, but its translations were not promulgated by the Pope, e.g. “for all” instead of “for many”);
-endorsing novel vocabulary (cases are usually debatable: “The Church subsists in the Catholic Church,” “ecological conversion”);
-performing miracles;
etc.
I don’t think it is very complicated in its normal course of action.
LikeLike
DG,
Kevin, but you seem to think the truth is settled. James Young says the magisterium is living and that even if the apostles didn’t teach the assumption of Mary the magisterium could and did.
Not sure what you mean by “settled” – the truth is just the truth – and I think your Ratzinger quote offers some clarity on “living.”
I’d prefer to say rather plainly that the truth is independent of our statements about it; in most cases we are able to make additional statements following investigation and reflection; almost always we can derive logical consequences from truths (usually ones not worth the trouble of having a pope make an infallible pronouncement).
So how do you know when a pope teaches universal salvation it isn’t true. Maybe it’s just a later insight.
It would contradict Scripture, tradition, and logic.
You are in the position of Protestants. Truth transcends the pope and the faithful and decide when he is true or false.
Absolutely truth transcends the pope – as do gravity, logic, and the Incarnation – am I missing something in your question?.
We’re all human, and so in the same epistemic position. Hier stehen wir, wir können nicht anders- with the essential exception that we can and must be teachable. This presumes patience and charity. Also we cannot do the Church harm- a principle which only becomes tricky in times of particular difficulty.
That doesn’t cohere with the notion that you don’t know the truth unless the church tells you (i.e., you don’t know Scripture unless the church tells you what Scripture is.)
In a very literal sense, the RCC did indeed teach me what Scripture is, both at Mass every Sunday from infancy and in prayer and discussion of Scripture at home with my parents and family – which is quite proper to include as a subsidiary “domestic church.” That’s the normal course of things for the Church over a long, long time.
Lest you say discussing Scripture at home sounds Protestant, consider how saturated all European languages are with Christian references – it’s not like Protestants first got people thinking about Scripture outside of the Mass and Vespers/Evensong.
how do you know divine truth apart from church authority. Protestants don’t have to answer that question.
I’m not trying to dodge what you see as a puzzle – but I’m not seeing a puzzle. Keep in mind we believe the Bible was written by members of the same Church which is teaching us today. So there is no real question of different origins (e.g., man-made origins) of knowledge for Scripture, Christ, and the Church.
LikeLike
Tex,
You’re all help and no comprehension.
One, the council in Act 15 appealed to the OT. So there goes your argument re. the NT church
Two, the whole selling point of Romanism is that there is no need for these tedious explanations and hair splitting. The pope is infallible, Rome is the one true perfect church and implicit and ignorant faith rocks. (Of course that you have to appeal to our prot private judgement in order to buy in in the first place doesn’t register either, but who’s counting inconsistencies?)
Irony much?
How about Occam’s Razor?
LikeLike
Lest you say discussing Scripture at home sounds Protestant, consider how saturated all European languages are with Christian references – it’s not like Protestants first got people thinking about Scripture outside of the Mass and Vespers/Evensong.
Ever heard of Latin? Or Vat2 when the mass changed from Latin? FTM I can remember singing in Latin, tho I didn’t understand it.
How about the Reformation? Or who was responsible for getting Bibles published in the vernacular, as in the Douay Reims wasn’t until when?
You need to up your game K, this is pathetic.
LikeLike
Keep in mind we believe the Bible was written by members of the same Church which is teaching us today. So there is no real question of different origins (e.g., man-made origins) of knowledge for Scripture, Christ, and the Church.
Major category error.
The building is not the foundation.
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. Eph. 2:20-22
But if the apostolic office – along with its signs wonders and miracles continues – well hello Salt Lake City, the American version of Rome along with Rome itself and its apostolic claims.
That’s funny. I thought the apostles were hand picked eyewitnesses of Jesus.
Never mind, just believe.
LikeLike
Bob,
“Of course that you have to appeal to our prot private judgement in order to buy in in the first place doesn’t register either, but who’s counting inconsistencies?”
You were already corrected on this in an earlier thread – https://oldlife.org/2015/06/2-paradigms-and-a-2k-wrinkle/#comment-330931 – there’s no inconsistency.
“And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,”
Doesn’t get you SS.
“That’s funny. I thought the apostles were hand picked eyewitnesses of Jesus.”
Timothy had apostolic authority.
LikeLike
CVD
Matt. 4:4 does tho. and Eph. 2 eviscerates K’s argument.
And no, my previous remark that provoked yours anticipated your qualify qualify qualify reply.
When the whole question is whether or not Romanism is the religion revealed in the Bible, it begs the question to appeal to PJ, assume Rome passes and then shut PJ down prematurely.
Graham tells us:
Private judgment, in the sense of compiling a creed for yourself out of the Bible, of accepting this doctrine and rejecting that, of judging what should be and what should not be an integral part of the truth revealed by God — this, of course, is entirely forbidden, for it is directly contrary to the method of arriving at the truth instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ….
Well, yeah, we all agree cherrypicking is out, but just how did Christ arrive at the truth, by appealing to tradition and the magisterium?
Hint. Read Matt. 4:4
Next.
Timothy wrote 1&2 Timothy? I never knew.
Along with the accounts in the gospels, Acts 1:21,22 tells us:
Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
The apostles are extraordinary officers, likewise the apostolic NT is on a different level than Rome’s traditions and magisterium.
LikeLike
Texas, popes have contradicted tradition and done so infallibly. The assumption of Mary. The apostles didn’t teach it. It came later as dogma and then became infallible.
So a pope can make up truth. You’re in a pickle.
LikeLike
texas, “That would be ecclesiastical tradition and yes it is fallible and can be corrected and evolve.”
But the assumption of Mary and papal infallibility are ecclesiastical tradition, not found in scripture, and are infallible. Ecclesiastical tradition is like continuing revelation. It can reveal what Scripture doesn’t.
LikeLike
Kevin, if popes have no guarantee on all the other stuff, why do they talk so much and why have we been told repeatedly after Francis’ encyclicals that these are still binding on the faithful.
You are doing the Protestant thing. Here’s the doctrine. Now the church must measure up.
No do the Roman Catholic thing. Here’s the church. This is what she says. Own it.
LikeLike
Kevin, “Absolutely truth transcends the pope – as do gravity, logic, and the Incarnation – am I missing something in your question?”
Doesn’t that mean that God’s word transcends the pope? The bishops are to repeat what the apostles taught? But then you tell us that we don’t know Scripture apart from the church. And you tell us that we can’t interpret divine truth apart from the church.
You’re playing on both sides of the Tiber. But if you’re going to defend the magisterium you need to go all in with its audacity. Plus, popes do make up the truth. The bodily assumption of Mary. Not in Scripture. Not in the early church.
LikeLike
James Young, Timothy did not have apostolic authority.
His authority came from ministering the Word.
LikeLike
Fishtrap Bob,
[kc:] Keep in mind we believe the Bible was written by members of the same Church which is teaching us today. So there is no real question of different origins (e.g., man-made origins) of knowledge for Scripture, Christ, and the Church.
[Bob:] Major category error. The building is not the foundation. “And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets [… Eph 2:20-22 …].”
Agreed the Apostles had a unique role, but I stand by their being a part of the same Church which exercises teaching authority today.
The origin of knowledge is the same whatever generation of Christians you choose – JC speaking to the Apostles, God to the Prophets, transmitted through (non-exhaustive list:) Scripture, scholarly traditions of interpretation, the liturgy, human culture – including the words of parents to their children.
We (you, me, a pope) apply our reasoning to revelation to generate new statements of fact, but these do not include new facts. As long as a pope reiterates these, Infallibility is functional due to the protection promised for passing on the revealed truths.
How is a pope’s position different from the position you or I are in, since we too can reiterate these facts? It is the pope’s job to stand in correction of everyone else (the leading function of the papacy in conjunction with the teaching function, perhaps).
But it is also the job of the Bishops in either a Council or just ordinary teaching to reiterate truths; as well as of the laity – e.g., parents have the responsibility to pass on the faith, adding no new revelation.
So it would really be better to discuss Infallibility of the Church rather than just the pope. There are many more cases to judge of people sticking to truth and departing from it.
LikeLike
Bob,
[kc:] Lest you say discussing Scripture at home sounds Protestant, consider how saturated all European languages are with Christian references – it’s not like Protestants first got people thinking about Scripture outside of the Mass and Vespers/Evensong.
Bob:] Ever heard of Latin? Or Vat2 when the mass changed from Latin? FTM I can remember singing in Latin, tho I didn’t understand it.
Well, you didn’t account for my point, which is that religion permeated the society of Catholic generations and left traces in modern languages- an indication that the Gospel was understood and discussed outside of Mass. This is a very weak claim on my part – just that the Bible was preached and entered the culture.
Regarding Latin, I bet you did understand the following, at least as well as the typical massgoer today understands the English (apologies for an inevitable few typos, this is just what comes to mind):
-Dominus vobiscum
-Et cum spiritu tuo
-Oremus…
-Per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum filium tuum, qui tecum vivat et regnat in unitatem spiritum sanctum, per omnia secula seculorum. Amen.
-Asperges me, Domine, hyssypo et mundabor – lavabis me…
-Gloria in excelsis deo, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis …
-Credo in unum deum patrem omnipotentem…
-Laus tibi, Christe
-Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus, dominus Deus sabaoth – pleni sunt caeli et terra gloria tua. Hosanna in excelsis. Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini.
-Agnus dei qui tollit peccata mundi, miserere nobis
-Pater noster qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum…
-Domine non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantum dic verbo et sanabitur anima mea
-In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum
-Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis.
-Deo Gratias
In the more literate places and periods of our civilization, your knowledge picked up during Mass and Vespers and through asking others what some of it means (normal parental and societal teaching) would have been reinforced through formal lessons – you would have learnt what deponent verbs are (active in meaning while passive in form – mundabor, lavabis, sanctificetur, precor) and what the various noun case endings are.
Education was available to motivated students, even if it meant studying with the parish priest in a village somewhere. Or it could mean lessons with a tutor, or attending a school. Examples include the period before the Roman public school system finally closed in the 6th or 7th century, continuously near Cathedrals and monasteries and near centers of trade and politics, more universally from the 12th century and growth of the universities, and in US cities during the best century of American Catholicism 1852-1962.
Medieval/Church Latin is not really that hard. It was intended to be comprehensible – examples of the first hugely successful vernacular translations (soon becoming sacred).
How about the Reformation? Or who was responsible for getting Bibles published in the vernacular, as in the Douay Reims wasn’t until when? You need to up your game K, this is pathetic.
The RCC was translating the Bible into the vernacular well before printing existed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_into_Latin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_Bible_translations
The later translations and printings in the vernacular are useful, of course. But there is no need to disparage the older Latin-oriented system, especially in a context where the vast bulk of Europeans within Western Europe spoke a Romance-derived language. In the 13th century, the Italians still thought they were speaking Latin.
LikeLike
Kevin, look what you can do with Scripture when you have at your disposal not only tradition but canon law:
LikeLike
K, you’re all wet and drinking the fishcrap.
IOW the mass was all greek to me and we wuz an altarboy. (Vespers? What dat?)
Ignorance
was blissis the mother of Romish devotion and implicit faith is what it is. Contrary to Scripture.To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Col. 1:27,28
Perfect. Not perfectly ignorant.
If christians are to have the mind of Christ, we are not talking about blank.
While love covers a multitude of sin, it also loves the truth.
Bible translation?
Exception and the rule.
Rome generally has not been big on Scripture. (The history of the Reformation is not an apostolic lost oral tradition yet in some circles.)
How can she be?
She says her traditions and magisterium are equal to Scripture, if not the latter infallibly interprets Scripture.
But if Scripture is both written and indispensable Matt. 4:4, show me where the same is said of the T&M.
Which means for you, the usual long slow limping rearguard romanist retreat thru Scripture in the combox, grasping at straws and non sequiturs.
But hey, take courage. The assumption was not taught in Scripture or tradition, but if Ratzinger can swallow it on the basis of papal declaration (right?), so can you.
Open wide.
Seriously, your objections and arguments are a joke.
cheers
LikeLike
DG-
The historical-cultural distinction in legal systems is interesting, but I don’t see justification that the primary purpose of JC’s teachings on marriage was to protect those who didn’t have material sustenance once divorced. This isn’t the mind of the RCC. Sacramental marriages do not strictly “break up” however acrimonious the personal relations becoome.
Kasper is a sign of the troubled times. Sex outside of sacramental marriage is wrong, definitively. To teach otherwise is scandalous and false. Clergy and laity have a duty to resist any supposed Church warrant for it, even if (what I pray and believe will remain hypothetical) given explicitly by Francis.
Canon law is nothing more than administrative code for the RCC- it shouldn’t be exalted.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,” for by professing it some have swerved from the faith.”
Bingo. Which is the point and proclaimed mission of the magisterium and apostolic succession.
“Timothy did not have apostolic authority.”
1 Thess 1:1, 2:6:
“Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you …. We were not looking for praise from people, not from you or anyone else, even though as apostles of Christ we could have asserted our authority.”
“The bodily assumption of Mary. Not in Scripture.”
Not found in Scripture according to your interpretation of Scripture. Rome holds it is implicit in Scripture, and it does not hold that your particular hermeneutic is the only valid way to interpret Scripture to ascertain divine truths (nor would it have any good reason to do so considering you don’t claim it can anyways).
LikeLike
Hart,
MTX:”That[traditions not coming from the Apostles] would be ecclesiastical tradition and yes it is fallible and can be corrected and evolve.”
Hart:But the assumption of Mary and papal infallibility are ecclesiastical tradition, not found in scripture, and are infallible. Ecclesiastical tradition is like continuing revelation. It can reveal what Scripture doesn’t.
Not reveal as in new revelation, but unveil as in uncover. I know you believe those things aren’t part of Aposolic Tradition carried to logical conclusions therefore you believe they must be new revelation, but that is not what Catholics believe. If we did we would be required to reject them by our faith. It maybe what your view and use of SS requires, but SS as you have said is “an inference from what Jesus and the apostles did with the OT canon, and from the self-awareness that sometimes shows up in the NT”. We don’t believe your inference is warranted by Scripture or Tradition and even contradicted by what we read in the Scriptures, therefore we believe it is a bad assumption. Either way an example of a ecclestic tradition that can be changed or evolve would be priestly celibacy or some thing as simple as the advent candle wreath.
LikeLike
Fishtrap Bob,
I’ll confine my responses to your statements which are comprehensible and relevant.
IOW the mass was all greek to me and we wuz an altarboy.
I don’t believe your claim that you did not know what “Dominus vobiscum – et cum spiritu tuo”, “Gloria in excelsis deo”, “Credo in unum Deum” and at least several other of the phrases I posted mean. In any case, the argument from personal ignorance is not a good one.
You’re not the only one with experience of the Latin Mass, or who was an altarboy- you have no special standing here.
Further, when heard week after week, to take Spanish as an example, you’re saying:
“Por que sólo tú eres Santo, sólo tú Señor, sólo tú Altísimo, Jesucristo, con el Espíritu Santo en la gloria de Dios Padre. Amen.”
is comprehensible, but the Latin isn’t:
“Quoniam tu solus Sanctus, tu solus Dominus, tu solus Altissimus, Jesu Christe, cum Sancto Spiritu in gloria Dei Patris. Amen”
-?
Or “Santo Santo Santo” is clear but “Sanctus Sanctus Sanctus” isn’t? In Italian “Agnello di Dio” is clear but “Agnus Dei” isn’t? “Pai nosso” in Portuguese vs. “Pater noster?” I think most of the Mass was widely understood by most Europeans for the majority of history. I’m not overstating the claim by maintaining 100% clarity with all attendees. You can’t achieve that even in the vernacular.
Bible translation? Exception and the rule. Rome generally has not been big on Scripture.
The Mass is filled with Scripture, as you well know – and was read and explained to you in the vernacular at Sunday Mass as a child. You’ve still not addressed that European folk culture imbued the languages with Scriptural references, demonstrating they were not ‘in the dark.’
Seriously, your objections and arguments are a joke.
How? I wouldn’t even say I made ‘arguments,’ just simple statements of historical fact which difficult to dispute. I didn’t argue any theology in the comment.
I don’t think you have a very good knowledge of history or culture, or are interested in learning. You can reject the RCC without being vociferously uncharitable- there are good examples of this position on this very blog.
LikeLike
James Young,
You left out Paul’s line about Scripture. That’s the deposit. Plus, the Catholic Encyclopedia warns about a literal rendering of deposit since it prevents your living magisterium. Yup.
Timothy wasn’t an apostle. But if you’re going to be that living in your construction, make Mary an apostle and make the ladies happy. If she gave birth to Christ, that’a a higher pay grade than Timothy.
Roman Catholic historians don’t hold that it is implicit in Scripture. They know it came later and so does Ratzinger. Cool.
LikeLike
texas, it’s also an inference from the formation of the canon. Why have a canon when you have an infallible interpreter who’s telling me everything the apostles taught.
The Bible has always been a bit of a problem for papal authority.
LikeLike
You’re not the only one with experience of the Latin Mass, or who was an altarboy- you have no special standing here.
Right, K. Look in the mirror.
There’s no question Christianity had a big influence in Europe. The problem is when the Roman Church assumes that it is The Infallible Christian Church, which is what finally led to the Reformation.
Further Erasmus’s translation of the Greek NT had to proceed Luther’s 95 Theses.
Trent proceeded to then elevate the Latin Vulgate over the Hebrew and Greek and only provided vernacular translations because their cause was desperate. Douay Reims was a reaction.
If the essence of propaganda is to leave out the salient details, again are we talking the exception or the rule when it comes to Rome and the bible? Are we talking historical facts? Which you wish to ignore?
So you think it uncharitable.
So what? I don’t care much for lies and Rome and its apologists tell lots of lies.
(Not all of them are deliberate, but really? You’re prepared to vouch for my knowledge of ecclesiastical latin? )
If that makes me a hater, so be it.
The mass is a mishmash of all kinds of stuff and while I can remember the gospel portions from it, the Pauline epistles are notoriously absent. It was all be good moralism.
If you think that is the gospel, you are in for rude awakening, my fren.
LikeLike
Bob S
Posted August 4, 2015 at 5:40 pm | Permalink
“You’re not the only one with experience of the Latin Mass, or who was an altarboy- you have no special standing here.”
The mass is a mishmash of all kinds of stuff and while I can remember the gospel portions from it, the Pauline epistles are notoriously absent. It was all be good moralism.
If you think that is the gospel, you are in for rude awakening, my fren.
According to this
http://www.academia.edu/1574051/The_Liturgical_Development_of_the_Eucharist_in_the_tradition_of_the_Roman_Catholic_Church
epistle readings go back to at least Charlemagne’s time, and Bible readings at least to the 2nd century CE.
LikeLike
T, as a reader in grade school for the daily mass, I remember the missalette containing portions of the gospels, OT, epistles and apocrypha all chopped up and assembled for daily readings. The sermon/homily on Sunday was on the gospels, if anything and the sum total take away was once again: be good. Which, since Rome blurs justification and sanctification, figures.
Most Romanists on the ground understood that tho I might not be privy to their confession or penance. That was the general ethos and continues to be the last time I checked out romanism at a local level.
Lots of God, kingdom, gospel, Jesus talk, but precious little biblical content.
That you can’t pierce the veil of deceit, doesn’t mean everybody is in the same boat with Peter, Mary and the pope.
Besides there wouldn’t be room.
cheers
LikeLike
Darryl,
“You left out Paul’s line about Scripture. That’s the deposit.”
Where is Paul’s line about Scripture or equating it with the deposit in your citation of 1 Tim 6:11-21 that I left out?
“Plus, the Catholic Encyclopedia warns about a literal rendering of deposit since it prevents your living magisterium. Yup.”
Can you tell me where CathEnc says the deposit isn’t fixed or revelation is ongoing?
“Timothy wasn’t an apostle.”
You said “Timothy did not have apostolic authority.” Scripture affirms he and other successors did even as they weren’t inspired and were to guard what was given, which is the whole point of apostolic succession and the magisterium (again).
1 Thess. 1:1, 2:4, 2:6, “Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you …. but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak … We were not looking for praise from people, not from you or anyone else, even though as apostles of Christ we could have asserted our authority.”
Acts 4:14: “But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out among the multitude…”
1 Cor. 3:6, 8: “I planted, Apollos watered … He who plants and he who waters are one …”
1 Cor. 4:6, 9: “I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren… For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death.”
Tit.1:5, 2:15: “This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you …. Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.”
“Roman Catholic historians don’t hold that it is implicit in Scripture. They know it came later and so does Ratzinger.”
The same Ratzinger that said “But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it had not caught sight of previously and yet was already handed down in the original Word.”
Sounds implicit to me. Here’s more from his interview as recorded in The Ratzinger Report:
“The mariology of the Church comprises the right relationship, the necessary integration between Scripture and tradition. The four Marian dogmas have their clear foundation in sacred Scripture. But it is there like a seed that grows and bears fruit in the life of tradition just as it finds expression in the liturgy, in the perception of the believing people and in the reflection of theology guided by the Magisterium.” Yup, definitely not implicit in Scripture he says.
LikeLike
Bob-
Thanks for the reply.
Trent proceeded to then elevate the Latin Vulgate over the Hebrew and Greek
It was norm for liturgical use and scholarship for the Latin Rite, never for Eastern. Greek and Hebrew are hard (Augustine tried to learn Greek and failed, Ambrose succeeded, Pope Gregory as well); even today with all our tools, few learn Greek well. It served Europe well, although more vernacular introduced much earlier (as the Germanic tribes entered, perhaps) may well have been a good thing.
and only provided vernacular translations because their cause was desperate. Douay Reims was a reaction.
Agreed. I’d call it a reasoned reaction to a desparate situation in England.
If the essence of propaganda is to leave out the salient details, again are we talking the exception or the rule when it comes to Rome and the bible? Are we talking historical facts? Which you wish to ignore?
What am I ignoring? The Bible was translated into Old English numerous times, not even counting the vernacular preaching based upon it and which quoted it extensively.
So you think it uncharitable. So what? I don’t care much for lies and Rome and its apologists tell lots of lies.
I despise lies as well as contempt for charity.
(Not all of them are deliberate, but really? You’re prepared to vouch for my knowledge of ecclesiastical latin? )
It seems to me incredible you didn’t understand “dominus vobiscum – et cum spiritu tuo”, repeated throughout the Mass, as well as the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei- at least much of them- which you heard and said every Sunday.
If that makes me a hater, so be it.
Is that the attitude asked of us?
The mass is a mishmash of all kinds of stuff and while I can remember the gospel portions from it, the Pauline epistles are notoriously absent.
Every day of the year an epistle is read before the Gospel. It is usually Pauline.
It was all be good moralism.
Now you’re talking preaching- some preachers are good, some less so.
If you think that is the gospel, you are in for rude awakening, my fren.
Again, the Gospel has been read in the vernacular every Sunday for a long time. Was the medieval Church ideal? Far from it.
LikeLike
James Young, oh, I don’t know, maybe when Paul wrote this and didn’t mention oral tradition:
Anything there about oral tradition? Plenty about writings. Oh well, cool
“the mariology of the church comprises the right relationship, the necessary integration between Scripture and tradition”
And the pope didn’t even say that for you to believe it.
See, the magisterium can make it up.
Here’s your living tradition:
Yup.
LikeLike
DG-
Kevin, if popes have no guarantee on all the other stuff, why do they talk so much
Sometimes they offer suggestions with the intention of benefiting culture, or are trying to direct others to address problems. Sometimes they talk too much and say things they shouldn’t- this used to be less common.
and why have we been told repeatedly after Francis’ encyclicals that these are still binding on the faithful
His encyclicals are quite long and bring together a lot of different things. I think one has to parse them for what is reiterating the teaching of the Church, what is a well-intentioned suggestion, and what is repeating something which may or may not be true (e.g., the science of global warming). This is not how things ought to be, of course.
I’m not convinced Laudato Si really counts as an encyclical, but that’s a question of literary form- you can call a short story a poem, but that doesn’t make it a poem. Perhaps it is an encyclical plus literary essay mixed together.
Why are we told in a simple sense that they are binding? The Spirit of Vatican I, perhaps. What would it even mean for Laudato Si as a whole to be binding?
You are doing the Protestant thing. Here’s the doctrine. Now the church must measure up. No[w] do the Roman Catholic thing. Here’s the church. This is what she says. Own it.
The doctrine comes from the Church – and yes indeed the Church must measure up to Scripture and previously defined doctrines. If these were the times of Pius IX, I’d probably be a de Maistrian (is that a word?) ultramontanist.
But the Church seems to be in retreat from itself, which calls for skepticism (always in conjunction with docility, charity, and patience). The best Catholics can do is return to our intellectual and liturgical roots and then take an honest look at the problems of the present; and then teach and act with confidence.
Kevin, “Absolutely truth transcends the pope – as do gravity, logic, and the Incarnation – am I missing something in your question?”
[DG:] Doesn’t that mean that God’s word transcends the pope? The bishops are to repeat what the apostles taught?
Absolutely.
But then you tell us that we don’t know Scripture apart from the church. And you tell us that we can’t interpret divine truth apart from the church. You’re playing on both sides of the Tiber. But if you’re going to defend the magisterium you need to go all in with its audacity.
Well, insofar as we make the Church a part of ourselves through participation in it – understanding its truths, learning its history, participating in its liturgical life – we are able to think more truly for ourselves.
Perhaps we even come to participate in its infallibility (not sure I’ve read that idea before, so I stand to be corrected- but does this get me off on the charge of not showing audacity?). Again, infallibility is first a characteristic of the Church, from which flows papal infallibility.
Plus, popes do make up the truth. The bodily assumption of Mary. Not in Scripture. Not in the early church.
I guess it depends what you mean by “early church” and what you require for something to be counted as a “seed in the Gospel.”
LikeLike
Hart,
“texas, it’s also an inference from the formation of the canon. Why have a canon when you have an infallible interpreter who’s telling me everything the apostles taught.
The Bible has always been a bit of a problem for papal authority.”
I’ll need to see something on that assertion. It was a pope that called the Scriptures to be translated St. Jerome into the common vernacular of the day in the Vulgate.
“The very first Christian Bible was produced by the Catholic Church – compiled by Catholic scholars of the 2nd and 3rd century and approved for general Christian use by the Catholic Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). The very first printed Bible was produced under the auspices of the Catholic Church – printed by the Catholic inventor of the printing press, Johannes Gutenberg. And the very first Bible with chapters and numbered verses was produced by the Catholic Church–the work of Stephen Langton, Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury.At every Mass in the world everyday, the Bible is read aloud by the priest. In the traditional Mass there is one reading from the general body of the Bible (excluding the gospels), and two from the Gospels. In the modern Catholic Mass, there are two readings from the general body of the Bible and one from the Gospels. All Catholic homes have a Bible and the Bible is taught in Catholic schools (as is its perennial tradition). This myth has come about because Bibles were often locked away in Churches in the past, but that was not to prevent people having access – it was to prevent them being stolen. These were hand written Bibles which were incredibly valuable due to scarcity. Furthermore, people think the Church forbade people from reading the Bible by putting it on the Index of Forbidden Books, but the Bibles placed on the Index were Protestant versions (lacking 7 books) or badly translated versions…” http://listverse.com/2009/07/13/top-10-misconceptions-about-the-catholic-church/
Sounds more like spreading and protecting to me.
LikeLike
texas, then why keep the Bible in Latin and restrict access to it among the laity?
And also, if oral tradition is such a great authority and if the church existed for almost 4 centuries without a Bible, why create one? Didn’t the church mess up, the seeds of its own destruction?
LikeLike
texas, push too hard on oral tradition and you wind up with an invisible church (and there goes all that incarnationality):
LikeLike
Darryl,
“oh, I don’t know, maybe when Paul wrote this and didn’t mention oral tradition:
You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Anything there about oral tradition? Plenty about writings.”
So I didn’t leave anything out from your citation of another passage. Hmm I see “my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and sufferings”, not just writings. Secondly, I see plenty about OT writings but nothing about NT writings so I guess NT – including this very passage – is superfluous. Thirdly, “all scripture” can be translated as “every Scripture” but I don’t foresee you arguing sola 2 Tim 1:1. But if we view Paul’s statement not in an exclusive sense, then of course it makes perfect sense – every passage of Scripture is useful and profitable for teaching and making the man of God complete. And of course that then makes sense of his numerous other appeals and exhortations to follow unwritten tradition as well:
2 Tim 1:3: “What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.”
2 Tim 2:2: “and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”
1 Thess 1:5 “because our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake.”
1 Thess 2:13: “And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.”
2 Thess 2:15: “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”
2 Thess 3:6: “In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.”
Phil 4:9: “Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.”
You cited CathEnc: “This deposit in fact is not an inanimate thing passed from hand to hand; it is not, properly speaking, an assemblage of doctrines and institutions consigned to books or other monuments”
Doesn’t get you ongoing revelation or a deposit that isn’t fixed any more than my citation of Ratzinger does (“handed down in the original Word”), any more than my citation of Newman does: “What then is meant by the Depositum? is it a list of articles that can be numbered? no, it is a large philosophy; all parts of which are connected together, and in a certain sense correlative together, so that he who really knows one part, may be said to know all …. Thus the Apostles had the fullness of revealed knowledge, a fullness which they could as little realize to themselves, as the human mind, as such, can have all its thoughts present before it at once. They are elicited according to the occasion. A man of genius cannot go about with his genius in his hand: in an Apostle’s mind great part of his knowledge is from the nature of the case latent or implicit … I wish to hold that there is nothing which the Church has defined or shall define but what an Apostle, if asked, would have been fully able to answer and would have answered, as the Church has answered, the one answering by inspiration, the other from its gift of infallibility; and that the Church never will be able to answer, or has been able to answer, what the Apostles could not answer….” Cool. Yup.
LikeLike
Hart,
“texas, then why keep the Bible in Latin and restrict access to it among the laity?
And also, if oral tradition is such a great authority and if the church existed for almost 4 centuries without a Bible, why create one? Didn’t the church mess up, the seeds of its own destruction?”
You’ll have to show me this restricted access and Latin was the universal laguage of the reading world in which the Western Church mainly operated. I also never heard if any pope trying to stop the Eastern Church, which was still part of the unified Church, from using Greek. The Church has also never stopped the Maronite rite of the Church from using Arimaic. English is a realitively new kid on the block and 60% of modern English is from Latin. Basically all technical and scientific terms are.
I have not found the Bible to be something messing up the Church. Do people use the Bible to attack the Church? Sure. It is bible interpretation that is used. People use the Constitution and interpretive Law to undermine the founding principles of America too. That doesn’t make the Constitution bad for America. It surely doesn’t mean the American founders were screwing up by writing it, promulgating it and having it ratified.
LikeLike
James Young, “Secondly, I see plenty about OT writings but nothing about NT writings so I guess NT – including this very passage – is superfluous.”
Superfluous is how you view Scripture. Yup.
Cool that a growing deposit doesn’t get you ongoing revelation. It does get you tradition trumping reason and Scripture, as in superfluous — your word, not mine. Yup.
Cool.
LikeLike
Texas, if Latin was the universal language, why did Luther and Calvin make such an impact by translating the Bible into German and French? And you think the common people in England knew Latin?
Here’s Trent on Scripture:
Imagine if the bishops applied that to the Internet. Imagine if you were under that obligation here in the commbox.
LikeLike
MichaelTX
Posted August 5, 2015 at 5:12 pm | Permalink
Hart,
“texas, then why keep the Bible in Latin and restrict access to it among the laity?
And also, if oral tradition is such a great authority and if the church existed for almo
Actually, they were quite right to fear that just any mook would thumb open his vernacular Bible and start telling people what it means. That’s why there are 100s of Protestant denominations, each with their own re-invention of the Christian religion.
Click to access moretyndale.pdf
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Superfluous is how you view Scripture. Yup.”
Um no, I was asserting that’s what the logic of your interpretation leads to regarding the NT.
“Cool that a growing deposit doesn’t get you ongoing revelation.”
Deposit doesn’t grow (again).
“It does get you tradition trumping reason and Scripture, as in superfluous — your word, not mine. Yup. Cool.”
You understand when people examine other positions via internal critique, they don’t actually affirm those words? Yup? Cool.
LikeLike
“why did Luther and Calvin make such an impact by translating the Bible into German and French?”
Alister McGrath: “The magisterial Reformation initially seems to have allowed that every individual had the right to interpret Scripture; but subsequently it became anxious concerning the social and political consequences of this idea. The Peasant’s Revolt of 1525 appears to have convinced some, such as Luther, that individual believers (especially German peasants) were simply not capable of interpreting Scripture. It is one of the ironies of the Lutheran Reformation that a movement which laid such stress upon the importance of Scripture should subsequently deny its less educated members direct access to that same Scripture, for fear that they might misinterpret it (in other words, reach a different interpretation from that of the magisterial reformers). For example, the school regulations of the duchy of Württemberg laid down that only the most able schoolchildren were to be allowed to study the New Testament in their final years – and even then, only if they studied in Greek or Latin. The remainder – presumably the vast bulk – were required to read Luther’s Lesser Catechism instead. The direct interpretation of Scripture was thus effectively reserved for a small, privileged group of people. To put it crudely, it became a question of whether you looked to the pope, to Luther or to Calvin as an interpreter of Scripture. The principle of the ‘clarity of Scripture’ appears to have been quietly marginalized, in the light of the use made of the Bible by the more radical elements of the Reformation. Similarly, the idea that everyone had the right and the ability to interpret Scripture faithfully became the sole possession of the radicals.”
LikeLike
Hart,
There was a bit of an information explosion happening at the time around the printing press proliferation. I don’t think you can give Luther and Calvin’s Bible translation credit for all of that. It also depends if you think Luther and Calvin’s translation(along with missing books and rearrangement) and included commentaries(Calvin’s anyway) were for actually discerning the truth of the Faith. A Catholic thinks largely these are terrible effects. Though much good does come from having the Scriptures in the hands of more people, bad things can happen with the way one can get them. As a reformed Christian you just think lacking the basic Protestant idea is bad. That is your tradition. It is not as though the Church did not want the Scriptures knowledgable taught, though. It was just that the Church wants them taught truthfully. Reformed and we just disagree with what that is.
5th Lateran Ecumenical Council(1517): We command all who undertake this task of preaching, or will later undertake it, to preach and expound the gospel truth and holy scripture in accordance with the exposition, interpretation and commentaries that the church or long use has approved and has accepted for teaching until now, and will accept in the future, without any addition contrary to its true meaning or in conflict with it. They are always to insist on the meanings which are in harmony with the words of sacred scripture and with the interpretations, properly and wisely understood, of the doctors mentioned above. They are in no way to presume to preach or declare a fixed time for future evils, the coming of antichrist or the precise day of judgment; for Truth says, it is not for us to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority.
I bet you would agree the OPC even requires those who would “undertake this task of preaching” preach in accord with certain interpretations of Christianity(WCF), which would be in accord with “interpretations, properly and wisely understood” by “doctors” of the Reformed understanding of Christianity(like Calvin). I even bet in the same position at the time you are talking about, if the OPC was as the universal Church, practices would have be implemented to stop Catholic interpretations and practices from spreading and happening. That did happen in the places the authorities adopted the Reformation, including Geneva. (From what I have heard anyway. Please correct if I have heard wrong).
LikeLike
James Young, well, get back to me when you cite Scripture next and have the approval of your bishop. Cool.
LikeLike
James Young, so you’re still reading the Bible in Latin and complying with the Index of Books? Yup?
LikeLike
texas, just own your history. It’s not as progressive as you think. Discontinuity at Vatican 2. And you were fooled. Don’t get fooled again.
LikeLike
DG-
And you think the common people in England knew Latin?
England was, along with Spain, one of the best-catechized parts of Europe before the switch in religion.
It’s difficult to evaluate the level of knowledge of the common person at this remove – and given the vast quantities of documents destroyed. What we know is that many were willing to die for the Mass:
— Michael Matt, The Remnant (August 2013).
Michael Davies has a great lecture on the 1549 Western Rising: http://www.keepthefaith.org/detail.aspx?ID=991
The Pilgrimage of Grace of 1536 is another example (wiki article is ok). Two significant episodes of English history little-taught, while the totalitarian police state run by Elizabeth is glorified in the popular mind.
Turning from the historical to the present day, we also know that lifelong familiarity with the Latin Mass makes the vast majority of it quite familiar.
Did they “know Latin”? If you’ll grant they loved the Mass, you’ll need to grant they knew it. Not as a scholar would, but certainly in a way that transmitted the faith.
Have most Protestants since the Reformation shown a greater sticking power to the Christianity reflected in their liturgy than their contemporary Catholic generations showed with the Latin Mass?
LikeLike
Kevin, Protestants are as committed to the Bible as RC’s are to the Mass, maybe more so.
And here I thought it was oral tradition that Protestants left out. In the end, it’s about replicating the OT Temple.
Say hello to the Messiah.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted August 5, 2015 at 6:43 pm | Permalink
The Peasant’s Revolt of 1525 appears to have convinced some, such as Luther, that individual believers (especially German peasants) were simply not capable of interpreting Scripture. It is one of the ironies of the Lutheran Reformation that a movement which laid such stress upon the importance of Scripture should subsequently deny its less educated members direct access to that same Scripture, for fear that they might misinterpret it (in other words, reach a different interpretation from that of the magisterial reformers). For example, the school regulations of the duchy of Württemberg laid down that only the most able schoolchildren were to be allowed to study the New Testament in their final years – and even then, only if they studied in Greek or Latin. The remainder – presumably the vast bulk – were required to read Luther’s Lesser Catechism instead. The direct interpretation of Scripture was thus effectively reserved for a small, privileged group of people. To put it crudely, it became a question of whether you looked to the pope, to Luther or to Calvin as an interpreter of Scripture.
The. End. Whether it’s the pope or Luther, the great mass of men have to take somebody’s word for it. So by what means?
Where in the Bible is Luther prophesied? That after 1500 years, the Church would be in error and the Holy Spirit would send a savior? [Sola scriptura, right?]
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html
LikeLike
DG –
Kevin, Protestants are as committed to the Bible as RC’s are to the Mass, maybe more so. And here I thought it was oral tradition that Protestants left out. In the end, it’s about replicating the OT Temple.
I’m not intending to question either your ideal or the OPC, or to get into a battle of stats regarding reality at various years, present included.
I am simply making the claim that the Latin Mass effectively preserves the faith at least as well as vernacular liturgies do, and that we have centuries of data to attest to this. The form of liturgy isn’t everything, but it is quite a lot. I think you agree with that.
Say hello to the Messiah.
Why not visit him yourself? Looks like 12:15 at St. Mary, Star of the Sea in Jackson, Michigan:
http://www.ecclesiadei.org/masses.cfm#Michigan
Or if you’re vacationing in Philly or NYC, I’d be happy to introduce you to one of the Latin Mass sites from Holy Innocents in NYC’s Garment District, to Jersey City & West Orange, to Camden (Merchantville) & Berlin NJ. OL of Consolation in Italian Market is worth a visit.
Chaput has even been celebrating the old form in Philadelphia Cathedral (as will the Archbishop of Miami in a couple of weeks).
The Latin Mass is back in. Funny how assisting at the old form correlates to fidelity, particularly in those born after Vatican II.
LikeLike
Kevin, that’s like your opinion that the mass preserves the faith. How? Show us. The Reformers thought it idolatrous. Now you tell meeeeeEEEE it preserves the faith. Did you forget where you were? (And if RC’s don’t abstain from contraception, you think they are really following the Mass in Latin or the vernacular?)
I do hope to visit him one day, but in the meantime he sent his Spirit. Peter also departed.
LikeLike
DG-
Kevin, that’s like your opinion that the mass preserves the faith. How? Show us.
How about starting with the points I raised in the last few posts before I take an hour writing something else?
But how about the freefall of Baptisms in France (where about 50% identify as Catholic, although only 5% seem to be practicing, half of which is at SSPX Masses): fewer than 1 in 3 infants are baptized (don’t ask me whether the methodology excluded non-Christians Muslims, but still).
Not a ringing endorsement for the vernacular liturgy (the form I most frequently attend, btw) or its communication of the fundamentals of the faith.
The Reformers thought it idolatrous. Now you tell meeeeeEEEE it preserves the faith. Did you forget where you were?
Bob S raised the subject of the Latin Mass – you think he of all people would let me forget the conversational context?
(And if RC’s don’t abstain from contraception, you think they are really following the Mass in Latin or the vernacular?)
I think those who flaunt the teachings of the RCC are unconcerned to live in the graces offered (more simply, they’re fooling themselves).
The old form much more effectively reinforced Catholic identity and in so doing, gave Catholics a clear sense of being responsible to a standard different than that of non-Catholics.
LikeLike
Hart,
I think history teaches well that both sides of the reformation struggled doing right. Got plent if bad from Catholics. I own it as Catholic history. Do we have plenty of Catholics failing to believe dogma after VII? Yes. Do we have “the Church” teaching against dogma? No. I’m not going be one of the Catholics who starts rejecting dogma. Why would anyone reject what they believe are the gifts of God. Canon of inerrant Scripture is one of those gifts. I’ll keep it and know it is infallibly known. Still yet to see the canon question resolved without tradition, nor the establishment of SS from Scripture. We have established that God ordained at one point the believer to operate completely on believing Appstolic Tradition from an authorized Church leadership though.
You asked Clete about him reading only the Latin Bible. This is not required of us to only read the Vulgate. Here is a quote from an archbishop from Honduras.
We have to remember, as pointed out in the statistics, more than 50% of the world’s Catholics are to be found in the American continent. With four major languages and about 200 minor languages, we are faced with a very variable panorama of Biblical translations.
Spanish is certainly one of most spoken languages by Catholics throughout the world. It is therefore very important to have texts adapted for many millions of people. Currently in America there are 26 versions or translations approved by the Catholic Church that can be found in different bookshops.
Portuguese is one of the most popular languages in America and currently has 12 translations of the Bible.
English is spoken in the United States, Canada and in a large part of the Caribbean and Central America. There are 5 translations of the New Testament, 1 Book of Proverbs, 6 of the Book of Psalms and 2 complete Bibles.
French is spoken officially in Canada and in various Caribbean countries. A total of 8 versions of the Bible in French are in circulation.
LikeLike
<and the Bible is taught in Catholic schools (as is its perennial tradition).
Nope. Had the RC version of situational ethics.
OK, the nun in first grade went through some of the Bible stories, but that was about the extent of it.
i>You’ll have to show me this restricted access and Latin was the universal laguage of the reading world in which the Western Church mainly operated.
“Universal” and “reading world” are the weasel terms. The clergy knew Latin while the common people were generally illiterate. And then there’s the argument that Rome wanted to restrict the Bible to responsible readers – priests who had their bishops permission – not everybody. So which is it?
And you think the common people in England knew Latin?
England was, along with Spain, one of the best-catechized parts of Europe before the switch in religion.
It’s difficult to evaluate the level of knowledge of the common person at this remove – and given the vast quantities of documents destroyed. What we know is that many were willing to die for the Mass:
Knowing Latin and being willing to die for the Romish mass are two different things.
Think superstition, however well meant.
I am simply making the claim that the Latin Mass effectively preserves the faith at least as well as vernacular liturgies do, and that we have centuries of data to attest to this.
Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
1 Corinthians 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
“Centuries of data” or the testimony of Scripture.
Hater Bob reports, you decide.
Bob S raised the subject of the Latin Mass – you think he of all people would let me forget the conversational context?
Rather Latin vs. the vernacular whether the mass or Bible translations.
Further, Rome’s priority is the mass/eucharist/sacrament ex opere faith; Protestantism is Scripture/preaching/sermon, understanding faith.
Scripture is the Word of God written, given to the church, which she is a steward of, not a sovereign over, from which she is to preach and teach sound doctrine i.e. the traditions/deposit according to that infallible written word.
Whereas Rome thinks Scripture, church and teaching are all on the level or equal, if not that she as the infallible interpreter pretty much rules the roost. Ergo Sola Ecclesia.
LikeLike
Kevin, if you look at a lot of the good work done by RC historians on parish life before Vatican II, I think you’ll find a number of factors that reinforced RC identity. In the case of Robert Orsi’s Madonna of 115 St., I think the Mass was background to the Madonna and probably also to ethnicity and ghetto thickness.
LikeLike
texas, but it was RC bad that was responsible for the discontent that produced the Reformation. Alexander VI and the Renaissance popes. A poor church for the poor might actually think about the wealth that the papacy acquired and how it ruined the curia.
You have yet to show how tradition doesn’t wind up being self-serving for the magisterium (and all the popes like Alex VI or even Benedict XVI and what he knew about the priest sex scandal). Americans know that rulers need to be checked. Roman CAtholics like you don’t know that when it comes to the church. Your account of tradition makes popes unaccountable. Are Protestants supposed to be surprised that bad things happen in Rome?
But I also asked James Young about whether he (and you) check with your bishop/s about your use of Scripture at OL. It’s what the magisterium taught.
LikeLike
Hart,
I don’t think our Father in heaven will take the “he started it first” excuse any more than I do from my kids. Have we had bad popes? Yes. I have already said popes will be judged more seriously than any other men. We have had bad presidents too. Enduring them has not made us less American. It has shown how American we are. I am not saying a pope or bishop is above civil or moral law. As a matter if fact they should be held to a higher severity of the law. God be merciful to us and them for out failures.
Regarding check with a bishop on every OL scripture usage. We are in a different age in history, but imprimaturs are still used by Catholic authors, especially theological works or catechisms. Though I think you may be confusing a discipline put in place during a certain age and thinking it is irrevocable dogma. It is not dogmatic that Catholics get a imprimatur on spreading the Gospel. Clete can inform me if I am using some Scrupture against the faith and if we can’t resolve it, we can “take it to the Church”. What we are doing is quite incouraged as long as it is done with “gentleness and respect”.
DECREE ON THE APOSTOLATE OF THE LAITY
APOSTOLICAM ACTUOSITATEM
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965
1. To intensify the apostolic activity of the people of God,(1) the most holy synod earnestly addresses itself to the laity, whose proper and indispensable role in the mission of the Church has already been dealt with in other documents.(2) The apostolate of the laity derives from their Christian vocation and the Church can never be without it. Sacred Scripture clearly shows how spontaneous and fruitful such activity was at the very beginning of the Church (cf. Acts 11:19-21; 18:26; Rom. 16:1-16; Phil. 4:3).
Our own times require of the laity no less zeal: in fact, modern conditions demand that their apostolate be broadened and intensified. With a constantly increasing population, continual progress in science and technology, and closer interpersonal relationships, the areas for the lay apostolate have been immensely widened particularly in fields that have been for the most part open to the laity alone. These factors have also occasioned new problems which demand their expert attention and study. This apostolate becomes more imperative in view of the fact that many areas of human life have become increasingly autonomous. This is as it should be, but it sometimes involves a degree of departure from the ethical and religious order and a serious danger to Christian life. Besides, in many places where priests are very few or, in some instances, deprived of due freedom for priestly work, the Church could scarcely exist and function without the activity of the laity.
An indication of this manifold and pressing need is the unmistakable work being done today by the Holy Spirit in making the laity ever more conscious of their own responsibility and encouraging them to serve Christ and the Church in all circumstances.(3)
…10. As sharers in the role of Christ as priest, prophet, and king, the laity have their work cut out for them in the life and activity of the Church. Their activity is so necessary within the Church communities that without it the apostolate of the pastors is often unable to achieve its full effectiveness. In the manner of the men and women who helped Paul in spreading the Gospel (cf. Acts 18:18, 26; Rom. 16:3) the laity with the right apostolic attitude supply what is lacking to their brethren and refresh the spirit of pastors and of the rest of the faithful (cf. 1 Cor. 16:17-18). Strengthened by active participation in the liturgical life of their community, they are eager to do their share of the apostolic works of that community. They bring to the Church people who perhaps are far removed from it, earnestly cooperate in presenting the word of God especially by means of catechetical instruction, and offer their special skills to make the care of souls and the administration of the temporalities of the Church more efficient and effective.
…This apostolate should reach out to all wherever they may be encountered; it should not exclude any spiritual or temporal benefit which they have the ability to confer. True apostles however, are not content with this activity alone but endeavor to announce Christ to their neighbors by means of the spoken word as well. For there are many persons who can hear the Gospel and recognize Christ only through the laity who live near them.
…15. The laity can engage in their apostolic activity either as individuals or together as members of various groups or associations.
16. The individual apostolate, flowing generously from its source in a truly Christian life (cf. John 4:14), is the origin and condition of the whole lay apostolate, even of the organized type, and it admits of no substitute.
Regardless of status, all lay persons (including those who have no opportunity or possibility for collaboration in associations) are called to this type of apostolate and obliged to engage in it. This type of apostolate is useful at all times and places, but in certain circumstances it is the only one appropriate and feasible.
…17. There is a very urgent need for this individual apostolate in those regions where the freedom of the Church is seriously infringed. In these trying circumstances, the laity do what they can to take the place of priests, risking their freedom and sometimes their life to teach Christian doctrine to those around them, training them in a religious way of life and a Catholic way of thinking, leading them to receive the sacraments frequently and developing in them piety, especially Eucharistic devotion.(1) While the sacred synod heartily thanks God for continuing also in our times to raise up lay persons of heroic fortitude in the midst of persecutions, it embrace them with fatherly affection and gratitude.
…24. The hierarchy should promote the apostolate of the laity, provide it with spiritual principles and support, direct the conduct of this apostolate to the common good of the Church, and attend to the preservation of doctrine and order.
Indeed, the lay apostolate admits of different types of relationships with the hierarchy in accordance with the various forms and objects of this apostolate. For in the Church there are many apostolic undertakings which are established by the free choice of the laity and regulated by their prudent judgment. The mission of the Church can be better accomplished in certain circumstances by undertakings of this kind, and therefore they are frequently praised or recommended by the hierarchy.(2) No project, however, may claim the name “Catholic” unless it has obtained the consent of the lawful Church authority.
Hart,
I think you will readily agree neither me nor Cletus have claimed to be “the Catholic Church”. We are both just weak servants and members of Christ accountable to His Church, His Word, and the Tradition. This accountibity is a good thing for you and us. Check out what we say with the Church. Correct us if we are in error. If we need correcting or stopping it can be done in an orderly way. BTW, using Tradition in a self-serving way can most definately be done. I can lead my home in a self serving way too. That does not mean family order and the headship of the father in the home is not God ordained. It just means when Jesus knock on the door there will be more sever punishment for those who have “beat the servants” of the Master.
LikeLike
Bob S –
The clergy knew Latin while the common people were generally illiterate.
The common people got university educations and participated in government:
University education was more widespread than at any time before WWI:
Keep in mind university courses were taught in Latin at the time – so spoken Latin was incredibly widespread in England in the 13th century.
Source is Walsh, The Thirteenth: Greatest of Centuries, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38680/38680-h/38680-h.htm#58
Granted it is quite old a book, and it assumes a bit of Darwinism in the intro. I would welcome an authoritative contemporary treatment of the subject, even should it weaken my argument. Still, I believe the general picture would hold – the 13th century (to pick one) was not a time of the RCC keeping England in darkness.
Scripture is the Word of God written, given to the church, which she is a steward of, not a sovereign over, from which she is to preach and teach sound doctrine i.e. the traditions/deposit according to that infallible written word.
I agree with this statement as far as dictionary defs go. It’s a pity we don’t agree on the applicability of the statement to the RCC.
LikeLike
DG –
Kevin, if you look at a lot of the good work done by RC historians on parish life before Vatican II, I think you’ll find a number of factors that reinforced RC identity.
Agreed, but the Mass is central in the sense in that it brings together almost everything else – Scripture reading, sermons/instruction, interaction with the full community in one place, etc. When liturgy is done rightly, it reinforces all other aspects of the faith.
In the case of Robert Orsi’s Madonna of 115 St., I think the Mass was background to the Madonna and probably also to ethnicity and ghetto thickness.
Funny you should mention OLMC E. Harlem, I’m there all the time. Haven’t read Orsi, but sitting in front of me on my office desk at work as I write this (the only book on my desk, actually) is a limited-run history of the parish, Domenico Pistella’s The Crowning of a Queen, published on E. 115th St in 1954.
If Orsini deals significantly with the OLMC Feast itself, then keep in mind that it was and is still a very special event with special signification. One would expect the characteristics particular to the event to be emphasized when attendees explained why they were there.
The tens of thousands of attendees it used to draw went to their own parishes for the Mass, but came to OLMC E Harlem specifically for the Feast – not for day-to-day parish life or even a typical parish feast. The parish itself isn’t even a typical parish – it is one of just a handful of pontifical shrines in North America (along with OL of Guadalupe) – i.e., it’s a pilgrimage site.
Further, Italian Americans in the US Northeast are an atypical case of pre-VII Mass attendees – a community which had undergone significant dislocation following the illegitimate destruction of the Naples-based political order by the King of Savoy, northern Italian capitalists, and antireligious revolutionary groups – who as a result, left their homeland from time immemorial.
Also that they were a community coming to a country in which the language, folkways, educational system, political system, economy, and urbanism were radically different. Even the RCC church leaders were mostly American-leaning Irishmen rather than Roman-leaning fellow southern Italians of the type they were used to.
All of that leads to an understandable emphasis on particular ethnic traditions, rather like the case of the Dutch American church leaders you posted recently about who were working to preserve liturgy and music in Dutch because they believed it would help maintain their P&R faith (correct me if I misread the article, I didn’t have much time to study it).
LikeLike
Darryl,
In the case of Robert Orsi’s Madonna of 115 St., I think the Mass was background to the Madonna and probably also to ethnicity and ghetto thickness.
I read that for a history class called Saints, Relics, and Miracles as an undergrad at a public university. Fascinating book as I remember. Focused a lot on the matriarchs of the family and how they held the real power in the families, as I remember. Also impresses on one the sense that Roman Catholicism, for all its “catholicity,” is really more of cultural thing than an actual belief system in so many cases. I continue to be amazed at how many people over the years have told me that their religion is “Catholicism” or that they are “Catholic” even though the only connection to the church they had was that they were baptized and maybe confirmed. Just goes to show how irrelevant RC theology really is to the vast majority of RC laity. And they have the superior paradigm?
LikeLike
Robert, I don’t disagree but as I have my being in the PCA and watch the leadership’s theology melt down to being incarnational and missional, it seems like everyone is being afflicted by sentiment and the southern wing has as much cultural particularlity as any ethnic RC group. Evangelicalism never had one, but the PCA is rapidly losing it’s confessional orientation. Then on the other side you have the group that’s being consumed by it’s W-w’s such that that it is being flattened even if touting a greater philosophical sophistication in their flattening to the reformed evanjellyfish. At some point, at least the RC’s have the mass and we have, what?
LikeLike
Thanks for cheering me up, Sean.
Nominate for most depressing post of the week
LikeLike
texas, weak. Bad popes, bad presidents. Have you heard about the clerical sex abuse scandal? It’s that sort of always giving the hierarchy a mulligan that I think cultivates these shrugs of shoulders. Obviously, you disagree. But if Rome is supposed to be the perfect society, if the vicar of Christ is supposed to save the church and the world from error, you don’t just give him a pass.
And the fifteenth century papacy was a mess. Why? Because of its assertions of supremacy and not being accountable.
Times have changed? You don’t need a bishop’s approval? Well, popes are still getting a pass. You need to to legitimate your conversion narrative.
LikeLike
Robert, yes, the identifying as Roman Catholic instead of Christian is also troubling. Funny how Christian is more catholic, and Roman Catholic is more sectarian.
LikeLike
Robt. see below. Think II. RC essentially is an externally/culturally if not ethnically orientated religious veneer painted over the self righteous natural man. It not only inoculates him against gospel, because he’s heard all the god talk before and it meant absolutely nothing, if it does not confirm him in his moralistic conceits. What’s not to like?
Kevin, think Lollards, Wycliffe, Huss and Tyndale.
Next tell me if the humble parents of the students that excelled and became magistrates, knew Latin also.
Nobody questions that the academic language was Latin until even after the Reformation.
But the majority of the people were not academics.
In short, you got your Rome colored glasses on.
Everything can be explained away, except for the fact that because Rome is infallible, all this confusion and questioning is supposed to be unnecessary. That only happens with protestants, who according to Bryan are ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth because, because, because they do not have an infallible magisterium.
IOW Rome’s magisterium is infallible and all that is required of the laity is implicit faith.
Works for most romanists I know and Rome when I knew it. Why doesn’t it work for you?
LikeLike
Bob S –
RC essentially is an externally/culturally if not ethnically orientated religious veneer painted over the self righteous natural man.
Would you say Catholics and the Reformed are essentially different ethnicities, then?
Kevin, think Lollards, Wycliffe, Huss and Tyndale.
I think of Lollards every time I see solipsistic suburban young men walking in groups, e.g. to an NJ Devils game as I walk home (not that their intentions are to do evil).
Why not think of John Gower (Chaucer’s great contemporary), who likens “this new sect of Lollardy” to an unhealthy tree branch [modernization of spelling mine]:
Next tell me if the humble parents of the students that excelled and became magistrates, knew Latin also.Nobody questions that the academic language was Latin until even after the Reformation.
But the majority of the people were not academics.
I’ll admit more than that, from the same source. Regarding reading and writing:
(So those who sought book learning had a path open to them, and those who sought technical training had a path open to them. I think this is superior to the contemporary paradigm where either you go to college or you are considered ill-fit for society.)
Everything can be explained away, except for the fact that because Rome is infallible, all this confusion and questioning is supposed to be unnecessary.
Well, many open questions remain in theology, some mysterious (truly unknowable), but I wouldn’t call it confusion in the sense that anything coming from Rome which addresses things necessary or profitable for salvation is confusing. I acknowledge you completely disagree, seeing numerous incoherences.
That only happens with protestants, who according to Bryan are ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth because, because, because they do not have an infallible magisterium.
I wouldn’t put it that way (I’m not and have never been named “Bryan”).
I think Catholics and Protestants both come gradually to knowledge of the truth (which again, obviously I should think, is as external to us as gravity or arithmetic).
You believe the magisterial teachings contain statements which are incorrect; and worse that it is presumptuous of the RCC to claim infallible teaching authority (correct me if I am wrong). I believe teaching infallibly (in the context of my other comments) is a role assigned by Christ at the establishment of the Church.
This doesn’t address the difference in worship, which seems to me to be the fundamentally irreconcilable issue between us.
IOW Rome’s magisterium is infallible and all that is required of the laity is implicit faith.
Works for most romanists I know and Rome when I knew it. Why doesn’t it work for you?
Not sure I follow the premises. I’m happy to admit an evaluation and affirmation based on reason was certainly not the cause of my accepting the RCC’s authority to teach (I was raised to trust the RCC – not in an an exaggerated or unlimited way – both explicitly and by example).
But I think as we mature we’re expected to use our intelligence to understand the truths of the faith. This includes re-evaluating what we were taught as children, and goes well beyond that- as far as we can go, to an extent varying according to the person’s abilities and station in life.
LikeLike
Hart,
I’m out of town right now, so I don’t know how much keeping up with the posts over the next few day I will do, but my being Catholic “conversion story” is in no trouble. It can’t be until someone can establish SS from Scripture or the canon without Tradition or show contradiction in Catholic dogma. None of those things are happening. I am glad at least sdb is able to stay on the Tradition/SS conversation. He will get back to it when he can. I would think your foundation would interest you, Hart. If anybody sees sdb posting let him know I did make a post for him on page 25 here. I am glad for the place to interact, Hart. Peace,
Michael
LikeLike
@mtx – sorry about that. I hadn’t seen your post. I’ll respond now…
LikeLike
MTX:Yes, I think monetary support when there is some other “church” who agrees with my understanding could be supported would be against my conscience on such a fundamental issue. I also believe as a father and husband to call my family to submit to a leadership which disagrees here would be wrong. I would be raising my children in a faith environment that if they follow what I teach them would make it where none of my descendants could ever hold office would be wrong. They would have to decide between their father’s teaching and the church’s. Not a good spiritual place to put your children.
sdb – I see what you’re getting at. I agree for the most part. I would agree with a baptist too! If your conscience accuses you, then don’t do it. I think I posed this question to you before, and I apologize for not remembering your response. Know that I’m not trying to trap you, I am sincerely wondering how you work this out. Dreher talks about how during his time in Dallas he was constantly having to correct what the priest taught in the homily for his kids as they were driving home from church “Actually the church doesn’t teach what father X said.” He also recounts the time he was excoriated by his priest in confession for not using birth control. I have heard over and over, of course there is dissent in the church – that isn’t what we mean by unity (road to hell is paved with skulls of bishops is the the phrase right?). Anyway, when you are in a diocese where the Bishop teaches in contradiction to the church (think San Jose) when does your responsibility for the spiritual well being of your children require you to remove your children from the local church and go to a place where the gospel is faithfully taught? Further, by various estimates 95% of RCs in the US dissent from basic RC doctrine on things like transubstantiation, birth control (a biggie), the trinity, etc… RCIA classes are notorious in many places for not being sound. Is it really the case that the teaching and catechesis your children get from a typical RC church doesn’t require your kids to decide between their father’s teaching and what they are taught in church? I know parish shopping is a thing (at ND there was a real difference in the ethos at the progressive church that was all about social gospel, the one that offered the Latin mass, and the “mainstream” services at the Basilica. But that kind of shopping isn’t available everywhere, and I’m left unconvinced that insofar as that describes the on the ground reality, the unity is really all that greater than what exists among protestants.
Fair enough, but we may find it instructive to return to this at some point.
I disagree with your last statements. The church is built on the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets with Christ as the chief corner stone. What they did was different from everything else. There can only be one foundation. But we are given an example of Christ correcting false traditions. I am not aware of him ever appealing to extra-canonical sources, appealing to tradition, etc… it was always to the scriptures. His revelation was himself and a confirmation that the scriptures had been fulfilled – but the authority to which he appealed when he identified and corrected the “traditions of man” was always the scriptures. So it does seem to me that the example Jesus does give us Sola Scripture. Again, SS doesn’t say that our only source of information is the bible. It says that everything else must be judged against that and that one can’t bind another’s conscience on something not taught therein (or deducible of course). Once we move beyond scripture, we need to be very careful and we shouldn’t bind another’s conscience with this.
My point wasn’t that therefore one shouldn’t be encouraged to fast. We prots have a lot to learn from you guys about spiritual disciplines I think. The issue is turning it into a binding requirement that leads inexorably into a form of legalism so that the good underlying intentions are lost. Don’t get me wrong – traditions are great! I love tradition, and traditions like lent can be very helpful. But when they are turned into binding rules (e.g., it is now sinful to eat meat on Friday) problems emerge.
I should have been clearer – I would say that the apostles recognized one another’s writings as scripture immediately. Of course the new convert might be confused or mistaken about all sorts of things (the same is true today – how many Christians think the OT is irrelevant at best or describing a different God from the NT?). But I think the churches recognized these apostolic writings as holy writ from the get go. It isn’t simply that Peter referred to Paul’s writings as scriptures, but rather that he assumed his readers recognized them as such. There is a reason some were circulated and others (Paul’s other letter to the Corinthians) were more or less forgotten.
I was trying to give a fair rendering of Cardinal Newman’s understanding of doctrinal development, but perhaps I butchered it. I’m not sure the distinction between apostolic tradition and ecclesiastical tradition is as clean as you imply. There are pretty sharp distinctions (infallible dogma) declared by Rome that is rejected by the Orthodox as it has not been part of their tradition (IC, PI, and transubstantiation come to mind). Further, Rome has declared certain truths dogmatically and then heavily qualified them later to change the meaning of what is being claimed. This strikes me as a major problem – the evolution of the particularism expressed in the Athanasian Creed to the emphasis on culpability in the second vatican council is really problematic.
Amen. A bit more “fear and trembling” as we search the scriptures and work out our salvation would be wise for us all!
LikeLike
Thanks for the response,sdb. Will get back when I can. Our posts are getting long. I think I will need to minimize and digest. Hope I don’t under address your thoughts. I will seek to focus in on the most important stuff though.
LikeLike
Sdb –
Not trying to hijack your conversation with Michael, but:
Dreher talks about how during his time in Dallas he was constantly having to correct what the priest taught in the homily […] when does your responsibility for the spiritual well being of your children require you to remove your children from the local church and go to a place where the gospel is faithfully taught?
Do as much of the following as is necessary, with respect and without delay: Speak to the priest privately, discuss with fellow parishioners and leave their level of involvement up to them, write your Bishop, write Rome (this does sometimes work), find a new parish (for the majority of US Catholics possible; Eastern rites are permissible).
In the hypothetical case this doesn’t work and you live 2 hours from a tolerable parish (a situation I think is very unlikely), and indeed while doing the above, establish a Bible + Catechism study group at the parish, make your donations directly to Rome rather than the parish (a completely acceptable practice) and make it known to the priest and fellow parishioners and Bishop that’s what you’re doing.
If necessary, leave with your family after the Gospel reading, skip the sermon, and return for the Creed and the Eucharist.
In Confession tell the priest you do not seek advice, just the standard form of the sacrament (list your sins, profess sorrow and affirm intent to amend, priest says “I absolve you in the name of the father, the Son, and the holy spirit”).
Further, by various estimates 95% of RCs in the US dissent from basic RC doctrine
Would you consider Reformed someone who similarly denied defined fundamentals?
Is it really the case that the teaching and catechesis your children get from a typical RC church doesn’t require your kids to decide between their father’s teaching and what they are taught in church?
I doubt it to the extreme. Disgruntled Catholics share their thoughts on the internet and in person. The overwhelming majority of instruction is (in my tolerably broad experience of contemporary US Catholic life) ok, not where it should be, but not heretical. RCIA is for adults, by the way; CCD or PSR is for children.
I’m left unconvinced that insofar as that describes the on the ground reality, the unity is really all that greater than what exists among protestants.
I don’t know enough to affirm otherwise, but don’t take the point to be crucial.
LikeLike
Kevin,
Again, you elide the point and miss the forest for the trees.
Rome is all about the external. Hence the ethnic angle.
Two, Rome has never been good re. the vernacular. Think implicit [ignorance] faith.
Lollards? But no mention of Wycliffe? See above.
Yes, Scripture can be abused by both individuals.
And institutions.
Think anabaptists.
And Rome.
The allusion to Bryan Cross is to the first of a number of ex P&R prots whose whole raison d’etre is championing the thesis that Rome’s infallible magisterium puts a stop to all the questions and confusion inherent to protestantism. So self appointed fallible lay interpreters that they are of the ineffable, invincible, and infallible magisterium, their incessant drumming and harangue is most necessary, edifying and perspicuous. But not boring, lame and a contradiction of their chief presupposition.
Which really turns out to be, it wouldn’t be reasonable if Christ didn’t leave an infallible authority to guide his church.
Well, he did.
WCF 1:10. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined and in whose sentence we are to rest; can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
( Matt. 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 31. 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.)
Which we know first from the testimony of Scripture, not because it is reasonable per se.
LikeLike
sdb,
Sorry for the delay in responding. Have been really busy. I am transitioning from homeschooling my children to entering them in a Catholic school which I will begin teaching at. Very promising for the future, but it is quite a change in our world. None of my four kids have ever been in a school. I promise I will get to responding when the dust settles.
Pax Christi,
Michael
LikeLike
@mtx Funny that I just saw your post. Good timing as I think this thread is more or less dead. I’m sure we can pick up when the dust settles, though perhaps in another thread. Taking care of the kiddos (including getting them adjusted to a new school) is far more important than anything that goes on here. We are trying a hybrid approach with out high schooler (mix of online at home and traditional school). We’ll see how that goes!
LikeLike
MichaelTX
Posted August 13, 2015 at 11:03 pm | Permalink
sdb,
Sorry for the delay in responding. Have been really busy. I am transitioning from homeschooling my children to entering them in a Catholic school which I will begin teaching at. Very promising for the future, but it is quite a change in our world. None of my four kids have ever been in a school. I promise I will get to responding when the dust settles.
Pax Christi,
Michael
sdb
Posted August 13, 2015 at 11:09 pm | Permalink
@mtx Funny that I just saw your post. Good timing as I think this thread is more or less dead. I’m sure we can pick up when the dust settles, though perhaps in another thread. Taking care of the kiddos (including getting them adjusted to a new school) is far more important than anything that goes on here. We are trying a hybrid approach with out high schooler (mix of online at home and traditional school). We’ll see how that goes!
Two good men, I’ll watch your dialogue with interest. Cheers, bros.
It’s always about aspiring to be on God’s side–despite our corrupt human reason, yet through the glass darkly. All those who were destroyed under Hitlerism, under the Japanese Empire–the Holocaust, the Rape of Nanking–was God not on their side?
On the salvation tip, some believe some are “elect” and the rest are fucked, You might be elect, but even if pray you for God’s mercy upon your children, your prayers are moot.
Prayers are moot.
LikeLike
Thanks for posting again here guys… I’d missed Bob S’s reply.
LikeLike
Bob-
There are no forests in Newark, although we have great parks
Again, you elide the point and miss the forest for the trees.
I did elide your point, but because I’m not sure you or others are seeing the trees- which causes you to mischaracterize the forest. I also didn’t want to be too wordy, but I’ll be wordy now.
13th-century Catholics did not typically understand Latin, yet they were preached to in the vernacular and heard the Gospel preached year after year on the same readings, and it became a part of them. I don’t think it is fair to say they had no interior spiritual lives because most couldn’t read. What position are we in to judge their relationship to Christ?
The RCC Christianized England, bringing it knowledge of the Gospel. The sincerity of the Anglo-Saxon conversion can’t justly be doubted. How is it the RCC’s fault they couldn’t read? It did heroic and praiseworthy work, particularly in education.
Human society was predominantly oral, as it was in the time of the apostles, as arguably it is now (in our audiovisual age)- how many come to Christ today from reading the Bible without interaction in a religious community? As long as the truth of Christ is relayed faithfully in word – where of course we have significant theological and liturgical disagreements – doesn’t that satisfy the Apostolic injunction to convert all nations and save souls?
Two, Rome has never been good re. the vernacular. Think implicit [ignorance] faith.
Rome – not Byzantium – often encouraged the vernacular, e.g. for the Eastern Slavs. Poland got Christianity from Germany, so used Latin. Rome also encouraged vernacular for much later missions worldwide.
That said, particularly on the Continent at earlier times when society was a mess I won’t deny there was a simplistic attitude of the nobles rule, the clergy pray, the common folk work and obey. This was never an ideal, and the 10th century in particular is lamentable.
Can you tell me what you mean by implicit faith (what CTCers have argued for, I guess) and what your objection is? I’m not familiar with the concept.
Wycliffe was a troublemaker with novel ideas. He called the Eucharist “an effectual sign” (scriptural citation?), advocated significant state oversight of a novel ecclesiastical structure, sent laymen out to preach on his own authority, and – what wasn’t novel – offered entirely unoriginal criticisms of ecclesiastical wealth which saints throughout Europe also urged on Rome.
He advocated state appropriation of Church property, believing it was sinful for clergy to own land, and his arguments were used to justify the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. He was ordered to cease preaching, and retired to a quiet life of writing in Latin and English, dying unmolested.
The allusion to Bryan Cross is to the first of a number of ex P&R prots whose whole raison d’etre is championing the thesis that Rome’s infallible magisterium puts a stop to all the questions and confusion inherent to protestantism. […]
Sounds annoying. At your suggestion, I visited CTC. I think things are more interesting here, but I won’t hesitate to annoy them likewise if I see anything interesting enough to comment on.
Which we know first from the testimony of Scripture, not because it is reasonable per se.
It certainly does have a power not of this world. And it is good to have the vernacular, because Greek is rather tough, for me and Augustine, at least.
LikeLike
Bob-
There are no forests in Newark, although we have great parks
Again, you elide the point and miss the forest for the trees.
I did elide your point, but because I’m not sure you or others are seeing the trees- which causes you to mischaracterize the forest. I also didn’t want to be too wordy, but I’ll be wordy now.
13th-century Catholics did not typically understand Latin, yet they were preached to in the vernacular and heard the Gospel preached year after year on the same readings, and it became a part of them. I don’t think it is fair to say they had no interior spiritual lives because most couldn’t read. What position are we in to judge their relationship to Christ?
The RCC Christianized England, bringing it knowledge of the Gospel. The sincerity of the Anglo-Saxon conversion can’t justly be doubted. How is it the RCC’s fault they couldn’t read? It did heroic and praiseworthy work, particularly in education.
Human society was predominantly oral, as it was in the time of the apostles, as arguably it is now (in our audiovisual age)- how many come to Christ today from reading the Bible without interaction in a religious community? As long as the truth of Christ is relayed faithfully in word – where of course we have significant theological and liturgical disagreements – doesn’t that satisfy the Apostolic injunction to convert all nations and save souls?
Two, Rome has never been good re. the vernacular. Think implicit [ignorance] faith.
Rome – not Byzantium – often encouraged the vernacular, e.g. for the Eastern Slavs. Poland got Christianity from Germany, so used Latin. Rome also encouraged vernacular for much later missions worldwide.
That said, particularly on the Continent at earlier times when society was a mess I won’t deny there was a simplistic attitude of the nobles rule, the clergy pray, the common folk work and obey. This was never an ideal, and the 10th century in particular is lamentable.
Can you tell me what you mean by implicit faith (what CTCers have argued for, I guess) and what your objection is? I’m not familiar with the concept.
Wycliffe was a troublemaker with novel ideas. He called the Eucharist “an effectual sign” (scriptural citation?), advocated significant state oversight of a novel ecclesiastical structure, sent laymen out to preach on his own authority, and – what wasn’t novel – offered entirely unoriginal criticisms of ecclesiastical wealth which saints throughout Europe also urged on Rome.
He advocated state appropriation of Church property, believing it was sinful for clergy to own land, and his arguments were used to justify the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. He was ordered to cease preaching, and retired to a quiet life of writing in Latin and English, dying unmolested.
The allusion to Bryan Cross is to the first of a number of ex P&R prots whose whole raison d’etre is championing the thesis that Rome’s infallible magisterium puts a stop to all the questions and confusion inherent to protestantism. […]
Sounds annoying. At your suggestion, I visited CTC. I think things are more interesting here, but I won’t hesitate to annoy them likewise if I see anything interesting enough to comment on.
Which we know first from the testimony of Scripture, not because it is reasonable per se.
It certainly does have a power not of this world. And it is good to have the vernacular, because Greek is rather tough, for me and Augustine, at least.
LikeLike
@TVD
I don’t think anyone believes that. You misunderstand the reformed doctrine of election if that is how you understand it, and I’m not sure it is all that different from the RC understanding – certain threads of the RC tradition anyway. The idea is that because of the sinful nature we inherited from Adam, no one seeks God, all we like sheep have gone astray and all that. Like Milton’s satan, in our natural state we would rather reign in hell than bow in heaven.
Now out of humanity, no one will seek God “unless the Father draws him”. My own sense is that we all get exactly what we want, but it requires a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit to cause us to want to bow the knee. God elects people by working through various means – the prayers of his people, preaching of the gospel, etc… These are effective means to bring those he has chosen to salvation. We have no idea who is elect, but we pray and witness to (for example) our children in the confidence that God is loving and merciful. Our prayers are never moot.
There is mystery there to be sure. But I don’t think it is any more mysterious than the question of how we reconcile a scientific description of nature with the idea that not a bird falls from the sky apart form the will of our Father in heaven. God’s providence does not entail fatalism. God working his will through natural means gets us part of the way there, but I think eventually we have to be satisfied with the answer he gives Job… He’s God. J.I. Packer has a nice little book titled, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God that discusses this issue that you might find interesting.
This isn’t to say that if you just understood this doctrine better, you would find it palatable. To be sure, this theme runs through scripture: The disciples didn’t choose Christ, Christ chose them as he said; Israel was chosen – the book of Hosea gets at this in a pretty dramatic way; of course this thread runs through Paul’s epistles particularly the infamous passage in Romans 9, and perhaps the most clearest statements about divine election coming in John 6 (no one comes to me unless the Father draws him….everyone the father has chosen will come to me). The interesting thing in this passage is that after he made these remarks, people bailed.
I think this is why Paul refers to the Gospel as offensive, a stumbling block, foolishness, etc… to many people.
LikeLike
sdb,
I’ll pray it goes well with your hybrid approach. We will always stay that way to a degree. There are things even in the Catholic private school setting that I will supplement. They will be loosing their Latin studies if I don’t. One thing I was really sad about… no Latin? Hey you may look into the Great Books Program by Angelicum. He can get college credit during high school. It has theology classes too, but they are Catholic. You guys could always not take those, but there is discussion online and stuff with a group for the courses. We intend on our kids switching to that program in High School. The school we are jumping into only goes to 8th grade. Here is the link anyway, if you want to check Great Books out. http://www.angelicum.net/great-books-program/overview-of-the-program/
LikeLike
BTW, I would prefer staying on this thread with our discussion. If you don’t catch my response, I will find you around and let you know.
LikeLike
sdb,
Here is a syllabus for the program. If you scroll to the bottom you can see the books they read. I hope I can go through all the books with my kids when they are in high school. The Institutes by Calvin are even in the Theology course.
LikeLike
oops… forgot the link.
Click to access ACE-48-Course-Info1.pdf
LikeLike
“Prayers are moot.”
sdb
Posted August 14, 2015 at 9:34 am | Permalink
@TVD
I don’t think anyone believes that. You misunderstand the reformed doctrine of election if that is how you understand it, and I’m not sure it is all that different from the RC understanding – certain threads of the RC tradition anyway. The idea is that because of the sinful nature we inherited from Adam, no one seeks God, all we like sheep have gone astray and all that. Like Milton’s satan, in our natural state we would rather reign in hell than bow in heaven.
Now out of humanity, no one will seek God “unless the Father draws him”. My own sense is that we all get exactly what we want, but it requires a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit to cause us to want to bow the knee. God elects people by working through various means – the prayers of his people, preaching of the gospel, etc… These are effective means to bring those he has chosen to salvation. We have no idea who is elect, but we pray and witness to (for example) our children in the confidence that God is loving and merciful. Our prayers are never moot.
There is mystery there to be sure. But I don’t think it is any more mysterious than the question of how we reconcile a scientific description of nature with the idea that not a bird falls from the sky apart form the will of our Father in heaven. God’s providence does not entail fatalism. God working his will through natural means gets us part of the way there, but I think eventually we have to be satisfied with the answer he gives Job… He’s God. J.I. Packer has a nice little book titled, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God that discusses this issue that you might find interesting.
This isn’t to say that if you just understood this doctrine better, you would find it palatable. To be sure, this theme runs through scripture: The disciples didn’t choose Christ, Christ chose them as he said; Israel was chosen – the book of Hosea gets at this in a pretty dramatic way; of course this thread runs through Paul’s epistles particularly the infamous passage in Romans 9, and perhaps the most clearest statements about divine election coming in John 6 (no one comes to me unless the Father draws him….everyone the father has chosen will come to me). The interesting thing in this passage is that after he made these remarks, people bailed.
I think this is why Paul refers to the Gospel as offensive, a stumbling block, foolishness, etc… to many people.
How can it be a stumbling block when God chooses who he wants with “irresistible grace?”
How can prayers not be moot when God does as he will?
LikeLike
TVD,
“Two good men, I’ll watch your dialogue with interest. Cheers, bros.”
Thanks. I think the same of sdb as well. I have appreciated interacting with him.
LikeLike
@tvd
Good questions. I doubt I can answer them satisfactorily for you. I would say that God’s actions are generally mediated through nature. So his will is effected by prayer. Just like his will for a hair to fall from your head is effected by gravity (and age). One analogy I like to draw on is the answer to why the car stopped. One answer might be “because the light turned red”. Someone else might retort, “yeah, but the *real* reason is because someone pushed the brake pedal”. Then the physicist pipes up and says…no, it is because the force of friction exceeded the propulsion and the car decelerated to a stop.
In a sense they are all right and in a very important sense they are all incomplete. Why is someone saved? Well because God called him. That’s true, but it isn’t the whole story. It might also be because his parents prayed for him, had him baptized, took him to church, and taught him the faith by word and deed. It might also be because he recognized that he was a sinner in need of grace, repented of his sins, and placed his faith in Jesus. All of these statements are true, but each of them on their own is incomplete. I understand that the analogy with the car breaks down, but I think it includes important elements that help clarify the relationship between God as the ultimate cause and proximate causes.
Now what about those who don’t come to faith? Is it because we didn’t pray hard enough? Is it that God just didn’t like him? Maybe he was just to dim to recognize his need for a savior? I really don’t know. I would like to believe that everyone is predestined for salvation, but unfortunately, the scriptures don’t give us that option. I don’t think God really created anyone in his image simply to damn them. I think we have it in us (every last one of us) to do that ourselves. Perhaps the greater mystery is why God chooses to save any of us. That’s hard to get our western, rights obsessed minds around (at least mine!).
LikeLike
@mtx&tvd – knock it off, you’re making my wife wonder why I’m blushing while purportedly cruising a theology blog!
LikeLike
& thanks for the link. It looks like they are doing great stuff!
LikeLike
sdb
Posted August 14, 2015 at 10:46 pm | Permalink
@tvd
How can it be a stumbling block when God chooses who he wants with “irresistible grace?”
How can prayers not be moot when God does as he will?
Good questions. I doubt I can answer them satisfactorily for you. I would say that God’s actions are generally mediated through nature. So his will is effected by prayer.
I have no idea what any of this means, but I think I like it.
Now what about those who don’t come to faith? Is it because we didn’t pray hard enough? Is it that God just didn’t like him? Maybe he was just to dim to recognize his need for a savior? I really don’t know.
The nature of most of my questions hereabouts. Someone was telling me today about a Mafioso in her neighborhood when she was growing up. Scared the shit out of her just to be in the same room. Dead eyes, like a shark. Maybe some souls do choose annihilation, I thought, a theological alternative to the tortures of hell for all eternity, and more merciful?
I would like to believe that everyone is predestined for salvation, but unfortunately, the scriptures don’t give us that option.
That gets problematic, as I watch believers argue the Bible against each other, argue the Bible against itself. Google “Biblical basis for universal salvation.”
You can’t all be right!
I don’t think God really created anyone in his image simply to damn them.
Now that makes a lot more sense than Carl Sagan and the SETI people wondering why God would “waste” so much space and matter and time, just to create a universe for humanity to marvel at and not have ETs and shit.
Not a waste atall atall. Sagan said “billions upon billions” to try to describe the scale of the universe. But hell, in just the past few years we’ve run up a national debt of $18 trillion–more than could be counted on all the fingers and toes of every human ever born. God still leaves man’s tiny mind unimpressed.
I think we have it in us (every last one of us) to do that ourselves. Perhaps the greater mystery is why God chooses to save any of us. That’s hard to get our western, rights obsessed minds around (at least mine!).
How about the first question–why did he choose to create us in the first place? The greatest expert on Buddhism in the UK returned to Christianity [westernism] because Buddhism doesn’t and cannot attempt to answer the First Question
And not to overdo the ‘Catholic” part of this: It’s about the “western” and the Christian, compliments of our friend Aquinas. It’s so easy to take what you’ve been given for granted.
http://www.wiseattention.org/blog/2012/06/01/when-a-buddhist-becomes-a-catholic-reflections-on-paul-williams-conversion/
LikeLike
vd, t, you need to convert to Roman Catholicism to believe in meaning? What if you believe in meaning that says your are a sinner before a righteous God?
Heck, I can get meaning from PBS. Don’t need to go to church for it.
LikeLike
sdb,
I haven’t forgot about us over here. Hope to get into it again soon. Doping a couple of links for you to look at. First one is a Benedict XVI talk.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6997
LikeLike
Click to access Sacred%20Tradition.pdf
LikeLike
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/wilhelm_scannell_04.html
LikeLike
Lookie here. Scripture preceded the church:
LikeLike
Article doesn’t seem to say anything about the temporal chronology of the NT Scriptures coming before the Church, Hart. Are they eternally known by God? Yes. Could/did authors know they were writing inspired text? Why not. This does not seem to touch on what we have discussed here. Temporal chronology is what we are talking about. Pentecost was before any NT text ink. Just like Mary’s birth was before Jesus’s even though He was an eternal being and she was non-existent and then created at her conception. No matter how it can be cut… Jesus was born after Mary and the NT Scriptures was written after the NT Spirit indwelt Church of God. The Gospel could not be read before it was Apostolic Tradition.
LikeLike
sdb,
Hope you catch this. Seems like I will need to just start whittling at the response instead of getting the time to really address all that I would like at once. Here goes…
sdb:“when does your responsibility for the spiritual well being of your children require you to remove your children from the local church and go to a place where the gospel is faithfully taught? Further, by various estimates 95% of RCs in the US dissent from basic RC doctrine on things like transubstantiation, birth control (a biggie), the trinity, etc… RCIA classes are notorious in many places for not being sound. Is it really the case that the teaching and catechesis your children get from a typical RC church doesn’t require your kids to decide between their father’s teaching and what they are taught in church? I know parish shopping is a thing (at ND there was a real difference in the ethos at the progressive church that was all about social gospel, the one that offered the Latin mass, and the “mainstream” services at the Basilica. But that kind of shopping isn’t available everywhere, and I’m left unconvinced that insofar as that describes the on the ground reality, the unity is really all that greater than what exists among protestants.”
MTX: I see the significance of those concerns most definitely. I will say the dissent is not as significant as perceived in what is heard in homilies during Mass in my experience. I think mainly because it is a expansion and explanation of an actual set of texts in Scriptures that a priest or deacon enlightening. Can it happen? Sure, but I have never heard any teaching from the altar against Church teachings on morality or dogma in 4 1/2 years. Practice of traditions and bad taste in attitude of the priest? Yes. Nor have I gotten anything against dogma/morals from a priest in confession. Though I don’t go to confession to find out what is not sin. I go for what I know is sin in me and I’m not there for a priest to excuse me. No need to give them a chance if they did in my opinion. I’m not confessing to them anyway. I’m confessing to the Father through Christ. If you know the Church teaches it… who cares. We aren’t there to hear a priest’s confessions.
I would most definitely avoid a parish or priest who teaches against the faith. This would easily be worth driving an hour or two to get to a sound parish if needed. I can’t imagine anywhere in America where an hour and half of driving couldn’t get a family to a great parish without leaving the Catholic Church.
I’ll try to get to some of the substantial stuff soon.
Peace,
Michael
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Lookie here. Scripture preceded the church:”
That article said nothing of the kind. Revelation precedes the church. Akin’s argument that the inspired writers knew they were writing Scripture doesn’t entail Scripture preceded the church.
LikeLike
Michael,
Glad to see you back. Agreed on your posts. I’ve been at a number of liturgies over the years I wouldn’t raise my child attending (saccharine music, improvised comments, sometimes jokey tone, muddled sermons) but clear heresy or dissent never.
I’d be interested to know if what I wrote to sdb just above on the same subject seems right to you: https://oldlife.org/2015/07/when-did-christian-america-end/comment-page-27/#comment-341293
LikeLike
Quite agreed with that comment, Kevin. Glad to have you as a brother in battle. We aren’t called the Church Militant for nothing.
Hoping to land in the Church Triumphant by grace with you,
Michael
LikeLike
Mtx, sure it does. It’s making the point that WHEN Paul wrote Scripture was happening.
LikeLike
James Young, really. Is that the RC intellectual tradition at work? So Paul knew that he was writing Scripture once the council gave him the green light? Cool.
LikeLike
Hart,
Really back to not understanding you. YES, when Paul was writing Scripture was happening. BUT… this was after the preached Holy Spirit inspired Gospel was being preached, believed and lost sould accepted and were baptized. The Church was Apostolic Tradition formed before it was in any way NT Scripture formed. Make sense?
LikeLike
Hart,
I even believe that the Scriptures were word for word known by God from all eternity. What they weren’t was “Revelation” until the text was written. They did not exist in time for humanity to know until writtten by the NT authors. This did not happen until after Pentecost by many years. In “time” the Church was before the NT texts.
LikeLike
Q
http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Synoptic_Problem.htm
LikeLike
Darryl,
Paul’s letters addressed … wait for it … existing churches. Dun dun dunnnn.
LikeLike
Mtx, what’s so hard. Paul wrote Scripture before the council formed the canon. See what I did there (and Jimmy Akin)? Scripture before church.
LikeLike
James Young, Cool. Paul was writing before the church adopted the canon. Sweet.
LikeLike
DG, the last time we discussed this point it took about a week and the thread crashed.
As I recall, SDB and Jeff pointed out quite rightly that what matters is not the medium but content and authority. As the verbal teaching is no longer accessible to us, our sole primary sources for apostolic teaching are limited at this point to texts- the texts of Scripture.
If additional texts were found meeting the criteria of Scripture, they potentially could be admitted. Of course, then we’d have to seriously revisit the criteria for something qualifying as Scriptural (or else rest on an unthinking appeal to tradition). In fact I’m not sure whether serious arguments have been made for or against admitting the Didache and Shepherd of Hermas.
I truly don’t get the reluctance to admit the view that the Chruch was founded at Pentecost (or on the Cross itself, when blood and water flowed from Jesus’ side), the faith was spread through preaching and celebrations of the Eucharist, the texts of Scripture were intended to complement preaching, and the texts of Scripture retain a uniquely privileged position since they are the sole primary documentation we have of Christ and the apostles.
Was the preaching of the apostles any less divinely inspired than their writings?
LikeLike
MTX :I go (to confession) for what I know is sin in me and I’m not there for a priest to excuse me. I’m not confessing to them anyway. I’m confessing to the Father through Christ.
Your statement seems inconsistent with Catholic teaching?
“Pope Francis will allow Catholic priests to forgive women who have had abortions. In a letter released Tuesday, the pope granted priests the “discretion to absolve of the sin of abortion those who have procured it and who, with contrite heart, seek forgiveness for it.” The church strictly opposes abortion and Catholic women who have had abortions can be excommunicated..So Francis said all priests will be given “the discretion to absolve the sin of abortion” during the church’s upcoming Year of Mercy, which starts Dec. 8 and runs through Nov. 20 of next year…Msgr. Kieran Harrington, a spokesman for the Brooklyn Diocese, said in most places a woman seeking forgiveness for an abortion would have to first confess to a priest. He, in turn, would then write the bishop asking that her excommunication be lifted.” http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/catholic-priests-forgive-women-abortions-pope-article-1.2344068
and misunderstanding seems to abound about the nature of repentance?(same article):
At St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Gabriella Sassi welcomed Francis’ words.“I’m very happy because it’s a personal choice,” said Sassi, 41, who was visiting from Sorrento, Italy. “I never did it, I have four children, but if one thinks it’s what they should do, they should.”
LikeLike
Ali –
MTX is right in line with teachings. Catholics believe it is God who forgives. The priest serves as an instrument.
To spell it out a bit, the Sacrament of Penance (aka Confession or Reconciliation) is a mini but true judicial process. The penitent is self-accuser, the priest the judge. Of course the priest-as-judge is bound 100% by God’s law (as expressed in Catholic moral teachings).
He must be authorized to forgive sins, know the facts (which sins were committed, the gravity of the sins, their number/habitualness, and whether the penitent is sincerely sorrowful), and give sentence (whether the sin is retained or forgiven). If the priest judges that the penitent is sincere, he grants absolution- he is bound to do so, more strongly even than civil judges are bound by common law (i.e., on pain of disobedience to God).
– John XX
So it is God’s law and authority, God’s forgiveness, with Confession as the instrument for reaching man. If the Apostles and inheritors of their authority are to be able to carry out Jesus’ instructions in John XX, there has to be a process for doing so.
LikeLike
Back to my regular email not working here. Hope this doesn’t turn out a duplicate. Anyway…
Hart,
“Paul wrote Scripture before the council formed the canon.”
Somehow even with all the talking about this we have done in the past you have missed my position and still don’t understand my point. I agree with your statement above completely. It was Scripture when the ink was still wet. What the NT books weren’t was written before the Apostolic Tradition Gospel was preached by Holy Spirit indwelt and sent teachers and then believed and then souls were baptized and saved from damnation by the indwelling Spirit which enlivens sinners dead in sin and trespasses. Souls saved by the Gospel before any books of the NT was written means…. The Church(adopted people of God) before NT books to interpret and derive the Gospel from anything except OT prophecy and Apostolic passed teaching and interpretation. It is the same two things that informed the faithful of the early Church of how to address knowing the books of the canon. Help?
LikeLike
Mtx, first, Scripture could be written before there are congregations of believers. The congregations didn’t produce Scripture. Why is that controversial.
Second, all this Holy Spirit indwelling teachers and souls being baptized is a long way from the magisterium and the claim that councils gave us the Bible. The apologists’ argument is that the council gave us the canon. Well, the apostles gave us the canon. To say the council did is historically silly.
LikeLike
DG,
Scripture could be written before there are congregations of believers
It could be I’m misunderstanding something, but you’re saying no congregations of believers existed before the NT was written?
The earliest NT letter 1 Thessalonians was written around 50 to the Church at Thessalonica which Paul had already spent significant time in evangelizing- the letter in its first section demonstrates the existence of other congregations as well.
You could argue this demonstrates nothing more than that there was a congregation in Thessalonica and individual believers in Macedonia, Achaia, and “everywhere”, but I think the more likely reading in the context of Acts is that congregations had already sprung up in a number of places.
the apostles gave us the canon. To say the council did is historically silly.
The apostles wrote the canon, but they didn’t define it – otherwise wouldn’t we have had a settled canon much earlier in Church history? Fathers were quoting the Didache, a Letter of Barnabas, 1 Clement, and a number of other praiseworthy but non-Scriptural works as Scripture, apparently unaware of the difference.
Great care was taken with the text of Scripture – if the apostles had made a list of what should have been included, surely care would have been taken with that as well.
LikeLike
Kevin: Can you tell me what you mean by implicit faith (what CTCers have argued for, I guess) and what your objection is? I’m not familiar with the concept.
Happy Sunday. The Catholic doctrine of implicit faith is two-fold. First, this
182 We believe all “that which is contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church proposes for belief as divinely revealed” (Paul VI, CPG, § 20).
183 Faith is necessary for salvation. The Lord himself affirms: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk 16:16). — CCC
In other words, it is necessary to believe all that the church teaches, because the Church teaches it. In fact, per Aquinas, it is not even necessary to *know* what the church teaches, so long as one is ready to believe it upon the authority of the church.
Second, post-Vatican-2, the Church teaches that pagans may have implicit faith im Christ and be saved thereby.
—
http://www.vatican.va/archive/books/threshold_hope/documents/chap13.html
LikeLike
Jeff – I just posted a reply, but I think for some reason it got stuck in DG’s filter (maybe too many blockquotes).
In the mean time, not sure whether you saw my 3 replying posts and spreadsheet at: https://oldlife.org/2015/08/why-kuyperians-dont-like-2k/comment-page-8/#comments
LikeLike
Kevin, Scripture existed before the canon. Scripture existed before congregations were formed in Hillsdale, MI.
“Fathers were quoting the Didache, a Letter of Barnabas, 1 Clement, and a number of other praiseworthy but non-Scriptural works as Scripture, apparently unaware of the difference.”
You know that for sure?
LikeLike
@ Kevin: Just saw them now, will take some time to digest them. Thanks.
LikeLike
MTX: It is the same two things that informed the faithful of the early Church of how to address knowing the books of the canon. Help?
Well, part of my confusion is that we appear to be jettisoning the OT as scripture when we say that “the church precedes scripture.”
Another part of my confusion is that the argument that “the church precedes scripture” is that the canonization process is adduced as evidence for that claim. And as DGH points out (and you agree), scripture was scripture before the church declared it to be so.
So the “church produced the canon” argument is null and void.
A third part of my confusion is that while I can agree that the apostles clearly took Jesus’ instructions and wrote them (hence, the people preceded the Scripture), we have no evidence that the apostles organized themselves under the primacy of Peter. In fact, it was some time until there were metropolitan bishops at all.
So “the church” in the sense that Catholics mean it did not, apparently, precede the Scripture.
Given all of that, I can’t tell what you mean.
LikeLike
And as DGH points out (and you agree), scripture was scripture before the church declared it to be so.
And all sorts of non-scripture was “scripture,” too. This argument goes nowhere.
So the “church produced the canon” argument is null and void.
“Produced” is unhelpful here. It took the Church to canonize the canon. No one denied that the post-Apostolic era didn’t write the authentic scriptures. The claim is that it took the guidance of the Holy Spirit to separate the wheat from the chaff.
https://lareviewofbooks.org/review/timely-history-timeless-story
…the problem of pseudo-epigraphical Pauline writings. Early Christians attributed to Paul other works that he did not write. Later followers added them to the New Testament on the assumption that the famous apostle wrote them. These works of pseudonymous authorship open up questions about how, when, and by whom these books were chosen to become part of the Bible. Even though Christians have read them now for almost two millennia, they first appeared from the pens of imposters. Perhaps most crucially, the inclusion of works with intentionally deceptive claims to authorship raises moral as well as historical questions.
By the end of the first century CE, followers of Jesus had produced new writings, but even as late as the third century the complete collection we now know as the “New Testament” had yet to appear. In these centuries we know Christian communities used not only the Gospels and Pauline letters that became part of the New Testament, but also other writings. Christians are familiar with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but fewer will have heard of the Gospels of Thomas, Peter, and Judas.
Only in later centuries did Christian intellectuals begin issuing “canon” lists — enumerating the authoritative books, by implication excluding those not listed. Scholarly discussions of these lists sometimes assume early Christians adhered to the lists and only treated as scripture those books contained within them. But Satlow rightly counters that these lists were often academic debates of the elites, rather than authoritative statements that guided actual practice. Even long into the medieval period, different scriptural collections are in use in different geographical locations: pragmatic concerns determined use more than bishops and intellectuals…
LikeLike
DG- can you check the blog’s spam filter for what I posted early this morning? Too many blockquotes, perhaps.
LikeLike
Tom,
“Produced” is unhelpful here. It took the Church to canonize the canon.
Then “preceded” is equally unhelpful, because it trades on an ambiguity.
If the argument is that the Church preceded the actual texts of Scripture, then the canonization process is not evidence in support of that argument.
If on the other hand the argument is that the Church preceded the canon of Scripture, then Michael’s discussion of oral teaching from Jesus leading to written apostolic text is off-point.
The claim needs to be sharpened before it can be argued for.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted September 20, 2015 at 8:01 pm | Permalink
Tom,
“Produced” is unhelpful here. It took the Church to canonize the canon.
Then “preceded” is equally unhelpful, because it trades on an ambiguity.
If the argument is that the Church preceded the actual texts of Scripture, then the canonization process is not evidence in support of that argument.
If on the other hand the argument is that the Church preceded the canon of Scripture, then Michael’s discussion of oral teaching from Jesus leading to written apostolic text is off-point.
The claim needs to be sharpened before it can be argued for.
The Church canonized the canon, separated the wheat from the chaff, presumably via the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I don’t see what selection of words could be more sharp. No Church, no canon.
And you guys haven’t even got into philology, the question of proto-Gospels and oral traditions, who actually wrote the Gospels [and some epistles] what to do about the Pericope Adulterae*, and which Old Testament is authoritative, for the Jews did not agree.
The KJV just didn’t plop down from the sky one day. You guys aren’t anywhere near ground zero on this. In fact, you’re not even disagreeing. The scriptures were composed in the first century CE. There was a Church before the last one was written down.
*http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html
LikeLike
There needs to be a distinction between the existence/ontology of the canon, and the recognition/identification of that canon. Similarly there needs to be a distinction between the ongoing process of inscripturation begun in OT times, and its completion in NT times. Similarly there needs to be a distinction between revelation and written record of that revelation. Too much equivocation is prolonging a tortuous discussion on what should be obvious facts.
LikeLike
James Young, but none of that changes that the Bible trumps tradition, which is so much more self-serving and ambiguous than sola scriptura. Yup.
LikeLike
@ CVD: Agreed.
LikeLike
Jeff – [attempting a re-post]
—
Happy Sunday – and Vigil of St. Matthew – to you as well.
post-Vatican-2, the Church teaches that pagans may have implicit faith im Christ and be saved thereby.
In that case, how do they remain, in essence, pagans?
The Church does not deny:
And states:
And yet it feels bound to take seriously:
The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world — John 1-9
What is the force of “everyone” -? It doesn’t say “everyone who hears the Gospel.” I think it is the most fitting interpretation to read: Jesus gives light to literally everyone, full stop.
This isn’t just VII. The Church has been working on this for a long time:
More recently, it was also a point of contention with the Jansenists.
Tying it all together, c.f. Ott:
How this actually applies to any individual in particular seems to me unknowable and therefore not fit to speculate on. And it certainly doesn’t open up the door for universal salvation, or close the door on the normal means established by Christ of justification and sanctification.
LikeLike
Regarding the NT and its canonized form, is there anyone here who disagrees with:
-Christ underwent His Passion and Resurrection;
-His Church was established on or by Pentecost;
-The Apostles established congregations of Christians;
-In conjunction with their preaching and beginning around the time of the Council of Jerusalem they wrote the New Testament;
-The New Testament was already word-for-word and book-for-book in the mind of an God due to his omniscience (including its eventual canonical form);
-At least several important fathers and other early writers and compilations omitted some Scripture (OT & NT) from what we consider canonical (the issue of the non-tanakh jewish deuterocanonical books set aside);
-Others included books we do not regard as canonical;
-By the time of Athanasius and Augustine it seems mostly to have been settled as what we are currently familiar with, for most of the Church;
-Finally the Bible as Westerners know it was canonized at the Councils of Carthage around 400.
These are just facts, aren’t they?
I’d like to add that the Apostles were not geographically proximate to one another during much of the writing, so it is quite unlikely that most of them knew most of the others’ works, which could help explain differences in the oral traditions that endorsed one collection as Scriptural rather than another.
That the early Church had a pope as its leader would require proof apart from anything pertaining to the simple statements above.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted September 20, 2015 at 9:50 pm | Permalink
James Young, but none of that changes that the Bible trumps tradition, which is so much more self-serving and ambiguous than sola scriptura. Yup.
Circular–as is the counterargument, really. The Bible was canonized according to its conformance with what was an evolving tradition.
The Bible would trump tradition, except that they are never in conflict, since they evolved coevally.
You Catholicoids are so frigging stupid. You don’t even know how good your case is. The Reformationists mutated the Bible, the Canon, its translation and its interpretation, and called it “sola scriptura.”
You’ve been had.
LikeLike
@ Kevin: I’m good with all of those facts except
-His Church was established on or by Pentecost;
This needs definition. What do we mean by “church”? We have to be careful so as to not (intentionally or simply by accident) engage in hide-the-pea.
If by “Church” we mean “the body of believers in Christ”, then that goes back in proleptic form to Gen 3. If by “Church” we mean “the NT body that Jesus said he would establish in Matt 16”, then that is established on or by Pentecost. There is a body of believers by that time.
But if by “Church” we mean
— Balt Cat
Then no, I don’t see evidence that that organization was in place by Pentecost.
—
There is a second ambiguity in the air. Kevin, you have been talking about temporal priority: “Which came first, the chicken (church) or the egg (NT)?”
But when a Catholic says that “the Church precedes the Scripture”, she is using “precede” in the medieval sense of precedence: having rank over.
Hence, the real claim is that the Church of whom Peter is the head authorized [hence has authority over] the canon of Scripture.
This is the objectionable point to a Protestant. It appears to be an Absolomic move, interposing the Church as an authority over the word of God.
LikeLike
Kevin, that’s a fair list.
You left out magisterium. That was good.
LikeLike