Maybe not among the Eastern Orthodox bishops or the Anglican ones, but it’s not as if Protestants don’t regularly meet to find a consensus on what the Bible means. Even so, Alan Jacobs and Rod Dreher repeat the Roman Catholic charge that you need tradition to augment Scripture (when in fact tradition comes all balled up in the magisterium — read bishops).
Jacobs worries:
The elevation of method to magisterial principle was supposed to make it possible for scholars to discern, and then agree on, the meaning of biblical texts. Instead it merely uprooted them from Christian tradition and Christian practice — as Michael Legaspi has shown in a brilliant book — and left many of them unequipped to understand the literary character of biblical texts, while doing nothing to promote genuine agreement on interpretation. In fact, the transferring of the guild of interpreters from the Church to the University, given the University’s insistence on novelty in scholarship, ensured that no interpretative consensus would be forthcoming.
But if Christians are supposed to take their cues less from the university and more from churches, the latter still exist and provide interpretive consensuses. Maybe the mainstream media and scholars who identify with the academic guild are not impressed by church synods and councils (though they sure were attentive to the Ordinary Synod of Rome; maybe you need special get ups to gain journalists and scholars’ attention, or you need to meet in buildings suffused with Renaissance art — so much for poor church for the poor). But it’s not as if those assemblies even among Protestants have gone away. Given a recent reminder about the illusion of respectability, maybe the work that existing churches still do could receive more credit.
Rod makes Jacobs’ point with flair:
what Protestant churches and organizations are really doing in these debates are trying to find out if its membership wants to change, and if so, how much change will it accept. The truth is, says Beck, is that Protestantism is a “hermeneutical democracy,” in which the individual consciences of believers determine what is true and what is false. This, he says, is the “genius of the tradition,” and having to do all this “relational work” is a key part of what it means to be Protestant. The Bible doesn’t speak for itself; it has to be interpreted, and for Protestants, that means that everybody gets a vote.
“Own your Protestantism,” he says. “The ultimate authority in Protestantism isn’t the Bible, it’s the individual conscience.”
Well, it’s not as if hermeneutical democracy doesn’t afflict churches that have episcopal authoritative structures (where exegeting the Bible is not as important as reading the times’ signs). All churches, Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox are in the same boat of having members who regularly pick and choose, cafeteria style, what they believe and that they don’t. Having tradition, bishops, or councils doesn’t fix any of this. What would fix this is having magistrates who enforce religion and where civil penalties are bound up with religious teaching and practice. But wouldn’t that be Islamic?
At least give Protestants credit for trying to discern what God revealed through the prophets and apostles. Adding tradition to Scripture has generally meant the dog of tradition wagging the tail of the Bible.
Old Life 
This is the Achilles’ heel of Sola Scriptura and means that eventually it becomes Solo Scriptura. There is no doubt the doctrine causes divisions amongst Christians, even well meaning, educated, committed, holy, Christians.
I can order four different books on the meaning of Protestant baptism all written by respected scholars in their fields, all with much more training, education, knowledge of the scriptures, and history of the topic than I could ever have and they put the same data in and come out with four very different views.
So is it any wonder that the average Evangelical joins the church where the music, childcare, or other programs are better than their current church and not necessarily about the theology?
I know this fact is extremely frustrating to those who think that Christians should pick their church on theology first. The new member should read thousands of pages of history, theology, and then armed with this knowledge make a choice, but this isn’t how it happens because there’s so much information easily available now it’s impossible to read it all and if you manage to read through half a dozen, very dry, but informative books on theology there’s little agreement beyond the barest of fundamentals of the faith.
So what’s a Protestant to do?
LikeLike
JetStar,
if you manage to read through half a dozen, very dry, but informative books on theology there’s little agreement beyond the barest of fundamentals of the faith.
So what’s a Protestant to do?
Define true churches according to that agreement without necessarily endorsing all of them.
E.G., The PCA can say that the SBC is a true church, albeit a confused one.
It’s what Rome does vis a vis the East. The East is a true church because it has the bare essentials, but it’s a confused one.
But the Sola Scriptura devolving to solo Scriptura doesn’t really hold. Other traditions have the same achilles heel. Everyone except mental zombies stays in their church only insofar as it lines up with their particular views. So you have the same issue with RCs. Thinking RCs are RCs because RCism agrees with their private and personal reading of the sources. Non-thinking RCs are just going through the motions. The same phenomenon is true in Protestantism.
It’s the consequence of freedom of thought and separation of church and state.
LikeLike
Jet Fuel – I could be mistaken, but I thought the whole idea behind “confessional” protestant denominations was the fact that they rally around their confessions, using them as the lens through which they ALL agree (it’s called “unity”) they can view scripture correctly. These confessions, developed over a lengthy period time by many theologians meeting and discussing, translating, and interpreting the scripture ALL agree the best understanding. This “should” leave out any guess work or the need to dig around for commentaries written by people who think along different lines.
I suppose that one could argue, “well, that’s just what Rome does!” Except that Rome incorporates traditions, superstitions, and other non-scriptural sources into their belief structure and imposes it from a single source.
LikeLike
Paul Zahl, “Low-Church and Proud.” —-For myself, both a systematic theologian by training and an Episcopal cathedral dean by day, I cannot be both. I cannot be Protestant and Catholic. I cannot be evangelical and ecclesiologically “high.” A house divided cannot stand. It has to fall. It always does. [p. 214]
Zahl, “No individual hears the gospel collectively.”
Trying to construct a liberal catholicism rarely satisfies, because it is a construct for people to have their cake and eat it too. Liberal views of authority and Scripture and cultural rapprochement do not finally cohere with a historic, catholic view of the church. …Bible-anchored evangelicals are bound to be disappointed. I can almost guarantee that” (p. 216).
Falling for the aesthetics and hierarchy of high-church bodies seems like a reaction to something that was missing or kinked in childhood, a compensation to make up for an earlier loss. For those who are compulsively attracted to high-church form, why not go all the way. Pull a Cardinal Newman. Be consistent:
http://derevth.blogspot.com/2013/07/paul-zahls-unecclesiology.html
LikeLike
Robert,
The difference of the RCC, is right or wrong they claim their interpretation of their tradition and scripture is directly apostolic from Jesus. If they are right, then they have a very firm foundation for their tradition because the Magisterium cannot err on theological matters. For the Protestant there’s no foundation besides their current “hermeneutical democracy” of their denomination. A Protestant has to say that their entire theological system could have massive, perhaps catastrophic errors in it to the detriment of their members. If the RCC is correct then their foundation is firm, if a Protestant is correct their foundation is a matter of group conscience. Sure all members are cafeteria Christians, but you might not even be in the right serving line if you are Protestant.
George,
Why would that leave out any guess work? There are different confessions and I still have to examine them all in hopes of finding the right church as best I can tell. The confessions will obviously conflict so how do I choose one especially if I kind of agree with a lot of them? We are right back to the “great youth group” for the deciding factor.
LikeLike
JetStar,
The difference of the RCC, is right or wrong they claim their interpretation of their tradition and scripture is directly apostolic from Jesus. If they are right, then they have a very firm foundation for their tradition because the Magisterium cannot err on theological matters.
But practically speaking, this devolves into whatever the Magisterium of the moment says. It’s a hermeneutical democracy with fewer voting members. You have to accept whatever the Magisterium says today no matter how outlandish or contradictory it is with what came before because you, not being a part of the Magisterium, are not equipped to know the truth. The only truth you can know is that Rome is the church, so shut up and keep going. At least that was the way in the old days. Now liberalism means there is no firm foundation because no one is willing to actually make a binding decision and enforce it.
For the Protestant there’s no foundation besides their current “hermeneutical democracy” of their denomination.
See above.
A Protestant has to say that their entire theological system could have massive, perhaps catastrophic errors in it to the detriment of their members.
Not any more than a mathematician has to say that the discipline of mathematics could have massive, perhaps catastrophic errors in it to the detriment of society.
If the RCC is correct then their foundation is firm, if a Protestant is correct their foundation is a matter of group conscience.
But the individual RC, being fallible, has no assurance that His apprehension of Rome is correct. If we’re going to talk about provisionality meaning no foundation, we must apply it equally to Rome. The Roman system could be correct, but because its adherents are not infallible or omniscience, they have no way of knowing WHAT Rome actually claims with any more certainty than a Protestant has that his foundation is correct. The problem isn’t simply that the individual RCC can’t know if Rome is true, the problem is that if you go down this road, logical consistency means that the individual RC can’t even know what Rome teaches with any certainty. This is the great epistemological failure of the RC stress on “we’re infallible and have a foundation.”
But once you have admitted that one does not need to be infallibility to know truth and have assurance of it, then you’ve undercut the accusation against Protestantism. Rome tries to admit the former with regard to its assent to the church and then take it away for everything after that. But if fallible apprehension of truth is good enough to identify the source of truth (in Romanism), then it’s good enough in Protestantism.
But in any case, it is overly simplistic to say that the foundation is merely group consensus in Protestantism. The foundation is the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture. What people seem to want is a red light to go off whenever we’re sure that happened. But not even the people who saw Jesus in the flesh had that.
Sure all members are cafeteria Christians, but you might not even be in the right serving line if you are Protestant.
This is no less true of RCC. The mere claim doesn’t make it the right serving line. But in any case, if you press the whole fallibility angle far enough, then the individual RCC can never know if he is in the right serving line even if he is. It’s the ultimate in blind faith.
LikeLike
See above.
The inconsistency of the Magestrium certainly undercuts it’s authority. You are completely right, you have to turn off your discernment and just go with the flow if they are the final arbiter.
I disagree with your example of the axioms of a mathematical system because you can test it through engineering. But I want to leave the RCC behind here and point out once again the very real problem the average Protestant is faced with in deciding which church to join. Which due to the easy and cheap availability of information you can either decide to sift through thousands of pages of theology history and then decide, or do a little or none of that and decide on other factors.
So then I pray for guidance. I’m assuming that everyone here did that when they joined their church, but if you aren’t of the same denomination as I am then either you ignored the Spirit’s advice, He didn’t give you advice, I ignored the advice, or He didn’t give me any advice, or possibly we both listened and He sent you to the right denomination and me to a confused one, even though the right one was down the road–but I wouldn’t know that because I believe He sent me to the right one.
That’s why I keep coming back to the fact that Catholic or Protestant the vast majority of all Christians join a church for reasons other than specific theology, and if you look too hard, for me at least, the decision of the right denomination or church because of particular theology becomes less clear, not more.
LikeLike
JetStar, here’s Calvin’s answer:
LikeLike
JetStar,
I disagree with your example of the axioms of a mathematical system because you can test it through engineering.
But you can test a theological system by Scripture, history, etc., unless you hold that Scripture is helplessly unclear. I’d also say you can’t trust all axioms of a mathematical system by engineering but only what might fall under “necessary for a functioning whatever” axiom. In that case, you could find many different Protestant churches. Is the Reformed doctrine of predestination necessary to make a church a church? I don’t think so. I think it is necessary for the healthiest church, but the Wesleyan church’s lack of it doesn’t mean it is not a church.
But I want to leave the RCC behind here and point out once again the very real problem the average Protestant is faced with in deciding which church to join. Which due to the easy and cheap availability of information you can either decide to sift through thousands of pages of theology history and then decide, or do a little or none of that and decide on other factors.
I don’t think you can set the RCC behind, though. Any person without a church background has to hold up the RCC alongside the Prots and decide which claims are better. The RCC claim to infallibility doesn’t give it an out that makes it automatically a better or surer choice. I don’t know if you’re arguing that, however. In any case, the RCC has to decide among as many competing versions of the church as the Prot. does. All they have is nominal visible unity between factions. That’s it.
But I agree, it isn’t easy.
So then I pray for guidance. I’m assuming that everyone here did that when they joined their church, but if you aren’t of the same denomination as I am then either you ignored the Spirit’s advice, He didn’t give you advice, I ignored the advice, or He didn’t give me any advice, or possibly we both listened and He sent you to the right denomination and me to a confused one, even though the right one was down the road–but I wouldn’t know that because I believe He sent me to the right one.
Or, because all churches are mixtures of truth and error, it’s wrong to think of the Spirit directing some to the right church and some to the wrong one. I’m just thinking out loud here. I’d be hard pressed to say that the PCA is the right choice and the OPC the wrong one, and vice versa. It gets more complicated than that once the differences become more pronounced. But maybe in a town where the only church that even tries to submit to Scripture is the Wesleyan one, the Spirit directs you there because that’s the only good option.
Sometimes I wonder if different denominations exist partly because God knows we all have different personality differences and that some churches are just more conducive to helping person A grow spiritually than others.
I guess I just wonder if “Holy Spirit leading me to the right church” is the wrong category to start off with. It assumes that there is only one right church, which Protestant confessions don’t teach. There’s true churches and false churches, and among true churches you have better and worst churches. Maybe the Spirit leads Jim to the SBC and Bob to the PCA in their town because those are the best options for those individuals.
Of course, that could become relativistic real quick, but it doesn’t have to. Even within the same denominations people move from parish to parish based on their station of life and what they might need at a given time. If I’m a single guy in the PCA, I might go to the PCA church of 5,000 with the large singles ministry that is across town but once I am married go to the 300 member PCA church down the street. But an example like that touches on your next point.
That’s why I keep coming back to the fact that Catholic or Protestant the vast majority of all Christians join a church for reasons other than specific theology,
Now that is undoubtedly true.
and if you look too hard, for me at least, the decision of the right denomination or church because of particular theology becomes less clear, not more.
I don’t know. Seems pretty clear that an individual can at least conclude which tradition is best for them. Picking a church within that tradition might be more difficult. It does take some work, however.
LikeLike
Thanks Hart and Robert. “We are beggars: this is true.”
LikeLike
Jet Fuel – if it makes you feel any better, I myself was a life-long confessional (read LCMS) Lutheran until the middle of the last decade. I had always taken for granted that the Lutheran confessions represented the last word in the world of protestantism. But nearing the turn of the century I began to see all of this apocalyptic, end times stuff show up in “Christian” book stores – tapes, books, how-to-survive, etc. Working in a profession that brought into play many of the electronic, media, computer oriented things that the nay-sayers predicted were going to go all awry at the turn of midnight, Dec. 31, 1999, I just couldn’t see the sense of any of it and mainly knew better by occupation.
Near the same time I had begun to listen to Bible Answer Man broadcasts and one of them featured an interview with a fellow named Kim Riddlebarger who was working on a book on “amillennialism,” an eschatological view with which I had been previously unfamiliar. His comments, however, convinced me that many of the doom-sayers were speaking without any firm scriptural basis, so I began to research what my own Lutheran confessions had to say about it. Not surprisingly, I found that neither Luther nor Calvin, for that matter, had much to say about Revelation, in particular. So I probed further into matter, eventually found that Riddlebarger had a blog site (and I bought his book, too!), and found all kinds of resources and references there. Those led me to people like Michael Horton, Scott Clark, and Darryl Hart, all of which caused me to re-think some of my precious Lutheran tenets, especially in the matters of baptismal regeneration (of infants), the dual presence (consubstantiation) in the communion elements, covenant soteriology, etc. So I eventually abandoned my life-long Lutheranism for a Reformed tradition.
I hate to admit it, but much of this reeks of C.S. Lewis’ hallway with many doors, where one explores the various views under protestantism. And, of course, we’re all constantly under attack by those who like to point out all the foibles of protestant Christianity by virtue of its thousands of different denominations, but all I can say is that it’s the way it worked for me.
LikeLike
Bottom line, if John 4:23 is true:
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
His seeking is not in vain.
God’s grace is irresistable.
Those who have been given to the Son will come and in nowise be cast out.
Something our papist apologists have yet to integrate into their free will paradigm.
LikeLike
Mark,
How would those attracted to low-church forms “go all the way” and “be consistent”?
Forgive me if I prefer, say, the Book of Common Prayer to nonsensical hootin’ and hollarin’. Is it ok with you if I want to be able concentrate when I worship? I do not say that high-church forms are the only way, but I reject the idea that aesthetics and language are antithetical to God.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
Catholics have invented quite a few stretchers and chalked them up to Tradition. However, I am not sure what’s wagging who’s tail when it comes to certain core Protestant doctrines. Let’s say that Scripture Alone decides that Faith Alone is wrong (I think it has), you’ll no doubt bitterly cling to your own man made ideas, no? Try answering the question without sounding like a tortured Catholic apologist.
LikeLike
I apologize for my snarky tone in the above comment.
I see only two options: I can be a bad Catholic or bad Protestant. In all seriousness, how do I resolve this problem?
LikeLike
I think this search for doctrinal purity for the average guy in the pew can definitely lead to unbelief, either intentionally or unintentionally. You are raised SBC, end up in the PCA when you move, start to wonder if the SBC was right or wrong on a lot of stuff, accept the WCF as better than the Baptist 1698, then you need to move again and the best option in the small town you are in is a Wesleyan church or a Catholic Church, or you just try to home church your family. Your kids now have been through three denominations, each one claiming to have the best interpretation of scripture. You might retreat to, “Just the basics are true”, or you might just throw up your hands and wonder how much if any of it is true.
I think there’s a definite pattern in the US of the latter, in which people go from a small church to a larger one due to the programs, then decide doctrine hardly matters because they can’t figure it out, then eventually stop going when they don’t like a person or program any more.
LikeLike
JetStar:I can order four different books on the meaning of Protestant baptism all written by respected scholars in their fields, all with much more training, education, knowledge of the scriptures, and history of the topic than I could ever have and they put the same data in and come out with four very different views.
>>>>> I can do that on any topic under the sun. That doesn’t mean I dismiss a given topic offhand, well I guess I can if I really don’t care in the first place.
So is it any wonder that the average Evangelical joins the church where the music, childcare, or other programs are better than their current church and not necessarily about the theology?
>>>>>> I can’t argue about average E’s, but those who don’t want these things break out and find places where theology is a priority. It is a bad dungeon to be in though, one gets the impression they have nowhere else to go from their happy-clappy E church. The internet and iTunes have made alternatives widely available for those who want decent theology.
I know this fact is extremely frustrating to those who think that Christians should pick their church on theology first. The new member should read thousands of pages of history, theology, and then armed with this knowledge make a choice, but this isn’t how it happens because there’s so much information easily available now it’s impossible to read it all and if you manage to read through half a dozen, very dry, but informative books on theology there’s little agreement beyond the barest of fundamentals of the faith.
>>>>> we are called to various and diverse gifts and talents and temperaments. There IS a place though for E’s who always or suddenly got the urge to hit the books and worship accordingly. Sometimes they are officers in such churches and set up a forum of exchange like this one.
You dismissal is very shallow and basically stupid. Hate to tell you that some people like to READ seriously for their leisure hours, to learn and to stretch and to grow.
You can do it too, maybe.
LikeLike
JetStar,
I don’t think you are putting up enough possibilities. Instead of “just the basics are true” or “is any of it true?” there’s at least one other option—God doesn’t want us to be equally sure about every jot and tittle of doctrine but what he does want us to know without a doubt is clear to anyone who is willing to put in the work necessary.
Not all people are going to have the time or inclination to study theology vigorously. That’s a fair point. But for those people it’s enough to find a church where the Bible is actually treated as God’s inerrant Word and there are guidelines to follow for the leaders.
If you set out to study theology in depth without really believing that the Bible is the Word of God, yeah, you’ll probably end up in unbelief. But I don’t know anyone who believes the Bible to be Scripture and has embarked on study and concluded “I’m never gonna get any of this stuff.”
But these are good matters to consider.
LikeLike
well I guess I can if I really don’t care in the first place.
Yes, I read a lot of information on topics I don’t care about. That’s how I roll. Too bad you don’t see me dismissing it out of hand besides your imagination.
The internet and iTunes have made alternatives widely available for those who want decent theology.
I think you have reading comprehension problems, I specifically stated that the problem isn’t lack of information but too much of it.
You dismissal is very shallow and basically stupid. Hate to tell you that some people like to READ seriously for their leisure hours, to learn and to stretch and to grow.
You can do it too, maybe.
Are you on the Evangelicalism committee in your church? I’m sure it’s doing great by telling people who are confused about theology that they are stupid and lazy.
But, without a doubt you are the stupid one here because you missed my points which I’ll spell out in very carefully the the reading challenged, you.
1. Very smart theologians and historians have wildly differing claims about core Christian doctrines like justification. (I’m limiting this to Christian theologians and historians–they already accept Christianity, just obviously disagree about the particulars)
2. This is all easily available to people now due to the internet with very inexpensive and free material.
3. It’s literally impossible to go through it all, so at best you have to go through some of it.
4. This makes deciding more difficult, not less.
5. Knowing that you have incomplete information from very good sources you do eventually just have to make choice to the best of your ability, though it’s obviously not a permanent choice.
6. Faced with this, some if not many Christians will simply cease to put a priority on the particulars and instead focus on the practical–like the great youth program.
In your haste to call me stupid, you didn’t read well and didn’t ask to know what I have gone over, or my history so let me tell you that I have three shelves full of theology besides dozens of books on my Kindle, I was raised in a confessional church, and have read it all of my life, but certainly if I have trouble discerning the Word of God or theology it’s because I’m lazy and stupid. If I could only be so sure like you.
LikeLike
but what he does want us to know without a doubt is clear to anyone who is willing to put in the work necessary.
Would you then say that God wanted the devout Arminian, or Catholic to be clear about it after putting in the work?
LikeLike
Josh C, but when did your church’s views become divine made? And they’re saying it’s so is convincing?
Can we at least do some exegesis based on God’s word?
LikeLike
As for the sins of Catholicism, those of Protestantism tend to be glossed over.
Take that, Edgardo Mortara.
Click to access moretyndale.pdf
___________________
*”For my part, I should not believe the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” (Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus 5, 6; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 131)
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
I am not convinced that the Catholic church’s views are divine made. Not sure it’s my church anymore, either.
If church teaching has gone astray, it should go back to biblical exegesis, I agree. But that goes for the Reformation church, too. James White and R.C. Sproul are mirror images of their Catholic apologetic sparring partners. Everybody starts with a given doctrine and tries like heck to defend it, no matter how strained the argument or acrobatic the logic.
Did I read somewhere that you are writing a book about why conservatives should be Protestant, or something like that? If so, will it be published soon?
LikeLike
Jetstar,
“I think this search for doctrinal purity for the average guy in the pew can definitely lead to unbelief, either intentionally or unintentionally. You are raised SBC, end up in the PCA when you move, start to wonder if the SBC was right or wrong on a lot of stuff, accept the WCF as better than the Baptist 1698, then you need to move again and the best option in the small town you are in is a Wesleyan church or a Catholic Church, or you just try to home church your family. Your kids now have been through three denominations, each one claiming to have the best interpretation of scripture. You might retreat to, “Just the basics are true”, or you might just throw up your hands and wonder how much if any of it is true.
I think there’s a definite pattern in the US of the latter, in which people go from a small church to a larger one due to the programs, then decide doctrine hardly matters because they can’t figure it out, then eventually stop going when they don’t like a person or program any more.”
I think this is a correct analysis.
LikeLike
Tom,
More’s argument applies equally well to Rome. It’s not self-evident that Rome has a better claim than anyone else. You have to do a whole lot of research and trust historians and others to even begin to make sense of the data. And modern RCs are at a huge disadvantage because there isn’t any RC historian who will argue that Christ instituted the papacy, and we know that many RC distinctives aren’t that much older than the medieval period. This isn’t a uniquely Protestant thing; it’s taught in RC universities.
The church of today is not More’s church.
LikeLike
Susan – I think he (Jetstar) has a correct analysis, too. To that end, since he seems to think along the lines of anything goes mainline protestant liberalism, I plan to ask my in-law relative when we have to get together at Christmas if he likes to play golf and if the town he lives in has Lions or Kiwanis clubs. And if so, mightn’t he be better off golfing on Sunday AM and performing his “social justice” duties under the auspices of one of those community services organizations. After all, his theological beliefs and validation of the scriptures are so shallow and meaningless that he may as well spend his time interacting with his fellow man in one of those secular settings.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 4, 2015 at 4:21 pm | Permalink
Tom,
More’s argument applies equally well to Rome.
You’re not following the argument. Rome claims the authority of the Church that Christ founded and the Holy Spirit descended upon at Pentecost. Your theology leans on individual discernment. If you figure your denomination has gone wrong, you go off and start a new one.
This is not the Catholic conception of the “Church,” not Augustine’s.
The church of today is not More’s church.
That’s idiotic, but even if true, yours is clearly not More’s church either so it’s irrelevant.
LikeLike
Just to thrown in another wrinkle, the Mrs wants to be RC while hubby is happy with the mega-nondenom church… Kids raised in a home where the parents don’t share the same adherence (only one goes to church or they go to different churches) are far less likely to identify with a church as an adult. A big part of this is reinforcement by a stable peer group – if mom and dad aren’t committed to the same church, they aren’t likely to require jr. to commitment to a church and form the peer group that plays a major role in determining adult religious practice.
LikeLike
TVD,
The person who is deciding on Rome or a Protestant church still has to pick the authority in the same way. In the best scenario one studies theology, history, prays about it, and then makes the choice. This has nothing to do with Rome’s authority, or Sola Scriptura but the process by which one makes the choice itself. In the end you have to pick one.
George,
I most certainly don’t think anything goes, and I don’t think for the average Evangelical anything goes. I think that they actually do care deeply about theological particulars as much as their gifts allow for, all of the way until they don’t out of exacerbation. Sure, some people only care about the music, but I think most care about a whole lot more than that. The problem arises like I said before that when after decades of believing one thing you are put in a situation in which you question your previously beliefs after a great deal of study, or your logistics don’t allow for anything but a church which is very different than your last.
It’s easy to throw stones at the people in the pews, “Silly laity, you are in that seat because of the band, not the theology. Educate yourself, read some theology morons.” But many have read a lot, and they’ve been to three different denominations in their lives and they care deeply about it, but there they are, sitting in that pew at a new church and they don’t even know if they should be there or not because they don’t totally agree with everything in the confession or even who’s confession is more accurate.
LikeLike
Tom,
You need to get out more. All of churches claim to be the church Chrisr founded and to possess the authority of the church that he gave. We disagree that the kind of authority Rome claims is the actual kind of authority Christ gave the church.
Now it is true we expect more out if out people. We’re not satisfied with nominal adherence like Rome is. And of course, any RC is welcome to start his own church as well. He’d be a separated brother like we are, a concept of which More would have hardly known.
LikeLike
vd, t, “As for the sins of Catholicism, those of Protestantism tend to be glossed over.”
Look, a squirrel divided into 33k parts.
Look, a lesbian Presbyterian squirrel.
Look, a squirrel that is tiny compared to Roman squirrels.
Look, a squirrel that is theologically incoherent.
LikeLike
Josh, Bible is always good.
My man made book is Between Billy Graham and Sarah Palin.
Was that the one?
LikeLike
“Just to thrown in another wrinkle, the Mrs wants to be RC while hubby is happy with the mega-nondenom church… Kids raised in a home where the parents don’t share the same adherence (only one goes to church or they go to different churches) are far less likely to identify with a church as an adult. A big part of this is reinforcement by a stable peer group – if mom and dad aren’t committed to the same church, they aren’t likely to require jr. to commitment to a church and form the peer group that plays a major role in determining adult religious practice.”
Speaking about my own situation, I left a congregation of about 300 of some of the best people you will ever meet to become Catholic. I knew others who left this congregation because they wanted their families to have programs or to serve the larger community, or because they felt like they didnt get enough instruction in living a Christian life.
I completely agree about the importance of a peer group.
But there are many combinations to this “divided” scenario without even having to include an agnostic to the mix.
That is the sad thing about having so many doctrinally divided congregations; its confusing and hard to figure out who is right.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 4, 2015 at 5:11 pm | Permalink
vd, t, “As for the sins of Catholicism, those of Protestantism tend to be glossed over.”
Look, a squirrel divided into 33k parts.
Look, a lesbian Presbyterian squirrel.
Look, a squirrel that is tiny compared to Roman squirrels.
Look, a squirrel that is theologically incoherent.
I Am the Squirrel
by D.G. Hart
coming soon to a remainder bin near you
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 4, 2015 at 5:04 pm | Permalink
Tom,
You need to get out more. All of churches claim to be the church Chrisr founded and to possess the authority of the church that he gave.
We’ve been examining that claim. Certainly by abandoning episcopal succession you’ve forfeited Augustine’s view of the claim–if not the Bible itself.
You can fill in “Calvinist” for “Donatist” for the purposes of this discussion. You abandoned “episcopal succession.”
LikeLike
George( cute gravatar),
Say their is a family where the dad became Catholic the mother Reformed and the children are getting to an age where their asking questions about the differences. What counsel do you have for children in such situations?
LikeLike
This blog is kind of like a religiously mixed family that’s learning to get along despite our differences. More respect would be helpful.
Its a little national lampoon like but I think we still really care about the other 🙂
Have a good weekend.
LikeLike
Susan – but the analogy is false. The father came from a liberal baptistic background where he apparently learned next to nothing about anything scriptural and his wife came from a pietistic ELCA (formerly LCA, ALC, ULC, take your pick of pietistic Lutheran synods) background where nothing much mattered beyond the run-of-the-mill social justice nonsense (these days, gay ordination, female clergy, low view of scripture – take your pick).
Their kids, however, have gone to half way decent “Christian” schools of higher learning and have taken a different view of their parent’s (or parents in-law’s) loose, liberal views and are confronting them. These kids have, in fact, come to me with concerns about their parent’s (especially their dad’s) low view of anything scriptural and are worried about his faith. So…what would YOU do in that situation.
LikeLike
George
Posted December 4, 2015 at 8:23 pm | Permalink
Susan – but the analogy is false. The father came from a liberal baptistic background where he apparently learned next to nothing about anything scriptural and his wife came from a pietistic ELCA (formerly LCA, ALC, ULC, take your pick of pietistic Lutheran synods) background where nothing much mattered beyond the run-of-the-mill social justice nonsense (these days, gay ordination, female clergy, low view of scripture – take your pick).
Their kids, however, have gone to half way decent “Christian” schools of higher learning and have taken a different view of their parent’s (or parents in-law’s) loose, liberal views and are confronting them. These kids have, in fact, come to me with concerns about their parent’s (especially their dad’s) low view of anything scriptural and are worried about his faith. So…what would YOU do in that situation.
Great post. I was wondering about that. Pendulums swing. American “fundamentalism” itself began in the first place as a reaction to theological liberalism.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h3806.html
[The irony of course being that putative conservative Darryl Hart has sided with the liberals against the fundamentalists under the guise of correcting them. On liberalism, his opposition so “goes without saying” that he is mute (and thus moot).]
As Jeanne Kirkpatrick said about Cold War-era tyrannies, conservatives have the capability of reform, but radicals/revolutionaries have nowhere to go. Radicalism is a one-way ticket: Once a church [the Presbyterian Church of the USA, 1.8 million members] ordains lesbian “couples,” reform [counter-reformation?] is impossible.
It looks like the fit might hit the shan for 4 million Lutherans
LGBT Lutherans and their allies stand at a pivotal point in the ELCA’s growth, with the next Churchwide Assembly scheduled for August 2016.
But eventually they’ll ordain lesbian couples too. Rust never sleeps. Will Lutheranism ever be able to “counter-reform” and return to its previous self-conception of being the True Church that Christ founded? Not without declaring ecclesiastical jihad on the ELCA and other counterfeits claiming to be “Lutheranism.”
Or by swallowing the now-obligatory “run-of-the-mill social justice nonsense (these days, gay ordination, female clergy, low view of scripture – take your pick).” “Lutheranism” has already punched its one-way ticket; it cannot be [counter-]reformed.
[So too “”Presbyterianism.”]
There is nowhere for these kids to go.
Outspoken theologian ousted from the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
These kids are so screwed.
LikeLike
Tom,
We’ve been examining that claim. Certainly by abandoning episcopal succession you’ve forfeited Augustine’s view of the claim–if not the Bible itself.
Of course, if Augustine’s view is wrong…
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 4, 2015 at 11:05 pm | Permalink
Tom,
We’ve been examining that claim. Certainly by abandoning episcopal succession you’ve forfeited Augustine’s view of the claim–if not the Bible itself.
Of course, if Augustine’s view is wrong…
Cool, now we’re getting somewhere, Robert. You just stipulated Augustine [354-430]. And relinquished the Protestant/Calvinist claim to the Early Church Fathers as well.
This is the point here. You play straight. For your version of the Christian religion to be right, Augustine must be wrong.
You see how this fragments and atomizes, forever and ever, amen. There is no Church, there can be no Church. Only opinions.
LikeLike
TVD
Posted December 5, 2015 at 12:24 am | Permalink
Robert
Posted December 4, 2015 at 11:05 pm | Permalink
Tom,
We’ve been examining that claim. Certainly by abandoning episcopal succession you’ve forfeited Augustine’s view of the claim–if not the Bible itself.
Of course, if Augustine’s view is wrong…
Cool, now we’re getting somewhere, Robert. You just stipulated Augustine [354-430]. And relinquished the Protestant/Calvinist claim to the Early Church Fathers as well.
This is the point here. You play straight. For your version of the Christian religion to be right, Augustine must be wrong.
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement . . . In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
You see how this fragments and atomizes, forever and ever, amen. There is no Church, there can be no Church. Only opinions.>>>>>
See, it is a mistake for Calvinists to claim they are following St. Augustine. Some of us will go back and start reading him and realize that he was Catholic. In fact, I started to read the Church Fathers, and they were all Catholic! It is undeniable.
I finally got to St. Thomas Aquinas after some time. It finally dawned on me that all the theologians I loved the most were Catholic.
So what was I doing on the outside looking in?
LikeLike
I apologize for my snarky tone in the above comment.
Tommy, you takin’ notes?
I see only two options: I can be a bad Catholic or bad Protestant. In all seriousness, how do I resolve this problem?
Widen your horizons.
You got more options.
Start with the Bible:
WCF I.7
All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all (2 Pet. 3:16):
yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them (Ps. 119:105).
Finally, More presented a vision of the origin and fate of heresy which served to underpin a negative view of Protestant character, supplying a motivation for the irrationality of Protestant claims. . . .
Come on Tom, first we learn that Augustine was an infallible apostle and now T. More.
When will the breathtaking breakthroughs cease?
You’re not following the argument. Rome claims the authority of the Church that Christ founded and the Holy Spirit descended upon at Pentecost. Your theology leans on individual discernment. If you figure your denomination has gone wrong, you go off and start a new one.
Argument?
Individual discernment?
2 Cor. 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
Does that sound like the ignorant implicit faith of Romanism to your individual discernment or was Paul only talking to the Corinthians individually, nobody else? Come on. Take a wild stab. We won’t tell Francis.
We’ve been examining that claim. Certainly by abandoning episcopal succession you’ve forfeited Augustine’s view of the claim–if not the Bible itself.
Note the implicit crimethink mentality there, the whole “provisional” sleight of argument, assuming what needs to be proved: “if not the Bible itself”.
Which is what is missing in the claimed argument. Other than an occasional and nominally provisional appeal to Scripture, Rome doesn’t go there. It’s all about Tradition and the Magisterium – which is equal to Scripture, if not in fact Scripture in their neck of the woods.
Cause we said so.
Cool, now we’re getting somewhere, Robert. You just stipulated Augustine [354-430]. And relinquished the Protestant/Calvinist claim to the Early Church Fathers as well.
Cool, now we’re getting somewhere Tom. A is not only apostolic and inspired, he is the sum total of all the ECFs plural. Got a love that jesuitical casuistry that is able to leap a non sequitur in a single bound.
LikeLike
vd, t, Oh no! An Augustine-is-in-error squirrel!!
What will come of the human race?
So Augustine’s letters must be true, but infallible dogma about the bodily assumption of Mary — meh.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “it is a mistake for Calvinists to claim they are following St. Augustine.”
So the standard is that we must follow Augustine even in his letters.
So what’s up with you not following the Fourth Lateran Council on Jews?
This following the fathers business is the standard by which you must operate. You can’t use it as a club against Protestants and then act like all the statements of popes and councils are just background noise.
But go ahead. Shrug. It’s fetching to see a woman in fins crunch her shoulders.
LikeLike
Tom,
Cool, now we’re getting somewhere, Robert. You just stipulated Augustine [354-430]. And relinquished the Protestant/Calvinist claim to the Early Church Fathers as well.
This is the point here. You play straight. For your version of the Christian religion to be right, Augustine must be wrong.
For my “version” of the Christian ecclesiology to be right, Augustine must be wrong about Apostolic succession. That doesn’t mean he can’t be right about other things. Nor does it mean that Rome of today is the church of Augustine. That’s always assumed by Romanists. It’s an incorrect assumption. Augustine didn’t hold to jurisdictional primacy of the papacy, and its not clear that he believed that the church was always protected from error when it met in ecumenical council.
Overall, Augustine’s ecclesiology is a bit of a mess. It’s finally incompatible with His doctrine of grace. You can’t have ex opere operato sacramentalism and believe in something like a desire for baptism that saves. It’s horribly inconsistent.
The very best Rome can say is that its ecclesiology closer to Augustine’s than mine is. Big whoop. If Augustine was wrong about ecclesiology, then that’s no point in favor of RCism. The actual historical evidence is that the notion of Apostolic succession as Rome and the East hold it was a post NT development, and then only a late second century one at best, and then only in response to others who were claiming succession as well (gnostics). There’s no notion that you identify the church primarily by an “unbroken” chain of ordained monoepiscopal bishops in the actual verifiable Apostolic tradition that we do have. Paul believes ordination is useless if those ordained are teaching heresy. Doctrine has primacy, actual Apostolic doctrine, not “developed” dogma that one can identify.
Where anyone after the Apostles is correct, we hold to them. Where they are wrong, we reject them. Same EXACT thing Rome does. Rome’s adherence to the Augustinian theology of grace is extremely tenuous and contradicted by its declaration that Molinism and other views are just as orthodox.
You see how this fragments and atomizes, forever and ever, amen. There is no Church, there can be no Church. Only opinions.
In a sinful world, people will leave the church and start their own. The only thing that has any effectiveness in stopping it is the possession of the sword, which Rome no longer has.
Rome is no less fragmentized or atomized than Protestantism. All it has is nominal same-home-office unity wherein the only real thing you need to do is show up every so often for mass. You don’t need to believe anything Rome teaches as long as you don’t actively oppose it. And even then, you might be declared a brother bishop by the current who-am-i-to-judge pope.
All I have is my opinion of what Rome teaches, which is different than yours and different than CVD’s et alia. And I have no other recourse to settle it besides consulting church documents. The Magisterium certainly isn’t going to excommunicate anyone.
All you have is your opinion. Welcome to your finitude.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 5, 2015 at 8:44 am | Permalink
Mermaid, “it is a mistake for Calvinists to claim they are following St. Augustine.”
So the standard is that we must follow Augustine even in his letters.
So what’s up with you not following the Fourth Lateran Council on Jews?
This following the fathers business is the standard by which you must operate. You can’t use it as a club against Protestants and then act like all the statements of popes and councils are just background noise.
But go ahead. Shrug. It’s fetching to see a woman in fins crunch her shoulders.>>>>
Oh, the Church Fathers were just following the Traditional Apostolic Teachings handed down to them through the the process the Apostle Paul spoke to Timothy about. Obviously Paul was talking about more than just the words he had written down. Here you also have an oral tradition that was backed up by the written Word.
2 Timothy 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.
Calvin tried to co-opt that process and set up his own teaching magisterium, as you well know. If not, what in the world was The Institutes of the Christian Religion all about? He believed he was not only reforming Catholic Christianity, but defining it for future generations.
You are the historian on this. Am I right or not? What did Calvin think he was doing?
With Luther it is more ambiguous. Did he really set out to establish his own church? Not so clear. In fact, it is more likely that he wanted reform, not revolution. …and what happened, happened. Would he be happy with the results? Probably not, at least not with the direction Lutheranism has taken. Would he have 97 theses for today’s Lutheranism? I kind of think he would have.
And the popes and councils are not just background noise. Nancy Pelosi is just background noise, as are the progressive religious.
While everyone obsesses about what Francis did or did not say, did or did not do, what has he been up to? He’s been in the hell hole called the Central African Republic encouraging the people of God. Funny the press didn’t follow him there as much as they follow him everywhere else. Why not?
In your Presbyterian religion, the progressives are the only noise that is being heard. They drown out everyone else. You can’t do a thing about it. It is not likely for that to ever change back to a more solid foundation.
I’m not happy about that. No, not at all. Maybe you will be able to save your little corner of the Christian world from the onslaught of apostasy. I truly hope so. No, even more, I hope that you will join the battle with your brothers and sisters on the inside of the Catholic Church – who are fighting the same enemies from within.
Machen did the best he could, and I am grateful to him for being there for a lot of us that were not Presbyterian. Even though the word “fundamentalist” has taken on a new, almost exclusively negative connotation, Machen’s idea of adherence to a body of beliefs called “the fundamentals of the faith” was a brilliant move on his part.
And I do thank Calvinists for talking so much about Augustine.
LikeLike
Mermaid,
Obviously Paul was talking about more than just the words he had written down.
Prove it. Prove that what Timothy heard was different from or included teachings that never got written down.
What’s obvious is that Timothy was to hand on Paul’s teaching. What isn’t obvious is that there’s some secret undefined teaching that never got written down. That’s gnostic.
LikeLike
Mermaid, right. Just ignore the Fourth Lateran and change the subject to Protestantism’s departure from Rome.
Still haven’t seen you or any of your co-religionists respond to Those Days. And yet, you guys beat us up for neglecting Rome’s history. When we bring up that history, crickets.
“In your Presbyterian religion, the progressives are the only noise that is being heard.”
And you don’t hear Old Life? Do you (and Susan) THINK!?!
Calvin believed he was following the teaching of the apostles, the very teaching that gave your bishops any authority. But Those were the Days.
I get it. Rome’s apologetic is “we’re not as bad as Protestants.” Such a low bar. You can do better.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 5, 2015 at 11:28 am | Permalink
Mermaid, right. Just ignore the Fourth Lateran and change the subject to Protestantism’s departure from Rome.>>>>
You know that Protestantism departed from Rome. Of course, you say that Rome departed from Christianity. Protestantism was supposed to set the Church back on its foundation.
So, what is your foundation now? Think about it. The foundation of provisional knowledge and the best propositions you are able to put forward.
The resurrection of Christ itself is put in the provisional knowledge category, but then used as a presupposition for your theology.
Provisional epistemology + presuppositions that can be challenged = Reformed “faith.” That is starting to look less and less like the rock Jesus spoke of in the passages I have kindly cut and pasted below my comment.
Think about it, and then we can talk.
BTW, Machen was trying to do on his own what the Council of Nicea did for us a long, long time ago. You want fundamentals of the faith?
Matthew 16:13-20English Standard Version (ESV)
Peter Confesses Jesus as the Christ
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock[a] I will build my church, and the gates of hell[b] shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed[c] in heaven.” 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.
Matthew 7
Build Your House on the Rock
24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”
LikeLike
Mermaid,
So, what is your foundation now? Think about it. The foundation of provisional knowledge and the best propositions you are able to put forward.
Cletus already gave the game away in the other greed when he said that his lack of infallibility and omniscience doesn’t mean that he has “provisional” knowledge. So we can stop with the whole “RCs don’t have provisional knowledge but Protestants don’t schtick.” Our lack of infallibility doesn’t mean that we are provisional in the way you think we’re provisional.
Provisional epistemology + presuppositions that can be challenged = Reformed “faith.
Bull. Just because presuppositions can be challenged, and ANYONE’S presuppositions can be challenged doesn’t mean it can be done so successfully.
That is starting to look less and less like the rock Jesus spoke of in the passages I have kindly cut and pasted below my comment.
There’s an elementary difference between the rock and our apprehension of the rock that for some reason you RCs think doesn’t apply as soon as Rome says boo.
BTW, Machen was trying to do on his own what the Council of Nicea did for us a long, long time ago. You want fundamentals of the faith?
As if Rome gives a hoot about Nicea. Brother Muslims? Kissing Qur’ans? Nicene orthodoxy is essentially irrelevant to Rome’s view of salvation. All roads now lead to heaven.
LikeLike
Robert, you can stop if you wish or continue.
If you or Brother Hart are willing to change your presuppositions if the bones of Peter really are in Rome, then let’s talk.
There is a better way, actually. We are all in the battle against common enemies.
Oh, and BTW, do you know why Pope Francis called Muslims our brothers and sisters or how he differentiated in the same speech between our brotherhood with them and the special filial relationship that Christians enjoy?
No, you don’t, because you did not read the whole thing, and you do not really understand the Pope’s context.
LikeLike
Mermaid,
Bones of Peter? Last time I saw there was a fairly good case to be made that they are in Rome. Not sure what the relevance of that fact is, however. The fact that the bones of Peter might be in St. Peter’s basilica doesn’t prove any of Rome’s claims except the claim that the bones of Peter are in St. Peter’s basilica.
As for Francis, why don’t you point me to the passage where he says that Muslims are not children of God and are going to hell unless they repent and trust in Christ.
LikeLike
Mermaid,
If you think provisional knowledge is so uncertain, then why do you eat? After all, you only provisionally know that eating is necessary, or that your food isn’t poisoned?
Why do you trust in the RC church and not the EO? You only provisionally know that the RC church is Christ’s church.
Why do you recite the Nicene creed? You only provisionally know that the words you recite are a correct translation.
The point is that in spite of your disparagement of provisional knowledge, you routinely rely on your own provisional knowledge in matters secular and religious. All.The.Time.
Until you can admit to that, you won’t understand the Protestant position. Your entire critique rests on a foundation of meringue.
LikeLike
Naw, Jeff. That’s your shtick. All provisionality all the time. If it works for you, then make it work for you.
You turned provisionality into sand when you applied it to the Resurrection. That’s the point of sand, not what I might eat for breakfast, lunch, or dinner.
What I eat or don’t eat is of no consequence in the great scheme of things. The Resurrection cannot be put in the same category as though all provisionality were the same provisionality.
If you are willing to say that your canon is only provisional in nature, and that if a Protestant decides after studying the evidence and coming to his or her own conclusions based on their own conscience and reasoning abilities that the Deuterocanonical books are inspired is your application of provisional knowledge to the canon meaningful.
LikeLike
Mermaid,
It is the word of God, the one that you cite. Odd how
believing in an infallible pontiffdrinking the koolaid gives you cart blanche to quote the Bible authoritatively.In the end, your trust is in an office. History suggests that trust is misplaced. But you keep shrugging.
Where was the church before you believed? Mermaid says — doesn’t matter, I believe.
LikeLike
Mermaid,
The Resurrection cannot be put in the same category as though all provisionality were the same provisionality.
Since you are neither infallible nor omniscient, your idea that either Rome, the Scripture, or I teach the resurrection is provisional. You provisionally apprehend that Rome teaches the resurrection and that it matters.
As Jeff said, you are relying on your provisional knowledge to establish the claim that Rome is true. That doesn’t mean you are necessarily wrong. It does mean you are limited and your knowledge is provisional and that if it’s okay for you to rest on it, it’s okay for Protestants to rest on their provisional knowledge.
CVD has already admitted that the lack of his infallibllity and omniscience doesn’t mean his submission is provisional in the sense of “maybe its true or maybe its not” and that it doesn’t entail skepticism on his part. He’s exactly right. Now he needs to apply that to Protestantism and drop the argument he and the rest of you are making.
LikeLike
Mermaid, ah yes. Provisionality only applies to your opponents. Why don’t you follow your infallible pontiff?
LikeLike
Mermaid: … as though all provisionality were the same provisionality.
You mean not all provisionality is the same? Say more.
LikeLike
The Little Mermaid
Posted December 5, 2015 at 1:26 pm | Permalink
If you are willing to say that your canon is only provisional in nature, and that if a Protestant decides after studying the evidence and coming to his or her own conclusions based on their own conscience and reasoning abilities that the Deuterocanonical books are inspired is your application of provisional knowledge to the canon meaningful.
Yes, they have no answer for that. According to their own standards, everybody gets to pick what to put into their own personal Bible.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 5, 2015 at 1:35 pm | Permalink
Mermaid,
So, what is your foundation now? Think about it. The foundation of provisional knowledge and the best propositions you are able to put forward.
It is the word of God, the one that you cite. Odd how believing in an infallible pontiff drinking the koolaid gives you cart blanche to quote the Bible authoritatively.
In the end, your trust is in an office. History suggests that trust is misplaced.
Actually what history proves is that the “Reformation” led to theological anarchy. Show me in the Bible that’s what Christ.*
If the Catholic Church is a mess [and it is], it still goes on. “Protestantism” is a mess that’s not even a church.
______________
* He didn’t. Do you people ever read this thing?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 5, 2015 at 1:46 pm | Permalink
Mermaid: … as though all provisionality were the same provisionality.
You mean not all provisionality is the same? Say more.>>>>
You are the one who puts everything you know on the same level of provisionality. All knowledge is provisional knowledge in your epistemology. You are the one who has to defend it.
It makes your theology of an infallible rule of faith and practice out to be nonsense. In your system, you can only make such a statement provisionally, which you have argued cannot be infallible.
So, untangle yourself from the web you have woven for yourself.
TVD
Posted December 5, 2015 at 3:11 pm | Permalink
The Little Mermaid
Posted December 5, 2015 at 1:26 pm | Permalink
If you are willing to say that your canon is only provisional in nature, and that if a Protestant decides after studying the evidence and coming to his or her own conclusions based on their own conscience and reasoning abilities that the Deuterocanonical books are inspired is your application of provisional knowledge to the canon meaningful.
TVD:
Yes, they have no answer for that. According to their own standards, everybody gets to pick what to put into their own personal Bible.>>>>>
Exactly! Every person his or her own Pope. Every person his or her own Holy Spirit, even.
No such thing as a Church. It’s all invisible. Nothing is really real.
LikeLike
Mermaid: You are the one who puts everything you know on the same level of provisionality. All knowledge is provisional knowledge in your epistemology.
You are mistaken. I have argued otherwise, repeatedly.
Answr the question, please. Are all provisional beliefs equally uncertain?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 5, 2015 at 5:42 pm | Permalink
Mermaid: You are the one who puts everything you know on the same level of provisionality. All knowledge is provisional knowledge in your epistemology.
You are mistaken. I have argued otherwise, repeatedly.
Answr the question, please. Are all provisional beliefs equally uncertain?
This observer has no idea what you’re on about either, nor does it have anything to do with the Christian religion–only with your own solipsistic version of it. This is a web of your own creation and not even your fellow Protestants here are setting foot in it. Sorry, but that’s the fact. Nobody will get anywhere near her question because your whole system of sola scriptura collapses if you give an honest answer.
LikeLike
TVD: This observer has no idea what you’re on about either
Utterly unsurprising. You and Mermaid have been misrepresenting our position for so long that you can’t tell the difference between what we believe and what you’ve made up whole cloth.
Lack of reading comprehension on your part does not constitute confusion on my part.
LikeLike
<i.Jeff Cagle
Posted December 5, 2015 at 7:15 pm | Permalink
TVD: This observer has no idea what you’re on about either
Utterly unsurprising. You and Mermaid have been misrepresenting our position
Nobody knows what it is, neither is there an “our.” You’re on your own here.
Answer the question. Show your cards.
LikeLike
Jeff, but the Old Life commbox is what you have when you don’t have any readers at your blog.
LikeLike
Tom and Mermaid:
If you are willing to say that your canon is only provisional in nature, and that if a Protestant decides after studying the evidence and coming to his or her own conclusions based on their own conscience and reasoning abilities that the Deuterocanonical books are inspired is your application of provisional knowledge to the canon meaningful.
Wrong. Fallibility doesn’t equal uncertainty or that one has the spiritual right to obey ones conscience when it is wrong or that everything is up for grabs or that we can’t know an invalid argument or…
You all are the ones claiming infallibility equals no way to evaluate spiritual truth. That’s fine if you want to go there as long as you apply your standard to yourselves. Which I’ve yet to see happen.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 5, 2015 at 8:06 pm | Permalink
Wrong. Fallibility doesn’t equal uncertainty or that one has the spiritual right to obey ones conscience when it is wrong or that everything is up for grabs or that we can’t know an invalid argument or…
Where is all this “provisionality” stuff in the Bible?
And you didn’t answer the question either, Robert. If the canon is closed, who closed it? By what authority?
You guys keep uncoupling the Holy Spirit from your train of thought, which renders everything you say ontologically invalid. You have no defense from reducing the Christian religion to rationalism.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12652a.htm
LikeLike
TVD: You guys keep uncoupling the Holy Spirit from your train of thought
You keep saying that, but it keeps being false.
LikeLike
Tom,
Where is all this “provisionality” stuff in the Bible?
Test everything; hold fast what is good. Until you find something better.
If that were actually our understanding of falliblity and “provisionality” that would be nice. But as we keep pointing out, that’s not true.
And you didn’t answer the question either, Robert. If the canon is closed, who closed it? By what authority?
The Holy Spirit closed the canon ca. 90 AD when the last NT book was written. Simple.
You guys keep uncoupling the Holy Spirit from your train of thought, which renders everything you say ontologically invalid.
As Jeff said, this simply isn’t true. I’ll add that the claim itself only makes sense if you think the Holy Spirit equals people with funny hats doling out grace in dollops through sacraments that don’t require conscious faith.
You have no defense from reducing the Christian religion to rationalism.
Hey, my church hasn’t embraced Enlightenment Darwinism. Rome on the other hand…
LikeLike
TVD: If you are willing to say that your canon is only provisional in nature
Yes, meaning that theoretically evidence could come along to demonstrate that the boundary of the canon needs to move.
It would be a foolish bet to hold out for it.
TVD: and that if a Protestant decides after studying the evidence and coming to his or her own conclusions based on their own conscience and reasoning abilities that the Deuterocanonical books are inspired is your application of provisional knowledge to the canon meaningful.
No. That’s not what “provisional” means. You’re thinking of “solipsistic.”
Your turn: Are all provisional beliefs equally uncertain?
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 5, 2015 at 9:18 pm | Permalink
Tom,
“Where is all this “provisionality” stuff in the Bible?
Test everything; hold fast what is good. Until you find something better.”
If that were actually our understanding of falliblity and “provisionality” that would be nice. But as we keep pointing out, that’s not true.
You keep denying the logical result of you philosophy, which replaces the Holy Spirit with your own reason. Neither can you find any Biblical clarification for whatever you’re trying to say, because it’s not there.
And you didn’t answer the question either, Robert. If the canon is closed, who closed it? By what authority?
The Holy Spirit closed the canon ca. 90 AD when the last NT book was written. Simple.
Simplistic. Show us a Bible from 90 AD or even 190 AD. You can’t. None exists. You are glossing over the process of how the Holy Spirit created the Bible in its present form. This is useless. I doubt even your own church agrees with any of this.
LikeLike
vd, t, so the Holy Spirit was still inspiring the Bible after 190?
Coherent up.
LikeLike
Tom,
You keep denying the logical result of you philosophy, which replaces the Holy Spirit with your own reason. Neither can you find any Biblical clarification for whatever you’re trying to say, because it’s not there.
Incorrect. The Holy Spirit’s leading of the church does not necessitate that the church always and everywhere gets things right. The church is still led by sinners.
And you didn’t answer the question either, Robert. If the canon is closed, who closed it? By what authority?
Yes I did answer it. The canon was closed as soon as the last book of the NT was written. There’s a difference between closing the canon and recognizing the canon. I do not accept the premise that the church closes the canon. The church merely recognizes it.
Simplistic. Show us a Bible from 90 AD or even 190 AD. You can’t. None exists. You are glossing over the process of how the Holy Spirit created the Bible in its present form. This is useless. I doubt even your own church agrees with any of this.
When you can get it through your thick skull that my church denies that the church determines or creates the canon, then we can talk. The church recognizes the canon by the authority of the Holy Spirit when it gets the canon right. You want a red light to go off when that happens. Neither Jesus nor the Apostles promised that.
But if you want the earliest full canon, it was actually delineated by Origen who gave a list of books in ca. 250 AD: http://michaeljkruger.com/what-is-the-earliest-complete-list-of-the-canon-of-the-new-testament/
But of course, that doesn’t mean he was the first to recognize it.
Rome imprisons the Holy Spirit in the sacraments and in the musings of men who have had no problem persecuting Jews, killing Protestants, kidnapping children, selling salvation, and sending child molesting priests to new parishes where they would have access to more children. It turns “my sheep hear my voice” to “We, the corrupt hierarchy and lousy for power Magisterium will tell you when the Spirit speaks, we’ll never be wrong about it, and pay no attention to the fact that we include full-on liberals in our ranks.” You’ll perhaps forgive us for laughing at Magisterial claims.
LikeLike
Mermaid: Every person his or her own Holy Spirit, even. No such thing as a Church. It’s all invisible. Nothing is really real.
Dear mermaid-l’unite’-lover, now you’re really de-unificating
Are you saying that every believer doesn’t personally have the indwelling Holy Spirit – ‘cause THAT is the true unity of which the Lord speaks -Christ’s body, the Σ of every believer each having His indwelling Spirit, the fullness of Him who fills all in all (Eph 1:23)
Can we praise the Lord for giving us His word, of which we do agree https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/canon.cfm
Can we say as Paul does Who the convincer is: …if in anything you have a different attitude, GOD will reveal that also to you (Phil 3:15)
“The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself;
And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
Little children, guard yourselves from idols” ( from 1 John 5)
LikeLike
also re unity- can we also agree we all love squirrels
To A Squirrel At Kyle-Na-No
Come play with me;
Why should you run
Through the shaking tree
As though I’d a gun
To strike you dead?
When all I would do
Is to scratch your head
And let you go.”
― W.B. Yeats
LikeLike
Robert and Jeff, you really got nothin’ I can see that even remotely resembles the kind of faith Jesus talks about.
All you have is provisional knowledge which leads to provisional “faith.” Jesus would call that unbelief. I do not believe that is how you actually operate. If it is, you are lost.
See, Robert, when you were consistent in your application of provisional knowledge even to Christ’s resurrection, you showed the foolishness of this epistemology as applied to matters of settled dogma.
The evidence is abundantly clear in the NT you say you accept as infallible. Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Read the evidence. Submit to what the Bible says. If you do, you are a believer in Christ. If you don’t, you are not.
There is no foolish talk in the NT about “if we find the body of Jesus Christ, then we will quit believing.” Unbelievers argue that way – and argued that way. The Jews thought they could tell a story about how Jesus’ disciples came and stole the body and that’s why they couldn’t find one.
You have borrowed this idea of provisional knowledge from the philosophy of science. It may work quite well if consistently applied to the sciences. We know it is not, but as a philosophy, it may be quite sound.
You have tried to marry it to the kind of thing Luther advocated – an appeal to human reason and human conscience. The big problem is that both human reason and human conscience in your theology are so terribly fallen that they can never be relied on to bring the kind of certainty that faith demands. Even you say that we rely on revealed truth, not on human reasoning.
I am not really sure what role the Holy Spirit plays in your coming to faith. I know that in your ordo, the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit called regeneration comes before anything else. Without regeneration, no one is able to believe. That is true.
The Bible is also clear – and the Catholic Church affirms – that the Holy Spirit was given to the Body of Christ on the Day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2. That is when and where the Holy Spirit descended on and filled God’s people just as Jesus promised in John 16 and Acts 1.
You never talk about Him except to say that of course you believe in Him. You get insulted when asked. Then you go back to trashing Catholicism. So, go ahead. Tear down the Catholic Church. Burn her to the ground. Many have tried both from the inside and from the outside. Many are trying from the inside and outside right now. You add your voices to the many who are working as hard as they can to bring about her demise.
And? Then what? What do YOU have? Are you going to go into all the world and preach the Gospel of “based on provisional evidence, we provisionally believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead until and unless His body is found”?
What are you going to preach on Easter Sunday? “We are gathered here today because we are 99.999% sure that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. We base that on provisional knowledge, but if His body is ever found – and it just might be someday – we will quit calling ourselves Christians. So, today we have a cause for rejoicing, knowing that until further notice, Christ rose from the dead!”
If you are not going to preach like that, then away with your nonsense! Here is how Paul preached the resurrection of Christ. It is of first importance. It is the heart of the Gospel message. Unless you believe this, you are not a Christian. Unless this is true, you are still dead in your sins and there is no hope of eternal life.
If you really believe this, Robert and Jeff, then preach it as though your life depended on it – because it does.
1 Corinthians 15
3 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 brothers 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, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
LikeLike
Mermaid,
Robert and Jeff, you really got nothin’ I can see that even remotely resembles the kind of faith Jesus talks about.
The kind of faith that Jesus doesn’t talk about is “believe what ever the church tells you to believe and don’t ask too many questions,” which I’m afraid is the view I’m sensing from you in your comments and your refusal to actually hear what we are saying.
All you have is provisional knowledge which leads to provisional “faith.” Jesus would call that unbelief. I do not believe that is how you actually operate. If it is, you are lost.
All YOU have is finite, fallible knowledge. Which means it is theoretically possible that what you interpret as “I, the Roman church is infallible” is really “I, the Roman church was founded by Green Martians,” or “I, the Roman Church am not a true witness to Christ,” etc. You, theoretically could be the only person that exists and we’re all just figments of your imagination. There’s all sorts of things that are possible in theory but impossible in reality. You don’t have to be infallible to know that.
And that is really all we’re saying. It is theoretically possible for the church to be wrong on the Trinity, etc., but in reality its essentially impossible given the evidence, etc. THAT is what the Protestant means by fallibility. NOT “we’re fallible so we’re clueless about what is true and what is not.”
The only reason I am going down this road is because YOUR SIDE as represented here (though it is not illustrative of the majority of RCs) keeps saying that fallibility means everything goes, no foundation, etc. That’s really fine if you want to believe it, but if so, you MUST apply it to yourself as well and recognize that EVEN IF ROME’S CLAIMS ARE TRUE, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CLAIM AND YOUR APPREHENSION OF IT, WHICH IS FALLIBLE. And that means that you are in the exact same position of any Protestant if fallibility means foundationless, ever-changing, can’t know for sure, etc.
See, Robert, when you were consistent in your application of provisional knowledge even to Christ’s resurrection, you showed the foolishness of this epistemology as applied to matters of settled dogma.
The evidence is abundantly clear in the NT you say you accept as infallible. Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Read the evidence. Submit to what the Bible says. If you do, you are a believer in Christ. If you don’t, you are not.
I submit to what the Bible says and have certainty that it is true without having to believe that church is infallible. CVD’s point on the one hand is that there is no warrant for that if there is no infallible church, but then he gave the store away when he admitted that our finitude and fallibility does not mean we can’t know or be sure of things.
There is no foolish talk in the NT about “if we find the body of Jesus Christ, then we will quit believing.” Unbelievers argue that way – and argued that way. The Jews thought they could tell a story about how Jesus’ disciples came and stole the body and that’s why they couldn’t find one.
“If Christ is not risen your faith is in vain. Eat, drink, and be merry.” Paul is laying out the logical consequences if the theoretical possibility of Christ not being raised is true. But it’s a theoretical possibility that is impossible in reality. Which is EXACTLY the point we are making in regard to the fallible church. Every doctrine is theoretically possible to be wrong, but given the evidence it is impossible for at least some of them to be wrong. This, despite our finitude.
You have borrowed this idea of provisional knowledge from the philosophy of science. It may work quite well if consistently applied to the sciences. We know it is not, but as a philosophy, it may be quite sound.
I don’t all of a sudden become infinite when I encounter religious truth claims. Provisionality=finitude not “everything goes.” That’s your argument, not mine. As long as I am finite, there is a degree of provisionality/fallibility to my knowledge. Even if the claim is true and infallible, my apprehension of it is fallible, so there is no difference at the level where it matters epistemologically. You could theoretically be wrong, as could I. RC is in the same boat.
You have tried to marry it to the kind of thing Luther advocated – an appeal to human reason and human conscience. The big problem is that both human reason and human conscience in your theology are so terribly fallen that they can never be relied on to bring the kind of certainty that faith demands.
According to CVD, thinking that human reason and conscience brings certitude of faith is rationalistic Pelagian and your momma is ugly thinking. So Rome has the same problem.
Even you say that we rely on revealed truth, not on human reasoning.
Correct. But the revealed truth doesn’t make ME infallible. And that’s the key.
I am not really sure what role the Holy Spirit plays in your coming to faith. I know that in your ordo, the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit called regeneration comes before anything else. Without regeneration, no one is able to believe. That is true.
You just defined the role of the HS in my coming to faith. You know exactly what we believe, so stop saying we’re Pelagian or don’t have a space for the Spirit.
The Bible is also clear – and the Catholic Church affirms – that the Holy Spirit was given to the Body of Christ on the Day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2. That is when and where the Holy Spirit descended on and filled God’s people just as Jesus promised in John 16 and Acts 1.
In one sense this is true, but the Holy Spirit also filled God’s people under the old covenant. Pentecost is an increased measure of the Spirit, but not a qualitatively new thing. Which means that if the OT people of God could recognize the canon apart from infallibility and be expected to have certainty of faith about it (and Jesus does so expect that), so can we.
You never talk about Him except to say that of course you believe in Him. You get insulted when asked. Then you go back to trashing Catholicism.
That’s a lie or at best a betrayal of your failure to read.
So, go ahead. Tear down the Catholic Church. Burn her to the ground. Many have tried both from the inside and from the outside. Many are trying from the inside and outside right now.
You’ve just made the best argument for RC fallibility that has yet been offered on this blog.
And? Then what? What do YOU have? Are you going to go into all the world and preach the Gospel of “based on provisional evidence, we provisionally believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead until and unless His body is found”?
Non sequitr. We preach what we believe is true boldly. My finitude and fallibility does not impact the truth of the claim. And that’s the point.
LikeLike
Robert:
Non sequitr. We preach what we believe is true boldly. My finitude and fallibility does not impact the truth of the claim. And that’s the point.>>>>
The point is that you do not apply the principle of provisional knowledge to your faith. That concept is borrowed from a philosophy of science. It presumes skepticism, BTW, or it would not be what is commonly called science in our day.
I do not believe you do. It’s not because I believe you to be a liar. No, not at all. It’s not because I believe you are consciously telling a lie. I do not believe that you, Robert, actually think that way about the resurrection in real life.
That is my point.
LikeLike
See, Robert, you and I believe in the ressurrection not based on any kind of provisional knowledge. We believe because.:
1. The women were the first to witness to the resurrection and carry the message of the angel to the apostles. They learned it from angelic messengers who were sent by God to tell them.
2. Mary Magdalene saw the risen Lord and talked briefly with Him.
3. When the apostles heard the news, Peter and John went to see for themselves. Peter was the first to enter the tomb and see the bodiless shroud.
4. They went back to tell the apostles.
and so forth as per 1 Cor. 15:1ff
So, it was the apostles who had been given the authority to teach the truth. You believe that while they were alive, and even their testimony until this day is authoritative.
You believe in the ressurrection of Jesus Christ based on the authority that had been given to the apostles. If you believe for any other reason- convinced by your own reason and conscience – then that undermines the authority of the apostles and that of Jesus Himself as well.
You put your own reason and conscience above the authority of the apostles. You lose if you do that.
Like the demons said to the 7 Sons of Sceva.
““Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?”
-Acts 19:11-17
Even the demons see the foolishness of reliance on one’s own authority. Reliance on one’s own ability to sort through provisional knowledge and made decisions about Truth is not what the NT endorses as faith.
LikeLike
Mermaid,
How do you know that the women were the first to witness the resurrection?
LikeLike
Note that I’m not questioning the Scripture. I’m questioning how *you* know what you claim to know. How do you know that you have read the Scripture correctly?
LikeLike
The point is that you do not apply the principle of provisional knowledge to your faith. That concept is borrowed from a philosophy of science. It presumes skepticism, BTW, or it would not be what is commonly called science in our day.
I’m not borrowing anything from the philosophy of science. I’m simply acknowledging that I cannot know every fact nor how every fact is related to every other fact. Therefore, there will always be a degree of provisionality to my knowledge, even with respect to my faith. Provisionality is inherent to being a creature. But provisionality isn’t something that eradicates a foundation for the warrant of faith. That’s your and CVD’s claim, which is absurd on the face of it because it reduces to skepticism. I’m just trying to get you to follow out the logical end of your claim.
We believe because.:
1. The women were the first to witness to the resurrection and carry the message of the angel to the apostles. They learned it from angelic messengers who were sent by God to tell them.
2. Mary Magdalene saw the risen Lord and talked briefly with Him.
3. When the apostles heard the news, Peter and John went to see for themselves. Peter was the first to enter the tomb and see the bodiless shroud.
4. They went back to tell the apostles.
and so forth as per 1 Cor. 15:1ff
So, it was the apostles who had been given the authority to teach the truth. You believe that while they were alive, and even their testimony until this day is authoritative.
Yes.
You believe in the ressurrection of Jesus Christ based on the authority that had been given to the apostles. If you believe for any other reason- convinced by your own reason and conscience – then that undermines the authority of the apostles and that of Jesus Himself as well.
I don’t follow you here. I believe based on the authority of the Apostles because I exercised my reason and conscience to interpret their words. I don’t set aside my reason when I believe. I can’t believe unless my reason has some kind of content to work on. I mean to put it bare bones: Apostolic teaching plus my reasoning through it plus the effectual enablement of the Holy Spirit=Robert has faith. If I lose any of that, I don’t have faith.
You put your own reason and conscience above the authority of the apostles. You lose if you do that.
Not true. My reason and conscience are the means, or at least some of the means, by which I receive the authoritative claims of the Apostles. I can’t believe without exercising reason, but my reason is finite and fallible because I am not God or an organ of special revelation. The same is true of you.
There is a distinction between the content/meaning of the revelation and my apprehension of it. This is undeniable. Without the Vulcan mindmeld I’m relying on my own mind, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit to know and interpret the content. So are you.
This is why Rome’s claim to infallibility doesn’t provide any inherent assistance to you. There is a distinction between the claim and your apprehension of that claim. So if you want to go down the road of “you have no warrant/certitude of faith without an infallible claim,” you have to explain how you have such warrant when what you are believing is your fallible reading of an infallible claim. It’s something that no RC has yet done except to say, “Just ignore that reality and assume Rome is correct, and we’re self-evidently better.” I mean I can play that game with crazy Dave the prophet who says every word that comes out of his mouth is infallible. Well, I got to throw Rome out for consideration because it limits its infalliblity. It’s a dumb argument, and frankly it seems that it’s offered only because you guys think that religious truth is somehow indiscernible through other means or you are so insecure about yourselves that you need some extra assurance. But then you trust yourself to rightly divine the most important spiritual truth in your system, namely Rome is what she is. It’s inconsistent and illogical.
Even the demons see the foolishness of reliance on one’s own authority.
Correct. Which is why I don’t relay on my own authority. I do have to rely in some measure on my own reason, however. And so do you.
Reliance on one’s own ability to sort through provisional knowledge and made decisions about Truth is not what the NT endorses as faith.
I don’t even know what this means. You relied on your own ability and reason to sort through evidence and make a decision about Christ and the church, unless you want to tell me you put no thought into the decision. But other comments indicate you did. It seems like you are endorsing some kind of radical antithesis between faith and reason, which certainly isn’t traditional Roman Catholicism. But it is difficult to understand what you are saying.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “Robert and Jeff, you really got nothin’ I can see that even remotely resembles the kind of faith Jesus talks about. All you have is provisional knowledge which leads to provisional “faith.” Jesus would call that unbelief.”
Imagine Pope Francis saying that. I can’t:
Why don’t you at least act like a Roman Catholic?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 6, 2015 at 7:41 am | Permalink
vd, t, so the Holy Spirit was still inspiring the Bible after 190?
Coherent up.
Nice try, tough guy, but a distortion.
In its present form. Sorting out for man what is canonical and what is not canonical, as well as which source texts to translate and canonize [for instance, the Septuagint or the Pharisees’ later “Masoretic” version of the OT?].
http://oodegr.co/english/protestantism/masoretic_vs_septuagint.htm
Unless you want to say that Martin Luther did it all on his own authority. [Which he kinda did.* Which leaves you in the pickle that your friends are conspicuously avoiding, the one that’s actually relevant to the discussion.]
Once again, you’re nowhere near the zone, Dr. Hart. But you do have a gift for infantilizing any discussion you intrude upon. Well done, sir.
____________
*”But to return to the matter in hand! If your papist wants to make so much fuss about the word sola (alone) tell him this, “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and says that a papist and an ass are the same thing.” Sic volo, sic jubeo; sit pro ratione voluntas. We are not going to be the pupils and disciples of the papists, but their masters and judges. For once, we too are going to be proud and brag with these blockheads; and as St. Paul boasts over against his mad raving saints [II Cor. 11:21ff.], so I shall boast over against these asses of mine. Are they doctors? So am I. Are they learned? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they debaters? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they dialecticians? So am I. Are they lecturers? So am I. Do they write books? So do I.
I will go further with my boasting. I can expound psalms and prophets; they cannot. I can translate; they cannot. I can read the Holy Scriptures; they cannot. Blahblahblahblah
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 6, 2015 at 1:51 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, “Robert and Jeff, you really got nothin’ I can see that even remotely resembles the kind of faith Jesus talks about. All you have is provisional knowledge which leads to provisional “faith.” Jesus would call that unbelief.”
Imagine Pope Francis saying that. I can’t:
Francis had the same message for a mostly Christian crowd of 3,700 in a refugee camp at a CAR Catholic parish, saying, “We want peace. There is no peace without forgiveness, without tolerance. Regardless of ethnicity, social status, we are all brothers.”
Why don’t you at least act like a Roman Catholic?
She acts like a Christian, anyway, enduring your abuse without smacking you back.
Keep on keeping holy the Lord’s Day, Elder Hart. I guess this is how one acts when they’re a Presbyterian.
LikeLike
Simplistic. Show us a Bible from 90 AD or even 190 AD. You can’t. None exists. You are glossing over the process of how the Holy Spirit created the Bible in its present form. This is useless. I doubt even your own church agrees with any of this.
More incompetent and contradictory ex prot blathering.
Rather in obedience to the command in Scripture to explicitly and implicitly preach and teach sound doctrine (Tit. 1:9, 2:1, Tim. 1:10) WCF 1:8 says:
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical (Matt. 5:18); so as, in all controversies of religion,the Church is finally to appeal unto them (Isa. 8:20).
IOW while we don’t have the original inspired autographs, the church has always had faithful copies (apographa) of Scripture. It didn’t just drop out of the sky at at Trent.
If you really believe this, Robert and Jeff, then preach it as though your life depended on it – because it does.
Maybe Snow White could look in the mirror.
1 Corinthians 15
3 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, And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve . . . Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
Why do we so believe? Because it is “according to the Scripture” and however it might escape our novices, 1 Cor. 15, which she quotes, is also Scripture.
Note bene, note well. There is no mention of the Church, the Magisterium, Tradition or even the pope as the basis for why we are to believe Paul’s gospel which is the NT gospel.
Even our papist inconsistently recognizes that.
And then returns to accusing prots – , who admit to being fallible – of never being able to come to a true knowledge of the infallible truths of Scripture. This all the while she implicitly, if not explicitly claims that cats – who are also fallible – can truly know the infallible truths of popery.
Hypocrisy much?
Because protestantism acknowledges that their claims to correctly understanding Scripture (the pope?) are always open to examination in the light of Scripture, reason and history, romanists see fit to equivocate and throw the weasel word of “provisional” around with abandon. It necessarily means in their one sided critique, that protestant provisionalism necessarily is in error and that only and all the time.
Rather for prots doctrinal progress is like climbing a mountain. Each generation ideally begins the journey higher up than the previous generation, but progress is slow; dead ends, detours and backsliding abounds. But on some issues the church doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel, such as with the truly ecumenical creeds regarding the Trinity and the deity of Christ.
Likewise the Reformation. Trent cemented Rome’s apostasy on the authority of Scripture and justification by faith alone, returning to a semi pelagian vomit and mishmash of justification and sanctification, faith and works however much she tried in Vat 2 to make nice and talk about “separated brethren”.
True, cats don’t agree with this paradigm; for them the ultimate question is does one have implicit (albeit ignorant) faith in the Church or no, period. IOW Sola Ecclesia.
Regardless, that doesn’t justify the roman lies/misrepresentions of the prot position.
LikeLike
Mermaid, when did Christianity become a graduate seminar in epistemology? When did Descartes become the one to set the agenda?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 6, 2015 at 5:44 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, when did Christianity become a graduate seminar in epistemology? When did Descartes become the one to set the agenda?
You should be posing this to Jeff and Robert. They’re the ones doing this “provisionality” bit.
LikeLike
Bob S
Posted December 6, 2015 at 5:42 pm | Permalink
Likewise the Reformation. Trent cemented Rome’s apostasy on the authority of Scripture and justification by faith alone, returning to a semi pelagian vomit and mishmash of justification and sanctification
Bob, normal people don’t talk like this.
LikeLike
TVD: You should be posing this to Jeff and Robert. They’re the ones doing this “provisionality” bit
Au contraire. We are perfectly happy to say that normal people are able to read the Bible and derive meaning from it, and by the work of the Spirit believe.
Now comes you or Mermaid or CVD and wants to know ‘by what authority?’ and tries to throw doubt on even the possibility of finding meaning in the text.
You guys brought this to the table.
But I notice that neither you nor Mermaid has answered the question:
Is all provisional knowledge equally uncertain?
I answered your question. Fair’s fair.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 6, 2015 at 7:10 pm | Permalink
TVD: “You should be posing this to Jeff and Robert. They’re the ones doing this “provisionality” bit”
Au contraire. We are perfectly happy to say that normal people are able to read the Bible and derive meaning from it, and by the work of the Spirit believe.
That does not address “provisionality”; it dodges it.
You cannot say what the Bible even is. Robert’s ready to cut the story of the adulteress out based on philology. And of course once you introduce modern Biblical criticism, the sky’s the limit.
http://listverse.com/2015/08/11/10-bible-passages-that-might-be-totally-bogus/
Plus you once again avoided the question of the Septuagint vs. the Masoretic OT as the proper source for the Christian Bible. You cannot even establish your premises, let alone your argument.
Now comes you or Mermaid or CVD and wants to know ‘by what authority?’ and tries to throw doubt on even the possibility of finding meaning in the text.
You guys brought this to the table.
That’s because it shows you did not establish your premise.
But I notice that neither you nor Mermaid has answered the question:
Is all provisional knowledge equally uncertain?
I answered your question. Fair’s fair.
No, you didn’t answer. Nor is anyone anxious to step into the little snare you’re laying with a question that has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. Does the Holy Spirit dispense “provisional” knowledge?
If so, you have not dared to attempt any Biblical proof for that idea.
If not, you’re just arguing human reason and epistemology, which would make Dr. hart 180 degrees wrong once again, attacking the wrong person, Ms. Mermaid, for playing the epistemology game. That would be you.
LikeLike
Plus you once again avoided the question of the Septuagint vs. the Masoretic OT as the proper source for the Christian Bible. You cannot even establish your premises, let alone your argument.
That’s a lie. MsWf has only repeatedly repeated the exploded nonsense of Susan. Because the Greek NT quotes the Septuagint OT which also contains the Deuterocanonical books, ergo, the Greek NT quotes the DC. Not.
As in demonstrate, not assert i.e name it, claim it, your fundamental MO.
WCF 1:8 The OT in Hebrew . . . not Greek.
No, you didn’t answer. Nor is anyone anxious to step into the little snare you’re laying with a question that has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. Does the Holy Spirit dispense “provisional” knowledge?
Distinguish for one, O wise one, between inspiration and illumination.
Much more that the Roman church has got the Holy Spirit bottled up and on tap in the sacraments, ex opere operato.
IOW the lesbian squirrels truly partake of Christ if they get into the sanctuary and there are any crumbs that didn’t get swept up and put in the sacristy.
Of course normal people don’t talk that way. They aren’t romanists.
LikeLike
TVD: No, you didn’t answer.
I absolutely did. I gave you a direct Yes to the first part, with reason, and a No to the second part, with reason. here.
TVD: Nor is anyone anxious to step into the little snare you’re laying with a question that has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit.
So are you afraid to answer the question?
LikeLike
Tom,
You cannot say what the Bible even is. Robert’s ready to cut the story of the adulteress out based on philology. And of course once you introduce modern Biblical criticism, the sky’s the limit.
The irony is that some of the most radical works on biblical criticism that I have read were written by Roman Catholic priests and had the imprimatur that nothing in the book contradicted RC dogma.
Does the Holy Spirit dispense “provisional” knowledge?
The Holy Spirit gives infallible revelation that we, because we are finite and sinful, fallibly apprehend. This isn’t hard. If you really believe you infallibly apprehend divine revelation, then you are an organ of revelation and need to either start writing another book of the NT or start your own religion.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 6, 2015 at 8:09 pm | Permalink
Tom,
“You cannot say what the Bible even is. Robert’s ready to cut the story of the adulteress out based on philology. And of course once you introduce modern Biblical criticism, the sky’s the limit.”
The irony is that some of the most radical works on biblical criticism that I have read were written by Roman Catholic priests and had the imprimatur that nothing in the book contradicted RC dogma.
Imprimaturs do not bestow the authority of the Church. You don’t quite get this distinction, and you really have to start acknowledging it, Robert. You’re working a false premise.
You’re the one who’s ready to cut out the story of the adulteress out of the Gospel of John. This is impossible in Catholicism, “Biblical criticism” or no.
“Does the Holy Spirit dispense “provisional” knowledge?
The Holy Spirit gives infallible revelation that we, because we are finite and sinful, fallibly apprehend.”
Who is “we?” You keep avoiding that that means every Protestant is his own pope, and your Holy Spirits are all disagreeing with each other.
It also means you can’t even trust what you yourself believe because you are fallible and sinful. I’m not sure even your church teaches that, and if so, please do show us where.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 5, 2015 at 11:52 pm | Permalink
TVD: If you are willing to say that your canon is only provisional in nature
Yes, meaning that theoretically evidence could come along to demonstrate that the boundary of the canon needs to move.
So your Bible–the foundation of your religion–is indeed merely provisional, subject to the razor blade. So who wields the razor blade? By what authority?
Every man for himself? 100s of millions of different Bibles?
You haven’t answered the question atall, you have merely begun.
______________________
TVD: Nor is anyone anxious to step into the little snare you’re laying with a question that has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit.
So are you afraid to answer the question?
Not afraid atall. But it is a snare, because it’s based on another false premise
since anything “provisionally” held isn’t knowledge, it’s a theory. Your “religion” is actually just an ad hoc collection of theories. Get enough people together who subscribe to the same theories, whip it up into a “Confession,” and voila, you call it a “church.”
But this is not Catholicism’s–Augustine’s–concept of what Christ meant by “My Church.”
We can safely fill in Luther or Calvin for “Manichæus.”
LikeLike
Tom,
Thanks for your answer. You say,
But it is a snare, because it’s based on another false premise … since anything “provisionally” held isn’t knowledge, it’s a theory.
It would help a bit if you would become conversant with the distinction between the terms hypothesis, law, and theory, all of which are provisionally known.
But back to the main point. You are taking your daughter in for a flu shot. She asks, “Will it hurt?” You reply (truthfully!) “Only a little bit.” She asks, “How do you know?”
Are you going to tell her, “I don’t know, but I have a theory?”
Are you fully consistent with your rhetoric?
You get into the car and turn the key. Are you surprised when it starts? If the gas gauge hits E, are you at all motivated to find a gas station?
See, Tom, this isn’t about trapping people. I’m just trying to get you to really look at the disconnect between what you say and how you actually live.
If that makes you feel trapped, well, I’m sorry — but I didn’t lay that trap for you.
If your view was on a more solid foundation, you wouldn’t feel quite so trapped.
LikeLike
Or even more to the point, when you say the creed in church, do you think to yourself, “It is only a theory that this is the correct translation of the Nicene creed?”
I’m betting not, and you would rightly regard anyone who did so as a hopeless case.
LikeLike
Tom,
Imprimaturs do not bestow the authority of the Church. You don’t quite get this distinction, and you really have to start acknowledging it, Robert. You’re working a false premise.
An imprimatur is not an endorsement by the bishop of the contents of a book, not even of the religious opinions expressed in it, being merely a declaration about what is not in the book. In the published work, the imprimatur is sometimes accompanied by a declaration of the following tenor:
“The nihil obstat and imprimatur are declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the nihil obstat or imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed.”
You’re the one who’s ready to cut out the story of the adulteress out of the Gospel of John. This is impossible in Catholicism, “Biblical criticism” or no.
I quite understand the (meaningless) distinction. But now you can perhaps explain why philology is so bad when the imprimatur means the work is free of moral or doctrinal error and yet the work says that John didn’t write the Pericopae Adulterae. If the church says that story is part of the canonical gospel of John, infallibly defined, but the work doesn’t, then either the imprimatur is wrong or Rome’s perfectly fine if you want to take out the Pericopae Adulterae.
Who is “we?” You keep avoiding that that means every Protestant is his own pope, and your Holy Spirits are all disagreeing with each other.
No more so than the fact that two Roman Catholics don’t agree. You don’t even agree that the Assumption or transubstantiation are important and relevant doctrines to Roman Catholicism, an opinion that I’m quite sure the Magisterium doesn’t agree with. Well, I’m not so sure with the current pope, but you get the drift.
It also means you can’t even trust what you yourself believe because you are fallible and sinful. I’m not sure even your church teaches that, and if so, please do show us where.
It only means that IF you take the absurd tack that provisional apprehension equals an ever-shifting sand of uncertain opinion. That’s not the tack I take. But you all do, criticizing us and telling us that we can’t have certainty or knowledge because our system is fallible but then turning tail and denying what that means for your own admitted fallibility.
Fallibility simply doesn’t mean lack of certainty or that everything goes. If it does, then you have no certainty about Rome or anything else you purport to believe. It’s the achilles heel of the argument. If fallible=provisional=all up for grabs, then every single RC’s understanding of Rome and submission to her claims is completely the same with regards to its provisionality as mine is, and you get nothing.
Now if we can finally drop the argument that fallible Protestantism equals all is up for grabs, then I can stop pressing you to embrace what that means for the individual RC.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 6, 2015 at 8:52 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Thanks for your answer. You say,
“But it is a snare, because it’s based on another false premise … since anything “provisionally” held isn’t knowledge, it’s a theory.”
It would help a bit if you would become conversant with the distinction between the terms hypothesis, law, and theory, all of which are provisionally known.
But back to the main point. You are taking your daughter in for a flu shot. She asks, “Will it hurt?” You reply (truthfully!) “Only a little bit.” She asks, “How do you know?”
Are you going to tell her, “I don’t know, but I have a theory?”
Are you fully consistent with your rhetoric?
You get into the car and turn the key. Are you surprised when it starts? If the gas gauge hits E, are you at all motivated to find a gas station?
See, Tom, this isn’t about trapping people. I’m just trying to get you to really look at the disconnect between what you say and how you actually live.
If that makes you feel trapped, well, I’m sorry — but I didn’t lay that trap for you.
If your view was on a more solid foundation, you wouldn’t feel quite so trapped.
Thanks for the concern but I don’t feel trapped atall. Augustine’s foundation is the Church, not his own “provisional” “knowledge.” This is the Catholic position, Christ’s promises to His Church as recorded in the Bible
http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/promises.html
that “I will always be with you,” not wallowing in error for a millennium-plus until Luther and Calvin come to rescue it. That’s what’s not in the Bible.
As for the definition of “knowledge,” you have just blown up the concept. The point is that Catholicism’s truth claims are not offered as provisional and you say yours are. Pick any words you want to delineate the difference. This is not about “rhetoric.”
LikeLike
But Tom,
You don’t infallibly know Christ’s promises to the church as recorded in the Scripture, for several reasons.
(1) You don’t have the original manuscripts, so you don’t infallibly know what was written in Scripture.
(2) Even if you ignore this and canonize the Vulgate, you don’t have the Vulgate. And if you did, you couldn’t read Jerome’s Latin anyways. So you have to rely on … a fallible translation.
(3) Even if you ignore this, you don’t have an infallible understanding of Christ’s promises to the Church. After all, you and I read the same promises, yet understand them differently. Are you infallible?
(4) Even if you ignore this and claim that Augustine infallibly understood those promises, you have no infallible translation of Augustine.
(5) Even if you ignore this and claim that the church has provided you will an infallible translation of Augustine, you have no guarantee that you understand it as Augustine originally meant it.
(6) Even if you ignore this and believe that a priest has infallibly transmitted Augustine’s original meaning to you, you have no guarantee that you have infallibly understood it.
So many things can go wrong, Tom. If you insist on standing by your claim that “provisional knowledge” is no knowledge at all, then I have very, very bad news for you.
You don’t know anything
That’s not an insult. It is a direct consequence of your own position applied to your own state of knowledge.
See, I can know things to varying degrees of certainty. I know that objects will fall when I drop them, the Sun’ll Come Out Tomorrow, and you will continue to beat your head against this stone wall.
You can’t know anything, because you first require non-provisionality in order to have knowledge. And you never get it. Even if I grant that … something … in the RC church is infallible, YOU can never have any of that infallible knowledge because you can’t infallibly apprehend it.
It is not provisionality but your Quixotic opposition to provisionality that destroys knowledge.
You don’t know anything — at least not on your own terms.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 6, 2015 at 9:15 pm | Permalink
But now you can perhaps explain why philology is so bad when the imprimatur means the work is free of moral or doctrinal error and yet the work says that John didn’t write the Pericopae Adulterae.
Because the ontological question [the only one that matters] is one of authority, not philology, as Thomas More pointed out 500 years ago, because few human beings will ever become experts in Hebrew, Greek and philology. Dr. Hart scoffs
but he should be scoffing at you. The question remains untouched
I ask
“Who is “we?” You keep avoiding that that means every Protestant is his own pope, and your Holy Spirits are all disagreeing with each other.”
You reply
“No more so than the fact that two Roman Catholics don’t agree.”
But that’s not Catholicism. Whichever one agrees with the authoritative Church teaching is the correct one. The other is in error, ipso facto. Each man is not his own pope.
But your “provisional” truths mean that the opinions [not ‘knowledge’] of any two disagreeing Protestants are of equal validity. Accept TULIP, or reject it, or be a 4-point Calvinist, or a TUL or a TU, what’s the difference? Each letter is provisional, yes? Isn’t all provisional knowledge equally uncertain?
LikeLike
vd, t, “That does not address “provisionality”; it dodges it.”
The senior prof of the epistemology commbox.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 6, 2015 at 9:39 pm | Permalink
But Tom,
You don’t infallibly know Christ’s promises to the church as recorded in the Scripture, for several reasons.
(1) You don’t have the original manuscripts, so you don’t infallibly know what was written in Scripture.
(2) Even if you ignore this and canonize the Vulgate, you don’t have the Vulgate. And if you did, you couldn’t read Jerome’s Latin anyways. So you have to rely on … a fallible translation.
(3) Even if you ignore this, you don’t have an infallible understanding of Christ’s promises to the Church. After all, you and I read the same promises, yet understand them differently. Are you infallible?
(4) Even if you ignore this and claim that Augustine infallibly understood those promises, you have no infallible translation of Augustine.
(5) Even if you ignore this and claim that the church has provided you will an infallible translation of Augustine, you have no guarantee that you understand it as Augustine originally meant it.
(6) Even if you ignore this and believe that a priest has infallibly transmitted Augustine’s original meaning to you, you have no guarantee that you have infallibly understood it.
So many things can go wrong, Tom. If you insist on standing by your claim that “provisional knowledge” is no knowledge at all, then I have very, very bad news for you.
You don’t know anything.
That’s not an insult. It is a direct consequence of your own position applied to your own state of knowledge.
See, I can know things to varying degrees of certainty. I know that objects will fall when I drop them, the Sun’ll Come Out Tomorrow, and you will continue to beat your head against this stone wall.
You can’t know anything, because you first require non-provisionality in order to have knowledge. And you never get it. Even if I grant that … something … in the RC church is infallible, YOU can never have any of that infallible knowledge because you can’t infallibly apprehend it.
It is not provisionality but your Quixotic opposition to provisionality that destroys knowledge.
You don’t know anything — at least not on your own terms.
You seem to think people are disagreeing with you. Nobody is. But you’re arguing withing the bounds of unassisted human reason–epistemology and philology. Augustine and Thomas More both realized that when it comes to Christ, both are inadequate, and you’re illustrating why.
You don’t know anything either, on your own terms. That’s why there are dozens if not 100s of versions of Protestantism. That’s why both Augustine and Thomas More [and Aquinas] argued that there must be a Church, a theological authority.
History seldom reveals its alternatives, but the theological chaos that the Protestant Reformation wrought proves it.
[Perhaps that’s why the Holy Spirit permitted it. Interesting thought.]
LikeLike
vd, t, so where was the church before 1150, around the time that papal infallibility became a going concern of popes and canon lawyers.
You can assert till your blue in the face that Christ founded the papacy, but that is a historical claim subject to historical judgment. And so far, Mr. make fun of historians who use theology, all your doing is spouting what the nuns drilled into your knuckles.
Granted, the commbox is no historical seminar, but you have fundie view of the church — as if it simply fell down from the sky and didn’t develop (except when you need to explain the incoherence of post-Vat 2 Roman Catholicism).
Try reading Brian Tierney and August Hasler, both Roman Catholic historians.
LikeLike
Another way of seeing this is that you cannot be free from your own senses. Either there is a Vulcan mindmeld in which infallible ideas transmit themselves from mind to mind without loss, or else ideas, even infallible ones, must be transmitted through the senses. That one fact alone makes all of your propositions fallible. Not wrong, but able to be wrong.
LikeLike
TVD: You don’t know anything either, on your own terms.
Yes, actually, I do. On my terms, as I said before, I’m able to know quite a lot. What I have to give up is absolute certainty, but what I gain is the ability to actually know anything. So instead, I can know things with relative certainty, which is very often good enough.
Consider Abraham on Mt Moriah. He was commanded to sacrifice Isaac. He also knew that God had promised that Isaac would be the one through whom the promise was reckoned.
So he reasoned, says Hebrews, that God would raise Isaac back from the dead.
Did he know this infallibly? No, he did not. In fact, he was wrong: God did not raise Isaac from the dead, except in the loosest of metaphorical senses.
Yet he trusted God in faith and was commended for it.
Abraham had provisional knowledge that was good enough for commendable faith. It was not necessary for him to first have infallible knowledge.
LikeLike
TVD: You seem to think people are disagreeing with you. Nobody is.
So you agree that you don’t know anything? I’m surprised.
LikeLike
Jeff, come on. It’s either the pope or Descartes. What didn’t they teach you in intro to philosophy?
LikeLike
Yeah, or “The Pope or Hume.”
This crowd thinks that science isn’t knowledge at all. Yet they confidently use computers.
LikeLike
Tom,
I ask
“Who is “we?” You keep avoiding that that means every Protestant is his own pope, and your Holy Spirits are all disagreeing with each other.”
You reply
“No more so than the fact that two Roman Catholics don’t agree.”
But that’s not Catholicism. Whichever one agrees with the authoritative Church teaching is the correct one. The other is in error, ipso facto. Each man is not his own pope.
And I have two RCs that disagree on what the authoritative church teaching and both assert that they are agreeing with it. And those two RCs can find a bishop each with whom they agree. Oh dear, whatever shall we do?
Wait for it—trust our fallible reason and senses to interpret the church teaching and figure out which one is correct and which isn’t. Or, wait for the Magisterium to come in and make a decision, and then use our fallible reason and senses to interpret the church teaching.
A whole lot of Tom relying on his fallibility and putting his confidence in his fallible apprehension.
Kinda like Protestantism.
But your “provisional” truths mean that the opinions [not ‘knowledge’] of any two disagreeing Protestants are of equal validity.
Incorrect.
Accept TULIP, or reject it, or be a 4-point Calvinist, or a TUL or a TU, what’s the difference?
The difference is between good, consistent theology and poorer, inconsistent theology, not the difference between true church and false church.
Each letter is provisional, yes?
In the sense that I’m sure I could come up with some scenario that could possibly change it, yes. In the sense that there’s any real chance of this happening, no.
Isn’t all provisional knowledge equally uncertain?
No. There are hierarchies of truth. Some are more foundational or fundamental than others.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 6, 2015 at 9:54 pm | Permalink
vd, t, so where was the church before 1150, around the time that papal infallibility became a going concern of popes and canon lawyers.
You can assert till your blue in the face that Christ founded the papacy, but that is a historical claim subject to historical judgment.
“Historical judgment” is inadequate to the task. The ontological question is more quid sit deus, “if Christ did found a Church, what would it be?” Or, surveying the Christian landscape in 2015, which.
And if you are going to apply unassisted human reason, “historical judgment,” your church has no history atall.
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 6, 2015 at 9:55 pm | Permalink
Another way of seeing this is that you cannot be free from your own senses.
Yeah, Dr Johnson handled this one 300 years ago, Jeff.
You’re really not talking Christianity, Jeff, and so are using the wrong tools for the job. Most of your valid objections against Catholicism can be turned right around on “Protestantism,” and it still remains that for the rest, the two are not ontologically equivalent because Catholicism is not “provisional.”
Not provisional.
LikeLike
Jeff,
This crowd thinks that science isn’t knowledge at all. Yet they confidently use computers.
I’m actually quite confused by it. They seem to think that natural revelation is self-authenticating but supernatural revelation isn’t. I don’t get it other than the fact that apparently some strains of epistemologically naive RCism (CTC) believes this is the knock-down argument against Protestantism.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 6, 2015 at 10:16 pm | Permalink
And I have two RCs that disagree on what the authoritative church teaching
One of them is wrong. Mebbe both.
Accept TULIP, or reject it, or be a 4-point Calvinist, or a TUL or a TU, what’s the difference?
The difference is between good, consistent theology and poorer, inconsistent theology, not the difference between true church and false church.
This is where you hang on your own gallows, except instead of one Catholic Church, you get God knows how Many “Protestantisms.”
Except you have no magisterium, no last resort.
And I have two RCs that disagree on what the authoritative church teaching and both assert that they are agreeing with it. And those two RCs can find a bishop each with whom they agree. Oh dear, whatever shall we do?
Wait for it—trust our fallible reason and senses to interpret the church teaching and figure out which one is correct and which isn’t.
“Trust our fallible reason and senses?”
I don’t think this is Calvinism or any Protestant church I’m aware of. Maybe the unitarians. All yours, Dr. Hart.
LikeLike
TVD: Yeah, Dr Johnson handled this one 300 years ago, Jeff.
57. Refutation of Bishop Berkeley
After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it — “I refute it thus.”
Boswell: Life
Yet here is Tom Berkeley, 300 years later, making a similar argument. Nothing learned?
Berkeley, btw, I have a certain affection for. He gave Newton a really hard time about the calculus because of Newton’s arbitrary way of handling limits and infinitesimal quantities. He was technically correct — but Newton kept getting the right answers to questions, and so ignored Berkeley.
LikeLike
TVD: You’re really not talking Christianity, Jeff, and so are using the wrong tools for the job. Most of your valid objections against Catholicism can be turned right around on “Protestantism,” and it still remains that for the rest, the two are not ontologically equivalent because Catholicism is not “provisional.”
Catholicism rests upon the premise that the Church in Rome is Christ’s Church. That premise is not infallibly proved; hence, provisional.
Your whole system is provisional, contingent upon your having made the right choice in assenting to the motives of credibility.
Sorry to break the news.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 6, 2015 at 10:32 pm | Permalink
TVD: Yeah, Dr Johnson handled this one 300 years ago, Jeff.
57. Refutation of Bishop Berkeley
After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it — “I refute it thus.”
Boswell: Life
Yet here is Tom Berkeley, 300 years later, making a similar argument. Nothing learned?
Yes, I did refute you
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 6, 2015 at 9:55 pm | Permalink
Another way of seeing this is that you cannot be free from your own senses.
as Dr. Johnson did Berkeley. This is tiresome, Jeff. Every time you argue Christian religious belief and the Church without including the Holy Spirit, you’re off-topic. Mercy.
LikeLike
Or even more to the point, when you say the creed in church, do you think to yourself, “It is only a theory that this is the correct translation of the Nicene creed?”
Jeff, Tom doesn’t go to church, remember? He’s the religious version of the swinging bachelor telling all the (Protestant) marrieds what crappy husbands and wives they are.
LikeLike
Jeff:
Yes, actually, I do. On my terms, as I said before, I’m able to know quite a lot. What I have to give up is absolute certainty, but what I gain is the ability to actually know anything. So instead, I can know things with relative certainty, which is very often good enough.>>>>
You can only be relatively certain that it is very often good enough.
Now, if you are willing to get in the pulpit on Easter Sunday and explain how you are relatively certain that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and that’s good enough, then that would prove how much faith you put in your theory of provisional knowledge.
You act as though you had absolute certainty in your relative uncertainty. It just doesn’t work, Jeff.
I don’t think your epistemology is a necessary part even of Reformed theology.
You have taken the authority of the Rock out of your faith. You try to keep the authority of Scripture, but without the Rock you have huge problems. You have to find something to replace it. You found sand instead.
The faith you are talking about is not the faith of Abraham, the father of faith. He did not weaken in faith. No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God. He was fully convinced.
Abraham’s faith blows your theory all the pieces.
————————
Romans 4
18 In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.”
19 He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness[c] of Sarah’s womb. 20 No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, 21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 6, 2015 at 10:37 pm | Permalink
TVD: You’re really not talking Christianity, Jeff, and so are using the wrong tools for the job. Most of your valid objections against Catholicism can be turned right around on “Protestantism,” and it still remains that for the rest, the two are not ontologically equivalent because Catholicism is not “provisional.”
Catholicism rests upon the premise that the Church in Rome is Christ’s Church. That premise is not infallibly proved; hence, provisional.
Asserted but not proved [esp the unprovable] is not “hence” provisional. [That’s an assertion!] We will never prove Christ’s resurrection [though some try]. The same goes for the Real Presence, and Christ’s founding of the Church.
As articles of faith, they are not pro tem, subject to be changed later–making the use of “provisional” here useless because that’s what it means. Your premises remain faulty.
LikeLike
Mermaid: He did not weaken in faith. No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God. He was fully convinced.
Abraham’s faith blows your theory all the pieces.
Somebody’s theory is in ruins.
Well, y’all have a nice night. Next time you say the creed, ask yourself how you infallibly know that the words you are saying are truth.
Meanwhile, I will continue to read Scripture and affirm it as God’s truth because I am highly confident in the fallible combined witness of the fathers.
Someone seems to have taken The Matrix too seriously.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 6, 2015 at 10:59 pm | Permalink
Mermaid: He did not weaken in faith. No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God. He was fully convinced.
Abraham’s faith blows your theory all the pieces.
Somebody’s theory is in ruins.
Well, y’all have a nice night. Next time you say the creed, ask yourself how you infallibly know that the words you are saying are truth.
Meanwhile, I will continue to read Scripture and affirm it as God’s truth because I am highly confident in the fallible combined witness of the fathers.
Vaya con Dios, brother. For the time being, subject to change, of course. ;–)
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 6, 2015 at 10:09 pm | Permalink
Yeah, or “The Pope or Hume.”
This crowd thinks that science isn’t knowledge at all. Yet they confidently use computers.>>>>>
That’s crazy talk, Jeff. In fact, I have said that I can see that the concept of provisional knowledge may have its place.
It’s just not the Holy Spirit. Provisional knowledge cannot do the job of the Holy Spirit.
Deciding to get a vaccination doesn’t require the work of the Holy Spirit at all. Using a computer has nothing to do with having the indwelling Spirit of God.
The Holy Spirit was not poured out into the scientific community on the Day of Pentecost. He was poured out on the Church. All present were filled with the Spirit and spoke in tongues as the Spirit gave utterance.
The faith of Abraham is the Biblical standard for saving, sustained faith. He did not waver. He did not doubt. That is the kind of faith that comes down from above as a good and perfect gift. (James 1:17) That is the faith that Paul talked about in Ephesians 2. Remember how that chapter begins with regeneration? IOW, with the work of the Spirit in the heart of the person who has been given faith.
Faith does not demand omniscience. God requires that we believe what He has clearly revealed. We put our faith in the One He has revealed. “Christ died for our sins according to the Scripture. He was buried. He rose again on the third day according to the Scripture. He appeared to Peter. See 1 Cor. 15:1ff
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. Science as has been defined in our age begins with provisional knowledge. Big difference. (Prov. 9:10) Science does well what it does well. It defines what it defines. It is not so great at Christian theology since it does not recognize the work of the Holy Spirit or the reality of the Body of Christ, His Church.
LikeLike
Tom,
This is where you hang on your own gallows, except instead of one Catholic Church, you get God knows how Many “Protestantisms.”
There are God knows how many Roman Catholicisms. Pelosi’s, Mother Teresa’s, Luke Timothy Johnson’s, Bryan Cross’, Pope Francis’, Kasper’s, Catholics for Choice’s, Catholic Answers’
Except you have no magisterium, no last resort.
We have Scripture and the Holy Spirit and we trust Him to accomplish His purposes and confirm His truth to His elect. That’s not enough for those who walk by sight.
I don’t think this is Calvinism or any Protestant church I’m aware of. Maybe the unitarians. All yours, Dr. Hart.
Now you’re really being dense. You are trusting your fallible reason to figure out that Protestantism is wrong. We trust our fallible reason and fallible senses every day. No one ever said anything about absolute trust in our reason/senses.
When you can tell me how you’ve achieved the Vulcan mind meld such that you don’t have to exercise your fallible reason, then you’ll have a better point. Until then, you are relying on your fallible reason to figure out what Rome has said. Kinda like Protestants use theirs to read Scripture.
Exact same boat.
LikeLike
Mermaid,
It’s just not the Holy Spirit. Provisional knowledge cannot do the job of the Holy Spirit.
You continue to miss the very elementary epistemological distinction between fact and one’s apprehension of fact. The Holy Spirit’s revelation is infallible. Your apprehension of it is not unless and until you achieve omniscience.
That’s fine and doesn’t undercut your ability to have knowledge until you start saying that infallibility is necessary for knowledge that gives you warrant for faith, etc. If that’s so, you yourself personally will never have warrant for faith because you remain completely fallible, at least at this time.
The attack on provisional knowledge doesn’t in itself undermine Roman Catholicism. What it undermines is your ability ever to know that the Roman Church is in fact the true church.
LikeLike
vd, t, “ontology”? I’ll take Monism for $500, Alex.
LikeLike
Mermaid, you still haven’t answered Jeff’s question about how you know the women discovered the resurrection.
You have a habit of doing that — all bluster and no answer.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “Deciding to get a vaccination doesn’t require the work of the Holy Spirit at all. Using a computer has nothing to do with having the indwelling Spirit of God.”
But vd, t says its all about ontology.
But how do you know the Holy Spirit was poured out at Pentecost? You get pneumatological alerts from the Vatican?
LikeLike
Mermaid, do you know — I mean, really know — if this is really Jesus’ foreskin?
LikeLike
vd, t, here’s help for your ontology.
LikeLike
Hey, St Catherine — NICE RING!
Good grief. Motives of gullibility.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2015/11/20/five-relics-whose-stories-have-gripped-the-world/
LikeLike
Is this that vaunted “earthy” Roman Catholicism I’ve heard so much about?
LikeLike
Called to Creepiness — make it happen.
LikeLike
TVD:Except you have no magisterium, no last resort.
Robert: We have Scripture and the Holy Spirit and we trust Him to accomplish His purposes and confirm His truth to His elect. That’s not enough for those who walk by sight.
amen
1 John 5
13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
20 we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
21 Little children, guard yourselves from idols.
εἴδωλον -eidolon from eídos “An idol is not only a heathen image; the literal significance of the word “idol” is “what is seen”; it signifies not only that which would engage the attention of the physical eyesight, to the detriment of the use of our spiritual faculties, but also any false conception which would engross the mind to the obscuring of the vision of faith. We are to guard ourselves against everything that would mar the spiritual life which Christ would live out in us, everything of self which would interrupt the power and effect of that life, every teaching which masquerades as truth, but which on spiritual examination is found to contain that which is contrary to Scripture, and therefore denies in any measure the attributes of God, the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Vine commentary
LikeLike
Ali, that’s why we don’t even have a cross in our church building. Or flags. Or banners. The Convert-o-Cats cannot (or will not) fathom the chasm that separates our faith and practice from theirs.
LikeLike
To be fair, we have our own creeps and sometimes they are hosted by PCA churches.
LikeLike
My favorite line from that linked article is found in the conclusion:
Whilst studies will undoubtedly identify some relics as counterfeit or misidentified,
Get out. But the infallible church gives us certainty???
Think of how many RC altars around the world contain false relics.
And note the shrug of the statement. Many relics are false. Oh well
others may be confirmed as originating from the time and place where the holy person lived. It will certainly give the veneration of relics more credibility.
How does the authentication of a relic give its veneration more credibility. It can tell us if said body part actually is from the person in question, but how does it tell us that the practice of veneration is proper.
LikeLike
Cw il Unificatorio :Ali, that’s why we don’t even have a cross in our church building.
CW: To be fair, we have our own creeps and sometimes they are hosted by PCA churches. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD4y48bDQzg
Thanks cw (sincerely)
1) don’t’ think I have a problem with crosses, though I have been convicted not to wear cross jewelry – What wear expensive bedazzled crosses representing the excruciating sacrifice of our Lord – don’t think so
2) I found nothing in the utube that was an error. Did you? It was actually quite beautiful
shalom “completeness, soundness, welfare, peace.”
even now cw, and one day, fully. It’s a promise.
-Isaiah 54:10“For the mountains may be removed and the hills may shake, But My lovingkindness will not be removed from you, And My covenant of peace will not be shaken,” Says the Lord who has compassion on you.
-Eph 2: 14 For He Himself is our peace; our Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6
-Isa 26:12 LORD, You will establish peace for us, since You have also performed for us all our works.
-Isa 26:3 “The steadfast of mind You will keep in perfect peace, because he trusts in You.
so cw, may, grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; 2 Peter 1:2
-And may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is He who calls you, and He also will bring it to pass. 1 Thess 5:23-24
-and may the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord, equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen Heb 13:20-21
and for many we pray because:
When He (Jesus) approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, “If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. Luke 19:41-42
LikeLike
I don’t blame you guys for changing the subject. No, not at all.
I have learned from you guys that.:
1. No one can be 100% sure that Christ rose from the dead. There exists a possibility that His body will be discovered. “Faith” in the resurrection is based on provisional knowledge. After all, no one can know everything. So no one can say that Christ was raised from the dead except provisionally. To think otherwise is fideism.
2. Faith of Abraham? Provisional knowledge. The big problem is that Paul does not describe the faith of Abraham in provisional terms. No matter. No one can be 100% certain that we have the words that Paul wrote. Provisional knowledge informs us that everything he said was really said provisionally. We cannot know everything, after all.
3. John 17 and Ephesians 4:1ff? Nothing was said about these passages by the guys here – and I can’t blame them at all. Maybe Ali would be willing to read those passages and explain what the Bible means. What was Jesus talking about? What was Paul talking about? Anybody?
Sure, your knee-jerk reaction will be “it can’t be the Catholic Church!” Well, what is it, then? “One body” has to mean something.
4. I am seeing more clearly that sola scriptura is just a myth, since what we all have in our hands is not the real scripture. What someone says is the Bible is not really the infallible Word of God. So, the infallible rule of faith and practice exists only in theory. The Bible one holds is a provisional Bible. It can be changed – and must be changed – as further textual studies are done.
5. Sola fide? Not so much. Abraham’s faith was based on provisional knowledge. When Paul said he did not waver in his faith, Paul didn’t mean that he did not waver. Abraham could not have had anything but a faith based on provisional knowledge. He could have been mistaken.
He didn’t think he was mistaken, but that doesn’t matter. Provisional knowledge explains everything, no matter how self contradictory the principle may be when applied to matters of faith and practice.
6. The Rock that Christ built HIs Church on? The wise man who built his house on a rock? No clue as to what that means to the OL guys. They are not telling, not even provisionally.
7. Holy Spirit? MIA.
It seems that people who base their whole system on the ever shifting sands of provisional knowledge would not be so dogmatic.
LikeLike
Mermaid,
1. No one can be 100% sure that Christ rose from the dead. There exists a possibility that His body will be discovered. “Faith” in the resurrection is based on provisional knowledge. After all, no one can know everything. So no one can say that Christ was raised from the dead except provisionally. To think otherwise is fideism.
You really need to do some more reading in epistemology and the concept of certainty. There exists a possibility that you do not exist as an independent personal being and that you are actually the result of some hyper-big cosmic computer run by the alien invaders of Galactic Squadron 4. Do you have good reasons to be certain this is not the case. Absolutely. Does that mean your certainty is based on a level of apprehension that escapes you fallibility. Absolutely not.
2. Faith of Abraham? Provisional knowledge. The big problem is that Paul does not describe the faith of Abraham in provisional terms. No matter. No one can be 100% certain that we have the words that Paul wrote. Provisional knowledge informs us that everything he said was really said provisionally. We cannot know everything, after all.
You keep making the error of assuming that what we mean by provisional is “the real possibility of error in every sense of the word.” As long as you hold to that, you will not understand what we are saying.
3. John 17 and Ephesians 4:1ff? Nothing was said about these passages by the guys here – and I can’t blame them at all. Maybe Ali would be willing to read those passages and explain what the Bible means. What was Jesus talking about? What was Paul talking about? Anybody?
Sure, your knee-jerk reaction will be “it can’t be the Catholic Church!” Well, what is it, then? “One body” has to mean something.
I’ve said plenty about those passages. But let me repeat myself. They are calls for church unity. I even grant that they are prayers for visible unity. They are calls for Christians to pursue visible unity. What they are not, however, are guarantees that this unity will be accomplished on this side of glory. Maybe it will; maybe it won’t. It’s an eschatological hope. One of Roman Catholicism’s fundamental problems is an over-realized eschatology: Jesus prayed for unity, therefore unity absolutely must exist now. The problem is that nobody in the early church shared your understanding of what this visible unity must be, i.e., guaranteed by the pope.
4. I am seeing more clearly that sola scriptura is just a myth, since what we all have in our hands is not the real scripture. What someone says is the Bible is not really the infallible Word of God. So, the infallible rule of faith and practice exists only in theory. The Bible one holds is a provisional Bible. It can be changed – and must be changed – as further textual studies are done.
When Rome abandons the practice of textual criticism, you can complain about this. Until then, you need to be reminded again and again that some of the top textual scholars in the world are Roman Catholic priests who would share my views of such things as the Pericopae Adulterae. You need to know your church better.
5. Sola fide? Not so much. Abraham’s faith was based on provisional knowledge. When Paul said he did not waver in his faith, Paul didn’t mean that he did not waver. Abraham could not have had anything but a faith based on provisional knowledge. He could have been mistaken.
He didn’t think he was mistaken, but that doesn’t matter. Provisional knowledge explains everything, no matter how self contradictory the principle may be when applied to matters of faith and practice.
You all started it by saying that without infallibility, Protestants have no secure foundation. We get that such is what you believe. But if you are going to make that argument, you must explain how you can have certainty that Rome is what she says she is given your fallibility. If you can have certainty that Rome is what she says she is apart from becoming infallible, then the epistemological argument Roman Catholics have advocated here is false.
IOW, you all continue to fail to see that the conclusions you just drew are a consequence of accepting the presuppositions of your argument and defining provisional knowledge in a particular way and not at all a consequence of actually listening to us.
6. The Rock that Christ built HIs Church on? The wise man who built his house on a rock? No clue as to what that means to the OL guys. They are not telling, not even provisionally.
Actually, the traditional answer is Peter’s confession of faith is that rock. There are even some Reformed theologians that could say that the rock actually is Peter as long as we have a proper understanding of what that means.
7. Holy Spirit? MIA.
Sorry. Distinction between the Holy Spirit’s speaking and your apprehension of it continues to elude you. Maybe an example will help. Consider a Christian who is seeking the true church. Along the way he is Lutheran then Reformed then Eastern Orthodox then Baptist and then finally RC. Does the fact that he lands in any of those places mean that the Holy Spirit is not speaking infallibly to lead him to Rome? Of course not. But it means that when he becomes Lutheran and is quite happy there for decades and believes Rome is a false church, He has failed to apprehend the Holy Spirit’s voice correctly.
So the Protestant position is actually that the Holy Spirit is guiding His church but that sometimes the church mishears him, but that neither means the church has ceased to be a church or that there is no foundation of non-negotiable truth. All we’re lacking is the red light that you all expect should go off when the church has gotten something right. God has never worked that way, sorry.
It seems that people who base their whole system on the ever shifting sands of provisional knowledge would not be so dogmatic.
Only because you fail to grasp what we are saying. We’ve all said it a number of different ways, so I don’t think at this point it is a failure of clarity on our part, though that’s possible. I think the fault is that you really are unwilling to consider the logical end of your own epistemological position and what seems to be a somewhat cult-like obeisance toward Rome. I don’t mean to be cruel, but when CVD can at least admit that there are some things that would cause him to stop being RC but you can’t, then there are problems with your view of truth.
LikeLike
Robert, you can have confidence about the important stuff. Knowing what is important what isn’t is — like common sense.
Doh!
LikeLike
Mermaid, you’re still swimming away from Jeff’s question. Nice touch of shoving it back in our faces. Just like your holy father.
LikeLike
Mermaid:Maybe Ali would be willing to read those passages and explain what the Bible means.
Mermaid, I can only reiterate what Robert, Jeff were saying –walk by faith, not by sight -and rejoice mermaid. All of His ways and plans are perfect and hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? (Rom 8:24-25) But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it. For now, both the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest.
LikeLike
Robert, if you like your epistemology, you can keep your epistemology.
I don’t think you understand the full implications of how the concept of provisional knowledge will affect the faith of your people when you honestly preach it on Easter morning.
LikeLike
cw – I don’t know if I can forgive you for you posting that video. My skin is still crawling. I will be airing this grievance come Festivus.
LikeLike
Publius (and cw) did you really watch it and just miss the part about the accuser accusing day and day.
and re: My skin is still crawling. – don’t forget how much Zrim hates just sentimentality.
The question was : I found nothing in the utube that was an error. Did you?
LikeLike
Ali
Posted December 7, 2015 at 11:16 am | Permalink
Mermaid:Maybe Ali would be willing to read those passages and explain what the Bible means.
Mermaid, I can only reiterate what Robert, Jeff were saying –walk by faith, not by sight -and rejoice mermaid. All of His ways and plans are perfect and hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? (Rom 8:24-25) But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it. For now, both the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest.>>>>
Faith in what? What is faith? The Bible does not talk about provisional knowledge. Jesus does not ask us to base our trust, our hope, our lives on provisional knowledge. That is what these guys are asking of you, that you admit you know nothing for sure. Admit that you can know nothing for sure. Admit that you cannot know for sure that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Admit that you cannot trust the Holy Spirit to lead anyone into all truth about anything at all.
Does that sound like faith? I am not asking you to become Catholic. I am asking you to compare what these guys are teaching to what the Bible actually says.
I am asking you not to swallow these lies. You know, this is not recognizable even as Reformed theology.
Listen to some Dr. James Boice or Donald Grey Barnhouse to get some faith-filled Reformed preaching that will not leave you wondering what is true after all. Their messages can be found at The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Some of these men claim to be Confessional.
On the Catholic side, listen to some Dr. Hahn and Bishop Robert Barron. These men believe what they teach. No nonsense about the possibility of finding Jesus’ body someday! Think about it.
Heck, it’s all on You Tube.
Provisional knowledge does not inspire true faith in Christ. It is nonsense.
LikeLike
CW, 2nd commandment violation about .05 seconds into it.
That’s enough for me to shut it down.
LikeLike
Mrs.Webfoot,
What you are saying to Robert is very clear.I almost lost faith in Christianity because of Protestantism’s provisionality. If Catholicism claimed the same uncertaity I would have walked away completely, so that’s proof that both are not claiming the same thing ontologically. So it’s not true that Catholics are provi tionally trusting since the claims demand certainty.
Also, I don’t think Ali realizes that the Reformed don’t approve of her owning a bible and making her own church, but the irony is that she’s just doing what their founders did; that is, obeying her conscience.
LikeLike
“I don’t think Ali realizes that the Reformed don’t approve of her owning a bible…”
What?!?!!!!
LikeLike
Susan,
<i.So it’s not true that Catholics are provi tionally trusting since the claims demand certainty.
The difference in claims doesn’t mean that your trust is any less provisional. You are still fallible.
The point isn’t that we don’t make different claims. The point is that the difference in the claims doesn’t make the nature of your fallible submission any different than our fallible submission.
LikeLike
Mermaid,
I don’t think you understand the full implications of how the concept of provisional knowledge will affect the faith of your people when you honestly preach it on Easter morning.
I don’t think you understand the full implications of being a finite creature. The people in the pews of my church do. And nobody is literally believing, “You know, I have no idea or confidence that Jesus rose from the dead.”
Because again, if certainty of faith means escaping provisional knowledge, you have to become omniscient and infallible yourself. Until then, you are trusting in your fallible apprehension of what Rome claims, and that’s even before you have to fallibly sift through the evidence for and against the claim.
But being fallible is okay. It’s who the Holy Spirit works with—if they can first admit their own fallibility.
LikeLike
“I don’t think Ali realizes that the Reformed don’t approve of her owning a bible…”
What?!?!!!!
I know, eh?
that’s what passes around here from the “other side…”
pray…
LikeLike
Looks like CVD isn’t going to take up Jeff’s invitation to clarify his understanding of our argument. That is unfortunate as I think it would have given us the opportunity to clarify things. I will say that all this talk about provisionality is really not very clear.
Note that the WCF makes our theological understanding, including those understandings expressed by church councils, provisional on accurately summarizing the Word of God. The infallibility of the Word of God is not provisional *within* the reformed system. One may become convinced that the Bible is not God’s Word, but then you have left the reformed system (not unlike a Catholic becoming convinced that the RCC is not the true church).
Second, provisionality does not apply to ontology in any system. This is a category error. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he did not rise from the dead. My knowledge of this event is based on trust (enabled by the Holy Spirit). This knowledge is provisional – if I am not enabled by the Holy Spirit, I may wander from the truth and lose that knowledge.
Third, the provisionality of the canon is a provisionality in principle, not in fact. Just as belief in Rome as the true church is provisional – there are conditions under which your belief could (in principle) change (and for many has). The underlying reality we perceive is not provisional – rome is or isn’t the true church independent of what I or anyone else believe about it. Once one rejects Rome (or the canon), one is not longer in the system though.
Fourth, infallibility is not a necessary condition for arriving at truth. My math book is not infallible, but one can learn true things about math from it and be quite confident about what one learns from it nonetheless. A teacher may not be infallible, but she can still teach you true things about the Bible. A confession may not be infallible, but it can still accurately summarize the scriptures. Further, we see that God used flawed people to advance his purposes – even speaking through decidedly non-infallible sources. He uses broken vessels to advance his kingdom.
Fifth, infallibility is not a sufficient condition for adequate transmission of truth. The bible may be infallible, but my understanding of it is not. The may also be true for data, a pope’s ex cathedra statement, or council’s decision – my understanding of all of these things is fallible, so my knowledge is provisional on my proper understanding. The means by which one arrives at a proper understanding is separate from the reliability of the source.
Sixth, to be infallible in any meaningful sense, one must a priori be *incapable* of error. It is a grave abuse of language to assert that one is infallible when one speaks under certain conditions identified after the fact. This reduces infallibility to “happened to have gotten it right”. The pope is not infallible because he has erred. Councils are not infallible because they have gotten it wrong before. Defining them as subsequently illegitimate in hindsight is not compelling.
Seventh, One can have adequate knowledge of the truth and still be wrong about a lot of things. Verisimilitude is a helpful concept here. F=ma is false, but it is close enough to the truth to be reliable for building bridges, launching spacecraft, and getting your house to pass inspection. But it isn’t true. There are truer descriptions of gravity, and we can definitively rule out certain things. But we do not have the true theory of gravity. That doesn’t mean that we know nothing or that everything is up for grabs. This recognition is at the heart of the reformed understanding of perspicuity of scripture. We do not believe that all of scripture is equally plain or that we have a perfect summary of it. We believe it is a sufficient understanding of the gospel for salvation. The fact that we don’t have a perfect summary does not mean that anything goes (any more than the fact that F=ma is off a bit means that one is justified in believing in a flat earth).
OK, this isn’t as thorough as Jeff’s summary of the RC position, but lunch break is about over. I’d be interested in hearing about how I have misconstrued the reformed position and getting that right (similarly for the RC presentation) before defending or criticizing either.
LikeLike
Sdb,
A boast of Protestantism is that because of the invention of the printing press, people can have their own bibles and don’t have to listen to the Catholic Church, right? Thats what i was told.
What I’m saying is that they must also not have counted on later protestant groups not listening to the interpretation of earlier Reformed Protestants, bcause the Reformed and the evangelicals are not in the same church.
In fact I’ve also been told that reformers consider evangelicals closer to Catholicism because we both are works centered. Haven’t you heard this?
Nobody wants to take away another persons bible, they just don’t want them interpreting it differently than their community does.
Its interesting though that the first printed bible was a Catholic bible and the Gutenberg was a Catholic.
LikeLike
Okay, I am really worried for anyone listening to Robert.
Is there any Protestant challenging his provisional knowledge thing?
Robert, so you dont believe in truth? You are on this blog arguing for the right of everyone to believe what they want? Do you go to church and identify as a Christian? If you do, why?
Lord have mercy.
LikeLike
Susan
Posted December 7, 2015 at 11:55 am | Permalink
Mrs.Webfoot,
What you are saying to Robert is very clear.I almost lost faith in Christianity because of Protestantism’s provisionality. If Catholicism claimed the same uncertaity I would have walked away completely, so that’s proof that both are not claiming the same thing ontologically. So it’s not true that Catholics are provi tionally trusting since the claims demand certainty.
Also, I don’t think Ali realizes that the Reformed don’t approve of her owning a bible and making her own church, but the irony is that she’s just doing what their founders did; that is, obeying her conscience.>>>>>
This is eye opening for me, Susan. I still have a hard time believing that this is true Reformed teaching, but these men are officers in their churches.
Yes, the claims of Christ demand certainty AND obedience. The obedience of faith. That is what Abraham had. He believed and he obeyed. He did not waver because of unbelief. He was strong in faith. He glorified God. See Romans 4.
What I saw in Protestantism was the dogmatism based on whatever one group wanted to promote as dogmatic. Like here. If all their apprehension of knowledge really were provisional, then why make such dogmatic pronouncements about everyone else’s faith? They pretend to have a confidence they really do not have, even about their own faith. Yet they use their teachings to judge everyone else – and that means everyone.
Robert does play straight. He is willing to follow his epistemology to its logical conclusion- we can only say provisionally that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.
Notice this. It is not just that he accepts the resurrection as being provisional. He is saying that we cannot know for certain that it actually happened. After all, someone might find Jesus’ body someday.
See 1 Cor. 15:1ff for refutation of Brother Robert’s epistemology.
LikeLike
Robert, so you don’t believe in truth?
Don’t be a dolt like the rest of the romanists, Susan. Robert doesn’t believe that truth is because Rome says it is the truth and or that the only way that he can know Francis is the (true) pope if by either being the pope or piggybacking on his coat tails.
In short this whole black/white mischaracterization which started with Bryan and the CtC geese is a joke. All men can know truth; not perfectly or infallibly but adequately in order to live and die before God.
As well as pierce the veil that Romanism throws over the eyes of its converts, much more discern whether the Roman church and gospel matches up to that set out in Scripture.
pax
LikeLike
Bob,
If you can’t know truth absolutely then you don’t know if what you know is truth.
You c. an’t know if Luther was right about changing the Canon of scripture or adding a word to a translation just because he thought it would work. But I guess that is the underlining reason Protestantism sought changes in the first place……. No one knows anything so let’s start again.
LikeLike
Bob S., the question I have for Robert is “Do you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead because Paul said it?” Paul didn’t just say it. He made it THE Gospel, along with Christ’s death for our sins and His appearance to many.
Provisional knowledge? Hardly. Provisional event, as Robert has stated numerous times? No way, no how.
LikeLike
@ SDB: ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, and ding.
Susan: If you can’t know truth absolutely then you don’t know if what you know is truth.
I think this articulates your position the best out of anything that’s been said here.
What Catholics here desire is not merely to know the truth, but also to have absolute knowledge that the truth is the truth.
In which case, Ali’s refutation is the best: Where is the faith?
Ali: Mermaid, I can only reiterate what Robert, Jeff were saying –walk by faith, not by sight -and rejoice mermaid. All of His ways and plans are perfect and hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? (Rom 8:24-25) But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it. For now, both the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest.
Further, Susan, wouldn’t you yourself have to be infallible in order to have infallible certainty in your own knowledge?
For the life of me, I still can’t see how you get around your own creatureliness.
LikeLike
Dear Jeff,
Walking by faith doesn’t mean that I dont know anything about matters of faith. In fact, that someone will take responsibility as witness of apostolic faith( without provisionality or by having competing doctrines) is the only way to “know” what articles of faith.
I cannot see Jesus in the bread and the wine without having faith. If I don’t have faith and worship the Lord of the Universe under the species of bread and wine I have no reason to enter a Catholic building at all. My Catholic faith says that if Jesus is not present during the sacrifice of the Mass then there is no salvation for the world. Believing in the tenets of the Catholic Church requires faith that everything she teaches is true. I dont believe it because I see it, I believe it because it is true. That’s what faith is.
LikeLike
But Protestantism wants to tear down Catholic faith and insert its own provisional ideas. The Catholic Church has always walked by faith in God and in the revealing of the Godhead, of the Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit. This is truth that no one can call provisional without destroying himself.
LikeLike
If you can’t know truth absolutely then you don’t know if what you know is truth.
Oh please S. Don’t be stupid. Scripture is the absolute infallible truth. I don’t know it absolutely or infallibly, but I can know it adequately and do.
The pope is antiChrist. Luther didn’t change the canon and the DC are not Scripture.
No one knows anything so let’s start again.
If you are speaking for yourself, yeah you don’t know anything.
If you are speaking as a romanist speaking for prots again, yeah you don’t know anything about protestantism.
If you want to talk about Scripture, reason and history, different story.
TLM, the question for you is do you believe Paul because he said so in Scripture or because Rome said so? Hint, the correct answer is the latter because Rome claims to get to determine Scripture.
Why? Short answer, because Rome thinks she can know God on the basis of natural reason and not that the preaching of the apostolic Word supernaturally called the NT church into being and then that church was entrusted with the inscripturated Word because the apostles had died and the apostolic canon was closed. Consequently she thinks she is boss over the Word, whereas in reality, if God hadn’t given the Word oral or written there would be no church to begin with nor would it obviously be able to continue and spread.
Psalms 115:4-8, Jeff.
Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands . . . They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them.
When you worship a piece of bread i.e. transubstantiation, in the judgement of God your theology becomes shake n’ bake. You get given over to nonsense.
But this discussion doesn’t prove that?
Wait this just in:
Walking by faith doesn’t mean that I dont know anything about matters of faith
Wait a minute. Don’t be a hypocrite or a liar, Susan. You are requiring absolute knowledge from us, but now you must just know something, not everything.
Contradiction much?
I know at one time the Roman church thought it was OK to break faith with heretics, but now that we are just “separated brethren” , we deserve better than this.
LikeLike
Re: “reformers consider evangelicals closer to Catholicism because we both are works centered.”
Fwiw, from the eeee-perspective, the eeee-side would say that Reformed are closer to Cats because Reformed are bigger on sacramentology and Paedo baptism than eeee’s are.
LikeLike
Bob,
Is the content of scripture known by natural reason?
Listen Catholicism was doing what it was doing before the reformation thought it could throw out everything. I more trust in the Spirit guiding the church through time that in the nomimalism and provisionality of Luther.
I need to go before I have nervous breakdown.
LikeLike
Petros,
“LFwiw, from the eeee-perspective, the eeee-side would say that Reformed are closer to Cats because Reformed are bigger on sacramentology and Paedo baptism than eeee’s are”
Well there you go. Eveybody “else” in Protestantism is wrong ,so says the bible.
LikeLike
Ali – Well, as kent said, there is the whole 2nd commandment thing at :01. Beyond that? I really couldn’t follow the smarmy, breathy, emoting so I just turned it off.
But AVos did say elsewhere, “Miracles happen whenever I look for shoots of Jesus’ love everywhere – because this grows deep roots in Jesus’ love for everyone.”
So, yeah, um, translate that to English if you can.
LikeLike
S while the content of Scripture is known through our reason by the way of our fallible senses, it is only believed/assented to by faith, which is the gift of God. While we again choose/believe, the ability or desire to do so is of the Holy Spirit. One has to be born again, born from above, regenerated. It is not natural.
Yup, romanism was doing what it was doing before the reformation, but that doesn’t make it right or the early perfect apostolic church. We only know that by looking at the apostolic Bible.
For starters, popery, mariolatry, image worship etc. is not found therein.
Besides your argument had a nervous breakdown a long time ago. If you or any other romanist here could adequately/consistently/truthfully define nominalism or provincialism for just once, we might get somewhere, but until then,
ciao
LikeLike
Robert,
“The point isn’t that we don’t make different claims.”
No, that is the point. The point is seeing what is consistent with the consequences and implications of those different claims.
“The point is that the difference in the claims doesn’t make the nature of your fallible submission any different than our fallible submission.”
So those under rabbi Levi in the NT were in no different epistemological position or position of faith than those under Christ or the Apostles. Since adherents of both groups were fallible even though Levi made far different claims to authority and ability than Christ or the Apostles.
“I don’t think you understand the full implications of being a finite creature.”
The full implications are not “we’re finite, so skepticism is true, therefore fideism and presuppositionalism obtain”. The full implications are not the church today or the apostles preaching, “Thus saith the Lord! I think.”
“Because again, if certainty of faith means escaping provisional knowledge, you have to become omniscient and infallible yourself.”
Nope. Are the laws of logic provisional? Is your statement that “if certainty of faith means escaping provisional knowledge, you have to become omniscient and infallible yourself” provisional itself?
“Until then, you are trusting in your fallible apprehension of what Rome claims, and that’s even before you have to fallibly sift through the evidence for and against the claim.”
The motives of credibility are not identical to the motive of faith. The order of being is not identical to the order of knowing.
LikeLike
Susan, not saying anyone else is “wrong”. It’s a diff of opinion on what an eeee would view to be a secondary, or discretionary, matter. Not a big deal.
LikeLike
Susan,
Robert, so you dont believe in truth?
Are you paying attention? How many times have I said that the position I’m trying to outline, which is shared by all the other Prots here even if they use different words, does not deny the existence of objective truth and is not subjective relativism.
Let’s try again. There is truth and then their is the individual’s apprehension of the truth. This is an elementary distinction. Your apprehension is not identical to the truth if for no other reason than because the truth of at least some things existed before you did. But now you and Mermaid are coming along and trying to equate the two with some kind of absolute knowledge. But absolute knowledge is impossible for a creature. It requires omniscience. I don’t even know that Rome would claim absolute knowledge of any fact because there can be elaboration and growth in understanding. Absolute knowledge and growth in understanding are antithetical.
I believe truth exists. I believe human beings can know truth. I believe human beings know truth all the time. I don’t believe that the individual human being achieves infallible knowledge of truth. This is why I deny that Rome’s claim makes it superior. When Rome can make ME infallible, then we can talk. Until then, I’m having to sort through evidence just like everyone else and rest in my fallible apprehension because the only apprehension I have is creaturely apprehension. That doesn’t mean I’m wrong, and it doesn’t mean I can’t have certainty, and it doesn’t mean that there is no role for the Holy Spirit, which is some absurd claim that Mermaid has thought I and others are proposing. There’s actually no theological system that I know of that has a bigger role for the Holy Spirit in the life of the individual than the Reformed system.
You are on this blog arguing for the right of everyone to believe what they want?
??? Politically, yes, as long as they don’t hurt anyone. Spiritually, no. No one has the spiritual “right” to believe error. The only spiritual “right” we have is to believe the truth. But what you all want is a red light or flag or something to pop up whenever the church gets something right. I’m sorry, but that is never been how God confirms truth.
Do you go to church and identify as a Christian?
Yes. I also lead Bible studies, teach people confidently that the only way to be saved is to trust in Christ, read lots of systematic theology and Bible commentaries, and a whole lot more. But none of that makes me infallible.
If you do, why?
The ultimate answer is that the Holy Spirit has persuaded me. My reason plays the subservient role, which is why it doesn’t matter that I’m fallible or that the church is fallible. The church fallibly points me to Christ, and the Spirit persuades me that He is the Son of God. None of that means that I think there is any real possibility that Christ didn’t rise from the dead, that God is a Trinity, that God has an elect, etc. Simply put, I recognize my creatureliness (perhaps inconsistently) and that a claim of infallibility is neither necessary or sufficient to have confidence/certainty. God is able to confirm His Word to His people. Just like he did to Abraham when He first called Him out of Egypt. There was no “Abraham, infallible God here.” Abraham heard a voice, either audibly or mentally, and he was able to discern that it was in fact God speaking without God having to say, “this is God here.” Later on He did so, but at Abraham’s initial call He didn’t. And the Bible says it was an act of faith for Abraham to hear God fallibly, know it really was God speaking, and obey. There’s none of the Thomistic first truth, or you can’t know anything unless the system claims infallibility, or any of the other stuff that you all are hanging your hats on.
Belief always has an intellectual content to it, so I have to use my mind and reason to sort through it. No RC should have any problem with that. But I don’t trust in my reason finally, I trust in the effectual call of the Spirit.
There are other reasons why I believe: Christianity alone makes sense of the world, the power of Scripture, the changed lives of professing Christians, the coherence of truly Christian (Reformed) theology, the evidence of the empty tomb and Apostolic testimony, the perseverance of the church, etc. etc. etc. But none of those are the final reason. The final reason is that the Holy Spirit calls His people effectually and irresistibly.
LikeLike
Susan: Walking by faith doesn’t mean that I dont know anything about matters of faith.
Certainly I agree! I’m just having trouble seeing how you say that, without additional premises that y’all have previously denied.
Let me be as clear as I can.
Our position does not, and has never, entailed radical skepticism about faith claims.
Rather, we claim that provisional knowledge is (a) as good as it gets on this side of glory, and (b) is sufficient ground for faith.
You deny, saying that provisional knowledge is no knowledge at all. You further argue that the only possible categories are provisional or infallible knowledge.
OK, so I ask whether you guys know infallibly that the English words of the Nicene creed are an infallible copy and translation of the original. And … no answer.
It would seem to me that actually, you guys have faith in a lot of articles that you don’t know infallibly. You deny it, but I don’t see how you get around it.
But actually, there’s another problem. For previously, it has been argued here by CVD and Tom and you and Mermaid that it is improper to place faith in anything known provisionally.
But now, you seem to argue that we know non-provisionally by means of faith. So you need non-provisional knowledge to get to the point of faith, but you need faith to get to the point of non-provisional knowledge.
That seems circular.
LikeLike
Clete,
Robert,
No, that is the point. The point is seeing what is consistent with the consequences and implications of those different claims.
No it’s not the point. We know you make a different claim. We also know that you basically deny self-authenticating truth/supernatural revelation. Thus, all you are finally trusting is in your reason.
So those under rabbi Levi in the NT were in no different epistemological position or position of faith than those under Christ or the Apostles. Since adherents of both groups were fallible even though Levi made far different claims to authority and ability than Christ or the Apostles.
The claim doesn’t do anything unless and until it can overcome the limitations of my creatureliness. The most you can say based on the mere existence of the claim is that Rome’s claim is stronger than the Protestant’s. And that’s only if you can trust your fallible reason enough to give you some kind of foundation with which to recognize and evaluate Rome’s claims accurately. But your argument finally denies that to the individual, so that it is incredibly consistent for Roman Catholics to claim that at the end of the day, the infallible church believes FOR you, in your place.
The full implications are not “we’re finite, so skepticism is true
Not on Protestant assumptions, no. But the stress on the necessity of an infallible system makes skepticism true for the individual RC if you follow it out. You personally have no infallible access to the infallible system, assuming it exists. And THAT’S the point. Thus, it is absolutely silly to stress the system’s infallibility. The problem is compounded when we see the one whom your system commends as the Savior endorsing people for believing on faith matters that according to you could not have been dogmas of faith until the church came.
, therefore fideism and presuppositionalism obtain”.
The most fideistic and presuppositional arguments being advocated here are being advocated by the “nice Catholic ladies” Mermaid and Susan.
The full implications are not the church today or the apostles preaching, “Thus saith the Lord! I think.”
I don’t know who’s saying this.
Nope. Are the laws of logic provisional? Is your statement that “if certainty of faith means escaping provisional knowledge, you have to become omniscient and infallible yourself” provisional itself?
Provisional is your word, not mine. I’m only using it because I like you. The laws of logic are finite and have limitations. The other statement is finite. I could think of some possible scenario in which they could be falsified that I am unable to rule out empirically. Good thing I’m not a fierce empiricist.
The motives of credibility are not identical to the motive of faith. The order of being is not identical to the order of knowing.
I guess this means that the motive of faith is the claim to infallibility. But that’s (one of the) motive(s) for Protestants as well. We’re just not asking you to trust in the church or for you to have the church to believe for you or for the church to give you faith. That’s what really sets us apart.
LikeLike
Susan, you’re impatient and you walk by sight:
Subdue your inner Descartes.
LikeLike
Susan, the problem also exists on your side thanks to Vat 2. Have you ever noticed that the Doctors of your church are the ones that the Vatican 2 theologians put in storage?
The feasts of the four Latin Doctors were not added to until the sixteenth century, when St. Thomas Aquinas was declared a Doctor by the Dominican St. Pius V in his new edition of the Breviary (1568), in which the feasts of the four Greek Doctors were also raised to the rank of doubles. The Franciscan Sixtus V (1588) added St. Bonaventure.
Balthasar, de Lubac, Rahner?
LikeLike
Balthasar, de Lubac, Rahner?
Cross, Stellman and Preslar?
Remember, you heard it here first.
The canonization lifts the lowly above their paygrade due to their sanctimony, but only after they go to purgatory for awhile, from which it
provisionallyrescues them.LikeLike
Darryl,
“you’re impatient and you walk by sight:”
Cath Enc on Faith:
The light of faith. — An angel understands truths which are beyond man’s comprehension; if then a man were called upon to assent to a truth beyond the ken of the human intellect, but within the grasp of the angelic intellect, he would require for the time being something more than his natural light of reason, he would require what we may call “the angelic light”. If, now, the same man were called upon to assent to a truth beyond the grasp of both men and angels, he would clearly need a still higher light, and this light we term “the light of faith” — a light, because it enables him to assent to those supernatural truths, and the light of faith because it does not so illumine those truths as to make them no longer obscure, for faith must ever be “the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not” (Hebrews 11:1). Hence St. Thomas (De Veritate, xiv, 9, ad 2) says: “Although the Divinely infused light of faith is more powerful than the natural light of reason, nevertheless in our present state we only imperfectly participate in it; and hence it comes to pass that it does not beget in us real vision of those things which it is meant to teach us; such vision belongs to our eternal home, where we shall perfectly participate in that light, where, in fine, in God’s light we shall see light’ (Ps. xxxv, 10).”
The necessity of such light is evident from what has been said, for faith is essentially an act of assent, and just as assent to a series of deductive or inductive reasonings, or to intuition of first principles, would be impossible without the light of reason, so, too assent to a supernatural truth would be inconceivable without a supernatural strengthening of the natural light “Quid est enim fides nisi credere quod non vides?” (i.e. what is faith but belief in that which thou seest not?) asks St. Augustine; but he also says: “Faith has its eyes by which it in some sort sees that to be true which it does not yet see—and by which, too, it most surely sees that it does not see what it believes” [Ep. ad Consent., ep. cxx 8 (al. ccxxii), P.L., II, 456].
That temptations against faith are natural and inevitable and are in no sense contrary to faith, “since”, says St. Thomas, “the assent of the intellect in faith is due to the will, and since the object to which the intellect thus assents is not its own proper object — for that is actual vision of an intelligible object [i.e. no walking by sight this side of heaven] — it follows that the intellect’s attitude towards that object is not one of tranquillity, on the contrary it thinks and inquires about those things it believes, all the while that it assents to them unhesitatingly; for as far as it itself is concerned the intellect is not satisfied” (De Ver., xiv, 1).
Smith’s Faith and Revealed Truth:
“But although the certitude of faith is supreme, supreme as is the divine authority upon which it is based, yet the mind of the believer is not completely satisfied. Under the influence of the will it holds firmly to the truth; but within the truth it does not see; and nothing save vision can satisfy the mind. Faith is an evidence–i.e., a firm conviction–but it is a conviction “of things that appear not.” As long, then, as intrinsic evidence is denied, the mental assent is not spontaneous and requires the concurrence of the will. Hence it is misleading to compare the state of mind of the believer with the complete repose of the mind in a truth clearly demonstrated, or with the evidence of the senses. In the latter case there can be little or no temptation to doubt. The believer, on the other hand, precisely because he does not see within the truth, may be subject to many such temptations. But temptations are not doubts, and the believer is able by an effort of will to dispel them, to concentrate his attention upon the infallible motive of his faith, and thus to achieve a state of security from error as superior to that of human knowledge as the Truth of God infinitely transcends the fallible reason of man.”
Walking by faith does not entail provisionality, nor does the lack of provisionality entail walking by sight.
“Subdue your inner Descartes.”
Your side is the one that should be taking this advice, not the RC side. Cath Enc: “”Methodic doubt”, that is, provisional doubt of every truth, was put forward by Descartes as the proper course for the discovery of truth.” Maybe Christ wasn’t raised. Maybe cows can jump over the moon. One side argues this, the other doesn’t.
LikeLike
CvD:
Walking by faith does not entail provisionality, nor does the lack of provisionality entail walking by sight.>>>>>
Walking by provisionality when it comes to the resurrection of Jesus Christ is no faith at all.
Brother Hart, I think:
“Subdue your inner Descartes.”
CvD:
Your side is the one that should be taking this advice, not the RC side. Cath Enc: “”Methodic doubt”, that is, provisional doubt of every truth, was put forward by Descartes as the proper course for the discovery of truth.” Maybe Christ wasn’t raised. Maybe cows can jump over the moon. One side argues this, the other doesn’t.>>>>
Yes. I was wondering where this was coming from. It comes from Descartes.
I don’t think that either Luther or Calvin ever argued this way, but it does seem to be a logical outcome of what they began.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Petros
Posted December 7, 2015 at 4:01 pm | Permalink
Susan, not saying anyone else is “wrong”. It’s a diff of opinion on what an eeee would view to be a secondary, or discretionary, matter. Not a big deal.>>>>>
Making the ressurrection of Jesus Christ a matter of provisional knowledge is the difference between faith and not faith. Remember, it is not just that from a person’s point of view, he or she cannot say definitively that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. The event is provisional, since there exists the possibility of finding His body.
Now, that is unbelief. If you wish to defend this little point that Robert made several times, then have at it.
I would ask you. Do you believe the Jesus Christ rose from the dead based on the infallible testimony of the Apostle Paul?
LikeLike
”Methodic doubt”, that is, provisional doubt of every truth, was put forward by Descartes as the proper course for the discovery of truth.” Maybe Christ wasn’t raised. Maybe cows can jump over the moon. One side argues this, the other doesn’t.
1 Cor. 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
2 Cor. 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Trust, but verify your implicit faith.
It’s not as hard as you keep telling us it is.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 7, 2015 at 11:07 am | Permalink
Mermaid, you’re still swimming away from Jeff’s question. Nice touch of shoving it back in our faces. Just like your holy father.
Dr. Hart conspicuously avoids uttering the slightest agreement with Jeff and Robert’s rather odd “provisional” “faith” riff, isn’t remotely part of the discussion, but still swoops in and does his pals’ dirty work with his sneaky little surprise attacks.
Happy Pearl Harbor Day, Darryl. Jesus is so proud of you. Tora! Tora! Tora!
LikeLike
Jeff, I walk by faith, not sight. I am among those who did not see with my own eyes, but I believe. I am blessed. I don’t need to see the nail prints in His hands and feet. I don’t need to put my finger in them. I accept and submit to the infallible record of Scripture as it has been infallibly preserved through the Traditions of His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Refute that.
John 20:24-29English Standard Version (ESV)
Jesus and Thomas
24 Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin,[a] was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”
26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted December 7, 2015 at 4:44 pm | Permalink
Darryl:
“Subdue your inner Descartes.”
Your side is the one that should be taking this advice, not the RC side. Cath Enc: “”Methodic doubt”, that is, provisional doubt of every truth, was put forward by Descartes as the proper course for the discovery of truth.” Maybe Christ wasn’t raised. Maybe cows can jump over the moon. One side argues this, the other doesn’t.
Another of Dr. Hart’s stink bombs blows up in his face.
LikeLike
Publius: Ali – Well, as kent said, there is the whole 2nd commandment thing at :01.
Don’t really get your @.01 = 2nd commandment violation. Would you and/or kent explain?
Publius: Beyond that? I really couldn’t follow the smarmy, breathy, emoting so I just turned it off.
Well, at least then, you have an excuse for closing your ears to the word of God. And I was going to say, interesting you’ve had no complaint about other type (inappropriate) youtubes here, but then I remembered, oh yeah, wait, r2k.
Publius: But AVos did say elsewhere, “Miracles happen whenever I look for shoots of Jesus’ love everywhere – because this grows deep roots in Jesus’ love for everyone.”So, yeah, um, translate that to English if you can.
just gossip/hearsay until you can link, quote where
LikeLike
Bob S.:
Trust, but verify your implicit faith.>>>>
Yeah, like that’s in the Bible. It’s right up there with “God don’t like ugly”.
I would ask you. Do you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead based on the infallible testimony of the Apostle Paul? The resurrection is in the Bible and it has been infallibly verified.
Do you submit to the infallible words of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1ff as the Holy Spirit breathed them out and you can read them even in your own language?
You don’t need the autographs or even need to be an expert in Greek or philology.
Yes, or no. Will you believe and obey the truth?
LikeLike
@susan
I don’t think this is quite right. Better to say that the printing press made the democratization of religion inevitable via the democratization of information. Part (but not only) of the reason that Luther succeeded while previous attempts (Hus, Wycliff,Tyndale) failed was that information could be disseminated much more cheaply and widely.
You were told wrong.
They didn’t count or discount it. This wasn’t something that was centrally planned. I might add that much to the chagrin of not a few around here – the evangelicals and the reformed share very many churches.
Never. I don’t think most reformed would consider most evangelicals “work centered”. Indeed, most reformed (rightly or wrongly) consider themselves evangelicals. The criticism of evangelicalism is not so much based on soteriology as it is in ecclesiology…
Well the first phrase is a relief. The second is tautological isn’t it? Who would *want* one to interpret the bible differently from what you think the correct approach is?
Not really. Gutenberg died in the mid-1400’s. You were either Catholic, quiet about your dissent, or cooked.
LikeLike
James Young, like Sean says, you’re quoting from the 1912 Encyclopedia would be a lot less embarrassing for you if your bishops in Rome still thought infallibility was important. Sure, nothing changed. Neither did the WCF in 1929.
And what’s really pathetic. You were probably born after 1965. So impressionable.
LikeLike
Ali – The 2nd commandment violation is the creche in the lower left corner of the video that contains an idol – a man made representation of our Lord.
Here is a link to the Qs & As relating to the 2nd commandment from the WLC w/ proof texts: http://www.esvbible.org/resources/creeds-and-catechisms/article-the-westminster-larger-catechism/
With regards to the quote from Ann Voskamp that I included earlier, here is a link directly to the quote in her book, Unwrapping The Greatest Gift. Hearsay? I wish.
http://bit.ly/1RB1BaS
LikeLike
ali – Well, at least then, you have an excuse for closing your ears to the word of God. And I was going to say, interesting you’ve had no complaint about other type (inappropriate) youtubes here, but then I remembered, oh yeah, wait, r2k.
I’m pretty sure that AVos doesn’t qualify as the Word of God. Right?
Other than cw posting AVos, I don’t know anything about any inappropriate “youtubes” here, r2k, r2d2, or otherwise. But hey, it’s almost Festivus, so let’s cut cw some slack.
LikeLike
Clete,
Do you hold everything provisionally? Or do you not?
If non-provisionality means that there is no possibility at all that I could be wrong in any possible world, then yes. Otherwise, everything I hold is provisional in the sense, “In theory I could be wrong.” Just as it is with you.
And saying we are finite does not mean we do hold and must hold everything provisionally.
Sure it does. There is a kind of weak provisionality to all human knowledge. You do not have access to every piece of possible evidence and you do not know how every piece you do have relates to the others and to the whole. To escape provisionality, you must be omniscient. You have to have knowledge of all things that never changes. The very possibility of change indicates provisionality and contingency.
You yourself have said that you would abandon Rome if they found the body of Jesus. The very fact that you can hold such a theory at all indicates a degree of provisionality. You seem to be a thinking person. Like all thinking people who weigh claims, you believe unless and until something that better explains the evidence comes around. If you want to have any meaningful interaction with us, at some point you have to at least ask the question “Is it possible that the Prots are correct?” Even if you were brought up RC, if your faith is truly your own, you had to wrestle with the question at some point. Hello provisionality. It’s possible you could be wrong, at least theoretically. You’ve admitted as much.
You don’t need the absolute absence of the possibility of being wrong to have certainty, and that’s the point. You’ve admitted it. Game over.
If the motives of credibility are as you characterize, then those who rejected them in the NT were not culpable for doing so – they were justified because of their “interpretation” you offer that “’Well, that’s unusual. Perhaps we all have that ability but haven’t been able to access it’ or some other such thing.” concerning the Resurrection. Christ and the Apostles arguments are nonsense then.
We are never justified in rejecting God’s interpretation of facts. But we have to accept that interpretation in order for the motives of credibility to be, well, credible. In itself, the resurrection proves nothing. Van Til was not right on everything, but he was certainly correct that there are no such things as bare, uninterpreted facts. The resurrection has meaning as a pointer to Christ only if you accept His interpretation of it. So the arguments of Christ and the Apostles aren’t nonsense. They are assuming that you must accept their interpretation of the event along with the event itself.
If that were true, then there would be no rational way to adjudicate between competing truth claims.
That does not follow. The rational way is to find the interpretation that explains the evidence at hand. Interpreting the resurrection as simply an extraordinary event for which we may yet find a naturalistic explanation does not make sense is finally irrational because, among other things, it doesn’t explain the evidence we have.
Saying you don’t know if cows may already have or maybe able to jump over the moon is skepticism.
No. It’s “I don’t know absolutely because I haven’t seen every cow in existence nor can I nor can I rule out a series of genetic mutations that may one day make it possible.” That doesn’t mean I have any GOOD reason to actually think it will happen or that cows can jump over the moon.
“If a cow jumps over the moon, it is not of its own powers – we would *know* it was assisted in some way outside its own powers – we wouldn’t say “well, maybe the cow was assisted, maybe he wasn’t” and just live in perpetual ignorance.”
Until of course you examine it and discover that cow acquired the necessary genetic mutation. Remember, it’s your communion that has embraced St. Darwin, not mine.
But you are right, we wouldn’t live in perpetual ignorance. Our empirical senses are reliable enough to tell us that a cow can’t do it, but that’s still a provisional judgment apart from omniscience. Omniscience is the only way out of provisionality. But you don’t need omniscience for certainty or confidence. Your major epistemological error is thinking that provisional apprehension is incapable of bringing certainty.
Saying “How do we determine natural limitations of something except by natural observation? Have you examined every possible cow? Has anyone? Is that even possible?” is skepticism.
No, it’s a recognition of my finitude. It’s a recognition that I need more than just empirical observation. I also need to accept some philosopher’s account of reality that says things have fixed natures. IOW, I have to accept someone else’s interpretation of the evidence. Welcome to having to assume Rome for the motives of credibility to be credible.
Saying “Reason isn’t a realm of neutrality.” is skepticism.
If reason were a realm of neutrality, two reasonable people would never disagree.
Saying we must hold room for doubt on everything is skepticism.
I don’t recall saying that. If I did, I meant it in a trivial sense. I have to trust my own reasoning at some point, but I also know I am fallible. So I can’t trust myself or my apprehension absolutely. The thing is, my fallible apprehension is involved in my faith.
Saying things that prompt Bryan’s reply to you of “The philosophical mistake in your argument is making God’s way of knowing something, the standard for what counts as knowledge in humans. Hence, since we cannot know the way God knows, then (according to your reasoning) we humans cannot know anything at all. Thus skepticism. The mistake there is in the very first premise.
God’s way of knowing something isn’t the standard for what counts as knowledge in humans. And I don’t recall ever saying that it was. God’s way of knowing something IS the standard for escaping fallibility and provisionality in our apprehension.
Humans can and do attain knowledge, even if they do not know in the way God does. Our inability to know as God knows does not mean that we cannot attain knowledge,
Agreed
including the knowledge of the essences of things, or that we cannot attain certainty, or that our knowledge is always “provisional and fallible.” Skepticism does not justifiably follow from the truth that humans cannot know just as God knows.”
Agreed, as long as you acknowledge the human being’s dependence on God’s interpretation of reality. No such thing as an isolated fact.
which is exactly what you’ve still been arguing in these threads – “you’re finite and not God!”
Provisionality entails changeability, and your knowledge is changeable and always will be changeable. The only way out of it is to acquire unchanging knowledge—omniscience. But provisionality/finitude doesn’t mean no certainty. That’s your error.
I’ve listened to what you, sdb, and Jeff have said on provisionality, as well as what your confessions and theologians have said on things like authority and semper reformanda. All of my arguments have cited your positions multiple times.
You haven’t once accurately portrayed them, as Jeff noted elsewhere. That’s the problem. Semper Reformanda is held out as more of a theoretical possibility than anything else, and that to prevent things like the corrupt Roman hierarchy.
But even so, you’ve admitted that there are things that COULD happen that would get you to leave Rome. So your submission is provisional. The only people round here who are evidencing anything remotely resembling non-provisional submission are the nice Catholic ladies who are telling us absolute knowledge is required. And you’re faulting me for saying omniscience is necessary to escape provisionality? They recognize it even if they are substituting the world “absolute” for “provisional.”
Right, thus it’s not divine or supernatural faith. Thus the Pelagian/rationalist charge. As vat1 said: This faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the Catholic Church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived.
But of course we do believe things based on the authority of God Himself. That’s kind of what self-authentication means. But you’ve already said that are things that could get you to leave Rome, which means you accept the theoretical possibility that you could be wrong, which means you don’t have supernatural faith I guess.
So the NT isn’t necessary to know Jesus role and mission, but it’s necessary for other things?
The NT makes His role and mission clearer, but His role and mission is outlined in the OT, which Jesus expected people to recognize under a system with no profession of infallibility.
That seems strange – Christ is just a secondary footnote to the NT? What are these “other things” that take precedence over Christ that gave necessity to the NT?
One of the main things is the instruction on how we are to live in light of the new covenant. Another would be the clarification that inauguration and consummation of the kingdom would be separated. There’s more, but that’s enough for now.
So when Christ affirmed Genesis was scripture, that wasn’t an infallible statement from Him?
Sure it was. But Christ wasn’t like, “Okay guys, I know you’ve believed Genesis is Scripture for about 1500 years now. But you had no real reason for the certainty of faith. So really, you were a bunch of Pelagian fideists whose mom dressed funny. Now that I’m here, you know. Once I thought fideism was the bees’ knees, cause that’s what you had. Now, not so much.”
Christ and the Apostles very frequently say “You know what the Scripture says,” assuming an unspoken agreement between them and their Jewish audience as to what Scripture was. IOW, they expected them to know Genesis was Scripture before and therefore apart from their infallible statements.
It really makes hash of your argument because you have Jesus inexplicably expecting the certainty of faith for something that would be impossible until Jesus if you are correct.
Right, but there was a claim they were part of a people divinely confirmed by an infallible authority.
Well if that’s it, that’s what Protestants claim.
Right, motives of credibility. Without the miracles or other divine confirmation, there would be no reason to give the spies the time of day. That’s the point.
Rahab didn’t see the miracles herself. She was relying on fallible reports of people who were not organs of revelation or claimed to be organs of revelation (ie, the pagans who did see). So her faith was based on people fallilby setting forth claims. And she was commended for it. That’s the point.
If Protestant ministers were claiming miracles confirming them or their authority, the conversation would shift – you’d at least have some supposed motives of credibility to be considered. That was part of the point of RC apologists during the Reformation.
The claim is the authority of God’s Word. And no, the Reformers didn’t claim miracles, largely because they didn’t think seeing Mary’s face in a piece of toast was a miracle. When Rome raises the dead, we can talk about miracles as motives of credibility for Rome. Otherwise, the biblical miracles are motives of credibility for Scripture, which as the divine Word has authority that Protestants convey when they interpret it rightly.
Okay, so you don’t need an infallible canon for SS to work. So can you please explain how Scripture can be the sole ultimate standard against which proposed teachings and doctrines are to be ever-evaluated, when the identified extent/scope/content of Scripture is never defined as infallible and subject to revision and correction? Would SS work if we take out the NT? How about just a few books? What about one chapter?
First tell me how STM can work as a rule of faith without an infallible list of at least all the writings that make up tradition and an infallible list of all the true bishops, etc.
Rome who never taught it. RCism defines the church as being in communion with the church and bishop of Rome. You can’t just say “yeah, but Arianism had followers” as a rejoinder.
So tradition is whatever Rome says it is after the fact. Sola Ecclesia.
No – it was not part of the faith of the church. That some bishops and sees embraced it is not relevant to Rome’s claims any more than Unitarians and Word-of-Faithers existing today is relevant.
Wow. Not only sola Ecclesia, but sola papalia. That one leg of your triad has to do an awful lot of work.
I see – so the laity rising up in Rome, the massive controversy Arianism sparked which spurred the council, and Athanasius’ statements during the controversy attesting to STM, were just a coincidence.
Wait, now it matters what Athanasius said? You need to get it straight whether the Magisterium can be limited to one bishop or not and then if that’s the pope. Because I keep hearing from you guys “The pope never succumbed to Arianism,” and “Well, he never formally TAUGHT that even though there’s every evidence to believe he wasn’t even regenerate.” It really does get confusing. An infallible list of infallible papal utterances sure would be helpful.
We’ve been over this. Rome can’t tomorrow define Romans is uninspired or Arianism is true or the eucharist can be discarded from the liturgy or Orange actually affirmed Pelagianism or the book of mormon is inspired. So it’s not sola-M, it’s STM-triad.
It’s sola M if your knockdown defense for why Arianism isn’t tradition is because Rome never went Arian. Well, except for Liberius when apparently signing confessional documents isn’t teaching authority. Why? As a matter of convenience, cause we want to make sure we jump up and down and note those times when he spoke more correctly cause ya gotta bolster a role for Rome that no one at the time thought Rome had.
LikeLike
Darryl,
A substantive reply. So does Dei Verbum contradict what Cath Enc and Smith wrote on the topic I cited? Does Fides et Ratio? How about the current catechism? Anything from Benedict? Or will we get more NCR journalists? Youre contending the certitude of faith and infallibility is incompatible with walking by faith, and yet the very sources you say care about infallibility and certitude (since they were pre Vat2) are the same ones upholding walking by faith. Try to get your wires uncrossed (again).
LikeLike
@cvd Just to make sure we are clear on one another’s I’m offering a condensed version of Jeff’s summary of your argument. MTX (and maybe Susan if I am remembering correctly) indicated that he (they?) thought it was a fair summary of what I’ll refer to as RCE (catholic epistemology). Do you agree that this fairly represents you position? The full version is available here.
By way of contrast, I have summarized the reformed perspective above. Here is an abbreviated listing of my propositions for comparison:
These statements have arisen in a conversation about the following question: who is better off epistemologically, the RC assuming RCism is true or the RP assuming RPism is true?
I make no claim to these being complete. Jeff seems to think I have offered an adequate summary. If your understanding of our stance is different, it would be good to clarify that. I’m not arguing for or against either stance at this stage. I just want to be sure that we are on the same page. I can already see a few ways I would like to append the prot statements, but I don’t want to make things any more unwieldy than they already are.
LikeLike
Jeff,
“It has been argued here by CVD and Tom and you and Mermaid that it is improper to place faith in anything known provisionally.”
No its been argued it is improper to place faith in anything offered as admittedly provisional. Thus the contrast between RC and Protestant claims.
LikeLike
TLM
heerree weee gooo agaiinnn.
I believe the Bible because it is the Bible, not because Rome tells me so.
Your slip is showing, i.e. you need to expurgate your residual protestantism.
I know. Augustine’s famous quote of how he wouldn’t have believed unless the church had said so.
Which is no more that to say what the Samaritans said.
At first they believed on account of the woman at the well Jn. 4:39, but then having heard Jesus for themselves they said:
Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world Jn. 4:42.
Big diff there.
If you can’t make the distinction, you’re incompetent to the discussion.
Sorry.
Yup, here it comes. The old bugaboo of provisional now rears its ugly head.
Prot view is that our grasp of the truth is not infallible, but adequate. It can be fine tuned, but the things necessary to be saved are so plainly taught in Scripture that anybody by the due use of the ordinary means, can come to the saving knowledge of the truth as it is in Christ. WCF 1:6 (2 Pet. 3:16, Ps.119: 105, 130)
Implicit faith is not ugly, its just stupid and unScriptural i.e. sinful, but that’s the problem for romanists, not prots.
LikeLike
JRC: “It has been argued here by CVD and Tom and you and Mermaid that it is improper to place faith in anything known provisionally.”
CVD: No its been argued it is improper to place faith in anything offered as admittedly provisional.
Well, we need some clarification, then. Because we on this side have repeatedly said that God’s word is infallible, yet provisionally known. And it is that formulation that you reject as “not even the Christian faith.”
So you aren’t being consistent here with your argument.
LikeLike
James Young, and my answer is the same. The PCUSA is modernist and still confesses the Westminster Confession. Your assertion that nothing changed is all in your head. I try to keep telling you the real Roman Catholic world is different.
The remedy could be simply for you to give up your claims of superiority and embrace the suck that is the church militant (except that your magisterium said Rome was the perfect society — oops).
LikeLike
James Young, if Protestants were heretics and became separated brothers, Vat 2 entered the world of provisionality (and worse according to Andrew Preslar).
You’d be on much firmer ground if Vat 2 hadn’t happened. But we noticed. Yup (and you probably wouldn’t have permission from your bishop to read Old Life).
LikeLike
Jeff,
Well, we need some clarification, then. Because we on this side have repeatedly said that God’s word is infallible, yet provisionally known. And it is that formulation that you reject as “not even the Christian faith.”
Seems to me that one of the linchpins is that for some reason, Cletus is allowed to assume that divine revelation is infallible by definition but that we aren’t allowed to assume that divine revelation is infallible by definition. It’s part of what makes the winding argument hard to follow.
LikeLike
I would like to add a couple of things on the Protestant side to clarify just a couple of the many misconceptions out there.
(8) Faith in the Reformed understanding consists of assensus, notitia, and fiducia: Assent, understanding, and trust.
When we speak of provisional knowledge, we are speaking of our assent and our understanding of the truth.
The provisionality is not in any way a fallibility on the part of God or His word, but on our apprehension of it.
(9) The work of the Spirit is to create faith in the believer. This may include any of the three aspects, but especially fiducia. That work is infallible in the sense that one who is effectually called will believe and will be saved; but it does not create in the believer an infallible assensus or notitia. Defects in understanding may remain.
(10) With regard to notitia, beliefs may be more or less certain, in keeping with the notion of provisionality. Many beliefs are so certain as to be practically infallible.
E.g.: Bats will not fly out of my nose. I know this — provisionally, but with great certainty.
E.g.: It is hypothetically possible (as Paul suggests) that Christ might not be raised. But the probability of such a thing is so low that it is practically infallible. To be so, it would have to be that all of the apostles, and the 500 witnesses, and Paul himself would all have to be wrong.
E.g.: The boundaries of the canon might shift with additional evidence. However, 99%+ of the canon is “practically infallible.”
The major point is that infallible (mathematical) certainty is not the only certainty in town.
Accordingly, provisionality is no obstacle to fiducia.
E.g.: I cannot offer infallible proof of the resurrection. But I believe it.
The Catholics here have badly misunderstood this point, sometimes apparently to the point of willful misrepresentation.
To wit:
* It is false to say that something known provisionally is not known at all. Johnson kicks the stone, Tom. Berkeley is wrong — as are you, who make his argument.
* It is false to say that Protestant beliefs are “up for grabs.”
* It is false to say that Protestants don’t hold to beliefs with certainty. They most certainly do (see what I did there?), but that certainty is not of a mathematical or infallible nature.
LikeLike
Here is a point that needs clarification and that I think lies at the heart of the arguments here. I’m officially migrating over from the SAS thread.
CVD quotes Scheeben: In eliciting the act of Faith man’s freedom is elevated to the supernatural order. This supernatural dignity and excellence lead to a supernatural and Divine freedom of the mind, the freedom of the children of God, the freedom from error and doubt, the full and perfect possession of the highest truth in the bosom of the Eternal Truth. Its childlike simplicity is really the highest sense, and leads to the highest intellectual attainments, whereas infidelity leads only to folly.
In this passage, it appears that the act of faith
* “Elevates man’s freedom to the divine order” — what, specifically does this mean?
* Creates freedom from both error and doubt in the mind.
* Creates full and perfect possession of truth
* Creates intellectual achievement in the mind.
So I asked CVD,
JRC: “It seems to go well beyond Vulcan mindmelding and into omniscience on the part of the believer.”
CVD: No need for omniscience. Scheeben is affirming the certitude of faith, hence his reference of Eph 4:14. To that you could add many more NT texts. If it entailed omniscience, that would mean there could be no development of doctrine. It would make the notion of “faith seeking understanding” an oxymoron and preclude the virtue of intellectual humility. It would also mean we walk by sight, not by faith – believers are not in the same state as those in heaven. Asking questions is not equivalent to calling into question, or doubting.
So let me ask more precisely. It appears that this is saying that the act of faith creates in the believer an infallible understanding. Is that correct?
LikeLike
Publius: Ali – The 2nd commandment violation is the creche in the lower left corner of the video that contains an idol – a man made representation of our Lord.
Here is a link to the Qs & As relating to the 2nd commandment from the WLC w/ proof texts: http://www.esvbible.org/resources/creeds-and-catechisms/article-the-westminster-larger-catechism/
With regards to the quote from Ann Voskamp that I included earlier, here is a link directly to the quote in her book, Unwrapping The Greatest Gift. Hearsay? I wish. http://bit.ly/1RB1BaS
Other than cw posting AVos, I don’t know anything about any inappropriate “youtubes” here, r2k, r2d2, or otherwise.
Hmm. agree strange wording on that AV quote, Publius
glad your eyes/ears are so sensitive and attuned about it all;
well… maybe not ‘about it all’ …but selectively, as suits one’s will and according to the occasion …speaking of, thanks for the WCF link …Q1: Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God
LikeLike
Hmm. agree, strange wording on that AV quote, Publius (but understand the sentiment)
glad your eyes/ears are so sensitive and attuned about it all;
well… maybe not ‘about it all’ …but selectively, as suits one’s will and according to the occasion
speaking of, thanks for the WCF link …Q1: Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God
LikeLike
Robert:
The only people round here who are evidencing anything remotely resembling non-provisional submission are the nice Catholic ladies who are telling us absolute knowledge is required.>>>>
No. My problem has to do with what you said about the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
You didn’t just say that a person might believe something that is wrong and have to change because they have been proven to be wrong. You said that the resurrection itself might not be true because the body of Christ might be found someday.
Is your infallible rule of faith and practice really fallible, even if only in theory?
You are saying more than just human beings are fallible and often wrong.
See, one thing that Reformed theology emphasizes is the fact that it is not man centered. However, this theory of provisional knowledge puts man’s inability to know anything for certain right at the center of your theology.
How is that not man centered? How is that not idolatrous?
LikeLike
Sdb,
You might have missed my reply to Jeffs summary at https://oldlife.org/2015/11/shrugged-and-always-shrugging/#comment-366629 where I added further context to the RC position that I believe is relevant to some of the points being repeated in this thread.
LikeLike
Hi Robert,
You said to Cletus( James?),
“If non-provisionality means that there is no possibility at all that I could be wrong in any possible world, then yes. Otherwise, everything I hold is provisional in the sense, “In theory I could be wrong.” Just as it is with you.”
But we are not taking about another dimension or a hypothetical situation. We’re talking about things that God has revealed. And you can’t say that Jesus as God intended to reveal that he fullfilled OT prophecy but failed to make it clear to the very people He called who were eye witnesses that Jesus did for and came out of the grace three days later.
You are saying that there is a break in the chain somewhere of you contend that the information that has reached is today is only provisionally known.
I’d be interested to hear your definition of relativism.
LikeLike
That was: ” that Jesus died for our sins and came out of the grave three days later”
You probably figured that out:)
LikeLike
Mermaid: However, this theory of provisional knowledge puts man’s inability to know anything for certain right at the center of your theology.
I can see how you might think this, in that it might appear that what we are saying is that all truth is a matter of opinion.
But this is actually not so, and at a very deep level.
Before I explain why, stop and think about the fact that science abandoned the Aristotelian method in favor of empirical methods (Bacon, Pascal, others). Why would they do that, since Aristotle promised guaranteed truth using logic to reason from foundational axioms?
There must be something about the empirical methods that works better than Aristotelian logic, at least in the realm of physical phenomena. That’s a paradox. Empirical methods don’t guarantee absolute truth but only provisional truth. Yet, they turn out to be superior guides, in the physical realm, than the supposed infallible guide of Aristotelian logic.
Don’t misunderstand. I’m not disrespecting logic, which I strive to teach to all of my students. My job, in fact, is to teach one large body of logic (calculus) to high-schoolers who have varying degrees of comfort with logical thinking.
But in the physical realm, we found that logic had its limits. And the limit is easy to see:
It turns out to be impossible to get the right axioms a priori
That’s why Aristotle was wrong about so many physical phenomena. He began with seemingly obvious axioms (all objects naturally tend to rest; objects made of earth naturally fall to the earth) and nevertheless ended up with wrong conclusions because his starting point was incorrect.
What we found that worked better was to test our conclusions against experiment. If those conclusions lead us to challenge even our axioms, then so be it. That’s a rare event — but it happened twice in the 20th century in physics.
Why did the change in method from purely logical to emprical+logical help matters? Because it allowed us to clearly distinguish between models and reality The models are the human element, the perceptual understanding of nature.
Reality is what God’s creation actually does.
In the Aristotelian method, model and reality were commingled in such a way that the human element, the fallible element, could not be clearly seen for what it was.
In the current method, model and reality are much less commingled (NOT perfectly so, I need to rush to add), so that analysis of physical phenomena is much less based on human guesswork and much more based on the data itself.
Now, how does this relate to theology?
It might seem that the right way to proceed is to get God’s infallible truth and reason on that foundation. That’s self-evident, right?
Here’s the catch. God’s infallible truth (which we agree is infallible, else God is a liar, which we agree is impossible) comes to us through a human delivery system.
What does Paul say? Faith comes through the sacramentally appointed magisterium? No. Faith comes through hearing, and hearing comes from the Word of God.
I’m sure you agree that when you receive the word of God, you receive it through your fallible senses. That fact doesn’t make the Word fallible. It does make your understanding of it fallible.
Now. In your model, you want to posit that, having found the right authority to interpret, you trust that authority, and as a result you have infallible truth.
What your model does is to commingle the human and divine elements so that you cannot properly distinguish them.
Hence, when I bring up the true fact that you don’t have the original Nicene creed, but a fallible copy of a fallible translation of a fallible copy of the Nicene creed, you struggle to account for that fact. Not putting you down here, but observing that you and Tom and CVD all get to this point and just quit: “red herring” “you destroy the faith” etc.
Somehow in your mind, the work of the Spirit enables you to transcend the various human elements to apprehend the infallible truth contained in the creed.
Well if that’s so, then why does the EO disagree with you about the meaning of the creed? Granted, the difference is small (“and the Son”) — but we’re talking about infallible truth here. There should be no difference whatsoever. Does the Spirit do fallible work in them? And if so, then why is that they say the original creed and you say the modified creed?
The answer is obvious: The EO disagrees with the RC about the creed because the limits of human understanding, not the limits of the Spirit’s work, prevent the EO or the RC or both from having an infallible understanding of divine truth.
The human elements are not transcended by faith. Instead, they get smuggled in under the guise of divine truth, and the two are commingled improperly.
So here comes the Protestant method, and for all its limitations it does one thing really well: It draws a hard line between the Word of God and the word of man. The former is infallible; the latter is always fallible.
In drawing that hard line, what we are doing is actually being more clear and frank and honest about the human elements in our theological method. And the purpose of that honesty is not to be human-centric at all. Rather, it is to identify the human elements so that we do not put our trust in those human elements.
Let me say that again.
The Protestant method is less human-centered than the Catholic because it clearly identifies the human elements and tags them as fallible, whereas the Catholic method incorporates the human elements as “divine truth” and loses track of which is human and which is divine.
The separation is not perfect. CVD is not entirely out to lunch when he questions the difference between divine Scripture and a humanly recognized canon.
But the Protestant separation of Word of God from word of man, imperfect as it may be, is nevertheless a better and less human-centered way of doing theology because it does not enshrine human interpretation of Scripture as if it were the Scripture itself.
Truth is not a matter of man’s opinion. It is matter of facts and causation and true relations between facts. But man’s opinions about facts are man’s opinions, and the Protestant forthrightly acknowledges this to be so in order to keep facts and opinions separate.
LikeLike
Susan: I’d be interested to hear your definition of relativism.
Relativism: Actual truth is relative to the framework of the observer.
The old SEP article was really good and had a trenchant critique of relativism. The new article is disappointing in that it tries to defend it.
Oh, here we go. I had fun teaching this upon a time.
— http://stanford.library.usyd.edu.au/archives/spr2009/entries/relativism/#5.9
LikeLike
Susan: We’re talking about things that God has revealed.
Yes.
Susan: And you can’t say that Jesus as God intended to reveal that he fullfilled OT prophecy but failed to make it clear to the very people He called who were eye witnesses that Jesus did for and came out of the grace [sic] three days later.
You are saying that there is a break in the chain somewhere of you contend that the information that has reached is today is only provisionally known.
I usually correct people’s spelling without comment because politeness, but this was a great example of infallible truth being conveyed fallibly!
I knew what you meant. And the reason I knew what you meant is that as a well-read adult English speaker, I have context clues to be able to say, “She certainly meant grave there.”
Do I say that fallibly? Absolutely. Provisionally? Yes again. Is there any doubt in my mind? Nope.
Provisional does not mean doubtful.
That one fact right there makes this whole line of reasoning go away. Provisional does not mean doubtful. You undoubtedly meant “grave” in your sentence.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 7, 2015 at 9:58 pm | Permalink
James Young, if Protestants were heretics and became separated brothers, Vat 2 entered the world of provisionality (and worse according to Andrew Preslar).
You’d be on much firmer ground if Vat 2 hadn’t happened. But we noticed. Yup (and you probably wouldn’t have permission from your bishop to read Old Life).
Darryl Hart and his attacks on the Catholic Church remain irrelevant at the discussion at his own blog.
Brother Jeff does not understand this statement.
LikeLike
Robert, you wouldn’t know that Scripture is infallible if the church hadn’t told you, I mean the Holy Spirit teaching through the
new revelationmagisterium of the church which is infallible except when it’s not.LikeLike
Jeff, Protestant beliefs have to be “up for grabs.” Why else would you convert to Rome? It wouldn’t have anything to do with where you stand on that great day unless, of course, my A in the epistemology seminar makes me righteous in God’s sight.
LikeLike
Jeff, “What your model does is to commingle the human and divine elements so that you cannot properly distinguish them.”
Except for James Young’s blankie of the pope. There you have the divine and human inerrancy comingled, except when the popes err.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 8, 2015 at 6:40 am | Permalink
Jeff, “What your model does is to commingle the human and divine elements so that you cannot properly distinguish them.”
Except for James Young’s blankie of the pope. There you have the divine and human inerrancy comingled, except when the popes err.>>>>>
The resurrection of Jesus Christ – provisional knowledge or infallible knowledge? It can’t be both.
Are you willing to commingle human provisionality with divine, infallible revelation?
LikeLike
Jeff:
The Protestant method is less human-centered than the Catholic because it clearly identifies the human elements and tags them as fallible, whereas the Catholic method incorporates the human elements as “divine truth” and loses track of which is human and which is divine.
The separation is not perfect.>>>>>
Actually, when applied to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the separation is not only imperfect, but it is heretical.
Resurrection of Jesus Christ – provisional knowledge or infallible knowledge?
For Van Til – whom you guys think would be on your side – the resurrection of Jesus Christ is presuppositional knowledge. His I recognize as legitimate Reformed theology. Yours, not so much.
For Van Til, it is assumed that Jesus Christ Himself is testifying to Himself through His apostle, Paul. If you read his article, you will see that in Van Til’s thinking – and all Reformed theology I have ever read – it is the natural man who cannot understand and believe in the resurrection because of his natural resistance to the truth of the Gospel.
In arguing for an epistemology of provisional knowledge that even extends to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, you are arguing from the point of view of the natural man.
Provisional knowledge contradicts the presuppositionalism that Van Til championed. In the following, you see his consistency. He does not put his infallible rule of faith and practice in the ledger of provisional knowledge. You are once again leaving the work of the Holy Spirit out of your thinking. I am really starting to worry about you, Jeff.
I like you guys. I consider you guys to be my brothers in Christ. However, your consistent appeal to the way that the natural man perceives knowledge, even applying it to foundational beliefs is quite troubling to me. I am praying for you. I do love you guys.
http://www.the-highway.com/articleMar09.html
Jesus Christ Speaks to Us
Christ himself told his disciples—and through them, his church— how to confess him before the world. To obey this command the church must first sit down at Jesus’ feet to hear from him just who he is, what he did, and what he is doing to save the world. The New Testament constitutes this witness of Christ both to himself and to his work of redemption. Moreover, the New Testament, which is Christ’s witness to himself, is based upon and presupposes the Old Testament. “Search the scriptures,” said Jesus to the Jews, “for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39). Again, “Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:45-47).
Commissioned by Christ as the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul says “that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures” (I Cor. 15:3,4)…
No one can accept the Son except the Father should “draw him” John 6:44). The Father will draw men, and the Son will then, like the Father, quicken them: “For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will” (John 5:21).
No man believes unless the Father draws him, unless the Son quickens him, and unless the Holy Spirit regenerates him. The triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, work together within the hearts of the natural man to enable him to believe. Christ gives unto men of his Spirit to make his Word of reconciliation effective among them.
LikeLike
Mermaid,
Actually, when applied to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the separation is not only imperfect, but it is heretical.
Sorry, but the separation between fact/truth and one’s perception of the truth is elementary epistemology. You need to stop denying it.
Resurrection of Jesus Christ – provisional knowledge or infallible knowledge?
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is an event that either happened or it didn’t. My apprehension that it did indeed happen and means what the Apostles say it means remains fallible, but not uncertain. I can be certain that a fact is true despite my fallibility. CVD has admitted this, so game over. My fallible apprehension does not mean I can’t know truth, be it supernatural or natural. Thus, the confession that the Protestant church is fallible doesn’t mean the Prot. Church can’t know truth or have proper certainty about truth claims.
For Van Til – whom you guys think would be on your side – the resurrection of Jesus Christ is presuppositional knowledge. His I recognize as legitimate Reformed theology. Yours, not so much.
Indeed. But presuppositional doesn’t mean the one holding the knowledge is infallible. Van Til is also willing to adopt the unbeliever’s position in theory in order to demonstrate its incoherence. Thus, he can hold out the theoretical possibility that the resurrection did not happen even though he doesn’t believe that such is actually the case or ever has a true possibility of being the case. That’s not at all inconsistent with what we are saying. And it indicates a degree of provisionality to all human knowledge.
You seem to be stuck on the word provisional as if it means “who knows if we might be wrong.” It doesn’t mean that. It simply means that my understanding may possibly change, not that it will or should.
For Van Til, it is assumed that Jesus Christ Himself is testifying to Himself through His apostle, Paul. If you read his article, you will see that in Van Til’s thinking – and all Reformed theology I have ever read – it is the natural man who cannot understand and believe in the resurrection because of his natural resistance to the truth of the Gospel.
In arguing for an epistemology of provisional knowledge that even extends to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, you are arguing from the point of view of the natural man.
Provisional knowledge contradicts the presuppositionalism that Van Til championed. In the following, you see his consistency. He does not put his infallible rule of faith and practice in the ledger of provisional knowledge. You are once again leaving the work of the Holy Spirit out of your thinking. I am really starting to worry about you, Jeff.
Mermaid, you are either clueless when you read or are deliberately lying about what Jeff has said. You have been corrected so many times on this point that it’s getting tiresome. To say he’s leaving out the Holy Spirit shows either an astounding degree of reading incomprehension or outright dishonesty.
Van Til never advocated a position that means the individual’s apprehension/knowledge is infallible. That would blur the Creator/creature distinction which is the heart of his apologetic.
I like you guys. I consider you guys to be my brothers in Christ. However, your consistent appeal to the way that the natural man perceives knowledge, even applying it to foundational beliefs is quite troubling to me. I am praying for you. I do love you guys.
In Romanism, the natural man must first apprehend the motives of credibility in a fallible manner, so the criticism applies actually to the Romanist’s admittedly foundational belief that his senses are fallible but trustworthy. Your foundation is no less fallible.
But it is improper, really, to speak of the foundation as fallible. People are fallible/infallible. Better to say the foundation is without error but that we fallibly apprehend it.
Omnisicence remains the only way to fully escape fallibility. It’s why the Apostles had to be protected from teaching error; namely, their inherent fallibility. Contrary to CVD, however, none of us is saying that escaping fallibility is required for the possibility of true knowledge. The argument you all are making is nonsensical and requires finally the infallibility not only of the church but also of the individual submitting to it.
LikeLike
Mermaid: I consider you guys to be my brothers in Christ.
In what way mermaid? With all due respect, you are weighed down that we get right on unwavering faith, yet seem unconcerned after that, that your faith says something else must be added?
“It is only with a proper understanding of the faith that we are able to put the Church’s teaching on this issue in its proper context, without avoiding excess or defect. For that same reason, it is worth noting that the Church has always condemned the following as errors opposed to the faith: …
Fourth error: “Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.”“
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm
it behooves us all to find out God says ‘pleases God’
LikeLike
Robert:
But it is improper, really, to speak of the foundation as fallible. People are fallible/infallible. Better to say the foundation is without error but that we fallibly apprehend it.>>>>
You are speaking like a natural man, Robert. You need to rename Van Til. Call him Van ’Til further notice. He would not agree with you. He would see as I see that you are arguing like a natural man, not a spiritual man.
The natural man is unable to infallibly apprehend the truth of Christ’s resurrection. The spiritual man is indeed enabled to apprehend it. In fact, only the spiritual man is able to do so.
Your epistemology needs some tweaking.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 8, 2015 at 6:40 am | Permalink
Jeff, “What your model does is to commingle the human and divine elements so that you cannot properly distinguish them.”
Except for James Young’s blankie of the pope. There you have the divine and human inerrancy comingled, except when the popes err.>>>>>
What say you, Brother Hart? Are you going to rename Van Til, calling him Van ’Til Further Notice? Are you going to side with the super fundamentalist, Van Til – whom I respect even though now I reject his anti Catholicism?
I am quite sure that he would tell you that you have some commingling of your own going on here. You cannot claim the fundamentalism of Machen and Van Til on the one hand, and then turn around and argue like a relativist.
Resurrection of Jesus Christ – provisional or infallible? The spiritual man – able to apprehend this truth fallibly or infallibly?
Maybe some of you guys need to do some remedial work on the fundamentals of the faith before you continue with your anti everyone else corrective mission. You are losing your own foundation, here. It’s freakin’ me out. I know what a fundamentalist is, and it’s not lookin’ good for y’all.
“Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”
Be what you claim to be, or claim something else.
LikeLike
What is really priceless about you guys is that you argue both Karl Barth AND Cornelius Van Til in the same com-box. Truly priceless.
Now, I have a certain respect for both men, but please do not confuse one with the other.
LikeLike
Mermaid, so is it tradition or Scripture that makes you so certain of the resurrection? Or do you have visions?
LikeLike
Mermaid, back at you. It’s like the Crusades and Vat 2 never happened. It’s one big epistemology seminar.
LikeLike
Mermaid,
You are speaking like a natural man, Robert. You need to rename Van Til. Call him Van ’Til further notice. He would not agree with you. He would see as I see that you are arguing like a natural man, not a spiritual man.
The natural man is unable to infallibly apprehend the truth of Christ’s resurrection. The spiritual man is indeed enabled to apprehend it. In fact, only the spiritual man is able to do so.
Your epistemology needs some tweaking.
Well here we go. The individual RC becomes infallible at the point of revelation. Tell me, Mermaid, when are you going to start giving us Scripture or be anointed as an infallible priestess by the pontiff?
And Van Til endorses a view that would destroy the Creator-creature distinction.
You can’t make this stuff up. You really can’t.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 8, 2015 at 11:03 am | Permalink
Mermaid, so is it tradition or Scripture that makes you so certain of the resurrection? Or do you have visions?>>>>
This is about you, Dr. Hart. Has Westminster Seminary changed its views on neo-orthodoxy? Is Karl Barth now in charge of epistemology in the OPC?
You are the biographer of Machen. What say you? It looks like his analysis of Barth is pretty fair – acknowledging the good that can be found in it. It is precisely his epistemology that Machen found troubling.
Does the OPC and the Westminster Seminary still find Barth’s epistemology to be troubling?
It’s not my epistemology. I have nothing personal against Barth. He lived out his faith in a really difficult time and I would not say he was an unbeliever – not at all. He was trying to help people not lose their faith in a world that had gone mad.
Is it your epistemology? Even more to the point, is it the OPC’s?
—————————————————————————-
Click to access Machen%20-%20Theology%20of%20Crisis.pdf
But on the other side is to be put the strange epistemology of the Barthian school, which makes us wonder whether these men are not in danger of falling into a skepticism even more complete than that against which they are protesting in the modern world, and the strange indifference to questions of literary and historical criticism with regard to Jesus Christ, an indifference so great that even Bultmann, with his extreme skepticism in the historical sphere, can apparently be regarded as a real member of the Barthian school.
LikeLike
@cvd,
I did. Thanks for the link. It would be helpful to see your edit of Jeff’s list.
LikeLike
Mermaid, pound sand. That fin could come in handy.
LikeLike
OK, I’ve put Jeff’s and my points together. Robert do you see anything missing here. I added a few comments in [[]]] to a few of Jeff’s points.
1) Note that the WCF makes our theological understanding, including those understandings expressed by church councils, provisional on accurately summarizing the Word of God. The infallibility of the Word of God is not provisional *within* the reformed system. One may become convinced that the Bible is not God’s Word, but then you have left the reformed system (not unlike a Catholic becoming convinced that the RCC is not the true church).
2), provisionality does not apply to ontology in any system. This is a category error. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he did not rise from the dead. My knowledge of this event is based on trust (enabled by the Holy Spirit). This knowledge is provisional – if I am not enabled by the Holy Spirit, I may wander from the truth and lose that knowledge.
3), the provisionality of the canon is a provisionality in principle, not in fact. Just as belief in Rome as the true church is provisional – there are conditions under which your belief could (in principle) change (and for many has). The underlying reality we perceive is not provisional – rome is or isn’t the true church independent of what I or anyone else believe about it. Once one rejects Rome (or the canon), one is no longer in the system. Here I think falsifiable is better than provisional (or perhaps even conditional). The belief that the earth rotates is falsifiable – one can test this belief using Foulcault’s pendulum. That doesn’t mean that the rotation of the Earth ceases to be falsifiable.
4) Infallibility is not a necessary condition for arriving at truth. My math book is not infallible, but one can learn true things about math from it and be quite confident about what one learns from it nonetheless. A teacher may not be infallible, but she can still teach you true things about the Bible. A confession may not be infallible, but it can still accurately summarize the scriptures. Further, we see that God used flawed people to advance his purposes – even speaking through decidedly non-infallible sources. He uses broken vessels to advance his kingdom. The blind man who was healed was not infallible, but what he said was true.
5) infallibility is not a sufficient condition for adequate transmission of truth. The bible may be infallible, but my understanding of it is not. The may also be true for data, a pope’s ex cathedra statement, or council’s decision – my understanding of all of these things is fallible, so my knowledge is provisional on my proper understanding. The means by which one arrives at a proper understanding is separate from the reliability of the source.This is made very clear in Jesus’s discussion of his parables where he points out that the proper understanding of his words was hidden from those he spoke to.
6) to be infallible in any meaningful sense, one must a priori be *incapable* of error. It is a grave abuse of language to assert that one is infallible when one speaks under certain conditions identified after the fact. This reduces infallibility to “happened to have gotten it right”. The pope is not infallible because he has erred. Councils are not infallible because they have gotten it wrong before. Defining them as subsequently illegitimate in hindsight is not compelling.
7) One can have adequate knowledge of the truth and still be wrong about a lot of things. Verisimilitude is a helpful concept here. F=ma is false, but it is close enough to the truth to be reliable for building bridges, launching spacecraft, and getting your house to pass inspection. But it isn’t true. There are truer descriptions of gravity, and we can definitively rule out certain things. But we do not have the true theory of gravity. That doesn’t mean that we know nothing or that everything is up for grabs. This recognition is at the heart of the reformed understanding of perspicuity of scripture. We do not believe that all of scripture is equally plain or that we have a perfect summary of it. We believe it is a sufficient understanding of the gospel for salvation – and that this level of understanding is sufficient for anyone who hears the Word of God. The fact that we don’t have a perfect summary does not mean that anything goes (any more than the fact that F=ma is off a bit means that one is justified in believing in a flat earth).
(8) Faith in the Reformed understanding consists of assensus, notitia, and fiducia: Assent, understanding, and trust. When we speak of provisional knowledge, we are speaking of our assent and our understanding of the truth. The provisionality is not in any way a fallibility on the part of God or His word, but on our apprehension of it. [[[I think another way to frame this is that I wouldn’t bother having a conversation with someone who believed something really crazy – say that the earth is flat. I’d tell them they are wrong and ignore whatever else it was they had to say (and perhaps call a mental health clinic). But dialog presupposes that there is something to be learned – my view may need to be modified in some way. This doesn’t entail that everything is up for grabs – indeed, this is borne out by the remarkable consistency in belief across a broad array of Christians who hold to Sola Scriptura (not all non-RCs do of course). ]]]
(9) The work of the Spirit is to create faith in the believer. This may include any of the three aspects, but especially fiducia. That work is infallible in the sense that one who is effectually called will believe and will be saved; but it does not create in the believer an infallible assensus or notitia. Defects in understanding may remain.
(10) With regard to notitia, beliefs may be more or less certain, in keeping with the notion of provisionality. Many beliefs are so certain as to be practically infallible. [[[I think a better way to frame this is as falsifiable – there are things we know definitively. They could have been wrong, but after investigation we see they are correct. For matters of faith, I think we could say something more or less parallel – we know theological belief is correct because it is consistent with scripture. When we investigated the scriptures and tested that claim, it was possible that view could have been found incorrect. It remains falsifiable – perhaps testable communicates this idea even better?]]]]
E.g.: Bats will not fly out of my nose. I know this — provisionally, but with great certainty.
E.g.: It is hypothetically possible (as Paul suggests) that Christ might not be raised. But the probability of such a thing is so low that it is practically infallible. To be so, it would have to be that all of the apostles, and the 500 witnesses, and Paul himself would all have to be wrong.
E.g.: The boundaries of the canon might shift with additional evidence. However, 99%+ of the canon is “practically infallible.”
The major point is that infallible (mathematical) certainty is not the only certainty in town. Accordingly, provisionality is no obstacle to fiducia.
E.g.: I cannot offer infallible proof of the resurrection. But I believe it.
The Catholics here have badly misunderstood this point, sometimes apparently to the point of willful misrepresentation.
To wit:
* It is false to say that something known provisionally is not known at all. Johnson kicks the stone, Tom. Berkeley is wrong — as are you, who make his argument.
* It is false to say that Protestant beliefs are “up for grabs.”
* It is false to say that Protestants don’t hold to beliefs with certainty. They most certainly do (see what I did there?), but that certainty is not of a mathematical or infallible nature. [[[I would go a step further and say they aren’t of a probabilistic nature either – rather they are contingent on congruence with the Word of God. My beliefs can be refined and made better, and our denomination can refine its beliefs. And of course, the opposite is true – because of sin I can cloud my belief. ]]]
LikeLike
Mermaid: The resurrection of Jesus Christ – provisional knowledge or infallible knowledge? It can’t be both.
Why can’t it?
The problem is that you are being sloppy here and equivocating on the word “knowledge.”
Does God know infallibly where you will be tomorrow at 8:00:00AM EST?
Do you?
See, that one fact is known infallibly by God but known fallibly by you. So it is entirely possible for one fact to be both known infallibly by some and infallibly by others. I deny the premise of your question.
The resurrection of Jesus is known infallibly by God, has been since before the creation of the world.
The resurrection of Jesus was known fallibly and with great uncertainty by believing Jews before Christ because they saw the signs in the ceremonial Law and believed what those signs foretold.
The resurrection of Jesus was known fallibly yet with great certainty by the apostles, who saw Him with their own eyes.
Some of them (Paul, John, Peter) proclaimed that resurrection under the influence of the Spirit, thereby producing the infallibly word of God in the original autographs.
Those original autographs were fallibly copied and translated, and have come now to you. You read, and you believe. But you don’t have infallible knowledge before you believe, and you don’t gain infallible knowledge through belief. If you did, you would know as God knows.
Mermaid: In arguing for an epistemology of provisional knowledge that even extends to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, you are arguing from the point of view of the natural man.
Incorrect.
What does Paul say? The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.
Am I arguing that the resurrection is foolishness? Am I arguing that the resurrection cannot be understood?
No. You’re off-base.
LikeLike
JRC: (10) With regard to notitia, beliefs may be more or less certain, in keeping with the notion of provisionality. Many beliefs are so certain as to be practically infallible.
SDB: [[[I think a better way to frame this is as falsifiable – there are things we know definitively.
A quick appeal for my original wording
(1) In the context of our discussion, the term “certainty” is of prime importance, whereas “falsifiability” is technical and doesn’t communicate.
(2) Even “falsifiability” is not the last word in the scientific world. Many are moving on beyond Popper.
LikeLike
Brethren,
What really matters is whose knowledge of the resurrection we receive. The right knowledge of the resurrection secures eternal justification for sinners, and it comes by apostles only:
“who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification. Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 4:25-5:1).
Mormons believe in the resurrection, but are they justified by the resurrection? No, they receive their beliefs in the resurrection from their religious authority.
“we, the Latter-day Saints, take the liberty of believing more than our Christian brethren: we not only believe … the Bible, but … the whole of the plan of salvation that Jesus has given to us. Do we differ from others who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ? No, only in believing more.”
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/what-mormons-believe-about-jesus-christ
So too it appears the RC commenters believe “more” in the resurrection, not because of the apostolic testimony, but because they find their witness an insufficient means for their justification. They require an additional witness for an infallible faith, a witness they receive in tradition and Magisterium.
So when a Pope gets the gospel wrong, he is reflecting the “more” RC infallible faith:
“Is it not an unworthy concept of God to imagine for oneself a God who demands the slaughter of his son to pacify his wrath? Such a concept of God has nothing to do with the idea of God to be found in the New Testament and it is an unworthy concept of God…”
J. Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, p.222, 2nd edition paperback.
I doubt you will win the epistemology debate; you can’t even get terms defined. But you can make clear the difference of who knows the gospel, who knows the resurrection, and who doesn’t.
LikeLike
Jeff,
“what, specifically does this mean?”
Grace elevates and builds on nature. Faith is a supernatural virtue – “the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself.” as CCC states. Supernatural faith is not the product of human reason but a divine gift.
“It appears that this is saying that the act of faith creates in the believer an infallible understanding. Is that correct?”
No. Believers aren’t made omniscient. They aren’t made infallible. As I said, “Scheeben is affirming the certitude of faith, hence his reference of Eph 4:14. To that you could add many more NT texts. If it entailed omniscience [or infallible understanding], that would mean there could be no development of doctrine. It would make the notion of “faith seeking understanding” an oxymoron and preclude the virtue of intellectual humility. It would also mean we walk by sight, not by faith – believers are not in the same state as those in heaven. Asking questions is not equivalent to calling into question, or doubting.”
One can have the virtue of faith and still be in error – although such error would not stem from faith – as Aquinas says, “Now it has been stated (1) that the formal aspect of the object of faith is the First Truth; so that nothing can come under faith, save in so far as it stands under the First Truth, under which nothing false can stand, as neither can non-being stand under being, nor evil under goodness. It follows therefore that nothing false can come under faith.”
Scheeben again:
“The high degree of certitude which belongs to the act of Faith is attained and completed by means of the supernatural light of Faith which pervades all the elements of the act. This light, being, as it were, a ray of the Divine Light, participates in the Divine infallibility and cannot but illumine the truth. The certitude produced by it is therefore Divine in every respect, and so absolutely infallible that a real act of Faith can never have falsehood for its subject-matter. This has been defined by the Vatican Council, repeating the definition of the Fifth Lateran Council: “Every assertion contrary to enlightened Faith (illuminatae fidei, i.e. Faith produced by Divine illumination) we define to be altogether false“ (sess. iii., chap. 4). The words “illuminatae fidei “ signify the Faith as it is produced in the believer, as distinct from the external objective proposition of revealed truth, and also as distinct from the act of human faith. In like manner the Council of Trent states that Faith affords a certitude which cannot have falsehood for its subject-matter (cui non potest subesse falsum). The light of Faith cannot be misapplied to belief in error; nevertheless it is possible for man to mistake an act of natural faith in a supposed revelation for a supernatural act elicited by the aid of the light of Faith. Some external criterion is needed whereby we may distinguish the one from the other. Such a criterion is supplied by the Faith of the Church, which cannot err.”
Aquinas:
Objection 1. It would seem that faith is not more certain than science and the other intellectual virtues. For doubt is opposed to certitude, wherefore a thing would seem to be the more certain, through being less doubtful, just as a thing is the whiter, the less it has of an admixture of black. Now understanding, science and also wisdom are free of any doubt about their objects; whereas the believer may sometimes suffer a movement of doubt, and doubt about matters of faith. Therefore faith is no more certain than the intellectual virtues.
Objection 2. Further, sight is more certain than hearing. But “faith is through hearing” according to Romans 10:17; whereas understanding, science and wisdom imply some kind of intellectual sight. Therefore science and understanding are more certain than faith.
Reply to Objection 1. This doubt is not on the side of the cause of faith, but on our side, in so far as we do not fully grasp matters of faith with our intellect.
Reply to Objection 2. Other things being equal sight is more certain than hearing; but if (the authority of) the person from whom we hear greatly surpasses that of the seer’s sight, hearing is more certain than sight: thus a man of little science is more certain about what he hears on the authority of an expert in science, than about what is apparent to him according to his own reason: and much more is a man certain about what he hears from God, Who cannot be deceived, than about what he sees with his own reason, which can be mistaken.
and, showing how a believer can be in error and still hold faith as opposed to a heretic who is also in error without faith:
“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.”
and more on certitude:
“It is necessary for man to accept by faith not only things which are above reason, but also those which can be known by reason: and this for three motives. First, in order that man may arrive more quickly at the knowledge of Divine truth. Because the science to whose province it belongs to prove the existence of God, is the last of all to offer itself to human research, since it presupposes many other sciences: so that it would not by until late in life that man would arrive at the knowledge of God. The second reason is, in order that the knowledge of God may be more general. For many are unable to make progress in the study of science, either through dullness of mind, or through having a number of occupations, and temporal needs, or even through laziness in learning, all of whom would be altogether deprived of the knowledge of God, unless Divine things were brought to their knowledge under the guise of faith. The third reason is for the sake of certitude. For human reason is very deficient in things concerning God. A sign of this is that philosophers in their researches, by natural investigation, into human affairs, have fallen into many errors, and have disagreed among themselves. And consequently, in order that men might have knowledge of God, free of doubt and uncertainty, it was necessary for Divine matters to be delivered to them by way of faith, being told to them, as it were, by God Himself Who cannot lie.”
Smith again:
“But although the certitude of faith is supreme, supreme as is the divine authority upon which it is based, yet the mind of the believer is not completely satisfied. Under the influence of the will it holds firmly to the truth; but within the truth it does not see; and nothing save vision can satisfy the mind. Faith is an evidence–i.e., a firm conviction–but it is a conviction “of things that appear not.” As long, then, as intrinsic evidence is denied, the mental assent is not spontaneous and requires the concurrence of the will. Hence it is misleading to compare the state of mind of the believer with the complete repose of the mind in a truth clearly demonstrated, or with the evidence of the senses. In the latter case there can be little or no temptation to doubt. The believer, on the other hand, precisely because he does not see within the truth, may be subject to many such temptations. But temptations are not doubts, and the believer is able by an effort of will to dispel them, to concentrate his attention upon the infallible motive of his faith, and thus to achieve a state of security from error as superior to that of human knowledge as the Truth of God infinitely transcends the fallible reason of man.”
LikeLike
Jeff,
– No its been argued it is improper to place faith in anything offered as admittedly provisional.
“Well, we need some clarification, then. Because we on this side have repeatedly said that God’s word is infallible, yet provisionally known. And it is that formulation that you reject as “not even the Christian faith.” So you aren’t being consistent here with your argument.”
I don’t recall saying “not even the Christian faith” anywhere. I understand you have repeatedly said that God’s word is infallible. The issue again is why I should accept that teaching as divine revelation based on your system’s own disclaimers to any type of authority or ability to identify/define divine revelation. That’s why, based on your disclaimers, anything you offer remains provisional and subject to revision – hence my statement.
Saying I’m fallible and you’re fallible (i.e. that we are humans) is irrelevant and not engaging the argument (for the millionth time).
LikeLike
@cvd
Our system does not deny the ability to identify divine revelation.
You are overdrawing what the WCF “disclaims”. The “subject to revision” is based on God’s Word. If you reject God’s Word, you have left the system.
LikeLike
sdb,
“Our system does not deny the ability to identify divine revelation.”
Divine revelation is infallible as everyone agrees. So a system identifying something as divine revelation, then at the same time saying anything it identifies or defines is provisional and subject to revision and can only be at best “99%” likely or whatever arbitrary number you want to pull out is incompatible with the supposed ability to identify divine revelation – whatever is being identified isn’t divine revelation, by its own standard.
“The “subject to revision” is based on God’s Word.”
And you’re exempting the starting doctrines of Protestantism from its disclaimers to authority and ability. Doctrines such as the teaching that divine revelation exists, it is confined to writing alone, this writing is inspired and inerrant, this writing is limited to the books in the Protestant canon, this writing is the sole ultimate authority, this writing is perspicuous and doctrine is to be drawn from ghm exegesis, and there is no further revelation after its completion are all fallible teachings in the Protestant system. They are, as has been repeatedly said by all on your side, provisional in principle and always shall be, being consistent with the claims of your system.
You don’t get to just handwave those doctrines and apply the disclaimers exclusively after the fact to “interpretation” of God’s word. That’s just ad hoc and special pleading.
LikeLike
CVD: I don’t recall saying “not even the Christian faith” anywhere.
That would be Mermaid, for whom (apparently) the ability to infallibly understand infallible articles of faith has now become of gospel importance.
CVD: I understand you have repeatedly said that God’s word is infallible.
Good, thanks.
CVD: The issue again is why I should accept that teaching as divine revelation based on your system’s own disclaimers to any type of authority or ability to identify/define divine revelation.
Two misunderstandings here. One is mine — when you say “that teaching” do you refer to “the teaching that God’s word is infallible” or “God’s word”?
One is yours: “disclaimer to any type of authority or ability”
That’s not so. I disclaim neither authority or ability. Rather, I disclaim that either is infallible. If you want to add “and therefore not authority or ability at all”, then you may do so — but you are then leaving the Protestant system and evaluating it not according to its own premises. You are combining the Protestant system with your own beliefs, which is not the Protestant system any longer.
I claim that the church has authority. I claim that the church has ability. In fact, it has enough ability that you or I would be fools to bet against the canonicity of Matthew.
It just doesn’t have infallible authority.
CVD: That’s why, based on your disclaimers, anything you offer remains provisional and subject to revision – hence my statement.
Right, but your statement assumes (without proof) that this is actually a problem. Within the Protestant system, it is not.
I have no problem saying that I have a reliable, non-infallible copy of the Scripture on my shelf.
CVD: Saying I’m fallible and you’re fallible (i.e. that we are humans) is irrelevant and not engaging the argument (for the millionth time).
And for the million-and-oneth time, it is relevant and of central importance.
LikeLike
@ NooN: Helpful. Thanks.
LikeLike
Cletus,
You’ve said in the past that divine articles of faith are infallible by definition. I assume you mean by that the notion that such is a properly basic belief, i.e., you don’t need the RCC to tell you that. It’s inherently true.
If I am correct on that, then divine revelation is infallible by definition as well. So why don’t Protestants get to start with the premise “divine revelation is infallible” but you get to start with an equally basic premise “divine articles of faith are infallible by definition”?
LikeLike
This is an interesting statement…to be divine revelation, a group has to be able to identify it as such perfectly. Yet you also say,
It absolutely is relevant. If you are fallible, then your understanding could be subject to revision. But if your identification of revelation (say the STM triad) is subject to revision then whatever it is you are identifying isn’t divine revelation…according to what you wrote above. I’m sure this isn’t what you meant to communicate, but it is entailed by what you have written.
If something is provisional, then it is always provisional (at least as we are using the word here…I think “falsifiable” is the better word and regret adopting your word provisional as it has caused a great deal of confusion). However, you insist on wrenching what you call the “disclaimer” in the WCF out of context. The context of the disclaimer is simply that those doctrines must be held to the standard of God’s Word. All of those doctrines you list come from the exegesis of scripture with the exception of the scope of the canon – this is taken to be a properly basic belief on the part of the WCF. It is an identification of revelation that must be treated differently (much like the MOC for the RCC).
In context, the disclaimers you refer to do apply exclusively after the fact to the interpretation of God’s word. Further, it is true in practice for how bodies that hold to SS actually function. I don’t see why you think that is special pleading…
LikeLike
Robert,
You can start with the premise divine revelation is infallible by definition. When have I denied you that ability? That’s exactly what I’ve pointed out both sides agree on.
LikeLike
sdb,
“to be divine revelation, a group has to be able to identify it as such perfectly.”
No, to be divine revelation, an authority has to be able to offer it as infallible and irreformable – since as we both agree, divine revelation is infallible. No such authority or ability obtains in Protestantism, per its disclaimers. Fallible and provisional teachings, semper reformanda, and “99%” likelihoods don’t cut the mustard.
“If you are fallible, then your understanding could be subject to revision.”
Correct. Just as was the case for NT believers under Christ and the Apostles. But no Protestant church, body, or confession claims divine apostolic authority or the ability to identify/define divine revelation (i.e. infallible teaching). Rome does. So personal fallibility of the submitting agent is not relevant (again).
“If something is provisional, then it is always provisional”
Right. And divine revelation is not provisional. So Protestantism can’t offer it, by your own admission.
“The context of the disclaimer is simply that those doctrines must be held to the standard of God’s Word.”
The disclaimers I am referring to are the ones to ecclesiastical authority and ability. The statements where it explicitly rejects the type of authority and ability Rome claims.
“All of those doctrines you list come from the exegesis of scripture with the exception of the scope of the canon – this is taken to be a properly basic belief on the part of the WCF.”
The canon identified by WCF doesn’t get to be exempted from WCF’s disclaimers to authority/ability any more than the other doctrines I listed and any more than the interpretation of the writings in that canon. If you want to argue the Protestant canon (including whatever contents you currently hold as inspired versus the disputed ones) should form a “properly basic belief” for all – have at it. I fear you might not be successful in such an endeavor.
“It is an identification of revelation that must be treated differently (much like the MOC for the RCC).”
The MOC are not treated as “properly basic beliefs” in RCism.
“In context, the disclaimers you refer to do apply exclusively after the fact to the interpretation of God’s word. Further, it is true in practice for how bodies that hold to SS actually function. I don’t see why you think that is special pleading…”
The disclaimers to authority and ability to identify and define divine revelation only apply to the interpretation of God’s word? That’s strange. So the doctrines I listed taught by WCF are infallible and divine revelation, but any teaching offered within Protestantism afterwards all of a sudden becomes fallible and provisional? What happened? I guess this means that none of the teachings I listed are consequences of or based on interpretation of Scripture either. Your position on exempting the starting doctrines from WCF’s and Protestantism’s disclaimers on authority and ability, but not the interpretations Protestantism offers after the fact is not consistent, but ad hoc and special pleading.
LikeLike
CVD: Divine revelation is infallible as everyone agrees. So a system identifying something as divine revelation, then at the same time saying anything it identifies or defines is provisional and subject to revision and can only be at best “99%” likely or whatever arbitrary number you want to pull out is incompatible with the supposed ability to identify divine revelation – whatever is being identified isn’t divine revelation, by its own standard.
This is not self-evident.
LikeLike
Mermaid,
Check this out. Prots believe in the certainty of what they fallibly believe in to the point that Rome condemns prots when it comes to their affirmation of an infallible assurance of faith.
IOW you might want to check the fine print and read up on Trent (because it is the same thing as Vat 2 – which is why it was necessary to call Vat 2 or something like that) and find out what you really bought into by swimming the Tiber.
CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema. Session VI, Council of Trent.
So there you have it. According to Rome, as a romanist you have an infallible knowledge of infallible truth, but you have no infallible assurance or certainty of salvation based on that knowledge. (Bait and switch?)
Unless you get special revelation.
Go figure/have you got yours yet?
Do you have to be a canonized saint first?
Doesn’t that usually happen after you die and go to purgatory for awhile?
And all this can’t have anything to do with “pray, pay and obey” can it?
Of keeping the serfs in bondage, carnal and spiritual to Mother Rome?
Bottom line, you can argue all you want about how prot knowledge is deficient, but in the end, you can’t truly know if you are saved according to Rome. That doesn’t sound like good news.
LikeLike
@ CVD: Thanks for taking the time to continue to explain the nuances of Catholic understanding of faith. This will not be a quick discussion, it seems.
So in plain terms, the believer is confronted with divine revelation (which we agree is infallible). On your account, there is then an act of Faith that illumines that divine revelation.
However, this act of Faith does not create either infallible understanding NOR omniscience on the part of the believer.
So it is possible for a believer to continue to misapprehend the truth. In that case would you say that there is “light of Faith” working alongside “acts of natural faith”?
Scheeben: The light of Faith cannot be misapplied to belief in error; nevertheless it is possible for man to mistake an act of natural faith in a supposed revelation for a supernatural act elicited by the aid of the light of Faith. Some external criterion is needed whereby we may distinguish the one from the other. Such a criterion is supplied by the Faith of the Church, which cannot err.”
LikeLike
Cletus,
an authority has to be able to offer it as infallible and irreformable – since as we both agree, divine revelation is infallible.
We’ve been over this. God offers His Word as infallible and irreformable, to wit all the “thus saith the Lords”
Now does every single book make the direct explicit claim “Thus saith the Lord” or “I am infallible divine revelation.” No. But if you make that your standard, then Rome’s case either falls about or is only reduced to a handful of dogmatic statements that have been clearly identified as such. You end up with a standard of dogma that is equivalent to the number of biblical books that make a direct claim of inspiration.
But more importantly, Jesus doesn’t seem to agree with your premise of an authority having to make a direct claim of infallibility and irreformability. He and the Apostles can say “the Scripture says” because their audience knew what they were talking about even before they said it. IOW, it gets back to the fact that the Jews were expected to know that Genesis was Scripture and believe it with the certainty of faith long before any one made an infallible claim that it was. If you are right, then no one had any warrant to believe Genesis was Scripture until Jesus said it was. It kind of invalidates your whole claim that something must be offered as infallible in order for the warrant of faith to obtain.
LikeLike
I have no problem saying that I have a reliable, non-infallible copy of the Scripture on my shelf.
Huh?
Jeff, not sure where you are going with this, but the Hebrew and Greek are infallible in both form and substance, the translations only in substance.
CVD it would help if you would learn to do the caret and slash thing for italicizing combox text if you are serious about wanting people to be able to follow your rabbit trail.
thank you
LikeLike
@ Bob: Just that when the Adulterer’s Bible was printed (1631), it illustrated the ability of Bible printers to err.
“Fallibility”, which is the center of the RC apologetic here, is a remarkably weak condition. The idea that we can drive a truck through it and get to “you can’t know anything!” is a strikingly strange tactic.
LikeLike
Jeff,
“One is mine — when you say “that teaching” do you refer to “the teaching that God’s word is infallible” or “God’s word”?”
When you or Protestantism say “God’s word is infallible”, what are you saying – you are saying: Divine revelation exists. God’s word exists and is infallible and inerrant. It consists solely of the Protestant canon and contents therein.
“I disclaim neither authority or ability. Rather, I disclaim that either is infallible.”
Right, so you and every Protestant church/body disclaim to “any type of authority or ability to identify/define divine revelation.” If you did claim such authority/ability, you wouldn’t actively reject Rome’s authority/ability, and you would offer irreformable dogma, not provisional teaching. But doing so would be inconsistent with your disclaimers.
“In fact, it has enough ability that you or I would be fools to bet against the canonicity of Matthew.”
The canonicity of Matthew is offered as a provisional teaching by your system. The contents of Matthew or Mark are also offered as provisional by your system. Divine revelation is not provisional as we both agree.
“Within the Protestant system, it is not.”
So is divine revelation infallible or not?
“it is relevant and of central importance.”
Notice that not one of my points to you or sdb hinged on your or my personal fallibility or the fallibility of the submitting agent. So no it’s still not relevant.
“This is not self-evident.”
Feel free to offer a counterargument.
LikeLike
Seems to me that the RC argument really boils down to this:
“Look, I really can’t tell you if Mormonism or Roman Catholicism or the Watchtower Society is the church Jesus founded. But I can tell you for sure that Protestantism isn’t a contender.”
Seems awfully convenient that the group that actually had success in breaking Rome’s dominance in the West is the group that gets ruled out.
LikeLike
Cletus,
When you or Protestantism say “God’s word is infallible”, what are you saying – you are saying: Divine revelation exists. God’s word exists and is infallible and inerrant. It consists solely of the Protestant canon and contents therein.
No, at the starting point, all we’re saying is that divine revelation is infallible. The other claims come later. You want one infallible truth on which Protestantism is based, there it is.
All you are really doing is adding more professedly infallible dogmas. The submission of the individual in both systems is not categorically different except perhaps in the quantity of what must be believed.
LikeLike
Robert,
We agree “divine revelation is infallible” – that’s by definition. Saying “God’s word is infallible” is not identical to saying “divine revelation is infallible”. By saying, “God’s word is infallible”, you’re already presupposing doctrines – doctrines that are offered as provisional in your system.
“All you are really doing is adding more professedly infallible dogmas”
If that were true, then Rome and Protestantism would make the same type of claims to authority/ability. Rome would then just have more or different professedly infallible dogma than Protestantism. But Protestantism does not make the same type of claims to authority/ability – it rejects them, and consistent with that, doesn’t offer infallible dogma, but just admitted provisional teachings. So, no that is not all RCism is really doing.
LikeLike
Sorry to be so thick, but before moving on, I want to understand this. We agree that divine revelation – what God chooses to reveal to somebody is by definition infallible. Why *must* an authority be able to offer that revelation as infallible? I don’t get the need for the infallible middle man in other words.
LikeLike
Really? What’s this bit about needing an authority to offer divine revelation as infallible all about then?
LikeLike
sdb,
You can claim that God is directly revealing things to you. Then the conversation would shift. But you don’t claim that.
“What’s this bit about needing an authority to offer divine revelation as infallible all about then?”
The authority is different than the submitting agent. None of my points have hinged on the fallibility of the submitting agent – that would be silly if they did because everyone is human.
LikeLike
In context those “disclaimers” as you call them reference the role of scripture as God’s special revelation. 31.3 points out that councils must be constant with the word of God. 31.4 is the disclaimer you keep pointing to. Here are the proof texts that go along with it:
The clear implication being that a council’s declarations are contingent on following God’s revelation. You are misreading 31.4.
Since the disclaimer is that the council must be judged by the scripture, then anything that could be judged by the scripture would be exempted. One might then ask how one knows what the scripture is. But that’s a different discussion.
I don’t claim that the MOCs are properly basic. Only that that they are treated differently from dogma within the RCC.
I wrote,
To which you respond:
You’ll need to try again. This isn’t responsive. There is a difference between identifying the data and interpreting the data. This isn’t special pleading.
Divine revelation is divine revelation independent of whether it has been identified (infallibly or otherwise) as such. When someone happens across a bible that knows nothing of the church, that bible does not cease to be God’s word until someone comes along and says so.
LikeLike
Sure I do. He speaks directly to me through his Word.
LikeLike
What’s a submitting agent in this context? I presume that’s the church?
LikeLike
Just one last tidbit before I call it for a while:
You said,
And I responded,
“Sure I do. He speaks directly to me through his Word.”
Here is how the Westminster Divines put it:
“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.”
1JO 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
JOH 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
1CO 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
ISA 59:21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.
Of course I don’t always listen so well (sin) or understand so well, so he gives us the church to teach us and so forth. But that church isn’t infallible. Whatever is taught by people must be judged against the scriptures.
LikeLike
sdb,
“The clear implication being that a council’s declarations are contingent on following God’s revelation. You are misreading 31.4. ”
Right. And the teaching of the identification/definition of “God’s revelation”, not just the teaching of interpretations of it, remains provisional in your system. Why? Because of the disclaimers of 31.4 and 25.5.
“One might then ask how one knows what the scripture is. But that’s a different discussion.”
One might also first ask, does God’s revelation exist? Is it confined to writing alone? Is this writing to serve as the sole ultimate authority? Has revelation ended? Then after they answered that, they might ask what Scripture is. And all of the answers to these questions are offered as and remain provisional in your system.
“You’ll need to try again. This isn’t responsive. There is a difference between identifying the data and interpreting the data. This isn’t special pleading”
You’re not just identifying the data. The teaching that the Protestant canon is the “data” is just one of the many starting doctrines of Protestantism I listed – all of which remain provisional. It’s special pleading to assert that the teaching of the identification of the data is not provisional, but the teaching of any interpretation of that data after identification is provisional. The disclaimers of WCF 31.4 and 25.5 apply just as much to the identification of the data and the other starting doctrines I listed as they do to interpretations of that data after the fact. And considering your SS position entails those starting doctrines are derived by “good and necessary consequence” from Scripture – that is the *interpretation* of Scripture, it is special pleading to then exempt those doctrines when you already freely admit that any teaching derived from “interpreting the data” is provisional. It’s inconsistent and special pleading.
“Divine revelation is divine revelation independent of whether it has been identified (infallibly or otherwise) as such.”
Yup. But if something is offered as divine revelation, it needs to be offered as infallible – not provisional. Protestantism rejects the authority/ability to do such.
“When someone happens across a bible that knows nothing of the church, that bible does not cease to be God’s word until someone comes along and says so.”
No one has argued that. That Bible someone finds came from an authority that claims the ability to identify/define infallible revelation – whether the person acknowledges it or not. What if someone comes across a gnostic or marcionite bible, or a bible with no asterisks on the disputed passages, or one with the deuterocanonicals? Is that God’s word?
“Sure I do. He speaks directly to me through his Word.”
So you have the authority and ability to define/identify divine revelation? Have you exercised it and let others know they should listen to you by virtue of your direct revelation you are recieving from God? Are others who disagree with you not receiving direct revelation?
“What’s a submitting agent in this context? I presume that’s the church?”
No. It’s those following the church. The church isn’t fallible in identifying/defining divine revelation contra WCF. That’s the point.
“Here is how the Westminster Divines put it:”
Which is offered as nothing more than provisional.
“Of course I don’t always listen so well (sin) or understand so well, so he gives us the church to teach us and so forth. But that church isn’t infallible.”
Right. The church isn’t infallible in Protestantism. WCF 31.4 and 25.5. So it rejects the authority/ability to identify or define divine revelation – all teaching, not just interpretations, remains provisional.
“Whatever is taught by people must be judged against the scriptures.”
Which is a teaching that itself is admitted as provisional in your system. Thus it cannot be divine revelation, given we both agree divine revelation is infallible by definition.
LikeLike
Cletus,
I don’t know whether you’ve noticed, but we are telling you that you aren’t correctly stating our position.
More listening would help here.
LikeLike
Jeff, now Scheeben is an authority?
Seems pretty back bench when you have all that STM on which to draw. Infallibility anyone?
LikeLike
James Young, “so you and every Protestant church/body disclaim to “any type of authority or ability to identify/define divine revelation.” If you did claim such authority/ability, you wouldn’t actively reject Rome’s authority/ability, and you would offer irreformable dogma, not provisional teaching. But doing so would be inconsistent with your disclaimers.”
So when Paul told Timothy:
Should he have run this by Peter, his own bishop in Jerusalem? Why didn’t he bother to clear up the epistemological problem before telling Timothy to preach? And why didn’t he tell Timothy to check his STM?
LikeLike
b, sd, “Why *must* an authority be able to offer that revelation as infallible?”
So James Young can feel superior to Protestants?
So he can claim on judgment day that his church identified infallible dogma?
LikeLike
b, sd, WCF 31 also says that the power of synods is an ordinance of God even when not conformity to the word. The church has power because it is an institution that God established, sort of like a tyrant is a minister of God — something that all medieval theologians acknowledged.
And look, a church can have authority without infallibility.
LikeLike
James Young, imagine how provisional it was when Paul told Timothy to preach “the word.” Eee gads. What word? When’s the next seminar with Scheeben?
LikeLike
sdb,
You aren’t in John 16:13. Only the apostles.
LikeLike
Darryl,
imagine how provisional it was when Paul told Timothy to preach “the word.” Eee gads. What word?
Easy. The word passed on is whatever the current Roman church says it is. Course, we really have no reason to trust them unless they say its infallible, and Lord knows they’re aren’t going to do that. But don’t worry, the infallible principled means is around and speaking clearly. Just ask Andrew Preslar.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 8, 2015 at 8:17 pm | Permalink
Cletus,
I don’t know whether you’ve noticed, but we are telling you that you aren’t correctly stating our position.
More listening would help here.>>>>
Actually, more defining of your terms would help, Jeff. I have Googled “provisional knowledge” and found it to be part of the philosophy of science. It is how scientists approach the information they gather and how they process that information. They conduct experiments; do studies; test hypotheses; modify their understanding; conduct more tests; do more studies; and so forth.
They should always be willing to modify their understanding based on what they perceive to be the facts and the results of their experiments. In that way it is all provisional knowledge. They know that they will have to change their ideas as new information presents itself.
You are taking that epistemology and applying it to Biblical studies. It is a search for truth, but one can never say with 100% certainty that the truth is ever found in an absolute way. Sure, truth is probably absolute, but our perception of it is never absolute or omniscient like God’s perception of Himself – or whatever.
So, this epistemology based on the idea of all knowledge being provisional from a human point of view is all it is able to proffer. It really cannot be used to say anything about faith, since it is not about faith at all.
We cannot say that a cow could never jump over the moon, or that the body of Jesus could never be found. We just don’t know for sure because we are not omniscient.
I get it. I just don’t accept it. It is full of flaws, not the least of which is what the Bible teaches about the Holy Spirit’s ability to reveal truth to the spiritual man.
Then, do I have to point out again that if everything we know is provisional in nature, then that applies to what you are saying. It applies to the epistemology itself.
The epistemology of provisional knowledge itself claims to be able to explain everything about how knowledge is gathered and understood. Well, then, that makes the epistemology absolutist in its claims. It is a tacit claim to infallibility, then, and therefore self contradictory.
The epistemology of provisional knowledge undermines the very idea of the Bible being the only infallible rule of faith and practice. The epistemology becomes the infallible rule, not the Bible.
It tends towards unbelief because the epistemology of provisional knowledge presupposes skepticism which is antithetical to faith. The Bible presupposes faith as a requirement to receive and understand the truth of God’s Word. Without faith it is impossible to please God. (Hebrews 11:1ff)
It is just wrong, Jeff and Robert, for matters of faith and practice. Give it up.
LikeLike
One might also first ask, does God’s revelation exist? Is it confined to writing alone? Is this writing to serve as the sole ultimate authority? Has revelation ended? Then after they answered that, they might ask what Scripture is. And all of the answers to these questions are offered as and remain provisional in your system.
Nope and this is why you earn the right to be called Catholicus Von Doofus.
You don’t get to claim that 2+2=4 is wrong, because I previously admitted I am not infallible.
The veracity of 2+2=4 gets determined on it’s own merits, not your ability to traffic in non sequiturs.
For that matter you aren’t infallible either, so your claim that 2+2=4 is wrong iwould itself automatically wrong.
Get hoisted by your own petard much?
IOW make up your mind. You either want to play ball or you want to brawl.
(Though either way we are bold to say, you are going to lose, even if you claim you are doing the opposite of what you really are doing).
This is not rocket science, Werner Von Braun.
Stop flaming out.
LikeLike
Mermaid,
Provisional knowledge is not originally our term. I’m only using it to indicate that human beings are fallible and that we remain fallible even once the Spirit grants us faith. The only people in history to attain infallibility are organs of divine revelation, and then it is not the person themselves but their words.
I’ll say it again—CVD has admitted that under certain circumstances he would have to give up Christianity, one of those being the discovery of the body of Jesus. That indicates provisionality/fallibility/finitude. He has accepted in some provisional way that Christianity is true.
You could go the route you are going and say that there is absolutely nothing that could cause you to stop being a Christian, but in order for that not to be cult like, you have to claim infallibility for yourself. But that requires absolute knowledge, which you will never have even in eternity.
None of that means we can’t know what is true or that we can’t be certain in faith. All it is is a confession of human limitations. We aren’t God. That’s all it is.
You all are all about faith and reason. Provisionality simply means “I can conceive of a scenario in which I could theoretically be wrong but I have no evidence or warrant to believe that I am.”
You can’t absolutely rule out bats flying out of your nose (to borrow Jeff’s example) can you? There’s no scenario under which that would be impossible? Of course not. There are all kinds of scenarios under which I could see bats flying out of your nose or mine. Does that mean I am uncertain about it. No. I’m quite certain it will never happen.
Are there theoretical scenarios under which I could conceive of Prots getting the canon wrong? Sure. Am I certain it will never happen? Yes, I’m quite certain that the Prots have gotten the canon correct. What’s my evidence for that—one among many is that Jesus thought the Jews had the canonicity of Genesis right and rightly trusted in it even though they had no infallible guide to tell them that.
And my certainty/assurance is finally based not on my reading of the evidence but on the gift of the Spirit. Which is where you seem to be leaning but which Cletus says makes us Prots into Mormons. You guys need to have a meeting in order to figure out which it is.
LikeLike
Bob,
The veracity of 2+2=4 gets determined on it’s own merits, not your ability to traffic in non sequiturs.
Ding ding ding.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 8, 2015 at 10:47 pm | Permalink
Mermaid,
Provisional knowledge is not originally our term. >>>>>
I know it is not. I have said that it is borrowed from the philosophy of science. It comes with its own set of presuppositions if you wish to talk like Van Til. The main one being that ultimate truth about any subject is unknowable. In fact, there very likely is no ultimate truth at all and all that we call truth is relative. The best investigators can do is make fairly accurate guesses based on knowledge that is obtained through experimentation and analysis of data. The knowledge obtained is provisional in that the hypotheses and theories are in constant need of modification as new data comes to light.
In order for science to work, one has to assume that there even is such a thing as knowledge. There seems to be, so it seems to be safe to make that assumption. Nature probably consistently works in predictable ways. It seems to as far as we know. So, it is safe to assume that something called evidence and information can be gathered.
The very idea of having an infallible rule of faith and practice is based on a different set of presuppositions.
You invoked Van Til. He was all about presuppositions.
Now, as you know, Karl Barth borrowed the epistemology of provisional knowledge for his theology. As you also must know, Van Til had no use for Barth’s epistemology.
You have to decide which guy you will go with. The provisional knowledge of Karl Barth or the presuppositionalism of Van Til?
LikeLike
Darryl,
Paul’s teaching wasn’t provisional. He didn’t offer it as such. He offered it as divinely protected from error. Which Protestant body guarantees its teachings are divinely protected from error? Which Protestant body affirms its teachings are infallible and irreformable and rejects its teachings are provisional or subject to revision?
Bob,
“You don’t get to claim that 2+2=4 is wrong, because I previously admitted I am not infallible.”
I didn’t claim 2+2=4 or any of the teachings I outlined were wrong. I pointed out that they are offered as provisional in your system. Is 2+2=4 provisional for you? Do you hold room for doubt on 2+2=4?
Robert,
“I’m only using it to indicate that human beings are fallible and that we remain fallible even once the Spirit grants us faith.”
Humans being fallible does not entail every belief they hold is and must be provisional or open to doubt/revision. This is skepticism.
“You can’t absolutely rule out bats flying out of your nose (to borrow Jeff’s example) can you? ”
Yes, we can, just as we can rule out cows jumping over the moon. You’re still presupposing skepticism.
“Yes, I’m quite certain that the Prots have gotten the canon correct.”
Is the extent and scope of the Protestant canon offered as irreformable and infallible teaching? Or is it taught as provisional and subject to revision?
“And my certainty/assurance is finally based not on my reading of the evidence but on the gift of the Spirit.”
So affirm the certitude of faith, instead of rejecting it as illegitimate or impossible. What would be different about your certainty/assurance if it was not based on the gift of the Spirit, but instead on the reading of the evidence?
LikeLike
Robert:
You can’t absolutely rule out bats flying out of your nose (to borrow Jeff’s example) can you? >>>>>
Holy batmobile, Robert! You wish! Actually, I can rule that out. There. I just did.
Robert:
And my certainty/assurance is finally based not on my reading of the evidence but on the gift of the Spirit. Which is where you seem to be leaning but which Cletus says makes us Prots into Mormons. You guys need to have a meeting in order to figure out which it is.>>>>
Finally a Calvinist that talks more like one. 😉 Now, I don’t know what CvD said earlier, but the following is what he said now. :
CvD:
So affirm the certitude of faith, instead of rejecting it as illegitimate or impossible. What would be different about your certainty/assurance if it was not based on the gift of the Spirit, but instead on the reading of the evidence?>>>>>
I like that. The certitude of faith. That is the gift God gives, the one that comes down from above like every other good and perfect gift. Eph. 2:1ff and James 1:17.
Hey, see you later, D.V.
LikeLike
Come on, CVD, point out where WCF 1 errs.
The DC are Scripture?
Scripture includes M & T?
The church is infallible?
The Word of God didn’t call the church into existence, but the church the Word?
The Vulgate is inspired?
There are four meanings to Scripture?
Didn’t think so.
On the basis of Scripture alone, your attempt to reduce protestantism to nothing but ignorance, error and provisional poppycock doesn’t fly.
Not that we couldn’t go on and on in this vein.
The true church is built upon the possession of the holy apostolic bones, toenail clippings etc.?
Transubstantiation, mariolatry and image worship is sanctioned, but not obligated in Scripture?
Nice try though.
Gotta ontologically admire the epistemological chutzpah.
But what happened to your buddy Andrew?
Is he sulking or just coaching you on the sly?
cheers
Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 8:31,32
And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. John 10:4,5
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. John 17:3
But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. 1 John 2:20, 21
And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. 1 John 5:20
LikeLike
DVC, w. Jeff and Robert, I have never argued that 2+2=4 is provisional in the skeptical sense that you continually proffer. That is your
weasel wordterm and your argument. Not mine. You need to own it.But since as you admitted, you’re fallible.
So maybe the little green men from Mars really are putting thoughts in your head when you aren’t looking.
Yup, that would explain it.
LikeLike
(Sorry the weasels objected and threatened a lawsuit.)
That is your specious term and your argument. Not mine. You need to own it.
But since as you admitted, you’re fallible.
So maybe the little
greenred men from Mars really are putting thoughts in your head when you aren’t looking.Yup, that would explain it.
LikeLike
Bob,
“Come on, CVD, point out where WCF 1 errs.”
Is the teaching of WCF 1 offered as provisional and subject to revision in your system? Or is it offered as infallible teaching?
“DVC, w. Jeff and Robert, I have never argued that 2+2=4 is provisional in the skeptical sense ”
So 2+2=4 is not provisional? Jeff and Robert have argued that the impossibility of bats flying out noses and cows jumping over the moon are provisionally taught and known; we can’t rule it out. So do you rule out the possibility that 2+2=4 is false?
Thank you for the citations of John. They affirm the certitude of faith. Something your side continues to argue is illegitimate and impossible.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 8, 2015 at 8:17 pm | Permalink
Cletus,
I don’t know whether you’ve noticed, but we are telling you that you aren’t correctly stating our position.
More listening would help here.
At Called to Communion they don’t whine about being misunderstood. They try and try to get their argument across.
At Old Life they flatter themselves that they’re misunderstood, as if what they’re saying is some sort of genius theology that eludes people who read Augustine and Aquinas. Their biggest fear is to be NOT misunderstood, for that would show them for the pretentious mediocrities they are.
I notice Professor Dr. Darryl G. Hart PhD steers way clear of your “provisionality” theologizing. His conspicuous lack of support is confirmation that you’re bullshit, bro.
Stop fighting with the Catholics. Ask Darryl Hart to support what you’re saying. He will not.
He laughs at you like he laughs at everyone else, you poor fool.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 8, 2015 at 3:27 pm | Permalink
CVD: Divine revelation is infallible as everyone agrees. So a system identifying something as divine revelation, then at the same time saying anything it identifies or defines is provisional and subject to revision and can only be at best “99%” likely or whatever arbitrary number you want to pull out is incompatible with the supposed ability to identify divine revelation – whatever is being identified isn’t divine revelation, by its own standard.
This is not self-evident.
CVD takes the time to quote Aquinas and Jeff ignores it, then Jeff steals my “self-evident” line when what CVD said is clearly self-evident.
Old Life rules! Darryl Hart has taught his minions well. You must be so proud, D, especially since Jeff’s BS theology would get you thrown out of your own church.
LikeLike
BobS, have you ever noticed Darryl Hart avoids you like the plague?
He clearly thinks you’re an embarrassment but as long as you do his dirty work against the Catholic Church he lets you rant on.
If you actually want a conversation, you should try to talk to him about all your ideas instead of spitting all over the Catholics. Good luck with that, you poor tool. You’re being used, brother.
LikeLike
Clete,
Humans being fallible does not entail every belief they hold is and must be provisional or open to doubt/revision. This is skepticism.
So you have absolute knowledge? You have comprehensive understanding of all facts and how all facts relate to all other facts?
There’s also an equivocation between doubt and revision. They aren’t identical.
And in any case, you have said that under certain conditions you would leave the RCC. Your submission therefore has a degree of provisionality. Until you can tell me that there is no possible scenario under which you would give up the RCC or Christianity, then the belief you hold is provisional and open to revision.
Yes, we can, just as we can rule out cows jumping over the moon. You’re still presupposing skepticism.
Yes we can rule out cows jumping over the moon, but I cannot say absolutely that they will never develop a genetic mutation that will convey upon them all the abilities necessary to do so. I don’t have absolute knowledge of what is possible genetically.
But in any case, no one is offering any scientific theory as irreformable and infallible teaching. And yet you base your life in large measure on the assumption that if you jump off a cliff, you’ll hit the ground.
Is the extent and scope of the Protestant canon offered as irreformable and infallible teaching? Or is it taught as provisional and subject to revision?
In all I’ve read on the subject, the question “Did we get it right?” is always answered basically in this way: “Well, I can imagine some scenario under which we might have to tinker with the canon but we have no good reason to believe this scenario will ever take place.”
Kind of like your admission that you would leave Rome if she would contradict herself but then you go right on to say “Rome can’t deny the Trinity.”
So affirm the certitude of faith, instead of rejecting it as illegitimate or impossible.
I still am not sure what certitude of faith means in the RC system. If certitude of faith means that there is no conceivable scenario under which I could have gotten things wrong, which seems to be what Mermaid is confessing, then no I don’t affirm it.
What would be different about your certainty/assurance if it was not based on the gift of the Spirit, but instead on the reading of the evidence?
Certainty based only on the reading of the evidence is impossible. Induction has its place, but it is no final foundation. Which is why the WCF and other Prot confessions affirm the illumination/convincing power of the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “I have Googled “provisional knowledge” and found it to be part of the philosophy of science.”
Is that an infallible website?
LikeLike
James Young, “Which Protestant body guarantees its teachings are divinely protected from error? Which Protestant body affirms its teachings are infallible and irreformable and rejects its teachings are provisional or subject to revision?”
Timothy didn’t ask Paul those questions when Paul referred to “the word.”
Weak sauce. Cool.
LikeLike
Bob, James Young asks, “Is the teaching of WCF 1 offered as provisional and subject to revision in your system?”
He wins.
God will welcome him on judgment day for “winning”.
LikeLike
CVD,
There is a massive disconnect for me in your discussion of ontology and epistemology. Let me see if i get this right:
Ontology
Catholic: God’s Word exists (and is confirmed by MOC)
Protestant: God’s Word exists (and is confirmed by MOC)
Epistemology
Catholic: God’s Word is *unknown* without an infallible interpreter
Protestant: God’s Word is *known* with a fallible interpreter.
So Protestants affirm that God’s word exists and is knowable, yet, you say,
As far as I am aware, this is a novel definition of the word “skepticism.” Why do you define skepticism as disclaiming infallible knowledge?
In the Stanford encyclopedia entry on skepticism there is a helpful introductory passage which explains there is a difference between ordinary incredulity and and philosophical skepticism. Channeling and quoting Wittgenstein the article notes,
Using Wittgenstein’s categories, the type of “provisionality” that we are talking about is “ordinary incredulity” and not philosophical skepticism.
As I understand your position, however, regarding the clarity & function of Scripture, it appears to be entrenched in the same type of foundationalist skepticism as Descartes. Without certain (AKA infallible) knowledge, everything else supposedly unprincipled. You need to build the indubitable foundation and build from there. The less clear things, like the Assumption of Mary, are built upon the edifice of your indubitable foundation.
I understand that you’re not talking about all knowledge in general, but of Divine revelation in particular, which distinguishes your views from Descartes, but they are remarkably similar, IMO. This is why I find it confounding that you continue to claim Protestants are skeptics. It seems such a label applies more appropriately to the position you are advocating than Protestantism.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 9, 2015 at 6:36 am | Permalink
Mermaid, “I have Googled “provisional knowledge” and found it to be part of the philosophy of science.”
Is that an infallible website?>>>>>
Who is your homeboy? Barth or Machen? Does Westminster Seminary still have the same position they used to have on Karl Barth? Have they now accepted his epistemology of provisional knowledge?
LikeLike
@TLM
You misunderstand. CVD has asserted that the implication of the WCF is that it is provisional. If by provisional he has in mind conditional, which is what I understood him to mean originally, then of course – our beliefs are conditional on being consonant with God’s Word. This is our “disclaimer”. If by provisional, he has in mind that our beliefs are a temporary place holder until we change our mind, then our views are absolutely *not* provisional. This is why I noted earlier that falsifiable or conditional are better descriptors.
So I’ll say it again – our beliefs are conditional on being consonant with the Word of God. This is always true. Our belief that Jesus rose from the dead, bodily and literally, derives from the gospel accounts and Paul’s words in 1Cor15. If Paul had written in 1Cor15 that the stories of Christ’s resurrection were just metaphors for how we need to be self sacrificing, then our doctrine would have to be reformed. But he didn’t say that, so our view doesn’t need to be reformed. But it remains conditional on the Biblical account. This is the “disclaimer” that cvd asserts makes all of our beliefs provisional which is of course nonsense.
LikeLike
No! All of those items derive from scripture and are conditional on scripture being properly read. Provisional is the wrong word here as I said before. It obscures rather than clarifies.
The identification of God’s word is in a different class from what God’s word teaches. I didn’t claim that all of those other doctrines were exempt being consistent with scripture. The measuring stick is scripture – it has to be treated differently than the things it is measuring. I know you think you are on to something here, but you are utterly misconstruing the WCF.
That authority is the Holy Spirit of course.
Of course. As a father, I am instructed to teach my family God’s Word and thus have the authority to identify God’s Word and teach it to them. I do so fallibly, but God has ordained that fathers do this. They should listen to me by virtue of the authority God has given (children obey your parents). The direct revelation I receive from God is none other than his Word that I teach them. Their submission to my teaching is conditional on it being consistent with God’s word. If they disagree with this then they are not obeying God’s direct revelation to them…
But of course the church is the body of all believers and we are fallible. We err – just like Peter did. When we stray from what God’s word teaches, we have to be corrected and drawn back (by the Holy Spirit speaking through God’s living and active word).
No. It is conditional on being consonant with God’s Word. So just like the Bereans were commended for testing Paul to make sure what he said was consonant with the scriptures they had and John instructed his followers to test the teachings as false teachers arise, and that we are not to be bound by traditions of men, but solely by the word of God – the teachings of councils and other church leaders are conditional on being consonant with the word of God.
The church does not reject the authority or the ability to identify divine revelation. All teaching is the interpretation of scripture and remains conditional on being consonant with the Word of God.
“Whatever is taught by people must be judged against the scriptures.”
Which is a teaching that itself is admitted as provisional in your system. Thus it cannot be divine revelation, given we both agree divine revelation is infallible by definition.
LikeLike
sdb:
So I’ll say it again – our beliefs are conditional on being consonant with the Word of God. This is always true. Our belief that Jesus rose from the dead, bodily and literally, derives from the gospel accounts and Paul’s words in 1Cor15. If Paul had written in 1Cor15 that the stories of Christ’s resurrection were just metaphors for how we need to be self sacrificing, then our doctrine would have to be reformed. But he didn’t say that, so our view doesn’t need to be reformed. But it remains conditional on the Biblical account. This is the “disclaimer” that cvd asserts makes all of our beliefs provisional which is of course nonsense.>>>>>
Howdy, sdb,
How’s it going? All is well here.
What you say is what I understood the function of the WCF to be. What I don’t recognize as Reformed is what Robert and Jeff are arguing when applied specifically to the resurrection. Thank you for your strong statement about the Gospel – 1 Cor. 15:1ff.
I would ask you this. Why do you need the WCF when the Apostle Paul clearly states in 1 Corinthians 15 that Christ died for our sins, was buried, rose again the 3rd day, then appeared to a series of eye witnesses? The evidence is in the NT. You claim the Bible as the only infallible rule of faith and practice.
Okay, here’s something else that is bothering me. Is the Bible itself reformable? Do you really trust the Bible you have in your hands as being the infallible Word of God? I think that the average non Catholic Bible Christian sitting in the pews thinks they have the infallible Word of God in their hands. Is that just an illusion for them?
The WCF did not give you the Bible, so what role does it play in defining the canon of Scripture? Also, what good is an infallible rule that may not be communicated to us infallibly because we do not have the autographs?
BTW, I liked studying Reformed theology and was built up in my faith by doing so. I love many of the Reformed teachers and preachers, especially those associated with the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. I am grateful to them all, esp. Dr. James Boice and Dr. Carson.
I keep going back to Peter Kreft’s testimony. What can I say? Like him, I fell in love with the Whore of Babylon. Well, I obviously don’t have the learning that he has or the learning or brains that you guys have. I recognize that, but I can learn stuff.
Here is something I really love about the Catholic Church.
“For everyone is to have faith and few can be learned, and their learning doesn’t give them a superior kind of faith. Everyone is to run: and few are road sweepers.”
– G.E.M. Anscombe
LikeLike
Brandon,
Can cows jump over the moon or bats fly out of your nose? Do you rule that out? Or do you only hold to it provisionally and leave room for correction? When someone asks you if cows can jump over the moon, do you reply “Based on all the evidence we have so far, it would seem that the answer to your question would be no.”
If someone says we can rule out cows can jump over the moon, do you reply “Have you examined every possible cow? Has anyone? Is that even possible?”
Do you agree with others that “Reason isn’t a realm of neutrality”
and that “Christ’s resurrection is evidence for Christianity only if you accept the Apostolic interpretation of the event. Otherwise, it’s just an as yet unexplained event.”
and “[Facts/evidence] are meaningless without interpretation and chiefly without God’s interpretation of them”
and that “Maybe [Christ] just came to life through heretofore undiscovered natural means”
and that “the heart cannot restart by its own power after three or more days of the person being dead … is something that one believes because one has accepted the biblical or ecclesiastical interpretation of the return of Christ from the grave. No one has done enough research, and probably cannot do enough research to prove conclusively that the heart cannot restart three days after it has stopped.”
LikeLike
@TLM
As the WCF states in Article 1, not everything in scripture is equally clear. The fact that this passage is clear and the resurrection is clear doesn’t mean everything is. So fast forwarding to Article 31, councils have the authority to resolve controversies. Of course our submission to that authority is contingent on being inline with God’s Word.
lunch time is over…more later…maybe.
LikeLike
CVD: Can cows jump over the moon or bats fly out of your nose?
No and no.
CVD: Do you rule that out?
Yes.
CVD: Or do you only hold to it provisionally and leave room for correction?
Also yes.
See, this is where familiarity with inductive reasoning would really help you.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Here’s what I’ve heard your position is:
JRC: “Divine revelation is infallible.”
“What provisionality means… For a Protestant, it simply means “revisable in theory.””
“So if we find something that is provisional, we understand that its provisionality is human, not divine.”
“For the Protestant, being authorized confers the right in the temporal realm to render judgment, but not the ability to define truth.”
“The canon is our best effort at identifying the Scripture. Its accuracy is provisional.”
“Translations are our best effort at rendering meaning. Their accuracy is provisional.”
“Exegesis and sermons are our best efforts at communicating meaning. Their accuracy is provisional.”
“I do have a problem affirming the “certitude of faith” in the sense you mean it. ”
“On the theological side, I think the kind of certitude you demand is really a demand for God to remove our “seeing through a glass darkly.” You want a kind of knowledge that we can’t have, yet have wanted since Eve was tempted.”
“Belief on the basis of authority is a logical fallacy. God Himself, who is omniscient and cannot lie, is an infallible authority.”
“Which is only a problem IF being able to “define or identify infallible or irreformable dogma” is a necessary condition for articles of faith. In the Protestant system, it is not”
“In the Protestant system, claiming to be able to “define or identify infallible or irreformable dogma” is not even possible for fallible humans.”
“CVD: Further, can you give me an irreformable doctrine then?
– JRC: It’s hard to answer your question”
“CVD: Then they also assert: “All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. …” Which of course includes the WCF itself and men behind it and Article 1. So the disclaimer applies not only to you, but to any confessional and Protestant church teaching, including any identification and interpretation of Scripture they offer.
– JRC: Naturally. Who’s on first.”
“If 99.9% is not good enough for you, then I have bad news.”
“An inductively derived proposition with 99.9999% confidence (which is the confidence level required in particle physics) is not certain”
“[The claim that] it is highly likely beyond any reasonable doubt that the Protestant canon is the correct identification of the Word of God … is provisional.”
“CVD: Everything is and remains provisional. That’s not a “problem” for you. That’s fine, but it’s a stunning admission.
JRC: Stunning? Our “side” admitted that in 1647 at the latest. Where have you been, my man?”
WCF:
“All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.”
“The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.”
LikeLike
Jeff,
So you might be wrong about cows’ inability to fly over the moon and bats flying out of your nose. Is there anything you might not be wrong about?
LikeLike
Clete,
You are missing my point. My point is that the final reason why I believe in the resurrection is not empirical evidence but because of the testimony of God Himself. The motives of credibility in your system can’t carry the weight that Bryan thinks they can unless he adds to them the testimony of the church. Thus, Rome in the end confesses something very similar to self-authentication.
The resurrection in itself doesn’t prove Christianity. God could have raised Jesus and the Apostles could have been completely wrong that such proves His deity/Messiahship. It could just prove that Jesus was a special man whom God loved very much. It could just be a heretofore unexplained medical event. People have been revived after being dead even hours later. Actually clinically dead and then back to life. As far as I know, we have no medical documentation of someone coming back to life as long as a few days later, but it also could be that their was a unique combination of factors in the case of Jesus’ death that haven’t been replicated and which could extend the possible time of resuscitation longer than just mere hours.
Only if you accept the authority of the Apostles and their infallibility is the resurrection indisputable proof for Christianity. In your case, you add the church as a necessary agent to accept the authority of the Apostles and their infallibility, but no matter, the result is the same. The reason why you believe the resurrection proves Christianity is because you have accepted someone else’s interpretation of the evidence. The evidence doesn’t “speak” for itself.
You can sit down with a Jewish person and talk about fulfilled Messianic prophecies until you are blue in the face, but unless they accept Jesus’ and the Apostle’s authority, they will not believe that said prophecies are fulfilled in Jesus. And I’m talking about a Jewish person who is reasonable and willing to weigh the evidence as objectively as possible. They aren’t “motives of credibility” without the interpretation.
Rome must offer the motives of credibility and tell you what they mean AND you have to accept Rome’s definition and interpretation in order for them to be credible. No such thing as brute facts.
LikeLike
It does occur to me that CVD’s argument really helps us understand why the church did what it did with Galileo. The Roman church ultimately claims to possess absolute knowledge, it claims to know as God knows. It has to if it wants to sustain its claims. So along comes Galileo who dares to question the notion that the church has absolute knowledge…
LikeLike
I’m wondering if the inability to grasp the arguments by the Romanists here is supposed to be an object lesson for protestants. No matter how clear or how often you make your point, some people just can’t grasp it. Sola Scriptura, therefore, can’t be true, and the evidence is right before our noses. Some people need to be told explicitly how to think because understanding written communication on one’s own is completely unattainable for some people.
Anyway, I think it is remarkable how this debate continues on when I don’t know how both sides could be considered to be making arguments in good faith. Props to you folks. I’m of the opinion that when someone resorts to rhetoric after argument that they are indicating that they have lost the argument and are trying to hide the fact. This happens time and time again here.
LikeLike
CVD,
You’re carrying on a number of conversations, but let’s take a step back so we can move forward in the right direction together.
When you are charging Protestants with skepticism you’re thinking of something, but I’m not quite sure what it is. Based on conventional understandings of “skepticism,” your arguments border on a form of philosophical skepticism–Cartesian foundationalism. Can you explain what you mean when you claim Protestants are skeptics?
My proposal is that you do these two things:
1. Provide substantiation from an external source [to verify for me this is not idiosyncratic]
2. An explanation of why the Protestant position is “skepticism” and how your paradigm avoids it [We affirm our epistemology provides meaningful understanding of ontology. You claim that your epistemology cannot (due to revelations supernatural origin) lead to an understanding of ontology unless it it is grounded in an external, infallible epistemological source.]
LikeLike
Brandon,
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/catholicteaching/philosophy/askeptic.htm
I propose you answer my questions to clarify your position.
LikeLike
CVD,
I’ll read up, but you still haven’t addressed the question. And in reading the intro and conclusion, it seems that the linked article merely discusses the perils of Descartes mental exercise. I agree Descartes desire to identify an irrefutable foundation for all other beliefs is a form of skepticism, but this is precisely what I believe you’re doing. If you could provide even a summary argument of why this is not the case, it’d be helpful as a starting point.
LikeLike
Joel
Posted December 9, 2015 at 1:49 pm | Permalink
I’m wondering if the inability to grasp the arguments by the Romanists here is supposed to be an object lesson for protestants. No matter how clear or how often you make your point, some people just can’t grasp it.>>>>>
Actually, I have a pretty good grasp on what both Robert and Jeff are saying. If I don’t, then please tell me where I misunderstood. What I do with it is reject it specifically as it relates to the Gospel – 1 Cor. 15:1ff. Putting the resurrection of Jesus Christ in the category of provisional knowledge is really a reflection not of man’s inability to grasp truth in an infallible way.
It is a statement about God’s inability to communicate infallible truth in an infallible way to the heart and mind of the spiritual man. Even the spiritual man is supposed to hold the fact of the resurrection provisionally.
That is not faith. That is skepticism. You don’t get it. Not only that, but the infallible Word of God is infallible only in theory. We have it until further studies are done and the textual critics tell us that what we have is probably the real Bible – within a margin of error of maybe 2%. That’s good enough.
Well, it’s good enough if you are willing to admit that what you have in your hands is not the infallible rule of faith and practice. You cannot know that rule. It is hidden from you. It exists out there somewhere. You are searching for it like Mulder and Scully.
Joel:
Sola Scriptura, therefore, can’t be true, and the evidence is right before our noses.>>>>
Sola Scriptura cannot be an infallible rule of faith and practice. It can come within an acceptable margin of error, which makes it infallible only in theory – only provisionally.
Joel:
Some people need to be told explicitly how to think because understanding written communication on one’s own is completely unattainable for some people.>>>>
Oh, come on, Joel. Don’t sell yourselves short. In spite of all the efforts to obscure what is being said, the message has come across. I get it. I reject it.
Joel:
Anyway, I think it is remarkable how this debate continues on when I don’t know how both sides could be considered to be making arguments in good faith. Props to you folks. I’m of the opinion that when someone resorts to rhetoric after argument that they are indicating that they have lost the argument and are trying to hide the fact. This happens time and time again here.>>>
Oh, it’s not about good or bad faith. It is about disagreement. I honestly disagree with my brothers here. In fact, sdb is the only one so far that makes a recognizably Reformed argument.
When you have some of your guys arguing that the faith in the ressurrection of Jesus Christ is only based on our ability to grasp the information provisionally, then I am shocked that more of you don’t jump in quickly to correct that grave error.
Well, unless you have all gone neo orthodox and don’t even know it. I suppose neo orthodoxy is a logical progression even for Reformed theologians.
LikeLike
Brandon Addison
Posted December 9, 2015 at 2:03 pm | Permalink
CVD,
I’ll read up, but you still haven’t addressed the question. And in reading the intro and conclusion, it seems that the linked article merely discusses the perils of Descartes mental exercise. I agree Descartes desire to identify an irrefutable foundation for all other beliefs is a form of skepticism, but this is precisely what I believe you’re doing. If you could provide even a summary argument of why this is not the case, it’d be helpful as a starting point.
The Holy Spirit guides the Church. The rest is details.
Protestants rely on their own reason, which explains why they have dozens or 100s of competing versions of the Christian religion.
LikeLike
Tom,
I know you want fairness and consistent from the Protestant side, so hopefully you can at least concede I want to affirm the Holy Spirit guides the church. I don’t believe, however, the Spirit’s guidance makes the church (or, even more specifically, one bishop in one geographic locale) infallible.
CVD,
One thing I also forgot to mention is if you could disambiguate your use of the term “skepticism.” Understanding what you mean by it is important for the conversation to move forward, IMO.
LikeLike
Mermaid,
It is a statement about God’s inability to communicate infallible truth in an infallible way to the heart and mind of the spiritual man.
That sounds an awful lot like infallible assurance, which we all accept on the Reformed side but which Rome says is impossible for anyone except certain saints.
LikeLike
Brandon Addison
Posted December 9, 2015 at 2:25 pm | Permalink
Tom,
I know you want fairness and consistent from the Protestant side, so hopefully you can at least concede I want to affirm the Holy Spirit guides the church. I don’t believe, however, the Spirit’s guidance makes the church (or, even more specifically, one bishop in one geographic locale) infallible.
__________________
Goes without saying. Personal subjective religious beliefs are not at issue here, only clarifying positions.
LikeLike
Brandon,
“the type of “provisionality” that we are talking about is “ordinary incredulity””
Okay, is there any belief you hold as non-provisional?
“Without certain (AKA infallible) knowledge, everything else supposedly unprincipled. ”
No. Without an infallible authority, there is no principled way to distinguish provisional opinion from infallible divine revelation. RCs are not the ones confusing order of being with order of knowing.
“This is why I find it confounding that you continue to claim Protestants are skeptics”
I am not calling all Protestants skeptics. I am calling people who aren’t sure whether cows can jump over the moon skeptics. As I said before, Robert is repeating the same assertions that Bryan and others took time to show led to skepticism and self-refutation – http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/11/lawrence-feingold-the-motives-of-credibility-for-faith/#comment-147179 at comment 69 onwards to the end.
“It seems such a label applies more appropriately to the position you are advocating than Protestantism.”
This could be taken 2 ways. Either RCism itself endorses skepticism by virtue of its affirmation of the certitude of faith and its concept of faith and infallibility and authority. This would entail Augustine, Newman, Aquinas, Vatican 1, various papal condemnations, Trent, Scheeben, Smith, Catholic Encyclopedia who have all been cited in support of the RC position concerning certitude and infallibility and faith endorse skepticism. This would also mean the catholic author of the article I linked to above refuting skepticism in the light of Thomism was oblivious to the skepticism he was really endorsing by being a Catholic.
Or, you think RCism’s affirmations of infallibility and certitude of faith do not endorse skepticism, but the position I am advocating does – i.e. the arguments made are expendable and not reflective of or integral to the RC system.
If the latter is the case, I would like to know where the skepticism lies in this point I made earlier:
Divine revelation is infallible as everyone agrees. So a system identifying something as divine revelation [if it was unclear, I mean not only the canon and nature of Scripture, but all doctrines of faith], then at the same time saying anything it identifies or defines is provisional and subject to revision and can only be at best “99%” likely or whatever arbitrary number you want to pull out is incompatible with the supposed ability to identify divine revelation – whatever is being identified isn’t divine revelation, by its own standard.
or
JRC: It has been argued here by CVD and Tom and you and Mermaid that it is improper to place faith in anything known provisionally.
CVD: No its been argued it is improper to place faith in anything offered as admittedly provisional. Thus the contrast between RC and Protestant claims.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 9, 2015 at 2:28 pm | Permalink
Mermaid,
It is a statement about God’s inability to communicate infallible truth in an infallible way to the heart and mind of the spiritual man.
That sounds an awful lot like infallible assurance, which we all accept on the Reformed side but which Rome says is impossible for anyone except certain saints.>>>>>
How can you accept infallible assurance if the knowledge it is based on is always provisional? Maybe you need to explain how you are using the term “provisional.” There are lotsa’ words, but where is your definition of terms?
I went ahead and found a definition on my own based on what y’all are saying. As far as I can tell, you are borrowing the term from the philosophy of science and using it for matters of faith. My “whoa Nelly” has to do with the Gospel – 1 Cor. 15:1ff. You cannot put that in a category of provisional knowledge. It is not delivered to us that way. It has to be communicated and received infallibly or you cannot even begin to call the result “faith.”
Then there’s that Barth and neo orthodoxy “thing” that I hope y’all will clear up.
I don’t care about cows and moons, bats and noses. Though those images are both humorous and disturbing.
Now, I think you misunderstand the Catholic concept. The focus of our sainthood is on the grace of perseverance. Yours is, too, but Calvin went a step farther than Augustine, Aquinas, and even Luther.
You would say that if there is no perseverance of the saint, then there never was faith in the first place. None of those men would. See the quote below for a clarification of the Catholic position. I think it is consistent with how John in his first Gospel expresses the continual, present tense aspect of true faith. “Believe” and “abide” are in the present tense throughout most of his epistle. It is not believe, and it’s done. It is about a continual abiding, a continual believing, which requires continual grace.
Catholic teaching is that you can be given the grace of initial faith, but a person may not be willing to continue in the grace necessary for perseverance. See the Parable of the Sower. Not all who have initial faith persevere. Some do. Not all who hear the Word have faith at all.
So, those who are given the grace of final perseverance are being saved right now through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. They will see the beatific vision. They will see Christ as He is and they will be like Him, as John tells us in his 1st Epistle.
We believe initially by grace through faith. We persevere by grace through faith. We will see the glory of the Lord in all its fullness. That is our hope and our goal.
—————————————————————————————–
The Church formally teaches that there is a gift of final perseverance. [43] Aquinas (and even Molina) said this grace always ensures that a person will persevere. [44] Aquinas said, “Predestination [to final salvation] most certainly and infallibly takes effect.” [45] But not all who come to God receive this grace.
Aquinas said the gift of final perseverance is “the abiding in good to the end of life. In order to have this perseverance man…needs the divine assistance guiding and guarding him against the attacks of the passions…[A]fter anyone has been justified by grace, he still needs to beseech God for the aforesaid gift of perseverance, that he may be kept from evil till the end of life. For to many grace is given to whom perseverance in grace is not give.” [46]
The idea that a person can be predestined to come to God yet not be predestined to stay the course may be new to Calvinists and may sound strange to them, but it did not sound strange to Augustine, Aquinas, or even Luther. Calvinists frequently cite these men as “Calvinists before Calvin.” While they did hold high views of predestination, they did not draw Calvin’s inference that all who are ever saved are predestined to remain in grace. [47] Instead, their faith was informed by the biblical teaching that some who enter the sphere of grace go on to leave it.
If one defines “saint” as one who will have his “saintification” completed, a Catholic can say he believes in a “perseverance of the saints” (all and only the people predestined to be saints will persevere). But because of the historic associations of the phrase it is advisable to make some change in it to avoid confusing the Thomist and Calvinist understandings of perseverance. Since in Catholic theology those who will persevere are called “the predestined” or “the elect,” one might replace “perseverance of the saints” with “perseverance of the predestined” or, better, with “perseverance of the elect.”
In view of this, we might propose a Thomist version of TULIP: T=total inability (to please God without special grace); U=unconditional election; L=limited intent (for the atonement’s efficacy); I=intrinsically efficacious grace (for salvation); P=perseverance of the elect (until the end of life).
There are other ways to construct a Thomist version of TULIP, of course, but the fact there is even one way demonstrates that a Calvinist would not have to repudiate his understanding of predestination and grace to become Catholic. He simply would have to do greater justice to the teaching of Scripture and would have to refine his understanding of perseverance. [48]
LikeLike
TVD, you need to get this
provisionallyperfectly straight.Nobody gets to talk to me unless you talk to me first.
But I am so busy talking to myself I don’t listen anyway. To you or them.
So it doesn’t make any difference, and they stop talking to me.
Capiche?
So why do you keep talking to me?
cheers
(And what’s with the brother jazz? You think there’s a family resemblance to your avatar?)
Kind of like what we tell you, CVD and Andrew.
But since I provisionally think the latter just took over as the Director of Implicit Faith for all the monkeys, imbeciles and idiots
LikeLike
Cletus,
Without an infallible authority, there is no principled way to distinguish provisional opinion from infallible divine revelation.
We’re all still waiting for you to give us a principled way to distinguish your opinion about what the Magisterium means from what the Magisterium actually means. And that’s ultimate a question about how YOU distinguish provisional opinion from infallible divine revelation because you ain’t the Magisterium, nor do you have a Vulcan mindmeld with it.
The thing is that by introducing all this skepticism, you finally leave your fallible self having to figure out what Rome means. And you can ask questions till the cows come home (after jumping over the moon 🙂 ) and still get different answers from different bishops as well as vastly different opinions about matters from different Romanists. So you finally rely on your fallible understanding to figure it all out. Just like Protestants do.
LikeLike
“When you have some of your guys arguing that the faith in the ressurrection of Jesus Christ is only based on our ability to grasp the information provisionally, then I am shocked that more of you don’t jump in quickly to correct that grave error.”
Hmm, I’ve never heard any Reformed person argue that humans are unable to err in our thinking about anything. Now, on the other hand, I do remember being badgered as an evangelical about whether I was 100% certain about everything I believe, not just 99%. “If you are only 99% certain, then you don’t understand the Gospel.” Are you sure you aren’t confusing us with the pray-Jesus-into-your-heart people?
LikeLike
IOW CVD, what you are telling us is that since the WCF admitted it could err, therefore 31:4 should read:
All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular,
may err; and many have erreddo not err, nor can they err. Therefore they arenot to be madethe rule of faith,orand practice;but to be used asand not just a help or mere pious advicein both.But isn’t that the roman position?
That you aren’t infallible, but the Magisterium is?
Thanks for sharing.
Brandon, TVD has been The Véronian Disciple for as long as he’s been hanging around and CVD is the up and coming understudy. The skepticism aka papal pyrrhonism only goes one way of course, but you already knew that.
LikeLike
Mermaid: Actually, I have a pretty good grasp on what both Robert and Jeff are saying. If I don’t, then please tell me where I misunderstood.
No, actually, you have not given evidence of understanding.
Two pieces of evidence:
(1) You continue to assert that I “leave out the work of the Holy Spirit” when I have repeatedly and explicitly included it.
(2) You have not demonstrated understanding of the difference between “provisional” and “uncertain.” You continue to equate the two.
Sorry. I agree with Joel. It may be that you are trying in good faith, but to me you come across as deliberately trying to have a bad conversation.
LikeLike
Maybe you need to explain how you are using the term “provisional.” There are lotsa’ words, but where is your definition of terms?
If I may, Mrs. (Ethel) Merman, (please forgive me if I didn’t get your name right. I am fallible, i.e. “provisional” as the case may be. See below.)
CVD’s definition of “provisional” means if I tell him 2+2=4, he’ll say it’s not true/I can’t know that.
How he knows that, nobody knows and if he does know it, we can’t understand anyway.
Nothing that a little holywater dabbed on the forehead can’t fix, but the good book does say something about adding drunkeness to thirst.
Go figure/do the math.
LikeLike
CVD: Here’s what I’ve heard your position is:
JRC: “Divine revelation is infallible.”
“What provisionality means… For a Protestant, it simply means “revisable in theory.””…
Thanks for taking the time on this.
A couple of points that are absolutely necessary to understand.
You have placed emphasis on the various quotes of mine that push the “might be wrong” concept.
Let’s summarize that as
(1) Humans, absent divine enablement, do not have infallible knowledge
They might be wrong, unless of course the Spirit is speaking through them.
BUT
You have omitted quotes of mine that qualify provisionality. Not all provisional beliefs are particularly doubtful; in fact, many are not. I’ve given examples both scientific and theological.
Cows cannot jump over the moon
This is known provisionally because it is based upon our experience and understanding and not upon divine revelation. Despite that, it is certainly a correct statement.
Matthew is canonical
This is known provisionally because it is based on our 21st century records of the collective witness of the early church. Despite that, it is certainly a correct statement.
Let’s summarize the point
(2) Provisional statements range in certainty from 0 to 100% certain.
This is really the point that your side keeps on leaving out of our position, mainly because you disagree with it. And you’re welcome to disagree with it — but you aren’t welcome to omit it.
LikeLike
Mermaid, pound it.
LikeLike
CVD: I am calling people who aren’t sure whether cows can jump over the moon skeptics.
Good thing there aren’t any of those around here.
LikeLike
Robert, but James Young’s argument does not help us understand what happened to the Index of Books.
LikeLike
Here, BobS, what you should have written, and saved us all the trouble.
Bob SPosted December 9, 2015 at 4:11 pm | Permalink
TVD, you need to get this provisionally perfectly straight.
Nobody gets to talk to me unless you talk to me first.
But I am so busy talking to myself I don’t listen anyway. To you or them.
So it doesn’t make any difference, and they stop talking to me.
Capiche?
So why do you keep talking to me?
cheers
(And what’s with the brother jazz? You think there’s a family resemblance to your avatar?)
Kind of like what we tell you, CVD and Andrew.
But since I provisionally think the latter just took over as the Director of Implicit Faith for all the monkeys, imbeciles and idiots
___________
Now back to business:
The Little Mermaid
Posted December 9, 2015 at 3:57 pm | Permalink
Robert
Posted December 9, 2015 at 2:28 pm | Permalink
Mermaid,
It is a statement about God’s inability to communicate infallible truth in an infallible way to the heart and mind of the spiritual man.
That sounds an awful lot like infallible assurance, which we all accept on the Reformed side but which Rome says is impossible for anyone except certain saints.>>>>>
How can you accept infallible assurance if the knowledge it is based on is always provisional? Maybe you need to explain how you are using the term “provisional.” There are lotsa’ words, but where is your definition of terms?
Provisional: For the time being, subject to change. The Church of Maybe, Maybe Not. Check back with us tomorrow.
LikeLike
Brandon, “the linked article merely discusses the perils of Descartes mental exercise”
See, infallibility answers Descartes, 1600 years after our saviors Ascension.
LikeLike
vd, t, “Protestants rely on their own reason”
So when you reject the bodily assumption of Mary, on what do you rely?
Careful squirrel man.
LikeLike
CVD,
Bingo. I think the issue is with your apologetic against Protestantism and not necessarily a problem with Catholicism as a whole. And I want to be clear that I’m simply trying to understand what you’re saying and I am open to correction on this point.
Let me quote you again and I’ll explain where I see the disconnect,
Great, so in terms of ontology, we both agree. This is something we affirm *before* making our faith commitments, even though in retrospect those commitments clearly impact how we view revelation in retrospect. And our agreement doesn’t just end here, we have almost the exact same canon which numerous theologians agree was God’s Word at the moment of inscripturation and did not require the Magisterium’s authentication but rather the Magisterium’s recognition. So whatever deficiencies our respective methodologies employ,I think we can recognize we seem to have arrived at the same place through different methodologies.
Here is where I see confusion on your part. You start with epistemology “identifying…divine revelation” and end with ontology, “[it] isn’t divine revelation.” Why is (ontology) Scripture not Divine revelation according to you? Because the epistemic mechanism of comprehension, by its own standard is fallible “at best 99%” This formulation, however, conflates epistemology with ontology.
My epistemic fallibility does not mean God’s Word ceases being God’s Word. I think that in light of this you may want to argue that it’s not that God’s Word changes its ontological status because of our fallibility. Rather, your point is that without the Magisterium divine revelation imperceptible. This is, presumably, why you claim that what the Protestant identifies “is not divine revelation.”
And this gets to the heart of what I believe is an underlying foundationalist skepticism in your argument. Without the indubitable infallible foundation, you claim there is no basis for believing or identifying anything. Bryan Cross takes this and argues that without the Magisterium, Christians cannot know if sexual promiscuity, getting stoned, or drinking Pinesol are encouraged/prohibited by God. I hope you don’t affirm that kind of silliness, but I don’t see how your position doesn’t entail that.
So…can you try to explain to me what skepticism is? Again, finding an external source will be helpful so that we can evaluate it together and find what is agreeable to it. I also believe it will help you focus your particular criticism of Protestantism.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 9, 2015 at 5:21 pm | Permalink
Robert, but James Young’s argument does not help us understand what happened to the Index of Books.
IOW, DG Hart doesn’t agree with a word you say [if he eaven reads it], but you’re a useful tool to attack the Catholic Church so he lets you natter on.
______
D. G. Hart
Posted December 9, 2015 at 5:17 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, pound it.
Outclassed intellectually, Dr. Darryl G. Hart is reduced to talking tough to the nice Catholic lady. Jesus is proud.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 9, 2015 at 5:25 pm | Permalink
vd, t, “Protestants rely on their own reason”
So when you reject the bodily assumption of Mary, on what do you rely?
Careful squirrel man.
I havenever addressed my personal belief on the matter here. Stop fabricating, Dr. Hart. You’ve beclowned yourself enough for one day.
LikeLike
sdb,
“WCF 1 is conditional on being consonant with the scriptures”
And the identification of the scriptures – that is, the standard to be compared against – is provisional in your system yes? It’s not just provisionally apprehended by you, it’s provisionally offered by your churches/bodies/confessions/etc correct?
“All of those items derive from scripture”
So these items derive from Scripture: Divine revelation exists, it is confined to writing alone, this writing is inspired and inerrant, this writing is limited to the books in the Protestant canon, this writing is the sole ultimate authority, this writing is perspicuous and doctrine is to be drawn from ghm exegesis, and there is no further revelation.
That’s obviously debateable. And further, you already agree the teaching that “this writing is limited to the books in the Protestant canon” is supposed to be treated differently and “properly basic”. But let’s grant it all for now.
So, “All of those doctrines [I] list come from the exegesis of scripture”, but you claim all interpretation of Scripture is offered as provisional in your system. So every doctrine I listed, plus all doctrines after establishment of those starting doctrines, are provisional. And yet you demur in saying those starting doctrines are provisional, even though you also assert they “derive” and “come from the exegesis” of Scripture – which you already said yields provisional teachings (e.g. “the disclaimers you refer to do apply exclusively after the fact to the interpretation of God’s word”). So it seems inconsistent to exempt them from the disclaimers given what you’ve said.
“The measuring stick is scripture – it has to be treated differently than the things it is measuring. ”
Sure, I understand that. But if the identification of Scripture and the role/function of those writings (e.g. it is the sole ultimate authority, it is inerrant, etc) is offered as provisional by all Protestant bodies, since they reject any ability/authority to infallibly identify, define, teach such doctrines, then you have an ever-provisional “measuring stick” subject to revision – which is no standard at all.
That’s the point. I do not mean to misconstrue WCF – I am affirming its active rejection of any divine and infallible authority/ability to identify or define divine revelation or offer any teaching as infallible.
“That authority is the Holy Spirit of course.”
The Holy Spirit identified and defined the canon for you? I believe the HS infallibly guided and protected the church in identifying and recognizing the canon. But your system rejects any divine guarantee the church is protected from error.
“I do so fallibly … I don’t always listen so well (sin) or understand so well … They should listen to me by virtue of the authority God has given”
And what about those in all the Protestant bodies I listed earlier who disagree with your views and teachings concerning divine revelation? Since you claim no infallible or divine authority, why should they feel compelled to assent to your views over their own you reject as in error?
“The church does not reject the authority or the ability to identify divine revelation.”
Okay, so it should offer infallible teaching since divine revelation is infallible by definition as we agree. Has any Protestant church ever done so? Such an action would seem to conflict with their rejection of the types of claims to authority Rome makes, and assertions such as “he gives us the church to teach us and so forth. But that church isn’t infallible”, and also conflict with the disclaimers of WCF 31.4 and 25.5 and semper reformanda.
“All teaching is the interpretation of scripture and remains conditional on being consonant with the Word of God.”
Which is a teaching that itself (along with the identification of the “Word of God”) is admitted and offered as provisional in your system. Thus it cannot be divine revelation, given we both agree divine revelation is infallible by definition.
LikeLike
Yeah, TVD scrolling back, I saw that I gummed up the post before you did.
So what?
Bryan, Jason don’t talk to me either.
(Evidently I am not the kind of ecumenical naif that the dialectic requires. As for Andrew, he’s still undecided.)
So why do you keep talking to me?
Do you have something to say?
Are you sure?
(Careful, CVD is waiting to pounce.)
cheers
LikeLike
Brandon,
“Here is where I see confusion on your part. You start with epistemology “identifying…divine revelation” and end with ontology, “[it] isn’t divine revelation.””
No, I start with the authority doing the identifying/defining/teaching. A “system” as I explicitly called out is not “me” or “you” or “our understanding”. No Protestant body/church/confession offers any teaching, definition, identification as infallible. It only offers admitted provisional teaching subject to revision. Since divine revelation is infallible by definition as we agree, such a system fails to cut the mustard as one that can ostensibly define, identify, teach divine revelation.
“This formulation, however, conflates epistemology with ontology.”
It should be clear from above I hope now that is not the case. What I have seen from your side is plenty of “we’re fallible, so the certitude of faith is illegitimate and impossible and everything must be held provisionally and subject to revision” or “you submitted to Rome based in part on your evaluation of MoC, therefore Rome’s authority and your certitude based on that authority can never be greater or stronger than your fallible initial evaluation of MoC”. That is a conflation.
“Without the indubitable infallible foundation, you claim there is no basis for believing or identifying anything.”
I am claiming an authority that can distinguish divine revelation from provisional opinion. If there is a mechanism Protestantism offers for distinguishing divine revelation from human opinion, we’re all ears. If there was such a mechanism, you would think its churches would be more forthcoming about being able to infallibly define/identify divine revelation, rather than admitting all teaching they offer remains provisional and subject to revision and “highly likely” or “99%” true.
Still waiting for answers to my earlier questions to you to clarify your position.
LikeLike
CVD,
My friend, just because you keep insisting or repeating something doesn’t make it so. Why can’t a Protestant church teach Divine revelation if we both agree that the Bible is God’s Word? The teaching of the church is fallible, but that doesn’t mean that it is wrong or that it cannot define, teach, or identify. You only believe this because you are conflating ontology and epistemology and using your notions of what *ought to be* into Protestant doctrine.
I am still waiting for you to interact in a meaningful way with my comments. Until then, however, I think the conversation has hit an impasse.
LikeLike
Bob,
“CVD’s definition of “provisional” means if I tell him 2+2=4, he’ll say it’s not true/I can’t know that.
How he knows that, nobody knows and if he does know it, we can’t understand anyway.”
So you hold 2+2=4 as non-provisional correct? That’s good – I agree. Unfortunately most others here don’t agree with you. We are fallible and finite remember. So we need to hold 2+2=4 as provisional and subject to revision, and same with cows flying over the moon and bats flying out of noses.
LikeLike
Brandon,
“My friend, just because you keep insisting or repeating something doesn’t make it so.”
Divine revelation is infallible, by definition.
Protestant churches/bodies/confessions teachings are not offered as infallible, but provisional and subject to revision.
Divine revelation is not provisional and subject to revision, by definition.
Protestant churches/bodies/confessions teachings are not offered as divine revelation.
“Why can’t a Protestant church teach Divine revelation if we both agree that the Bible is God’s Word?”
Protestant churches/bodies/confessions teaching that “the Bible is God’s Word” is not offered as infallible teaching, but provisional and subject to revision.
And we don’t agree on the canon – which illustrates the point. Nor do Protestants themselves – hence the asterisks and disputed passages today and truncated/expanded canons of groups throughout history. It remains provisional and subject to revision.
“I am still waiting for you to interact in a meaningful way with my comments.”
Seriously dude. I answered your questions and replied to subsequent posts. You initially accused me of running around with unfounded charges of skepticism. I asked you simple questions – questions that spurred my original charge of skepticism against certain people – to get where you were coming from and to clarify your position regarding skepticism. Then you don’t answer them. Not interested in one-way convos.
LikeLike
CVD:
(1) Divine revelation is infallible, by definition.
(2) Protestant churches/bodies/confessions teachings are not offered as infallible, but provisional and subject to revision.
(3) Divine revelation is not provisional and subject to revision, by definition.
(4) Protestant churches/bodies/confessions teachings are not offered as divine revelation.
(1) Yes
(2) Yes, but subject to the caveat above. The WCF is not infallible, but it is a relatively certain understanding of divine revelation. Some parts are more certain than others.
(3) Yes.
(4) Correct, but they are offered as good and necessary inference from divine revelation, which makes them relatively certain. It would be a bad bet to disagree with them.
BA: “Why can’t a Protestant church teach Divine revelation if we both agree that the Bible is God’s Word?”
CVD: Protestant churches/bodies/confessions teaching that “the Bible is God’s Word” is not offered as infallible teaching, but provisional and subject to revision.
Brandon has the better argument there for two reasons. “Subject to revision” does not mean “unreliable.” It could be — and is the case — that the Protestant canon is a reliable declaration of those texts that are God’s word. Theoretically, there is a danger that someone might place faith in a text that is not Scripture (e.g.: “They shall handle snakes”). In practice, this is rare. Snake handlers are a highly visible but tiny minority.
Second of all, since you actually agree to the canonicity of every book in the Protestant Bible, it’s unclear that you have standing to challenge Brandon’s claim that those books are Scripture.
CVD: <i.And we don’t agree on the canon – which illustrates the point. Nor do Protestants themselves – hence the asterisks and disputed passages today and truncated/expanded canons of groups throughout history. It remains provisional and subject to revision.
You are vastly overstating the case. How many disputed passages? How many Protestant canons?
LikeLike
CVD: No Protestant body/church/confession offers any teaching, definition, identification as infallible. It only offers admitted provisional teaching subject to revision. Since divine revelation is infallible by definition as we agree, such a system fails to cut the mustard as one that can ostensibly define, identify, teach divine revelation.
This is a core mistake in your critique. Let’s break it down.
No Protestant body/church/confession offers any teaching, definition, identification as infallible. It only offers admitted provisional teaching subject to revision.
Yes.
Since divine revelation is infallible by definition as we agree,
Yes.
such a system fails to cut the mustard as one that can ostensibly define, identify, teach divine revelation.
Doesn’t follow.
Define? Yes. I agree. A provisional system cannot infallibly define truth.
Identify? Teach? Why not?
The canon was not infallibly defined (in your system) until Trent. Until that time, Catholics did not have an infallible understanding of which books were canonical (again, in your system). Yet that did not prevent them from identifying which books were canonical and also teaching them. Did they make mistakes? Yes — either Cardinal Cajetan OR Trent was mistaken about the deuterocanonicals. Let’s say it was Cajetan. But that didn’t mean he didn’t have authority to identify and teach the Scripture.
LikeLike
TVD: At Called to Communion they don’t whine about being misunderstood.
Hm. I recall differently upon a time.
LikeLike
Jeff,
“Provisional statements range in certainty from 0 to 100% certain.”
Okay, and we have, “What provisionality means… For a Protestant, it simply means “revisable in theory.””
Is a 100% certain statement subject to revision? What does a “100% certain revisable-in-theory statement” mean to you? Can you tell me the difference between a “50% certain revisable-in-theory statement”, a “100% certain revisable-in-theory-statement”, a “0% certain revisable-in-theory statement”, a “0% certain statement”, and a “100% certain statement”?
And why are we at 100% now? In all your previous statements, you say things like “highly likely”, “99%”, and “An inductively derived proposition with 99.9999% confidence … is not certain”. But now we see 100%? I thought “If 99.9% is not good enough for you, then I have bad news” – is 100% better now?
“Cows cannot jump over the moon
– This is known provisionally because it is based upon our experience and understanding and not upon divine revelation. Despite that, it is certainly a correct statement.”
So is your statement that “cows cannot jump over the moon” subject to revision? Do you assert you might be wrong on it? Is it a 0%, 50%, 99%, or 100% certainty? What’s the mechanism for deriving this percentage of certainty? Are those who don’t share your percentage of certainty for a given statement irrational?
And why is there a contrast with “based upon divine revelation”? Aren’t all teachings offered by Protestantism, and apprehended by you, provisional in both respects – the offering and the apprehension?
“Matthew is canonical
– This is known provisionally because it is based on our 21st century records of the collective witness of the early church. Despite that, it is certainly a correct statement.”
So Matthew and Mark’s canonicity is not subject to revision, nor are their currently identified contents subject to revision? But “The canon is our best effort at identifying the Scripture. Its accuracy is provisional.”
LikeLike
TVD at Bob: IOW, DG Hart doesn’t agree with a word you say [if he eaven reads it], but you’re a useful tool to attack the Catholic Church so he lets you natter on.
Actually, he lets Bob natter on for the same reason that he lets you natter on. “Comments are open” is the policy.
LikeLike
CVD, Mermaid, TVD:
Cletus linked to this article that discusses skepticism, perception, and more.
Questions:
(1) Do you agree with the article in toto?
(2) Do you believe that this theory of perception is necessary for Catholic theology?
LikeLike
Jeff,
No to both. I was pointing it out merely to rebut claims that RCisms views of authority, infallibility, faith, knowledge, certitude, and so forth entails skepticism.
LikeLike
CVD,
Jeff’s answer to your questions mirrors my own.
Regarding skepticism, I don’t see anything that you’ve posted that has addressed the question. I think that’s the real issue here and you need to first define skepticism. Then, I’d be interested to see how your definition does not condemn yourself, given your arguments.
LikeLike
Thanks Jeff.
Now I’ll go eat some worms.
So you hold 2+2=4 as non-provisional correct? That’s good – I agree. Unfortunately most others here don’t agree with you. We are fallible and finite remember. So we need to hold 2+2=4 as provisional and subject to revision, and same with
transubstantiation, the rosary, mariolatry, image worship etc.cows flying over the moonbecause the pope sucked it all out of his thumband bats flying out of noses.There CVD. Fixed it for you.
Remember?
You’re not infallible like the pope. He just might have a different take than you do.
But maybe not. You can’t know.
Divine revelation is infallible self defining and self attesting, by definition.
Protestant churches/bodies/confessions teachings are not offered as [the] infallible final Word, which would not only make them tantamount to Scripture, but would add to Scripture contra the same
butrather they are provisional and subject to revision in the light again of that infallible Word.Divine revelation is not provisional and subject to revision, by definition.
Protestant churches/bodies/confessions teachings are not offered as divine revelation but again as faithful summaries and witnesses to divine revelation and truth.
There. Fixed it. Again. However redundant.
Since divine revelation is infallible by definition as we agree, such a system fails to cut the mustard as one that can ostensibly define, identify, teach divine revelation.
Or in so many words:
Since divine revelation is infallible by definition as we agree, such a system [as protestantism] fails to cut the mustard as one that can ostensibly define, identify, teach divine revelation [because protestantism is not infallible, but fallible/provisional].
But now comes one CVD, who self admittedly is not infallible, but who is ostensibly (authoritatively) defining, identifying and teaching about divine revelation.
Ergo DVC fails to cut mustard.
No tartar sauce for him.
Maybe VDC could ketchup w. the implications of his argument that undercut the same if he wants Brandon to buy him a Happy Meal, no?
LikeLike
Cletus,
You might want to reconsider the notion that a system that cannot infallibly identify or define revelation can’t give you the warrant of faith. I just realized that you believe Rome cannot infallibly identify or define tradition, at least not completely. Ergo, tradition is either not divine revelation or Rome fails your test.
LikeLike
Bob,
I agree I don’t cut the mustard.
So are the statements that 2+2=4, bats don’t fly out of noses, and cows don’t jump over moons subject to revision for you?
And a church with the divine authority and ability to infallibly define, identify, interpret, teach divine revelation does not entail they are generating new revelation.
“Protestant churches/bodies/confessions teachings are not offered as divine revelation but again as faithful summaries and witnesses to divine revelation and truth.”
Faithful summaries subject to revision. Divine revelation and truth, the identification of which remains subject to revision. “[because protestantism is not infallible, but fallible/provisional]”
LikeLike
@ Bob: Sorry for the collateral snark.
LikeLike
And a church with the divine authority and ability to infallibly define, identify, interpret, teach divine revelation does not entail they are generating new revelation.
Because you say so DVC?
You’ve already told us you are finite and fallible, i.e. provisional.
Next.
Jeff, hunting snarks comes after dinner w. the worms and feeding the squirrels, but before the brandy and cigars. Just wait. We’ll get there.
LikeLike
Cletus,
And a church with the divine authority and ability to infallibly define, identify, interpret, teach divine revelation does not entail they are generating new revelation.
Actually, the burden of proof is on you to prove this, given the precedent. Before Jesus, only the prophets infallibly defined, identified, interpreted, and taught divine revelation and while doing so they gave new revelation. With Jesus and the Apostles you have the same thing. What is odd is this claim that Rome infallibly does everything you want it to do without generating new revelation. Even odder is that it does it without the same kind of Apostolic and prophetic inspiration that made the Apostles and prophets infallible.
I mean, it’s nice to have a theory that you need an infallible identifier of revelation that is not a generator of new revelation for the warrant of faith, but once you start looking at what your side has infallibly identified as revelation, the actual evidence doesn’t match your theory. Jesus expected the Jews to believe lots of things that had never been infallibly identified as revelation. Rahab had faith based on fallible reports of miracles and fallible claims made by spies. And the list goes on.
LikeLike
… And also who were not sacramentally authorized. Robert, you mentioned the spies. I’ve talked before about Balaam’s donkey as well as Amos.
Here’s another:
— 2 Chr 35
Apparently, authority is not even necessary for speaking infallibly…
LikeLike
James Young,
So you’re in Timothy’s church and he starts to preach and you leave for Rome because he’s only doing what Paul told him to do — who didn’t run it by the bishop of Rome.
LikeLike
James Young, “Divine revelation is infallible, by definition. Protestant churches/bodies/confessions teachings are not offered as infallible, but provisional and subject to revision.”
Could you put that to a tune? We might have an easier time remembering.
LikeLike
Jeff, James Young’s position is better (because he says so) because his doctrine develops and yours is only subject to revision.
LikeLike
Brandon, come on. It’s either the papacy or Descartes. That binary is subject to development, of course, depending on who’s teaching the next epistemology seminar.
LikeLike
Darryl,
A tune you say.
LikeLike
@cvd
” That’s obviously debateable. And further, you already agree the teaching that “this writing is limited to the books in the Protestant canon” is supposed to be treated differently”
Of course. I thought the point was to grant one another’s systems and ask who was on firmer ground. Obviously if all council definitions are conditional on scripture, identification of scripture must be treated differently and that difference is spelled out in wcf 1.
I remain at a loss as to what an infallible middle man brings. He is neither necessary or sufficient. You keep asserting otherwise as if this point we are debating is self evident. It is clearly not.
LikeLike
@dgh Funny. The first seminar I attended in grad school was presented by Fr.Ernan McMullin on whether Decartes was a closeted atheist. He concluded know and was quite a fan.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Divine revelation is infallible.
Protestant confessions make no claim to be divine revelation,
therefore it is no problem that Protestant confessions are fallible.
Divine revelation is infallible.
The Magisterium does not claim to be divine revelation (says you)
Therefore, RC confessions are fallible.
Or:
Divine revelation is infallible.
Roman Catholic confessions are divine revelation.
Therefore, RC confessions are infallible.
You really need to come out and say that the Magisterium IS divine revelation. It’s really the only way your argument is consistent.
LikeLike
I start with the authority doing the identifying/defining/teaching. A “system” as I explicitly called out is not “me” or “you” or “our understanding”.
Oops, missed that DVC.
IOW your understanding is not systematic in any way?
I never could have guessed.
Hey, wait a minute. The Roman system is all about deny, deny, deny.
That’s not you though, right?
You sure?
LikeLike
CVD: And why are we at 100% now? In all your previous statements, you say things like “highly likely”, “99%”, and “An inductively derived proposition with 99.9999% confidence … is not certain”. But now we see 100%? I thought “If 99.9% is not good enough for you, then I have bad news” – is 100% better now?
Because I was lazy and didn’t want to say that 100% is a limit point of an open set. If I had, would that have made a difference?
CVD: So is your statement that “cows cannot jump over the moon” subject to revision?
It’s fallible. I can’t forsee any possible way that it would be revised. Can you? Do you want to suggest a way that cows might jump over the moon? Are you arguing for moon-jumping cows? Or are you arguing for divine revelation concerning cows?
CVD: Do you assert you might be wrong on it? Is it a 0%, 50%, 99%, or 100% certainty? What’s the mechanism for deriving this percentage of certainty? Are those who don’t share your percentage of certainty for a given statement irrational?
Fair question. Start here
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 9, 2015 at 9:52 pm | Permalink
Jeff, James Young’s position is better (because he says so) because his doctrine develops and yours is only subject to revision
in addition to a logic course Dr. Hart sorely needs a dictionary
LikeLike
Joel
Posted December 9, 2015 at 4:32 pm | Permalink
“When you have some of your guys arguing that the faith in the ressurrection of Jesus Christ is only based on our ability to grasp the information provisionally, then I am shocked that more of you don’t jump in quickly to correct that grave error.”
Hmm, I’ve never heard any Reformed person argue that humans are unable to err in our thinking about anything. Now, on the other hand, I do remember being badgered as an evangelical about whether I was 100% certain about everything I believe, not just 99%. “If you are only 99% certain, then you don’t understand the Gospel.” Are you sure you aren’t confusing us with the pray-Jesus-into-your-heart people?>>>>>
Joel. Focus. What about the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Is the Holy Spirit able to infallibly communicate the Gospel to regenerate human beings such that they are enabled to believe infallibly? Think of infallible as unable to fail. Relate what I am saying to your soteriology.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 9, 2015 at 7:22 pm | Permalink
CVD, Mermaid, TVD:
Cletus linked to this article that discusses skepticism, perception, and more.
Questions:
(1) Do you agree with the article in toto?
(2) Do you believe that this theory of perception is necessary for Catholic theology?>>>>>
Is there anyone in Protestantism who you can quote saying the same things you say? The other side quotes Augustine and Aquinas, but all you seem to do is claim to be misunderstood.
Can you put this in anybody else’s words that might make more sense to people?
Jeff, I didn’t read the whole article, but the part about skepticism caught my eye. I think it might apply to what you are arguing about with the bats flying out of my nose.
I lean towards calling the application of an epistemology of provisional knowledge “unbelief” when applied to the resurrection.
I can see how your epistemology pretty much has to be the one that science uses to gather information.
I can see that in many matters its use could be neutral, even. Not everything is equally important even in matters of Christian faith and practice.
I get the feeling that it is an epistemology that is stretched past its useful limits when applied to essential doctrines. You can’t believe everything provisionally. People don’t really function that way anyway.
LikeLike
b, sd, “I remain at a loss as to what an infallible middle man brings.”
It gives you Bryan and the Jasons.
LikeLike
vd, t, so the Declaration of Independence was a development of the English tradition of listing rights, right? Odd how it was a development of doctrine that ruptured a political order.
You don’t even know the American creation.
LikeLike
James Young, Mark Shea has you covered (and figured out). You absolutize infallibility to prevent disillusionment:
If you keep repeating infallibility, you don’t have to reckon with the light show.
We’re here for you. Yup.
LikeLike
Mermaid: Is there anyone in Protestantism who you can quote saying the same things you say?
WCF 1.7: VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
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
WCF 31.4: All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both
You might also Google the van Til-Clark controversy, since you are interested in van Til. Clark argued in a manner similar to you that God’s truth must always be infallible, hence exegesis was always a matter of deductive reasoning, and the results of theology when properly done were infallible truth.
van Til argued to the contrary that human knowledge is always analogical, and that there are mysteries that cannot be fully understood, and that creaturely knowledge is always limited by man’s finitude.
In other words, van Til, while affirming inerrancy and the proper basic infalliblity of Scripture, distinguished strongly between Scripture (infallible) and our understanding of it (fallible).
Mermaid: The other side quotes Augustine and Aquinas, but all you seem to do is claim to be misunderstood.
I get that you like rhetorical flourishes, but that’s ridiculous. I have quoted Scripture, made arguments, quoted relevant Catholic catechisms, church fathers.
Please attend to ordinary truth.
LikeLike
Do any of the RCs here even accept that there is a basic distinction between truth and our apprehension/knowledge of the truth? It seems to me that somehow, at least in matters of faith, their apprehension of the truth becomes the truth itself.
LikeLike
Jeff: since you actually agree to the canonicity of every book in the Protestant Bible
diversion should cease from that to actual earnest faith contention
from this am .” http://www.gty.org/resources/devotionals/daily-bible “
Jude 3 contend earnestly. While the salvation of those to whom he wrote was not in jeopardy, false teachers preaching and living out a counterfeit gospel were misleading those who needed to hear the true gospel. Jude wrote this urgent imperative for Christians to wage war against error in all forms and fight strenuously for the truth, like a soldier who has been entrusted with a sacred task of guarding a holy treasure (1 Tim. 6:12; 2 Tim. 4:7). the faith. This is the whole body of revealed salvation truth contained in the Scriptures. Here is a call to know sound doctrine (Eph. 4:14; Col. 3:16: 1 Pet. 2:2; 1 John 2:12–14), to be discerning in sorting out truth from error (1 Thess. 5:20–22), and to be willing to confront and attack error (2 Cor. 10:3–5; Phil. 1:17, 27; 1 Tim. 1:18; 6:12; 2 Tim. 1:13; 4:7, 8; Titus 1:13). once for all delivered…saints. God’s revelation was delivered once as a unit, at the completion of the Scripture, and is not to be edited by either deletion or addition (Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:18, 19). Scripture is complete, sufficient, and finished; therefore it is fixed for all time. Nothing is to be added to the body of the inspired Word because nothing else is needed”
D. G. Hart If you keep repeating infallibility, you don’t have to reckon with the light show.
nor redivert to recall the further call: that by that faith, we are to grow in respect to salvation, grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ; grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; grow in good/evil clean/unclean discernment; grow in love
LikeLike
faith steadfastness and growth…so that…
our sons in their youth may be as grown-up plants, and our daughters as corner pillars fashioned as for a palace Ps 144:12
LikeLike
@ Ali: You and NooN are on the same page, and I agree. I’ve been looking for an opportunity to pivot, but haven’t gotten there yet. This bus has a lot of momentum, and I want to brake gracefully.
LikeLike
Ali,
too long for a bumper sticker. Try harder.
LikeLike
Robert, wait. You mean the participants in the graduate seminar in epistemology have to go back to Logic 101?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 10, 2015 at 9:13 am | Permalink
Mermaid: Is there anyone in Protestantism who you can quote saying the same things you say?
WCF 1.7: VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.>>>>
Why not explain how provisional knowledge relates to WCF 1.7, Jeff? That would be helpful. It is saying that Scripture is plain and clear. It is addressing the perspicuity of Scripture. The provisional part applies to the person, not the Scripture.
You are applying the epistemology of provisional knowledge to the Scripture as well. Now, maybe that was just Robert, but I think you argued this, too. We cannot be 100% sure that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. There exists a slight possibility that His body may be found someday.
That is a horse of a different color. That is where your epistemology fails. It is not the epistemology that the writers of the WCF were working with.
Theirs was the idea that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. WCF and other standards are good standards, but can contain errors and are therefore fallible.
You are making both rules fallible by saying that our faith in the resurrection may be in error.
Your epistemology of provisional knowledge becomes the infallible rule of faith and practice that governs both rules – the Bible and the WCF.
You are not just arguing that our perception of truth may be in error – which no one disputes, BTW. You are arguing that the Bible may have theological errors. You are, in effect, arguing that the Gospel itself may not be true at all.
Sorry. I cannot go there with you at all. No one should, actually, unless you take the resurrection out of the provisional category.
I don’t care all that much about your anti Catholic rhetoric. That’s just what Protestants do, and that is one subject that you do not allow even a hint of provisionality to color your thinking.
It’s just what you guys do. No problem. I get it.
You tripped yourself up by saying that we cannot be certain that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Now, if you did not say that, or mean that, then you really need to clarify your position.
LikeLike
D. G. HartAli, by that faith, we are to grow in respect to salvation, grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ; grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; grow in good/evil clean/unclean discernment; grow in love
too long for a bumper sticker. Try harder.
hhhmmm… how about something like (if you still have a somewhat long bumper)….
BELIEVE ( God that is)
LikeLike
or maybe…
SQUIRREL ! (let him tell you)
LikeLike
Robert,
I have said theres a distinction between order of being and order of knowing, between epistemology and ontology since the very beginning of this discussion. Your side has regularly conflated the two. Regardless, it is not just your apprehension that is fallible, you agree anything offered/taught within your system is provisional and infallible. Thus your disclaimers and rejection of the types of claims Rome makes.
LikeLike
Robert,
Typo above – should read “is provisional and fallible”.
“You really need to come out and say that the Magisterium IS divine revelation. It’s really the only way your argument is consistent.”
No divine revelation is divine revelation. The Magisterium – due to its divine authority and ability – infallibly identifies, teaches, defines, offers it. It does not generate or create or add to it. If a teaching, definition, identification is not offered as infallible, but only as provisional and subject to revision, it’s not part of divine revelation which we agree is infallible and non-provisional by definition. As JRC said, “So if we find something that is provisional, we understand that its provisionality is human, not divine.” In your system, there’s no way to distinguish that – everything is offered as provisional and remains such – since there’s no mechanism to distinguish divine revelation from provisional human opinion in your system or definitively and normatively judge such. If there was, Protestant churches/confessions/bodies would have done it. But they don’t, because of their disclaimers.
LikeLike
Sdb,
“Obviously if all council definitions are conditional on scripture, identification of scripture must be treated differently and that difference is spelled out in wcf 1.”
Okay so are all the starting doctrines I listed derived and exegeted from Scripture as you originally asserted, or are they not? If they are, they would seem subject to your disclaimers you say apply to all interpretation of Scripture. If they’re not, we treat them all as “properly basic”?
“I remain at a loss as to what an infallible middle man brings. He is neither necessary or sufficient.”
Within your system, those starting doctrines, including the extent and scope of the canon of Scripture – remains provisionally taught and offered. Because of the disclaimers to any type of authority or ability in your system to offer those teachings as non-provisional and infallible.
LikeLike
Jeff,
“Correct, but they are offered as good and necessary inference from divine revelation, which makes them relatively certain.”
“Divine revelation” which remains provisionally identified and taught in your system. “Relatively certain” is not the type of faith we see offered by those divinely authorized in the NT, or adhered to by its followers. “We’re pretty sure we’re right” or “It’s a good bet” is not the type of faith we see offered or adhered to in the NT.
“Theoretically, there is a danger that someone might place faith in a text that is not Scripture (e.g.: “They shall handle snakes”). In practice, this is rare. Snake handlers are a highly visible but tiny minority.”
And your church’s judgment that a particular text is or is not Scripture remains provisional and subject to revision. So there’s no reason that person should feel compelled to assent to your church’s judgment, since you disclaim any authority or ability that would compel him to care. Is truth now determined by majority? Who gets to count in this majority? EO and RCs are larger than Protestants, yet you reject their canon.
“You are vastly overstating the case. How many disputed passages? How many Protestant canons?”
So I’m vastly overstaing the case by saying “nor do Protestants themselves – hence the asterisks and disputed passages today and truncated/expanded canons of groups throughout history. It remains provisional and subject to revision.” Is it true or false Protestant bibles have asterisks and disputed passages? Is it true or false there have been truncated/expanded canons of groups throughout history? Is it true or false the identification of the canon remains provisional and subject to revision in Protestantism?
(JRC: “The boundaries of the canon might shift with additional evidence.”, “The canon is our best effort at identifying the Scripture. Its accuracy is provisional.”, “[The claim that] it is highly likely beyond any reasonable doubt that the Protestant canon is the correct identification of the Word of God … is provisional.”)
“A provisional system cannot infallibly define truth.”
Right, nor can it infallibly teach or identify divine revelation. All of its offerings remain provisional and subject to revision, by its own disclaimers to any authority/ability to do such. And since divine revelation is infallible by definition, nothing it offers can be guaranteed as divine revelation, by its own standard. As we saw,
“CVD: Further, can you give me an irreformable doctrine then?
– JRC: It’s hard to answer your question”
“CVD: Everything is and remains provisional. That’s not a “problem” for you. That’s fine, but it’s a stunning admission.
JRC: Stunning? Our “side” admitted that in 1647 at the latest. Where have you been, my man?”
“Until that time, Catholics did not have an infallible understanding of which books were canonical (again, in your system).”
And you just imported epistemology into the critique again and then your side whines about RCs not making the distinction. I don’t have an infallible understanding of everything (again – “faith seeking understanding” remember). That’s not relevant to the argument. As already pointed out,
JRC: It has been argued here by CVD and Tom and you and Mermaid that it is improper to place faith in anything known provisionally.
CVD: No its been argued it is improper to place faith in anything offered as admittedly provisional. Thus the contrast between RC and Protestant claims.
“If I had, would that have made a difference?”
So is 100% certainty needed for divine revelation? Or only 99.9% certainty? But “An inductively derived proposition with 99.9999% confidence … is not certain” – so is a 99.9% uncertain confidence sufficient, or a 99.9% certainty?
Is a 100% certain statement subject to revision? What does a “100% certain revisable-in-theory statement” mean to you compared to a “100% certain statement”?
“I can’t forsee any possible way that it would be revised. Can you?”
Robert can. We haven’t examined every cow in existence.
“Do you want to suggest a way that cows might jump over the moon? Are you arguing for moon-jumping cows? Or are you arguing for divine revelation concerning cows?”
I’m not arguing for the possibility of moon-jumping cows or nose-flying bats – your side is. (JRC: “Bats will not fly out of my nose. I know this — provisionally, but with great certainty.”). So apparently not 100% certainty.
Why does it matter if I’m arguing for divine revelation or not? You claim provisional beliefs and teachings subject to revision in matters both divine and scientific/natural. ““If 99.9% is not good enough for you, then I have bad news.” – is 99.9% good enough for divine revelation, but 50% is good enough for everything else?
So, again, is there any belief you hold as non-provisional? Or are they all provisional and subject to revision?
LikeLike
CVD,
This is where you continue to insist on false dichotomies. The Protestant cannot infallibly teach, but he can identify divine revelation (and he can also fallibly teach Divine revelation). This is not an either/or.
Your next sentence is again a conflation of ontology and epistemology. The church is not infallible in its teaching, but those things it fallibly teaches are infallible by virtue of what they are–God’s Word. Whether or not I’m (or the Church is) fallible or infallible God’s Word remains infallible.
All my beliefs are subject to revision because I am not infallible. I am curious though, what beliefs do you hold that are non-provisional and why?
LikeLike
Brandon Addison:
Your next sentence is again a conflation of ontology and epistemology. The church is not infallible in its teaching, but those things it fallibly teaches are infallible by virtue of what they are–God’s Word. Whether or not I’m (or the Church is) fallible or infallible God’s Word remains infallible.>>>>
The Word of God infallibly teaches that the bones or dead body of Jesus will never be found because Jesus Christ died for our sins, rose from the dead, and appeared to many. That is Paul’s Gospel.
Do you agree? Fallible or infallible? Provisional or definite? Reformable or irreformable?
LikeLike
Cletus,
Robert can.
Actually, I cannot foresee a cow jumping over the moon based on my present experience. I can foresee theoretical eventualities in which a cow could jump over the moon, starting with embracing RC Darwinism and hypothesizing that there might one day occur a genetic mutation that allows cows to possess everything they would need to jump over the moon. Because I cannot absolutely rule out that possibility, or the possibility that cows are just figments of my imagination, or the possibility that Cletus is really a highly evolved and intelligent cow who is capable of space flight, or…. my affirmation that cows cannot jump over the moon is provisional/finite/subject to change upon discovery of more evidence etc. And this no matter how unlikely the scenario may be.
Induction can’t get you to certainty. Induction plus divine interpretation can. Which is why the motives of credibility are circular. You have to accept Rome’s proposal of them and Rome’s proposal of what they mean in order for them to be reasonable evidences for Rome.
We haven’t examined every cow in existence.
Correct. But we’ve examined enough cows to know generally what cows are capable of, and that is sufficient to say with confidence that cows cannot jump over the moon. And confidence is the standard for human knowledge of truth.
But that doesn’t make my knowledge that cows cannot jump over the moon absolute, which is necessary for me to say “cows cannot jump over the moon” infallibly.
So a Protestant can be confident/certain of true statements even if the entity that has made them is not infallible whenever it says it is infallible.
Infallibility is impossible without omniscience.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 9, 2015 at 9:52 pm | Permalink
Jeff, James Young’s position is better (because he says so) because his doctrine develops and yours is only subject to revision.>>>>>
The Word of God infallibly teaches that the bones or dead body of Jesus will never be found because Jesus Christ died for our sins, rose from the dead, and appeared to many. That is Paul’s Gospel.
Do you agree? Fallible or infallible? Provisional or definite? Reformable or irreformable?
LikeLike
Cletus,
I have said theres a distinction between order of being and order of knowing, between epistemology and ontology since the very beginning of this discussion. Your side has regularly conflated the two. Regardless, it is not just your apprehension that is fallible, you agree anything offered/taught within your system is provisional and infallible. Thus your disclaimers and rejection of the types of claims Rome makes.
But you aren’t consistent about this. You say fallibility = provisional/subject to change. But then you want to say that your submission to Rome is less provisional than a Protestant’s submission to his church and at the same you remain fallible. There’s a disconnect there.
There’s also a disconnect in the difference between what Rome offers and your reception of it. As Jeff has pointed out, you have several levels of fallible mediation between anything Rome infallibly teaches and you. Why that doesn’t affect you is beyond me especially since all Protestantism is saying is that the church is the fallible mediator between the individual and divine revelation.
In your scheme, the church, which is infallible, can work through a fallible mediator—your mind—to bring you to certainty of faith. So there should be no “principled objection” to the Prot. contention that the infallible God can work through fallible mediators to bring Protestants to certainty/certainty of faith.
IOW, if God can bring you to certainty by going through your fallible apprehension, why can’t God bring me to certainty by going through the fallible church?
No divine revelation is divine revelation. The Magisterium – due to its divine authority and ability – infallibly identifies, teaches, defines, offers it. It does not generate or create or add to it.
That’s what you say is true, but how the Assumption of Mary is not an addition to divine revelation has not yet been proven. It’s not in Scripture or early tradition. It just pops up, essentially out of nowhere.
But be that as it may, my point is that according to history, before the Apostolic age the only thing that was infallible was divine revelation. There was no infallible determiner. Even in the NT, we’re hard pressed to find them identify as infallible anything other than divine revelation itself. And that’s even if you accept that they conceive of divine revelation as being tradition oral and tradition written. So the burden of proof is on you to explain how something that is not itself divine revelation is now infallible as well. It’s reasonable to accept the infallibility of S and the possible infallibility of T but not the infallibility of the M given the history of God’s working with HIs people.
Within your system, those starting doctrines, including the extent and scope of the canon of Scripture – remains provisionally taught and offered.
And this is incorrect. The starting doctrine is “divine revelation is infallible.” You can jump in and say, but Prots haven’t infallibly identified divine revelation, but then you have to explain how that objection doesn’t invalidate your system can work or make it not be solo Magisterium if your church hasn’t infallibly identified divine revelation either. (we have no infallible delineation of T for sure, and M is questionable. A full infallible list of all orthodox bishops exists? A full infallible list of all dogmas that have been defined exists?)
And since you’re all about the claim, we can put forth many, many biblical passages that make the direct claim to be divine revelation, and that should satisfy your demand if you are arguing in good faith. Now granted, the Prots aren’t setting them forth in the same way that you are, but we’re still setting them forth: This text/book/verse claims to be from God and of divine authority. Therefore, it’s infallible. That should be enough to end “Prot can’t even offer one infallible dogma.”
LikeLike
Brandon,
“The Protestant cannot infallibly teach, but he can identify divine revelation (and he can also fallibly teach Divine revelation).”
So anything Protestantism offers as divine revelation is offered as fallible and subject to revision. So anything it teaches or offers or identifies as supposed divine revelation is “divine revelation” … until further notice.
“The church is not infallible in its teaching, but those things it fallibly teaches are infallible by virtue of what they are–God’s Word.”
And the identification and offering of something called “God’s word” by Protestant churches remains provisional and subject to revision. Thus saith the Lord … we think … for now .. we may have to drop it .. but we’re pretty sure we’re right.
“Whether or not I’m (or the Church is) fallible or infallible God’s Word remains infallible.”
Sure, if divine revelation exists, it is infallible, regardless of anyone’s apprehension. We’ve all agreed on that. But the following doctrines offered by Protestantism: Divine revelation exists, it is confined to writing alone, this writing is inspired and inerrant, this writing is limited to the books and current contents in the Protestant canon, this writing is the sole ultimate authority, this writing is perspicuous and doctrine is to be drawn from ghm exegesis, and there is no further revelation.
all remain provisional and subject to revision.
“All my beliefs are subject to revision because I am not infallible.”
So is that belief subject to revision? Is your belief in the law of noncontradiction and identity subject to revision? Is 2+2=4 subject to revision? Is your belief you exist subject to revision?
LikeLike
Robert
:Infallibility is impossible without omniscience.>>>>
Oh, I never knew this before! You don’t have any infallible rule of faith and practice. It’s all just an illusion. You cannot even be sure there is such a thing, since you can’t know everything.
After weeks, this is coming clear. All the attacks on Catholicism and Catholics is just a ruse, a smoke screen to cover up your own faithlessness.
Do your people know this?
LikeLike
“…ARE just a ruse…”
LikeLike
CVD, you do this “flurry of questions” thing that I just have to mostly ignore out of self-defense. Sorry.
I’ll pose three yes-or-no questions to you.
(1) Do you believe that there can be moon-jumping cows?
(2) Do you know this (your answer to (1)) infallibly?
(3) Do you know this by divine revelation?
LikeLike
CVD,
Protestantism fallibly, through the help of the Spirit, identifies the Word of God. Protestantism does not “offer” divine revelation, it testifies to it.
In theory, Protestants believe that it is theoretically possible that they’ve not accurately understood or represented the Word of God. It’s theoretically possible The Gospel of Thomas is divinely inspired. It’s also almost certainly not divinely inspired and the MOC provide rationale why.
No one said that God’s revelation is confined to writing alone–ever. We believe that God has spoken and continues to speak in the Word through His Spirit. The Word of God is confined to the Apostolic writings, which are the books included in the canon accepted widely throughout the church. I do believe, apparently in distinction from you, that communicative discourse is perspicuous and that doctrine can be drawn from Scripture (not necessarily GHM exegesis). Protestants agree with Rome and the Orthodox that the apostolic period of revelation has ceased and that we are bound to obey and reverence God’s revelation in the Apostolic Deposit. This Deposit, however, continues in a living voice through the Spirit. These affirmation are fallible, even though they are correct (IMO) and based on the Word of God.
Here is where we get back to Wittgenstein. Ordinary incredulity assumes certain things–as Plantinga may say, at a properly basic level–in order to doubt others. I’m willing, however, at least in theory, to believe that my understanding of these truths can be sharpened and that I do not *know* them infallibly.
Once more, can you explain those things that you know infallibly?
LikeLike
Brandon: Protestantism does not “offer” divine revelation, it testifies to it.
That’s a really good point.
— John 1.6-8
John knew the difference between Jesus and himself.
LikeLike
Mermaid, the Bible infallibly teaches the sun stood still. Provisional or definite?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 10, 2015 at 4:35 pm | Permalink
Brandon: Protestantism does not “offer” divine revelation, it testifies to it.
That’s a really good point.
There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
— John 1.6-8
John knew the difference between Jesus and himself.>>>>>
How can you say that, Jeff? Don’t you have to say something like, “Based on all the evidence I have been able to gather, I can say with 99.9999% certainty that John knew the difference between Jesus and himself”?
Shouldn’t we be reading everything you say in that light, even when you make statements that sound absolutist? You have to back it up and start with, “Based on all I have read, I can say with 99.999% certainty that John wrote the Gospel of John.” Or back it up even more, “I can say with 99.9999% certainty that John existed.” Ditto, …that Jesus existed. Ditto, that God exists. Ditto, that I exist. Ditto, that cows don’t just over moons. Ditto that bats don’t fly out of people’s noses. Ditto that words have meaning. Ditto that what I saw can be understood by another reasonable person like I am. etc. on into infinity. Ditto that there is such a thing as infinity. Ditto that there is such a thing as doubting infinity. etc., etc., etc.
You may or may not have an infallible rule of faith and practice. It may be infallible… and on and on it goes.
Once you accept the epistemology of provisional knowledge, there’s no stopping it as far as I can see.
Do you believe that the dead body of Jesus could be found, or His bones?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 10, 2015 at 4:51 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, the Bible infallibly teaches the sun stood still. Provisional or definite?>>>>
Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Provisional or definite? , Brother Hart, confess your faith in the Gospel.
The Church teaches the miracle of the sun standing still to be part of Israel’s history. I hope your church teaches that, too.
LikeLike
Mermaid,
Oh, I never knew this before! You don’t have any infallible rule of faith and practice. It’s all just an illusion. You cannot even be sure there is such a thing, since you can’t know everything.
I don’t have absolute knowledge of anything. If I did, I would be God. Only God knows every fact and the complex fact and interpretative relationships between all facts. Only God will ever be able to know all that. Only God knows all possible worlds. Only God knows the full range of what is possible and impossible. That is what omniscience means.
The fact that I have no absolute knowledge or that it’s theoretically possible for my mind not to be working properly at any given time or that I haven’t seen all the evidence or .. does not mean that I cannot have knowledge or certainty. If it did, then none of us could have certainty. Our senses fool us at times. Our minds fool us at times. We’re affected by sin, and even if we weren’t, we are still subject to limitations because we are finite.
All that means is that if any of us want actually not to be fideists, our beliefs are at least theoretically provisional and open to correction by evidence. And thus, our submission to them is at least theoretically provisional. There’s no way around that short of seeing God face to face.
That our beliefs are at least theoretically provisional and open to correction by evidence does not mean said evidence exists or that we are continually in doubt. What it does mean is that what gives us certainty/assurance/confidence is finally not a claim but the confirming work of the Holy Spirit who can work through fallible means—like our minds—to confirm faith. That work is not the Mormon bosom-burning but works in and through objective evidences that have their meaning and point to God by virtue of the meaning He assigns to them. Since God can do that on an individual level—which he MUST do even if Rome’s claims are true, since the individual RC still only has fallible access through his mind to the infallible church and its teaching—then there is no principled reason why He can’t work through a fallible church to give us certainty.
After weeks, this is coming clear. All the attacks on Catholicism and Catholics is just a ruse, a smoke screen to cover up your own faithlessness.
Do your people know this?
I’m sorry. I’ve tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you are too rational to be crazy and you’ve been corrected from many different people in many different ways. I can conclude no other than that you are lying and not even making an attempt at good-faith dialogue. I don’t think anyone is fooled anymore by your “brother this” or “brother that.”
LikeLike
Thanks again, Robert and Jeff and Brandon (and, the cat interlocutors) for taking on the discussion enterprise here. It’s been helpful and illuminated key points.
Fwiw, it seems to me that faith and reason work together, but they aren’t the same. What’s wrong with affirming two separate things: 1) “by faith I believe with 100% certainty that Christ was raised”, and 2) “I’m fallible and not omniscient”.
LikeLike
Publius,
1) “by faith I believe with 100% certainty that Christ was raised”, and 2) “I’m fallible and not omniscient”.
Absolutely nothing. RCs are the ones affirming the certitude of faith, not charging it as illegitimate and impossible.
LikeLike
Petros,
Fwiw, it seems to me that faith and reason work together, but they aren’t the same. What’s wrong with affirming two separate things: 1) “by faith I believe with 100% certainty that Christ was raised”, and 2) “I’m fallible and not omniscient”.
Nothing that I can see at all. It’s one of the reasons why the WCF places our confidence not in the church, or in evidences, but in the testimony of the Spirit:
V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] 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 does 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.
This isn’t the position RCs are outlining here. For them, the certainty of faith is based on immediate witness of the Spirit but on the claim of the church that the church is infallible.
Part of the problem, especially evident with Cletus statement that we believe “certitude of faith” is impossible, is due to meaning of “certitude of faith.” It’s still not at all clear to me what RCs believe by it. The best I can gather is that for RC, it means God cannot work through fallible means to bring us certainty AND it entails (at least for Mermaid) that certitude of faith means we can’t even theoretically entertain that we might possibly be wrong.
But as I said, if God can work with the RC to give him certainty wherein God must work through the fallible mind of a RC (and he must), there’s no good reason why he can’t work through a fallible church to do the same.
Except that it relativizes the church, and for RCism salvation really is faith first in the church and only secondarily in Christ. No confession says that exactly, but there is a long tradition of RCs talking about the church giving them faith and actually even believing for the individual.
LikeLike
Hi Robert,
“But as I said, if God can work with the RC to give him certainty wherein God must work through the fallible mind of a RC (and he must), there’s no good reason why he can’t work through a fallible church to do the same.”
I think that the answer is because when any person brings truth to another he is bringing only Catholic truth. There are no fallible churches. There is only one true church.
“Except that it relativizes the church, and for RCism salvation really is faith first in the church and only secondarily in Christ. No confession says that exactly, but there is a long tradition of RCs talking about the church giving them faith and actually even believing for the individual.”
🙂 yes. But it doesn’t relativise “church”. Jesus gave authority to his church. You should read Casey’s aricle at the CTC blog.
LikeLike
Mermaid: Once you accept the epistemology of provisional knowledge, there’s no stopping it as far as I can see.
You may be tortured by doubt here, but I’m not.
Certainly, your line of reasoning explains the appeal of Catholicism for you. The RC church offers not merely truth, but infallible certainty. For someone
made insecure by issues of human fallibility, this would have great appeal.
It has no appeal for me. First, because I am much more comfortable with identifying and living with uncertainties. It’s an everyday part of my job. Where you see every “might” as equally uncertain, I see that Matthew’s canonicity is sure and reliable, *even given* human fallibility.
Where you obsess over the difference between 100% and 99.99999%, I round where appropriate.
So we have a different set of life experiences, leading to a different evaluation of our situations.
Second, because I believe that the Catholic system cannot deliver what it promises. I will develop this shortly.
Third, because the supposedly infallible Catholic system had made numerous errors of fact, interpretation, and morals.
Chief among these is burdening the conscience with anathrnas over immaterial beliefs, such as perpetual virginity or the assumption.
Fourth, to be perfectly frank, is the immense irrationality and general bad behavior shown by some (not all) Catholic apologists. I’ve lived enough to understand when an interlocuter has hit a point of cognitive dissonance. He or she begins to flail, either repeating talking points or else losing track of the argument.
Bryan Cross hit that point when he dodged every request for a clear formal symbolic argument, and again when he refused to lay out his argument “because [we] just want to attack it.”
You’re at that point. You make wild and contradictory guesses about our beliefs and spiritual states (are we “faithless” or “brothers”?). You make up accusations without evidence. You ignore relevant questions and perseverate on trivialities.
All of this is evidence that you’re at a point of cognitive dissonance. And that’s fine and human. It happens to me – in fact, did earlier today over a problem we were working (neglected negative sign).
But in that state you are in no position to recommend Catholicism as a light to the blind.
In short, it is the behavior of some Catholic apologists here that pushes me away from the Catholic church.
LikeLike
Petros:
Fwiw, it seems to me that faith and reason work together, but they aren’t the same. What’s wrong with affirming two separate things: 1) “by faith I believe with 100% certainty that Christ was raised”, and 2) “I’m fallible and not omniscient”.>>>>>
Thank you. By God’s grace alone can #1 be true. Faith is a gift and it comes with a guarantee of certainty, sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.
In fact, to deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh is to side with the spirit of antichrist according to the Apostle John. Not sayin’ that anyone did that. I just think there’s some confusion among my beloved brothers.
LikeLike
Susan,
I think that the answer is because when any person brings truth to another he is bringing only Catholic truth.
Now actually I believe that in the sense that there is only one truth. Any truth that exists is divine truth because it finds its ultimate origin in Him and in His decree. 2+2=4 is a divine truth of general revelation. The Trinity is a divine truth of special revelation. Both of those require divine illumination of some kind in order to be received by the individual. Here I’m simply leaning on Augustine’s epistemology. Where truth is apprehended it is because God has made us to apprehend it and illumines our understanding. That’s Augustinian through and through.
So for me, at the outset, to suggest that there is a radically different way in which God imparts truth to us such that to discover truth we absolutely need someone to declare: “This here is infallible” doesn’t make any sense to me. The only difference that I can see is that because of the fall, we are opposed to some truths (basically, whatever would say we aren’t lords of our lives) but not to others (those we can readily embrace without having to bow the knee to Christ). But there, the difference in God convincing us has nothing to do with the fact that one set is set forth infallibly and one isn’t. The difference is in God reaching in and regenerating us, changing us so that we submit to that first set of truths we naturally oppose. I’m not even sure that convince is the right word in every case, because I’ve seen people hear special revelation, acknowledge that it is true, but then refuse to submit to it.
But in any case, to do this God still has to get into my mind and my heart through fallible means, i.e., my fallible mind and heart.
The Roman Catholic system proposes this:
Infallible God -> Infallible Deposit of faith (ST) -> Infallible church definition of ST -> Robert’s fallible mind and heart -> certainty of faith.
According to Rome, my fallible mind and heart is no obstacle to certainty of faith.
Protestantism proposes this:
Infallible God -> Infallible deposit of faith (S) -> Fallible church definition of S -> Robert’s fallible mind and heart -> certainty of faith.
According to Geneva, my fallible mind and heart is no obstacle to certainty of faith.
At THE most critical point of the system for the individual, the means/medium through which God must communicate to reach the heart and mind is fallible. Ultimately, all the infallible deposit, no matter what it is, has to be filtered through fallibility in both systems. But if there is no obstacle to certainty of faith when God has to get into my mind and heart in the Roman Catholic system, there should be no obstacle in Protestantism either. If God can get to my mind and heart though I’m infallible, there’s no reason why He can’t do it through an infallible church as well.
The only thing that Rome does is make one of the middlemen infallible, but since that doesn’t overcome my fallibility, it’s hard to see why that’s necessary or what advantage it gives ME at the end of the day. At best, an infallible church might provide more clarity (though I don’t think Rome actually does), but the argument isn’t that the clarity of the deposit is necessary for certainty of faith. The argument is that you must have a institution or person giving a declaration of infallibility to have certainty of faith.
So again, if God can give me certainty of faith in the Roman Catholic system even though he has to bring His truth to me through my fallible mind and heart, there is no reason why He can’t give me certainty of faith even though He has to bring His truth to me through a fallible church. The only reason I can see for denying the latter is that it relativizes Roman claims, which means that from a Protestant perspective, the real problem is an idolatrous view of the church. The argument being made isn’t really being made because we really need an infallible church for certainty of faith; the argument is being made finally because Rome needs me to think I need an infallible church for certainty of faith.
LikeLike
Robert,
“Actually, I cannot foresee a cow jumping over the moon based on my present experience.”
It’s not just limited to the future, it applies also to the present. You argue you must leave room for doubt and correction as to what a cow’s actual nature and capabilities are. Maybe they have the power now but just haven’t revealed it yet or they did it in the past and we never saw it. That’s why you also say things like “Maybe [Christ] just came to life through heretofore undiscovered natural means” and “No one has done enough research, and probably cannot do enough research to prove conclusively that the heart cannot restart three days after it has stopped.”
We haven’t observed all cows in existence, so it’s possible, though unlikely, that cows can jump over the moon by their own power, according to you. As Bryan asked, “can a cow, entirely by its own power, possibly jump over the Moon (i.e. achieve escape velocity from Earth, circumnavigate the Moon 240,000 miles away, return to Earth, descend through the atmosphere, and land safely on its surface, fully alive and intact) or not?” Your response “Based on all the evidence we have so far, it would seem that the answer to your question would be no.” The answer is just no. We don’t need to remain in perpetual ignorance about whether cows have this capability.
This type of thinking cuts through your entire argument. As Bryan pointed out, “if you don’t know whether cows can jump over the Moon, because you think we cannot know the powers of things or the limitations of their powers, then you do not know your own powers, and thus you do not know whether you are (by attempting to reason here), making judgments and inferences that far exceed the limitations of your intellectual capacity. In this way your skepticism is self-defeating, because it undermines the justification you could have for thinking that in the act of defending your skeptical views, you are not exceeding by far the limitations of your intellectual capacities.”
and “By acting as though you understand what I mean by ‘cow,’ without yourself having examined every cow, you yourself show that you are capable of knowing what cows are, without having examined every cow, and thus contradict your own criticism.”
“You have to accept Rome’s proposal of them and Rome’s proposal of what they mean in order for them to be reasonable evidences for Rome.”
Nope. That would entail fideism and presuppositionalism. That’s what you endorse by affirming “Reason isn’t a realm of neutrality” and “[Facts/evidence] are meaningless without interpretation and chiefly without God’s interpretation of them”. That position entails no one can actually abuse or misuse reason because our presuppositions bias our reason and we can’t escape those presuppositions, and thus no evidence could reshape our expectations, nor would we ever change or correct our preconceived notions based on discoveries – “discoveries” would always match what we expected to discover. Because someone reasons incorrectly, defectively, poorly, or is uninformed does not entail reason is biased.
As I said earlier, “If that were true [the two affirmations cited from you above], then there would be no rational way to adjudicate between competing truth claims.” To which you replied “That does not follow. The rational way is to find the interpretation that explains the evidence at hand.” And how does one find the “interpretation that explains the evidence” if our reason used in finding that “interpretation” is biased by our presuppositions which we cannot escape according to you? The only way to escape them is a fideistic leap – http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2008/01/presuppositionalism-fideism-built-on.html
Any debate between two positions is stalemated and any “truth” is just randomly stumbled blindly into. As Joshua pointed out to you in the CtC thread that apparently never stuck, “Either way, if our presuppositions determine how the evidence is read (despite or apart from reason) it boils every decision we make down to a type of fideism, because any system I choose cannot really be objectively measured in any significant way by reason and must be determined solely by my presupposition.”
“The validity of the evidence (the motives of credibility) is not relative and does not depend on such and such a person accepting them for them to be valid.”
“Your argument seem to be that ‘X is not a motive of credibility unless one presupposes it’ and then indicate that ‘trying to use X as a motive of credibility with those that do not presuppose it is unreasonable’ yet God uses X as a motive of credibility, with the threat of extra punishment, for even those that do not presuppose it (the Jews, for example, that did not presuppose the Apostolic interpretation of the miracles). Do you not see the problem?”
“Do people reject the ‘motives of credibility’ such as miracles because of their presuppositions? Sure, I don’t think anyone would deny that. However, that does not make the rejection reasonable at all (let alone equally reasonable with acceptance) because the evidence is still valid regardless of one’s interpretative perspective. An Atheist, for example, could say (and they do) that ‘those hundreds of people that saw the ‘resurrected’ Jesus could have just had a mass hallucination’ but just because he says such a thing does mean that this assertion is equally reasonable simply because it is asserted, or because millions of people believe this, or even because it is theoretically possible for 500 people to hallucinate at the same time. If it were equally reasonable to conclude that it was a hallucination rather than a miraculous resurrection, or that the resurrection, while true, proves nothing of itself then you cannot escape an implicit belief in total fideism (because what would be the deciding factor between the truth claims of various systems of belief? It could not be reason, because rejection of the evidence for one or the other would appear to be equally reasonable. Therefore, I would be compelled to make a blind leap of faith toward one or the other. I.E. Fideism)”
“You seem to say that the only way that one can ever arrive at an interpretation is presupposing that a certain interpretation is correct. This reasoning is itself circular because you have to presuppose the answer to discover the answer. Furthermore, how did you arrive at this conclusion about presuppositions? Did you presuppose it or did you conclude this through reason alone?”
“Is it possible that we make decisions based on presuppositions apart from reason, or that we can have our presuppositions obscure a proper grasp of the evidence? Sure, but I would argue that such a use of presuppositions are intellectual defects and not how we always function. I could presuppose anything; I could just assume that there is no God and no miracles and that the universe is simply incoherent or unknowable, but I do not make a reasonable argument in doing so; I only succeed in destroying my capabilities of reasoning (the very capabilities I claim to use).”
“While professing to be a Christian you accuse your own Lord of being unreasonable for appealing to that which cannot prove anything as if it could prove something. What do you hope to achieve?”
Bryan again,
“The presuppositionalist will say things like “only the God of the Bible can account for why reality operates the way it does.” This claim itself is derived from a process of reasoning that begins with first principles that do not include the claim itself (i.e. that only the God of the Bible can account for why reality operates the way it does). So the presuppositionalist himself reasons to this claim, without being “inconsistent” in this very reasoning. But then he turns around and accuses non-Christians of being inconsistent whenever the non-Christian “exercises his reason rightly.” Not only is the presuppositionalist therefore engaged in special pleading (by not allowing the non-Christian to exercise his reason rightly without being guilty of “inconsistency,” while the presuppositionalist allows himself to have exercised his own reason rightly without inconsistency in order to reach the conclusion that “only the God of the Bible can account for why reality operates the way it does”), but by reasoning to his claim without being “inconsistent” in this very reasoning, he shows that doing so is possible, and therefore refutes his own accusation against the non-Christian.”
And in reply to your “They are meaningless without interpretation and chiefly without God’s interpretation of them.”:
“Yet somehow the presuppositionalist is able to reach this very “interpretation,” (i.e. that things are meaningless without interpretation) without presupposing “God’s interpretation.” The presuppositionalist first, without the God’s eye point of view, reasons to the conclusion that there can be no authentic reasoning without having the God’s eye point of view, and then promulgates his conclusion as though it is the result of authentic reasoning.”
“Induction plus divine interpretation can. ”
According to you, induction plus divine interpretation might possibly give you certainty. Or it might possibly not.
“But we’ve examined enough cows to know generally what cows are capable of, and that is sufficient to say with confidence that cows cannot jump over the moon. And confidence is the standard for human knowledge of truth.”
Have you examined enough philosophies and humans and knowledge to say with confidence that confidence is the standard for human knowledge of truth?
“Infallibility is impossible without omniscience.”
Is that statement infallible? Is the statement 2+2=4 an infallible one? Is the statement the law of noncontradiction is true an infallible one? Were the biblical writers omniscient when penning Scripture?
As Bryan told you, “The philosophical mistake in your argument is making God’s way of knowing something, the standard for what counts as knowledge in humans. Hence, since we cannot know the way God knows, then (according to your reasoning) we humans cannot know anything at all. Thus skepticism. The mistake there is in the very first premise. Humans can and do attain knowledge, even if they do not know in the way God does. Our inability to know as God knows does not mean that we cannot attain knowledge, including the knowledge of the essences of things, or that we cannot attain certainty, or that our knowledge is always “provisional and fallible.” Skepticism does not justifiably follow from the truth that humans cannot know just as God knows.”
LikeLike
OK, so I apologize for a post dump to follow. I’ve been working on the analysis of the Catholic system by its own axioms, and I want to put this out there and then frankly retire the field. Job, family, church all call.
—
So it’s time to formally engage in CVD’s thought experiment, which is stated as Given the premises of the Catholic system or the Protestant system, which believer is in a better epistemic position if the claims of his respective system are true?
[Pronoun note: I am incorrigible in my insistence that “he” is a proper gender-inclusive noun. Accordingly, this post will use “he” to include Mermaid and Ali as well as Tom and Robert. Just search and replace with “xe” if this offends.]
CVD believes that the Protestant is never justified in any faith claim. For while a Protestant affirms that Scripture is the word of God, the Protestant must first answer some meta-questions about the Scripture:
* Does the word of God even exist?
* Which books are canonical?
* Who has the authority to offer up infallible interpretation of those books?
Because the Protestant cannot offer infallible answers to those questions, and freely admits this fact, CVD asserts that the Protestant cannot be justified in treating the word of God as infallible (since he cannot infallibly identify any particular book as “the word of God.”)
CVD believes this is a defeater for the Protestant position, and offers up instead the Catholic system in which the teaching of the Church is offered as infallible teaching, believed by faith on the grounds of the Motives of Credibility. The act of Faith leads to a supernatural and Divine freedom of the mind, the freedom of the children of God, the freedom from error and doubt, the full and perfect possession of the highest truth in the bosom of the Eternal Truth. (Scheeben)
This is not, however, to be taken as granting the individual believer the gift of infallibility.
So we want to investigate Catholicism on its own terms. Does the Catholic have better warrant for his beliefs than the Protestant?
I will take the following to be a subset of the claims of the Catholic system. This was previously agreed to here
Axioms 1-2. Beliefs fall into two categories: infallible = irreformable and fallible = provisional
Axiom 3. The ground of belief is authority. That is, proposition P is believed because of the authority of the speaker of P.
Axiom 4. The assent of faith should be given only to infallible = irreformable propositions
Axiom 5. The alternative to believing on the ground of the infallible authority of the RC Church is to be unsure about everything, which is logically equivalent to liberalism.
Axiom 6. Faith is an act of the will: One chooses to place one’s faith into X authority.
Axiom 7. Beliefs are arranged foundationally, each implying the next in logical order.
Axiom 8. For the Catholic, the [infallible] teaching of the Church is found in the Scripture-Tradition-Magisterium-triad
And to evaluate the effectiveness of this system, we want to now consider the epistemic position of Catholic using this system.
I intend to establish two results.
Theorem 1 Any Catholic who operates strictly by the Axioms 1-8 above cannot give the assent of faith to any proposition P because he cannot infallibly determine whether P is genuine STM teaching or not.
Corollary 2 Catholics do not in fact operate strictly by Axioms 1-8. The Catholic in practice bypasses Axiom 4 and gives the assent of faith to propositions that he deems very likely to be genuine STM teaching. In other words, Catholics use provisional (fallible) knowledge as warrant for identification of propositions to which they should give the assent of faith
I will prove the theorem and corollary, then illustrate with four examples in a followup post.
Proof of Theorem
Take any proposition P (e.g.: “Tobit is canonical Scripture”). Then
(1) The assent of faith should only be given to infallible propositions (Axiom 4).
(2) Only STM propositions are known to be infallible (Axioms 5, 8).
(3) Hence, to give the assent of faith to P, the Catholic must first establish that P is genuinely an STM proposition.
(4) Let P* : “P is an STM proposition.” (e.g.: “STM teaches that Tobit is canonical Scripture”)
(5) If P* is true, then the Catholic must assent to P. If P* is false, the Catholic must not assent to P.
(5) If P* has any logical possibility of being false, then P also has a logical possibility of being false, for if P* is false then P is not STM and is hence fallible.
(6) Thus, the Catholic must know that P* is infallible (no logical possibility of error) in order to assent to P.
(7) But P* cannot, in general, be infallibly known.
(7a) For Scripture can be misunderstood, so the believer cannot (of his own) infallibly say that P is a teaching of Scripture.
(7b) And Tradition has not been infallibly and exhaustively written down (and can be misunderstood), so the believer cannot (of his own) infallibly say that P is a teaching of Tradition.
(7c) And the Magisterium rarely speaks infallibly, and the believer cannot in any event infallibly identify when such infallible speech has occurred.
So the believer cannot say that P is a genuine infallible teaching of the Magisterium.
(8) Hence, the believer has only fallible knowledge of the contents of each of S, T, and M.
(9) Hence, the believer cannot (from Axiom 4) assent to nor affirm P*.
(10) Hence, the believer cannot (from Axiom 4) assent to P.
Thus, the Catholic believer following Axioms 1 – 8 can never give the assent of faith to any proposition P.
The Corollary follows from the Theorem and the fact that Catholics in practice feel confident assenting to a large number of church teachings. Given these two facts, it must then be the case that Catholics use fallible means to identify which teachings are genuinely STM, and give assent to those. But whether this assent is genuine Faith or “natural faith” (per Scheeben), they cannot tell.
In short, Catholics use provisional knowledge to identify infallible teachings, not knowing whether those teachings are in fact infallible teachings or merely teachings that appear to be STM.
Now for the evaluation.
IF the Catholic wishes to be evaluated by his own system, he gets a 0. For in all cases, the Catholic in practice gives assent to propositions that he does not know to be infallible, which ought to be disqualifying.
I conclude, therefore, that the Catholic evaluated according to his own system is in a much worse position than a Protestant evaluated according to his own system.
More should be said. Note how frequently Axiom 4 is appealed to in the proof. This is not an accident, for Axiom 4 is repeatedly used to show that the provisional P* is not a valid candidate for the assent of faith.
If we step back and examine the role that 4 plays (not only in my proof, but in CVD’s analysis), it becomes clear that
Axiom 4 is functionally equivalent to skepticism.
Since human beings cannot know infallibly without direct revelation, and since even direct revelation is subject to CVDs skeptical meta-questions, it follows that if Axiom 4 were to be true, no-one could ever give the assent of faith to anything.
Axiom 4 is the shrapnel in the oil pan, the flawed belief that has generated far more than its fair share of frustration, confusion, and even ill-will on the pages of this website. It has led otherwise sensible people to worry about moon-jumping cows and the canonicity of the book of Mormon.
Now, the Catholic reader might suspect a trick in the proof. However, it is logically valid. Still, since a Catholic’s experience is not one of total skepticism, so he might feel that the proof is in error somewhere. In fact, the reason that the Catholic is not a total skeptic is that he does not take Axiom 4 in its literal sense. The proof is fine; the problem is that the “Catholic system” that CVD lays out is not actually the real system Catholics use. Instead, Catholics use provisional means to identify STM teaching (that is, to affirm P*), then they use the fallible-but-highly-probable P* as the warrant for assent to P.
I will illustrate this below with four examples.
LikeLike
Let’s see how the logic of the proof plays out as the Catholic is confronted with some possible propositions to be accepted or rejected. For each of these, we will see that identifying the true STM teaching is a fallible process. So IF axiom 4 were true, the Catholic would be entirely unable to affirm the propositions. In practice, of course, the Catholic will not feel unable to affirm or reject. He will simply ignore Axiom 4.
Here are our example propositions. It would be an interesting thought experiment to have the various Catholic interlocutors write down and share (without looking!) their T/F/unknown reactions to each of the below.
P1: The book of Tobit is canonical.
P2: It is necessary for salvation to believe that Mary remained virginal.
P3: Protestants are probably not saved.
P4: Pastor aeternus (the Vatican I document defining ex cathedra infallibility) is the infallible teaching of the Roman Catholic church.
P1: The book of Tobit is canonical Scripture.
Is P1 to be believed? This immediately devolves to the meta-question P1*: “STM teaches that Tobit is canonical Scripture.” If the Catholic knows P1* infallibly, then he can assent to P1.
But P1* is not infallibly known, for two reasons. The trivial reason is that the believer must use the evidence of his senses and reason with his mind to evaluate P1*. If we pursued this line of reasoning, we would observe that if the Catholic reads CCC120 online (in which the canon is defined), it is still logically possible (albeit highly unlikely) that CCC120 has been modified by EO hackers to read a different canon than the genuine STM teaching on the canon. This is a kind of “cow over the moon” logical possibility, and it clearly is not productive to discuss it.
The more trenchant reason is that Tobit has not been universally accepted as canonical by serious students of Church tradition. Elsewhere we have noted that Jerome himself, as well Athanasius, and Cardinals Cajetan and Ximines, as well the standard medieval lectures Glossa ordinaria, all rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha.
Further, Tobit as previously noted has a genuine historical error. This should be impossible for a genuinely canonical book.
So what should the Catholic believe? Two possibilities:
(1) Athanasius, Jerome the translator of the infallible Vulgate, Cajetan, and Glossa are all wrong, but Trent hence CCC120 is the genuine STM. OR,
(2) Athanasius, Jerome, Cajetan, and Glossa accurately reflect STM, while Trent (not an ecumenical council!) and CCC120 do not.
The Catholic cannot infallibly decide between the two. Hence, P1* cannot be known infallibly, and neither can P1. This illustrates the Theorem.
In practice, of course, Catholics everywhere will almost universally opt in favor of (1), not because it is infallibly true, but because it seems the most likely. In other words, they use fallible knowledge as the warrant for deciding which authorities in the church represent genuine STM. Then they assent to those authorities (but not the other ones!) as presenting infallible teaching. This illustrates the Corollary.
Now, the Catholic might object here that the certitude of faith solves this problem.
In the Catholic system, the believer through the work of the Spirit believes in that which is true. Hence Scheeben:
The certitude produced by it is therefore Divine in every respect, and so absolutely infallible that a real act of Faith can never have falsehood for its subject-matter. (Scheeben)
Hence, maybe the reason that the Catholic accepts (1) and rejects (2) is that the Spirit guides him to receive (1) and reject (2).
BUT Scheeben continues:
The light of Faith cannot be misapplied to belief in error; nevertheless it is possible for man to mistake an act of natural faith in a supposed revelation for a supernatural act elicited by the aid of the light of Faith. Some external criterion is needed whereby we may distinguish the one from the other. Such a criterion is supplied by the Faith of the Church, which cannot err.” (Scheeben)
So it turns out that the assent faith, even with the work of the Spirit, is not proof against being in error BECAUSE acts of “natural faith” can be mistaken for acts of true faith. The believer needs the criterion of the Faith of the Church to get to infallibility. Which means that to know P1*, the Catholic would need a P1**: “The teaching that Tobit is STM, is itself STM.” Madness ensues.
The conclusion is that if the Catholic strictly holds to Axiom 4, he will be uncertain about P1 because he does not infallibly know P1*. In practice, no Catholic strictly holds to Axiom 4. Instead, (almost?) all Catholics feel certain about the canonicity of Tobit because by provisional means they decided that Trent represented STM teaching better than Jerome, choosing to dismiss contrary evidence.
P2: It is necessary for salvation to believe that Mary remained virginal.
Obviously, this devolves to the question P2*: “STM teaches that ‘It is necessary for salvation to believe that Mary remained virginal.’”
We’ve gone over a lot of this evidence already, and I won’t rehearse it all. But P2 does open up a new line of problem for the Catholic. As it turns out, for the Catholic operating according to Axiom 4, Scripture itself can never be the warrant for any proposition. The reason is simple: Scripture is not an infallible guide to its own interpretation.
So when the believer reads in Matt 13.55 that Jesus had four brothers named James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, he cannot infallibly infer that Mary had marital relations with Joseph.
The same is true when he reads in Matthew 1 that Joseph “knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.”
Despite this fairly clear statement, the believer cannot infallibly infer that Joseph and Mary had marital relations after Jesus’ birth (regardless of various linguistic arguments). In fact, because in the Catholic system, the Scripture cannot interpret itself, it can never be the warrant for any proposition P because the believer can never say “I believe P because the Scripture gives me infallible knowledge that P is true.”
So the STM triad is actually problematic when combined with Axiom 4. No proposition may ever properly be said to be infallibly derived by the believer from Scripture. One wonders the value of S in the STM triad.
But there’s another problem that P2 illuminates. For a Catholic might be persuaded that Perpetual Virginity itself is genuine STM, and yet not be persuaded that Perpetual Virginity is necessary for salvation.
It would seem that Constantinople II, the fifth ecumenical council, settles this issue:
If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema.
And as we know, anathema means judged “condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church” – Cath En. “Anathema”
So apparently, P2* is true – Tradition teaches that anyone who denies Perpetual Virginity is anathema, which means “condemned unless repenting.”
Except for one problem. Many within the Magisterium (priests, bishops) as well apologists (eg Karl Keating) teach that anathemas are not condemnations to hell, or that they do not apply to those already outside the Catholic church. In fact, the Catholic interlocutors here have denied that Protestants, even those who deny Perpetual Virginity, are condemned unless repenting.
So now it is unclear what STM actually teaches. Does the anathema of Const II mean that disbelievers in perpetual virginity are unsaved? Or does it mean some lesser sanction? Does the anathema apply to Protestants, which was an unthinkable option at Constantinople? Clearly one understanding or the other of “anathema” is wrong.
The Catholic cannot give an infallible answer to this question. Therefore, he should not give the assent of faith to P2*, hence not to P2.
In practice, Catholics appear to believe a wide variety of things about anathema. This suggests that STM is not univocal, which would make it impossible to infallibly distinguish genuine “infallible” STM from other fallible teachings derived from statements in Scripture, Tradition, or the Magisterium.
P3: Protestants are probably not saved.
As we know, this raises the metaproposition P3*: “STM teaches that Protestants are probably not saved.”
P3 puts the problem of interpreting the Tradition into sharp focus. The Baltimore Catechism, as previously shown, declares that it is very difficult for Protestants to be saved. This is church teaching and has every reason to be genuine STM.
— BC#4 Q121
So the STM is settled. Or is it?
For CCC 818 says, “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers…. All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”
These two statements cannot both be fully true – that non-Catholics are accepted as brothers in the Lord AND that for those not Catholic, salvation is extremely difficult. One of them is in fact wrong (hence fallible hence not STM). Yet both are putatively official summaries of part of STM teaching.
Accordingly the Catholic believer, lacking an infallible ability to identify the true Tradition here, cannot give the assent of faith to P3* hence not to P3 (nor, incidentally, to its opposite ~P3: Protestants are probably saved).
In practice, Catholics will choose whichever Catechism they are most used to seeing as authoritative and combine this with the teaching of whichever priests or bishops or encyclicals they believe to be genuinely authoritative. Provisional knowledge for the win!
P4: Pastor aeternus (the Vatican I document defining ex cathedra infallibility) is the infallible teaching of the Roman Catholic church.
P4 raises two very interesting issues. First, P4 itself is a metaquestion, asking whether Pastor aeternus is genuine STM. So we have P4*: “The teaching that Pastor aeternus is STM, is taught by the STM”
And the interesting thing here is that P4* is entirely unknowable. Where is the written record of Tradition? It doesn’t exist, which means that the Catholic believer has no infallible knowledge of P4*. Not only so, but Scripture is entirely silent on this matter. And although the Magisterium generally approves of P4*, this is not universal; in fact, the Catholic church split over Vatican 1 and Pastor aeternus (e.g. Dollinger).
So the Catholic actually has no infallible knowledge of P4*.
But also, P4 strikes at the heart of the whole Catholic project. The Catholic stands at the edge of a precipice here. Is it logically possible for P4 to be incorrect, that Vatican I was simply mistaken?
Yes, that would be certainly be possible IF Vatican I was not an ecumenical council. And sure enough, V1 did not represent the entire Church but only that portion of the church that accepted Vatican I and its documents (that is, NOT the Eastern Orthodox; NOT the Old Catholics). So the believer has a legitimate reason to doubt the infallibility of pastor aeternus — namely, that it is guaranteed to be infallible ONLY IF the acts of Vatican I are infallible, which is circular.
In fact, it is logically possible for the entire STM triad to be fallible, IF the believer has (1) Misread the motives of credibility, and (2) Misread an act of “natural faith” for true faith.
What is the conclusion? Because the believer does not have an infallible ability to understand Scripture, to correctly identify Tradition from that which appears traditional, nor to receive infallibly infallible statements from the Magisterium, the believer operating according to Axiom 4 above never has warrant to believe any proposition whatsoever.
The practical Catholic solution, of course, is to ignore Axiom 4 and to give assent to propositions that he deems highly likely to be STM teaching.
—
The real lesson here is that Axiom 4 is skepticism in disguise. It is a stinker, and has no serious place in a discussion of faith and knowledge.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 9, 2015 at 9:44 pm | Permalink
James Young,
So you’re in Timothy’s church and he starts to preach and you leave for Rome because he’s only doing what Paul told him to do — who didn’t run it by the bishop of Rome.
So one day in 98 AD: Master theologian Darryl G. Machen is sitting in the church Timothy planted but doesn’t like what he hears and what they do, so he goes down the street and starts The Orthodox Timothyian Church.
Semper reformanda, semper schismata. Just like Jesus planned it. His Church was never intended “catholic”; it was designed to be “protestant” from the moment the last apostle died–a every man becomes his own bishop, his own church.
It’s right there in the Bible. Dr. Hart will show his Old Life Theological Society flock, exactly where starting…now…
wait for it…
starting now…
wait for it…
Oh Lord…waiting…
LikeLike
Fourth, to be perfectly frank, is the immense irrationality and general bad behavior shown by some (not all) Catholic apologists. I’ve lived enough to understand when an interlocuter has hit a point of cognitive dissonance. He or she begins to flail, either repeating talking points or else losing track of the argument.
Bryan Cross hit that point when he dodged every request for a clear formal symbolic argument, and again when he refused to lay out his argument “because [we] just want to attack it.”
Ahem. I know it’s not nice to feed the trolls when they’re trying to feed the squirrels, but the question has been previously put – and left unanswered – as to why critiquing Bryan and the CtC was such a “big deal” at a certain bootleg OLTS mirror site, ScoldLifeTheological Society.
So for the sake of the broken record player and to evade the charge of negligence:
1. Bryan couldn’t answer the Mormon munchkins that came to his door and succumbed to apostolic envy, because our now ex-prot expert witness on protestantism was clueless when it came to the implications of the sufficiency of Scripture vs. the Mormon additions to the same.
2. Further as a self styled EPEW Bryan has yet to fairly present the Sola Scriptura paradigm. The “only infallible rule for faith and life” morphed into “the only rule period” and it was either a black and white contrast between the Magisterium and anarchic and solipsistic anabaptism. Subordinate authorities in the prot paradigm like confessions, councils and consistories were total no shows.
Neither could he ever admit, that Pauls’ praise of Scripture in 2 Tim.2 ends at v.17, “that the man of God might be perfect, <equipped unto every good work“, even what is the truth, true church.
3. Bryan wanted to tout stuff like “ecclesial deism”, but never mentioned, never mind rebutted, the ecclesial idolatry of Rome. IOW he wasn’t really interested in ecumenical equal time. That didn’t exist in his fundamentally smug, short sighted and self righteous paradigm.
4. With the addition of Tradition/History in Rome’s redefinition of Scripture, Bryan and Rome have to resort to cherry picking. There is no way that the ECFs everywhere at all times affirmed that Peter was the rock upon which the church was built and Bryan eventually plumped for ‘at least they don’t deny it’, i.e. a dud as far as the Vincentian canon goes. And then go off on the apostolic bones, toenail clippings etc.
5. Among numerous faux pas – for one, if prots err because the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is a legal fiction, then obviously Jesus must really sin because imputed guilt is also fictious – the epistemological one before this house also proved to be Bryan’s chief bete noire.
If prots can’t know anything about the infallible Word because they are fallible, neither can romanists truly know anything about the infallible church because they too are fallible. (One J. Stellerman refused to talk about it anymore when he was informed that if he wasn’t the infallible pope, he couldn’t infallibly instruct prots on their errors, even before they infallibly returned the favor based on the Word of God. Horrors, “that would presume the prot paradigm”. Whatever.
It was fast and loose dealing after this fashion with Scripture, history and reason that provoked not only a response to Bryan and the faithful CtC clones, but also the conclusion that they are frauds and failures as ex prot expert witnesses on protestantism; much more Scripture, history and reason, whether it be ontology, epistemology or logic.
Which across the board elementary errors should be kind of a big deal even if you are not a prot, but we ought not to underestimate the hubris and hypocrisy of the western antiChrist’s fanbois. Neither should we be surprised. Ignorance after all, is the mother of popish devotion, however much the RCC calls it implicit faith.
cheers
LikeLike
In short, it is the behavior of some {Roman] Catholic apologists here that pushes me away from the [Roman] Catholic church.
(I was gonna say avatars not attitude.)
But you’re just a [Reformed Catholic] Hater.
There.
Took care of it for ya, DVT.
LikeLike
Mermaid, once again, you’re wrong:
LikeLike
James Young, but Trent condemned Protestantism for certitude of faith.
Who are you going to believe?
LikeLike
Susan, catch up.
For Roman Catholicism, salvation is saving the world.
LikeLike
James Young, From Scheeben to Bryan? Seriously?
LikeLike
Thanks, Jeff.
LikeLike
vd, t, mock away. And that’s typical for when you don’t have an answer.
Just like the ladies, you say nothing about the light show at the Vatican, or 16th c. Vatican politics.
Crickets.
We notice.
LikeLike
Mechanism update. TVD, see if you can help this guy find a good lawyer. Probably a prot put-up job. No, wait — it’s the parishioners who are bringing him down.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3355569/Bronx-Catholic-priest-stole-1M-two-city-parishes-paid-rough-sex-hunky-lover-demanded-drink-urine-according-lawsuit.html
LikeLike
thank you for the work Jeff, Robert, DG, etc
this Paul has persuaded and turned away a considerable number of people, saying that gods made with hands are no gods at all. Acts 19:26
according to Paul’s custom, he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
… that they would seek the true God, (not one from the thoughts of man); that a person perhaps might grope for Him and find Him (through His agents – OT prophets, NT apostles (His word) and Spirit.
How blessed we are to see and hear, for many prophets and righteous men desired to see what we ‘see’, and did not see it, and to hear what we hear, and did not hear (1 Pet 1:10-12; Matt 13:16-17)….. our only boast – in the Lord!
LikeLike
Actually, what Jeff argued can be just as easily applied to the OPC, the PCA, all Reformed theology, and, well, everything.
It has “proven” nothing except that Jeff thinks there is an ever so slight possibility that Jesus Christ did not raise from the dead. We can’t know everything, after all, so how can we say with 100% certainty that Paul is right in 1 Cor. 15:1ff.
Which means we cannot know anything with 100% certainty.
Let that sink in. This doesn’t just refute Catholicism if you follow Jeff’s line of reasoning. It refutes everything and proves nothing.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 11, 2015 at 6:28 am | Permalink
Mermaid, once again, you’re wrong:>>>>>
D.G. Hart, let’s see how wrong you are.
The Word of God infallibly teaches that the bones or dead body of Jesus will never be found because Jesus Christ died for our sins, rose from the dead, and appeared to many. That is Paul’s Gospel.
Do you agree? Fallible or infallible? Provisional or definite? Reformable or irreformable?
LikeLike
Not so.
What I’ve proven is that IF axiom 4 were to be true, we could know nothing. That’s skepticism.
Since we agree that we do know things (Matthew is canonical), Axiom 4 must be false.
What I’ve proven is that your epistemology is in conflict with your certitude. It’s time for a new epistemology, Mermaid.
LikeLike
Robert,
“But then you want to say that your submission to Rome is less provisional than a Protestant’s submission to his church and at the same you remain fallible. There’s a disconnect there.”
Given Rome’s claims, when I fallibly submit to her authority, I am no longer justified in holding her teachings as provisional and subject to revision. Just as NT believers were not justified in doing so after submitting to Christ or the Apostles. Thus, the certitude of faith. The motives of credibility are not identical to the motive of faith, as I already explained in my citations to you and Jeff.
Given Protestantism’s claims, I am justified in holding any teachings as provisional and subject to revision. Thus the rejection of the certitude of faith. Thus, Protestantism’s disclaimers and WCF 31.4 and 25.5 and semper reformanda. Thus, the stalemate between two disagreeing Protestant churches – they have no reason to care what the other thinks or judges because both reject the claims to the type of authority/ability that would compel the other to care.
“There’s also a disconnect in the difference between what Rome offers and your reception of it.”
Yup. I don’t vulcan mindmeld with Rome. Nor did followers of Christ or the Apostles. Given Rome’s claims, what she offers is divine revelation, infallible. Given Protestantism’s claims, what it offers is provisional and subject to revision – i.e., not divine revelation.
“So there should be no “principled objection” to the Prot. contention that the infallible God can work through fallible mediators to bring Protestants to certainty/certainty of faith. ”
Okay, so affirm the certitude of faith and that you hold infallible teachings because you hold them on the authority of God who cannot lie or deceive. Only you never do that. You reject the certitude of faith. You affirm all teachings are provisional and subject to change. You affirm “99%” likely doctrines is the best we can do. You affirm semper reformanda. You affirm Christ might have been raised by natural means we haven’t discovered yet.
“IOW, if God can bring you to certainty by going through your fallible apprehension, why can’t God bring me to certainty by going through the fallible church?”
Why are you importing epistemology into it again that your side keeps accusing RCs of doing? Nothing Protestantism offers, defines, teaches, identifies is offered as infallible. Thus its disclaimers and everything is subject to revision. Thus its rejection of the types of claims to authority/abilty Rome makes.
“Even in the NT, we’re hard pressed to find them identify as infallible anything other than divine revelation itself.”
What? Christ and the Apostles were claiming to teach the Word of God – they weren’t claiming their teachings were 99% likely or a good bet. They weren’t telling followers “So let everyone in Israel know for certain that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, to be both Lord and Messiah! … until further notice”.
“And this is incorrect. The starting doctrine is “divine revelation is infallible.””
According to you, divine revelation may be possibly infallible. Or it may possibly be not.
Further, the Protestant doctrines that divine revelation exists, it is confined to writing alone, this writing is inspired and inerrant, this writing is limited to the books and current contents in the Protestant canon, this writing is the sole ultimate authority, this writing is perspicuous and doctrine is to be drawn from ghm exegesis, and there is no further revelation.
all remain provisional and subject to revision.
“And since you’re all about the claim, we can put forth many, many biblical passages that make the direct claim to be divine revelation”
And all these biblical passages actually being divine revelation, instead of being inauthentic or uninspired, remains provisional and subject to revision in your system. Just as cows might one day jump over the moon, the passages you accept as inspired – provisionally, for the time being – might be asterisked in the future. Just as the whole bible can be asterisked. Thus, Protestant principles baking liberalism.
LikeLike
Ariel, some have diagnosed your assumption as a quest for illegitimate religious certainty. And then it all flows out from there. Others have called it living more by sight than faith. This is the part where you swipe your tail.
LikeLike
Mr. Steve,
“Ariel, some have diagnosed your assumption as a quest for illegitimate religious certainty. And then it all flows out from there. Others have called it living more by sight than faith. This is the part where you swipe your tail.”
And why do you think it bad that people have certainty about their religion? I mean if i think,” well I think I’ll believe in Jesus and the bible until someone comes up with something else that might also be interesting”, isn’t living by faith at all.
Aren’t you certain about everything in the Nicene creed?
LikeLike
How does one confess what he isnt certain about?
LikeLike
It’s all a crapshoot. Pay a nickel make your choice. Maybe, maybe not. Whatev’s, just covering all the bases. Who knows?
LikeLike
They’re 100% certain they are not 100% certain of anything. They’re 100% certain that previous statement is subject to revision. As is that statement. And so on.
LikeLike
It’s probably all an alien hoax. They like to mess with us.
LikeLike
Oh Sean:)
But it’s still and honest question.
LikeLike
Susan, you wanna know where I got the ‘pay a nickel make your choice” line from? Come on, guess.
LikeLike
Susan, isn’t there a difference between infallible assurance and absolute certainty, confidence and knowledge? I don’t think you all understand the nature of faith very well, frankly. Faith inherently includes doubt. The opposite of faith is sight, not doubt. I have faith that Mrs. Z will stay faithful, but I don’t KNOW she will. It’s called trust. How do you trust someone about something if you already KNOW they’ve achieved it? Our faith hasn’t been consummated yet. We confidently trust it will be. Why isn’t that sufficient for you? How do you live a pilgrim life if you have so much absolute certainty?
LikeLike
Zrim,
The certitude of faith is perfectly compatible with walking by faith, not sight. The rejection of it is not compatible with the “trust” you claim is opposed to it.
Vat1:
For the divine mysteries, by their very nature, so far surpass the created understanding that, even when a revelation has been given and accepted by faith, they remain covered by the veil of that same faith and wrapped, as it were, in a certain obscurity, as long as in this mortal life we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, and not by sight.
Smith:
An instructive incident in the life of our Lord illustrates the nature of divine faith. The Pharisees, as is well known, were constantly rebuked by our Lord for their unbelief. They had seen, as others had seen, evident signs that Christ spoke the words of God; and yet they stubbornly refused to believe him. One day after they had made one of their frequent attempts to discredit him, he took a little child and said: “Amen I say to you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of heaven as a little child, shall not enter it.” The act of divine faith has more in common with the trusting belief of a child in his mother than with the assent of the critical historian. For the child it is enough to know that his mother has said it, and he believes on that authority. His assent is a prudent one, for he has motives of credibility which for him are sufficient, everything leads him reasonably to suppose that his mother knows everything and would not deceive him. But when he believes, he believes simply and solely because his mother has said it. He does not advert to the reasons which have led him to regard his mother as trustworthy. His belief is an unaffected and trusting homage of love to his mother. So also in the Act of Faith which every Catholic child recites: “O my God, I believe … because thou hast said it, and thy word is true.”
But although the certitude of faith is supreme, supreme as is the divine authority upon which it is based, yet the mind of the believer is not completely satisfied. Under the influence of the will it holds firmly to the truth; but within the truth it does not see; and nothing save vision can satisfy the mind. Faith is an evidence–i.e., a firm conviction–but it is a conviction “of things that appear not.” As long, then, as intrinsic evidence is denied, the mental assent is not spontaneous and requires the concurrence of the will. Hence it is misleading to compare the state of mind of the believer with the complete repose of the mind in a truth clearly demonstrated, or with the evidence of the senses. In the latter case there can be little or no temptation to doubt. The believer, on the other hand, precisely because he does not see within the truth, may be subject to many such temptations. But temptations are not doubts, and the believer is able by an effort of will to dispel them, to concentrate his attention upon the infallible motive of his faith, and thus to achieve a state of security from error as superior to that of human knowledge as the Truth of God infinitely transcends the fallible reason of man.
Aquinas:
Faith has the character of a virtue, not because of the things it believes, for faith is of things that appear not, but because it adheres to the testimony of one in whom truth is infallibly found.
Objection 1. It would seem that faith is not more certain than science and the other intellectual virtues. For doubt is opposed to certitude, wherefore a thing would seem to be the more certain, through being less doubtful, just as a thing is the whiter, the less it has of an admixture of black. Now understanding, science and also wisdom are free of any doubt about their objects; whereas the believer may sometimes suffer a movement of doubt, and doubt about matters of faith. Therefore faith is no more certain than the intellectual virtues.
Objection 2. Further, sight is more certain than hearing. But “faith is through hearing” according to Romans 10:17; whereas understanding, science and wisdom imply some kind of intellectual sight. Therefore science and understanding are more certain than faith.
Reply to Objection 1. This doubt is not on the side of the cause of faith, but on our side, in so far as we do not fully grasp matters of faith with our intellect.
Reply to Objection 2. Other things being equal sight is more certain than hearing; but if (the authority of) the person from whom we hear greatly surpasses that of the seer’s sight, hearing is more certain than sight: thus a man of little science is more certain about what he hears on the authority of an expert in science, than about what is apparent to him according to his own reason: and much more is a man certain about what he hears from God, Who cannot be deceived, than about what he sees with his own reason, which can be mistaken.
Cath Enc:
That temptations against faith are natural and inevitable and are in no sense contrary to faith, “since”, says St. Thomas, “the assent of the intellect in faith is due to the will, and since the object to which the intellect thus assents is not its own proper object — for that is actual vision of an intelligible object — it follows that the intellect’s attitude towards that object is not one of tranquillity, on the contrary it thinks and inquires about those things it believes, all the while that it assents to them unhesitatingly; for as far as it itself is concerned the intellect is not satisfied” (De Ver., xiv, 1).
LikeLike
Steve,
Are you saying that Hindus could be right?
Please of you would kindly indulge me: do you confess everything on the Nicene Creed certainty?
Ok have to pick this up later. I have to drive an hours distance to rerun books.
LikeLike
Clete, this works,
“Other things being equal sight is more certain than hearing; but if (the authority of) the person from whom we hear greatly surpasses that of the seer’s sight, hearing is more certain than sight: thus a man of little science is more certain about what he hears on the authority of an expert in science, than about what is apparent to him according to his own reason”
So, when my priest tells me to pay a nickel and make a choice, it’s even more certain. Priestly charism and all on top of that. The certitude of implicit faith, awesome.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted December 11, 2015 at 11:21 am | Permalink
Ariel, some have diagnosed your assumption as a quest for illegitimate religious certainty. And then it all flows out from there. Others have called it living more by sight than faith. This is the part where you swipe your tail.>>>>>
Given your epistemology, you cannot be 100% certain that there was a Jesus, that He rose from the dead, that there ever existed a disciple named Thomas, that Jesus had a body with nail prints, and so forth.
See how the uncertainty piles up and undermines faith? No, I guess you don’t. It has for most of mainline Protestantism, don’t you know?
The only thing you can claim 100% certainty about is that you cannot be certain about anything. You try to call that faith. No matter how hard you try, it is still skepticism.
LikeLike
“you cannot be 100% certain that there was a Jesus, that He rose from the dead, that there ever existed a disciple named Thomas, that Jesus had a body with nail prints, and so forth.
See how the uncertainty piles up and undermines faith? No, I guess you don’t. It has for most of mainline Protestantism, don’t you know?
The only thing you can claim 100% certainty about is that you cannot be certain about anything. You try to call that faith. No matter how hard you try, it is still skepticism.”
This is roughly what I told the priest teaching ‘Historicity of Jesus’. For twelve weeks we pretty much had this conversation. He finally, pulled out his trump cards, “I write for the catholic encyclopedia, do the curriculum for the diocese, chair religious studies but most importantly, I’m a priest and we rolled the colored marbles and this is what we can know.”
I’m telling you this turning it over to the magisterial charism is the bomb. They got this. Protestantism just sucks in comparison.
LikeLike
sean,
For real, man! I mean, who knew that the Church had lost the true teaching on salvation for centuries unless we had
ProtestantismRome to tell us:http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/12/10/can_jews_go_to_heaven_vatican_reconfirms_yes.html
LikeLike
Brandon,
Okay, the truth that Christianity has and proclaims remains true even if people refuse it. On the flip side of that, if people do the good that God wants of them yet they dont know(yet) that Christianity is the fulness of faith and religion, they are still encountering and serving the living God. When Christianity is preached then they either deny, willfully or with invincible ignorance,what has been brought. The fact remains regardless that God loves all men and died for all men.
So Catholicism isn’t universalism.
LikeLike
Look, if you guys want to claim that you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, mostly, you can make an argument sola scriptura. I could help you with that, even.
sean:I’m telling you this turning it over to the magisterial charism is the bomb. They got this. Protestantism just sucks in comparison.>>>>
So, you can see it in a liberal Catholic, but not in the arguments your Reformed brethren present here? Amazing, sean.
Skepticism is what it is no matter where you find it. You can find it in the NT Church, even. You can find it all throughout Church history. It has infected mainline Protestantism, and now it is coming for you.
Hey, you can find it in the disciples pre resurrection. Even one of the 12 was the son of perdition.
How will you close the door to skepticism in your own group? First you have to see it for what it is. Then you have to reform it. Your foundation is shifting.
LikeLike
Susan, we confess the Nicene Creed by faith, not with certainty. It’s all in the prepositional phrase. Same with the Hindu question–I say by faith it is a false religion.
Ariel, right, I wasn’t there, I’ve never met Jesus. You speak as if you were there and have met him. You weren’t and you didn’t. Have been to the future as well? But don’t you understand that with absolute certainty you leave no room for faith? You don’t understand the point of the Thomas text at all.
LikeLike
Fishlady, it’s ‘The Amazing Sean’. And what I was bringing out was the radical skepticism of those with the priestly charism compared to the biblical faith exhibited by my protestant brothers, here, who rely on the eyewitness testimony of the apostles and therefore exceed the disbelief and doubt of Judas and Thomas. What you guys are shooting for is something else(beyond bibilical faith), but what’s laughable is that at the end of the day you hang it on the principled means of an institution who disagrees with you. Y’all aren’t so much amazing(that would be me) as gullible.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted December 11, 2015 at 2:13 pm | Permalink
Susan, we confess the Nicene Creed by faith, not with certainty. It’s all in the prepositional phrase. Same with the Hindu question–I say by faith it is a false religion.
Ariel, right, I wasn’t there, I’ve never met Jesus. You speak as if you were there and have met him. Zrim:
You weren’t and you didn’t. Have been to the future as well? But don’t you understand that with absolute certainty you leave no room for faith? You don’t understand the point of the Thomas text at all.>>>>
The faith that those who have not seen, yet believe, is the same faith that Thomas had by seeing. There are not two faiths, but only one.
See, you have not done your homework on Ephesians 4.
Ephesians 4:4-6Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
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 us all, who is above all and through all and in all.
LikeLike
sean:Y’all aren’t so much amazing(that would be me) as gullible.>>>>
Well, my alleged gullibility does not extend to the epistemology of provisional knowledge as applied to the resurrection of Jesus Christ itself.
I am not gullible enough to buy that. You seem to be, Brother sean.
Anyway, you have a holly, jolly Christmas. We had a lovely dinner party with family and friends yesterday evening and I have no doubt that a good time was had by all.
Come on over and have some cookies and fudge and we can laugh at one another in person.
😉
Hey, God bless us, every one.
LikeLike
“we confess the Nicene Creed by faith, not with certainty…. Faith inherently includes doubt.”
“the biblical faith exhibited by my protestant brothers, here,”
Let’s evaluate:
“So let everyone in Israel know for certain that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, to be both Lord and Messiah!”
“That you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. ”
“That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive”
“But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.”
“Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?”
“And Jesus answered them, “Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen.”
“And have mercy on those who doubt”
“Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?””
“Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. ”
“But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.”
“And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?””
“But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.”
“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever”
“If I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth”
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. ”
“And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.”
“reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments.”
“be united in the same mind and the same judgment.”
Hmm.
LikeLike
But Fishlady this goes directly to my point. If I polled everyone(exhaustive) at the dinner party I’m willing to bet not everyone had a good time or at least the time that you had. So, what you know for certaint you are in fact probably inaccurate about and don’t know with the degree of certainty you claim to have here on the interwebs. But again, I know what I know in accordance with Jesus’s expectation of surpassing Thomas and based on apostolic eye witness testimony. The higher critics say that’s inadequate and go radical skepticism and you say it’s inadequate and go pollyanna. You guys struggle with Jesus.
LikeLike
Mark 9:24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
There it is. Saving faith and unbelief, in the same package. The “saving part” is that what faith he has is in the True Object. The Word incarnate.
Unbelief, being sin, taints us all our lives. “Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.” 2Tim2:19.
You pagans with your blind and faultless certitude–in your Antichrist–are lost.
LikeLike
CVD: (cites Scripture showing that people who believe show certainty)
Sure. I have certainty. I ask in faith without doubting, when the Spirit helps me.
I just don’t have the idiosyncratic and logically impossible kind of certainty that you think you have, but don’t.
I have no problem with that. Meantime, my three questions are feeling lonely:
(1) Is it possible that a cow could jump over the moon?
(2) Is your answer to (1) infallible?
(3) Is your answer to (1) an STM teaching?
LikeLike
zrim –
Faith inherently includes doubt. The opposite of faith is sight, not doubt. I have faith that Mrs. Z will stay faithful, but I don’t KNOW she will. It’s called trust. How do you trust someone about something if you already KNOW they’ve achieved it? Our faith hasn’t been consummated yet. We confidently trust it will be.
Yes! What you said. Clear, concise, and on point.
But Mermaid’s argument is revealing. It perfectly illustrates the allure Rome has for those for whom Biblical religion is insufficient – the “already” isn’t enough, they demand to have the “not yet” right now. This one flaw too leads to Rome’s over-realized eschatology.
LikeLike
Steve and Sean( Bruce is rude and doesn’t deserve to be addressed),
The thing is Protestantism chooses to ignore the larger problem that there is confustion within the culture about what Christianity entails and so that is a scandal to the world, and something that is subtely picked up on by those within and without it’s many communion. It will take time but the day it suddenly hits.
Catholicism on the other hand not only knows that there is a crisis but is the only church that says it has a way out of the scepticism.
No wonder I lost my faith, I was simmering in a caldron of skepticism. Mark my words you will hit the same crisis I did…..you are right now munching down on those pills that will cause you to ask if you really are a brain in a vat. Because in your system it’s possible!
Can’t ever be ruled out, right?
The logical conclusion that many denominations brings is that no body has a clue.
Need a strong eggnog.
LikeLike
Sorry Jeff, my questions you apologetically ignore out of self-defense are feeling lonely as well. Guess we’re even.
I’m glad you have certainty – well, apparently not 100% certainty since bats might still fly out of your nose. You apparently don’t have faith according to sean and zrim, which is why my post quoted them.
“logically impossible kind of certainty”
The fact that humans are not omniscient does not entail the certitude of faith and non-provisional knowledge are impossible, nor does the certitude of faith entail one does not have faith seeking understanding or that we walk by faith and not sight, as has already been pointed out multiple times in this thread.
Publius,
You agree with Zrim? What happened to 1) “by faith I believe with 100% certainty that Christ was raised”, and 2) “I’m fallible and not omniscient”.
Zrim and sean don’t agree with you – 100% certainty is faithless.
LikeLike
Mermaid: Skepticism is what it is no matter where you find it.
Exactly. And we find skepticism in your apologetic, which is why you and Cletus spend day in, day out on a silly attempt to undermine confidence in Scripture.
Mermaid: Given your epistemology, you cannot be 100% certain that there was a Jesus…
Mermaid: you cannot be 100% certain that there was a Jesus, that He rose from the dead, that there ever existed a disciple named Thomas, that Jesus had a body with nail prints, and so forth.
Mermaid: According to you, divine revelation may be possibly infallible. Or it may possibly be not.
CVD: Without an infallible authority, there is no principled way to distinguish provisional opinion from infallible divine revelation.
CVD: Divine revelation is infallible as everyone agrees. So a system identifying something as divine revelation [if it was unclear, I mean not only the canon and nature of Scripture, but all doctrines of faith], then at the same time saying anything it identifies or defines is provisional and subject to revision and can only be at best “99%” likely or whatever arbitrary number you want to pull out is incompatible with the supposed ability to identify divine revelation – whatever is being identified isn’t divine revelation, by its own standard.
That skepticism is all blowing from your quarter, except that you try to pin it on us.
We’re not skeptical. We affirm the creed, the infallibility of Scripture, and the certainty of Jesus’ resurrection.
It’s your side that wants to come alongside and ask, “But how can you know without an infallible interpreter?”
It’s your side that confuses “provisional” with “uncertain.”
It’s your side that insists on the need for an infallible interpreter, without which the Scripture supposedly cannot make sense.
So continue in your skepticism if you wish. At the end of the day, I know that Jesus died and rose for me, and I rest in that fact. At the end of the day, I know that Paul told us to “test all things”, something that you are unwilling to do.
LikeLike
CVD: Sorry Jeff, my questions you apologetically ignore out of self-defense are feeling lonely as well. Guess we’re even.
If I were to pester you with 20 questions per post requiring long answers, then yes, we would be even. As it is, you need to give three Yes or No answers.
I don’t mind answering questions. I do mind being barraged.
LikeLike
Publius:Yes! What you said. Clear, concise, and on point.
But Mermaid’s argument is revealing. It perfectly illustrates the allure Rome has for those for whom Biblical religion is insufficient – the “already” isn’t enough, they demand to have the “not yet” right now. This one flaw too leads to Rome’s over-realized eschatology.>>>>
Is your faith the same as the faith of Thomas after he saw the ressurrected Christ or is it different? How many faiths are there?
Hint. The same number of “faiths” as there Lords, baptisms, churches, Gods and Fathers of all.
Nice try, guys, but the epistemology that you think takes down Catholicism takes you down. How do I say that? You applied it to the fact of the resurrection not just our perception of it.
Remember. It is not just our understanding that was said over and over again to be provisional. It is the event itself that was put in the category of provisional knowledge.
It may not have happened, whether I have faith in it or not. Get that.
Now if all y’all are comfortable with the resurrection of Jesus Christ being compared to jumping cows and flying bats, then you have another problem. It’s called blasphemy – treating what is sacred as profane. Check out your 10 Commandments and ask yourselves if that is a proper use of the Lord’s Name.
This Little Mermaid is not gullible enough to have your faith.
LikeLike
JRC: “logically impossible kind of certainty”
CVD: The fact that humans are not omniscient does not entail the certitude of faith and non-provisional knowledge are impossible
You didn’t pay attention to the theorem. The kind of certitude that you claim is impossible, because you are not able to infallibly identify which teachings are genuinely STM teachings.
Accordingly, you cannot know infallibly whether any given teaching is infallible. Hence, by your own criterion, you are never justified in giving the assent of faith to any teaching.
It’s a silly criterion, and you don’t even use it yourself.
LikeLike
Mermaid: Is your faith the same as the faith of Thomas after he saw the ressurrected Christ or is it different? How many faiths are there?
Hint. The same number of “faiths” as there Lords, baptisms, churches, Gods and Fathers of all.
More skepticism from Mermaid.
LikeLike
“We affirm the creed, the infallibility of Scripture, and the certainty of Jesus’ resurrection.”
Until further notice. “An inductively derived proposition with 99.9999% confidence … is not certain”.
“If 99.9% is not good enough for you, then I have bad news.”
“So if we find something that is provisional, we understand that its provisionality is human, not divine.”
“What provisionality means… For a Protestant, it simply means “revisable in theory.””
“For the Protestant, being authorized confers the right in the temporal realm to render judgment, but not the ability to define truth.”
“The canon is our best effort at identifying the Scripture. Its accuracy is provisional.”
“Translations are our best effort at rendering meaning. Their accuracy is provisional.”
“Exegesis and sermons are our best efforts at communicating meaning. Their accuracy is provisional.”
“I do have a problem affirming the “certitude of faith” in the sense you mean it. ”
“On the theological side, I think the kind of certitude you demand is really a demand for God to remove our “seeing through a glass darkly.” You want a kind of knowledge that we can’t have, yet have wanted since Eve was tempted.”
“Belief on the basis of authority is a logical fallacy. God Himself, who is omniscient and cannot lie, is an infallible authority.”
“Which is only a problem IF being able to “define or identify infallible or irreformable dogma” is a necessary condition for articles of faith. In the Protestant system, it is not”
“In the Protestant system, claiming to be able to “define or identify infallible or irreformable dogma” is not even possible for fallible humans.”
“CVD: Further, can you give me an irreformable doctrine then?
– JRC: It’s hard to answer your question”
“CVD: Then they also assert: “All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. …” Which of course includes the WCF itself and men behind it and Article 1. So the disclaimer applies not only to you, but to any confessional and Protestant church teaching, including any identification and interpretation of Scripture they offer.
– JRC: Naturally. Who’s on first.”
“[The claim that] it is highly likely beyond any reasonable doubt that the Protestant canon is the correct identification of the Word of God … is provisional.”
“CVD: Everything is and remains provisional. That’s not a “problem” for you. That’s fine, but it’s a stunning admission.
JRC: Stunning? Our “side” admitted that in 1647 at the latest. Where have you been, my man?”
I was wrong Zrim and sean – even your trust in God is a “logical fallacy” – no wonder you reject the certitude of faith – “Belief on the basis of authority is a logical fallacy. God Himself, who is omniscient and cannot lie, is an infallible authority.”
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 11, 2015 at 3:57 pm | Permalink
Mermaid: “Is your faith the same as the faith of Thomas after he saw the ressurrected Christ or is it different? How many faiths are there?
Hint. The same number of “faiths” as there Lords, baptisms, churches, Gods and Fathers of all.”
More skepticism from Mermaid.
Truth. You cannot deny it, or you’d try.
You have no way of preferring Calvin’s version of the Christian religion over Luther’s. It’s just a matter of taste, or at best the product of your own fallen reason. She SHOULD be skeptical of you.
LikeLike
Clete – I don’t who you’re quoting or from where, but I don’t believe that is me.
LikeLike
Jeff,
“The kind of certitude that you claim is impossible, because you are not able to infallibly identify which teachings are genuinely STM teachings.”
I never claimed the ability to infallibly identify STM teachings. I suppose this never sank in:
JRC: It has been argued here by CVD and Tom and you and Mermaid that it is improper to place faith in anything known provisionally.
CVD: No its been argued it is improper to place faith in anything offered as admittedly provisional. Thus the contrast between RC and Protestant claims.
LikeLike
Publius,
My bad – it was Petros. Got the P’s confused. I’m fallible.
LikeLike
Clete – No worries, I apprehended your imputation imperfectly anyway.
LikeLike
James Young, from church doctors to Catholic Encyclopedia?
LikeLike
Bruce,
“Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.”
Yup – unbelief and doubt is hardly being praised here or viewed as virtuous is it? Hmm. So we can just ignore what I cited in favor of your interpretation that doesn’t even make sense of the passage by itself, or we can take the interpretation that makes sense of it and the ones I offered. Scripture interprets Scripture right?
“Unbelief, being sin, taints us all our lives.”
Is this a conclusion you drew from your sin-riddled and depraved reason?
“Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.”
Maybe your interpretation of this is due to your presuppositions and sinful reasoning and thus should be rejected. Or maybe it isn’t. Or maybe it’s not inspired and should be asterisked. Who knows.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I know – it’s not NCR, but what can we do? Shrug.
LikeLike
vd, t, so how do you account for American forms of government over Spain’s? Is that just your preference? Or do you need a bishop to tell you that American government beats Spain’s? The Bible tells you?
LikeLike
So, Clete, you have a more infallible and certain understanding than the priest’s, some of whom wrote for the Catholic Encyclopedia, and NCR? Are you sure? I have doubts about your certainty.
LikeLike
Cletus,
No its been argued it is improper to place faith in anything offered as admittedly provisional.
Is your understanding that Rome claims to be infallible a fallible and thereby admittedly provisional idea or not?
Seems to me you have said on more than one occasion that your view that Rome is or offers herself as infallible is in fact limited in some way by your fallibility.
So if we take your argument down to the wire, you only know provisionally that Rome offers herself as infallible. And since faith includes some kind of content to be apprehended, Rome’s claims have to somehow make it through the fallible grid of your mind. That’s my point and that’s Jeff’s point and SDB’s point and everyone’s point.
You are fallible, and since you’ve “established” that something fallible can be no ground for faith, there goes your warrant. Based on your idiosyncratic notion of fallibility and use of provisionality, there is simply no way that you can know whether or not Rome claims to be infallible. Rome could be proffering itself as admittedly fallible and you could be completely wrong about her claims. It might be a remote possibility, but there’s nothing logically impossible about it.
What’s grating is the attempt to sow doubt into Protestant epistemology and certainty based on a church offering something fallible when you have to first filter whatever it is through your mind. And what happens with that is that if you are fallible, what your mind is offering to you in its interpretation/understanding is admittedly fallible. Remember, you don’t have the vulcan mind meld.
LikeLike
TVD
Posted December 11, 2015 at 4:05 pm | Permalink
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 11, 2015 at 3:57 pm | Permalink
Mermaid: “Is your faith the same as the faith of Thomas after he saw the ressurrected Christ or is it different? How many faiths are there?
Hint. The same number of “faiths” as there Lords, baptisms, churches, Gods and Fathers of all.”
Jeff:
More skepticism from Mermaid.>>>>
TVD:
Truth. You cannot deny it, or you’d try.
You have no way of preferring Calvin’s version of the Christian religion over Luther’s. It’s just a matter of taste, or at best the product of your own fallen reason. She SHOULD be skeptical of you.>>>>
Man, this is much worse than I ever suspected. See, the talk of the Bible being the only infallible rule of faith and practice throws a lot of people off. A lot of people think that means, well, the Bible is infallible.
Well, not the Bible you hold in your hand, you dummy. The Bible that exists in the mind of God. How could you ever think that you have that Bible.
We can get close, but not close enough to really call it infallible. It’s just a theory that we test over and over again and try to product a better and better product.
You know. Like Lake Woebegone’s Norwegian Batchelor Farmers. Pure, mostly.
Resurrection? They might find a body someday don’t you know? Don’t be so naive. You can’t know everything, so just give up on your silly idea of what faith being a sure bet. It is mixed with an element of doubt, always. So, get over it you gullible fool, you.
Detox mode working.
LikeLike
Mermaid, you wrote:
>>>
Hint. The same number of “faiths” as there Lords, baptisms, churches, Gods and Fathers of all.
>>>
One of those isn’t inspired, but critical to your faith system.
LikeLike
CVD: I never claimed the ability to infallibly identify STM teachings. I suppose this never sank in
I agree that you did not claim that ability.
My objection is (per the theorem and corollary) that you are inconsistent with your concession.
On the one hand, you admit that you cannot infallibly identify STM. So for any proposition, say, “Tobit is canonical”, you would admit that you cannot infallibly declare that “The church teaches that Tobit is canonical.”
I don’t begrudge you this admission. I think it shows honesty on your part.
But the consequence is that because it is possible for you to err in saying “the church teaches that Tobit is canonical”, it is therefore also possible that the proposition “Tobit is canonical” could be in error.
You don’t think it’s likely, and that’s fine. Using my system, I think you have good warrant to say that the modern RC church teaches that Tobit is canonical. Using your system, because “Tobit is canonical” is admittedly a provisional statement, you shouldn’t assent to it by faith.
But in practice, you do — because in practice, you say that your provisional knowledge of church teaching is no obstacle. “Tobit is canonical” is presented as infallible teaching, and you assent by faith to it.
But then, when you come to the Protestants, you sing a completely different tune.
I say, “Matthew is canonical.” You ask, can you, Jeff, infallibly identify Matthew as the word of God? I admit that I cannot. And where you gave yourself a pass on STM identification, you now pounce on Protestants with
“So the teaching that “Matthew is canonical” is admittedly provisional, so Matthew is admittedly provisional, so you shouldn’t assent to it by faith.”
I reply, No, Matthew is not provisional. My identification of Matthew as canonical is provisional.
And you start down the rabbit hole of foundations and authorities and 100% certainty.
This logic is 180 degrees opposite of the logic you used in your own case. In your own case, you argue:
* It is acceptable to identify infallible teaching (specifically, CCC120: “Tobit is canonical”) fallibly.
* It is no obstacle to faith to trust in provisionally known infallible teaching, even if it is possible that your provisionally known teaching might not actually be genuinely infallible.
In the Protestant case, you argue,
* It is unacceptable to identify infallible teaching (“Matthew”) fallibly, because the act of doing so renders the teaching itself fallible.
* It is impermissible to trust in provisionally known infallible teaching BECAUSE it might not be genuinely infallible.
You are engaging in special pleading.
LikeLike
Anyways, I’m satisfied and clear in my mind as to why the RC apologetic here needs to be rejected. It is logically equivalent to radical skepticism, and that equivalence has played out in the seemingly endless “how do you know?” and “by whose authority?” questions from the other side. So that’s that.
The real substance, as No-one has noted, is that RC teaching contradicts Scripture and the gospel in particular. This observation doesn’t require infallible knowledge to discern.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 11, 2015 at 5:08 pm | Permalink
Anyways, I’m satisfied and clear in my mind as to why the RC apologetic here needs to be rejected.
You’re satisfied in your mind you prefer the Reformation over the Catholic Church, Calvin over Luther , this version of Calvinism over that version of Calvinism over there.
Provisionally. For the time being, subject to change.
This is not very compelling witness, Mr. Cagle, nor can you give any reason for anyone to prefer your idiosyncratic preferences over any other set of provisional religious beliefs. It’s not so much that they need to be rejected, but there is no particular reason to accept your beliefs or even give them the time of day.
You’re far more definite about what you DON’T believe, but again, there is no particular reason to accept your disbeliefs either. It’s all provisional.
LikeLike
Right, Tom, but the point is that your beliefs … SORRY, the beliefs that you defend “for a friend” … are actually contrary to reason.
And that’s reason to reject.
LikeLike
Jeff,
What beliefs are contrary to reason?
LikeLike
Jeff,
JRC: It has been argued here by CVD and Tom and you and Mermaid that it is improper to place faith in anything known provisionally.
CVD: No its been argued it is improper to place faith in anything offered as admittedly provisional. Thus the contrast between RC and Protestant claims.
Apparently this still hasn’t sunk in. Hope springs eternal.
“Anyways, I’m satisfied and clear in my mind”
Or maybe you’re not. You’re finite so you can’t be 100% certain. Perhaps you just aren’t aware that you actually aren’t satisfied in your mind, just like you aren’t aware that bats will reveal an ability to spontaneously generate within your nasal cavity and fly out.
“It is logically equivalent to radical skepticism”
The irony hurts.
“The real substance, as No-one has noted, is that RC teaching contradicts Scripture and the gospel in particular. This observation doesn’t require infallible knowledge to discern.”
The interpretation and identification of Scripture and the gospel which remains provisional, subject to revision, and uncertain in your system (remember, “An inductively derived proposition with 99.9999% confidence … is not certain”)
and whose truth cannot be trusted or believed on the authority of God because remember, “Belief on the basis of authority is a logical fallacy. God Himself, who is omniscient and cannot lie, is an infallible authority.”
Contrast with Vat1: This faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the Catholic Church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived.
LikeLike
Jeff:
The real substance, as No-one has noted, is that RC teaching contradicts Scripture and the gospel in particular. This observation doesn’t require infallible knowledge to discern.>>>>
“The” may not be specific enough or it might be too specific. Provisionally, it is specific enough until further notice.
“Real” may mean many things to many people. It likely means something that is sure, but how can anything be sure when all knowledge is provisional? More evidence needs to be gathered.
Now, the word “substance” is fascinating. It could refer to something with a physical appearance. It could mean a concept that is weighty and therefore be used in a metaphorical sense. I am going to say that it is probably the second usage. That is, provisionally with maybe a 99% level of certainty.
What does “certainty” mean anyway? Sounds too dogmatic. It might imply some inherent fideism, which is a bad thing, mostly.
No One Noted that there is some textual problem with Ephesians 4.
The whole book of Ephesians, Bible scholars and textual critics say, was not written by the Apostle Paul. So, you can dump everything in the book if you wish – or not. It’s up to you. There is a pretty high likelihood that it is not inspired Scripture based on the best of textual criticism.
The Protestant canon needs more reforming.
Talking nonsense again, Jeff. There is no real substance when everything is based on the epistemology of provisional knowledge, don’t you know? Being gullible again, are you?
The same epistemology is used to tear down all faith, not just Catholicism. It can only tear down, never build up.
You are the one blabbing on and on about the resurrection itself being based on provisional knowledge. That’s the Gospel, remember? Oh, it’s fallible, right? I mean, it might fail and that doctrine might have to be reformed because the body of Jesus might be found.
Rip the Bible to pieces until you make it say what you want it to say. So what? Join the Jesus Seminar, or don’t. No big deal.
Your confusion is beginning to show too much, Jeff.
LikeLike
Robert,
“You are fallible, and since you’ve “established” that something fallible can be no ground for faith”
Will you guys ever stop confusing order of being with order of knowing? It’s been 2000 comments of this and you’re still doing it.
LikeLike
TVD, you don’t find Jeff’s argument compelling. Right. But the alternative of adopting the self-referential “you can have certitude because the Cat church says so” seems worse. It appears to deny 1) that assurance comes only through faith (Heb11:1, Rom 10:17), and 2) it avoids the historical incoherence/inconsistency (as DGH points out repeatedly) that has characterized the Cat church. (Prots have a messy history too, but are more circumspect about our authority claims).
LikeLike
CVD,
“The irony hurts.”
LikeLike
Mermaid: You are the one blabbing on and on about the resurrection itself being based on provisional knowledge.
Is that so?
Let’s make a bet. I bet that you have more posts talking about provisional knowledge than I do.
Further, I bet that you have more posts talking about the resurrection being based on provisional knowledge than I do.
LikeLike
Dear Susan,
Everyone’s hackles are up, so I want to make sure that you understand that I’m not saying that all of Catholicism is contrary to reason.
In fact, I have both close Catholic relatives and good Catholic friends. Some are former students who have gone on to surpass me in their various fields. The relatives and friends and I are able to have what I call “normal human interactions” — we can talk about topics, even religion (one of them gave me Sungenis to read), express our views and move on.
None of that is contrary to reason, at least not in any obvious way.
What is contrary to reason is the apologetic being pushed here. It is urged that
“Nothing Protestantism offers, defines, teaches, identifies is offered as infallible.”
This is self-evidently untrue, since Scripture is offered as infallible. Ah! says CVD, but it is only offered provisionally as infallible, so it isn’t really being offered as infallible!
Well, I ask, what about your STM. Do you have infallible knowledge of which teaching is genuinely STM? No, he admits.
So, I reply, your STM teachings are only being offered provisionally as infallible, so…
and then the irrationality kicks in. It is perfectly fine for CVD to provisionally identify infallible teaching, but it is impermissible for JRC to provisionally identify infallible teaching.
That’s a complete overthrow of reason.
It would be reasonable for a Catholic to admit, “I believe the church has the ability to define infallible teaching. I can’t always tell which teachings are infallible, but I trust the magisterium to steer me well, and some teachings (like the CCC) are obviously church teaching.”
That is a reasonable position to take within the framework of human fallibility, and in fact that is the way that my Catholic friends-and-relations operate.
The corresponding Protestant position is, “I believe that Scripture is infallible teaching. I cannot tell infallibly whether certain passages (Mark 16, adulteress) are Scriptural, but in the main, the judgement of the church is clear enough for me to have great confidence that the books in the Protestant Bible are God’s Word.”
That is also a reasonable position to take.
What is not reasonable is to attack the Protestant position with radical skepticism (see: Mermaid, CVD), but then refuse to critically examine the Catholic position with the same radical skepticism.
Not only is it outside the bounds of reasonable human discourse, but it also has the toxic effect of undermining confidence in Scripture itself.
LikeLike
Mermaid, First I quote you and note:
>>>
Hint. The same number of “faiths” as there Lords, baptisms, churches, Gods and Fathers of all.
>>>
One of those isn’t inspired, but critical to your faith system.
This is your response (not to me, but Jeff)
“No One Noted that there is some textual problem with Ephesians 4.”
No I didn’t. I simply pointed out that you were inserting your faith system into the text of Scripture where it didn’t belong
.
LikeLike
Jeff,
“So, I reply, your STM teachings are only being offered provisionally as infallible, so…”
STM teachings are not offered provisionally and subject to revision by RCism. I’m not the “RC system”. You are not the “Protestant system”. All teachings are offered provisionally and subject to revision by Protestantism.
“Do you have infallible knowledge of which teaching is genuinely STM? ”
Here it is again:
JRC: It has been argued here by CVD and Tom and you and Mermaid that it is improper to place faith in anything known provisionally.
CVD: No its been argued it is improper to place faith in anything offered as admittedly provisional. Thus the contrast between RC and Protestant claims.
You’re repeating the same critique that was already answered in SAS page 7:
JRC: We insist that this is a matter of being honest, in that you yourself have no access to infallible doctrines yourself, since you have only fallible copies of fallible translations of church teaching
CVD: And this would entail again that that those in NT times submitting to Christ or the Apostles/those sent with divine authority were in no better epistemological position than those submitting to synagogue rabbi Levi offering admitted fallible provisional teachings and rejecting any such divine authority/ability because both groups of adherents were always personally fallible and lacked vulcan mindmelding.
JRC: In short, Scripture knows nothing of unprovisionally accepting the words of an authority on the ground of his authority.
CVD: Only it does, as shown above.
JRC: The exception, of course, is Jesus — precisely because He is the omniscient and infallible God of the Universe. He alone is capable not merely of proclaiming truth, but defining it.
CVD: Great. So you concede the point with Jesus. And his adherents and followers were still fallible. So there goes the vulcan mindmeld argument. Further, there goes the rest of your argument that every teaching must remain provisional and there can be no certitude of faith – you’re affirming such applied in the case of Jesus.
LikeLike
CVD: STM teachings are not offered provisionally and subject to revision by RCism.
You aren’t getting the point yet.
Assume your system. There’s a pile of teachings that are genuine STM. There’s also a large pile of teachings that look like genuine STM but are not. Both are presented in the various documents or oral instruction as church teaching, but not all are.
Since you do not have the infallible ability to distinguish the genuine STM from the pseudo-STM, you cannot affirm that any given teaching is offered as infallible — because the offer may or may not genuinely be from the church. Further, certitude of faith does not help you, because (as you quoted from Scheeben), anyone can mistake “natural assent” for genuine Faith.
So in your system, at no time can you say that you have assented in Faith to an infallible truth. You can never know whether or not you have done so.
All that you can say (within your system) is, “I believe that I have assented to an infallible truth, conditioned upon whether or not the church actually teaches that truth.”
JRC: We insist that this is a matter of being honest, in that you yourself have no access to infallible doctrines yourself, since you have only fallible copies of fallible translations of church teaching
CVD: And this would entail again that that those in NT times submitting to Christ or the Apostles/those sent with divine authority were in no better epistemological position than those submitting to synagogue rabbi Levi offering admitted fallible provisional teachings and rejecting any such divine authority/ability because both groups of adherents were always personally fallible and lacked vulcan mindmelding.
No. Your conclusion is conditioned upon your understanding of provisional, and therein lies the problem.
So I had a student come find me during my planning period. She wanted help with an integral. She had done all things that seemed reasonable to her, but she was getting the wrong answer.
So we went through and checked the reasoning together. Under her assumptions, the calculations were exactly correct … yet her answer conflicted with the book answer.
So at this point, we needed to check assumptions. It turned out that she was taking a short-cut based on a misidentification of the function as “even” based upon a faulty understanding of “evenness” (she was looking at an exponent instead of checking that f(-x) = f(x), for those interested). Out of that mistaken understanding flowed everything else.
You’re in the same position here. You keep on computing that we should be in utter doubt all the time, and you are aghast that we are not. It bothers you so much that you have spent pages upon pages basically begging us to admit that we are in doubt. And still we do not.
There is a simple reason: You have a wrong understanding of provisional knowledge. You just do. You and Mermaid haven’t the least idea what it means when I say that “‘cows cannot jump over the moon’ is provisional truth.” You think it implies some kind of doubt.
Out of that flows all sorts of wrong assumptions about what should be true in our system.
So I try to help — first by explaining a bit, then by showing you that you, too, rely on provisional knowledge without being aware of it. My hope is that you will connect the dots and say,
“Wait … if *I* use provisional knowledge without doubt, then maybe *Jeff* does too?”
You don’t seem to want to connect those dots, nor to learn what the actual system is all about.
So what would you do if you were I?
LikeLike
Jeff:Out of that mistaken understanding flowed everything else.>>>>
Exactly. Our of your mistaken understanding that the body of Christ might be out there somewhere thus proving He did not rise from the dead, you are getting the wrong answer.
The right answer for the spiritual man is that they are 100% certain that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. They are just as certain as Thomas was after he saw the risen Christ. You are leaving regeneration and the work of the Holy Spirit out of your calculations and coming up with the wrong answer.
Read the Van Til article I linked to. There is one by Machen which is very good where he dealt with some of the common objections to the resurrection.
I could tell you to read the CCC, but you don’t accept it as anything but Catholic propaganda.
I am just trying to help you see the mistake you are making in putting the resurrection in the category of provisional knowledge. If you don’t like the idea of a Vulcan mind meld, try melding with the mind of Christ.
LikeLike
Jeff,
“Since you do not have the infallible ability to distinguish the genuine STM from the pseudo-STM”
I don’t need an “infallible ability” to do so any more than NT believers needed to be infallible in order to submit to Christ and the Apostles teachings – the teachings they offered as infallible and non-provisional to their adherents. Protestantism rejects the ability and authority to perform a similar function. RCism affirms an ability and authority to perform a similar function. What is the common thread in all 3 scenarios – all adherents remain fallible. So to continue to insist upon the vulcan mindmelding critique – despite repeated corrections – is to miss the point.
What Scheeben said was this: “The light of Faith cannot be misapplied to belief in error; nevertheless it is possible for man to mistake an act of natural faith in a supposed revelation for a supernatural act elicited by the aid of the light of Faith. Some external criterion is needed whereby we may distinguish the one from the other. Such a criterion is supplied by the Faith of the Church, which cannot err.”
Christ and the Apostles could correct errors and mistakes of their fallible adherents through definitive binding and non-provisional teaching/judgments. The RC church can correct errors and mistakes of their fallible adherents through definitive binding and non-provisional teaching/judgments. Protestantism cannot – because everything it offers is provisional and subject to revision, by its own admission and disclaimers.
“You keep on computing that we should be in utter doubt all the time, and you are aghast that we are not.”
When have I ever said this. I keep on computing that you affirm that everything you hold, and everything that is offered by your churches and system, is provisional and subject to revision. Which your side agrees upon. Some on your side go as far as to affirm doubt as praiseworthy and go down the presuppositionalist road. Don’t blame me.
“You think it implies some kind of doubt.”
I don’t care if you doubt or not doubt. I’m not “begging you” to do anything. I’m citing your own position to you. You’re the one who said you hold to 99.9% likely beliefs that are “not certain” and claim the certitude of faith is illegimate and impossible.
“You have a wrong understanding of provisional knowledge. You just do. ”
I already cited your position: “What provisionality means… For a Protestant, it simply means “revisable in theory.”” So please tell me where I have not assumed this meaning in my posts.
“So what would you do if you were I?”
Read better.
LikeLike
Susan, keep up:
LikeLike
Mermaid,
Hmm, I’ve never heard any Reformed person argue that humans are unable to err in our thinking about anything. Now, on the other hand, I do remember being badgered as an evangelical about whether I was 100% certain about everything I believe, not just 99%. “If you are only 99% certain, then you don’t understand the Gospel.” Are you sure you aren’t confusing us with the pray-Jesus-into-your-heart people?>>>>>
Joel. Focus. What about the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Is the Holy Spirit able to infallibly communicate the Gospel to regenerate human beings such that they are enabled to believe infallibly? Think of infallible as unable to fail. Relate what I am saying to your soteriology
Yes, the Spirit can infallibly communicate through the Word. No, humans are still fallible. They cannot infallibly believe. After all, many hear and don’t believe. The Holy Spirit and humans are different beings, even if you try to conflate them. Again, not difficult.
You’re the Roman Catholic, if you believe that people infallibly believe, then how can they fall away? Isn’t it because they are fallible human beings?
LikeLike
Clete,
I don’t need an “infallible ability” to do so any more than NT believers needed to be infallible in order to submit to Christ and the Apostles teachings – the teachings they offered as infallible and non-provisional to their adherents.
Actually, you do. Or at least an infallible list of infallible dogma and tradition. Christ claimed to be God incarnate. So by definition everything He said was infallible. In the case of the Apostles it is a bit trickier since they didn’t claim to be God. It’s safe to impute their infallible teachings to Scripture alone because there is precedent for infallible writings and fallible tradition and authority under the old covenant. It’s not safe to impute it to unwritten traditions as well, particularly when there is no way apart from a Magisterial declaration to delineate what is tradition and what is not. Case in point: any fair reading of the early church fathers leads one to believe that the papacy as Rome conceives it ain’t there. Hence “development” as a weasel word to say, yeah, it’s nothing anyone thought of as tradition then but haza! we found it.
We agree (at least if I accept you at face value) that we don’t have to be infallible to submit to an infallible authority. Where we disagree is that we can have the warrant of faith with only a canon produced by a fallible church, and the reason for that ultimately is because we can’t know, in your view, if we have the right books, right editions of those books, etc.
But then comes the double standard, because you don’t have that for ANYTHING in you triad except the M. So while Rome claims to define the faith infallibly, the only statements for which you can be reasonably sure are those things where it is clear that the church is exercising ex cathedra authority. And that’s only a handful of things. Well, Protestants can produce a handful of ex cathedra things as well, not from the church but the Scriptures themselves. Any passage that makes a direct claim to divine revelation.
But honestly, your continual defaulting to the Magisterium and shrugging when you demand an infallible canon from us but not for your T and even your M betrays sola Ecclesia. Or, more accurately, sola magisterium of the moment as best as my fallible self can apprehend it.
LikeLike
Clete,
correction: “you don’t have that for ANYTHING in your triad except the S”
LikeLike
Joel:
Yes, the Spirit can infallibly communicate through the Word. No, humans are still fallible. They cannot infallibly believe. After all, many hear and don’t believe. The Holy Spirit and humans are different beings, even if you try to conflate them. Again, not difficult.>>>>>
Then your soteriology needs reforming. You are the ones who preach TULIP and the Golden Chain. Now you say they will fail?
What do you guys believe at the end of the day?
You evidently don’t really believe any of your own theology. It is all provisional all the time. Yes, the saints will persevere with a 99% success rate. God’s grace is irresistible, mostly. God’s election is pretty much unconditional. Man is almost totally depraved, pretty much unable to respond to grace on his own. Christ died mostly for the elect and no one else.
I don’t care. It’s not my theology. It seems you would care more about your own faith. Of course, I am assuming you are a Calvinist.
LikeLike
Robert,
So you agree – provisionally – that Christ and the apostles offered infallible non-provisional teaching to their followers. You agree their followers were not infallible and werent vulcan mindmelding. So everything I said above goes through and Jeffs missives demonstrating the profound truth (well, provisionally) that humans are fallible – which was stated by me a million times – are misfires and not germane to the argument. Great.
LikeLike
Mrs. Merman
Is your faith the same as the faith of Thomas after he saw the resurrected Christ or is it different? How many faiths are there?
Same Christ, different faith.
How do we know,? The Bible tells us so:
2 Cor. 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)
Heb. 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
LikeLike
CVD: Then they also assert: “All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. …” Which of course includes the WCF itself and men behind it and Article 1.
DVC, Ask Bryan what a non sequitur is.
“May err” = Possibility of error
“Have erred” = certainty of error.
Possiblity ≠ Certainty
Capiche?
Dictionary much?
How about a fundamental error that demonstrates your incompetence to the question?
When you can demonstrate that you can distinguish between you might be mistaken about your name and you are mistaken about your name, get back to us. Until then, don’t bother.
A non sequitur is not a convincing argument no matter how sincerely you think it is and retail it as one.
STM teachings are not offered provisionally and subject to revision by RCism. I’m not the “RC system”. You are not the “Protestant system”. All teachings are offered provisionally and subject to revision by Protestantism.
Anathematize Separated Brethren much?
Or is it Separate Anathematized Brethren?
Did Trent 2 come after Vat 1?
cheers.
LikeLike
Bob,
So WCF might be in error and is subject to revision (and has been revised). Just as any and all teaching offered within Protestantism might be. Which is what I said.
LikeLike
Cletus,
So you agree – provisionally – that Christ and the apostles offered infallible non-provisional teaching to their followers. You agree their followers were not infallible and werent vulcan mind melding.
Yes, and so does Jeff, and Darryl, and SDB, and Bob, and every other Calvinist.
So everything I said above goes through and Jeffs missives demonstrating the profound truth (well, provisionally) that humans are fallible – which was stated by me a million times – are misfires and not germane to the argument. Great.
No, your argument falls apart on the necessity of an infallible church being the answer to identifying the “non-provisional” revelation and other such things as a necessary principled means without which we can’t know the difference between opinion and dogma/revelation. Because making that step depends ultimately on locating fault in our having to rely on our fallible, provisional judgment. Hence all the “Is Matthew Scripure? The periscope adulterae? Etc.”
If you can have confidence in your fallible ability to separate what Rome has declared as infallible from what Rome hasn’t, then there’s no necessary reason to introduce another infallible middleman between yourself and the words of Christ and the apostles. It might be a nice thing to have, but it’s not necessary.
So much of the RC argument here is a subtle move from an unspoken “well it would be nice to have someone to give the stamp of approval on all my dogmatic thinking such that there’s not even a logical possibility that I could be wrong” to “therefore, God gave that institution that can offer a stamp of approval.” You see most clearly it in the comments of Susan and Mermaid who keep talking about how they were so confused about what was true and what wasn’t when they were Protestants. It comes out in you as well when you you sit confessional Calvinism alongside Arianism and act as if the words of Christ are so confusing that you just have to have an infallible arbiter to figure out which one of those is more true to the gospel.
And as Bob keeps pointing out, there is a difference between a logical possibility of error and error. Yeah, it’s theoretically possible for the church to have misidentified the canon somehow, and then only if you ignore “my sheep hear my voice.” It’s also theoretically possible for you to have misidentified what is infallible dogma and what isn’t. Rome doesn’t solve that problem for you unless and until you become infallible.
You act as if it is somehow a defect for the Protestant confessions not to claim to set forth dogma with a disclaimer of infallibility, but that badly misunderstands the Protestant position. The Protestant position is that God sets forth His dogma/revelation infallibly and that He is able to communicate it to His elect through fallible intermediaries including the church, the church’s tradition, and the fallible minds of the elect.
You can ask if I’m setting that forth infallibly or fallibly, but that’s a subtle assault on my ability to reason regarding not only Protestantism but Scripture itself, so the question redounds to you: how do you know if Rome is setting forth its position fallibly or infallibly? Well you have to read the assumed infallible source, the M. Protestants do the same thing with Scripture.
Cue the: But Protestantism hasn’t infallibly identified Scripture. Well, Rome hasn’t infallibly identified the S, the T, and the M either. It has perhaps come closest with the S, but even so there’s been no infallible pronouncement on every textual variant and your church has relied on the fallible work of fallible textual scholars for millennia. There’s certainly no infallible identification of T, and it is clear that the “whatever has been believed everywhere by all” only applies when it supports Rome’s claims. It doesn’t apply to the papacy. And M, well, we’re still waiting for an infallible declaration of every time the M has acted infallibly.
Your argument comes across initially as philosophically complex, but Jeff is right. It actually depends on radical skepticism about our knowledge and reason, and I would add, about God’s ability to communicate with His people.
LikeLike
CVD: What Scheeben said was this: “The light of Faith cannot be misapplied to belief in error; nevertheless it is possible for man to mistake an act of natural faith in a supposed revelation for a supernatural act elicited by the aid of the light of Faith. Some external criterion is needed whereby we may distinguish the one from the other. Such a criterion is supplied by the Faith of the Church, which cannot err.”
I already addressed this above. You need an external criterion to distinguish. That criterion is supplied by the Faith of the Church.
However, you cannot infallibly identify the Faith of the Church. So even though *it* cannot err, you can. Hence, you cannot use the criterion without putting an asterisk next to all of your judgments.
JRC: “You have a wrong understanding of provisional knowledge. You just do. ”
CVD: I already cited your position: “What provisionality means… For a Protestant, it simply means “revisable in theory.”” So please tell me where I have not assumed this meaning in my posts.
The instances are legion. Here is the latest:
So WCF might be in error and is subject to revision (and has been revised). Just as any and all teaching offered within Protestantism might be. Which is what I said.
Our meaning: Revisable in theory, but in practice non-revisable because of the low probability of error.
Your meaning: Revisable in theory, hence untrustworthy.
You use that meaning every single time.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Ding, ding, ding
LikeLike
JRC: “So what would you do if you were I?”
CVD: Read better.
OK, so let’s assume that I’m being obtuse here. That’s entirely possible. I’ll walk through slowly and you can point when we get to the problem spot.
Question: Are Protestants likely to be saved?
(1) BC#4 says, “There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.”
(2) BC#4 is offered as an STM teaching.
(3) CCC818 says, “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers….All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.””
(4) CCC818 is offered as an STM teaching.
(5) Both BC4 and CCC818 cannot be true.
(6) One or both are therefore either
(a) offered provisionally as STM teaching (“our best understanding of infallible Tradition”), or
(b) pseudo-STM teaching (that is, offered in error as infallible) (“We thought this was infallibly true, but it wasn’t”).
(7) If (6a), then according to your criterion that “the believer should not give assent to propositions offered provisionally”, then you should not assent to either without first determining which is offered provisionally.
(8) If (6b), then because it is possible for teachings to be offered in error, then the offering itself is provisional. Hence, according to your criterion again, you should not assent to either without first determining which one (if either) is genuinely STM.
(9) And in any event, whether (6a) or (6b), the assent of faith cannot be given to falsehoods. So you cannot truly assent to whichever is in error.
(10) It follows, then, that you cannot have certitude without first determining which statement is proper to assent to.
(11) So you will need an additional criterion to determine the question of whether (1), (3), or neither is offered as infallible teaching.
(12) That criterion should be the Faith of the Church (per Scheeben)
(13) The faith of the church is contained in the STM.
(14) Hence, the criterion is one or more of S, T, or M.
(15a) If that criterion is Scripture, then you cannot make an infallible determination, for Scripture can be misunderstood.
(15b) If that criterion is Tradition, you cannot make an infallible determination, because it is unclear which tradition is offered infallibly AND because tradition needs interpretation on your part.
(15c) If that criterion is the Magisterium, you cannot make an infallible determination because the ordinary magisterium is not infallible.
(16) Any combination of fallible criteria is still fallible.
(17) Hence, even GRANTING the Faith of the Church to be the infallible criterion of genuine STM teaching, you can’t use that criterion infallibly.
(18) Hence, you cannot decide infallibly whether (1) or (3) (or either) is genuine STM.
(19) Hence, you should not give the assent of faith to either.
Short version: Not all teachings of the church are genuine infallible STM. Hence, any given teaching is provisionally offered, contingent upon it being genuine STM. Hence, by your criterion, you should not assent to any of them.
To paraphrase the famous Old Life skeptic van Damme, “BC#4 is the teaching of the church — until it isn’t. CCC818 is the teaching of the church — maybe.”
LikeLike
Mermaid: your own theology: God’s grace is irresistible. God’s election is unconditional. Man is totally depraved unable to respond to grace on his own. Christ died for the elect.
Mermaid:I don’t care. It’s not my theology.
Whew, this has all been a long, winding ,confusing road; though probably (?) valuable if it ends in JESUS; but confusing enough, I better summarize for myself, from the Lord, or I’ll be confused, though, of course, never unsavingly-confused because of the Lord
-the proud trusts in himself; the righteous live by faith
-by grace I’ve been saved through faith; and that not of myself, it is the gift of God;
-He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you”
-and re:sufficiency…from this am: – http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/12/the-sufficiency-of-god.php
“The doctrine of divine sufficiency is a glorious doctrine”… God’s “all-sufficiency” refers to God’s sufficiency for us.. . the doctrine of God’s sufficiency is a source of strong consolation ..”they shall come off victorious, because his grace is sufficient”
therefore…we fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith,
-because we rejoice and glorify the word of the Lord for as many as are appointed to eternal life, believe. (Acts 12:48)
-because each man must be careful how he builds
-because we fellow saints of God’s household are built on the foundation of the apostles,prophets, Christ Jesus Himself the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, Eph 2:19 -21
and since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us,we also lay aside every encumbrance, easily entangling sin, and we run with endurance the race set before us
-because Jesus chose us and appointed us that we would go and bear fruit
-because the witness of the heroes of faith = HIS prevailing power = “faith in God is to be demonstrated, not (just) defined.” (Tozer)
= the cloud’s witness: God can be trusted!
Job: “what His soul desires, that He does for He performs what is appointed for me” Job 23:13
Habakkuk: “the vision is yet for the appointed time; it hastens toward the goal and it will not fail.though it tarries, wait for it; for it will certainly come, it will not delay.“Behold, as for the proud one, His soul is not right within him; but the righteous will live by his faith.” (Hab 2:3-4)
…though there may be some doubt, sometimes (Jude 1:22) we rejoice and are steadfast
-Because He is able to keep us (His people) from stumbling, and make us stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, – the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord and to Him be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. Jude 1: 24-35
-the chief end of man? -glorify God enjoy him forever. WCF Q1
-the only rule has He given for this – the Word of God Q2
LikeLike
Mermaid,
Happy trolling. I think you’ll find plenty of success in your endeavor.
LikeLike
Ali
Posted December 12, 2015 at 9:11 am | Permalink
Mermaid: your own theology: God’s grace is irresistible. God’s election is unconditional. Man is totally depraved unable to respond to grace on his own. Christ died for the elect.
Mermaid:I don’t care. It’s not my theology.>>>>>
Dear Ali,
If you are going to try to quote me, then try to understand what I am saying. The epistemology of provisional knowledge undermines their own TULIP. I don’t believe it was the way the writers looked at knowledge and truth. However, it is the logical outcome of the Protestant Reformation.
When the epistemology of provisional knowledge is applied to their own theology, their own theology is torn down. They think they are tearing down Catholicism. They are really tearing themselves down. In fact, they are tearing down all that the Bible calls knowledge.
Soteriology is the heart of Calvinism. That is, the doctrine of salvation.
If they were to honestly apply the epistemology of provisional knowledge to their soteriology, here is what their TULIP would look like.
T- total depravity has to become “we’re only 99% sure or so that man is totally depraved.”
Calvinists talk as though they were 100% sure.
U-unconditional election becomes “we’re only 99% sure or so that God elects unconditionally.
Calvinists talk as though they were 100% sure.
L-limited atonement becomes “we’re only 99% sure or so that Jesus’ death atoned only for the sins of the elect. “
Calvinists talk as though they were 100% sure.
I- Irrestible grace becomes “God’s grace probably can’t be resisted by the elect. We can be 99% or more certain of that.”
Calvinists talk as though they were 100% sure.
P-“The elect – God’s saints – will probably persevere to the end by God’s grace. His election is probably sure and He will likely make sure that His people will make it to Heaven. It is not even clear that God has made those kinds of absolutist promises to His elect. “ The Calvinist could be wrong, don’t you know.
Calvinists talk as though they were 100% sure that God has made those promises to His elect.
I am hoping that the guys will begin to apply their epistemology of provisional knowledge to their own
TULIP. Does it make the TULIP turn into a daisy?
———————————————————————————————–
What do you guys believe at the end of the day?
You evidently don’t really believe any of your own theology. It is all provisional all the time. Yes, the saints will persevere with a 99% success rate. God’s grace is irresistible, mostly. God’s election is pretty much unconditional. Man is almost totally depraved, pretty much unable to respond to grace on his own. Christ died mostly for the elect and no one else.
I don’t care. It’s not my theology. It seems you would care more about your own faith. Of course, I am assuming you are a Calvinist.
LikeLike
Ali, notice, too, that Brother Hart will not go on record as agreeing that the body of Christ may be found someday. Why would that be?
LikeLike
@ Ali:
And also,
— Ps 119
David’s confidence is such a far, far cry from “Unless you have an infallible interpreter, you can’t trust anything.”
Yet still, he recognizes that his own understanding needs improvement:
— ibid
He both affirms that his understanding is imperfect, AND that God’s law is a sure guide. Confidence in God, no confidence in himself.
LikeLike
Ali,
>>>
-the only rule has He given for this – the Word of God Q2
>>>
I would suggest this is what Roman Catholics cannot agree to for deeply believed and principled reasons. Following the Summa Theologica of Aquinas, they cannot agree the Holy Spirit is the sufficient interpreter of Scripture for the churches of Christendom, but rather the Roman Catholic Church is.
In other words, they demand that apostolic writ have an infallible interpreter, just as a horse requires a rider (Aquinas’ analogy).
Roman Catholics observe the massive fracturing of post-reformation structures/institutions as proof: 33K+ denomination, and millions of independent churches. Meanwhile, their own institution, the RCC, is in unity and thus fulfills Jesus’ prayer in John 17 and Paul’s requirements for unity in Eph. 4.
They allow that people as individuals (as distinct from ecclesial structures) will always come to varying levels of accuracy in reading Scripture, which is, I think, what you are asking Mermaid to agree to above.
Here is the difference. You believe that what God did through through His Holy Spirit His apostles would be infallibly guided into “all the truth” concerning what His own death-burial-resurrection-ascension, and that they would teach this infallibly for all the churches for the rest of time (John 16:13).
Further, you are glad to believe this promise of Jesus Christ and find it strengthening to your faith and reason.
Roman Catholics do not. They cannot believe that Jesus’ promise to His apostles in John 16:13 was fulfilled in their writings. Here’s a quick example from Pope Francis:
“The Holy Spirit, then, as Jesus promises, guides us “into all truth” (Jn 16:13) he leads us not only to an encounter with Jesus, the fullness of Truth, but guides us “into” the Truth, that is, he helps us enter into a deeper communion with Jesus himself, gifting us knowledge of the things of God.”
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/2260/pope_francis_reflects_on_the_work_and_power_of_the_holy_spirit.aspx
Roman Catholics believe Jesus’ promise of being guided into all the truth was not fulfilled in those with Him that night (the apostles, and the apostles alone), but was future oriented to them. This is especially true as it relates to the development of doctrine through the centuries. Roman Catholics believe that promise made by Jesus in the Upper Room was to them alone.
We do not share one faith, but two faith systems, with two different authorities.
LikeLike
The Little Mermaid: Dear Ali, try to understand what I am saying.
I think I understand. ie
1) there has been some lack of clarity, perhaps some mis-statements, some mis-understood stating (but as far as I can see, you are not accepting the clarification being made and perhaps are being uncharitable?) But I agree somewhat on some confusion, which is why I had to remind myself (above) in the way God has for me.
2) TULIP is not you theology
Mermaid: l come out of the Protestant Reformation.
Yes you have said this and this is puzzlement to me just at it appears you are puzzled by those who ‘do not come out’ of it. In the end, I do like Spurgeon’s statement because it is the Lord’s statement (essentially): Though our Lord Jesus Christ hath only one Church, a part of its members, I believe, may be found in every denomination; but they owe not their standing to true fellowship they hold with denominations. There is one great denomination, “the church of the living God,” to which every true believer must belong.”
Ali, notice, too, that Brother Hart will not go on record as agreeing that the body of Christ may be found someday. Why would that be?
Not sure what you are saying, but it sounds like quite an accusation and one which the Lord is likely not pleased, because I believe DG is one of His sons….not a ‘separated’-son, nor a ‘provisional’-son or however you might like to describe adding to the Lord’s work.
LikeLike
@ No-one:
Just to add to what you are saying, the Protestant places his hope in the fulfillment of Ephesians 4 through the agency of the Spirit persuading men (and women) of the truth and bringing them to unity in that manner — whether on this or that side of the eschaton.
In other words, the current state of admitted chaos is a transition state in which Christ is sloooowwly, surely leading His entire church to ultimate unity.
The Catholic sees the chaos as irredeemably broken unless all come to unity under a visible head. The chaos is not part of the process; it is something to be swept entirely away.
LikeLike
Ali, I am not being uncharitable. You are judging me, and sniping at me, following the lead of my brothers, here. It is called ad hominem. You take out your opponent by calling them dishonest, uncharitable, gullible, naive, and so forth. Do not learn this bad habit.
I am trying to get the guys to see how their epistemology applies to their own beliefs.
Try to see what is happening, here.
LikeLike
Dear Mermaid,
for us both, for each, and for all – examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 1 Thess 5:21
Have a great day.
LikeLike
Mermaid,
That’s simply not true. I characterized specific statements and behaviors on your part as dishonest. Frankly, I have only tagged the few most egregious examples.
I do that because I want you to repent of dishonest behaviors. I want you to do what normal human beings do when they mess up. They apologize and attempt to mend their ways.
You aren’t doing that. You are doubling down and carrying on.
Pointing that out is not about discrediting you. It is about trying to make conversation with you a bearable exercise.
Now, it is true that I have pointed out that your behavior makes Catholicism a much less attractive option for me, which is a kind of ad hominem reasoning on my part. When I say that, I’m speaking personally. I recognize that bad behavior is not evidence of bad arguments, but I also recognize that Jesus warned us to assess false teachers by their fruits.
I think it was a month ago, I emailed someone in reference to you and Tom. At that time, I opined that your behavior seemed to indicate that you and Tom are trolling, rather than interacting in a genuine manner. I wondered out loud what it means to love people — you and Tom — as enemies.
Because frankly, you act like an enemy. You say horrible things about people and then turn around and call them “brother.” You make up things and refuse to apologize when called out for it. You expend great energy, night and day, trying to stir up trouble at Old Life.
That’s what enemies do. It’s what particularly malicious enemies do, in fact.
So, I am doing my best to love you as an enemy. I want to be honest with you about your behavior, while still hoping the best for you as a person. I don’t do that perfectly — I get impatient, I perhaps misread your intent at times. To the extent that I have wronged you, I am sorry.
To the extent that I recognize your behavior (deception, innuendo) as unbecoming of a Christian, I cannot apologize for that.
LikeLike
Mermaid,
I’ll answer your baiting question when you answer any of mine about the problems of your bishops. To start, what about the archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Law. Where’s your certainty now?
LikeLike
Hey Jeff,
Thanks for all your interaction here. That lengthy comment, with the axioms, was killer good.
There is something that Mermaid and other RCs are talking about, though, that we are failing at – actual unity.
In other words, the current state of admitted chaos is a transition state in which Christ is sloooowwly, surely leading His entire church to ultimate unity.
Hey – it could get all unified today if He returns ;), but until then, we’re told to maintain unity, not create it – Eph. 4:3.
So I’m sympathetic instead of defensive to all their accusations while dismissing their solution as phoney – paper unity in a hierarchical institution.
LikeLike
Jeff, Ps. 119? How do you know the number?
What is a Psalm?
LikeLike
Well, I would hope that Jeff knows that Biblically speaking, there are two kinds of knowing. Not so sure.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 12, 2015 at 12:13 pm | Permalink
Mermaid,
I’ll answer your baiting question when you answer any of mine about the problems of your bishops. To start, what about the archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Law. Where’s your certainty now?>>>>>
My bishop is amazing. The Germans have gone wonky right now. They are the ones in the hot spot. I’m counting rests in a rehearsal right now, but will get back to you. I love Pope “Che” Francis.
LikeLike
Jeff, you are engaging in malicious gossip. You went to others off list but not to me.? You NEVER even tried to come to me privately first. Now you are doing it again. You continued with the accusation and then expected me to just suck it up. Not impressed.
Classic ad hom
LikeLike
No one of note,
“Hey – it could get all unified today if He returns ;), but until then, we’re told to maintain unity, not create it – Eph. 4:3.
So I’m sympathetic instead of defensive to all their accusations while dismissing their solution as phoney – paper unity in a hierarchical institution.”
To maintain means that there was( and Catholicism demonstrates still is) unity. In other words the unity that had to excommunicate Martin Luther is still here in paper unity, a paper unity that testifies that the Holy Spirit has sustained visible doctrinal unity in truth.
The protestant churches don’t have a visible unity. Its a unity of “Protestantisms”, not of doctrines. They are only united in attacking the Church that is still here.
LikeLike
N.O.O.N,
What other way can unity be maintained if not visibly. Its unreasonable to say that folks are unified in the invisible church; well of course we are! But under what doctrinal statements and liturgy and authority?
List what the differences are between the protestants here and see if they have unity.
LikeLike
Mermaid,
I didn’t gossip. I asked for advice, and I did so in a manner as to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Mermaid: You NEVER even tried to come to me privately first.
You have got to be kidding. I came to you multiple times.
LikeLike
Hi Susan,
>>>
They are only united in attacking the Church that is still here.
>>>
Neither the teachings of Jesus nor the writings of the apostles recognize or authorize a geographically distributed church, nor one with the hierarchy you submit to. Instead, there are Roman Catholic Churches, each one subject to the same One who judges all Prot churches:
“His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters. In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength.” (Rev 1:14-16)
A while ago i asked you why you recovered your faith in Christ’s resurrection only when you became Roman Catholic, instead of based on the apostolic testimony alone. Did you miss that, because i never got your answer.
LikeLike
Mermaid,
all about you, we know.
LikeLike
Robert,
“No, your argument falls apart on the necessity of an infallible church being the answer to identifying the “non-provisional” revelation and other such things as a necessary principled means without which we can’t know the difference between opinion and dogma/revelation.”
If Protestantism has a mechanism for distinguishing provisional human opinion from non-provisional dogma/revelation, we’re all ears. But since your system (and all its adherents) agree anything and everything Protestantism offers, teaches, defines, identifies is done so provisionally and without a guarantee of divine protection from error, I’m not optimistic. Cue the “but you’re fallible and not omnisicient!” mantra. Which misses the point. Since as you agree, Christ and the Apostles adherents weren’t infallible or omniscient.
“what Rome has declared as infallible”
And nothing Protestantism declares is declared as infallible, but as provisional and subject to revision. Which is the point.
“well it would be nice to have someone to give the stamp of approval on all my dogmatic thinking such that there’s not even a logical possibility that I could be wrong””
It’s not “wouldn’t it be nice”. It’s what Scripture and Tradition attests to. Hence the passages and patristic witness affirming certitude of faith, apostolic succession, divinely authorized teachers, divinely guided and protected church, condemnation of schism, etc. Not perpetual provisionality, not statements like “maybe [Christ] just came to life through heretofore undiscovered natural means”, not stalements reduced to “I have the HS and you don’t”, not ecclesial deism, not private judgment, and not fideism and skepticism wrapped up in presuppositionalism.
“there is a difference between a logical possibility of error and error”
Yes, and as I pointed out to Bob, everything offered in Protestantism is done so with the possiblity of error. That’s the point.
“It’s also theoretically possible for you to have misidentified what is infallible dogma and what isn’t. Rome doesn’t solve that problem for you unless and until you become infallible.”
Once again conflating order of being with order of knowing. Christ and the Apostles I guess couldn’t solve the problem of correcting mistaken believers with binding and irreformable teaching and judgments because those believers never became infallible.
“The Protestant position is that God sets forth His dogma/revelation infallibly”
This “Protestant position” is offered as provisional and subject to revision by Protestantism.
“but that’s a subtle assault on my ability to reason regarding not only Protestantism but Scripture itself … It actually depends on radical skepticism about our knowledge and reason,”
The irony hurts again. So now we’re all about reasoning abilities and rejection of skepticism now? Just like “any fair reading of the early church fathers leads one to believe that the papacy as Rome conceives it ain’t there.” – but of course according to you, there is no such thing as a “fair reading” because “reason isn’t neutral” and our presuppositions clouds everything. I redirect others to my comment here https://oldlife.org/2015/12/have-you-guys-heard-of-assemblies/comment-page-9/#comment-367460 and they can be the judge which of us is endorsing skepticism and assaulting reason
(of course their reason is biased, so maybe they can’t actually judge it since their expectations can never be changed in light of facts/evidence that are “meaningless without interpretation” and so they can’t ever overcome their presuppositions. Or maybe they can. Since the best we can answer any question is “Based on all the evidence we have so far, it would seem that the answer to your question would be [no/yes]”. We just can’t know for sure – all that finitude and all that. So maybe they can’t be sure of their evaluation since they might be unaware they actually hold to the opposite evaluation, just as they might be unaware of cows actual hidden power to jump over the moon that hasn’t been revealed yet).
LikeLike
Jeff,
“However, you cannot infallibly identify the Faith of the Church. ”
Is confusion of order of being and order of knowing a Reformed thing? Is it in your catechisms or something?
“So even though *it* cannot err, you can.”
Yep, and NT adherents of Christ and the Apostles could err. So I guess Christ and the Apostles could not have the authority/ability to infallibly offer, define, teach, identify non-provisional judgments and teachings or to normatively and irrevocably correct those mistakes by their followers. The only way they could perform such a function would be to make their adherents personally infallible and mindmeld with them. You keep falling back on this vulcan mindmeld argument without engaging or acknowledging explicit replies to it. Some might say that’s bad faith dialogue. Or just poor reading.
And again, nothing in Protestantism guarantees anything it offers “cannot err” – that’s the point. Thus the disclaimers to the type of authority/ability Rome makes. Apparently this still hasn’t sunk in:
JRC: It has been argued here by CVD and Tom and you and Mermaid that it is improper to place faith in anything known provisionally.
CVD: No its been argued it is improper to place faith in anything offered as admittedly provisional. Thus the contrast between RC and Protestant claims.
Hope still springs eternal though.
“So WCF might be in error and is subject to revision (and has been revised). Just as any and all teaching offered within Protestantism might be. Which is what I said.
– Our meaning: Revisable in theory, but in practice non-revisable because of the low probability of error.
– Your meaning: Revisable in theory, hence untrustworthy.”
Did I say “untrustworthy”? I missed it. I said what you said. Everything in Protestantism is offered as provisional – i.e., subject to revision and with the possibility of error. Putting words in people’s mouths is hardly good faith dialogue. So please show again where anything I have said in the “legions of examples” related to provisionality has not meant “subject to revision and with the possibility of error”.
Further, do you trust divine revelation on the basis of authority? That’s a logical fallacy according to you. So what do you trust it on?
LikeLike
So CVD, which line is in error?
CVD: Further, do you trust divine revelation on the basis of authority? That’s a logical fallacy according to you. So what do you trust it on?
Divine revelation is trustworthy because God is omniscient and cannot lie.
LikeLike
Because my life sucks(apparently), I decided to read through the order of being/knowing distinction just to see if this argument has changed. And, shocker, it hasn’t. It’s the same sola ecclesia raised to infallibility per Christ and apostolic authority. So, again, it only works if I grant rome’s claim of being the one true church. I don’t, so, we’re back to the complete uselessness of dialogue assuming paradigmatic hermenuetical/philosophical assumptions. We can’t even talk to each other. But somehow RC/trad apologists assume the high ground because they’re willing(or they claim their church is, though we’ve tried to make the Vat II case that, ‘not so much’ anymore) to make the claim and prots aren’t. This is the most worthless course of engagement I’ve ever watched, participated in and occasionally read along with. This is worse than the Good/Evil class where the prof. concluded that since you wouldn’t(polled the class) morally, be any different whether god existed or not, that therefore belief in god was unnecessary. I thought that was bad, this is worse.
LikeLike
Just to be correct, that should be; ‘act any different’ rather than ‘be any different’. Yeesh.
LikeLike
JRC: Your meaning: Revisable in theory, hence untrustworthy.”
CVD: Did I say “untrustworthy”? I missed it.
CVD: it is improper to place faith in anything offered as admittedly provisional.
Found it for you. Un-trust-worthy: Unworthy of placing faith in.
LikeLike
Jeff,
So you don’t believe it on God’s authority?
sean,
“it only works if I grant rome’s claim of being the one true church”‘
Hey how about that. What did I insist upon at the very start of this thread 2000 comments ago – grant the claims of each system to be true and see what falls out in comparison. Thanks for confirming. Maybe let Jeff, Robert, and sdb know.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle I want you to repent of dishonest behaviors. I want you to do what normal human beings do when they mess up. They apologize and attempt to mend their ways.
Jeff Cagle Jesus warned us to assess false teachers by their fruits.
Jeff, I hope you can at least admit, as we all must, that our propensity, to varing degrees, is that we are partial- we do not see the same things, as the same everywhere, particularly in our ‘own house’. Agree?
NOON: I read that link you provided about John 16:13. Thanks. I don’t think I had too much opposition to it. Some of the comments were revealing though and typical…
Comment:. I truly feel that He (the Spirit) is seriously working in the world through Pope Francis. Even protestants and atheists are drawn to him (the Pope I think the guys means, rather than the SpIrit).
Comment: Time Magazine stated they selected Pope Francis as Person of the Year because it is as though Jesus has come back. I agree. (As though Jesus has come back. sheesh!)
Comment: POWER YOU THE GOD FATHER CONTINUE YOUR WORK FORVER I SUPPORT YOU. (the think the last ‘you’ the guy means is the Pope? rather than God, can’t tell for sure)
anyway, typical, who is being exalted?
Anyway NOON, I have come to believe what is summed here and this post basically reflects my understanding. Comments?
https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-85-how-holy-spirit-works-john-1612-15
“It is important to note that Jesus’ words here apply first to the apostles. They were the ones whom the Spirit would guide in all the truth and bring to their remembrance all that Jesus had said (John 14:26). We have the Spirit’s inspired teaching through the apostles in the New Testament. But in a secondary sense, our Lord’s words here apply to us, in that the Holy Spirit opens up the truths of the Bible to us as we diligently study it in dependence on Him (1 Cor. 2:9-13). In our text, we learn that the ministry of the Holy Spirit is progressive, personal, truth-centered, and Christ-centered and Christ-glorifying.
D. G. Hart: Jeff, Ps. 119? How do you know the number? What is a Psalm?
aw DG, before you got to that aspect of debate, couldn’tyoua first said something like: ‘that is such a beautiful part of God’s word!’ maybe next time :)
and Noon, back to the Catholic post – the subheading says….” Let’s ask ourselves: are we open to the Holy Spirit…?”
That is a very very important question.
LikeLike
sean: Because my life sucks (apparently)
aw sean :)don’t think that’s how God sees that effort, for what that’s worth, which should be alot
LikeLike
Ali,
Please let me know in what way I have offended you. I will put it right if possible.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 12, 2015 at 12:13 pm | Permalink
Mermaid,
I’ll answer your baiting question when you answer any of mine about the problems of your bishops. To start, what about the archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Law.
Your question is the one that’s baiting, and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
And your dodging is laughably conspicuous. I doubt you even agree with your henchmen on this ‘provisionality’ crap. It’s just an excuse to further your anti-Catholic agenda.
LikeLike
Jeff, you’ve been nothing but very kind.
But you didn’t answer the question.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 12, 2015 at 3:06 pm | Permalink
Mermaid,
I didn’t gossip. I asked for advice, and I did so in a manner as to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Mermaid: You NEVER even tried to come to me privately first.
You have got to be kidding. I came to you multiple times.>>>>
Jeff, if you wrote to me in private, then I never got an email. No, I don’t have a private server.
You jumped me in public, accusing me of lying about you. I asked a question about one thing you said that sounded Pelagian to me. You clarified that you are an officer in your church and not Pelagian. I accepted your clarification. You demanded an apology.
There was a lot more emotional stuff, but that is the summary of our exchange.
You say a lotta’ stuff that sounds weird to me. That whole cow, bat, resurrection thing flew right over my head, I guess. Pun intended. Yet I am supposed to accept an epistemology that involves the slight probably that a cow could jump over the moon.
It dawned on me this morning – another pun, or is it a redundancy? – that the Bible speaks of two ways of knowing something or someone. It seems that you are focusing on only one.
The resurrection is not just known as a bunch of facts that may or may not be true. It is known in a personal way, just as Thomas met the risen Christ. We meet Him on the pages of Scripture. In the Mass, we meet Him in the Eucharist. We know Him in an intimate way, not just as a bunch of facts.
The Word of God and the Traditions of the Church give us both lines of evidence, not just one. Jesus is not just someone who died for our sins some 2,000 years ago. He is our closest companion. He is our Savior. He befriended us. We take Him into our bodies. He is real right now, just as real as when He died, was buried, and rose again the third day. He is as real to us as He was – and is – to Thomas, the Apostle.
LikeLike
@ Ali:
Sorry, I mis-parsed your quote, thinking I was being addressed: “Jeff Cagle I want you to …”
To answer your question, Yes. We do all have different fact bases and ways of looking at the world. For that reason, I think it’s appropriate to give a lot of latitude to people.
LikeLike
Mermaid: We know [Jesus] in an intimate way, not just as a bunch of facts.
I agree with that. Having eternal life meanings knowing God by faith (John 17.3).
Given that, it seems strange to me that Catholics here would tell Protestants that they are brothers, yet they cannot know without submitting to the Church. Either we know Christ by faith or we don’t. If we do, then we don’t need special knowledge from an unwritten Tradition. If we don’t know Christ by faith, then we’re not brothers.
See, I would think that given what you believe — that we can have certitude by submitting to an infallible authority — that you would admit that Protestants can know. For we submit to the authority of Scripture. It stands to reason, then, that the Spirit would help us to understand that Scripture by faith and have certitude in those things that are true.
To my understanding, that should be the conclusion of your system.
John also says that we do not need additional knowledge from some secret Tradition:
— 1 John 2
Now, I do not say this to say that Catholic apologists are the antiChrist. After all, you affirm the creed. But I say this to point out that Catholic apologists, you included, *do* want to tell us Protestants that we can’t know anything without first making the Pope our head.
Maybe I don’t know much, but I know that Christ is the head, and he told us not to call anyone “Father” (Matt 23).
So that’s the opening to the rabbit hole of all of these confusing statements about epistemology. I am pushing back against a blow struck against the sufficiency of Scripture.
If we would all like to climb out, I’ll be happy to go back to reading the Scripture and seeking to understand it by faith. But if we must keep talking about whether Protestants can trust the Scripture without an infallible interpreter, then I’m happy to keep swinging away.
LikeLike
TLM,
Since Jeff is speaking about an email communication we had, let me set the record straight. We were discussing how to interact charitably in a written forum with people with whom you disagree–particularly those who seem completely disinterested in listening to the other side. We both desire to be loving and charitable, but that can be difficult. Since these discussions have been public and I’ve been involved sporadically, Jeff mentioned that he was wrestling with what it means to show love to you (TLM) and TVD. Far from being gossip, this was, as usual with Jeff, a sincere and humble attempt to be Christ-like.
LikeLike
“But I say this to point out that Catholic apologists, you included, *do* want to tell us Protestants that we can’t know anything”
Nope. You can know 2+2=4 and the law of noncontradiction is true, and cows cannot jump over the moon, and bats cannot fly our your nose. Your side is the one claiming you can only know those things with high confidence and must leave room for revision and correction. In your perspective, apparently *all* knowledge is provisional. There is no such thing as non-provisional or 100% certain knowledge except in the mind of God – humans cannot apprehend it.
“I am pushing back against a blow struck against the sufficiency of Scripture.”
Scripture is sufficient. Provided it is read in the context of which it is meant to function – that is through the lens of Tradition and divine guidance of the church. When wrenched out of that context, it is distorted and subjugated to manmade traditions and inventions, as history shows.
“Maybe I don’t know much, but I know that Christ is the head, and he told us not to call anyone “Father” (Matt 23).”
I hope you don’t celebrate father’s day. I suppose this should be as compelling to RCs as Arians citing Scripture verses is compelling to you.
LikeLike
Ali
Posted December 12, 2015 at 11:36 am | Permalink
Dear Mermaid,
for us both, for each, and for all – examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 1 Thess 5:21
Notice the word “provisionally” is not there. In fact, its absence is conspicuous.
LikeLike
Joel
Posted December 12, 2015 at 9:37 am | Permalink
Mermaid,
Happy trolling. I think you’ll find plenty of success in your endeavor.
Actually, she’s a participant in the discussion. You’re the troll, tough guy.
LikeLike
The prattle never ceases.
Now CVD’s got the chutzpah to claim that prots fuse ontology and epistemology; being and knowledge.
Will you guys ever stop confusing order of being with order of knowing
Is confusion of order of being and order of knowing a Reformed thing? Is it in your catechisms or something?
This is called begging the question, Bryan’s performative ad hoc standard rebuttal. When the infallible Magisterium is part of the infallible Scripture according to the infallible Magisterium’s definition of infallible Scripture as consisting of three infallible parts of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, nah. There’s absolutely no conflict of interest, category collapse or confusion. None at all. Just keep beating the provisional drum. Prots only affirm Scripture as infallible, not the church. Boo, hiss.
Yep, and NT adherents of Christ and the Apostles could err. So I guess Christ and the Apostles could not have the authority/ability to infallibly offer, define, teach, identify non-provisional judgments and teachings or to normatively and irrevocably correct those mistakes by their followers.
The suppressed conclusion being obviously again, that Rome is equal to Christ and the Apostles. IOW infallible, ineffable and irreformable; incapable of error or sin and permanently without need of reform. Ever.
In the beginning was the Ecclesia and the Ecclesia was God . . . .
(Or as sean puts it, since repetition is the mother of comprehension for the obtuse:
It’s the same sola ecclesia raised to infallibility per Christ and apostolic authority. )
No, little grasshopper. CVD is not combining Scripture (Tradition/Magisterium)with the church(Tradition/Magisterium); being with knowledge, ontology with epistemology.
Rather he is retailing his knowledge of the infallible middle man as infallible and chiding us for not buying in.
But who would?
It’s a shell game from the get go in that papists are as sure that Rome possesses the basis of apostolic unity with the apostolic bones as any third grader that possesses a rabbit’s foot.
(An apostolic rabbit’s foot? Now that’s another question entirely.)
But what of that magic weasel word: provisional?
Yeah, if prots were only pointing to a provisional Scripture, the argument might go somewhere, but since Scripture itself is infallible, perspicuous, self attesting and self interpreting, sufficient and providentially preserved, all men must decrease while the Word increases.
Except for Rome. Then it’s all about the infallible church.
What did I insist upon at the very start of this thread 2000 comments ago – grant the claims of each system to be true and see what falls out in comparison.
Yup. CVD granted the infallible claim of RCism on protestantism and whaddaya know. Bingo, he wins. The WCF errs because according to Rome, it admits that it is possible for councils of the church to err. But not according to the WCF claims re. Scripture.
On that performative crickets.
cheers
LikeLike
Wait.
This just in.
Don’t get hung up on the ontology jazz.
Thomas Aquinas is a transubstantiated Apostle and there are two equal ways of knowing this:
Scripture and the Mass/Eucharist.
Because the Church said so.
Mrs. Merman’s got the scoop above.
True, we meet with Christ by faith in the administration of Lord’s Supper, but it is not a re-enactment of the atonement of Christ by faux Aaronic priests in the mass (Heb. 10:10) and it is subordinate to the Word, without which it is nothing (Heb. 11:6, Rom. 14:23, 10:17).
In a word, the mass cannot be found in the apostolic traditions (teachings) of the apostolic magisterium aka the apostolic New Testament.
As contained in the Roman redefinition of Scripture which includes Roman tradition and the Roman magisterium?
All bets are off.
Rome is infallible,
Thomas AquinasRadbert Paschasius became the 13th apostle in AD13231047 and the mass is history.LikeLike
Interesting article by Taylor Marshall. He defends the historicity of Tobit (against Shea, who takes it to be fiction) on the ground that Augustine and Aquinas both received it as historical.
It’s just that he uses textual criticism to correct the Vulgate. Tough to keep all your infallibilities coordinated.
here
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 12, 2015 at 7:28 pm | Permalink
Mermaid: We know [Jesus] in an intimate way, not just as a bunch of facts.
I agree with that. Having eternal life meanings knowing God by faith (John 17.3).
Given that, it seems strange to me that Catholics here would tell Protestants that they are brothers, yet they cannot know without submitting to the Church. Either we know Christ by faith or we don’t. If we do, then we don’t need special knowledge from an unwritten Tradition. If we don’t know Christ by faith, then we’re not brothers.>>>>
If you are interested, I can dig up some quotes I found from Protestant scholars who talk about the role of tradition in the early Church before Scripture was written down. I mean, if you are interested as a point of fact.
Jeff, the basis of our being brothers and sisters in Christ is the fact of our baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. So, that’s part of the “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” formula from Ephesians 4.
We are separated in communion. That is, you reject the Catholic teaching on the Real Presence – the Eucharist. That is the main point of division. The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith because the Eucharist is Jesus. We take the statements in John literally, while you take them more symbolic. You do keep communion as a sacrament, though, but the meaning is not the same.
It is not clear to me if Luther had a different view of the Eucharist. Probably not. It is pretty clear that he didn’t want to leave the Church. Don’t know why the Holy Spirit allowed us to get all divided. Maybe so that when Christians come back together as one Church again, it will be more glorious. Don’t know. Not omniscient and the Holy Spirit is not telling why. 😉 It is clear, though, that Christ has only one body. He’s not a freak show.
In the case of Anglicans, they have the same view of the Eucharist, but cut themselves off from Rome. Queen Elizabeth is the head of the Church of England.
So, you are in the category of “separated brethren.” Separated from what? Full communion with the visible Church of Christ.
Now, I have not read much at the Called to Communion site. It is over my head. I read like one paragraph, and my eyes glaze over. You guys are all well versed in Reformed theology – and math, I am sure.
It’s more fun to banter with y’all – and more entertaining. I mean, seriously. Bats flying out my nose? You wish.
I play the oboe. I know how to count rests.
I love the Catholic Church. Irresistible grace?
Now I predict that one of you – probably Brother Hart – will bring up Vat. II. I have always thought highly of Vat II, even when I was a Protestant. What can I say? I’m gullible. Pope Francis makes sense. He is all about mercy. He is all about Jesus.
I did hear someone say the other day that Vatican II for many was Vatican too much. Some took it way too far. Others didn’t take it at all. Vat II led eventually to The New Evangelization, which is totally awesome.
I wear Francis’ cross. I’ll bet you have never seen it even in photos.
Now, you be careful out there, Jeff. Don’t lose sleep over the thought of jumping cows, bats flying out your nose, or enemy trolls. I am not your enemy. Maybe we can be frenemies.
LikeLike
Bob S
Posted December 12, 2015 at 9:22 pm | Permalink
The prattle never ceases.
Now CVD’s got the chutzpah to claim that prots fuse ontology and epistemology; being and knowledge.
Well, isn’t that at the heart of the discussion? The Catholic claim is ontological, that the Holy Spirit guides the Church throughout the ages. The claim is not for the pope but for the papacy, not epistemological, that he’s the greatest scholar or theologian in the universe. That’s Luther.* 😉
Further, this “provisionality” business is pure epistemology, that the Bible itself can be altered should some new codex turn up, say from a time closer to the apostolic age than the oldest documents we have now.
Not sure you appreciate the irony that if the Bible itself is provisional–which means ‘subject to revision at a later time’–the Holy Spirit may still be writing it! This is no different [and is actually more radical] than the Catholic claim the Holy Spirit continues to expound on revelation via the magisterium.
The ‘problem’ that Reformationism sought to cure was just replaced with another, and ever worse problem: For most every issue, you can find two Protestants with views 180 degrees apart, a multiplication of doctrinal errors rather than an authoritative correction.
Both Luther and Calvin both aimed to, and thought they achieved, correction of the Church’s theological errors. But again, it was not an ontological claim i.e., via the power of the Church through the Holy Spirit as Augustine believed
but per their own reason as theologians and philologists, such as in Luther’s case epistemologically–his decision in making his Bible, the “Protestant” Bible, to use the Masoretic texts [based on the texts and canon drafted by post-apostolic age Jews in the second century AD] and not the Greek-language Septuagint, which is quoted by Jesus himself.
The “Protestant” Bible itself–the only authority recognized by Protestants, its sine qua non–is thus the product of epistemology, not ontology.
The Catholic “three-legged stool” of Scripture/Tradition/Magisterium is ontological. Whereas Protestantism can rely on epistemology with a “provisional” [let’s stipulate for the sake of argument 99%] degree of confidence, without the Holy Spirit then, now and forever, Catholicism collapses.
_____________________________
*I will go even further with my boasting: I can expound the psalms and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they cannot. I can read the Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray, they cannot. Coming down to their level, I can use their rhetoric and philosophy better than all of them put together. Plus I know that not one of them understands his Aristotle. If any one of them can correctly understand one preface or chapter of Aristotle, I will eat my hat! No, I am not overdoing it, for I have been schooled in and have practiced their science from my youth. I recognize how deep and broad it is. They, too, are well aware that I can do everything they can do. Yet they treat me as a stranger in their discipline, these incurable fellows, as if I had just arrived this morning and had never seen or heard what they teach and know. How they do brilliantly parade around with their science, teaching me what I outgrew twenty years ago! To all their noise and shouting I sing, with the harlot, “I have known for seven years that horseshoe nails are iron.”
Let this be the answer to your first question. Please do not give these donkeys any other answer to their useless braying about that word sola than simply this: “Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the doctors of the pope.” Let it rest there. I will from now on hold them in contempt, and have already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of people (or rather donkeys) that they are. And there are brazen idiots among them who have never even learned their own art of sophistry, like Dr. Schmidt and Dr. Snot-Nose, and such like them, who set themselves against me in this matter, which not only transcends sophistry, but as Paul writes, all the wisdom and understanding in the world as well. Truly a donkey does not have to sing much, because he is already known by his ears.”
LikeLike
Mermaid: Bats flying out my nose? You wish.
Maybe it’s a math thing, or a teacher thing: Pick an obviously absurd example so that everyone already knows the answer, so that you can focus on the principle.
In this case, the principle is that while all empirical knowledge is provisional (including “bats will not fly out my nose”), not all empirical knowledge is doubtful. Provisional does not (necessarily) mean doubtful.
Also, fun examples put the brain in a mood to think. There’s actually research behind that …
So I hope you have fun contemplating bats and noses, while remembering that “provisional does not mean doubtful.” That’s the point of the bat.
Mermaid: I play the oboe. I know how to count rests.
I love the oboe, and I caught the “rests” joke. I play guitar, so I count chord changes.
Mermaid: Don’t know why the Holy Spirit allowed us to get all divided. Maybe so that when Christians come back together as one Church again, it will be more glorious. Don’t know. Not omniscient and the Holy Spirit is not telling why. It is clear, though, that Christ has only one body. He’s not a freak show.
I agree with that.
Mermaid: I am not your enemy. Maybe we can be frenemies.
I would like that outcome. Respecting boundaries could be a good goal for us at this time.
LikeLike
Cletus,
If Protestantism has a mechanism for distinguishing provisional human opinion from non-provisional dogma/revelation, we’re all ears.
His name is the Holy Spirit, and He speaks through Scripture. Maybe you should meet Him.
But since your system (and all its adherents) agree anything and everything Protestantism offers, teaches, defines, identifies is done so provisionally and without a guarantee of divine protection from error, I’m not optimistic. Cue the “but you’re fallible and not omnisicient!” mantra. Which misses the point. Since as you agree, Christ and the Apostles adherents weren’t infallible or omniscient.
It doesn’t miss the point and here is why.
1. All claims Cletus receives are mediated claims; He has no immediate apprehension of any claim to infallibility.
2. IOW, for that claim to get to Cletus, it has to pass through His mind and He has to reason about it.
3. The mind then presents the claim to Cletus’ will for Cletus’ submission.
4. But because Cletus is fallible, Cletus mind and only propose an understanding/claim that is fallible.
5. But given Cletus belief that you cannot submit with faith to admittedly provisional claims, Cletus if he is being consistent cannot submit with faith to Rome. All Cletus has, because of mediated knowledge is the claim Cletus’ mind is making, and that is that Rome claims infallibility.
Just like the people who first heard the Apostles:
1. All claims first-century Jewish Bob receives are mediated claims; He has no immediate apprehension of any claim to infallibility or any claim to fallibility, for that matter.
2. IOW, for that claim to get to first-century Jewish Bob, it has to pass through His mind and He has to reason about it.
3. The mind then presents the claim to first-century Jewish Bob’s will for first-century Jewish Bob’s submission.
4. But because first-century Jewish Bob is fallible, first-century Jewish Bob mind can only propose an understanding/claim that is fallible and provisional, and so His submission to that understanding is provisional.
5. Thus, if Cletus is right, Bob doesn’t have faith.
I look at that, and I see skepticism. But that’s not my fault—it’s yours for leaning on the absolute necessity of a claim of infallibility. And the fact of the matter is, the typical RC apologetic against Prots is the kind we see here from you implicitly and more explicitly from Susan: How can you know?
And nothing Protestantism declares is declared as infallible, but as provisional and subject to revision. Which is the point.
And nothing your mind proposes to your will after it has received Rome’s claim is proposed as infallible but as provisional and subject to revision (if you are fallible). Which is the point.
It’s not “wouldn’t it be nice”. It’s what Scripture and Tradition attests to.
Cough, cough, cough.
Hence the passages and patristic witness affirming certitude of faith, apostolic succession, divinely authorized teachers, divinely guided and protected church, condemnation of schism, etc.
Scripture doesn’t affirm Apostolic succession in the traditional Roman/EO sense, it doesn’t teach that protection and guidance mean the church can never err, and on and on.
Not perpetual provisionality, not statements like “maybe [Christ] just came to life through heretofore undiscovered natural means”,
Oh, so you agree that in order to know with certainty that a resurrection doesn’t point to Christ unless you accept at least the reasonability of the Apostolic interpretation of what that means, good.
not stalements reduced to “I have the HS and you don’t”, not ecclesial deism, not private judgment, and not fideism and skepticism wrapped up in presuppositionalism.
No. We get the stalemate: I have the church, nyah, nyah, nyah.
Yes, and as I pointed out to Bob, everything offered in Protestantism is done so with the possiblity of error. That’s the point.
And everything your mind offers to you about Rome is done so with the possibility of error. That’s the point.
Once again conflating order of being with order of knowing. Christ and the Apostles I guess couldn’t solve the problem of correcting mistaken believers with binding and irreformable teaching and judgments because those believers never became infallible.
1. Christ and the Apostles aren’t the Magisterium
2. Divine revelation can correct with binding and irreformable teachings/judgments
3. But those teachings/judgments don’t impact you or I immediately. They pass through my mind and your mind, and since you and I am fallible, the understanding presented to your will and mine to which you and I are to submit is fallible, provisional, and subject to change.
This “Protestant position” is offered as provisional and subject to revision by Protestantism.
And the RC position is offered to your will as provisional and subject to revision by your mind, since you don’t have the Vulcan mindmeld or immediate apprehension.
The irony hurts again. So now we’re all about reasoning abilities and rejection of skepticism now? Just like “any fair reading of the early church fathers leads one to believe that the papacy as Rome conceives it ain’t there.” – but of course according to you, there is no such thing as a “fair reading” because “reason isn’t neutral” and our presuppositions clouds everything.
If reason were neutral, then no two reasonable people looking at the same set of facts would ever come to a different conclusion. But if we recognize our presuppositions and where they influence us, we can learn to look at things from different perspectives and advance toward a more objective position. If we think we are not shaped by our presuppostions—like you and Bryan Cross apparently do—we get, well, pats on the head from you.
(of course their reason is biased, so maybe they can’t actually judge it since their expectations can never be changed in light of facts/evidence that are “meaningless without interpretation” and so they can’t ever overcome their presuppositions.
Non sequitir. Understanding that our reason is biased helps us to see better where our thinking is shaped by assumptions and not by more critical thought.
Or maybe they can. Since the best we can answer any question is “Based on all the evidence we have so far, it would seem that the answer to your question would be [no/yes]”. We just can’t know for sure – all that finitude and all that. So maybe they can’t be sure of their evaluation since they might be unaware they actually hold to the opposite evaluation, just as they might be unaware of cows actual hidden power to jump over the moon that hasn’t been revealed yet).
My only point is to point out the limits of empirical and inductive reasoning. You can’t just take a series of “facts” about anything and arrive at infallible certainty via induction. Induction can give you only a high degree of probability. This is a recognized limit of induction by scientists.
Or, to use the silly cow example, I can’t really know the essence of the cow by induction. I need something more. Induction only gives me a high probability of what the essence of the cow is. Now as a Christian, I can combine induction with divine revelation—God made each animal according to its kind—and actually be certain that cows can’t jump over the moon. But note what happened there, I had to accept an interpretation of the fact in order for the fact to point me in the certain direction that cows can’t jump over the moon.
The MoC don’t work unless you assume Rome’s authority and interpretation. They’re not convincing if you do not presuppose supernatural reality, and they certainly don’t point to Rome unless you accept Rome’s claims/interpretation.
Holiness of the church is a MoC that is supposed to point to Rome. But there’s no universal definition of what holiness is. Suicide bombers think holiness is blowing up innocent people. So you have to accept Rome’s view of holiness in order to even evaluate whether someone is holy. Then you have to accept that one should give more weight to the holiness of the saints than the holiness of ordinary people, cause if you don’t, Rome ain’t particularly holy. And on and on and on. It only points to Rome if you accept Rome’s interpretation of what holiness is and how it functions to point you to Rome.
The MoC aren’t neutral ground; that’s my point.
LikeLike
Ali
Posted December 12, 2015 at 11:03 am | Permalink
The Little Mermaid: Dear Ali, try to understand what I am saying.
I think I understand. ie>>>
I appreciate the fact that you are trying. Thanks.
Ali:
1) there has been some lack of clarity, perhaps some mis-statements, some mis-understood stating (but as far as I can see, you are not accepting the clarification being made and perhaps are being uncharitable?) But I agree somewhat on some confusion, which is why I had to remind myself (above) in the way God has for me.>>>
No problem. I hope you understood that Calvinists when they present the doctrines of grace do not present them as provisional knowledge. Spurgeon was a Calvinist, and he did not preach in a way that would indicate he was anything but 100% sure of what he was preaching.
So, I really don’t know how that epistemology plays out in real life. Calvinists talk as though they really believe 100% in what they are saying, especially when it comes to the doctrines of grace.
Ali:
2) TULIP is not you theology>>>>
No, it is not. It is a part of Reformed theology. Now, Reformed theologians claim a link to Augustine.
Mermaid: l come out of the Protestant Reformation.
Ali:
Yes you have said this and this is puzzlement to me just at it appears you are puzzled by those who ‘do not come out’ of it.>>>
I was a Protestant most of my life – from the time I was a small child. I’m not really puzzled by those who do not leave Protestantism. I am puzzled as to why I did. Well, not puzzled, but quite surprised to find myself on this side of the Tiber – and happy. I was happy as a Protestant, too, and grateful for all those who taught me the Bible through the years.
Ali:
In the end, I do like Spurgeon’s statement because it is the Lord’s statement (essentially): Though our Lord Jesus Christ hath only one Church, a part of its members, I believe, may be found in every denomination; but they owe not their standing to true fellowship they hold with denominations. There is one great denomination, “the church of the living God,” to which every true believer must belong.”>>>
I still love Spurgeon. He is talking here of what is called the invisible Church. Yes. He is on the right track as far as the invisible Church goes. Jesus talked about one visible Church as well.
I said:
Ali, notice, too, that Brother Hart will not go on record as agreeing that the body of Christ may be found someday. Why would that be?>>>>
Ali:
Not sure what you are saying, but it sounds like quite an accusation and one which the Lord is likely not pleased, because I believe DG is one of His sons….not a ‘separated’-son, nor a ‘provisional’-son or however you might like to describe adding to the Lord’s work.>>>>
I am not sure why. He told me he would tell me. I’ll bait him tomorrow, maybe. He’s an old baiter from way back, so he can handle it. 😉
I have lotsa’ rests to count tomorrow, so he may have to wait until Monday.
I believe that Brother Hart is my brother in the Lord. I call him that all the time, and mean it. We are separated by a river – the Tiber.
LikeLike
Robert: If reason were neutral, then no two reasonable people looking at the same set of facts would ever come to a different conclusion. But if we recognize our presuppositions and where they influence us, we can learn to look at things from different perspectives and advance toward a more objective position.
This is really important. The epistemology discussion is stuck in part because the only options conceived by the Catholic side are either Thomistic realism or ’90s style Postmodernism.
For my part, I would consider myself a post-critical realist in scientific matters and very close to a Hodge-style exegete. Neither of those fit into Thomistic realism or Postmodernism.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 12, 2015 at 10:35 pm | Permalink
CVD: This “Protestant position” is offered as provisional and subject to revision by Protestantism.
Robert: And the RC position is offered to your will as provisional and subject to revision by your mind, since you don’t have the Vulcan mindmeld or immediate apprehension.
Didn’t CVD render Jeff Cagle’s [Protestantism’s?] position/argument accurately?
I’m thinking the problem isn’t that you don’t understand each other, but that you understand each other too well.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 12, 2015 at 10:54 pm | Permalink
Robert: If reason were neutral, then no two reasonable people looking at the same set of facts would ever come to a different conclusion. But if we recognize our presuppositions and where they influence us, we can learn to look at things from different perspectives and advance toward a more objective position.
This is really important. The epistemology discussion is stuck in part because the only options conceived by the Catholic side are either Thomistic realism or ’90s style Postmodernism.
For my part, I would consider myself a post-critical realist in scientific matters and very close to a Hodge-style exegete. Neither of those fit into Thomistic realism or Postmodernism.
No Holy Spirit in sight, Brother Cagle. No ontology detectable.
The Catholic Church’s only real appeal to epistemology is that it’s still here after 2000 years, or even if it stipulates Darryl Hart’s foggy objections, still at least 1500 years–despite the best efforts of men, priests, bishops and even some popes to undermine it. [And needless to say Zwingli, Luther and Calvin, etc.]
[Dr. Hart’s own “Calvinist” church dates only back to the 1930s, a wink of a blink of an eye in Calvinism: A History, or “Presbyterianism: A History” let alone Christianity: A History.]
Robert: If reason were neutral, then no two reasonable people looking at the same set of facts would ever come to a different conclusion.
Actually, Robert, reason is neutral if, and this is key to our discussion: Is truth “neutral?”
If you believe as a Christian, there is One Truth, not many. To me, “neutrality” means not deciding between competing versions of truth, the truth, God’s Truth.
Neutrality = provisionalism
Neutrality = fallibilism
Neutrality = subjectivism
Neutrality = relativism
No “God’s Truth” anywhere in sight. No Holy Spirit in sight. Only man, guided by his own fallen reason.
The ancients back to Aristotle called knowledge of the natural law–and this includes that God exists[!]–“right reason.” When it’s not, it’s not reason, it’s fallen reason, Robert. Man’s fallen reason.
This is why sneering at Thomas Aquinas is the last refuge of an idiot, if not the damned, Robert. Thomas took Aristotle and the wisdom of the ancients
http://verticallivingministries.com/2012/05/15/r-c-sproul-on-thomas-aquinas-was-he-the-most-brilliant-of-all-the-theologians/
and claimed all of man’s “right reason” to date—including Aristotle’s–for Christ!
Claimed it from Islam. True story, Brother Robert. You too, Dr. History. Tell them about al-Fārābī, Avicenna and Averroës. Earn your keep here at your own blog. Stop bitching and teach. There is only one truth, not many.
At least teach them that.
LikeLike
Tom,
No one is sneering at Thomas. We’re just questioning the uncritical acceptance of him. And if truth is God’s truth, and it is, then truth isn’t neutral. It is what it is by virtue of God’s decree and God’s interpretation of it. Your interpretation of any fact must line up with God’s interpretation of it to come to knowledge of truth. There is no objective, non-interpreted fact to which God’s understanding submits. But if you say reason is neutral, you are denying that.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 13, 2015 at 8:01 am | Permalink
Tom,
No one is sneering at Thomas. We’re just questioning the uncritical acceptance of him. And if truth is God’s truth, and it is, then truth isn’t neutral. It is what it is by virtue of God’s decree and God’s interpretation of it. Your interpretation of any fact must line up with God’s interpretation of it to come to knowledge of truth. There is no objective, non-interpreted fact to which God’s understanding submits. But if you say reason is neutral, you are denying that.>>>>
Well, what Jeff did with Catholicism can be done by anyone and with any system. Jeff was relying on human reason alone to come up with his conclusions. In fact, at what point did Jeff factor in regeneration and the work of the Holy Spirit?
It was a purely rationalistic exercise. An atheist could take that same process and “prove” that all of Christianity is false.
It is not a process that is designed to arrive at truth. It produces an answer according to the information fed into it.
For example, Jeff keeps saying that Tobit cannot be inspired. Why is that? If he applies the rule “the inspired Word of God cannot have historical errors”, then he has a problem with some details of the rest of the OT.
Besides, Protestants have developed a narrative about how the Protestantism canon came into being. Is it true? Why not allow some of that information to penetrate Protestant skulls and make you guys think in a different way? How did the Protestant canon really develop? Who developed it and why? How many books of the New Testament were originally excluded?
Protestantism has tried to control the past, and thereby control the future of Christianity. Luther was very methodical in going about setting his new religion on the course he wished it to go – away from Rome and towards his new theology and new canon. Eventually, his new narrative drew more support and has been used by Protestants ever since.
We see that being done right now here in the US with our history. You have people in positions of power who want to set the country in a different direction. They have said so openly, so its no secret. They are creating a new narrative about the founding of our country and all of our history so as to control the future and keep themselves and those who think like them in power.
This is nothing new. However, in the case of Christianity, the old narrative is very much alive. Protestants have little knowledge of Church history. Once a Protestant begins to look at Church history without the “aid” of Luther’s narrative, his or her mind begins to change.
The new narrative – Protestantism – doesn’t look so true anymore.
Think about Church history and the history of Protestantism in a new way. What is the future of Protestantism and of the new doctrine of sola scriptura? It is set on the path of the Jesus Seminar, like it or not. There is nothing in the Protestant narrative to keep that from happening.
Now, the application of the epistemology of provisional knowledge combine with textual criticism is part of your brave, new Protestant world. And truth? What happens to truth?
“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”
― George Orwell, 1984
LikeLike
Jeff: To answer your question, Yes. We do all have different fact bases and ways of looking at the world. For that reason, I think it’s appropriate to give a lot of latitude to people.
‘different fact bases and ways of looking at the world’ ? Isn’t it really much more and deeper than that, Jeff?
TVD: Ali for us both, for each, and for all – examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 1 Thess 5:21 Notice the word “provisionally” is not there.
Yes thanks TVD. And notice by that verse +sum of His word 1) each person must do this, ie no one does this for us, in the end 2) the Spirit enables it 3)testing is to be against the Word of God
Mermaid: The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith because the Eucharist is Jesus. So, you are in the category of “separated brethren.” Separated from what? Full communion with the visible Church of Christ.
Source and summit of faith: Jesus Himself, the gift of grace, the gift of faith, the gift of rebirth- and that unable to separated from the act of believing the gospel. Reiterating- regeneration and faith cannot be separated from one another. Visible church = all true believers and extra (not sure how to define all of them)
Mermaid : I love the Catholic Church. Irresistible grace?
Irresistible grace, Mermaid? Salvation belongs to the Lord,-not the ‘church’ ,Mermaid, and by the power of the Holy Spirit -the dead made alive.
Jesus:“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.” “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up at the last day.”
Mermaid: I wear Francis’ cross.
“What better way to be reminded of St. Francis and Pope Francis’ simple, yet profound message than to wear your own pectoral cross.” (from catholicfaithstore)
I don’t wear crosses anymore mermaid, but if I did, it would be to remind me of JESUS’s excruciating sacrifice, not anything about a human man. sheesh just isn’t strong enough here, but I am speechless.
Mermaid: Jesus talked about one visible Church as well.
Jesus: Allow both to grow together until the harvest (Matt 13:50 ) IOW, Jesus is the one who knows the church in the various visibles (see above, not sure how to define all of them)
LikeLike
sean, ring a ding.
Not saying Jeff and Robert shouldn’t be complimented for carrying on with herding cats. But James Young won’t budge from his blankie and for all the seminar in epistemology talk, this if finally subjective and sentimental.
LikeLike
James Young, Rome being one true church is a historical claim that the history doesn’t back up. You’re in fairy land of Christ made Peter the first pope.
LikeLike
James Young, Scripture read outside tradition is subjugated to manmade traditions?
So tradition is not manmade? It’s divinely revealed? There you go again showing your Mormon beliefs.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 13, 2015 at 9:18 am | Permalink
James Young, Rome being one true church is a historical claim that the history doesn’t back up. You’re in fairy land of Christ made Peter the first pope.>>>>
What Protestantism can’t do is lay an historical claim to being a church at all. What is “protestantism” after all? Protestantism how now met the perfect epistemology.
No truth has been discovered, since truth was not even the aim of the epistemological exercise. The Catholic Church can’t be what she claims to be, so? So what?
We should all be atheists, then. or agnostics…or deists. It’s all the same. The Holy Spirit was deposited into the Bible and that’s all, provisionally speaking, of course. More investigations needed and more studies need to be done.
LikeLike
Mermaid: Jesus talked about one visible Church as well.
Jesus: Allow both to grow together until the harvest (Matt 13:50 ) IOW, Jesus is the one who knows the church in the various visibles (see above, not sure how to define all of them)>>>>
Grow together, Ali. All in the same field, not in hundreds or even thousands of fields.
You are a good Protestant. Mockery is about all you guys do, besides tear down your own faith.
Notice that when you share your faith, you get mocked as well. Maybe you didn’t notice.
LikeLike
No one of note
Posted December 12, 2015 at 11:00 am | Permalink
Ali,
>>>
-the only rule has He given for this – the Word of God Q2
>>>
I would suggest this is what Roman Catholics cannot agree to for deeply believed and principled reasons. Following the Summa Theologica of Aquinas, they cannot agree the Holy Spirit is the sufficient interpreter of Scripture for the churches of Christendom, but rather the Roman Catholic Church is.>>>>
Confessional Protestants see the need for interpreters of Scripture that follow certain standards. The guys in here do not approve of what Ali does – or most Evangelical Christians do. That is why the standards are pushed as a way to keep a person from falling into heresy.
That is the line of reasoning that got me studying the WCF and other Reformed standards. There is a lot of good in them, but they really can’t be used to define anything since they are all reformable.
How is heresy defined?
It is defined by an ever reformable process governed now, it seems, by the epistemology of provisional knowledge.
I suspect that is being taken from Karl Barth’s neo orthodoxy. It would seem to be more than just a conincidence that Karl Barth used the same epistemology that Jeff and Robert are pushing here.
The thing is that both Van Til and Machen were no fans of Barthian neo orthodoxy.
I have been trying to get Brother Hart to weigh in on that, but he is not being upfront about it.
It would be good to hear from Machen’s biographer on what he would have thought of all this. I suspect he would not be happy.
LikeLike
The Little Mermaid: Mockery is about all you guys do, besides tear down your own faith. Notice that when you share your faith, you get mocked as well. Maybe you didn’t notice.
Yep, have noticed that sometimes happens. Did you notice that your first statement above is essentially the same as well. Mermaid, mockery is our flesh’s second skin, so to speak, isn’t it; foremost mockery of God from the beginning (Did God really say….Gen 3,) so no surprise otherwise as well.
from a link yesterday:
Conclusion
“The Lord wants us to apply His teaching here to our walk with God: Is the Holy Spirit progressively guiding you in all the truth, especially the truth about Christ, as you study His Word? Do you see His personal ministry in your life as He works to conform you to Christ? Are you growing to understand more deeply the great truths of Scripture, centered in Christ and the gospel? And, is your life increasingly Christ-centered and Christ-glorifying?”
“If you honestly can’t answer “yes,” there could be two causes:
First, you may not be walking in the Spirit or be filled with the Spirit. To walk in the Spirit means to depend on Him, not yourself. To be filled with the Spirit means to yield completely to Him, so that He controls your life. It’s a lifelong process, but you should be practicing it every day.”
“Second, it is possible that you do not have the Holy Spirit because you have never trusted in Christ. The Spirit is given to those who trust in the Lord Jesus Christ to save them from God’s righteous judgment. Here is the Spirit’s invitation to you (Rev. 22:17): “The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.”
Mermaid, the ‘visible church’ = the first and second people described above.
That’s what the ‘one’ ‘visible’ church all over the world, all kinds of denominations,is, isn’t it, according to the Lord.
Have a good day.
LikeLike
Ali, you are using Scripture to justify your mockery that you say is fleshly. I don’t submit to your interpretations.
LikeLike
Mermaid, Zurich, 1522. It’s right there in history. In case you didn’t notice, Protestantism’s history rests on the truthfulness of the Bible. Rome’s on the claims of Rome. (I wonder how that would go over in an epistemology seminar.)
I’ll take God’s word over a bishop. And you think you have more certainty with a bishop who makes all sorts of mistakes and suffers from various degrees of pride than with God? How much koolaid did you drink?
LikeLike
A Lutheran response to Dreher and Jacobs:
If the Bible cannot be understood and we need infallible interpreters, wouldn’t it be nice if those claiming infallibility actually studied, meditated upon, and made knowing Scripture their life’s work? Instead? They need to worry about a vast bureaucracy.
No one said Rome had through through function.
LikeLike
What did I insist upon at the very start of this thread 2000 comments ago – grant the claims of each system to be true and see what falls out in comparison.
This works as well with products and politicians as it does with churches, plus all the amazing people on okcupid. Like with priest reassignments, you might occasionally lose the lottery but that doesn’t entail a fundamental flaw in anything.
LikeLike
Mermaid,
Well, what Jeff did with Catholicism can be done by anyone and with any system.
Actually, no, it can’t. It is particularly devastating to the view of RCism presented here, which has almost nothing in common epistemologically with the current pope or the vast number of RCs. One of Jeff’s main points is the false dilemma of Mathematical certainty via the Magisterium and everything goes.
Jeff was relying on human reason alone to come up with his conclusions. In fact, at what point did Jeff factor in regeneration and the work of the Holy Spirit?
1. Jeff has talked about the HS over and over again.
2. We’re not the ones insisting on neutral motives of credibility and neutral reason. CVD is trying that. It’s otherwise known as Enlightenment rationalism. You want to make an argument based on Enlightenment assumptions about the mind like CVD does, then the “rationalistic” reply will destroy it.
3. BTW, Cletus agrees that the Holy Spirit doesn’t make the individual infallible. He keeps shrugging that off, but if you are going to say you can’t have certainty of faith without something being offered as infallible, you must deal with the fact of mediated knowledge. The only way out is an immediate impression that bypasses your normal ways of getting at information. But if you accept that, then there goes the emphasis on reason.
Your mind is fallible. It was fallible before the fall. The HS doesn’t change that fact.
It was a purely rationalistic exercise. An atheist could take that same process and “prove” that all of Christianity is false.
Actually, no he can’t. The exercise just proves that assuming the absolute necessity of something offering something as infallible to justify the assent of faith has as its foundation radical skepticism. The same argument won’t work against Reformed theology, because Reformed theology doesn’t claim that infallibility on the part of the church or the individual is necessary for certainty/assurance, etc.
For example, Jeff keeps saying that Tobit cannot be inspired. Why is that? If he applies the rule “the inspired Word of God cannot have historical errors”, then he has a problem with some details of the rest of the OT.
So now you deny biblical infallibility? That makes you the modernist.
Besides, Protestants have developed a narrative about how the Protestantism canon came into being. Is it true? Why not allow some of that information to penetrate Protestant skulls and make you guys think in a different way? How did the Protestant canon really develop? Who developed it and why? How many books of the New Testament were originally excluded?
I don’t follow this at all. What information are you talking about?
Protestantism has tried to control the past, and thereby control the future of Christianity. Luther was very methodical in going about setting his new religion on the course he wished it to go – away from Rome and towards his new theology and new canon. Eventually, his new narrative drew more support and has been used by Protestants ever since.
Luther was as surprised as anyone at what he wrought. To say he did this methodically betrays ignorance of history.
This is nothing new. However, in the case of Christianity, the old narrative is very much alive. Protestants have little knowledge of Church history. Once a Protestant begins to look at Church history without the “aid” of Luther’s narrative, his or her mind begins to change.
The new narrative – Protestantism – doesn’t look so true anymore.
Well among other things, this assumes that bias affects people. You need to talk to CVD because he doesn’t understand that.
Your statement also needs to acknowledge the fact that RC historians read church history and don’t find what you find.
Think about Church history and the history of Protestantism in a new way. What is the future of Protestantism and of the new doctrine of sola scriptura?
Sola scriptura isn’t a new doctrine. The primary place of Scripture is so evident from the text and from church history that you even have RCs having to move toward Protestantism’s view of the place of Scripture with the idea of material sufficiency.
It is set on the path of the Jesus Seminar, like it or not.
The history of Roman Catholicism hasn’t stopped RC universities from embracing the assumptions of the Jesus Seminar.
There is nothing in the Protestant narrative to keep that from happening.
His name is the Holy Spirit. He preserves His elect. He preserves His church. The gates of hell don’t prevail. Visible disunity isn’t proof of hell prevailing if rank apostasy and interior theological division in Rome isn’t proof of such.
Now, the application of the epistemology of provisional knowledge combine with textual criticism is part of your brave, new Protestant world. And truth? What happens to truth?
Protestants don’t have to rewrite history to put the Vatican in Rome from Peter on. Protestantism’s admission of the limits of the human mind and the pervasiveness of sin actually make truth easier to discern, ironically.
LikeLike
Mike,
This works as well with products and politicians as it does with churches, plus all the amazing people on okcupid. Like with priest reassignments, you might occasionally lose the lottery but that doesn’t entail a fundamental flaw in anything.
Now there’s an interesting sociological study: Compare the people swindled by people they meet on dating sites because they grant the truth of the claims with those who think Rome is da bomb and solution to all of life’s problems, and see how much overlap we find.
LikeLike
Robert, even I can see that all he did was enter the info he wanted to in order to get a specific outcome. The exercise was biased in the extreme.
Besides,so what? It does nothing to prove anything about you.
Your epistemology destroys your fallible-infallible paradigm. Otherwise why do you keep reforming the Bible? What good is an infallible rule that has failed to be communicated infallibly? What does that say about the Holy Spirit?
LikeLike
Hi Mrs. Mermaid,
>>>
How is heresy defined [in Protestantism]? It is defined by an ever reformable process governed now, it seems, by the epistemology of provisional knowledge.
>>>
Not sure, and not sure I care. What i actually care about is how the apostles of Jesus Christ define heresy – think 1 Cor. 15 and 1 Timothy 4:
“But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.”
Consider interpreting that.
LikeLike
Mrs Webfoot,
I just read through the thread a little way back. Do you feel that it’s pointless to comment here, or do you feel you’re chipping away at all?
You have given some really good arguments but Darryl , Robert, Jeff, and Ali dont appear to be leaning towards Catholicism , so I’m wondering what more can be said.
From their perspective there isnt anyway for us to ever be unified, because there isn’t a single unifiying entity or gospel to unite under. None of them have told us where we should go if we left the Catholic Church.
Also I found it completely ironic that Jeff consulted Darryl and Brandon to ask how they should deal with you and Tom. Seriously? Darryl is the one who makes fun of not only Catholics but everyone. He’s called me Daffy and stupid, and did his elders do anything about it? He’s never written me privately to apologize.
As Andrew Preslar said it’s OLTS that acts like a bunch of monkeys. Why would Jeff expect someone who does and approves of ad homs and mockery to play nice and fair?
This blog isnt a church and it doesnt have a tribunal to rightly govern. In a way it is an analogy for Protestantism as an authority; that is, making a club of your own, calling it church and defining what it’s rules are, and who will belong. We are Cats and dont belong to this parachurch organization so when push comes to shove its the Prots that win any of those disputes that require that we bring it to the church”.
Why is everyone trying to settle disputes through a hierarchal system at this blog?
LikeLike
Susan,
I, for one, have told you that if you leave the RCC, you find a church that preaches the gospel.
LikeLike
Robert,
Your presuppose that the Catholic Church doesnt. Neither history, tradition nor scripture bares that out. So to be protestant I have to assume your Protestantism( a system that requires that I adopt your negative ecclesiology), and then I have to choose among different docrrines because no denominations claims it is the one holy church.
Your system confusions for the seeker which undermines what should be 31st in a world of conflicting religions; and that is ….find the church and therein is the gospel.
Yea you pulled me back into a fruitless discussion. But I realize that if Dave Anders and CVD can’t make headway, I surely can’t. I just need to just trust the Holy Spirit.
You’re in my prayers.
LikeLike
“I often find more mutual understanding between myself and a fundamentalist Southern Baptist who sincerely believes I am worshipping the great whore of Babylon and on my way to Hell, or with a Muslim who uncompromisingly rejects my belief that Christ is Lord as utter pagan blasphemy, than I find with some active Catholic laity, nuns, especially ex-nuns, priests and even bishops! As fellow Catholics we may agree on more articles of faith than I do with the Protestant or the Muslim, yet I sense we disagree more fundamentally than I do with the Protestant or the Muslim, and not just by personal temperament.”
Peter Kreeft
http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/03_ecumenism/ecumenism_transcription.htm
LikeLike
Susan, is this the gospel?
It’s gooey, is has some sap, and it’s inspirational. Please don’t in some daffy way say, “it’s beautiful (cue liberal sentimentality).
But it’s not the gospel and it comes from the highest levels of your communion (which isn’t all that united as I’ve tried to show many many times).
LikeLike
The Little Mermaid
Posted December 13, 2015 at 11:02 am | Permalink
That is the line of reasoning that got me studying the WCF and other Reformed standards. There is a lot of good in them, but they really can’t be used to define anything since they are all reformable.
How is heresy defined?
It is defined by an ever reformable process governed now, it seems, by the epistemology of provisional knowledge.
I suspect that is being taken from Karl Barth’s neo orthodoxy. It would seem to be more than just a conincidence that Karl Barth used the same epistemology that Jeff and Robert are pushing here.
The thing is that both Van Til and Machen were no fans of Barthian neo orthodoxy.
I have been trying to get Brother Hart to weigh in on that, but he is not being upfront about it.
It would be good to hear from Machen’s biographer on what he would have thought of all this. I suspect he would not be happy.
It’s getting pretty obvious Dr. Hart isn’t capable of much more than abetting his surrogates in throwing poo-poo at Catholicism. His dodging is laughable.
LikeLike
No one of note
Posted December 13, 2015 at 4:28 pm | Permalink
“I often find more mutual understanding between myself and a fundamentalist Southern Baptist who sincerely believes I am worshipping the great whore of Babylon and on my way to Hell, or with a Muslim who uncompromisingly rejects my belief that Christ is Lord as utter pagan blasphemy, than I find with some active Catholic laity, nuns, especially ex-nuns, priests and even bishops! As fellow Catholics we may agree on more articles of faith than I do with the Protestant or the Muslim, yet I sense we disagree more fundamentally than I do with the Protestant or the Muslim, and not just by personal temperament.”
Peter Kreeft
http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/03_ecumenism/ecumenism_transcription.htm
Don’t make the same dishonest error that Dr. Hart specializes in, lumping what “some Catholics” believe with what the Church actually teaches.
Kreeft also writes:
but here at Old Life, they absolutely delight in their schisms, so much so that not only is the word “Protestantism” meaningless, so is “Calvinist,” “Reformed” and “Presbyterian.”
LikeLike
Susan: Also I found it completely ironic that Jeff consulted Darryl and Brandon to ask how they should deal with you and Tom.
DGH was not in that loop. Brandon and I were emailing about other matters not directly related to OL.
If you have an issue with DGH — and I can fully understand not wanting to be called Daffy or other things — push him on it. I don’t think he pretends to perfection.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 13, 2015 at 5:12 pm | Permalink
Susan: Also I found it completely ironic that Jeff consulted Darryl and Brandon to ask how they should deal with you and Tom.
DGH was not in that loop. Brandon and I were emailing about other matters not directly related to OL.
Heh. No way to “deal” with her. She’s beating you fair and square. Even most Protestants would be appalled at this “provisional” business, because if faith is provisional, it’s not faith.
LikeLike
@jeff
Thanks for the summary. I’ve read the responses and it is clear that we’ve rediscovered the limitations of foundationalism. There is no epistemic advantage of a system in which the only infallible authority is the bible and a system with an infallible middle man.
Your patience with the trolls is commendable.
LikeLike
Not “dealing”, “interacting.”
The point is not about winning arguments. It is about interacting with people, even through the personas they present.
LikeLike
TVD
Posted December 13, 2015 at 4:54 pm | Permalink
The Little Mermaid
Posted December 13, 2015 at 11:02 am | Permalink
That is the line of reasoning that got me studying the WCF and other Reformed standards. There is a lot of good in them, but they really can’t be used to define anything since they are all reformable.
How is heresy defined?
It is defined by an ever reformable process governed now, it seems, by the epistemology of provisional knowledge.
I suspect that is being taken from Karl Barth’s neo orthodoxy. It would seem to be more than just a conincidence that Karl Barth used the same epistemology that Jeff and Robert are pushing here.
The thing is that both Van Til and Machen were no fans of Barthian neo orthodoxy.
I have been trying to get Brother Hart to weigh in on that, but he is not being upfront about it.
It would be good to hear from Machen’s biographer on what he would have thought of all this. I suspect he would not be happy.
TVD:
It’s getting pretty obvious Dr. Hart isn’t capable of much more than abetting his surrogates in throwing poo-poo at Catholicism. His dodging is laughable.>>>>>
I am beginning to wonder if he even knows what is being done, here, with the epistemology of provisional knowledge.
He knows enough not to say that he believes there to be an ever so slight possibility of finding the dead body of Jesus – or His bones, or whatever it is.
Most of the guys, I am guessing, know that the absurd examples entail a misuse of the Lord’s Name, and a violation of their 3rd Commandment. Both Jeff and Robert put the resurrection of our blessed Lord in the same category as bats flying out of noses and cows jumping over the moon.
Exodus 20
7 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.
Leviticus 22:32
32 And you shall not profane my holy name, but I will be hallowed among the people of Israel; I am the Lord who sanctify you,
LikeLike
sdb
Posted December 13, 2015 at 5:56 pm | Permalink
@jeff
Thanks for the summary. I’ve read the responses and it is clear that we’ve rediscovered the limitations of foundationalism. There is no epistemic advantage of a system in which the only infallible authority is the bible and a system with an infallible middle man.
Translators, interpreters and folks like Luther who cut parts out of the Bible are all “middle men,” usually self-appointed. All the Reformation did is multiply the epistemological problem, not solve it.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted December 13, 2015 at 5:56 pm | Permalink
@jeff
Thanks for the summary. I’ve read the responses and it is clear that we’ve rediscovered the limitations of foundationalism. >>>>>>
That is the word I was looking for. You have undermined all infallible foundations, including the Bible.
The theological fundamentalism of Machen is dead. Long like the epistemology.
No middle men. No men on the top. No men on the bottom. Just pure epistemological freedom to think free thoughts.
LikeLike
Tom, point taken. I just can’t see how Christ’s body, assuming RC dogma and ecumenical aspirations is so divided. Nor was I taking a cheap shot at RC dogma on the body of Christ. When I seek to dismantle that, I’ll do it with Scripture, not my ex-prof.
Kreeft writes, “Christ’s body is not divided. When Christ comes at the end of the world to marry His Church, He will not be a polygamist. The Church will not be His harem.”
I disagree. Christ’s body is brutally divided, in every locale. Hacked. Into. Pieces. If Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 1:13 and 12:25 weren’t a real possibility, then they were empty rhetoric when written. Actually, schism has been the reality for a very long time, and Kreeft lives in denial.
But that does not determine whether in the future the universal church will be one – it most certainly will when Christ returns and all His elect resurrected in the twinkling of an eye, forever to be with the Lord.
LikeLike
Susan,
I thank you for interacting here. I’m sorry for the written name calling, too. And the put downs.
Yuck, and double yuck.
LikeLike
December 12, 2015 at 10:25 pm | Permalink
Well, isn’t that at the heart of the discussion? The Catholic claim is ontological,
Well, yeah TVD. The roman epistemological claim cannot help being ontological.
Rome’s traditions and magisterium are enshrined/redefined as Scripture, which novel version of Scripture is also Rome’s ultimate authority.
But this is not an egregious conflict of interest and category collapse?
To ask is to answer.
Not sure you appreciate the irony that if the Bible itself is provisional–which means ‘subject to revision at a later time’–the Holy Spirit may still be writing it! This is no different [and is actually more radical] than the Catholic claim the Holy Spirit continues to expound on revelation via the magisterium.
If Rome could distinguish between illumination and inspiration it would be one thing, but that is precisely what Rome refuses to do in order that it may again jump to the erroneous conclusion that it is just as inspired – and thereby authoritative – as the apostles.
But, but, but.
But what about the (inevitable) “Semper Reformandum Forever”, the battle cry in rebuttal by the implicit faithful, who are invincibly ignorant of the genuine prot article. (See here.) Rather “Provisional It Is Always For Prots, Forever And Amen”.
But that: “Ecclesia reformata est semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei”, or “The reformed church is always being reformed according to the Word of God” does not mean that prots get to reinvent the confessional wheel in every generation, though the church grows in her understanding and confession of the truth.
Contra the whole ‘start over from scratch’ ideas, prots are not all about revising the doctrine of the Trinity or the early church’s canon of Scripture.
Remember?
That’s what Rome does.
Think the pope, the mass, transubstantiation, mariolatry, image worship, etc.
You know, that whole controlling church history thing that Georgette Orwell was talking about.
Neither are we breathlessly awaiting a new inspired word from Jorge “Whom Am I to Judge?” Bergoglio, Mohammed, the angel Moroni.
Or even Westcott and Hort. (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus etc. are arguably of the providentially discarded family of manuscripts, since they disagree significantly amongst themselves, even apart from the so called Textus Receptus, the basis of the historic Reformation vernacular translations of Scripture.)
As per WCF 1:8, Scripture is providentially preserved so that in all ages the church has trustworthy copies of the original manuscripts which are not to be added unto (the apocrypha, 1:3) or taken away from (1:6).
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;
Besides at Trent, the Latin Vulgate was made equal to, if not exalted over the Hebrew OT and Greek NT.
IOW semper eadum means semper depravandum.
Rome always lies.
However sincerely its converts believe otherwise.
LikeLike
No one of note
Posted December 13, 2015 at 6:38 pm | Permalink
Tom, point taken. I just can’t see how Christ’s body, assuming RC dogma and ecumenical aspirations is so divided. Nor was I taking a cheap shot at RC dogma on the body of Christ. When I seek to dismantle that, I’ll do it with Scripture, not my ex-prof.
Kreeft writes, “Christ’s body is not divided. When Christ comes at the end of the world to marry His Church, He will not be a polygamist. The Church will not be His harem.”
I disagree. Christ’s body is brutally divided, in every locale. Hacked. Into. Pieces. If Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 1:13 and 12:25 weren’t a real possibility, then they were empty rhetoric when written. Actually, schism has been the reality for a very long time, and Kreeft lives in denial.
The Catholic Church still holds, despite Darryl Hart’s churning of 500 years old controversies like the Avignon papacy, or trying to get cheap mileage out of Vatican II.
Dr. Hart’s acolytes continually drop his bland assertion that that the papacy failed, hence the Reformation. But it was the Reformation that failed, and its uncountable splinters are the proof.
The Kreeft article is very good, BTW, and he’s candid that for many Catholics there’s a certain connection with Jesus that they’re not getting at Church, and for some, that connection is found in some Protestant churches–I would submit almost exclusively in the evangelical ones, which emphasize the personal, since the Protestant mainline’s problems are that same as the Catholic Church’s and usually worse because of the devolution of meaningful theology.
Still, before we give the laurels to the Reformation, we must keep in mind that Kreeft himself swam the Tiber, and has no intention of swimming back. The Reformation is structurally incapable of fostering unity in the Church–its central tenet, as Ms. Mermaid puts it succinctly
That the Bible is the “sole authority” means nothing when men cannot agree what it says. Unity is impossible.
LikeLike
The Little Mermaid
Posted December 12, 2015 at 10:46 pm | Permalink
I believe that Brother Hart is my brother in the Lord. I call him that all the time, and mean it. We are separated by a river – the Tiber.
No, the reformed catholic are separated from the Roman catholic by the river of the pure water of life that flows from the throne of God and the Lamb (Rev. 22:1).
As was declared at the Reformation by the reformed churches, separating on the basis of Scripture alone from the deformed Roman church, you cannot cross over from death unto life eternal but by faith alone, in Christ alone, through sovereign predestinating and electing grace alone, to God’s glory alone.
In contrast, Rome’s counterfeit Gospel of the Five Ands, of salvation by faith and the sinner’s meritorious works, in the name of Christ and Mary and the saints, through sovereign grace and the sinner’s free will, to the glory of God and the pope, plainly doesn’t cut it.
LikeLike
As was declared at the Reformation by the reformed churches, separating on the basis of Scripture alone from the deformed Roman church, you cannot cross over from death unto life eternal but by faith alone, in Christ alone, through sovereign predestinating and electing grace alone, to God’s glory alone.
Protestants don’t even agree on this predestination stuff, as though man is some sort of glorified turnip.
In contrast, Rome’s counterfeit Gospel of the Five Ands, of salvation by faith and the sinner’s meritorious works, in the name of Christ and Mary and the saints, through sovereign grace and the sinner’s free will, to the glory of God and the pope, plainly doesn’t cut it.
Except for the free will part, all of this is a lie, Bob. Loraine Boettner stuff. Bad boy. Very bad.
LikeLike
That the Bible is the “sole authority” means nothing when men cannot agree what it says. Unity is impossible.
That men abuse of the truth is not an argument against the truth.
That that scandalizes many who then flee and cling to the idol of a outward external nominal unity is also no real argument against the truth.
Neither is walking by sight, walking by faith.
But without faith it is impossible to please God.
And if faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God, then choose you this day.
Gal. 1:8,9. If even the pope preaches unto you a false gospel, let him be accursed, no matter how good it looks.
LikeLike
Bob S
Posted December 13, 2015 at 6:56 pm | Permalink
December 12, 2015 at 10:25 pm | Permalink
“Well, isn’t that at the heart of the discussion? The Catholic claim is ontological”
Well, yeah TVD. The roman epistemological claim cannot help being ontological.
Rome’s traditions and magisterium are enshrined/redefined as Scripture, which novel version of Scripture is also Rome’s ultimate authority.
But this is not an egregious conflict of interest and category collapse?
To ask is to answer.
The answer is no. This discussion is null without the words “Holy Spirit.”
LikeLike
Bob S
Posted December 13, 2015 at 7:07 pm | Permalink
That the Bible is the “sole authority” means nothing when men cannot agree what it says. Unity is impossible.
That men abuse of the truth is not an argument against the truth.
Actually I’m referring to the multitude of Protestant sects. The Reformation failed; it did not correct the Church’s errors–it multiplied them.
LikeLike
DG: sentimentality
Well… but also all sentimentality isn’t ‘liberal’ sentimentality. You’re going to have to face the fact, DG – God Himself is very sentimental: the Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Father, the Son desires those whom the Father has given the Son, to be with Him where He is- those ones He loves with an everlasting love, etc. etc.
It’s ok to be overcome with ‘sentimentality’ about that.
LikeLike
@ NOON
You are a gentleman, a rare specimen at the OL blog.
Thank you kindly. God bless you.
Susan
LikeLike
Susan,
I’d encourage you to go back and read my comments on our discussion. Jeff and I were discussing how to charitably interact with people online. DGH was not involved. Hopefully taking those facts into account allows you to make a more informed opinion, though I believe that Jeff’s character and interaction speak for themselves.
LikeLike
Jeff,
“DGH was not in that loop. Brandon and I were emailing about other matters not directly related to OL.”
If you have an issue with DGH — and I can fully understand not wanting to be called Daffy or other things — push him on it. I don’t think he pretends to perfection.”
No I won’t push him on it because he obvioisly doesn’t care. Attacking me personally is fair game. He isnt really attacking Catholicism or he wouldn’t need to attack the person.
I have confidence that my arguments are right and my logical is tight and that I’m in the right church, so his meanness is only against me as a person, so of only be making him aware of what he already enjoys.
There’s not a single person I can complain to here, like you were able to.
LikeLike
Susan,
Jeff and I were not communicating to complain about anyone at OL at all. We were talking about what it means to communicate as a Christian in an online space with those with whom you disagree. OLTS was only provided as an example in both of our experiences. The aim was never to “complain” about anyone, but on how to best *love* people with whom we disagree.
LikeLike
Robert,
[Jeff’s post] is particularly devastating to the view of RCism presented here, which has almost nothing in common epistemologically with the current pope or the vast number of RCs. One of Jeff’s main points is the false dilemma of Mathematical certainty via the Magisterium and everything goes.
To be fair, if the C2Cers are all former Reformedish folks and catholics aren’t otherwise like that, maybe they got the QIRC bug from our circles. Previously one protestant commenter here claimed to have been lent a certainty at conversion that was literally at least one order of magnitude greater than the number of elementary particles in the universe, and I’d bet we’ve all been or known that guy a few times over.
I never saw that as a catholic. More down-home old-wives tales and superstition, salt over your shoulder and prayers to saints who find car keys and did you hear about the ghosts and reincarnations on last night’s Unsolved Mysteries. Maybe one in one thousand cared about intellectually resolving doubt and they’d punt to Mother Theresa or Padre Pio. I never heard “epistemology” until encountering Bahnsen long after the altar boy days, which were mercifully unexciting enough for matters of faith to be the most pressing concern in my late teens.
LikeLike
poo poo
hee hee
LikeLike
Susan, if you have a problem then say so. If you write daffy things, I reserve the right to call them daffy.
You may notice that the Protestants here are more honorable in their dealings with the other side that vd, t or Mermaid — aggressive, jackass, passive, and passive aggressive. And they are guests and on the wrong team to boot.
LikeLike
Mike K., I took a course in epistemology at Temple.
Then I took a course in history. Somewhere it dawned on me that history trumps philosophy because philosophy, like everything, has a history.
LikeLike
No wonder I lost my faith, I was simmering in a caldron of skepticism. Mark my words you will hit the same crisis I did…..you are right now munching down on those pills that will cause you to ask if you really are a brain in a vat.
Susan, I gather you’re no fan of Prots talking about your Kool-Aid drinking, so I’d advise caution in marking words and predicting with such confidence the experience of others. Is this what happens when one trades in infallible assurance for absolute certainty? No thanks. I’d rather continue with the kind of restraint Protestantism fosters. At the very least, it keeps at bay the impulse to declare things no human being can know of another.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 13, 2015 at 9:56 pm | Permalink
Susan, if you have a problem then say so. If you write daffy things, I reserve the right to call them daffy.
You may notice that the Protestants here are more honorable in their dealings with the other side
Nobody notices that, least of all on the part of their ringleader, your esteemed self. ‘Machen’s Warrior Children’ are known all over America for their nastiness and incivility.
http://www.frame-poythress.org/machens-warrior-children/
The difference between how Called to Communion treats their guests and how you permit your followers to treat yours is obvious to the merest child. You even treat Protestants like Ali shabbily. The problem is you, not your guests.
And if you didn’t spend the majority of your time with sneering, ignorant attacks on the Catholic Church, you and your handful of warrior children would be left alone to congratulate yourselves on how saved you are by Catholic and Protestant alike.
LikeLike
Darryl, someday it’ll come out what you actually DID to Tom. Whatever it was, kept him from going to Mass to boot. That’s pretty severe.
LikeLike
Susan,
What I hear you saying is that you have felt attacked and dishonored. If I’ve contributed to that, I’m sorry.
LikeLike
sean
Posted December 13, 2015 at 10:41 pm | Permalink
Darryl, someday it’ll come out what you actually DID to Tom. Whatever it was, kept him from going to Mass to boot. That’s pretty severe.
Since I decline to discuss my personal life here, this is yet another example of Old Life “honor,” fabricating attacks without any concern for the truth. Keep it up, insulting the nice Catholic ladies as ‘Kool-Aid drinkers’ and the like, and show just what a lie Dr. Hart’s bragging on ‘Protestant honor’ really is.
LikeLike
Zrim,
“Susan, I gather you’re no fan of Prots talking about your Kool-Aid drinking, so I’d advise caution in marking words and predicting with such confidence the experience of others. Is this what happens when one trades in infallible assurance for absolute certainty? No thanks. I’d rather continue with the kind of restraint Protestantism fosters. At the very least, it keeps at bay the impulse to declare thing”
I haven’t been picking on individual Reformed doctrines, though maybe sometime we should go over the solas. I am speaking to problem of Protestantism, as a thing, having no way to certify its many ( and competing)beliefs as being the only true ones.
So what you call kool aid drinking, I call submitting to a parent(church) who is much older than the reformation.
The difference is that when you attack, you’re attacking doctrines that you can’t disprove from scripture , and which are logically incorporated into the overtly religious religious system that is Catholicism( and EO). So Catholicism has both tradition and scripture as proof, whereas Protestantism fails at the coherent system part( there are many protestantisms) and it doesn’t resemble the early church.
How would you know when you are mistaken about the identiy of the church? Did you presuppose Protestantism from the get go?
LikeLike
Tom, are you gonna cry? Please. I like to imagine you crying as you list all the ways OL comboxes have kept you from Mass.
LikeLike
Aww Jeff, you’re a Prince. God bless you dear man, and thank you.
I need to refrain from harshness when speaking to you all. I’m furious about the state that the Reformation had caused for us all, but I.need to use less inflamatiry language.
Please forgive me too.
LikeLike
sean
Posted December 13, 2015 at 11:01 pm | Permalink
Tom, are you gonna cry? Please. I like to imagine you crying as you list all the ways OL comboxes have kept you from Mass.
Go for it, tough guy. I’m not going to try to stop you making a fool of yourself and a liar out of Darryl.
LikeLike
Tom, you flatter yourself. You think I take seriously even a third of the alleged offenses that people claim they’ve suffered at the hands of a combox comment? Give me a break. And you, of all people, to take offense at anyone is the height of NPD that is so glaring that I could probably get prots and cats to unite around it, even here.
LikeLike
I’m curious. If any of you fellows were moving towards Catholicism, would you let that be known here on this blog?
I know no one is any closer, but I would really like to know if any of you would come back to this site to discuss your changed beliefs.
LikeLike
Susan
Posted December 13, 2015 at 11:33 pm | Permalink
I’m curious. If any of you fellows were moving towards Catholicism, would you let that be known here on this blog?
I know no one is any closer, but I would really like to know if any of you would come back to this site to discuss your changed beliefs.
It’s best to think of it as a colloquy, a public discussion, not really writing for your interlocutor but for the lurkers. I hear from people privately who do not comment here, about what they think of what goes on around here–the behavior of the Warrior Children, and of course of the Head Warrior Child.
Mostly all you can do is clear up the slanders and misapprehensions about the Catholic Church [many regularly trotted out at Old Life], more removing obstacles than actually evangelizing. Protestants already know where Rome is, and if and when they feel the call, they will knock on her door.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/pursuedbytruth/2014/05/5-things-pope-francis-wouldnt-do-online.html
LikeLike
Hey Tom,
If there are real problems, epistemologically wise,( and of course there are) then that should be apparent to regulars and lurkers alike. The fundamental problem should be felt and then( if hope is in the breast and not despair( I almost succumbed) a journey should begin towards finding out what is the mechanism that secures doctrinal unity.
At some point a warrior child is going to sense the flaws too.
So I guess I would prefer to write with my interlocutors in mind because their comments and questions are the natural way to raise Protestant objections for others. This is of course what you are saying too. My only objection to your advice is that I don’t want to bypass the hope that sharpening my iron against the flint of my interlocutors won’t lead to their conversion too.
I mean, if I’m not here with the best of intentions for everyone, then I need to shut up.
Good link though. I need to reevaluate my motivations all the time.
LikeLike
Susan
Posted December 13, 2015 at 3:07 pm | Permalink
Mrs Webfoot,
Susan:
Also I found it completely ironic that Jeff consulted Darryl and Brandon to ask how they should deal with you and Tom. Seriously? Darryl is the one who makes fun of not only Catholics but everyone. He’s called me Daffy and stupid, and did his elders do anything about it? He’s never written me privately to apologize.>>>>>
I am sorry for how you have been treated, Susan. You are a sweet person. You know your theology very well, and your epistemology. 🙂 It is quite horrible what they say to and about you. Only Tom steps in and tells them to lay off.
I should step in more often when I see it, Susan. I apologize for not sticking up for you when at times I have seen you mistreated here. Are these guys really leaders in their churches?
Susan:
As Andrew Preslar said it’s OLTS that acts like a bunch of monkeys. Why would Jeff expect someone who does and approves of ad homs and mockery to play nice and fair?
This blog isnt a church and it doesnt have a tribunal to rightly govern. In a way it is an analogy for Protestantism as an authority; that is, making a club of your own, calling it church and defining what it’s rules are, and who will belong. We are Cats and dont belong to this parachurch organization so when push comes to shove its the Prots that win any of those disputes that require that we bring it to the church”.>>>>
Really? Creepy. Who is Andrew Preslar?
Susan:
Why is everyone trying to settle disputes through a hierarchal system at this blog?>>>>
It hadn’t dawned on me that is what is going on. Weird. Just weird.
Well, don’t let it worry you. Your contributions are fantastic.
Love to you, and Merry Christmas!
LikeLike
Susan
Posted December 14, 2015 at 1:06 am | Permalink
Hey Tom,
If there are real problems, epistemologically wise,( and of course there are) then that should be apparent to regulars and lurkers alike. The fundamental problem should be felt and then( if hope is in the breast and not despair( I almost succumbed) a journey should begin towards finding out what is the mechanism that secures doctrinal unity.
At some point a warrior child is going to sense the flaws too.
So I guess I would prefer to write with my interlocutors in mind because their comments and questions are the natural way to raise Protestant objections for others.
True, the reliable anti-Catholic arguments are trotted out like clockwork, so Old Life is one-stop shopping for that sort of thing. But there’s also the question of how much your interlocutor is seeking truth, is even interested in anything more than reciting his own well-rehearsed script. Mr. CVD showed where several years ago, one person here went on for days sucking up Called to Communion’s time and good will, and learned absolutely nothing, moved not a single inch.
This is of course what you are saying too. My only objection to your advice is that I don’t want to bypass the hope that sharpening my iron against the flint of my interlocutors won’t lead to their conversion too.
I don’t know what drives anti-Catholics to virulence instead of mere indifference. What’s it to you if somebody asks Mary to put in a good word with Jesus? How can they be sure it does no good?
Neither do they seem to be able to state the Catholic case honestly no matter how often it’s explained–for instance insisting Catholicism has something to do with epistemology when its claims are simply ontological [see below]–that despite all the screwups of popes, bishops and men, in the long term the Holy Spirit works things out.
So I think something other than logic and argument is the key. They can remove obstacles, but they cannot move anyone an inch. Reading the stories of thoughtful [if not brilliant] folks like Peter Kreeft, Elizabeth Anscombe, and J. Budziszewski, swimming the Tiber is a growing inevitability they resist until they no longer can. There is no bolt from the blue on the road to Damascus, just a mounting sense that it all indeed adds up once the lies and fog about Catholicism they’d heard all their lives are dispelled.
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/hauled-aboard.htm
I mean, if I’m not here with the best of intentions for everyone, then I need to shut up.
Good link though. I need to reevaluate my motivations all the time.
Seeking truth will do; don’t waste your time with those who are not. 😉
LikeLike
Jeff has attacked the integrity of the book of Tobit. In fact, it is one of his main arguments against the infallibility claims of the Catholic Church. Now, if anyone is interested in looking at the evidence for the historicity of the book of Tobit, then here is an article by Taylor Marshall.
This is for anyone with an open mind who is willing to examine evidence for the historicity and canonicity of the book of Tobit. Think about this if you will. If it is inspired by the Holy Spirit, then what will He think of you if you had the opportunity to look into the subject and didn’t even take a few minutes to read and consider an article by a reputable scholar?
Look at the list of great Christians who accepted its canonicity. Maybe you do not know what you think you know.
Note that the same kinds of accusations are made against other books in both the Old and the New Testaments. The objections are answered in similar ways by Bible scholars. Why is Tobit singled out for special treatment?
I suggest that it is because Protestant tradition about the OT canon – which was defined by Luther more than anyone else – tells you that Tobit is not Scripture. Maybe it would be good for some to question the unfounded, dogmatic, authoritarian traditions of Protestantism when it comes to the canon of Scripture. .
—————————————————————–
A word of warning: the manuscript tradition of Tobit is messy with the Vulgate, Old Latin, Aramaic, Alexandrian, Vatican, Sinaticus texts having similarities and variations.
Below, A refers to the text of the Alexandrian codex (fifth century), and B refers to Vatican codex (fourth century) of the Greek Septuagint; Aleph or A alone refers to Codex Sinaticus (fourth century) of the Septuagint.
Objection: It was Theglathphalasar III who led Nephthali (IV Kings, xv, 29) into captivity (734 B.C.). But Tobit wrongly says that it was (i, 2), Salmanasar.
Answer to Objection: This reading of the Vulgate, Old Latin, and Aramaic is to be corrected by the name Enemesar of AB and A. This latter reading would be equivalent to the Hebrew `NM SR, a transliteration of the Assyrian kenum ≈°ar. As the appellative ≈°ar, “king”, may precede or follow a personal name, kenum ≈° ar is ≈°ar kenum, that is Sargon (≈°arru-kenu II, B.C. 722). It can readily be that, twelve years after Theglathphalasar III began the deportation of Israel out of Samaria, Sargon’s scouts completed the work and routed some of the tribe of Nephthali from their fastnesses.
Objection: Tobit wrongly states that Sennacherib was the son of Salmanasar (i, 19) whereas he was in verified history the son of Sargon.
Answer to the Objection: The Vulgate reading here, as in i, 2, should be that of AB and A, to wit, Enemesar; and this stands for Sargon.
Objection: In B, xiv, 15, Ninive is said to have been captured by Ahasuerus (Asueros) and Nabuchodonosor.
Answer to the Objection: A reads that Achiacharos took Ninive and adds that “he praised God for all He had done against the children of Ninive and Assyria”. The word for Assyria is Athoureias Hebrew ‘asshur, Aramaic ahur; this Greek word misled the scribe to write `Lsueros for the name of the king, Achiacharos, i.e. the Median King Cyaxares. According to Berossus, Cyaxares was, in his campaign against Ninive, allied to the Babylonian King Nabopalassar, the father of Nabuchodonosor; the scribe of B has written the name of the son for that of the father, as Nabopalassar was unknown to him.
Objection: Rages is a Seleucid town and hence an anachronism.
Answer to Objection: This is not at all a historical error since it is an ancient Median town, which the Seleucids restored. Also there are two towns called Rages. Ecbatana was also called Rages.
http://taylormarshall.com/2012/03/defending-the-book-of-tobit-as-history.html
LikeLike
Susan, “You have given some really good arguments but Darryl , Robert, Jeff, and Ali dont appear to be leaning towards Catholicism , so I’m wondering what more can be said.
From their perspective there isnt anyway for us to ever be unified, because there isn’t a single unifiying entity or gospel to unite under. None of them have told us where we should go if we left the Catholic Church.”
Did you really think you’d do some scalp hunting here? That’s your mission? To convert Protestants?
Here’s the deal: Old Life is a place to figure out what arguments won’t work. We are your focus group. You could thank us.
BTW, the epistemology/certainty thing is really absurd.
LikeLike
vd, t, I like Boniface.
He is Roman Catholic.
You?
LikeLike
Susan, how do you know which church? Jerusalem is older than Rome. Do you think?
Don’t use arguments that come from parochial schools 75 years ago.
LikeLike
Susan, with all that certainty you have from the second oldest church, now you need more support from people moving to Roman Catholicism?
What about “needy” don’t you understand?
LikeLike
Susan,
How would you know when you are mistaken about the identiy of the church?
But why is the assumption always that we might be mistaken about the identity of the church but that you never admit that, hey, you might be mistaken about the identity of the church.
LikeLike
Susan, “epistemologically wise”? What the…
The fundamental problem? You have yet to grapple with the uncertainty that lurks in the history of the institution that gives you such certainty of knowledge. Three popes? Western Schism? Benedict garbling the gospel?
If you want to admit that your “theory” has its problems but that you have faith, fine. We have faith too. My church is only 33k. I’m not going to chest thump. Why should you?
Are you still the evangelical giving your testimony? In fact, why is it that the Roman Catholic converts don’t notice how much they still should and have the affect of evangelicals.
No thank YOU.
LikeLike
Mermaid, Preslar says, “We are Cats and dont belong to this parachurch organization so when push comes to shove its the Prots that win any of those disputes that require that we bring it to the church.
Don’t you think that’s odd. He’s part of a parachurch organization calling me to communion. Now he admits the call isn’t working. Maybe that explains why CTC hasn’t had a post in five months.
LikeLike
Mermaid has questioned justification by faith alone.
Look at all the Reformers who accepted justification by faith alone.
Here’s an article by Mike Horton on justification by faith alone.
And you’re talking about epistemology?
LikeLike
Susan : Attacking me personally is fair game.
TVD: You even treat Protestants like Ali shabbily.
It’s just r2k, guys, and, neutrality..right?
Brandon Addison: OLTS was only provided as an example in both of our experiences.
only to observe as an example, just forobservation, ‘cause we are not our brothers keepers and it is never loving to admonish, especially publically
Susan: The fundamental problem should be felt and then (if hope is in the breast and not despair( I almost succumbed)
Susan:….my interlocutors conversion too.
jealous for this doctrine/ ‘conversion’ to be made known, Susan:
hope in the breast and not despair =
Romans 5(NASB) Results of Justification: 1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2…we exult in hope of the glory of God.5 and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.
Col 1:26 the mystery .. 27 to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory- which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
TVD: instead of mere indifference. What’s it to you if somebody asks Mary to put in a good word with Jesus? How can they be sure it does no good?
see above – ‘we exult in the glory of God” …..alone; it is HIM (alone) we proclaim, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in CHRIST Col 1: 28
LikeLike
Darryl,
I apologize if my behavior has seemed like I was.proselytizing and I thank you for the open forum even though it is really bostile. I do feel that I learn a lot about the epistemolgy of Reformed Protestants, so with MWF, I thank you for that.
But, yes I do hope you will one day become a Catholic. ( I’ll buy that book) :)That’s kind of hard not to hope for since I do honestly care. I guess the true test about how much I really care is how much I pray for you.
It anyone thinks of me, please pray!
Merry Christmas all!
LikeLike
Ali,
Amen, there is only one savior, only one God. We who are Jesus’s family are fellow workers and are somehow mysteriously helping to accomplish His holy will, and are co-workers. The prayers of a righteous man avails much, so God must be more moved by the prayers of some rather than others( thoughh He wants us all to pray).Mary is the Queen Mother, the mother of Israel’s promised king, so if you want to ask another person to pray for you, her prayers will be the most valuable.
God bless you, Ali!
And Merry Christmas!
LikeLike
DG: Susan, What about “needy” don’t you understand?
for Susan, the ‘needy one’ and DG the sentimentalist-adverse ; and of course, always for cw
LikeLike
I don’t care if you’re prot or cat, you have to stop trying to pull so much out of combox interactions and quite frankly, openly commiserating with each other about the ‘other folks’ is just about as patronizing and insulting as one can possibly get. It’s right up there with ‘talking to lurkers’. So, you ‘search your heart’ ferreting out sincere motivations and then decide you’re just gonna talk to lurkers while using the the interlocutor as a prop to do so? It doesn’t get much more imago dei denying than that. What a bunch of garbage. Nobody enjoys being your project. Not when the evanjellyfish does it or when the prot-cat does it. All this earnest searching of motivations sure turns up a bunch of blind spots, but as long as you tried and REALLY mean it, then you’re all good. It’s right up there with Ricky Bobby reeling off; ‘I said with all due respect’. At least the secular folks see the hypocrisy in such engagements.
LikeLike
Hay-may-un, Bro. Sean.
LikeLike
Susan: Mary is the Queen Mother, the mother of Israel’s promised king, so if you want to ask another person to pray for you, her prayers will be the most valuable.
oh Susan, that’s just not what the LORD says. ALL HIS saints prayers are incense, a sweet aroma to Him (and btw, according to HIM, ever believer = a saint)
And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, went up before God out of the angel’s hand. Rev 5:8; 8:3-4
LikeLike
seanI don’t care if you’re prot or cat, you have to stop trying to pull so much out of combox interactions and quite frankly, openly commiserating with each other about the ‘other folks’ is just about as patronizing and insulting as one can possibly get. It’s right up there with ‘talking to lurkers’. So, you ‘search your heart’ ferreting out sincere motivations and then decide you’re just gonna talk to lurkers while using the the interlocutor as a prop to do so? It doesn’t get much more imago dei denying than that. What a bunch of garbage. Nobody enjoys being your project. Not when the evanjellyfish does it or when the prot-cat does it. All this earnest searching of motivations sure turns up a bunch of blind spots, but as long as you tried and REALLY mean it, then you’re all good. It’s right up there with Ricky Bobby reeling off; ‘I said with all due respect’. At least the secular folks see the hypocrisy in such engagements.
cw l’unificateur :Hay-may-un, Bro. Sean.
exactly.
oh sean…
-openly commiserating with each other about the ‘other folks’
-patronizing and insulting
-doesn’t get much more imago dei denying than that.
-what a bunch of garbage
-sure turns up a bunch of blind spots
-see the hypocrisy
LikeLike
Sean,
You’re absolutely right. I hate being patronized and I should not be doing that to anyone else either.
LikeLike
Susan,
Your system confusions for the seeker which undermines what should be 31st in a world of conflicting religions; and that is ….find the church and therein is the gospel.
No, Susan, the gospel comes first and has priority. Jesus preached the gospel before there was any church. Paul explicitly said to reject anyone claiming apostolic authority who didn’t have the apostolic gospel. That means any church that cannot be verified as teaching the gospel isn’t the church.
And Rome just doesn’t qualify. We have the Apostolic testimony. There’s nothing in there about venerating Maria, sacramental confession, the church being the one who gives you faith, and all the other Roman accretions. There is Christ and him crucified along with a summons to faith in him, not faith in the church.
The church bears the gospel; the church is not the gospel. That’s a key difference that the Roman system misses.
LikeLike
and do you know why a righteous man’s prayers are effective, Susan – because a ‘righteous’ man, having been made righteous in Christ’s righteousness, has faith – and that faith knows that the Spirit Himself intercedes for the saints with groanings too deep for words, according to the will of God and Christ Jesus Himself, who died and was raised and is at the right hand of God, also intercedes for us; therefore saints draw near with confidence to the throne of grace Rom 8:26-27,34; Heb 4:16.
LikeLike
Susan, so are you saying I am not saved in my current state as a Reformed Protestant?
LikeLike
Robert, re: “the gospel comes first and has priority”. Amen to that.
Rome manages to clutter up and hide the gospel (if it’s in their church at all) from secular seekers. It manages to embitter most of its cradles (largely, the only Cats with any biblical literacy or spiritual interest are ex-prots). Cats may protest “yeah, we don’t do a great job at evangelism or catechesis, but that doesn’t mean our paradigm and epistemology are untrue”. Okay, fine. But from an eeee-perspective, it’s sad that Rome doesn’t celebrate the fact that tons of people come to personal faith in Christ through Protestant church and parachurch ministries. Eeee’s are accused (fairly) of having a weak ecclesiology. But, the gospel comes first and should have priority…for us all.
LikeLike
Petros
Posted December 14, 2015 at 10:40 am | Permalink
Robert, re: “the gospel comes first and has priority”. Amen to that.
Rome manages to clutter up and hide the gospel (if it’s in their church at all) from secular seekers.>>>>
Get your epistemology on, Petros. I have never met a cradle Catholic who denies the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Any “secular seeker” who goes to Mass sees the Gospel displayed in full view. The Gospel – Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day and appeared to witnesses – is not hidden at all. It is acted out every Mass. The Gospel is lived in the Mass. The Gospel is declared in the Creeds.
Secular seekers can seek and find easily. That is especially true in our day of the Internet. If someone is seeking, then they are wanting to find. If I misunderstood your meaning, feel free to clarify.
Petros:
It manages to embitter most of its cradles (largely, the only Cats with any biblical literacy or spiritual interest are ex-prots). >>>>
If you are willing to admit that many if not most “cradle Protestants” are also embittered, then maybe you have a point to make. Most who grow up in Protestant churches walk away. Talk to some of them. Again, get your epistemology game on.
Petros:
Cats may protest “yeah, we don’t do a great job at evangelism or catechesis, but that doesn’t mean our paradigm and epistemology are untrue”. Okay, fine.>>>>
Yes, okay fine. Why do you then disagree with yourself. The Church knows that it has done a bad job at evangelism and catechesis. Have you ever heard of the New Evangelization?
Petros:
But from an eeee-perspective, it’s sad that Rome doesn’t celebrate the fact that tons of people come to personal faith in Christ through Protestant church and parachurch ministries.>>>>
Oh, the Holy Father very much sees that and celebrates it. He loves all who believe in Christ. Have you ever read what he says, or what Evangelicals in Argentina have said about him?
Catholics see that. What is your point? Now, you may be an exception, but some of the Reformed guys don’t seem happy at all that people come to Christ in parachurch ministries. Some don’t seem to be happy at all that Tim Keller is having an impact. He is not Presbyterian enough, or some such nonsense.
Petros:
Eeee’s are accused (fairly) of having a weak ecclesiology. But, the gospel comes first and should have priority…for us all.>>>>
Absolutely. That is why it is affirmed every day in every Mass in several different ways.
See, Petros, it is this kind of dogmatism that kind of undermines what Jeff and Robert have been arguing. They have been arguing that from a human point of view, you have to be open to new ideas. You have to entertain the idea that you may be wrong.
If the Protestants here would begin to show how that epistemology works in real life, then you might be able to get more traction with your arguments.
Pretty much everything said here is said with an air of “I am right because I am a smart Protestant, and you are wrong because you are a dumb Catholic. I have to set the Catholics straight on everything because they are such gullible, pathetic souls. “
Maybe that tactic can change. Just a thought. You know. Maybe you need to think new thoughts, or not. It’s your choice.
LikeLike
Ali
Posted December 14, 2015 at 10:26 am | Permalink
and do you know why a righteous man’s prayers are effective, Susan – because a ‘righteous’ man, having been made righteous in Christ’s righteousness, has faith – and that faith knows that the Spirit Himself intercedes for the saints with groanings too deep for words, according to the will of God and Christ Jesus Himself, who died and was raised and is at the right hand of God, also intercedes for us; therefore saints draw near with confidence to the throne of grace Rom 8:26-27,34; Heb 4:16.>>>>
Ali, dear sister. May I make a friendly suggestion. If you wish, please consider what I wish to tell you.
Tone it down a bit. You are not the Holy Spirit. No one has to submit to you or your understanding of Scripture. Yes, the Word of God is a sword, but swords can be used unwisely to lop off ears, remember? The two edged sword cuts both ways, as you well know.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart:
Here’s the deal: Old Life is a place to figure out what arguments won’t work. We are your focus group. You could thank us.>>>>
We are your focus group, Brother Hart. 😉 BTW, you know that I have always called you my brother in Christ. You must know as well why I do that. Sure, you think you have committed mortal sin so you can’t be my brother , blah, blah, blah, blah. 🙂 Whatever.
That has been explained to you, but your anti Catholic special underwear protects you from anything Catholic penetrating into your heart. Oh, that’s a creepy thought, but add it to the bats and cows imagery your guys put in my mind – thank you very much.
Whatever happened to “what’s the sound of one hand clapping”, anyway?
D.G. Hart:
BTW, the epistemology/certainty thing is really absurd.>>>>
Oh, and the bats and jumping cows compared to the body of Christ is not absurd? It is a double absurdity. The examples are meant to be absurd. It is absurd for your men to say that there really is a possibility of the body of Christ being found. With that you undermine all of your infallible rule as well, but you don’t get that part. Your theology is allegedly built on an infallible source.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ cannot be both fallible and infallible. You don’t get that part. Sure, our understanding is always incomplete, if that is what you mean by fallible. God’s Word is infallible – period. The resurrection is infallible – period.
Now, I have been thinking about the whole epistemology of provisional knowledge thing. The guys here have used it as a weapon to break down Catholics. It is really absurd to be so dogmatic about something they claim is provisional.
If they want to convince us that the epistemology really works in real life, then OL is the testing ground. Show how it works for you. We are your focus group. Focus.
LikeLike
Fishlady, just in a drive by way, the prot set up works per perspicuity. IOW, we affirm capacity to understand the reading of divine revelation supernaturally made effective unto salvation by the HS. We also affirm Eph 4 and gifiting and a subjugated authority. Preeminent in that illumination(HS) of divine revelation is the preaching of the gospel(gifiting and subjugated authority-headship of Jesus alone, no priestly mediation) of Jesus Christ. Let’s use 1 cor 15 as a summary. The pushback on parachurch is a pushback on weak ecclesiology, which you should understand, and the subsequent undermining of the local church where the HS has particularly promised himself to his people in word and sacrament. As far as ‘real life’, the prot set up(affirming capacity-Imago dei-common sense realism, however you want to slice it, seems much more ‘real life’ than the infallibility card that gets sold here by trad/convert cats. Furthermore, having come from the RC cradle, you guys seem to be more than a little bit out of step with your own magisterium. I’m sure there are gradations of that, from rejecting Vat II to wishing Vat II would go away, to lost generation of Vat II, to going to quit if Kasper and the bishops get their way, to bunkering down in the extraordinary form. And/or all sorts of combinations of the aforementioned. Then, there’s the whole history of rome card, which is hotly contested ground, both for MOC holiness and anitiquity(what about EO) and from a prot perspective of ‘the apostles are older than both'(this then kicks us into succession questions, pope Peter questions, heirarchy of Jesus prayer and hope questions, unity, contrasted with His, ‘I’ve come to bring a sword, judgement’ and Paul affirming there must be ‘divisions among you’ sort of tensions.) Now, in the OL combox iteration, the Cats have grouped all that engagement along paradigmatic considerations or what Jeff and Sdb are identifying as foundationalism(best I can tell) which doesn’t work out to be much of a dialogue or ‘real life'(chatting up my neighbor) ecumenism. I guess it gives you a solid touchstone, but in my mind that just pushes the question back one more step, particularly if we’re doing paradigmatic considerations, how well does that touchstone reflect the ‘reality’? I understand how it works on the chalkboard, but you’ve got to do more than just make everything cohere, it’s got to have superior explanatory power of ‘real life'(your words) considerations.
LikeLike
Seeking truth will do; don’t waste your time with those who are not.
The irony is excruciating.
Please stop it.
I know, reductio ad absurdum is not your cup of tea, but hey for somebody that thinks Susan and Mrs. Merman are the transgendered mash up of Aquinas, St. Theresa and Robt. Bellarmine just because he says so, it is rich.
And this just in.
OL is a prot
cesspoolsite.The ex prot romanist self styled expert witnesses on protestantism that show up over here and have no idea of what reformed catholicism is all about, but proceed to patronize us with their ignorance and get upset when it gets labeled as daffy when it really is goofy, need to get a clue.
While prots are by the romanist definition ignorant, at least of romanism, if you can’t properly describe reformed protestantism according to its own terms, before smiting us hip and thigh with the ecumenical version of romanism, you deserve the rebuttal you get.
(It’s either that or implement the J. Sizer solution. All
old ladies of both genderswomen must be accompanied by a male before they get served.)But hey, TVD is a tough guy, he’s supposed to know that already.
LikeLike
Fishlady, also, from the prot perspicuity side, it’s gotta explain what I read/hear from original apostolic teaching and exhortation. And since we’re both trading on ‘wwjd or the HS do’. If you can put forth, “wouldn’t it have made sense” kind of arguments for the one true romish church, there’s nothing outrageous about the prots putting forth, ‘wouldn’t it have made sense that God would’ve preserved original apostolic teaching and made it accessible to folks’ (particularly since this was already going on with the torah and Jesus is tagging that recorded history as the word of god) and you can still have an ecclesiology(eph 4) and it’s ongoing(God continues to gift).
LikeLike
Susan:
At some point a warrior child is going to sense the flaws too.>>>>
You know, consistency in the application of the epistemology of provisional knowledge would actually help point out the flaws of Reformed theology.
Now, I have said many times how grateful I am to all the good Reformed men – and women – who have taught me the Bible. I have also made it clear that I never belonged to a Reformed church. I was especially influenced, though, by the good men at The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.
I loved my personal study of the Westminster Confession of Faith from the book by Williamson. I was mostly interested in chapters I- XI of the confession.
I have “insulted” the Reformed buys by “accusing” them of things like changing diapers and vacuuming. I know some really, really fine Reformed men and women. So, with that in mind…I hope…
The guys seem to forget that their claim is to a system that is built on absolute, infallible, irreformable truth. The Word of God. The provisional part is about human limitations and understanding.
Putting the resurrection in the category of fallible, not infallible, kind of undermines their claims to an unreformable, infallible source of faith and practice. I would love for them address that concept. Open your minds to see what the epistemology does if applied to your foundation.
I am still waiting for someone to address this issue seriously. Are you able to form any arguments that do not include Catholicism at all? How about some objectivity when it comes to your truth claims?
I am provisionally hoping that some of my brothers might be able to do something like that. Show how the resurrection can be in both reformable and unreformable categories at once. Even show how you have not done that if you think you have not. It would be helpful to do that in regular English – or special English for us weak minded Catholics. . It seems like you have refuted yourselves from where I am sitting.
LikeLike
Robert,
“His name is the Holy Spirit, and He speaks through Scripture.”
I agree it’s the HS. I also agree it’s the HS working through the church. False dichotomies are a Protestant thing.
So if the HS is the means for distingushing infallible divine revelation from provisional human opinion, where has Protestantism offered a non-provisional infallible teaching not subject to revision? Why the WCF disclaimers and semper reformanda? Does the HS speak through disputed passages or books not in your canon? If He only speaks through books and passages that are currently accepted by the OPC/PCA, why is every identified book and passage in that canon offered as provisional and subject to revision by the OPC/PCA?
Further, this just confirms all disputes within Protestantism boil down to a stalemate of “I have the HS and you don’t”. This is not the model we see in the NT or patristic witness when dealing with heresies and schism.
“It doesn’t miss the point and here is why.”
Yes, it doesn’t miss the point if you conflate order of being with order of knowing. Neither you or Jeff have addressed the simple reply to your continued vulcan mindmeld critique. Christ and the Apostles had the authorization and ability to infallibly define, teach, identify, offer non-provisional teaching. Their adherents weren’t infallible or omniscient, and could make mistakes Christ and the Apostles could correct and clarify. No vulcan mindmelding of their adherents or transforming them into omniscient creatures. So it’s silly to keep up this argument considering this has been pointed out at least 3 or 4 times already in this thread and then just gets ignored and you two just keep repeating the vulcan mindmeld as if it was never addressed.
“And nothing Protestantism declares is declared as infallible, but as provisional and subject to revision. Which is the point.
– And nothing your mind proposes to your will
Yes, and as I pointed out to Bob, everything offered in Protestantism is done so with the possiblity of error. That’s the point.
– And everything your mind offers to you about Rome is done so with the possibility of error. That’s the point.
– And the RC position is offered to your will as provisional and subject to revision by your mind, since you don’t have the Vulcan mindmeld or immediate apprehension.”
You just did it again – 3 times in this post no less. Please stop confusing order of being with order of knowing after I already pointed it out to you in a previous reply. I’m not asking you or your mind to be personally infallible. You are not “Protestantism” or the “Protestant system”, as has already been stated.
“Oh, so you agree that in order to know with certainty that a resurrection”
You don’t agree it’s certain. Remember, it might be Christ was raised by heretofore undiscoverd natural means. Yep, that skepticism is very reflective of the NT and patristic view of faith.
“1. Christ and the Apostles aren’t the Magisterium”
Irrelevant to the mindmeld argument. By your argument, without vulcan mindmelding, there is no way for infallible teaching to be offered by Christ or the Apostles.
“2. Divine revelation can correct with binding and irreformable teachings/judgments”
Not without the mindmelding and personal infallibility of the submitting agent. That’s your and Jeff’s argument.
“But those teachings/judgments don’t impact you or I immediately. They pass through my mind and your mind”
Confusion of order of being and knowledge again. 4th time by my count.
“If reason were neutral, then no two reasonable people looking at the same set of facts would ever come to a different conclusion.”
Did you reason to this conclusion? If so, how do you know it’s not just a consequence of your biased presuppositions clouding you from the real truth and your faulty interpretation of the evidence/facts that are “meaningless without interpretation”?
Apparently you don’t actually read rebuttals to your position and just repeat them as if no one replied. I direct you again to https://oldlife.org/2015/12/have-you-guys-heard-of-assemblies/comment-page-9/#comment-367460 where I said, “That position entails no one can actually abuse or misuse reason because our presuppositions bias our reason and we can’t escape those presuppositions, and thus no evidence could reshape our expectations, nor would we ever change or correct our preconceived notions based on discoveries – “discoveries” would always match what we expected to discover. Because someone reasons incorrectly, defectively, poorly, or is uninformed does not entail reason is biased.”
Your position precludes any possibility of someone reasoning incorrectly, defectively, poorly, or in an uninformed manner.
“But if we recognize our presuppositions and where they influence us”
How did you do this? You can’t escape your presuppositions according to you since they bias your reason in the first place.
“If we think we are not shaped by our presuppostions”
No one said we aren’t influenced by presuppositions. Again, you apparently don’t read counters to your arguments because Joshua explicitly asserted that in the CtC thread, and I cited his points again in the post above.
“Understanding that our reason is biased helps us to see better where our thinking is shaped by assumptions and not by more critical thought.”
Did you reason to this conclusion? But your reason is biased by your presuppositions. So there’s no way of knowing whether it’s a biased conclusion or a true conclusion.
“You can’t just take a series of “facts” about anything and arrive at infallible certainty via induction”
Are you 100% certain about that?
“Induction can give you only a high degree of probability.”
Can you show me in the NT where we see the certitude of faith reduced to the “high degree of probability” of faith, or giving the assent to faith to “highly probable” statements? I cited a litany of examples to the opposite. But this again confirms everything in Protestantism is offered as provisional and subject to revision.
“I can combine induction with divine revelation”
According to your skepticism, you might be able to do that. Or you might not be able to.
“I had to accept an interpretation of the fact”
And how did you interpret your way to the position that you have to accept an interpretation of the fact?
“The MoC don’t work unless you assume Rome’s authority and interpretation.”
Explicitly addressed in the CtC thread and in the above linked post. You’ve been answered on your skepticism and presuppositionalism. Answer those rebuttals and show evidence of assimilating replies instead of just repeating your assertions over and over. Otherwise, you’re wasting everyone’s time.
“One of Jeff’s main points is the false dilemma of Mathematical certainty via the Magisterium and everything goes.”
2+2=4 is provisional and subject to correction according to your side. I hope he starts every semester with that disclaimer to his classes. Again, the issue is not *my* or *your* “mathematical certainty”. It’s what is being offered by the 2 respective *systems*.
“BTW, Cletus agrees that the Holy Spirit doesn’t make the individual infallible.”
Excellent.
“He keeps shrugging that off, but if you are going to say you can’t have certainty of faith without something being offered as infallible, you must deal with the fact of mediated knowledge.”
Uh oh. 5th time by my count.
“The only way out is an immediate impression that bypasses your normal ways of getting at information.”
Yep, so long Christ and the Apostles. You didn’t make your adherents omniscient and personally infallible, therefore you were out to lunch.
” because Reformed theology doesn’t claim that infallibility on the part of the church or the individual”
Bingo. So nothing it offers is offered as non-provisional and not subject to revision.
“Well among other things, this assumes that bias affects people. You need to talk to CVD because he doesn’t understand that. ”
Bias affects people. It can cause them to reason poorly, like sketpical presuppositionalists do.
“Sola scriptura isn’t a new doctrine”
Yes the patristic witness is all about “we think Christ rose from the dead, but we might be wrong. Just believe it as highly likely for now until further notice.” I already quoted both Augustine and Athanasius affirming the nature of the church and tradition and its authority that you would never affirm.
“The gates of hell don’t prevail.”
We think. For now. Maybe they did and we just don’t know it like we don’t know cows have the hidden ability to jump over moons. Maybe that verse isn’t authentic Scripture or inspired. Or maybe it is.
LikeLike
Bob S. has not engaged his epistemology yet. I still hold out hope for him.
sean is getting closer. In fact, sometimes he has shown that he can be provisional in his knowledge.
Next.
BTW, I love you guys, you crazy, crazy OL guys. You have enriched my life in ways you will never understand. You are the most interesting and kind of goofy online group anywhere.
You have a wonderful Christmas! You make me smile, and I love to smile! Oh, Brother Hart, I do think you for providing this focus group. You have no idea.
LikeLike
…thank you, not think you, but hey? Maybe both work.
LikeLike
Get your epistemology on, Petros. I have never met a cradle Catholic who denies the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Tell you what, TLM. I’ll focus on getting the html tags right and you focus on the argument.
Which is: are you fallible or infallible?
How do you know that?
Much more how do romanists get off claiming prots can’t know the infallible truths of Scripture, when romanists claim they can know the infallible truths of the magisterium?
IOW the whole non sequitur that sauce for the goose is stuffing for the turkey.
LikeLike
where has Protestantism offered a non-provisional infallible teaching not subject to revision?
Your epistemologically confused slip is showing, DVC.
The Bible offers infallible teaching.
You keep thinking it is all about where’s the infallible church.
That’s the wrong question.
And because Rome is infallible, when prots are asked and point to an infallible bible, Rome is stumbled because as infallible, natch, she judges things by her own supposedly infallible criteria.
you’re welcome.
LikeLike
Fishlady, I know some cradle cat clergy who deny the historicity of Jesus. Why they even practice is anyone’s guess. And I don’t get close, I hit that stuff out of the park, across the street, through the window of the nice old lady watching wheel of fortune.
LikeLike
Bob,
“The Bible offers infallible teaching.”
The scope, extent, and contents of the Bible, and that it is inspired and inerrant and authoritative, remain provisional and subject to revision in Protestantism. Thus Protestantism’s disclaimers to the types of claims to authority/ability Rome makes. Thus perpetual stalemates and liberalism. There is no mechanism in place to distinguish divine revelation from provisional human opinion, and so there is no mechanism in place to issue definitive and normative judgments/teachings binding upon all. Thus, as Robert said, adherents of one Protestant church shouldn’t care what another church teaches or judges – they have no reason to care.
LikeLike
Dear Darryl,
Right now I don’t know if I’m saved. I’m only certain of God’s love and mercy.
I have wondered, and worried, for other people who don’t have the sacraments of the church. I understand how I could receive all the sacraments of the church and still willfully turn my back on the Lord or by willfully commiting grave and unrepented sin, while someone else never even gets baptized and can still possibly attain Heaven. I can’t choose to deny this teaching anymore than you can chose to deny sola fide. I like the part about others possibly attaining Heaven. I wish it were absolute for everyone and for myself, but that isn’t the truth, just like it isn’t the truth in your system. So it has something to do with doing God’s good will and not just being a member of the right community or knowing and quoting the bible.
But just how important are the sacraments to my salvation? Well that’s why I could never be a member of a community bible church again.
And just how important is the sacrament of reconciliation to my eternal soul? Well, that’s why I could never be Reformed Protestant again.( I became convinced of the idea of both confession and marriage being sacraments by arguments from scripture).
Two kinds of communities were therefore ruled out as possible choices, through my use of reason, knowledge of some tradition and the scriptures. There’s my epistemology ( some of it anyways) for becoming Catholic.
Darryl, I have no ill will towards you, in fact I love you and pray for your salvation. I don’t hold the keys even for myself. I have to go to the field hospital to get my medicine.
LikeLike
Sorry if that sounded gooey and sentimental. I didn’t mean for it to.
LikeLike
Of course I am not infallible, silly Bob S. I have never said that. I agree with you, though, that the Word of God is infallible. The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is an infallible fact in both of our religions. We share that in common.
You can’t make it both based on infallible truth claims and provisional knowledge. It’s kind of an either-or thing. The Bible does not allow the Gospel itself to be thought of as provisional in any way. The Gospel is Christ died for our sins according to the Scripture. He was buried. He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. He appeared to different eye witnesses.
No ifs, ands or buts. No “oh, we might find the body of Christ someday.” That objection was already anticipated and answered in Scripture itself.
You guys have forgotten that your religion is based on the infallibility of the Word of God. Otherwise what in the world does sola scriptura do for you? Our Bible cannot fail since it is the Holy Spirit who inspired it.
Now, if you are willing and able, please look at the evidence for the canonicity of the Book of Tobit. I’ll bet you have never even thought about why it is indeed the Word of God. You can say “why it might be the Word of God” if you are more comfortable with that.
Hey, Bob S., you have a wonderful day. thank you for participating in the focus group.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “Tone it down a bit. You are not the Holy Spirit.”
Get a load of the second coming of Plato calling Ali overwrought.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “Sure, you think you have committed mortal sin so you can’t be my brother , blah, blah, blah, blah.”
Yes, sin is such an inconsequential thing compared to — wait for it — epistemology.
LikeLike
sean, ding ding ding.
LikeLike
James Young, you have your infallible pope.
We have the infallible Holy Spirit.
Both are “theories” accepted on the basis of Scripture, interpretation, logic, history.
But do tell me how pope beats Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
James Young, “The scope, extent, and contents of the Bible, and that it is inspired and inerrant and authoritative, remain provisional and subject to revision in Protestantism.”
Nah.
Development.
LikeLike
Susan, “Well, that’s why I could never be Reformed Protestant again.( I became convinced of the idea of both confession and marriage being sacraments by arguments from scripture).”
Let me help. I couldn’t be a Protestant on the basis of Protestantism (sola scriptura).
You want to revise that, except you may be too deeply engrossed a la evangelicalism in your testimony.
But you didn’t answer my question. Am I in danger of hell if I don’t commune with the Bishop of Rome?
LikeLike
Darryl,
Why should I believe you or the OPC has the Holy Spirit but all those individuals or churches who disagree with you don’t? Why should I care what the OPC judges or teaches if everything it offers is admitted to be provisional and subject to revision? Perpetual stalemate.
“But do tell me how pope beats Holy Spirit.”
The church and the Holy Spirit are not in competition with each other. That would make Christ’s promises and the practices of the Apostles you supposedly hold to (yet the arguments advanced here continue to make me think otherwise) nonsensical.
“Development.”
Development … well develops and builds on what came before. It doesn’t entail the possibility of tearing up and discarding it – which follows from your disclaimers. Thus, liberalism.
LikeLike
Darryl my friend, why do you refuse to engage with what I said?
As for your.question, I don’t know. You know in your heart whether you believe Rome’s claim to be Jesus’ Church.
But I will continue to call you a separated brother because I do believe Rome’s claims to be our mother.
Ba Humbug:)
No really, Joyeux Noel!
LikeLike
@mermaid and @cvd, what is your epistemological counsel to Susan who says ” I don’t know if I’m saved”?
LikeLike
James Young, and when I point out the disagreements on your side, shrug.
“The church and the Holy Spirit are not in competition with each other.”
Duh. But in your apologetic they are because you have to discredit our appeal to the Spirit in favor of your blankie.
Well, there’s the tearing down that affirms Nicene Orthodoxy (Protestantism) and their’s the development that doesn’t give a rip and says Jews don’t need to be evangelized.
It’s all arbitrary with you, James, so that you come out on top. Read more of Boniface to know what honest disagreement with a Protestant and sober non-triumphalist assessment of Rome is like. You have Roman Catholic Old Lifers on your side too. You just have too much evangelical in you to understand them.
LikeLike
Susan, part of the reason I didn’t engage with what you said was because you didn’t answer my question. You still haven’t.
The other part is that there is way too much “Susan” there. Makes me wish for the good old days of the epistemology seminar room.
Not.
LikeLike
What do you mean ” too much Susan”?
Yes I did answer you. I said that you’re a brother.
LikeLike
Petros,
I have a problem with scrupulocity. That’s religious OCD.
I may have been doing too much celebrating and over done it, but I’m not sure. Some of my problem is ridual Calvinism that makes throw up my arms and consider everything I do as sin, and for a scrupulous person that’s way of getting mental relief, but it doesn’t really get to the heart of the matter of whether or not I objectively commuted a sin that leads to death. I have to find a balance between despair and presumption.
It’s tough.
LikeLike
CVD: The scope, extent, and contents of the Bible, and that it is inspired and inerrant and authoritative, remain provisional and subject to revision in Protestantism.
The scope, extent, and content of Tradition, and whether any giving teaching is inerrant and authoritative, remain provisional and subject to revision in Catholicism.
Which one is inerrant: BC#4 or CCC?
Not to mention the fact that you guys can’t decide whether you like textual criticism or not. Is it OK to say that the text of the Vulgate is errant? If you’re Taylor Marshall, yes. If you’re CVD or Mermaid, no. Except when quoting Taylor Marshall.
LikeLike
@ Mermaid:
I’m glad you liked the Taylor Marshall article I linked to.
If you want Tobit in the clear, though, there is more work to be done.
(1) Marshall doesn’t touch the chronological error that I pointed out: Tobit must be more than 200 years old when he dies at 125.
(2) Mark Shea thinks Tobit is fictional. Which one of those two has the certitude of faith?
LikeLike
Susan, how about elevating the worth of Christ’s death on your behalf to allow you to own that you really are that bad/sinful. If the remedy is sufficient maybe you can own the malady. That doesn’t make it not tough. But, if navel gazing is a problem I’d give up both rome and evanjellyfish. Oh wait, I did.
LikeLike
In the context of a discussion regarding epistemology and certitude of faith, this eeee-guy finds it Interesting that Susan admits to having no assurance of salvation. The apostle John, in his epistles, convinces me that I can “know” with certitude that I have eternal life through faith in Christ. Not sure what to make of Cat (lack of) certitude on the essence of the gospel.
LikeLike
The lack of assurance is good for RC sacramentalism. Tell people they can have assurance and you have to give up the priesthood, indulgences, etc.
LikeLike
Las comment that says Petros is actually from me. Oops!
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 14, 2015 at 5:29 pm | Permalink
@ Mermaid:
I’m glad you liked the Taylor Marshall article I linked to.>>>>
Jeff, I linked to it.
Jeff:
If you want Tobit in the clear, though, there is more work to be done.>>>
Jeff. I get it. There is always more work to be done. Remember that the textual critics also question the authorship of the letter to the Ephesians as well as whether or not the whole Gospel of John belongs in the canon of Scripture.
Here is an example of how the whole chronology of the OT is called into question by skeptics and textual critics. Defenders of the OT have to try to figure out how to answer. At the end of the day, it comes down to trust. At some point even Protestants have to do just say “ What say the Scriptures?”
Now, you can put your trust in your own human reasonings guided by the epistemology of provisional knowledge. If you do, you have to admit the problems of chronology in the OT books you do accept as Scripture.
——————————————————————–
“Just so, we cannot permit the James Barrs, Dewey Beegles, and Stephen Davises of this world to bludgeon us into accepting Biblical chronology just on their say-so. The ultimate question remains whether or not the Bible in fact gives a chronology. The point I am making here, however, is that the evangelical capitulation on this point has not gained intellectual credibility for the faith. Quite the contrary. Capitulation on the question of chronology has made evangelical Christianity look ridiculous.
In conclusion, there is no way to evade the embarrassment of Biblical chronology. If we try to pretend that Genesis 5 and 11 do not provide a chronology, we shall be ridiculed by intelligent unbelievers, who can plainly see that there is a Biblical chronology. If we accept the Biblical chronology and enter into the task of rethinking the conventional consensus chronology of the ancient near east, we shall be regarded as foolish and quixotic. Either way, we shall lose “respectability.” This being the case, let us not worry about what others may think, and ask the question: What say the Scriptures?”
—————————————————————————————-
Ultimately, you are in the same position as your Catholic friends. You have to make a decision to trust the Holy Spirit as He has spoken in the Scriptures. Or you can reject it all or parts of it if you wish. The choice is yours, but the problems you point out with Tobit affect all of Scripture.
http://reformed-theology.org/ice/newslet/bc/bc.98.11.htm
——————————————————————————-
Jeff:
(1) Marshall doesn’t touch the chronological error that I pointed out: Tobit must be more than 200 years old when he dies at 125.>>>>>
And how old was Methuselah again when he died? Who was Cain’s wife again?
Jeff:
(2) Mark Shea thinks Tobit is fictional. Which one of those two has the certitude of faith?>>>>
The certitude of faith is that Tobit is inspired Scripture. Marshall follows one way of looking at it, and Shea another. Both share the same certainty – Tobit is inspired Scripture. That is the position of the Catholic Church.
LikeLike
“Tobit is inspired Scripture”
Correct. Catholics disagree on formal and material sufficiency of Scripture. That doesn’t entail there is no certitude on Tradition being authoritative and part of the STM-triad, or no certitude on Scripture being inspired and authoritative and part of the STM-triad. Just as the development in the church’s understanding on the teaching of how those who are not formal RC members may possibly be saved does not entail there is no certitude on EENS. Catholics disagree on Molinism and Thomism, but that doesn’t entail there is no certitude on the necessity of grace or sovereignty of God.
But when one keeps mischaracterizing the certitude of faith as exhaustive infallible personal understanding by adherents, despite repeated corrections and citations from RC sources that simultaneously affirm the certitude of faith while also affirming that such a mischaracterized view would preclude faith seeking understanding, development of doctrine, walking by faith over sight, definitive correction of those faithful in error or mistaken by the church, and so forth, well, it’s not surprising.
LikeLike
Correction – material and partim-partim.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle:
Not to mention the fact that you guys can’t decide whether you like textual criticism or not. Is it OK to say that the text of the Vulgate is errant? If you’re Taylor Marshall, yes. If you’re CVD or Mermaid, no. Except when quoting Taylor Marshall.>>>
I don’t remember saying anything about whether or not the text of the Vulgate is errant. The Vulgate presents similar “problems” as do the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Besides that, it is a translation.
Your problem is what?
You are actually misunderstanding the Church’s use of textual criticism. It is subordinate to the teaching magisterium of the Church. The textual critic can give an opinion about the pericope adulterae, for example. It was probably not written by John. It seems to fit better with the synoptics. It is not in the best manuscripts of the Gospel of John. In some it is in another Gospel.
In fact, you can find arguments similar to that which go back at least as far as Augustine. The Church has a long tradition of textual criticism. I provided some of that evidence at one point.
What the Catholic textual critic cannot do is remove the pericope adulterae from the canon of Scripture. Read some Catholic commentaries. All will say that the Church accepts it as canonical. It is in the Daily Mass readings. No one is even suggesting that it be removed as far as I know. If someone did or has, then the Church would say “no.”
The canon is settled.
In fact, I don’t see a move afoot on the part of Protestants to remove the story or to quit teaching from it, no matter how much the textual critics may wish it were removed. It looks like Protestants are not willing to change the NT Scripture, either. Either it is God’s Word or it is not – textual critics notwithstanding.
LikeLike
Susan, If I’m a brother in Christ, why should I become Roman Catholic?
LikeLike
@Robert – you’re right on re: sacraments, indulgences, et al.
I remain curious, though, how Cats epistemologically reconcile their certitude about finding the right church, while having no certitude about their own salvation. That all seems backwards, if not scary. Hope one of them might take a moment to clarify.
LikeLike
Darryl, I’ve asked the same question. The answer will be something about having a greater communion in this life, which has always struck me as a curious emphasis on the spiritual experience of, well, this life. Eternal life isn’t so much in view. But ask a Presbyterian why one should become a member of a P&R church and the answer has to do with salvation not ordinarily possible outside her, which is to say that eternal life is the emphasis. This world versus the next one, which may account for Susan not having assurance and seemingly shruggish about it. More important to have greater fellowship now in Thee Church That Jesus Christ Founded.™
LikeLike
Petros: how Cats epistemologically reconcile their certitude about finding the right church, while having no certitude about their own salvation.
And even more, an emphasis on marriage being permanent, even in the case of divorce, while salvation is temporal and can be lost.
The shadow is greater than the substance.
LikeLike
Mermaid: Your problem is what?
Well … never mind.
But my problem with your acceptance of Marshall’s textual criticism is that he treats the text of Scripture as provisionally known. Which I’m happy with — he is using a method I recognize to come to the best understanding of what the text of the Vulgate actually is.
But where Cletus jumps and howls about “the contents of the Bible remain provisional in Protestantism”, suddenly the content of the Bible being provisional is A-OK in Catholicism.
Why? Because “[Textual criticism] is subordinate to the teaching magisterium of the Church.”
In other words, because it’s your team doing it.
Special pleading. Again.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Why should a non-Calvinist brother in Christ become Reformed?
LikeLike
Jeff, don’t expect consistency. That’s logic.
Mermaid’s teaching epistemology.
LikeLike
Zrim, right. Like going from the Phillies to the Yankees.
Have these folks ever heard of band-wagon jumping?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 14, 2015 at 9:39 pm | Permalink
Jeff, don’t expect consistency. That’s logic.
Mermaid’s teaching epistemology.>>>>
Not really. Jeff was teaching the epistemology of provisional knowledge.
Can any of you explain how you can have one infallible rule of faith and practice that is only 99.999% certain? How is that consistent?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 14, 2015 at 4:48 pm | Permalink
Susan, part of the reason I didn’t engage with what you said was because you didn’t answer my question. You still haven’t.
The classic Darryl Hart dodge. The ex-Reformed at Called to Communion can’t wait to share their faith; Dr. Hart takes great [and ugly] pains to hide his.
LikeLike
Dear Sean
“Susan, how about elevating the worth of Christ’s death on your behalf to allow you to own that you really are that bad/sinful.”
That’s a very good point, about how sinful I am am. Of course we don’t want to see how sinful I can be to elevate His death even more! I am supposed to be growing, and not committing any serious sins.
My own sin caused His death, and his death is the only cause of my redemption.
O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem! ( “O happy fault that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer.”)
” If the remedy is sufficient maybe you can own the malady. That doesn’t make it not tough. But, if navel gazing is a problem I’d give up both rome and evanjellyfish. Oh wait, I did.”
Yeah, I understand, and I own the malady, and then some. Martin Luther was afflicted with Z Scruples too. I don’t want to navel gaze but, as you know, I am suppose to examine my conscience.
If I could chose a religion, I’d chose one that didn’t involve hell and freewill, but then I wouldn’t get anything as beautiful and full of love either.
As I said, I can’t pick evangellyfish because I know too much about church history, and I can’t choose a Reformed congregation because I know from scripture and tradition that there are more sacraments than two.
Plus there is other stuff like a long spiritual tradition east and west that Protestantism doesn’t want or own unless they are evangellyfish. Not to mention sacred liturgy that dates back to St James and the fact that Martin Luther had a devotion to Our Lady….
Christianity doesn’t look like the modern version to me, but maybe that’s just me 🙂
LikeLike
“But where Cletus jumps and howls about “the contents of the Bible remain provisional in Protestantism”, suddenly the content of the Bible being provisional is A-OK in Catholicism. Why? Because “[Textual criticism] is subordinate to the teaching magisterium of the Church.”
RCism doesnt hold to SS as the rule of faith. Your church does. Thats why RCism can hold textual criticism as a useful, but limited, tool that is subject to the constraints of the rule of faith, as previous citations I have given of magisterial docs and popes attest. Its not a nuclear bomb as in your system. Thats why Irenaeus could say “For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us their writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those whom they did commit the Churches?”
The point is not only that the canon is offered as provisional in your system. The point is everything is.
LikeLike
“I remain curious, though, how Cats epistemologically reconcile their certitude about finding the right church, while having no certitude about their own salvation. That all seems backwards, if not scary. Hope one of them might take a moment to clarify.”
Oh I know. It seems counter intuitive,especially if your afflicted with hyper-scruples, to choose a church that teaches that you can damage your friendship with God enough that you forfeit Heaven.
But I wasn’t looking for a church that agreed with me. Now I can see how important the sacraments are for our salvation, and how gracious it was that Jesus gave His church the sacrament of reconciliation and the others.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Susan, If I’m a brother in Christ, why should I become Roman Catholic?”
Because you are still outside the total communion for no reason at all if you don’t disagree with anything she teaches. If you disagree with what she teaches and who she is, then you are either invincibly ignorant or willfully so, and only you and God know the truth about it.
If you believed the claims and you rejoiced that she exists, the you’d desire to enter and you’d receive Our Lord in the Eucharist and you’d get the other sacraments. That’s why the church doesn’t preach that people hear and then receive a free bible. The Church has always made other Catholic disciples.
LikeLike
Susan, this is the part that I think gets missed with converts who get romanced by what they never knew before(ex: church history, medieval rome). The scriptures predate all the traditions you mention. And who wants to vote for modern evanjellyfish or Vat II prot liberalism wanna be. But, if it’s antiquity we’re after and some marriage of old and transcendent and profound, though I’m generally not eager to go back to medieval times or fuedal or caste systems or forsake modern conveniences and advances like indoor plumbing and medicine, the scriptures do give us spiritual disciplines, ecclesiology, offices and officers and vetting parameters for the same. Not to sound too protestant but they’re pretty sufficient. And then if we’re all afflicted with ‘it’s about me’ and we all are, even when it comes to good intentions, like the sacramentals, it seems out of this examining of conscience, should be a listing away from what seems like a good idea to us. God’s thoughts aren’t my thoughts kind of thing. So, marriage is good but maybe in our attempts to improve it-make it sacred, we make it something God didn’t intend it to be. So, instead, we get this tension that we get to live in, it’s not great, things are never fully resolved here, joys are short-lived, loved ones still die at the end of it all, we get sick, we get feeble, our children go off the rails, finances never quite get where we think we need them and definitely not where we want them and maybe that’s all part of the plan. So, rather than finding IT. We instead get weaned off our triumphalism, and set our sights on a different world. That all seems profound and romantic and transcendent and I can find that spirituality right in scripture. It’s all poetic and goey and real and not modern.
LikeLike
One cannot have the certitude of faith regarding individual salvation because that is not part of public revelation. One can however have a moral confidence. Otherwise one would never know when they are fit for communion or when they must partake of confession. And I fail to see the advantage Calvinism offers given its notions of self-deception of the reprobate under God’s “evanescent grace” and “inferior operations” of the Holy Spirit as Calvin put it.
LikeLike
Sean,
But then again maybe Jesus did found a church that has worn on through time and even trans the.medieval church.and has authority.
If it really is a matter of me and my bible what can I say when the kids become evangellyfish or become members a congregation that ordains women or approves of sodemy.
I wasn’t only after antiquity, I really believe that the church comes before the NT scriptures.
I’m really fine. Life is hard and uncertain and if it wasn’t for my faith and Romans claims that are different and unique, I’d have given up by now.
Do I’m good.
Pray for me my friend.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Why does the system have to offer anything as infallible? Why must we assume that is the church’s job to begin with? You keep making this assumption, but I don’t recall where you’ve justified it. What if you’re demanding something that God never told you to demand?
LikeLike
CVD: RCism doesnt hold to SS as the rule of faith. Your church does. Thats why RCism can hold textual criticism as a useful, but limited, tool that is subject to the constraints of the rule of faith, as previous citations I have given of magisterial docs and popes attest. Its not a nuclear bomb as in your system.
That’s goal-shifting. You first said that one should not place faith in anything provisionally known. Then you qualified this to “one should not place faith in anything offered as provisional.” Now, when you are frankly admitting that the text of Tobit is offered as provisional, you claim it doesn’t matter.
But it should. Either Scripture is offered as an infallible text in your system, or it is offered as provisional text. If infallible, you can’t admit one drop of textual criticism. If provisional, then it isn’t a part of an infallible STM triad.
Occam’s Razor: You don’t use the system you claim to use.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 14, 2015 at 9:03 pm | Permalink
Mermaid: Your problem is what?
Well … never mind.>>>>
There you go again. Yes, I am a dumb Catholic – or am I being redundant?
Jeff:
But my problem with your acceptance of Marshall’s textual criticism is that he treats the text of Scripture as provisionally known. Which I’m happy with — he is using a method I recognize to come to the best understanding of what the text of the Vulgate actually is.>>>>
Isn’t that your problem with accepting Marshall’s article? Don’t we all know that the Vulgate is a translation of the Septuagint into Latin? I really don’t understand what your problem is. Don’t know how to help you. Have you read his articles about the Vulgate? Maybe you could start there.
Jeff:
But where Cletus jumps and howls about “the contents of the Bible remain provisional in Protestantism”, suddenly the content of the Bible being provisional is A-OK in Catholicism.>>>
Jumps and howls? I missed that! Jumping cows? Bats flying out my nose? Cletus jumping and howling? What next? Signs of the Apocalypse!
I think that CvD means that Protestants actually remove chunks of the Bible from the Bible. You know. Like whole books. Luther wanted to remove 4 NT books from the canon of Scripture. The Jesus seminar goes even farther. Who decides in Protestantism what stays and what goes? Stuff like that.
I would imagine that some Catholic textual critics would take the scissors to some passages or whole books. The Church says no.
Jeff:
Why? Because “[Textual criticism] is subordinate to the teaching magisterium of the Church.”
In other words, because it’s your team doing it.
Special pleading. Again.>>>>
The Protestant canon of Scripture was arbitrarily decided by Martin Luther. He did not consult with others. He chose the Masoretic text for the OT and moved some NT books to the back of his Bible translation.
So, isn’t that really the case of special pleading? Who gets to decide what the canon is? The Church or Martin Luther?
Ultimately it is the Holy Spirit, of course. Was the Holy Spirit poured out on the man, Martin Luther, on the day of Pentecost? Did the man, Martin Luther make sure that the manuscripts were carefully copied and preserved?
Just from a provisional knowledge standpoint, how likely is it that Martin Luther was entrusted with deciding for the church what the canon of Scripture is? Is it one of those “it can happen that way because it did happen that way” kinds of things? Wouldn’t that be special pleading?
LikeLike
Jeff,
“You first said that one should not place faith in anything provisionally known. Then you qualified this to “one should not place faith in anything offered as provisional.”
I never “qualified” anything. You assumed the first statement was my position. I corrected you multiple times and you continued to attribute it to me, then wasted time with a laborious proof based on that misconception. Your vulcan mindmeld argument has been addressed multiple times now. Honesty and good faith dialogue dictates you interact with replies instead of repeating arguments as if they were never addressed.
LikeLike
Robert,
Because divine revelation is infallible, as we agree. Further, you just conceded your system cannot distinguish between divine revelation and provisional human opinion – I would think at a bare minimum for a system to do that, it has to at least be able to offer something as infallible. But now you are skeptical of even that being necessary. Thus, youre left with fideism and perpetual stalemates amongst those who disagree.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 15, 2015 at 12:09 am | Permalink
Cletus,
Why does the system have to offer anything as infallible? Why must we assume that is the church’s job to begin with? You keep making this assumption, but I don’t recall where you’ve justified it. What if you’re demanding something that God never told you to demand?
Ms. Mermaid continues to remind you, under your system of “provisional belief,” not even Christ’s resurrection is an object of faith, Jeff. “Provisional belief” is not the same thing as faith.
Because–as you don’t even realize you’re admitting–you have no faith. Reason gives assent to faith, true, but you have put reason first. Everything is backward.
LikeLike
Susan
Posted December 14, 2015 at 2:35 pm | Permalink
Sorry if that sounded gooey and sentimental. I didn’t mean for it to.
You have nothing to apologize for. They’re all quite modern men, all reason and intellect. Gooeyness and sentimentality are beneath them.
(Or above them.)
Surely you know your CS Lewis? These “Men Without Chests” have no heart, and sneer at everyone else’s heart. You’re the real thing, not them, and you are not alone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abolition_of_Man
LikeLike
The scope, extent, and contents of the Bible, and that it is inspired and inerrant and authoritative, remain provisional and subject to
revisionrefinement in Protestantism.There, fixed for ya DVC.
Thus Protestantism’s disclaimers to the types of claims to authority/ability Rome makes.
So what? Of course according to Rome’s standards, protestantism fails. What else did we expect coming from Photiphar’s wife who is guilty of what she accuse prots of: conflating ontology and epistemology? Of assuming, that including Rome’s traditions and magisterium as part of the infallible Scripture because it is consistent with STM, is not redundant and self defeating?
But we haven’t seen proof yet and won’t, because for starters, 2 Tim.3:17 has been permanently whited out in the minds of our Romanist interlocutors. (At the first mention of it, Bryan will yell begging the question and start flinging accusations of an uncharitable lack of the ecumenical mindset around with abandon. It is, after all, only fair to criticize protestantism on a prot site.)
IOW we know what you are going to say as a romanist, but you have still to demonstrate that you know what protestantism is.
There is no infallible mechanism in place to distinguish divine revelation apart from divine revelation itself from [weasel word alert] provisional human opinion, and so there is no mechanism in place to issue definitive and normative judgments/teachings binding upon all.
The Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture is not a mechanism WCF1:10.
You want mechanism?
Think ex opere operato sacraments in conjunction with implict faith, i.e a rigged slot
mechanismmachine.Project much?
Thus, as Robert said, adherents of one Protestant church shouldn’t care what another church teaches or judges – they have no reason to care.
Thanks for sharing, however irrelevant.
Next.
TLM, if you can’t – and you can’t – tell us the early church’s objections to the apocrypha which is also the protestant case, you really can’t expect us listen to you parrot the jive.
The Jews never accepted the apocrypha as inspired, they were written in Greek not Hebrew, after the last prophet, Malachi, they make no claim to be inspired, contain errors and are never quoted in the NT.
As in we already went through this with Susan, so if she were really really your friend she should have told you.
And yeah, the Bible is infallible. (So is the pope, according to some deluded folks.) You aren’t. So how come romanists can know what the pope says, but we can’t know what the Bible says? Even if only “provisionally” i.e. imperfectly, but adequately – contra the efforts of the papal pyrrhonists here to invest the word with the rankest one way skepticism?
LikeLike
Bob,
Subject to revision and possibility of error is what your side defined provisional as, you know the side that claims I “just don’t” understand provisionality with tablepounding.
If it was only refinement, youd have something similar to development. But development would entail at least something non-provisional and infallible to develop from. But since everything and anything in Protestantism is offered as provisional and subject to revision, you never get there. Thus your starting doctrines I’ve listed before that remain just as provisional and subject to correction/revision (not refinement) as any other teaching or doctrine offered in your system.
The question is not whether according to Romes standards Protestantism fails. That would indeed be begging the question. The question is whether according to Protestantism’s standards it can meet the demand for distinguishing divine revelation from providional human opinion. Rejecting the authority and ability to offer, teach, define, or identify any non-provisional doctrine would seem to make that difficult.
LikeLike
Bob S
Posted December 15, 2015 at 2:54 am | Permalink
The scope, extent, and contents of the Bible, and that it is inspired and inerrant and authoritative, remain provisional and subject to
revisionrefinement in Protestantism.There, fixed for ya DVC.
Protestant “Confessions” are revised. That’s the word they themselves use, “confessional” Protestantism’s own self-understanding.
In its own self-understanding, the Catholic Church does not “revise.” As much as Darryl G. Hart claims to the contrary, Pope Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity”
http://www.stpeterslist.com/11922/hermeneutic-of-continuity-pope-benedict-xvis-10-step-guide-to-vatican-ii/
remains the Catholic position. Accept no substitutes.
Especially Dr. Hart and the crap he trolls up from the internet swamp to attack the Catholic Church. Anyone could take down Elder Hart’s Orthodox Presbyterian Church i a minute based on its cowardice on correcting Kevin Swanson alone.
http://www.advocate.com/religion/2015/11/24/kill-gays-preacher-kevin-swanson-gods-his-side
Nobody in the Catholic Church is about killing the gays, Elder Hart. The beam’s in your eye. Correct your Elect.
LikeLike
Mermaid, it’s called being human this side of the fall. But Roman Catholics struggle with acknowledging sin — all that inspiration over human flourishing.
LikeLike
vd, t, “The ex-Reformed at Called to Communion can’t wait to share their faith; Dr. Hart takes great [and ugly] pains to hide his.”
from the guy who says he won’t reveal his “personal” beliefs and practices. you can make this stuff up.
LikeLike
Susan, so was I in 1961 “outside total communion” or were Protestants before Vatican 2 guilty of mortal sin and not in communion at all?
You do see, don’t you, that this sort of squishiness about Protestantism is exactly what mainline Protestantism did. Right?
LikeLike
Susan, so you think Paul was wrong in his instruction to Timothy about how to plant a church:
Are your ears itching?
LikeLike
James Young, “I never “qualified” anything.”
His church — ahem — “develops” but he doesn’t.
Cool.
LikeLike
Alex, I’ll take “Bible Thumping” for $600.
LikeLike
vd, t, but what did Lewis, a man with provisional knowledge, know?
LikeLike
Jeff, you know James is trafficking in slippery stuff:
So tradition is revelation as much as Scripture.
Can you say Barthian? Can you say discontinuity? Sure you can but James can’t.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Thus, as Robert said, adherents of one Protestant church shouldn’t care what another church teaches or judges – they have no reason to care.
I said in one sense they shouldn’t care—the sense that if you aren’t a member, they, practically speaking don’t have jurisdiction over you.
You know, kind of like Rome recently said that if you are Jewish, you don’t need to care about what Rome says about Judaism.
LikeLike
Susan: Dear Darryl, Right now I don’t know if I’m saved.
D. G. Hart: there is way too much “Susan” there
Petros :curious how Cats epistemologically reconcile their certitude about finding the right church, while having no certitude about their own salvation.
Susan: Not to mention sacred liturgy that dates back to St James and the fact that Martin Luther had a devotion to Our Lady
Susan: Now I can see how important the sacraments are for our salvation, and how gracious it was that Jesus gave His church the sacrament of reconciliation and the others.
Susan: why should I become Roman Catholic? Because you are still outside the total communion for no reason at all if you don’t disagree with anything she teaches. If you disagree with what she teaches and who she is, then you are either invincibly ignorant or willfully so, and only you and God know the truth about it.If you believed the claims and you rejoiced that she exists, the you’d desire to enter and you’d receive Our Lord in the Eucharist and you’d get the other sacraments. The Church has always made other Catholic disciples.
Susan: Life is hard and uncertain and if it wasn’t for my faith and Romans claims that are different and unique, I’d have given up by now. Pray for me my friend.
I came across a verse this am written just with you in mind, Susan:
Jude 1:22 and have mercy on some who are doubting… …the Lord knows all about your ‘diakrino’ wavering mind -between believing, trusting, relying on God alone, or on some others things…
He gave us Thomas’s story and also records for us, who have also received God’s unmerited mercy, to be merciful and compassionate about your doubting, as He was with Thomas (John 20:28), but then giving His exhortation: John 2029b Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”31 (the book of John) was written (just) so that you (Susan) may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
You can’t be divided in your thinking. It must be “ but for my faith alone” ;not “if it wasn’t for my faith + Romans claims that are different and unique”, I’d have given up by now.
Salvation belongs to the Lord ALONE
Jude 1: 24 Now to Him (alone) who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, 25 to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, (alone) be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.
for you, again, today, (and of course as always, too, for the beloved cw)
LikeLike
“These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.” (1Jo 5:13)
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.” (John 6:47)
“We live in an age where conversion to Roman Catholicism is not an uncommon thing among those who have been brought up as evangelicals. There are many reasons for this: some speak of being attracted by the beauty of the liturgy in comparison with what is often seen as a casual and irreverent flippancy in evangelical services; others like the idea of historical continuity, of knowing where the church has been throughout history; still others find the authority structure to be attractive in an age of flux and uncertainty. Whatever the reasons, most Protestants would concede that Rome has certain attractions. Nevertheless, the one thing that every Protestant who converts to Rome loses is the assurance of faith.” –Carl Trueman, The Creedal Imperative, pg. 124
Of course, that assumes such Prots had an assurance prior to becoming Roman Catholics (or Orthodox). But Susan, you didn’t if i understand.
Cardinal Bellarmine: “it is correct enough to say that the whole Mystical Body will be saved in its constitutive elements, inasmuch as every class in the Catholic Church—apostles, prophets, teachers, confessors and virgins—will be represented among the saved. It is not true, however, that all its material elements, that is, every numerical member of the Mystical Body, will finally attain to salvation.”
I read Scripture and hear the Savior say to me that I belong to Him, and that if I, in my great sin, yet with faith in His words am to be lost, then He too must be severed asunder from His Father forever:
“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” (John 10:27-30)”
My Savior’s sacrifice was accepted by the Father and is greater than my sin. Thank you, Lord.
LikeLike
No one of note
Posted December 15, 2015 at 9:28 am | Permalink
“These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.” (1Jo 5:13)
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.” (John 6:47)>>>>
Yes. πιστεύων – A present tense believing. John’s emphasis is consistently on present tense believing and present tense abiding in Christ, the Vine.
How does that affect your understanding, No One of Note?
In Hebrews we are exhorted to run the race of faith with endurance, keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus, and knowing that many have gone before us.
I still must run the race to the end. God gives grace continually as I run. I must not fall away. The question is not God’s ability or willingness to save me. I have no doubt about His ability. As we are reminded of here, you and I are not omniscient. I don’t know if a faith test will come up in my live and I will fail it and fall away. I don’t seriously expect that to happen, but I can think of scenarios where that could happen.
It has happened to others who have run well in the past, and then stumble and fall in a time of temptation. I don’t mean just moral failings. I mean they quit believing altogether.
When I started the race, I have initial salvation. I must persevere. You know that. Otherwise, why don’t you quit the race, since you are already saved? Calvinism doesn’t teach that kind of assurance. The assurance has to do with Christ’s ability to save. The assurance has to do with the availability of God’s grace. The assurance has to do with His present tense supply of grace to those who continually receive it.
Read Hebrews 12 and maybe you will see why Martin Luther wanted to remove the book of Hebrews from the NT. Others were able to restrain him. See, you need to focus on the passages that Calvinists shy away from, not just the passages that support Calvin’s version of the doctrines of grace.
Hey, read some John Owen and then talk about how sure you are of your own salvation. Fear and trembling.
Maybe Susan will clarify. If I understand her correctly, it was the epistemology of provisional knowledge that made her doubt faith itself – the whole foundation of faith itself. She saw that there really is none if that is the epistemology being used.
Everything is uncertain, and there really is no infallible rule of faith and practice. So, what’s the point? Not sure, but that’s what I see in Reformed theology. That’s what I understand Susan to be saying.
Others are able to somehow ignore the epistemology and soldier on. I don’t think the epistemology is workable in real life. It has to be ignored.
BTW, good morning. 🙂 I hope all is well where you are.
LikeLike
Mermaid, read up:
If you don’t want to receive and rest on Christ’s righteousness alone, that’s your folly.
LikeLike
Hi Ms. Mermaid,
A pleasant good morning to you, too.
>>>
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.” (John 6:47)
Yes. πιστεύων – A present tense believing. John’s emphasis is consistently on present tense believing and present tense abiding in Christ, the Vine. How does that affect your understanding, No One of Note?
>>>
It affirms the unreserved greatness of my Savior’s promise, not my pledge of ongoing belief. You want me to disbelieve Him? He says to me ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον (has eternal life). As you read the verse, you make me the one responsible for two things I don’t control: the purity of my faith, and eternal life.
Besides, if I lose eternal life, it wasn’t eternal life but temporary life, and Jesus lied.
As a Roman Catholic you cannot believe the words of Christ in John 6:47 and remain in agreement with RC soteriology because for you, future mortal sin can remove eternal life. You must take the indicative ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον as subjunctive: “he might have eternal life.” But that is not what the Lord said.
John 6:47 is an amazing verse of promise, to be taken exactly as spoken without addendums, such as “if you don’t commit mortal sin.” That’s unbelief.
Perseverance comes out of possessing eternal life, not vice-versa. Love reading Owen, and sometimes i fear greatly reading not just him but many writers. They help me see the sin I rationalize and cover, and make me feel horror over myself.
But they never take the gospel away from me as do Roman Catholic writers. And why do they offer me a piece of bread in its place?
LikeLike
Darryl,
“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.”
This doesn’t negate the historical logic that NT church preceded the scriptures; Of course scripture is able to make one wise for salvation and of course sacred scripture is God breathed and profitable for all those good things listed, but it isn’t all that the church consists of. There were and still are other components.
CCC 108 “Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.”74
And Timothy was planting an hierarchical apostolic church, as the instruction “to guard” the good deposit through the help of the Holy Spirit by “laying on of Pauls hands” denotes.
.
They clearly were not planting denominations.
And do you think St Timothy had a complete and closed canon of books during the time of St Paul?
But you still continue not to engage with anything I’ve said about the evolution of church in Protestantism. How they changed the number of sacraments, the nature of of a sacrament…
Mrs. Webfoot and CVD have been addressing Protestantisms admitted dependence on scriptures that they can’t even agree on. Talk about shaky foundations. If you are relying on the scriptures to be your sole rule of your faith, but you believe that they are provisional, and that even their correct identity as sacred scripture is up for grabs depending on critical scholarship then how can you say the are God breathed? Some say Paul didn’t write 2 Timothy, so now what?
Apparently you don’t care that the many protestant congregations are not ontological the same church of Sts. Timothy and Paul just as long as they say they are following the bible. Which bible, and says who? Possessing a bible doesn’t make you “the” church even if you have a Doctor of Divinity. It was against the many theologies (and bad behavior) that Paul was warning Timothy.
All the videos of Dr. Gene Scott that used to air here in Southern California during the “80’s are taken down. His wife and successor, must have wanted to preserve a nicer image of the man who cussed up a storm and smoked cigars on his program.
Sola scriptura fail.
http://www.pastormelissascott.com/dr-scott.shtml
LikeLike
Darryl,
“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.”
Fulton Sheen CtC article you supposedly read:
“…each individual [is] his own supreme authority, allowing him either to interpret the Scriptures privately or else interpret his own religious experiences without any dictation from without. Religion on this theory is a purely individual affair: each one casts his own vote as to what he will believe, rejects all creeds, beliefs, and dogmas which run counter to his moods and prejudices, determines for himself the kind of a God he will adore, the kind of an altar before which he will kneel – in a word, he worships at the shrines his own hands have made.”
You might want to get some calamine lotion.
LikeLike
No One of Note:
It affirms the unreserved greatness of my Savior’s promise, not my pledge of ongoing belief. You want me to disbelieve Him? He says to me ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον (has eternal life). As you read the verse, you make me the one responsible for two things I don’t control: the purity of my faith, and eternal life.>>>>
I’ll just comment briefly here, but thank you for your kind response. Maybe later I’ll get time to comment more fully.
Does your own faith have anything to do with your salvation? You have received the gift of faith and have used it to believe in Christ. The whole salvation package comes by grace, through faith. (Ephesians 2:8,9) You have to actually exercise that faith by an act of your will. Your will is set free by Christ’s work on the cross and by the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration.
That faith is your faith. It is a gift given to you. Jesus does not believe for you.
How long does your faith need to continue in operation? The grace of God in Christ never ends. That grace is available all the time. Your faith must also continue.
Can you honestly say that you will never fall away and quit believing in Christ? Others have. What makes you so special?
Christ will never, ever fail. His grace is always present tense. You are not Jesus Christ. You are fallible. He is not.
Remember the answer Susan got from Reformed theology about her loss of faith? What was it?
LikeLike
No one,
“Besides, if I lose eternal life, it wasn’t eternal life but temporary life, and Jesus lied. ”
That’s an equivocation on “eternal”. It can refer to duration or quality. One can have “eternal life” – that is sanctifying grace, currently and yet still lose it in the future.
” future mortal sin can remove eternal life.”
As Scripture and Tradition attests to.
LikeLike
Mrs.Webfoot,
What caused me to lose my faith in Christianity were all the different Jesus’s that I was encountering. There was the Jesus of the Pentecostals, the Jesus of the Church of Christ, the Jesus of the Southern Baptists, and Calvary Chapel and Vineyard Christian Fellowship and Paul and Jan Crouch’s version and Dr.Gene Scott version, the Presbyterian version, the Methodist, the Mennonite…
It’s 2000 years since Jesus has been on earth,so how could I find the correct Jesus? My Reformed pastor said I met him in the pages of scripture, but a Reformed teacher/author/ philosopher told me that the scriptures were really only a series of propositions. That means that they require interpretation, so I was back at square one asking who interprets the book of propositions. The Holy Spirit as a guide isn’t helpful if you are already presupposing that Catholicism is wrong. If I’m calling the parameters, I’m the one who’s leading and conveniently saying it’s the Holy Spirit. Everyone was appealing to the Holy Spirit, so how could I know if He was leading me and leading the pastor of my current denomination? I’d changed churches before because ” the Holy Spirit guided me out”. Who’s to say I could ever find a church that they Holy Spirit would once again dragged me out of?
Besides the Holy Spirit is part of Christianity and spoken of in scripture, the very things I was uncertain about because of the existence of many kinds of “bible” churches with biblical authority.
I tried to hide my doubt from my kids because I wanted them to trust Jesus even though I couldn’t even find Him because I had felt the nausea of nihilist existence without faith. Later my adult children told me that while they were worried at the time that I was becoming Catholic they are now glad that I hadn’t ended up losing faith entirely. IOW’s that I had adopted some version of Christianity.
While I understood their loving sentiment, but( and I won’t tell them this) by saying that it’s okay that I had to embraced Catholicism in order to have faith in Jesus, they are acknowledging that I am simultaneously denouncing the ‘Many Jesus’s” scenario which is Protestantism.
Anyways, that is all behind me now that I found the real Jesus.
LikeLike
No One of Note:
Perseverance comes out of possessing eternal life, not vice-versa. Love reading Owen, and sometimes i fear greatly reading not just him but many writers. They help me see the sin I rationalize and cover, and make me feel horror over myself.>>>>>>
So, if you fear, you do not have full assurance in the way your say you do. In fact, what would happen if you did not feel that horror over yourself?
Are you using that horror over yourself to buy yourself more grace and make yourself feel better? If so, then couldn’t that feeling just be self deception? So, you go back and read some Owen, feel horrible about yourself again. You then face your doubts and fears, and feel somewhat better until the next time.
If that is what you are doing, then how can that be called assurance that you will never fall away? You must have some doubt about your own salvation.
Actually, I have more assurance that I will persevere by the grace of God than I ever did reading Owen and the Puritans. It must have something to do with the sacraments, that you say are just a way of putting my coin in and expecting results.
I think you are the one who puts in your miserable coin of self deprecation and expects some grace reward for it. Maybe I am projecting onto you what I used to do, so if I am, I apologize.
Okay, if you were closer, I would have you over for coffee and cookies and we could talk and laugh about how silly we are and how much we really do need the grace of God every moment of every day. He sustains us. Well, and coffee helps as well.
Have a blessed day, Brother No One of Note
LikeLike
JRC: Well … never mind.>>>>
Mermaid: There you go again. Yes, I am a dumb Catholic – or am I being redundant?
No, the joke was at my expense, not yours. As in, “Well, I have so many problems that …”
LikeLike
Mermaid: I think that CvD means that Protestants actually remove chunks of the Bible from the Bible. You know. Like whole books. Luther wanted to remove 4 NT books from the canon of Scripture. The Jesus seminar goes even farther. Who decides in Protestantism what stays and what goes? Stuff like that.
I would imagine that some Catholic textual critics would take the scissors to some passages or whole books. The Church says no.
Actually, the text-critical issue we have talked about here is whether the pericope adulterae is Scripture or not.
But it’s a strange defense you offer. You say no to taking scissors to some passages or whole books, but you can take scissors to individual words?
What does “infallible” mean?
LikeLike
JRC: “You first said that one should not place faith in anything provisionally known. Then you qualified this to “one should not place faith in anything offered as provisional.”
CVD: I never “qualified” anything. You assumed the first statement was my position. I corrected you multiple times and you continued to attribute it to me…
Clearly, we miscommunicated on the first round. However, I have accepted your clarification or correction, and have attempted to use that correction in subsequent responses to you.
CVD: … then wasted time with a laborious proof based on that misconception. Your vulcan mindmeld argument has been addressed multiple times now.
It is true that you have addressed it. I find your defense to be inadequate because you seem not to understand the issue involved.
You want to say that statements offered as provisional should not be trusted. You claim that this should disqualify Protestant claims entirely.
My response is that if STM is provisionally identified (as you admit), then any statement “P is STM” is offered as a provisional truth.
Hence, you within your own system should disqualify “P is STM”, whence you can never have justification for accepting P.
This reasoning is confirmed (indirectly) by Scheeben who says that the certitude of faith can never apply to false statements. Hence, since you cannot know whether P is STM, you cannot ever know whether P is infallible, whence you can never have the certitude of faith concerning P.
The tricky part is negotiating the meta-questions, and that seems to be where you get stuck.
CVD: Honesty and good faith dialogue dictates you interact with replies instead of repeating arguments as if they were never addressed.
Very true. That would apply to you, as well, right?
So for example, when you have been repeatedly told that
* “provisional” does not mean “doubtful”,
* or that Protestants do not present Scripture as “provisional”, but rather provisionally identify the Scripture as infallible,
* or that the Protestant system does not automatically disqualify provisional statements as the content of faith,
then you should modify your argument, yes?
But you seem not to.
For my part, I don’t suspect bad faith or dishonesty so much as I think that you really, really think you’re right. Where should we go from here?
LikeLike
Susan, this is really tired. Protestants don’t believe God’s word is provision. That’s why it’s called God’s word. What Protestants have problems with is some notion that any human — apart from divine inspiration — has 100 % certain knowledge. If you think you have that now because you trust a lefty Pope, you really are more daft than I realized.
The apostles preceded the bishops, no? And so where do we find what the apostles (and the prophets) taught? In the — wait for it — Bible. Even your bishops say they derive their authority from passing on what the apostles taught. So I guess the word does really come before the church. Or do you think Paul was telling Timothy to wait for the next encyclical from the Bishop of Rome (which didn’t exist).
Susan, you really do assert “truths” that are ripe for mockery village atheists. Please clean up your assertions and running to and fro.
LikeLike
James Young, what about rule by elders do you not understand?
And you really think your communion isn’t jammed full by the BILL YUNS with itching ears (and who knows what’s going on with private parts).
Sheen? Seriously?
LikeLike
James Young, what one man calls equivocation, another terms development.
Two (and 1. 2 billion) can play that game.
LikeLike
Susan, how’s the Jesus of Benedict XVI working for you?
Stop complaining about Protestantism only without noticing the log in your newly acquired eye.
LikeLike
Jeff, when doctrine develops, words follow.
But that would be a seminar on hermeutics. We’re still preparing for the final in epistemology. W
LikeLike
Darryl,
“what about rule by elders do you not understand? ”
“Rule” by elders for only as long as they agree with me. Else I’m off to the next church that suits my provisional fancy. That’s why you don’t give a rip about PCUSA “elders” or other churches and what they think of your beliefs, nor do they care what you as an elder think about their beliefs – neither of you has any reason to care. All about meeeeee. So Sheen’s quote stands.
LikeLike
Should I have a problem with that quote?
“That’s why it’s called God’s word. What Protestants have problems with is some notion that any human — apart from divine inspiration — has 100 % certain knowledge. If you think you have that now because you trust a lefty Pope, you really are more daft than I realized.”
Well you know I’m Catholic, so if that means I’m daffy I’m at least in good company. Popes come and go but the magesterium remains hence no provisional knowledge.
LikeLike
Jeff,
“I find your defense to be inadequate because you seem not to understand the issue involved.”
Part of the problem is you haven’t addressed the defense because you still haven’t dealt with the counterexample of Christ and the Apostles and their non-infallible, non-vulcan mindmelding adherents. It’s been repeated by me multiple times in this thread, and your response each time is simply repeating “you’re not vulcan mindmelding”. That’s not engaging the reply, that’s ignoring it. Thus my post above.
““provisional” does not mean “doubtful”
Right, it means subject to revision. Which is what I’ve said and argued.
“Protestants do not present Scripture as “provisional”, but rather provisionally identify the Scripture as infallible”
You’ve already agreed it’s not just your understanding of doctrine that’s provisional, but also every doctrine itself offered, defined, identified, taught within Protestantism. That would include the starting doctrines I’ve already outlined, some of which are that divine revelation exists and something called the “Word of God” contains it and this is confined to something called “Scripture”.
“or that the Protestant system does not automatically disqualify provisional statements as the content of faith”
Sure you can assert provisional statements and teachings are the content of faith. The point in question is whether that is compatible with the simultaneous assertion that divine revelation is infallible.
“I think that you really, really think you’re right.”
It’s just that I think I’m right, thanks. Just as I think that you think you’re right, and not that you “really, really” think you’re right.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 15, 2015 at 1:43 pm | Permalink
JRC: Well … never mind.>>>>
Mermaid: There you go again. Yes, I am a dumb Catholic – or am I being redundant?
No, the joke was at my expense, not yours. As in, “Well, I have so many problems that …”>>>>
Okay, that’s funny! We have a sacrament for that. I just want to say that you are my best frenemy for the time being.
LikeLike
Perhaps I missed Jeff’s agreement here, but I certainly do not agree with this. That the Word of God exists and is confined to scripture precedes protestantism – we identify it, we don’t define it. The “provisional” (as you call it, I don’t call it provisional – conditional is better) aspect of the WCF is conditional on being consonant with the Word of God. It isn’t conditional on any ol’ arbitrary basis. This is the context that you refuse to account for with your spurious charge of special pleading. Everything the church defines is conditional on being consistent with the divine revelation – the church’s teaching is not divine revelation.
Your reading of the WCF is not consistent with how any of the reformers who subscribed to the WCF I’ve read would have understood the articles in question.
Well the Jews had articles of faith and it contained errors, yet they had received divine revelation that was infallible. So it is clear that the content of the faith can be fallible while divine revelation can be infallible. The question is whether the church is in fact divinely protected from ever interpreting divine revelation incorrectly and teaching that error as truth. The caveats in Rome and post hoc justifications of what counts as such teaching and what doesn’t render any purported protection from error meaningless. Indeed, if it is possible for one to misapprehend that teaching then there is no epistemological benefit for the catholic assuming RCism is true and the presby assuming RPism is true. One adds a purported infallible middle man, though it isn’t clear in that system when the middle man is infallible and when he isn’t – there is no infallible canon law that tells us. So a trad layman like yourself might have one answer on what is absolutely true church teaching, while a scholarly clergy like Fr. James Martin might say something about a hierarchy of truths along the lines of,
OK, so not everything the church teaches is equally authoritative and infallible. Evidently, the essentials are the gospels and the Nicene Creed – everything else must be judged (interpreted?) in light of that? That doesn’t sound like something a trad would say of course. So who decides what the infallible teachings are? Folks have complained that the current modernist Cardinals are causing confusion. Now these guys have devoted themselves to studying church teaching, yet they can’t seem to come to a consensus on what counts as infallible dogma – is the historicity of Adam infallible dogma? Some say yes, other say no. Since there is no infallible way to know what interpretations of divine revelation are infallible, the purported occasional infallible middle man (the T and M in the triad) don’t bring additional certainty.
So at the end of the day, a system in which the church is recognized to be a fallible (broken jar of clay) recipient of divine revelation through which the Holy Spirit works is not epistemologically worse off than a system in which the church has certain kinds of teaching under certain conditions that are infallible (though they can develop) but which I can’t infallibly identify. But the system that encourages the believer to test the teaching and the power of the word seems to encourage the kind of devotion that brings strong belief – this might explain why the range of belief among those who identify as sola scriptura Christians is smaller than among those identify as Catholic. It might also explain the sociological differences among the groups in terms of the actual practice among the adherents. Here, there is no question that prots generally and prots that hold to SS in particular are far to the right (even internationally) on all kinds of moral questions that I think we would agree Christians of all stripes should hold.
Sociological and epistemological utility do not prove that a system is true of course, but it is an interesting exercise nonetheless.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted December 15, 2015 at 12:56 pm | Permalink
Darryl,
“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.”
Fulton Sheen CtC article you supposedly read:
You might want to get some calamine lotion.
Busted again. Dr. Hart clearly does not seek truth or understanding when he trolls the internet about Catholicism, only ammunition. That’s why he shoots himself in the foot so often, like here.
Susan
Posted December 15, 2015 at 11:57 am | Permalink
Darryl,
And Timothy was planting an hierarchical apostolic church, as the instruction “to guard” the good deposit through the help of the Holy Spirit by “laying on of Paul’s hands” denotes..
They clearly were not planting denominations.
And do you think St Timothy had a complete and closed canon of books during the time of St Paul?
But you still continue not to engage with anything I’ve said about the evolution of church in Protestantism. How they changed the number of sacraments, the nature of of a sacrament…
Mrs. Webfoot and CVD have been addressing Protestantisms admitted dependence on scriptures that they can’t even agree on. Talk about shaky foundations. If you are relying on the scriptures to be your sole rule of your faith, but you believe that they are provisional, and that even their correct identity as sacred scripture is up for grabs depending on critical scholarship then how can you say the are God breathed? Some say Paul didn’t write 2 Timothy, so now what?
Apparently you don’t care that the many protestant congregations are not ontological the same church of Sts. Timothy and Paul just as long as they say they are following the bible. Which bible, and says who? Possessing a bible doesn’t make you “the” church even if you have a Doctor of Divinity. It was against the many theologies (and bad behavior) that Paul was warning Timothy.
Dodge away, Dr. Hart. They’re on to you.
LikeLike
@susan
How do these groups differ in their Christology? It seems to me that they all believe in the same Jesus.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted December 15, 2015 at 6:47 pm | Permalink
@susan
What caused me to lose my faith in Christianity were all the different Jesus’s that I was encountering. There was the Jesus of the Pentecostals, the Jesus of the Church of Christ, the Jesus of the Southern Baptists, and Calvary Chapel and Vineyard Christian Fellowship and Paul and Jan Crouch’s version and Dr.Gene Scott version, the Presbyterian version, the Methodist, the Mennonite…
How do these groups differ in their Christology? It seems to me that they all believe in the same Jesus.
The real question is why aren’t they all the same church then, instead of so many, sometimes only a block apart?
Do they even read this thing?
LikeLike
Hi Mermaid,
Can you honestly say that you will never fall away and quit believing in Christ? Others have.
No.
What makes you so special?
Huh?
Christ will never, ever fail. His grace is always present tense. You are not Jesus Christ. You are fallible. He is not.
I am justly humbled under your blistering cross exam.
Remember the answer Susan got from Reformed theology about her loss of faith? What was it?
I don’t know.
So, if you fear, you do not have full assurance in the way your say you do. In fact, what would happen if you did not feel that horror over yourself?
I would still go to heaven, for Jesus died and rose again for me, faulty emotions and all.
Are you using that horror over yourself to buy yourself more grace and make yourself feel better? If so, then couldn’t that feeling just be self deception?
Of course, for I am full of sin and deceit. But Jesus is not, and He died and rose again for me.
So, you go back and read some Owen, feel horrible about yourself again. You then face your doubts and fears, and feel somewhat better until the next time.
Oh, my fears and doubts don’t make me feel better about myself. But so what? Jesus Christ died and rose again for a foolish sinner like me.
If that is what you are doing, then how can that be called assurance that you will never fall away? You must have some doubt about your own salvation.
Well, no, I don’t. My salvation isn’t at related to my assurance or lack of assurance, but entirely to Jesus Christ who died and rose again for me.
I think you are the one who puts in your miserable coin of self deprecation and expects some grace reward for it.
I hope I don’t, because the grace I receive from God comes to me because Jesus Christ died and rose again for me.
Have a blessed day, Brother No One of Note
Ok. Thanks.
LikeLike
No One of Note:
If that is what you are doing, then how can that be called assurance that you will never fall away? You must have some doubt about your own salvation.
Well, no, I don’t. My salvation isn’t at related to my assurance or lack of assurance, but entirely to Jesus Christ who died and rose again for me.>>>>
Then what does having a continuous faith in Christ mean? What does a continual abiding in Christ by faith mean? What does your faith even mean? Why is it even necessary at all?
LikeLike
sdb,
“That the Word of God exists and is confined to scripture precedes protestantism”
This teaching is offered within Protestantism as provisional and subject to revision.
And, are all the starting doctrines I listed earlier derived and exegeted from Scripture as you originally asserted earlier, or are they not? If they are, they would seem subject to your disclaimers you say apply to all interpretation of Scripture. If they’re not, do we treat them all as “properly basic”?
“we identify it, we don’t define it. ”
The identification of it remains provisional and subject to revision by both the Protestant system as well as its adherents.
“This is the context that you refuse to account for with your spurious charge of special pleading.”
The “context” defined by Protestantism is provisional and subject to revision.
” the church’s teaching is not divine revelation. ”
In Protestantism any and all of the church’s teaching is provisional and subject to revision. Further, this Protestant teaching that the church’s teaching is not divine revelation or non-provisional is itself provisional and subject to revision, as are all its teachings.
“Your reading of the WCF is not consistent with how any of the reformers who subscribed to the WCF I’ve read would have understood the articles in question. ”
Did any of the reformers ascribe infallibility or non-provisional teaching to any Protestant church/confession/body? No, because they were consistent with WCF’s disclaimers to any such ability/authority.
“Indeed, if it is possible for one to misapprehend that teaching then there is no epistemological benefit for the catholic assuming RCism is true and the presby assuming RPism is true. ”
Christ and the Apostles didn’t vulcan mindmeld with their non-omniscient adherents. Their faithful adherents were sometimes mistaken. Their faithful adherents could be corrected by normative binding judgment and teaching that was non-provisional, because those adherents who had submitted in faith were being consistent with their initial assent. Apparently this is irrelevant to you and those followers had no epistemological benefit or “additional certainty” over followers of a random rabbi who made no such claim to the authority and ability to offer, identify, teach, define non-provisional infallible teaching, and actively rejected it.
” So a trad layman like yourself might have one answer on what is absolutely true church teaching, while a scholarly clergy like Fr. James Martin might say something about a hierarchy of truths along the lines of,”
The hierarchy of truths is part of RC theology – there are many magisterial docs affirming such. I don’t know why you assume Martin and myself would disagree.
“So who decides what the infallible teachings are? ”
The STM-triad. There’s a mechanism in place to decide such matters. There is no such mechanism in place in Protestantism. Because of the disclaimers.
“Since there is no infallible way to know what interpretations of divine revelation are infallible, the purported occasional infallible middle man (the T and M in the triad) don’t bring additional certainty. ”
You’re claiming because dissenters exist or because members of the faithful can be honestly mistaken or confused, that entails there is no way for *anyone* to ascertain *any* infallible teaching. If that were true, there would be no way for the fallible non-vulcan mindmelding adherents of Christ and the Apostles to ascertain infallible teaching, nor would the ability/authority of Christ and the Apostles to do such bring any “additional certainty” to their adherents.
Within your system, those starting doctrines previously listed remain provisionally taught and offered. Because of the disclaimers to any type of authority or ability in your system to offer those teachings as non-provisional and infallible. So there’s no “certainty” to be had in the first place, let alone “additional certainty”.
“which I can’t infallibly identify.”
Confusion of order of being and order of knowing again.
“this might explain why the range of belief among those who identify as sola scriptura Christians is smaller than among those identify as Catholic.”
So the following have a narrow range of belief?
PCA, LCMS, PCUSA, ELCA, Arminian, Anglican, Unitarian, Pentecostal, Oneness Pentecostal, Charismatic, Joel Osteen, TD Jakes, Creflo Dollar, Arian, Modalist, KJV-onlyist, Marcionite, gnostic, reconstructionist, kinist, biblicist-fundamentalist, seeker-sensitive, liberal, emergent, church of christ, antinomian, Pelagian, NPP, Quakers, Plymouth Brethren, Finneyite, Anabaptist, Adventist, Open Theist.
LikeLike
Oh, and, thanks No One of Note.
Have a wonderful evening. See you later, D.V.
LikeLike
Dear Mermaid,
Then what does having a continuous faith in Christ mean? What does a continual abiding in Christ by faith mean? What does your faith even mean? Why is it even necessary at all?
“I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me.”
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle:
What does “infallible” mean?>>>>
Evidently it means that my best frenemie, Brother Jeff, knows what belongs in the canon of Scripture and what doesn’t.
His textual, critical superpowers that enable him to do that.
I think a guy named D.G. Hart is trolling me…
LikeLike
James Young, I see your point. If only the pope were married to all Christian women in the world, then families would be orderly.
LikeLike
Susan, you mean the magisterium that moves around wicked priests?
LikeLike
Crete, So if the HS is the means for distingushing infallible divine revelation from provisional human opinion, where has Protestantism offered a non-provisional infallible teaching not subject to revision?
It’s not the job for the the church to “offer” infallible teaching. It’s the job of the church to teach the Word of God and allow the Spirit to do what He will. The church receives divine revelation, it does not define it or any such thing like that. So until you can actually get that straight, you are going to continue to miss the boat on the actual position we all hold.
Why the WCF disclaimers and semper reformanda?
Largely because it is evident that church councils and popes and documents have contradicted themselves and when two disagree, there needs to be some kind of relatively impartial way to sort it out. Hint: a Magisterium made up of sinners that claims to be infallible whenever it feels like it wants to be infallible isn’t impartial.
Does the HS speak through disputed passages or books not in your canon?
This is an ambiguous statement. The HS speaks through whatever means he chooses. Doctrine isn’t established on any final foundation other than the Word of God, so if those disputed passages aren’t the Word of God, then the HS isn’t speaking through them for doctrine.
If He only speaks through books and passages that are currently accepted by the OPC/PCA, why is every identified book and passage in that canon offered as provisional and subject to revision by the OPC/PCA?
As long as Rome practices textual criticism and cannot produce a full canon of tradition or Magisterial definitions, the STM is provisional and subject to revision.
Further, this just confirms all disputes within Protestantism boil down to a stalemate of “I have the HS and you don’t”. This is not the model we see in the NT or patristic witness when dealing with heresies and schism.
The model we see in the NT is submission to the Apostles. The Magisterium is not the Apostles. If the Magisterium were the Apostles or if Christ established a church with guaranteed infallibility whenever it claims infallibility we could talk. But you haven’t established that, and your side has had more than 500 years to do so.
All disputes within RCism boil down to whatever the current Magisterium says until a new pope comes and takes the church in a different direction. At least that’s the way it was when Rome had the sword. Now, the only RCs who care much are the conservatives.
Yes, it doesn’t miss the point if you conflate order of being with order of knowing.
You keep saying this without answering how you as a fallible individual can have the certainty of faith as to when Rome has done what you say. We see your glossing over it clearly.
Neither you or Jeff have addressed the simple reply to your continued vulcan mindmeld critique.
It’s not a simple reply and it misses the point.
Christ and the Apostles had the authorization and ability to infallibly define, teach, identify, offer non-provisional teaching.
1. The Magisterium isn’t the Apostles or Christ, a truth that Rome in theory accepts, I think.
2. The Apostles also had a particular kind of inspiration that enabled them to do this, an inspiration to give revelation that Rome denies. So Rome can’t claim the same authorization and ability and expect any of us to care until at least Rome claims the same thing. But Rome doesn’t. You want to “stack” the deck by ruling out anyone that doesn’t claim infallibility. But that’s ad hoc and designed to deal only with Protestants. You all are about “principle.” Well, principle would require that we discard Rome in favor of a stronger claim, such as the Mormons or Crazy Dave who do affirm the same kind of inspiration.
Their adherents weren’t infallible or omniscient, and could make mistakes Christ and the Apostles could correct and clarify.
Yes. But the reason of adherents still presented to their will a fallible view of what Christ and the Apostles said, and it is to that understanding that one first submits in terms of order. You can’t truly submit to anything that your mind doesn’t first take in and assess. So all of these people, even in the case of first-century adherents, are submitting to a fallible presentation of what Christ and the Apostles said because they are submitting to their own understanding. In every case they submit first to their own understanding. This understanding is always presented to the heart and will as fallible. Therefore, you got nothing if you want to say we’re out of place for submitting to a fallible claim. You do it every day with every decision you make, religious or not.
Cletus’ reason presents a fallible claim that Rome claims to be infallible. Cletus first submits to his understanding, which means that without a Vulcan mindmeld, he’s submitting first to a provisional claim of his reason. Which means he holds everything thereafter as provisional and subject to change.
No vulcan mindmelding of their adherents or transforming them into omniscient creatures. So it’s silly to keep up this argument considering this has been pointed out at least 3 or 4 times already in this thread and then just gets ignored and you two just keep repeating the vulcan mindmeld as if it was never addressed.
Do you deny that your will must first submit to your professedly fallible understanding that offers itself to your will? If so, what is the other alternative between an immediate presentation of Rome’s claim to your will that bypasses your reason?
Yes, and as I pointed out to Bob, everything offered in Protestantism is done so with the possiblity of error. That’s the point.
And every thing your mind presents to your will after it has received the data/revelation/whatever is done so with the possibility of error. Remember, you don’t have immediate contact with Rome or a Vulcan mindmeld. So you have no principled way of determining whether “Rome claims infalliblity” is divine revelation or, like your opinion man.
You just did it again – 3 times in this post no less. Please stop confusing order of being with order of knowing after I already pointed it out to you in a previous reply. I’m not asking you or your mind to be personally infallible. You are not “Protestantism” or the “Protestant system”, as has already been stated.
I know you are not asking that. But you can’t shrug it off.
1. Does your mind present the claims of Rome or Protestantism to you fallibly? Yes
2. Must your will first submit to what your mind/reason presents to you in terms of order if there is no unmediated contact with Roman claims? Yes.
3. Therefore, what you are submitting to is, in terms of order, what your mind presents to you as fallible.
If you can explain what is wrong there, you might be able to advance your case, at least with me.
You don’t agree it’s certain. Remember, it might be Christ was raised by heretofore undiscoverd natural means. Yep, that skepticism is very reflective of the NT and patristic view of faith.
Sure I agree it is certain. But my certainty isn’t based on the bare event itself. It’s based on some inductive inference plus the reception of the Apostolic affirmation of what happened. If I deny the Apostolic affirmation, I get an event that could be explained by any number of different means. Aliens. Naturalism. Theft of the body.
An empty tomb is strong evidence for Christianity if the Apostolic interpretation is also received. But the empty tomb alone apart from the Apostolic interpretation is nothing except a curiosity. You have noticed that none of the Apostles say “look at the empty tomb and figure out what happened?”
Irrelevant to the mindmeld argument. By your argument, without vulcan mindmelding, there is no way for infallible teaching to be offered by Christ or the Apostles.
Incorrect. Christ can offer infallible teaching, but I can never know when He has done so with the certainty of faith if we define things in your way. Because my fallible mind must first receive and convey the claims fallibly to my will. I can’t submit to Christ without first submitting to my fallible interpretation of Christ, or Rome for that matter.
Not without the mindmelding and personal infallibility of the submitting agent. That’s your and Jeff’s argument.
Incorrect. The Holy Spirit can overcome any of my limitations without making me infallible. That’s basically what you are saying. So there’s no difference between us on the level of the most important, initial activity. We both submit in the first instance to a fallible claim that our mind presents to our will, so from a purely human perspective, there is no difference between us. If your assumptions are correct, you have no reasons for certainty of faith either.
Confusion of order of being and knowledge again. 4th time by my count.
Go on, keep saying that without responding that my will submits in terms of order first to a fallible claim to my mind.
Did you reason to this conclusion? If so, how do you know it’s not just a consequence of your biased presuppositions clouding you from the real truth and your faulty interpretation of the evidence/facts that are “meaningless without interpretation”?
I can recognize my presuppositions. Can you? It doesn’t seem so. I can endeavor my best to set aside my Protestant view and endeavor to accept Rome’s claims. I’ve tried. I’ve yet to see an answer to the fact that you and I are both fallible and that puts us on the same level in terms of the actual claims to which we submit because we must submit first to our minds. All I get as a shrug or “just forget all that, it’s completely irrelevant to my claim that an infallible claim must be made.” Meanwhile, I can think of any number of answers even from within the Roman Catholic tradition which would be a better answer to my objection than “no, ignore that.” The mystical tradition, for example, claims an immediate connection between the believer and God that goes around or overcomes the limits of reason. Problem is, if you accept that, Roman claims start looking a little irrational.
“That position entails no one can actually abuse or misuse reason because our presuppositions bias our reason and we can’t escape those presuppositions, and thus no evidence could reshape our expectations, nor would we ever change or correct our preconceived notions based on discoveries – “discoveries” would always match what we expected to discover. Because someone reasons incorrectly, defectively, poorly, or is uninformed does not entail reason is biased.”
The only hope of overcoming your bias is to recognize it exists. It is pretty clear that you have so far bought into the Roman system that really nothing will dissuade you. You’ll always paint Rome in the best possible light. That’s understandable, even laudable if Rome is indeed who she says she is. But you first need to admit that’s what you’re doing. Until you do, I have no reason to believe you are looking at the evidence with anything other than Rome-colored glasses.
I can in theory adopt any interpretative grid and see if it best accounts for the evidence. The Protestant grid has far less problems and better accounts for the evidence. Is there some bias in that? Sure. Is it blind bias? I don’t think so. That’s because I find other apologetics for Rome more persuasive than the one you and CTC keep offering. Do I find them finally persuasive such that I’ve decided Protestantism is false? No. But I do find them truer to actual human experience and therefore more worthy of consideration than the “principled means” stuff.
Your position precludes any possibility of someone reasoning incorrectly, defectively, poorly, or in an uninformed manner.
If I relied only on myself, that would be true. But as best as I am able, I don’t rely only on myself.
How did you do this? You can’t escape your presuppositions according to you since they bias your reason in the first place.
I know where I once squared the circle to make Romans 9, for example, not about predestination. In fact, I knew I was doing it when I was doing it. People do tend to know if you press them hard enough where they are stretching things too far. People can recognize where their bias is shaping their view. When that happens, they often change their minds. It happened to me when I abandoned the Arminian view of Romans 9 for the Thomistic/Augustinian/Calvinist view of Romans 9.
No one said we aren’t influenced by presuppositions. Again, you apparently don’t read counters to your arguments because Joshua explicitly asserted that in the CtC thread, and I cited his points again in the post above.
Well if we are influenced by presuppositions, then reason isn’t neutral ground. Simple.
Did you reason to this conclusion? But your reason is biased by your presuppositions. So there’s no way of knowing whether it’s a biased conclusion or a true conclusion.
It’s called talking to many different people with many different complementary and contradictory perspectives to my own and trusting my fallible interpretation. According to you, I have no reason to trust my fallible interpretation and its ability to distinguish between revelation and opinion. Funny how Christ never denied that to the Jews but expected them to know Genesis was Scripture apart from his or another’s claim. I, for one, am still waiting for an adequate answer to that. Hint: “Wasn’t Christ’s teaching a claim for the canonicity of Genesis”? misses the point entirely.
Are you 100% certain about that?
Considering that people who share a completely different worldview from mine admit that induction can’t give one infallible certainty, then yeah.
Can you show me in the NT where we see the certitude of faith reduced to the “high degree of probability” of faith, or giving the assent to faith to “highly probable” statements?
I said induction can only give you a high degree of probability. No one should give the assent of faith to a proposition that is supported via induction alone. I don’t know anyone who argues otherwise. It’s why I keep insisting that you need to adopt Rome’s view of the MoC in order for them to be persuasive or give you certainty. Otherwise, you just have some inductive evidence that makes Rome’s claims more or less probable.
I cited a litany of examples to the opposite. But this again confirms everything in Protestantism is offered as provisional and subject to revision.
You are fallibly declaring that everything in Protestantism is offered as provisional and subject to revision. So based on your approach, I have no good reason to believe you that such is what Protestantism does.
According to your skepticism, you might be able to do that. Or you might not be able to.
You’re the one claiming that certainty of faith requires someone to say “This here is infallible” and then shrugging the fact that your mind fallibly presents to your will for your will’s submission: “This here is infallible.” Your position gives YOU as an individual no foundation for submitting to Magisterial claims as long as your fallible reason presents Rome’s claim to your will. That’s OUR point.
And how did you interpret your way to the position that you have to accept an interpretation of the fact?
I pointed out that such is the way human beings work. We never take facts in isolation. We take them as part of a particular narrative. You guys are all about paradigms and such. You keep interpreting the evidence within a particular paradigm (narrative) until the paradigm is stretched beyond its limits.
Explicitly addressed in the CtC thread and in the above linked post. You’ve been answered on your skepticism and presuppositionalism. Answer those rebuttals and show evidence of assimilating replies instead of just repeating your assertions over and over. Otherwise, you’re wasting everyone’s time.
Bryan’s response consisted largely of “well, that means you can’t know the essence of the cow.” I agree with that response, as long as the claim is that we know the essence of the cow exclusively through inductive science. Which is what the MoC assumes about at least certain motives such as the resurrection. I don’t know the resurrection is supernatural through the inductive examination of the human body. That can give me only a high probability that it isn’t a natural event. Only if I accept the Apostolic interpretation that God raised Christ from the dead can I have certainty. There’s a reason why the Apostles didn’t run around saying, “Jesus’ tomb is empty, figure it out for yourself why.”
I don’t know that the “holiness” of Rome helps establish Rome’s claim unless I first accept what Rome says holiness is. Billions of people on the planet don’t define holiness as Rome does. Other systems that claim infallibility don’t define holiness the way Rome does. So Rome’s picture of holiness is actually a motive of credibility against Rome unless I accept Rome’s definition.
Aristotle’s epistemology is really, really bad for establishing certainty. It’s why philosophy has moved on except for a few traditionalist RC holdouts, such as you.
2+2=4 is provisional and subject to correction according to your side. I hope he starts every semester with that disclaimer to his classes. Again, the issue is not *my* or *your* “mathematical certainty”. It’s what is being offered by the 2 respective *systems*.
You said you can’t have certainty of faith unless you have a professed infallible claim. Does your mind present “Rome claims the ability to distinguish fact/revelation from opinion” to your will in a fallible manner or an infallible manner. Fallibly, right? Therefore, you have no professed infallible claim to which you can submit. You have a “maybe Rome claims it’s fallible maybe it’s not” claim that is presented to your will via reason—as long as you insist on your line of argument. Without an unmediated Vulcan mindmeld or something like that, all you have is a fallible claim to submit to because whatever it is that Rome says must first pass through your fallible noggin.
Yep, so long Christ and the Apostles. You didn’t make your adherents omniscient and personally infallible, therefore you were out to lunch.
I don’t know why you keep saying that we invalidate the claim of Christ and the Apostles. My mind, fallibly, presents to my will the notion “Christ/Apostles claim infalliblity.” Your mind, fallibly, presents the same thing to your will, plus it adds “Rome claims infallibility.” It—your mind—keeps presenting all that to your will in a fallible manner. It is to the fallible claim of your mind that your will first submits, therefore you as an individual have no way to separate revelation from opinion.
Your argument has to assume that the fallibility of your mind is irrelevant to the claim you’re making. That’s Jeff’s point. And mine. And SDB’s. Simply saying it is irrelevant doesn’t make it so, particularly when in cases where you are pressed on it, you bizarrely jump to saying we’re making Jesus and the Apostles pointless.
Bingo. So nothing it offers is offered as non-provisional and not subject to revision.
Yes the patristic witness is all about “we think Christ rose from the dead, but we might be wrong. Just believe it as highly likely for now until further notice.”
I already quoted both Augustine and Athanasius affirming the nature of the church and tradition and its authority that you would never affirm.
Ultimately, it seems that Athanasius placed the faith as more important than the Apostolic Sees:
“God will comfort you,” he wrote to his people in Alexandria on hearing that the churches were in the hands of the Arians. “If they have the temples, you have the Faith of the Apostles. If they are in the place, they are far from the Faith; but you, even if you are cast out from the churches, possess the Faith in your hearts. Which is the greater, the place or the Faith? The place is good only when the Faith of the Apostles is taught there; it is holy only when it is the home of holiness.”
We think. For now. Maybe they did and we just don’t know it like we don’t know cows have the hidden ability to jump over moons. Maybe that verse isn’t authentic Scripture or inspired. Or maybe it is.
For now you believe that Rome claims infallibility for itself. But since the claim presented to your will for submission is the result of your fallible mind working on the evidence, what is actually presented to you is a fallible claim. So you are submitting to a fallible claim and have ever-provisional, who-knows, whatever, maybe-Arians-really-are-right-and-Athanasius-is-in-hell submission? Just like us poor Protestants.
LikeLike
Dear No One Of Note,
I appreciate your correspondence with Mrs. Webfoot; so honest and humble.
She asked you this question: “Remember the answer Susan got from Reformed theology about her loss of faith? What was it?”
The answer is: ” there isn’t a category for it.”
If you are so inclined, please watch this. I totally relate to the experience of this young man.
LikeLike
TLM, at various points in this, and I think other threads, you have seemed to profess how scandalized you are that Luther supposedly wanted to remove 4 books from the NT canon. Please stop it.
He did no such thing. The books of James, Jude, Revelation and Hebrews are in Luther’s very first German NT and in every subsequent edition published in Luther’s lifetime with varying prefatory explanations. These books, and Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 & 3 John, are considered by Lutheran NT scholars to this day to be what they call Antilegomena, by which they mean books that were questioned by the early church fathers.
LikeLike
(A different) Dan
Posted December 15, 2015 at 10:41 pm | Permalink
TLM, at various points in this, and I think other threads, you have seemed to profess how scandalized you are that Luther supposedly wanted to remove 4 books from the NT canon. Please stop it.
He did no such thing. The books of James, Jude, Revelation and Hebrews are in Luther’s very first German NT and in every subsequent edition published in Luther’s lifetime with varying prefatory explanations. These books, and Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 & 3 John, are considered by Lutheran NT scholars to this day to be what they call Antilegomena, by which they mean books that were questioned by the early church fathers.>>>>>
Oh, I see what you mean. He really didn’t think they belonged in the first place, so how could he have removed them? He translated them anyway, but with warning labels, so to speak. Thank you for the correction.
I will let Luther speak for himself.
———————————————————————————
“But I will return to the subject at hand. If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing.”
Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (1522)
Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, 1 I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.
In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation 2 devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works of Moses’ statement in Genesis 15. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham’s faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.
In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15, “You shall bear witness to me.” All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [treiben] Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2. Whatever does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it.
But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and to its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a “law of liberty,” though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin. 3
Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter: “Love covers a multitude of sins,” and again, “Humble yourselves under the hand of God;” also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5, “The Spirit lusteth against envy.” And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. 4 So it seems that this author came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.
In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. 5 He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore, I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how, then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all the rest of Scripture? 6
Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter’s second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures. This moved the ancient fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of falth.
Preface to the Revelation of St. John (1522) 7
About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.
First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; 8 I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.
Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly — indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important — and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.
Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; 9 although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.
Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, “You shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.
LikeLike
Hi Susan,
Thanks, I missed it.
>>>
She asked you this question: “Remember the answer Susan got from Reformed theology about her loss of faith? What was it?”
The answer is: ” there isn’t a category for it.”
>>>
That would have devastated me. That guy did you no favor.
Pastors routinely deal with this matter of “loss of faith.” I do.
And if there is one thing the teachings of Christ in the gospels are really good at is analyzing the many kinds of unbelief people struggle with, and offering special gospel prescriptions for each of them.
As well, the books of James and 1 John have helped many isolate the problems in their hearts and come out of that awful darkness, strengthened and assured in the fullness of the love of God for them.
Here’s something. Never once was did Jesus heal someone’s unbelief problem with epistemological certainty. Something to think about.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 15, 2015 at 8:59 pm | Permalink
Susan, you mean the magisterium that moves around wicked priests?
Dr. Hart, trolling his own blog with smarmy drive-bys, proves he doesn’t even know what the magisterium even is.
LikeLike
Mrs. Webfoot,
Thank you for that lengthy quote. I read it a few years ago and was like ” Are you kidding me? This is the scholar who brought about the Reformation? This isn’t airtight, it’s so sloppy and huge you can drive a semi through it”
I was terrified when I read this. I felt as I did when I was a kid right after learning about the Cuban Missile Crisis and living during the cold war. Where the hell were the grown- ups?
LikeLike
Susan
Posted December 16, 2015 at 12:05 am | Permalink
Mrs. Webfoot,
Thank you for that lengthy quote. I read it a few years ago and was like ” Are you kidding me? This is the scholar who brought about the Reformation? This isn’t airtight, it’s so sloppy and huge you can drive a semi through it”
I was terrified when I read this. I felt as I did when I was a kid right after learning about the Cuban Missile Crisis and living during the cold war. Where the hell were the grown- ups?>>>>
We are fed a very sanitized version of the great Dr. Martin Luther.
His full letter about his translation of the NT, with special emphasis on his addition of words to the Bible, is quite shocking.
Of course, we are not his final Judge. I hope he found grace and mercy. It kind of puts the whole history of his conflicts with the Church in a different light, though.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “We are fed a very sanitized version of the great Dr. Martin Luther.”
Oh, that is rich.
LikeLike
Mermaid, did you know that Luther was only doing what many theologians (including Roman Catholic) were doing (is your claim to certainty catching up with your pride)?
Chest thump less and listen to your church more.
LikeLike
Please point me to the precise language in your extended quote that in any way points to a desire to remove these 4 books from the New Testament. You make precise statements, whether you mean to or not, so I do too. Stay on point.
That Luther in any way “wanted” to remove these boks from his German NT is simply not supported by any factual evidence that has ever been brought to my attention, so let me see your evidence. That Luther questioned the canonicity of these 4 books is not the same thing as a desire to remove them. That questioning was shared by Erasmus and– wait for it– Luther’s greatest and most persuasive (to me) opponent, Cardinal Catejan, though on different grounds. Catholics since Jerome had raised questions about the reception of these books by the ECF, and nobody got excommunicated for it. The Catholic Church had never taken an official position on the question of these books until Trent, long after the publication of Luther’s NT Show your work.
A sanitized Luther? I may have known something about Luther before I heard he was the one behind Auschwitz well over 50 years ago, but I can’t be sure.
LikeLike
Dan, Luther is your guy. No, I don’t think he caused the holocaust. Luther obviously questioned the canonicity of those books. You told me to quit saying that he wanted them out of the Bible, so I let Luther speak.
Just as he said that people can decide for themselves about those books, people can read his words and decide whether his testimony is reliable about the canon of Scripture. Protestants have followed his lead on the canon. Most Protestants don’t know there was ever a different option.
What’s to stop the next reformers from rearranging the canon based on the latest in textual criticism?
Sola what scriptura?
I have decided that it is not. I accept Trent’s decision. You are free to accept something else.
I think his language is shocking, but you feel free to disagree. Well, it’s kind of comical as well.
LikeLike
MWF,
“We are fed a very sanitized version of the great Dr. Martin Luther.
His full letter about his translation of the NT, with special emphasis on his addition of words to the Bible, is quite shocking.”
Even if you can buy the full-blown “the pope is the antichrist and the church is the whore of Babylon” belief, it it doesn’t change the feeling of unease and uncertainty about the positive whereabouts of the church. Maybe you can call into question the captain’s log book when your the first mate and still onboard, but can’t when you jump overboard.
What I want to know is, What gave Luther the idea that church boiled down to only holy scripture. It doesn’t sound to me like he thought so, if he was adamant that James, Jude and Revelation were not good respresentations of what he considered “the gospel” to be. In fact, it sounds like his line of reason makes those books antchrist since they, again according to him, undermine the gospel. Somebody doesn’t understand the gospel then. And it ain’t the Holy Spirit who inspired those books.
LikeLike
Susan,
What gave Luther the idea that church boiled down to only holy scripture.
What gave you the idea that Luther (or Calvin, or Zwingli, or …) thought the church boiled down to only holy Scripture? Maybe you should restate your question because as it stands, it’s completely wrong.
LikeLike
Susan: And it ain’t the Holy Spirit who inspired those books.
?
Dear Susan and mermaid – It seems very unfortunate in the course of your persuasion attempts, to seem to essentially introduce doubt about the canon that Protestants and Catholics actually do agree upon.(I think).
LikeLike
Mermaid, you accept Trent’s decision? Great. Where was the Bible before 1546?
Notice too that Cajetan questioned those books.
While you’re at it, look in the mirror and see a cherry picker with fins.
LikeLike
Susan
Posted December 16, 2015 at 9:07 am | Permalink
MWF,
“We are fed a very sanitized version of the great Dr. Martin Luther.
His full letter about his translation of the NT, with special emphasis on his addition of words to the Bible, is quite shocking.”
Even if you can buy the full-blown “the pope is the antichrist and the church is the whore of Babylon” belief, it it doesn’t change the feeling of unease and uncertainty about the positive whereabouts of the church. Maybe you can call into question the captain’s log book when your the first mate and still onboard, but can’t when you jump overboard.
What I want to know is, What gave Luther the idea that church boiled down to only holy scripture. It doesn’t sound to me like he thought so, if he was adamant that James, Jude and Revelation were not good respresentations of what he considered “the gospel” to be. In fact, it sounds like his line of reason makes those books antchrist since they, again according to him, undermine the gospel. Somebody doesn’t understand the gospel then. And it ain’t the Holy Spirit who inspired those books.>>>>>
Oh, it’s much more serious than just that, Susan. If anyone wishes to read Luther’s own words, he or she will see that Luther was not meaning to determine the canon of Scripture for anyone but himself.
He expected everyone to do the same. So, I expect everyone who is interested to read.
The textual critics of our day have taken him up on it. They do not submit to any Scripture unless they are convinced – mostly.
There is no canon of Scripture in Protestantism. The canon is whatever you believe it to be.
Sola scriptura is a meaningless phrase. Why do all Protestants submit to Luther’s word on the subject? He didn’t expect everyone to.
LikeLike
See, what Luther did with the Bible makes more sense to me now. He wasn’t deciding the canon for everyone else. He was deciding it for himself. He had to be convinced himself.
It explains why he left the deuterocanonical books in. In his opinion, they were apocryphal. He allowed for the fact that others might accept them as inspired Scripture.
It explains what a German Lutheran man said to me some years ago in Canada. He asked me “Why have they taken the Apocrypha out of the Bible?”
What I don’t get is why all of you – and for most of my life, myself included – Protestants don’t know that you can make up your own minds about what the canon of Scripture is? You don’t have to accept the word of Martin Luther, and he didn’t expect you to.
It has been demanded of me that I show my work. Let me say that Protestants need to do their work. Decide for yourselves, as Luther did, what the canon of Scripture is.
LikeLike
mermaid:There is no canon of Scripture in Protestantism.
mermaid; “with all due respect”, I believe your true fruit may be beginning to show.
LikeLike
Ali
Posted December 16, 2015 at 11:17 am | Permalink
mermaid:There is no canon of Scripture in Protestantism.
mermaid; “with all due respect”, I believe your true fruit may be beginning to show.>>>
Ali, you have no idea even what I am talking about. My true fruit? If you had been appointed my judge, I would be concerned. Not even in Protestantism would I have been obligated in any way to submit to you and your judgments. Judge yourself for yourself. I don’t even judge Luther. In fact, he makes more sense to me now than ever.
He did not seem to want to impose his ideas on anyone else. He seems to have wanted everyone to examine everything for themselves and not just take his word for it.
I actually like him better, now. What a lovely older priest said to me not long ago makes more sense as well. He said that the Church was too hard on Luther.
I really don’t think that Luther intended for there to be such divisions as we see now. I really think it would break his heart. He might use some salty language and tell all of us to reconcile our differences, even.
You don’t know me. You don’t understand me. I won’t tell you not to judge me, since judging is what you do. Carry on. You believe in your gift.
LikeLike
Ali:
Dear Susan and mermaid – It seems very unfortunate in the course of your persuasion attempts, to seem to essentially introduce doubt about the canon that Protestants and Catholics actually do agree upon.(I think).>>>>
You are wrong about my trying to persuade anyone. I am here as a kind of combination Protestant detox and disentanglement.
Yes, we do agree on the NT canon. Yes we do agree on most of the OT canon.
What we don’t agree on is why we accept what we accept. That is the difference between Luther and Rome.
Luther decided his own canon. Not your canon. Not the canon for all Christians for all time. He decided on his own. He got most of it right, but he allowed for the difference of opinion of others. He left it all in his Bible translation.
He believed he got it right, mostly. Read his words. They are fascinating. He left the subject open. He was not presenting a closed canon.
Who closed the Protestant canon? Answer? No one. It is still open. Most accept the canon that the Bible publishers put out. They do so without thinking.
Luther expected people to think and not just accept what was told them, even about the canon of Scripture.
LikeLike
Mermaid,
Who closed the Protestant canon? Answer? No one. It is still open.
Incorrect. The only “Protestants” who accept an open canon are those who accept ongoing revelation (the Pentecostals), and even most of them don’t say that the canon is open. It’s really exactly like Roman Catholicism, since your Magisterium gives ongoing revelation without calling it that.
Most accept the canon that the Bible publishers put out. They do so without thinking.
Most Roman Catholics go to mass without thinking, get baptized without thinking, get confirmed without thinking…
LikeLike
Robert:
Most Roman Catholics go to mass without thinking, get baptized without thinking, get confirmed without thinking…>>>>
You are so right, Robert. So right. A tragedy.
Hey, thank you for all your kindness, Brother Robert. Have a wonderful day!
LikeLike
As I noted earlier, all of those starting doctrines with the exception of the identification of the Word of God are derived from the Word of God. The identification precedes the WCF – the WCF of faith stands on it. The “disclaimer” as you call it is that what is derived from the Word of God be subject to it.
No. Once you reject it, you are outside of the system. It is no different than rejecting Rome as the true church.
Based on the Word of God.
No. You keep insisting this and it is incorrect. The teachings from the WCF are conditional on being consonant to the infallible word of God. The recognition of the Word of God is prior.
Because the Word of God precedes the confession. You may not like it or agree with it, but the scripture as the Word of God is taken to be self evident. To reject that is to move out of the system.
Well Paul did say that he was happy to know that the Gospel was being preached even if by folks who were after it for dishonest gain – presumably fallible sources. One who heard the gospel and responded in faith from one of these guys is better off than one who heard Jesus’s words directly, but had ears that couldn’t hear, etc….
Curious, so the gospels are “truer” than an ecumenical council?
The church has infallibly decided what counts as the STM triad?
No. That doesn’t follow from what I wrote.
No. The purported disclaimers are conditions. Those conditions are that any teaching be subject to the Word of God.
You keep saying this, but it is false. The question is who is better off epistemologically the RP (an individual person) assuming RPism is true or the RC (another individual person) assuming RCism is true. “being” isn’t the question. The question for the discussion is “knowing”. You keep confusing this.
This is stupid. Many of those you list are not sola scriptura Christians. The Anglicans and those movements that derived from them (e.g., Methodists, most pentecostals, holiness movements, etc…) explicitly reject SS. Unitarians, liberals, quakers, and open theists do as well (some of whom would explicitly reject Christianity generally). Then you’ve mixed individuals, movements, and denominations – I’ll take Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar and you can have the nuns on the bus and their goddess worship. One can be seeker-sensitive, KJV-only, or PCA and be in the same church – there is no contradiction there (at Sinclair Ferguson’s church, they were using the Willow Creek curriculum for their VBS). So yes, my point stands, SS prots have a narrower range of theological beliefs than the clergy that comprise the RCC.
As a matter of principal, you have failed to show that there is a theoretical epistemological advantage for the RC assuming RCism is true relative to the RP assuming RPism is true. I have shown how it is theoretically possible to obtain reliable understanding from infallible source material even if one interprets that data fallibly. We do this all the time in real life. The radical skepticism implicit in your understanding of what can be learned from a text should be sobering to you – it certainly isn’t true to experience. Indeed, empirically, those who adhere to SS show a narrower range of theological views than those who identify as RC. The RP system does a much better job of accounting for this.
LikeLike
@robert
“Most Roman Catholics…get baptized without thinking”
I dunno. I think most of those babies are thinking the same thing lutheran, presbyterian, and anglican babies are thinking…Why couldn’t mom&dad be baptists?
LikeLike
Re: “I think most of those babies are thinking the same thing Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Anglican babies are thinking.”
Indeed. Of course, most of the parents of those babies aren’t applying much rigorous thought, either.
Score a point here for the eeee-credo viewpoint. Thanks. 🙂
LikeLike
D.G. Hart:
Chest thump less and listen to your church more.>>>>
Dr. Hart. You don’t even have a church to listen to. Have you decided on your canon of Scripture, yet? Why do you submit to what others with no authority tell you? It’s wide open.
The Jesus Seminar is only doing what Martin Luther did.
I can see how the Holy Spirit would want the Church of Christ, the one He was working in and through, to make sure the Word of God did not fall completely into the hands of the Jesus Seminar. Trend did not know what was coming down the road in a few hundred years. The Holy Spirit certainly did.
I think that my priest friend may be right. The Church was too hard on the man, Martin Luther.
The Church was certainly right about nailing down the canon of Scripture before other “Reformers” took the knife to it based on their own human reasoning.
How can Luther have argued that the will was so fallen that it cannot do anything at all, and yet turn around and say that every man is able for himself, using his own reason, can determine what Scriptures are inspired?
You are free to follow his line of reasoning. If you are willing, you now know you can pick your own canon. Why not join the Jesus Seminar?
LikeLike
Hi Ali,
“Susan: And it ain’t the Holy Spirit who inspired those books.
?
Well that was a mistake. It was supposed to have been,”And it ain’t the Holy Spirit. The one who inspired this books.”
LikeLike
MWF,
The Church before Luther had long been using all of the scripture that he wanted to get rid of. That made me smell a rat. Why challenge what had been the very thing that you believed was the Christian’s sole rule of faith? Unless, that is it was at odds with your personal interpretation?( And we know historically that scripture can be molded to fit what ever doctrine one would want. Baptism of infants and young children is a case in point.) But how could you go on to derive comfort in what you yourself custom designed?Now, I don’t trust fallen man to be able to make that kind of huge decision. The Church isn’t bonsai.
Just the idea that those books were being scrutinized gives me the heebie jeevies. That it was done by the man who added the word “alone” where he saw fit makes me cringe even more. To then not relent of his errors( when threatened with excommunication), when he himself believed that men were depraved and are mistaken, but refusing to see that maybe this could also apply to him ( as his behavior would call into question)makes me know that he was an egoitistical madman. If the church was only ever as pliable and stupid as Luther in all wisdom proves then it had surely gone of the rails many times before. So why would Luther care what anyone did with the scriptures before him or after him? He must not have believed that Jesus founded the church or that the apostles delivered the faith through the scriptures. His actions support both.
LikeLike
Mermaid, exactly. All the subtlety and grace of Fox and CNN. Exceptionalists all.
LikeLike
I walked away after my little rant not feeling too proud of myself.
I do believe that the things that Luther did resulted in confusions and brothers fighting brothers across Europe, and we still feel the effects to this day.But I have no anger at the followers of Luther.
The Lutherans I’ve met have been the most loving people I’ve met.
So I dont want to rehash old wounds that will continue to divide us, and could have left out the word madman and egoist.
Just wanted to make that clear.
LikeLike
Susan, “The Lutherans I’ve met have been the most loving people I’ve met.”
Then become a Lutheran. Gay pastors are forbidden there (Missouri and Wisconsin anyway).
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Then become a Lutheran. Gay pastors are forbidden there (Missouri and Wisconsin anyway).”
I will just wait for my Lutheran friends to come all the way home. 🙂
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 16, 2015 at 6:35 am | Permalink
Mermaid, did you know that Luther was only doing what many theologians (including Roman Catholic) were doing (is your claim to certainty catching up with your pride)?
Chest thump less and listen to your church more.
The point is that with Luther, in “Protestantism,” if you don’t like what you hear, you go off and start your own Church, or even write your own Bible. All is “provisional,” ad hoc, pro tem. You can call it a “church.” But it’s not the Church.
Dr. Hart once again argues exceptions like Cajetan [who was rejected by his fellows] against the rule, a tree against the forest. Like any good Protestant, I suppose, which is why “Protestantism” is a meaningless word except as motley set of not-Catholic do-it-yourself Christianities.
LikeLike
Susan – Do you and your Romanist cohorts not see the enormous (and errant) ego in referring to Rome as the home of the Christian faith? First, Jerusalem precedes Rome. And second, the Church of which Jesus Christ is head is not bound to a certain earthly address. Romish triumphalism seems to stem from having kept the real estate empire built up from the largesse of Constantine and his successors in power.
LikeLike
Posted December 16, 2015 at 12:44 pm | Permalink
D.G. Hart:
Chest thump less and listen to your church more.>>>>
Dr. Hart. You don’t even have a church to listen to. Have you decided on your canon of Scripture, yet? Why do you submit to what others with no authority tell you? It’s wide open.
The Jesus Seminar is only doing what Martin Luther did.
I can see how the Holy Spirit would want the Church of Christ, the one He was working in and through, to make sure the Word of God did not fall completely into the hands of the Jesus Seminar. Trend did not know what was coming down the road in a few hundred years. The Holy Spirit certainly did.
I think that my priest friend may be right. The Church was too hard on the man, Martin Luther.
The Church was certainly right about nailing down the canon of Scripture before other “Reformers” took the knife to it based on their own human reasoning.
How can Luther have argued that the will was so fallen that it cannot do anything at all, and yet turn around and say that every man is able for himself, using his own reason, can determine what Scriptures are inspired?
You are free to follow his line of reasoning. If you are willing, you now know you can pick your own canon. Why not join the Jesus Seminar?
Dr. Hart has no reply. Interesting point about Trent. Once the scholars and not the Church get to decide what’s in or out of the Bible, as we see from the Jesus Seminar, nearly anything goes.
http://www.equip.org/article/the-jesus-seminar-and-the-gospel-of-thomas/
By what authority did Luther compose his canon? They do not answer.
LikeLike
Tom,
The point is that with Roman Catholicism, if you don’t like what you hear, you can stop going to mass and insist that you are a true RC, or you can start your own church of one, or you can go join a cult, or you can keep going through the motions because dogma doesn’t matter anyway (like the Assumption, right?), or you can just go down the street to a more liberal parish that thought Benedict was a loser and didn’t care about anything he said but now hangs on every word of Francis. What is more, Rome really won’t care if you do any of that as long as you don’t make too much noise. In fact, they’ll probably still count you as one of the 1.2 billions faithful. And if you are politically powerful enough, you’ll still get the Eucharist every Sunday right after you march with NOW and Planned Parenthood to preserve the rights of these groups to mutilate babies and the government funding that goes with it.
Now you might be able to call that a Church, but nobody will be able to tell what is orthodox and what’s not. But it really doesn’t matter. You can question the dogma all you want and still get the sacrament because orthodoxy and orthopraxy can be freely divorced in the Roman system, as you’ve demonstrated again and again.
LikeLike
Robert,
“It’s the job of the church to teach the Word of God”
Which is all offered – including the identification of the Word of God – as provisional and subject to revision in your churches.
“allow the Spirit to do what He will.”
Protestantism doesn’t allow the possibility of the Spirit to divinely protect and guide the church just because everyone is fallible and non-omniscient. That’s your argument.
“The church receives divine revelation,”
That it can only identify and teach and offer provisionally. “We have divine revelation! Well, we think, until further notice. Asterisk whatever we say”.
“you are going to continue to miss the boat on the actual position we all hold.”
The position you hold is clear to everyone. It’s not difficult to grasp.
“Largely because it is evident that church councils and popes and documents have contradicted themselves”
Evident? But reason isn’t neutral. Maybe your inescapable bias and presuppositions are clouding your conclusion and you should accept the opposite conclusion. Or maybe you should jump aboard with the atheists and liberals and non-Christians who argue it is evident Scriptural inerrancy and inspiration is a farce.
“Magisterium made up of sinners that claims to be infallible”
The Apostles and biblical writers weren’t sinners I guess.
“whenever it feels like it wants to be infallible”
Vatican 1’s definition did not say “whenever it feels like it”.
“The HS speaks through whatever means he chooses.”
I feel the HS is speaking through my pet rock. So you should assent to my teaching because of that. As I said, fideism.
“Doctrine isn’t established on any final foundation other than the Word of God”
This is a provisional teaching offered by Protestantism. Further, this doctrine itself is derived from the Word of God according to you. But the Word of God isn’t non-provisionally defined by your system – as you say in the next breath, “so if those disputed passages aren’t the Word of God, then the HS isn’t speaking through them for doctrine” so that very foundational doctrine itself that “Doctrine isn’t established on any final foundation other than the Word of God” is undermined by your own system. This is supposed to be coherent somehow. As I’ve said before, cart before the horse.
“As long as Rome practices textual criticism and cannot produce a full canon of tradition or Magisterial definitions, the STM is provisional and subject to revision.”
Rome offers non-provisional teaching. OPC/PCA doesn’t. So this doesn’t answer the question, “If He only speaks through books and passages that are currently accepted by the OPC/PCA, why is every identified book and passage in that canon offered as provisional and subject to revision by the OPC/PCA?”
“The model we see in the NT is submission to the Apostles. The Magisterium is not the Apostles.”
Nope. It has divine and apostolic authority though. So this was a complete non-answer to “Further, this just confirms all disputes within Protestantism boil down to a stalemate of “I have the HS and you don’t”. This is not the model we see in the NT or patristic witness when dealing with heresies and schism.”
“You keep saying this without answering how you as a fallible individual can have the certainty of faith as to when Rome has done what you say. We see your glossing over it clearly.”
There’s no glossing. You keep going on about “but you’re fallible! so everything you assent to can be and is only as strong as your initial fallible choice!” That’s a confusion of order of being or authority and order of knowing. Here’s a definition if it’s not clear: Order of Being/Order of Knowing: Medieval distinction between the ontological order and the epistemological order. For example, Thomas Aquinas believed that God is the ground of existence for all other beings. Hence, in the order of being (ontology), God is primary. However, humans come to know finite objects through their senses first and must infer the existence of God from God’s effects. Thus, in the order of knowing (epistemology), finite objects precede God.
The continued conflation of those two is what leads you to skepticism and presuppositionalism, just as it did with DesCartes – as Bryan explains here (3rd time this link has been posted) – http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2008/01/presuppositionalism-fideism-built-on.html
or when he replied to RS Clark’s statement that “In other words, if we appeal to another authority outside of Scripture to validate it, then Scripture isn’t really what it claims to be: the final authority.” which you’ve also echoed, in the first comment at heidelblog(dot)net/2009/06/how-do-we-know-the-bible-is-true-and-authoritative/
“Neither you or Jeff have addressed the simple reply to your continued vulcan mindmeld critique.
– It’s not a simple reply and it misses the point.
Christ and the Apostles had the authorization and ability to infallibly define, teach, identify, offer non-provisional teaching.”
You then proceed to not respond to the reply, but obfuscate with “but Rome isn’t inspired”. You need to explain how your vulcan mindmeld argument does not work against Christ and the Apostles authority/ability. If Rome was inspired, you would still – if you’re consistent – go on about vulcan mindmelding just as you do now with non-inspired Rome. That’s the point.
“Their adherents weren’t infallible or omniscient, and could make mistakes Christ and the Apostles could correct and clarify.
– Yes.”
So long vulcan mindmeld argument. Vaya con Dios.
“You can’t truly submit to anything that your mind doesn’t first take in and assess.”
According to you, our mind is overcome by biases and presuppositions, so we can’t truly assess anything properly in the first place – it will just match our preconceived notions and expectations which hopelessly cloud our interpretation.
“In every case they submit first to their own understanding. ”
Reality and authority exists outside of our minds. I know this is hard for a skeptic to believe (or is it? who knows), but it’s true. You are conflating order of knowing and order of being at every turn. This is why presuppositionalism comes easy to you.
“Remember, you don’t have immediate contact with Rome or a Vulcan mindmeld”
Yep neither did faithful adherents of Christ and the Apostles.
“So you have no principled way of determining whether “Rome claims infalliblity” is divine revelation or, like your opinion man.”
Right, so faithful adherents of Christ and the Apostles had no way of distinguishing divine revelation from human provisional opinion correct? Oh wait.
“Therefore, what you are submitting to is, in terms of order, what your mind presents to you as fallible. ”
Order of knowing is not order of being (again). You’re reducing God to an individual’s mental projection of God. Stop confusing ontology and epistemology and treating reality as nothing more than a particular individual’s mental apprehension of it. You and I are both in the same reality even if we disagree on things.
“Sure I agree it is certain.”
Are you 100% certain?
“Irrelevant to the mindmeld argument. By your argument, without vulcan mindmelding, there is no way for infallible teaching to be offered by Christ or the Apostles.
– Incorrect.”
Have you read what you’ve been arguing?
“Not without the mindmelding and personal infallibility of the submitting agent. That’s your and Jeff’s argument.
– Incorrect.”
Have you read what you’ve been arguing?
“When that happens, they often change their minds.”
Exactly right. People can change their minds – they can reason to truth, or they can abuse their reason or use it poorly and defectively and ignorantly which leads to embracing falsehoods and unreasonable conclusions. They aren’t slaves to their biases or presuppositions or stuck being unable to ascertain the objective truth of facts/evidence because such facts/evidence are “meaningless without interpretation”. They aren’t stuck in skepticism in which they must just fideistically adopt a presupposition to then “interpret” those facts and evidence, thus leaving them stuck in fideistic skepticism in which every “truth” is subject to the presuppositions they first fideistically embraced in order to then interpret facts/evidence to conclude that “truth”.
“Well if we are influenced by presuppositions, then reason isn’t neutral ground.”
There’s a difference in saying we are influenced, and saying we are helplessly overcome by them and they are inescapable. Reason is neutral because it is what allows us to recognize and correct our presuppositions and biases in the first place.
“Did you reason to this conclusion? But your reason is biased by your presuppositions. So there’s no way of knowing whether it’s a biased conclusion or a true conclusion.
– It’s called talking to many different people with many different complementary and contradictory perspectives to my own and trusting my fallible interpretation.”
This is not an answer. There’s no way of knowing whether your conclusions you reasoned to from “talking to many different people” are themselves biased or true (nor is there any way for those people’s conclusions to be exempt in the first place, either), according to your position. One way out of that is to be inconsistent. Another way is to abandon your skepticism and fideism.
“According to you, I have no reason to trust my fallible interpretation and its ability to distinguish between revelation and opinion.”
Wait, now you are the mechanism for distinguishing divine revelation from provisional human opinion? Are you starting up a church soon?
“Considering that people who share a completely different worldview from mine admit that induction can’t give one infallible certainty, then yeah.”
You have 100% certainty that you can never have 100% certainty. Fantastic.
“It’s why I keep insisting that you need to adopt Rome’s view of the MoC in order for them to be persuasive ”
You keep insisting that because you ignore replies that Bryan, Joshua, and Ray gave you walking you through why that is not the case.
“You are fallibly declaring that everything in Protestantism is offered as provisional and subject to revision. So based on your approach, I have no good reason to believe you that such is what Protestantism does.”
I’m just repeating exactly what your side keeps agreeing to and arguing.
“You’re the one claiming that certainty of faith”
You’re the one claiming there is no such thing as the certainty of faith at all. It’s illegitimate and impossible for finite creatures.
“someone to say “This here is infallible” and then shrugging the fact that your mind fallibly presents to your will for your will’s submission… Your position gives YOU as an individual no foundation for submitting to Magisterial claims as long as your fallible reason presents Rome’s claim to your will.”
Confusion of order of being and order of knowing, number – i’ve lost count. So long Christ and the Apostles – what were you guys thinking with all those claims to authority/ability without also vulcan mindmelding your followers?
“Aristotle’s epistemology is really, really bad for establishing certainty. It’s why philosophy has moved on except for a few traditionalist RC holdouts, such as you.”
And your fideism and skepticism is great for establishing certainty. Wait – actually it’s the exact opposite as you keep arguing. It’s why philosophy has moved on from DesCartes except for presuppositionalists who never got the memo.
“Does your mind present “Rome claims the ability to distinguish fact/revelation from opinion” to your will in a fallible manner or an infallible manner. Fallibly, right? Therefore, you have no professed infallible claim to which you can submit.”
Confusion of order of being and order of knowing, number – i’ve lost count. So long Christ and the Apostles – what were you guys thinking with all those claims to authority/ability without vulcan mindmelding your followers?
“I don’t know why you keep saying that we invalidate the claim of Christ and the Apostles. ”
Uh, read your arguments above about fallible minds and the need for vulcan mindmelding as a precondition for Rome’s claims to cash out. You have yet to explain how they don’t apply to Christ and the Apostles, but do apply to Rome, without special pleading.
“therefore you as an individual have no way to separate revelation from opinion.”
Outstanding. You just conceded there is no way or mechanism in Protestantism to distinguish divine revelation from human opinion. You’re asserting it is impossible to do so unless vulcan mindmelding is happening. Then you have the temerity to ask, “I don’t know why you keep saying that we invalidate the claim of Christ and the Apostles.”
“Your argument has to assume that the fallibility of your mind is irrelevant to the claim you’re making.”
The adherents of Christ and the Apostles had fallible minds. But, “I don’t know why you keep saying that we invalidate the claim of Christ and the Apostles.” Right.
“Ultimately, it seems that Athanasius placed the faith as more important than the Apostolic Sees:”
That citation of Athanasius is perfectly compatible with the citations of his and Augustine’s I offered that you wouldn’t affirm in a million years. It’s also perfectly compatible with him viewing the faith as non-provisional and certain, unlike the position you advance.
“But since the claim presented to your will for submission is the result of your fallible mind working on the evidence, what is actually presented to you is a fallible claim.”
Confusion of order of being and order of knowing, number – i’ve lost count. So long Christ and the Apostles – what were you guys thinking with all those claims to authority/ability without vulcan mindmelding your followers?
LikeLike
Publius,
Local doesn’t matter to me at all. That’s just how it all worked out. Jesus was born during the reign of Augustus Caesar, but that means absolutely nothing except that it occured in history during a time of civil peace.
Paul was beheaded at Rome and that means absoutely nothing either, except the church free up within the protection(eventually) of the leader of civilizarion. Apian Way and all.
Surely there is some import to events occuring in locations.
Jews were under Roman authority and thats the way it worked out. Paul went to Rome and founded a parish that eventually became the seat of the Christian church that Luther was a part of. You know the idenity of Catholicism even if there wasn’t a St. Peter’s in Rome. Local doesn’t matter, but it’s cool.
LikeLike
Oh and not to mention that Jesus was born in the Bethlehem which means house of bread and was wrapped in swaddling clothes and layed in a manger. Manger is the infintive of the verb “to eat” in French. I know manger is la creche in French. What is trough in Greek, I wonder? I also wonder why Mary put Jesus in a dirty animal trough at all. It must be so that we would understand the importance of eating the bread of life.
Textual critic must be having a hay day with that.
Anyways, it is incredibly beautiful, don’t you think?
LikeLike
Susan, with gay priests? You must be hanging out with ELCA Lutherans.
LikeLike
vd, t, “The point is that with Luther, in “Protestantism,” if you don’t like what you hear, you go off and start your own Church, or even write your own Bible. All is “provisional,” ad hoc, pro tem. You can call it a “church.” But it’s not the Church.”
Is that THE point? So the Holy Roman Empire was basically as much a blank slate as the Americas (minus the natives of course).
And you aspire to historical knowledge? Leave it to those so licensed.
LikeLike
vd, t, why you’re an anti-Lutheran bigot.
LikeLike
It’s the epistemology seminar and James Young is using the Socratic method.
In a commbox?
LikeLike
Robert, that’s a fair point. Lots of american rcs do LOTS of church hopping within their denomination. Often for the same reason you hear from evanjellyfish. Cult of personality, music, style, message, location, school(kids programs), new building, old building, gay, no gay, trad, liberal.
LikeLike
Just look at all the latin mass preference that traffics here.
LikeLike
Sean,
There’s a difference between diversity and preferences within an umbrella, and no umbrella whatsoever. http://www.religious-vocation.com/differences_religious_orders.html#.VnH0er_wDv4
LikeLike
Clete, I know all about life under the roman big top. I also know the tent pegs are kicked out so far, y’all often pass each other going in opposite directions.
LikeLike
CVD,
No, that’s *your* mischaracterization of our position. We believe the Spirit can divinely protect and guide the Church…we just don’t think that means the Church is infallible like the Spirit. Your omission of this point skews the argument. And this is pretty sad, since even you admit our position is “not difficult to grasp.”
It’s also worth noting that you have so confused epistemology and ontology that you continue to accuse others of the errors you are committing. SDB, Jeff, and I have all noted your similarities to Cartesian foundationalism and you ignore those arguments and charge us with skepticism.
To be clear, you are the one arguing that because of our fallibility the individual believer and the corporate people of God are unable to see/understand/interpret Divine revelation. In a vicious skepticism that not even Derrida would assent, you render ontology superfluous because even if Scripture is God’s Word (which you agree, it is) no one can access this because of our epistemological “problem” of fallibility. Thus, Bryan Cross argues that “swingers” can appeal to Scripture for justification just like Protestants can appeal to Scripture for the doctrine of justification. That is skepticism (and IMO, absurd).
As far as I can tell, your assumption is that the answer is either complete agnosticism about Divine revelation (because no epistemological infallibility) or absolute epistemological certainty about Divine revelation (via “personal” proxy of the Church). We continue to insist such a “conundrum” is a creation of your own (skeptical) assumptions.
LikeLike
TLM, Luther is not “my guy”. My guy would be Roger Williams. ☺
LikeLike
Brandon,
“We believe the Spirit can divinely protect and guide the Church…we just don’t think that means the Church is infallible like the Spirit. ”
It’s not you just don’t think it means that. You argue it is *impossible* that the Spirit could do such a thing (make the church infallible and able to infallibly define, teach, offer, identify non-provisional and normative doctrine and judgments binding upon all) unless the church vulcan mindmelds with and makes omniscient its followers. That’s your side’s repeated argument.
“It’s also worth noting that you have so confused epistemology and ontology ”
Have you read the arguments? The confusion is all on one side I’m afraid, with gems like “You are fallible, and since you’ve “established” that something fallible can be no ground for faith” and “However, you cannot infallibly identify the Faith of the Church”.
We’re not the side advancing presuppositionalism. You are. We’re not the side advancing objective facts/evidence do not exist because they are “meaningless without interpretation”. You are. We’re not the side advancing Christ and the Apostles authority/ability are impossible because no vulcan mindmelding of their followers occurred. You are. We’re not the side affirming the certitude of faith is illegitimate and impossible because we’re finite and human. You are. We’re not the side affirming, as you did earlier, that your belief that 2+2=4, the laws of logic are true, and you exist are provisional and subject to revision. You are. We’re not the side affirming reason is inherently biased and skewed, thus necessitating fideistic jumps. You are. We’re not the side affirming we can’t know with 100% certainty cows will not jump over the moon and bats won’t fly out of noses of their own power. You are. We’re not the side affirming we are 100% certain we can’t know anything with 100% certainty. You are.
Which side sounds more skeptical to you?
LikeLike
A(d)D:
TLM, Luther is not “my guy”. My guy would be Roger Williams. ☺>>>>>
Loved his Born Free. ;-). I’m more a b minor girl.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 16, 2015 at 5:49 pm | Permalink
vd, t, “The point is that with Luther, in “Protestantism,” if you don’t like what you hear, you go off and start your own Church, or even write your own Bible. All is “provisional,” ad hoc, pro tem. You can call it a “church.” But it’s not the Church.”
Is that THE point?
Why yes, that’s THE point. The rest of your wankery about the Holy Roman Empire or whatever is your usual dodging and squirrelling.
D. G. Hart
Posted December 16, 2015 at 5:50 pm | Permalink
It’s the epistemology seminar
No, it’s not. You are out of your element, Dr. Hart.
And you aspire to historical knowledge? Leave it to those so licensed.
Leave this discussion to those capable of participating in it. You clearly are not, either intellectually or temperamentally. This is way over your little puddin’ head, Darryl. Back to the cheap seats with you.
LikeLike
When it comes to music, Roger Miller is more my guy than Roger Williams. His “Dang Me” is a perfect summation of why us Southern males need a Savior.
LikeLike
CVD,
This is another example of sloppy thinking. No one has said it would be impossible.
Yes, I’ve read the arguments and you continue to make fundamental errors. Worse yet, you have refused to interact with the substantive points that have demonstrated your errors.
No one has argued that objective facts don’t exist. Are those facts interpreted? Sure, but no one has denied that they exist. *You* are the one arguing that supernatural facts cannot be interpreted. No one is saying the Christ’s authority was impossible. Your confusion of ontology and epistemology is responsible for this miscommunication.
No one is claiming the certitude of faith is illegitimate by the Power of the Spirit, but we still acknowledge we are fallible but the Spirit’s testimony is infallible. I affirmed that 2+2=4 is true (ontology), but I also affirmed that my understanding is fallible (epistemology). Yet, because I do not claim infallibility, you believe that I hold all of these beliefs “provisionally.” This is once *again* a confusion of ontology and epistemology. Affirmation of fallibility means to you that ontology is entirely unknowable, but that’s because of your own convoluted philosophical assumptions and not from anything we’ve said.
No one has said reason is inherently biased or skewed. The only thing Robert may have argued is that reason is not *neutral.* Our assumptions and biases impact our interpretation of events. It seems that acknowledging this fact is tantamount to “necessitating fidestic jumps,” but that says more about your own false dichotomies than it does about our position. And, we’re the side claiming that we can believe with a level of certainty that cows do not jump over the moon, but we are not infallibly certain of it. Yet, once more, you assert that because we cannot infallibly assert this, we cannot know anything. The reason you’ve so badly misunderstood the Protestant position on these points is because of your sloppy ontology and epistemology. The unfortunate thing is, your confusion on these points is being projected back on to us.
LikeLike
James Young, “It’s not you just don’t think it means that. You argue it is *impossible* that the Spirit could do such a thing”
And where exactly do we see any evidence of the Holy Spirit behaving this way? OT? NT? Tradition? Your mind? Your mind on drugs?
LikeLike
vd, t, and you don’t know the difference between history and The Joker’s Wild.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 16, 2015 at 9:23 pm | Permalink
vd, t, and you don’t know the difference between history and The Joker’s Wild.
That makes no sense, as usual.
D. G. Hart
Posted December 16, 2015 at 9:20 pm | Permalink
James Young, “It’s not you just don’t think it means that. You argue it is *impossible* that the Spirit could do such a thing”
And where exactly do we see any evidence of the Holy Spirit behaving this way? OT? NT? Tradition? Your mind? Your mind on drugs?
Infantile, Dr. Hart, as usual. And your “church” was invented in 1936. You have no claim to history.
LikeLike
vd, t, glad I can be your punching bag for all the lumps the nuns inflicted on you.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 16, 2015 at 9:40 pm | Permalink
vd, t, glad I can be your punching bag for all the lumps the nuns inflicted on you.
I don’t hit you, Darryl, it’s all ju-jitsu. You knock yourself to the floor; I just point you to where it is.
LikeLike
@ CVD: I haven’t forgotten your question about Jesus and the apostles. I’ve been doing this thing called “job” where “midterm exams” must “be administered.” So “they” say.
Anyways, I will try to get back when possible, DV.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I’d love to answer your question, but its pointless to do so if you insist the HS can only behave that way if and only if vulcan mindmelding and bestowal of personal omniscience occurs.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted December 16, 2015 at 11:15 pm | Permalink
Darryl,
I’d love to answer your question, but its pointless to do so if you insist the HS can only behave that way if and only if vulcan mindmelding and bestowal of personal omniscience occurs.
Unless you yourself are a world-class scholar in Hebrew and Greek, you’re going to have to take somebody’s word for the Bible, what’s in it, then what it means in the original language.
In the end you have to trust somebody. Was there ever an “infallible” pope–or Catholic bishop, priest or even layman–with this much pomposity?
Who shall you trust? Do you trust this man to write your Bible?
but here’s Augustine in Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus
There it is, folks.
Chapter 1.— To Heal Heretics is Better Than to Destroy Them
You could look it up, tough guy. If you’re not the heretic you should be the healer, no? If nobody has ever accused you of the latter, you’re doing the Christian religion wrong.
Has anyone accused you of being a healer, Brother Hart? I accuse Susan and The Mermaid, that’s so.
Susan
Posted December 15, 2015 at 9:38 pm | Permalink
Darryl,
I haven’t read your article(yet), but I always love your pictures! How do you choose just the right one?
Why are there no female Old Lifers?
LikeLike
(A different) Dan
Posted December 16, 2015 at 7:51 pm | Permalink
When it comes to music, Roger Miller is more my guy than Roger Williams. His “Dang Me” is a perfect summation of why us Southern males need a Savior.>>>>>>
I think Roger Williams might have liked the Born Free song the other Roger Williams wrote. Not sure what he would have thought of Roger Miller.
LikeLike
Dropping in on the clownshow, it is apparent that Coherence Ve Damned is still on a tear.
As a member in good standing and mass attendance of a church that makes its own traditions and magisterium part of the infallible Scripture, he is still repeatedly accusing prots of confusing the order of being with the order of knowledge; of ontology with epistemology.
But Rome is not both the church and the rule for the church.
Evidently Potiphar’s wife has been transgendered.
And the patron saint of all good little
nazisromanists, Josephine Goebbels, who’s memorable motto is “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”.Then Catholicus von Devious tells us that:
(E)verything and anything in Protestantism is offered as provisional and subject to revision.
Including, we presume, the fundamental and formal principle of the Protestant Reformation: “The Bible is the only infallible rule for faith and life”.
But then maybe, protestantism would no longer be protestant.
Who could have guessed?
But what really takes the
cakewafer is our papal pyrrhonist pontificating below without the prerequisite GoodHousekeeping imprimatur:Posted December 15, 2015 at 1:09 pm | Permalink
No one,
“Besides, if I lose eternal life, it wasn’t eternal life but temporary life, and Jesus lied. ”
That’s an equivocation on “eternal”. It can refer to duration or quality. One can have “eternal life” – that is sanctifying grace, currently and yet still lose it in the future.
” future mortal sin can remove eternal life.”
As Scripture and Tradition attests to.
So fallibly attesteth, Catholicus Von Dispicable.
IOW the good news, is that eternal life is provisional.
What Cretin Von Diabolicus is telling us is that in John 10:28 after we hold it over the votive candle so the invisible ink appears, Jesus really says:
And I provisionally give unto them
eternalconditional life; and theyshall nevermight perish,neither shalldepending on whether any man or even the sinner himself plucksthemhimself out of my hand.Eternal life is conditional based on something wrought in or by the sinner i.e. his perseverance, not the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, if not that it is God who enables the elect in the first place, to persevere in faith and obedience unto salvation. Not the elect. In order that God may get all the glory.
Which means, we are bold to say, that DVC like all of his papal ilk, is of his father the devil, and the lusts of his father he will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it (cf. John 8:44).
Rome never errs.
Rome never lies.
Rome is without sin or shame.
Because she is antiChrist.
LikeLike
Bob,
So all Protestants, let alone church fathers, who disagree with you on possible loss of salvation are sons of the devil?
And youve mischaracterized the RC view – final perseverance is a gift of grace.
LikeLike
Then there’s the little Martin the Loser imbroglio concerning his view of Protestantism’s principium cognoscendi externum or Scripture.
The money quote from the intro to Luther’s prefaces on the antilegomena at the Bible Researcher says:
Luther’s criticism of these books will perhaps be found disgraceful and even shocking to modern Christians, but it should be pointed out that his attitude was not so shocking in the context of the late Middle Ages. Erasmus had also called into question these four books in the Annotationes to his 1516 Greek New Testament, and their canonicity was doubted by the Roman Catholic Cardinal Cajetan (Luther’s opponent at Augsburg. See Reu, Luther’s German Bible, pp. 175-176). The sad fact is, the Roman Catholic Church had never precisely drawn the boundaries of the biblical canon. It was not necessary to do so under the Roman system, in which the authority of the Scriptures was not much higher than that of tradition, popes, and councils. It was not until the Protestant Reformers began to insist upon the supreme authority of Scripture alone that a decision on the ‘disputed books’ became necessary.
It’s not that the papal parrots don’t know what they don’t know. (That’s a given.)
It’s again, their insistence on patronizing us with their ignorance, that does get old.
But if they are ex prot, they are supposed to know these things and maybe they should kindly shut up instead of blathering on.
LikeLike
No, Cretin. Just you and your perversion of John 10:28.
After the Reformation there’s no excuse and that goes for “protestants” also.
Free will isn’t an undetermined mystery and justification is not because of anything done in or by the sinner, but only on the account of the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ in the place of the sinner.
Think Canons of Dordt.
LikeLike
Bob S
Posted December 17, 2015 at 3:36 am | Permalink
No, Cretin. Just you and your perversion of John 10:28.
Darryl, please get the nerve up to discipline your Old Life thugs. I feel embarrassed on your behalf and appalled that you would let them do your dirty work like this.
Surely even you have limits.
LikeLike
James Young, oh, come now. You write Platonic dialogues here and you refuse mmmmeeeeEEEE?
The flaw in your epistemology is that your infallible interpreter, the one without whom you’d never feel certain (and I mean feel), says that our provisional knowledge is sufficient to qualify as “separated brothers.”
In other words, there’s something between James Young and Descartes. It’s not either or. Even someone with infallibility identifies provisional knowledge as acceptable.
Yup.
Cool.
LikeLike
James Young, you’re really going to mock Bob when you are the RC version of him? You know, that Manichean feeling?
LikeLike
vd, t, butch up.
LikeLike
CVD,
>>>
No one,
“Besides, if I lose eternal life, it wasn’t eternal life but temporary life, and Jesus lied. ”
That’s an equivocation on “eternal”. It can refer to duration or quality. One can have “eternal life” – that is sanctifying grace, currently and yet still lose it in the future.
>>>
I understand that as a Roman Catholic you are somewhat forced to read John 6:47 (Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life) that way.
But why should I take your Tradition’s recast of the meaning of John 6:47? It was recorded by an apostle who was there when Jesus said it and who was guided by the Holy Spirit to record it exactly as spoken (John 16:13).
Jesus went on to say, “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever…” (John 6:51).
Again, no restriction, such as “if he doesn’t commit mortal sin….”
In v. 51 Jesus speaks of living forever (ζήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα). It is the same thing as “eternal life” in v. 47. Jesus is not speaking of sanctifying grace in John 6:47 as you say, but what John recorded: “eternal life” which is much more than the sanctifying grace of your Tradition.
Due to your beliefs you are hindered from accepting His words as He spoke them, but to accept your Tradition is to sin in unbelief against the Lord.
Likely, you believe that in recasting “eternal life” to “sanctifying grace” you are honoring Him. And if i were attacked like you are being attacked in this thread, I’d be convinced i were right. I’m sorry for the attacks, especially the latest from Bob S.
But I would love it if you would just believe John 6:47 and 51 as stated, simply, and completely.
LikeLike
Cletus,
ou argue it is *impossible* that the Spirit could do such a thing (make the church infallible and able to infallibly define, teach, offer, identify non-provisional and normative doctrine and judgments binding upon all) unless the church vulcan mindmelds with and makes omniscient its followers.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is entirely possible for the church to be infallible and able to infallibly teach. Our objection to Roman Catholicism in general is that there is no evidence that Christ has done this and that, in fact, all of the warnings against false teachers in the church presuppose that the church can fall into even serious error.
Our objection to you is on the notion that something must be offered as infallible by a secondary authority—the church—in order for the assent of faith to be warranted. Once you go down that route, you need the vulcan mind meld in order for faith to be warranted because the claim of any agent must be mediated through your fallen mind such that your mind fallibly presents the claim to your will. Once that happens, you’re in the same state as anyone else, as you’ve repeatedly agreed to: Protestants and RCs are at the same place at the initial assent of faith. What you don’t seem to get is that said assent is made to provisional claims whose unchangeability relies on whether or not you’ve actually understood Rome or Protestant’s claims in he first place. And even after that, you are continually trusting in provisional statements.
Trinity? Provisional because what you are believing is your mind’s fallible presentation of the dogma.
Papal infallibility? See above
Resurrection? see above
Etc.
Now if you start out with the assumption that knowledge of divine revelation can’t be provisional, subject to correction, etc., that is a problem. But that’s an assumption you’ve yet to justify other than to say “divine revelation is by nature unchangeable/infallible.” We agree with you on that. But to go from that to your claims is a leap that has no foundation other than Rome’s desire to present a credible alternative to Protestantism. But the argument doesn’t work unless you are presupposed to believe that while you can trust your fallibility to distinguish between divine revelation and your opinion in regards to finding the church, you can’t trust it at all after that.
Your argument makes the vulcan mind meld/immediate knowledge that bypasses our reason necessary, not ours.
LikeLike
Susan: Oh and not to mention that Jesus was born in the Bethlehem which means house of bread and was wrapped in swaddling clothes and layed in a manger. Manger is the infintive of the verb “to eat” in French. I know manger is la creche in French. What is trough in Greek, I wonder? I also wonder why Mary put Jesus in a dirty animal trough at all. It must be so that we would understand the importance of eating the bread of life. Textual critic must be having a hay day with that.
Anyways, it is incredibly beautiful, don’t you think?
yes , beautiful, thanks Susan. How great God speaks to us in such metaphors, or even speaks at all, yet man lives! (Deut 5:24); even in the desert all ate the same spiritual food and the same spiritual drink from a spiritual rock which followed them and the rock was Christ. (1 Cor 10:3-4)
And Jesus also saying while here on earth- “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst – whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” (John 6:35; 4:14)
And even now at the right hand of God, Jesus still saying – let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost. (Rev 22: 17)
Thankful Jesus ate the food’ which was to do the Father’s will and accomplish His work. (John 4:34), even giving a way of remembrance of Him (Luke 22:19) and then His giving the Father’s promised Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4).
Merry Christmas, Susan, because we also have been given so great a salvation.
“And they will spring up among the grass like poplars by streams of water. Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me. Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it; Yes, let him recount it to Me in order, and you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none. (Isa 44:4-7)
LikeLike
No One of Note:
I understand that as a Roman Catholic you are somewhat forced to read John 6:47 (Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life) that way.>>>>>
Howdy, No One of Note,
See, what I don’t quite get is how you Greek guys go to the original language when it seems to support you, but dodge the original when it doesn’t tend to support you.
That is kind of why I studied Greek – though my Greek is pretty rusty. I wanted to be able to follow you exegetes when you run and hide in the Koiné.
So, No One of Note, explain the word “believes” in John 6:47. You dodged me once. If you dodge this time, that makes twice. How does the Apostle John use this word and its cognates in his Gospel and in his epistles?
While you are at it, maybe you could also comment on the word “abide” and how the Apostle John uses that word. I will let you look them up in the Greek, cut and paste them here, and then explain what kind of faith and what kind of abiding he was and is talking about.
Then there is the word “sin” as well.
The present tense if very important in John’s writings. Faith. Abide. Sin.
That is, unless you want to go all Jesus Seminar and say that the Gospel of John doesn’t even belong in the Bible.
Hey, have a good day.
LikeLike
@ CVD:
So, let me try to address your question about the hearers of Jesus and the apostles head-on. In my slight defense, I had thought that I previously had addressed it, so I mistakenly thought that your re-raising of it was just a rhetorical tactic.
I can imagine that would be frustrating for you. So, sorry for that.
I need to ask some preliminary questions.
(1) Your argument as I hear it is
* The hearers of Jesus and the apostles were fallible just as we are.
* Nevertheless, Jesus and the apostles offered infallible teaching, in contrast to say Gamaliel in the synagogue. Perhaps you are thinking of Matt 7.29?
* So that Jesus’ hearers and the apostles’ hearers who trusted in their authority had an “epistemic advantage” over Gamaliel’s hearers who trusted in his authority.
* This in turn parallels your argument about Catholics (who trust in an infallible authority in your system) and Protestants (who trust in a provisonal authority, according to your argument). If Jesus’ hearers had an epistemic advantage yet without being infallible, then Catholics should have that same advantage.
Is this a correct rendering of your argument?
(2) What is the “epistemic advantage” that you speak of? I don’t know the term, and I’ve been having to infer what you have in mind.
(3) What mechanism are you positing that confers said advantage?
(4) Related to (3), would you say that followers of bar Kochba that believed him to be the Messiah (hence presumably infallible) had the same epistemic advantage as the followers of Jesus?
Not to barrage, but I do want to be clear about what we are talking about so that I can give your argument a proper treatment.
Thanks,
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted December 15, 2015 at 3:11 am | Permalink
Bob,
Subject to revision and possibility of error is what your side defined provisional as, you know the side that claims I “just don’t” understand provisionality with tablepounding.
If it was only refinement, youd have something similar to development. But development would entail at least something non-provisional and infallible to develop from. But since everything and anything in Protestantism is offered as provisional and subject to revision, you never get there. Thus your starting doctrines I’ve listed before that remain just as provisional and subject to correction/revision (not refinement) as any other teaching or doctrine offered in your system.
The question is not whether according to Romes standards Protestantism fails. That would indeed be begging the question. The question is whether according to Protestantism’s standards it can meet the demand for distinguishing divine revelation from providional human opinion. Rejecting the authority and ability to offer, teach, define, or identify any non-provisional doctrine would seem to make that difficult.>>>>>>>>
In Protestantism each person is expected to distinguish divine revelation from provisional human opinion. There is no real authority to back anything up. That doesn’t mean that there is no truth at all in Protestantism. After all, the good there is in non Catholic Christianity is actually borrowed from the teaching magisterium of the Catholic Church.
I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how the resurrection of Jesus Christ can be infallible information and provisional knowledge at the same time. I asked Bob S., and he either missed my question or dodged. Maybe he shrugged. 😉
LikeLike
Bob S.:
(E)verything and anything in Protestantism is offered as provisional and subject to revision.
Including, we presume, the fundamental and formal principle of the Protestant Reformation: “The Bible is the only infallible rule for faith and life”.
But then maybe, protestantism would no longer be protestant.>>>>>
The ressurrection of Jesus Christ is clearly taught in the Bible as being 100% certain. For Robert, -and I think Jeff – this event itself is only 99.9% or more certain. There exists the slight possibility that the body of Christ can be found. I presume the bones of Christ by this time.
So, tell me how 99.9% or so adds up to infallible? You do not even have 100% certainty that the Bible you hold in your hands is the real Word of God. The textual critics and translators make their best guesses, and that’s good enough.
What happens if the textual critics decide that the Gospel of John doesn’t belong in the Bible at all, or that Paul did not write the book of Ephesians? Those are real possibilities, you know.
Do you put those book at the back of your Bible and assign a special name to that kind of book? Do you write warnings about how those books may not be the inspired Word of God, but each one must decide for himself? ‘Cuz that’s what Luther did.
Do you rant on and on about how no one but you can translate the Bible accurately, so ignore everyone else?
‘Cuz that’s what Luther did.
Protestants love Luther’s “here I stand” rhetoric. Read him in his own words to see what he considers to be true Scripture. It’s not what you think of as Scripture.
——————————————
Martin Luther: Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and not by Popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.
LikeLike
Mermaid,
.In Protestantism each person is expected to distinguish divine revelation from provisional human opinion.
In one sense that is sorta true, inasmuch as we’re all responsible individually for salvation. We don’t get to slough everything else off to nominal assent/participation in a system.
But the thing is, the same think isn’t really any less sorta true than in Roman Catholicism. How do you distinguish the divine revelation that RC is the true church from your provisional opinion that RC is/claims to be the true church? That’s the million dollar question that CVD, Bryan Cross, et al brush aside.
There is no real authority to back anything up.
Incorrect. The church has real authority to “back stuff up” when it accurately teaches the Word of God. In theory, the Roman Church doesn’t have authority when it doesn’t accurately teach the Word of God. The only difference I can see with us in this respect is that the Roman Church serves as like a red light to indicate when it has done things right. It’s circular: The Roman Church is infallible whenever the Roman Church says it is infallible because the Roman Church is infallible.
That doesn’t mean that there is no truth at all in Protestantism. After all, the good there is in non Catholic Christianity is actually borrowed from the teaching magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Hilarious.
I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how the resurrection of Jesus Christ can be infallible information and provisional knowledge at the same time. I asked Bob S., and he either missed my question or dodged. Maybe he shrugged.
Because there is a distinction between fact/event and your knowledge of the fact/event. You are fallible. Where you err is thinking fallible=wrong/doubtful=provisional.
You have provisional apprehension of the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. You don’t have absolute knowledge of it because you weren’t there when it happened and you don’t know perfectly how the resurrection fits into every other aspect of God’s plan and every other aspect of reality. But none of that means you can’t have certain knowledge of the resurrection. Which is exactly what all of us mean when we say you have provisional knowledge of the resurrection.
The kind of intellectual certainty that you all pursue requires absolute knowledge, but you will never have absolute knowledge, not even in heaven.
LikeLike
Hi Ms. Mermaid,
what I don’t quite get is how you Greek guys go to the original language when it seems to support you, but dodge the original when it doesn’t tend to support you. That is kind of why I studied Greek – though my Greek is pretty rusty. I wanted to be able to follow you exegetes when you run and hide in the Koiné. So, No One of Note, explain the word “believes” in John 6:47. You dodged me once. If you dodge this time, that makes twice. How does the Apostle John use this word and its cognates in his Gospel and in his epistles?
Sorry, no offense intended.
There are several reasons why your reliance on the present tense of πιστεύων to give a governing meaning of “continual believing” is not the point of Jesus Christ’s words in John 6:47, and why Roman Catholics in general cannot accept Christ’s words as spoken in this verse.
First, the sentence is not as you read it, as conditional. Iow, Jesus doesn’t say “if you (continually) believe, then you will have eternal life.” It is a statement of promise: “he who believes has eternal life.” Jesus is not focusing His hearers on ongoing faith but on the astounding promise of eternal life attached to being one who believes.
Second, in John 6:47 Jesus is demanding a change in His listeners. If they make this change they will be rewarded with something truly great (“Truly, truly”). That change is from being a sign-seeker to being one who believes He was sent from the Father (8:26-29). Thus Jesus is demanding a repentant belief.
Jesus describes such a person participially, “ὁ πιστεύων”. The believing one is a non-sign seeker but accepter of Jesus’ own self-revelation that He is sent from the Father. This is why the on-going nature of the present tense isn’t the point. We are dealing with a verb used as a noun: “the believing one,” and so the verbal function of the word is subsumed under its substantive meaning. It refers to a a person who has changed from being a false believer to a true believer.
Which is why your earlier comment to me: Yes. πιστεύων – A present tense believing. John’s emphasis is consistently on present tense believing and present tense abiding in Christ, the Vine is misguided. You overemphasized the present tense of the participle, a mistake I chose not to bring out in my response, but rather focused my answer to you on the verb in v. 47 that rightly required the ongoing nature of the present tense, “has”. Thus i used your understanding of the present tense to try to move you over to put faith in the promise of Jesus Christ: “has eternal life”
One more point on pisteuo (believe) in the gospel of John. The word itself doesn’t tell you what type of faith people have. Sometimes it is shallow faith that turns to hatred against Christ in a moment (John 8:31-59). Sometimes it is there are those who follow Him around in His ministry but can’t accept His words of promise (John 6:64). Sometimes it is people who receive His claims yet with some hesitation (John 12:42).
Then there is repentant faith, that is, rejecting whatever might have been previously believed but dishonored Christ, and embracing Him according to His self-revelation (John 6:68-69).
You and CVD fit into one of these groups. You both add a conditional clause to the end of Jesus’ words in John 6:47 in order to satisfy your Roman Catholicism: “if he does not commit mortal sin.” If you don’t add in these words, Jesus’ promise of eternal life to the believing one offends you both.
LikeLike
No One of Note:
There are several reasons why your reliance on the present tense of πιστεύων to give a governing meaning of “continual believing” is not the point of Jesus Christ’s words in John 6:47, and why Roman Catholics in general cannot accept Christ’s words as spoken in this verse.>>>>
No offense meant, but you should start what you say with a disclaimer, such as “in my opinion.” or “I am convinced by plain reason and Scripture”, emphasis on the 1st person singular pronoun “I”.
So, are you saying that it was Roman Catholics who were the intended audience of Jesus’ words?
You may wish to begin again.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 17, 2015 at 10:40 am | Permalink
Mermaid,
.In Protestantism each person is expected to distinguish divine revelation from provisional human opinion.
Robert:
In one sense that is sorta true, inasmuch as we’re all responsible individually for salvation. We don’t get to slough everything else off to nominal assent/participation in a system.>>>>>
So, we are all responsible individually for salvation. What happened to unconditional election? Isn’t God the only one responsible for anyone’s salvation?
You get to do whatever you think you should do, Robert. You get to choose your own canon, even, if you want to. Luther was kind enough to translate all of the Bible into German and leave others to decide what they believed to be the inspired Word of God.
Besides, if you read his intro. to his translation, you will see that he accused papists of plagiarizing his translation. He argued that they could not speak German like he could, so they must be copying him.
Is it possible that someone was plagiarizing someone? Luther accuses them. Could it be the other way around? Like, why would Luther translate books of the Bible that he did not accept as Scripture? It doesn’t make sense even for Luther.
LikeLike
Mermaid,
<i.So, we are all responsible individually for salvation. What happened to unconditional election? Isn’t God the only one responsible for anyone’s salvation?
Unconditional election doesn’t invalidate the responsibility of the individual to find and hear God’s Word. It establishes that responsibility and guarantees that the elect will accomplish it.
You get to do whatever you think you should do, Robert. You get to choose your own canon, even, if you want to.
In the sense that I can do that without getting killed by the civil magistrate, that is true. It’s no less true of you. You get to choose what you think is tradition and what isn’t, and you can freely differ with other RCs on it. Nancy Pelosi gets to choose to believe that she can endorse abortion with no restrictions as representative of the faithful RC position. Tom gets to choose to believe that papal infallibility was a mistake and that the Assumption can be safely ignored. It’s a free for all as long as Rome doesn’t start actually practicing consistent discipline.
You can’t go all in on the Magisterium being your guarantee of orthodoxy and then ignore what the Magisterium actually does.
Luther was kind enough to translate all of the Bible into German and leave others to decide what they believed to be the inspired Word of God.
That’s simply not true. Not in the least. Luther was the last person to say “believe whatever you want.” This caricature you keep presenting of Luther and actual Reformation beliefs isn’t helping the RC case.
Is it possible that someone was plagiarizing someone? Luther accuses them. Could it be the other way around? Like, why would Luther translate books of the Bible that he did not accept as Scripture? It doesn’t make sense even for Luther.
The conspiracy theories keep getting odder. But the simple answer to your question is that Luther didn’t think he had the right to willy-nilly follow his own private judgment. That’s why he didn’t jettison beliefs on which there was actually a high degree of unanimity. He fought for Sola Scriptura and JBFA and other issues because there simply wasn’t an ecclesiastical consensus on those matters. Trent had to proclaim that “consensus,” and it did so by rejecting other positions that had been regarded as orthodox before then. Like Luther’s. And Calvin’s.
LikeLike
Dear Ali,
“Merry Christmas, Susan, because we also have been given so great a salvation.”
Yes you have! We all have! Thanks for all the scripture that you added. Great beauty!
Merry Christmas to you and yours too!
LikeLike
Mermaid: No offense meant, but you should start what you say with a disclaimer, such as “in my opinion.” or “I am convinced by plain reason and Scripture”, emphasis on the 1st person singular pronoun “I”.
That circumlocation is usually omitted in writing, since any opinion expressed is invariably the opinion of the speaker.
LikeLike
Hi Ms. Mermaid,
No offense meant, but you should start what you say with a disclaimer, such as “in my opinion.” or “I am convinced by plain reason and Scripture”, emphasis on the 1st person singular pronoun “I”. So, are you saying that it was Roman Catholics who were the intended audience of Jesus’ words?You may wish to begin again.
No thanks.
I use the words of Jesus Christ to try and disassemble your relationship with Roman Catholicism, and you use your epistemology to try and disassemble my relationship with Jesus Christ.
But I have an eternal saving relationship with Jesus Christ through His words while you only have a provisional saving relationship with the Roman Catholic Church through epistemology.
LikeLike
Robert,
When discussing about provisional knowledge and epistemology vs ontology I can understand your confusion. But you really should stop saying this:
“You get to choose what you think is tradition and what isn’t, and you can freely differ with other RCs on it. Nancy Pelosi gets to choose to believe that she can endorse abortion with no restrictions as representative of the faithful RC position.”
You know there arent many orthodoxies within Catholicism. Do you know the churches official stance on abortion? Yes you do and so does Nancy Pelosi, so she is not a Christian in good standing as long as she supports abortion or anything else oppsed to life. She may go to.confession and make a good confession, I dont know. No one knows but God and her.
Why do you say nonsense things like she represents the faithful RC position? That is not true, a misrepresentation about what the church teaches and everyone knows it. If someone says abortion is just fine and they iidentify as Catholic, Well their either stupid or brazen or both.
You ruin your credibility as a person who wants to honestly engage and learn what Catholicism is, when you say things like that. Its easily shown how she is not a member in good standing……it’s not a club, it’s The Church.
LikeLike
No One of Note:I use the words of Jesus Christ to try and disassemble your relationship with Roman Catholicism, and you use your epistemology to try and disassemble my relationship with Jesus Christ.>>>>
I do not try to disassemble your relationship with Jesus Christ. Our relationship with Christ is based on our common baptism into Christ. One baptism. You seem to doubt my relationship with Jesus Christ. I do not doubt yours. I have no reason to.
I am trying to see how the concept of provisional knowledge works in real life. I don’t think it does. None of you talk as though you believe anything provisionally. So, what gives, here?
I am not an apologist for the Catholic Church. I have said that several times. I am in detox. I am in disentangle mode. I am not in “destroy the faith of my Protestant brothers and sisters” mode.
How does your epistemology hold up to challenges? What do you do or say when your authority is challenged? Stuff like that. Like Brother Hart said, you guys are the focus group. Maybe I am your focus group. How do your ideas come across to someone outside your circle?
They tend to come across as “I have assurance, but I am not sure of anything, really.” “I am sure that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, but I am not 100% sure since there is a real possibility that His body could be found.”
You cannot operate that way, I contend, and you certainly don’t talk that way.
LikeLike
Susan,
You know there aren’t many orthodoxies within Catholicism.
On the one hand, if I trust my provisional apprehension of what I have provisionally determined is Rome’s orthodoxy, then yes, I provisionally know that there aren’t many orthodoxies in Roman Catholicism. But since you and Mermaid and CVD do not believe provisional apprehension is a good foundation, where should I go?
Do you know the churches official stance on abortion? Yes you do and so does Nancy Pelosi, so she is not a Christian in good standing as long as she supports abortion or anything else oppsed to life.
You can’t go all in on the Magisterium to determine dogma and then ignore it’s practice. By definition, anyone who is not excommunicated is in good standing with the church. And Ms. Pelosi, when she has been called on her support for abortion and its incongruity with RC doctrine, has said that the questioner doesn’t know Roman Catholicism like she does. Unless the tent really is that big, one of the two has to be wrong. Without consistent discipline and given that provisional knowledge is inadequate, I have no principled way to determine which one is right.
Or, you could agree that provisional knowledge is sufficient (you all actually do when it comes to identifying the church) and that documents have meaning dependent on their context. But that means Rome has no epistemological “advantage” and the Protestants have the principled means you think we lack.
Why do you say nonsense things like she represents the faithful RC position?
Why do you say nonsense things like you can’t know divine revelation without an institution that is infallible?
Pelosi is a well-known, high-ranking official who is a baptized RC and has had audiences with the pope. This keeps happening. She keeps getting the Eucharist. She may not represent the current magisterial position, but apart from her excommunication, I have no good reason to believe her position of abortion on demand is incompatible with faithful Roman Catholicism. Again, you can’t lean all on the Magisterium for dogma and then ignore failure to discipline. The discipline reveals the actual dogma.
That is not true, a misrepresentation about what the church teaches and everyone knows it. If someone says abortion is just fine and they iidentify as Catholic, Well their either stupid or brazen or both.
Or the Magisterium doesn’t really care about abortion. Or the Magisterium prefers a big tent to permanent standards. Or people like Pelosi give a lot of money to the diocese and they don’t want to lose it. Or it makes the Vatican look good to hobnob with powerbrokers. Or the Roman position on it isn’t as clear as you think it is. Or there are good reasons to suspect whether the Magisterium is accurately reflecting the T and the S…
You ruin your credibility as a person who wants to honestly engage and learn what Catholicism is, when you say things like that.
I’m happy to engage my critical faculties and conclude with conservatives that RCism is currently anti-abortion and that Pelosi can’t be a true RC. But that would mean that I can do the same with Scripture and historical evidence and conclude that Rome’s claims are bogus. The Roman apologists here want me to be able to do the first but not the second. Hmmm.
Its easily shown how she is not a member in good standing……it’s not a club, it’s The Church.
How? By your private, provisional interpretation of a written confession/statement/teaching? But provisional, private interpretation is invalid for figuring such things out, isn’t it?
LikeLike
Hi Robert,
“On the one hand, if I trust my provisional apprehension of what I have provisionally determined is Rome’s orthodoxy, then yes, I provisionally know that there aren’t many orthodoxies in Roman Catholicism. But since you and Mermaid and CVD do not believe provisional apprehension is a good foundation, where should I go?”
Haha! Shake off the idea of only a provisional appehension.
Nancy, if she advances abortion( and I believe she still does ), does not have a provisional idea of what abortion is. You are aware that there are two idea. One for life, one not for life, so that’s not hard at all. CVD and MWF and I dont have provisional knowledge.
Anyways, my phone is dying.
Ciao,
LikeLike
I had a Calvinist friend, until I converted, who then began to treat me rudly, even telling my husband that eveyone, including my family, should shun me. This same man that I care about is impossible to talk to. He now believes that there was no Holocaust.and( and I’m not kidding) that the Sun revolves around the earth and at about a distance of 5 miles away. He doesn’t believe we should trust anyone and so is now wildly skeptical. I refuse to doubt everything.
Its no harder to believe in the Catholic Church than it is that God became man. I dont believe either 18th provisional knowledge.
LikeLike
Sounds like there is only an invisible remnant in the RCC that is actually in communion.
LikeLike
Susan,
That’s a non sequitir Just because you refuse to doubt everything (which is a good thing) does not mean that your knowledge is infallible. You are presenting one of two options: infallible (good) or provisional (bad). When you are presented with bad options you get bad answers.
No compelling reason for this dichotomy has been given. It’s just been continually asserted ad nauseam. Protestants (and many other Catholics) operate from a more sophisticated philosophical foundation.
Based on interaction and observation, it seems to me that you have not explored the genesis of your existential angst critically enough. What I mean is I think you should have pressed back a bit harder on the questions you were asking to see if they were legitimate. Once you granted that the questions were legitimate, this inevitably led you to one of two paths: infallible certainty or agnosticism. The reason I think this is the path you faced is because I personally experienced it as well.
When I began pressing back on the assumptions numerous paths began to present themselves. It didn’t immediately eliminate the Catholic option, but it presented a more robust view of Christianity and God than I believe your assumptions allow. I think that holds true *even if* Rome is the Church that Jesus founded. Just my 2 cents.
LikeLike
Okay Brandon,
What do you say to.me then when I contend that I am Catholic because I am convinced from scripture? Is my knowledge provisional or is yours? I say your presuppositions have locked you in. Is this a stalemate?
LikeLike
So you don’t believe that the Catholic church isn’t a viable option, only that it’s not the only option?
LikeLike
And if I dont have infallible certainty all I’m left with is agnostism. Am I mistaken about what you mean when you say you “believe” the Christian narrative?
I mean that if i doubt that I am in error because it remains certainly true and not based on my subjective thought or experience. When I say Jesus is God and that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus I mean it without provision.
LikeLike
Hi Ms. Mermaid,
I wrote,
“you use your epistemology to try and disassemble my relationship with Jesus Christ.”
And you replied:
“I do not try to disassemble your relationship with Jesus Christ… How does your epistemology hold up to challenges?”
Uh huh.
The Great Physician never used epistemological certainty to heal the awful pains that come to weary pilgrims, confused souls, and proud religionists blinded by unbelief. Instead, He required them all, even in their pain, to take His words as He spoke them.
That’s why John 6:47 is crucial, because it cuts through so much clever religion and makes His words everything.
LikeLike
I mean, if i said I believe provided it’s true than I haven’t latched hold at all am am really still agnostic because I deny the Holy Spirit’s testimony.
This is what CVD is trying to get across.
Off to the post office.
I will check back later for your response.
LikeLike
Susan,
When I say Jesus is God and that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus I mean it without provision.
So, hypothetically, if they were to find the body of Jesus and be able to prove non-provisionally that it was the body of Jesus, what would you do? Sounds like you’d remain RC.
LikeLike
Susan,
If you contend that you’re Catholic because of Scripture then that becomes a different discussion. I think that’s respectable and doesn’t leave us in a stalemate.
That’s not been the topic of conversation, however, and it is not what you said above. You presented two options: infallible certainty or provisionality. That is what I’ve pointed out is narrow–whether or not Scripture corroborates Rome’s claims.
LikeLike
Robert,
“It is entirely possible for the church to be infallible and able to infallibly teach.”
How will this cash out if we aren’t vulcan mindmelding with the church? Please remember to be consistent with your previous remarks when explaining. Also, if this were granted as true, would followers of that church – despite their fallibility – have a superior epistemic advantage than those who weren’t followers of that church?
“Our objection to Roman Catholicism in general is that there is no evidence”
Evidence is “meaningless without interpretation” according to you, so you’re in no position to argue truth claims, let alone try to persuade others. That’s the problem with skepticism.
“Our objection to you is on the notion that something must be offered as infallible by a secondary authority—the church—in order for the assent of faith to be warranted.”
Presumably you agree one is not warranted in putting the assent of faith in something admitted as provisional (as Jeff has said, if something is shown to be provisional, its provisionality was human and not divine), but only in divine revelation, infallible by definition.
Okay, so please explain the mechanism in your system to distinguish divine revelation from provisional human opinion given you are arguing it is not necessary for something to be be offered as infallible in the first place – I would think at a bare minimum for a system to do that, it has to at least be able to offer something as infallible and non-provisional, otherwise you’re just blindly groping in the dark and fideistically grabbing anything.
“Once you go down that route, you need the vulcan mind meld in order for faith to be warranted because the claim of any agent must be mediated through your fallen mind such that your mind fallibly presents the claim to your will.”
And once again, this makes Christ and the Apostles ability/authority and claims to and exercise of such ability/authority either useless or impossible without them also simultaneously mindmelding their followers. But their followers were never mindmelded.
“Once that happens, you’re in the same state as anyone else, as you’ve repeatedly agreed to: Protestants and RCs are at the same place at the initial assent of faith.”
When an RC assents in faith, he is not justified in holding his system’s past, current or future offerings, teachings, identifications, definitions as provisional and subject to revision. Doing so would be inconsistent with the claims to authority/ability he submitted to in the first place. Just as would be the case for an NT believer assenting to Christ or the Apostles.
When a Protestant assents in faith, he is justified in holding his system’s past, current, or future offerings, teachings, identifications, definitions as provisional and subject to revision. Doing so is consistent with the disclaimers to authority/ability he submitted to in the first place. Just as would the case for an NT person assenting to rabbi Levi who claims he has no authority/ability to infallibly offer, define, teach, identify any non-provisional doctrine and everything he offers is provisional.
“What you don’t seem to get is that said assent is made to provisional claims whose unchangeability relies on whether or not you’ve actually understood Rome or Protestant’s claims in he first place. And even after that, you are continually trusting in provisional statements.”
I’m not “trusting” in provisional statements. You keep conflating order of knowledge and order of being. Reality, authority, and truth exist outside of my and your minds.
“Trinity? Provisional because what you are believing is your mind’s fallible presentation of the dogma.”
And you just did it again. God is not reduced to our mental projection of Him. You’re embracing not only skepticism, but verging on solipsism now.
“Now if you start out with the assumption that knowledge of divine revelation can’t be provisional, subject to correction, etc., that is a problem.”
It’s not just your apprehension of doctrine, its the doctrines themselves. The followers of Christ/Apostles were corrected when mistaken and faith seeks understanding. That’s why I’ve repeatedly said what is *offered* in your *system* remains provisional and subject to revision, not only your apprehension. And because of that, you keep arguing you can never be 100% certain of anything, except that you’re 100% certain of that.
LikeLike
Brandon,
“No one has said it would be impossible.”
Excellent. So the church doesn’t need to mindmeld with its followers to be able to offer infallible non-provisional teaching or for followers to apprehend and submit to such teaching. Just as Christ and the Apostles didn’t need to mindmeld with their followers. Glad we agree.
“No one has argued that objective facts don’t exist. Are those facts interpreted? Sure, but no one has denied that they exist.”
What facts did you interpret to reach that conclusion that all evidence/facts exist but must be interpreted?
And how does one interpret “facts” to ascertain their true meaning if such truth is permanently clouded by the act of interpretation itself? Hello presuppositionalism.
“No one is claiming the certitude of faith is illegitimate by the Power of the Spirit, but we still acknowledge we are fallible but the Spirit’s testimony is infallible.”
RCs are fallible. So that didn’t advance anything. So you have the certitude of faith? So can you tell me what you hold as 100% certain on faith? Or is everything you hold admitted as provisional and subject to revision?
“I affirmed that 2+2=4 is true (ontology), but I also affirmed that my understanding is fallible (epistemology).”
Are you 100% certain 2+2=4, the laws of logic are true, and you exist? Or are you not 100% certain?
“Yet, because I do not claim infallibility, you believe that I hold all of these beliefs “provisionally.””
Okay, so you don’t hold these beliefs provisionally and as subject to revision, correct? I’m not asking you to claim infallibility. I’m not infallible.
LikeLike
Help wanted: infallible grammar and spell checker desperately needed for hire by Cats seeking certainty.
LikeLike
CVD: I don’t know whether you noticed above, but I need some clarification before doing what you requested.
LikeLike
English Teacher,
If there isn’t an infallible grammar checker, then there is only skeptical, agnostic spelling. Of course, I just so happen to know an infallible guy with a cool hat.
LikeLike
Guilty! My grammar is poor.
Is not there a difference though in seeking the church and seeking to know what the future will bring.
I wasn’t looking for a fortune teller and I wasn’t looking for promises that mankind won’t annihilate himself. Why are Catholics accused of seeking certainty?
Maybe Mr. or Mrs. “Shrunk or White” would care to explain what they mean?
LikeLike
CVD,
You’ll have to forgive my growing frustration, but I don’t think that has ever been a point of contention! So I *do* agree and we are on the same page here.
I usually hate answering questions with questions but…Can you show me an uninterpreted fact? I can’t imagine we’d substantively disagree that much on this. Personally I have never argued that meaning is “permanently clouded by the act of interpretation.” I would say interpretation always looms over “meaning” but I would not suggest that this prohibits us from accessing meaning.
That’s not necessarily presuppostionalism: that’s an admission philosophers have generally conceded, particularly in our postmodern context.
To be honest, I’m not really sure what you mean by “certain.” Do I believe 2+2=4 is axiomatically true? Yes. Do I believe that law of noncontradiction is true? Yes. I’m not sure why you continue to press to the point of arguing I’m infallibly certain. I think you’re trying to show us that it is *Protestants* who are skeptics, so you are pressing on this point, but it seems to be derailing the conversation. You don’t claim to know 2+2=4 infallibly (I think) and this natural knowledge is distinguished from supernatural revelation, so I think we’re wondering from the point you’re trying to make anyway. I’m open to hearing why you think this is relevant, though.
As I’ve indicated to Susan, you’re asking loaded questions. The options are not either infallible knowledge or “provisional” (notice the quotation marks). If you don’t claim to be infallible, why are you certain about cows jumping over the moon or 2+2=5? I don’t understand what you are trying to advance or how you are offering anything different than Protestantism if you admit you’re not infallible.
LikeLike
James/Cletus,
How will this cash out if we aren’t vulcan mindmelding with the church?
We’re talking about possibilities here. We don’t claim Rome’s claims are logically impossible. We claim they are historically impossible given the evidence.
How will it cash out that the church can be infallible? I’m not sure what you are asking. It will cash out in the exegetical and historical evidence supporting the claim.
Also, if this were granted as true, would followers of that church – despite their fallibility – have a superior epistemic advantage than those who weren’t followers of that church?
Individual fallibility means that there is no inherent advantage to having a church that makes such claims. What matters is if the claims were true. If you can be certain that the claims of a fallible church are true, I’m not sure what the inherent advantage is of having someone else say, by the way, this is infallible. Truth is inherently infallible and unchangeable.
Evidence is “meaningless without interpretation” according to you, so you’re in no position to argue truth claims, let alone try to persuade others. That’s the problem with skepticism.
You are not following. Example: you walk by an open window on the street and you see a broken flower pot on the ground. Assuming you care and pay attention, you immediately stop and begin to infer something about the pot, that it was in the window, and that it hit the ground and that’s why it broke. You’ve done all sorts of interpretation there. Otherwise, the broken pot has no meaning. It’s just there.
I’m not a skeptic. I’m asserting that we aren’t blank slates and that an individual fact has any meaning apart from its relation to other facts.. The empty tomb is evidence for the resurrection only if you accept a whole lot of other facts necessary for that interpretation—God’s existence, that the Apostles are good witnesses, that supernatural things happen, etc. Otherwise, it’s just an unusual event. We see this all the time when full-on naturalists are presented with the empty tomb.
Okay, so please explain the mechanism in your system to distinguish divine revelation from provisional human opinion given you are arguing it is not necessary for something to be be offered as infallible in the first place – I would think at a bare minimum for a system to do that, it has to at least be able to offer something as infallible and non-provisional, otherwise you’re just blindly groping in the dark and fideistically grabbing anything.
The Holy Spirit speaking through the verifiable apostolic tradition—the Scriptures. All I see in RCism is “the Holy Spirit speaking through the Magisterium.” It’s unclear to me how that is more “principled.”
And once again, this makes Christ and the Apostles ability/authority and claims to and exercise of such ability/authority either useless or impossible without them also simultaneously mindmelding their followers. But their followers were never mindmelded.
That’s right. Which means that fallible followers of the Apostolic tradition don’t need another middleman to profess infallibility. It’s the specific Roman claims we deem pointless and not really helpful or necessary, not the claims of Christ. You want to equate denying the Magisterium with somehow making Jesus and the Apostles useless. That’s a jump you’ve yet to justify.
When an RC assents in faith, he is not justified in holding his system’s past, current or future offerings, teachings, identifications, definitions as provisional and subject to revision. Doing so would be inconsistent with the claims to authority/ability he submitted to in the first place. Just as would be the case for an NT believer assenting to Christ or the Apostles.
But you’ve said that there is stuff that could happen to make you not be RC, so in fact, if you mean that, you are holding your system’s past, current, or future offerings, teachings, identifications, definitions as provisional and subject to revision. Some new evidence could possibly arise to make you jettison the entire system. So, you hold to Rome being the true church provisionally and subject to revision. Let’s say in theory that’s the only thing you hold provisionally. It destroys your whole argument.
The only way out of it that I can see is to go the route that Susan and Mermaid have gone and say that there’s absolutely nothing to make them to stop being RC. But you haven’t done that yet. They are being consistent with your argument. You’re not. You are RC until evidence to the contrary arises. Provisional and subject to revision.
When a Protestant assents in faith, he is justified in holding his system’s past, current, or future offerings, teachings, identifications, definitions as provisional and subject to revision. Doing so is consistent with the disclaimers to authority/ability he submitted to in the first place. Just as would the case for an NT person assenting to rabbi Levi who claims he has no authority/ability to infallibly offer, define, teach, identify any non-provisional doctrine and everything he offers is provisional.
See above. And I’ll add, you keep paralleling fallible rabbi Levi and his system to Christ, which is a gross misunderstanding of Protestantism that reflects RCism’s assumptions about the church, which we deny. We deny that Christ passed on his infallibility to the Magisterium. Could he have? Sure. Is there any good reason to believe this happened? No.
You will continue to get nowhere with comparing the Magisterium to the Apostles as long as we reject the Magisterial claims. Looks like I’m right about facts having meaning only within an interpretative framework.
I’m not “trusting” in provisional statements.
You are trusting, in point of order, in the fallible interpretation of your mind that presents a claim to your will. You have no immediate apprehension of Rome. It’s all mediated to you.
You keep conflating order of knowledge and order of being.
You keep saying that without proving it.
Reality, authority, and truth exist outside of my and your minds.
Absolutely. But the claims of all of these must first go through my and your fallible mind before I can submit or not submit to them. Unless you are now an irrationalist.
And you just did it again. God is not reduced to our mental projection of Him.
Correct.
You’re embracing not only skepticism, but verging on solipsism now.
No, I’m not. I agree Rome makes a claim that the Trinity is God. I deny that this claim is unmediated. In point of order, you are first trusting your fallible mind to have gotten this claim right before you are trusting Rome itself. But you said trusting a fallible mediator is not good for assent of faith. That’s what you’re doing every time you interpret anythingt.
The followers of Christ/Apostles were corrected when mistaken and faith seeks understanding.
Yes.
It’s not just your apprehension of doctrine, its the doctrines themselves. That’s why I’ve repeatedly said what is *offered* in your *system* remains provisional and subject to revision, not only your apprehension.
We aren’t asking you to put faith in the church. You keep missing that very significant point.
But anyway, since the doctrines that your mind presents to your will are presented fallibly. So those doctrines remain provisional and subject to revision.
This is what the consistent thing should be given your argument and the way our minds and wills work if James’s Mind (JM) sees Roman claims and then talks to James’ will (JW):
JM: “James’ Will, I hereby fallibly offer to you the doctrine that Rome is infallible.”
JW: “James’ Mind, since the doctrine you are presenting to me is presented fallibly, I can’t give the assent of faith.”
How to fix this? One of two options:
1. Apply your assumptions consistently to the way human knowledge actually works:
JM: “James’ Will, I hereby infallibly offer to you the doctrine that Rome is infallible.”
JW: “James’ Mind, since the doctrine you are presenting to me is presented infallibly, I can give the assent of faith.”
You’ve already invalidated that by accepting we aren’t infallible.
2. Apply the way human knowledge actually works and see that you must change your assumptions to not be the radical skeptic that your argument makes you:
JM: “James’ Will, I hereby fallibly offer to you the doctrine that Rome is infallible.”
JW: “James’ Mind, even though the doctrine you are presenting to me is presented fallibly, I can give the assent of faith because infallibility is impossible for mere creatures. But God never made that a requirement for the assent of faith. He was fine with Adam’s fallible mind presenting to Adam’s will fallibly the infallible doctrine that God should be obeyed, and thus affirmed that an explicit claim of infallibility is not necessary for the assent of faith. Therefore, I can give the assent of faith.”
That, BTW, is the Protestant way to fix your dillema.
And because of that, you keep arguing you can never be 100% certain of anything, except that you’re 100% certain of that.
In fact that’s not my argument. My argument is that you have a fallible mediator that is the point of contact with your will no less than Protestants do, and as long as that is the case, the first claim presented to your will is a fallible one. Which means you don’t have an epistemic advantage.
Rome:
Infallible, unchanging revelation mediated through an infallible mediator (the church), whose claims are mediated to James’ will via a fallible mediator (James’ mind).
Protestant:
Infallible, unchanging revelation mediated through a fallible mediator (the church), whose claims are mediated to Robert’s will via a fallible mediator (Robert’s mind).
Both of us are fallible. Our minds present fallible claims to which we have to submit. But you say that means no certainty of faith.
LikeLike
Come on guys, everyone knows that 2+2=10. Of course, it is also true that 2+2=11. I can’t think of a case in which it would be equal to 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9. Though I’m not 100% certain and I’m *certainly* not infallible here. I would trust the authority of Jeff to correct me.
Now I might be right and the above could be true. But my knowledge is now and will forever be dependent (conditional on) knowing the rules of arithmetic. Thus my knowledge that 2+2=4, 2+2=10, and 2+2=11 are all provisional (i.e., fallible) and in principle subject to revision (even after I become certain of the true answer).
LikeLike
English Teacher
Posted December 17, 2015 at 5:01 pm | Permalink
Help wanted: infallible grammar and spell checker desperately needed for hire by Cats seeking certainty.>>>>>
Check your own grammar. Prove that you can write a complete sentence. Do we need 2 checkers or just one that does both jobs? Do we need a checker that will give us infallible grammar, but fallible spelling? If that is the case, then it would be the Protestants here looking for help.
If y’all got something to say, then say it clearly.
LikeLike
sdb,
“Now I might be right and the above could be true”
So you hold it is possible 2+2=10 and 11? Do you also hold it is possible the law of noncontradiction is false and that it is possible you do not exist? Is there anything you rule out as not being possible?
“I would trust the authority of Jeff to correct me. ”
If he told you that his correction of you was provisional and subject to revision, would you simultaneously hold that his correction was infallible?
If he told you that his correction of you was provisional and subject to revision, while also then claiming that his correction of you was something infallible by definition, would you go ahead and submit to that as infallible, or would you think that was contradictory and move on?
“Though I’m not 100% certain”
Are you 100% certain you are not 100% certain?
“Thus my knowledge that 2+2=4, 2+2=10, and 2+2=11”
Can you tell me the difference between true knowledge, false knowledge, and provisional knowledge?
“in principle subject to revision (even after I become certain of the true answer).”
Can you tell me the difference between a 100% certain belief and a 100% certain provisional belief, and a 100% certain truth and 100% certain provisional truth?
LikeLike
Brandon,
“I would say interpretation always looms over “meaning” but I would not suggest that this prohibits us from accessing meaning. ”
Good. We can use reason to recognize our biases and presuppositions and in order to correct those that skew or cloud our interpretation.
“Do I believe 2+2=4 is axiomatically true? Yes.Do I believe that law of noncontradiction is true? Yes.”
Are these beliefs subject to revision and possibly in error?
“I think you’re trying to show us that it is *Protestants* who are skeptics, so you are pressing on this point”
I’m not claiming all Protestants are skeptics. I am claiming some here are though, either explicitly or in the arguments they bring forth. I am also claiming RCs are not skeptics, and claiming that I am not advancing skepticism. Thus the questions.
“it seems to be derailing the conversation.”
What has derailed the conversation is assertions that vulcan mindmelding is needed for ascertaining and submitting to infallible truths offered by an authority claiming the ability/authority to do so, or assertions that because we’re fallible, anything we submit to can be and is no greater than our initial fallible assent, or assertions that all knowledge must remain provisional because we are finite creatures and so we can’t know with 100% certainty a cow’s or bat’s powers. That is why I have to ask these pedantic questions.
“If you don’t claim to be infallible, why are you certain about cows [not] jumping over the moon or 2+2=[4]?”
Because I have reason. We can reason to truth. We can attain and have non-provisional knowledge even as we’re finite. We can reason to physical, natural, metaphysical truths and certitude, and faith can *elevate* (not override our “non-neutral” reason) that reason so we can have certitude of faith “because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived.” We are not trapped in ever-provisionality and perpetual ignorance, either in the natural sphere or the supernatural sphere.
“I don’t understand what you are trying to advance or how you are offering anything different than Protestantism if you admit you’re not infallible.”
The contention is that there is no mechanism in Protestantism to distinguish divine revelation from provisional human opinion, consistent with its disclaimers to authority/ability, while RCism has such a mechanism, consistent with its claims to authority/ability. The fact that adherents in both systems are not infallible is irrelevant, just as the fact that NT adherents of Christ and the Apostles and NT adherents to rabbi Levi were both not infallible is irrelevant. But I already pointed that out 2000 comments ago.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted December 17, 2015 at 6:23 pm | Permalink
sdb,
“Now I might be right and the above could be true”
So you hold it is possible 2+2=10 and 11? Do you also hold it is possible the law of noncontradiction is false and that it is possible you do not exist? Is there anything you rule out as not being possible?
“I would trust the authority of Jeff to correct me. ”
If he told you that his correction of you was provisional and subject to revision, would you simultaneously hold that his correction was infallible?
If he told you that his correction of you was provisional and subject to revision, while also then claiming that his correction of you was something infallible by definition, would you go ahead and submit to that as infallible, or would you think that was contradictory and move on?
“Though I’m not 100% certain”
Are you 100% certain you are not 100% certain?
“Thus my knowledge that 2+2=4, 2+2=10, and 2+2=11″
Can you tell me the difference between true knowledge, false knowledge, and provisional knowledge?
“in principle subject to revision (even after I become certain of the true answer).”
Can you tell me the difference between a 100% certain belief and a 100% certain provisional belief, and a 100% certain truth and 100% certain provisional truth?>>>>>>>
You have demolished this epistemology of provisional knowledge over and over again. Why do they hold onto it so tightly as though it were salvation itself?
LikeLike
@cvd
Yepper, though I am a tad rusty, so I could be mistaken. I will defer to the fallible math authority among us. So yes, it is true that 2+2=10 or even 11. But not 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9.
LikeLike
sdb,
“so I could be mistaken.”
Is there anything you could not be mistaken about?
LikeLike
@cvd “Is there anything you rule out as not being possible?”
Your reading comprehension skills are pretty weak. As I noted in the verbiage you clipped…
“I can’t think of a case in which [2+2] would be equal to 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9. “
LikeLike
@cvd I don’t know…. I’m pretty dumb. But I think you should think harder about 2+2=10. You need to go around all the bases.
LikeLike
English Teacher
Posted December 17, 2015 at 5:01 pm | Permalink
Help wanted: infallible grammar and spell checker desperately needed for hire by Cats seeking certainty.>>>>>
How swinish. Making a liar of Dr. Hart once again about the “honor” of his Protestant allies.
LikeLike
sdb,
I know – it’s binary. Fun. The law of identity still holds.
So because you “can’t think of a case”, does that mean it is not possible 2+2 equals 5,6,7,8,9, or does it mean it is possible? It still seems like you think it might be possible and you’ll be corrected, since maybe you just haven’t thought of the case.
LikeLike
SDB: “I would trust the authority of Jeff to correct me. ”
CVD: If he told you that his correction of you was provisional and subject to revision, would you simultaneously hold that his correction was infallible?
If he told you that his correction of you was provisional and subject to revision, while also then claiming that his correction of you was something infallible by definition, would you go ahead and submit to that as infallible, or would you think that was contradictory and move on?
My guess is that SDB would do none of the above.
As it turns out, math simply doesn’t work by proof from authority. There are authorities in math — you want Rudin for analysis, Burden and Faire for numerical methods, and so on. But those authorities are considered so because
(a) They can communicate clearly, and
(b) They can demonstrate by clear reasoning that their results are logically derived from definition and axiom.
The notion of “infallibility” inheres to valid reasoning, and is always contingent upon (sdb would say “conditional upon”) the correctness of the axioms. It is the method, not the person, that preserves truth values. No particular practitioner of reasoning is considered infallible at it.
As an example, I have a linear algebra book by an acknowledged authority (Halmos). It has a problem that contains a clear error. Not just a typo — the problem is wrong. When I found the error after trying to solve the erroneous problem for two frustrating days, I created a small counterexample. And then, because I didn’t trust myself, I ran it past a math professor. He agreed with the counterexample and went a step further with it. There was no way to even repair the problem to make it correct.
So that’s how math works.
(1) The method of logical deduction is truth-preserving: true axioms generate true conclusions. False axioms generate either false conclusions or conclusions that are coincidentally true.
(2) There are authorities, but their word as authority is not considered a method of proof.
(3) Rather, valid proof is the whole game.
(4) The conclusions of proofs are not infallible truths, but truths conditioned upon the truth of the axioms.
So yes, math always provides provisional truth. 2+2 = 4 in particular is conditioned upon the truth of the Peano Postulates.
For all that, mathematics is pretty certain, wouldn’t we agree?
LikeLike
Jeff,
“So that’s how math works. ”
I agree “math simply doesn’t work by proof from authority”. That was not the point of the questions – I thought the analogy was pretty clear without spelling it out, considering we agree there are kinds and sets of truths that must be taken on the authority of another by their very nature.
“mathematics is pretty certain, wouldn’t we agree?”
Is there anything that is not “pretty certain”, but 100% certain?
LikeLike
I can’t be wrong about how embarrassed I will be if Jeff points out I failed arithmetic.
LikeLike
Brandon,
Can I ask what you personally do with scriptures that support the Catholic interpretation?
I have been asking Protestants here this question and no one ever answers me.
You said that if I am arguing that I am convinced from scripture that the Catholic Church is true, that that would be an entirely different discussion( or you said something close to this). And while, I have been talking about epistemology, I have not been saying that scripture didn’t clue me in.
It’s scripture that has told me to believe in one
Church that has authority. And it is scripture that tells me how to properly view Mary.
How could I possibly deny those without forcing myself to adopt a protestant presuppposition?
LikeLike
@cvd 2+2=10 isn’t true in binary. 2 isn’t defined.
LikeLike
Sdb,
“I can’t be wrong about how embarrassed I will be if Jeff points out I failed arithmetic.”
🙂
How about that male humans can’t turn into females?
LikeLike
I’m not sure that the absolute magnitude of Sirius is greater than our Sun.
Just being silly.
LikeLike
sdb,
That’s great. I’m fallible and misunderstood you. So is there anything you affirm or deny that is not provisional and subject to revision and possibility of error?
LikeLike
Clete,
How is the Roman Catholic position any different than the Protestant position in this regard? I truly don’t see any difference. Could you explain why its different for me?
LikeLike
You were certain 2+2=10 or 11 was absurd. Were you 100% certain? Now you realize you were wrong. Base 3 is just as valid as base 10 or any other base that might You also thought my statement that the law of gravity is false implied that I couldn’t know whether the Earth is flat. Were you 100% certain? Obviously you were wrong again…there are competing theories now that we recognize GR can’t be the final answer. Do you ever wonder how many things you are 100% certain of are wrong?
” The law of identity still holds.”
No doubt. And Avocados are $0.59 each at Aldis. So what?
“Is there anything that is not “pretty certain”, but 100% certain?”
I don’t think “things” can be certain. Certainty is a description of my one’s confidence in one’s knowledge. Lots of folks are 100% certain of things that are wrong. Clearly you are too certain about a lot of things too. But I could be wrong.
LikeLike
Susan, it’s also not very hard to believe in Homer Simpson’s Land of Chocolate with that “logic” or “epistemology” or “something philosophical.”
LikeLike
TLM: “(A different) Dan
Posted December 16, 2015 at 7:51 pm | Permalink
When it comes to music, Roger Miller is more my guy than Roger Williams. His “Dang Me” is a perfect summation of why us Southern males need a Savior.>>>>>>
I think Roger Williams might have liked the Born Free song the other Roger Williams wrote. Not sure what he would have thought of Roger Miller.”
The Baptist (for a few months) Roger Williams was a good Calvinist in soteriology, and would never have agreed that man was born free. As far as his opinion of Roger Miller is concerned, I am infallibly certain that he would have appreciated the epistemology and ontology of Dang Me. Particularly if I could get him in a good tavern. ☺
LikeLike
James Young, so what accounts for your mindmeld?
LikeLike
Susan, “I wasn’t looking for a fortune teller and I wasn’t looking for promises that mankind won’t annihilate himself.”
Were you seeking gay priests?
LikeLike
James Young, “Can you tell me the difference between true knowledge, false knowledge, and provisional knowledge?”
Is that what St. Peter is going to ask you at those pearly gates?
LikeLike
James Young, “Is there anything you could not be mistaken about?”
You are not b, sd’s wife.
LikeLike
James Young, “binary. Fun.”
The closest we’ve come to a comment about the gay priest phenomenon.
LikeLike
(A different) Dan
Posted December 17, 2015 at 9:29 pm | Permalink
TLM: “(A different) Dan
Posted December 16, 2015 at 7:51 pm | Permalink
When it comes to music, Roger Miller is more my guy than Roger Williams. His “Dang Me” is a perfect summation of why us Southern males need a Savior.>>>>>>
I think Roger Williams might have liked the Born Free song the other Roger Williams wrote. Not sure what he would have thought of Roger Miller.”
The Baptist (for a few months) Roger Williams was a good Calvinist in soteriology, and would never have agreed that man was born free. As far as his opinion of Roger Miller is concerned, I am infallibly certain that he would have appreciated the epistemology and ontology of Dang Me. Particularly if I could get him in a good tavern. ☺>>>
Sure, but he was all about freedom of religion, right? …or just about separation of church and state and anti Catholicism? 😉
Well, those Puritans were not tea totalers as far as I understand. Maybe he would get you into a good tavern.
Did the Baptist come at the end of his life? He’s just one of those kind of shadowy figures of our colonial days. Have you spent time studying his life and work?
Hey, you be careful out there, (A different) Dan. Are you (A different) Dan because you are different or because you are another Dan?
LikeLike
I said:
I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how the resurrection of Jesus Christ can be infallible information and provisional knowledge at the same time. I asked Bob S., and he either missed my question or dodged. Maybe he shrugged.>>>>
Robert:
Because there is a distinction between fact/event and your knowledge of the fact/event. You are fallible. Where you err is thinking fallible=wrong/doubtful=provisional.>>>>
There you go again. I have said many times that I KNOW I am fallible. I make all kinds of mistakes all the time. So do you. So does everyone.
You said that there is a possibility that the body – I assume bones – of Jesus might be found. That is a different matter. That is saying that the Bible itself – the rule of faith and practice that both of us hold to be infallible- might be wrong.
It’s drivin’ me crazy. I know, short drive, but seriously? You put the resurrection of Christ in the infallible category and the fallible at the same time!
Aghhhhh!!!!
LikeLike
TLM, I commented here a year or so back, before I had some health issues that kept me away for a while, just using the handle “Dan”. When I came back, I saw that some one else was using that handle. But I am also different, I guess, in that I am not Reformed. I am just a dumb Baptist.
You raise some good questions about the Rhode Island Roger Williams. I will try to respond to that in a day or two. I have studied him a good bit, but not lately, except as he has made an appearance in the recently published ” Baptists in America” by Kidd and Hankins.
More later.
LikeLike
(A different) Dan
Posted December 17, 2015 at 10:02 pm | Permalink
TLM, I commented here a year or so back, before I had some health issues that kept me away for a while, just using the handle “Dan”. When I came back, I saw that some one else was using that handle. But I am also different, I guess, in that I am not Reformed. I am just a dumb Baptist.
You raise some good questions about the Rhode Island Roger Williams. I will try to respond to that in a day or two. I have studied him a good bit, but not lately, except as he has made an appearance in the recently published ” Baptists in America” by Kidd and Hankins.
More later.>>>
Very cool. Yes, that will be interesting if you get a chance to respond. I understand that Kidd is one of the best. Sorry about your health issues. Hope you are feeling much better.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Susan
Posted December 17, 2015 at 5:23 pm | Permalink
Guilty! My grammar is poor.>>>>
No, it’s not. Your grammar is just fine. You write well, and your love for God and others comes through loud and clear. You’re okay.
LikeLike
Mermaid,
It’s a theoretical possibility that the body of Jesus might be found. Paul entertained it at least for the sense of argument. Thus there is a real but trivial-to-the-point-of-not-seriously-entertaining-it sense in which your knowledge that the resurrection is provisional. That’s what we mean when we talk about provisional knowledge. I don’t know your real name. Let’s say it is Mary. There’s a real but trivial-to-the-point-of-not-seriously-entertaining-it possibility that your parents lied to you, forged your birth certificate, and bribed everyone else to keep silent the fact that they really named you Sue. Consequently, your knowledge of your name is provisional. That’s what Protestants mean by provisional.
LikeLike
Merci, MWF
Let me also say that I wish Dan the best.
LikeLike
“It’s a theoretical possibility that the body of Jesus might be found. Paul entertained it at least for the sense of argument.”
Argument? It’s not theoretically possible because “it is finished” in real time.No, his writing is a rhetorical device.
LikeLike
Susan
Posted December 17, 2015 at 10:59 pm | Permalink
“It’s a theoretical possibility that the body of Jesus might be found. Paul entertained it at least for the sense of argument.”
Argument? It’s not theoretically possible because “it is finished” in real time. No, his writing is a rhetorical device.
They try so hard to convince you [and themselves?] that they are smart and you are stupid.
They consider themselves “wise and prudent,” babe. Rock on. 😉
LikeLike
Catholic peeps,
I assume that none of you would have a problem with the phrasing, “Christianity is true, provided that Jesus really was raised from the dead”?
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 17, 2015 at 10:32 pm | Permalink
Mermaid,
It’s a theoretical possibility that the body of Jesus might be found. Paul entertained it at least for the sense of argument. Thus there is a real but trivial-to-the-point-of-not-seriously-entertaining-it sense in which your knowledge that the resurrection is provisional. That’s what we mean when we talk about provisional knowledge. I don’t know your real name. Let’s say it is Mary. There’s a real but trivial-to-the-point-of-not-seriously-entertaining-it possibility that your parents lied to you, forged your birth certificate, and bribed everyone else to keep silent the fact that they really named you Sue. Consequently, your knowledge of your name is provisional. That’s what Protestants mean by provisional.
As a point of order, I haven’t seen Dr. Hart/Elder Hart/Darryl express the least bit of agreement with any of this “provisional” business, Robert. It’s you and Jeff with the occasional prop from SDB who is playing this.
You presume to speak for “Protestantism” here, but this is questionable, and perhaps even a negation of what “Protestantism” even is, since no man or church has the authority to bind your conscience.
Also, in reality, there is no “Protestant position” on anything, so your locution here is a non-starter. Show me a Protestant church that says X and I’ll find you one that says, no, no it’s Y!
Not only is there no “Protestant” position, there is no “Lutheran” position or “Presbyterian” position, no “Reformed” position, or “Calvinist” position. You are ecclesiastically permanently at war with yourselves.
By contrast, as much as Dr. Hart tries to make theological hay of Vatican II, there IS a “Catholic” position on most everything. By definition. That’s what “catholic” means.
LikeLike
If we’re going to talk points of order, then we should also note that you presume to speak for Catholicism while not admitting that you’re Catholic.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 17, 2015 at 11:15 pm | Permalink
Catholic peeps,
I assume that none of you would have a problem with the phrasing, “Christianity is true, provided that Jesus really was raised from the dead”?
Depends on how “provisional” you want to make your belief, Jeff. “Provisional belief” is not the same thing as faith, let’s get that straight first of all.
There are those who believe Paul hijacked the Christian religion. They call him “Paul the Apostle,” but he was never a member of the Twelve. Of the 500 brothers and sisters who witnessed the risen Christ, they presumably knew him from before his crucifixion.
Paul had never set eyes on Jesus of Nazareth. There were no witnesses to Paul’s account in verse 7 of the risen Christ appearing to him–presumably the only person who had never seen or met him.
Yet the Christian religion is heavily built around Paul, and his Epistles occupy about as much of the New Testament as the Gospels themselves.
But why should we–do we–put the words of Paul on par with the red-letter words of Jesus? Yet “Christianity” does, or at least the present/provisional form. Perhaps we should revisit the Epistles.
Where shall we draw the line, this far and no further? Who has the authority to draw it?
This has been the question from Ms. Mermaid that has been left unmolested, unanswered, and conspicuously dodged. By what authority did Martin Luther determine what should be in, and what should be out of the Bible?
What is to prevent the next Martin Luther from taking a bigger axe to it–or for that matter, add the Deuterocanonicals back in?
Now, Jeff, if you want to deconstruct the Christian religion with skepticism/provisionalism/philology/scholarship, I can hang. I’m familiar with the arguments. But Sir/St.Thomas More saw where that leads some 500 years ago. The beat goes on.
Click to access moretyndale.pdf
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 17, 2015 at 11:54 pm | Permalink
If we’re going to talk points of order, then we should also note that you presume to speak for Catholicism while not admitting that you’re Catholic.
The Catholics here have never complained that I have misrepresented the “Catholic” position, in fact they have found some of my clarificactions against Dr. Hart’s mistakes/misapprehensions/misrepresentations [choose the vincibility of his guilt for yrself] of what the Catholic Church teaches to be of value.
Therefore, Dr. Cagle, if the Catholics here gathered have no problems with my contributions to the discussion, your bringing up my personal beliefs or affiliations is ad hom, and out of order.
If I must defend myself from you, I also defend fundies and Mormons on the internet, you could look it up. I’m that kinda guy. Do not presume to know me, because you don’t, OK, Jeff? I’ve defended David Barton and even the heinous Mark Driscoll from what I thought were dishonest attacks. Defending people from unjust slime does not amount to an endorsement.
I would even defend Darryl G. Hart if I found him unfairly attacked. I vaguely recall explaining his “radical” Two Kingdoms theologizing once sympathetically when someone misrepresented it.
Zetetic. You have done well here, man, make no mistake. I’m just not sure that you sincerely believe your quite eloquent defence of your own unbelief. ;.
-)
http://facstaff.uww.edu/carlberj/aquin.htm
LikeLike
Robert, and what would happen when the find Mary’s body?
LikeLike
vd, t, “there IS a “Catholic” position on most everything”
does that include going to Mass?
LikeLike
vd, t, “The Catholics here have never complained that I have misrepresented the “Catholic” position, in fact they have found some of my clarificactions against Dr. Hart’s mistakes/misapprehensions/misrepresentations [choose the vincibility of his guilt for yrself] of what the Catholic Church teaches to be of value.”
But you deny the bodily assumption of Mary?
And you’re going to trust these homers about what good Roman Catholicism is? Will they vouch for you on That Great Day?
LikeLike
Susan,
Argument? It’s not theoretically possible because “it is finished” in real time.No, his writing is a rhetorical device.
Sure it’s theoretically possible. Just about anything is theoretically possible, and in arguments, correspondence, conversations, people will entertain the theoretically possible all the time.
If you are presenting the objective evidence for the resurrection to a skeptic who thinks the disciples stole the body, you would say, “Alright, let’s assume the disciples did steal the body. Now let’s look at the evidence and see if the theory lines up with it…”
The Christian claim is, “Jesus is Lord, since He rose from the dead.” It’s not, “Jesus is Lord, since the Roman Church tells me so.” It’s not, “Jesus is Lord even if they find his body in a grave in Jerusalem.”
I really don’t mean to be cruel, but the fact that you and Mermaid can’t even entertain the possibility in theory shows that your faith is not based on evidence but on what you want to be true or what you think needs to be true. It looks more like the robotic assent that you see in cults. Even CVD doesn’t go that far.
LikeLike
speaking of ‘canonization’(to sanction or approve authoritatively) –appreciate the discussion -but could we just please get really practical for a minute with an example from this am re: fact distinction, knowledge, provisional, fallible, infallible, for us simple –
how shall we know from God about the Vatican’s ‘ascertaining’ and ‘authoritative approving’ of ‘sainthood’ and ‘assigning highest honor’ job from Scripture. Because what I know from Scripture (no, not provisionally) is that this is the Lord’s job alone.
“Pope Francis has signed off on the miracle needed to make Mother Teresa a saint, giving the nun who cared for the poorest of the poor one of the Catholic Church’s highest honors just two decades after her death…The miracle needed for her canonization concerns the inexplicable cure in 2008 of a man in Brazil with multiple brain abscesses who, within a day of being in a coma, was cured, according to a report in Avvenire, the newspaper of the Italian bishops’ conference. The Vatican ascertained that his wife’s prayers for Mother Teresa’s intercession were responsible, the report said.” https://news.yahoo.com/report-pope-oks-miracle-mother-teresas-canonization-084415600.html
GOD is the Judge of all (Heb 12:23); and all will give account to HIM, who judges the living and the dead. (1 Pet 4:5); it is HE who decides reward greatness in heaven (Luke 6:23); HE who rewards HIS work (1 Cor 3:13-14); it is time to believe HIM, for HE is coming quickly and HIS reward is with HIM, to render to every man according to what he has done. (Rev 22:12)
2 Tim 4:7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; 8 in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing.
LikeLike
Jeff,
“Is this a correct rendering of your argument?”
Sounds good to me, provisionally. Adherents of Christ and the Apostles and those sent with divine authorization were not made personally infallible or omniscient, nor were they mindmelded.
“(2) What is the “epistemic advantage” that you speak of?”
The grounds to distinguish divine revelation from provisional human opinion. The grounds to have the warrant and certitude of faith. When Christ and the Apostles infallibly defined, taught, offered, identified non-provisional doctrine or normatively judged/taught something binding upon all by virtue of the authority/ability they claimed, their followers were not justified in holding such doctrines or judgments – either past, present, or future – as provisional, tentative, subject to revision, possibly in error, open to dispute and debate.
“(3) What mechanism are you positing that confers said advantage?”
The church as guided and protected by the Holy Spirit.
“(4) Related to (3), would you say that followers of bar Kochba that believed him to be the Messiah (hence presumably infallible) had the same epistemic advantage as the followers of Jesus?”
Mormonism, EO, JWs, Rome, Crazy Dave the Street Prophet make claims to authority/ability to offer non-provisional teaching. That does not mean their claims are equally credible. There were false prophets and true prophets. False messiahs and a true messiah. They all made the necessary, though not sufficient, claims for someone to consider them as a contendor for offering divine revelation, namely the authority/ability to offer infallible non-provisional teaching in the first place.
LikeLike
sdb,
“You were certain 2+2=10 or 11 was absurd.”
Here’s what I said: “So you hold it is possible 2+2=10 and 11?”
I never gave my position on 2+2=10 and 11. I simply asked you questions. I did give my position on 2+2=4 which I am 100% certain on. Because we can actually know truth even if we’re not omniscient.
”The law of identity still holds.”
– No doubt. And Avocados are $0.59 each at Aldis. So what?”
Because you were trying to be clever in being ambiguous with your statements. 2+2=4 does not mean 2+2=10 in the same sense. Because of the law of identity. That’s why you say “Base 3 is just as valid as base 10 or any other base”. You were equivocating on 2+2. Everyone normally assumes base 10 since that’s the most widely used in common life.
“that might You also thought my statement that the law of gravity is false implied that I couldn’t know whether the Earth is flat.”
Are you 100% certain the Earth is flat, or is that belief subject to correction and possibly in error?
Since you know it, can you tell me the difference between true knowledge, false knowledge, and provisional knowledge?
“in principle subject to revision (even after I become certain of the true answer).”
Since you’re certain of true answers, can you tell me the difference between a certain belief and a certain subject-to-revision belief, and a truth and a subject-to-revision truth?
LikeLike
CvD:
I never gave my position on 2+2=10 and 11. I simply asked you questions. I did give my position on 2+2=4 which I am 100% certain on. Because we can actually know truth even if we’re not omniscient.>>>>
Yes, we can. sdb is equivocating.
LikeLike
CVD,
Because we can actually know truth even if we’re not omniscient.
Ding, ding, ding.
But without omniscience, your apprehension of truth remains ever provisional, subject to correction at least in theory.
Ergo, your “mechanism” for separating truth from opinion is your provisional apprehension of what Rome says. Doesn’t sound very principled.
LikeLike
@cvd
Funny, what I read was,
In response to,
Are you sure you didn’t mean your original response rhetorically? As in, 2+2=10 is as silly as rejecting the law of non-contradiction. It is a really strange question to ask given what I wrote if you didn’t mean it rhetorically.
LikeLike
“Because we can actually know truth even if we’re not omniscient.”
Who says otherwise?
I’m going to take a flyer and say that I am not 100% sure the Earth is flat. I would say that it is an oblate spheroid with an aspect ratio of 1.003364+/-0.000001. Thus I am 99.8% certain that the deviation from 1.003364 is less than 0.000003. The odds of the aspect ratio deviating by more than 0.000006 are one in 10million. I’ll leave it as an exercise to you to figure the size of the deviation that can be ruled out at the level of 1 in 10^78 (roughly the number of atoms in the universe). The fact that my knowledge of the shape of the earth is revisable does not entail that I can’t rule somethings out definitively.
Well, off the top of my head, here is a quick stab at it. I don’t use these categories, and I don’t see how they are really all that clarifying, but here goes anyway…
True knowledge: beliefs unconditionally isomorphic to reality. Consistent and comprehensive
False knowledge: beliefs not isomorphic to reality
Provisional knowledge: beliefs isomorphic to observables. The observables could be misapprehended.
certain belief: A belief in a necessary truth such as a tautology.
certain subject-to-revision belief: A belief that one has a high degree of confidence in that has an error bar associated with it.
Truth: correct description of reality
Subject to revision truth: truthlikeness is a bit less clumsy isn’t it? Here is a long, but helpful essay. I like the start of the conclusion: We are all fallibilists now, but we are not all skeptics, or antirealists or nihilists. I am an antirealist as it relates to science, but I like the sentiment anyway.
LikeLike
Robert,
“How will it cash out that the church can be infallible? I’m not sure what you are asking”
How will adherents know or come to know infallible teaching that the church offers if everything passes through their fallible minds, which you keep arguing necessitates the mindmeld?
“Individual fallibility means that there is no inherent advantage to having a church that makes such claims.”
So a church that has the authority/ability to offer infallible teaching has no advantage over one that doesn’t. So Christ and the Apostles gave their adherents no advantage over rabbi Levi. As I said, you are making it impossible for the HS to infallibly guide/protect the church or enable it to infallibly offer non-provisional teaching (unless mindmelding occurs). Why? Solely because of “individual fallibility”.
“Truth is inherently infallible and unchangeable.”
And yet you insistently argue you can never grasp truth, because everything offered in your system, and everything you personally hold is provisional and subject to revision.
“you walk by an open window ”
How do I know it’s open and it’s a window?
“You’ve done all sorts of interpretation there. ”
Yes, I’ve reasoned. We can reason to truth, or misuse or defectively or ignorantly reason to conclude falsehood. I didn’t need to fideistically presuppose something that then dictated my “interpretation” of the facts in which case my conclusion would be equally false as it is true.
“I’m not a skeptic.”
It’s possible that cows have not revealed their power to jump over moons yet according to you. The best we can answer to a question about that is “according to the evidence we have, it seems they can’t do it”. Perpetual ignorance.
“Otherwise, it’s just an unusual event. We see this all the time when full-on naturalists are presented with the empty tomb. ”
Yes, that doesn’t make their rejection reasonable. That doesn’t mean reason isn’t neutral (or, relatedly, preclude that one can abuse reason or reason defectively and poorly) or that we are slaves to biases and presuppositions. Again, this was explicitly addressed by Joshua in his replies to you:
“biblical miracles [do not] cease to be valid evidence because someone rejects it, or has presuppositions against such miracles. The validity of the evidence (the motives of credibility) is not relative and does not depend on such and such a person accepting them for them to be valid.”
“You seem to want to say that everyone is equally biased by their own presuppositions, and that bias equally obfuscates the truth, in such a way that we could only, possibly, accidentally stumble on the truth of something by reason. Or, perhaps you are trying to say, in a ‘round about way, that there is no way to truly exercise reason. Either way, if our presuppositions determine how the evidence is read (despite or apart from reason) it boils every decision we make down to a type of fideism, because any system I choose cannot really be objectively measured in any significant way by reason and must be determined solely by my presupposition.”
“Do Muslims reject the evidence? Sure. Is their rejection of it reasonable? No, nor are the reasons and explanations that they give for rejecting it. There is a difference in there being a reason and some way of explaining everything away and it being a reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Atheists say that the universe just came into existence ‘from nothing, by nothing and for nothing’ and ‘chance’ is their reason for this having happened; is this a reasonable explanation? No, because logic tells us that it is impossible, and they should know this despite their presuppositions. That is why we know that there is a God, and that is why St. Paul says that mankind is without excuse.”
“Bryan gave the example of the cow jumping over the moon. We know a cow cannot jump over the moon, because the cow does not have the power to do such a thing. How do I know this? Have I observed every cow? No. Do I need to? No. There is more than sufficient empirical evidence to support the fact that ‘no cow can ever jump over the moon under its own power’ and there is zero evidence to support the contrary. And, if I ever saw a cow jump over the moon, my conclusion would be that the cow had to have been assisted by some outside force (it would not be a reasonable conclusion that the cow somehow did it of its own accord, or, that it happened by ‘chance’).”
“But, that does not make their rejection of Him reasonable; rather it only shows that their rejection of Him is in the face of the bare evidence (MoC) provided. If their rejection of Jesus was, and is, reasonable, how can they be punished for it (especially punished more severely having witnessed the miracles as is attested to by Jesus Himself)? Could they not say ‘But Lord, we did not know, we were expecting something different and we believed those miracles were the work of a deceiving spirit.’? I don’t think that’s the picture that either the Old or the New Testament paints; it paints a picture of it really being inherently unreasonable to reject the bare miracles presented to them. So, again, I say maintaining this line of reasoning undermines your own arguments, and implicitly accuses God, Jesus and the Apostles of being unreasonable (because the miracles are presented as true unconditional evidence). Your argument seem to be that ‘X is not a motive of credibility unless one presupposes it’ and then indicate that ‘trying to use X as a motive of credibility with those that do not presuppose it is unreasonable’ yet God uses X as a motive of credibility, with the threat of extra punishment, for even those that do not presuppose it (the Jews, for example, that did not presuppose the Apostolic interpretation of the miracles). Do you not see the problem?”
“Do people reject the ‘motives of credibility’ such as miracles because of their presuppositions? Sure, I don’t think anyone would deny that. However, that does not make the rejection reasonable at all (let alone equally reasonable with acceptance) because the evidence is still valid regardless of one’s interpretative perspective. An Atheist, for example, could say (and they do) that ‘those hundreds of people that saw the ‘resurrected’ Jesus could have just had a mass hallucination’ but just because he says such a thing does mean that this assertion is equally reasonable simply because it is asserted, or because millions of people believe this, or even because it is theoretically possible for 500 people to hallucinate at the same time. If it were equally reasonable to conclude that it was a hallucination rather than a miraculous resurrection, or that the resurrection, while true, proves nothing of itself then you cannot escape an implicit belief in total fideism (because what would be the deciding factor between the truth claims of various systems of belief? It could not be reason, because rejection of the evidence for one or the other would appear to be equally reasonable. Therefore, I would be compelled to make a blind leap of faith toward one or the other. I.E. Fideism)”
“Can people accept the motives of credibility based on their presuppositions also? Sure. I would say that some people are more disposed towards the truth than others; some become Christians quickly after exposure to the Gospel and others take many years of reasoning and conflict before becoming Christians. In the same fashion, some become Catholics quickly when exposed to the MoC and others take decades of reasoning and debate to convert. But, I think the mistake you make is in assuming that the decision is determined by the presupposition as if the evidence is not subject to reason. I may have an erroneous presupposition that makes me bias toward or against something, but I can overcome or eliminate such a presupposition through logical reasoning alone, if I am willing. In addition, my presupposition one way or the other does not change the validity of the motives of credibility; either they are rationally valid or invalid on their own grounds (through reason and logic) completely apart from presuppositions. A bias may influence one’s interpretation to some degree, but it doesn’t vitiate their ability to reason.”
Moving along,
“The Holy Spirit speaking through the verifiable apostolic tradition—the Scriptures.”
That the Holy Spirit exists, that the Scriptures are the verifiable apostolic tradition, that the current Protestant canon and contents therein are the extent of these Scriptures, and that the Holy Spirit speaks through them are all offered as provisional teachings in your system. So you still haven’t shown the mechanism in your system for distinguishing divine revelation from provisional opinion.
“Which means that fallible followers of the Apostolic tradition don’t need another middleman to profess infallibility.”
You evaded the argument again. You are claiming we can’t bypass our fallible minds, thus anything offered as infallible by an authority claiming the ability to do so, gives no advantage or sure grounding, unless such an authority mindmelded with its adherents. But you agree NT followers of Christ and the Apostles didn’t mindmeld. So there goes the mindmeld argument.
“you are holding your system’s past, current, or future offerings, teachings, identifications, definitions as provisional and subject to revision.”
No I’m not. That’s the point. If I did, I wouldn’t have assented to the claims in the first place, nor would I be walking by faith and not sight. Vat1: “Consequently, the situation of those, who by the heavenly gift of faith have embraced the Catholic truth, is by no means the same as that of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion; for those who have accepted the faith under the guidance of the Church can never have any just cause for changing this faith or for calling it into question.”
Protestantism can never offer such a teaching in its system, because everything it offers is provisional and subject to revision, due to its disclaimers.
“you keep paralleling fallible rabbi Levi and his system to Christ, which is a gross misunderstanding of Protestantism that reflects RCism’s assumptions about the church, which we deny. ”
Of course you deny it. That’s why the parallel applies. One system claims the ability/authority to offer non-provisional teaching. One system rejects that authority/ability. In neither case was mindmelding happening.
“You keep conflating order of knowledge and order of being.
– You keep saying that without proving it.”
Let’s see:
“You are fallible, and since you’ve “established” that something fallible can be no ground for faith”
“someone to say “This here is infallible” and then shrugging the fact that your mind fallibly presents to your will for your will’s submission”
“Your position gives YOU as an individual no foundation for submitting to Magisterial claims as long as your fallible reason presents Rome’s claim to your will.”
“Does your mind present “Rome claims the ability to distinguish fact/revelation from opinion” to your will in a fallible manner or an infallible manner. Fallibly, right? Therefore, you have no professed infallible claim to which you can submit.””
“But since the claim presented to your will for submission is the result of your fallible mind working on the evidence, what is actually presented to you is a fallible claim.”
“But those teachings/judgments don’t impact you or I immediately. They pass through my mind and your mind”
“You are trusting, in point of order, in the fallible interpretation of your mind”
“In point of order, you are first trusting your fallible mind to have gotten this claim right before you are trusting Rome itself.”
“But the claims of all of these must first go through my and your fallible mind”
“But anyway, since the doctrines that your mind presents to your will are presented fallibly. So those doctrines remain provisional and subject to revision.”
“CVD: And nothing Protestantism declares is declared as infallible, but as provisional and subject to revision. Which is the point.
R: And nothing your mind proposes to your will…
CVD: Yes, and as I pointed out to Bob, everything offered in Protestantism is done so with the possiblity of error. That’s the point.
R: And everything your mind offers to you about Rome is done so with the possibility of error. That’s the point.
“And the RC position is offered to your will as provisional and subject to revision by your mind, since you don’t have the Vulcan mindmeld or immediate apprehension.”
“He keeps shrugging that off, but if you are going to say you can’t have certainty of faith without something being offered as infallible, you must deal with the fact of mediated knowledge.”
I don’t know why you keep saying “in point of order” – I agree I am using my senses and mind first in the order of knowing – that’s just obvious and universal. But that’s not the order of being, again. It does not follow because I fallibly apprehend things, no authority or teaching can exceed my fallibility, nor does it follow that we can’t truly know or apprehend reality, authority, or truth outside of ourselves, or even if anything external to our minds and mental apprehension exists in the first place.
“I can give the assent of faith because infallibility is impossible for mere creatures.”
Fallibility does not entail I cannot know truth. I can have true knowledge and 100% certainty – both in natural and supernatural matters. It’s skepticism to say we can’t truly know anything and can never have 100% certainty and must remain in perpetual ignorance and provisionality.
“He was fine with Adam’s fallible mind presenting to Adam’s will fallibly the infallible doctrine that God should be obeyed”
Yep, Adam was fallible. So were NT adherents of Christ and the Apostles. God, Christ, Apostles infallibly offered non-provisional teaching to their adherents – no mindmeld needed. Something that can never obtain in your system, due to its disclaimers.
LikeLike
Cvd: Mormonism, EO, JWs, Rome, Crazy Dave the Street Prophet make claims to authority/ability to offer non-provisional teaching. That does not mean their claims are equally credible.
Agreed, but in our exercise we are assuming the system in question. So the credibility of the claims is important, but out of the scope of our agreed inpection of systems.
So to be clear: given bar Kochba’s claims, would his followers have the same epistemic advantage you are positing for Catholics?
LikeLike
Okay, I finally figured out what was grating on me so much with the bat, the cow, and the 2 + 2 = 4 stuff.
Jeff asks:
“Can a cow jump over the moon?”
Any sane person answers:
No.
Jeff asks:
Are you 100 % certain?
Any sane person answers:
Yes.
Jeff asks:
What if blah, blah blah. [creating an impossible scenario]
Any sane person answers:
Jeff, you are out of your mind. Cows can barely even jump let alone jump over the moon.
So, any sane person concludes that Jeff is out of his mind or pulling their leg. He insists that no one really gets what he is saying.
Same with the bat. Same with the math.
Then sdb tries the equivocation route, which creates all kinds of fallacious argumentation.
Now, apply this to Jesus who died and rose again according to the Scripture. If Jesus had not risen from the dead, then of course His body could have been found. That is a sane proposition. Dead people have dead bodies that generally can be located.
The cow, bat, and flawed math are completely different and yes, quite impossible under any circumstances unless you change the definitions in the middle of the argument, or you are using non standard definitions that you have not revealed until the person gets the answer “wrong.” It is basically a dishonest and fallacious way to present an argument.
Now look at the death of Jesus. It is not impossible to find the bodies of dead people. There are real cases of bones being found that are really, really old – bones of real people who really died.
However, Jeff and the Reformed guys also have infallibility to factor in. They are pretending that only Catholics have to defend infallibility. They have to as well.
Their infallible rule of faith and practice says very clearly that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. That is an infallible, 100% factual event if the Protestants here are going to continue to claim sola scriptura. You know. The Bible is the only INFALLIBLE rule of faith and practice.
That gives the Protestants a huge problem. The Protestant canon is not closed. No one has the authority to do that, and no one has done it. No one in Protestantism has the authority to say to the Jesus Seminar that what they are doing is not Christian.
Some Lutherans are wondering what happened to their Lutheran Bibles. Where’s the Apocrypha in the Protestant Bibles these days? Who is going to convince them that it should not be in the Bible even at the back of the book. People might get confused, or whatever justification there is for Protestants to remove it completely.
Then there are the passages that have been called into question by the textual critics. There are many, not just the pericope we discussed a little while ago.
You can claim to have an infallible rule of faith and practice all you want. You cannot enforce it on anyone except maybe your small group of people who think more or less like you do. Even then who gets to decide if the pericope goes or stays?
You guys have problems establishing in your groups the real infallible authority of God’s own Word. What Word? Who gets to decide at the end of the day?
Each individual, really, using his or her own reason and whatever other criteria they may wish to use.
LikeLike
TLM, you asked some questions about Roger Williams, and it was too late to really respond. It looks like the volume of posts to this thread is declining, so perhaps I won’t be sidetracking it ☺
If, around 1653, when he was 53 and 5 decades into his 80 year life, one that was always involved in controversy, you asked a panel of his prominent English and Colonial American contemporaries to name The Most Interesting Man in The World, I would wager that Williams would garner a few votes. That is, if the panel were granted anonymity. There is little doubt that he would have, at least, been the smartest guy in most rooms. He was from an obscure family, but attracted patrons such as Edmund Coke, compiled an excellent record at Cambridge, spoke five modern European languages, and was the first person to ever publish on Native American languages. The Wikipedia article on his early life is actually decent.
He really did believe in freedom of conscience and separation of Church and state. He really did befriend Indians and was scrupulous in his dealings with them. He really did try to keep slavery out of Rhode Island. (To address a specific question of yours, he didn’t like Catholics, but he might have disliked Quakers more. He just didn’t think they should be hung, as they were in Massachusetts Bay.)
You can see why it would be tempting for Secular modernists to adopt him as a mascot. But there is a problem– his theology isn’t attractive to them. He affirmed original sin, the Trinity and Hell all his life, at a time when “freethinkers” were denying one or more of these doctrines. As far as I can tell, there was never a hint in any of his writings, even of Arminianism. And his most influential works on freedom of conscience, treatment of the Indians and opposition to slavery, and such of his private correspondence as has been found, are strongly based on the Bible. He was certainly aware of arguments based on the common law and used them (strongly influenced by Coke), but his passion– and it was real and comes through in his writings– was Biblically based.
But there is also a problem for those on the traditionalist side– his ecclesiology. He was pastor of the first Baptist Church in Rhode Island for less than a year, around 1636, but withdrew as pastor because he became convinced of apolistic succession. Yeah for your side, right? Well, no, because he also believed that no Church could claim apolistic warrant because the chain was broken by Constantine (“Nero was a better friend to the Church than Constantine”) and establishment of a “true” Church would have to wait until God sent new apostles. (No, there is no indication he thought that he was one.). Oddly, at least to our sense of logic, he maintained this position while continuing to preach in various places from time to time and lead various public prayer services.
A misfit, you might say, but apparently not to his contemporaries. He was shockingly effective in politics. Massachusetts Bay called on him repeatedly to help them make peace with Indian tribes. He was elected to various positions in Providence, and was an amazingly effective lobbyist for the colony on two trips back to England. He never seemed to have a problem finding a pulpit to preach in if he wanted to, and what there is of a record suggests that he maintained cordial, even warm, relations with many who you would think would be his enemies. (Including John Winthrop.)
The best recent treatment of him that we are likely to get for a while is by John M. Barry, Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul. Barry is a good writer, but to me he here fails to keep an appropriate distance from his subject matter. It would not be fair of me to say that it is hagiography, it clearly isn’t, but he over rates Williams’ influence on the generation that gave us the Bill of Rights. Those guys left extensive writings behind, public and private and you just don’t find references to Williams. Barry tries mightily to bring him in through Locke, but he falls short there, in my opinion. He is also weak on Williams’ later years. It is really not fair to the man to try to make his life relevant to something that happened a hundred years after he died, when hardly anybody actually involved seems to have remembered him.
(Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, you might like the play☺. Barry is a good writer. I own two other books by him, The Great Influenza and Rising Tide, which is about the 1928 Great Flood of the Mississippi River. That book won the freaking Parkman Prize, which is amazing when you consider that Barry dropped out of grad school and coached football! I read a library copy of the Williams book, but didn’t see the need to own it. )
Well, this has gone on long enough. It is not easy to do, but you might try reading Williams’ The Bloody Tenent. I am sure it is available on the web, but the language is archaic, as is the spelling, and many of the references to current events are obscure. I had to read it in college (under a kerosene lamp☺) for a course in Early American Literature that was taught by a wonderful Professor.
BTW, thank you for your kind concern about my health. That goes for Susan, also.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Yep, Adam was fallible. So were NT adherents of Christ and the Apostles. God, Christ, Apostles infallibly offered non-provisional teaching to their adherents – no mindmeld needed. Something that can never obtain in your system, due to its disclaimers.
But we have the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, so I have the non-provisional stuff you want. That’s the point you keep missing. If NT believers were fallible and could attain certainty based on the words of Jesus and the Apostles, there’s no reason we can’t. There was no infallible middleman then, so there is no need for one now. The Church is not the Apostles. Talk about missing the ontology.
LikeLike
Ali
Posted December 18, 2015 at 8:14 am | Permalink
speaking of ‘canonization’(to sanction or approve authoritatively) –appreciate the discussion -but could we just please get really practical for a minute with an example from this am re: fact distinction, knowledge, provisional, fallible, infallible, for us simple –
how shall we know from God about the Vatican’s ‘ascertaining’ and ‘authoritative approving’ of ‘sainthood’ and ‘assigning highest honor’ job from Scripture. Because what I know from Scripture (no, not provisionally) is that this is the Lord’s job alone.
“Pope Francis has signed off on the miracle needed to make Mother Teresa a saint, giving the nun who cared for the poorest of the poor one of the Catholic Church’s highest honors just two decades after her death…The miracle needed for her canonization concerns the inexplicable cure in 2008 of a man in Brazil with multiple brain abscesses who, within a day of being in a coma, was cured, according to a report in Avvenire, the newspaper of the Italian bishops’ conference. The Vatican ascertained that his wife’s prayers for Mother Teresa’s intercession were responsible, the report said.” https://news.yahoo.com/report-pope-oks-miracle-mother-teresas-canonization-084415600.html
GOD is the Judge of all (Heb 12:23); and all will give account to HIM, who judges the living and the dead. (1 Pet 4:5); it is HE who decides reward greatness in heaven (Luke 6:23); HE who rewards HIS work (1 Cor 3:13-14); it is time to believe HIM, for HE is coming quickly and HIS reward is with HIM, to render to every man according to what he has done. (Rev 22:12)
2 Tim 4:7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; 8 in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing.
The better question is why do and how can Calvinists call themselves “saints?” “The elect?” Sez who?
Even if there is “election” and double predestination, who says the Calvinists are the lucky ones?
[As for your question about the Catholic saints, the simple Catholic reply is
Jesus says this to the apostles, and of course the Catholic Church claims apostolic succession. You may reject that claim, but it’s quire defensible Biblically.]
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted December 18, 2015 at 1:18 pm | Permalink
“(2) What is the “epistemic advantage” that you speak of?”
The grounds to distinguish divine revelation from provisional human opinion. The grounds to have the warrant and certitude of faith. When Christ and the Apostles infallibly defined, taught, offered, identified non-provisional doctrine or normatively judged/taught something binding upon all by virtue of the authority/ability they claimed, their followers were not justified in holding such doctrines or judgments – either past, present, or future – as provisional, tentative, subject to revision, possibly in error, open to dispute and debate.
“(3) What mechanism are you positing that confers said advantage?”
The church as guided and protected by the Holy Spirit.
This needed to be asked after 900 comments? It’s Square One of the Catholic argument.
Geez.
The point is that the Holy Spirit gives us the Church and she, in turn, gives us the sacraments. St. Augustine taught us,
(1) This realization led Cardinal Newman to declare that “Holy Church in her sacraments . . . will remain, even to the end of the world, after all but a symbol of those heavenly facts which fill eternity.” (2)
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/the-holy-spirit-in-the-sacraments.html
Not provisional.
_______
*”What the soul is to man’s body, the Holy Spirit is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church. The Holy Spirit does in the whole Church what the soul does in all members of one body. But see what you must beware of, see what you must take note of, see what you must fear. It happens that in the human body, or rather, off the body, some member, whether hand, finger, or foot, may be cut away. And if a member be cut off, does the soul go with it? When the member was in the body, it lived; and off, its life is lost. So too, a Christian man is Catholic while he lives in the body; cut off, he is made a heretic; the Spirit does not follow an amputated member.”
Sermons, 267, 4, 391-430 A.D.
Apparently Augustine does not believe in TULIP’s “P.” Who to believe, Augustine or John Calvin? What standard shall we apply? One of them is wrong.
LikeLike
(A different) Dan:
Well, this has gone on long enough. It is not easy to do, but you might try reading Williams’ The Bloody Tenent. I am sure it is available on the web, but the language is archaic, as is the spelling, and many of the references to current events are obscure. I had to read it in college (under a kerosene lamp☺) for a course in Early American Literature that was taught by a wonderful Professor.>>>>
That is fascinating, Dan. Thank you so much for the great summary. Sounds like a good man. You know that part about apostolic succession is really interesting. What Paul said to Timothy about teaching faithful men who would teach others also has to mean something. At least Williams was willing to associate that with apostolic succession.
I’ll dig around the Internet to find that piece by Williams. My spelling is a bit archaic at times – or maybe just wrong. 😉
(A different) Dan:
BTW, thank you for your kind concern about my health. That goes for Susan, also.>>>>
You are more than welcome. Having health problems is no fun at all. Glad you are feeling some better.
You have a great rest of the evening, Brother Dan. All is well around our place.
Hey, nice to hear from you.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 18, 2015 at 2:46 pm | Permalink
CVD,
Because we can actually know truth even if we’re not omniscient.
Ding, ding, ding.
But without omniscience, your apprehension of truth remains ever provisional, subject to correction at least in theory.
Ergo, your “mechanism” for separating truth from opinion is your provisional apprehension of what Rome says. Doesn’t sound very principled.
By stating it over and over and over you seem to think this argument is too deep to be understood by your interlocutors. It is understood.
The reply is that this argument leads nowhere because applies to you as well, regardless of Rome–you have no reason to prefer Luther over Calvin or them over Augustine and Aquinas. You have simply deconstructed and reduced not only faith. but truth itself into a matter of mere opinion.
This is what is meant socio-philosophically by “modernity,” by the way, that in the end everything’s subjective, what Pope Ratzinger called “the dictatorship of relativism.” It denies the knowability of truth.
This is antithetical to the Christian faith, indeed to faith itself. Your and Jeff’s argument reduces faith to no more than strongly held opinion. It is thoroughly modern.
LikeLike
TVD, Calvinists are not necessarily the lucky ones, rather those with faith are. Jesus died for the elect and then he lets them know by giving them faith:
-Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the certainty of things not seen.
-Those he predestined he also CALLED.
LikeLike
The Little Mermaid
Posted December 18, 2015 at 8:42 pm | Permalink
The Bible is the only INFALLIBLE rule of faith and practice.
That gives the Protestants a huge problem. The Protestant canon is not closed. No one has the authority to do that, and no one has done it. No one in Protestantism has the authority to say to the Jesus Seminar that what they are doing is not Christian.
Some Lutherans are wondering what happened to their Lutheran Bibles. Where’s the Apocrypha in the Protestant Bibles these days? Who is going to convince them that it should not be in the Bible even at the back of the book. People might get confused, or whatever justification there is for Protestants to remove it completely.
Then there are the passages that have been called into question by the textual critics. There are many, not just the pericope we discussed a little while ago.
You can claim to have an infallible rule of faith and practice all you want. You cannot enforce it on anyone except maybe your small group of people who think more or less like you do. Even then who gets to decide if the pericope goes or stays?
You guys have problems establishing in your groups the real infallible authority of God’s own Word. What Word? Who gets to decide at the end of the day?
Each individual, really, using his or her own reason and whatever other criteria they may wish to use.
Forget the cow jumping over the moon, or what Mr. Cagle calls a
in our exercise we are assuming the system in question. So the credibility of the claims is important, but out of the scope of our agreed inspection of systems.
Perhaps Mr. Cagle considers this discussion an abstract exercise, but his Catholic interlocutors’ counterargument is that “Protestantism” and this “provisional knowledge” argument indeed reduces the Christian faith to some sort of abstract intellectual exercise!
And even playing their abstract born-with-the-dead game, as though it’s merely a barroom discussion of Babe Ruth vs. Willie Mays, Ms. Mermaid astutely inquires
The philological skeptics have won. But by what authority? And who is to say that the Deuterocanonical-less Bible is the real, inerrant and complete Bible upon which to base your version of the Christian religion?
The first question is “by what authority do you act,” even to the point of disappearing the Deuteros? Luther put an asterisk on the “Apocrypha,” now even the asterisk is gone.
And this is not to get hung up on the Deuteros, which besides the concepts of purgatory and praying for the dead in 2 Maccabees, really don’t amount to much theologically, I reckon. But by discarding the magisterium to the point of arrogating to himself the decision on what’s the Word of God and what’s not, Martin Luther created a “Protestant” world where I’ll guess half of “Protestantism” now [re-]interprets the Bible to allow–encourage, bless!–two men or two women to present themselves before man and God as husband and wife, or whatever they call it.
It’s not about the canon, but who gets to interpret it. You? Me? Martin Luther? Mark Driscoll?
All is provisional. 😉
LikeLike
Walton
Posted December 18, 2015 at 11:48 pm | Permalink
TVD, Calvinists are not necessarily the lucky ones, rather those with faith are. Jesus died for the elect and then he lets them know by giving them faith:
-Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the certainty of things not seen.
-Those he predestined he also CALLED.
Yes, I’ve heard that. Take it up with the Mormons. They got faith out the wazoo and live it out much better.
You don’t wanna go there. There is no Protestant “saint” who can touch Teresa of Ávila, or Mother Teresa for that matter. Albert Schweitzer, but he rewrote the Bible too.* Protestant “saints” and heroes are all quarrelsome assholes like Luther, Calvin and Machen, let’s face it. Why is that?
Bonhoeffer, now there’s a saint mebbe.
____________
*What is it with you people? When I was 12 or 14, like all adolescents I was convinced I would straighten out Christianity and its divisions and then all world religions. But I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I realized I was not the Messiah; we already had one and one was enough.
https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/albert-schweitzer
What convinces a man that he is somehow called–anointed–to fix what went wrong in the 1500 or 2000 years of the Christian religion? By what authority?
LikeLike
But I’m a saint because Jesus died for me and seated me in the heavenly places with him. Not because I did some golly-hun-if-they-aint-saved-i-dunno-who-is meritorious act (like conspiring to commit murder!).
LikeLike
As usual Tom, your responses are non responsive.
If DVC’s gloss of John 10:28 was not contemptibly deceitful, what was it?
Provisionality has been brought up by the papists here and the prots lambasted for it, but in the final analysis, DVC drops the mask and essentially blurts out the Roman perversion of the gospel: the promise of eternal life is conditional upon the works of the sinner.
It is not unconditional on the basis of God the Father’s eternal decree, Christ’s life and death on the cross for those the Father gave him and the Holy Spirit’s application of faith to them in time; rather man must steady the ark of salvation, if not hold it up.
On the other hand the provisional gospel of Rome, is that what? God elects/predestines on the basis that he forsees the meritorius works of the sinner, even the work of the sinner’s free will which chooses to believe in Christ. That is no gospel at all to a sinner, who’s free will is as dead in its sins and transgressions as Lazarus was in the grave until Christ effectually/sovereignly called him unto life.
But there is nothing new under the sun.
<And therefore let wicked men rage as they list, we will not be ashamed to confess always, that only grace makes difference betwixt us and the rest of the world. And further, we fear not to affirm, that such as feel not that comfort inwardly in their consciences, can never be thankful to God, neither yet willing to be subject to his eternal counsel; which is the only cause that these wicked men most irreverently do storm and rage against that doctrine which they do not understand. But let us, dear brethren, be assured that none other doctrine does establish faith, nor makes man humble and thankful unto God. And finally, that none other doctrine makes man careful to obey God according to his commandment, but that doctrine only which spoils man of all power and virtue, that no portion of his salvation consists within himself; to the end that the whole praise of our redemption may be referred to Christ Jesus alone;John Knox’s Preface to An Answer to a Great Number of Blasphemous Cavillations Written by an Anabaptist, and Adversary to God’s Eternal Predestination (1560).
Mark that. “These wicked men most irreverently do storm and rage against that doctrine which they do not understand . . . that doctrine only which spoils man of all power and virtue, that no portion of his salvation consists within himself; to the end that the whole praise of our redemption may be referred to Christ Jesus alone ”.
In other words, wicked men storm against the gospel of grace; sovereign predestinating and electing grace.
Why? Because “It’s not reasonable or fair that man’s works play no part in salvation”. (Never mind that they do. Only as evidence of salvation, not its cause.)
Which is right up there with “It’s not reasonable that Jesus wouldn’t have left an infallible church behind on earth after he ascended”.
Cue the CtC gang.
Next.
LikeLike
Bob,
Sanctification includes works and plays a role in your salvation according to Calvinism. Works in RCism come into play only after initial justification, which is unmerited. RCs believe in sovereign grace and election. But thanks again for condemning all non Reformed Protestants and the patristic east and west as gospel deniers. Thats very reasonable.
LikeLike
I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how the resurrection of Jesus Christ can be infallible information and provisional knowledge at the same time. I asked Bob S., and he either missed my question or dodged. Maybe he shrugged.
Here we go again, TLM.
Nobody “answers” your question because it is the wrong question.
Prots believe Christ rose from the dead because Scripture says so.
Romanists – if they are consistent and we know how that works — believe that Christ rose from the dead because Rome says so. Because Rome says believe the Bible because we say so.
IOW Scripture is not self attesting. If Rome didn’t tell us what the Bible was, we could never know it on our own.
Which is not what the Bible says, but nobody wants to talk about interpreting Scripture by Scripture. They just want drive bys of Peter and the rock.
Besides, that the romanists are the big offenders when it comes to confusing ontology and epistemology makes it real hard to have a profitable conversation. Your opponent keeps assuming you are guilty of what he is really guilty of and he either doesn’t know it, or won’t admit it.
IOW incompetentence or wicked ignorance.
Two, objectively the Bible is infallible, while subjectively our understanding, even our faith at times can be fallible/mistaken.
Regardless this conversation can’t even take place if private judgment and provisionality are what romanists claim they are. We don’t know all things to the same degree nor do we need to in order to live in the real world.
Can I ask what you personally do with scriptures that support the Catholic interpretation?
I have been asking Protestants here this question and no one ever answers me.
Susan, if there were Scriptures that supported the Roman interpretation, it would be one thing, but nobody has been able to come up with any yet, TVD’s and his understudy’s rabid assertions to the contrary.
Besides Rome doesn’t do exegesis per se. The traditions and magisterium run the show. Yeah, they talk a good talk and use all the right words but equivocation is Rome’s forte.
(You know, like base 10 according to our devilish polymath. Most people understand 2+2≠14 and Scripture does not mean the Bible – and Rome’s traditions and magisterium.)
You might know it by the term “development”. There’s no question that the church’s understanding of the truth develops, but really? Popery, mariolatry, image worship, transubstantiation?
Still when Rome says Scripture, gullible evangelicals sometimes take them for the/their word and get played big time. Of course Rome’s had lots of practice and the evangelical are many times arminian, which in principle is popery without the pope and all the window dressing, i.e. a works righteousness.
Then the ex evangelicals come over here and bug the reformed catholics on how come they are not roman catholics because popery is an easy slam dunk.
Well yeah, if you have an infallible 8′ stepladder.
cheers
LikeLike
CVD, how cretinous of you to think that I haven’t heard, much less seen a big lie before.
How about:
Sanctification includes works, but does not play a role in justification according to Calvinism
And while Rome “may” (you’re not the infallible pope remember?) believe initial justification is unmerited, in the end the papist is also justified by his works produced by an infused righteousness from the Holy Spirit, imputation being a legal fiction according to the papist propaganda.
Neither does anybody stand condemned but those who have a guilty conscience.
This is not the year of our Lord 1 AD and you get to pretend that Rome is just as infallible as Christ and the Apostles.
FTM Luther, Calvin, Knox and the English reformers all condemned free will. It is only afterwards that evangelicals crept in unawares.
Next.
LikeLike
Bob S
Posted December 19, 2015 at 3:19 am | Permalink
CVD, how cretinous of you to think that I haven’t heard, much less seen a big lie before.
There are no cretins here, sir, nor liars, with the possible exception of yourself.
And Dr. Hart, who boasted his Protestant allies behave with more “honor” than the nice Catholic ladies who write here.
You have made Dr. Hart look like a liar, if not a cretin.
Well done. By letting you do his dirty work against the Catholic Church, Darryl lets you make
a joke of this blog.
Rock on, bro. Smirk on, Dr. H. The joke’s on you.
LikeLike
TVD: The better question is why do and how can Calvinists call themselves “saints?” “The elect?” Sez who? Even if there is “election” and double predestination, who says the Calvinists are the lucky ones?
[As for your question about the Catholic saints, the simple Catholic reply isI will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”Jesus says this to the apostles, and of course the Catholic Church claims apostolic succession. You may reject that claim, but it’s quire defensible Biblically.]
Morning TVD. Briefly…
1)the Bible is clear on election; I won’t detail verses, but hopefully you will desire to continue to search out the Scriptures, seek and listen about this and that the Lord Himself will persuade you.
2) God is a good Father desiring all of His children to have assurance about being a ‘saint’. He is also very clear He alone is the one in charge of giving faith, honor, reward, though we are to honor everyone. I won’t detail all the Scriptures about this
3) I believe we both agree/believe Matt 16:19 is the word of God; apparently our understanding about it are different. Bottom line – without faith, having Christ’s righteousness, being born again- the gifts of Gods- the door to heaven is shut; preaching His word/hearing His word/one’s response to His word – means-keys.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “you guys have problems”
But at least b, sd and Jeff comment. So far, nothing from you about gay priests.
LikeLike
Dan, Williams is fascinating.
So is Barry.
LikeLike
James Young, if sanctification includes works and plays a role in my salvation, what’s up with Trent’s anathemas?
LikeLike
Susan: so that we would understand the importance of eating the bread of life.
thought of you, Susan, (and w/TVD above) with this am’s notes (excerpt below), regarding your own reflection above- the added thought being the importance then to “align with God’s perspective (His word)”:
“Many images in the book of Revelation are drawn from the Old Testament. The antecedent to the scroll that John eats (Rev. 10:8–11) is a similar image in Jeremiah 15:16; Ezekiel 2:8–3:3.”“Each of the three passages develops the notion of eating God’s words a little differently”. …“What was it that gave Jeremiah his stance? “When your words came, I ate them; they were my joy and my heart’s delight, for I bear your name, O LORD God Almighty” (Jer. 15:16)”….“God tells Ezekiel to open his mouth and eat the scroll, and then go and speak to the house of Israel (Ezek. 3:1). “So I ate it, and it tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth” (Ezek. 3:3).”…Ezekiel was to be so aligned with God’s perspective that he found God’s words sweet.”… In his vision, John the seer is instructed to take a scroll and eat it. He is told that it will taste as sweet as honey, but that it will turn sour in his stomach (Rev. 10:9–10). But here the symbolism works out a little differently. It is still important for this scroll to taste sweet in John’s mouth, i.e., for him so to align himself with God and his truth that he finds God’s ways and words to be sweet but …. “ http://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/loveofgod/
LikeLike
the tsk tsker tsks.
LikeLike
Mermaid:
Okay, I finally figured out what was grating on me so much with the bat, the cow, and the 2 + 2 = 4 stuff.
Jeff asks:
“Can a cow jump over the moon?”
Any sane person answers:
No.
Jeff asks:
Are you 100 % certain?
Any sane person answers:
Yes.
Jeff asks:
What if blah, blah blah. [creating an impossible scenario]
Any sane person answers:
Jeff, you are out of your mind. Cows can barely even jump let alone jump over the moon.
You’re getting warmer. You’ve arrived at the first stop, which is that you can see in extreme cases that provisional knowledge is not always doubtful.
The second stop is to recognize the difference between infallible certainty and fallible. Infallible certain propositions can’t be wrong by definition (analytic). Fallibly certain propositions could hypothetically be wrong, but won’t be (synthetic).
The third stop is to recognize that our acknowledgement of provisionslity is not fatal to faitg.
LikeLike
but what do you think of: D. G. Hart’s: the tsk tsker tsks, Jeff?
LikeLike
@ Dan:
Thanks for that very informative post!
LikeLike
@ Ali:
Dunno. Certainly dismissive, along the lines of “there you go again”. Does it imply not listening or does it imply observation of a pattern?
Can’t say.
LikeLike
Ali, what do you think? Why hide behind Jeff?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle:@ Ali:Dunno. Certainly dismissive, along the lines of “there you go again”. Does it imply not listening or does it imply observation of a pattern?Can’t say.
well, at least you replied- not a cricket; surprising you gloss over the dismissive part so casually though. You are both elders, right? Anyway, we all have our own perspective, one man tsk-tsks, another man ‘reformed faith and practice’ blogs.
LikeLike
@Ali You’ve made a number of pretty cryptic accusations in these commboxes. Why not be clear? I don’t understand why you have a problem with dgh’s dismissal of TVD’s nonsense.
LikeLike
I asked:
I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how the resurrection of Jesus Christ can be infallible information and provisional knowledge at the same time. I asked Bob S., and he either missed my question or dodged. Maybe he shrugged.>>>>>
Bob S.:
Here we go again, TLM.>>>>
Oh, there you go again, Brother Bob S.. 😉 Hey, I hope you are having a nice day. My day is not too bad so far, and I expect it to get a whole lot better after I finish my coffee.
You know. Say what you will about Brother Hart, but at least he has Catholics and Reformed Protestants talking with or at one another. That’s a good thing in the long run, I would think.
Bob S.:
Nobody “answers” your question because it is the wrong question.>>>>
I’m hurt.
Bob S.:
Prots believe Christ rose from the dead because Scripture says so.>>>>>
Yes. How does God communicate to you the fact that His Word is infallible?
It is the Protestants here who have argued for provisionality to be applied even to infallible facts found in the infallible Word of God. So, how can you then trust anything in the Bible to be infallible if you accept the idea that all knowledge is provisional?
Catholics haven’t argued that way. I read their arguments and ask myself – and now I ask all y’all – how in the world fine Reformed men have fallen into relativistic thinking. I really don’t think that guys like Machen would approve. Whatever happened to the fundamentals of the faith?.
Catholics here have not argued that it is possible to find the body of Jesus. The Reformed guys have argued that it is almost impossible, but there is a slight possibility of that happening. The bones of dead men from that area and Jesus’ general time frame have been found. Jesus’ body could be found. Maybe someone kept them hidden somewhere.
I mean, it could happen, you know. That is what the Protestants have argued. Now, if I am misrepresenting their application of the epistemology of provisional knowledge to the fact of the resurrection, then they are free to clarify.
The resurrection cannot be both infallible knowledge and provisional knowledge at the same time. It has to be either the one or the other.
Our understanding is not infallible, of course. The facts can be fallible or infallible, but not both.
So, I think my questions are pretty good ones.
I do thank you for trying to answer it even though you think it is the wrong question.
Hey, you have a good day and a very Merry Christmas.
LikeLike
sdb: @Ali You’ve made a number of pretty cryptic accusations in these commboxes.
not that I know of/recall sdb , but would be glad to address any you might point out.
have a good day.
LikeLike
@jeff I’ve was thinking about “provisional” again. I’m more convinced that by ceding that characterization of the WCF we are ceding too much. It isn’t helpful to use “provisional” as a synonym for “conditional”, “contingent”, or “falsifiable”. “Provisional” connotes an idea like place holder.
Consider, I might think that Vega has a planet as it has a debris disk. This is a provisional belief. I need to go and actually make an observation. So I get my high contrast imager and discover a pretty red object consistent with a planet. Now I am more certain than I was before, but I recognize that I could be looking at a background object. So I take numerous follow-up observations and see that it is orbiting the star. Now I am certain that Vega has a planet. However, the claim “Vega has a planet” is still falsifiable. The truth of that statement is contingent on Vega actually having a planet. Further, I am fallible. I *could* have made any number of mistakes along the way. But then another group performs the same observation with a different instrument and claims to get the same result. I reanalyze their data and we come to a consensus on the existence of a planet orbiting Vega.
I don’t think anyone would consider the presence of a planet orbiting Vega provisional. We would say it is falsifiable.
Thinking back to the WCF 31.4, it is clear that the confession itself is not a rule of faith, but a helpful teacher of the scriptures which is our rule of faith. The validity of the WCF hinges on the extent to which it is “consonant to the Word of God”. If a teaching in the WCF is consonant to the Word of God, then it isn’t provisional anymore. It is falsifiable – the westminster divines could have taught something contrary to scripture just as Vega could have been a star without a planet.
LikeLike
@ali easy to forget all we type here I know. Here is the latest,
“well, at least you replied- not a cricket; surprising you gloss over the dismissive part so casually though. You are both elders, right?”
LikeLike
Sdb :@ali easy to forget all we type here I know. Here is the latest,“well, at least you replied- not a cricket; surprising you gloss over the dismissive part so casually though. You are both elders, right?”
Sorry then. I did not think it was cryptic.
1) a reply was given and not ignored, so I commented on appreciating that
2) I thought it was a clear conveyance of the thought that we, and particularly leaders?, aren’t ‘dismissive’ of certain things, certainly never the word and principles of God
and sdb said :I don’t understand why you have a problem with dgh’s dismissal of TVD’s nonsense.
Oh, I thought the tsk tsk was for me, because it was right after my comment and did not include address to vd,t which is always done –
So I was puzzled that my sincerely-intended continuing on about an idea previously brought up –( ie Susan’s ‘eating’ metaphor, though it’s possible she didn’t mean it as metaphor) timely prompted by a morning reading, would be a tsk-tsk
Oh well, anyway, it’s ok, we all misunderstand, except the Lord, who never misunderstands; He always knows perfectly, and it is to Him we give an account of it all. Liberating thought!
Hope that clarified, please let me know if not.
LikeLike
Jeff:
The third stop is to recognize that our acknowledgement of provisionslity is not fatal to faitg.>>>>>
Jeff, this is unintelligible. Oh, to faith. Now the sentence makes sense. Sorry about that.
You still haven’t shown how to avoid skepticism. The epistemology of provisional knowledge was not invented by you, Jeff. It has its application in the scientific community where skepticism is needed. Nothing that is proven scientifically makes any kind of claim to infallibility. They are making the best possible guesses based on the information they are able to gather at the time. More tests are always needed. They know they cannot eliminate all personal bias, but the honest ones try to do that. They know they cannot ever be 100% sure, but they get close enough for their purposes. It is not meant to lead to infallibility.
You have to show that this epistemology can lead you to infallibility. Close enough is not good enough in matters of faith. Well, faith in the sense of the facts of the Gospel that must be believed.
1 Cor. 15:1ff is not some secret knowledge. Facts are affirmed. Evidence presented. The conclusion is presented as infallible. Believe it or don’t. The evidence is there.
Now, you could save your argument if you say that a person through human reason alone can arrive at the conclusion that the evidence for Christ’s resurrection is 99.99999% certain. That still would not be what the Bible calls faith. It would be intellectual ascent based on human reason. It is still not saving faith. It is still not based on the infallibility of Scripture.
You may be able to then get a person to consider the fact that maybe the Bible is not so much nonsense after all. The person still would not be a believer in the Biblical sense.
C.S. Lewis so clearly explained true faith in his own biography. He became convinced that God is real and that the Gospel is true. That did not make him a believer, yet. He had to sit down in the chair, so to speak. He had to put his trust, his life, in Jesus Christ. That goes beyond the epistemology of provisional knowledge to the certainty of faith. Until you submit to Christ, you do not have what the Bible calls faith.
Then, what happens if you decide to quit submitting to Christ? Why can’t you as a Calvinist accept that even provisionally? When it comes to TULIP, there is no provisionality allowed whatsoever.
So, your epistemology seems to be somewhat selective. Some things infallible. Other things provisional. What’s up with that?
Oh, there I go again asking ignorant questions. I must be a Cretan or dishonest.
LikeLike
See, your epistemology has to get you to infallibility if you are making an orthodox Christian argument of any kind. Protestant epistemology has to give you some kind of knowledge that proves the Bible to be infallible. There have to be other kinds of proofs besides that which consists of “I’m almost certain. ”
Provisional knowledge can get you a long way, but not to infallibility which is where you need to be if sola scriptura were to be true.
Provisional knowledge can help a seeker move on towards an acceptance of Scripture as being infallible. It does not establish infallibility, nor can it.
It is good for what it is good for.
LikeLike
Robert, that’s gonna be the issue, the RCC attains to apostolic authority even Vicar of Christ authority(infallibility). So, CVD’s divine faith per guidance of the RCC is going to attain a certitude of faith that your prot supernatural faith can’t attain. It’s a stupid argument and assumes a number of things, including thomism, but, CVD is not going to leave his pond.
What’s interesting is the charges of modernism coming from the RCC trads here, so, their pond doesn’t extend/include Vat II or the last 50 years. Somehow, they’ve managed in their infallible certitude to ignore the extraordinary skepticism, historicity of Jesus denying, never mind the resurrection, that any number of their magisterium confess. But, hey, If I assume a certain number of positions, hold another collection of conflicting evidences in suspense( clicking my red slippers together hoping the last 50 years was but a dream) I can make anything cohere on the chalkboard which would be great if not for both the historical claims of Rome and Jesus Christ. Now, my circles on the board aren’t so helpful about what they purport to describe/explain.
LikeLike
Hi Ms. Mermaid,
Provisional knowledge can get you a long way, but not to infallibility which is where you need to be if sola scriptura were to be true.
I for one believe sola Scripture is true, because an apostle of Jesus Christ says, “All Scripture is inspired by God.” That makes Scripture infallible.
But never does an apostle claim that any particular church, or self-identified group of Christians, will be inspired and thereby infallible.
In fact, every letter they wrote to a church contains correction.
But as a Roman Catholic you disbelieve that Christ’s apostles give you enough for right knowledge in what they don’t claim. For example, that there will be an infallible church of some kind, or that the apostles will have successors.
You find satisfaction in the Roman Catholic system because it matches your faith that the apostles did not teach enough for both Christians and churches to know right doctrine and duty. And perhaps the present schism of Christ’s people in every locale frustrates you.
But even if, you disbelieve Jesus Christ, who promised His apostles would be guided into “all the truth” in John 16:13. You cannot accept the “all” in that verse, and thereby disbelieve the promise of Christ.
See, it isn’t about epistemology, but faith in Christ.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “C.S. Lewis so clearly explained true faith in his own biography.”
Eee gads. Lewis was a Protestant.
Oh, the provisionality.
LikeLike
sean, not to mention gay priests.
LikeLike
Darryl, there’s always that. Oh, the modernism and skepticism.
LikeLike
No one of note
Posted December 19, 2015 at 1:35 pm | Permalink
Hi Ms. Mermaid,
Provisional knowledge can get you a long way, but not to infallibility which is where you need to be if sola scriptura were to be true.
I for one believe sola Scripture is true, because an apostle of Jesus Christ says, “All Scripture is inspired by God.” That makes Scripture infallible.>>>>
Are you sure that what Paul considered to be Scripture is what you consider to be Scripture? There is ample evidence that he used the Septuagint, don’t you know?
Besides, Paul saying that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit does nothing to identify the NT.
How do you know what the Scripture even is?
Remember. I am your focus group. Show me where Scripture identifies which writings are inspired?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 19, 2015 at 8:34 am | Permalink
Mermaid, “you guys have problems”
But at least b, sd and Jeff comment. So far, nothing from you about gay priests.
At least they don’t make a ceremony out of it.
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Lesbian-Couple-Ordained-Jointly-in-Presbyterian-Church-Delaware-297184461.html
Typical Darryl Hart dodge and distraction when you can’t hang in the discussion. People are so on to your act.
LikeLike
No One of Note:
But never does an apostle claim that any particular church, or self-identified group of Christians, will be inspired and thereby infallible.>>>>
Never does an Apostle claim that there is more than one Church. The teaching that there are many groups that are legitimate churches is something new. That idea is the product of the Reformation.
Sure, there are 7 Churches in the book of Revelation, but they are identified by locality, not denomination. Paul wrote to specific churches in specific localities. In that sense there are many churches in many locations seen in the NT. They weren’t distinct denominations. Denominationalism was unheard of.
LikeLike
Mermaid: Now, you could save your argument if you say that a person through human reason alone can arrive at the conclusion that the evidence for Christ’s resurrection is 99.99999% certain. That still would not be what the Bible calls faith. It would be intellectual ascent based on human reason. It is still not saving faith. It is still not based on the infallibility of Scripture.
You’re getting even warmer!
Saving faith is not about achieving epistemic certainty. It is about trusting in the person and work of Christ. There’s a lot more to be said here, both in terms of the right place for careful thinking and also the wrong place for unhealthy skepticism. But the key point is that salvation does not ride on epistemic certainty in the subject, but on faithfulness in the object.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 19, 2015 at 4:10 pm | Permalink
Mermaid: Now, you could save your argument if you say that a person through human reason alone can arrive at the conclusion that the evidence for Christ’s resurrection is 99.99999% certain. That still would not be what the Bible calls faith. It would be intellectual ascent based on human reason. It is still not saving faith. It is still not based on the infallibility of Scripture.
You’re getting even warmer!
Saving faith is not about achieving epistemic certainty. It is about trusting in the person and work of Christ. There’s a lot more to be said here, both in terms of the right place for careful thinking and also the wrong place for unhealthy skepticism. But the key point is that salvation does not ride on epistemic certainty in the subject, but on faithfulness in the object.>>>>>
I am trying to save your infallible Scripture, Jeff. You have not done that, yet. Stick with me, and you might get there.
The object of faith does “ride on” infallibility. You made a mistake when you put the resurrection in the category of provisional knowledge. Any honest and smart person can see that. 😉
Take it out of that category, and then maybe we can talk.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “I am trying to save your infallible Scripture, Jeff.”
Then you need to work on your church. Where will you get the time?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 19, 2015 at 4:21 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, “I am trying to save your infallible Scripture, Jeff.”
Then you need to work on your church. Where will you get the time?
Once again the nice Catholic lady leaves Dr. Calvinism muttering snotty irrelevancies to himself.
LikeLike
“Once again the nice Catholic lady leaves Dr. Calvinism muttering snotty irrelevancies to himself.”
Says the guy with no dog in the fight….errrr…Foul, foul, point of order!
LikeLike
The Little Mermaid
Posted December 19, 2015 at 4:10 pm | Permalink
No One of Note:
But never does an apostle claim that any particular church, or self-identified group of Christians, will be inspired and thereby infallible.>>>>
Never does an Apostle claim that there is more than one Church. The teaching that there are many groups that are legitimate churches is something new. That idea is the product of the Reformation.
Sure, there are 7 Churches in the book of Revelation, but they are identified by locality, not denomination. Paul wrote to specific churches in specific localities. In that sense there are many churches in many locations seen in the NT. They weren’t distinct denominations. Denominationalism was unheard of.
Good point. A Protestant rhetorical technique is to put their denomination [or sub-sub-denomination] on an equal plane with the Catholic Church like different flavors of ice cream.
As for the Catholic argument of course the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost is the birth of the Church, which continues to this day via apostolic succession [a claim most Protestants can only make in the abstract]–and is thus “inspired and thereby infallible.”
The Church can no sooner be fallible than the Holy Spirit–God Himself–can be fallible. Non-Catholics may reject the Catholic Church, but its logic is valid and Biblical.
LikeLike
vd, t, so was the Holy Spirit with Peter when he caved to the Judaizers?
LikeLike
Hi Ms. Mermaid, thank you for responding. But I’m afraid you are still stuck on epistemology as the hope for your soul’s relief. My dear, it will not, and cannot, provide you the spiritual relief you need long term. Only repentant and humble faith in the words of Jesus and His apostles, without doubting them as written, can do that.
Are you sure that what Paul considered to be Scripture is what you consider to be Scripture? There is ample evidence that he used the Septuagint, don’t you know?
Oh yes, entirely and without doubt. No problem with the Septuagint, for the meaning of the Scripture is the Scripture.
Here’s some questions to try to move you away from the Roman Catholic claim that “the church” decided which books were in the canon. They are an attempt to convince you that the final recognition of the canon was the end result of a process of applying the same criteria begun by the apostles themselves. The canon’s recognition, these verses show, rests on the same criteria the apostles themselves used in claiming certain writings were Scripture.
1) How could Paul claim Luke’s gospel was Scripture every bit as much as Deuteronomy without the approval of the leaders from many churches, and demand all Christians receive it as such? Luke’s gospel was written not even 3 years when Paul wrote 1 Tim. 5:18, cf. Luke 10:7.
2) How could Paul demand his own words be read to all the Christians, which likely could only occur when they gathered to worship Jesus Christ (1 Thess. 5:27, Col. 4:16)? As a Jew, he would have known that only Scripture can be commanded to be read during public, weekly, worship, when the body of Christ was visible and recognizable.
3) How could Peter advocate on behalf of Paul’s writings as those which give a preview as to who is destined for either heaven or hell (2 Peter 3:15-16), also labeling them Scripture? And what are the other Scriptures Peter mentions? It is unlikely he refers to the OT, since they would not describe people’s eternal destinies by the same criteria Paul does (the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ). Instead, the Scripture Peter refers to are likely those writings we all recognize as Scripture teaching the same things concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but by writers than Paul?
Besides, Paul saying that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit does nothing to identify the NT.
Sadly, Mermaid, that’s the response of unbelief that presumes the NT does teach the criteria by which the canon would eventually be completely identified. It also assumes that God does not care enough about what people must believe to be saved is not sufficiently clear by the writings He inspired Himself. Read, slander.
How do you know what the Scripture even is?
I too can apply the same measures the church leaders did of the centuries, being aware of my own and other men’s propensity to wrestle with specific writings due to their situation in history (Sitz im Leben). So can you, as enabled by the Holy Spirit.
Never does an Apostle claim that there is more than one Church. The teaching that there are many groups that are legitimate churches is something new. That idea is the product of the Reformation.
I’m sorry, this will sound harsh, but how blinded you are. True, there is one universal church to be gathered at the end of time (Mat. 16:18, Eph. 1:22, cf. 1 Thess. 4:16). But we are talking about churches here on earth, and never do the apostles teach there is one church on earth of any kind. “Apart from such external things, there is the daily pressure on me of concern for all the churches.” (2Cor. 11:28).
Sure, there are 7 Churches in the book of Revelation, but they are identified by locality, not denomination. Paul wrote to specific churches in specific localities. In that sense there are many churches in many locations seen in the NT. They weren’t distinct denominations. Denominationalism was unheard of.
Well done, praise to Mermaid!! Now apply the exact same excellent observation you have made of the Lord’s words here to Roman Catholic ecclesiology, which claims all the seven churches were really one church. But they most definitely were not: “As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.” (Rev 1:20).
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 19, 2015 at 6:30 pm | Permalink
vd, t, so was the Holy Spirit with Peter when he caved to the Judaizers?</i<
Do some homework, Dr. Hart. It's been asked and answered many times in your comboxes. Once again you're burying the actual discussion under your usual mountain of irrelevant BS. To respond to you just aids your sabotage.
LikeLike
No one of note
Posted December 19, 2015 at 7:09 pm | Permalink
Hi Ms. Mermaid, thank you for responding. But I’m afraid you are still stuck on epistemology as the hope for your soul’s relief. My dear, it will not, and cannot, provide you the spiritual relief you need long term. Only repentant and humble faith in the words of Jesus and His apostles, without doubting them as written, can do that.
Actually, Jeff is arguing epistemology. Ms. Mermaid is arguing faith, sans your rather condescending little speech here.
Mermaid: Never does an Apostle claim that there is more than one Church. The teaching that there are many groups that are legitimate churches is something new. That idea is the product of the Reformation.”
I’m sorry, this will sound harsh, but how blinded you are. True, there is one universal church to be gathered at the end of time (Mat. 16:18, Eph. 1:22, cf. 1 Thess. 4:16). But we are talking about churches here on earth, and never do the apostles teach there is one church on earth of any kind. “Apart from such external things, there is the daily pressure on me of concern for all the churches.” (2Cor. 11:28).
This may sound harsh, but you’re the one who doesn’t get it. By “churches” plural, Paul is not referring to the current zillion denominations that are the chaos of the Reformation.
Structurally, with every individual interpreting scripture for himself under the Protestant theology, and its constant atomization of the Christian religion into uncountable The Church of This and the Church of That, the unity Paul urges is by definition impossible.
Your reading of “churches” in 2 Corinthians does not harmonize with Philippians 2. That Paul contemplated a “Presbyterian Church” sitting next door to a “Lutheran” one is ridiculous.
LikeLike
No One of Note:
Here’s some questions to try to move you away from the Roman Catholic claim that “the church” decided which books were in the canon.>>>>>
Answer to all the ?s = Paul had apostolic authority.
No One of Note:
I’m sorry, this will sound harsh, but how blinded you are. True, there is one universal church to be gathered at the end of time (Mat. 16:18, Eph. 1:22, cf. 1 Thess. 4:16). But we are talking about churches here on earth, and never do the apostles teach there is one church on earth of any kind. “Apart from such external things, there is the daily pressure on me of concern for all the churches.” (2Cor. 11:28).>>>>
Dear, never is a long time. Let me introduce you to the Apostle Paul on the subject of how many Churches there are in the world.
Ephesians 4:4-6English Standard Version (ESV)
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.
In Augustine’s time there was only one Church. He called it the Catholic Church. He said it was the Church that influenced him to believe in the Gospel because of her authority.
“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.
500 years ago some guys decided that they no longer wanted to be part of the one Church. They went off to form their own churches and became the voices of authority in their denominations and movements.
If the Holy Spirit was in that, then why is there so much disagreement about what the Spirit is saying to the churches?
There is only one Church, and many local churches all over the world that make up the one Church. It is called the Catholic Church. It is one Church made up of many local churches. The EO is the same religion. They accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but not his authority to rule their local bishops. They do respect the Pope, though, and they do practice the same religion.
You guys are all over the place. Yet you all demand that others submit to your teaching. One says one thing. Another says another thing. When you come to some kind of agreement among one another, then let me know.
I do commend you, No One of Note. You at least talk about Jesus which is kind of a new thing around here. I like that part about you.
LikeLike
Tom,
tructurally, with every individual interpreting scripture for himself under the Protestant theology, and its constant atomization of the Christian religion into uncountable The Church of This and the Church of That, the unity Paul urges is by definition impossible.
This is better than every individual interpreting the Magisterium for himself under RC theology and ending up thinking agnosticism about the Assumption of Mary is an acceptable position?
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 19, 2015 at 10:59 pm | Permalink
Tom,
“Structurally, with every individual interpreting scripture for himself under the Protestant theology, and its constant atomization of the Christian religion into uncountable The Church of This and the Church of That, the unity Paul urges is by definition impossible.”
This is better than every individual interpreting the Magisterium for himself under RC theology
You keep playing this card. It’s bogus. It is the essential point that CVD has been making about why the Catholic Church and “Protestantism” are essentially different.
The existence of “cafeteria Catholics” is not the same as”Protestantism’s” cafeteria–the endless procession of schisms and “churches.” Protestant “churches” are indeed provisional, ad hoc, and pro tem–groupings that hold together until they disagree enough to break up–or die.
“Church-shopping,” which is blandly accepted among Protestants as though it’s a matter of taste between vanilla, chocolate and strawberry, is an idea that Paul never imagined and Augustine found impossible.
and ending up thinking agnosticism about the Assumption of Mary is an acceptable position?
As I read it, and sayso for the seventieth times seven time, we weren’t there. To sweat this into a dealbreaker is silly, egotistical and prideful spite. Augustine accepted the authority of the Church on such matters, as did Aquinas, above their own authority.
If you look up Munificentissimus Deus [1950]–and since Darryl weaponizes it so often, I have–you find that Pius XII consulted bishops, theologians and even the “sense of the faithful,” the sensus fidei. This was hardly dropped as an infallible rock from on papal high upon the heads of an unwilling flock.
THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: A BELIEF SINCE APOSTOLIC TIMES
https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/AOFMARY.HTM
That is the dynamic at play here, and why CVD has done a creditable job of showing the difference between the Catholic Church and “Protestantism.” Not only does Protestantism have no mechanism to sort out trivia like “what happened to Mary’s body,” it can’t even tell us definitively what should and shouldn’t be in the Bible, the sine qua non of its version of the Christian religion.
LikeLike
Hi Tom, Christmas greetings,
This may sound harsh, but you’re the one who doesn’t get it. By “churches” plural, Paul is not referring to the current zillion denominations that are the chaos of the Reformation.
Your reading of “churches” in 2 Corinthians does not harmonize with Philippians 2. That Paul contemplated a “Presbyterian Church” sitting next door to a “Lutheran” one is ridiculous.
Tom, I might deserve the prior rebuke for condescending language to Ms. Mermaid, but not here. Go back and check my answer to her statement on the 7 churches of Revelation if you wish, but I agreed with her (and you) on this point. Like, totally, dude ;).
And you point the way forward in your quote of Phil. 2:1. But we can’t make 2:1’s unity to mean the RC mystical sense, either. All the saints in Philippi (1:1) met in one church (4:15), thus making the “one-another” exhortation of 2:1ff real, not mystical.
LikeLike
The existence of “cafeteria Catholics” is not the same as”Protestantism’s” cafeteria–the endless procession of schisms and “churches.” Protestant “churches” are indeed provisional, ad hoc, and pro tem–groupings that hold together until they disagree enough to break up–or die.
The RCC holds together until it disagrees enough to break up or die. Witness the Old Catholics, for example. Rome has no more credible line back to the Apostles than Luther, Calvin, et al.
“Church-shopping,” which is blandly accepted among Protestants as though it’s a matter of taste between vanilla, chocolate and strawberry, is an idea that Paul never imagined and Augustine found impossible.
Then perhaps you can explain why RCs leave one parish for another because the other has better music or some other “matter of taste” thing.
As I read it, and sayso for the seventieth times seven time, we weren’t there. To sweat this into a dealbreaker is silly, egotistical and prideful spite.
Except Rome says you have to believe everything Rome says, which means you’re out as along as you are agnostic about this. It’s “silly, egoistical, and prideful” to insist that only what the Apostles actually taught should be the rule of faith.
Augustine accepted the authority of the Church on such matters, as did Aquinas, above their own authority.
To the extent that this is true, and how far they would have gone is debatable, they were wrong to allow Rome to add to the Word of God.
If you look up Munificentissimus Deus [1950]–and since Darryl weaponizes it so often, I have–you find that Pius XII consulted bishops, theologians and even the “sense of the faithful,” the sensus fidei. This was hardly dropped as an infallible rock from on papal high upon the heads of an unwilling flock.
Irrelevant. The Assumption idea popped up after Nicea and many bishops, even the pope, questioned its orthodoxy at first. It was dropped out of nowhere by some sections of the church deciding they should start inquiring into what happened to Mary and then gradually adopted by the rest of the church because it was part of the emerging Mariolatry. The church failed in elevating what was at best a pious opinion to something you must believe to be saved—so you’re agnosticism about it puts you outside the bounds of the RCC. Don’t exalt Aquinas and Augustine for letting the church settle such matters when you are quite unwilling to let the church do it, Mr. who knows what happened to Mary I just know it is wrong for Protestants to insist that its relevant.
That is the dynamic at play here, and why CVD has done a creditable job of showing the difference between the Catholic Church and “Protestantism.”
CVD has shown us what we already knew, namely, that Rome claims to be infallible whenever it wants to and you have to accept it regardless of whether the S or even T declare what M declares. Sola ecclesia.
Not only does Protestantism have no mechanism to sort out trivia like “what happened to Mary’s body,”
Maybe the church shouldn’t sort out this trivia, which Rome says you can’t deny and be saved. Maybe Rome shouldn’t endorse superstition. Maybe Rome should do its job. It’s not laudable for Rome to consult the laity and then decide to make dogmatic its paganism.
it can’t even tell us definitively what should and shouldn’t be in the Bible, the sine qua non of its version of the Christian religion.
Incorrect. But even so, Rome can’t tell us definitively what should and shouldn’t be regarded as tradition and should and shouldn’t tell us everything the M has declared.
LikeLike
Hi Ms. Mermaid,
Answer to all the ?s = Paul had apostolic authority.
Aw, c’mon. That’s hardly your best effort. That partially answers 1 and 2, and not 3 at all. And on such an important topic. You are so smart. Give it another try, and don’t be dismissive.
Dear, never is a long time. Let me introduce you to the Apostle Paul on the subject of how many Churches there are in the world. Ephesians 4:4-6 English Standard Version (ESV) 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.
I love that text, but it doesn’t teach what you are thinking. True, Christ has one body and one church as taught in Eph. 1:22-23, but as I said in an earlier comment, this church (the universal church) is not comprised merely of all the living Christians on earth as you are making it, but of all His own to be gathered in the eschaton. Most are already in heaven, and many (perhaps) are yet to be born, and others are living on earth but not yet regenerated. No one living on earth can “maintain unity” (4:3) with these three subsets of the universal church.
But mostly, the word ecclesia isn’t in the text, so claiming this text was Paul teaching his apostolic ecclesiology is a non-starter.
In Augustine’s time there was only one Church. He called it the Catholic Church. He said it was the Church that influenced him to believe in the Gospel because of her authority. “I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.” Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.
Augustine saying so doesn’t make it so. There were lots of other churches with some regenerates in them in his time, including, likely, Donatist churches and even some in misled Arian churches. Augustine believed not only in shaming and uprooting those churches, but also in a mystical unity between geographically distant churches whose members never met each other, but were unified (so he believed) by a hierarchical priesthood that, unlike the laity, made sacrifices. As if unity among the brethren is accomplished by proxies.
There is only one Church, and many local churches all over the world that make up the one Church. It is called the Catholic Church.
You’re channeling your inner Augustine and rejecting apostolic ecclesiology: “Apart from such external things, there is the daily pressure on me of concern for all the churches.”
Ecclesia meant gathering, meeting, assembly.
I’ll leave it here with you, until you go back and answer the three questions I gave you.
LikeLike
vd, t, “The existence of “cafeteria Catholics” is not the same as”Protestantism’s” cafeteria–the endless procession of schisms and “churches.” Protestant “churches” are indeed provisional, ad hoc, and pro tem–groupings that hold together until they disagree enough to break up–or die.”
So Cafeteria Roman Catholics pick and choose infallibly?
I see.
If the whole church has believed in the bodily assumption why don’t you?
LikeLike
Mermaid, what do you think of your holy father now?
LikeLike
Hello NOON,
I dont want to interrupt your conversation with MWF, but I saw that you think that there are many.churches. I won’t be hanging out and only wanted to give you this to read and.think about:
“Those seven stars are the seven churches, which he names in his addresses by name, and calls them to whom he wrote epistles. Not that they are themselves the only, or even the principal churches; but what he says to one, he says to all. For they are in no respect different, that on that ground any one should prefer them to the larger number of similar small ones. In the whole world Paul taught that all the churches are arranged by sevens, that they are called seven, and that the Catholic Church is one. And first of all, indeed, that he himself also might maintain the type of seven churches, he did not exceed that number. But he wrote to the Romans, to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Thessalonians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians; afterwards he wrote to individual persons, so as not to exceed the number of seven churches. And abridging in a short space his announcement, he thus says to Timothy: That you may know how you ought to behave yourself in the Church of the living God. 1 Timothy 3:15”
It is from a commenary of an early church father. You can search it to read the whole thing.
Merry Christmas everyone!
LikeLike
TLM: “That is fascinating, Dan. Thank you so much for the great summary. Sounds like a good man. You know that part about apostolic succession is really interesting. What Paul said to Timothy about teaching faithful men who would teach others also has to mean something. At least Williams was willing to associate that with apostolic succession.”
For those who don’t believe in eternal life, I offer this thread as apologetic. So, I will continue our sidebar conversation. ☺
I am not at all sure what the basis of William’s belief in apostolic succession was. I don’t think his belief that God would send new apostles, then we could have valid churches, has been followed by any Baptist groups that I know of. But there are Baptists called Landmark Baptists who believe that there have always been Baptists around, so they claim fidelity to a version of apolistic succession, I suppose
They are still somewhat thick on the ground in the Southwest, and have at various times split State Conventions wide open, and at one point in the late 1800’s they almost split the SBC, but I have never studied them in depth.
There are also presently self-proclaimed Bapto-Catholics, but they don’t seem to have any traction outside of a few seminaries. They might have more respect for the tradition of apostolic succession, but not to the point of saying present day Baptist congregations are invalid churches. I wouldn’t pretend to speak for them, either, but you might want to a Google search if you are interested.
All that is to say, the Baptists I know would say that Paul’s words to Timothy would not be sufficient to mean that you had to be in some chain of Apostles to have valid Churches. Those willing to assume that there was apostolic succession in the early church would agree with Williams– and many others- that the chain was irretrievably broken by Constantine.
I would be interested if you find out anything else that touches on the basis for Williams’ belief in, at least for one point in history, apostolic succession. The last written evidence we have seems to support that, all his life, he maintained his position that we were waiting for new Apostles.
http://jsreligion.org/dev//issues/vol17/gerhardt.html
The link tells an interesting story, BTW, theology aside. If you want to read more about that, a Google search will lead you to the web site of the Brown University Library. I won’t provide them here since I understand that posting more than one link lands you in OL moderation hell.
@jeff cagle, you are welcome.
LikeLike
This isn’t really fair, since I probably won’t be able to return to this thread until Monday afternoon at the earliest. I am really not sure where things stand amongst you all, Cats and Prots, re: the historicity of the Resurrection, ontology, epistemology, infallibity,certainty etc. There has just been too much posted.
My question is, have you all thought about Pinchas Lapide? For extra credit, Rene Girard?
Google is your friend, though in the case of Girard it might not be enough
LikeLike
Yes on rene gerard.I read him a couple of years ago
LikeLike
Hi Ms. Susan, Merry Christmas to you and your family.
“In the whole world Paul taught that all the churches are arranged by sevens, that they are called seven, and that the Catholic Church is one.”
Susan, I’m sorry, but this is the sort of thing that is thought wise by some. Perhaps they think that since God is transcendent He communicates to men in all sorts of extravagant ways, instead of by plain words to them with plain meanings.
Such writers are not profound but obscure Scripture, whether they lived in the 1st, 2nd, or 21st Century. Again, the apostles wrote so they could be understood by simple people.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 20, 2015 at 8:58 am | Permalink
vd, t, “The existence of “cafeteria Catholics” is not the same as”Protestantism’s” cafeteria–the endless procession of schisms and “churches.” Protestant “churches” are indeed provisional, ad hoc, and pro tem–groupings that hold together until they disagree enough to break up–or die.”
So Cafeteria Roman Catholics pick and choose infallibly?
I see.
You see nothing. And yes, with “church-shopping,” “Protestantism” is indeed a cafeteria. In fact, you can even church-shop within Presbyterianism. You want gay? We got yer gay right here.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/gay.marriage.and.the.shaking.of.the.church.in.scotland/54169.htm
If the whole church has believed in the bodily assumption why don’t you?
I have never stated my personal belief on the matter here, nor do I intend to. Stop lying about other people, and on the Lord’s Day at that. A double whammy, Elder Hart. Shame on you.
LikeLike
No one of note
Posted December 20, 2015 at 7:42 am | Permalink
Hi Tom, Christmas greetings,
And you point the way forward in your quote of Phil. 2:1. But we can’t make 2:1’s unity to mean the RC mystical sense, either. All the saints in Philippi (1:1) met in one church (4:15), thus making the “one-another” exhortation of 2:1ff real, not mystical.
And a happy Christmas to you and yours, NOON!
But the various churches of the apostolic age were not in competition with each other, and are admonished by Paul not to be believing different things.
A Lutheran Church sitting next door to a Presbyterian church makes a lie of them both.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 20, 2015 at 8:14 am | Permalink
“[Protestantism]can’t even tell us definitively what should and shouldn’t be in the Bible, the sine qua non of its version of the Christian religion.”
Incorrect. But even so, Rome can’t tell us definitively what should and shouldn’t be regarded as tradition and should and shouldn’t tell us everything the M has declared.
Of course it’s correct. You have admitted so yourself with this “provisional” business. And your attack on the Magisterum is ill-informed.
LikeLike
vd, t, “You see nothing.”
your harshing my Lord’s Day buzz.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 20, 2015 at 5:35 pm | Permalink
vd, t, “You see nothing.”
your harshing my Lord’s Day buzz.
You’re buzz seems just fine. 😉 Don’t mind me.
LikeLike
Hello NOON and Merry Christmas to you too:)
“Susan, I’m sorry, but this is the sort of thing that is thought wise by some. Perhaps they think that since God is transcendent He communicates to men in all sorts of extravagant ways, instead of by plain words to them with plain meanings.
Such writers are not profound but obscure Scripture, whether they lived in the 1st, 2nd, or 21st Century. Again, the apostles wrote so they could be understood by simple people.”
Really? That’s an interesting take when it does look from clear scripture that this commentator is interpretating rightly. But okay.
LikeLike
Hey Tom, thanks!
“But the various churches of the apostolic age were not in competition with each other, and are admonished by Paul not to be believing different things.
A Lutheran Church sitting next door to a Presbyterian church makes a lie of them both.”
Not a lie, Mr. Tom, but if both churches contain some of those regenerated by Jesus Christ, then Christ’s body is schismed where those churches are. I like how you’re thinking – geographically close.
The New Testament doctrine of church schism is not splits-ville from the RC brand, but splits-ville among the members of the local body of Christ (1 Cor. 1:10-13, 12:24-27). Picture a dismembered leg bleeding out, but smiling in Montrose, and it’s dismembered arm doing the same down Foothills in La Canada. And both exhorting “one another” to obey Phil. 2:1 among their own church, but not the other church next door. Ecclesiastical sin can be so hard to see.
But in the NT, there is never an example of more than one church in a city.
Even harder to heal. Paul healed schism on Crete by decreeing Titus to appoint elders in every city (Titus 1:5). The churches started on Crete just after Pentecost (Act 2:11), but 30 years later were quite schismed and many were led by sinning leaders (Titus 1:10-16). Titus forcefully brought the elect (1:1) together in every city where multiple churches existed under the one set of qualified presbyters he appointed. As for Titus, he skidaddled for Nicopolis, for he wasn’t no bishop (Titus 3:12).
Can you imagine your local RC priest submitting to that? Or the leaders at St. Mark’s Lutheran or Covenant Presbyterian Church giving a thumbs-up to that today?
LikeLike
The more things change the more they remain the same.
TLM is still arguing like a prot and ducking the question of whether she believes Scripture is Scripture because Scripture says so or Rome says so.
WCFI: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.i
i 2 Pet. 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
2 Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
1 John 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
1 Thess. 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
But TLM asks:
Show me where Scripture identifies which writings are inspired?
Answer: In the same place where Scripture identifies Rome as the one true holy and apostolic church, i.e. popery, mariolatry, image worship, purgatory, transubstantiation, indulgences etc.
#It’s not gonna happen.
But we already knew that.
Meanwhile the Véronian Troll is up to the usual:
That an apostate self styled presbyterian body ordains and marries lesbians is an argument for the one true holy apostolic Roman church to ordain homosexuals, turn a blind eye to their molestation of boys under their care, transfer them to a different diocese if need be because of publicity and keep this all covered up from the civil authorities according to the dictat of Pope John Paul?
Yup. That’s the Roman apologetic to a T.
Deny, obfuscate and divert attention, if not play Potiphar’s wife and smear your opponents as guilty of what you are doing, along with a few gratuitous ad homs for good measure.
Next.
TLM again:
If the Holy Spirit was in that, then why is there so much disagreement about what the Spirit is saying to the churches?
As Jeff would say, you’re getting warmer.
Cause people are fallible sinners.
1 Cor. 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
God uses scandals to winnow the chaff from the wheat. Just as God used the Reformation to separate his church from the reprobate Roman church.
Of course, those who are enamored with appearances; a nominal unity in nominal truth are scandalized by the result and hardened in their unbelief of the gospel of salvation by faith alone, in Christ alone, through sovereign predestinating grace alone, as found in the Scripture alone, to the glory of God alone.
LikeLike
I have a couple sincere questions to the focus group of RCC’s out there.
1. Suppose you have a truth-seeking Prot who has sincerely given considerable time/study to evaluating RCC dogma and history. He concludes that he has major disagreement with too much of it (eg, indulgences, Mariology, apostolic succession, murderous/adulterous popes, et al) to buy in, in good conscience. Do you advise this Prot to violate his conscience and submit to the authority of the RCC and thus avoid the sin of ‘schism’? I’m trying to figure out where RCC’s draw the line (if you have one) between submitting themselves to the church (in the interest of unity) and violating their own conscience?
2. How do you would read the “sharp disagreement (Acts 15:39) situation between Paul and Barnabas, both with apostolic authority? They parted ways with each other. And, seemingly, no appeals to Peter to settle their dispute. Who (Paul, or Barnabas) was being schismatic there?
LikeLike
Meanwhile DVC, playing the spiritual cretin as usual, continues to think he is not only empowered as a layman to administer the last rites, but he actually has unprovisionally administered extreme unction to prot epistemologyontologywe’re not sure what.
One, he wants a mechanism ‘just like the one Christ and the Apostles used’ to convince their hearers they were different from your average local rabbi. Again, he neglects to point out the constant appeal to Scripture in their ministry, much more the miracles that accompanied that ministry. Two, this is supposed to support his implicit conclusion that Rome shares in the apostolic chrism of infallible inspiration for Rome’s dogmatic pronunciations. (And miracles on the order of what? Blessed apparitions on mobile home siding and the preservation of apostolic paraphernalia?)
But since we have the infallible record of Christ and the Apostles in the apostolic NT — which by the by is the only way we know anything about Christ and the Apostles — the mechanism becomes a local church that preaches those infallible Scripture, administers the sacraments and exercises church discipline, continuing up the line to broader church courts and confessional statements.
Not a centralized global hierarchy that wrote the manual on blending the order of being and knowledge (and the seven senses of Scripture).
But to return to the satanic gospel of provisional eternal life championed by our unordained pontificator, all prot provisionality aside, what don’t we understand about grace? If salvation is conditioned on our works, instead of Christ’s work, it is not grace.
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Rom. 4:3-5
Granted, the sinner saved by grace does not habitually and willfully continue in sin, because his nature has been regenerated – which is what enabled him to repent and believe in the first place – but that is the fruit of his salvation, not the cause of it. God doesn’t elect sinners unto eternal life on the basis of foreseeing their good work of faith and repentance, much more their perseverance in the same.
Last but not least, we are told the reason why Paul wrote letters to only seven churches is because there only seven churches in Revelation.
Which is also why there must be seven gospels, seven apostles and seven individuals to whom Paul also writes epistles unto, right?
Harold Camping much?
Ya can’t make this stuff up, unfortunately.
Not that Romanism has a corner on this kind of cr*p, but it’s pretty much run of the mill cr*p, You would think they could do better.
cheers
LikeLike
No one of note
Posted December 20, 2015 at 6:00 pm | Permalink
Hey Tom, thanks!
“But the various churches of the apostolic age were not in competition with each other, and are admonished by Paul not to be believing different things.
A Lutheran Church sitting next door to a Presbyterian church makes a lie of them both.”
Not a lie, Mr. Tom, but if both churches contain some of those regenerated by Jesus Christ, then Christ’s body is schismed where those churches are. I like how you’re thinking – geographically close.
The New Testament doctrine of church schism is not splits-ville from the RC brand, but splits-ville among the members of the local body of Christ (1 Cor. 1:10-13, 12:24-27). Picture a dismembered leg bleeding out, but smiling in Montrose, and it’s dismembered arm doing the same down Foothills in La Canada. And both exhorting “one another” to obey Phil. 2:1 among their own church, but not the other church next door. Ecclesiastical sin can be so hard to see.
But in the NT, there is never an example of more than one church in a city.
Even harder to heal. Paul healed schism on Crete by decreeing Titus to appoint elders in every city (Titus 1:5). The churches started on Crete just after Pentecost (Act 2:11), but 30 years later were quite schismed and many were led by sinning leaders (Titus 1:10-16). Titus forcefully brought the elect (1:1) together in every city where multiple churches existed under the one set of qualified presbyters he appointed. As for Titus, he skidaddled for Nicopolis, for he wasn’t no bishop (Titus 3:12).
Can you imagine your local RC priest submitting to that? Or the leaders at St. Mark’s Lutheran or Covenant Presbyterian Church giving a thumbs-up to that today?
Your argument is based on the premise that the zillion Protestant denominations are on equal par with the One Church, just different flavors. The Catholic argument–Augustine–rejects that premise as false.
The Church. The Protestant denominations are not “churches,” used in the sense of the epistles and are not “I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it” of Matthew 16:18.
The Catholic argument cannot grant the premise of your argument.
LikeLike
Bob S
Posted December 20, 2015 at 6:21 pm | Permalink
Meanwhile DVC, playing the spiritual cretin as usual
Ah, It’s Sunday. Darryl breaking two commandments at once then getting loaded, and Bob’s had his Calvinist communion, a crabby crust washed down with some nasty juice, now firing off red-eyed rants that nobody will read.
All’s right in Old Life world. 😉
LikeLike
vd, t, “Your argument is based on the premise that the zillion Protestant denominations are on equal par with the One Church, just different flavors. The Catholic argument–Augustine–rejects that premise as false.”
Ah, yes, but the Roman Catholic argument is based on faith and the Holy Spirit — neither of which you pretend to have because you keep those things private.
So why don’t you make an “objective” argument?
LikeLike
vd, t, understanding those as commandments the breaking of which brings condemnation involves faith. But that’s a private matter, right?
So where are your game show chops?
LikeLike
Tom,
Your argument is based on the premise that the zillion Protestant denominations are on equal par with the One Church, just different flavors. The Catholic argument–Augustine–rejects that premise as false.
Aww, c’mon, Tom! How many times have you read me and seen my claim that there is no such a thing in apostolic writ as a geographically dispersed church, Prot or RC?
Down with Augustinian ecclesiology and up with Apostolic ecclesiology:
“Apart from such external things, there is the daily pressure on me of concern for all the churches” (2 Cor. 11:28).
“As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.” (Rev 1:20).
There is no “the Church” in apostolic writ except for the one that gathers in the eschaton. And genuine Christians doctrine is based on what they wrote for the churches as a result of the Holy Spirit’s guidance (John 16:13).
The Catholic argument cannot grant the premise of your argument.
True, but it isn’t apostolic, and is tragically self-serving.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 20, 2015 at 9:03 pm | Permalink
vd, t, “Your argument is based on the premise that the zillion Protestant denominations are on equal par with the One Church, just different flavors. The Catholic argument–Augustine–rejects that premise as false.”
Ah, yes, but the Roman Catholic argument is based on faith and the Holy Spirit — neither of which you pretend to have because you keep those things private.
So why don’t you make an “objective” argument?
I did make the objective Catholic argument, and it’s not based in the individual, so your personal attacks are BS. That’s the Protestant argument.
You haven’t sobered up yet. Go take a nap. ;-1)
LikeLike
Tom,
You’re proof positive that the ultimate authority in Romanism is the individual conscience.
LikeLike
No one of note
Posted December 20, 2015 at 9:27 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Your argument is based on the premise that the zillion Protestant denominations are on equal par with the One Church, just different flavors. The Catholic argument–Augustine–rejects that premise as false.
Aww, c’mon, Tom! How many times have you read me and seen my claim that there is no such a thing in apostolic writ as a geographically dispersed church, Prot or RC?
Down with Augustinian ecclesiology and up with Apostolic ecclesiology:
“Apart from such external things, there is the daily pressure on me of concern for all the churches” (2 Cor. 11:28).
Sorry, asked and answered. By “churches” Paul doesn’t mean a Lutheran “church” sitting next to a Presbyterian one. Your verse-slinging of Paul is actually defeating your argument. At best you’re arguing the Bible against the Bible, 2Corinthians against 1Corinthians.
As for Augustine, I see no reason to prefer Luther or Calvin’s ecclesiology over his: they were neither bishops and they’re over 1000 years further removed from the Early Church Fathers. And you’re also relinquishing the Reformers’ claim to him in your rejection of him.
I see no reason to prefer your “church” to Augustine’s. Are you wiser than he? Holier? More learned in the scriptures? More steeped in the ways of the Early Church?
True, but it isn’t apostolic, and is tragically self-serving.
Sez you. Augustine says it is apostolic. Why should I listen to you?
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 20, 2015 at 9:58 pm | Permalink
Tom,
You’re proof positive that the ultimate authority in Romanism is the individual conscience.
Actually, the desperation of this personal attack is an admission of defeat, Robert. I’m not saying anything that CVD, Michael, Mermaid and Susan haven’t said, and they’re full-throated endorsers [not provisional!] of the teachings of the Catholic Church.
My personal religious beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion, Robert. It’s a shame to see you resort to this cheap Old Life trick over and over. It’s dishonest and is a logical fallacy besides. Your argument is with Augustine, not me.
LikeLike
Tom,
Sez you. Augustine says it is apostolic. Why should I listen to you?
Because I’m telling you, and showing you, apostolic ecclesiology. Augustine gives us the ecclesiology of his times.
But, I am no one of note, remember?
LikeLike
No one of note
Posted December 20, 2015 at 10:29 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Sez you. Augustine says it is apostolic. Why should I listen to you?
Because I’m telling you, and showing you, apostolic ecclesiology.
Actually, your argument amounts to “no it’s not.” And your waving away of Augustine as a mere product of his times is not a substantive rebuttal either. “Protestantism’s” ecclesiastical chaos is no different than the heresies and schisms of Augustine’s own time, but there remained, and remains, only one that calls itself the Catholic Church.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose…
LikeLike
(A different) Dan:
My question is, have you all thought about Pinchas Lapide?>>>>>
Okay, I am going to say something gushy again, but that is one fascinating guy. He actually accepted the resurrection as an historical fact and argued that Jews have no reason to reject it. He was not a Christian himself. Very interesting.
Oh, you are good, (A different) Dan.
From a customer review of Lapide’s book The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective. :
“In this remarkable volume — unfortunately not now in print — Pinchas Lapide, an Orthodox Jewish scholar of the New Testament, mounts a surprising argument that the resurrection of Jesus was a historical event.
Dr. Lapide, recognizing that Christianity stands or falls with the resurrection itself, regards Jesus the man as a Torah-faithful Jew “who wanted to bring the kingdom of heaven in harmony, concord, and peace.” Noting that the resuscitation of the dead by God is, and has long been, a part of Jewish belief, he examines the New Testament accounts of the resurrection of Jesus and finds what he describes as a “Jewish faith experience” in full consonance with the historical teachings of Judaism.”
LikeLike
Tom,
I’m not even the Dan Quayle to Lloyd Bentsen, much less JFK. So even less Augustine.
I just want you trust Christ’s apostles rather than Augustine.
Is that too much to ask for in a comment box?
LikeLike
vd, t, “the objective Catholic argument”
exactly
LikeLike
Tom,
Sorry, asked and answered. By “churches” Paul doesn’t mean a Lutheran “church” sitting next to a Presbyterian one.
Nor did he mean the nuns on the bus convent next to rad-trad Tridentine mass churches, but what are you going to do?
As for Augustine, I see no reason to prefer Luther or Calvin’s ecclesiology over his: they were neither bishops and they’re over 1000 years further removed from the Early Church Fathers.
I see no reason to inherently prefer someone who lived hundreds of years closer to the NT period than someone who lived thousands of years later, particularly when it is clear that the kind of dogmatic unity you see among the early church fathers is not substantially different than the kind you see today among Protestants—agreement on some things, more or less, wild disagreement on other things.
And you’re also relinquishing the Reformers’ claim to him in your rejection of him.
The Reformers claimed Augustine where he was correct, and rejected him where he was wrong. That’s exactly the method that Rome follows.
The Catholic argument cannot grant the premise of your argument.
And ultimately, the question is why any of us should give a flying rip about what the RCC can grant about, well, anything?
LikeLike
Robert, those are not Roman Catholic buses. They are only blogs acting like buses.
But don’t forget the light show.
LikeLike
The Catholic argument cannot grant the premise of your argument.
Robert:
And ultimately, the question is why any of us should give a flying rip about what the RCC can grant about, well, anything?>>>>>
Howdy, Robert,
All is calm and bright, here. I hope you have a very Merry Christmas!
See, what you say here pretty much summs up the Protestant position. It’s not just that you guys don’t give a “flying rip” about what the RCC can “grant about.” That would make sense if Protestantism had stuck together as a religion.
It splintered into thousands of denominations. Of course, not every denomination is in total “give a flying rip” mode when it comes to everyone else, but that kind of describes the Protestant attitude.
Now, my radical upbringing kind of likes that attitude, but is it the one we see in Scripture?
If the flying rip were confined merely to Catholicism and the EO, then your argument might mean something.
LikeLike
Mermaid, what does your argument mean for gay priests?
LikeLike
1000+ comments. Is there some indulgence granted for loitering with intent at Old Life that we haven’t heard about?
LikeLike
Mermaid,
Scripture would have us care about what the church says. More or less, we affirm that Rome is an illegitimate church. We don’t give much of a thought of what Rome thinks of us because, well, read what Luther said about the papacy. Our main concerns with Rome is its rewriting of history and denial of the Word of God in favor of whatever the Magisterium of the moment believes.
LikeLike
Hello Petros,
Yesterday you asked,”an honest question” about how a person in good conscience can submit( or maybe you said “believe”) in the Catholic Church.
Here’s an article, that is very helpful towards understanding who the Catholic Church is and why anyone should believe her. It is longish,but if you are really interested you can’t help but be compelled to read it. When I was in investigation stage, I gobbled up everthing I could find:)
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/05/the-commonitory-of-st-vincent-of-lerins/
Wishing you a happy Christmas!
Susan
LikeLike
Darryl,
Gay priests? I expect that there would be a fair number of priests with same sex attraction. I don’t doubt that they can be celebate and faithfully serve God, do you?
What the church can never do is say that sodomy between either same sex or opposite sex partners is not a sin. And the magesterium can never permit the marriage of same sex couples.
You can stop with the “gay squirrel” distraction because it isn’t a reason to deny the magesterium.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 21, 2015 at 11:20 am | Permalink
Mermaid,
Scripture would have us care about what the church says. More or less, we affirm that Rome is an illegitimate church. We don’t give much of a thought of what Rome thinks of us because, well, read what Luther said about the papacy. Our main concerns with Rome is its rewriting of history and denial of the Word of God in favor of whatever the Magisterium of the moment believes.>>>>
Do you have a list of “legitimate” churches? I know that many of the denominations in Protestantism aren’t all different currents in Protestantism. Are there 7, like in the book of Revelation?
Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Baptist, Wesleyan, Pentecostal, Churches of Christ, and Mormon, maybe? What about the Arians?
How many of these do you give or not give a “flying rip” about?
LikeLike
Dubs, that’s what I was wondering.
Susan, of course you’re good with your gays. You want to place some money on how many remain celibate? I have more than doubts. I’m pretty sure looking at the state of the priestly class is one good reason to deny the magisterium. And, btw, so does your magisterium, they’ve been trying to overhaul the Roman Curia, among others, since before I was born. From money indiscretions(Fraud, laundering, you know, crimes) to sexual indiscretions to buearocratic empire building to throwing Ireland under the bus to hiding pedophile priests(more crimes). You have large swaths of priests who suck in multiple ways. Pretty sure the state of the priestly class counts against the MOC.
LikeLike
Sean,
I don’t doubt the sins in the church, but I do know that the teaching is that one should be celibate if they have same or opposite sex attraction. That’s what mattered to me; that is, an authority that says that sodomy and same sex marriage is wrong, and who won’t change her mind the culture.
LikeLike
Susan, you’re a big shrugger when it comes to your authority figures. Have I told you about my Nawlin’s trip? Make sure to ask me about it someday. I don’t know. I’m willing to bet a church who can nullify heterosexual marriage when they determine ‘no love was present’, for a fee, is a big shape shifter. You just have to know how to work the system.
LikeLike
Susan, well when homosexuality is so widely evident and the magisterium doesn’t address, it’s hardly a squirrel. Imagine converting to a church that as lesbian pastors.
Obviously, you are out of synch with the American Jesuits:
You may also be impeding the Holy Spirit.
That’s not a squirrel either.
BTW, have you ever gotten the sense that nothing would change your view of the magisterium? Why this discussion isn’t one.
LikeLike
Susan, so when Protestants claim to follow the word of God and trust in Christ alone, that’s not good enough to make up for its failings (which don’t include denying gay pastors).
LikeLike
Hi Sean,
“Have I told you about my Nawlin’s trip? Make sure to ask me about it someday. I don’t know. I’m willing to bet a church who can nullify heterosexual marriage when they determine ‘no love was present’, for a fee, is a big shape shifter. You just have to know how to work the system.”
I was confused about annulments when I became Catholic. I didn’t know how it wasn’t essentially a divorce( I mean the end result was the same). I think I pretty much understand it now.
Anyways again, I can see the possibility for abuse. Just look at the selling of indulgences!
I have Nawlins story. Met my father-in-law for the first time there in ’84 as he and his wife were on a cruise. I had just turned 18. As he and I were talking two men stopped below our French Quarter balcony to make a PSA for the sole purpose of shocking us. It worked. I had never seen that before and so I blushed. Being from CA, and seeing it often enough, my father-in-law laughed at my modesty, innocence, or naivete.
Had some wonderful stuffed crab but doused it with Tabasco and ruined it. End of story. Bad trip.
LikeLike
Mermaid,
<i.Do you have a list of “legitimate” churches? I know that many of the denominations in Protestantism aren’t all different currents in Protestantism. Are there 7, like in the book of Revelation?
Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Baptist, Wesleyan, Pentecostal, Churches of Christ, and Mormon, maybe? What about the Arians?
How many of these do you give or not give a “flying rip” about?
I care about any church that is leading people astray in the sense of their bad doctrine that deceives. I don’t care in the sense of evaluating my ecclesiastical status about the teaching of any false church or heterodox church that says “you are not a church.”
The list is long:
Roman Catholicism
Eastern Orthodoxy
Mormonism
Arianism
Episcopal Church USA
PCUSA
ELCA
JWs
and more. The only sense in which I would care about these groups not thinking the PCA is a true church is the sense in that I would want to counter their attempts to deceive people in that regard. The fact that Rome more or less ignores the PCA except for a few prominent PCA figures who have some interaction with priests doesn’t bother me in the least, nor does it bother anyone else here, I reckon. The only person who seems to think it should matter to us, frankly, is Tom and maybe Susan.
We simply do not care if any of those bodies regard us as Christian or not. We’re not out for Rome’s approval, which is why Tom’s argument “you guys aren’t a church according to Rome” is begging the question. All we have to say in response to that, for most of history, is “well, d’uh.”
Of course the problem is that since V2 it isn’t exactly clear what Rome thinks about our ecclesiology. It is clear that Rome wants to say anyone who doesn’t submit to the Vatican is a deficient church; it’s not so clear what deficiency means or that Rome still believes any non-RCC is not a church. When you all can get that straight, it might be helpful. For now, some are calling us to communion and some are saying we’re just perfectly fine Christians with legitimate churches. I’ve seen priests that hold each view. It’s simply not plain anymore what Rome thinks of us. A couple of you guys don’t think we’re true churches, but to the extent that such a belief is based on the Magisterium, we simply don’t care whether you think we are legitimate or not. If you could prove your point from Scripture, that would be a different story.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Susan, so when Protestants claim to follow the word of God and trust in Christ alone, that’s not good enough to make up for its failings (which don’t include denying gay pastors).”
But my whole contention is that you don’t do that( trust in Christ alone), because Jesus never told anyone to take a bible and do there own thing.The evidence is that you set up new churches with novel ideas( including but not limited to, marrying same sex partners). Besides, scripture doesn’t give anyone that authority.
This isn’t a slam on you personally. Its a slam on the idea of “many churches”.
Read the article.
LikeLike
Susan, that’s exactly what Rome did. They took the bible(or ignored it) and did their own thing. That’s the whole Roman part of the CC. The church father’s consensus is anything but and still lacks the authority and antiquity of apostolic tradition-holy writ. It’s all assertions and no evidence. But this isn’t a slam on you personally, it’s a slam on the idea of the RCC being the one and only true church.
Susan, my Nawlin’s trip was more revelatory as to how far the whole gay, pedophile, RCC seminarians, money thing could go. Except nobody was laughing at my naivete, they were just frustrated at my non-compliance. It was just one more instance of my unwillingness to think along with the church or shrug at my religious authority figures. But, I did learn, money and vocations, it’s what makes the RCC world go round. No pity please. It was all part of my religious edumacation.
LikeLike
That’s pretty rich given:
(1) the religious bodies that have embraced SSM all reject Sola Scriptura. We haven’t set up such churches anymore than Rome set up Nestorians, Arians, or Lutherans.
(2) it is adherents of Roman Catholicism that have done the most to push SSM. Indeed, RCs are more likely to support SSM than Prots generally and far more likely than those who embrace Sola Scriptura. This is true domestically and internationally.
(3) Cardinal Danneels in Belgium can work with the government there to broaden access to abortion, legalize euthanasia, and legally recognize SSM and face no discipline for his work from the church. Evidently JPII, Benedict, and Francis don’t think these issues are quite as important as you do. MOC indeed.
LikeLike
But then I keep hearing that none of that stuff matters. It is all about the Eucharist. You know, how the Bible tells us that God cares more about sacrifice than obedience…
LikeLike
Susan, but you don’t claim to follow Christ alone either — ahem — papal infallibility.
THINK.
Even so, you tell us that we don’t do what we say we do. Fine.
But when we tell you that you don’t do what you say you do — like you ordain gay priests — “look, it’s a squirrel.”
It’s not that the goalposts move. You don’t even have goal posts.
Leave the epistemology seminar and go back to How to Think 101.
LikeLike
“Susan, my Nawlin’s trip was more revelatory as to how far the whole gay, pedophile, RCC seminarians, money thing could go. Except nobody was laughing at my naivete, they were just frustrated at my non-compliance. It was just one more instance of my unwillingness to think along with the church or shrug at my religious authority figures. But, I did learn, money and vocations, it’s what makes the RCC world go round. No pity please. It was all part of my religious edumacation.”
Now why are we arguing, Sean…I don’t want to fight you. Darryl attacks Catholicism while the Protestant schema at the same time allows many interpretations. Am I right? Isn’t it true that people can make the scriptures shape shift?
Not putting you, but I am sorry that you saw rotten things. Really I am. But you have no idea what kind of maudlin tales I could tell. I’ve heard preachers preaching fire and perdition and I heard barstool sermons against institutional religion by my own natural pappy.
Lots of confusion inside the head of a child that learned the gospel from Linus and obeying one’s conscience from Jimminey Cricket. The bible alone could have potentially kept my evangelical with no sacraments.
But I’m fine now ’cause everything finally makes sense and has come together in ways I could have never imagined. I can see the Holy Spirit working in my life to being me to the Catholic Church.
No arm twisting from me though. But this isn’t the place for conversation either.
LikeLike
@susan and other RCC’ers, yes some articles at CTC are informative.
What I remain curious about, however, is understanding what you think individuals should do in the situation where their conscience/intellect simply disagrees with official church teaching. Over any group of people, disagreement is inevitable. Are they supposed to obey the Church’s teaching, notwithstanding their own conscience?
Look, Prots have a way for dealing with our diffs, and it’s generally called “go to a diff church”. That seems preferable to requiring people to violate their consciences. Thoughts?
LikeLike
Petros,
This isn’t a good place for dialog. Go to CTC and ask your questions there. You will be treated with kindness and your “honest questions” will be addressed with thoughtfulness.
I’m outta here for good this time. My problem is that I always want the last word:)
Pray for me.
LikeLike
Susan, I’m all for you finding your way in life but you come on here championing a communion I happen to know a lot about and what you testify to doesn’t always mesh with what I know. And, yes, broader evangelicalism leaves much to be desired.
LikeLike
(A d) Dan:
My question is, have you all thought about Pinchas Lapide? For extra credit, Rene Girard?
Google is your friend, though in the case of Girard it might not be enough>>>>
Okay, I found the Pinchas Lapide guy. He is fascinating. Probably won’t read his book. Very thoughtful man it seems.
“If the defeated and depressed group of disciples overnight could change into a victorious movement of faith, based only on autosuggestion or self-deception—without a fundamental faith experience—then this would be a much greater miracle than the resurrection itself.”
– Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective, p. 126.
Rene Girard. Okay, not sure, but this quote might describe OL?
” A few deceptively simple concepts lay at the heart of his world view, which he developed through the study of European literature, of early mythology and religious texts. He was struck by the way in which human desire is imitative or “mimetic”; once basic needs are met, people’s desires are shaped in emulation of others and this leads to deadly competition. This would lead to perpetual anarchy, in his view, were it not for the capacity of human communities to achieve a kind of stability by ganging up on one individual who becomes a scapegoat. In every seemingly stable community, one must look for the “founding murder”—an act of victimisation, real or mythological, that somehow holds the perpetrators together. This can be acted out ritually as well as literally, and that was the original function of religion: to make sacrifices, of humans or animals, that led to a kind of compact among the sacrificers.”
http://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2015/11/religion-and-violence
Not sure if that’s what you mean. We are calling it “focus groups.”
LikeLike
After all, for all our faults can you imagine a denomination that holds to Sola Scriptura hosting something like this? Evidently the Augustinian Patristic Institute has moved on from that boring stuff about ecclesiology and epistemology to, shall we say, edgier topics.
LikeLike
SDB,
Evidently JPII, Benedict, and Francis don’t think these issues are quite as important as you do.
Ding, ding, ding.
LikeLike
SDB,
Wow. That article is crazy. We’re supposed to believe Rome has the principled means to separate truth from opinion? Money quote:
“What counts here is the lunatic abandoning of discernment by director Fr. Robert Dodaro and every Vatican official involved in assenting to host the program. Did no one in the Congregation for Catholic Education, a branch of the Roman Curia, object to this panty raid on its own prestige?”
LikeLike
Petros
Posted December 21, 2015 at 5:12 pm | Permalink
@susan and other RCC’ers, yes some articles at CTC are informative.
What I remain curious about, however, is understanding what you think individuals should do in the situation where their conscience/intellect simply disagrees with official church teaching. Over any group of people, disagreement is inevitable. Are they supposed to obey the Church’s teaching, notwithstanding their own conscience?>>>>
Yes, basically. You submit to her teachings. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Church teachings are presented in a reasonable way. A Church member can read, study, ask questions, think through things. The Church is not some kind of freaky Borg continuum. Look at what the Church is asking you to obey. I’ll bet you don’t even know.
Look at what the teaching magisterium is. You have all the saints and doctors of the Church, including men like Aquinas, Chrysostom, Augustine, Anselm, Athanasius and many others of both eastern and western traditions.
Then there are the women like Sta. Teresa de Avila & The Little Flower.
Look at who is most often quoted in the CCC. Then there is the living magisterium which includes the Pope of Mercy, Francis. I love the man. I kind of get the So. American mindset. I know what he lived through in Argentina. Do you know? The man has a context.
It includes great minds like St. Pope John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict.
Those are the ones we are asked to follow and submit to.
Now, I know that Brother Hart will “comment bomb” what I am saying with something that I can’t even figure out. So, I’m supposed to submit to that instead of the teachings of the greatest Christian minds who have ever lived? The great gifts God has given to the Church?
Or I am supposed to submit to some convoluted logic lessons that I can’t even follow? Or someone who believes they have the gift of discernment and is discerning my spirit?
I’ll take the magisterium, thank you very much. No hay donde perderse.
What do the guys here do with my comments? Then tell me who is engaging in thoughtful exchange? See a Catholic. Attack a Catholic. Is that really what you guys want to be about?
Petros:
Look, Prots have a way for dealing with our diffs, and it’s generally called “go to a diff church”. That seems preferable to requiring people to violate their consciences. Thoughts?>>>>
Yes. Protestants are very much a “my way, or the highway” bunch. If you can defend that “conscience” biblically, then have at it.
LikeLike
Have You Guys Heard of Assemblies?
By D. G. HART | Published: DECEMBER 3, 2015
Maybe not among the Eastern Orthodox bishops or the Anglican ones, but it’s not as if Protestants don’t regularly meet to find a consensus on what the Bible means. Even so, Alan Jacobs and Rod Dreher repeat the Roman Catholic charge that you need tradition to augment Scripture (when in fact tradition comes all balled up in the magisterium — read bishops).
Jacobs worries:
The elevation of method to magisterial principle was supposed to make it possible for scholars to discern, and then agree on, the meaning of biblical texts. Instead it merely uprooted them from Christian tradition and Christian practice — as Michael Legaspi has shown in a brilliant book — and left many of them unequipped to understand the literary character of biblical texts, while doing nothing to promote genuine agreement on interpretation. In fact, the transferring of the guild of interpreters from the Church to the University, given the University’s insistence on novelty in scholarship, ensured that no interpretative consensus would be forthcoming.
But if Christians are supposed to take their cues less from the university and more from churches, the latter still exist and provide interpretive consensuses. Maybe the mainstream media and scholars who identify with the academic guild are not impressed by church synods and councils (though they sure were attentive to the Ordinary Synod of Rome; maybe you need special get ups to gain journalists and scholars’ attention, or you need to meet in buildings suffused with Renaissance art — so much for poor church for the poor). But it’s not as if those assemblies even among Protestants have gone away. Given a recent reminder about the illusion of respectability, maybe the work that existing churches still do could receive more credit.
Rod makes Jacobs’ point with flair:
what Protestant churches and organizations are really doing in these debates are trying to find out if its membership wants to change, and if so, how much change will it accept. The truth is, says Beck, is that Protestantism is a “hermeneutical democracy,” in which the individual consciences of believers determine what is true and what is false. This, he says, is the “genius of the tradition,” and having to do all this “relational work” is a key part of what it means to be Protestant. The Bible doesn’t speak for itself; it has to be interpreted, and for Protestants, that means that everybody gets a vote.
“Own your Protestantism,” he says. “The ultimate authority in Protestantism isn’t the Bible, it’s the individual conscience.”
Well, it’s not as if hermeneutical democracy doesn’t afflict churches that have episcopal authoritative structures (where exegeting the Bible is not as important as reading the times’ signs). All churches, Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox are in the same boat of having members who regularly pick and choose, cafeteria style, what they believe and that they don’t. Having tradition, bishops, or councils doesn’t fix any of this. What would fix this is having magistrates who enforce religion and where civil penalties are bound up with religious teaching and practice. But wouldn’t that be Islamic?
At least give Protestants credit for trying to discern what God revealed through the prophets and apostles. Adding tradition to Scripture has generally meant the dog of tradition wagging the tail of the Bible.
Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted in Adventures in Church History, Because Someone Has to Provide Oversight, Christianity and the West, Jure Divino Presbyterianism, Scripture and Prolegomena and tagged Alan Jacobs, Allen Guelzo, church authority, hermeneutics, individualism, Islam, Protestant disunity, Rod Dreher, tradition. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
« Those Were The DaysJournalists and their Discontents »
1030 Comments
Robert
Posted December 21, 2015 at 7:14 am | Permalink
Tom,
Sorry, asked and answered. By “churches” Paul doesn’t mean a Lutheran “church” sitting next to a Presbyterian one.
Nor did he mean the nuns on the bus convent next to rad-trad Tridentine mass churches, but what are you going to do?
As for Augustine, I see no reason to prefer Luther or Calvin’s ecclesiology over his: they were neither bishops and they’re over 1000 years further removed from the Early Church Fathers.
I see no reason to inherently prefer someone who lived hundreds of years closer to the NT period than someone who lived thousands of years later, particularly when it is clear that the kind of dogmatic unity you see among the early church fathers is not substantially different than the kind you see today among Protestants—agreement on some things, more or less, wild disagreement on other things.
And you’re also relinquishing the Reformers’ claim to him in your rejection of him.
The Reformers claimed Augustine where he was correct, and rejected him where he was wrong. That’s exactly the method that Rome follows.
The Catholic argument cannot grant the premise of your argument.
And ultimately, the question is why any of us should give a flying rip about what the RCC can grant about, well, anything?
You give quite a rip, tough guy nearly 1000 comments’ worth now. And it’s all Darryl seems to write about.
Billy Bob in “The Apostle,” always begging for a thrashing, and getting one. 😉
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 21, 2015 at 4:26 pm | Permalink
Susan, but you don’t claim to follow Christ alone either — ahem — papal infallibility.
THINK.
Even so, you tell us that we don’t do what we say we do. Fine.
But when we tell you that you don’t do what you say you do — like you ordain gay priests — “look, it’s a squirrel.”
It’s not that the goalposts move. You don’t even have goal posts.
Leave the epistemology seminar and go back to How to Think 101.
Dr. Hart didn’t even know what the magisterium is and now presumes to lecture on Catholicism and critical thinking while eliding the essential difference between the ideal [celibacy] and how humans inevitably fall short [tragically, sex scandals].
This requires an adult treatment of the subject, of which Old Life is clearly incapable.
[Neither is it even germane to the original post. It is indeed the usual desperate “hey, look a squirrel” diversion when the tide of the discussion swings against Old Life.]
Susan
Posted December 21, 2015 at 5:18 pm | Permalink
Petros,
This isn’t a good place for dialog. Go to CTC and ask your questions there. You will be treated with kindness and your “honest questions” will be addressed with thoughtfulness.
Lurkers should indeed see the difference for themselves.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/03/sola-scriptura-vs-the-magisterium-what-did-jesus-teach/
Susan
Posted December 21, 2015 at 1:55 pm | Permalink
Darryl,
Gay priests? I expect that there would be a fair number of priests with same sex attraction. I don’t doubt that they can be celebate and faithfully serve God, do you?
What the church can never do is say that sodomy between either same sex or opposite sex partners is not a sin. And the magesterium can never permit the marriage of same sex couples.
You can stop with the “gay squirrel” distraction because it isn’t a reason to deny the magesterium./i>
Nice Catholic lady shows the supercilious Dr. Calvinism what honest critical thinking actually looks like [and corrects his error about what the magisterium is]. Your time is not wasted here, Susan. You’re the genuine article, and the contrast with counterfeits is glaring.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 18, 2015 at 7:01 am | Permalink
Susan,
I really don’t mean to be cruel, but the fact that you and Mermaid can’t even entertain the possibility in theory shows that your faith is not based on evidence
“Provisional belief” is not faith. Their faith is faith. If Christ could rise from the dead, the Holy Spirit guiding His Church is no biggie,
LikeLike
Tom,
You give quite a rip, tough guy nearly 1000 comments’ worth now. And it’s all Darryl seems to write about.
We care inasmuch as CTC offers a deceptive apologetic and inasmuch as leaving the Reformation for Rome is an act of apostasy. We care about the souls of people, unlike Rome where you can do what you want, the priesthood won’t care, and Pope Francis will scold the conservatives.
Darryl and the rest of us just want CTC to be honest. An honest apologetic would be: “We’re better because we have bishops like the early church did from the end of the 2nd century on, and why change a good thing? But if you think you are going to get a principled way to avoid theological liberalism, we’ve got as many problems towing the line as you Protestants, so please don’t convert for that reason. Convert if you think Eucharistic adoration and making rings out of Jesus’ foreskin is the sine qua non of Christianity; don’t convert if you think we care about abortion, homosexuality, or the deity of Christ” That’s not what we get. We get platitudes, whitewashing, and assertions from you that it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you have the Eucharist.
In short, we get a theory of Rome that would work in Plato’s realm of the forms but which doesn’t correspond to life on the ground.
Which is why we don’t care if Rome thinks we’re a church or not.
LikeLike
Tom,
“Provisional belief” is not faith.
Said the followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh.
LikeLike
TLM, well, you have at least done some homework. (And Susan, too, if she is still reading). I did not have OL in mind, though, as an exemplar of Girard’s methodology, though come to think of it…☺
Because of time constraints, I did not ask a complete question. At some point back in this thread. as I was reading through those posts about the Resurrection, and the epistemology and ontology back and forth between you all, Catholics and Protestants, I kept thinking to myself “But what about…”, filling in the blank with one or both of these men. I didn’t mean to single out anyone.
Lapide accepts the Resurrection, but not that He was the Messiah promised to Israel in Scripture. He was very familiar with the NT scholarship of his time (early 70’s), which by and large did not accept the historicity of the Resurrection. Were he writing today, he would, I think, acknowledge the work that has been done by more recent NT scholars, but wouldn’t change his conclusion.
Girard was, by his own account, an agnostic who developed a methodology of literary criticism/philosophical anthropology (he was French, so boundaries are blurry) that he felt explained various (all?) civilizations’ founding myths. He then realized that his way of understanding these myths led to a startling conclusion: the story of Jesus was not only a true myth (shades of Tolkien and Lewis?), but that it proved all other myths false. He then had his children Baptized in the Catholic church. He didn’t “come out” as a Christian in his published writing for several years. I read an interview with him years ago that predates everything being out there on the web, though someone may have posted it somewhere since I tried to find it a couple of years ago, He made it very clear that he viewed the Resurrection as something that happened at a definite time in history, though he thought that what was really important was his interpretation of it. (I did mention that he was French.) He died recently, as far as I have read, a Catholic in good standing.
Both men accepted the Resurrection as historic fact. I believe that I will spend eternity with Girard, I would be surprised if Lapide is with us, though it would be a pleasant surprise.
BTW, the only book I have read by Girard is Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World.That was in the mid-90’s in a small group, and I would never have made it through it unless I had a lot of help. I can’t say it has had any great impact on my core beliefs. I have since read things about him as I come across them. (First Things has published a few things explaining him.). I am by no means an expert. He does seem to have attracted a following among those Protestants who describe themselves as neo-Anabaptists.
But the thread has moved on, and I only asked a limited question for a limited purpose. I didn’t mean to be so mystérious. ☺
LikeLike
Susan, “I’ve heard preachers preaching fire and perdition and I heard barstool sermons against institutional religion by my own natural pappy.”
What did you hear about pastors and sex with adolescents?
High bar for Rome.
Low bar for Protestants.
See the THINKING!?!
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 21, 2015 at 8:51 pm | Permalink
Tom,
“You give quite a rip, tough guy nearly 1000 comments’ worth now. And it’s all Darryl seems to write about.”
We care inasmuch as CTC offers a deceptive apologetic
I’ve seen the Old Life forays onto the Called to Communion board. You are treated with utmost respect and kindness, are given copious explanations of the Catholic faith, are outargued in your rebuttals, then return back here with your tails between your legs, talking spit.
and inasmuch as leaving the Reformation for Rome is an act of apostasy. We care about the souls of people
You’re “elect.” You have the Perseverance of the Saints. Salvation’s in the bag. What’s the worry? Do I have your version of the Christian religion wrong?
unlike Rome where you can do what you want, the priesthood won’t care
That’s a lie.
and Pope Francis will scold the conservatives.
Just like Jesus scolded the Pharisees, who loved the Law more than God and their fellow man. Do you people ever read this thing?
Mercy is good. Mt 9:13. Better than the Law. Francis is OK.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 21, 2015 at 8:52 pm | Permalink
Tom,
“Provisional belief” is not faith.
Said the followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh.
Weren’t they Protestants? [Certainly not Catholic.]
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 21, 2015 at 9:21 pm | Permalink
Susan, “I’ve heard preachers preaching fire and perdition and I heard barstool sermons against institutional religion by my own natural pappy.”
What did you hear about pastors and sex with adolescents?
High bar for Rome.
Low bar for Protestants.
See the THINKING!?!
I see the ranting, no thinking. In fact, with wack punctuation and capital letters
Dr. Hart beclowns himself on his own blog. The nice Catholic lady has driven him to drink, if not to internet madness.
Your time is not wasted here, Sister Susan, for amusement purposes alone. ;/-)
LikeLike
(A different) Dan
Posted December 21, 2015 at 9:06 pm | Permalink
TLM, well, you have at least done some homework. (And Susan, too, if she is still reading).
Yes, they do. Unlike the lion’s share of their interlocutors, present company excepted. Cheers, mate. Interesting stuff.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
Both men accepted the Resurrection as historic fact. I believe that I will spend eternity with Girard, I would be surprised if Lapide is with us, though it would be a pleasant surprise.
Now THIS is interesting…
LikeLike
TVD:
Acts 4:12
LikeLike
(A different) Dan
Posted December 21, 2015 at 10:22 pm | Permalink
TVD:
Acts 4:12
I appreciate the nudge between friends and brothers, brother.
But it gets into a certain gnostic wink wink, ding ding.
This is a colloquy, a publically-held discussion debate for the reader to read. Publish the Bible quote
then be plain about what you are telling me [us] what you think it’s telling me [us].
You’re a smart fella, surely you see why I think this. I occasionally Matthew 7:6 @ the swine here at Old Life, but only out of mercy.
I trust you get that, too. 😉
So do please explicate Acts 4:12 for those of us who are late on the uptake. I o not know all the cliches For myself I come here only to learn from the few like yourself; I only deliver thrashings to those who beg for them. Did not the Apostle E.F. beat the shit out of Billy Bob out of mercy?
They even start fights with the nice Catholic ladies. Ugly fights. And then they lose. I think they want to lose, just like Billy Bob did.
What makes a good and strong “elect” Calvinist man disgrace himself and his church by attacking nice Catholic ladies? Your call, Dan (with a difference). That’s what keeps me here.
LikeLike
Hello there A Different Dan,
I read Rene Girard with a different curiosity than you. While I knew of Tolkien’s idea of Christianity being the true myth, part of me was suspending my faith exactly because mimetic desire and scape goating was in all societies.
You see, to my thinking, if the church of the apostles was gone, then it was a free for all and no authority remained to vouch for either the existence of Jesus or his resurrection.
There were other myths like this so why couldn’t scripture contain the best one. The problem with this.idea ( in my thinking )was I agreed with Lewis, that it wasn’t like the other corn God myths.
Also if Jesus didn’t exist or if he did exist but didn’t say the things attributed to him in sacred writing, then well the writers were gods themselves…..the words were so pentrating and sublime.
No, I came down to the idea that mimetic desire and scape goating is part of the human fall and opposite of divine love. So it’s not like God designed it in the fabric of our social interaction but that it would ultimately be used to bring about out redemption.
I mean it can work it either way, so why be putely scientific about it when even science can’t explain the metaphysics of such demonic phenomenon? It honestly works as a hypothesis within Christianity being that it explains the diffusion mechanism that would seek to kill a man that was obviously innocent and which brought peace between Caiphais and Herod once it was over.
Here’s a look at it by Cardinal Baron.
I didn’t link the article, sorry about that.
Anyways, I wanted to respond to you and be done here. Have you read Benedict XVI Jesus of Nazareth?
How about Blessed John Henry Newman’s Development of Christian Doctrine?
“The main features of this theory were in place when Girard turned for the first time in a serious way to the Christian Scriptures. What he found astonished him and changed his life. He discovered that the Bible knew all about mimetic desire and scapegoating violence but it also contained something altogether new, namely, the de-sacralizing of the process that is revered in all of the myths and religions of the world. The crucifixion of Jesus is a classic instance of the old pattern. It is utterly consistent with the Girardian theory that Caiaphas, the leading religious figure of the time, could say to his colleagues, “Is it not better for you that one man should die for the people than for the whole nation to perish?” In any other religious context, this sort of rationalization would be valorized. But in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, this stunning truth is revealed: God is not on the side of the scapegoaters but rather on the side of the scapegoated victim. The true God in fact does not sanction a community created through violence; rather, he sanctions what Jesus called the Kingdom of God, a society grounded in forgiveness, love, and identification with the victim. Once Girard saw this pattern, he found it everywhere in the Gospels and in Christian literature. For a particularly clear example of the unveiling process, take a hard look at the story of the woman caught in adultery.”
Merry Christmas!
Praying for your health.
LikeLike
I’ve seen the Old Life forays onto the Called to Communion board. You are treated with utmost respect and kindness, are given copious explanations of the Catholic faith, are outargued in your rebuttals, then return back here with your tails between your legs, talking spit.
On the CTC board they are pretty nice, generally, though often the “pat on the head” version of Bryan comes out. But as far as copious explanations, well, that’s true but links to 10,000 word articles that amount to saying “nothing you have said can ever conflict with what we have said” isn’t being outargued. I will give CTC props for posting Brandon Addison’s article, but the response Bryan then posted was sorely lacking.
You’re “elect.” You have the Perseverance of the Saints. Salvation’s in the bag. What’s the worry? Do I have your version of the Christian religion wrong?
I’ve bolded the parts where you have our “version of the Christian religion wrong.” You have no clue, apparently about the Calvinist teaching on God ordaining the ends and means, the responsibility of the believer in perseverance, and so on. So much for being a neutral referee.
That’s a lie.
Darryl has posted copious examples to the contrary. In Rome, you can simply punch your religious timeclock by going to mass and then live however you want. Nancy Pelosi, the upcoming conference on the G-spot being held at the Vatican, etc. etc.
Just like Jesus scolded the Pharisees, who loved the Law more than God and their fellow man. Do you people ever read this thing?
Umm, if traditional RCC teaching on marriage is correct, then traditional RCC teaching and application of it is loving to their fellow man and to God. Apparently Francis doesn’t believe that, what with even faster tracks to annulment, complaining against conservatives who are trying to hold on to some semblance of the traditional view while European bishops are endorsing divorce, gay marriage, etc.
And as far as provisionality and faith. The only person here who has a faith that can be called entirely non-provisional is the person who says that if Jesus’ body is found and proved to be such, they will still believe everything the RCC or Protestantism has ever taught. I don’t see that from you because, again, the only record we have of your spirituality is that you don’t care enough about present RCC teaching to go to mass regularly or believe that the Assumption is a must-believe doctrine. I don’t see that from the Protestants here. I don’t see that from CVD.
And before you complain about bringing up your piety, let me say again that if you are going to root for the RCs but not engage in the basics of RC piety, that’s a big problem.
LikeLike
ADD:
Yes, basically. You submit to her teachings. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Church teachings are presented in a reasonable way. A Church member can read, study, ask questions, think through things. The Church is not some kind of freaky Borg continuum. Look at what the Church is asking you to obey. I’ll bet you don’t even know.
Indeed, mi hermano en Christo, you do not.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/7.evangelical.christians.jailed.for.refusing.to.convert.not.to.islam.but.to.catholicism.in.mexico/74040.htm
LikeLike
Susan, you may think this doesn’t affect you, but it does (if you’re going to be so much an advocate for THE church):
LikeLike
ADD: Both men accepted the Resurrection as historic fact. I believe that I will spend eternity with Girard, I would be surprised if Lapide is with us, though it would be a pleasant surprise.
TVD:Now THIS is interesting…
To which I replied “Acts 4:12”
I thought my remark that prompted your initial comment was mundane, and not very interesting. In addition, it was late. No desire to appear Gnostic. I do not know why you found it interesting, so who is the Gnostic?
LikeLike
Robert: let me say again that if you are going to root for the RCs but not engage in the basics of RC piety, that’s a big problem.
very good point and foundational Biblical truth, Robert:
if you are going to root for ‘Christianity’ but not engage in the basics of ‘Christianity’ piety, that’s a big problem.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart link:
“Okay, look… I may have only taken one introductory level course in Public Relations, but I did get and A in it”
“In order to start regaining credibility”
“But instead of being the Light of the World that we’re meant to be—that awesome City on a Hill that Jesus said cannot be hidden—some of our leaders have turned in on themselves, oppressing the light that lives within the Church, creating a ginormous black hole in the analogical galaxy of Truth so that all most people feel they can do to survive is run—run as far away as possible. And we wonder why everyone seems so lost, as if we didn’t play a role in losing them.”
good points.
LikeLike
No One of Note: You don’t know me well enough to make the statement you did if you meant that I do not know the claims of the RC Church. If I said anything that makes you believe to the contrary, that is my fault. I don’t want to turn this thread into even more of an all about me direction, though, so let us move on.
LikeLike
Susan, since you are leaving (at least) this thread, I will be brief, at least for me:
(1) my motives for reading Girard had every thing to do with the group that I fellowshipped with, not the book itself. I was in my mid-40’s at the time, so it didn’t really have much of an impact on my beliefs.
(2) I have not read Benedict’s book on Jesus;
(3) I read Newman in college for a course, no discernible impact. One of my two closest friends is a cradle Catholic who is very serious about his faith, and he is lukewarm about it for reasons that I do not really understand and wouldn’t pretend to articulate, but I have never really felt compelled to re-engage with it.
(4). I appreciate your prayers for my health. Of the folks that I know who are praying for me, Catholic women are a significant demographic. I don’t think I am in that much imminent danger now, but a year ago was a different story. I’ve had a couple of incidents along the way, but I have an excellent cardiologist. I consider them bumps in the road, but she takes them seriously, which is why I go to her. But, keep praying!
LikeLike
@tvd, re your point about how CTC arguments outshine those of Prots. I’m a lurker here, and there. CTC rigs their game. They set the rules, which are pretty much “we have our paradigm. Our paradigm is right. If you do not accept our paradigm, you are wrong. Thank you for playing our game.” CTC posits a world with flowery ideals of unity and ecclesial purity — stuff nobody disagrees with in concept — backed up by erudite ivory tower theories. Trouble is, their theories have major historical and exegetical chinks, and have sketchy demonstrable results outside Bryan’s classroom.
I’m guessing, for instance, that even the loveable curmudgeons at OL don’t really celebrate that there are 30,000+ denominations, per se. We all hope for perfect unity, particularly if others agree with us 🙂
But if the alternative is submitting to and obeying a brutally authoritative STM system, with its extraordinary claims to authority over man’s conscience/intellect, most Prots will pass. It’s too much like a cult. (I can see, however, where CTC appeals to people who have been on their own religious pinball journey, bouncing around from church to church and from faith to extreme doubt, and finally finding the alleged ‘certainty’ to comfort them)
@mermaid, what say you about the CT article NOON posted about evangelicals being jailed in Mexico for refusing to become Cats? Cat persecution of eeeevangies in Latin America is alive and well. Troubling anecdotes like that one are not hard to find, and too seldom reported on.
LikeLike
Petros,
That’s about the best summary of CTC’s approach that I’ve ever read.
LikeLike
(A different) Dan
Posted December 22, 2015 at 11:11 am | Permalink
Susan, since you are leaving (at least) this thread, I will be brief, at least for me:
(1) my motives for reading Girard had every thing to do with the group that I fellowshipped with, not the book itself. I was in my mid-40’s at the time, so it didn’t really have much of an impact on my beliefs.
(2) I have not read Benedict’s book on Jesus;
(3) I read Newman in college for a course, no discernible impact. One of my two closest friends is a cradle Catholic who is very serious about his faith, and he is lukewarm about it for reasons that I do not really understand and wouldn’t pretend to articulate, but I have never really felt compelled to re-engage with it.
(4). I appreciate your prayers for my health. Of the folks that I know who are praying for me, Catholic women are a significant demographic. I don’t think I am in that much imminent danger now, but a year ago was a different story. I’ve had a couple of incidents along the way, but I have an excellent cardiologist. I consider them bumps in the road, but she takes them seriously, which is why I go to her. But, keep praying!>>>>>
It has been a pleasure to read your comments. I am glad you have Catholic women praying for you – probably involving a Rosary 🙂 – and that you have a cardiologist who takes your bumps in the road seriously. You are a jewel, man. Take care of yourself! 🙂
Girard is kind of fascinating. Thanks for mentioning him. Obedience of faith, not just intellectual assent, thought faith begins with intellectual assent. Well, with regeneration, but … I mean it is the work of the Holy Spirit, really, but how does He normally work?.
How can we believe on Him if we have not heard? The evidence is on the pages of Scripture. If people have not heard that Christ died for our sins, was buried, was raised from the dead, and appeared to numerous witnesses, how will they believe?
The whole provisional knowledge thing, while interesting, está de más. I can’t see that it serves any practical purpose in soteriology, but that’s my opinion, no más. Whether one is Catholic or Protestant the message of 1 Cor. 15 is clear. There are many other proofs found in the NT. It’s all there.
Catholics believe that Scripture is infallible after all. Protestants seem to sometimes forget that.
What is hard is getting someone to actually look at the evidence. Maybe the whole pk thing fits in pre evangelism? Like, take a look at the evidence and see what you think? Maybe it’s just my brain, but the pk thing is like trying to wear a shirt that’s too small – which I do on a daily basis. It doesn’t quite feel right.
If it helps someone else, then God bless us, one and all.
Love to you and yours, and have a blessed Christmas. The whole Catholic Advent thing is fascinating. Waiting for His coming. How long, o Lord, how long?
LikeLike
TLM, thanks and best wishes.
LikeLike
Be careful, vd, t, you might be a heretic:
LikeLike
@ Petros: +1 insightful
@ Mermaid: Catholics believe that Scripture is infallible after all.
Yes, you do (on paper, not in the academy). That is to your credit. Unfortunately, you also believe that Scripture is unintelligible.
Hence,
“Jesus’ mother and brothers” means “Mary was ever-virgin”
“We are justified by faith apart from works of the law” means “justified by baptism and by cooperating with grace in performing works of the law of love”
“Christ is the head of the church” means “Christ’s representative appointed by a process not found on Christ’s teachings is the head of the church.”
Infallibility without intelligibility is not actually infallibility.
LikeLike
“You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.” means “You see that a person is considered righteous by faith alone.”
“the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” means “Scripture alone which has yet to be completed, the pillar and foundation of the truth”.
“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” means “if he refuses to listen even to that denomination, let him move on to or found another denomination”.
“But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth” means “he will guide you into all subject-to-revision truth”.
“upon this rock, I will build my church” means “upon no rock, I will build a cacophony of endlessly dividing churches”
“reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” means “Reprove and rebuke but followers shouldn’t care when you do so. Obedience and submission to those claiming divine authority is cult-like and there will never be itching of ears”.
“No one who is born of God will continue to sin” means “Everyone born of God will continue to damnably sin every second”
“I fear that after preaching to others I myself might be disqualified” means “I have no fear I can ever be disqualified because it’s impossible”.
“He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers” means “He was always an unbeliever”
“you stiff-necked people, you always resist the Holy Spirit” means “you cannot resist the Holy Spirit”
“But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.” means “he will not provide a way out so that you can endure it”
“You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.” means “were always alienated from Christ and never were in grace to begin with”.
“one Lord, one faith, one baptism” means “many Lords, many faiths, no baptism”
““Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?”” means “Of course I do, it’s perspicuous”
Fun game.
Petros,
“But if the alternative is submitting to and obeying a brutally authoritative STM system, with its extraordinary claims to authority over man’s conscience/intellect, most Prots will pass. ”
Did Christ and the Apostles and the NT church have “extraordinary claims to authority over man’s conscience/intellect”? Should NT people have sided with rabbi Levi over that Christian cult?
” CTC rigs their game.”
That would have to be argued, not just asserted. Examining different paradigms and what they can account for is not identical to assuming a particular one is true beforehand.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Examining different paradigms and what they can account for is not identical to assuming a particular one is true beforehand.
But CTC is calling us Reformed people to communion with Rome, so they are approaching the whole discussion assuming that Rome is true. Otherwise, why call us?
It’s a shell game to pretend that CTC is just interested in dispassionate rational enquiry. The rank fideism of that sight is out of control. Why is it that RC fideists with PhDs are given a pass as fideists?
LikeLike
Clete, that was a lot of wasted space and rich. But, we do confess God’s gifting per Eph 4. and application to ordinary means and supernatural(HS) illumination. If you’re gonna paradigm rip, get the paradigm right first. The solo caricatures are tired.
LikeLike
Robert,
“But CTC is calling us Reformed people to communion with Rome, so they are approaching the whole discussion assuming that Rome is true”
By this logic, every time someone argues a position they hold as true, that entails the game is rigged, or that it is impossible to adopt other paradigms and positions in arguments in order to evaluate their coherence and what they can accommodate.
“The rank fideism of that sight is out of control.”
That would have to be argued, and not just asserted.
LikeLike
@Cvd, re: “Did Christ and the apostles and the NT church have “extraordinary claims to authority over man’s conscience/intellect”? Answer: NO! God graciously extends His offer of forgiveness through Christ, but in doing so, never forces Himself upon anyone. We are each accountable to Him, and should never outsource our faith, or our thinking, to any church.
To the extent TVD says OL is for lurkers, I thought I’d offer my lurking perspective on CTC. I’m not interested in arguing how their game is rigged — that’s axiomatic –I’m more interested in learning.
LikeLike
Yeah, but if you hold that it is impossible for your view to be wrong, then there isn’t much point in discussion. Now if you hold out the possibility that your position *could* be mistaken, then perhaps genuine dialog is possible. Bryan has explicitly stated that he believes it is impossible for his position to be false. To suggest otherwise is to beg the question. Neat trick, but not convincing…to me anyway.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 22, 2015 at 1:49 pm | Permalink
@ Petros: +1 insightful
@ Mermaid: Catholics believe that Scripture is infallible after all.
Jeff Cagel:
Yes, you do (on paper, not in the academy). That is to your credit. Unfortunately, you also believe that Scripture is unintelligible.>>>>
Well, you believe that Scripture is infallible in theory, but the real Scripture has been lost. The best you can do is get to within some 90-99.9999% accuracy on any given word or passage. As new discoveries are made in textual criticism, you will advocate for the removal of parts of what we call the Bible. Will you advocate for the addition of texts that were left out? If not, why not? What keeps you from going the Jesus Seminar route? Maybe you, Jeff Cagle won’t, but you are not everyone.
Also, Luther did not advocate the removal of the Deuterocanonical books from his Bible. Dan corrected me on that – if I understood him. Luther put it all in his Bible with some cautions about the books he questioned. He did not in any way discourage Christians from reading them and even benefiting from the books he did not consider to be inspired. If I understand his words correctly, he wanted people to read and follow the Lord, not him. Not sure if I got that, but it seems to be the thrust of his notes of introdution to James, Jude, and Revelation as well as his comments about what he called the Apocrypha.
Why did the WCF remove the Deuterocanonical books altogether? Luther didn’t go that far. I see the wisdom, now, in the Council of Trent making the canon definitive. The Holy Spirit definitely led them in that. The Holy Spirit doesn’t want a bunch of philologists gaining control over the Word of God and making a mockery of it.
The Church’s objection to Luther was that he seemed to be adding words to make the text of Scripture conform to his theology. Well, what happened, happened, but Lutherans are still wondering where the Apocrypha went from their Bibles. I am at peace with Martin Luther. He was a very complicated man. I wonder how much the Reformation was driven by good German beer and how much by theology? 😉
So, what does the infallibility of Scripture even mean to Protestants? To the rank and file, if means if the Bible says it, they believe it. However, what is offered is a truncated Bible, but most of it is there. There is so much of the Deuterocanonical books that is quoted and referred to in the NT that its influence is still with Protestants even though they don’t know it.
Kept in ignorance?
Jeff:
Hence,
“Jesus’ mother and brothers” means “Mary was ever-virgin”>>>>
Well, you know who believed that. You act like that was not standard Christian teaching from the time of the early Church. You act as though it is not standard Christian teaching now. My frenemy, Luther, accepted the Immaculate Conception. Did you forget? Remember the Augustine quote? Remember the quotes from the Greek Fathers of the Church? I guess not.
Jeff Cagle:
“We are justified by faith apart from works of the law” means “justified by baptism and by cooperating with grace in performing works of the law of love”>>>>
You know, you are making stuff up, Jeff. Bring in quotes from the Catechism to support what you say. You need to do your homework. Don’t you have to co-operate with grace in your sanctification? Does God turn you into a zombie, or is sanctification not synergistic anymore in your theology? Do you have to stand before God and give an account of your works done in the flesh?
It is all of grace. Initial justification. Progressive justification. Final justification. All of grace.
Jeff Cagle:
“Christ is the head of the church” means “Christ’s representative appointed by a process not found on Christ’s teachings is the head of the church.”>>>>>
Again. Do your homework. Show your work. Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church. The Pope – which means “father” – is the visible head of the Church. The OPC no longer calls him the antichrist. Don’t know about your denomination.
Aren’t you the head of your wife? Does that mean the you are taking the place of Jesus in her life? Egalitarian feminists would say you are. They would call you an oppressive bully as well. Actually, they are the bullies, but that’s another matter…
Human headship is to model Christ’s headship of His Church, but not usurp His true Headship.
Jeff Cagle:
Infallibility without intelligibility is not actually infallibility.>>>>>
Aw, come on. You’re just sore because I find the whole provisional knowledge thing impossible to follow. If you follow it, and others follow it, then follow it.
Now, if you can provide links or a link to any theologian who argues like you do, I would read it. It seems to me, though, that you are using something borrowed from science and making too broad an application. You understand math. I don’t.
You don’t have to answer to me. I don’t doubt your faith. I doubt the epistemology. It doesn’t seem to work in real life. If it works for you, then I am happy for you, my brother.
The STM thing is easy. Scripture. Tradition. Magisterium. Read the CCC and see how beautifully the 3 work together. You find it hard.
Oh, well.
Hey, you have a wonderful Christmas, unless you are a Bah Humbug!
LikeLike
Petros
Posted December 22, 2015 at 5:19 pm | Permalink
@Cvd, re: “Did Christ and the apostles and the NT church have “extraordinary claims to authority over man’s conscience/intellect”? Answer: NO!
Paul did. He claimed to have been visited by the risen Christ, which we’re supposed to believe. His epistles are placed in the Bible alongside the Gospels as…well, gospel truth.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 22, 2015 at 12:53 pm | Permalink
Be careful, vd, t, you might be a heretic:
if a person believes everything that the Church teaches except for a single moral or theological point that is infallible as taught by the formal or ordinary Magisterium, he or she is properly defined as a “heretic.”
Which is why I don’t discuss my personal beliefs with the likes of you, who will use any trick in the book as weapon because you can’t argue honestly.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted December 22, 2015 at 5:21 pm | Permalink
“But CTC is calling us Reformed people to communion with Rome, so they are approaching the whole discussion assuming that Rome is true”
By this logic, every time someone argues a position they hold as true, that entails the game is rigged, or that it is impossible to adopt other paradigms and positions in arguments in order to evaluate their coherence and what they can accommodate.
Yeah, but if you hold that it is impossible for your view to be wrong, then there isn’t much point in discussion. Now if you hold out the possibility that your position *could* be mistaken, then perhaps genuine dialog is possible.
Catholicism seeks unity. Protestantism cannot, even with itself. [Esp now with gay marriages and gay ministers–the Rubicon has been crossed.]
And of course if the Catholic position is wrong, but so is the Calvinist one, then the “discussion” would be about creating a tertium quid, yet another religion to add to the zillions we already have!
And of course in this discussion, Jeff’s not even arguing his religion is true, only provisional. Can’t unify around maybes and probablys.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Of course you can discuss paradigms rationally while holding to a belief, the problem is that CTC is rigged and they’re not really honest about it. And they don’t present a view of Rome that is honest about the severe problems Rome has had v2 even though one of their own, Andrew Preslar, was recently here complaining about V2 and it incoherence. Let him write a whole front page article on it arguing the many problems V2 has wrought and I’ll have a greater estimate of their charitable dialogue. The dialogue, such as it is, presents a view of Rome that doesn’t take into account all of Rome, and asinine positions such as Bryan discovered the church while Protestants just picked what they thought was correct are presented without any epistemological self-awareness.
LikeLike
TLM: “Also, Luther did not advocate the removal of the Deuterocanonical books from his Bible. Dan corrected me on that – if I understood him. Luther put it all in his Bible with some cautions about the books he questioned. He did not in any way discourage Christians from reading them and even benefiting from the books he did not consider to be inspired. If I understand his words correctly, he wanted people to read and follow the Lord, not him. Not sure if I got that, but it seems to be the thrust of his notes of introdution to James, Jude, and Revelation as well as his comments about what he called the Apocrypha.”
By George, you got it! Add Hebrews to James, Jude and Revelation, I think.
In addition to theology and good German beer fueling the Reformation, add in the fact that Luther sold a phenomenal number of books. He never took any money for it. Printers loved the guy. Works by him and his followers outsold his opponents works by a phenomenal margin.
There is a new book out that I just finished a few weeks ago, “Brand Luther” by Andrew Pettegree. One historian I know said it gave a perspective on the Reformation that he hadn’t seen elsewhere, and it was, to me, just a plain good read. But, I know no more about the theological issues of the Reformation than I did before I read it, so if that is what you want you will be disappointed.
LikeLike
CVD:
You might want to stick to things Protestants actually teach if you want to level a serious critique.
But even there, the difference between Protestant counterintuitives and Catholic is this: the Protestant can come to his session or Presbytery or denomination and reason from Scripture, which is the final authority.
A Catholic cannot.
LikeLike
b, sd, Bryan embodies the mind meld. James Young comes in runner up.
LikeLike
vd, t, right. You’re not discussing personal beliefs. Which makes your mind meld unfriggingbelievable.
Communion up.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 21, 2015 at 7:14 am | Permalink
Tom,
>>>>>>>>>Sorry, asked and answered. By “churches” Paul doesn’t mean a Lutheran “church” sitting next to a Presbyterian one.
As for Augustine, I see no reason to prefer Luther or Calvin’s ecclesiology over his: they were neither bishops and they’re over 1000 years further removed from the Early Church Fathers.<<<<
I see no reason to inherently prefer someone who lived hundreds of years closer to the NT period than someone who lived thousands of years later, particularly when it is clear that the kind of dogmatic unity you see among the early church fathers is not substantially different than the kind you see today among Protestants—agreement on some things, more or less, wild disagreement on other things.
You don’t seem to realize that you’re proving the point: You reject any opinion except your own. You are the highest authority.
Your do-it-yourself Christianity relinquishes any claim to be the same Church as Augustine’s, who does not hold that his own opinions are the final authority.
You guys always seem to think people are disagreeing with you, or you’re being misunderstood. Don’t worry. What you’re saying isn’t terribly complicated. You are understood just fine. When it comes to the Church, one is either with Augustine or you.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 22, 2015 at 9:24 pm | Permalink
CVD:
You might want to stick to things Protestants actually teach if you want to level a serious critique.
But even there, the difference between Protestant counterintuitives and Catholic is this: the Protestant can come to his session or Presbytery or denomination and reason from Scripture, which is the final authority.
A Catholic cannot.
Do-it-yourself Christianity. That’s right in the Bible where Jesus taught sola scriptura.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/03/sola-scriptura-vs-the-magisterium-what-did-jesus-teach/
Except of course that unless you’re fluent in Hebrew and Greek–and ancient Hebrew and Greek, you’re taking some translator’s word for what the scriptures say.
And of course as Ms. Mermaid points out, the Deuterocanonicals got moved to the back of the book on the authority of Martin Luther, and now they’re not there at all!!
So
Protestant can come to his session or Presbytery or denomination and reason from Scripture, which is the final authority/i>
is based on a false premise, because both your translator and whoever decided what goes into your Bible [and what gets cut out] has already preempted your final authority by “rigging the game,” as one fellow here calls it.
You really haven’t been listening to Ms. Mermaid, guys. It’s not about what’s in the Deuteros as much as how it proves how “Protestantism” wrote its own Bible. Its “final authority” is suspect, if not illegitimate, for this reason alone.
[The theological anarchy and ecclesiastical chaos it wrought is indictment enough. Dr. Hart tirelessly trolls the basement of the internet desperately seeking any dissention in the Catholic Church to even begin to compare.]
[It doesn’t.]
All of which is why I’m so appalled albeit amused at your condescension. Y’all seem to think you’re smarter or wiser or more erudite than she. Even if that mattered to God, which it doesn’t, you assuredly are not.
LikeLike
(A different) Dan
Posted December 22, 2015 at 9:15 pm | Permalink
TLM: “Also, Luther did not advocate the removal of the Deuterocanonical books from his Bible. Dan corrected me on that – if I understood him. Luther put it all in his Bible with some cautions about the books he questioned. He did not in any way discourage Christians from reading them and even benefiting from the books he did not consider to be inspired. If I understand his words correctly, he wanted people to read and follow the Lord, not him. Not sure if I got that, but it seems to be the thrust of his notes of introdution to James, Jude, and Revelation as well as his comments about what he called the Apocrypha.”
(A d) Dan:
By George, you got it! Add Hebrews to James, Jude and Revelation, I think.>>>>>
Yay!
Yes, Luther questioned the inspiration of Hebrews as well. He had a high regard for all 4 books, though, as well as his Apocrypha.
(A d) Dan:
In addition to theology and good German beer fueling the Reformation, add in the fact that Luther sold a phenomenal number of books. He never took any money for it. Printers loved the guy. Works by him and his followers outsold his opponents works by a phenomenal margin.>>>>
Interesting. So, beer and market forces fueled the Reformation more than theology? Could it be?
It’s not really clear to me what theological differences he actually had with the Church. Well, there’s the whole pope thing, but otherwise, what? Of course, no one seemed to be in the mood at that time to sit down and hash it out.
(A d) Dan:
There is a new book out that I just finished a few weeks ago, “Brand Luther” by Andrew Pettegree. One historian I know said it gave a perspective on the Reformation that he hadn’t seen elsewhere, and it was, to me, just a plain good read. But, I know no more about the theological issues of the Reformation than I did before I read it, so if that is what you want you will be disappointed.>>>>>>
Interesting. I got the free sample from Amazon to read. Looks good.
Thanks for the recommendation. Hey, you have a good rest of the evening, Brother (A different) Dan.
LikeLike
ADD
No One of Note: You don’t know me well enough to make the statement you did if you meant that I do not know the claims of the RC Church. If I said anything that makes you believe to the contrary, that is my fault. I don’t want to turn this thread into even more of an all about me direction, though, so let us move on.
?huh?
LikeLike
No one of Note: this was meant for me, I thought:
No one of note
Posted December 22, 2015 at 7:19 am | Permalink
ADD:
Yes, basically. You submit to her teachings. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Church teachings are presented in a reasonable way. A Church member can read, study, ask questions, think through things. The Church is not some kind of freaky Borg continuum. Look at what the Church is asking you to obey. I’ll bet you don’t even know.
Indeed, mi hermano en Christo, you do not.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/7.evangelical.christians.jailed.for.refusing.to.convert.not
Did you mean TVD or CVD instead of ADD?
LikeLike
The Little Mermaid
Posted December 22, 2015 at 11:27 pm | Permalink
(A different) Dan
Posted December 22, 2015 at 9:15 pm | Permalink
TLM: “Also, Luther did not advocate the removal of the Deuterocanonical books from his Bible. Dan corrected me on that – if I understood him. Luther put it all in his Bible with some cautions about the books he questioned. He did not in any way discourage Christians from reading them and even benefiting from the books he did not consider to be inspired. If I understand his words correctly, he wanted people to read and follow the Lord, not him. Not sure if I got that, but it seems to be the thrust of his notes of introdution to James, Jude, and Revelation as well as his comments about what he called the Apocrypha.”
(A d) Dan:
By George, you got it! Add Hebrews to James, Jude and Revelation, I think.>>>>>
Yay!
Yes, Luther questioned the inspiration of Hebrews as well. He had a high regard for all 4 books, though, as well as his Apocrypha.
(A d) Dan:
In addition to theology and good German beer fueling the Reformation, add in the fact that Luther sold a phenomenal number of books. He never took any money for it. Printers loved the guy. Works by him and his followers outsold his opponents works by a phenomenal margin.>>>>
Mermaid: Interesting. So, beer and market forces fueled the Reformation more than theology? Could it be?
Take that, Dr. History. Y’all misunderestimate Ms. Mermaid’s ability to cut through the smoke and fog at your own peril.
Not that I have any animus against beer and market forces, mind you. If that is “Protestantism,” I’ve always said America is a Protestant nation, not a “Christian” one, Darryl. Beer and market forces made America great!
Why do you think I dig the Reformation so much? I didn’t come to your blog to study Catholicism.
LikeLike
TLM: ” Interesting. So, beer and market forces fueled the Reformation more than theology? Could it be?
The immediate question I had after reading the book I mentioned was “where did people get the money to buy all these books?” What changed in Europe? For those who think the Reformation was a tragedy, why not blame it on Columbus? He’s blamed for everything else.
Katie Luther, by all accounts, made killer beer. By his own comfort, which I think I have mentioned here before, “I simply taught, preached, and wrote God’s Word; otherwise I did nothing. And then, while I slept, or drank Wittenberg beer with my Philip [Melanchthon] and my Amsdorf [Nicholaus von], the Word so greatly weakened the papacy that never a prince or emperor did such damage to it. I did nothing. The Word did it all.”
TLM: “It’s not really clear to me what theological differences he actually had with the Church. Well, there’s the whole pope thing, but otherwise, what? Of course, no one seemed to be in the mood at that time to sit down and hash it out.”
Luther asked: “What must I do to be saved?”. Mark Noll is quoted somewhere as saying Luther asked for bread and the Church gave him a stone. (It is past my bed time and I am not going to chase the quote down.). As has been noted by others, all the rites, pilgrimages, etc. that had given people such comfort for centuries seemed to be inadequate for some reason, and gave rise to anxiety and dread instead, much more so, at least by some accounts, in Northern than Southern Europe. Why didn’t the Church have a better answer?
Politics were in a state of flux all over Europe. There were some fairly high up in the Church who wanted to try to work out some kind of settlement, but they lost out. Could the Church have changed enough, fast enough? Communications were faster all around, but the Church was handicapped by its structure and procedures and always seemed to be overtaken by events.
But don’t underestimate the theology. Have you seen this quote by Robert Farrar Capon?:
“The Reformation was a time when men went blind, staggering drunk because they had discovered, in the dusty basement of late medievalism, a whole cellar full of fifteen-hundred-year-old, two-hundred proof Grace–bottle after bottle of pure distilate of Scripture, one sip of which would convince anyone that God saves us single-handedly. The word of the Gospel–after all those centuries of trying to lift yourself into heaven by worrying about the perfection of your bootstraps–suddenly turned out to be a flat announcement that the saved were home before they started…Grace has to be drunk straight: no water, no ice, and certainly no ginger ale; neither goodness, nor badness, not the flowers that bloom in the spring of super spirituality could be allowed to enter into the case.”
With that, I am going to turn out the lights.
LikeLike
Comfort = account
How did that happen?☺
LikeLike
TVD:
And of course as Ms. Mermaid points out, the Deuterocanonicals got moved to the back of the book on the authority of Martin Luther, and now they’re not there at all!!>>>>
Yes, that is an amazing thing. Lutherans still wonder where it went.
Here is what Luther says about another section of Scripture, the book of Revelation.
“Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think. My spirit cannot fit itself into this book. There is one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it,-Christ is not taught or known in it; but to teach Christ is the thing which an apostle is bound, above all else, to do, as He says in Acts 1:8, “Ye shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which give me Christ, clearly and purely.”
I mean, the guy had a very high view of himself. I’m not sure how he missed Christ in the book of Revelation.
My spirit cannot fit itself into this book? So, his own conscience dictated for him what the canon actually was.
Sure. He claimed to be following earlier traditions, but the phrase “it does not fit with my spirit” puts a whole different spin on things.
Let that sink in. Why is an appeal to individual conscience superior to an appeal to the traditions and authority of the Catholic Church?
LikeLike
vd, t, “Except of course that unless you’re fluent in Hebrew and Greek–and ancient Hebrew and Greek, you’re taking some translator’s word for what the scriptures say.”
Jeff beat you there, mullet adorned one.
All those encyclicals and dogmas you and James Young love to quote as infallible are only interpreted. How do you know what the original says?
LikeLike
vd, t, “study”
hee hee
LikeLike
TLM, just for you:
http://www.zachicks.com/blog/2013/11/14/from-heaven-high-a-christmas-song-by-martin-luther.html
Merry Christmas
LikeLike
Dan,
My comment provided contemporary context to Mermaid’s words to you on submission first, understanding later.
Such was your question.
LikeLike
Tom,
You don’t seem to realize that you’re proving the point: You reject any opinion except your own. You are the highest authority.
“Own your Protestantism,” he says. “The ultimate authority in Protestantism isn’t the Bible, it’s the individual conscience.”
Your do-it-yourself Christianity relinquishes any claim to be the same Church as Augustine’s, who does not hold that his own opinions are the final authority.
“I would not believe the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.”
This is the dumbest argument I hear from RCs. It appears in various forms. Bryan Cross puts it as submitting to something because you agree with it isn’t true submission or it’s ecclesiastical consumerism to choose a church based on whether you agree with it or not.
These complaints, and yours, assume that submitting something because in your opinion it is correct. But what’s the alternative. Submitting to something even though in your opinion it is not correct? It’s an asinine argument.
What is ironic is that Rome gives no way to submit when in your opinion she is wrong. Converts have to declare, “I believe everything that the church teaches.” You can’t be a good RCC unless you believe everything that the church teaches, and you can’t believe everything it teaches unless you assent, agree that in your view she is correct.
On the other hand, Reformed churches have a way to submit even when you don’t believe everything the church teaches. Teaching elders are allowed certain exceptions to their confessional standard such that they will submit to the presbytery and agree not to teach certain opinions if the presbytery determines they may not teach them. There’s no such thing for Roman Catholicism of the traditional variety. Believe all or you are going to hell.
Now since V2, it’s pretty much been a free for all, and I note that no one has answered Petros’ question on the conscience. Is one obligated to submit to Rome even if doing so would violate one’s conscience. You read most of the modern teaching on the conscience in Romanism and it is pretty easy to see that there is no one answer and that the trend is that you should never violate your conscience in religious matters. Thus, there’s no way to actually accept the authority of the RCC unless you come to the opinion that it is correct.
So the argument is frankly stupid. The only people who don’t submit to themselves as the proximate authority are those who don’t believe a claim but affirm it anyway. I don’t even know what that means given that I don’t know how one affirms something truly if you don’t believe it, but I’m not making the stupid argument that disagreeing with the church means you reject all opinions except your own.
And might I remind you that there is absolutely no evidence that you actually submit to the Roman Church. So you need to couch your argument as “According to the Roman Catholic Church, you reject all opinions not your own,” and not this dogmatic expression that makes it sound as if you actually agree with Rome on this matter. Because you don’t.
LikeLike
No one of Note:
OK, but I wouldn’t have read things that way.
LikeLike
(A different) Dan
Posted December 23, 2015 at 7:39 am | Permalink
TLM, just for you:
http://www.zachicks.com/blog/2013/11/14/from-heaven-high-a-christmas-song-by-martin-luther.html
Merry Christmas>>>>>
How sweet! Thank you, (A d) D. Merry Christmas to you and yours as well.
Maybe Luther should have stuck to song writing. 😉
LikeLike
TLM- “Maybe Luther should have stuck to song writing. ”
All part of his Brand Management strategy, along with the distinctive physical appearance of his books, the Cranach illustrations, etc. He doesn’t seem to have had a shoe contract.
Maybe you can do an arrangement for the oboe.
Joy!
ADD
LikeLike
(A different) Dan
Posted December 23, 2015 at 12:49 am | Permalink
TLM: ” Interesting. So, beer and market forces fueled the Reformation more than theology? Could it be?
Dan:
The immediate question I had after reading the book I mentioned was “where did people get the money to buy all these books?” What changed in Europe? For those who think the Reformation was a tragedy, why not blame it on Columbus? He’s blamed for everything else.>>>>
I blame it on the Germans and the French. 😉 Just kidding! Though the Reformation seemed to have geo political and cultural – linguistic causes as much as anything else. Luther reminds me a bit of Donald Trump. I’m not a Trump fan, BTW, but he knows how to say out loud what a lot of people are thinking. In a similar way, Luther gave voice to those who felt they had no voice. Maybe?
Luther didn’t seem to have any political ambitions, or desire for filthy lucre.
(A d) Dan:
Katie Luther, by all accounts, made killer beer. By his own comfort, which I think I have mentioned here before, “I simply taught, preached, and wrote God’s Word; otherwise I did nothing. And then, while I slept, or drank Wittenberg beer with my Philip [Melanchthon] and my Amsdorf [Nicholaus von], the Word so greatly weakened the papacy that never a prince or emperor did such damage to it. I did nothing. The Word did it all.”>>>>>
Yes, I have read some of his comments about his wife. Those offend feminists, of course. He seemed to admire his wife as much or more than love her – though I don’t doubt his love for her as well. She raised pigs and brewed beer. What’s not to like?
From what you quote here, it looks like Luther believed that it was God’s Word being unleashed on a thirsty people. Others saw it as an opportunity to grab political and economic power. Forgive the redundancy.
TLM: “It’s not really clear to me what theological differences he actually had with the Church. Well, there’s the whole pope thing, but otherwise, what? Of course, no one seemed to be in the mood at that time to sit down and hash it out.”
Luther asked: “What must I do to be saved?”. Mark Noll is quoted somewhere as saying Luther asked for bread and the Church gave him a stone. (It is past my bed time and I am not going to chase the quote down.). As has been noted by others, all the rites, pilgrimages, etc. that had given people such comfort for centuries seemed to be inadequate for some reason, and gave rise to anxiety and dread instead, much more so, at least by some accounts, in Northern than Southern Europe. Why didn’t the Church have a better answer?>>>>
Yes, Luther thought he was leading people to Christ, and I am sure that many have been led to Christ through his influence. What I am seeing in Protestantism as I withdraw from it is how each Protestant judges the personal experience and faith of everyone else based on his or her own experience.
Now I look at all the rituals, pilgrimages, the Mass and so forth through different eyes. I feel like I am now free to experience things that had been prohibited to me before. Why do I now feel a freedom like I never had before?
Besides, all the things that have brought comfort to Christians since the very beginning still bring comfort now. I mean, how many Reformed Baptists dream about one day being able to walk where Jesus walked in the Holy Land as well as to see the places where the Apostle Paul preached? Protestants may not call those trips “pilgrimages”, but that is what they are.
Do you have a burning desire to go to London and see the Metropolitan Tabernacle? Heck, I would love to see it myself.
Dan:
Politics were in a state of flux all over Europe. There were some fairly high up in the Church who wanted to try to work out some kind of settlement, but they lost out. Could the Church have changed enough, fast enough? Communications were faster all around, but the Church was handicapped by its structure and procedures and always seemed to be overtaken by events.>>>>
Yes. Now, why did the Holy Spirit allow that to happen? Well, we can’t discern the things hidden from us, but somehow God’s sovereign purposes were and are involved. At least now we are talking to one another, and the animosity has dissipated somewhat. We are not actually at war as in killing one another. That is a huge deal, actually, if you think about it.
Dan:
But don’t underestimate the theology. Have you seen this quote by Robert Farrar Capon?:
“The Reformation was a time when men went blind, staggering drunk because they had discovered, in the dusty basement of late medievalism, a whole cellar full of fifteen-hundred-year-old, two-hundred proof Grace–bottle after bottle of pure distilate of Scripture, one sip of which would convince anyone that God saves us single-handedly. The word of the Gospel–after all those centuries of trying to lift yourself into heaven by worrying about the perfection of your bootstraps–suddenly turned out to be a flat announcement that the saved were home before they started…Grace has to be drunk straight: no water, no ice, and certainly no ginger ale; neither goodness, nor badness, not the flowers that bloom in the spring of super spirituality could be allowed to enter into the case.”>>>>
Interesting. Now the grace bottle is almost empty in the Lutheran church. Why is that? How do Protestants – or Catholics for that matter – keep the gift of grace from turing into cheap grace that makes no claim on the one who runs to Christ for refuge? I guess that is part of what Brother Hart is trying to do. I just think that provisional knowledge approach might very well be a little leaven.
Dan:
With that, I am going to turn out the lights.>>>>
Night, night, (A different) Brother Dan.
LikeLike
(A different) Dan
Posted December 23, 2015 at 11:41 am | Permalink
TLM- “Maybe Luther should have stuck to song writing. ”
All part of his Brand Management strategy, along with the distinctive physical appearance of his books, the Cranach illustrations, etc. He doesn’t seem to have had a shoe contract.
Maybe you can do an arrangement for the oboe.
Joy!
ADD>>>>>
Yes! I play the regular oboe. I also play the oboe of love – oboe d’amore. I own an Italian instrument – very sweet and powerful. My regular oboe is American. Free blowing. Of course, the oboe double reed is designed to not allow air through, so freedom is never free, but must be won.
Brand Management. Reminds me of a recent case I heard about, but that brand crashed and burned…
Yes, JOY, JOY, JOY!
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 23, 2015 at 8:56 am | Permalink
Tom,
You don’t seem to realize that you’re proving the point: You reject any opinion except your own. You are the highest authority.
“Own your Protestantism,” he says. “The ultimate authority in Protestantism isn’t the Bible, it’s the individual conscience.”
Your do-it-yourself Christianity relinquishes any claim to be the same Church as Augustine’s, who does not hold that his own opinions are the final authority.
“I would not believe the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.”
This is the dumbest argument I hear from RCs.
That is the dumbest rebuttal I’ve ever heard from a Protestant.
Now that we have the assertions of victory out of the way, unless you’re rewriting your own Bible, taking this out and maybe putting other stuff in, you are relying on Tradition yourself, just as Augustine did.
LikeLike
“Why did the WCF remove the Deuterocanonical books altogether? ”
That’s a bit strong. The wcf simply notes they aren’t canonical and should be regarded as any other human writing. I like how the Belgic puts it:
I’m not aware of any groups that adhere to sola scriptura that have gone as far afield as you worry. The Jesus Seminar types explicitly reject sola scriptura. The theological diversity among those who adhere to sola scriptura is pretty narrow.
“Now, if you can provide links or a link to any theologian who argues like you do, I would read it. It seems to me, though, that you are using something borrowed from science and making too broad an application. You understand math. I don’t.”
You might try Alistair McGrath’s “Reality” for a nice summary of the argument of why Cartesian certainty and foundationalism generally is a dead end. The recognition that foundationalism does not provide warrant for true belief need not entail skepticism. Science is a noncontested example of how that can be. Showing how science allows one to avoid skepticism sans foundationalism is not an argument that religious beliefs are identical to scientific beliefs. It is a demonstration that ss-rp is not necessarily self defeating as has been put forth by the ctc & cvd. Thomism is not the only game in town. I would go further and suggest it is a dead end. Given it has taken a few thousand comments to get to ss-rp is not self defeating, my thumbs lack the stamina for a positive case for ss-rp or extended critique of thomism. McGrath’s Reality is a good place to read up on foundationalism. Van Inwage is good on serious metaphysics if you want to see how someone addresses these challenges in a thoughtful way. Some of the papers under philosophy of religion here are quite accessible:
http://andrewmbailey.com/pvi/
I side with the RC convert, van fraassen, on metaphysics (it is all useless at best). His Terry lecture is a good nontech approach, but the focus is science.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted December 23, 2015 at 7:16 pm | Permalink
“Why did the WCF remove the Deuterocanonical books altogether? ”
That’s a bit strong. The wcf simply notes they aren’t canonical and should be regarded as any other human writing.
That fits “remove.”
LikeLike
Tom,
Now that we have the assertions of victory out of the way, unless you’re rewriting your own Bible, taking this out and maybe putting other stuff in, you are relying on Tradition yourself, just as Augustine did.
Of course I am relying on tradition. I’ve never denied it. I rely heavily on the Reformed tradition. I lean on Augustine in some places and reject him on others. Same with Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Athanasius, Sproul, Frame, Berkhof, Gerstner, Machen, the Westminster divines, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Leo I, Cyril of Alexandria, Edwards, the PCA, the OPC, and on and on and on.
By the way, that’s exactly what all thinking people do. And it’s exactly what Rome does. Rome doesn’t obey the tradition any more slavishly than Protestants as a whole or individually. In fact, Rome really isn’t bound by tradition at all.
Now explain to me what it means that the only opinion I follow is my own and how that differs from anyone else on this planet.
LikeLike
Lean on Frame? Thinking people do this? Well, it certainly would beat the alternative. What what?
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 23, 2015 at 7:56 pm | Permalink
Tom,
“unless you’re rewriting your own Bible, taking this out and maybe putting other stuff in, you are relying on Tradition yourself, just as Augustine did.”
Of course I am relying on tradition. I’ve never denied it. I rely heavily on the Reformed tradition.
Finally you’re affirming what I’ve been saying all along. You have no reason to prefer this tradition over that, Calvin over Luther, this Bible over that one, this translator instead of this other one, except for your own personal opinion.
I lean on Augustine in some places and reject him on others.
Yes, we’re just affirming that by rejecting his tradition and substituting the Reformed tradition, your church is not Augustine’s Church. You claim to hold the same faith and religion as he, but this discussion proves otherwise.
Same with Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Athanasius, Sproul, Frame, Berkhof, Gerstner, Machen, the Westminster divines, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Leo I, Cyril of Alexandria, Edwards, the PCA, the OPC, and on and on and on.
By the way, that’s exactly what all thinking people do.
Yes, that’s what we’ve been saying. By rejecting theological authority, all Protestants are “cafeteria Protestants.”
And it’s exactly what Rome does.
No, it’s not. Old Life keeps asserting that with some mumbles about Vatican II or some 800-year old encyclical, but the difference between Catholicism and the dozens if not 100s of “Protestantisms” [not to mention its intradenominational separations and schisms!] is one of kind, not degree. In its unbridled diversity/anarchy, Protestantism cannot be blandly argued as equivalent to Catholicism, as Augustine definitively argues above, and as you yourself prove with your motley laundry list of scholars and theologians and unquestioned status as a “thinking person.” 😉
LikeLike
TLM,
Most all of what I know that might, IMO, be worth sharing requires me to tell a story, which I have never felt comfortable doing on the internet. I feel particularly strongly that, usually, this forum would be a particularly inappropriate place to do so.
First, I am not Reformed, so I really feel that I rarely have anything to add to the intramural debates that sometimes go on here. That I disagree with, or am uncertain about, some key tenents of Reformed theology is something that I feel no need to argue about. Second, that the regulars here make derogatory remarks about Baptists is of no moment whatsoever. I have heard all of them before from other Baptists, so I usually let those pass. Third, if someone wants to establish a web site aimed at explaining the claims of Rome to those in various Reformed denominations, they have the right to do so, and others can oppose those claims. That is not my fight, and I resist the urge to jump in most of the time. I usually don’t read much past the first day of a comment thread, When I do go back and scan through some of these megathreads, if I see something that strikes me as just plain wrong, or raises a question in my mind that I don’t see being addressed, I will post something. But others of you have more theological, philosophical and historical knowledge than I will ever have, so I really have little to add.
(Why am I here? If you haven’t hung on every word I’ve posted here in the past, the short strokes are that I read DGH’s Calvinism: A History and found some parts of it intriguing enough to learn more, so I found this blog. I have since read 4 or so of his other works, and have found him to be, as I have previously said, in contact with the more famous names in his specialty, like Noll and Marsden, but just different enough to be very much worth reading. But the main thing I get from it is a push back against the baleful influence of the transformers of the world, exemplified by TKNY, TGC, John Piper, etc. I care because their influence is not limited to Reformed circles. I have never felt a call to be an enforcer of doctrine in my congregation, but many others share the concerns that I have, and our younger staff in particular comes out of seminary needing, shall we say, seasoning, and what better way is there to learn than from handling members questions? That these questions tend to be Socratic, and come from older, in some cases retired, doctors, lawyers, judges, engineers, etc., who have seen everything and (with the exception of us lawyers) are smarter than they are, doesn’t take too long to register. But in order to keep the stables clean, it helps to know the source of the manure. And 2K is a good corrective).
You have raised lots of things in the posts we have addressed to each other, and on many other threads as well, that I wish I could discuss with you personally. I just don’t feel this is the place for stories. So, let me respond to just some of the points from your last post. I am not trying to blow you off or patronize you in any way.
“in a similar way, Luther gave voice to those who felt they had no voice. Maybe?”
If he did, I do not think he was comfortable doing it, to say the least. He was most definitely not out to bring power to the people. That he cared about them is beyond dispute. That he was a popular pastor as well as a celebrity preacher ☺ seems pretty clear. But as an unintended consequence? Sure
LikeLike
TLM, that inadvertantly got posted before I had finished. I might get a few more points done tonight, but more likely it will be tomorrow morning, which is when I had intended to post the whole thing. Hold your applause- or brickbats- til the end
LikeLike
(A d) Dan:
I said:
“in a similar way, Luther gave voice to those who felt they had no voice. Maybe?”>>>>
(A d) Dan:
If he did, I do not think he was comfortable doing it, to say the least. He was most definitely not out to bring power to the people. That he cared about them is beyond dispute. That he was a popular pastor as well as a celebrity preacher ☺ seems pretty clear. But as an unintended consequence? Sure>>>>>
Ah, okay. Not sure why I thought you said you were Reformed Baptist. My bad.
Unintended consequences. That makes sense. No, I wasn’t thinking in terms of power to the people as in the poor. The people reading his tracts would have been at least middle class. They would have had to have been educated in order to read them. They would have had to have had some disposable income.
(A different) Dan
Posted December 23, 2015 at 10:50 pm | Permalink
TLM, that inadvertantly got posted before I had finished. I might get a few more points done tonight, but more likely it will be tomorrow morning, which is when I had intended to post the whole thing. Hold your applause- or brickbats- til the end>>>>>
So, to be continued…
Hey, you have a wonderful rest of the evening.
LikeLike
James Young, catch up to your holy father:
LikeLike
Tom,
Finally you’re affirming what I’ve been saying all along.
That we follow a tradition? No one has denied this.
You have no reason to prefer this tradition over that, Calvin over Luther, this Bible over that one, this translator instead of this other one, except for your own personal opinion.
You have no reason to prefer RCism over Calvin or Luther except for you own personal opinion. You read the evidence the best you can, and you make a decision. Just like anyone else. The Roman Catholics aren’t doing anything different here, unless they aren’t thinking at all.
Yes, we’re just affirming that by rejecting his tradition and substituting the Reformed tradition, your church is not Augustine’s Church. You claim to hold the same faith and religion as he, but this discussion proves otherwise.
There are differences between my church and Augustine’s, sure. There’s also differences that are just as significant between modern Rome and Augustine’s church. I guess that means that Rome doesn’t have the same faith or religion either.
Yes, that’s what we’ve been saying. By rejecting theological authority, all Protestants are “cafeteria Protestants.”
Says the man who doesn’t care what Rome says about the Assumption, transubstantiation, or the necessity of going to mass.
No, it’s not. Old Life keeps asserting that with some mumbles about Vatican II or some 800-year old encyclical, but the difference between Catholicism and the dozens if not 100s of “Protestantisms” [not to mention its intradenominational separations and schisms!] is one of kind, not degree. In its unbridled diversity/anarchy, Protestantism cannot be blandly argued as equivalent to Catholicism, as Augustine definitively argues above, and as you yourself prove with your motley laundry list of scholars and theologians and unquestioned status as a “thinking person.”
The only people convinced that Rome is not a church of theological anarchy are the relatively few Roman Catholic conservatives who haven’t gone sedevacantist. The vast majority accepts diversity, including the right to abide by their own personal conscience whenever they want to. Since Rome doesn’t discipline, I have no reason to believe Rome actually thinks they’re doing anything against the dogma. So you can be a good Roman Catholic and be for abortion and you can be a good Roman Catholic against one. Same for gay marriage. Same for the Trinity. Just show up at mass and be a nice person, and maybe it’ll all work out in the end.
Nancy Pelosi and Mother Teresa are both saints according to Roman Catholicism. That’s theological anarchy.
LikeLike
Petros
Posted December 22, 2015 at 11:32 am | Permalink
@mermaid, what say you about the CT article NOON posted about evangelicals being jailed in Mexico for refusing to become Cats? Cat persecution of eeeevangies in Latin America is alive and well. Troubling anecdotes like that one are not hard to find, and too seldom reported on.>>>>>
Well, Petros, I would have to tell you a story – or lots of stories – about myself, and I am not sure how much to share. This is OL after all.
In the first place, the article was posted at a website called Christian Today, not Christianity Today. They are two different entities.
I found the story in three places – Charisma magazine, Christian Today, and International Christian Concern. No names of the arrested were given in any of the articles. There were very few details as well. I could not find any corroborating articles from any other news sources. There are no follow up articles that I can find. Like, are they still in jail? Were they held for a few hours, or a few days? Were they even jailed or just taken to jail?
Did it happen at all? Yes, there were probably some Evangélicos bullied by local civil and tribal authorities. That is an awful thing for them to do, whatever it was. The info. is pretty sketchy. It seems that there is some ongoing bullying being perpetrated in the village mentioned. Just exactly what that entails at this point in time is unclear. The articles were more inflammatory than informative, but that is often the nature of journalism. I am often left wondering what really happened after I read a news article.
The comments section from the Charisma version of the story reminded me of your comment here, Petros.
I hope that some follow up articles are written. ICC does publicize cases related to the plight of persecuted Christians worldwide. However, it is also heavily engaged in fund raising. I often read their reports and pray for the persecuted and mistreated Christians.
I will wait to see your reaction, Petros, to this comment before I share a little story with you. I also have an article that gives a clearer explanation of what the issues in Chiapas are really about.
Do you have any sources on the ground in Chiapas, or have you ever been there? Do you know the name of the tribe involved? How much on the ground experience do you have in Latin America?
Now, the situation in Chiapas has been bad in the past. In the late ‘90s the federal government intervened in the problems with the Zapatistas. This helped calm everything down quite a bit. See, the state of Chiapas is semi autonomous. The Catholic Church has no more direct political power in Mexico than the Presbyterian or Baptist or any other church. She has more influence because the majority of Mexicans are Catholic, but she herself has been the object of persecution in MX. She has been at the forefront of pressuring the government of Mexico to reform itself. I also have a scholarly paper to offer you if you wish to find out more about the Church-state relations in Mexico.
The major persecution in Chiapas that is quite well documented happened during the 70s and 80s and into the 90s when some 30,000 + Evangélicos were thrown off their lands, or killed, or the women raped because they no longer participated in the traditionalist religion of their ancestors. These traditionalists have a thin veneer of Catholicism.
See, these people are poor and many of them do not even speak Spanish – or speak it well.
It’s complicated. It is tragic. Yes, it is a kind of persecution, but to blame the Catholic Church or Catholics for it is quite Girardic of you. If you want a story from my own experience in Chiapas, then I just might be persuaded to tell you one. You have to play nice, though, or no story. If you want articles to read, then I will pass them along as well. If you really wish to learn about the situation, then I would ask you to factor in the cases where Catholics and the Church have stepped in to help those who have been persecuted.
Hey, you have a very Merry Christmas, and God bless us, every one. Love to you and your loved ones today and always.
PS
This morning I found the story in another place, but it is the same story. I have not found any follow up stories that would give the present status of the 7 who were allegedly arrested allegedly by the Catholics. You do know that the Church has not police force in Mexico, right?
LikeLike
Robert:
You have no reason to prefer RCism over Calvin or Luther except for you own personal opinion. You read the evidence the best you can, and you make a decision. Just like anyone else. The Roman Catholics aren’t doing anything different here, unless they aren’t thinking at all.>>>>
Howdy, Robert,
I hope all is well with you and your loved ones on this fine morning of Christmas Eve, 2015. We are gearing up for a big celebration around here.
Now, I understand what you are saying. I am running the risk of being put in your category of “they aren’t thinking at all” by sharing a little of my experience. After all, we are not just talking about how we arrive at conclusions and what epistemology we operate with.
Now, I am not part of Called to Communion. They are obviously way above me in knowledge and understanding and all the good things all y’all have. I recognize that. I do the best I can with whats I gots.
I like to try to understand what people are saying and why. Anyway, I often fail. That doesn’t keep me from trying.
Notice, though, that part of their title is “called.” Now, maybe you guys are uncomfortable with such mystical nonsense, but I am Catholic not just because I am convinced that the STM triad is a 3 fold cord that is not easily broken – pardon my use of a Scriptural saying, here. I am convinced by reading the CCC and other great Catholic works. I am convinced by reading the great minds like Augustine , Aquinas, Athanasius, and Anselm – A Quartet as in awesome – and then there’s Chrysostom who was so clear and down to earth in his time. I started to read them as Catholics, and it works. And, yes, Pope Francis convinced me as well. I wear his cross. It has the image if Jesus as the Good Shepherd gathering the sheep through His death on the cross. Jesus, seeking and saving that which was lost.
There is also that mystical element, that inward call, that I could not ignore or resist. I hope you understand. If not, well I still love my brothers here at OL. I have no reason not to, and every reason to.
God bless us, every one.
LikeLike
sdb:“Now, if you can provide links or a link to any theologian who argues like you do, I would read it. It seems to me, though, that you are using something borrowed from science and making too broad an application. You understand math. I don’t.”
You might try Alistair McGrath’s “Reality” for a nice summary of the argument of why Cartesian certainty and foundationalism generally is a dead end. The recognition that foundationalism does not provide warrant for true belief need not entail skepticism. Science is a noncontested example of how that can be. Showing how science allows one to avoid skepticism sans foundationalism is not an argument that religious beliefs are identical to scientific beliefs. It is a demonstration that ss-rp is not necessarily self defeating as has been put forth by the ctc & cvd. Thomism is not the only game in town. I would go further and suggest it is a dead end. Given it has taken a few thousand comments to get to ss-rp is not self defeating, my thumbs lack the stamina for a positive case for ss-rp or extended critique of thomism. McGrath’s Reality is a good place to read up on foundationalism. Van Inwage is good on serious metaphysics if you want to see how someone addresses these challenges in a thoughtful way. Some of the papers under philosophy of religion here are quite accessible:
http://andrewmbailey.com/pvi/
I side with the RC convert, van fraassen, on metaphysics (it is all useless at best). His Terry lecture is a good nontech approach, but the focus is science.>>>>>
Now, this is really helpful. Thanks, sdb. See, I have been trying to get y’all to ‘fess up about the whole neo orthodoxy thing. Personally, I don’t give a flying rip about neo orthodoxy, but …anyway… It is interesting. I’m not sure why this is being used as a weapon against Catholicism, though. That part makes no sense to me. I am not sure why it is being presented as “Protestant epistemology”, either.
Non foundational. IOW, not fundamentalist?
I wonder if the bats fly out my nose through the flying rip? 😉 I will do some reading. The idea that the kind of provisional knowledge used in the scientific community can be used in Christian apologetics is kind of fascinating. No, not that I would be able or even interested in doing that kind of thing, but it interests me. Still don’t know how a foundational statement like “Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice” jives with non foundational provisional knowledge, but it may be way beyond me intellectually. That’s fine. I don’t doubt your faith or the faith of those who operate with this epistemology. I am just not sure that Barth is the next Aquinas.
If it helps atheists come to faith in Christ, then that makes me happy. See, I grew up with atheists and I love them even though I can’t really help them believe. I don’t believe in the god they think is God, either.
I’m good with Aquinas being Aquinas.
LikeLike
TLM, part 2
“He seemed to admire his wife as much or more than love her – though I don’t doubt his love for her as well. She raised pigs and brewed beer. What’s not to like?”
I would hazard a guess that Luther had seen enough of life to not be surprised by love between men and women. What likely floored him was the very idea that women could have admirable qualities. From that experience, Luther seems to have become a pastor who was particularly strong on the spiritual dimensions of marriage and family.
“What I am seeing in Protestantism as I withdraw from it is how each Protestant judges the personal experience and faith of everyone else based on his or her own experience.”
To me, this is the thing that you keep coming back to that I find most out of touch with the reality of my life. That there is more truth to it than there should be, I will grant you, but not that it is a strictly Protestant problem. It seems to me that what Ross Douthat calls Bad Religion is pervasive in America, much less so elsewhere. No denomination has discovered a vaccine.
All I can say is, that in my congregation, and several others within reasonable driving distance, an argument based on “I don’t believe in a God who would….”.will not get you very far. You will be asked ” What does the Bible say?”. I feel obligated to give a respectful hearing to anyone in our congregation who has a concern based on his or her reading of the Bible. I happily go to Church with pre-mills post-mills and a-mills (me). Our studies of Revelation, Daniel, etc are usually interesting to say the least, but nobody has left the Church over these issues.
What I see is that people leave Churches- and Parishes– for what I would call consumerist reasons. Others have argued with you based on theology, philosophy and history. I don’t have anything to add. I just don’t see much if any difference between Catholics and Protestants in the degree they are immune to the wiles of Oprah in the community I live in.
“At least now we are talking to one another, and the animosity has dissipated somewhat. We are not actually at war as in killing one another. That is a huge deal, actually, if you think about it.”.
To me, that is an absolutely critical deal. I try my best not to judge any living soul. I am obligated to forgive them.That is hard enough, but I try. But that Augustine unleashed the powers of the state to suppress the Donatists is something that to this day colors my ability to appreciate him. Same for Calvin and Servetius, the Medieval Church and Hus, Henry VIII, you name it. I believe the Holy Spirit is infallible, and any claim that the Holy Spirit came anywhere close to anyone who, in Christs name,used violence against another Christian needs to be taken with grave reservations. McMark has argued this corner much more articulately than I have, but most folks here don’t seem to really engage with him. Maybe I ought to insert a few ding dings to his posts from time to time. (At the end of the day, I am not a pacifist. We live in nation states, as a consequence, manure happens, and while war is hell, a worse hell is being on the losing side. Just war theory, though, turns my stomach. )
“Now the grace bottle is almost empty in the Lutheran church.”
I only know a few Lutherans on any personal level. I would not make that judgement.
The last pilgrimage I made was here, back in the mid-90’s. Suffice it to say that I have completed my bucket list. http://www.kreuzmarket.com
LikeLike
TLM: “The people reading his tracts would have been at least middle class. They would have had to have been educated in order to read them. They would have had to have had some disposable income.”.
Luther’s sermons were apparently packed. It seems that the motive behind some of his writing was to instruct other preachers. It would seem to me that Luther placed a high value on the Word, preached. But he also supported efforts to expand literacy. Hard to know all that was going on with him.
I am basically out in a few hours until Monday or Tuesday. Have a wonderful Christmas.
LikeLike
(A different) Dan
Posted December 24, 2015 at 11:36 am | Permalink
TLM: “The people reading his tracts would have been at least middle class. They would have had to have been educated in order to read them. They would have had to have had some disposable income.”.
Dan:
Luther’s sermons were apparently packed. It seems that the motive behind some of his writing was to instruct other preachers. It would seem to me that Luther placed a high value on the Word, preached. But he also supported efforts to expand literacy. Hard to know all that was going on with him.>>>
Ah, yes. That makes sense. He had a pastoral role for other pastors. He also promoted literacy. Right? Did I get it? 🙂 Yes, it is hard to know all that was going on with him.
Thank you for the comments.
Dan:
I am basically out in a few hours until Monday or Tuesday. Have a wonderful Christmas.>>>>
You, too, Dan. We’re outa’ here in a little while as well. This gives me food for thought. Thanks for this little gift. 🙂 It’s funny. When I was Protestant I admired Lutheranism from a distance. It seemed too Catholic. Luther seemed kind of wild. Now look at where I am.
God bless
LikeLike
Robert:
You have no reason to prefer RCism over Calvin or Luther except for you own personal opinion.
That is not true.
You “church” has no authority, and you yourself don’t claim it does, nor would you accept it.
There are differences between my church and Augustine’s, sure. There’s also differences that are just as significant between modern Rome and Augustine’s church.
That is not true. Only by willfully ignoring every quote posted here by Augustine can you presume to say that. Your lack of the Eucharist alone is enough to disprove it. Neither does attacking the Catholic Church legitimize your own: The Eastern Orthodox still have the same sacraments as Augustine and apostolic succession as well. You do not.
Robert
Posted December 24, 2015 at 7:54 am | Permalink
Nancy Pelosi and Mother Teresa are both saints according to Roman Catholicism. That’s theological anarchy.
That is not true, in fact, it qualifies as a lie.
LikeLike
Neo-orthodoxy? Not sure how you got that from my comment. McGrath is pretty critical of neo-orthodoxy. The demise of foundationalism is not really relevant to neo-orthodoxy. I mean neo-orthodox theologians might care about it (assuming anyone still subscribes to that – I thought neo-orthodoxy went the way of the flower children and bell-bottoms), but the demise of foundationalism does not entail that the rest of us should care about neo-orthodoxy.
1) Not every criticism of an argument offered by an RC apologist is an attack on Catholicism.
2) The demise of foundationalism is not “protestant epistemology”. There is no singular “protestant epistemology”. Mainline protestants who have come to reject sola scriptura and traditions such as Anglicans, Wesleyans, and Pentecostal groups that have always rejected sola scriptura all have different epistemological approaches. Nor is there an RC epistemology. Bas van Fraassen, Fr. McMullin, and Decartes all have very different views on epistemology.
3) CVD charged that an RC (assuming RCism is true) is better off epistemologically (i.e., has better justification for her beliefs) than a SS-RP (assuming RPism is true). In other words, CVD has charged that the claims of SS-RPism are inherently self-defeating. Our response has been:
a) he is misreading what he refers to as a “disclaimer” in the WCF
b) one can have justified, true beliefs apart from an infallible authority
c) inductive reasoning is a valid way to discover truths – including discovering truths in divine revelation (i.e., inductive studies of scripture can lead to warranted knowledge)
d) sociologically speaking, protestants who adhere to sola scriptura (which unfortunately is not a lot of them) show very little theological diversity which is why pan-protestant ministries (parachurch organizations) thrive. Indeed, there is much less theological diversity among protestants who adhere to sola scriptura than to RCs who adhere to the STM triad.
e) sociologically, SS works to engage adherents in ways that the STM triad does not leading to higher levels of commitment among SS-RPs than among RCs.
The question of foundationalism does not directly bear on fundamentalism.
Truly you have a dizzying intellect.
“Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice” is consistent with the recognition that foundationalism is all wet. I think you misunderstand what foundationalism is and why its demise is relevant to CVD’s critique. Barth has nothing to do with the conversation.
Pace yourself on that eggnog and have a very Merry Christmas.
LikeLike
The Little Mermaid:
“At least now we are talking to one another, and the animosity has dissipated somewhat. We are not actually at war as in killing one another. That is a huge deal, actually, if you think about it.”.>>>>
(A different) Dan:
To me, that is an absolutely critical deal. >>>>
Yes. Yes, it is. We really are on the same side.
LikeLike
Tom,
My church has authority. I do submit to it. In fact there are several things I believe in the authority of my church that I feel haven’t been proven conclusively via exegesis. It’s what people who actually believe the WCF do. It’s called confessionalism do.
You have this weird thing where you think Rome has authority, but you reject it by not affirming the assumption or going to mass. Pot kettle black.
My church has the Eucharist. But since you don’t get it mass because you don’t go, why do you care.
Rome denies Augustine’s view of grace, so it’s a different religion.
Pelosi and Teresa are both full communing members in good standing, so they are de facto saints. Until either one of them is excommunicated, they’re both orthodox. Remember, we need the Magisterium to do our thinking for us. Just ask CVD. Point in his favor-he actually believes in the authority he defends. Your the ecclesiastical Lone Ranger around here.
LikeLike
Stupid autocorrect!!!!
LikeLike
TLM:
Still don’t know how a foundational statement like “Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice” jives with non foundational provisional knowledge, but it may be way beyond me intellectually. That’s fine. I don’t doubt your faith or the faith of those who operate with this epistemology. I am just not sure that Barth is the next Aquinas.>>>>>
sdb:
“Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice” is consistent with the recognition that foundationalism is all wet.>>>>
No, it’s not. “sola scriptura” is itself a foundationalistic statement. No, it is not the same foundation as Descartes had, or even the Catholic Church. It is part of our foundation, and no truth can contradict Scripture, since it is breathed out by the Holy Spirit of God who is infallible. Scripture is definitely your foundation. Well, the Christ of Scripture, of course.
Your foundation teaches you and me that it is a foolish man who builds his house on sand and a wise man who builds his house on a rock. The foundation is everything.
See, if you say that there is no such thing as foundationalism, you need to prove it from Scripture alone. You can’t do it.
sdb:
Pace yourself on that eggnog and have a very Merry Christmas.>>>>
I don’t drink, except at Mass. Yes, we have enjoyed a very Merry Christmas. I hope that you have as well.
God bless us, every one!
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 25, 2015 at 8:46 pm | Permalink
Tom,
My church has authority. I do submit to it. In fact there are several things I believe in the authority of my church that I feel haven’t been proven conclusively via exegesis. It’s what people who actually believe the WCF do. It’s called confessionalism do.
You have this weird thing where you think Rome has authority, but you reject it by not affirming the assumption or going to mass. Pot kettle black.
My church has the Eucharist. But since you don’t get it mass because you don’t go, why do you care.
Rome denies Augustine’s view of grace, so it’s a different religion.
Pelosi and Teresa are both full communing members in good standing, so they are de facto saints. Until either one of them is excommunicated, they’re both orthodox. Remember, we need the Magisterium to do our thinking for us. Just ask CVD. Point in his favor-he actually believes in the authority he defends. Your the ecclesiastical Lone Ranger around here.
I decline to discuss my personal religious life with the persons on this blog. If personal attack is the best you’ve got, you’ve got nothing.
My church has authority. I do submit to it. In fact there are several things I believe in the authority of my church that I feel haven’t been proven conclusively via exegesis. It’s what people who actually believe the WCF do. It’s called confessionalism do.
Then you have simply traded one Kool-Aid for another. This was always CVD’s point. And the word “provisional” has suddenly gone missing, which has been your battle cry for 1000 comments. You have now argued both sides of your own point.
Pelosi and Teresa are both full communing members in good standing, so they are de facto saints. Until either one of them is excommunicated, they’re both orthodox.
Um, no. This is BS.
LikeLike
(A different) Dan
Posted December 24, 2015 at 11:13 am | Permalink
TLM, part 2
“He seemed to admire his wife as much or more than love her – though I don’t doubt his love for her as well. She raised pigs and brewed beer. What’s not to like?”
I would hazard a guess that Luther had seen enough of life to not be surprised by love between men and women. What likely floored him was the very idea that women could have admirable qualities. From that experience, Luther seems to have become a pastor who was particularly strong on the spiritual dimensions of marriage and family.
“What I am seeing in Protestantism as I withdraw from it is how each Protestant judges the personal experience and faith of everyone else based on his or her own experience.”
To me, this is the thing that you keep coming back to that I find most out of touch with the reality of my life. That there is more truth to it than there should be, I will grant you, but not that it is a strictly Protestant problem. It seems to me that what Ross Douthat calls Bad Religion is pervasive in America, much less so elsewhere. No denomination has discovered a vaccine.
All I can say is, that in my congregation, and several others within reasonable driving distance, an argument based on “I don’t believe in a God who would….”.will not get you very far. You will be asked ” What does the Bible say?”. I feel obligated to give a respectful hearing to anyone in our congregation who has a concern based on his or her reading of the Bible. I happily go to Church with pre-mills post-mills and a-mills (me). Our studies of Revelation, Daniel, etc are usually interesting to say the least, but nobody has left the Church over these issues.
What I see is that people leave Churches- and Parishes– for what I would call consumerist reasons. Others have argued with you based on theology, philosophy and history. I don’t have anything to add. I just don’t see much if any difference between Catholics and Protestants in the degree they are immune to the wiles of Oprah in the community I live in.
“At least now we are talking to one another, and the animosity has dissipated somewhat. We are not actually at war as in killing one another. That is a huge deal, actually, if you think about it.”.
To me, that is an absolutely critical deal. I try my best not to judge any living soul. I am obligated to forgive them.That is hard enough, but I try. But that Augustine unleashed the powers of the state to suppress the Donatists is something that to this day colors my ability to appreciate him. Same for Calvin and Servetius, the Medieval Church and Hus, Henry VIII, you name it.
It was incomprehensible that there should be divisions-variations-flavors-denominations in Christ’s true Church, nor in political theology: The state and religion have always been intertwined; Socrates is condemned to death for his impiety towards the gods of the city; Islam is both a politics and a religion, with no daylight in between.
And then there is “Byzantium,” which had a pretty good winning streak until the Muslims snapped it.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/history3.aspx
It did not occur to mankind until much later that there was any other way: God is immanent, he’s not just the kind you wind up on Sundays.
I believe the Holy Spirit is infallible, and any claim that the Holy Spirit came anywhere close to anyone who, in Christs name,used violence against another Christian needs to be taken with grave reservations.
Heresy was punished not by the Church but by the state, as a threat to public order. [Ask Dr. History. Even he might be aware of the fact. Romans 13 swings both with the Roman Empire and Calvin’s Geneva.] The Church’s complicity in it was
a) to prevent the spread of heresy and thereby injure the souls of the innocent [Lk 17:2]
b) to save the heretic’s immortal soul from himself: Recantation was offered up until the poor devil croaked
It was only with the Reformation that heresy went viral–epidemic–and a unitary theo-political order could no longer be kept. The only reasonable [even via natural law] solution was tolerance and pluralism [see Pufendorf].
Indeed this is our problem with Islam. Although it claims “there is no compulsion in religion,” this does not apply to its politics.
Yes, the Holy Spirit is infallible; men are not. But further, the Holy Spirit speaks; men do not listen.
[I must add here that the errors in wisdom that men may make about this life should not necessarily be held against them regarding soteriology, the next life. I would not discount John Calvin solely because he burned up Michael Servetus or because of the Consistory’s tyranny over the everyday life of Geneva.
Servetus was a heretic afterall; the problem was only in the wisdom as to what to do about it.]
LikeLike
@tlm You misunderstand what foundationalism is. The SEP has a nice discussion in case you want to read up.
“See, if you say that there is no such thing as foundationalism, you need to prove it from Scripture alone. You can’t do it.”
No, I don’t need to prove this from scripture. Why would you say something so silly? One’s epistemic model doesn’t come from scriptue as scripture doesn’t bear on this? This is something we can determine from “the light of nature” (to borrow a phrase from WCF 1). No reformed statement of faith suggests that our only source of knowledge (even of God) is the Bible. Rather the bible is the only final authority on matters about which it speaks. You keep confusing this with the restorationist approach to scripture which leads you to write outlandish nonsense like:
“See, if you say that there is no such thing as foundationalism, you need to prove it from Scripture alone. You can’t do it.”
Ok, back to the spurs…
LikeLike
sdb
Posted December 25, 2015 at 9:54 pm | Permalink
@tlm You misunderstand what foundationalism is. The SEP has a nice discussion in case you want to read up.
“See, if you say that there is no such thing as foundationalism, you need to prove it from Scripture alone. You can’t do it.”
No, I don’t need to prove this from scripture. Why would you say something so silly? One’s epistemic model doesn’t come from scriptue as scripture doesn’t bear on this? This is something we can determine from “the light of nature” (to borrow a phrase from WCF 1). No reformed statement of faith suggests that our only source of knowledge (even of God) is the Bible. Rather the bible is the only final authority on matters about which it speaks. You keep confusing this with the restorationist approach to scripture which leads you to write outlandish nonsense like:
“See, if you say that there is no such thing as foundationalism, you need to prove it from Scripture alone. You can’t do it.”
Ok, back to the spurs…
Instead of expending so much cyberink complaining Ms. Mermaid doesn’t understand, simply please explain what “foundationalism” is, or what it means to you, and whether you accept it or reject it.
This is what discussion is: Don’t complain, explain. Por favor.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted December 24, 2015 at 10:32 pm :
“Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice” is consistent with the recognition that foundationalism is all wet.”
sdb
Posted December 25, 2015 at 9:54 pm
No, I don’t need to prove this from scripture. Why would you say something so silly? >>>>
?????
LikeLike
@tlm The bible doesn’t answer every question. I mistakenly assumed you knew what “faith and practice” applied to. Here is a bit from wcf 1 that might help:
“Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”
That scripture is the only infallible rule of “faith and practice” does not entail that one needs to justify one’s philosophy of aesthetics from the bible. Light of nature, two books, common grace, etc…
If you want to bind one’s conscience and tell them they must behave this way or that or what to believe about God, salvation, or worship you must biblical warrant. So one may be a good Christian and be a Republican or democrat; empiricist or idealist; socialist or capitalist; geocentrist or heliocentrist; creationist or evolutionist; etc… the bible may place some constraints on what one ought to believe, but generally it has nothing to say on these divides.
So I’ll ask again…not rhetorically this time, why would you write something so silly? We’ve established that you can’t blame it on the eggnog.
LikeLike
Look, sdb, I said you would need to prove from sola scriptura why foundationalism is all wet – or whatever – because you tied it in with sola scriptura.
Insulting me won’t help your case.
You bound your own silly conscience on this by saying this:
.sdb
Posted December 24, 2015 at 10:32 pm :
“Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice” is consistent with the recognition that foundationalism is all wet.”
Now you don’t want to prove it. It’s no skin off my nose, but the Mermaid section of your focus group is not impressed.
LikeLike
You are confused. Liking vanilla better than chocolate is consistent with sola scriptura. It would be pretty silly to tell me I have to prove that vanilla is better from scripture. Scripture is irrelevant to that wouldn’t you agree?
Perhaps you misunderstand what it means to say that belief x is consistent with belief y. It only means that there is no contradiction in believing both.
You misunderstand what foundationalism is. I offered you a few resources to clear your confusion. You have gone on weird tangents about Barth, neo-orthodoxy, and sola scriptura being foundational.
LikeLike
sdb, thanks for the link to the Dreher article.
He’s a genial enough chap, but I have never been a fan or bothered reading him or any others at AmCon after Buchanan moved on (got booted?).
Still he nails it in the money quote:
In Catholicism, the ethos at the parish level is, in general, more like a sacrament factory.
What a hoot.
He goes on to talk about “intellectual Catholics of an orthodox orientation” – and we know who they are – blah, blah, blah, but sacerdotalism is what it is.
Dr. Hart didn’t even know what the magisterium is and now presumes to lecture on Catholicism and critical thinking while eliding the essential difference between the ideal [celibacy] and how humans inevitably fall short [tragically, sex scandals].
Snicker. Our honorary papist gets played again, if not that his title goes to his head.
You don’t transfer the fox to a different chicken coop in another diocese if he (repeatedly or not) can’t keep his paws off the chicklets. Duh.
There’s a point where tragic sins become crimes.
But little papa JPII said don’t tell the civil authorities so all is well in lalaland.
And Servetus? But no mention of the Inquisition or the Batholomew’s Day Massacre in honor of which the pope celebrated a high mass, struck a medal and commissioned a mural from Vassari?
Or the Salem witch trials and Christian slave owners?
Tsk, tsk.
Oh look!
A hypocritical squirrel.
True, sdb didn’t define foundationalism, but that’s minor when there hasn’t been any acknowledgment of the prot vs. roman definition of provisional, which DVC introduced in the first place?
Next.
LikeLike
Okay, sdb, maybe you are having a hard day. Maybe I am silly and confused. Not sure why you’re mad at me. No, I do not really think you are silly. Yes, I may be very, very silly.
I will work on it some more. It’s just that some kind of connection is being made by you between foundationalism and your theology. That is quite a bit different than your preference for flavors of ice cream.
So, I am not sure why you balked at my saying you need to prove what you said from scripture. You connected them. Don’t you see that? You used the words “is consistent with”, thus tying sola scriptura with your conclusion that foundationalism – whatever that means for you – is all wet.
How do you derive that from sola scriptura? Do you have a scriptural argument? If not, then what kind of argument or explanation do you have? Maybe it’s just something that works for you and fits your way of thinking. That’s fine. Maybe I am unable to think that way, even, but I would like to try before I give up altogether.
sdb
Posted December 24, 2015 at 10:32 pm :
“Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice” is consistent with the recognition that foundationalism is all wet.”
Why don’t you start by defining what you mean by “foundationalism”?
Hey, sorry to upset you.
LikeLike
See, sdb, I did look up “foundationalism”. I would like to also clarify the fact that it was you who began using the term. It is you who stated that foundationalism is “all wet”,. I assume you mean this.:
“all wet
phrase of wet
1.
NORTH AMERICAN
completely wrong.
So, if that is what you meant, then let’s move on to the term “foundationalism.”
Of course, Wikkipedia my very well be wrong, but this entry is uncontested so far. If you disagree with Wikkipedia on this, then maybe you can suggest a revision.
Foundationalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Foundationalism concerns philosophical theories of knowledge resting upon justified belief, some secure foundation of certainty.[1] Its main rivals are Fallibilism & coherentism whereby a body of knowledge, not requiring a secure foundation, can be established by the interlocking strength of its components, like a puzzle solved without prior certainty that each small region was solved correctly.[1]
I won’t cut and paste the whole article, but I assumed this is what you meant by “foundationalism.” Now, correct me if I am wrong, but according to what I read here, that would make sola scriptura a brand of epistemological foundationalism.
I am not sure if I have explained my line of reasoning clearly. I really don’t feel that your were justified in calling what I said silly, not once but twice.
Here is the sentence that I found to be contradictory. You hold to foundationalism in sola scriptura, yet call foundaltionalism “completely wrong” in the same sentence.
sdb
Posted December 24, 2015 at 10:32 pm :
“Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice” is consistent with the recognition that foundationalism is all wet.”
Then today you said:
sdb
Posted December 25, 2015 at 9:54 pm
No, I don’t need to prove this from scripture. Why would you say something so silly?>>>>
So, yes, I am confused. Maybe you can clear this up – or not. You are under no obligation, but this is what you said. I may be wrong in assuming that sola scriptura is a kind of foundationalism, but I don’t think I am.
LikeLike
I mean, I looked up “foundationalism” before I challenged you to prove what you were saying using sola scriptura. I showed clearly where Scripture speaks of our faith being built on the sure foundation of Christ. I referenced the wise man who built his house on the rock vs. the foolish man who built his house on the sand.
See, I assumed that the definition I found at Wikkipedia – which I know is not a completely reliable source, – reflected the correct usage of the term. As far as I can see, sola scriptura fits that definition and the more complete description of foundationalism.
Not saying that you have to give any explanations, but I share this to show you that I was interacting in what I thought was an appropriate way with the ideas you were stating.
You found what I said to be silly. No problem.
LikeLike
An anti-foundationalist previously arguing the Protestant canon of Scripture is to be taken as a “properly basic” belief. Mmmk.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted December 26, 2015 at 12:56 am | Permalink
You are confused. Liking vanilla better than chocolate is consistent with sola scriptura.
You keeping affirming what has been said here. There is no reason to prefer this tradition over that, this version of the Bible over that one, Calvin over Luther, except opinion, personal taste.
Why y’all keep insisting you’re misunderstood or even being disagreed with remains the only mystery here. You are understood perfectly. It’s not all that complicated.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “No, it’s not. “sola scriptura” is itself a foundationalistic statement.”
On the night baby Jesus was born?!? Keep the Mass in Christmas.
LikeLike
vd, t, “I decline to discuss my personal religious life with the persons on this blog.”
and vd, t is one who thinks “media bias” doesn’t reflect the personal views of journalists.
See what I did with a bridge for sale over there?
LikeLike
vd, t, “The state and religion have always been intertwined”
Not when Jesus founded the church in Rome.
Wait. . .
LikeLike
James Young, a Roman Catholic arguing for foundationalism after Christ’s Mass.
Once again, philosophy trumps Our Lord. Yup.
LikeLike
vd, t, “There is no reason to prefer this tradition over that”
Same goes for Roman Catholicism. What’s your “reason” that isn’t bound up with faith? You can’t prove it unless you buy Roman Catholic assumptions — which of course you don’t.
Wait . . .
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 26, 2015 at 8:57 am | Permalink
Mermaid, “No, it’s not. “sola scriptura” is itself a foundationalistic statement.”
On the night baby Jesus was born?!? Keep the Mass in Christmas.>>>>
That’s cute, Brother Hart. Well, y’all were discussing movies, but I found the conversation with sdb to be more interesting.
We had a wonderful Christmas celebration with my husband’s family on Christmas Eve. Then we stopped in at a big church in our area where a lot of our friends attend – Assemblies of God . They had a beautiful candlelight and carol sing service.
Christmas morning, we attended Mass. Well, dh is not Catholic, but he went with me.
We have 2 more family get togethers before New Year’s Eve.
My movie suggestion? Take your wife to see Star Wars. It’s great fun. My daughter and I went down to our local movie house to see it for a special early screening. Spoiler alert – though it’s kind of late for that: No Jar Jar. No Ewoks.
You have a lovely Boxing Day, Brother Hart
LikeLike
Mermaid, are you going to try to get an annulment?
LikeLike
@cvd Oops. You’re right, I should have been clearer – I meant classical foundationalism of course – which is both the topic of McGrath’s critique and the SEP article I provided for TLM. I think we’ve had this conversation before about Plantinga’s rejection of classical foundationalism.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted December 26, 2015 at 12:56 pm | Permalink
@cvd Oops. You’re right, I should have been clearer – I meant classical foundationalism of course – which is both the topic of McGrath’s critique and the SEP article I provided for TLM. I think we’ve had this conversation before about Plantinga’s rejection of classical foundationalism.>>>>
So, to be clear. What kind of foundationalism is sola scriptura, then?
LikeLike
@cvd – here is a nice review of Plantinga’s *Warrant* trilogy if you are interested. Key bit…
LikeLike
@tlm
Not mad at all. Just amused.
You asked for a theologian who thinks like we do. I gave you McGrath and you responded with, “Still don’t know how a foundational statement like “Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice” jives with non foundational provisional knowledge, but it may be way beyond me intellectually. ” to which I responded, “Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice” is consistent with the recognition that foundationalism is all wet.”
In other words, there is no inherent contradiction between rejecting classical foundationalism and adhering to the principle of sola scriptura. Nor does the rejection of classical foundationalism entail neo-orthodoxy as you inferred. There is no more need to prove that classical foundationalism is wrong from scripture than it is necessary to prove that speed limits on residential streets should not be 75mph.
Perhaps you missed it earlier. If you are interested in foundationalism, the SEP entry is pretty good. McGrath gives a very readable summary of the problem with classical foundationalism in Volume 2 of his scientific theology; “Reality”.
LikeLike
@tlm – thumbs getting too clumsy – didn’t mean to post that yet. Here is the link to the SEP article:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational
McGrath has a very straightforward and brief overview of the critique of classical foundationalism. If you want a more technical and serious overview of epistemology, you could do a lot worse than Plantinga’s Warrant trilogy. Here is a nice review of Plantinga’s work (at least the first part). I think the author’s critique misses the target and of course, this was written before part 3 was published. Ultimately I think Plantinga fails, but for other reasons that I don’t think you’d care much about.
Anyway, if you are really interested in how one might come to reject foundationalism while holding to the principle of Sola Scriptura (or more precisely the WCF or Belgic confession), I recommend that you start with McGrath and the SEP. Happy reading…
LikeLike
“So, to be clear. What kind of foundationalism is sola scriptura, then?”
Sola scripture has nothing to do with foundationalism… One can be a foundationalist and hold to Sola Scriptura and one can utterly reject foundationalism and hold to Sola Scriptura.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted December 26, 2015 at 1:43 pm | Permalink
“So, to be clear. What kind of foundationalism is sola scriptura, then?”
Sola scripture has nothing to do with foundationalism… One can be a foundationalist and hold to Sola Scriptura and one can utterly reject foundationalism and hold to Sola Scriptura.>>>>
I kinda’ like the van Inwagen guy, and I will take a look at McGrath. He actually has videos on You Tube. It is nice to see the person. It is easier to get a feel for them that way. Thanks for the suggestions.
You know what I am picking up from you sdb, and I don’t say this is a negative way. I don’t get the impression that you think like a Reformed Christian anymore, but you are trying to hold on for some reason. Don’t know what it is.
Like you say, Thomism is not the only game in town, but the games that do resonate with you are also Catholic games. I am sure you are aware of that.
Maybe you prefer Spumoni to either chocolate or vanilla. Do you hear her calling?
LikeLike
I hope you all had a Merry Christmas. Ours was travel- and wedding-filled.
Mermaid: “sola scriptura” is itself a foundationalistic statement.
Not necessarily. It can just as easily be a centrally held belief in a coherecist framework.
The point is that the Christian faith is not tied to one particular (man-made!) theory of knowledge. To try to force Christianity into Aristotelianism or postmodernism or Kantianism or Hegelianism is to let philosophers drive the train.
There’s a second point. Mermaid, I’m glad that you’re reading up on foundationalism. I recommend becoming familiar with its weaknesses before committing yourself fully. But in the end even if you are a committed foundationalist, that does not mean that you should impute your foundationalism to Christianity, any more than I impute my post-critical realism to Christianity.
Paul probably knew nothing of and would possibly have had a low opinion of epistemological debates.
LikeLike
TVD: Why y’all keep insisting you’re misunderstood or even being disagreed with remains the only mystery here.
No mystery. Your side gives little evidence of understanding and much evidence of misunderstanding, including
* Inability to reflect the position back accurately,
* Launching attacks on minor side points, while failing to engage with substantial points, and
* Confusion about which beliefs are part of which position, including imputing your beliefs to our side.
So yeah, it’s really clear that you’re confused.
LikeLike
Have fun!
I’m not sure what a “Reformed Christian” thinks like. I’m no theologian (or even a church officer of any kind for that matter), but I remain convinced that the WCF is a valid summary of scripture (though I prefer the TFU and in particular the HC for catechesis of the kids) .
Probably because I spent the better part of a decade at a Catholic university? As I’ve said many times, there is much to commend with in the RC intellectual tradition and indeed my most valuable intellectual mentors over the years were RCs. But ultimately, I found the case for the RCC wanting and the SS-RP more compelling (at some professional cost I might add). What I find particularly off-putting is triumphalism of any kind – whether it is absurd claims about economic progress and democracy being due to the protestant work ethic or the asinine claims coming from called to communion such as Susan’s claim that every thing good in protestantism comes from the RCC. My main concern with the triumphalism coming from RC apologists (almost always prot converts) is the spiritual damage it does. Too many of my colleagues swam the Tiber only to lose their faith entirely when the triumphalism proved to be baseless. I point to the example of Dreher only because it is a public account of how this process has worked over the years. I find it disappointing that so many apologists dismiss this warning because they “really do have the superior paradigm”.
Not this time of year, but gelato is something wonderful.
LikeLike
sdb:
Probably because I spent the better part of a decade at a Catholic university? As I’ve said many times, there is much to commend with in the RC intellectual tradition and indeed my most valuable intellectual mentors over the years were RCs. But ultimately, I found the case for the RCC wanting and the SS-RP more compelling (at some professional cost I might add).>>>>
That explains why you are not Catholic, but it does not explain why you are not EO or CoE.
It doesn’t even explain why your high view of SS somehow can’t be used outside the mental compartment you have given it. You can see that foundationalism is all wet, – in your opinion – but not what that has to do with SS. None of my business, really, but I did notice.
Hey, nice to visit with you. Keep trying to sound like a sola scripturaist. Maybe you will get it right someday. You need to memorize it first. Then you will probably start sounding like St. Thomas Aquinas. 😉
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 26, 2015 at 2:24 pm | Permalink
TVD: Why y’all keep insisting you’re misunderstood or even being disagreed with remains the only mystery here.
No mystery. Your side gives little evidence of understanding and much evidence of misunderstanding, including
* Inability to reflect the position back accurately,
* Launching attacks on minor side points, while failing to engage with substantial points, and
* Confusion about which beliefs are part of which position, including imputing your beliefs to our side.
So yeah, it’s really clear that you’re confused.
No, the Catholics don’t whine like this. You spend more time complaining than explaining.
And you Protestant fellows don’t even agree with each other, except pro tem and ad hoc until the next schism. You can’t; it’s all part of your “provisional” religion grab bag.
LikeLike
sdb:
My main concern with the triumphalism coming from RC apologists (almost always prot converts) is the spiritual damage it does. Too many of my colleagues swam the Tiber only to lose their faith entirely when the triumphalism proved to be baseless. >>>>
You know, people lose their faith all the time for all kinds of reasons. I do appreciate your concern. Maybe you mean something like if you were unhappy in Protestantism, then you will probably not really be happy in Catholicism, either.
I am not sure what you mean by triumphalism. There is a biblical case to be made for the triumph of the Church – or church if you prefer the vanilla version.
Just so you know. I was a very happy Protestant, until I just couldn’t ignore certain Scripture passages anymore. I am now a very happy Catholic. That surprised me.
Hey, thanks for the dialogue. Thanks especially for the suggestions. Good stuff. You know, I don’t know what I read of what you gave me that referenced Barth. My bad.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 26, 2015 at 9:57 am | Permalink
Mermaid, are you going to try to get an annulment?>>>>
No. Aren’t you happily married? ;–)
LikeLike
“That explains why you are not Catholic, but it does not explain why you are not EO or CoE.”
Nope.
“It doesn’t even explain why your high view of SS somehow can’t be used outside the mental compartment you have given it. ”
What do you mean? Should ss inform my opinion of ice cream? How do you square your understanding of what ss entails with the wcf?
“You can see that foundationalism is all wet, – in your opinion – but not what that has to do with SS. None of my business, really, but I did notice.”
No question cf is false…evidence takes this out of realm of opinion. It isn’t that I don’t see what ss has to do with ss. Just pointing out they are independent lines of inquiry. One doesn’t bear on other.
LikeLike
Apparently Tom thinks the Magisterium doesn’t have to be interpreted. Might explain his cafeteria Romanism.
LikeLike
Mermaid: “sola scriptura” is itself a foundationalistic statement.
Jeff Cagle:
Not necessarily. It can just as easily be a centrally held belief in a coherecist framework.>>>>
Then it wouldn’t be a foundation, but rather just one part of a framework that may or may not have a foundation. You are equivocating.
Jeff:
The point is that the Christian faith is not tied to one particular (man-made!) theory of knowledge. To try to force Christianity into Aristotelianism or postmodernism or Kantianism or Hegelianism is to let philosophers drive the train.
There’s a second point. Mermaid, I’m glad that you’re reading up on foundationalism. I recommend becoming familiar with its weaknesses before committing yourself fully. But in the end even if you are a committed foundationalist, that does not mean that you should impute your foundationalism to Christianity, any more than I impute my post-critical realism to Christianity.>>>>
I’m good, Jeff. It is clear that you are allowing your post-critical realism to drive your train. It is what drives your views of what Scripture even is. Your infallible rule of faith and practice exists only in theory, not in reality.
Jeff:
Paul probably knew nothing of and would possibly have had a low opinion of epistemological debates.>>>>
Probably? Possibly? You don’t know. You are making your best guess.
Well, I think I do understand your philosophy. You make your best guesses about Scripture and everything else. You gather the best information you have available at the time and test your theories and ideas. As new information comes in, you modify your theories even about the Bible and the WCF. Getting as close as you can is good enough.
Yes, there is such a thing as absolute truth, but no one can know with 100% certainty what that really is. There is a strong element of pragmatism as well. Your system works for you. You believe it can work for everyone else if they will just give it a try.
The Holy Spirit is in there somewhere, but we can’t be 100% certain that what we see in our lives is really His work. Somehow He gives assurance to the elect that they really are sons of God. That we can know with 100% certainty.
We can know with absolute certainty that Christ is our salvation and righteousness and everything.
Of course, His body might be found someday, but don’t think about that part.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 26, 2015 at 5:05 pm | Permalink
Apparently Tom thinks the Magisterium doesn’t have to be interpreted. Might explain his cafeteria Romanism.
You know nothing of my personal beliefs, nor will I discuss them with people who stoop to the cheap trick of weaponizing them.
You apparently don’t know how the magisterium works either. It is the exact opposite of “Protestantism.”
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6333
You have not been following our discussion or apparently, even read the OP.
The above is not true of Catholicism or its magisterium.
LikeLike
vd, t, “the Catholics don’t whine like this. You spend more time complaining than explaining.”
I thought you had a measure of intelligence.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “It is clear that you are allowing your post-critical realism to drive your train.”
And you’re like objective?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 26, 2015 at 10:15 pm | Permalink
vd, t, “the Catholics don’t whine like this. You spend more time complaining than explaining.”
I thought you had a measure of intelligence.
You spend more time whining too, Dr. Hart, and flinging inept insults like this. Keep proving the point.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 26, 2015 at 10:18 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, “It is clear that you are allowing your post-critical realism to drive your train.”
And you’re like objective?>>>
Yes, I should back up what I said. See, Jeff uses his post-critical realism in his philological approach to the canon of Scripture. Textual criticism has its place in Bible translation, of course. However, Jeff also gives textual criticism the trump card in deciding what is and what is not to be included in Scripture.
The prime example we discussed is the pericope adulterae. In Jeff’s opinion, it does no belong in Scripture. How did he arrive at that conclusion? By applying his post-critical realism to the canon of Scripture. He accepts most of the rest on the same basis. In fact, he accepts the WCF on that basis as well. If and when new evidence is discovered, he will modify his understanding of his faith.
Hence, if I do not accept the proposition that there is a slight possibility that the body of Jesus could be found, then I lack objectivity. That is a flaw according to the philosophy of post-critical realism.
So, his theological train is being driven by his philosophy with its accompanying epistemology. Now, it works for him. He has faith.
You know, I have been doing a little digging around the Internet to find out why what you guys call the Apocrypha was removed from the KJV, and never included in the NIV, ESV, and NASB. Yes, it was removed. Do you know by whom and why? It will surprise you.
Luther did remove it from the Old Testament and put it at the back of the Bible bus. He did not remove it completely, though. So, who removed it from the Bible you use, Brother Hart? The 1611 KJV had it. Maybe you know already.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “See, Jeff uses his post-critical realism in his philological approach to the canon of Scripture.”
So does your church and its biblical scholars, theologians, priests, and cardinals.
On what planet do you live? This is not 1950. Vatican 2 happened. In fact, your biblical scholars, in fellowship with the Bishop of Rome, use a lot more than post-critical realism on the Bible — even on the Apocrypha.
Get a clue.
LikeLike
Those who have been following this discussion may find the Wiki article on doxastic logic to be amusing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxastic_logic
LikeLike
Jeff, is this vd, t?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 27, 2015 at 7:27 am | Permalink
Mermaid, “See, Jeff uses his post-critical realism in his philological approach to the canon of Scripture.”
So does your church and its biblical scholars, theologians, priests, and cardinals.
On what planet do you live? This is not 1950. Vatican 2 happened.
Therefore? He never says, lest he actually have to defend his buffaloing. 😉
In fact, your biblical scholars, in fellowship with the Bishop of Rome, use a lot more than post-critical realism on the Bible — even on the Apocrypha.
Get a clue.
Asked and answered. You’re the clueless one, Dr. Hart. Do your homework, you naughty little man.
LikeLike
Good review of development of acceptance of critical methods in RCC. The space between the mainline and RCC is nil on matter of criticism.
“First, despite acceptance of the historical-critical method by a pope and a council and its continual use by the majority of scholars and religious educators, its conclusions and its leading practitioners, such as Raymond Brown, S.S., and Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J., are subjected to constant attacks from “neo-integrist” writers who label historical criticism as modernist or too concerned with the human elements in the Bible.”
LikeLike
Exactly as has been argued here: The philologists have no authority. What Luther did to the Bible [and what some threaten to do in this discussion] is incompatible with Catholicism.
Ibid. Good find:
LikeLike
SDB,
What’s interesting is the claim that 30 years of biblical research have been virtually ignored in official statements. On the one hand, one can see that. But on the other hand, as you see those statements interpreted and lived out on the parish level, things are very, very different. It’s like the WCF and the PCUSA. At least at the beginning of the decline, the biblical research wasn’t making its way into the “official” statements such as the WCF. It’s just that people were interpreting it however they saw fit.
This is the parallel we see in modern Romanism. The post-critical hermeneutics of reader response and other such methods have made their way into the works of faithful sons and daughters of the church. You can spit on the pope in the academy and then happily receive the Eucharist from the pope the next day if you want.
It’s very interesting, to say the least. Everyone interprets what is right in their own eyes. And so you get Nancy Pelosi and Mother Teresa who should be regarded as equally orthodox because neither has been disciplined and yet who espoused a very different religion from each other.
The tent is so big you don’t even have to believe in God, really.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 27, 2015 at 8:13 pm | Permalink
SDB,
What’s interesting is the claim that 30 years of biblical research have been virtually ignored in official statements. On the one hand, one can see that. But on the other hand, as you see those statements interpreted and lived out on the parish level, things are very, very different. It’s like the WCF and the PCUSA. At least at the beginning of the decline, the biblical research wasn’t making its way into the “official” statements such as the WCF. It’s just that people were interpreting it however they saw fit.
This is the parallel we see in modern Romanism. The post-critical hermeneutics of reader response and other such methods have made their way into the works of faithful sons and daughters of the church. You can spit on the pope in the academy and then happily receive the Eucharist from the pope the next day if you want.
It’s very interesting, to say the least. Everyone interprets what is right in their own eyes. And so you get Nancy Pelosi and Mother Teresa who should be regarded as equally orthodox because neither has been disciplined and yet who espoused a very different religion from each other.
The tent is so big you don’t even have to believe in God, really.
Now you’ve sunk to outright lies. Good boy. Darryl very proud.
LikeLike
vd, t, still no answer to what planet you live on but it looks like it includes Gullibility Land.
LikeLike
b, sd, but Look! An Avery Cardinal Dulles squirrel.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 27, 2015 at 8:59 pm | Permalink
vd, t, still no answer to what planet you live on but it looks like it includes Gullibility Land.
Congratulations, old boy. You turned the poor fellow into you.
LikeLike
vd, t, “Now you’ve sunk to outright lies. Good boy. Darryl very proud.”
How to dodge but not muss your mullet.
LikeLike
@Robert
That is consistent with my experience as well…for ethnic cradles identification with the rcc was a sort of tribalism. Beliefs were really beside the point. One could disbelieve in God and be a good catholic boy, but don’t dare be a protestant.
Among whites, that is going away fast and of course “recovering Catholics” are among the fastest growing demographics in the US. Since the rcc doesn’t stop counting RCs who leave the church, it keeps the numbers padded (kind of like Baptists like that), but the Pew highlights the freefall of the rcc in the US. They basically track other modernists sects. The idea that seminaries aren’t steeped in modernism and that modernism has no impact at the parish level is absurd.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 27, 2015 at 9:02 pm | Permalink
vd, t, “Now you’ve sunk to outright lies. Good boy. Darryl very proud.”
How to dodge but not muss your mullet.
Mullet beats a bowtie any century. Do you have a point?
No, I didn’t think so. Read your Dulles; cut the clown act.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20051010_dei-verbum-levada_en.html
LikeLike
sdb
Posted December 27, 2015 at 9:18 pm | Permalink
Since the rcc doesn’t stop counting RCs who leave the church, it keeps the numbers padded (kind of like Baptists like that), but the Pew highlights the freefall of the rcc in the US.
That’s not ecclesiology, of course. In Presbyterianism, you lose churches of millions at a time. Unless you still count this as “Presbyterianism.”
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Lesbian-Couple-Ordained-Jointly-in-Presbyterian-Church-Delaware-297184461.html
Your double standards make it impossible to tell.
LikeLike
vd, t, I read the Bible.
Since when does Dulles trump Richard McBrien?
LikeLike
vd, t, and so what standard is it when a priest takes money from his parish to pay his gay lover and the Archbishop doesn’t heed parish members? Is that the Hollywood standard?
Got it, you only see what you want to see. Eyes of faith and all — eyes you are ashamed to admit. Sissy.
LikeLike
@mermaid, sorry for a bit of delay on my part. With respect to the article that NOON posted about the RCC persecution of evangelicals in Chiapas….it seems that you’re trying to marginalize that story. But, no worries, the persecution there (troubling as it is, if true) is not my concern or question. (Fwiw, I have a number of personal anecdotes from missionary friends, including ones in Mexico, that echo that story.) To clarify, I’m more interested in what RCC’s believe their personal duty is when the institutional RCC church teaches/commands something that would be a violation of their personal conscience. (The Chiapas story re-triggered this question in my mind.) What happens when an individual, after careful and prayerful study of a particular RCC dogma, simply cannot agree with it? Or, what happens to the guy who’s directed to start the bonfire on Mr. Hus in 1415? What if, for conscience sake, he refuses?
Is it the RCC view that the individual is to submit/obey the church in these circumstances to maintain unity, and to avoid becoming his own ‘pope’? Thanks ahead of time for your thoughts.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 27, 2015 at 9:48 pm | Permalink
vd, t, and so what standard is it when a priest takes money from his parish to pay his gay lover and the Archbishop doesn’t heed parish members?
Another dodge, and category error. What you describe is the exception. Ordaining lesbians is now the rule in the Presbyterian Church [USA].
Are they Presbyterians? You don’t say, nor do we expect an honest answer. That’s not your style–evasion and attack are.
_________________________
D. G. Hart
Posted December 27, 2015 at 9:40 pm | Permalink
vd, t, I read the Bible.
Since when does Dulles trump Richard McBrien?
You’re cherry-picking again, committing what you accuse others of. O’Brien was a liberal dissenting priest; Dulles was a great intellectual, and a cardinal. As always, you argue the minor-leaguers against the giants, the exceptions rather than the normative.
Well, you don’t actually argue, you make ominous grunts and mumbles but never an actual argument, lest you have to defend one for once.
As for your reading the Bible, so you say, so you say.
As for Catholicism, you know little, and what you do know is wrong. It’s like trying to tell a stranger ’bout rock’n’roll, or giving one of your cats a $100 bill.
http://myunquietheart.blogspot.com/2013/07/turns-out-im-incense-loving-prophetic.html
LikeLike
Petros
Posted December 27, 2015 at 9:56 pm | Permalink
@mermaid, sorry for a bit of delay on my part. With respect to the article that NOON posted about the RCC persecution of evangelicals in Chiapas
Can you substantiate this story? I have found nothing to even discuss at this point. The Catholic Church has no connection with the “syncretetist” Catholics
“Traditionalist” Catholics of the village who practice a blend of Roman Catholicism and indigenous customs involving drunken festivals have been at odds with the Protestant minority for years.
2007:
In a statement in Mexico City’s La Jornada newspaper published yesterday (February 8), the Roman Catholic bishop of San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, Felipe Arizmendi, declared his church had no relationship with the “so-called traditional Catholics, who do not depend on our diocese, do not take into account the Bible nor the laws of this country, but are governed by their own agreements and traditions.”
You’re proceeding from a false premise, it seems. The scare quotes should be around “Catholics,” for they are not.
LikeLike
TVD, once again, the veracity of the particular article about the alleged Chiapas persecution is not a specific concern of mine. I’d like to better understand what happens at the intersection when RCC church authority collides with an individual’s conscience.
LikeLike
Petros
Posted December 27, 2015 at 10:55 pm | Permalink
TVD, once again, the veracity of the particular article about the alleged Chiapas persecution is not a specific concern of mine. I’d like to better understand what happens at the intersection when RCC church authority collides with an individual’s conscience.
Unfortunately, Dr. Hart has muddied the waters about what is the magisterium and what is not. If the pope himself ordered you to cover up the priest sex scandals, you’re not in the least obliged to obey him. If the pope said there is no Trinity, he is no longer pope [Bellarmine, below].
http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/popelim.txt
But neither are you free to cut and paste your own Bible as Luther did. That makes you your own pope, your own magisterium, your own church.
LikeLike
Petros –
The bonfire lighter case isn’t relevant for several reasons – I believe civil authorities were responsible for the execution, infallibility doesn’t include even judicial rulings much less penal practice, and in any case this has nothing to do with what cvd calls STM.
As for the heart of your question, if you wish to understand the Catholic reply, you’ve got to accept the stipulation that what you propose as being taught and doubted is in fact true and important.
If someone in good conscience doubted a defined truth of the faith, they’d have the obligation to better inform themselves on the matter through study, discussion, and prayer. This obligation doesn’t cease until they arrive at the truth.
We do not have a right to ill-informed consciences. We certainly do have a right (really just a feature of our mental faculties) to take objections seriously and consider counter-examples – but not to scandalously flaunt what the Church teaches, because of the harm it can do to others.
So if someone really can’t believe the Catholic faith whole and entire, the Church would necessarily leave it to this individual’s conscience as to what the best course of action should be, encouraging him to take into account the potential negative fallout (e.g., on the religious practice of children or those weak in faith) of leaving the Church and weigh that against the doubts assailing him.
It’s his free choice, and he will bear the consequences (as will those around him).
LikeLike
Kevin in Newark
Posted December 28, 2015 at 12:25 am | Permalink
Petros –
The bonfire lighter case isn’t relevant for several reasons – I believe civil authorities were responsible for the execution, infallibility doesn’t include even judicial rulings much less penal practice, and in any case this has nothing to do with what cvd calls STM.
As for the heart of your question, if you wish to understand the Catholic reply, you’ve got to accept the stipulation that what you propose as being taught and doubted is in fact true and important.
If someone in good conscience doubted a defined truth of the faith, they’d have the obligation to better inform themselves on the matter through study, discussion, and prayer. This obligation doesn’t cease until they arrive at the truth.
We do not have a right to ill-informed consciences. We certainly do have a right (really just a feature of our mental faculties) to take objections seriously and consider counter-examples – but not to scandalously flaunt what the Church teaches, because of the harm it can do to others.
So if someone really can’t believe the Catholic faith whole and entire, the Church would necessarily leave it to this individual’s conscience as to what the best course of action should be, encouraging him to take into account the potential negative fallout (e.g., on the religious practice of children or those weak in faith) of leaving the Church and weigh that against the doubts assailing him.
It’s his free choice, and he will bear the consequences (as will those around him).
Elegant. If one’s “faith” is provisional, so are his doubts.
http://biblehub.com/matthew/18-6.htm
LikeLike
vd, t, you pick cherries. Marx is a cardinal. Martini was a cardinal.
But when you pick, it’s game show truth.
You put the joke in Joker’s Wild.
LikeLike
vd, t, “Dr. Hart has muddied the waters about what is the magisterium and what is not.”
Yes, before Old Life, the understanding of the magisterium was absolutely coherent.
Feel the power.
LikeLike
DG: annulment?
Mermaid:not happy?
Good point. Not happy=qualification for annulment. Done. Solved. Never happened.
Sheesh
LikeLike
@kevin, as an eeee-lurker, I have always appreciated your comments. Thx. (The church authority vs individual conscience issue strikes me as a thorny one)
LikeLike
sdb:
The idea that seminaries aren’t steeped in modernism and that modernism has no impact at the parish level is absurd.>>>>>
I understand what you are saying, sdb. How long will it take modernism to run its course?
See, modernism has an influence right here at Old Life. It is part of the spirit of the age, and you can run but you can’t hide. If you ran to Confessional Christianity as a way to escape modernism, you will have to run farther than that.
Why not run back into the thick of the battle instead? See, you probably don’t think much of a “call.” As far as I can see, though, the Called to Communion guys have actually been called by God to work at reform from the inside instead of from the outside.
The attempts at reforming the Church from the outside – as in standing with a relatively small group of people who you think are like you and shouting at everyone else from the outside – are pretty much a failure. As Protestants have protested the Catholic Church, they themselves have lost their faith. In fact, the temptation to protest everything even within one’s own little group is too great once the protesting begins. Where does it ever stop?
I think that at least we could join forces in combating our common enemies instead of wasting energy bemoaning the fact that the whole world lies in the bonds of the wicked one. Why not be of good cheer because Christ has overcome the world?
BTW, I am enjoying the links you provided. McGrath is a lot of fun. van Inwagen has some interesting stuff on Anscombe’s correction of Lewis over Naturalism. He is pretty easy to follow. Not sure if he thinks he can refute Thomism why he doesn’t just go ahead and do it. It’s one thing to say he can. It’s another to actually do it.
Still, he is an interesting guy.
LikeLike
Mermaid,
Harry Emerson Fosdick lives.
Do any of the RC triumphalists think?
LikeLike
@TLM One of the errors I see around here is folks quote mining various historical figures without acknowledging context and the evolution of that figure’s views. This is true for Machen, Calvin, Luther, and Lewis. Folks expect a certain consistency across decades of writing. The reason I point this out is that the link to van Inwagen’s papers I gave you goes back to the early 70’s as I recall. He converted to Christianity in the 80’s (or so I think…don’t hold me to the exact date). At any rate, this undoubtedly would be reflected in his papers on the philosophy of religion. Also, only reading his papers is almost like hearing half of a telephone conversation – many (most?) of these are written in response to other work coming out contemporaneously. That being said, he is as you’ve surmised a very clear writer who has many interesting things, though I ultimately reject metaphysics.
LikeLike
Petros –
Thanks. The Catholic / Reformed differences are essential and a lot of good faith is required to discuss them on a blog, but I know I’ve learned a lot here from charitable and sincere (i.e. honest and straightforward) commentators.
At risk of being called unthinking, I’ll admit I’ve not found “church authority vs individual conscience” to ever be “thorny”; perhaps I would if pressed on something.
My habit is to research and conform – I’ve never found my freedom to be impinged upon, although I’ll admit there are beliefs I hold for which I haven’t necessarily traced all of the major implications. But I take this to be a relatively common state (not just a Catholic thing or KiN thing) and not particularly applicable to theology / religion / Scripture; neither do I think it condemnable, as long as one is always seeking consistency (which is a real good).
It is more important, I think, to become familiar with true principles and gradually determine their implications, risking inconsistency, than to prioritize consistency at risk of rejecting poorly-understood yet true principles. Since (as I take it) the teachings of the RCC (Jeff used “P*” I think) are true and “infallibly” so, my belief is that being steered by the RCC allows reliable growth in knowledge over time.
But it seems to me that identifying P* either greatly benefits from or isn’t possible without interaction with living members of the RCC – the thesis that all concepts can efficiently (or perhaps even effectively) be transmitted independent of oral communication or experience shouldn’t be uncritically assumed –
– e.g., a lot of oral communication referring to lived experience will be necessary to explain “P (or P*) is all wet” to an itinerant Sunni desert-dweller; “chastity” to certain classes of benighted so-called socially liberal college kids; or “justly-intoned minor seventh chord” to someone who only knows piano music rather than string or barber shop quartets (whereas I could communicate this last in about 2 seconds in person). The dictionary won’t do.
If one thinks Pelosi represents orthodoxy (despite Cordileone’s clear statement that her public statements make her a dissenter acting in bad faith), or that the CCC contradicts the Baltimore Catechism(s) & Tridentine Catechism, adequate attention is not being paid to important distinctions and conversation would be helpful or is even necessary. The fix is relatively easy.
LikeLike
Ali –
DG: annulment?
Mermaid:not happy?
[Ali:] Good point. Not happy=qualification for annulment. Done. Solved. Never happened. Sheesh
With all due respect to DG, he implied she would have some desire to leave her husband based on religion not being shared – despite her having offered no grounds to support this.
I’m a slight guy, but I’d be holding myself in check from a serious gorilla impersonation if someone breached similar ground with me in person, questioning my motivations with regard to my wife or child.
Instead, my reading of her response (since the exchange was made here, publicly) is that she took the most likely grounds for making such a statement to be that one is experiencing personal unhappiness in marriage, although she was puzzled why DG would raise this since she has no reason to think that DG is unhappy in marriage (indeed, it’s close to impossible to imagine her insinuating such a thing.)
So the “Not happy=qualification for annulment” idea you ascribe to her has nothing to do with anything she said or implied. Further, I believe you know very well that “unhappiness” is not grounds for an annulment decision. This means you are not only condoning but participating in willful misinterpretation of a) personal motives, b) personal beliefs, and c) the teachings of the RCC.
(Although I don’t see enough evidence yet to add to the charge: willful misinterpretation with intent (to cause harm).)
Personally speaking, Ali, I wouldn’t behave in this way with atheists, pagans, Mormons, or Muslims (Sunni, Shia, or African American).
—Fallible-But-At-Present-Fairly-Certain Mr. Manners
LikeLike
@ Kevin:
Nice to see you again! I hope you and yours had a merry Christmas.
LikeLike
@ Cletus:
Sorry I’ve been tardy with this response. This is my first time in front of a real keyboard in a while.
You’ve asked for me to respond to a counterexample, which runs as follows (quoting earlier):
* The hearers of Jesus and the apostles were fallible just as we are.
* Nevertheless, Jesus and the apostles offered infallible teaching, in contrast to say Gamaliel in the synagogue. Perhaps you are thinking of Matt 7.29?
* So that Jesus’ hearers and the apostles’ hearers who trusted in their authority had an “epistemic advantage” over Gamaliel’s hearers who trusted in his authority.
* This in turn parallels your argument about Catholics (who trust in an infallible authority in your system) and Protestants (who trust in a provisonal authority, according to your argument). If Jesus’ hearers had an epistemic advantage yet without being infallible, then Catholics should have that same advantage.
The epistemic advantage you have in mind is that
The grounds to distinguish divine revelation from provisional human opinion. The grounds to have the warrant and certitude of faith. When Christ and the Apostles infallibly defined, taught, offered, identified non-provisional doctrine or normatively judged/taught something binding upon all by virtue of the authority/ability they claimed, their followers were not justified in holding such doctrines or judgments – either past, present, or future – as provisional, tentative, subject to revision, possibly in error, open to dispute and debate.
You’ve really put forward three distinct concepts, but you seem to be considering them as logically equivalent, so I will take them as such.
So I want to offer an analysis in two layers. First, I want to take a “naive approach” that ignores what TVD would call “philological questions.” Then, I want to come back and take a “realistic approach” that incorporates those questions into the analysis of advantage.
The problem with analyzing paradigms is sorting out which hypotheticals we want to take as true. You may recall that when we first started talking about the relative advantage of Catholic or Protestant paradigms, I dismissed the question as trivial: If the Catholic paradigm is taken as correct, then the Catholic has advantage over the Protestant because he believes what is true, and the Protestant doesn’t. Clearly, the converse is true as well.
Let’s call this the trivial epistemic advantage: If the Catholic paradigm is correct (such that church teaching is infallible truth), then the Catholic has advantage over the Protestant because he believes what is true, while the Protestant does not. The converse is also true.
(1) If p correct, believing in p has advantage over believing ~p.
I think we can agree that each paradigm has that “advantage” over the other, but only conditionally upon the paradigm being actually correct.
You insisted at that time that you have a different advantage in mind, and you’ve spelled it out here, that the Catholic has the grounds to distinguish divine revelation from provisional human opinion., whereas the Protestant does not.
Let’s analyze.
LikeLike
Jeff –
To you as well!
Indeed, all was as it ought to be for my little one’s first Christmas- whatever parents do repeatedly it seems to me takes on the character of “everywhere and always” for children, so we’re trying to do things right.
A walk through the neighborhood in the snow wasn’t exactly possible, better would have been the Jersey Shore and an old calypso song “Green Christmas”:
We skipped the rum, but music and conversation were in abundance.
LikeLike
Kevin, thx for your thoughts, and glad you’ve had such a positive church experience. But I think things may be thornier for others, and it’s driven more than a few RCC friends to be embittered vs the church. Some somewhat mundane examples: being told yes ago to not step foot in the door of a Prot church, even for a wedding or funeral….told not to eat meat on Fridays….memories of what books could not be read, etc. Lots of guilt-inducing stuff, because to disagree with the mother church was such a serious sin.
On a less mundane level, I wonder what obligation a faithful RCC adherent would have in Hus’ day. Fine if he’s not personally obligated to light the match. But, should he cheer that the church rid itself of a heretic? Or, risk his own neck and try to intervene on Hus’ behalf? Just seems a bit thorny.
LikeLike
The Naive Pass
When a speaker speaks, his message is transmitted by some medium, and is in turn interpreted by the listener. This raises questions of transmission: As we move from speaker via medium to listener, what things can go wrong such that the message spoken is not the one received?
For our naive pass, we will ignore all of these questions and temporarily assume the Naive Transmission Assumption:
(NTA) whatever the speaker says, that is what the listener receives. If the speaker says P, the listener understands P.
I know that neither of us believes NTA. I just want to put it aside for now because some of the participants (Tom, Mermaid) seem to think that the work of the Spirit effects NTA.
The conclusion I will argue for is this: Even if we grant NTA, the claimed epistemic advantage is only conditional upon the truth of Catholic teachings, and it becomes a profound disadvantage if those teachings are not true. In other words, the only actual advantage that a Catholic might have is not a function of the extravagance of the claims, but only on their truth value.
Put more simply, your claimed advantage is simply a restatement of the trivial advantage: The Catholic has an advantage if his claims are actually true. If not, he has a disadvantage.
Take Jesus’ hearers who have trusted in Him. They hear him say P, and so now (having accepted his infallibility) they have grounds to believe that P is infallible teaching.
Take bar Kochba’s hearers who have trusted in him. They hear him say Q, so now (by the same argument), they have grounds to believe that Q is infallible teaching.
Take dedicated Mormons. They hear the church say M, so now they have grounds to believe that M is infallible teaching.
Is the Protestant at a disadvantage compared to all three of these? According to your definition of epistemic advantage, the answer is Yes. However, I would argue that the “advantage” accrued by the followers of bar Kochba or the Mormon church is actually a disadvantage.
For, we agree, there are teachings of bar Kochba and of the Mormon church that are in fact wrong. And if the believer cannot ever be justified in thinking those teachings wrong, then he is doomed to believe false teachings while thinking of them as infallible. He would be (to use doxastic language) an inaccurate reasoner. The Protestant in this sense has advantage over either person.
Let us call this disadvantage the cult peril: If a person wrongly believes that his leader is infallible, he will tend to persistently believe wrong teachings contrary to evidence and reason.
In other words, the advantage you claim is only an advantage for the hearers of Jesus because He was in fact infallible. For all other hearers of all others claimants to infallibility, the advantage turns into the cult peril.
Now, three things become obvious from this analysis. First, if the Catholic has advantage over the Protestant, his advantage only lies in the correctness of Catholic teachings, and not in the claims to infallibility. Those latter claims are disadvantageous from the point of view of the Protestant paradigm, since the Catholic teaching is incorrect yet believed to be infallible by Catholics.
Second, it becomes clear that the claimed epistemic advantage accrues if and only if Catholic teachings are correct. In other words, your advantage is logically equivalent to the trivial advantage.
Third, you have a mistake in reasoning here:
When Christ and the Apostles infallibly defined, taught, offered, identified non-provisional doctrine or normatively judged/taught something binding upon all by virtue of the authority/ability they claimed, their followers were not justified in holding such doctrines or judgments – either past, present, or future – as provisional, tentative, subject to revision, possibly in error, open to dispute and debate.
The mistake in reasoning is to assume that the epistemic advantage is unconditional: That their followers by virtue of belief had eliminated the “if Jesus is infallible” premise from their paradigm.
But this is not so. The reasoning goes,
(M1) If what Jesus teaches is infallible, then what he teaches is correct.
(M2) What Jesus teaches is infallible.
—
(C) Therefore what he teaches is correct.
If a follower of Jesus came to believe that something he taught is incorrect, he would not necessarily be unjustified in doing so. Rather, he would be unjustified in doing so while retaining belief in M1 and M2. He might very well be justified in ditching M2.
The point here is that the assent of faith cannot remove conditionality from your epistemology.
—
So our first result is that advantage accrues because of actual truth of claims, not to extravagance of claims. The Catholic will have advantage over the Protestant iff. his claims are true, and not because he has “superior claims.”
The second result comes from considering the difference between the hearers of Jesus and the hearers of the apostles. The question of the apostles is different from the question of Jesus. Because Jesus was God, He was inherently infallible all the time. But the apostles, even on Catholic terms, did not have a continual property of infallibility. Rather, they had a charism of infallibility (in your system) that operated at some times and not others.
So the hearer of the apostles had an additional question to ask: Given that Peter said P, is P infallible? And while it might seem like the easy answer is to “ask Peter”, I think we can grant that this was not always practical to do.
What does this mean now for the hearers of the apostles? It means that they have imperfect grounds for distinguishing infallible teaching from human. Not imperfect because the apostolic infallible teaching was fallible (a defect in message) but because not all apostolic teaching was recognizably infallible (a defect in identification).
This means that any given P coming from the apostle’s mouth is only provisionally offered as infallible (unless of course the apostle were to positively identify P as infallible). This is exactly the situation that the Protestant in his paradigm finds himself in: He has provisionally identified a body of text that is the infallible word of God.
In principle, then, the hearers of the apostles were in a situation similar to the Protestant paradigm. This leads to a second result:
Without infallible identification of infallible teaching, Catholics have no advantage over Protestants
This was illustrated in my proof examples by the question of the salvation of Protestants. Was Baltimore Catechism #4 an infallible church document or not? If not, then is CCC an infallible church document or not? If not, then what really does count as infallible church teaching?
Without an infallible list, every church document is only provisionally offered as infallible teaching. The purported difference between Catholic and Protestant disappears.
—
Now, the Protestant is in a much happier situation. He recognizes that fallible knowledge is the inevitable state of affairs (1 Cor 13); hence, he is content to say that the hearers of Jesus and the apostles were perfectly justified in provisionally accepting their teaching as infallible.
The problem disappears.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Great stuff! Thank you for taking the time to jot it down.
LikeLike
The Realistic Pass
Now that we have seen that the Catholic advantage is a Cult Peril unless church teaching is known to be true, and that the Catholic advantage disappears unless there is a further stipulation of infallible identification of infallible teaching, let us consider what happens in the real world of message-sending and receiving.
In the real world, messages are not directly and immediately apprehended. Rather, there is a sender, who transmits via a medium (air, pen and paper, Intarwebs) to a receiver who then must interpret what was received.
We have evidence in Scripture that the hearers of Jesus did not in fact immediately or infallibly receive his messages. See John 21.23, John 6.52, Matt 16.5-12. Neither did the readers of Paul: 1 Cor 5.9-12, 2 Thess 2.2
Here are some of the problems that can arise:
* A false message from a man-in-the-middle (eg 2 Thess 2.2)
* A misunderstanding of import (eg John 21.23)
* Transcription errors (eg the many known manuscript issues)
An amusing example of the last is that my name can sound a lot like “YEESS” yelled from one floor to the next. So I’m forever thinking that I’m being summoned by a Caglet or the Cagle-wife.
There are more transmission issues, but this gives the idea of the kinds of problems that can arise.
In church history, these very issues have been in play.
Jerome had to consider whether the pericope adulterae was actually a part of the text of John (he concluded it was, based on the fact that many Greek manuscripts contained it in John. So much for dismissing textual criticism…)
The early church had to sort through which purported Gospels were genuine.
The translation problem is one of deciding which words in language L are the best to convey the ideas of the original text.
And finally, every reader has to wrestle with interpretive and comprehension issues: Given that Scripture is infallible, what implications can I draw from what I’m reading?
Given that these issues arise, what are the implications for our discussion? The implications are that even if Jesus Himself says P, the hearer does not necessarily hear P, but rather P’ — a message that is filtered by transmission and interpretation. For that reason, the hearer cannot consider or rely upon the infallibility of P in order to declare P’ equally infallible.
As a result, the hearer cannot ever argue that any proposition P’ he has heard is anything other than provisional. This state of affairs has nothing to do with acceptance of authority, nor does it have to do with a rejection of the work of the Spirit. It’s a simple matter that
without an infallible chain of transmission from speaker to listener — the so-called “Vulcan mind-meld” — the propositions heard by the listener will never be known to be the propositions uttered by the speaker.
That’s just a fact of human existence. The only way around this fact is to posit an infallible mode of transmission. Mermaid seems to think that the work of the Spirit provides that infallible mode, but you (Cletus) and I have agreed that the work of the Spirit does not provide an infallible mode of transmission.
From that, it necessarily follows that all propositions considered by the hearer will necessarily be considered as “provisionally infallible” — that is, infallible only upon the condition that they are the correct rendering of infallible teaching.
From this, I have to conclude that in a realistic scenario, the Catholic paradigm cannot actually deliver on the promise of teaching unsullied by provisionality. The purported “epistemic advantage” is illusory, because
* The advantage only accrues if Catholic teaching is correct; else, the advantage is a Cult Peril.
* The advantage only exists if infallible teaching is identified infallibly; else, the Catholic is in an identical position as the Protestant
* The advantage only exists if the hearer can guarantee an infallible mode of transmission from infallible speaker to hearer; else, the Catholic is in an identical position as the Protestant.
—
The confessional Protestant, meanwhile, cheerfully admits that he has fallible knowledge of Jesus’ teachings, and embraces those teachings by faith to the best of his ability. Faith isn’t epistemology, after all.
LikeLike
Ali
Posted December 28, 2015 at 9:15 am | Permalink
DG: annulment?
Mermaid:not happy?
Good point. Not happy=qualification for annulment. Done. Solved. Never happened.
Sheesh>>>>>
You know, Ali, when you and the Old Life people stoop to attacking my marriage, it shows you have nothing to argue.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 28, 2015 at 3:46 pm | Permalink
The confessional Protestant, meanwhile, cheerfully admits that he has fallible knowledge of Jesus’ teachings, and embraces those teachings by faith to the best of his ability. Faith isn’t epistemology, after all.
More to the point, epistemology isn’t faith.
LikeLike
Jeff,
“That their followers by virtue of belief had eliminated the “if Jesus is infallible” premise from their paradigm.”
What was insisted upon at the very start of this discussion – grant the truth and claims of both systems for argument’s sake, then evaluate and compare to see what is consistent with and falls out from those starting principles and consequently, which system offers an advantage, if any. It was a very modest proposal and avoids question begging, yet continually is lost, ignored, or misconstrued.
Secondly, your argument makes Christ and the Apostle’s claims to divine authority/ability to infallibly define, teach, offer, identify non-provisional doctrine or to normatively judge/teach something binding upon all by virtue of that authority/ability superfluous and unnecessary. Thus, as I said before, Mormonism, EO, JWs, Rome, Crazy Dave the Street Prophet make claims to authority/ability to offer non-provisional teaching. That does not mean their claims are equally credible. There were false prophets and true prophets. False messiahs and a true messiah. They all made the necessary, though not sufficient, claims for someone to consider them as a contendor for offering divine revelation, namely the authority/ability to offer infallible non-provisional teaching in the first place. Protestantism refuses to make the claim in the first place. Thus the parallel between Christ/Apostles and random rabbi Levi in NT times.
“If a person wrongly believes that his leader is infallible, he will tend to persistently believe wrong teachings contrary to evidence and reason.”
Indeed, which is why the MoC are tied precisely to evidence and reason, just as Christ/Apostles claims to divine authority/ability were tied to evidence and reason.
“The second result comes from considering the difference between the hearers of Jesus and the hearers of the apostles. The question of the apostles is different from the question of Jesus. Because Jesus was God, He was inherently infallible all the time. But the apostles, even on Catholic terms, did not have a continual property of infallibility. Rather, they had a charism of infallibility (in your system) that operated at some times and not others.”
Neither Jesus nor the Apostles mindmelded with their followers. As you said, “That’s just a fact of human existence.” That’s why faith seeks understanding in RCism, and why members walk by faith and not by sight, and why faithful members can misunderstand things or be in error without being a heretic, and why doctrine develops. So there goes the mindmeld argument, unless you want to by the same argument undermine Christ and the Apostles authority/ability.
“Faith isn’t epistemology, after all.”
Nope. But the certitude of faith reflects the biblical and patristic definition of faith. And the claims to authority/ability RCism makes reflects the biblical and patristic definition of the church’s ability and authority. Otherwise, we are left with the stalemate (and disadvantageous) situation of “who cares what another church thinks of my beliefs, nor should they care what our church thinks of theirs” as has been advanced by some here, rightly so given their starting principles.
LikeLike
Finally, I would like to step back from the in-paradigm analysis and make some observations from outside the paradigm.
First, although I have used the language of Cult Peril to colorfully describe the risk one takes in identifying a source as infallible, I am not trying to label the Catholic church as a cult. Rather, I think of the Catholic church as one part of the visible church — more or less visible, according to whether the gospel is preached in the particular church in question.
The Cult Peril arises really only when apologists come along and suggest that Protestants have an inadequate guide to truth in the Scripture, that something additional — an infallible interpreter — is needed to guarantee truer truth.
In the face of that suggestion, my argument shows that the offer itself of an infallible interpreter is only attractive if the purported interpreter can deliver. The Protestant is at no disadvantage just because he does not claim infallible interpretations.
And, in fact, the infallible interpreter cannot deliver, for fallible interpretation is the human condition in this world. Even if the RC Church were to tomorrow produce an infallible list of infallible teachings, as well an infallible commentary of Scripture — the Catholic layperson would still have to interpret.
And that brings me to my last observation. The apologetic offered here, that the Holy Spirit guides us to all truth by providing an infallible interpreter, has several disturbing points of contact with Gnostic theology.
* First, it plays upon a quest for infallible knowledge. It should be enough for a believer that Jesus delivers us from our sins and that He will make all things known to us upon his return. The CtC apologetic asks Protestants to feel insecure in the fact that there is disagreement over interpretation, and then supplies a purported solution in the form of the STM triad. In like fashion, the Gnostics “overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretence of [superior] knowledge, from Him who rounded and adorned the universe; as if, forsooth, they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than that God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein.” (Irenaeus, Adv Haer 1.1)
* Second, the apologetic claims that the action of the Spirit grants us additional certainty in the realm of knowledge. It is unclear how far this claim goes, but it is certain that Mermaid believes that the Spirit allows us to know things non-provisionally, and that Tom believes that even mentioning the “philological problems” of message transmission is to deny the work of the Spirit.
The Gnostics likewise claimed agency of the Spirit to give superior knowledge. Against this, Irenaeus says If, however, any one do not discover the cause of all those things which become objects of investigation, let him reflect that man is infinitely inferior to God; that he has received grace only in part, and is not yet equal or similar to his Maker; and, moreover, that he cannot have experience or form a conception of all things like God; — AH 2.25
* Third, the apologetic claims that Scripture is non-perspicuous, and requires an oral Tradition, nowhere written by the apostles, in order to have its proper interpretation. Against this Irenaeus says
A sound mind, and one which does not expose its possessor to danger, and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, will eagerly meditate upon those things which God has placed within the power of mankind, and has subjected to our knowledge, and will make advancement in [acquaintance with] them, rendering the knowledge of them easy to him by means of daily study. These things are such as fall [plainly] under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures. And therefore the parables ought not to be adapted to ambiguous expressions. For, if this be not done, both he who explains them will do so without danger, and the parables will receive a like interpretation from all, and the body of truth remains entire, with a harmonious adaptation of its members, and without any collision [of its several parts]. But to apply expressions which are not clear or evident to interpretations of the parables, such as every one discovers for himself as inclination leads him, [is absurd. ] For in this way no one will possess the rule of truth; but in accordance with the number of persons who explain the parables will be found the various systems of truth, in mutual opposition to each other, and setting forth antagonistic doctrines, like the questions current among the Gentile philosophers.
According to this course of procedure, therefore, man would always be inquiring but never finding, because he has rejected the very method of discovery. And when the Bridegroom comes, he who has his lamp untrimmed, and not burning with the brightness of a steady light, is classed among those who obscure the interpretations of the parables, forsaking Him who by His plain announcements freely imparts gifts to all who come to Him, and is excluded from His marriage-chamber. Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them; and since they proclaim that one only God, to the exclusion of all others, formed all things by His word, whether visible or invisible, heavenly or earthly, in the water or under the earth, as I have shown from the very words of Scripture; and since the very system of creation to which we belong testifies, by what falls under our notice, that one Being made and governs it—those persons will seem truly foolish who blind their eyes to such a clear demonstration, and will not behold the light of the announcement [made to them]; but they put fetters upon themselves, and every one of them imagines, by means of their obscure interpretations of the parables, that he has found out a God of his own. For that there is nothing whatever openly, expressly, and without controversy said in any part of Scripture respecting the Father conceived of by those who hold a contrary opinion, they themselves testify, when they maintain that the Saviour privately taught these same things not to all, but to certain only of His disciples who could comprehend them, and who understood what was intended by Him through means of arguments, enigmas, and parables. They come, [in fine,] to this, that they maintain there is one Being who is proclaimed as God, and another as Father, He who is set forth as such through means of parables and enigmas.
But since parables admit of many interpretations, what lover of truth will not acknowledge, that for them to assert God is to be searched out from these, while they desert what is certain, indubitable, and true, is the part of men who eagerly throw themselves into danger, and act as if destitute of reason? And is not such a course of conduct not to build one’s house upon a rock Matthew 7:25 which is firm, strong, and placed in an open position, but upon the shifting sand? Hence the overthrow of such a building is a matter of ease. — AH 2.27
and again,
When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world. — AH 3.1
And again,
For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? — AH 3.4 (which shows that the content of the tradition handed down is identical to the content of the Scriptures, and is not a secret key to its interpretation)
* Fourth, the Gnostics despised the flesh as being an unsuitable vessel for the Word of God. In like manner, the apologetic here despises human modes of knowing as being an unsuitable way for us to receive and know the word of God.
Granted that Paul wrote infallible truth. Still — his writings were copied fallibly, translated fallibly, and interpreted fallibly. That is the human condition.
For Tom and Mermaid, even admitting this fact is unbelief, strikes at the core of the Christian faith.
But for the Protestant, admitting this fact allows us to separate clearly between the word of God and the word of man. Thus Irenaeus again:
The Apostle Paul has, moreover, in the most lucid manner, pointed out that man has been delivered over to his own infirmity, lest, being uplifted, he might fall away from the truth. Thus he says in the second [Epistle] to the Corinthians: And lest I should be lifted up by the sublimity of the revelations, there was given unto me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me. And upon this I besought the Lord three times, that it might depart from me. But he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for you; for strength is made perfect in weakness. Gladly therefore shall I rather glory in infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. 2 Corinthians 12:7-9 What, therefore? (as some may exclaim:) did the Lord wish, in that case, that His apostles should thus undergo buffeting, and that he should endure such infirmity? Even so it was; the word says it. For strength is made perfect in weakness, rendering him a better man who by means of his infirmity becomes acquainted with the power of God. For how could a man have learned that he is himself an infirm being, and mortal by nature, but that God is immortal and powerful, unless he had learned by experience what is in both? For there is nothing evil in learning one’s infirmities by endurance; yea, rather, it has even the beneficial effect of preventing him from forming an undue opinion of his own nature (non aberrare in natura sua). But the being lifted up against God, and taking His glory to one’s self, rendering man ungrateful, has brought much evil upon him. [And thus, I say, man must learn both things by experience], that he may not be destitute of truth and love either towards himself or his Creator. But the experience of both confers upon him the true knowledge as to God and man, and increases his love towards God. Now, where there exists an increase of love, there a greater glory is wrought out by the power of God for those who love Him.
Those men, therefore, set aside the power of God, and do not consider what the word declares, when they dwell upon the infirmity of the flesh, but do not take into consideration the power of Him who raises it up from the dead.
God can use His word without requiring of us that we have an infallible human authority giving us an infallible canon, an infallible Latin translation, and an infallible interpretation.
In making these observations, I am not declaring that Catholicism is Gnostic, for in many ways (praise God!) it is not. I am saying that the apologetic that dwells on Protestant fallibility as if it were an admission of inferiority makes the same errors that the Gnostics did, wanting to transcend the human condition in order to have superior knowledge.
God is pleased with faith and love, not knowledge (1 Cor 13). That one fact should cause us to reject the CtC apologetic as off-base. But even if not, the detailed analysis shows that it cannot deliver.
LikeLike
CVD: What was insisted upon at the very start of this discussion – grant the truth and claims of both systems for argument’s sake, then evaluate and compare to see what is consistent with and falls out from those starting principles and consequently, which system offers an advantage, if any. It was a very modest proposal and avoids question begging, yet continually is lost, ignored, or misconstrued.
That’s exactly what I’ve done here. If we grant the truth and claims, we get a trivial advantage for each. The Catholic in his system has an advantage because he believes true statements; likewise for the Protestant. There is no advantage beyond that.
CVD: Secondly, your argument makes Christ and the Apostle’s claims to divine authority/ability to infallibly define, teach, offer, identify non-provisional doctrine or to normatively judge/teach something binding upon all by virtue of that authority/ability superfluous and unnecessary. Thus, as I said before, Mormonism, EO, JWs, Rome, Crazy Dave the Street Prophet make claims to authority/ability to offer non-provisional teaching. That does not mean their claims are equally credible.
I think there’s some merit to what you say here. I am minimizing the role of authority relative to the Catholic conception.
First, when Christ and the apostles spoke truly, in what way did their authority add to that truth?
Second, Christ has the ability and authority to define truth. He speaks, and it is so.
The apostles did not have that authority, which is given to God alone.
Third, you have never really explained why those without authority in the Old Testament who speak the oracles of God (Amos, Balaam’s donkey, the king of Egypt in Chronicles) were to be believed over against those with authority.
And I think that’s because you seem to have an is/ought confusion. Authority is moral, it is the right to speak and to be respected. It is not the same as the ability to speak infallibly.
Scripture illustrates repeatedly that those with authority can err, and their words should be examined for error, while those without authority can speak from God.
You’ve never accounted for this fact, which makes your insistence that I somehow leave room for the authority of Jesus to be puzzling.
Jesus did not have any recognized earthly authority. On your terms — sacramentally transmitted authority — Jesus would have been rejected.
LikeLike
Mrs. Webfoot,
I was happy to see that Kevin from New Jersey stepped in and said something.
And I’m sorry that they are attacking you personally. Like you said, it shows a lack of argument. I think it proves that bigotry is the easier route. Bad form either way.
My husband didn’t convert with me either, but this year he came with me to midnight Mass. It was very beautiful:)
Merry Christmas, Mrs. Webfoot.
Susan
LikeLike
But Jeff,
Luther had to have the OT in Hebrew and when he did he found that the Jewish canon was missing 7 books.
If Luther was wrong to reject those books as canonical when the Christian church had been using them in sacred liturgy for fifteen hundred years prior, how would you know?
LikeLike
Btw,
I will just read your response and your further interaction with CVD, without commenting anymore. I dont want the conversation to get bogged down. I just read your comments on logic and epistemology and wondered how you avoid skepticism( or gain certainty) when it comes to the books that should be included in the Christian canon.
LikeLike
But Susan,
I need to know how it is that lacking RC supernatural faith(thomistically considered) equals skepticism, rationally considered? It’s been a long time since I’ve done any formal work(college) but I don’t remember skepticism being defined as lacking supernatural certitude(trad, thomistic, RC considered).
LikeLike
@ Susan:
His decision wasn’t made in a vacuum. He used the best evidence available, including the evidence provided by tradition.
The list I provided earlier shows that the deuterocanonicals were not unanimously accepted, nor was there a defined canon. Luther did not “remove.” He chose the more likely correct canon from several offered ones.
This illustrates the problem of identifying which tradition is the correct one.
LikeLike
Jeff:
In making these observations, I am not declaring that Catholicism is Gnostic, for in many ways (praise God!) it is not. I am saying that the apologetic that dwells on Protestant fallibility as if it were an admission of inferiority makes the same errors that the Gnostics did, wanting to transcend the human condition in order to have superior knowledge.>>>>
Howdy, Brother Jeff,
How are you doing? I hope the wedding or weddings you were involved in were a blessing to all involved. I hope your Christmas was a merry one. We have one more family get together next weekend, D.V., and then we’ll call it good for this season.
Here are some questions I don’t know how you would answer from your point of view.
1. Who gets to decide what the canon of Scripture is?
2. How can Confessional Christians talk about having assurance of their salvation when all knowledge is provisional?
3. How can you make the claim that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice when you don’t really know for certain what Scripture even is?
4. It seemed that in order to follow your line of reasoning, one has to have a kind of special knowledge of logic and mathematics. That leaves me out.
I could follow you part of the way, and then, in a manner of speaking, I lost the scent! How would you meet the challenge that C.S. Lewis gave to himself in explaining complex ideas to ordinary people – and I am quite ordinary. I may not be sensible.
I am not saying that you don’t understand or know what you are talking about. I am saying that if a person has to have special knowledge in order to understand, then, well. that leaves me out.
” “If you can’t explain what you believe to a sensible, ordinary person, then you don’t really understand it very well yourself.”
– C.S. Lewis
If you wish to answer these questions, I would appreciate it. If not, no problem. You are under no obligation to say any more than what you have said. This has been a great debate, Jeff, and I appreciate your input.
Hey, thanks in advance for any answers you may have for me – or birckbats. 😉
You have a wonderful week and a very Happy New Year!
LikeLike
Hi Jeff,
Okay, here we are 2000 years since Jesus lived and we want to be followers of The Christ. So how do we.determine which tradition will put us on that path?
The Catholic Church has been using the deuterocanon from beginning and Jesus even quotes from them. Sell me on why I should trust Luther against the church’s 1500 year tradition and Jesus himself.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle:
The list I provided earlier shows that the deuterocanonicals were not unanimously accepted, nor was there a defined canon. Luther did not “remove.” He chose the more likely correct canon from several offered ones.>>>>
Several points.:
1. It is fascinating for me to study the history of the Protestant canon. Well, maybe study is too strong a word. It is more like taking a fresh look at how Protestantism developed its canon and what happened to those books, anyway?
2. Luther did do some removal. He removed the deuterocanonical books from their normal place in the Vulgate and put them in the back of his Bible bus. He made it clear that they were good books, but not inspired.
3. He did something similar with his Antilegomina – which is not the same Antilegomina that contained contested books during the time of the early Church. What was the issue being debated at that time? Whether or not they contained apostolic teaching. That is, were they written by apostles or did the apostles approve of their teachings. Luther questioned the canonicity of 4 of those books – Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.
Wikkipedia’s entries on the subject seem to be uncontested for the most part. Anyone can Google it and see which books were contested in the early Church and why. Here is part of the entry for Luther’s canon. I won’t link to it, because this format gets kind of weird when it comes to links.
He also wanted to include the whole book of Esther in his “Apocrypha”, but lost on that score.
3. The Vulgate was the translation into Latin of the Septuagint. That was the only Bible being offered on a large scale. Anyone studying theology had to do so from the Vulgate. There were translations of the Bible into vernacular languages as well, but the Vulgate was the standard, authorized text.
For example. The standard Protestant translation of the Bible into Spanish was not the first Spanish translation of the Bible into Spanish. There was already a Catholic version when Reina and his team began their work. The Catholic Church was also doing a translation into German. Luther talks about it in his intro. to his own translation. His criticism of their translation is pretty colorful, shall we say.
His translation was superior because he was superior. Luther had a very high view of his own abilities, and in large part, he was justified in thinking highly of his own natural abilities. No one denies the fact that he was indeed very clever. He was also a doctor of theology and had been a professor for what was it? 30 years before he nailed his thesis to the church door. He was confident in his own knowledge and one can hardly blame him, really. That did not make him right, but he was sure.
4. He chose his own canon based on his own conscience and his own theology. Read his intros to his translation as well as his intros to the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation to see exactly what process he was following. He expected everyone to make up his or her own mind on the subject, even.
5. Now, I have mentioned it several times, but can anyone answer why the KJV and then other Protestant versions do not have the “Apocrypha” even in the back of the Bible bus? Where did they go? They were in Luther’s Bible. In fact, they were in the first KJV Bibles. Who removed them? They were removed. The answer may surprise you.
LikeLike
Jeff,
When you say.things like,” He chose the more likely correct canon from several offered ones.”
I as a person searching for truth,can sense that your basis for faith is based on one man’s fallible and provisional knowledge.
How do you overcome that for yourself and for your dear Caglets( as Kevin so eloquently showed)?
When you hear the Catholic apologetic for why the deuterocanon is considered sacred scripture, along with the reason for why Luther wanting take those books, and those certain ones from the NT that clearly opposed his agenda, does it make you rethink your right to trust Luther’s judgement?
LikeLike
Hey Susan,
The reason Luther is more trustworthy here is because the church *has not* used the deuterocanonicals for 2000 years. That’s part of Luther’s point in rejecting them. How you frame questions is very important because if framed improperly they can lead you down the wrong direction…
LikeLike
Brandon Addison
Posted December 28, 2015 at 6:10 pm | Permalink
Hey Susan,
The Catholic Church has been using the deuterocanon from beginning and Jesus even quotes from them. Sell me on why I should trust Luther against the church’s 1500 year tradition and Jesus himself.
The reason Luther is more trustworthy here is because the church *has not* used the deuterocanonicals for 2000 years. That’s part of Luther’s point in rejecting them. How you frame questions is very important because if framed improperly they can lead you down the wrong direction…>>>>>
You really must read Luther in his own words. Another question to ask is what Bible did Luther use in the classroom for 30 years? That was the Bible he taught from.
Why would he do that if it wasn’t the standard university text?
…but Protestants have their traditions that are not questioned. See, this is why I don’t really think that all the provisional knowledge stuff works in real life.
The view that those books are not inspired is firmly ingrained in the Protestant psyche and no one even questions it within Protestantism. At the very least Protestants should say “maybe we got it wrong.” Yet they don’t.
LikeLike
Hi Brandon,
“The reason Luther is more trustworthy here is because the church *has not* used the deuterocanonicals for 2000 years. That’s part of Luther’s point in rejecting them. How you frame questions is very important because if framed improperly they can lead you down the wrong direction…”
When I was Protestant, I wasn’t framing questions to arrive at the Catholic Church’s doorstep. I was every bit as comfortable in my reformed tradition as you are yet confronted with this dilemma conceding the very foundation of what my tradition depended.
What church was using the deterocanon and for how long then? Luther rejected “some” books that were in use by “somebody”. How did he make this determination from scripture? And from Christian tradition?
I really want to understand how you find Luther more trustworthy.
LikeLike
TLM, I am just back, refuse to scroll through all of the posts since early Christmas Eve, but I did not want to appear rude if we left anything hanging. I will check back again.
BTW, if you are interested in developing more insight into the development of the Protestant NT canon, you might find out what criteria Erasmus used in questioning the same 4 books in his 1516/1518 Greek texts. I honestly do not know whether his criteria were the same as or different than Luther’s, but at least one of these editions contains extensive prefatory material, which Luther would have read. I am not trying to make any particular point here, and I think it would be hard to get past the usual RC/Prot polemics that would pop up on Google, so I wouldn’t expect a quick response. (I suppose the same question could be asked of Catejan, but I am not as interested in him.). I would be interested if you find anything.
LikeLike
MWF,
You said,
“Now, I have mentioned it several times, but can anyone answer why the KJV and then other Protestant versions do not have the “Apocrypha” even in the back of the Bible bus? Where did they go? They were in Luther’s Bible. In fact, they were in the first KJV Bibles. Who removed them? They were removed. The answer may surprise you.”
What’s the answer? Who removed them from even the back of the bible?
LikeLike
Brandon,
The Eastern orthodox church also uses the deuteros, so that should tell us about the doctrine and practice of the universal church before the reformation. If there was no EO then we’d have only the tradition of the west, but since the church started more in the east we can’t very well say that they were just mindlessly following Rome’s lead.
Can you tell me why EO scholars haven’t done away with the deuterocanon?
LikeLike
@Susan
The EOs also use texts not included in the RC canon.
LikeLike
@TLM & Susan
Could you pass along the passages where Jesus cites the deuteros?
LikeLike
(A different) Dan
Posted December 28, 2015 at 6:54 pm | Permalink
TLM, I am just back, refuse to scroll through all of the posts since early Christmas Eve, but I did not want to appear rude if we left anything hanging. I will check back again.
BTW, if you are interested in developing more insight into the development of the Protestant NT canon, you might find out what criteria Erasmus used in questioning the same 4 books in his 1516/1518 Greek texts. I honestly do not know whether his criteria were the same as or different than Luther’s, but at least one of these editions contains extensive prefatory material, which Luther would have read. I am not trying to make any particular point here, and I think it would be hard to get past the usual RC/Prot polemics that would pop up on Google, so I wouldn’t expect a quick response. (I suppose the same question could be asked of Catejan, but I am not as interested in him.). I would be interested if you find anything.>>>>
Very cool. Thanks (A different) Dan.
Well, I don’t know if anything is left hanging, but your info. about Brand Luther got me thinking about why Protestant Bibles dumped the DCs altogether. I have found an answer, but haven’t been able to verify the info I read. It had to do with publishers in America wanting to increase their profit margin. The DCs were in the KJV in England originally.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted December 28, 2015 at 7:27 pm | Permalink
@TLM & Susan
Could you pass along the passages where Jesus cites the deuteros?>>>>
Oh, sdb, you need to do your homework yourself. We all have to. No matter what a Catholic says about the DCs, you will say “no it’s not.” Prove it for yourself.
LikeLike
TLM, “publisher’s” decision” may be right for the US market. Not sure about UK.
BTW, not everybody is happy about your more complete Bible, at least in the NAB version.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/05/bible-babel
The follow up written five years later is even more scathing.
LikeLike
Sdb,
Say Jesus doesn’t quote extensively or word- for -word, to me it was enough that the books bore similarities. That means that what they convey is the same word of God. So here are three examples for you.
:15 And what you hate, do not do to any one. (Tob)
7:12 So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets (Mt)
3:7 In the time of their visitation they will shine forth, and will run like sparks through the stubble. (Ws)
13:43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear. (Mt)
2:15 Those who fear the Lord will not disobey his words, and those who love him will keep his ways. 2:16 Those who fear the Lord will seek his approval, and those who love him will be filled with the law. 2:17 Those who fear the Lord will prepare their hearts, and will humble themselves before him. 2:18 Let us fall into the hands of the Lord, but not into the hands of men; for as his majesty is, so also is his mercy. (Sir)
14:23 Jesus answered him, “If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.
Keep in mind that the DC were found along with The Dea Sea Scrolls.
There simply is no historical or archeological or literary reason to make them sit outside the realm of inspiration.
So this added with the fact that the church used them, kept them in her possession and later defined them as sacred scripture at councils where other matters(that protestants accept) were decided is enough to stand on.
LikeLike
Ali:] Good point. Not happy=qualification for annulment. Done. Solved. Never happened. Sheesh
Kevin:With all due respect to DG, he implied she would have some desire to leave her husband based on religion not being shared – despite her having offered no grounds to support this. I’m a slight guy, but I’d be holding myself in check from a serious gorilla impersonation if someone breached similar ground with me in person, questioning my motivations with regard to my wife or child. Instead, my reading of her response (since the exchange was made here, publicly) is that she took the most likely grounds for making such a statement to be that one is experiencing personal unhappiness in marriage, although she was puzzled why DG would raise this since she has no reason to think that DG is unhappy in marriage (indeed, it’s close to impossible to imagine her insinuating such a thing.)So the “Not happy=qualification for annulment” idea you ascribe to her has nothing to do with anything she said or implied. Further, I believe you know very well that “unhappiness” is not grounds for an annulment decision. This means you are not only condoning but participating in willful misinterpretation of a) personal motives, b) personal beliefs, and c) the teachings of the RCC. (Although I don’t see enough evidence yet to add to the charge: willful misinterpretation with intent (to cause harm).)Personally speaking, Ali, I wouldn’t behave in this way with atheists, pagans, Mormons, or Muslims (Sunni, Shia, or African American). —Fallible-But-At-Present-Fairly-Certain Mr. Manners
Hi Kevin, thank you and as someone has already commented, I’ve always appreciated your conversing here –definitely respectful. The best I can tell, it seemed mermaid took it well from her response:
The Little Mermaid: Posted December 26, 2015 at 4:23 pm | PermalinkD. G. Hart Posted December 26, 2015 at 9:57 am | Permalink
Mermaid, are you going to try to get an annulment?>>>>No. Aren’t you happily married? ;–)
Though perhaps because of your response, she may changed her mind, or maybe it’s just a different day, or to different person saying now: The Little Mermaid:You know, Ali, when you and the Old Life people stoop to attacking my marriage, it shows you have nothing to argue.
I did jump on the bandwagon about it because of her response about ‘unhappiness’. So your reading is your reading and my reading is my reading –both valid I would say, and also with all due respect, you also don’t know what I know ‘very well’ about Catholic grounds for annulment; one thing you can know for certain though is I find the annulment concept disturbing, since I believe Jesus does also –the ‘church’ makes a conclusion for what Jesus says is a valid marriage or one that never happened? Do I understand that correctly?
It is another very serious topic that seems ‘shrugged’ , however, I don’t believe Jesus ever shrugs about it. I can’t grasp that Catholics believe its Jesus’s perspective and of course since I’m me, I think Catholics shouldn’t be able to grasp it either.
Dear mermaid, I assume you’ve had a change of heart about your response to the topic, and so I apologize for my part in offending you.
LikeLike
Jeff, but if all of Jesus’ audience had gone to James Young’s and Mermaid’s epistemology seminar, they would have identified his teaching as infallible.
LikeLike
James Young, “why the MoC are tied precisely to evidence and reason”
What someone who believes in the bodily assumption of Mary tells himself to sleep at night.
LikeLike
Susan, the canon of Scripture wasn’t settled for you until Trent (before Luther).
Keep up.
LikeLike
(A different) Dan
Posted December 28, 2015 at 8:09 pm | Permalink
TLM, “publisher’s” decision” may be right for the US market. Not sure about UK.
BTW, not everybody is happy about your more complete Bible, at least in the NAB version.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/05/bible-babel
The follow up written five years later is even more scathing.>>>>
Oh, isn’t it fun, Dan.
The UK version dropped the DCs at the end of the 19th Century. Haven’t gotten far enough to find out why. Maybe the same reason the US publishers did. In the US, it was because the Bible could be printed at the same price, but with less paper if the DCs were left out. Those who were buying the KJV in the new United States of America weren’t interested in the DCs. That’s what I read, but I am hoping to find more references to that fact and maybe even some primary sources. Why weren’t people interested in them? Was it because of standards like the WCF? Not sure if I can find out all the whys.
I know that some don’t like the NAB version. I have a study Bible that uses the RSV-CE. I also have the NAB study Bible. Why? Because I can, that’s why. 😉 Nobody can tell me I can’t.
Don’t mind me. I’ve eaten too many cookies and I feel kind of silly.
Hey, thanks for the input. When I get time, I’ll do more digging.
I hope you had a nice Christmas. We did.
LikeLike
Mermaid, how can you trust bishops who move around scandalous priests to identify the canon?
LikeLike
Susan, does the deuterocanon allow a bishop to move a scandalous priest from one parish to another?
LikeLike
(A different) Dan
Posted December 28, 2015 at 8:09 pm | Permalink
TLM, “publisher’s” decision” may be right for the US market. Not sure about UK.
BTW, not everybody is happy about your more complete Bible, at least in the NAB version.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/05/bible-babel
The follow up written five years later is even more scathing.>>>>
Dan, that’s a fantastic First Things article. Thanks!
LikeLike
@Susan
Lots of writings that *no* one takes to be canonical were found among the dead sea scrolls right? No one disputes that these texts were in circulation among 1st century Jews do they? Neither the fact that the DC were found among the DSS nor their existence among 1st century Jewish writings are sufficient to establish authenticity wouldn’t you agree?
Are these the only texts that connect Jesus’s words to the DCs? Mt. 7:12 looks much closer to Lev 19:17, 18&34 don’t you think? Of course the Golden Rule is pretty universal. Mt. 13:43 could just as easily be a reference to Daniel 12:3 (perhaps the common source for the saying in both Wisdom and Mt?). The last passage (from John right?) sounds a lot like passages from Deuteronomy and Proverbs to me.
Jude’s epistle might be a better example as it references the book of Enoch, however, this book is not included in either the EO, RC, or RP canon (is it the Copts who accept it? I forget). Perhaps quotation in the NT is not a sufficient condition for canonicity either.
LikeLike
“Can you tell me why EO scholars haven’t done away with the deuterocanon?”
The EOs aren’t restricted to the deuterocanon. Further, the various EOs in communion with one another don’t seem to agree. That being said, the canon for them is not exactly the same – From what I gather, and I would happily be corrected by someone who knows more than me about orthodoxy, they do not consider all off the canon equally authoritative. For them canon means something more like – used in worship services. The gospels are the most important and then there is a scale with the DCs bringing up the rear.
LikeLike
Hi Darryl,
Merry Christmas to you. Hope you are enjoying a nice break from school and grading papers.
I believe that you are mistaken about Trent deciding the Catholic canon. If anything it pushed for a more vigorous affirmation, but not a determination. That was already done at Carthage.
“It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Ezra, two books of the Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John.
Thus [it has been decided] that the Church beyond the sea may be consulted regarding the confirmation of that canon; also that it be permitted to read the sufferings of the martyrs, when their anniversary days are celebrated. (From Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, translated and published in English as The Sources of Catholic Dogma)”
It doesn’t matter whether or not a gavel fell until Trent, “the church” had always been preaching and teaching and using those scriptures in sacred liturgy. As MWF said, Luther had taught from them for a long while.
LikeLike
Susan
Posted December 28, 2015 at 4:49 pm | Permalink
Mrs. Webfoot,
I was happy to see that Kevin from New Jersey stepped in and said something.
And I’m sorry that they are attacking you personally. Like you said, it shows a lack of argument. I think it proves that bigotry is the easier route. Bad form either way.
My husband didn’t convert with me either, but this year he came with me to midnight Mass. It was very beautiful:)
Merry Christmas, Mrs. Webfoot.
Susan>>>>>
Yes, it got kind of weird. I think I’ll just ignore the comments. We don’t have marriage problems! That was nice of Kevin, for sure. Yeah, I think it shows a lack of argument. Now, if the question had been framed differently, without any reference to my marriage, it would have been different. Kevin gave the right answer to the question that should have been asked.
You have a wonderful rest of the week, a very Merry Christmas season, and a very Happy New Year! Thank you.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 28, 2015 at 9:29 pm | Permalink
Susan, does the deuterocanon allow a bishop to move a scandalous priest from one parish to another?
Dr. Hart continues to attempt to disrupt the principled discussion at his own blog, again muddying the water with a category error about what the magisterium is. Fascinating. Heinous.
LikeLike
Sdb,
“Can you tell me why EO scholars haven’t done away with the deuterocanon?”
The EOs aren’t restricted to the deuterocanon.”
Yes, I dont think the EO is restricted.
“Further, the various EOs in communion with one another don’t seem to agree. That being said, the canon for them is not exactly the same – From what I gather, and I would happily be corrected by someone who knows more than me about orthodoxy, they do not consider all off the canon equally authoritative. For them canon means something more like – used in worship services. The gospels are the most important and then there is a scale with the DCs bringing up the rear.”
Pretty consistent with the idea that scripture is within the church.
To be honest, I already knew of the “we dont need the papacy nor the scripture as the sole rule to define us” vibe awhile back when my assistant pastor became EO. In fact, his jump out of the stringent ( non spiritual)Reformed community is part of the reason I questioned my faith community to be a good representation of historic Christianity.
LikeLike
The Little Mermaid
Posted December 28, 2015 at 10:15 pm | Permalink
Susan
Posted December 28, 2015 at 4:49 pm | Permalink
Mrs. Webfoot,
I was happy to see that Kevin from New Jersey stepped in and said something.
And I’m sorry that they are attacking you personally. Like you said, it shows a lack of argument. I think it proves that bigotry is the easier route. Bad form either way.
My husband didn’t convert with me either, but this year he came with me to midnight Mass. It was very beautiful:)
Merry Christmas, Mrs. Webfoot.
Susan>>>>>
Yes, it got kind of weird. I think I’ll just ignore the comments. We don’t have marriage problems! That was nice of Kevin, for sure. Yeah, I think it shows a lack of argument. Now, if the question had been framed differently, without any reference to my marriage, it would have been different. Kevin gave the right answer to the question that should have been asked.
LikeLike
Ali
Posted December 28, 2015 at 9:16 pm | Permalink
Ali:] Good point. Not happy=qualification for annulment. Done. Solved. Never happened. Sheesh
Kevin:With all due respect to DG, he implied she would have some desire to leave her husband based on religion not being shared – despite her having offered no grounds to support this. I’m a slight guy, but I’d be holding myself in check from a serious gorilla impersonation if someone breached similar ground with me in person, questioning my motivations with regard to my wife or child. Instead, my reading of her response (since the exchange was made here, publicly) is that she took the most likely grounds for making such a statement to be that one is experiencing personal unhappiness in marriage, although she was puzzled why DG would raise this since she has no reason to think that DG is unhappy in marriage (indeed, it’s close to impossible to imagine her insinuating such a thing.)So the “Not happy=qualification for annulment” idea you ascribe to her has nothing to do with anything she said or implied. Further, I believe you know very well that “unhappiness” is not grounds for an annulment decision. This means you are not only condoning but participating in willful misinterpretation of a) personal motives, b) personal beliefs, and c) the teachings of the RCC. (Although I don’t see enough evidence yet to add to the charge: willful misinterpretation with intent (to cause harm).)Personally speaking, Ali, I wouldn’t behave in this way with atheists, pagans, Mormons, or Muslims (Sunni, Shia, or African American). —Fallible-But-At-Present-Fairly-Certain Mr. Manners
Hi Kevin, thank you and as someone has already commented, I’ve always appreciated your conversing here –definitely respectful. The best I can tell, it seemed mermaid took it well from her response:
The Little Mermaid: Posted December 26, 2015 at 4:23 pm | PermalinkD. G. Hart Posted December 26, 2015 at 9:57 am | Permalink
Mermaid, are you going to try to get an annulment?>>>>No. Aren’t you happily married? ;–)
The Little Mermaid: You know, Ali, when you and the Old Life people stoop to attacking my marriage, it shows you have nothing to argue.
I did jump on the bandwagon about it because of
Jump on no bandwagons, ma’am, esp around here. You have come in late and haven’t seen what goes on here, and were promptly slimed and sneered at yourself. Why you would seek the approval of such people, I do not know, Ali. Actually the Catholics were the only ones who ever stood up for you. Did any of your fellow Protestants?
This is not to say you should become Catholic, but it is to say that “by their fruits you shall know them” was a battle cry of the Reformation in its [justified] condemnations of the sins of the Church.
The fruits often smell pretty bad around here at Old Life. What have they reformed?
They make the world their private cesspool
And sit and wonder what’s the stink…
[audio src="http://squelchers.net/Cookies/such%20brave%2Omen.mp3" /]
LikeLike
Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t our oldest ‘objective’ historical source Josephus? And didn’t Josephus confirm that the OT canon, in fact, was sans the DC books? If so, again, we have verifiable historical record vs. really round circle on the board, not to mention, better antiquity. So, we’ve got Rabbinical verification(prophets in the land) and then roman/hebrew(non-interloper) historian giving ‘hostile’ witness/credibility to the ‘christian’, churchly reception of a non-DC OT canon.
LikeLike
sean
Posted December 28, 2015 at 11:46 pm | Permalink
Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t our oldest ‘objective’ historical source Josephus? And didn’t Josephus confirm that the OT canon, in fact, was sans the DC books? If so, again, we have verifiable historical record vs. really round circle on the board, not to mention, better antiquity. So, we’ve got Rabbinical verification(prophets in the land) and then roman/hebrew(non-interloper) historian giving ‘hostile’ witness/credibility to the ‘christian’, churchly reception of a non-DC OT canon.>>>>
Here is some evidence that you may wish to take a look at. I have never heard it said that Josephus was an infallible source. He is a source, but to say that he represents a better antiquity is an exaggeration.
See, Protestantism for all the appeals to provisional knowledge is actually quite dogmatic on the subject of the DCs. Lutherans, to their credit, hold them in quite high regard. Most Protestants don’t want much to do with them at all.
Why not? Protestants could be wrong on this issue. It doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church is right about everything, but it could be that the EO and Catholics are right that the DCs are inspired Scripture.
King James said that he did not accept the DCs because he was not a Papist. I don’t see that as being an adequate reason to reject them.
“As to the Apocriphe bookes, I OMIT THEM because I am no Papist (as I said before)…”
King James Charles Stewart
Basilicon Doron, page 13
In spite of what King James said, the KJV printed in England included the DCs until late 19th Century.
Here is part of the evidence that Fr Joseph Gleason presents in defense of the DCs. Yes, the EO’s version is a bit different from the Catholic, but the point remains. It is a very ancient tradition among both Jews and Christians that the DCs are inspired Scripture. He is an EO priest. You can read the whole article here. If Provisional Knowledge is a real thing, then the thought that one may be wrong about the DCs really can be entertained. You have to be willing to look at all the lines of evidence, though. :
https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/masoretic-text-vs-original-hebrew/
———————————————————
1. With the exception of two books, the Deuterocanon was originally written in Hebrew.
2. In three places, the Talmud explicitly refers to the book of Sirach as “Scripture”.
3. Jesus celebrated Hanukkah, a feast which originates in the book of 1 Maccabees, and nowhere else in the Old Testament.
4. The New Testament book of Hebrews recounts the stories of multiple Old Testament saints, including a reference to martyrs in the book of 2 Maccabees.
5. The book of Wisdom includes a striking prophecy of Christ, and its fulfillment is recorded in Matthew 27.
Numerous findings among the Dead Sea Scrolls suggest the existence of 1st century Jewish communities which accepted many of the Deuterocanonical books as authentic Scripture.
Many thousands of 1st-century Christians were converts from Judaism. The early Church accepted the inspiration of the Deuterocanon, and frequently quoted authoritatively from books such as Wisdom, Sirach, and Tobit. This early Christian practice suggests that many Jews accepted these books, even prior to their conversion to Christianity.
Ethiopian Jews preserved the ancient Jewish acceptance of the Septuagint, including much of its canon of Scripture. Sirach, Judith, Baruch, and Tobit are among the books included in the canon of the Ethiopian Jews.
These reasons, among others, suggest the existence of a large 1st-century Jewish community which accepted the Deuterocanon as inspired Scripture.
LikeLike
Ali-
you also don’t know what I know ‘very well’ about Catholic grounds for annulment
Very true, and I apologize for assuming.
one thing you can know for certain though is I find the annulment concept disturbing, since I believe Jesus does also –the ‘church’ makes a conclusion for what Jesus says is a valid marriage or one that never happened? Do I understand that correctly?
I am very much heartened by your apparent desire to defend Christian marriage.
When two Baptized Christians make vows- speak the words and mean them- they are sacramentally married. There are exceptions: brothers and sisters cannot marry, for example, and those already married can’t be married to multiple people.
If consent is withheld – e.g. either party does not mean the words spoken, then a vow has not been made and there is no marriage. Put otherwise, the “marriage” is not valid. It is “null” – does not exist.
The purpose of the annulment process is to judge whether a marriage exists or not. As with any judicial process, facts are discovered, assertions are made, evidence is weighed, and a (non-infallible) judgment is rendered.
There are legitimate reasons to seek this judgment- prior existing marriage hid by one partner being an obvious example. Perhaps a few hundred couples each year have clear cases (I’m basing this on a vague memory of annulment numbers in the 1940s, probably it is significantly more these days).
It quickly gets complex. A pre-nuptial agreement is a fairly obvious placing of conditions on the marriage, incompatible with the vow. This provides a measure of weight that intent was non-existent.
And for the vast bulk of cases, I expect it is quite murky. At its worst, violent and abusive marriages contracted by confused people who may well have been deeply involved in various types of serious sin at the time they spoke vows – can they really know later what their intentions were? Did they even know at the time?
I have no idea, and don’t see how anyone can, except perhaps – big perhaps – through a long process of careful discovery culminating in judgment.
Now if the couple did in fact validly marry and an annulment is mistakenly granted, that doesn’t change the fact a marriage exists. The unfortunate couple will be morally culpable for abandoning one another.
Kasper’s idea (my understanding) is to more or less skip the judicial process and let the couple make the determination themselves in consultation with a priest. This will of course greatly increase the number marriages declared null. Since the RCC has a duty to protect the celebration of the sacraments, including marriage, this would be rather like abandoning the post. For which soldiers can be court-martialed and shot.
DG is correct Modernists don’t need to change dogma to advance their positions. In the RCC this is the locus of the struggle against Modernism, at the moment.
LikeLike
Since the RCC has a duty to protect the celebration of the sacraments, including marriage, this would be rather like abandoning the post.
For the record, brother Kevin, Protestants–especially Dr. Darryl G. Hart and his followers–unstintingly call it the Roman Catholic Church [and several of the weaker ones use such slime as”Romanists”] to delegitimize it, but that’s a nearly 500-yr-old trick.
The name of your church, the “Church,” is the Catholic Church.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2013/11/those-bloody-papists-even-term-roman.html
Protestants used to try to call themselves “Catholic,” but soon gave up the fiction.
When you–as a sincere good sport–assent to the locution “Roman Catholic,” you are assenting to a calculated lie. There is only one Church, the Catholic Church. All the rest are breakaway theological movements, who can barely agree among themselves on the time of day.
They are not the Church that Christ founded, for he founded only one. You could look it up.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 27, 2015 at 9:48 pm | Permalink
vd, t, and so what standard is it when a priest takes money from his parish to pay his gay lover and the Archbishop doesn’t heed parish members? Is that the Hollywood standard?
…
blahblahblah
…
Got it, you only see what you want to see. Eyes of faith and all — eyes you are ashamed to admit. Sissy.
For the record, did Bowtie Man call out one of the coolest dudes and best bass players
http://squelchers.net/Cookies/Cookies.htm
on the internet a sissy?
What would Jesus do? Pretend it didn’t happen? Does TVD have to slap a bitch?
No, TVD offers him the other cheek as well.
LikeLike
Sean,
Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t our oldest ‘objective’ historical source Josephus? And didn’t Josephus confirm that the OT canon, in fact, was sans the DC books? If so, again, we have verifiable historical record vs. really round circle on the board, not to mention, better antiquity. So, we’ve got Rabbinical verification(prophets in the land) and then roman/hebrew(non-interloper) historian giving ‘hostile’ witness/credibility to the ‘christian’, churchly reception of a non-DC OT canon.
That is correct. And the evidence from Jesus Himself is the Protestant canon—”Law, Prophets and Psalms” corresponding to the threefold Jewish canon. “Blood of Abel to Blood of Zechariah” references Genesis (the first book in the Jewish canon) and 2 Chronicles (the last book in the Jewish canon).
LikeLike
Susan, The Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that the dc material was up for debate in the 16th century.
Now you don’t believe your own people? (Probably not when they cover for scandalous priests.)
LikeLike
Mermaid, speaking of evidence, here’s some you keep ignoring:
LikeLike
I’m working on the Motives of Credibility. Do I get to include history, or must I see the motives from the perspective of the self-attesting Roman See?
The fury of the then Establishment is difficult to credit. The Bishop of London bought up an entire edition of 6,000 copies and burned them on the steps of the old St Paul’s Cathedral. [St. Thomas] More went after Tyndale’s old friends and tortured them. Richard Byfield, a monk accused of reading Tyndale, was one who died a graphically horrible death as described in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. More stamped on his ashes and cursed him. And among others there was John Firth, a friend of Tyndale, who was burned so slowly that he was more roasted.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10096770/Melvyn-Bragg-on-William-Tyndale-his-genius-matched-that-of-Shakespeare.html
When I used to comment at CtC Dr. Cross required me to assume a Roman Catholic perspective of Scripture instead of a sola scriptura perspective.
I told him I couldn’t do that. Not because I couldn’t imagine such a perspective.
But I couldn’t do it because it wasn’t the perspective of the Lord Jesus Christ who made God’s word to Moses His own:
“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.”
To take the Roman Catholic perspective, I told Dr. Cross, was to treat Scripture and its Author in a way less honorably that my Lord did, and was thereby epistemic sin against God.
LikeLike
Mermaid, you gotta quit the infallible source bit. I understand there were other smaller traditions and competing and later developments. But Josephus puts us into the relevant time frame with an outside, trustworthy account. And he’s arguing for 22 books and he doesn’t have a dog in the fight the way later(not as good antiquity-farther removed from the actual events) christian accounts do. IOW, Josephus isn’t prot or cat, he’s just an historian with roman and hebrew ancestry who was there and who we all rely on for his accounts of the jewish people and traditions under roman rule. He’s better antiquity. And then, as Robert points out, there’s Jesus’ summations and identifying of prophetic books He’s referencing.
LikeLike
So, are you guys 100% certain that Josephus has the final say on this? He determined for you what the Old Testament canon of Scripture is. Period. End of story. No more debate on the matter required.
It is a settled deal for you. Do I understand you correctly?
LikeLike
Merm, outside of the even more reliable apostolic witness or prophetic witness-sacred writ as historical documents, this is how historical criticism, done well, works.
LikeLike
Mermaid: So, are you guys 100% certain that Josephus has the final say on this?
No. Why do you ask?
LikeLike
Susan: I believe that you are mistaken about Trent deciding the Catholic canon. If anything it pushed for a more vigorous affirmation, but not a determination. That was already done at Carthage.
“It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Ezra, two books of the Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John.
Thus [it has been decided] that the Church beyond the sea may be consulted regarding the confirmation of that canon; also that it be permitted to read the sufferings of the martyrs, when their anniversary days are celebrated. (From Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, translated and published in English as The Sources of Catholic Dogma)”
It doesn’t matter whether or not a gavel fell until Trent, “the church” had always been preaching and teaching and using those scriptures in sacred liturgy. As MWF said, Luther had taught from them for a long while.
So this is actually a really good example of the problems that show up in the “Realistic Pass” above. What counts as the correct tradition? How should that tradition be interpreted?
Let’s agree to some stipulated facts.
(1) Trent made a formal declaration of canon that included “the deuterocanonical books” (precisely the ones in the Catholic Bible)
(2) The EO canon includes additional deuterocanonical books considered apocryphal by Catholics
(3) Luther did not consider the deuteros to be Scriptural.
(4) Nevertheless, he taught from them.
(5) Cardinals Cajetan and Ximines, both eminent and faithful sons of the church, did not consider the deuteros to be Scripture.
(6) Jerome, translator of the Vulgate, did not consider the deuteros to be Scripture.
(7) The glossa ordinaria taught that the deuteros were not Scripture.
(8) Augustine via the council of Hippo did accept the deuteros as Scripture.
Can we agree to those as facts? Would you like to add any additional facts?
If we are agreed, then we can move on to how best to understand those facts.
LikeLike
TVD :Jump on no bandwagons, ma’am, esp around here.
Dear TVD, there is no one to blame but yourself for me having to say this :) which you know I must …there is only one bandwagon worth jumping on – Jesus’s
TVD :You have come in late and haven’t seen what goes on here, and were promptly slimed and sneered at yourself.
I know.
Why you would seek the approval of such people, I do not know, Ali.
Dear TVD, there is no one to blame but yourself for me having to say this, which you know I must … I seek the approval of One – Jesus
This is not to say you should become Catholic, but it is to say that “by their fruits you shall know them” was a battle cry of the Reformation in its [justified] condemnations of the sins of the Church. The fruits often smell pretty bad around here at Old Life. What have they reformed?
Dear TVD, I think ‘by their fruits’ is a major theme trying to be pursued here that is shrugged – corruption, deception, lack of repentance, pride, power grabbing, etc, etc… but of course Jesus is not shrugging at one single thing, TVD
LikeLike
Kevin: I am very much heartened by your apparent desire to defend Christian marriage.
Thank you Kevin, but, likely I would care less and likely would personally be divorced excepting for the LORD’s work. Anyway, with all due respect, I accept the following to be true:
“But is the concept of Catholic marriage annulment a biblical concept? In regards to marriage being a sacrament, please read our article on the seven Catholic sacraments. The Roman Catholic concept of marriage as a sacrament is itself unbiblical. This puts the concept of an annulment on shaky ground to begin with. Catholic doctrine is based upon both Scripture and Church tradition. Based upon Jesus’ words, “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:6, Mark 10:9) and upon the Church tradition that receiving a sacrament creates an undeletable mark upon the soul of the recipient, the Church teaches that a marriage CANNOT end. The Church does not ignore Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 that allow divorce only in the case of the adultery of the other party. No, the way this is handled is much more disturbing. According to the New American Bible (NAB), a Catholic Bible translation, Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 read thus: “whoever divorces his wife (UNLESS THE MARRIAGE IS UNLAWFUL) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” The concept of an “unlawful marriage” in the NAB is translated as either “(marital) unfaithfulness,” “adultery,” or “fornication” in every other major Bible translation. There does not seem to be any textual basis for the NAB’s choice of words, except to support the Catholic Church’s own doctrine.”
“Although Jesus taught that divorce was only written into the Law because of human stubbornness (Matthew 19:8) and that the original intent of God was for the spouses to never separate (Genesis 2:24), He makes the exception in cases of sexual immorality/marital unfaithfulness. The Catholic Church’s teaching of marriage does not ignore this fact; rather, it mistranslates Scripture to support its own unbiblical teaching of marriage as unending, and then creates the annulment process to allow a Catholic-sanctioned way to end said marriage by declaring it invalid. The Catholic marriage annulment process is unbiblical in the sense that Jesus only allowed for sexual immorality/marital unfaithfulness as the basis for ending a marriage, and the annulment process allows for many, many reasons, but not for the one reason Jesus mentioned. The Catholic Church does not accept the only biblical reason for divorce as valid and, in fact, creates a new list of unbiblical reasons for a marriage to end.”
“The Roman Catholic Church’s practice of annulment is not biblical. It is founded on an unbiblical concept, that of the sacraments conferring grace. It is essentially an “escape” from what the Bible defines as a marriage. It ignores what the Bible does say about marriage, divorce, and marital unfaithfulness. Essentially, the Catholic practice of marriage annulment is an unbiblical way to escape from a doctrine that is itself unbiblical.”
http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-annulment.html
LikeLike
@TLM
I would say that I am confident that the Westminster divines made the right call. I submit to the authority of my session/presbytery/GA, so unless they raise the issue, I consider it settled. The bar for me to question their decision is extremely high, and while it is not impossible, I don’t expect that I will ever question it…certainly cut and paste from wikipedia and the cath enc isn’t going to move me.
As far as the value of the DCs I endorse what the Belgic Confession says about them,
LikeLike
@ Ali: Ding.
Jesus: ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι
“But I say to you that anyone sending away his wife except of a word [for cause] of immorality (porneia) makes her to commit adultery…”
Nothing about unlawful marriages.
LikeLike
Hi Jeff,
Glad to see that you are looking for a way for us to determine what is scripture. I, for one, am going on the authority of The Church since it had authority via the Holy Spirit to sort out other difficulties at other councils. Why are you denying the weight of Hippo and Carthage on the canon, but not other councils on the nature of Jesus or the Holy Trinity. I mean if the Holy Spirit was with the church some of time, He might only be with protestants some of the time too.
Besides, your arbitrary submission to councils is proof enough that protestants put no stake in any council and so can’t really be said to be guided by Christian tradition. This means that your sola is really solo.
Okay I am digressing somewhat. God doesn’t guide us to separate truths, so I will cooperate with your lesson to see how we can mutually discover whether or not the Deuteros are scripture without asking the church.
I’m pretty sure that Jerome changed his mind. But all you(we) have is a list of people who do and a list of people who don’t. This isnt a syllogism.
How do we break this impasse together?
LikeLike
@Jeff Would it be fair to add that there is at least one demonstrable error in the DCs?
LikeLike
no one,
And Bryan Cross responded, “paradigm this.
“in the peace of Christ
“Bryan Cross”
LikeLike
Mermaid, right. Josephus infallible.
LikeLike
Ali,
What God joins together let no man put asunder.
If one person entered marriage but didn’t do it out of their own free will them God didn’t join them..Two people have to enter marriage of their own free will and everyone knows in their heart’s if this is the case or not. If my 20 year old son got drunk and married a woman he just met, his marriage is null. Marriage is only valid when two people vow their lives to each other before God and no one, not even the church can anull that.
LikeLike
Westminster Confession and The Three Forms are not infallible.
Neither is sdb’s interpretation of the DC’s
Ding, ding
LikeLike
@Susan
Carthage wasn’t an ecumenical council was it? Doesn’t that restrict its authority (i.e., it isn’t a priori divinely protected from error or infallible) and explain why the Orthodox church doesn’t accept its canon?
LikeLike
Susan, neither is Aquinas’ development of divine faith. Quadruple ding, jump down, turn around and kiss myself. Yowwwww.
LikeLike
Let’s agree to some stipulated facts.
(1) Trent made a formal declaration of canon that included “the deuterocanonical books” (precisely the ones in the Catholic Bible)
(2) The EO canon includes additional deuterocanonical books considered apocryphal by Catholics
(3) Luther did not consider the deuteros to be Scriptural.
(4) Nevertheless, he taught from them.
(5) Cardinals Cajetan and Ximines, both eminent and faithful sons of the church, did not consider the deuteros to be Scripture.
(6) Jerome, translator of the Vulgate, did not consider the deuteros to be Scripture.
(7) The glossa ordinaria taught that the deuteros were not Scripture.
(8) Augustine via the council of Hippo did accept the deuteros as Scripture.
Can we agree to those as facts? Would you like to add any additional facts?
If we are agreed, then we can move on to how best to understand those facts.>>>>>
Add the fact that no Protestant group at the present time accepts the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture. Why is that? The Lutheran view is much closer to the Catholic and EO view than the rest of Protestantism is.
If Robert is correct that there was a variety of opinions about what the canon actually was during the time of Luther, then why isn’t that variation expressed anywhere in Protestantism anymore?
Do you know, Jeff?
Besides, wouldn’t evidence need to be presented to “prove” that there was really a variety of opinions about the canon at the time of Luther? Remember, he did not accept the canonicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, either. Why did his view pass out of fashion?
He wanted people to read, and I suppose pray about it, and be convinced in their own minds about what was and what was not canonical, at least on the parts that had at one time been questioned. He was open minded about it. Why is the Protestant mind no longer open?
This is a test for your epistemology as well, Jeff. Are you able to consider other evidence and allow in your own mind the idea that you could very well be wrong about the OT canon?
See, I don’t think that anyone really thinks in terms of provisional knowledge, at least when their minds are made up. It has to have a practical application, and it has to be demonstrated here at Old Life by you and the others who have argued for it. So far I’m not seeing it at all. At best what I see is a selective application of the epistemology of provisional knowledge.
I think that is pretty normal, and it shows more of an absolutist mindset, IMO. What is really driving the Protestant epistemology? Maybe it is something like what King James expressed about why he rejected the Deuterocanonical books. “I am not a Papist…” was his answer.
How much of your Protestant beliefs are governed by the underlying foundation of “I am not a Papist”?
Now, you don’t have to be a Papist to be a Christian. Not even the Pope believes or teaches that. The Catholic teaching magisterium doesn’t teach that. It is baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit that is the identifying sacrament.
However, why do you accept the “I am not a Papist…” Old Testament canon of Scripture? It seems to me that you would at least advocate for a greater openness to the possibility that Protestantism got it wrong.
So, Jeff, there are facts that you are factoring out. Add them and then see what we have.
LikeLike
@susan
Nor is the pope or any other council ever infallible…they could (and sometimes did) get things wrong.
LikeLike
The Westminster Confession and The Three Forms of Unity doesn’t represent anyone but the Reformed and they are not binding or infallible.
SDB your nterpretation of the Deuteros could be mistaken since it isn’t universally believed that there is a contradition in them, so no you can’t add that. SDB isn’t infallible.
ding ding!
LikeLike
Oops sorry about the repeat. I thought it didn’t post.
LikeLike
Susan, where’s the proof that lacking thomistic divine faith is the same thing as skepticism, much less proving infallibility? And, I’m serious, do we get better than Josephus outside of faith claims or sacred text? It’s been awhile but he used to be the gold standard on this stuff.
LikeLike
Susan, “If one person entered marriage but didn’t do it out of their own free will them God didn’t join them.”
Think.
You’ve just solved Henry VIII’s objections to Catherine of Aragon (and contradicted the infallible bishop of rome).
LikeLike
Sdb,
“@susan
Nor is the pope or any other council ever infallible…they could (and sometimes did) get things wrong.”
Au contraire my friend, if they get things right that are infallible. And it doesn’t take an ecumenical council to do it either.
If they get things wrong well, they weren’t speaking in regards to faith or morals then.
LikeLike
@Susan
It doesn’t seem that consent is the only issue expressed in canon law:
Grounds for Marriage Annulment in the Catholic Church (a selection of a few of the most eye-raising ones):
>Ignorance about the nature of marriage (Canon 1096, sec. 1)
You or your spouse did not know that marriage is a permanent relationship between a man and a woman ordered toward the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation. (evidently if your hubby wasn’t well versed in TNL, you can
divorceget an annulment. )>Error about a quality of a person (Canon 1097, sec. 2)
You or your spouse intended to marry someone who either possessed or did not possess a certain quality, e.g., social status, marital status, education, religious conviction, freedom from disease, or arrest record. That quality must have been directly and principally intended. (evidently religious conversion is sufficient grounds
divorceget an annulment. )>Fraud (Canon 1098) Reasons for Marriage Annulment
You or your spouse was intentionally deceived about the presence or absence of a quality in the other. The reason for this deception was to obtain consent to marriage.
>Willful exclusion of children (Canon 1101, sec. 2)
You or your spouse married intending, either explicitly or implicitly, to deny the other’s right to sexual acts open to procreation. (hope he doesn’t get a vasectomy – its grounds for
divorcean annulment. )>Willful exclusion of marital fidelity (Canon 1101, 12)
You or your spouse married intending, either explicitly or implicitly, not to remain faithful. (so it isn’t just faithfulness it is implicit intention?)
>Willful exclusion of marital permanence (Canon 1101, sec. 2)
You or your spouse married intending, either explicitly or implicitly, not to create a permanent relationship, retaining an option to divorce. (who new a pre-nup was grounds for an annulment).
>Future condition (Canon 1102, sec. 2)
You or your spouse attached a future condition to your decision to marry, e.g., you will complete your education, your income will be at a certain level, you will remain in this area. (Wow! If we move, this marriage doesn’t exist?).
>Past condition (Canon 1102, sec. 2)R
You or your spouse attached a past condition so your decision to marry and that condition did not exist; e.g., I will marry you provided that you have never been married before, I will marry you provided that you have graduated from college. (Double wow!)
>Present condition (Canon 1102, sec. 2)
You or your spouse attached a present condition to your decision to marry and that condition did not exist, e.g., I will marry you provided you don’t have any debt. (Again, is there any marriage that couldn’t be annulled?)
>Error regarding marital indissolubility that determined the will (Canon 1099)
You or your spouse married believing that civil law had the power to dissolve marriage and that remarriage was acceptable after civil divorce. (in other words, more or less any convert from a prot couple could have their marriage annulled. Permanent indeed).
>Error regarding marital sacramental dignity that determined the will (Canon 1099)
You and your spouse married believing that marriage is not a religious or sacred relationship but merely a civil contract or arrangement. (ditto).
Funny out this stands in stark contrast to what Jesus has to say about marriage. He goes back to A&E and implies that marriage is a creational ordinance – it isn’t something unique to Christianity and that the dissolution of marriage by anyone anywhere is a bad thing. Canon law says its acceptable if the marriage was not RC. These aren’t conditions provided by Christ and are a real scandal.
LikeLike
Susan, so when Cardinal Law was moving around pedophile priests, he wasn’t engaged in matter of faith and morals?
And you think Protestants are the skeptics.
LikeLike
@ Susan:
Okay I am digressing somewhat. God doesn’t guide us to separate truths, so I will cooperate with your lesson to see how we can mutually discover whether or not the Deuteros are scripture without asking the church.
I’m pretty sure that Jerome changed his mind. But all you(we) have is a list of people who do and a list of people who don’t. This isnt a syllogism.
How do we break this impasse together?
Good question. I’m not suggesting that we not ask the church, btw.
Mermaid would like to add the fact that
(9) Protestants uniformly do not accept the deuteros as canonical.
So the next question is, what inferences can we draw from these facts?
For my part it seems clear that
(A) The deuteros were thought of as possibly Scriptural. This is evidenced by Hippo, the fact that Jerome needed to consider the question, and the fact that Trent finally decided in their favor.
(B) The tradition within the church was not unanimous. This is evidenced by Jerome’s dissent, glossa ordinaria’s dissent, and Cajetan’s dissent. (I didn’t mention Tertullian, but he would be included among the dissenters).
So here’s an important line of reasoning. The evidences of Cajetan and Ximines and glossa ordinaria and Trent are important because each one represents considered reflection on the tradition.
IF the deuteros were settled canon from the first (or from Hippo onward), then Cajetan and Ximines would have been aware of that fact, and would not have argued against their canonicity. Likewise, if the deuteros were settled canon from the first (or from Hippo onward), then glossa ordinaria (a teaching document) would not have argued against their canonicity.
IF ON THE OTHER HAND the deuteros were clearly and obviously not canon, then Trent would never have raised the issue and settled in their favor.
From this, I think we can conclude that the deuteros were considered possibly canonical up to Trent, but not definitely so.
Does that make sense so far?
LikeLike
“Susan, “If one person entered marriage but didn’t do it out of their own free will them God didn’t join them.”
Think.
You’ve just solved Henry VIII’s objections to Catherine of Aragon (and contradicted the infallible bishop of rome).”
Are you saying that there is never a case when two people aren’t vallidly married?
Anyways, during that time there were no civil marriages so the assumption is that they both entered of their own free will. If there had been a correct way out then St. Thomas More would have found it.
LikeLike
Hey Susan,
You said,
This is another example of letting the tail wag the dog. The very point in question is whether or not the Church has this authority. If you assume it from the outset then you’re going to wind up right back where you started and you won’t be able to learn from your brothers and sisters–even if you’re right.
I think this is merely a regurgitation of CtC talking points but I”m not really sure I don’t see how it is intelligible. Protestant submission to councils is not “arbitrary” and it’s not true that Protestants “can’t really be guided by the Christian tradition.” As a matter of fact, our concern is that you *Rome* is not properly guided by the Christian tradition at important points because it claims infallibility for itself. You don’t have to agree with that, but you keep insisting that Protestants accept Catholic principles in the way you phrase your statements and questions. As someone once said, “that is question begging.”
“All” we have is a list of divergent perspectives and traditions on the deutero-canon up to the time of the Reformation throughout the Christian world. Moreover, we have textual issues (due to a clear anachronistic reference to a bishop who began his reign in 418) with the text from the Council of Carthage and scholars such as Wescott (19th century) and Bruce Metzger (20th century render the council as saying, “For the confirmation of this canon the church across the sea shall be consulted.”
Even if we accepted the legitimacy of Carthage, we still have the Festal Letter 39 of Athanasius which clearly distingiushes the canon from the deuterocanonicals, So we have Josephus, Athanasius, and Jerome as three major figures who reject the deuterocanonicals as Scripture. Athanasisus explicitly states that while the deuterocanonicals have been read in the Church they are not regarded as Scripture by the Fathers of the Church. So which “apostolic tradition” do we follow?
As far as I can gather, you want to continue claiming that Rome is the church founded by Jesus so it’s infallibly protected by the Holy Spirit and it can’t be wrong. Ergo, Catholic canon.
What Jeff is attempting to point out is that the testimony of the church is not monolithic on this issue–and one may argue that it actually tips the scales in favor of the Protestant canon.
LikeLike
@Susan I have a stopped watch that is right twice a day. It isn’t infallible twice a day. The answer key to my textbook isn’t infallible just because all of the answers are right. It *could* have gotten things wrong.
“If they get things wrong well, they weren’t speaking in regards to faith or morals then.”
Well this makes infallibility meaningless. You get something wrong and so you don’t count. It is utterly unfalsifiable.
“And it doesn’t take an ecumenical council to do it either.”
True, but local synods (such as the synod on the family which was speaking in regards to morals) or encyclicals are not infallible.
LikeLike
Susan, have you never heard of arranged marriages? Don’t be so provincial with all that catholicity.
LikeLike
Brandon, it is really odd with all this macroaggression of profiling Protestants as individualists and rationalists that Roman Catholics would have been so stridently anti-Communist until the 1960s. With all the group think of these RC converts, you’d think they’d find the Communist Party’s authority attractive.
LikeLike
Mermaid: If Robert is correct that there was a variety of opinions about what the canon actually was during the time of Luther, then why isn’t that variation expressed anywhere in Protestantism anymore?
How do you know that it isn’t? Searching for variation can be a time-consuming process. Where have you looked?
Mermaid: This is a test for your epistemology as well, Jeff. Are you able to consider other evidence and allow in your own mind the idea that you could very well be wrong about the OT canon?
Absolutely.
Mermaid: See, I don’t think that anyone really thinks in terms of provisional knowledge, at least when their minds are made up. It has to have a practical application, and it has to be demonstrated here at Old Life by you and the others who have argued for it. So far I’m not seeing it at all. At best what I see is a selective application of the epistemology of provisional knowledge.
Well, you seem to be surprised because you think that provisionality should entail doubt. So when you don’t see doubt, you think that selectivity is going on. Actually, what you see is provisionality in the case where the evidence is strong.
You still haven’t chewed on the bats-flying-out-of-the-nose bit because you’ve been having such great fun mocking it. 🙂 The point of that example is that fallible knowledge (“to the best of my knowledge, it is impossible for bats to fly out of my nose”) is not necessarily doubtful. Where the evidence is strong, there will not be doubt even though there is a theoretical possibility of error.
If you want to see how this works in practice, bring an argument supported by evidence. Then we can walk through the evidence and reason together about what the evidence does and doesn’t entail.
But if you want to do that — and I highly recommend that you do — then you will need to put away these kind of speculations: What is really driving the Protestant epistemology? Maybe it is something like what King James expressed about why he rejected the Deuterocanonical books. “I am not a Papist…” was his answer. How much of your Protestant beliefs are governed by the underlying foundation of “I am not a Papist”? … So, Jeff, there are facts that you are factoring out.
That kind of stuff is just guess-work on your part. It’s not an argument, but just an assertion. You speculate about an underlying foundation, then declare your speculation to be “fact”
If we’re going to be serious frenemies, then you need to know that I consider that kind of thing a boundary not to cross.
I’m not open to that kind of speculative reasoning. I am open — wide open — to hearing a case based on evidence that The church has always affirmed the deuteros as canonical.
If that case is made, it would greatly modify my view of the deuteros. Because in the end, I consider the dispositive piece of evidence for canonicity to be the universal consent of the church. As it is, the case has not yet been made.
LikeLike
Jeff, not sure I buy dispositive. If canon is a by product of treaty or covenant, it has canonicity by an intrinsic virtue of being covenant documents. Iow, it doesn’t require consent to be canonical, strictly considered.
LikeLike
Hi Brandon,
Protestants deny dogmas on points that were the whole reason that councils met in the first place.
If a council decides something but that decision is incorrect how do you know? Iconoclasm and transubstatiation were declared dogma before the 16th century, so how is the Protestant denial of these two doctrines not arbitrary? There will always be dissenters, so how do you know that you’re not one when it is clear that you denynan essential tennent.
How do I know it’s essential? Council decision, that’s how.
Yes, I want to be on the side of the one true church
Is it the tail wagging the dog to reason that the church makes determinations via the Holy Spirit?
Is it the tail wagging the dog to reason that council decisions are binding and not superfluous?
Is it the tail wagging the dog to start with church first?
If I dont begin with church and church authority to be able to answer when there are issues that need an answer, then I have to admit that councils are an excercise in futility and any notion of “church” nonsense. I know that the persepucuity of scripture isn’t helping to unite us under one authority so I can only reason that it wasn’t meant to and so the banner “sola scriptura” is itself a case of the tail wagging the dog.
No council ever said it. If a council declares “sola scriptura!” it establishes its own acting authority thereby usuping scripture as authority. If “sola scriptura” is true it doesn’t need a body to declare it. Logic 101.
LikeLike
“Iow, it doesn’t require consent to be canonical, strictly considered.”
Exactly. People are looking to the truth found within a culture or it’s documents, and if it’s true it belongs with the church that has been guided by Jehovah since the time of Abraham.
I am aware that ancient Egyptians had a book of proverbs that parallel the Hebrew books, so does that mean the Egyptian proverbs were inspired too? And who copied who? Did the Hebrew people plunder the Egyptians for wisdom? Hmmmmm.
LikeLike
Susan, my point was that it pertains to God, strictly considered. You substitute church for God. Which is part of the point as well. You can have real authority and consent and be divinely protected and inspired and still not conflate the two. That the canon ‘properly’ belongs to the church can be consented(conciliar) and still not be what makes it the canon. The problem for you is that you don’t have canon without your RC stamp. You don’t have a category for it in your polemic.
LikeLike
Jeff:
That’s just a fact of human existence. The only way around this fact is to posit an infallible mode of transmission. Mermaid seems to think that the work of the Spirit provides that infallible mode, but you (Cletus) and I have agreed that the work of the Spirit does not provide an infallible mode of transmission.>>>>>
What work of the Spirit are you talking about? Regeneration? Inspiration? The Day of Pentecost? His leading the Church into all truth?
Your side is the one that says a regenerate person can know with certain assurance that he or she is among the elect. Yet, that same person cannot be sure that Jesus Christ rose from the dead or that the Bible they hold in their hands really is the only infallible rule of faith and practice.
So, absolute assurance on the one hand. Then your people are expected to go by provisional knowledge,provisional faith, and provisional assurance when it comes to Scripture itself including the essential Gospel message of Christ’s resurrection.
I doubt that your people even know this.
Your people are asked to accept the work of textual critics. They are the ones entrusted with the task of coming up with the actual text of Scripture. Many of them are modernists. Many of them are atheists. Yet, they are given the task of discovering what Scripture even is.
Then it is the publishing houses that really have the final say in what goes into your Bibles.
LikeLike
“If a council decides something but that decision is incorrect how do you know?”
They contradict scripture.
“How do I know it’s essential?”
Paul tells us.
“If I dont begin with church and church authority to be able to answer when there are issues that need an answer, then I have to admit that councils are an excercise in futility and any notion of “church” nonsense.”
The church doesn’t claim all of their teachings are infallible. One is still compelled to submit one’s intellect and will to fallible reachings…say an encyclical from a pope not offered ex cathedra.
Your radically skeptical stance suggests there is no reason to submit to a vast swath of rc teaching. Thankfully for our RC friends your stance doesn’t faithfully reflect the views of the rcc. Perhaps you have allowed anti-prot polemics to back you into an indefensible corner?
LikeLike
Merm, supernatural faith is supernatural faith. There isn’t an RC form and a prot form. If we have saving faith in Christ it’s born of the same HS. Thomistic divine faith is what y’all like to run out there trying to differentiate yourself. It’s not biblically prescribed, scripture prescribes a faith born of trust in apostolic testimony of and eyewitness account to Jesus( 1 cor 15). God isn’t running around granting prots one type of supernatural faith and trad rc’s another type. Aquinas isn’t Paul.
LikeLike
Sean,
When you accepted one canon for another canon, didn’t you also trade authority? You didnt just get a new or different canon out of the trade, you also got the person who decided the old canon was wrong. How can you test it? First look at your acceptance of the notion of a “canon” at all. Is canon only and always a man-made construction, or is it made by God? How does one know accept by trusting some authority?” Why choose not to go with an earlier decision and common usage? Why decide to change with a later contester?
What’s your surety?
I had no reason to believe the Holy Spirit was with Luther and not with earlier councils and the authority therein.
LikeLike
“I doubt that your people even know this.”
It sure doesn’t reflect what I believe.
LikeLike
Mermaid, see? Certainty is a sin.
LikeLike
Susan, “Protestants deny dogmas on points that were the whole reason that councils met in the first place.”
Roman Catholics deny dogmas on points that were the whole reason that councils met in the first place.”
They even deny infallible dogmas.
Hello.
Think.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “Your side is the one that says a regenerate person can know with certain assurance that he or she is among the elect.”
And your side at an ecumenical council condemned such assurance.
Now you have the nerve to lecture us about certainty? You’re not following your bishops (once again).
LikeLike
Darryl,
Talking to you about the validity of marriage caused me do some thinking and this is what I found:
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/the-great-divorce
LikeLike
Ali –
Annulment is not man separating whom God hath joined – it is determining whether God indeed joined them. Surely you agree someone with a prior marriage, someone drunk out of his mind when speaking vows, or brothers and sisters can’t in truth be married? If you’ll say marriage depends on record-keeping by US State employees, then what about those who marry yet don’t register with the government?
“Porneia” is used throughout Scripture in various significations and its signification in this key passage is disputed. Your source mentions “adultery” is a frequent translation, as well as “unfaithfulness,” as well as “fornication.” These are not by any means obviously identical concepts (e.g., faithfulness to vows in marriage encompasses much more than not committing adultery). This is evidence of a diversity of opinion.
Porneia’s definition based on one Greek dictionary:
I take definition c) to refer to those previously married & civilly divorced. The second marriage (the one in question) does not exist (was not valid) as a result of the still-existing prior marriage.
Definition b) would encompass prohibition of marriage between close relatives. The marriage in question therefore was not valid.
Definition a) is very broad. I believe it would be incompatible with other passages of Scripture (particularly the parallel Gospel passages) to assume Jesus meant to encompass the full range offered in this source – c.f. Luke 16:18, Mark 10:11-12.
I’d offer that had Jesus meant “adultery,” he would have had Matthew use the same word moicheueō ”to commit adultery” which appears later in the same sentence- then it would be legitimate to read the sentence as “x commits adultery in divorce unless x’s wife committed adultery first.” But Matthew offers a different term, which requires interpretation.
Others’ interpretations will differ from mine – I’m just trying to demonstrate that the Catholic position (as I fallibly understand it) is neither unreasonable nor worthy of ridicule as un-Biblical.
(I can’t vouch for the source, who doesn’t agree with me anyway, but found it useful).
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1072&context=honors
LikeLike
Dear Susan: (or to go with the smartphone, “Sudan” !!)
When you accepted one canon for another canon, didn’t you also trade authority? You didnt just get a new or different canon out of the trade, you also got the person who decided the old canon was wrong…How does one know [except] by trusting some authority?
Earlier you asked me, “I don’t see how you avoid skepticism”
It is clear that the answer to that question is that there is some underlying belief that we don’t share. To you, it seems obvious that if all human knowledge is provisional, including identification of canon, then we ought to be skeptics.
To me, it seems obvious that provisionality need not entail skepticism.
I think you’ve just identified the extra belief that drives your question:
The epistemological necessity of authority (ENA): We cannot know without trusting some authority.
I don’t share that belief. What argument would you make for that belief? As you’re pondering that question, consider whether you appeal to an authority to decide which authority to trust. Whether you appeal to an authority to decide which purported statements of the authority are genuinely from that authority. Can you clearly identify which authorities are the sources of all your beliefs?
In other words, it would seem to me that ENA quickly gets bogged down in metaquestions. For that reason, I don’t accept ENA and think of authority as real, but operating in a different manner.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 29, 2015 at 1:45 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, “Your side is the one that says a regenerate person can know with certain assurance that he or she is among the elect.”
And your side at an ecumenical council condemned such assurance.
Now you have the nerve to lecture us about certainty? You’re not following your bishops (once again).>>>>
You know, Brother Hart, all your questions and challenges are answered all the time by the Catholics who participate here. I noticed awhile ago that you pretend to have absolute knowledge about the failings of Catholicism, not provisional knowledge at all. Not for a moment. Not for a millisecond.
You are absolutely convinced that papism is a sham, and that without a shadow of doubt.
At the same time, your side has argued that the best we can do even about the resurrection of Jesus Christ – IOW, the Gospel itself – is a 99.999999% chance that it ever really happened.
Then it is argued that the elect can know without any doubt whatsoever that they are saved because of that same death, burial and resurrection that is said to be known provisionally.
IOW, the whole argument is nonsense. That is what you are denying. Absolute certainty about papism and election. Provisional knowledge about the Gospel.
…and all y’all shurg. Your Mermaid focus group notices.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Does provisionality provide you assurance when items are being disputed? If it does then You don’t really hold that item as being provisional.
You believe that the question about the DC is settled by believing Luther( your authority). Otherwise you are forced to believe everyone is correct because that is the nature of holding that your tennents are provisional. Each tradition has it’s own authority and that authority defines parameters.
List your beliefs and see what denommination(authority) they are in accord with and there is your true belief until mind is changed. But provisionality is not part of what you now believe about any said doctrine.
LikeLike
Hi Susan,
If it isn’t too rude to insert myself here….
Is it the tail wagging the dog to reason that the church makes determinations via the Holy Spirit?
Is it the tail wagging the dog to reason that council decisions are binding and not superfluous?
No, because the two, “the church” (as you call it) and the Scripture, aren’t connected.
The Lord Jesus Christ, who is often misunderstood, did not promise “the church makes determinations by the Holy Spirit.” On the contrary, John 16:13 is a promise to the apostles, and the apostles alone. I’m sorry, but you believe something contrary to the words of Christ (and believe it is His teaching).
Nor did the eternal Son of God teach “that council decisions are binding.” Rather, His own words, spoken in the days of His incarnation, and through His holy apostles, are binding: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away” (Mat 24:35).
Inasmuch as any council documents rightly summarize His teachings, they are binding, but only and always in a derivative sense. To the extent they err and purport to be His teachings they are dangerous.
Is it the tail wagging the dog to start with church first?
Your understanding of “the church” is Augustinian (church militant) and is not anywhere supported by the teachings of the apostles. So how can something not taught in Scripture define Scripture, except in error?
If “sola scriptura” is true it doesn’t need a body to declare it. Logic 101.
Yes, i agree. Jesus, the Word of the Father, had no need to a body of men when he declared to Satan:
‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’
LikeLike
Kevin, what doesn’t tend to come through in explanations like yours is a distinction between the spiritual and provisional. God may not have joined Adam and Steve, but the state did and if the state is God’s viceroy (Romans 13) then pretending Adam and Steve haven’t been legally joined seems like an instance of denial. Have you considered the possibility of saying they are legally joined but not spiritually? It would sound less juvenile, i.e. what’s there really isn’t and groping for easy answers, and you’d still be able to make the point you want to make–some unions aren’t as legit as others.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I think this is something that would interest you. I haven’t completed it, but I have read a lot of it.
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/grammar/
LikeLike
Petros –
Perhaps those things you list should be classed as “hard sayings.”
glad you’ve had such a positive church experience.
I like to think I’m realistic – no chocolatier here. I don’t see how any sane person could not be aware of and lament various problems.
But I think things may be thornier for others, and it’s driven more than a few RCC friends to be embittered vs the church.
Understood. It’s worth noting many are bitter as a result of post-VII silliness (dignify it as “Modernism” if you like) as well. Some leave the Church, some don’t.
Some somewhat mundane examples: being told yes ago to not step foot in the door of a Prot church, even for a wedding or funeral….
Well, as polite as we all ought to be, we should always keep in the back of our minds the fundamental differences. DG and some-to-most of the commentators here think the Mass is a blasphemous act and that Catholic Churches are schools of idolatry.
Conversely, the Catholic Church has since the beginning for almost all groups seen a significant percentage abandon Mass attendance and fidelity to Church teachings – which from a Catholic perspective is quite grave, particularly as the number becomes high enough to become a significant element in the cultural discourse (“Cultural Catholics”), posing a real threat to those who wish to remain faithful. So the Church was trying live up to its responsibility to protect the souls in its care.
told not to eat meat on Fridays….
They must really like hamburgers.
memories of what books could not be read, etc.
Similar idea that the Church is required to protect the faithful. If the Index had been maintained, Dawkins would be on it. Dawkins has caused much harm to young Catholics (and non-Catholics as well, of course). Liberty of study for truth-mining or purposes of engaging with the enemy (valid justifications for reading evil books) is a lesser good than protecting the young.
Some can handle well-presented (& often mixed) falsehoods, others are led astray. In any case, this is a moot point today.
Lots of guilt-inducing stuff, because to disagree with the mother church was such a serious sin.
Well, sin ought to induce guilt, and the Church ought to remind people what constitutes sin.
Today most Catholics who leave and become embittered do so over a desire to satisfy sexual desires ad libitum or cast aside a valid marriage. Or out of laziness – spiritual torpor – induced by a million tiny accommodations to the culture.
I’m trying not to write such long posts, so I’ll post separately & later something I just drafted on Hus.
LikeLike
Susan, I pretty well answered your questions in my prior comments. You keep projecting onto others your religious crisis. The scriptures with a written account of apostolic testimony and account, bears it’s own authority. This is not some prot or even RC invention. The scribal tradition was inherent in covenant dealings with God. We all inherit this tradition by means of Jesus being jewish and made under the law. We aren’t adjudicating some early church development. Particularly if you want to circulate around the DC. Under what authority? I don’t know, the one Jesus testified to(law and prophets and I’ll send another) and the Holy Spirit granted prophetic utterance(apostolic testimony). We shouldn’t even have a difference on this score. You keep conflating churchly authority with divine authority(thomistically considered). I can’t help you. I don’t know why you need it or want to add it.
LikeLike
“Today most (clergy) who (stay in the RC church) do so over a desire to satisfy sexual desires ad libitum or (avoid the strictures) of valid marriage.”
Maybe the example of the priestly class is a big part of the problem, KiN.
LikeLike
SDB –
Re: Grounds for Marriage Annulment in the Catholic Church
The constant in the conditions you list is that the two parties intended entry into a relationship that is not Christian marriage. They placed conditions which conflict with the essence of marriage, in one way or another qualifying vows which are unqualifiable.
Going through a marriage ceremony with a tacit (or explicit) understanding that there will be adultery is entering into a relationship that is not marriage, whatever words are spoken.
>Error regarding marital indissolubility that determined the will (Canon 1099)
You or your spouse married believing that civil law had the power to dissolve marriage and that remarriage was acceptable after civil divorce. (in other words, more or less any convert from a prot couple could have their marriage annulled. Permanent indeed).
I would like to think most “prot couples” intend at time of ceremony to stay together until death do them part (to use the old Methodist word order). In time, the general cultural beliefs erode their high (and true!) beliefs.
Argue that I’m wrong if you like (sounds like an ugly task), but the point is – what sort of a relationship were they intending to enter into? Christian marriage? Then they are married. Something else? Then they aren’t.
LikeLike
You mean like the Council of Hieria, which condemned icons? Is rejection of this ecumenical council arbitrary?
How about the rival Council of Ephesus held by John of Antioch and the Eastern bishops after Cyril of Alexandria’s political machinations to hold the council without Eastern representatives (or Nestorius) and without the consent of Count Candidian, the one appointed by Emperor Theodosius to oversee the council? How do you know if this is a valid council or not?
Not necessarily. It depends on how you are using this affirmation. In your case, you’re not willing to look at possible alternatives because you keep falling back on the infallibility of the church. So in this case, it is the tail wagging the dog. In other words, you conclusions about the church are making it impossible to evaluate whether or not the church is properly handling the deuterocanonical books.
So since councils have not helped bring unity either (see above and swaths of church history), can we jettison the Magisterium?
I think this is another example of muddled thinking. I don’t even know what you’re trying to say, unfortunately. I think though you are just using CtC talking points because you think they are correct (which could be true), but that is not the substance of an argument and is why often your conversations with Protestants don’t see a lot of fruit.
LikeLike
Brandon,
Yes councils were convocated in order to talk and weigh items but when they made decisions those decisions were binding.
“I think this is another example of muddled thinking. I don’t even know what you’re trying to say, unfortunately. I think though you are just using CtC talking points because you think they are correct (which could be true), but that is not the substance of an argument and is why often your conversations with Protestants don’t see a lot of fruit.”
Haha! That’s funny. Yes it is the substance of an argument….a huge one. Perhaps I am not wording it well, but I am making sense and if you think it is like something that CTC puts forth then you do understand that it makes sense and is a substantial argument.
LikeLike
Susan, the point was arranged marriages. I doubt the church ever forbade them. Which makes your definition based on free will erroneous.
I see you still have no way to explain how bishops retain their trustworthinesss on faith and morals when the cover for scandalous priests. And you think Henry VIII had problems.
LikeLike
Brandon,
If a council is not ratified or confirmed by a pope, it is not considered ecumenical per RCism (CCC 884 – “there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor”). Arians held councils. Not news. So the fact that there were many heretical or unorthodox councils throughout history is irrelevant, nor does it make the RCC view of certain councils as ecumenical while others are not “arbitrary”.
On the other hand, a particular Protestant church views councils as authoritative only insofar as they conform to that church’s current provisional view and interpretation of Scripture. So a council carries no more weight than those member’s current tentative interpretation of Scripture – thus, sola scriptura degenerating into solo scriptura ultimately. Thus, the disclaimers regarding councils in WCF. Thus the stalemate between every Protestant church and individual in dispute with another.
“So since councils have not helped bring unity either”
Sure they have – condemning heresy and unorthodoxy further clarifies and refines things and delimits boundaries. Unity does not entail dissenters and schismatics won’t or don’t exist – they existed in NT times as well under Christ and the Apostles. So look at the official catechisms/confessions/statements of faith from the wide spectrum of Protestant bodies/churches. Look at the official catechism/confession/statements of faith of the RCC. Which shows more unity?
LikeLike
Jeff, ask Susan if her husband is still authoritative for her. Does she submit as the apostles prescribed? Or is she a skeptic about what her husband instructs?
LikeLike
Mermaid, that’s still not an answer that reflects Trent’s condemnation of Protestantism for exactly what you are promoting — certainty.
I’m just a focus group. Remember? You need to improve your skills. Take Logic 101 before moving to Epistemology 401.
LikeLike
Darryl,
My husband converted and I followed his lead. Just kidding:)
The Church doesn’t operate like that. If my husband is in error I don’t have to submit.
What if he was Catholic and I wanted to be protestant, should I submit to him?
LikeLike
James Young, “a particular Protestant church views councils as authoritative only insofar as they conform to that church’s current provisional view and interpretation of Scripture. So a council carries no more weight than those member’s current tentative interpretation of Scripture”
Says you in your anti-Protestant bigotry.
But the Confession of Faith says:
As I’ve said many times, you paint yourself into a box by trying to show off papal power’s tie to infallibility.
Lots of institutions and callings have power even though they don’t have infallibility. Why? Because God gave it to them.
A church can have power and not be infallible, just like a father and a magistrate can. You accept the latter but faint over the former the way ladies did when George Whitefield boomed “Mesopotamia.”
Stop it. It’s silly, this Manichean view of infallibility. Yup.
LikeLike
About arranged marriages…..good question. I don’t know the answer.
LikeLike
Susan, THINK!
How could hubbie not be in error since his faith turns him into a skeptic — which is the consequence of Protestantism as you’ve said ad nauseum? If I were you, I wouldn’t trust him about anything.
Oh, that’s right. Nobody actually lives the way Roman Catholic converts talk.
LikeLike
Susan,
Which councils are binding and why? You’ve gotta pick and choose–or you have to let someone else do it for you.
I think you misunderstood. “Talking points,” as I referred to them, aren’t the substance of an argument. Simply regurgitating arguments from another person in another context doesn’t mean you’re conveying their (CtC’s) meaning or meaningfully communicating to Protestants.
CVD,
Condemning hersey and unorthodoxy according to who? You claim the Magisterium, but why do you choose one Apostolic Magisterium and reject another? We have Oriental Orthodox, The Assyrian Church of the East, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Old Catholic, and Anglicans, all of whom have legitimate claims to Apostolic Succession.
Of course, there are reasons you believe Rome is the one that has been given this authority, but this is no different than different Protestants disagreeing over the meaning of Scripture. You use various pieces of evidence to arbitrate the disagreement and reach a conclusion–and people can & do still disagree.
LikeLike
Brandon,
“I think you misunderstood. “Talking points,” as I referred to them, aren’t the substance of an argument. Simply regurgitating arguments from another person in another context doesn’t mean you’re conveying their (CtC’s) meaning or meaningfully communicating to Protestants.”
Not regurgitating them. It takes some brain power to understand it as well as explain it:)
The reason I understand it is because of my very real crisis.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God”
ding ding. which boils down to “decrees and determinations, if consonant to [my own and my church’s current provisional tentative identification and interpretation of] the Word of God”
“Lots of institutions and callings have power even though they don’t have infallibility.”
Sure. And my school teachers, bosses, and state governments aren’t claiming the ability/authority to infallibly identify, teach, offer, define non-provisional doctrine. Neither are any Protestant churches/bodies. Don’t like the laws in your state or your university’s rules or your job? Move to another state or country, go to a different university, or find another employer. You’re perfectly within your rights to do so and perfectly consistent with those authorities claims over you in doing so. Don’t agree with your church’s current provisional identification and interpretation of Scripture offered to you? Move along. You’re perfectly within your rights to do so, given every Protestant church’s disclaimers to any kind of authority that would compel you not to do so.
LikeLike
Clete, let me know when the magisterium crank out those infallible commentaries on sacred writ. Again, though, are you a canon lawyer or god? Are you sure you know what you know, infallibly? They run a commercial down here where one of the Spurs players remarks that it’s “indubitably so”. The joke is that he doesn’t know what indubitably means, but it sounds good and smart. It reminds me a lot of these conversations.
LikeLike
And all this annulment talk and how love wasn’t present and yet, nobody’s mentioned the principled means by which you get the annulment, you gotta put cash on the barrelhead. Ain’t nothing free or on credit in the RCC. In fact, sometimes you can be godlike in your ability to infallibly determine the outcome of a preceding when you have enough money. Sainthood, annulment, episcopate, ponitifical seal…………..
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 29, 2015 at 3:40 pm | Permalink
Susan, the point was arranged marriages. I doubt the church ever forbade them. Which makes your definition based on free will erroneous.
Dr. Hart continues to inflict his laziness and painful ignorance of Catholicism on his unsuspecting flock.
http://www.cam.org.au/vocations/Marriage
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 29, 2015 at 4:07 pm | Permalink
Susan, THINK!
Darryl, DO YOUR HOMEWORK!
You’re so full of ;-y)
LikeLike
The Little Mermaid
Posted December 29, 2015 at 2:24 pm | Permalink
You know, Brother Hart, all your questions and challenges are answered all the time by the Catholics who participate here. I noticed awhile ago that you pretend to have absolute knowledge about the failings of Catholicism, not provisional knowledge at all. Not for a moment. Not for a millisecond.
You are absolutely convinced that papism is a sham, and that without a shadow of doubt.
At the same time, your side has argued that the best we can do even about the resurrection of Jesus Christ – IOW, the Gospel itself – is a 99.999999% chance that it ever really happened.
Then it is argued that the elect can know without any doubt whatsoever that they are saved because of that same death, burial and resurrection that is said to be known provisionally.
IOW, the whole argument is nonsense. That is what you are denying. Absolute certainty about papism and election. Provisional knowledge about the Gospel.
…and all y’all shrug. Your Mermaid focus group notices.
Nice Catholic lady sees through Dr. Calvinism’s fog once again.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Don’t agree with your church’s current provisional identification and interpretation of Scripture offered to you? Move along. You’re perfectly within your rights to do so, given every Protestant church’s disclaimers to any kind of authority that would compel you not to do so.
Don’t like your current priest’s support of the nuns on the bus or Catholics for Choice? Move along. You’re perfectly within your rights to do so given that Rome will give the Eucharist to anyone who is breathing.
LikeLike
Brandon,
Condemning hersey and unorthodoxy according to who? You claim the Magisterium, but why do you choose one Apostolic Magisterium and reject another? We have Oriental Orthodox, The Assyrian Church of the East, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Old Catholic, and Anglicans, all of whom have legitimate claims to Apostolic Succession.
Of course, there are reasons you believe Rome is the one that has been given this authority, but this is no different than different Protestants disagreeing over the meaning of Scripture. You use various pieces of evidence to arbitrate the disagreement and reach a conclusion–and people can & do still disagree.
In other words, you’re saying that CVD has no principled means to differentiate between which Magisterium has been divinely appointed (as a matter of revelation) and His provisional opinion as to which Magisterium has been so appointed.
But he’s better off???
LikeLike
Susan –
I think the key to resolving any puzzlement regarding arranged marriages is to ask whether the two parties spoke the vows with sincerity, i.e., intended to become married. Americans in particular have a problem understanding how freedom can coexist with a limited range of choices (we’re all affected by it).
But at the least they had three choices –
1) marry with sincerity (probably the most common case);
2) “marry” duplicitously (which medieval culture would have made clear is not morally acceptable- we’ll never know how often this happened despite);
3) reject or even rebel against their parents’/family’s choice (publicly or privately- again we’ll never know the incidence of the latter).
So if they chose #1 over #2, they are married.
It’s worth pointing out the Church was in the High Middle Ages fighting a battle against the nobility on the true nature of marriage. That’s a battle the Church won – at least as much as any battle can be won in this world.
Historian Georges Duby has a fantastic book on the struggle, focusing on Philip I of France (“the Amorous”) vs. the heroic and quite intelligent St. Ivo, Bishop of Chartres. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25020958
LikeLike
Brandon,
“You claim the Magisterium, but why do you choose one Apostolic Magisterium and reject another?”
The same reason an NT believer chose Christ and the Apostles and rejected false messiahs and false apostles and prophets when those multiple claimants were all presented to him as claiming the ability and authority to distinguish divine revelation from provisional human opinion.
“but this is no different than different Protestants disagreeing over the meaning of Scripture.”
No, it’s different because Protestant bodies/churches don’t claim the ability/authority to distinguish divine revelation from provisional human opinion. If they did, they would make similar types of claims to ability/authority as Rome (or Mormonism, or EOxy, or JW, or Crazy Dave the Street Prophet) does. They actively refuse and reject such claims. Thus, they don’t even get out of the starting gate as something worth considering as a viable option. Thus, the parallel between Christ and the Apostles and random rabbi Levi in NT times.
“and people can & do still disagree.”
I didn’t ask you to compare people. I asked you to compare official confessions/catechisms/statements of faith.
LikeLike
@Susan
“If my husband is in error I don’t have to submit.”
So you aren’t really submitting to your husband then right? You are submitting to what you agree with, so you are really just submitting to yourself? I don’t think that’s the case of course. I think our submission to those God puts over us, employers, governments, parents, etc… have real authority that we have a real obligation to submit to. But that submission is conditional – conditional on that authority not requiring us to do something that is wrong. The same goes for our submission to churchly authorities. If your bishop, who has real authority over you, ordered you to lie about a predator priest, you would not be obligated to obey your bishop. That doesn’t mean that you are really only submitting to him when he agrees with you though or that the bishop doesn’t have any real authority.
The question is whether the final authority available to us is God’s word or STM. To be sure there are protestants who reject sola scriptura and repudiate the authority of the Bible just as there are RCs who repudiate the authority of the STM. Among protestants who hold to sola scriptura I think you will find very little theological variation – less than among those who claim allegiance to Rome (the faculty at Wheaton show less theological variation than the faculty Moreau seminar anyway). To believe that SS-RP is just a free for all requires a skepticism of texts that has no basis in reality. Conditional submission is real submission.
LikeLike
Muslims may not intend to enter a Christian marriage, but their marriage is really, truly marriage and divorce is still sinful (even if one converts to Christianity). Same for Jews, Hindus, atheists, and mormons. Marriage is not a specifically Christian institution and need not be Christian to be valid.
The examples of valid reasons for an annulment are much broader than what scripture gives us for legitimate reasons for divorce. I think this is a serious error on the part of the RCC and many RCs see it as remarkably hypocritical (see Sean’s comments about dollars for annulments), and may explain why an increase in the fraction of RC adherents in a country correlates with the fraction of that country that finds divorce morally acceptable.
LikeLike
Hi Brandon,
We have Oriental Orthodox, The Assyrian Church of the East, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Old Catholic, and Anglicans, all of whom have legitimate claims to Apostolic Succession.
Legitimate in what sense? That the apostles confer such legitimacy upon them in their writings, or their adherents confer it upon themselves in substitution of apostolic authority?
LikeLike
Zrim –
Have you considered the possibility of saying they are legally joined but not spiritually?
Vocabulary would be easier if the state only awarded “civil unions” (which could even permit polygamy – employees could save on taxes by marrying their bosses, and with a carefully drafted prenuptial agreement protect personal assets). It purports to offer marriages, though, a relic of a time when Church in State were in healthier relation (not-2k, I know).
Sure, they are legally joined (as I’m legally joined to two banks for mortgages – literally “death pledges”). But this legal binding doesn’t even constitute a natural marriage, much less a Christian one.
I was using “marriage” as a stand-in for “Christian marriage” and its ontological bind (if I keep repeating the word “Christian” you might accuse me of being a neo-Calvinist Culture Warrior).
It would sound less juvenile, i.e. what’s there really isn’t and groping for easy answers, and you’d still be able to make the point you want to make–some unions aren’t as legit as others.
Legitimacy isn’t my point, though; getting at what constitutes a Christian marriage is. Natural marriage is a legitimate good for non-Christians – but I don’t think this is what Christ was trying to teach us about, nor what the annulment process is designed to discover.
You’re often concerned with how things sound to unspecified groups in the general culture- one thing I like about Old Life is not having to be concerned with how I sound to them.
LikeLike
sdb –
Muslims may not intend to enter a Christian marriage, but their marriage is really, truly marriage and divorce is still sinful (even if one converts to Christianity). Same for Jews, Hindus, atheists, and mormons. Marriage is not a specifically Christian institution and need not be Christian to be valid.
I realized in writing to Zrim that I was using “marriage” in the narrow sense of “Christian marriage.” So I’m happy to acknowledge there are exactly two types of marriage, natural and Christian (the latter of which includes the properties of the former), with different criteria for validity.
The examples of valid reasons for an annulment are much broader than what scripture gives us for legitimate reasons for divorce.
Scripture gives us just one reason, doesn’t it? Porneia. What precisely does it mean? (I wouldn’t class Luke 14:26 ‘unless you hate your wife’ as divorce).
And what does “divorce” mean when referring to a Christian marriage? The removal of the ontological tie between the man and woman? I don’t think this is compatible with other Scriptural teachings on marriage.
You listed many reasons why the Church teaches a marriage might not be valid, but they are reducible to the principle I laid out in the last post: intent to enter into something other than a Christian marriage. I don’t think this is broad.
I think this is a serious error on the part of the RCC and many RCs see it as remarkably hypocritical (see Sean’s comments about dollars for annulments), and may explain why an increase in the fraction of RC adherents in a country correlates with the fraction of that country that finds divorce morally acceptable.
It has been very poorly taught. That just sends us back to “Catholics today are poorly Catechized” -> “the Bishops aren’t doing their jobs” -> “VII was a compromise with the culture” -> “Americanism has always been a problem in the US” -> “Enlightenment teachings undermined Christian culture” -> etc. -> Original Sin
“I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel NIV (Malachi 2:16)
LikeLike
Hi James Young,
Don’t agree with your church’s current provisional identification and interpretation of Scripture offered to you? Move along. You’re perfectly within your rights to do so, given every Protestant church’s disclaimers to any kind of authority that would compel you not to do so.
James, in 2 Corinthians an apostle commanded all the Catholic Christians in Corinth to leave all the unbelievers in the only church in that city, in order that the church might be catholic in the apostolic sense:
“Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you” (6:17).
It’s only the unbelievers who remain ecclesiastically attached to unbelievers: “Do not be bound together with unbelievers” (6:14).
How do we know who the unbelievers are – they stay attached, ecclesiastically, to the unrighteous:
“for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? (6:14).
Who are the unrighteous?:
http://nypost.com/2015/12/12/email-to-dolan-details-pee-drinking-priests-alleged-affair/
what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?
Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? (6:15-16)
You believe in staying ecclesiastically affiliated with the unrighteous, but that is disobedience to apostolic ecclesiology.
LikeLike
Sdb,
No, My husband has real authority, but it gives me freedom not servility. If a man loves his wife like Christ loves His Church, submission is easy and family harmony is well, harmonious. Where a husband Lords himself over his wife he fails in what Jesus called him to do and has no business pointing his finger at his wife. Tyrany is not mitual submission.
“Sacred Scripture, in developing the Mystery, never tells wives that they must love their husbands, although husbands are bidden to love their wives. Rather, the wives are to be subject to their husbands. This implies no servility, for there is this parallel: Christ loves the Church, but it is for the Church to submit to Christ. St. Paul is arguing from the Divine to the Human Nuptials, and not from the Human to the Divine.” Fulton Sheen
LikeLike
Sdb,
Also, regarding where family should worship, “one Christian church ” is explicit in the “husbands love your wives as Christ loved ‘the church ‘and gave himself for her”.
So no, I don’t have to worship where he calls church if it means disobeying worship where God does sanction our worship.
LikeLike
sdb:
The question is whether the final authority available to us is God’s word or STM. To be sure there are protestants who reject sola scriptura and repudiate the authority of the Bible just as there are RCs who repudiate the authority of the STM. Among protestants who hold to sola scriptura I think you will find very little theological variation – less than among those who claim allegiance to Rome (the faculty at Wheaton show less theological variation than the faculty Moreau seminar anyway). To believe that SS-RP is just a free for all requires a skepticism of texts that has no basis in reality. Conditional submission is real submission.>>>>>
Good points, sdb, about authority structures. I agree.
It seems to me that you are defining sola scriptua quite narrowly. Now if you used the term “Bible believing Christians”, then you would get a different picture.
Sure. The small group of “people who think like I do” is more or less homogenous and pure. You know. Like the Norwegian bachelor farmers.
All is not well at Wheaton, but things are better than they were. One of Wheaton’s own, Dr. Ryken, is doing a fine job of trying to reign in some of the modernist tendencies. What happens when he is gone? My contacts there are cautiously optimistic for Wheaton’s future. That was not the case a few years back.
My point is not meant as a criticism of Wheaton. It is a fine school. Some of my best friends are Wheaton grads. Not kidding. They really are.
Catholicism has a very strong reform “thing” going on right now, but since you have a kind of bad reaction to “triumphalism”, I won’t annoy you with the details. Of course, Called to Communion is a big part of that reform.
Are you working at Wheaton? Hey, have a good evening.
LikeLike
@ Susan: Thanks for the Newman link. It looks very interesting.
LikeLike
Welcome Jeff 😉
You’re a good guy. I like you:)
LikeLike
No one of note
Posted December 29, 2015 at 6:28 pm | Permalink
Hi James Young,
Don’t agree with your church’s current provisional identification and interpretation of Scripture offered to you? Move along. You’re perfectly within your rights to do so, given every Protestant church’s disclaimers to any kind of authority that would compel you not to do so.
James, in 2 Corinthians an apostle commanded all the Catholic Christians in Corinth to leave all the unbelievers in the only church in that city, in order that the church might be catholic in the apostolic sense:
“Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you” (6:17).
It’s only the unbelievers who remain ecclesiastically attached to unbelievers: “Do not be bound together with unbelievers” (6:14).
How do we know who the unbelievers are – they stay attached, ecclesiastically, to the unrighteous:
“for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? (6:14).
Who are the unrighteous?:
[link]
what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?
Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? (6:15-16)
You believe in staying ecclesiastically affiliated with the unrighteous, but that is disobedience to apostolic ecclesiology.
NOON, You have conflated [lumped] “unbelievers” with the “unrighteous,” so most of the above verse-slinging is not applicable. They are still believers. That’s why they’re in church in the first place.
As for those in violation of Jesus’s teaching on marriage, it’s not clear that the “scorched-earth” approach you seem to be advocating is either wise or Biblical. The Jubilee Year of Mercy has posed some very interesting-troubling questions about what Jesus would indeed do besides kicking sinners to the curb.
http://thewandererpress.com/frontpage/archbishop-chaput-warns-dishonest-mercy-helps-no-one/
[Cardinal Chaput is known as a “conservative,” but as we see here, in the Catholic Church, that is not necessarily synonymous with “Pharisee” or “cementhead.”]
LikeLike
@ Susan: Turnabout is fair play. Here is the deductive side of the propositional world I live in. It’s provided mainly for interest’s sake.
Click to access s2_1.pdf
One interesting feature is that for this author, questions are not propositions. This is in direct contrast to Newman.
I don’t think it’s a matter of right or wrong so much as a matter of definition (“Can questions be propositions?”). But the difference will have implications further down the line, since Newman wants for questions-as-propositions to correspond to the state of doubt.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart:
I’m just a focus group. Remember? You need to improve your skills. Take Logic 101 before moving to Epistemology 401.>>>>>
Yes. I understand what you are saying. In order to understand the epistemology being described and defended by the Protestants here at Old Life, I have to have special knowledge. I have already conceded that.
Maybe if I took your Logic 101 course then I would then be able to understand how you are able to be 100% sure of your election to salvation, yet only 99.999999% sure that Jesus rose from the dead. Seems backwards.
LikeLike
@Susan
Didn’t intend to pick on your particular case with my comment, but I see how it could seem that way. Nor is my point that you should only worship where hubby says so. Rather my point is narrower. Your husband has true, divinely ordained authority you are called to submit to. The fact that that submission is contingent (and I wholeheartedly agree with what you say about church…though you’ve picked the wrong one) does not mean that you are “really” just submitting to your own judgment. You see this, but when you discuss the nature of authority in SS-RP you make the bizarre claim that since the authority of the church and the requirement that I submit to them is contingent, then I am not really submitting to my church. If your argument is valid (and I don’t think it is), that would imply you never submit to other divinely ordained authorities in direct violation of scripture.
I think we can agree that this line of criticism of authority in ss-rp is invalid and should be retired.
LikeLike
Dissolution of non-Christian marriage is as evil as of Christian marriage. I am not convinced there is a special class of Christian marriage, but I haven’t enough about it to be certain. I would say that a marriage entered into without say intending to have kids is as binding as any other….God hates all divorce. Jesus takes a more restrictive view of marriage in the gospels than the descriptions of canon law I cited. I understand exceptions for coercion, but many exceptions went beyond this.
I agree about state of catechesis…this is broad problem and we prots should certainly do a lot better on the marriage front. Given the state of marriage among conservative prots it is no wonder the irreligious and nominals don’t take our critique of ssm seriously. We have no credibility.
LikeLike
Mermaid: Yes. I understand what you are saying. In order to understand the epistemology being described and defended by the Protestants here at Old Life, I have to have special knowledge. I have already conceded that.
That’s definitely not the point. Remember the big picture. CtC apologists make the first move by telling Protestants that they cannot have confidence without an infallible interpreter.
We respond by showing that (a) an infallible interpreter is not necessary, and (b) cannot deliver on the promise of infallible doctrine. Hence, there is no lack for the Reformed pastor or elder that swimming the Tiber would fix.
That response takes detail and precision. If that detail and precision are off-putting, there’s an easy fix: Stop trying to push the epistemological argument.
It only stands to reason, right? If you make confident assertions about alleged errors, then you are likely to get a response. If you appeal to philosophy to undermine the Reformed faith, it is fair that we would use philosophy in response.
But if not, then we are happy to discuss Scripture and what it means to believe and obey Scripture with nary a reference to matters philosophical.
LikeLike
James Young, you read like a pietist. You left off this:
Cool.
Your mocking of Protestantism’s lack of cohesion would have traction if Roman Catholics actually cared about what the magisterium teaches. They don’t need to leave, reform, worry. All they do — with you — is shrug. Even Russians were more alarmed by Communism.
LikeLike
Sean, poor annulments in the poor church?
LikeLike
Hi Tom,
NOON, You have conflated [lumped] “unbelievers” with the “unrighteous,” so most of the above verse-slinging is not applicable. They are still believers. That’s why they’re in church in the first place.
Tom, not so. There were two groups in the church in Corinth, the genuinely regenerate and those who weren’t but claimed to be. Those who obeyed Paul showed the work of the Spirit in their lives and obeyed Paul’s commands to leave the immoral ones in the church, but those who loved the lies also rejected Paul in favor of other teachers with an alternate authority.
To the latter, Paul says:
we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. (5:20)
These people were not reconciled to God. To the former, Paul wrote,
Now in a like exchange– I speak as to children– open wide to us also. (6:13)
These people were reconciled to God.
You wrote,
As for those in violation of Jesus’s teaching on marriage, it’s not clear that the “scorched-earth” approach you seem to be advocating is either wise or Biblical.
LikeLike
@tlm I don’t mean to restrict ss beyond say the wcf. I’m not going with the Chicago statement on inerrancy. The Anglicans have generally rejected sola scriptura for prima scriptura as have those that have descended from them (methodists with their quadrilateral and the holiness movements that came from them). The mainline has more or less completely rejected not just sola scriptura, but even belief in divine origin of scripture. This is a big part of why Machen described liberalism as a different religion from historic christianity. The divide between ss-rp and mainline is wider than between us.
Reform of RCC would be good. My trad contacts at ND are not optimistic…there is a reason the BenOp is catching on. There are rocky days ahead and they are worried the Bishops will sell them out again. Maybe their pessimism will prove overdrawn. Predictions are hard…especially about the future. I hope they are wrong, but I expect not.
Didn’t know of issues at wheaton. No connection other than what I read in CT. I am at a secular public research university.
LikeLike
James Young, Protestants defer to a higher authority. Roman Catholics get all gooey about the former capital of a failed empire.
LikeLike
Kevin, “It has been very poorly taught. That just sends us back to “Catholics today are poorly Catechized” -> “the Bishops aren’t doing their jobs” -> “VII was a compromise with the culture” -> “Americanism has always been a problem in the US” -> “Enlightenment teachings undermined Christian culture” -> etc. -> Original Sin”
Take comfort. You have all that infallibility on your side.
LikeLike
No one, but Paul didn’t claim to be infallible. Don’t heed him.
LikeLike
Susan, “My husband has real authority”
How could he? He’s a skeptic.
LikeLike
Mermaid, I’ll explain when you comment on the bishops who cover for scandalous priests. How do you know when they are acting according to truth? Do you have the pay grade?
LikeLike
Tom,
Sorry, I mispasted.
You wrote,
As for those in violation of Jesus’s teaching on marriage, it’s not clear that the “scorched-earth” approach you seem to be advocating is either wise or Biblical.
I was answering James’ post on how Prots have freedom to leave compromised churches, not marriage.
LikeLike
b, sd, “when you discuss the nature of authority in SS-RP you make the bizarre claim that since the authority of the church and the requirement that I submit to them is contingent, then I am not really submitting to my church. If your argument is valid (and I don’t think it is), that would imply you never submit to other divinely ordained authorities in direct violation of scripture.”
gigading
LikeLike
Jeff, you mean Mermaid really needs to take the seminar in civility and manners?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 29, 2015 at 9:00 pm | Permalink
James Young, you read like a pietist. You left off this:
not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made,
Your mocking of Protestantism’s lack of cohesion would have traction if Roman Catholics actually cared about what the magisterium teaches.
Dr. Hart beclowns himself again, superciliously haranguing the nice Catholic lady about taking a logic class then committing a category error himself, trying to pass off poll results as ecclesiology.
While ‘Presbyterianism’ fractures into splits of churches of a million people at a time with everybody suing each other in civil courts, Dr. Hart tries to turn Catholic polls into the same thing.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 29, 2015 at 9:11 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, I’ll explain when you comment on the bishops who cover for scandalous priests. How do you know when they are acting according to truth? Do you have the pay grade?
____________________
Watch him dodge and bully. By their fruits, and tricks…
LikeLike
Hi Darryl,
No one, but Paul didn’t claim to be infallible. Don’t heed him.
Imagine trying to reconcile the apostolic ecclesiological commands of 2 Corinthians 6 with Roman Catholic ecclesiology. What did Paul know? Shrug, ignore, obfuscate. Fellowship with perverts.
LikeLike
No one of note
Posted December 29, 2015 at 9:11 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Sorry, I mispasted.
You wrote,
As for those in violation of Jesus’s teaching on marriage, it’s not clear that the “scorched-earth” approach you seem to be advocating is either wise or Biblical.
I was answering James’ post on how Prots have freedom to leave compromised churches, not marriage.
______________________
With dozens, hundreds and 1000s to pick from (or start your own), this ‘freedom’ is unquestioned.
LikeLike
No one,
In Pauls ecclesiology, schism is possible. In RCism, schism is possible. In Protestantism, schism is impossible. Because of the claims (or disclaimers) to authority/ability each offer.
Also, Darryl must have forgotten those times Paul claimed he was speaking Gods Word and not provisional human opinion; he was claiming authority/ability that merited consideration and would give listeners reason to care in the first place what he thought of their beliefs.
LikeLike
Tom,
With dozens, hundreds and 1000s to pick from (or start your own), this ‘freedom’ is unquestioned.
Schism and heresy are the problem, and RC ecclesiology is not the solution. Then again, neither is Protestant ecclesiology.
This is:
For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you,
6 namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.
7 For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain,
8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled,
9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.
Paul decreed this because the many churches in Crete, started soon after Pentecost and schismed greatly since then, were led by these kind of men:
10 For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision,
11 who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain.
Titus 1:5-10
These men were rebellious to apostolic ecclesiology.
LikeLike
Hi James,
In Pauls ecclesiology, schism is possible. In RCism, schism is possible. In Protestantism, schism is impossible. Because of the claims (or disclaimers) to authority/ability each offer.
In Protestantism schism occurs at the denominational level. “But,” you say, “that’s convenient, for they define it to suit themselves.”
Where do you think they learned that from? In RCism, schism is separation from RCism.
But in Pauline ecclesiology, schism is the members of the local body of Christ divided among multiple churches (1 Cor. 1:10-13, 12:24-27).
Also, Darryl must have forgotten those times Paul claimed he was speaking Gods Word and not provisional human opinion; he was claiming authority/ability that merited consideration and would give listeners reason to care in the first place what he thought of their beliefs.
DGH was being sarcastic. Nor was Paul into reader response theory.
LikeLike
sdb-
Dissolution of non-Christian marriage is as evil as of Christian marriage. I am not convinced there is a special class of Christian marriage, but I haven’t enough about it to be certain. I would say that a marriage entered into without say intending to have kids is as binding as any other….God hates all divorce. Jesus takes a more restrictive view of marriage in the gospels than the descriptions of canon law I cited. I understand exceptions for coercion, but many exceptions went beyond this.
Just to be clear, the idea isn’t that it is as a result of being Christians that a Christian marriage is formed, but in virtue of the nature of the relationship the two parties intend to enter into. So two Christians can be married, but not in a Christian marriage – through adding provisos (conditions, exceptions) which change its essence.
We don’t have the right to add provisos. A Christian marriage is in many ways like a contract, but the terms are divinely ordained – making it a covenant. Those who qualify it make a different sort of agreement altogether.
I’d never thought much about the dissolution of natural marriages (amongst either the Baptized or non-Christians) – I can easily see it as being sinful if it results in harm (abandoning a wife and child, etc.).
But in a really nasty circumstance – say a non-Christian husband who forbids his wife from Christian worship or raising their children as Christians – I don’t see sin (assuming the wife has taken all reasonable measures over a long period of time in trying to convince him).
LikeLike
James Young, I didn’t forget. But it’s odd that Paul didn’t claim to be infallible even though he also claimed to speak God’s word. With Rome it’s the opposite — claims of infallibility but not God’s word.
Cue shrug. Yup.
LikeLike
CVD: In Protestantism, schism is impossible
Calvin Institutes 4.1 deals with schism.
CVD: Protestant bodies/churches don’t claim the ability/authority to distinguish divine revelation from provisional human opinion. If they did, they would make similar types of claims to ability/authority as Rome…
You’ve been corrected on this before. Protestant churches do claim the ability and authority to distinguish divine revelation from fallible human opinion. WCF 1. They do not claim an infallible ability to do so.
Just because that claim doesn’t fit into your paradigm doesn’t make it a non-claim.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 29, 2015 at 10:06 pm | Permalink
CVD: In Protestantism, schism is impossible
Calvin Institutes 4.1 deals with schism.
CVD: Protestant bodies/churches don’t claim the ability/authority to distinguish divine revelation from provisional human opinion. If they did, they would make similar types of claims to ability/authority as Rome…
You’ve been corrected on this before. Protestant churches do claim the ability and authority to distinguish divine revelation from fallible human opinion. WCF 1. They do not claim an infallible ability to do so.
That’s not a correction, it’s a concession of his point, trading one possible error for another.
LikeLike
Sdb,
You said:
“Your husband has true, divinely ordained authority you are called to submit to. The fact that that submission is contingent (and I wholeheartedly agree with what you say about church…though you’ve picked the wrong one) does not mean that you are “really” just submitting to your own judgment.”
He has ordained authority? I don’t know if that is the case. What is contingent authority? I don’t understand.
I don’t believe that I am submitting to my own judgement. I believe that God placed my husband as the head of our family. My job is to be kind and tender and helpful and teach our children and use his earnings responsibly.
I’ve been married 32 years. How about you?
“You see this, but when you discuss the nature of authority in SS-RP you make the bizarre claim that since the authority of the church and the requirement that I submit to them is contingent, then I am not really submitting to my church. If your argument is valid (and I don’t think it is), that would imply you never submit to other divinely ordained authorities in direct violation of scripture.”
No I am to obey man made laws as long as they are in accord with God’s laws. For example I don’t believe that a democracy is the only right kind of government. So I am not sure exactly what shape divine ordained authority takes.
But maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean.
LikeLike
TVD
Posted December 29, 2015 at 9:19 pm | Permalink
D. G. Hart
Posted December 29, 2015 at 9:11 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, I’ll explain when you comment on the bishops who cover for scandalous priests. How do you know when they are acting according to truth? Do you have the pay grade?
____________________
TVD:
Watch him dodge and bully. By their fruits, and tricks…>>>>>>
It’s pretty amazing to observe. I think that dragging Susan’s and my marriages into the discussion was an especially desperate measure.
Susan handled it much better than I did. She is a classy lady.
LikeLike
The swine and the pearls are easily discernible from each other.
LikeLike
Hi Jeff,
@ Susan: Turnabout is fair play. Here is the deductive side of the propositional world I live in. It’s provided mainly for interest’s sake.”
Sure it it:) Thank you, I will investigate.
Click to access s2_1.pdf
“One interesting feature is that for this author, questions are not propositions. This is in direct contrast to Newman.”
I don’t think it’s a matter of right or wrong so much as a matter of definition (“Can questions be propositions?”). But the difference will have implications further down the line, since Newman wants for questions-as-propositions to correspond to the state of doubt.”
I need you to backup a bit. I don’t remember enough to follow what you’re saying.
Do I have to adopt particular mode of logic for us to discuss the validity of propositions or for us to get answers to shared questions?
Help me out.
LikeLike
@Jeff Cagle, TLM, Susan
Re:status of Deuterocanonical books
Perhaps a thought experiment might be helpful. Freeze frame everything just as Luther is swinging his hammer to the church door in Wittenberg. (Yes, I know some consider that apocryphal, sorry for the word choice. ☺, ) Stop looking at things through the lens of the Reformation for a few minutes.
Things like indulgences were not the only controversial topics in the Church. About 10 years earlier, a proposal was made to confiscate all the books of the Jews (Bible excepted) so that it would be easier to convert them. This was not unopposed, particularly by Catholic University professors who were teaching and studying Hebrew. (At this time, the number of Christians who had the chops to teach Hebrew at the University level and/or publish works related to the Hebrew OT probably numbered in the low dozens, but that number was growing.)
This became more than a tempest in a teapot, as evidenced by the fact that Melcanthon’s great uncle was put on trial for his views that the books in question were not dangerous. There was never any definitive resolution to his case as the powers that be were given more important fish to fry by Luther.
But what was going on in the Universities, which were by no means heterodox at that time, was consistent with the Renaissance Humanism that predated Luther by decades. Part of that was a change in the methods of interpreting the Old Testament, and the phrase ad fontes was current before Luther. There was a new concern in establishing the hebraicia veritas and building interpretations from that, instead of expounding on differences found in different versions of the Vulgate. (If memory serves, there were dozens of different Vulgate texts that, however minor those differences might appear, were valued for those differences. However strange it might seem, you could preach a sermon based on the meaning you extracted from those differences. )
But these Renaissance Humanists didn’t seem to be perceived as a threat to anyone up until the very early days of the 16th Century, and the one guy who seems to have gotten in trouble- Melcanthon’s Great Uncle- seems to have been caught on the wrong side of a zealot who had support from the Emperor. These Renaissance Humanists did not think they were doing anything more than following in Jerome’s footsteps. He was, after all, a Saint and a Doctor of the Church.
These men accepted the same underlying assumption that Jerome made: The Hebrew text of the Old Testament was the inspired Old Testament.FULL STOP. The Septuagint was not inspired. The Deutereos were not known to exist in Hebrew, therefore, to Jerome, they were not strictly canonical. Useful, yes, and he translated some or all of them. But Jerome’s real underlying agenda was to make the Hebrew OT the basis of the canon, instead of the Septuagint. If he had been privy to the discovery of two or three of these books in Hebrew among the Dead Sea Scrolls, he very well might have ruled those in.
Thus, for Jerome, the issue was which text, not which books. The answer to one determined the answer to the other. The same thought process seems to have governed the Humanists. (A good summary article on Jerome that seems to me to be relatively non-partisan and doesn’t seem to contain any obvious howlers is at http://gregscouch.homestead.com/files/jerome.html. If you are interested in the LXX, “When God Spoke Greek” by Timothy Michael Law is very good, but was, to me, demanding; even so, I purchased the Kindle version after reading a library copy, which for me counts as high praise.) As far as I can tell, they all came to pretty much the same starting point.
Absent the Reformation, how would things have been resolved? As far as I can tell, neither Jerome or his Renaissance fan boys ever expressed any issue with the use of any of these books in liturgy. The answer is beyond me, but it seems to me that a long and rich tradition of textual criticism was virtually abandoned at Trent. Luther and his 16th century contemporaries shared a tradition of what counted as inspired, and how to handle works that were traditionally used in worship that did not meet their standard. Luther, by the way, did in fact translate the Deutereos, and I have never seen any accusation that his work product was slapdash or slipshod in any way.
How we got the Bible we have now has always fascinated me. There is really no need, in my opinion, for Christians to be threatened by any of it, particularly now that the field of text criticism is no longer dominated by rank skeptics. By focusing on what happened between Wittenberg and Trent, I would respectfully suggest you are missing a great story. Luther’s role in it is over rated.
I address this to the three of you since you seem to be interested in this aspect of what I recognize is a much broader topic. As I have said repeatedly, I have no interest in re-litigating the Reformation, and no one is raiding the flock I belong to. Perhaps you will find this useful, I hope so.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I’m sorry I have a difficult time with propositional logic. I mean I understand what makes an argument valid, but since valid isn’t synonimous with true, I care more about the truth of each proposition within the syllogism.
I’m more familiar with material logic.
But I’m sure we can still talk to each other:)
http://www.sapientisinstitute.org/fullcourses/materiallogic.html
No, MWF. You handled an attack on your marriage very well. You are a sweetheart and extremely classy. I am very impressed with your oboe playing! Very cool:)
LikeLike
DGH,
it’s odd that Paul didn’t claim to be infallible even though he also claimed to speak God’s word.
Yeah. When he points to his authority so the regenerate will follow him in separating from the goats he boasts in his weakness, instead of his glory. 2 Cor. 12-13
So not RC.
LikeLike
Kevin, then what is the annulment process trying to discover, because from over here it looks a lot like a sophisticated form of fruit inspection, discerning motives and intentions, over turning stones mortal man wasn’t meant to overturn. Where’s the humility in annulment?
You’re often concerned with how things sound to unspecified groups in the general culture- one thing I like about Old Life is not having to be concerned with how I sound to them.
I don’t know what this means. But when someone takes marriage vows all anyone else can do is take him for how he sounds, which is to say he intends to take on all that is entailed in marriage. The annulment process as you describe it sounds like a painfully tortured philosophical attempt to make disappear what actually took place and avoid the reality of divorce. How is annulment not a clever way of baptizing divorce?
LikeLike
CVD: Protestant bodies/churches don’t claim the ability/authority to distinguish divine revelation from provisional human opinion. If they did, they would make similar types of claims to ability/authority as Rome…
JRC: You’ve been corrected on this before. Protestant churches do claim the ability and authority to distinguish divine revelation from fallible human opinion. WCF 1. They do not claim an infallible ability to do so.
TVD: That’s not a correction, it’s a concession of his point, trading one possible error for another.
Wrong. Nice try, though.
It is a correct because he is misstating the Protestant position.
If you want to additionally critique the Protestant position by noting that it allows for possibility of error in identification, feel free. But to say that Protestants don’t claim ability or authority is an error of fact.
LikeLike
@ Dan: thanks! Again!
LikeLike
Caiphas prophesied,
Amen.
CVD,
As your position boils down to “decrees and determinations, if consonant to [my own and my church’s self-described infallible interpretation of] the Word of the STM triad.”
That’s not true, schism is possible in Protestantism. I think previously you wanted to argue the problem with Protestantism is that it did not have a strong distinction between schism and heresy. The point numerous Patristic scholars have made is the fourth and fifth century conceptions of “schism” are foreign to the NT and 2-3 centuries of church history (see Allen Brent “Was Hippolytus a Schismatic”).
NoN,
I noted the various traditions claiming Apostolic Succession as groups that have a legitimate claim to succession broadly based on Roman ideas of AS. As a Presbyterian, I agree with Raymond Brown and a litany of Roman scholars (with the imprimatur of consecrated bishops) that post-apostolic church leaders were “in no discernible way successors of the Apostles.”
LikeLike
PeculiarA conceited unstable popish reasoner: Apeculiarconceited unstable popish reasoner believes proposition p while also believing he or she does not believe p. Although apeculiarconceited unstable popish reasoner may seem like a strange psychological phenomenon (see Moore’s paradox), apeculiarconceited unstable popish reasoner is necessarily inaccurate but not necessarily inconsistent.There.
Fixed it.
Proposition p? For starters, romanism is fideism.
Au contraire my friend, if they get things right that are infallible. And it doesn’t take an ecumenical council to do it either.
If they get things wrong well, they weren’t speaking in regards to faith or morals then.
Haha! That’s funny. Yes it is the substance of an argument….a huge one. Perhaps I am not wording it well, but I am making sense and if you think it is like something that CTC puts forth then you do understand that it makes sense and is a substantial argument.
Res ipsa loquitur.
But sean is not the only one that understands that Susan’s “argument” is incoherent,while CtC’s may just be inconsistent. (After all we are still waiting for these ex prot experts to give us the correct doctrine of Scripture according to protestant reformed catholicism in the name of charity, honesty and ecumenicity.)
Then sdb really nails Bryan’s argument which only applies to prots and never romanists.
So you aren’t really submitting to your husband then right? You are submitting to what you agree with, so you are really just submitting to yourself?
But of course the reply is:
Where a husband Lords himself over his wife he fails in what Jesus called him to do and has no business pointing his finger at his wife. Tyrany is not mitual submission.
What happens when the pope/the magisterium lord it over the sheep like at the Reformation?
Answer? Jiminy Cricket doing his best Pinocchio imitation.
What is proposition p again? Romanism is fideism.
For proof, see above.
And remember.
The. Tail. Is. Not. Wagging. The. Dog. If. The. Magisterium. Says. So.
LikeLike
To take the Roman Catholic perspective, I told Dr. Cross, was to treat Scripture and its Author in a way less honorably that my Lord did, and was thereby epistemic sin against God.
Exactly, Noon.
According to Bryan and the rest of the ex prot expert witnesses on protestantism gang, according to the prot doctrine of Sola Scriptura Jn. 1:1,14 reads:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth
Romanists however read:
In the beginning was the Word and the magisterium’s traditions and the Word and the magisterium’s tradition were with God and the Word and the magisterium’s traditions were God . . . . And the Word and the magisterium’s traditions became flesh and dwelt among us . . . ..
Guess which reading is correct and not an ad hoc performative question begging gloss by prots.
Ignatius’s
deuterocanonicalThirteenth Rule reads:To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it, believing that between Christ our Lord, the Bridegroom, and the Church, His Bride, there is the same Spirit, which governs and directs us for the salvation of our souls.
Which is why Paul said:
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. 2 Cor. 11:14,15
LikeLike
Then there’s The Véronian Disciple/troll on category errors:
Dr. Hart continues to attempt to disrupt the principled discussion at his own blog, again muddying the water with a category error about what the magisterium is. Fascinating. Heinous.
Versus an article approved by The Véronian Disciple/troll hisself:
But the Roman position is not the tail wagging the dogma; not categorically a category error on the part of papists? That the magisterium and its traditions are Scripture while at the same time the magisterium is the infallible interpreter of Scripture?
Hello.
In the beginning was the Word and the magisterium’s traditions and the Word and the magisterium’s tradition were with God and the Word and the magisterium’s traditions were God . . . .
And the Word and the magisterium’s traditions became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld Rome’s pomp and vain glory as the only true church begotten of its father the devil, full of idols and dead men’s bones. . . .
There are those who know nothing, learn less and forget everything, but are not loath to demonstrate it profusely.
Because that is what comboxes are for.
cheers.
LikeLike
Mermaid, I believe you and Susan brought up your marriages. Were you this passive-aggressive when you were a Protestant?
I did bring up the sex scandal and you won’t talk about it. Hmmm.
LikeLike
THE MECHANISM EXISTS…to punish the priest from gettin’ his mass on…on a mechanism — a hoverboard…in the Philippines. Hard to imagine a US or Euro priest being similarly chastised. Too bad this couldn’t have happened at that midnight mass someone drug their husband to.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/viral-video/12074023/Philippines-priest-rides-hoverboard-while-delivering-Christmas-Eve-sermon.html
LikeLike
[KiN:] “It has been very poorly taught. That just sends us back to “Catholics today are poorly Catechized” -> “the Bishops aren’t doing their jobs” -> “VII was a compromise with the culture” -> “Americanism has always been a problem in the US” -> “Enlightenment teachings undermined Christian culture” -> etc. -> Original Sin”
[DG:] Take comfort. You have all that infallibility on your side.
It does you good as well, indirectly, through its impact on others and their impact on society.
As bad as things are now in the US, things could be (and will likely get) worse – papal teachings make the short list of key resources for dealing with the crisis of life in the realm of common grace – (if I can venture to use not entirely familiar vocabulary).
Other assets include Sacred Scripture (which has its primary application with regard to Salvation, of course), philosophy, history, the arts, and other minds in and beyond our society – all of which provide assistance during challenging historical events.
These assets or fields of thought and action work in conjunction with one another – e.g., philosophically insightful artistic productions which provide an insight on human motivation in history and thereby teach us about those who came before us, ideally fortifying our best efforts to reach through the confusion of life toward faith in the next.
This might be called a culture-building engine whose outputs orient us toward both virtuous life and salvation (conceptually divisible, of course, but not entirely unrelated).
Papal Infallibility’s unique role in this engine is well-defined and historically-observable, a special role in guiding individual life and society to realize inherent potential – put more mundanely, to allow us to do and believe a little bit better than we would have otherwise.
LikeLike
Kevin in Newark: Papal Infallibility’s unique role in this engine is well-defined and historically-observable, a special role in guiding individual life and society to realize inherent potential – put more mundanely, to allow us to do and believe a little bit better than we would have otherwise.
Believe a little better in what , Kevin?
LikeLike
I agree! This is contingent authority. The fact that your obedience to man-made laws is *contingent* on their accordance with God’s laws does not mean that the state doesn’t have any *real* authority or that you aren’t really submitting to the state when you pay your taxes. Now apply this recognition to ecclesiastical sources…
In the same way, we are to test ecclesiastical authorities too – our submission to these God-ordained authorities is contingent on their commands not violating God’s laws. Just as I have a responsibility to use discernment when I submit to the state, I have a responsibility to use discernment in my submission to ecclesiastical authorities. The fact that my obedience is contingent does not mean that I am *really* just submitting to my own private judgement as you and the CtC have repeatedly asserted. My submission and my session’s authority is just as real as your submission to the state’s authority.
LikeLike
@Susan
Here is an example of the sort of charge lobbed against SS-RP ecclesiology:
Now substitute council with state:
The [state’s authority] carries no more weight than that citizen’s current, tentative interpretation of God’s laws.
There are number of problems here. In the past 3000 comments, we have already established that none of us has infallible knowledge. So in adjudicating the rightness or wrongness of a law passed by the state, you are fallible…you *could* get the moral calculus wrong. The likelihood that you get it wrong varies considerably… whether you should go undercover and violate laws against wiretapping to expose a corrupt church official is a really complicated thing to decide – you might have doubts with whatever choice you choose. Whether or not to sell crack to make ends meet is pretty simple – you would have quite a bit of confidence in choosing not to do so even though your personal moral decision is not infallible. But does that make your decision of whether to submit to a given law passed by the state “tentative”? Of course not. Does the fact that the state’s authority is contingent on obedience to God’s law mean that it carries no more weight than you current interpretation of God’s law? Of course not.
Thus, just as this charge is absurd when applied to the relationship between the citizen and the state, so the charge fails when applied to the relationship between the SS-RP and the church.
Fallibility and contingency are compatible with legitimate authority.
LikeLike
sdb:
I agree! This is contingent authority. The fact that your obedience to man-made laws is *contingent* on their accordance with God’s laws does not mean that the state doesn’t have any *real* authority or that you aren’t really submitting to the state when you pay your taxes. Now apply this recognition to ecclesiastical sources…>>>>>
Very interesting conversation, sdb and Susan. I may have missed it, but have you factored in the source of all human authority structures yet? Sure, most do not claim to be infallible, but God makes infallible claims about the purpose, scope, and role of all 3 human institutions that He ordained – family, church, and civil government. His purposes do not fail.
Or maybe you don’t see it that way. Could you elaborate on how contingent authority structures differ from delegated authority structures?
Yes, I know that your submission to your church authority is real. How real is the authority that they claim to have, though? You must believe that their authority comes from God. Otherwise, as a Christian, why would you submit to it in matters of faith and practice?
Maybe you see things a different way, though.
LikeLike
(A different) Dan:
These men accepted the same underlying assumption that Jerome made: The Hebrew text of the Old Testament was the inspired Old Testament.FULL STOP. The Septuagint was not inspired. The Deutereos were not known to exist in Hebrew, therefore, to Jerome, they were not strictly canonical. Useful, yes, and he translated some or all of them. But Jerome’s real underlying agenda was to make the Hebrew OT the basis of the canon, instead of the Septuagint. If he had been privy to the discovery of two or three of these books in Hebrew among the Dead Sea Scrolls, he very well might have ruled those in.>>>>>
Excellent comments, Dan. Thanks. Will Protestants take another look at the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books based on newer textual evidence?
That would be hard for Protestants to do.
Dan:
I address this to the three of you since you seem to be interested in this aspect of what I recognize is a much broader topic. As I have said repeatedly, I have no interest in re-litigating the Reformation, and no one is raiding the flock I belong to. Perhaps you will find this useful, I hope so.>>>>>
Thank you very much. It is very useful. Food for thought.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 29, 2015 at 9:11 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, I’ll explain when you comment on the bishops who cover for scandalous priests. How do you know when they are acting according to truth? Do you have the pay grade?>>>>>
Oh, Brother Hart, we have played this game before. You demand an answer. I give you an answer. You don’t deliver on your promise to explain. You then demand an answer again.
Bishops who cover for scandalous priests – they paid a huge price for their sin. God judged them by exposing them to public shame and humiliation. No one is saying otherwise. In fact, I have said so right here at your blog. I said so more than once. Maybe you forgot.
Now, it’s your turn. I will wait for your explanation, Brother Lucy.
LikeLike
” I may have missed it, but have you factored in the source of all human authority structures yet? ”
Yes. When I say God ordained, what I mean is that it is God who gives the husbands the authority that they have in a marriage (cf Eph 6) and the state over her citizens (Rom13).
“Sure, most do not claim to be infallible, but God makes infallible claims about the purpose, scope, and role of all 3 human institutions that He ordained – family, church, and civil government. His purposes do not fail.”
Precisely. These institutions are all fallible. They make mistakes and do things that are wrong. Husbands beat their wives, states command Christians not to share their faith, and ecclesial authorities cover up sexual abuse. They all fail and when they make a command that contradicts God’s law, we have a duty to resist (obey God rather than men). The fact that these institutions may fail and we have a duty to resist does not entail that they don’t have authority or that our submission is somehow *really* just to our own conscience.
“Could you elaborate on how contingent authority structures differ from delegated authority structures?”
Not sure. I assume that all delegated authority structures are contingent on the delegated authority doing what they were delegated to do. Of course God’s authority is never contingent – we always have to obey him because he is infallible. But it is possible for delegated authorities to err – thus Paul warns the Galatians not to heed a false gospel even if it comes from an apostle because it is possible for an apostle to teach wrongly. The Bereans were commended for testing everything Paul said because it was possible that Paul *could* have been wrong. Peter resisted the authorities when they commanded him to stop preaching the gospel because he had a duty to obey God rather than man.
“Yes, I know that your submission to your church authority is real. How real is the authority that they claim to have, though? You must believe that their authority comes from God. Otherwise, as a Christian, why would you submit to it in matters of faith and practice?”
That a protestant’s submission to her church’s authority is real is contested by Susan and the CtC bunch. They argue that since our submission is contingent on the church following God’s law, then our submission is really to ourselves. I do believe that ecclesial authority comes from God (just like a husband’s authority, a parent’s authority, or a state’s authority), but I also know that these authorities can go astray and when they do, we have a duty to resist.
“His purposes do not fail.”
Amen. Our sin can make a hash of things, but they can never thwart God’s plan for his creation.
LikeLike
Kevin, I like Europe and the West and all, but at some point the folks who put their hopes in Rome as a branch or trunk of W. Civ. need to consider that the communion (in the U.S. at least) was most vigorous when it was a ghetto church and only priests-in-training went to Notre Dame. (Same point can be said of Protestantism.)
LikeLike
Ali –
Kevin in Newark: Papal Infallibility’s unique role in this engine is well-defined and historically-observable, a special role in guiding individual life and society to realize inherent potential – put more mundanely, to allow us to do and believe a little bit better than we would have otherwise.
Believe a little better in what , Kevin?
I’d refer to Pius IX’s profession of faith at the commencement of Vatican I, and his succinct statement of purpose in the lead-up to the definition of Papal Infallibility. An excerpt:
I’d encourage you not to assume duplicity. Offer rational disagreement if you must (at times well-put by commentators at Old Life); but developing a habit of stating falsehoods is dangerous to charity and reason both, to the integrity of one’s character, and at least in its most developed form, ultimately to one’s faith.
An example of such a statement:
[Cw’s edits to KiN:] “Today most (clergy) who (stay in the RC church) do so over a desire to satisfy sexual desires ad libitum or (avoid the strictures) of valid marriage.”
[Cw:] Maybe the example of the priestly class is a big part of the problem, KiN.
The second statement is rational and fair for discussion.
But the first isn’t: ‘Most clergy who stay in the Catholic Church do so over a desire to satisfy sexual desires ad libitum or [and/or?] to avoid the strictures of valid marriage.’
Do I need to point out that this is exceedingly unlikely, unjustified, and unverifiable, as well as being uncharitable?
If one were in the habit of making such statements, what sort of habit would one be developing? A virtuous one or a vicious one? One compatible with the sort of life Scripture urges on us?
I don’t take it as essential to the Reformed system of faith to develop a habit of stating calumnious falsehoods; yet they do credit to neither Geneva nor Knoxville.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM
LikeLike
Mermaid, not sure that Ratzinger/Benedict paid for his sins. But that’s not the point.
The point is that you claim the magisterium is what makes Rome superior to Protestantism. All that infallibility. But since you like to play epistemology, how do you know that the magisterium is not infallible when they cover for scandalous priests? You can’t just have the good parts of the authority on which you hang Protestants. You need to take it all. Unless, of course, you actually are a closet Protestant, know the truth, judge the bishops on the basis of the truth you know, and so actually only submit to them when they conform to the truths you know.
It’s really pretty simple to see you’ve got a problem. If you invest so much of your apologetic in the bishops, you going to lose all of your investments in the bishops.
That’s the explanation I want. Not whether they were wrong or paid for their errors. I want an explanation for your lazy apologetic. Please, no shrugging.
LikeLike
Kevin, the rational disagreement is that she(RC) is part of the problem of disunity. By making claims inappropriate (One, True church) she necessarily causes schism and division by forcing other bodies to resist her. So, if that’s the case, her condenscension to be here for the rest of us, even indirectly, is just mere arrogance. How about drop your claims, assume some humility, and failing that, go away.
LikeLike
Sdb,
MWF is better as this than I am. The only argument I have is that that I have used my reason to follow evidence that at a certain point in time the father of all protestant denominations broke away from something called the Catholic Church, and that church must have had authority because people complain that Luther was unfairly excommunicated. Why would one care about excommunication and a charge of heresy if there is supposed to be many exclessiastical authorities( with differing beliefs I must add) as there are teachers. This makes the idea of heresy dependent on whoever says so and so undermines the notion of real authority.
Further, to this day if someone asks where the Catholic Church is, the other person can point to any local parish or to the Holy See in Rome Italy.
I wouldn’t have to obey some pastor of a denomination around the corner from my house even if I had gone there my whole life, if was no such thing as the Catholic Church for one because there could be no denominations since it takes sectarian leaders to have followers;and for another ,there would never have been a compiled bible of any kind. I take that back… People could have put books or fragments together, but since no one would have agreed if the were supernaturally inspired that compilation would have multiple forms. So thank the Catholic Church for your bible!
Ecclesiatical authority wouldn’t even be in the human lexicon if there had never been a single given authority. God doesn’t give many ecclesial authorities. There ya go. I essentially reasoned aloud.
“God doesn’t give many ecclesial authorities” That’s my final answer.:)
He didn’t give me one than one husband to love either. Balanced analogy.
And if “anything goes” in your provisional logic and world view my reason and logic are, well just as reasonable and logical as yours.
But I get the sneaking suspicion that you don’t really believe your own propaganda. How would your logic and reason of “many ecclesial authorities” actually work in real life?
LikeLike
“Why would one care about excommunication and a charge of heresy if there is supposed to be many exclessiastical authorities( with differing beliefs I must add) as there are teachers.”
Susan, the short answer, in Luther’s context, was coercion by the sword. Rome was an ecclesial monarchy.
LikeLike
TLM: “Will Protestants take another look at the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books based on newer textual evidence?
That would be hard for Protestants to do.”
Ton of interest these days among Protestant and RC NT scholars in 2nd Temple Judaism that would necessarily include studies, to some degree, of the Deutereos. Canonicity? Not sure why anything would change.
But is that because of Reflexive resistance to Rome? Given the state of accepted RC scholarly affairs just before the Reformation froze everybody in place, I would say that is not the whole motive.
BTW, there is nothing in the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message that would preclude my congregant from making whatever use of the Deutereos it wished. I don’t think I have ever heard a sermon on Hebrews 11:25 that did not bring in the Maccabees reference, and that goes back to the church I grew up in and the pastor who started there around 1962, loved Hebrews, and preached from it frequently.
If I became convicted that these books were inspired, I would try to convince my fellow congregants to agree with me. I doubt I would get very far, but that would be my first step. Would that conviction be enough for me to break fellowship? That is a much more difficult question, but if I did, it would not be because I was convinced that Trent was right and Wittenberg was wrong. I would have to be convinced that the LXX was inspired in its entirety, that Jerome was wrong, and that neither the RC or Protestant Bibles contained the valid OT. I guess my only option would be the EO.
But for me to go that far would take a Damascus experience. Several months ago, a 30 something that I spent some time with made the trite comment “I’m spiritual, not religious.” I looked at him and said “I’m tribal.”. Wasn’t much of a conversation after that but it wasn’t headed in a good direction anyway
Things are getting compressed. Wish all a happy and healthy 2016..
LikeLike
Susan, who says God doesn’t give many ecclesiastical authorities? Why wouldn’t there be? How would you effectively administer a world wide church? Rome can’t do it any better than anyone else could. Try local. Try synodical. Try assemblies. Try conciliar. We live a pilgrim life in this age. You don’t get your theocracy in the here and now. Things aren’t coming up roses and they won’t be before Christ returns. It’s part of the WHY of WHY he needs to return. This life isn’t the all in all. It’s all dim and already-not yet and still dealing with indwelling sin. It’s a sheetsoup with little respites here and there when compared with glory. We’re all waiting on a better city.
LikeLike
I had to take extraordinary measures to get this thread to load anymore. If I don’t respond further, it’s because I can’t see you.
LikeLike
Sean, “Why wouldn’t there be? How would you effectively administer a world wide church? Rome can’t do it any better than anyone else could. Try local. Try synodical. Try assemblies. Try conciliar.”
Try subsidiarity.
Wait. . . .
LikeLike
Jeff, feed your mice so they can run faster.
LikeLike
Jeff — tip: Don’t click on the recent posts on the sidebar. Click on the main post title or clean up the address to look like this: https://oldlife.org/2015/12/have-you-guys-heard-of-assemblies/ and you will see all the comments including the latest.
LikeLike
CW, you can get to the last page of comments only using your method First 28 pages lost forever?
Euthanasia?
LikeLike
My view is fading too. It feels like one of us is going molecular:)
Good byyyyyyyyyyyyy
LikeLike
Hope you guys bookmarked what I linked! ((snort))
Sorta glad this discussion is over.
Happy New Year my dear frenemies:)!
LikeLike
Dan, use “previous” or numbered page links below last comment.
LikeLike
CW, still won’t go back.
Providential?
LikeLike
@cw:
Thanks. Like Dan, I can only get to the most recent page.
Serves us right.
LikeLike
Jeff, just when I thought we were finally getting somewhere….
☺☺☺
LikeLike
FYI, guys, I just posted this on one of the other active threads:
Regarding the “Assemblies” thread, many of us would still have the pages in our browsers.
If you’ve been using Chrome, it’s fairly simple:
1) in the URL bar, type about:cache
2) locate the page(s) you wish to view (e.g., use find in page for “assemblies”)
3) open the page, select all, and copy to clipboard
4) go to http://www.sensefulsolutions.com/2012/01/viewing-chrome-cache-easy-way.html
5) paste the clipboard contents into the dialogue box and submit
6) you’ll now see the page – select all and copy to save
I’d appreciate if someone could send me page 28 (email address ckevincrow at gmail.com)- I lost it in my cache when I tried to open it after the thread crashed (as, unfortunately, will have anyone else who has tried to open the page).
LikeLike
Mercy killing.
LikeLike
Wow.
No wonder Roman Catholics don’t read the Bible. They read the church that gave them the Bible.
LikeLike
Yes it actually feels good to have a worthy credit profile. I want to use this time to appreciate PINNACLE CREDIT SPECIALIST for bringing me out of bad credit report that made my life miserable, I had driving citation also on my driving record and I needed to get rid of it from my record and the court system also before I will be filed for the offense, PINNACLE came through for me, my credit report cleaned up with all negative entries removed; student loans, charge offs, collections wiped out including my driving citation all cleared from my record and my score is now 810. I’m happy to have read about PINNACLE CREDIT SPECIALIST here, you can contact him today via pinnaclecreditspecialist@gmail.com or text (480) 420-8331. They’re the best as far as credit repair is concerned.
LikeLike