Many people feel somewhat uncomfortable with the idea that the confessions of the church are a lens through which we view Scripture. To them, it smacks too much of putting the confessions on a par with Scripture. There is always danger in elevating man’s words to the level of Scripture. However, is there another way in which we can understand this relationship?
Let’s put it this way: everyone has lenses of some sort when they come to Scripture. No one can interpret Scripture from a completely clean slate. Let me repeat this: everyone has lenses through which they read the Scriptures. The question, then, has been racketing about in the wrong quadrant for a lot of people. The question is not whether one will have a lens through which to interpret Scripture, but rather which lens is the correct lens?
The reason this becomes important is that there are really only two alternatives. Either one takes the lens of a church’s confession, in which case one is entering into the collegiality of the church’s reading of Scripture, or one is inventing one’s own lens that will be on a par with the standards of the church, yet separate from it. At the very least, it could be said to be bordering on arrogance to think that one’s own lens has the same kind of authority as what the church has said.
I can hear the objection already: “You sound Roman Catholic.” On the contrary, for I assume the difference between Scripture as the norming norm, and the confessions as the normed norm. Therefore, the confessions are not infallible and may be changed (as they were when they came across the Atlantic into America in the 18th century). The problem here is that anything other than a biblicistic understanding of Scriptural understanding is often taken to be Roman Catholic. This is simply not the case. The Reformers loved the church and highly respected her opinions. They respected her opinions above their own, in fact. And this is really the point. In submitting to the confessions, we acknowledge that the church is our mother. The irony of all this is that there are some today who claim that confessionalists are not being very courteous to the church. As a matter of fact, it is the non-confessionalists who are being discourteous to the church’s opinion.
David Gadbois
greenbaggins
paigebritton
Reed Here
reformedmusings
rfwhite
Ron Henzel
Green Baggins 
Lee said,
August 14, 2009 at 10:22 am
I will go ahead and ask the obvious question. How can the Confessions be an apt summary of the doctrine in God’s word, if they are the lens through which we look at God’s word?
In other words the people who wrote the Confession probably did not use the Confession of Faith as a lens before they came up with it. And if they did doesn’t that call into question whether or not it is reflective of God’s word? And if they did not, then does not that undermine the idea that the church’s confession should be taken since the makers of the Confession themselves shook off their church’s confession?
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 14, 2009 at 11:14 am
The Reformers loved the church and highly respected her opinions. They respected her opinions above their own, in fact.
Well, the RC would respond by saying that the Reformers “highly respected the church’s opinions” provided they agreed with them. But when the church had a view that conflicted with the Reformers’ interpretation of Scripture, they would reject the church’s view, no matter how ancient.
I bring this up simply because I am dialoging with some Catholic guys on my blog, and we never seem to get past this initial point.
Sean said,
August 14, 2009 at 11:53 am
I would humpback Jason’s statement with a question:
How do you know the Reformed confession lens is the true lens and not some other lens?
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 14, 2009 at 11:56 am
Sean,
Our answer would be that the Reformed confessions contain the best encapsulation of biblical doctrine. In a word, if you subject Scripture to rigorous exegesis and interpretation, you will come to Reformed conclusions.
Bryan Cross said,
August 14, 2009 at 11:59 am
Lane,
I agree with your claim that we all use a lens. But, from a Catholic point of view, your following claim seems absolutely self-delusional:
The problem here is that anything other than a biblicistic understanding of Scriptural understanding is often taken to be Roman Catholic. This is simply not the case. The Reformers loved the church and highly respected her opinions.
You say you reject biblicism. But then you use a biblicist way of defining ‘church’, and then say “We love the church and highly respect her opinions”. Well, if ‘church’ just means those who agree with your interpretation of Scripture, with marks determined by your own interpretation (or those whose interpretation you share), then, of course it is no big surprise that you “love and highly respect” the ‘church’, because, it is not surprise that you love and highly respect your own interpretations of Scripture. Apart from the biblicist-determined ‘marks of the Church’, what the early Protestants did in the sixteenth century viz-a-viz the Catholic Church (e.g. Luther publicly burning the papal bull) is quite indistinguishable from not highly respecting the Church, even rebelling, against the Church, whether not their treatment of the Church is verbally described as loving and highly respecting the opinions of the Church, and whether or not the early Protestants had well-intentioned motives (which I generally think they did).
If the FV folks said they loved and highly respected the opinions of the Church, and defined the marks of the Church so that it included themselves, and justified their disregard of the rulings of the PCA, OPC, etc., you would be all over that, immediately. But that’s just what your claim [that I quoted above] looks like, from a Catholic point of view. So your position is, in that respect, ad hoc, accepting biblicist defining of the marks when it suits you (i.e. in the case of the early Protestants), and rejecting it when it doesn’t (i.e. viz-a-viz the FVers).
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
rfwhite said,
August 14, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Lane: would you say that the church means those who agree with your interpretations?
Richard said,
August 14, 2009 at 1:55 pm
As I am reading it at the moment and it touches on this type of issue (hermeneutics) I would suggest a read of Horton’s Covenant and Eschatology. Reading it provoked me to pick up a copy of Hans-Georg Gadamer’s Truth and Method.
St. Robert Bellarmine said,
August 14, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Jason:
How do you know the reformers interpretation is infall. ? (Infallible meaning the interpretation is cleared of theol. error.) You assume they have the right conclusions.
– Another problem,Lutherans have studied the Bible and have decided that Calvinism is a heresy. Jason, I am not trying to be a jerk, but I have heard that line before. (esp. from Greg Koukl)
-Remember the reformers are the ones that have walked away from the deposit of faith. Also, according to St. Athanasius, the council fathers did not go about finding the truth by reading their indiv. Bibles, but what was the sacred tradition that was handed down to them about the Div. of Christ. This idea is later developed by Cardinal Newman.
– Jason, later you need to read Newman.Not Perkins! Clark, come out, come out where ever you are.—-Not!!
Paige Britton said,
August 14, 2009 at 3:50 pm
If the Scriptures are the mother of the church, then the church’s confessional “lens” is ultimately responsible to the Scriptures. This means the lens is derivative, not primary; it’s a tool, made for a purpose – to summarize and instruct – and tools need sharpening and cleaning from time to time.
What the Reformers denied was that the Church was the mother of the Scriptures, which meant that they could bring the Church under the scrutiny of the Scriptures, and find her wanting.
Which begs the question, of course, of whether the lens they used to interpret the Scriptures as they critiqued the church was the right lens. But that’s Protestantism’s dangerous idea, isn’t it, that in interpreting the Bible for ourselves, we may approach a right & sufficient understanding of God’s words, if not an exhaustive one.
rfwhite said,
August 14, 2009 at 4:22 pm
As Paige suggests, it looks to me that there is an interplay of three authorities at work in Lane’s post: that of Scripture, that of the church and its officers, and that of individual conscience. How we configure these three relative to one another yields radical ecclesiastical differences.
Nathaniel Ruland said,
August 14, 2009 at 10:06 pm
This post made me think of an article Carl Trueman wrote for the Ligonier Ministries blog last year:
“…..some Christians have creeds that have been tried and tested by the church over the centuries, while others have those that their pastor made up, or that they put together themselves. Now, there is no necessary reason why the latter should be inferior to the former; but, on the basis that there is no need to reinvent the wheel, there is surely no virtue in turning our backs on those forms of sound words that have done a good job for hundreds of years in articulating aspects of the Christian faith and facilitating its transmission from place to place and generation to generation. If you want to, say, reject the Nicene Creed, you are of course free to do so; but you should at least try to replace it with a formula that will do the job just as effectively for so many people for the next 1,500 years. If you cannot do so, perhaps modesty and gratitude, rather than iconoclasm, are the appropriate responses to the ancient creed.”
I like the mention of modesty and would also add humility to the list of attitudes by which we could approach a collective understanding that has worked fairly well for the past several hundred years (by collective understanding I refer to the WCF). I hope that alongwith Jason I can claim this confession as the “best encapsulation of biblical doctrine….” without a subtle, smug elitism which tends to borrow my thinking at times. Not that its wrong to be right….just wrong to be me and right on occasion.
Thanks for the post.
Richard Zuelch said,
August 14, 2009 at 10:54 pm
In 1654, less than ten years after the Westminster Standards were finished, John Owen and some other Reformed pastors (some of whom had worked on the Standards) gathered together to take another whack, let us say, at confession-writing. I think this is interesting, in that these men obviously didn’t think that the Westminster Standards were the final definitive word on what the Bible teaches (else why would they be writing?). Confessions and catechisms can always be improved, as they are mere manmade writings and we assume infallibility and inerrancy only of the Scriptures. So, in every generation, Christians have an opportunity to improve their written understanding of what they believe. This is healthy.
Scripture as the norming norm « יהוה מלך said,
August 15, 2009 at 2:37 am
[…] the norming norm 2009 August 15 tags: Community, Scripture, Tradition by Richard Over on his blog, Lane writes correctly that “everyone has lenses of some sort when they come to Scripture. No […]
Ron Henzel said,
August 15, 2009 at 5:08 am
Bryan,
You wrote:
You wrote this primarily in response to Lane’s statements:
You even go so far as to call these words “absolutely self-delusional.” But it seems to me that at the root of your complaint lies a theological mistranslation of the word “church,” which often means something very different in Roman Catholic and Protestant usage. Contrary to your accusation that Lane is resorting to a “biblicist” definition of the word, I find that he is using it in the standard way I have come to expect in the context of this type of discussion.
As a fellow Reformed Presbyterian, I assume that by “the church” Lane was neither to the current Roman Catholic hierarchy (which seems by implication to be your working definition of “church” given your Luther analogy), nor to the cumulative pronouncements of that hierarchy, but to the historic church as a whole. More specifically, I believe that Lane was not referring to the official pronouncements or positions of the church hierarchy at any given time, but to the entire written legacy of the church, including the writings of the church fathers and medieval doctors.
If you read Calvin’s Institutes, you’ll find it riddled with citations from and references to the fathers and doctors, along with occasional references to councils and synods. When it comes to this entire corpus of material, we love and and highly respect it, even though we do not always agree with it. If you take the time to see how Calvin treats the fathers and doctors with whom he disagrees, I believe you’ll find that he is very far from defining the church as “those who agree with [his] interpretation of Scripture,” even though he can be very sharp and pointed in his disagreements with them. To smear Lane and other historic Reformed Protestants with your so-called biblicist definition of the church is to slander the entire tradition.
The only difference between historic Reformed Protestants and Roman Catholics with respect to this definition of the “church” is the way we treat the councils. As far as the fathers and doctors are concerned, Roman Catholics treat them in exactly the same manner as Reformed Protestants: they pick what suits them and reject what does not according to their creedal positions. Reformed Protestants part company with Roman Catholics by extending that same method, to the councils, only with a great deal more caution.
Sean said,
August 15, 2009 at 5:57 am
Ron Henzel.
Those fathers that are quoted in Calvin’s institutes did not define ‘church’ the same way that Calvin defined ‘church.’
In fact those fathers treated sacred Tradition and defined ‘church’ the same way that the Catholic church defines ‘church’ to this day.
So, if you are right that the issue hinges on the definition of ‘church’ perhaps we should examine the proper definition of the word ‘church?’
Like Bryan said, coming up with your own definition of ‘church’ and then submitting to it is no different than biblicism.
Mark Horne » The Amazing Spiritual and Converting Power of the WCF! said,
August 15, 2009 at 6:29 am
[…] some more about this quasi-roman-catholic theology, it occurs to me what I rank unbeliever I must seem to those blinded by […]
ReformedSinner said,
August 15, 2009 at 6:45 am
Every Church needs to have a Confession, otherwise the Church will be reduced to mere men’s opinions and theology at the end of the day is nothing more than “what I feel is right” versus the standard that rules our lives.
Now, of course the counter argument is who’s Confession is perfect? The answer is no one, but that shouldn’t prevent the Church of having a standard of Confession. Humanity doesn’t have a perfect form of government but that doesn’t mean anarchy is the answer either.
Confessions gives the Church unity. As a person that grew up in “independent” church that think the word Confession is a curse, I have seem so many arguments that can’t be resolved because at the end of the day all of us are conditioned that everyone of our opinions on Scripture “mattered”, and at the end there’s really no “right and wrong, but simply how the Spirit guides you”. No theological disagreement can be solve because there’s simply no place to appeal to a higher standard. What about the Bible you say? While, every reads them and are guided by the Spirit to say what he or she says.
Confessions give people a sense of seriousness towards theology. I sense an urgency in “independent” churches is that at the end of the day because theology is “what I think is right” and how “The spirit guides me”, therefore theology, at the end of the day, isn’t taken seriously. Afterall, when I sin I’ll explained it away, when I’m good I’ll boast myself. What will you think of the traffic laws when you can reinterpret them at will (when there’s no one and no car I can cross a red light), you will not respect the traffic law. Unfortunately a lack of a standard of Confession generally makes members have no respect to God’s laws.
I have much to say, but once again at a place like a blog I can’t articular too detailed nor say too much. Bye
Bryan Cross said,
August 15, 2009 at 7:18 am
Ron,
More specifically, I believe that Lane was not referring to the official pronouncements or positions of the church hierarchy at any given time, but to the entire written legacy of the church, including the writings of the church fathers and medieval doctors.
The problem with claiming that what was meant by “the Reformers loved the church [and] respected her opinions above their own” is only that the Reformers loved the written legacy of the individual church fathers but not the official pronouncements or positions of the church hierarchy at any given time, is that it reduces the Church to a “written legacy.” It assumes that the Church no longer even existed at the time of the Reformation. (See my article titled Ecclesial Deism.) Anyone who claims to love the Church and respect her opinions above his own, but who thumbs his nose at the Church’s councils, either doesn’t understand what the Church is, or is self-deluded.
You seem to be claiming that the Reformers did not come up with the marks in a biblicist way because their writings contain numerous references to the fathers. The essential problem with biblicism is not its low frequency of references to the fathers. We all recognize that any heretic can cherry-pick from the fathers. Filling one’s writings with references to the fathers does not ipso facto avoid biblicism.
The biblicist places his own interpretation of Scripture above that the Church. That is the essence of what Mathison calls solo scriptura. (See his “The Difference a Vowel Makes“.) The Church had defined her marks in the Nicene Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic. But the Reformers used their own interpretation of Scripture to make sola fide the sine qua non of the gospel, and used their own interpretation of Scripture to make “the gospel” a new mark of the Church. In thus making sola fide a new mark of the Church, something the fathers and councils had never done, the Reformers placed their own interpretation of Scripture above that of the Church. That’s biblicism. The Protestants thumbed their nose at the Council of Trent regarding sola fide. On what basis? Because, they stipulated (on their own presumed authority, based on their own interpretation of Scripture) that sola fide was a mark of the Church. Since the council denied sola fide, therefore it had not satisfied one of their own stipulated marks, and was ipso facto an invalid council. The lesson is that if you don’t agree with any Church council, you just define your own interpretation of Scripture as a mark of the Church, and then you can disregard that council as having been made by some apostate institution.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
johnbugay said,
August 15, 2009 at 8:57 am
#14 Bryan: … the official pronouncements or positions of the church hierarchy at any given time…
It is “absolutely self-delusional” for the Roman Catholic Church to equate itself with “the church that Christ founded” or even that “the church that Christ founded ‘subsists in’ the Roman Catholic heirarchy of today.” See my blog entry posts on the development of the papacy, here and here, for example.
rfwhite said,
August 15, 2009 at 9:02 am
Is it the case that “the lesson is that if you don’t agree with any Church council, you just define your own interpretation of Scripture as a mark of the Church, and then you can disregard that council as having been made by some apostate institution”?
Or is the lesson that Church councils have a derived authority that is accountable to the original authority of Scripture?
johnbugay said,
August 15, 2009 at 9:10 am
We all recognize that any heretic can cherry-pick from the fathers.
For you to suggest that Calvin or anyone who affirmed Sola Scriptura was “cherry-picking” is a gross exaggeration of the process.
Ron Henzel said,
August 15, 2009 at 10:34 am
Bryan,
You wrote:
This is quite unfair. By claiming reductionism here it is you, in fact, who is committing unacceptable reductionism. You are attempting to take one particular usage of the word “church” commonly found among historic Reformed Protestant writers and reduce our entire view of the church to that one usage. And yet Roman Catholics do the very same thing when they use the word “church” to refer exclusively to the church hierarchy—which in many contexts, in fact, is the words predominant referent. Are not all who have been children of God by His grace part of the “church” according to Roman Catholic doctrine? Does that mean that when Catholic theologians and ecclesiastics use the word “church” to refer specifically to the hierarchy they are reducing the church to its hierarchy? Not necessarily (even though I think a case can be made for instances of this occurring), and just as it it would be unfair of me to accuse you of reducing your entire theology of the church to its hierarchy based on that usage, so it is unfair of you to accuse us of reducing it to its “written legacy” when we use it to refer to the historic church down through the ages.
You wrote:
I’ll be happy to read your extensive article when other responsibilities are not so pressing, but once again, not only are you are being quite uncharitable in your caricature of our attitude toward the councils, but you continue to assume a different definition of the church than the one that guides our discussions. We, too, occasionally use the word “church” to refer a church hierarchy, as when we say this church or that has taken such-and-such position on a particular issue, and we are generally referring to whatever ecclesiastical body is authoritative within that denomination. But as Reformed Presbyterians we always do so this the following in mind: “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” (WCF 31.4). If you choose to deride this as “thumbing one’s nose” at the councils, it simply shows that you choose to unfairly portray our respectful attitude in the worst possible light.
You wrote:
No, I am not claiming that the Reformers and those of us who follow them avoid biblicism by our citation practices, but rather by our attitude. We do not completely write off church councils as irrelevant to our understanding of Scripture. We include them in our exegetical practice and theological reflection and accept their authority as subordinate to the Scriptures. Biblicists feel free to utterly ignore the councils, fathers, and doctors. We do not. We value what they have to say.
You wrote:
Mathison does not use the words “biblicist” or “biblicism” in his article. Nevertheless, you are equating your usage of the term with Mathison’s solo scriptura neologism. What you are describing by “biblicism” and what he is describing by solo scriptura are, however, quite different. He wrote:
The Roman Catholic church not only rejects “solo” Scriptura, but it also rejects sola Scriptura. In fact, I think it is not unfair to say that for past 500 years the Roman Catholic hierarchy has argued that sola Scriptura. is nothing more than a slippery slope to “solo” Scriptura, even though that has turned out to be far from the case among traditional Lutherans, Anglicans, and Reformed. You, on the other hand, are arguing that by our consistent application of the sola Scriptura. principle we are already practicing “solo” Scriptura, which is a bizarre charge.
You wrote:
And Reformation Christianity has continued to affirm these marks. The problem lies in verifying which church is displaying them. The Reformed Church concluded that when the Scriptures are properly preached, the sacraments properly observed, and church discipline is properly practices, there you have part of the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.” Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, has insisted submission to the pope and agreement with doctrine in keeping with the “unanimous consent of the fathers” (a fictional entity if there ever was one!) verifies one’s membership in said church.
You wrote:
Actually, that’s not what happened. They parted company with the semi-Pelagianism of the church in order to follow Augustine’s long-established teaching on grace.
You wrote:
Although sola fide had not previously received the kind of systematic treatment it got from the Reformers, it was nevertheless clearly present in and important to the church fathers and at least some of the medieval doctors. The Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529) clearly asserted that salvation is solely by grace through faith. Except for a few points, Anselm of Canterbury’s tract for the consolation of the dying, with its rejection of depending in any way on works for salvation, could have been written by Luther or Calvin (Opera, Migne, 1:686-687). Were they all biblicists, too?
You wrote:
You make it sound as though Protestant anti-aircraft gunners were waiting right outside to shoot down Catholic planes that didn’t have “sola fide” emblazoned on them as they tried to fly out of the council’s hangars. From an historical point of view, this is an extremely puerile assessment of what actually happened. It was more the other way around. It was more like Catholic heavy bombers took to the skies to drop anathemas on pre-selected targets. Let’s face it: Trent was the kick-off the Roman Catholic counter-offensive, a.k.a., the Counter Reformation.
By the time Trent convened, the debate over justification had been raging for about a quarter century. The council was convened a few years after the collapse of the efforts of reconciliation at the 1541 Diet of Regensberg which led to the Regensberg Interim. The Protestants did not need to wait and see what the Tridentine bishops would say; they already knew the general flavor and many of the specifics. It was a foregone conclusion that the council would not only reject sola fide, but that it would anathematize all who disagreed with their rejection. Prices were on the heads of Protestants all over Catholic Europe, so it’s kind of hard to feel the least bit of sympathy for the Roman Catholic hierarchy when you write:
And, of course, since conciliarism was for all practical purposes dead by the mid-16th century, the council to which you refer was merely a rubber stamp for the pope, who began by refusing to allow it to consider the moral reform of the clergy (Leo X must have smiled from his grave!) and vetoed its first statement on justification. To read Catholic church historian Paul Johnson’s account, it was like the Keystone Cops meet Darth Vader. By the mid-1560s it seems that the council’s chief benefit was that it had led to the expulsion of prostitutes from Rome and severe penalties for simony. Were it not for the founding of new religious orders, especially the Jesuits, who did not allow the inner reform of Catholicism to be left up to either the papacy or the bishops, one has to wonder whether the Counter Reformation ever would have happened.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 15, 2009 at 10:38 am
RFW,
Yes, that is the real question: “Is the authority of a church council infallible, or just derivative?”
We could answer this in one of a couple ways. On the one hand we could assume an answer in an a priori manner and bring it to bear on the discussion, or we could try to discover what the delegates to the first five ecumenical councils themselves thought about what they were declaring.
Now, although I think that in the case of the Jerusalem council those in attendance believed they were rendering an infallible verdict, I don’t think the Catholic can just jump from there and apply that to Nicaea or Chalcedon. That would be to beg the question by assuming that there is no essential difference between a council that is attended by apostles and a council that is not.
So what we need from our Catholic commenters is proof that those who attended the early councils believed the same thing about what they were doing as the delegates at Trent believed about what they were doing.
And this will not necessarily be the only factor in determining the nature of church authority, but it will be a necessary one.
Paige Britton said,
August 15, 2009 at 10:42 am
#13 RS said: “Now, of course the counter argument is who’s Confession is perfect? The answer is no one, but that shouldn’t prevent the Church of having a standard of Confession. Humanity doesn’t have a perfect form of government but that doesn’t mean anarchy is the answer either.”
And #14, Bryan said: “In thus making sola fide a new mark of the Church, something the fathers and councils had never done, the Reformers placed their own interpretation of Scripture above that of the Church. ”
I’m juxtaposing these quotes because they both highlight the problem of “whose interpretation rules the day??” Are the Reformers the bad guys who imposed their views on the text, or are they the good guys who saw what the text said and used it as a measuring rod to evaluate the RCC’s teaching and practice? How on earth do we judge between these options?
Unless we are going to be postmodernists about this and say that texts convey flexible meanings (i.e., no set meaning at all, it says what anybody wants it to say), we need to presuppose that there is stability of meaning in the texts, and that the meaning is accessible to ordinary readers. The fact that groups of thinking people can agree on a confessional statement summarizing the teaching of Scripture indicates that there is widespread recognition that the statement is really representative of the message of the texts.
The fact that there are other groups of people who disagree (in many ways!) with the aforementioned confessions can mean a number of things, ranging from the ambiguity of ancient vocabulary to unbiblical bottom-line precommitments (e.g., human autonomy, the Church as the ultimate source of doctrine, etc.). All this to say that even though there may be myriad interpretations, all interpretations are not created equal.
Is the opposite of “biblicist” “unbiblical”?
Andrew said,
August 15, 2009 at 10:46 am
Byran,
Appreciate your comments, and your site. But might not a Protestant respond this way –
a) If the western church was to blame, or partly to blame in the great schism between East and West, then Trent is not at all a catholic council, merely a regional council, or a council of part of the church (like Westminster).
b) If Luther was right, or if his errors were not serious enough to anathemize, the papacy commited schism in excommunicating him and those who agreed with him. The papacy and the RC communion is then at best a schismatic remnant of the church, and lacks the authority that catholicity brings.
Ron Henzel said,
August 15, 2009 at 11:20 am
Sean,
You wrote:
Actually, the church’s ecclesiology, including its doctrine of the sacraments, was under development throughout the ancient and medieval periods. One thread of understanding held to a distortion of remarks found in Ignatius’s Epistle to the Smyrneans (8.2) known as ubi episcopus, ibi ecclesia (“where the bishop, is there is the church”), which ultimately led to the notion that the institutional church is the Church. Calvin obviously parted company with that definition (although I’m not aware whether he ever cited Ignatius specifically). If you think you can demonstrate that all of the fathers Calvin cited, with all their diversity, held to definitions of the church that were at variance with Calvin’s, I invite you to try.
You wrote:
I’ve read the church fathers for myself, and I do believe you are mistaken.
Perhaps. Why don’t we start with Scripture?
Who says I came up with my own definition? Is observing how the word is used in Scripture and then testing my sense with linguistic and historical authorities with a willingness to bow to their wisdom “coming up with my own definition”?
Bryan Cross said,
August 15, 2009 at 11:39 am
rfwhite,
Or is the lesson that Church councils have a derived authority that is accountable to the original authority of Scripture?
Given that all people have a lens through which they interpret Scripture, claiming that all Church councils have “derived authority that is accountable to the original authority of Scripture” just means in actuality that councils only have ‘authority’ if they agree with your own interpretation of Scripture.
That’s solo scriptura, as Mathison points out in his article:
All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. The only real question is: whose interpretation? People with differing interpretations of Scripture cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve their differences. In order for the Scripture to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone. According to “solo” Scriptura, that someone is each individual, so ultimately, there are as many final authorities as there are human interpreters. This is subjectivism and relativism run amuck.
So the notion that a council has “derived authority” insofar as it matches your own interpretation of Scripture shows that the council is subordinate in ‘authority’ to the individual interpreter. It matches the well-known line: When I submit (so long as I agree), the one to whom I submit is me. The individualism hides itself from itself under the mask of being under the authority of a council.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
johnbugay said,
August 15, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Yes, that is the real question: “Is the authority of a church council infallible, or just derivative?”… or we could try to discover what the delegates to the first five ecumenical councils themselves thought about what they were declaring.
Jason — that would be a sensible thing to do. We have the records of the councils. I would point out that the council of Ephesus (431) was a disaster from many points of view. It was called without one side even being present. The bishops who were in attendance were “persuaded” to vote Cyril’s way by armed gangs of thugs. It wrongly anathematized Nestorius, causing an even greater schism than the one of 1054. It was the first to enthrone the “mother of God” language (Chalcedon even backed off of that).
Who wants to attribute “infallible” authority to something like that?
rfwhite said,
August 15, 2009 at 12:24 pm
23 Bryan Cross: thanks for stating your position so clearly. You assert “the notion that a council has ‘derived authority’ insofar as it matches your own interpretation of Scripture shows that the council is subordinate in ‘authority’ to the individual interpreter.” So am I correct in saying that for you the problem to be avoided here is individualism? If so, what is your proposal?
rfwhite said,
August 15, 2009 at 12:48 pm
23-24 Bryan Cross: Don’t get me wrong. I agree that autonomous individualism is a threat, but it is not a threat by itself: there is also the threat of coercive authoritarianism. If the churhc is indeed to safeguard the integrity of its faith and practice, it must know how these threats of individualism and authoritarianism can be effectively combated.
rfwhite said,
August 15, 2009 at 1:08 pm
23 Bryan Cross: Here is an initial take on how the threats of individualism and authoritarianism are combatted. Essentially, as you’ll see, the Spirit and His gifts help us combat these threats.
Scripture states that the Spirit of truth has been given to the church as her teacher, to dwell among Jesus’ disciples even as He did (John 14:16 18, 26). Because the one Spirit dwells in the church (1 Cor 12:12 13), all believers have received an anointing that makes each one able to understand the things of God and to discern truth from lies (1 Cor. 2:12 16; 12:1 3; 1 John 2:27; 4:1). It is Christ’s gift of the Spirit, then, makes the many one, one as a body to whose members “all the truth” is being taught by the Spirit of truth.
This oneness of the church in the Spirit stands as a rebuke to both authoritarianism and individualism. It rebukes coercive authoritarianism by reminding leaders and non-leaders to recognize that they alone do not possess the Mind of Christ; rather, the Spirit is present in all believers to teach all believers the things of God. The work of those who teach, while it is a work of boldness and authority, is nevertheless a work of persuasion with accountability to all others whom the Spirit teaches.
The oneness of the church in the Spirit also rebukes individualism. It does so to the extent that possession of the Spirit of truth by all believers makes possible a transition from merely private to truly group interpretation. Moreover, to the extent that the Spirit guides believers into “all things” true (John 14:26; 1 John 2:27; “all the truth,”John 16:13), we can and should expect that He will enable us to go beyond fundamental unity in the Spirit to greater unity in the faith (Eph 4:3, 13).
A firm recognition of the gifts given to the community tempers our temptation to exalt the individual conscience to the point of practical autonomy. For it is through the exercise of these gifts that Scripture is interpreted by consensus to apply to matters of concern to the community as well as the individual. When concrete circumstances — such as a disciplinary matter — arise in the life of the church, something like the following happens: those who are recognized as having teaching gifts bring Scripture (including the history of interpretation) to bear on the situation, those having gifts in the area of human relationships act as mediators and facilitators, and those having gifts of discernment act as judges. This process results in community confession as over against individual confession. Interestingly, this community confession results even if its final decision is to allow liberty of individual conscience on a matter of faith or practice.
St. Robert Bellarmine said,
August 15, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Jason:
I have made some keen insights at #8 above,about Church Infallibility.
Christ is still using his infall. not directly, but through his body the RCC.
Bryan Cross said,
August 15, 2009 at 1:29 pm
rfwhite,
So am I correct in saying that for you the problem to be avoided here is individualism? If so, what is your proposal?
If you want to see what’s wrong with individualism, read the section in Mathison’s book (The Shape of Sola Scriptura) on solo scriptura. He doesn’t mince words, and he’s a Protestant — an associate editor at Tabletalk. So both Catholics and Reformed Protestants agree that denying the interpretive authority of the Church is a problem; both Catholics and Reformed Protestants recognize that solo scriptura is wrong.
I agree that the Spirit preserves the unity of the Church, but not in a Montanistic conception of the operation of the Spirit (i.e. apart from matter, apart from the sacraments, apart from the Body, apart from the teaching office of the Church), at least not without miraculous signs that confirm a divine mission. I addressed that idea here, in response to Rick Philips.
In answer to your question, “what is your proposal?”, at Called to Communion, we’ll be publishing an article in a few weeks in which we argue that the only principled way of avoiding solo scriptura, is by apostolic succession.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
johnbugay said,
August 15, 2009 at 1:42 pm
the only principled way of avoiding solo scriptura, is by apostolic succession.
Which, historically is a development (and some would say a bad one) and as practiced by Rome is an offense to the Word of God.
rfwhite said,
August 15, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Bryan Cross: thanks for the bibliographic note on the essay by Keith Mathison, whom I am grateful to call a colleague and a friend. Perhaps you can help us out too by commenting on how the Roman church avoids the threat of coercive authoritarianism too.
Bryan Cross said,
August 15, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Ron,
No, I am not claiming that the Reformers and those of us who follow them avoid biblicism by our citation practices, but rather by our attitude. We do not completely write off church councils as irrelevant to our understanding of Scripture. We include them in our exegetical practice and theological reflection and accept their authority as subordinate to the Scriptures. Biblicists feel free to utterly ignore the councils, fathers, and doctors. We do not. We value what they have to say.
You are defining ‘biblicism’ as merely an attitude of disregard or disrespect for the fathers and councils, and then distancing yourself from biblicism by noting that you value the fathers and councils. That’s not what I mean by ‘biblicism’. I’m not talking about an attitude. People can rebel [sinfully] against a legitimate authority while maintaining a good and respectful *attitude*. I’m talking about a theological position and practice in which the individual makes himself the ultimate interpretive authority, whether or not he values the creeds, councils, and fathers. When he affirms doctrines condemned by the Church’s councils, and when he denies doctrines affirmed by the Church’s councils, then no matter how much he claims to ‘value’ councils (and no matter how much he claims to respect the Church’s opinions above his own), he shows by his actions that he values his own interpretation more.
Biblicism is not about whether or to what degree one values creeds or councils when interpreting Scripture; biblicism is about whether or not the Church has interpretive authority. Scott Clark once said, “all heretics quote Scripture.” But he could just as easily have said, “all sophisticated heretics quote councils, creeds and fathers.” Quoting them is easy. ‘Valuing’ them is easy. Submitting to them is something else altogether.
The reason I commented here on Lane’s post is to point out the contradiction of selecting as ‘authoritative’ only those creeds and councils that agree with one’s own interpretation of Scripture, while claiming not to have made oneself one’s own ultimate interpretive authority but to have respected the Church’s opinions above one’s own. Whether or not you use the word ‘Church’ differently at different times (and I don’t deny that you do), the contradiction I’m talking about is still a contradiction.
rfwhite,
In order to answer your question about ‘coercive authoritarianism’, I’ll need to know how you’re defining the term.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
rfwhite said,
August 15, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Bryan Cross: by the threat of coercive authoritarianism, I mean the wielding of interpretive authority without teachability or accountability.
rfwhite said,
August 15, 2009 at 3:13 pm
There are authorities that God has appointed over the individual to which s/he owes submission.
Question: does the duty of submission carry with it an implicit understanding that the individual must obey conscience if a delegated authority’s call for obedience conflicts with the original authority, the revealed will of God?
Ron Henzel said,
August 15, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Bryan,
You wrote:
You are distorting my clear meaning, which is easily ascertainable from the context of what I wrote. Far from defining “biblicism” as “merely” an attitude, I described the practical theological outcome of that attitude in my next two sentences (which you ignored):
We give the church councils great weight in our interpretive decisions, but we do not hold them to be infallible. You wrote:
You honestly believe that? So, people can rebel against God while maintaining “a good and respectful attitude” toward Him? How does that work?
I think you’re simply trying to find grounds to justify the harshest possible description of the position you oppose.
You wrote:
And, of course, you have thus far failed to actually demonstrate that Reformation Christians actually make themselves the ultimate interpretive authorities of Scripture. You have simply repeatedly asserted it.
You seem to be assuming here that there are only two possible options: either bow to the ultimate authority of the Roman Catholic church to interpret Scripture, or make one’s self that ultimate authority. I doubt Eastern Orthodox Christians would be impressed. But in light of what the church fathers and medieval doctors have themselves written about Scripture, this position is ludicrous. The Protestant Reformers did not invent sola Scriptura. Augustine affirmed it when he wrote to Jerome:
Cyril of Jerusalem affirmed it when he wrote:
And Thomas Aquinas affirms sola Scriptura when he quotes Augustine:
It seems from these citations that not only is sola Scriptura part of the heritage of the early and medieval church, but so also is the Protestant doctrine of the perspicacity of Scripture. Not only did Augustine, Cyril, Aquinas and others bow to the authority of Scripture above all else, but they also affirmed that Scripture is clear enough to be understood without another authority, especially a highly coercive one like the medieval church, forcing its interpretations on the reader and requiring implicit faith (translate: checking one’s brain at the door) when those interpretations did not square with the biblical text.
You wrote:
Your complaint about Reformation Christians rejecting “the Church’s councils” is a red herring. The only church council to which we uniformly take major exception is the one that was specifically designed by the papacy to be impossible for us to accept: the Council of Trent.
Vern Crisler said,
August 15, 2009 at 5:15 pm
I think the above discussion illustrates what happens when Protestants give up the Berean principle of interpretive authority (individualism) and place it in the hands of institutions (collectivism). The papists will mock you all the way down the line. And to start out with a self-stultifying Wittgensteinian principle –as Lane does — doesn’t help much either.
Vern
rfwhite said,
August 15, 2009 at 5:26 pm
How is it that individual interpretations become a group interpretation?
Ron Henzel said,
August 15, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Bryan,
Regarding the final sentence of my previous comment:
I should have also noted that Trent was not the last time that the papacy had Protestants in its cross-hairs, so I need to add the FIrst Vatican Council (1869-1870), which defined and declared the doctrine of papal infallibility. Vatican II, in the meantime, turned out to be a pleasant little exercise in maintaining the status quo with respect to Protestantism while using nicer language.
Bryan Cross said,
August 15, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Ron,
There are so many places showing that Aquinas never supported sola scriptura, it is hard to know where to start. Here’s Aquinas on the last day of his life, when the Sacred Viaticum was brought into the room where he lay dying:
“If in this world there be any knowledge of this sacrament stronger than that of faith, I wish now to use it in affirming that I firmly believe and know as certain that Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, Son of God and Son of the Virgin Mary, is in this Sacrament.”
Then he added:
“I receive Thee, the price of my redemption, for Whose love I have watched, studied, and laboured. Thee have I preached; Thee have I taught. Never have I said anything against Thee: if anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written anything erroneous concerning this sacrament or other matters, I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I now pass from this life.”
The reason why Aquinas says that last line, and Protestants don’t, is precisely because for Protestants, the individual, not the Church, is the highest interpretive authority. No one who would say that last line would ever burn the Papal Bull, as Luther did, or rail against the Church, as Calvin did. It is one thing to seek reform; it is another to rebel against ecclesial authority. The denial of the Church’s ultimate interpretive authority is at the heart of what Protestantism is, because rejecting the Church’s interpretive authority is the basis for Protestantism’s existence. That’s what sola scriptura is, the denial of the Church’s interpretive authority; you submit only when/if you agree with or approve her interpretation. But that’s not what Aquinas believed. And that’s why he never supported sola scriptura.
You claim that I have “failed to actually demonstrate that Reformation Christians actually make themselves the ultimate interpretive authorities of Scripture.”
To which interpretive authority do you submit your interpretation of Scripture, and on what basis does this entity have interpretive authority?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
johnbugay said,
August 15, 2009 at 7:02 pm
The reason why Aquinas says that last line, …
Yeah, well Aquinas believed lots of forgeries were real too. Consider how much of that factored into his devotion to “the Holy Roman Church.”
TurretinFan said,
August 15, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Mr Cross wrote: “The lesson is that if you don’t agree with any Church council, you just define your own interpretation of Scripture as a mark of the Church, and then you can disregard that council as having been made by some apostate institution.”
One of the many problems with his point of view, however, is that the Reformers were insisting on Scripture being the way to discern the true church before Trent. Archbishop Cranmer (martyred 21 March 1556), for example, was one such person. Amongst his works one finds the following statement: “Therefore he that will know which is the true Church of Christ, whereby shall he know it, but only by the Scriptures.”
Considering how late in the Reformation Trent was called, it is anachronistic at best to suppose that the Reformers’ views of the marks of the true church were a reaction to Trent.
-TurretinFan
Sean said,
August 15, 2009 at 8:21 pm
John,
…Chalcedon “backed off of the Mother of God language.”
Where do you get this stuff?
The Creed of the Council of Chalcedon explicitly calls Mary the “Mother of God.”
According to this understanding of this unmixed union, we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of God; because God the Word was incarnate and became Man, and from this conception he united the temple taken from her with himself.
Chalcedon Session II
An ecumenical council and one in which Catholics submit to completely.
St. Robert Bellarmine said,
August 15, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Mr. Ron Henzel:
Could you read my #8 entry and comment. Again, if the doctrine of Sol. Scrip. is found in the Bible,please tell me where?
St. Robert Bellarmine said,
August 15, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Bryan Cross:
I commend your ability to defend our holy Church. Just a thought– maybe you can explaine to the Calvinists that Christ works through secondary causes and that secondary cause is his Holy Catholic Church.
rfwhite said,
August 15, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Clarification: do secondary causes have original or derived authority?
Bryan Cross said,
August 15, 2009 at 10:27 pm
rfwhite,
by the threat of coercive authoritarianism, I mean the wielding of interpretive authority without teachability or accountability.
You’ve asked [at least] two very good questions here. One of them has to do with conscience. (Does the duty of submission carry with it an implicit understanding that the individual must obey conscience if a delegated authority’s call for obedience conflicts with the original authority, the revealed will of God?) The other is this one, regarding ‘coercive authoritarianism’. (How does the Catholic Church avoid the threat of coercive authoritarianism). They are both good questions because they raise fundamental concerns from the Protestant point of view, about possible implications of the Catholic position.
Regarding the conscience question, according to the Catholic Church an individual must never go against his conscience. But, one also has a duty to inform one’s conscience. Part of informing one’s conscience is determining the rightful ecclesial authority and its basis, and what dogmas have been taught definitively by the Church. If a member of the clergy asked you to do something that went against your conscience, you should not do it so long as it is in conflict with your conscience. But you have an obligation to determine whether your conscience is uninformed, or whether what the person is asking you to do is contrary to the teaching of the Church. If what the person is asking you to do is contrary to the teaching of the Church, then you must not do it. But if you discover that your conscience is uninformed, then you must conform your conscience to the mind of the Church. The Church teaches that by the promise of Jesus, whenever she teaches definitively on a matter of faith or morals as binding on all the faithful, her teaching will be an authentic unfolding of the revelation of Jesus Christ.
The other question you raise is this: How does the Catholic Church avoid the threat of coercive authoritarianism, i.e. the wielding of interpretive authority without teachability or accountability? But this raises an additional question. To whom would you wish to make the teaching office of the Church accountable? Your very question presumes a democratic way of thinking, as though the Church is equivalent to a merely human institution. The Church is a divine institution, established by Jesus Christ as His Mystical Body. There is no higher interpretive authority on earth than the Magisterium of the Church. So the idea of subjecting the Church to something else falsely presumes that there is something else on earth that has greater interpretive authority than the Church. It would be like asking the first generation of Christians how they avoided the threat of the Apostles wielding teaching and interpretive authority without teachability or accountability. The Christian response would be: “You don’t understand the nature of the authority they have been given.” And the same response is due to those who seek to subject the interpretive authority of the Apostles’ successors, the bishops, to some other interpretive authority in order to hold the Magisterium accountable.
To whom will this other interpretive authority be accountable? And to whom will that interpretive authority be accountable? You see the potential infinite regress this sets up. Therefore, a person who wants the Magisterium to be accountable to some other body, can only be satisfied if that body is either himself or those whom he approves. Otherwise his dissatisfaction with the lack of accountability necessarily remains. Hence the person who requires that the Magisterium be accountable to some other body is in actuality requiring that it be accountable (directly or indirectly) to himself. And that again, is another way of showing that the requirement is in essence a denial of his own need for a Magisterium.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 16, 2009 at 12:32 am
Bryan,
When you have the time, I’d be interested to hear your reply to the citations from Augustine and Cyril that Ron posted in #39.
JJS
johnbugay said,
August 16, 2009 at 1:12 am
Sean — it is the difference between “mater Theou” and “theotokos.” Check the original languages.
Andrew said,
August 16, 2009 at 1:54 am
Byran,
I can see the attraction and force of what you are arguing. There are two problems that I stuggle with:
a) dealing with Eastern orthodoxy. There is a body as old as you wish, with apostolic succession etc., and all the claims to catholicity you might want other than papal authority. For the RC posistion to work one has to show, as a matter of historical record, that the schism between east and West was all of the East’s doing. For if it is posible that the West also committed schism, then the Reformation was a split in an already divided church, which could not claim exhaustive catholicity.
b) the fact the the Papacy effected the division at the time of the Reformation – i.e the reformers did not leave, but were put out as they tried to reform the church. If this was an unfair excommunication, then it was the papacy that committed schism and forfeited all claims to ‘catholicity’. So the discussion becomes one of substance – one must show that the actual doctrines of the reformation were worthy of excommunication.
Do you understand where I am coming from?
johnbugay said,
August 16, 2009 at 2:36 am
Bryan Cross: Speaking of infinite regress …
From here.
johnbugay said,
August 16, 2009 at 2:41 am
Andrew: For the RC posistion to work one has to show, as a matter of historical record, that the schism between east and West was all of the East’s doing.
You must also consider the real “Great Schism” of the churches of Asia, brought on by the council of Ephesus. Roman Catholics conveniently forget this.
Ron Henzel said,
August 16, 2009 at 3:08 am
Bryan,
Regarding your comment 43: it is fascinating the way you pass right over Augustine and Cyril in order to make your point about Aquinas. I see it did not escape the notice of others here.
It is also fascinating the way you characterize evidence that Aquinas compromised on sola Scriptura as proof that he “never supported it.” This is a non sequitir of the first magnitude.
The tragic fact is that, as I have shown, entombed within Aquinas’s Summa Theologica is a very clear testimony to what was by his time a much-neglected and compromised sola Scriptura doctrine, one that he himself helped to compromise in 2,2, Q.1.Art.10 of his work. This does not diminish the fact that he calls the Scriptures the only “incontrovertible proof” for sacred doctrine, and none of this should be read without taking into consideration that Aquinas lived in the dark days of Gregory IX’s and Innocent IV’s dreaded Inquisition, which was carried out by his own Dominican order and came complete with papal-sanctioned torture at no extra charge.
Against this backdrop of intimidation and the need to provide an apologetic for his church and his order, Aquinas capitulated, so that while he held theoretically to the ultimate authority of Scripture, “…in reality, side by side with the auctoritas scripturae, and above it, stands the sola auctoriatas summi pontificis,” (Reinhold Seeberg, Text-Book of the History of Doctrines, Charles E. Hay, trans., [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, reprinted 1978], 2:102).
Aquinas lived in the day when papal power was reaching its zenith, and struggled mightily not only to harmonize Scripture with Aristotle, but to harmonize it with the ecclesiastical reality of his day. We see this in an issue which is equally foudational alongside Scripture’s authority, i.e., Scripture’s clarity.
The only reason a normally intelligent might truly need some kind of authority to interpret Scripture is because Scripture is somehow inherently unclear. This, in fact, was a chief argument employed by Roman Catholic authorities even prior to the Reformation on those occasions when it outlawed Bible translations, but it would have not been tolerated by the church fathers.
Chrysostom wrote, “All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are plain” (“Homilies on Thessalonians,” in Schaff, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st series [Grand Rapids: WIlliam B. Eerdmans, 1988], 13:388). And, of course, this is a standard affirmation in Reformation Christianity.
So, by the 16th century we had an established tradition of teaching within the historic church of sola Scriptura, which made Scripture the ultimate authority over doctrine and included a high view of the perspicuity of Scripture, and we also had a strong tradition of salvation by grace alone through faith alone apart from human merit. But we also had a papal throne occupied by warriors and party-boys who majored in fathering illegitimate children while forcing celibacy on a priesthood riddled with illiteracy—a throne eventually occupied by a certain member of the Medici family who made a deal with Albrecht of Mainz to open a fictitious treasury of merits and send Johann Tetzel round to sell salvaltion to the unwitting masses of Europe so that everyone who was anyone could have all the glory they wanted for present and future generations to admire.
But gee, when I put it that way, of course it makes 16th century papacy appear corrupt, stupid, and heretical…
Richard said,
August 16, 2009 at 3:28 am
Jason: Re #51 – Whilst I’m not RCC I certainly don’t see the quote from St. Augustine to be teaching Sola Scriptura however, as an aside, this quote is somewhat problematic in that for Augustine “the canonical books of Scripture” included far more than those a Presbyterian would count as canonical. Nor do I read Cyril of Jerusalem’s statment as affirming Sola Scriptura, now both quotes could be interpreted as teaching it but that is another issue. In his book The Meaning of Tradition Yves Congar writes,
Further H. U. von Balthasar writes in “The Word, Scripture and Tradition” in Explorations in Theology, vol. 1:
The above two quotes demonstrates IMO that Catholic writers can come quite close to sounding very similar to Sola Scriptura whilst at the same time rejecting it, hence just because those statements St. Augustine and Cyril sound like they could affirm Sola Scriptura in that they affirm the primacy of Scripture over Tradition nonetheless this is standard Catholic teaching, cf. the works of Ratzinger.
BTW, I’ve preordered your newest book and I’m looking forward to it!
Andrew said,
August 16, 2009 at 3:32 am
Byran,
One other point. You are holding up the chuch as an interpretative authority (with which I have a lot of sympathy), but (see Mattison) the RC posisition sees the church as an additional grounds of revelation. No?
Surely, no one would honestly maintain that the Scriptures actually taught distinctive Roman doctrine (papacy, role of Mary, etc.) . At best we can show these things are consistent with Scripture, but no sane reader could suppose that Scripture was an authority for such things.
Ron Henzel said,
August 16, 2009 at 3:43 am
Bryan wrote in comment 50:
So, once we’re all informed about what the Roman Catholic church teaches, what else can we do but agree with it? Thus the Roman Catholic church avoids coercive authoritarianism by requiring people to submit to its authority. But they need our help, so let’s just compromise and say they’re right! It’s all seems so simple now…
Richard said,
August 16, 2009 at 3:51 am
Andrew, FWIW it seems to me that for Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) revelation takes place in Christ and the Church, being the body of Christ is a locus of revelation.
johnbugay said,
August 16, 2009 at 4:16 am
Richard — Augustine worked to formalize the Canon of Scripture at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). He held to the same NT that we do, and only omitted Lamentations from his list of OT books. How is it that you say that “his canon included far more than those a Presbyterian would count as canonical”?
Paige Britton said,
August 16, 2009 at 5:41 am
#49, Dr. White wrote:
“Clarification: do secondary causes have original or derived authority?”
#43 Bryan Cross wrote:
“You claim that I have “failed to actually demonstrate that Reformation Christians actually make themselves the ultimate interpretive authorities of Scripture.”
To which interpretive authority do you submit your interpretation of Scripture, and on what basis does this entity have interpretive authority?”
My thought:
So Protestants claim that their interpretation is derivative, that it comes from Scripture, which is their ultimate authority. But if any reading of Scripture is already an interpretation (on top of the interpretation of translation), it appears (to some) as if authority rests in the reader. I have to think I’ve heard this argument before, and it’s just as absurd in this setting. If God communicated through writing, and writing by its very nature can’t be authoritative, bearing a stable meaning, then the Bible is worthless (or at best a manual of suggestions) and we should all become Roman Catholics.
How do we know that a [written] papal bull or pronouncement is authoritative, if our reading of it is just an interpretation?
Sean said,
August 16, 2009 at 5:52 am
Ron.
Earlier somebody said…”Anybody can cherry pick from the church fathers.”
Neither Augustine nor Cyril were sola scripturist. A rightly held high view of scripture does not make one a sola scripturist.
“But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things.”
Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2 (A.D. 397).
“But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church.”
Augustine, On the Trinity, 4,6:10 (A.D. 416).
Augustine’s quote is clearly not about the tradition and authority of the church but specifically about ‘other letters’ which were thought by some to be canonical.
Cyril was not sola scripturist either.
“But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures….Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart.”
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12 (A.D. 350).
Here is St. Cyril’s Catholic understanding of the rule of faith. Elsewhere, St. Cyril points to the Church not to Scripture for the definition of the canon: “Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testaments, and what those of the New” (Catechetical Lectures ,4:33).
If Cyril DID teach sola scriptura than ya’ll have a problem. Because Cyril’s
Catechetical Lectures are filled with his forceful teachings on
the infallible teaching office of the Catholic Church (18:23), the
Mass as a sacrifice (23:6-8), the concept of purgatory and the
efficacy of expiatory prayers for the dead (23:10), the Real
Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (19:7; 21:3; 22:1-9), the
theology of sacraments (1:3), the intercession of the saints
(23:9), holy orders (23:2), the importance of frequent Communion
(23:23), baptismal regeneration (1:1-3; 3:10-12; 21:3-4), indeed a
staggering array of specifically “Catholic” doctrines.
Sean said,
August 16, 2009 at 6:03 am
Ron,
Your assertion that Aquinas wasn’t after all a sola scripturist because of ‘Papal power’ or something rather is laughable. Sorry. (And this after trying to get everybody to think that he taught sola scriptura.)
Whenever I see a non Catholic try to show that the church fathers were all good sola scripturists I see the same three or four isolated quotes dragged out and propped up. This attempt is inherently anachronistic because it purposefully isolates the texts and ignores other more clearer texts from the same fathers about scripture and authority.
PS. Chrysostom was no sola scripturist either.
” ‘So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.’ Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther.” John Chrysostom, Homily on 2nd Thessalonians, 4:2 (A.D. 404).
“Do not hold aloof from the Church; for nothing is stronger than the Church. The Church is thy hope, thy salvation, thy refuge. It is higher than the heaven, it is wider than the earth. It never waxes old, but is always in full vigour. Wherefore as significant of its solidity and stability Holy Scripture calls it a mountain: or of its purity a virgin, or of its magnificence a queen; or of its relationship to God a daughter; and to express its productiveness it calls her barren who has borne seven…”
Chrysostom, Eutropius, 2:6 (A.D. 399).
“It is an easier thing for the sun to be quenched, than for the church to be made invisible.”
John Chrysostom, In illud: vidi Dom. (ante A.D. 407).
Sean said,
August 16, 2009 at 6:08 am
Lastly,
This article demonstrates beyond a shadow of any doubt that Aquinas was not a sola scripturist.
Actually, I had never even heard it claimed that he was prior to Ron. Next we’re going to see a quote from our Holy Father Pope Benedict about the scriptures propped up and be told that he too is in fact a proponent of sola scriptura.
Richard said,
August 16, 2009 at 6:32 am
John: As I understand it St. Augustine accepted the deuterocanonical books as canonical in his City of God. Augustine’s Old Testament canon (393 C.E.) comprised of:
In On Christian Doctrine he writes:
rfwhite said,
August 16, 2009 at 7:29 am
Bryan Cross: thanks for commending my questions. Ordinarily, I find it more constructive not to presume anything about another’s position and his argumentation on key questions before agreeing or disagreeing with him. Thus, my questions. As time permits, I’ll ask more questions and/or discuss your answers.
Sean said,
August 16, 2009 at 11:28 am
John Bugay,
Sean — it is the difference between “mater Theou” and “theotokos.” Check the original languages.
The Council of Chalcedon explicitly calls Mary “theotokos.”. Something that Nestorius would not do which is why he was a heretic. Nestorius, in fact, preached sermons against the title of “theotokos” therefore it is very clear that he was not orthodox.
See here.
Council of Chalcedon contra Nestorius.
rfwhite said,
August 16, 2009 at 12:06 pm
50 Bryan Cross: I appreciate your analysis of very much. I had to smile when you interpreted my concerns about conscience and authoritarianism as coming “from the Protestant point of view, about possible implications of the Catholic position.” Yes, that is our context, but I smiled because for me these questions arose almost 20 years ago in a Protestant church about the implications of a particular Protestant theory of church government. These issues of authoritarianism and individualism are alive and well within various ecclesial boundaries and not just between or across those boundaries. I submit that if any ecclesial community is to get beyond the stalemate of finding themselves in an uneasy “social compact,” where everyone “goes along to get along,” it must among other things come to terms with their identity and operations as a community whose task is to confess the truth in word and deed, and who to that end must define and defend its consensus on matters of faith and practice.
Your comments on the requirement that one’s conscience be rightly informed are well taken, though your wording made me think that there was room for elaboration. Two items caught my eye for brief clarification.
First, you refer to “part of informing one’s conscience” and this expression made me wonder what the other part(s) of informing one’s conscience were. You refer to being informed about the rightful ecclesial authority and its basis and about church dogmas. Are there any other parts to informing one’s conscience?
Second, you refer to “the promise of Jesus” by which the Church’s teaching is certified as “an authentic unfolding of the revelation of Jesus Christ.” Could you tell us what promise of Jesus you have in mind?
I have some other thoughts too, but I’ll save them for now.
rfwhite said,
August 16, 2009 at 12:10 pm
69, line 1: Sorry for the typo — Bryan Cross: I appreciate your analysis of conscience and authoritarianism very much.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 16, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Someone suggested that the Roman Catholic Magisterium, as an infallible interpretive authority (with respect to the written word of God), raises the spectre of an infinite hermeneutical regress. I want to briefly address that and to talk on a bit about the nature of ecclesial teaching.
The argument to infinite regress is of the reductio sort and goes like this: Scripture must supposedly be interpreted for folks by Magisterium, but then someone must interpret the Magisterium’s interpretation of Scripture, and then someone must interpret that interpretation, and so, ad infinitum.
In fact, we find many cases in which the Magisterium has issued texts explaining and clarifying previous Magisterial teaching–which was also set forth in texts, which were supposed to address some matter of doctrine, morals or discipline not already made sufficiently clear (to some) in previous texts (sacred or ecclesial)!
However, such Magisterial activity is not predicated upon a blanket assumption of the inherent unintelligibility of texts. If the thesis of the inherent unintelligibility of texts were true, then not only Magisterial documents but every form of communication involving texts (written or spoken), including this post and comment thread, would involve us in an infinite regress of interpretations (i.e., no discoverable meaning).
So, to take up the Protestant argument along another line: If texts can be read and understood (and they can!), and if individuals must do the reading and understanding (and they must!), why is that individuals cannot just read and understand biblical texts for themselves?
Well, it is a fact that individuals can read and understand biblical texts for themselves. Many of us do a bit of that daily, even (in some cases) by way of earning a living. Of course, most of us are also taught from Sacred Scripture, by a teacher, who is not our self.
The interpretive authority of the Magisterium is not predicated upon the inherent unintelligibility of the Word of God. It is predicated upon the perpetual, ecclesiastical office of teaching.
A teacher teaches. If the student misunderstands, the teacher teaches some more. And so on. This is very far from a case of infinite hermeneutical regress. Such activity does presuppose a living teacher.
Catholics believe that the teaching of the Church is informed by at least three factors: (1) the necessity of such teaching, (2) the unity of the Church, and (3) the identity of the Church.
The Church, qua Church, is given to teach; i.e., it pertains to her essence to expound upon the Word of God so that all her members may be built up in faith. The teaching of the Church, which is its interpretation of the Word of God, is in some way necessary, else she would not be given this power and mandate.
The Church, being one, cannot admit, as being taught by the Church per se, contradictory interpretations of the Word of God. Church teaching is one in substance, else her teaching would cancel itself out and become void, which is contrary to its nature and necessity.
The Church, being the Body of Christ, knows the Word of God, the substance of which is Christ himself, the way that the spirit of a man knows the things pertaining to the man. Therefore, the Church’s interpretation of the Bible is more open and obedient to the Word of God than any other possible interpretation this side of Heaven.
The Church’s interpretation of the Word of God, while incorporating in an integral way both scholarship and the spiritual gifts and prophetic utterances vouchsafed to some within the Church, is not reducible to these means of knowing. Rather, the Church, qua Church, knows the substance of divine revelation in an intuitive way, and is able to express that substance, in her role as teacher, without explicit or necessary recourse to the same means whereby the scholar expresses his or her conclusions.
The scholar speaks on his own individual authority, authority acquired by work. The Church speaks with the corporate authority of the mystical Body, authority acquired by grace. This authority is based upon divine election, impelled by dominical mandate, and empowered by spiritual power.
The Church’s authority is interpretive authority. It is authority not identical to the Word of God, nor to the word of man, but to the word of the Body of Christ, which has the Mind of Christ, whose Head is Christ.
This interpretive authority is not contrary to Sacred Scripture, because the same Spirit animates both Church and Scripture, and because the same Christ is both the Head of the Church, which is his Body, and the substance of Sacred Scripture, which speaks concerning him.
The Church’s interpretive authority is not superfluous with respect to Scripture, because it pertains to Scripture to be read and interpreted, and that by some on behalf of others; i.e., the Scriptures not only teach, they are to be taught.
The Church’s interpretive authority is not superfluous with respect to the interpretive authority of scholars and spiritual individuals, for the Church, qua Church, is not related to the Word of God in the same way that individuals in the Church are related to the Word; hence, the Church, corporately (organically), has a unique (and epistemically superior) insight into the things of God.
If the Church’s teaching office is as described above, then it stands to reason that every individual who wishes to know the Word of God should submit his own interpretation of the Word to the interpretation of the Church. The Church’s way of knowing Scripture does not exclude rational exegesis, but it is superior to it. What Bryan Cross wrote earlier about the duty of forming one’s conscience should apply here, especially for Bible scholars, and even more especially for those who presume to teach others (in an ecclesial context).
I suppose that the degree of submission of self to Church depends upon the nature of the Church’s knowing with respect to the Word of God. Is it such as to exclude error in her definitive teaching? That is nub of the matter. The Reformed Christians holds back from full submission to the Church’s teaching due to his estimation of her potential for error. All ecclesial teaching is more or less probable, never infallible. The Catholic Christian cannot, on pain of deadly sin, thus withold his allegiance to the Body of Christ.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 16, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Andrew,
Regarding things like this:
The Church’s interpretive authority is not superfluous with respect to the interpretive authority of scholars and spiritual individuals, for the Church, qua Church, is not related to the Word of God in the same way that individuals in the Church are related to the Word; hence, the Church, corporately (organically), has a unique (and epistemically superior) insight into the things of God.
If you remember your days as a Protestant, then you must remember what a power-play this sounds like. If all esle fails and the Reformed opponent demonstrates, say, that dikaioo really is a forensic verb meaning “to acquit,” and not a transformative verb meaning something else, the answer given is that God’s Word should not be interpreted using the lexica of Jews or German pagan scholars, but the Church tells us what dikaioo means (even if what they say it means isn’t really what it means).
So there’s no way to move forward when arguing with a person who takes your view, since even our lingustic scholarship, or our historians who deny the papacy and apostolic succession (or yours who do) are, at the end of the day, dismissed as being unable to interpret anything correctly since they’re not bishops who enjoy the very apostolic succession that they believe is historically false.
Can you see the frustration?
Paige Britton said,
August 16, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Andrew,
Thanks for clarifying to some extent that texts are not unintelligible in the RC view. I think (if I am interpreting your post correctly) that the conclusion is that biblical texts are intelligible to ordinary readers until one thinks they say something other than the Magisterium has decided, at which point one must submit to the teaching of the teachers of the church. I guess I am too much a product of Protestant thought to ever wish to give up the good debate.
Here’s a point that maybe bears some unpacking and probing:
Andrew writes, “The Church, being one, cannot admit, as being taught by the Church per se, contradictory interpretations of the Word of God. Church teaching is one in substance, else her teaching would cancel itself out and become void, which is contrary to its nature and necessity.”
I have been given to understand that Peter Abelard’s “Sic et Non” was in some respects a statement about the contradictory interpretations given by the Church, so that to say “The Church says such-and-such” begs the question of which era / spokesperson is meant by “the Church.” Which would call into question the unity of teaching spoken of by Andrew and others. I’ll bet Ron knows more: can you or anybody else fill out this bit of history?
Andrew Preslar said,
August 16, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Jason,
I can see the frustration, but it is unnecessary for three reasons:
(1) It may be that the Church, as the Body of Christ, really does have such privileged access to the meaning of the Word. In that case, the response should not be frustration but something else.
(2) It may be that the Church is thus related to the Word, but that this relation, while involving epistemic advantages, does not necessarily involve the gift of ecclesial infallibility. To establish that (which the Catholic wants to do) might require further theological work.
(3) A Catholic believes that the Church is thus situated to the Word, and that this situation involves infallibility, which motivates the assent of faith with regards to definitive ecclesial teaching. We think that we have some decent reasons for such faith, but we are open to be challenged on that account.
After all, as I wrote, the Church’s teaching makes use of scientific exegesis and is open to private, mystical experiences, while not being limited to these ways of apprehending the meaning of the Word of God. Thus, we engage in rational exegesis with aplomb, and are open to correction (as individual interpreters) on those grounds.
Here is how that might work with respect to the teaching of the Church: Lets say I make an exegetical argument in support of the Church’s teaching on justification (that it essentially involves a present, inward transformation from sin to righteousness) based upon Paul’s use of dikaioi katastathesontai in Romans 5:19. Someone responds by pointing out that the verb is future passive, whereas the Roman doctrine of justification also posits a present righteousness through the infusion of grace. And let’s say that my interlocutor convinces me of his case with respect to Romans 5:19. Should I still believe the Catholic teaching? Of course I should. What I should no longer hold is my opinion that Romans 5:19 demonstrates one particular aspect of that teaching (present, inherent righteousness by grace).
A more serious case would be where my interlocutor overthrows each of my arguments that a particular passage of Scripture does not contradict a definitive teaching of the Church.
In the former case (Rom 5:19), I would be in a similar situation to a theist who has been exposed for using a bunch of fallacious arguments in support of his faith in God. I might be disappointed to learn that my arguments for faith were no good, but I would not necessarily be compelled to give up my belief for sake of conscience / intellectual honesty. In the latter case (charge of contradiction) I would be in the same situation as the theist who has been presented with an unanswerable (for him) anti-theistic argument (say, from the existence of evil).
However, even if someone could knock out all of my reasons for faith in some Church teaching, or present an unanswerable argument to the end that Church teaching is false, I could still hold to that teaching by faith, although honesty would compel me to admit that I have no reasons for my belief.
Having no reasons for faith is not, of course, the same thing as there being no reasons. Of course, if I looked and looked, and could still find no good reasons for faith, the effect could be an intellectual crisis whose outcome, in keeping with the demands of conscience,intellectual coherence, etc., might be unbelief.
My purpose in the previous comment was not to make a power play on behalf of the truth of Catholic teaching on some issue. That would be futile. I was actually trying to articulate the reasons why Catholics believe the Church’s testimony concerning the Word. This involved saying something about the nature of the Church, from which, in my opinion, certain epistemological considerations follow.
The way to move forward would be to engage my claims about the nature of the Church, whether she is such-and-so, and whether that implies what I think it does about her relation to the Word.
Finally, where did you get the idea that I was implying that your scholars, or anybody’s scholars for that matter, are “unable to interpret anything correctly”? I explicitly wrote that “it is a fact that individuals can read and interpret biblical texts for themselves.” I thought that context showed that I meant “interpret correctly.” I have a high opinion of critical exegesis, but I do not think that the Church’s apprehension of the Word of God (from which her teaching proceeds) is reducible to this mode of knowledge.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 16, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Paige,
Good stuff. The RCC has several criteria for discerning when and where the Church, as Church, has spoken its mind. Some instances are more definite, others less so. The dogmatic decrees of the Ecumenical Councils and the ex cathedra teachings of the Popes are, of course, prime examples, and easiest to identify (especially the Councils). The consensus of the Fathers would be another criterion for definitive ecclesial teaching. This does not mean that the Fathers don’t contradict one another (and themselves) at points–they clearly do. Rather, the consensus patrum is discerned where there is virtual unanimity among the Fathers on a matter of doctrine or morals, whatever their disagreements might have been on other matters. In this way, Rome certainly does not pick and choose among the Fathers. The RCC is bound to hold that which has been held by the consent of the Fathers. Protestants are free to reject anything patristic, even if there is a consensus.
Of course, there is the further question of who counts as a Church Father. But I am out of breath. (So to “speak”)
rfwhite said,
August 16, 2009 at 6:54 pm
50 Bryan Cross: to return to your comments … You ask, “To whom would you wish to make the teaching office of the Church accountable? Your very question presumes a democratic way of thinking, as though the Church is equivalent to a merely human institution.” I answer: No, this question does not presume a democratic way of thinking. It presumes the existence of an authority that bears a relationship of “self existent” or “original” authority to the Church and to the individual.
rfwhite said,
August 16, 2009 at 7:07 pm
71 Andrew Preslar: I agree substantially with your claim that “the degree of submission of self to Church depends upon the nature of the Church’s knowing with respect to the Word of God. Is it such as to exclude error in her definitive teaching? That is nub of the matter.” In other words, what is the locus of infallibility? Shall we find it in the living voice of the apostolate? or elsewhere?
Zrim said,
August 16, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Bryan,
Between this discussion and others elsewhere, there are still a couple of things I have never quite understood from your point of view. First, what is to be gained by simply collapsing the Protestant (sola) and Anabaptist (solo) views together as if there is absolutely no distinction between them? I get that neither are Catholic, but it seems to me you can acknowledge these differences and still keep your Catholic conclusions about the inferiority of both the Protestant and Anabaptist posture (and superiority of the Catholic).
Second, you regularly accuse Protestants of simply following a tradition with which we agree. I’m not clear on what exactly the problem is with this, especially since Catholics do the same thing.
Curate said,
August 17, 2009 at 12:07 am
“All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture.”
What about scripture’s own interpretation? The biblical writers all explain their meaning, often over and over. Paul is the best interpreter of Paul, and he does indeed make his meaning plain with many explanations.
Therefore there is in fact, not in theory, an appeal to scripture that is pure, not another’s interpretation.
The statement quoted above assumes that it is impossible to have a pure reading of the scripture without an extra-biblical interpreter, which is classical Trent. The historical Protestant position is that the biblical authors are their own interpreters.
Curate said,
August 17, 2009 at 12:13 am
Cont. 79. The Papalist poition is that the Bible is so obscure, difficult, and incomplete, (hence the need for tradition), that it cannot be understood apart from its inspired interpreter, the Papal magisterium.
We therefore have an obscure scripture, but an inspired and infallible bishop.
To any Bible believer this is pure heresy and blasphemy.
It seems to me that the article above this thread is dangerously close to the Tridentine position in principle.
St. Robert Bellarmine said,
August 17, 2009 at 2:03 am
Zrim:
This is the most important question:
The Reformers taught that all the doctrines of Christianity must be found in the scriptures.Where is this doctrine (SS) found???????? It is a fair question to ask. Where is it found expl. or impl.??????
-Remember the Bible can’t interpret itself,it needs an interpreter.
-If Paul believed in SS, why did he teach that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.?????
– The Bible is perspicous???? Then SS can be found in the scriptures!!??
St. Robert Bellarmine said,
August 17, 2009 at 2:10 am
Dear “Curate”:
You believe in Sola Scriptura? OK, give chapter and verse and you win this argument.
-Scripture interprets scripture??? Gee, tell me where is that found in the Bible.
Ron Henzel said,
August 17, 2009 at 4:27 am
Sean,
Regarding your comments 63 through 65: I have been preparing a response to them, but I’ve also been preparing to return to my role as school teacher today, which has kept me quite busy. I’ll catch up with you soon.
Paige Britton said,
August 17, 2009 at 5:20 am
Andrew,
Thank you for your careful articulation of the RC view. I really appreciate your cogent explanations, even though I find the epistemological assumptions therein entirely unfamiliar and somewhat scary! You can imagine why that might be so. It is good, though, to identify this piece (“ecclesiastical epistemology”?) as a major departure point between the RC & Protestant worldviews. I would indeed be interested in the theological explanation for the special knowledge claimed by the RCC, next time you get your breath back.
johnbugay said,
August 17, 2009 at 5:56 am
Sean — re. #68 — the council of Ephesus specifically endorsed the phrase “Mother of God,” (from Cyril’s letters) which Chalcedon specifically did not use. Chalcedon used “Theotokos” which is more literally rendered “God-bearer,” clearly has less baggage attached to it. There is a difference and it is an important one.
As I’ve written, Nestorius did accept “Theotokos” with the caution that it was wrong to turn the focus of that word away from Christ and onto Mary, which is the very thing that happened.
The point is, Cyril’s “Mother of God” language (Mater Theou or Mater Dei in Latin) was NOT used at Chalcedon. So there was at least some caution in that direction. Someone other than Nestorius understood the dangers.
And to my larger point from comment #28 (which you ignored), the Council of Ephesus was a complete disaster from many points of view.
This history does huge damage to the concept that councils — even “councils of the whole church” — should be viewed as infallible.
Which goes back further to Jason’s comment, #23,
Sean said,
August 17, 2009 at 5:58 am
OK Ron.
I only ask you that don’t bother providing quotes from these Fathers, or others, regarding the material sufficiency of scripture because we all know that this is not the same as sola scriptura.
Yves Congar states, “We can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. This position can claim the support of many Fathers and early theologians. It has been, and still is, held by many modern theologians.” . . . At Trent it was widely . . . admitted that all the truths necessary to salvation are at least outlined in Scripture. . . . We find fully verified the formula of men like Newman and Kuhn: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione, `All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.’ .. `Written’ and `unwritten’ indicate not so much two material domains as two modes or states of knowledge” (Tradition and Traditions,New York: Macmillian, 1967,, 410-414).
This is important for a discussion of sola scriptura because earlier you attempted to prove their doctrine by asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture. That is a move which does no good because a Catholic can agree with material sufficiency. In order to prove sola scriptura in the fathers you must prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it.
So, unless you are going to show that the fathers like Augustine and Aquinas did not hold that councils were infallible and that the church did not have the chrism to interpret the scriptures than I would ask that you don’t waste my time.
Sean said,
August 17, 2009 at 6:02 am
John.
I am not interested in fuzzy whitewashed history. “Theotokos” is what it is all about. Nestorius preached EXPLICIT sermons against the title, period. Nestorius maintained that Mary should be called Christotokos. This is false theology and why he was a heretic and the great councils were right all along.
John,
If you rely on siding with the heretics to land blows against the great ecumenical councils than our point is proven.
johnbugay said,
August 17, 2009 at 6:14 am
Sean — nothing is proven. History has shown that Nestorius was wrongly condemned, and that the council of Ephesus was a farce — a fact that Chalcedon tacitly endorsed.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 17, 2009 at 7:06 am
So, unless you are going to show that the fathers like Augustine and Aquinas did not hold that councils were infallible and that the church did not have the chrism to interpret the scriptures than I would ask that you don’t waste my time.
Sean,
Here is Augustine (from one of his Anti-Donatist writings) on the relationship of the Scripture to the Councils:
“But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity?”
So like Augustine we would hold that the Scriptures were abosolutely superior to all letters of the bishops and that even the plenary councils which were for the whole Christian world could be corrected.
I see no evidnece from the history of the Church prior to Augustine that any councils were held to be infallible. They were authoritative and vital to the life of the Church, but not incapable of error.
Sean said,
August 17, 2009 at 7:28 am
Andrew.
Augustine is describing the Catholic understanding of scripture and councils in the exact same way as we would describe them.
“Bishops letters” can can be shown to be stray from the truth if a council decides on a matter against them.
Which letter are you quoting?
The following illustrate the church’s continuing understanding of the infallibility of the councils:
“But the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicaea, abides for ever.”
Athanasius, To the Bishops of Africa, 2 (A.D. 372).
“That you should confess the faith put forth by our Fathers once assembled at Nicaea, that you should not omit any one of its propositions, but bear in mind that the three hundred and eighteen who met together without strife did not speak without the operation of the Holy Ghost, and not to add to that creed the statement that the Holy Ghost is a creature, nor hold communion with those who so say, to the end that the Church of God may be pure and without any evil admixture of any tare.”
Basil, To Cyriacus, Epistle 114 (A.D. 372).
“As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, e.g. the annual commemoration, by special solemnities, of the Lord’s passion, resurrection, and ascension, and of the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven, and whatever else is in like manner observed by the whole Church wherever it has been established.”
Augustine, To Januarius, Epistle 54:1 (A.D. 400).
“What the custom of the Church has always held, what this argument has failed to prove false, and what a plenary Council has confirmed, this we follow!”
Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatist, 4:10 (A.D. 401).
“Cleave to the holy synod which assembled at Nicea, nothing added (thereto), nothing diminishing; for that synod being divinely inspired, taught the true doctrine.”
Isidore of Pelusium, Epistle 99:4 (ante A.D. 435).
“We confessed that we hold, preserve, and declare to the holy churches that confession of faith which the 318 holy Fathers more at length set forth, who were gathered together at Nicea, who handed down the holy anathema or creed. Moreover, the 150 gathered together at Constantinople set forth our faith, who followed that same confession of faith and explained it. And the consent of fire 200 holy fathers gathered for the same faith in the first Council of Ephesus. And what things were defined by the 630 gathered at Chalcedon for the one and the same faith, which they both followed and taught. And all those wile from time to time have been condemned or anathematized by the Catholic Church, and by the aforesaid four Councils, we confessed that we hold them condemned and anathematized.”
Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II, Sentence of the Synod (A.D. 553).
johnbugay said,
August 17, 2009 at 7:59 am
Sean — all that your quotes do is to reveal that the council of Nicea was held in high regard.
Here is some background history concerning the 2nd and 3rd “Ecumenical” councils (Constantinople and Ephesus, which I’ve been talking about):
http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/how-unified-east-really-49859/#post640762
To whet your appetite, here is a citation from Gregory of Nazianzus, who presided over Constantinople for a time:
Andrew McCallum said,
August 17, 2009 at 9:01 am
Sean,
You have given me lots of quotes to show that the councils were authoratiative, not infallible. Since we are talking about Augustine, take the letter To Januarius… you quote from. Where does it say that the writings of the plenary Councils are infallible? They are “useful” and “approved” and “authoratiative,” etc. In other words all of the sorts of things that we Protestants say about our confessions.
The work I quote from is On Baptism, Against the Donatists (Book II). In Chapter III Augustine argues that even the plenary (ecumenical) councils can be corrected and that Scripture is absolutely superior to all letters of the bishops. But there is no concept of any council speaking with such authority that it cannot be corrected. This is reserved for Scriptures alone.
Sean said,
August 17, 2009 at 9:16 am
Andrew.
“Infallibility” is only a later developed theological term. Just like you won’t find the a Father saying, “Nicea was infallible” you won’t find a father saying, “Only scripture is infallible.”
What the above do show is that the fathers believed the words of the Council to be ‘the word of God’, ‘the work of the Holy Spirit’, ‘divinly inspired’, ‘preserved by the church’ etc.
Let me digest Augustine’s quote. It seems that he is refering to a future council furthering the understanding of plenary council by revealing ‘what has been hidden’ and better understood and not ‘reversing’ councils per se.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 17, 2009 at 9:21 am
Andrew,
“… and that even of the plenary councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them.”
This is very interesting. Does Augustine denote the same thing by “plenary council” that we do by “ecumenical council”?
If so, how could he say that the ecumenical councils are “often” corrected by later ecumenical councils? There had only been Nicea and Constantinople.
The latter did “correct” the former in the sense that it expanded upon the Creed in order to make certain matters of doctrine (e.g. the divinity of the Holy Spirit) more explicit. Constantinople did not correct Nicea in the sense of overturning any errors on the part of the former council. (The Constantinopolitan Fathers were quite explicit about affirming Nicea!) So that, the overturning of the decisions of one EC by another, cannot be what St. Augustine means by “correct.”
Sean said,
August 17, 2009 at 9:28 am
Andrew McCallum.
I found this discussion which is helpful on your quote.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 17, 2009 at 9:36 am
Paige,
As to “ecclesial epistemology,” I was thinking of 1 Corinthians Chapter 2, particularly verses 11-13. Also the concluding verse, “we have the mind of Christ.” As to the ontology of the Church, consider St. Paul’s prayer of thanksgiving in Ephesians 1.16-22. The Church is “the Body of Christ, the fullness of him who fills all in all.” In this Church, we have “the eyes of [our] hearts enlightened.”
Finally, although we can’t go to far down this path (away from the topic at hand), consider the ways in which our Lord and the apostles interpreted the Hebrew Scriptures: not exactly historical-grammatical exegesis! This suggests that Christ, and his mystical Body, has some kind of privileged insight into the Word of God. To consider this should not be scary at all, but rather a blessed consequence of faith in the deity of Jesus Christ and the mystical union between Christ and the Church.
Curate said,
August 17, 2009 at 10:35 am
no. 82
The fact of scripture interpreting scripture is proven simply by reading the Bible, and seeing how it argues and teaches. Over and over the authors explain their points, and the things that they wish the reader to understand.
A classic example, but one that you will dislike, is Paul’s own explanation of his reasoning on the fact of forgiveness apart from the law in the following words:
Romans 3.28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
We have here an explanation of an entire three chapters of rational and biblical argument. Paul is telling us exactly what the conclusion and point of the argument about justification by faith alone, and how it relates to the Jew and the Gentile.
There are many, many more examples just like that one.
Curate said,
August 17, 2009 at 10:38 am
cont. … Paul is his own best exegete and interpreter.
Curate said,
August 17, 2009 at 10:42 am
cont. … and I must add here that this was the consensus of the early church, thinking of men like Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Augustine, to name but a few. Every matter of faith and morals must be measured against the scriptures, and whatever is contrary to it, or cannot be proven from it, must be regarded as undecided, or plain rejected.
Sean said,
August 17, 2009 at 10:53 am
Curate.
Measuring truths against the scriptures is not the same thing as sola scriptura. Catholic doctrines are scriptural.
The church fathers you listed all believed and expressely taught that scripture is only rightly interpreted by the church that Christ built.
“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).
“Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, “as many as walk according to the rule,” which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, “Who are you? When and whence did you come?” Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 37 (A.D. 200)
“But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things.”
Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2 (A.D. 397).
David McCrory said,
August 17, 2009 at 1:42 pm
A RCC gentleman wrote earlier,
“Regarding the conscience question, according to the Catholic Church an individual must never go against his conscience. But, one also has a duty to inform one’s conscience.”
So, in response to this would it not be accurate to say that the individual’s conscience has the higher authority over and against the Church in matters of faith and practice? And if someone (like a Protestant Reformer) had an informed conscience which stood against the doctrines of Rome (in their opinion) then weren’t they simply upholding the same principle discussed here in your quote, and taught by the RCC that people “must never go against” their own conscience? What else were/are Protestants to do?
St. Robert Bellarmine said,
August 17, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Dear curate:
Where does the Bible say scripture interprets scripture??
Your evidence of Paul is very subjective.
Where is sol. scr. mentioned in the Bible???
Curate said,
August 17, 2009 at 2:25 pm
100.
Sean, you really must let Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Augustine define tradition and the apostolic teaching of the church. It is nothing less than the Apostles Creed, every article of which is proven from scripture.
When they speak of tradition it NEVER means what your Pope says it is. They simply do not mention your adorolatry of Mary, the transubstantiation, the primacy of the Pope, and the rest of the Medieval innovations of the Papacy.
They mention instead the fact that God is the Creator, that his Son was born by the Spirit of a virgin, that he suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified for us, was buried, and rose in the body on the third day. He ascended to heaven to receive David’s throne, and he is ruling the earth from there until he returns to judge the living and the dead. After that he will establish the life and world to come, which kingdom will never pass away.
THAT is the tradition of the church.
What is the authority of the Church? It is by no means authority OVER the Bible, but the authority to teach what is in it. Those men were biblical inerrantists to a man, who taught that scripture is supreme over every tradition of the church.
If the Bible is the word of God, the oracles of the Most High, how can it be otherwise?
Curate said,
August 17, 2009 at 2:39 pm
101
Robert, before you ask more questions you must read the answers that I have already provided. That way you will avoid having to ask the same thing again.
Also, the Protestant Churches teach and believe in the supremacy of scripture, NOT that the scripture is the ONLY authority. Scripture is the final and supreme authority, not the only authority. Otherwise there would be no Protestant Confessions at all!
The Church has authority to make ceremonies, (liturgies), to define doctrine, and to pronounce on morals. However, and it is a big condition, everything must be according to scripture by direct precept or necessary consequence. Nothing maybe done or taught that is contrary to it, or cannot be established from it by necessary consequence.
That means that it is unlawful to teach and proclaim that it is necessary to submit to the Roman Pontiff for salvation, that one must believe in the so-called assumption of Mary, Papal infallibility, and all the rest of the made-up pseudo-traditions of your sect.
Worst of all, in direct violation of countless passages of scripture, you teach that the cross of Christ is an insufficient atonement for the sins of all who believe. You insist that human works are necessary to complete the cross of Christ, and in this way you set aside the grace of God.
You really need to start reading the book that God gave us.
tim prussic said,
August 17, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Francis Turretin defined three spheres of authority/judgment, which might be helpful: 1) Private, 2) Ecclesiastical, and 3) Supreme
Private authority is at the individual and/or family level – individually, say, we have to know what we believe and have the individual authority to believe or disbelieve this or that proposition or doctrine.
Ecclesiastical authority is that of a herald. The herald doesn’t have the authority simply to make up positions or dictates of the potentate, but rather passes them along and applies them. Thus, the church passes along the oracles of God and applies them.
Supreme authority is the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture. Both private and ecclesiastical authorities hang on this and also tend toward it. They hang on it in that it is God in Scripture that reveals that authority. They tend toward it as both private and ecclesiastical judgments are to be in conformity with this supreme authority and are judged by it.
Turretin’s famous phrase: “God is not bound to Scripture, but has bound us to it.”
Do we need new lenses for our hermeneutical glasses? « Letters from Mississippi said,
August 17, 2009 at 3:06 pm
[…] 17, 2009 in Uncategorized Green Baggins makes a helpful point about the role of the Westminster Confession as a ‘lens’ through which we read […]
Andrew McCallum said,
August 17, 2009 at 8:50 pm
If so, how could he say that the ecumenical councils are “often” corrected by later ecumenical councils?
Andrew P,
I imagine that Augustine was speaking about the all of the various points of debate within the plenary councils. But I don’t know about the word “often.” Actually I thought one of you might come back with a question about what Augustine meant by “correct.” And I was pointing out to Sean that none of the terms from his quotes were any problem to us. We too believe that the words of the early councils were from God and through the work of the Spirit and so on. But I really wonder how much good it does to try to exegete the words of Irenaeus or Augustine, or Basil or any other individual theologian. We know that the words of Scripture are the very words of God and that they form a comprehensive whole, but since the words of these Church Fathers are not the very words of God we cannot say that they form a true and comprehensive whole when we put them together. As someone pointed out above, the concept of the consensus of the Fathers is highly questionable. So maybe before we try to interpret a specific quote from a given Church Father it would be good to put the collective corpus of the Fathers into context first.
TurretinFan said,
August 17, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Sean claimed that we don’t see a father calling Scripture infallible.
Augustine, City of God, Book 11, Chapter 6: “And if the sacred and infallible Scriptures say that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, in order that it may be understood that He had made nothing previously—for if He had made anything before the rest, this thing would rather be said to have been made “in the beginning,”— then assuredly the world was made, not in time, but simultaneously with time.”
Paige Britton said,
August 18, 2009 at 9:24 am
Andrew P.,
Thanks kindly for your response (#96). I take it that what Protestants understand to be true of a Church made up of individual Christians – that we collectively have the mind of Christ – is in the RC understanding reserved for the Magisterium? (Does this mean we are working with different definitions of the word “Church”?)
I find it curious that you would appeal to Paul’s prayer in Eph. 1:18 for the ontology of the Church, saying that “In this Church, we have ‘the eyes of [our] hearts enlightened.’” As I read Eph. 1:18, Paul is praying here that this *may* be so for the individual & collective Ephesians & other believing readers (i.e., it wasn’t already the case, he was praying that it would be so; and he doesn’t seem to imply that only by appealing to a special body of specially enlightened teachers the rest of the ordinary believers might have this enlightenment, too. He was appealing directly to the Father for them.).
So, from the RC view, are these crazy Protestants with all of their diverging interpretations simply a product of Renaissance humanism and Enlightenment rationalism, thinking mistakenly that they might be able to come to a close understanding of Scripture without the help of a divinely inspired teacher-in-chief? Where did the epistemological shift come from?
And my Reformed brothers, I’d love your input, too: where do we Protestants get off thinking we can think for ourselves? Is the epistemology behind confessionalism biblical?
Andrew Preslar said,
August 18, 2009 at 9:32 am
Andrew,
One of my points (#94) was that by “correct” Augustine could not have meant “overturn” (some doctrinal decision) since there were only two ECs and the latter explicitly and unequivocally claimed to affirm the former. I suggested reading “correct” as “supplement.”
As to exegeting the Fathers: If we are going to call them as witnesses at all, then we had better understand what they are saying.
As to the consensus of the Fathers: I am not sure what is questionable about this, so long as we know who counts as a Church Father. And this is only questionable for one who deems that the Church cannot speak her mind (which is the mind of Christ) in an irreformable way (e.g., there is no possibility that Marcion or Arius will one day be deemed a Father).
There is a symbiotic relationship between Fathers and Councils. The Fathers’ interpretation of Scripture inform the Councils, and the Councils bind the Church, including the Fathers. Anyone who will not abide by the definitive decision of the Church in Council (or in whatever way she, as the whole Church, expresses her mind) is ipso facto not a Father of the Church.
(The matter is a bit more complicated when it comes to reading earlier Fathers in the light of later Councils. Allowances must be made for anticipation and development, which means that some teachings of early Fathers, although not, in their mode of expression [e.g. Justin’s christological illustrations], equal to later developments, cannot be condemned by those developments, having anticipated them and in any case not being completely irreconcilable to them.)
This is to say that we can know who are the Fathers, and those matters upon which there is a consensus among them, and knowing this, they provide the context in which we read Scripture. Anyone who would make his own construal of the meaning of Scripture a basis for contradicting the consensus patrum on the meaning of Sacred Scripture is not an ecclesial Christian. He is an individualist and rank biblicist.
pduggie said,
August 18, 2009 at 9:33 am
The doctrine of sola scriptura comes from scripture because scripture points us to no other supreme authority. the lack of any other supreme authority being mentioned in scripture leaves, by reason, scripture being the only thing left.
It is a truth of the Christian religion that 2+2 = 4, but that isn’t from scripture per se. Nor is it tradition or church authority.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 18, 2009 at 9:54 am
Paige,
The “we” in “we have the mind of Christ” includes everyone who is united to Christ in the mystical Body, the Church.
One of the differences between Catholics and (many) Protestants is that we think that not just anyone speak as the Body of Christ. We are all called to believe what the Church teaches and to dare I say, worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness (in every way), but we are not all appointed shepherds and teachers in the Church. We all have the mind of Christ, but the official teachers of the Church alone have the special charism, not individually, nor as a mere collection of pastors among other collections of pastors, but as a college of bishops in union with the God-appointed president of the college, these have the charism of proclaiming to all Christians throughout the world what is the mind of Christ, i.e., the right interpretation of the Word of God.
Christ has one mind. He is not a schizophrenic. He established one Church. That Church teaches, per our Lord’s mandate, one Faith, which is an expression of the mind of Christ. The Church has never ceased to be one, or to have the mind of Christ, or to express that mind. One Church, alone, continues to behave as though this were true, as though the mind of Christ continues to be expressed by the Church qua Church, and as though this expression is not subject to being overturned by private interpretations of Sacred Scripture.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 18, 2009 at 10:32 am
Paige,
And my Reformed brothers, I’d love your input, too: where do we Protestants get off thinking we can think for ourselves? Is the epistemology behind confessionalism biblical?
Well, we’ve all drunk from the wells of individualism and anti-authoritarianism, whether we admit it or not (these things affect all of us, Catholic or Protestant). But what the Catholic would appeal to to debunk our theory of the Bible’s perspicuity is the fact that we can’t seem to agree even on the basic message of Scripture, such what baptism is and does, or how a person gets saved.
Their premise seems to be that a text cannot be clear if people disagree about its meaning (which, of course, is untrue). But their false premise aside, I do find our myriad of denominations lamentable.
Romanism, Presbyterian style « “THE AVENUE” – from Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church said,
August 18, 2009 at 10:46 am
[…] “THE AVENUE” – from Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church « Camille does it again Romanism, Presbyterian style August 18, 2009 Mark Horne has written a couple of fine posts here and here regarding the new move by some conservative Presbyterians to become Romanists without acknowledging the Pope (you can see it with your own eyes here). […]
Richard said,
August 18, 2009 at 11:11 am
Re # 109 – Who gave us scripture, or more accurately a canon?
Sean said,
August 18, 2009 at 11:33 am
TF,
Sean claimed that we don’t see a father calling Scripture infallible.
Actually here is what I said, you won’t find a father saying, “Only scripture is infallible.”
Curate,
102. I’ve read the fathers as have many commited Reformed Christians who have come out on the other side sacramentally reconciled to the Catholic Church.
“To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant.”
Sean said,
August 18, 2009 at 11:43 am
The doctrine of sola scriptura comes from scripture because scripture points us to no other supreme authority.
Scripture says that Christ built a church and that the gates of hell would not overcome her. Scripture says that the Church is the piller and foundation of truth. Scripture says that Christ’s body is the Church.
Scripture does not say that Christians need to split off into different groups and make their own confessions based on what they think the bible says with no regard for a sacramental passing of authority and then submit to those confessions.
Some of you are acting as if the Reformed confessions are the answer to Christian disunity and scriptural confusion. How many Reformed Presbyterian denominations in the US alone do we have now? And even added all up you could likely fit most every Reformed Presbyterian in America in Talledega Motor Speedway. And its not like there is a bustling Reformed confessional in any other part of the world. Anybody been to Geneva lately? Dutch Holland?
Andrew McCallum said,
August 18, 2009 at 11:47 am
One of my points (#94) was that by “correct” Augustine could not have meant “overturn” (some doctrinal decision) since there were only two ECs and the latter explicitly and unequivocally claimed to affirm the former. I suggested reading “correct” as “supplement.”
Andrew P,
The reasons I don’t go with “supplement” here are that firstly, the Latin verb Augustine uses (emendari, a form of emendo) primarily means to correct, that is, to remove a fault from. Secondly, the context of the passage is authorities (i.e. Peter, Cyprian) who were in error and needed to be corrected. And finally Augstine says clearly that Scriptures are superior to the words of the bishops in all cases.
It is this belief in the superioity of the Scriptures within the context of the work of the Church that is foundational to the concept of Sola Scriptura. When we speak of Sola Scriptura we are referring the Augustinian notion of viewing the Scriptures as superior to all else as the Church formulates her doctines and dogma. The Reformation was in one sense a movement to reassess the theology of the Church through the lens of Scripture instead of through the lens of Aristotlean philosophy or whatever other culturally dominant thought pattern. The matter of our use of Scripture as individuals is a derivative issue and not the primary focus of the Reformation concept of Sola Scriptura. We seem to to be continually correcting our Catholic friends on this issue.
Zrim said,
August 18, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Re # 112: Who gave us scripture, or more accurately a canon?
Bingo. Scriptura and ecclesia: Does the church create the Word, or does the Word create the church. It is on the these two considerations which hang all the law and prophets of this discussion.
TurretinFan said,
August 18, 2009 at 1:23 pm
“Actually here is what I said, you won’t find a father saying, “Only scripture is infallible.” ”
Yes, but the reason you gave was that infallibility wasn’t a concept yet. I presume you will at least concede you erred on that point. And while Augustine may not use those exact words (“only scripture is infallible”), you’ll have a beast of a time finding him or his contemporaries calling the Bishop of Rome (or even the church in general) infallible.
And likewise, Augustine did grant them a unique authority, as can be seen from the following:
– Augustine, Letter 147
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Andrew Preslar said,
August 18, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Andrew,
In that case, to which corrections, in the sense of overturning a doctrinal error, does Augustine refer, vis-a-vis Constantinople and Nicea?
So far as misunderstanding goes, there is plenty to go around. No one questions the superiority of Sacred Scripture itself (above Councils and such) as the pure Word of God. The issue being discussed is interpretive authority.
Protestantism allows individual interpretations to trump ecclesial interpretations. The Reformation is founded squarely upon this principle. Catholicism offers another hermeneutical principle: The interpretive authority of the Church. This authority is not considered to be superior to Scripture. It is considered, as a matter of principle (i.e. basic theology), superior to individual interpretation. This is a point on which we are always correcting our Protestant friends, who seem not to distinguish between a text and its interpretation.
As to Paige’s question and Jason’s response: No one is denying that individual’s can and must think for themselves.
Some folks might subscribe to the premise that a text cannot be correctly interpreted, or even be reasonably clear, if there is widespread disagreement over its meaning. They are, of course, wrong.
After all, people disagree about things as crystal clear as the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, justification by formed faith, and the real, objective transformation of the eucharistic elements into the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, but these things are nevertheless obviously biblical to anyone who simply allows the Scriptures to speak for themselves.
Scripture might very well be clear in essentials, but such clarity does not provide for the unity of the Church. The Protestant Reformation has proven this beyond the shadow of any doubt. This last point is not a theory about texts and their interpretation(s).
Andrew Preslar said,
August 18, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Zrim,
I have heard other Catholics point out a relevant distinction with respect to the Word of God. There is a sense in which the Word of God is God. (John 1.1) In that sense, the Word creates the Church. (Matthew 16.16-18) There is another sense in which the word of God is not God. In this sense, the Church, which is the Body of Christ, who is God, is prior to the word; hence, not created by the word.
Often, when Catholics refer to divine revelation, such as when I use (in the comments above) “Word of God,” we are thinking of the Word of God in its plenary sense, namely, Christ himself and all that he delivered to the Apostles, and they to their successors, whether by spoken word or written letter. This includes, but is not limited to, Scripture. It does not include the interpretive authority of the Church, which is not a species of revelation.
St. Robert Bellarmine said,
August 18, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Dear Andrew McCallum:
You disagree that the Church Fathers taught that Church councils were infallible?(#92) St. athanasius writes in “De Decretis” that 1st Nicea’s def. of Christ being “homoousios” was an infallible interpretation. He wrote this letter against the Arians, who sayed that the Church taught fallibly.
rfwhite said,
August 18, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Andrew Preslar: could you explain what you mean by “Protestantism allows individual interpretations to trump ecclesial interpretations”? Do you mean to say that Protestantism does not invoke ecclesial interpretations to discipline errant individual interpretations? If not that, then what is meant? I’m seeking to understand here.
St. Robert Bellarmine said,
August 18, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Zrim:
Christ gave us the canon through a secondary cause,his Church. (RCC)
After his ascension,Christ used his gift of infallibilty through his body, the Catholic church. Christ did teach at Nicea, infally. through a secondary means, his body on Earth, the Catholic Church.-get it?
Zrim,you seem to be a decent guy,but again, if SS is a Biblical doctrine it must be found implicitly or explicitly in the scriptures. Lets say SS is not really a doctrine, its just a slogan or idea, where is that idea found implicitly or explicitly in the Bible?- Remember, this is what Calvin taught.
Zrim said,
August 18, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Andrew,
Re # 119: Yes, those are interesting, finer distinctions. But the larger, more compelling distinction between Rome and Geneva is the necessary priority of either church to Word or or Word to church. This is what all Catholic and Protestant discussions finally turn on.
And from the Protestant point of view, what ails any other tradition is the elevating of something over revelation: Rome elevates church, liberalism elevates reason, the Radical Reformation (i.e evangelical) elevates experience. It may be that to the high church Calvinist, Rome’s elevation seems the most sensible, but Protestant convictions as to the relationship of Word to church still render it significantly in error.
Sean said,
August 18, 2009 at 2:12 pm
TF
Yes, but the reason you gave was that infallibility wasn’t a concept yet. I presume you will at least concede you erred on that point.
Maybe my point was well developed but it was not my point was that the fathers didn’t know what ‘infallibility’ meant.
Further to my point, earlier in this thread, #90, I provided some passages which revealed the fathers believed the words of the councils to be ‘the word of God’ and ‘divinly inspired.’
Consider the following using Augustine because you quoted him.
“As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, e.g. the annual commemoration, by special solemnities, of the Lord’s passion, resurrection, and ascension, and of the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven, and whatever else is in like manner observed by the whole Church wherever it has been established.”
Augustine, To Januarius, Epistle 54:1 (A.D. 400).
To Augustine, those doctrines held by the whole church that are not of scripture are “from the apostles.”
How did Augustine define ‘church?’
“I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by…by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate.”
Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).
“Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail”
Augustine, Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 (A.D. 393).
From Augustine, scripture is infallible and must be interpreted by the church which is identified through the sucession of the bishops from the seat of Peter. The councils produced by this church are divinly inspired and contain the ‘teaching of the apostles.’
Sean said,
August 18, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Oops. Meant to say that my point ‘wasn’t’ well developed.
Zrim said,
August 18, 2009 at 2:16 pm
SRB,
Re # 122:
Yes, I think I “get it.’ I confess the holy catholic church twice every Lord’s Day, much to the chagrin of my evangelicals.
but we’ve been through this at my “house.” However I tried to point you to scriptural proofs never seemed to take. That’s because you presuppose sola ecclesia, not sola scriptura.
St. Robert Bellarmine said,
August 18, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Zrim:
It is not an “either or” delima.Catholics accept both Bible and Church. The Church (RCC) came into being first. That is a historical fact. We recieved the canon from Christ through his body-RCC.
-Remember, Christ created the Church first. Please read Church history.
-Zrim, please if you can,respond to this: Christ started or created a church on Earth. That is a fair question. What say you?
St. Robert Bellarmine said,
August 18, 2009 at 3:07 pm
I meant to spell “dilemma”
TurretinFan said,
August 18, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Sean wrote: “To Augustine, those doctrines held by the whole church that are not of scripture are “from the apostles.” ”
The quotation you provided doesn’t say that. Augustine is not referring to doctrines held by the whole church, but practices of the whole church such as the annual celebration of Easter and the like.
I don’t see Augustine as defining the church in the quotations you provided – but since that’s a tangential point, I’ll leave it for now.
-TurretinFan
Andrew Preslar said,
August 18, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Zrim,
The Church would be elevated above Scripture if she could correct Scripture, not if she can give the definitive interpretation of Scripture.
rfwhite,
I was thinking about Martin Luther’s final speech at the Diet of Worms. Of course Luther and his followers went on to make up and enforce their own standards. Those who did not want to be held to those standards simply followed Luther’s example and invented their own, and so on, ad nauseum.
Zrim said,
August 18, 2009 at 4:33 pm
SRB,
Re #127:
It is not an “either or” dilemma.Catholics accept both Bible and Church.
I agree. That’s why I characterized your view as sola ecclesia. This means that you take into account the Bible and the church, but you make the latter superior. Sola scriptura makes the former superior.
The Church (RCC) came into being first…Christ created the Church first.
In the beginning was the Word. The Word came way before the church.
Christ started or created a church on Earth. That is a fair question. What say you?
Except that I would say he created “the” church (instead of “a” church, I agree completely. And outside of her is ordinarily no hope of salvation.
Zrim said,
August 18, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Andrew,
Re # 130:
The Church would be elevated above Scripture if she could correct Scripture, not if she can give the definitive interpretation of Scripture.
But she can be said to have elevated herself if she contradicts Scripture, which is what she has done in Trent by anathematizing the gospel, the rule Paul himself gave against himself or angels. When I contradicted my mother as a child she didn’t much quibble as to whether it was different from correcting her; either way, in my disobedience I was in it up to here.
John Bugay said,
August 18, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Protestantism allows individual interpretations to trump ecclesial interpretations.
Who let forgeries, such as the Donation of Constantine, Pseudo-Dionysius, and others, into the official ecclesial interpretation? From that perspective, Protestantism was a breath of fresh air.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 18, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Ah, this merry-go-round is making me dizzy.
Zrim, here’s the Catholic response: If an ecumenical council anathematized the gospel, that conclusion can only be reached by someone’s private interpretation (or that of “churches” with no authority to make such determinations). Hence Rome’s charge that we elevate private interpretation over ecclesiastical interpretation.
Our response is that a church is no longer a church once it flushes the gospel down the toilet.
Rome’s answer is that if the church Jesus founded ceases to the the church, the gates of hell have prevailed, to which we reply, “No, those promises apply to the invisible church, not to a specific visible one.”
Rome then asks, “Name a church father who understood ‘church’ in that way,” and on and on we go.
Sigh.
John Bugay said,
August 18, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Jason: this merry-go-round is making me dizzy.
What’s your point?
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 18, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Umm, that we keep going around in circles?
Zrim said,
August 18, 2009 at 6:01 pm
JJS,
Precisely. I’m just trying to give the bird’s eye view of the carousel (where the wheels fly and colors spin). Pulling back does wonders for the ad nauseum. Well, for me at least.
But, as I suggested to Bryan above, it seems to me another antidote would be for our Roman friends to at least admit that the Protestant Reformation isn’t the Radical Reformation. Instead of collapsing us all together, they could distinguish between us as inferior-but-different-from-each-other and keep their notions of Catholic superiority. I mean, that’s what we do. We see theirs as a different species of the same genus (is that the right phrase?): one places church over revelation, the other experience. They’re both inferior, but they have important differences between them very much worth considering. As it is, Rome and Muenster both seem to presume that to not be Catholic is to be Protestant, each mistaking us for frustrated versions of the other. But there’s more to being Protestant than not being Catholic.
Bryan Cross said,
August 18, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Zrim,
In #78, you wrote: First, what is to be gained by simply collapsing the Protestant (sola) and Anabaptist (solo) views together as if there is absolutely no distinction between them?
We look for the truth, whether or not there is anything to be “gained.” As Neal and I will argue in our forthcoming article, there is no principled distinction between solo scriptura and sola scriptura. If you disagree, please show the principled distinction between the two.
(I’ve been mostly away from internet access for the last couple days.)
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
David Gadbois said,
August 18, 2009 at 6:40 pm
RF White said it looks to me that there is an interplay of three authorities at work in Lane’s post: that of Scripture, that of the church and its officers, and that of individual conscience. How we configure these three relative to one another yields radical ecclesiastical differences.
The difference between the evangelical view and the Reformed confessionalist view is that, while we both ‘start’ with our own interpretation of the Scriptures, we confessionalists allow the church, her officers, and confessions to to become part of the hermeneutical spiral (both in our doctrine and exegesis) as fallible, derivative, second-order data. Evangelicals do not let the church weigh in on the spiral other than as (perhaps) advisory.
Our own reading of Scripture does determine how we understand the rudiments of the faith and, therefore, how to identify a true Gospel and true church in which to be in submission. So we do select our own ‘lens’ at the outset. We (Reformed types) have all decided that the Reformed confessions are faithful summaries of Scripture, as opposed to, say, the statement of faith of our local charismatic church. So we put ourselves in submission to them since they carry the derivative authority of Scripture.
When we come to the Scriptures, the Scriptures point us to the church, her teaching authority, and the rule of her elders, so the chain of reasoning feeds back on itself. The church points us back to the Scriptures as she exposits it in her preaching. And round and round it goes, just as spirals tend to do. So in this the church helps form our second-order beliefs on Scriptural teaching and reinforces first-order beliefs. Sometimes the church can even force us to reexamine those more fundamental, first-order beliefs, but we alter those beliefs only on the strength of the biblical merits of the teachings the church presents.
Non-confessionalists are wrong – the church’s role in interpreting the Scripture is not merely pedagogical, but authoritative. But the Romanists are also wrong, the church’s authority is both fallible and derivative.
David Gadbois said,
August 18, 2009 at 6:46 pm
I wrote we confessionalists allow the church, her officers, and confessions to to become part of the hermeneutical spiral (both in our doctrine and exegesis) as fallible, derivative, second-order data.
This isn’t worded quite right. Obviously, we don’t let the church’s beliefs or interpretations intrude on the historical-grammatical exegesis of Scripture as part of the relevant data.
rfwhite said,
August 18, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Andrew Preslar: having heard from Bryan Cross in #50 on how the Church handles the threats of individualism and authoritariansism in conjunction with the liberty of conscience, do you have anything to add to what he says?
Andrew McCallum said,
August 18, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Protestantism allows individual interpretations to trump ecclesial interpretations. The Reformation is founded squarely upon this principle. Catholicism offers another hermeneutical principle: The interpretive authority of the Church.
Andrew P.,
You are just repeating the misunderstanding that I was telling you was so prevalent in Catholicism. No, Protestantism never had any time for individuals trumping the ecclesiastical authority of the Church. If you want a good example of what the Reformers thought of someone who believed that he did not need the authority of the Church, take Servetus. Now here was a prime example of a man who thought that he could interpret the Bible solo, outside of the authority of the Church. Needless to say Geneva did not see eye to eye with Mr. Servetus.
The Reformers disagreed with Rome on whether Rome possessed the proper authority to interpret infallibly. The rejection of Rome’s claim that Rome was infallible on de fide matters did not mean that The Reformers were committed to the primacy of individual interpretation.
Bryan Cross said,
August 18, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Here’s an observation. In the body of his post, Lane writes:
“Let me repeat this: everyone has lenses through which they read the Scriptures. The question, then, has been racketing about in the wrong quadrant for a lot of people. The question is not whether one will have a lens through which to interpret Scripture, but rather which lens is the correct lens?”
Then in #3 Sean asks, “How do you know the Reformed confession lens is the true lens and not some other lens?”
And in #4 Jason answers: “Our answer would be that the Reformed confessions contain the best encapsulation of biblical doctrine. In a word, if you subject Scripture to rigorous exegesis and interpretation, you will come to Reformed conclusions.”
The problem is that Lane’s statement does not fit with Jason’s. If Lane is right that everyone has a lens through which they read Scripture, then the rigorous interpretation by which one comes to Reformed conclusions is done through a Reformed-producing lens. But using a Reformed-producing lens to confirm the correctness of the Reformed lens, is obviously question-begging. It would be like using rose-tinted glasses to confirm that the world is rose-colored. But, on the other hand, if the Reformed lens can be confirmed by way of a lensless interpretation of Scripture, then it is not correct that everyone reads Scripture through a lens. My point is simply that given Lane’s statement, the standard answer that Jason gave to Sean’s question, isn’t available. And in that case Sean’s question is still an open question.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew Preslar said,
August 18, 2009 at 7:59 pm
rfwhite,
I referred to Bryan’s comment # 50 in the penultimate paragraph of my (really long) comment #71, suggesting that his point about the duty of forming one’s conscience is applicable to scientific (historico-grammatical) exegesis.
Zrim,
Yes, if Rome has anathematized the Gospel, then she has indeed placed herself in the position of correcting Scripture. But my point was that she does not so place herself by claiming to have received the charism of final interpretive authority with respect to Scripture.
Jason,
The only merry-going-round here is turning on the fact that some folk keep changing the subject. The subject is church authority vis-a-vis private interpretation.
I make some claims about the nature of the church, you start up on justification. I make a claim about the relation between divine revelation and interpretive authority, Zrim starts up on justification. I understand that you guys are of the opinion that the Catholic Church is wrong on this, but the topic at hand is authority: Is the Church the Body of Christ such that she has unique insight into the Word of God, and what does that involve with respect to infallibility (when she expresses her mind, qua Church), and, if she possesses infallibility, as we claim she does, what does that entail about her relationship to Sacred Scripture?
If one of you guys wants to start up a thread on justification, have at it. I was under the impression that this one is about interpretive authority. I realize that you think that the Catholic teaching about justification is false, and that this falsifies her claim to be the Body of Christ, which speaks infallibly–but wait, you guys don’t think about the Church like that anyway, even if she did teach in accordance with your personal interpretations of justification (as your own churches do). So there is another issue to be dealt with here aside from begging any questions about the Gospel according to….
If the Church does have the charism of speaking her mind in an infallible way (as the Body of Christ, having the mind of Christ), and if she has spoken thus on the doctrine of justification, then yes, this discussion (interpretive authority) has profound implications for that doctrine.
As I have already indicated (#74), Jason does not have a good grasp of what “the Catholic response” might be on a disputed point of doctrine. If the point under discussion is interpetive authority (!) we will talk about that, and try to marshall some reasons for our position, and point out any weaknesses we see in the position(s) of our interlocutors.
If the topic is the Gospel (by which Zrim seems to mean St. Paul’s discussions of justification, apart from Romans Chapter 2), then we will talk about that, or about justification or whatever.
Of course we believe the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’s teaching on these matters (i.e., we mean it when we confess the Creed), but that does not preclude appeals to other lines of evidence (as I have already stated), and admitting where our arguments are weak, or even that we have no good arguments at all (if that could be demonstrated) in support of one of more of the Church’s doctrines.
But if we do have such arguments (say, for the Catholic teaching on justification), we can use them independently of the arguments for the teaching authority of the Church, especially when dialoging on those subjects with folk who reject the interpretation of the Church.
You can’t blame us, however, for not pretending that the final interpretive authority of the Church is nonexistent, nor for appealing to that authority, since we are convinced that it does exist, where it has spoken definitively on a matter of doctrine. You could try to argue that the Church is other than the Body of Christ, gifted with the charism of teaching as the Church, expressing the mind of Christ, with the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit, such that your own opinions are potentially superior to hers, norming the normed norm, so to speak. I guess that is exactly what you assert (#139). Hence the charge of rank biblicism.
Zrim said,
August 18, 2009 at 8:09 pm
…there is no principled distinction between solo scriptura and sola scriptura. If you disagree, please show the principled distinction between the two.
Bryan, first, whenever one of us attempts to show the principled difference between sola and solo scriptura it never works for you because you simply presuppose it can never work.
Second, and this more importantly, my point is that while I would contend that, to the extent they both elevate something above scripture, there is no essential difference between solo scriptura (sola persona?) and sola ecclesia, there are very important distinctions between them. One renders the Roman tradition and one the Radical tradition. While they both have more in common with each other than either would be willing to admit, they are also both very different and stand opposed to the Protestant tradition. I understand it works well for Romanists to conflate Protestants with Radicals, and for Radicals to conflate us with Romanists, but it seems to me that a more careful student would be eager to be, well, much more careful.
The problem you seem to be having harmonizing Lane’s and Jason’s statements seems to me to be another matter of presupposition. The premise implicit in your statement is one of demanding absolute certainty. What you seem to want Protestants to say is, “We’re right because we say we are right and we may never be questioned, ever.” But that’s a Roman outlook. Why are you holding Protestants to a Catholic system?
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 18, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Andrew P,
You seem to getting frustrated with me, charging me with “starting up on justification,” though I am not sure where I did any such thing. Then you attribute #139 to me, which was written by someone else.
All I did was point out what seems rather obvious to me, namely, that this authority discussion keeps going round and round in circles, as it inevitably must unless we appeal to the fathers during a time when both Catholics and Protestants see themselves as having been on the same team.
But even when such appeals are made, each side seems to cancel the other out. Hence my comment # 134, which you took as an excursus on justification for some reason.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 18, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Andrew,
The rejection of Rome’s claim that Rome was infallible on de fide matters did not mean that The Reformers were committed to the primacy of individual interpretation.
Since the Church is, in your opinion, fallible, it could be that some of her doctrines are false. But, if individual interpretation cannot trump ecclesial interpretation, then the individual who is being subjected to erroneous ecclesial interpretations cannot “trump” that teaching with his own interpretation. How then did the original Reformers trump Rome’s interpretations?
Zrim and Andrew have made the claim that we are wrongly conflating the Reformed notion of sola scriptura with the more down-home fundmentalist, Baptistic version. But I admit that there is a difference. Reformed tend to be more learned than Baptist folk, to read more widely, and to have different confessions of faith than the Baptists, which confessions they recite more often in assembly. But this is matter of degree, not of kind (with respect to sola scriptura). It is a relative difference, not a principled difference.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 18, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Jason,
I referred to your comment #72. No, I realized that #139 was by someone else, but it was cited as an example of the non-distinction (in principle) between Reformed confessionalism and biblicism.
These discussions can be frustrating for all concerned. A lot rides on the issues (even if the particular discussions are non-impactful), and we are but men.
rfwhite said,
August 18, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Andrew Preslar: thanks for referring me to 71 in connection with Bryan’s comment in #50. Another question for understanding: what do you mean when you say, “the Church, qua Church, is not related to the Word of God in the same way that individuals in the Church are related to the Word; hence, the Church, corporately (organically), has a unique (and epistemically superior) insight into the things of God.” That is, please spell out, or point me to where you have spelled, the way(s) in which the Church’s way of knowing the Word of God is superior that of individuals in the church. In what does the Church’s unique and epistemically superior insight consist? From what does it derive?
Andrew Preslar said,
August 18, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Oh man. Conscience compels me to one last comment before bed and a good biography:
Thanks to all the folk here for this debate (no doubt it is not over), especially to Green Baggins himself for letting this papist carry on (and on). (Maybe he is out of town or something.) Stuff we disagree about makes for good discussions, but I am not sure that GB intended for the RCs to get in on this one. Look forward to more here and wherever. Conservative Reformed and Catholic folk are bound to throw down when in proximity, its part of our traditions being what they are–all dogmatic and incompatible at key points and so forth. I appreciate all the patristic quotes (from everyone).
Andrew Preslar said,
August 18, 2009 at 9:22 pm
rfwhite,
In brief: No individual is the mystical Body of Christ. The Church is the mystical Body of Christ. The individual participates in the Church’s knowledge of the Word through being engrafted into the Body by faith and baptism and to the degree that he or she receives the Church’s interpretation of the Word of God.
Bryan Cross said,
August 18, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Zrim,
Whenever one of us attempts to show the principled difference between sola and solo scriptura it never works for you because you simply presuppose it can never work.
When asked to show the principled difference, you avoid doing so by claiming that I will reason falsely. That is not in keeping with the rules of rational discourse, because it is a [subtle] ad hominem, and not in keeping with the principle of charity (i.e. assume the best of your interlocutor). The proper response, if you are concerned that I will respond fallaciously, is to show the distinction, and then, after I respond, show how my response is fallacious, if indeed my response turns out to be fallacious.
I didn’t ask whether the principled difference “works”. I simply asked you to show the principled distinction between sola scriptura and solo scriptura. If you can’t, or wish not to, that’s fine. I’m not asking facetiously. I don’t believe that there is a principled difference, but I would be glad to be shown wrong, especially because I’m presently working on an article in which I argue precisely that there is no principled difference.
As Andrew said just a little while ago, a lot rides on this. The resolution of a long-standing schism largely rests on this.
Also, the Catholic position is not fairly described as sola ecclesia, as I showed in the comments here and here (both here on Green Baggins) back in June.
I know Jason pointed out some frustrating going-round-in-circles, above. But, when you step back, and think about the fact that twenty years ago, this kind of frank but commendably civil conversation between Catholics and Protestants couldn’t even have taken place outside of a formal ecumenical gathering, because there was no internet, it is amazing. Obviously technology itself cannot heal the almost 500 year-old Protestant-Catholic schism; we need the work of the Holy Spirit. But the very fact of this conversation, and the manner in which it has been conducted, gives me a great deal of hope for eventual reconciliation and reunion. Thanks Lane.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew McCallum said,
August 18, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Since the Church is, in your opinion, fallible, it could be that some of her doctrines are false. But, if individual interpretation cannot trump ecclesial interpretation, then the individual who is being subjected to erroneous ecclesial interpretations cannot “trump” that teaching with his own interpretation. How then did the original Reformers trump Rome’s interpretations?
Andrew P,
At the point of the Reformation the Western Church was divided into two. Both parts were claiming to be faithful to the historic Christian faith. The Protestants were not arguing as individuals any more than the Catholics were. The Protestants were elders/bishops ordained as per the Scriptures and united by a common faith as is attested to by the remarkable unity of the various Reformed confessions. Many of the Catholic bishops they opposed (including those of Rome) had few or none of the characteristic marks of a biblical bishop/elder (even by the assessment of Catholic historians) and about the only thing that they could claim was literal succession to the first century. For the Protestants, in line with the Scriptures and the Early Church, there was more to being valid than being in literal succession.
But the debate as to whether the Protestants or the Catholics had proper authority is one of those matters that, as Jason Stellman puts it, goes round and round in circles. But I would be happy if we could just get Catholics to understand the Reformed perspective – it was not a matter of the Protestants appealing to their individual authority while the Catholics were appealing to the Church. Both sides claimed ecclesiastical authority from the Scriptures and the Early Church and were arguing from the perspective of what they believed to be the Church that Christ instituted.
Curate said,
August 19, 2009 at 12:50 am
The proof that Rome has departed from the Christian faith is demonstrated when its teachings are compared with scripture. That means that scripture itself is the lens through which we interpret Rome’s claims.
That was the method used by all of the Reformers.
Here are just a few examples:
1. Forgiveness of sins is by faith alone, apart from the law. Rome teaches that it is by works and faith, thus flatly contradicting Paul.
2. Original sin has so corrupted us the we cannot of our own power turn to God, or even prepare ourselves for grace. Rome teaches that our fallen nature retains the power to do truly righteous acts apart from faith in the true God and Christ. It produces a man who is acceptable to God apart from faith in Christ, hence the teaching that the heathen can be saved by diligently following the light of nature.
Thus they flatly contradict the Apostle who teaches that apart from faith it is impossible to please God.
Arguments about who came first, the church or the scriptures, and which of the two has priority, are beside the point and a waste of Protestant time. The scriptures are the oracles of God, regardless of how and when they were given, and thus supreme.
If the Pope wishes to claim authority over God’s very words, he thereby demonstrates his astounding pride, and his rebellion against God and Christ.
St. Robert Bellarmine said,
August 19, 2009 at 1:54 am
Dear Curate:
I don’t think you ever answered my question. You assume that SS is found in the Bible. As a Calvinist, you believe all five solas are found in scripture. Just tell me where the doctrine of SS is found and you win.
St. Robert Bellarmine said,
August 19, 2009 at 1:58 am
Dear Andrew McCallum:
You should read “Not by Scripture Alone” by Robert Sungenis. You can buy it on Amazon.com
Sean said,
August 19, 2009 at 5:48 am
Curate.
I see that you have shifted the conversation to one in which you indict the Catholic Church because you disagree with Her dogmas (notwithstanding your mischaracterizations) from a conversation about what makes a ‘confession’ authoritative.
We could just as easily accuse the Reformers of not teaching what scripture teaches and then stand triumphantly say that your teaching does not stand up to scripture.
There are several glaring problems with you state that ‘Rome’ teaches. I can only hope that level heads prevail and we don’t resort to putting up straw men.
Paige Britton said,
August 19, 2009 at 5:49 am
Thanks much, Andrew P. and Jason, for your responses to my queries ‘way back when.
John Bugay said,
August 19, 2009 at 6:08 am
Jason: Umm, that we keep going around in circles?
As you know, I believe such “circles” can be short-circuited by such things as the history of the early papacy and (for example) the circumstances surrounding the council of Ephesus (431) and the wrongful anathema and separation of the “Churches of the East” (that is, farther east than the current Orthodox churches. Both of these are profoundly embarrassing for Catholics, really undercutting the “Church that Christ Founded” authority arguments. Because “the Churches of the East” had NO CONCEPT AT ALL of a “papacy.” And of course, you have seen (and seemingly been influenced) by the historical discussions that I posted on your blog about the early papacy.
Sean said,
August 19, 2009 at 6:13 am
John.
The council of Ephesus 431 is not embarrassing. Nestorianism is a heresy that was rightly condemned as anathema.
Today there are millions of Eastern Catholic Christians from Eastern Rites whom are in full union with the Bishop of Rome and with Grace the rest of the Eastern Church will be fully reconciled in the not too distant future.
Zrim said,
August 19, 2009 at 6:38 am
Andrew P.,
Re #144: I make a claim about the relation between divine revelation and interpretive authority, Zrim starts up on justification…I was under the impression that this one is about interpretive authority.
But this is actually the point. The apostle says that he who negates justification sola fide has disqualified his authority. I’m happy to leave finer historical discussions to those who know history, but all I am pointing out are the objective rules Paul laid out, rules to which he subjected even himself, which means that if he sailed to America and feared the circumcision group Peter would every right and duty to get all up in his face ’bout it.
Zrim and Andrew have made the claim that we are wrongly conflating the Reformed notion of sola scriptura with the more down-home fundmentalist, Baptistic version. But I admit that there is a difference. Reformed tend to be more learned than Baptist folk, to read more widely, and to have different confessions of faith than the Baptists, which confessions they recite more often in assembly. But this is matter of degree, not of kind (with respect to sola scriptura). It is a relative difference, not a principled difference.
Well, I don’t think this has anything whatever to do with the relative “learnedness” of anybody. I think that’s fairly misguided. Though I highly doubt Paul would see it that way, I suppose I will take “relative difference” for now. It’s more than other Catholics seem willing to give.
John Bugay said,
August 19, 2009 at 6:47 am
Sean: For the zillionth time, Nestorius did not believe the things that Ephesus anathematized. They anathematized a myth. Chalcedon backed off the “mother of God” stuff in favor of “Theotokos,” and besides that, good luck to you convincing the Reformed folks here that Mary was “Mother of God.”
The early papacy was non-existent. This is not historically in question any more, even among Catholic historians. It is a “development” that only succeeded because Rome was capital of the empire.
For anyone who is interested in “the nonexistent history of the early papacy, see this thread.
John Bugay said,
August 19, 2009 at 7:09 am
Lane Keister — If you want to stop this nonsense with the Catholics and their unsupported claims, you should have a thread that explores “the early history of the papacy.”
Even the Vatican has backed off its contention that it was “immediately given” and in fact has attributed it to “a continuity of development.” (See the Ratzinger statement on this.)
Check outthe Vatican I statement and search on “permanence”. Here’s that text:
Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received.
The problem is, according to all of the current sources of history on the period, there was no “successor to the chair of Peter,” because there was no “successor” for at least a century beyond the death of Peter, according to every legitimate source of history you will find. The city was so large, there was no “church” at Rome, only a network of house churches. This is attested primarily by Peter Lampe, “From Paul to Valentinus” “Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries”. It is supported by every legitimate commentator (including Robert Eno, Eamon Duffy, and Klaus Schatz, all Catholics, as well as Roger Collins of the University of Edinburgh (Scotland) in his recent history of the papacy.
I believe this is why John Paul II asked for “ecumenical help” to find “a new situation” for the papacy. There was no “there” there.
Paige Britton said,
August 19, 2009 at 7:18 am
Here is a (semi) practical observation in the midst of the merry-go-round:
As a Protestant in a confessional, elder-led church, I agree to submit to the spiritual authority of the men who govern the church, including their particular interpretations of Scripture passages (especially as these have bearing on the praxis of the church I attend). If I were a Catholic, I would also agree to submit to the spiritual authority of the Church (RC) and its interpretations of Scriptures.
The difference between the settings is really our assumptions about what we can *know* as believers. In both cases I would be assuming that my individual interpretations of Scripture are fallible and therefore correctible. But in a Protestant setting, I would also assume “epistemic parity” between myself and the elders: that is, hypothetically speaking, were I to make a good enough case based on the text of Scripture, I could offer a correction to their view of a passage. I would assume that they are fallible, too, and subject to the authority of Scripture, the final arbiter between us.
On the other hand, in a RC setting, I could not assume epistemic parity between myself and my teachers, because the teachers of the church possess a charism that I do not possess, and therefore are not correctible.
It’s fascinating to me to think of this in epistemological terms, not just in terms of authority or perspicuity. We are all “knowing in a dependent position” – the question is, how many levels removed from God’s communication are we?
John Bugay said,
August 19, 2009 at 7:28 am
Paige — see my comments #162 and 163. These Catholics don’t really mean “the authority of the church” so much as they mean “the authority of the pope.” If you want to talk about the “charism of authority” of bishops, you must include not only the Eastern Orthodox (those from say Greece and Turkey and even now Russia, which is where the weight of those churches reside), but also, you must consider the historical authority of bishops of “churches of the East,” that is, those churches further east than Jerusalem. That was a larger church than all the churches west of Jerusalem; at the council of Ephesus (431), they were falsely anathematized as “Nestorian,” and eventually they went their own way, only to be largely destroyed by the onslaught from Islam.
This discussion is far bigger than the Roman Catholics would have it be.
Steven Carr said,
August 19, 2009 at 7:35 am
Saint Robert Bellarmine,
You are not worthy to use that name for yourself; the real Bellarmine was a man much more brilliant than yourself. Your mantra of “where is SS found in Scripture?” is really quite simple-minded and unworthy of any Papistical apologist. It presumes something that Protestants historically never presumed: there needs to be a verse in Scripture that says, “Thou shalt use Scripture and Scripture alone.” Protestants have always retained the right to use sound reason and judgment to deduce doctrines from Scripture not explicitly stated but implicitly affirmed. We can gather a ‘2’ from one part and another ‘2’ from another and put ‘2’ and ‘2’ together. This is how we arrive at Sola Scriptura. We look at the texts that explicitly condemn adding or subtracting from Scripture or condemn the teaching for doctrines the commandments of men or confirm that the Bible is the Word of God, is God-breathed, is useful for doctrine, etc., and is a light unto our paths. The Scriptures are not lacking in such explicit statements; it is not unreasonable, therefore, that we should conclude that the Word of God is the only infallible source for the doctrine that leads to salvation.
Regarding what Paul said to Timothy about the Church being the ground and pillar of the Church, this is no different from what Paul says in Romans about Israel when he says that there is great advantage being a Jew for the oracles of God (the Word of God) were committed to Israel. The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth because the Word of God has been committed to her. She exists because the Word of God exists.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 19, 2009 at 7:44 am
But in a Protestant setting, I would also assume “epistemic parity” between myself and the elders: that is, hypothetically speaking, were I to make a good enough case based on the text of Scripture, I could offer a correction to their view of a passage. I would assume that they are fallible, too, and subject to the authority of Scripture, the final arbiter between us.
Paige,
I don’t know what your denominational affiliation is, but I would hope that kind of discussion you speak of extends to more than your congregation. At the Reformation these discussions happened among thousands of bishops/elders and congregations who were connected by (to use Philipp Schaff’s term) the Reformed Family of Churches. The results of these interchanges was the various confessional statements which we are bound to. I’m just trying to focus on the Church in the West outside of Rome and the fact that it was not a collection of individuals making their own decisions.
John Bugay said,
August 19, 2009 at 7:59 am
Here is the Google Books version of Lampe’s work, “Christians in Rome the First Two Centuries, for anyone who is interested. Scroll down to page 397, where Lampe summarizes what he knows about the church there:
Note here that Lampe only outlines the historical situation, he does not make any theological conclusions. He rather says, “This bridge should be illuminated.”
Note too that every other who has commented on this work has wholeheartedly supported it, and many have even said that this work must be the starting point for any further discussions on the subject.
John Bugay said,
August 19, 2009 at 8:14 am
The reason, again, this is important, is because of the claims of Roman authority that have been presented here. The case for Roman authority is slim to nonexistent.
John Bugay said,
August 19, 2009 at 8:15 am
So those of you who want to say “we’re going around in circles” are probably not considering the legitimacy of our claims vs. the legitimacy of their claims.
John Bugay said,
August 19, 2009 at 8:38 am
For more, see Turretinfan’s excellent discussion of Adrian Fortescue’s “Early Papacy” — Fortescue, who wrote in the 1920’s, is quite confident that “the early papacy can be proved from history.” He is, I am sure now, quite uncomfortable with that argument.
Sean said,
August 19, 2009 at 9:20 am
John,
I have grown tired of offering rebuttals from extant history on all your claims that have been repeatedly ignored so I am not really interested in running through this exercise again.
It’s a predictable play book and one that we have attempted to address in a spirit of charity elsewhere only to have any evidence we bring into the picture dismissed out of hand or ignored.
We welcome any discussion about the early papacy, the eastern churches, the ecumenical councils and just about any other hot topic…in fact we’ll be addressing each of those issues in detail on Called to Communion in the near future.
I don’t think that re-hashing the same things again 150 comments into an unrelated thread is a profitable exercise so I’ll let you have the last word.
Curate said,
August 19, 2009 at 10:09 am
no. 155
Robert Bellarmine: I have already answered you by explaining that scripture is the SUPREME authority, not the sole or only authority, yet you ask me again to prove sola scriptura! Are you actually reading any replies?
Nevertheless, I will say to you again that God’s word by its very nature is greater than, and superior to, man’s word, because God is greater than man. Is that hard to understand? No, it is obvious enough, unless one is determined to remain deaf.
Therefore scripture is the supreme authority above all other authorities.
Curate said,
August 19, 2009 at 10:17 am
no. 157
Sean, you are being dishonest. I did not refute the Pope’s teaching with my opinions, but with scripture. Paul says our sins are forgiven apart from works, and you say that it is with works. It is a simple matter of actually reading the Bible, and using its own words, which you have so far refused to do.
Scripture says that without faith it is impossible to please God, but your church says that without faith it is indeed possible to please God. Again, scripture in its own words proves the heretical teaching of your sect.
Yet you are asking us to submit to an authority that is in blatant contradiction of the inspired scriptures. I am not mad, and no sane person would submit to a man and an organization that contradicts scripture in the name of God.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
August 19, 2009 at 10:45 am
Sean: “… and with Grace the rest of the Eastern Church will be fully reconciled in the not too distant future.
We welcome any discussion about the early papacy, the eastern churches, the ecumenical councils and just about any other hot topic…in fact we’ll be addressing each of those issues in detail on Called to Communion in the near future.”
Hmmmmmm……
Read this recent announcement:
“A group of Orthodox clergy in Greece, led by three senior archbishops, have published a manifesto pledging to resist all ecumenical ties with Roman Catholics and Protestants.
“The only way our communion with heretics can be restored is if they renounce their fallacy and repent,” the group said in a “Confession of Faith against Ecumenism” that they circulated recently.
“The Orthodox church is not merely the true church; she is the only church. She alone has remained faithful to the Gospel, the synods and the fathers, and consequently she alone represents the true catholic church of Christ,” says the document.
The signatories say they wish to preserve “irremovably and without alteration” the Orthodox faith that the early church had “demarcated and entrenched,” and to shun communication “with those who innovate on matters of the faith”.
The list of clerics backing the manifesto is said to include six metropolitans, as well as 49 archimandrites (who oversee monasteries), 22 hieromonks (priests or monks), and 30 nuns and abbesses, as well as many other priests and church elders.
“This pan-heresy of ecumenism adopts and legalizes all heresies as `churches,’ and insults the dogma of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church,” says the group. “All boundaries the fathers set have been torn down; there is no longer a dividing line between heresy and church, between truth and fallacy.”
The document says that the Catholic papacy has become the “womb of heresies and fallacies” by promoting “dogmatic minimalism” and causing “moral deviations such as homosexuality and pedophilia among clergymen”.
Posted here.
Richard said,
August 19, 2009 at 11:21 am
Zrim, re # 123 – I think you are painting too hard a dichotomy between scripture and church. From what you say it seems as though you see the Protestant as having scripture trumping church whilst the Catholic having church trumping scripture. There is however a far more nuanced position, Douglas Kelly points out that
Michael Horton writes:
Of the two neither is perfect however both of these modern Reformed theologians find the relationship between church and scripture to be very dynamic, the scriptures coming from the church and in turn shaping it as it exercises a critical norm. Now, to my mind, in saying that the canon was produced within the community means that the canon was created by the community. Horton affirms the former but not the latter and I am not 100% sure how this can be so. God mediates his spoken revelation through his covenant community and as such the Church is a locus of revelation, this is something both Reformed and Catholic can affirm.
Sean said,
August 19, 2009 at 11:56 am
Curate.
174.
I do not believe that pointing out a mischaracterization of Catholic soteriology is dishonest. You placed Catholic soteriology juxtaposed against ‘works of the law’ and you even referenced the sola fide position as being apart from ‘the law.’ Catholic soteriology is not that we are justified by works of the law.
Further the second half of your indictment glosses over Catholic teaching on Grace. The Church dogmatically teaches that apart from Grace no man can turn to God. See Here.
Scripture says that without faith it is impossible to please God, but your church says that without faith it is indeed possible to please God.
That is false and not even worthy of comment.
One-line zingers against one another predicated on gross mischaracterizations are not going to get at the heart of the matter are they?
Truth Unites… and Divides,
That is interesting. This minority must be reacting against something I would think.
Zrim said,
August 19, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Richard,
Re #176: The reason for the “hard dichotomy” isn’t to deny what you rightly call the nuanced and dynamic nature of the relationship between scriptura and ecclesia. It is simply to put things into stark contrast in order that we might see what finally distinguishes the camps. Think of using some infrared light to see where the blood starts and the paint begins.
Now, to my mind, in saying that the canon was produced within the community means that the canon was created by the community. Horton affirms the former but not the latter and I am not 100% sure how this can be so.
To the extent that you are portraying Horton accurately (and I think you are), I agree with him. Actually, it seems quite significant and necessary to distinguish between the prepositions “within” and “by.” The former renders a high view of the church, the latter an infallible one. High views are simply not the same as infallible ones. Low view is Muenster, high view is Geneva, and infallible is Rome.
Richard said,
August 19, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Zrim,
I’d be interested in your explaining how we can differentiate between the prepositions, feel free to add them here if it derails this thread.
John Bugay said,
August 19, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Sean – let’s let the Reformed folks here make the decision as to whether or not that history is important. As far as I’m concerned, sunshine is the best medicine.
St. Robert Bellarmine said,
August 19, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Curate:
Gee, you make all these assumptions about SS, but can’t show me where it is taught in scripture. You are going against how the early reformers defended SS, they would sight ch and verse. Then people like More, Bellarmine, would rip up the reformers exegisis about SS to shreds.
– Luther was the one who thought up SS in 1519 against Eck.
– I win.
Paige Britton said,
August 19, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Andrew M., #167: “Paige, I don’t know what your denominational affiliation is, but I would hope that kind of discussion you speak of extends to more than your congregation.”
I’m a newly fledged PCA person, so of course it does. All those productive GA’s. But I exist & interact at the local level, so that was just the starting point for my thinking here.
Perry Robinson said,
August 19, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Scripture passages are not non-theory laden facts that one can just happen upon and interpret so as to build up a model incrementally. The question is then how do we figure out which lens is the correct one since we cannot appeal to theory or model neutral facts to discriminate? Facts underdetermine or fail to select for a model or lens. To put the matter another way, no exegetical methodology is Christologically neutral. From the get go a given exegetical method selects for a specific Christology, So how do we find out which Christology is the correct one is there is no Christology neutral exegetical methodology that we can use?
Tried and true creeds-the reformers were so bold as to reject key parts of those creeds also-the idea of replacing them with something that “works just as well” endorses pragmatism about doctrine, but inaccurate formulations can do “just as well” since most people lack the ability to detect their serious deficiencies. What works and what is true are not necessarily co-extensive.
Ron Henzel #14 to talk of the whole historic church, what would that include exactly? Would that include the Fathers of 2nd Nicea too?
Calvin’s citation of and at times rejection of the fathers on his own judgment is indicative of the problem and point at issue, Calvin has set himself up as a father and their judge.
To be fair, Cross raises I think problems for his own position in talking about those who claim to love the church but thumb their nose at the decisions of its councils. This would apply to the Pope in 1014 for example who unilaterally rescinded the council of 879-880 which with Roman and Eastern agreement rescinded the filioque and barred anyone from altering the Creed. Here Protestants and Catholics seem to be swimming in the same pool, they just disagree about who gets to flout the decisions of councils.
On the other hand, do not Protestants also reduce “church” to the hierarchy in their defense against solo scriptura by pitting the hierarchy over against private judgment?
On what principled basis does “church” denote the hierarchy there?
If the judgment of councils is subordinate to scripture how does one make ones own judgment subordinate to scripture when it is ones own power of judgment that is doing the judging about what scripture in fact means?
Ron Henzel, #22 you write that the Reformers have been faithful to the Nicene marks of the church, but this is manifestly not so. What did the Nicene fathers take “apostolic” and katholikos to amount to? Certainly that included a good dose of episcopacy, sacerdotalism and apostolic succession. It also included agreement between the major sees as a sign of the retention of the genuine apostolic deposit. The Reformers repudiated that constellation of concepts along with, in the case of the Reformed, what the Nicene fathers meant by baptism for the remission of sins as well as God of God language the Creed. Secondly, the issue isn’t just between Rome or Protestantism so putting it in terms of the papal demands at the other end won’t move the ball. The Orthodox or even the Laudians hold a higher view of the church without the pope.
As for solo scriptura, how is it not the case at the end of the day? If no church judgments are infallible, then no church judgments can’t be revised by an individual. Doctrine is a reconstruction, a purely human product, and so a provisional approximation. Therefore no judgment of the church can bind the conscience as God can. Only the judgment of the individual can be normative for that individual and no one else.
As for semi-pelagianism, the Ockhamist neo-semipelagianism while popular was not officially endorsed by Rome. Part of the problem was that the Reformers were influenced by Okhamism and Scotism and were quite ignorant of Thomism, which is hardly semi-pelagian. Augustine himself includes synergism in justification and he was hardly semi-pelagian. Secondly, the Reformed anthropology was actually more in line with Pelagius than Augustine since the former took righteousness to be natural and Augustine took it to be added to nature. The sin/grace dialectic of the Reformers was not Augustinian. Predestinarianism of itself doesn’t make one Augustinian unless pagans like Plotinus are Augustinian!
Orange doesn’t teach that faith alone was the formal cause of justification, either implicitly or explicitly. Where you do find the idea of salvation by faith alone explicit repeatedly in the corpus of Pelagius writings, notably his commentary on Romans. Anselm’s works couldn’t have been written by the Reformers since Anselm as a realist thought with Augusine that the declaration of justice was grounded in the soul. Taxonomies picked out essences for him, not sensible particulars or legal constructs.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 19, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Perry,
You are coming from an EO standpoint I think? You speak of the “tried and true” creeds as if you are speaking from some unique neutral perspective untainted by any bit of philosophical bias. The writers of the creeds were men like we are and they were children of their ages just as we are of ours. In any field of knowledge there are times when we look back at a theory proposed that the proponents of that theory were absolutely sure of, but we can see in historical retrospective that sometimes they were influenced by their ideological mileau for the negative. Every age has it’s characteristic errors and the Fathers of the Church all lived in eras where there were dominant cultural paradigms, some good and some not so good. So the Reformers held that the “tried and true creeds” could be negatively influenced by such cultural paradigms and were incorrect at various points. You pointed out a 9th century Roman credal decision which you felt was in error. But now do you want to tell us now that only the Pope got it wrong and the EO stayed pure? Trent was wrong but you are right? Come on, everyone has dirty dogmatic theological laundry and sometimes the Church just needs to take it out and clean it.
Reed Here said,
August 19, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Just a note of caution for some. Please be careful to not let your zeal lead to step over the bounds of gracious speech.
Not calling anyone comment in question. Just observing that past experience suggests it is right about now that some otherwise well intentioned folks forget themselves.
If the shoe fits …
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
August 19, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Sean: “That is interesting. This minority must be reacting against something I would think.”
That something would be what they call “the heresy of ecumenicism.” As you know, they identified the Catholic papacy has becoming the “womb of heresies and fallacies.”
Given that, and given the RCC desire for reconcilation, would the Vatican give up the papacy for closer unification with the Eastern Orthodox Church?
Furthermore, although they are perhaps a “minority” within the EO Church, it is still striking to note that the signatories include three senior archbishops, six metropolitans, as well as 49 archimandrites (who oversee monasteries), 22 hieromonks (priests or monks), and 30 nuns and abbesses.
Perry Robinson said,
August 19, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Jason,
Plenty of texts of the synodal horos speak of the councils as “spirit inspired” “indefectible” and “infallible.”
The issue isn’t so much about the inability to understand a text correctly, but rather to teach it normatively. It is one thing to have the correct interpretation amongst a group of debators. It is quite another thing to be able to give an interpretation that is normative that brings a halt to the debate as say in Acts 15. Was the authority of the council in Acts 15 merely that of being inerrant? I don’t think so and I don’t think you do either.
John buggay,
Ephesus didn’t need to have all present since all had been openly invited, which is well within canonical provisions of the time. Second, ample time had been given for other delegates to arrive. When they didn’t Cyril proceded. Third, Cyril had the ranking see which is why he could head up the council. Wrongly anathematized Nestorius? Do you seriously contend that Nestorius was not a heretic as all Reformed confessions state? I’ve read Chalcedon repeatedly and it nowhere “backs off” the title of Theotokos, which has historically been affirmed by churches of the classical reformation.
To toss out apostolic succession because it is a “development” would also be sufficient grounds to toss out sola fide. Secondly, its odd that both Protestants and Catholics claim doctrinal development to justify their distinctives, whereas the Orthodox do not. Third, you make it Rome vs the Reformers, but the matter was much wider. It was Rome and the East which condemned a group of priests and laymen.
Refwhite,
Scripture also indicates that the spirit is given to ministers through the laying on of hands to teach, correct and reuke.
Ron # 39
The citations from Augustine and Cyril do not prove sola scriptura. Noting that all doctrine is derived from Scripture isn’t sola scriptura. Basil makes the same kinds of statements while at the same time speaking of normative practices that came down from the apostles in unwritten tradition. Moreover, the high church Laudians held scripture to be materially sufficient but that the church was an infallible interpreter and that certainly didn’t ring true to sola scriptura in the ears of the Puritans. SS is more than using Scripture as the only infallible rule. It is denying that any use of the rule is beyond possible revision or infallible and that the individual’s conscience as a consequence cannot be bound without their assent.
As for Aquinas, he certainly did not teach sola scriptura. See Per Erk Persson, Sacra Doctrina: Reason and Revelation in Aquinas. Aquinas thinks that the church is an infallible interpreter of Scripture.
And the only council the Reformers take issue with is Trent? How about 2nd Nicea? Or Fourth Constantinople of 880 which condemned the Filioque?
To be fair, Aquinas isn’t trying to harmonize Scripture with Aristotle anymore than Turretin was. Furthermore, Aquinas is not an Aristotelian just because he uses those classificatory terms. Metaphysically, Aquinas is a neo-platonist like Augustine. See Wayne Hankey’s work on Aquinas for example.
As for Chrysostom, noting the perspicuity of Scripture doesn’t amount to the idea that the individual can only be normatively bound by his own judgment and that the church isn’t infallible. If the Orthodox taught Sola Scriptura, it’d come as great news to all of the church writers such as John of Damascus or Mark of Ephesus.
Sean,
It’d be news to the Orthodox like myself that Cyril taught purgatory.
Andrew Preslar,
You make much hay about findings of fact that ring contrary to official statements, and perhaps rightly so, but what if the shoe is on the other foot? I routinely find not only Protestant exegetical arguments for the Filioque either non-existent and self admittedly bad. Yet the tradition enshrines the doctrine at a confessional level, practically mouthing the words as Mother Rome pulls the strings, and everyone springs automatically to defend it prior to any investigation of the facts. They are a priori set to defend it. So if dikiao doesn’t mean to vindicate in a transformative sense for Rome and that is a problem I’d posit that Protestants have the same kind of problem with Sola Scriptura and the Filioque. Ekpouresis doesn’t mean hypostatic generation.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 19, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Perry,
Was the authority of the council in Acts 15 merely that of being inerrant? I don’t think so and I don’t think you do either.
No, I think the council at Jerusalem understood itself to have rendered an infallible verdict (and I agree with them). What needs to be proven to us Protestants is that there is no difference between that and Trent, for example.
Perry Robinson said,
August 20, 2009 at 12:05 am
John Buggay,
Theotokos has been translated by western as well as eastern writers as mother of God or God bearer. On a regular basis the Orthodox use both. Nestorius use of Theotokos was only in reference to the prosopa or single appearance that was the product of the two natures conjoined by a single will. If you wish to endorse such a view, you will find yourself I think at odds with the Reformers themselves…then again maybe not.
History has shown that Nestorius was wrongly condemned? Which historian proved such a thing? And Nestorius did in fact teach what he was accused of as is shown by modern scholars like McGuckin from Nestorius post-exile works. I suspect you are getting this rehabilitation of Nestorius nonsense from Harold O.J. Brown, which has been shown to be seriously flawed. There was an attempt from a couple of scholars to rehabilitate Nestorius in the 1960’s but that got criticized to death in the literature.
And your citation of Chrysostom isn’t quite fair. The context is after he was deposed after his elevation to Constantinople violated the canons. One swallow does not a spring make. Chrysostom for example thinks no such thing about Nicea.
As for Ps Dion. It was probably written by Damascius, a convert from Platonism and the last head of the Platonic Academy. And who wrote Hebrews again?
And the Churches of the East may have had no concept that maps on to Pastor Aeternus, but they certainly didn’t have Westminster Confession in mind either. Their denial of the papacy is of no help to Protestantism as such.
And to be fair with the Klaus citation, these same scholars, as a matter of historical data, will deny that Jesus thought of himself as God too.
Andrew M,
This might help re councils. Ecumenical, plenary or general can refer to a council convoked by imperial authority. Some of these were deemed “spirit inspired” and some were not. This may be why Augustine, coming at the end of the Arian controversy says that some general councils can be corrected where general may simply refer to imperially convoked councils. By the time of Augustine, Constantinople wasn’t an ecumenical council.
It would also help to get clear on what “development” means exactly. Usually theories of development depend on a form of idealism, where the earlier source contains in nascent form and is made explicit later.
The Reformation may have been an attempt to reassess the theology of the church in light of scripture, but there is no non-theory laden exegetical method to be had to do this in a theory neutral way. To wax Van Tillian, Scriptural passages aren’t some theologically neutral facts by which one can incrementally build a case.
You remark that the Reformers responded as elders, but Calvin for example was a layman his whole life. And as for elders, so was Arius. Presbyters for example were never permitted present as representatives in general councils for example, except by special permission, as legates or to testify.
Curate,
The Fathers and early witnesses may not speak of tradition in terms of ideas taught in modern Catholicism, but that is no help for the Protestant position. First, they certainly don’t speak of nominalist taxonomies undergirding their covenantal views or their views of justification. Augustine clearly denies sola fide for example. More to the point, there are more positions available than Rome or Geneva. The things you mention as tradition are so, but so are things like the succession of teachings and office from the apostles, and baptismal regeneration as say taught by the Fathers of Nicea.
If the church’s judgment is bound by scripture, who stands in judgment on the church other than the individual? If the individual’s judgment can trump the church, how isn’t that solo scriptura?
Btw, Augustine taught human works were part of justification too. How odd for the doctor of grace. And you write that the proof of Rome’s departure is in comparing it with the Scriptures, but what if I do the comparing and I don’t agree? In fact I think Protestants and Rome are both wrong on justification since they posit a created intermediary between man and God, they just differ about the nature of the intermediary-one is an effect in the soul and the other is a legal principle. And they both adhere to the Filioque which is a product of philosophical theology with zero scriptural support.
And if it is impossible to please God without faith, is it possible to please him with it? As for the rest of what speak in #154, it is either denied by Augustine as well as in the case of sola fide, or upheld in fact by Rome in Trent via Augustinian teaching. Your criticisms seem to convict the wrong people or miss their mark.
Tim Prussic
Turretin seems mistaken for the simple fact that the church isn’t merely an announcer but is apostolic, is sent and hence duly authorized. So the first question is, not what do you teach, but who sent you?
Jason Stellman,
Perspecuity is not the issue. Judgment is. Make the bible is perspicuous as you like and it won’t matter for two reasons. First, what matters is the perspicuity of the mind of the person reading it and second the normativity of their judgment.
As for gospel flushing, I’d add that it isn’t the church when it flushes proper Christology down the toilet a la WCF 8.2 & Calvin Inst 2.14.5
Sean,
To dig deep may be to cease being Protestant, but that doesn’t of itself imply Catholicism. And as for the Orthodox being in communion with Rome in the not too distant future, you must mean that the Second Coming is near, because otherwise this is just not accurate.
Zrim,
Surely Christ precedes the church, but the order is that the Father sends the Son and the Son sends the Apostles and then the Scriptures come from the Apostles.
If Rome puts he church above the Scriptures because it says that the church has the right to give normative interpretations, do Protestants put the individual above the Scriptures since they assert that only the individual can be bound by his own judgments of what scripture means?
And if Trent anathematized the gospel, then it was only because Augustine did it far earlier in his rejection of sola fide.
And the Apostle says in Gal 1 not that those who contradict sola fide lack authority but those who contradict what was traditioned to those in Galatia. You are begging the question by assuming that they thought that faith was the formal cause of justification.
David Gadbois,
If we don’t let the church’s teaching flavor the historical-grammatical method, doesn’t this assume that the methodology is non-theory laden and carries with it no metaphysical or Christological implications? The fifth council condemns something very much like it on that basis. So I doubt that it functions as a neutral method to start with.
Perry Robinson said,
August 20, 2009 at 12:17 am
Andrew M,
Yes I am Orthodox. I don’t doubt that they had this or that philosophical perspective, more or less. (perspective and bias are not the same things) In fact, I’d argue that the problem with Arianism was prompted by an attempt to develop theology using philosophical content and so Nicea, like all councils undoes such work which is why its key terms are apophatic.
In some ways they were men like us, in other ways not. Paul, James and John were all men in many ways likeus, but neither your or I am an Apostle and that’s all the difference. I don’t think the church is a merely human thing because of what I believe about Christology. You and I do not share the same Christology which is why we do not share the same view of the church.
I don’t take theology to be a “field of knowledge” in terms of a science. That is a point upon which Catholics and Protestants are alike and quite different from the Orthodox. I don’t take the church’s teaching to have or be capable of development as posited by either Catholics or Protestants so I reject the idea of it having the kind of provisional standing of given hypothesis that is capable of one judgment and then another through time.
As I noted, the Reformers did not wholesale accept the Christology and Triadology of Nicea and Chalcedon. As ably documented by say Muller, they modified it and rejected key parts of it. And yes, as Orthodox, sure I think the Orthodox got it right and kept it so. IN the 880 council, it was agreed by both sides and then 120 years later the Franks take over the papacy and scrap it. They broke communion by innovation. The funny thing is that the Protestants accept the very doctrine which justified papal prerogatives since Gregory 7ths insertion of the Filioque was grounded in the doctrine itself. That is, if the person of the Spirit is produced jointly by the Father and the Son as from one principle and the pope is the vicar of Christ, then the Spirit proceeds economically into the church from the Pope. This is why the papacy and the filioque stand or fall together, which is ironic that Protestants still retain it, even though it isn’t supportable by any serious exegesis of Scripure.
I think Trent is a fair representation of Augustinian teaching. Augustine clearly didn’t teach sola fide. That said, Trent is wrong where Augustine was wrong.
Perry Robinson said,
August 20, 2009 at 12:22 am
Jason Stellman,
Why Trent? Why not 2nd Nicea? Or how about even better Reformed monoenergism in light of 3rd Constantinople’s Dyoenergism? Or Nicea’s teaching that the Father alone is autotheos against Calvin’s innovation that all the persons are autotheos?
If Jerusalem can be infallible, then the issue is not a principled one. Protestants must endorse then some kind of cessationist view with respect to apostolic ministry, authority, etc. But then who sends ministers if the apostolic commisisoning has expired?
Curate said,
August 20, 2009 at 1:24 am
To all the RCC and EO apologists here:
Respectfully, you are all not getting the Protestant argument about the clarity of scripture. Not at all.
Your argument assumes that the scripture is so obscure and difficult that it cannot speak for itself, that it must be interpreted by your particular denomination, whether EO or RCC. To your minds the only alternative is private judgement, which you believe makes everything relative, and thus meaningless.
Our argument rejects that thesis in all its parts, as did the Fathers and the Reformers.
Here is the protestant position again: the scripture is plenty easy to understand. For every hard and difficult passage there are scores that are easy and plain. The writers of scripture interpret their own writings for us, like all good teachers do. We do not have to have a council before we can understand them.
The authors of scripture, the prophets and apostles, were capable of communicating their meaning of their teaching, and did so.
To you the Bible is in a secret code that has to be deciphered by your chosen human authority, just as the German code had to be broken at Bletchley House during the war. We disagree.
To us it looks like you have not read the scriptures at all.
Curate said,
August 20, 2009 at 1:32 am
Greenbaggins, do you see from the RCC and EO people here how your lens theory has played straight into their hands? If it is all about which lens with which to read scripture, then scripture itself is ruled out in advance as its own interpreter.
Paige Britton said,
August 20, 2009 at 4:44 am
Perry,
Since I am feeling left out, I will ask for your thoughtful answer directly:
How does the epistemology behind EO interpretations compare with that of the Protestants (an assumption of epistemic parity between clergy & laity) and the RCC (special chrism on pope & colleagues)?
Thank you!
Paige Britton said,
August 20, 2009 at 4:50 am
Andrew M.,
From #167, where you wrote “I’m just trying to focus on the Church in the West outside of Rome and the fact that it was not a collection of individuals making their own decisions.”
I have been puzzled, too, by the charge of “individual interpretations,” when I know the interpretations in question (like the WCF) are the products of much group effort. But perhaps it’s the case that to the RCC “individual” simply means “other,” i.e., a departure from “the mind of Christ = the Church (Magisterium),” regardless of how many folks were involved.
Paige Britton said,
August 20, 2009 at 5:21 am
Curate #193 wrote, “If it is all about which lens with which to read scripture, then scripture itself is ruled out in advance as its own interpreter.”
Why are you worried because we all use lenses when we read, and therefore none of us can claim a definitive, normative reading of Scripture? If God wanted to communicate truth to us in writing, then he would take into account the fact that we all use lenses when we read. Perspicuity is about sufficient knowledge, not exhaustive knowledge.
Yes, we (Protestants, at least) use Scripture to interpret Scripture, and yes, we are already reading with a lens when we do so. But if Scripture, as a text, has a stable meaning, and is made up of identifiable parts (vocabulary, grammar, canonical context, etc.), then it is possible much of the time to discriminate between “good” interpretations and “poor” (or at times “less good”) interpretations on the basis of the data in the text. In fact we should always be checking our lenses against the data, which means that we hold our lens with due humility and teachableness. We can evaluate others’ lenses and interpretations in this way also.
All of the above presupposes the Protestant understanding that all believers relate to the text of Scripture with a certain “epistemic parity,” that is, none of us has been given special knowledge. (This is not to say that there is also parity between intellects — Calvin was Calvin, and I am I.)
Once you throw in the “chrism” that the RCC claims for its teachers, you toss the above ability to discriminate between lenses out the window. At this point I don’t think it’s an argument about perspicuity (or even authority) so much as about epistemology.
I don’t know what the EO view of our knowing is, but when Perry says things like “If Rome puts he church above the Scriptures because it says that the church has the right to give normative interpretations, do Protestants put the individual above the Scriptures since they assert that only the individual can be bound by his own judgments of what scripture means?” (187) I think he is giving a kind of reductionist summary of what Protestants do:
At the end of the day, yes, I do have to decide for myself what interpretation I will hold – or whether I will make my decision at this point in time or not! But I am not “above” the Scriptures at the point of decision – I am a fallible human being making the best sense that I can of a text, dependent on language and intellect and the input of other thoughtful people, and I am open to correction. Some decisions about interpretations I will make feeling firmly persuaded, and some I will make with less confidence. But either way, confident or less so, I claim moral responsibility before God for my choice and its implications, and I keep listening to others and checking to make sure I have done my homework and not left anything out.
All of the above being entirely open to correction. :)
Andrew McCallum said,
August 20, 2009 at 5:36 am
I don’t take theology to be a “field of knowledge” in terms of a science.
Perry,
I do understand the EO skepticism towards speaking of theology as a “science” in the Thomistic sense of the term, but what can I say? We from the Western side of the great theological divide systematize our thinking in ways that I’m sure the EO just don’t want to grapple with. But I don’t want to make it sound like I think that theology is a rationalistic exercise, far from it. And I don’t think asking the questions concerning whether Rome got her assessment of the Early Church correct is engaging in rationalism. We see it as a mistake to accord infallibility to the writings of any group of men unless there is some very good reason why we should. Since we know that Scripture is theopneustos we can be convinced that it is infallible because God cannot err or lie. But why should we take the words of a given council as infallible? We are not going to do this just because the theological reflections of Rome or Constantinople centuries later tell us we ought to. There should be good reason to place a given theological statement on par with the very words of God.
Within the West, the doctrine of the Filioque has been a rather sterile theological debate. And we just don’t see that papal prerogatives were justified by way of the Filioque. In other words, had there been no debate over this matter, we would have exactly the same issue with Rome and her claims to authority. We part ways with Rome over authority much earlier in the history of the Church, and I think there would certainly be some agreement with the way you and we look at the earlier cyprianic debates over the scope of authority of the Roman See.
Buy you understand my earlier comments about infallibility? We both reject claims of the Rome’s infallibility when she speaks of her right to rule “over every human creature” to use the Unam Sanctam term. You want to tell us to forget the Romanists, it’s the EO who collectively possess real infallibility. And it is our reply here that maybe it is the concept of infallibility when lifted outside of the context of the voice of God which should be the issue here. Maybe we should question whether what a collection of men said in a given credal statement was perfect. I don’t think this is too radical a proposal nor is it one that the Fathers of the first few centuries would take issue with. Or if they would, it is not evident to us.
John Bugay said,
August 20, 2009 at 5:40 am
Curate: Here’s how Catholics do “exegesis”:
So, the way this works in real life, if you see the word “key” in Scripture, that somehow refers to the papacy, whether or not sound exegesis bears that out. If the word “woman” is mentioned, well, that supports a Marian doctrine. Whether or not sound exegesis bears this out.
John Bugay said,
August 20, 2009 at 6:29 am
Perry — a couple of general comments and then I’ll respond to some of the points that you make. I don’t have a lot of time to go deeply into this right now, but I did read more thoroughly some months ago, and I had a fairly decent interaction with your patner Photios on this same subject matter. A lot of this will be working from memory and some citations that I have handy.
The main works that I’ve read on Nestorius are NOT (as you suggest) Brown, but rather Moffett (Reformed) “A History of Christianity in Asia”; Mar Bawai Soro, “The Church of the East” (2007); and Philip Jenkins, “The Lost History of Christianity.” And at Photios’s suggestion, I read the work on Loofs (1914), which is one of the first works published after the discovery of the Book of Heraclides.
In the discussion of Nestorius, Soro relies in part on McGuckin’s 1996 essay, “Nestorius and the Political Factions of Fifth-Century Byzantium.” Soro says, “McGuckin’s hypothesis is succinct, but startling: ‘long before the Council of Ephesushad ever opened, the fate of Nestorius had largely been sealed and predetermined.'”
It seems that Nestorius himself was quite the hunter of heretics, and had made many enemies for himself.
Nevertheless, Cyril’s charges against Nestorius had “fine disregard for anything Nestorius had said” (Moffett 174). This “fine disregard” made its way into the Canons of Ephesus. Was that “well within canonical provisions of the time”? “Bearing false witness” as an infallible canonical statement. Yes, I think it was. Misrepresentation of opponents’ views, the use of armed gangs of thugs to enforce one’s opinion. These were not exclusive to Cyril. In fact, emperors regularly exiled both sides of the warring factions who vied for the office of bishop of Rome. It was horrible. Yet such horrors were “well within canonical provisions of the time.” The church as a whole — the “conservative” church, needs to take another look at all of that. It is pitiful and pitiable what Catholics defend, when they defend the papacy.
But I digress. From here, your comments in Ital, followed by my response.
Do you seriously contend that Nestorius was not a heretic as all Reformed confessions state?
You’ll have to show me which Reformed Confessions claim that Nestorius was a heretic. I don’t find his name mentioned.
I’ve read Chalcedon repeatedly and it nowhere “backs off” the title of Theotokos, which has historically been affirmed by churches of the classical reformation.
You are misreading what I said. I know that Chalcedon said “theotokos.” What Chalcedon did not use were the “Mater Theou / Mater Dei” constructions that were found in Ephesus. That is significant. Because the literal translation “God-Bearer” does not give offense to Reformed ears. But as you are into “Reformed Confessions” and “the classical Reformation,” try finding “Mother of God” language in there.
To toss out apostolic succession because it is a “development” would also be sufficient grounds to toss out sola fide.
No, to call it a “development” is to take it off its sacrosanct pedestal. Let “Sola Fide” and “Development” then compete for legitimacy on Scriptural grounds.
Secondly, its odd that both Protestants and Catholics claim doctrinal development to justify their distinctives, whereas the Orthodox do not.
Nevertheless, the Orthodox did “develop” such doctrines as the use of icons. Just because you don’t call it development, doesn’t mean that it wasn’t.
Third, you make it Rome vs the Reformers, but the matter was much wider. It was Rome and the East which condemned a group of priests and laymen.
Don’t forget that even “Rome and the East” wasn’t the whole of Christianity. The “Church of the East” — further east than Jerusalem — which was wrongly condemned at Ephesus was at one time larger than both put together. That part of the church, of course, has suffered a martyr’s death at the hand of Islam. But It was “Rome and the East” which caused the schism that effected that death sentence.
On a regular basis the Orthodox use both. Nestorius use of Theotokos was only in reference to the prosopa or single appearance that was the product of the two natures conjoined by a single will. If you wish to endorse such a view, you will find yourself I think at odds with the Reformers themselves…then again maybe not.
Good luck finding Reformed writings that really make a big deal about “Mother of God.”
As for Ps Dion. It was probably written by Damascius, a convert from Platonism and the last head of the Platonic Academy. And who wrote Hebrews again?
your citation of Chrysostom isn’t quite fair.
You’re getting things mixed up. I didn’t cite Chrystostom. But it’s not just one Chrysostom citation. The Webster/King (Vol 3) offers more tha 50 pages of Chrysostom citations, with context. You’ve got whole flocks of swallows there.
As for Ps Dion. It was probably written by Damascius, a convert from Platonism and the last head of the Platonic Academy. And who wrote Hebrews again?
Pseudo-Dionysius was clearly a sixth-century work of fiction that the Orthodox have included among their greatest theologians (see Photios’s list). Meanwhile, what are you trying to say about Hebrews? Are you trying to say THAt wasn’t Scripture? It is par for non Protestants to try to absolutely trash the Scriptures any chance they get.
And to be fair with the Klaus [Schatz] citation, these same scholars, as a matter of historical data, will deny that Jesus thought of himself as God too.
That is a Catholic problem. Because the Vatican sanctions his work. Nevertheless, they are at least trying to be honest with history. Which is more than can be said for Bryan Cross, Sean, etc.
John Bugay said,
August 20, 2009 at 6:33 am
Oops: Let “Sola Fide” and “Development” then compete for legitimacy on Scriptural grounds. should read, “Let ‘Sola Fide’ and ‘Apostolic Succession’ then compete for legitimacy on Scriptural grounds.”
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
August 20, 2009 at 7:18 am
Perry Robinson: “And as for the Orthodox being in communion with Rome in the not too distant future, you must mean that the Second Coming is near, because otherwise this is just not accurate.”
Thank you Perry.
Curate said,
August 20, 2009 at 7:30 am
no. 196 said: Why are you worried because we all use lenses when we read, and therefore none of us can claim a definitive, normative reading of Scripture? EOQ.
That is not the Protestant position. It is a modern, even a post-modern take. We do indeed claim a definitive and normative reading of scripture, one that is faithful to the text.
If one adopts your theory, all we are left with is doubt, which is the opposite of faith.
Zrim said,
August 20, 2009 at 7:43 am
Re 202: If one adopts your theory, all we are left with is doubt, which is the opposite of faith.
Agreed that the Protestant tradiiton claims a definitive and normative reading of scripture and that modern attacks which suggest anything less is worrisome, but the opposite of faith isn’t doubt but sight. This may sound like a petty, even irrelevant thing to point out, but the flanking western traditions (Catholic and Radical) are projects in striving after sight. Both want to relieve the inherent tension of faith by making either the church or the individual the final word on the Word instead of the Word itself.
Sean said,
August 20, 2009 at 8:12 am
Truth Unites and Divides.
I don’t know you think its a good thing that the Church does not come into union with one another and repair the great schism. At least I get the impression that you don’t want this to happen.
Some friends of ours (PCA) recently went to a Greek Orthodox Church and inquired about conversion. The priest said, “Why? You aren’t Greek. Just become Roman Catholic because we’ll be united again soon anyway.” So, clearly, there is reason to believe that Jesus’ prayer in John 17 is working in the real world.
Beyond that are a lot of very positive developments between Rome and Constantinople as well as other small churches coming into full communion recently such as here.
The gospel compels us to unity. Being happy about schism or indifferent is in opposition to Christ’s prayer.
John,
Your Nestorius quest recalls the following quote from Ronald Knox, dearly departed Anglican Convert:
“Has it ever occurred to you how few are the alleged ‘failures of infallibility’? I mean, if somebody propounded in your presence the thesis that all the kings of England have been impeccable, you would not find yourself murmuring, ‘Oh, well, people said rather unpleasant things about Jane Shore . . . and the best historians seem to think that Charles II spent too much of his time with Nell Gwynn.’ Here have these popes been, fulminating anathema after anathema for centuries—certain in all human probability to contradict themselves or one another over again. Instead of which you get this measly crop of two or three alleged failures!” (Difficulities)
While Knox’s observation does not establish the truth of papal infallibility, it does show that the historical argument against infallibility is weak.
For you to try to land blows against the Catholic Church you resort to siding with the heretics of past centuries and anathematizing the great councils because they cause offense to ‘Reformed ears.’
You then try to land blows because the structure of the church indeed included development in understanding. Something that nobody denies. Not the Popes. Not SATIS COGNITUM. Not Vatican I. Nicaea claims to affirm the ‘constant faith’ but everybody knows there was development of understanding in regards to the Trinity. Modern Arians, they actually still exist, write volumes about the Trinity is a departure from the true faith because it was a development. Sounds familiar huh?
Your pet topics (the early papacy and development and Nestorius) are paper houses not standing on any foundation other than what you think offends ‘reformed ears.’
If you are so conversant with the Fathers, why don’t you adopt a more historical Church theology, if not Catholic, why not Orthodox or Anglican? Where are your bishops, your priests? Where is your respect for tradition? Are you claiming that your particular Protestant church’s doctrines and beliefs are those of the Fathers? Or do we simply dismiss the Fathers on Baptism, Eucharist, Church government, Bishops, priests, etc ?
John Bugay said,
August 20, 2009 at 8:37 am
Sean — the Ronald Knox quote you cite has nothing to do with anything. The papacy that you defend — not just infallibility, but the whole institution is a sham. That is the point of the arguments I make.
As far as “development” in the papacy, that too is the laughable claim. The (fictitious) notion of an early papacy was foundational — FOUNDATIONAL — to Roman thinking for centuries. Now that “there was development,” it is a huge opening for our side to press Rome for further “developments.”
As for Nestorius, he is not a heretic, and the real “Great Schism,” that which occurred in the 5th century, you should note, is a *schism* and not a heretical divide. To argue as you do supports not a sham such as the papacy, but also an unwarranted death sentence on more than half the church at the time. (You are aware of the document signed in 1994 by John Paul II which affirms “a common Christology” with those Eastern churches? I’m not in the habit of citing popes, but you are so clearly out of line on this one that it’s funny.)
Perry Robinson said,
August 20, 2009 at 9:33 am
Sean,
The comments by a local priest do not amount to the teaching of the Orthodox any more than the local Catholic priest who favors women’s ordination represents Roman teaching.
In fact the priest is wrong on material grounds alone. The thinking that the gospel is limited by ethnicity was condemned by the Orthodox about a century ago as phylitism. I’ve heard such things too and there are historical reasons why some Orthodox, particularly from the old countries think this way
Perry Robinson said,
August 20, 2009 at 9:57 am
Andrew M,
It is not that we do not wish to grapple with Latin ways of doing theology. We have done so before they were distinctly Latin, specifically when they were Origenistic. We aren’t averse to thinking about matters or giving rational arguments. What we oppose is doing theology using a method that presupposes a false view of the world and a false Christology, namely dialectic, where objects are distinguished via opposite properties.
Part of the problem on judging the matter from my perspective is that you are presuming a place of an ecclesiastical judge. I am not sure how such a position is justified. Part of the problem is the assumption that councils of the church are not divinely guided and are merely human entities. This means that we are starting with different ecclesiologies and in fact, different Christologies. This argument is really misplaced.
Why would you take the decisions of Acts 15 council as infallible simply on the judgment of the church centuries later that Acts was inspired? The fact that it was widely accepted doesn’t imply that it was inspired or that most people thought that it was. And no real work is done by appealing to self authentication since one can be duped into thinking that something is self authenticating when its not. So the formal canon is a product of centuries later theological reflection. Do you think the formal canon is revisable and subject to human judgment too?
As for the Filioque, I am sure that the Reformed don’t see how it grounds papal prerogatives, but a study of the “reforms” of Gregory 7th I think will yield a different result. Secondly that of itself leaves the question of the justification of the doctrine untouched. So given the thread topic, in light of the Reformed lenses, how can the doctrine of the Filioque be justified by Scripture alone and what if it turns out that its not? What goes, the doctrine or the lens? And this again gets us back to the question of how we can know which lens is correct, given the fact that scripture is not some bare self interpreting fact, but is interpreted through a lens? The lens cannot be derived from Scripture without the lens in the first place since there is no non-theory laden exegetical methodology to be had. Or to put it in Van Tillian terms, there are no neutral facts.
I don’t think my position is lifting infallibility out of the realm of the divine voice and placing it among humans anymore than the inspiration of men in scripture does so. I am not saying that conciliar decisions are inspired in exactly the same sense that Scripture is. Rather I am rejecting the dialectical positioning of the question, either divine or human as if they were to be distinguished by opposite properties. This framing betrays a presupposed anthropology, doctrine of creation and Christology that I reject.
Perry Robinson said,
August 20, 2009 at 10:12 am
Curate,
I don’t have to assume that scripture is opaque. Make scripture as clear as you like and it won’t matter and here is why. What matters is the clarity of the individual mind making the judgment as to what Scripture in fact means. If the bible were a mirror, you can’t have an ape looking in and an apostle looking out.
Second, the issue is not whether one can come to a correct interpretation on their own, but whether one can come to a normative one on their own and whether only the individual can be normatively bound by their own judgment or whether they can be bound by the church’s judgment.
Can one’ individual conscience trump that of the church? And if so, why? What is it about my own conscience and judgment that the church supposedly lacks? And why suppose that the church is somehow a collection of equally normative (perhaps not equally good) judges? Why do Protestants get to simply assume this kind of egalitarianism about normativity here?
And if the individual conscience can’t trump the church’s judgment, what were priests like Luther and laymen like Calvin doing exactly?
On your reading no doctrine is stable. All doctrines, including the canon are revisable, provisional and capable of being over turned formally speaking. All doctrines are human reconstruction projects That looks a lot like humanism and not very much like early Christianity. What seems preferable is teaching that isn’t human, that is divine and hence binds the conscience whether I agree with it or not, for that is how God teaches.
None of that though touches the question, if the Reformed interpret Scripture through a lens, and it is not possible to interpret Scripture apart from a lens, how does one find out that the lens one has is correct? It can’t be by reference to Scripture anymore than an atheist can check the veridicality of his experience by more experience or that there are causes in the world by giving more examples of events.
John Bugay said,
August 20, 2009 at 10:32 am
Perry #207: What matters is the clarity of the individual mind making the judgment as to what Scripture in fact means…if the Reformed interpret Scripture through a lens, and it is not possible to interpret Scripture apart from a lens, how does one find out that the lens one has is correct?
Are you suggesting that somehow those who wrote the Reformed confessions are radically incorrect in their interpretation of Scripture?
Perry Robinson said,
August 20, 2009 at 10:33 am
Paige,
Well its complicated but let me give you a sketch. Our view of infallibility is different because we endorse a different view of God and Christology than either Rome or Protestantism. Infallibility is an energy or divine activity. It isn’t limited to the clergy as the church has designated specific writings of some laymen as representing infallibly the teaching of the church, such as Maxims the Confessor.
It can be exercised by the episcopate under certain conditions as outlined in 2nd Nicea. To get an authoritative answer it is often supposed that the source must be simple, lacking parts, otherwise its possible that one “part” might disagree with another part. Much of the Catholic apologetic for the papacy and Protestant arguments for the normativity of private judgment rest on this metaphysical assumption of equating simplicity with permanence, stability and unity. In either case, the source is singular and simple, either in the pope or the individual, since barring schizophrenia, an individual can’t disagree with himself.
We think that plurality isn’t opposed to unity since in the Trinity all of the divine persons are really distinct but are in perfect unity. Likewise all of the divine energies are distinct in themselves (knowing isn’t the same as willing for example) but they all interpenetrate each other without reducing one to another. Consequently we reject the Platonic and unscriptural doctrine advocated by Catholics and Protestants that God is metaphysically absolutely simple.
Likewise in the church under the appropriate conditions, all of the apostles or all of the bishops can exercise the divine power or energy of infallibility. That’s more of the metaphysical backdrop.
You can see it here I think in the decree of the fifth council about none of the apostles requiring the counsel of the others to execute their work qua apostle and so likewise with the bishops, but to establish things, councils are the best and only way to do it.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.vi.html
For epistemology I’d say that the phronema or mind of the church is seen in the scriptures and in continuity with them in the fathers and the councils. This does not mean simplistically that everything a Father says is normative. There are criteria for weeding out false views of individuals-say by what is taught in all of the major apostolic sees together or in councils. What matters for us though is maintaining continuity rather than the Catholic or Protestant idea of development since we reject the idea that doctrine develops along Idealistic lines.
So the test is if a doctrine has been taught before by the tradition or not, rather than it being some supposed logical extension “implicit” in previous content.
Curate said,
August 20, 2009 at 10:55 am
no. 208 Perry said: EOQ.
Perry, we are not apes, but Christians who have been given the Holy Spirit in baptism. Paul to the Corinthians says that God has revealed the things that did not enter into the mind of man to us, who have the mind of Christ.
Curate said,
August 20, 2009 at 10:56 am
no. 203 Perry said: If the bible were a mirror, you can’t have an ape looking in and an apostle looking out. EOQ.
Curate said,
August 20, 2009 at 11:14 am
No. 208. Perry said: if the Reformed interpret Scripture through a lens, and it is not possible to interpret Scripture apart from a lens, how does one find out that the lens one has is correct? EOQ.
I agree that this states Greenbaggins’s problem very well, not excluding the entire RCC and the EO.
My position is that the Bible is its own lens, and that it actually has the effect of exposing our lenses to us, and in doing so, correcting them. This is one of the things that the Holy Spirit does.
When ones lens is the Bible’s lens, then you are in agreement with God, and you can have the epistemological assurance that you need.
Again, the Bible is not written in an inaccessible code known only to the Pope. It is very plain on most things, so much so that even a child can understand what he needs to know for salvation.
Perry Robinson said,
August 20, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Curate,
The apes was an allusion to the saying from Ocar Wilde. And some people are dupes. Not everyone is equally intelligent.
Really? You were given the Spirit in baptism? I didn’t think that the Reformed thought that that was necessarilyso. The Spirit May come with baptism but not necessarily. One can be regenerate prior to baptism, isn’t that Reformed teaching or no?
Paul is speaking to those in the church. I don’t take the Reformed to be in the church but schismatics and heterodox.
I am not sure what it means to say that the bible is its own lens. Do you mean that the reader doesn’t interpret it from a presuppositional frame of reference? Or that the text can trump the presuppositional interpretative grid of the reader? If the latter, then doesn’t that mean that the bible is a self interprting fact? I am not sure how that squares with Van Til’s apologetic since no sensory data is self interpreting.
Furthermore, if theSpirit does the work, then the bible isn’t doing the work and this is in line with Reformed Christology which posits the Spirit comes to the humanity from the outside and creates effects in the humanity of Christ and this is the basis for the Reformed adherence to the Catholic doctrine of “created grace.” Consequently your gloss here depends on your Christology. We don’t agree on Christology, which is why we don’t agree here. (See Muller’s Christ and the Decree, on how the Reformed dissent from Chalcedon.
Epistemological assurance, I am not sure what that is supposed to mean, but being assured isn’t co-extensive with knowledge. One can be assured and not in fact know. And one can think they have divine assurance and in fact not have it, so it doesn’t look like assurance isn’t doing any work here.
As for how the bible is written I think depends on how one views inspiration. Since I reject the Reformed view of the relation of the Spirit to the humanity of Christ, I also reject the Reformed view of inspiration from which it is derived.
Inspiration is Christological or theanthropic which is why methods like the grammatical-historical methods are inadequate and lead to heterodox Christology-see Theodore of Mopsuestia for example-http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/jul_grisham/CH.Grisham.theodore.mopsuestia.pdf
I don’t think one could get Paul’s allegorical interpretaiton in Gal 4 by just reading the OT text. to think that a natural methodology can just read off the meaning of a divine text like any other assumes that either the divine and human aren’t essentially different or a kind of naturalism.
Again, the difference is really found in our different Christologies.
And the quesiton isn’t whether the bible is clear or not, the question is how does one arrive at a normative interpretation. This point you seemed to ignore when I posed it above.
David Gadbois said,
August 20, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Perry wrote If we don’t let the church’s teaching flavor the historical-grammatical method, doesn’t this assume that the methodology is non-theory laden and carries with it no metaphysical or Christological implications? The fifth council condemns something very much like it on that basis. So I doubt that it functions as a neutral method to start with.
If by ‘the church’s teaching’ you mean other doctrines that are derived from Scripture, sure. But that’s just the analogy of faith, the interplay between systematic and exegetical theology.
Perry Robinson said,
August 20, 2009 at 12:18 pm
John B,
I do think that the Reformed confessions are in fact wrong in key areas, which is just to say that I am Orthodox and not Reformed. But even on Reformed principles, the Reformed confessions are not infallible and are always open to revision. Its certainly possible that the Reformers were in fact in error at any given point.
My point was that the perspicuity of the text is not really germane. What is germane is the perspicuity of the mind who is making a judgment about the text and the normativity of the judgment made by the individual. Why should Calvin’s judgment be any more binding on my conscience than the pope’s?
I let the Reformers be what they were, fallible men and not some once for all illumined individuals who gave some unrevisable interpretation. Doctrine on Reformed principles is a reconstruction process and given sin and error, it is not implausible to think that the confessions are in fact in error. It’s entailed by the Nominalistic humanism of Reformation. I think doctrines like simplicity and the Filioque are key examples of unscriptural doctrines which are products of Catholic and Platonic philosophical theology. Where is the hypostatic eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son as from one principle clearly stated in Scripture or implied for that matter? And where is the idea of simplicity in scripture? And I am still waiting for White’s biblical exegesis that the Bible teaches that God has libertarian free will.
And I don’t have to show that the Reformed confessions are in fact in error, for given the lens of Reformed confessions as a presuppositional grid by which the bible is interpreted, that would be impossible from within the system. The grid will come up with alternative interpretations for any scriptural exegesis I would proffer. Bare facts don’t overturn or discriminate between models. Any system is capable of admitting contrary evidence, it just depends on how much one wishes to give up or how one wishes to re-interpret the data in light of the system a la Quine and Van Til.
Even if all the interpretations of the text by the Reformed confessions were correct in fact, it wouldn’t give us a reason to think that the lens was the right one, anymore than the fact that modern science proposes in fact working models confirms that the models are right and work for the reasons that the scientific models proffer. Something can work, but not for the reasons you think it does. So we need a reason for thinking that the lens gets us to the right interpretation even if the interpretations were to be assumed correct, so we are right back to the question of how we are to know that the Reformed confessions are the right lens?
So what do you offer to answer that question?
Perry Robinson said,
August 20, 2009 at 12:51 pm
David G,
if the exegetical method isn’t theory neutral, then it will select a priori and interpret data according to a specific theological model. It still seems to me that you are positing an incrementalist apporach to building up a theological model. I am not sure how that is possible if exegetical methodologies aren’t theory neutral.
St. Robert Bellarmine said,
August 20, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Mr. Perry Robinson:
What do you think of Demetrios Kydones’ Apologia?
Perry Robinson said,
August 20, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Bellermine,
I don’t think much of Akindynos’ criticisms of Palamas. If he were right, then the Fifth and Sixth council are wrong. Second, I’d recommend reading the position first from its own advocates rather than reading apologetic material against it.
Without the e/e distinction dyoenergism and dyothelitism are false. But given the theology of Maximus and the 6th council, they aren’t false. You can’t affirm dyoenergism and deny the e/e distinction.
Perry Robinson said,
August 20, 2009 at 4:09 pm
John B.
Moffett, Soro and Jenkins’ works are not monographs on Nestorius or his theology. McGuckin’s work is. I’d recommend his full volume via Brill or SVS.
I’d have to see Soro’s full comments rather than snippets. Second, what you have cited doesn’t show materially that Nestorius’ theology was orthodox but at worst that he faced insurmountable odds or that he got a raw canonical deal. Such was true of Arius for example given the make up the Nicene council. Nestorius still retained the difficulty of saying the shibboleth of Theotokos nonetheless.
To be fair, Cyril set aside Rome’s judgment against Nestorius. He didn’t just rubber stamp the judgment of other sees. The decision was made synodally. And then we have the agreement of John of Antioch after the council, who wasn’t exactly disposed towards Cyril’s position. Nestorius’ aligning himself with Western enemies like the Pelagians certainly didn’t help him. How ironic that you are defending an ally of Pelagius.
As to the matter of his theology, he takes hypostasis to mean substance or nature. The two substances come together to form the subject or prosopa, a single appearance. Each nature retains and preserves its own prosopa or appearance but these are conjoined through an act of divine will into one prosopon or concrete appearance. Consequently, Nestorius’ theology is inconsistent in its use of hypostasis between triadology and christology (for hypostasis denotes person in the Trinity, not essence) and tends to confuse the categories of person and nature as a result. The single appearance is the product of the divine will, which is why Nestorius and his followers also advocated Monothelitism. Do you wish to advocate monothelitism?
Moffett’s comments are only as good as his arguments and until I see the arguments, the comments don’t support your claim. Its true that Cyril misread some points of Nestorius, but that went both ways as it often does in theological disputes. Nestorius wasn’t free from misreading Cyril or free from disregarding clear statements by Cyril that the divine essence was and remained impassable, which was one of Nestorius’ primary concerns.
Cyril’s convening of the council without all participants present was well within the canonical requirements for councils since the conditions on invitations and other matters had been met. Cyril even gave them extra time. You confuse Cyril’s error with an outright lie. Cyril made mistakes, but so did Nestorius and to slide from mistake to deception is rather fallacious.
Cyril didn’t use armed gangs to enforce John of Antioch’s opinion or other Antiochians that Nestorius as wrong, so what I suspect you are referring to is irrelevant. The same is true of the judgment of other sees like Rome for instance.
I am Orthodox and I am not defending the papacy, so all of your complaints about the papacy are irrelevant and they are materially irrelevant to the case of Nestorius.
Reformed confessions either allude to or outright condemn Nestorius as a heretic. Try the second Helvetic Confession for instance, XI,
“And indeed we detest the dogma of the Nestorians who make two of one Christ and dissolve the unity of the Person. Likewise we thoroughly execrate the madness of Eutyches and of the Monothelites or Monophysites who destroy the property of the human nature.”
The condemnation is quite pervasive in standard Reformed works as well as Confessions. I wouldn’t think I would have to do that leg work for Calvinists. If you think its wrong and wish to correct it, good luck overturning Reformed tradition.
Mater theou isn’t of itself problematic. It is so only so if you confuse person with nature so that Mary gives birth to the divine nature. So long as Mary gives birth to a divine person, there’s no problem Christologically with either Mater theou or Theotokos. Mother of God or God-bearer are acceptable. Perhaps if the Reformed like yourself were clearer in their own minds that the term refers to a divine person their ears wouldn’t be so easily offended.
Protestants have for quite a long time appealed to the idea of doctrinal development to explain, that supposedly like the Trinity, sola fide was implicit in earlier works and made explicit at the Reformation. If I thought doctrine was a human re-construction, I might agree to a scriptural competition. Of course, the question is, who is the judge of such a competition? You or me? Who is the judge that applies the rule or standard?
Your claim that the Orthodox did “develop” such doctrines is a bald assertion. I can’t address unsupported claims. Just because you baldly assert there was conceptual development, doesn’t imply that there was. Second, you don’t seem to grasp the concept of doctrinal development as an Idealistic theory.
If we are talking within the confines of Roman, Orthodox and Reformation theology then this will exclude the Copts and the Assyrians and probably the Armenians at that time too. Of course, if you can get the Reformed to back off their condemnations of the Copts and the Assyrians, that would open up the playing field as you suggest. Good luck with that.
In any case, it is irrelevant since the Copts and Assyrians both reject Protestantism. Size doesn’t matter since the church is not a democracy. There were probably more Christians in Antioch for example than Jerusalem when Acts 15 occurred, but that didn’t imply that the authority of the Jerusalem council was lessened in any way.
You’re correct that you didn’t cite Chrysostom, but rather Gregory, in which case my argument in the main applies. It has a specific context and he doesn’t say the same about say Nicea, but quite the opposite. Second, I own the Webster King texts. I’ve read them and I was unmoved. They consistently make the error of identifying necessary conditions for Sola Scriptura with sufficient conditions. Scripture may be good, clear, the ground for all doctrines, the only infallible rule and so forth, but that of itself is not the concept of Sola Scriptura. The Laudians for example as I pointed out above agreed with all of that and yet they denied Sola Scriptura against the Puritans. Someone who affirms Prima Scriptura can affirm all of the above without Sola Scriptura. The vast majority of the citations in the King/Webster volumes only prove that Primma Scriptura of some form was believed. But of course, being Orthodox, I am just fine with that as were the Laudians. It’d be helpful to you to read some of their arguments against the Puritans contained in the hundred volume or so series, the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology. I’d also suggest Rupert Davies little book, The Problem of Authority in the Continental Reformers.
Oh, I don’t think Ps Dion. Divine Names or Mystical Theology were works of fiction. Rather I think they were genuine treatises in philosophical theology by a Proclean who converted to Christianity. That the Severan monophysites picked it up and mistakenly took it for a disciple of Paul is unfortunate, but that doesn’t of itself make it a forgery per se.
Secondly, I’d be careful how you trash Ps Dion’ theology since a good amount of the theology of God in Protesantism is derived from it and particularly from scholastic readings of it from coming through Albert the Great. If Dion is to be rejected then a whole mess of Protestant theology proper goes out the window too. When was the last time you tried to derive the notion of analogical predication, apophasis and divine simplicity as found in Reformed Confessions and Reformed writers from Scripture alone? Where do you think the idea of the divine ideas comes from or the doctrine of divine timelessness as simultaneity?
I am not trashing the Scriptures by simply disagreeing with your view. You seem to impute to me many bad motives without even knowing me. I’d kindly suggest that you try to follow the scriptural injunction to speak to others with kindness and respect and to think better of others than yourself. That said, I was only using your own argument against you. If a false attribution of authorship is sufficient to discount a work as authentic, then by your own argument, Hebrews should be removed from the canon. And I don’t “trash” the Scriptures. I probably read and pray five times the amount of Scripture every Sunday than the average Presbyterian does.
As to the Klaus citation, not it isn’t a Catholic problem exclusively and here is why. If you think his method for arriving at that conclusion is truth preserving then you should also endorse their other conclusions. If not, then I see no reason why Catholics should be bound by it either. Second, while I am not defending the papacy, I think people do not pay attention to what Klaus says. As a matter of historical data, certain doctrines lack sufficient data to establish them as a matter of reason or fact along the lines of a demonstration. That said, Rome doesn’t claim and I’d wager plenty of Protestants wouldn’t either that as a matter of history various doctrines are proved in terms of a logical demonstration. This is why they are matters of grace, revelation and such.
Second, I have no idea who Sean is, but I do know Bryan Cross. And while Bryan and I have serious disagreements, so much so that I think Catholicism is more like Protestantism than Orthodoxy, Bryan is an honest person. I have spent time with him and he has a good character and personally has born up under personal suffering that few here could possibly imagine. So before you go demonizing people and attributing to them motives that you have no possible way of knowing, I’d suggest taking a step back and stop giving Calvinists a bad name.
John Bugay said,
August 20, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Perry — I’ll answer most of your stuff later. But I have a couple of things.
Consider this statement, from Andrew Preslar, #121:
After all, people disagree about things as crystal clear as the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, …
Now, is that a statement, do you think, that is honest with history?
The only reason I mentioned Sean and Bryan Cross is because they make the same kinds of statements.
The second thing is, my exact contention was that theologians like Schatz “are at least trying to be honest with history. Which is more than can be said for Bryan Cross, Sean, etc.”
Can you tell me with a straight face that I have done more harm to “Calvinists” than Cyril did to Christianity with his armed gangs?
And whatever you say, know that I don’t care. If I get a sanction from Reed or Lane, then I’ll worry.
Perry Robinson said,
August 20, 2009 at 7:05 pm
John,
I understand that clarity and truth are not co-extensive. Things can be clear and yet people not see them for whatever reason. For example it seems fairly clear that sola fide is an artifact of late medieval scholasticism, specifically Okhamism wedded to Augustinian pre-emption.
I am sure that Andrew thinks its clear and he probably has epistemic justification for thinking so. That doesn’t mean its true or that he has in fact met the conditions on knowledge. I recognize that people like Bryan are quite intelligent. i have sat in graduate seminars with Bryan and I can say from experience that I don’t take arguing with him lightly. Andyet Ithink he is wrong, just like I think you are wrong. I recognize that Bryan thinks he has good reasons for thinking what he does. That doesn’t make him dishonest, just human and limited, like you or me.
I am sure things look very clear to you, but this usually is the case when read literature that favors their own position and ignore serious material that doesn’t. I have seen quite a few howlers from Catholics about Orthodoxy because they read only their own sources. I just think its harder to find the truth about things, to actually prove things than most people think, because they have never had to do it at a professional level.
As for Cyril and “gangs” I am not sure what this proves anymore than the Reformed mob that tore apart the tomb of Ireneaus of Lyon. With Cyril I think you play this card far more than it is worth and most scholars on Cyril I think would agree with my judgment. I’d go read what Luther and Calvin say about Cyril.
You do harm to your cause when you impute the worst motives to someone who is arguing in a dispassionate manner and who concentrates on the arguments rather than the personalities. Besides, I would think Scripture would be worth more to you than anything I could say. give an answer with gentleness and respect. blessed are the meek. There is more than one way to “trash” the Scriptures after all.
If you do not care what I say, then why bother talking? If you are infallible, I could see why that might be the case. But it is quite striking to me that people who deny infallibility very often act as if they have it. Rather if you are fallible, all the more reason to listen to dispassionate and informed persons on a topic. You might be wrong or you might win a worthy ally to your cause.
Paige Britton said,
August 20, 2009 at 8:04 pm
From Curate’s #205:
no. 196 (Paige) said: Why are you worried because we all use lenses when we read, and therefore none of us can claim a definitive, normative reading of Scripture? EOQ.
That is not the Protestant position. It is a modern, even a post-modern take. We do indeed claim a definitive and normative reading of scripture, one that is faithful to the text.
If one adopts your theory, all we are left with is doubt, which is the opposite of faith.”
Sorry, Curate, for tipping the balance over to the modern-postmodern side there: I did not word that phrase well. I liked how Zrim put it — that the opposite of faith is sight, and that the RCC and the EO are trying to realize full sight this side of eternity. All I mean to expand on is the idea that at this time we “see through a glass darkly,” that we have real choices to make sometimes regarding interpretations, and that some choices will be made more confidently than others. Even the WCF, as confidently as we may hold it, is just derivative, just a lens. A good, good lens, but just a lens. I DON’T mean to say “it’s all relative,” or that we should doubt everything we believe, but that as readers we (individually and collectively) are fallible — unlike the claims of those who are not Protestants.
Pax?
Paige Britton said,
August 20, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Thank you, Perry for your response to my question (#213). I look forward to reading more.
Kevin said,
August 20, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Curate said:
“Again, the Bible is not written in an inaccessible code known only to the Pope. It is very plain on most things, so much so that even a child can understand what he needs to know for salvation.”
Very plain, as in the Beatitudes? Or very plain, as in the rich man who asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life? Plain like that? Or is that complicated?
Blessings and peace.
KB
Paige Britton said,
August 20, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Curate again (#205):
Just to clarify: when you said “We do indeed claim a definitive and normative reading of scripture, one that is faithful to the text,” you meant Protestants — but which Protestants? Are you thinking only of certain doctrines (Christological, soteriological, etc.), or of everything that is taught?
Is it just me, or do we all have to wade through and weigh the different takes of different Protestants on any number of Scriptures and theological points?
Paige Britton said,
August 20, 2009 at 9:02 pm
You know, brothers here, I was not going to waste your time by explaining my involvement in these dialogues, but I will bet that (speaking of interpretive lenses) you who do not know me have no idea how to read my participation. I am regrettably not a seminary student, but because I have a tendency to study, I’m sometimes asked to teach or write so as to explain theological things to laypeople. It is not impossible that some of your Reformed congregants will bump into my writing sometime, and I do hope that I will have dotted my i’s and crossed my t’s (and not the opposite) for your sakes. So I’m beholden to you when you catch my errors, sharpen my thinking, and respond to my questions. Think of me as having to scratch an education out of whatever is handy, so as to turn around again and offer some of it to others.
pax,
Paige B.
Sean said,
August 20, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Perry.
Thank you for your cogent interaction here.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 20, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Part of the problem on judging the matter from my perspective is that you are presuming a place of an ecclesiastical judge. I am not sure how such a position is justified.
Perry,
The RC’s are forever making this kind of statement and I just don’t get why. It’s not me who is making any judgments, or at least no more than you are. We of course both have to judge which tradition is faithful to historic Christianity. Your judgment is that the RC’s and Prot’s are wrong. Now I don’t want to state your reasons for this belief, I will let you do that. From my standpoint, at the time of the Reformation in the West there were two branches of Christendom both claiming to be the true Church. From the Protestant standpoint the RCC of the late Medieval era was something fundamentally different than the Christian Church of the first few centuries AD. I often encourage RC’s to read the theology of Clement and compare vs.that of some of the Medievel popes to demonstrate this. But it’s not me making this judgment, it is the Church making this judgment. Now of course it’s not the whole of Christendom that was making this argument, it was half of Western Christendom. The other half (the RCC) felt that the Protestants were out of accord with the theology of the Early Church (based generally on just succession sorts of arguments). So if I tell an RC that his belief is based on his personal judgment he will tell me that no, he is just agreeing with the judgment of the Church (RC). And if he tells me that my belief is based on my personal judgment I will tell him that no, I am just agreeing with the judgment of the Church (Prot). Now along comes you who tells us that we are both wrong and the EO Church is correct. So maybe I should tell you that this is just your judgment, but I bet you won’t be impressed by that argument, no? So why try the same tact on me?
Part of the problem is the assumption that councils of the church are not divinely guided and are merely human entities.
I didn’t say that they are not divinely guided. Being divinely guided does not guarantee infallibility. There are all sorts of examples from the Scriptures where God divinely guides His people and they go in the wrong direction. I am just saying that I see no reason to ascribe infallibility to a promulgation of a council. The defense of the infallibility of Scriptures is clear, but why do we want to hold to the infallibility of a council? If you do want to equate the words of Scripture which were God breathed with the words of men assembling at a council which were not God breathed, there ought to be some very good reasons for doing so. And now that you are bringing in the EO side of things, I would add that there ought also to be a very good reason why you believe that it was only the bishops of the Eastern Church who got blessed with infallibility while the bishops of the Western Church did not.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
August 20, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Sean: says: “Truth Unites and Divides.
I don’t know you think its a good thing that the Church does not come into union with one another and repair the great schism. At least I get the impression that you don’t want this to happen.”
Sean, you need to learn that uniformity and unity are not necessarily the same thing. You also need to distinguish between true unity and false unity.
Again, I have to ask you: If you think uniformity = unity and that such “unity” is to be highly prized, *and* you also know that there are EO’s who flatly state in their writings that the Catholic papacy has become the “womb of heresies and fallacies,” then are you willing to jettison and abandon the Catholic papacy to achieve greater unity with the EO’s? Your answer to that will tell me how committed you are to your professed commitment to unity.
Frankly, I’d be impressed if the Roman Catholic Church started calling Sedevacantist Catholics to be in full communion with Rome.
Andrew McCallum: “And now that you are bringing in the EO side of things, I would add that there ought also to be a very good reason why you believe that it was only the bishops of the Eastern Church who got blessed with infallibility while the bishops of the Western Church did not.”
An excellent observation. After all, both sides recognize each other as having valid apostolic succession. Is there a two-tiered system of apostolic succession whereby the EO bishops occupy a higher tier than the RCC bishops?
Curate said,
August 21, 2009 at 12:37 am
No. 229. Paige said: Is it just me, or do we all have to wade through and weigh the different takes of different Protestants on any number of Scriptures and theological points? EOQ.
First, thanks for your general input.
Second, most people are unaware of the overwhelming agreement among the Protestant churches of the Reformation. Comparing the Confessions it turns out that they agreed on everything, with the sole exception of ONE point under ONE head of doctrine.
That degree of agreement is unprecedented in history. Among the delegates to Trent, on the other hand, there was such a diversity of opinion on just about every point that the decrees were carefully worded to make room for everyone there – except the Reformation.
The agreement amongst the Protestants is due to the fact that they were all studying the Bible, whereas their opponents hardly bothered to open it. The same tendency continues today, as evidenced by the EO and RCC people on this thread. I couldn’t see any actual scripture in their posts. When I use it it is simply waved away.
The diversity amongst Protestants today is down to a general scriptural illiteracy. The secret to agreement amongst us is for us to go back to the Bible, and stop putting the scholars above it.
Curate said,
August 21, 2009 at 12:43 am
No. 228. Kevin B: Yes as plain as the beatitudes, and the account of the rich man. Also as plain as James’s teaching that a living faith obeys God’s law.
Peace.
Paige Britton said,
August 21, 2009 at 5:27 am
Thank you, Curate, for your thoughts.
I am not sure I totally agree with this: “The diversity amongst Protestants today is down to a general scriptural illiteracy. The secret to agreement amongst us is for us to go back to the Bible, and stop putting the scholars above it.”
Scriptural illiteracy and prior commitments to things like human autonomy are, indeed, the big sources of regrettable diversity between Protestant denominations, churches, and individuals. But I think that, to be fair, there will still be passages of the Bible that literate, Reformed people will puzzle and debate over. (And I think the Reformers recognized this, too — see I.vii, “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves…not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a SUFFICIENT understanding of them.”)
You and I are in agreement, though, that consensus among the various Reformed confessions indicates that the Bible contains in the main a message that careful, humble readers can agree upon. (But since we are not infallible, we do need to keep checking with the text and with each other to make sure we are on — and stay on — the right track.)
As one of the chapter headings of his book “The Clarity of Scripture,” James Callahan gives a parable by Kierkegaard which paints what would happen if the NT said that everybody should get $100,000. Everyone would immediately recognize the clarity there, without debate or commentary. But since the NT doesn’t promise riches, but asks us to give up not only our greed but our boasting, everybody hems and haws and hopes the scholars will obscure those passages with their commentaries…
Sean said,
August 21, 2009 at 5:43 am
Truth unites.
Where have I said that I only want “uniformity?”
What we should be praying for is full communion amongst all Christians. One table for the Lord’s Supper.
See here.
johnbugay said,
August 21, 2009 at 5:54 am
Perry, #219
My point was that the perspicuity of the text is not really germane. What is germane is the perspicuity of the mind who is making a judgment about the text and the normativity of the judgment made by the individual. Why should Calvin’s judgment be any more binding on my conscience than the pope’s?
Well, consider this from Augustine (354-430): Therefore what He [i.e., Christ] has deigned to speak to us, we ought to believe that He meant us to understand. But if we do not understand He, being asked, gives understanding, who gave His Word unasked. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate XXII, §1.
When you consider who is the author of Scripture (God), and to whom He is writing, you must acknowledge that He is able to speak to us in a language that we would understand. I saw you cite Ockham in another posting, and the two are simply not on par with each other as “perspicuous” writings.
I let the Reformers be what they were, fallible men and not some once for all illumined individuals who gave some unrevisable interpretation.
And who here doesn’t believe this?
Doctrine on Reformed principles is a reconstruction process and given sin and error, it is not implausible to think that the confessions are in fact in error.
It is also not implausible to think that the writers of the confessions were very intelligent, very devout, very much in tune with what God HAS made perspicuous in the Scriptures.
I think doctrines like simplicity and the Filioque are key examples of unscriptural doctrines which are products of Catholic and Platonic philosophical theology.
I very much dislike how Rome edited the creed by itself, but this is one area where you can’t lift up God’s robe and just see what’s under there. That is to say, this is just another kind of theological speculation that may or may not have Scriptural warrant, and given the condition of the church right now, especially the “middle east” portions of it (and the real “Church of the East” is quite dead), it is probably less important to take a stand (one way or the other) on this.
given the lens of Reformed confessions as a presuppositional grid by which the bible is interpreted
There is a difference, Perry. The Confessions are “out there”; anyone may see and comment on and try to disprove by Scriptural means what is said there. Compare this vs. the type of “presuppositional grid” by which Catholicism “interprets” the Bible. I’m taking this from Jason Stellman’s #72:
So, you have clarity on the one hand, and then you have some sort of secret, mysterious, “infallible” process by which the meanings of words are mysteriously changed. That’s “the house built on sand” if ever there was one.
And I am still waiting for White’s biblical exegesis that the Bible teaches that God has libertarian free will.
Here is probably all that you will get, or that you deserve for an answer.
Even if all the interpretations of the text by the Reformed confessions were correct in fact, it wouldn’t give us a reason to think that the lens was the right one, … so we are right back to the question of how we are to know that the Reformed confessions are the right lens?
So what do you offer to answer that question?
There is history, there is linguistic scholarship, and above all, there is honesty. Steve Hays asks the question, “what’s the difference between an authoritative interpretation, and a correct one?”
As in the example Jason gives above, what are you to do when the very best historical and linguistic studies say that “100% of the time, the word means this,” and then you have an “infallible authority” that says “nuh uh, cause we say so.” “Dikaioo” is not the only instance in which Catholicism does this. It is well known that Catholic doctrines are riddled with this kind of misunderstanding.
You won’t find this kind of muddled doctrines in the Reformed confessions.
johnbugay said,
August 21, 2009 at 6:01 am
Heh, that’s funny; I didn’t close that link properly above, and as it were, “all roads lead to Triablogue.”
johnbugay said,
August 21, 2009 at 6:24 am
Perry, #225
I certainly agree with you that Bryan is a smart fellow, and that he has “been through some things” in his life. I would say that he is extremely and thoroughly “limited” by the Roman Catholic lens that he uses.
As far as Cyril’s armed gangs — and my trotting them out too frequently, well, I’m certain that the Reformed gangs you compare them with (those who tore up Irenaeus’s tomb?) did far less damage, official damage and in the number of people they killed, than “official” and even officially sanctioned gangs did throughout history.
I’ll leave you with this little timeline — “armed gangs” are a part of Christian history, and we would do well today to disavow them, not to support them in their efforts:
From my blog post:
150 ad: the church at Rome is ruled by a plurality of presbyters who quarrel about status and honor. (Shepherd of Hermas). “They had a certain jealousy of one another over questions of preeminence and about some kind of distinction. But they are all fools to be jealous of one another regarding preeminence.”
Also note in Hermas: “Clement’s” “job” is to “send books abroad.” — Peter Lampe does not think this Clement is the same individual from 1 Clement, but the time frame is appropriate.
235: Hippolytus and Pontianus are exiled from Rome by the emperor “because of street fighting between their followers” (Collins citing Cerrato, Oxford 2002).
258: Cyprian (Carthage/west) and Firmilian (Caesarea/east) both go apoplectic when Stephen tries to exercise authority outside of Rome.
306: Rival “popes” exiled because of “violent clashes” (Collins)
308: Rival “popes” exiled because of “violent clashes” (Collins again).
325: Council of Nicea: Alexandria has authority over Egypt and Libya, just as “a similar custom exists with the Bishop of Rome.” The Bishop of Jerusalem is to be honored.
381: Constantinople: Because it is new Rome, the Bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome. (This indicates Rome’s “honour” is due to its being the capital.)
431: Cyril, “stole” the council (Moffett 174, citing “Book of Heraclides) and “the followers of Cyril went about in the city girt and armed with clubs … with yells of barbarians, snorting fiercely, raging with extravagant arrogance against those whom they knew to be opposed to their doings…”
451: Chalcedon, 28th canon, passed by the council at the 16th session, “The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of Older Rome, since that is an imperial city; moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of New Rome …” (Rejected by the pope. But what were these “devout bishops” thinking?).
Schatz, summarizing: In any case it is clear that Roman primacy was not a given from the outset ; it underwent a long process of development whose initial phases extended well into the fifth century. The question is then: can we reasonably say of this historically developed papacy that it was instituted by Christ and therefore must always continue to exist?
His response is that the institution of the Church “must be understood in such a way that an awareness of what is essential and enduring … develops only as a result of historical challenges and experiences.”
That is there was no notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime. There was no notion that Jesus expected Peter to have “successors,” nor that Matthew expected a successor to Peter (Schatz, pg 1).
Only after there was no longer a political power in the west to challenge papal claims, did the “awareness” of the “essential and enduring” nature of the papacy take hold.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
August 21, 2009 at 6:49 am
Sean: “What we should be praying for is full communion amongst all Christians. One table for the Lord’s Supper.”
Heh. For this “one table for the Lord’s Supper”:
(1) Will you accept an Episcopalian priest confecting the Elements? After all, the RCC doesn’t recognize Anglican orders, nor does it consider their sacraments valid.
(2) Will your one table admit Christians who don’t believe in the Real Presence? If not, then why does a sizable percentage of Catholics who don’t believe in the Real Presence still able to receive the Host when they go to Mass?
(3) Will your one table admit Christians who think that the Catholic papacy has become the “womb of heresies and fallacies”?
Again, I ask you: Are you willing to jettison and abandon the Catholic papacy to achieve greater unity with the EO’s? Your answer to that will tell me how committed you are to your professed commitment to unity.
Why do you continuously duck the question?
curate said,
August 21, 2009 at 6:57 am
NO. 236. Paige: Yes, I think that we are saying the same things about sufficient clarity. There are many dark passages, but not many when compared with the plain ones.
Sean said,
August 21, 2009 at 7:25 am
Truth Unites.
Your name is ‘truth unites’ but you seem to expect that unity is only acheived by jettisoning truth. You seem to be saying that we could all worship together if we all agreed that all is fair game theologically. Unitarianism is not unity. Its nothing.
Given your username I find that ironic.
Maybe all the Christians and Moslums could all worship together if everybody agrees that Mohammed was not a prophet and that Jesus is not the Son of God? Hey, why not. We wouldn’t want to be snobby would we?
I ask you to read the article I linked in #237 to understand what we mean and what we do not mean.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 21, 2009 at 7:35 am
After all, both sides recognize each other as having valid apostolic succession. Is there a two-tiered system of apostolic succession whereby the EO bishops occupy a higher tier than the RCC bishops?
Truth Unites…,
Well for the West, the Bishop of Rome certainly occupies a higher seat than the other bishops. The other bishops historically referred to the Bishop of Rome as the “first among equals” but this was, and is still, purely titular. The increase in power of the Roman Bishop is one of those areas of disagreement between EO and RC that is still a major sticking point and I think, as some of Perry’s points illustrate, the disagreement is not going away. There has been some mending of the rift – The pope finally got around to apologizing for sacking Constantinople – 800 years after the fact! And the Patriarch accepted the apology a few years later. That was nice, but the basic theological divides are still there.
It’s interesting to read someone like Perry since he represents a tradition that we just don’t interact with much. The history of Christianity is a Western history for us, and since Athanasius, the peculiarities of Eastern theology have been relegated to foot notes to the greater history of the Western Christian Church. So we in the West tend not to have much understanding either of their particular theological concerns (i.e. Filioque), or some of their particular theological methodologies (apophaticism, theosis, etc). Then you pile on the issue with icons and you have a system which is rather foreign to us. Actually, since the EO tend not to systematize (there is no Summa…. or Institutes…. for the EO), they would probably rather not their theology be characterized by the word “system” with it’s connotation that it is a body of “science” that can be analyzed. Anyway, I’m entirely uncomfortable in talking in any detail on the historical development of the Filioque. If have to admit that I really don’t care that much about it, but I suppose that’s because I don’t talk to EO’s.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
August 21, 2009 at 7:37 am
Sean: “Your name is ‘truth unites’ but you seem to expect that unity is only acheived by jettisoning truth.”
That is a remarkably stupid statement. It is *YOU* who seems to expect that unity is only achieved by jettisoning truth. I’m actually trying to help you become aware of your own stupidity.
And then to see you project your own stupidity onto me is simply hilarious.
Reed Here said,
August 21, 2009 at 7:40 am
No. 243: Sean, I for one am curious as to why you haven’t yet answered TU’s rather straightforward questions? Reference to another site for answers is more that merely bad netiquette. It gives at least the appearance of avoiding.
I suspect you’re able to answer his questions. I suspect you think some simple one or two sentence answers are sufficient. I also expect you recognize that different paradigms may be at work here.
O.k. then – answer one way or the other. Do not waste time posting a comment that at most disparages TU’s screen name – unless of course you make a substantive comment to back it up.
And no, I do not think you have.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 21, 2009 at 8:03 am
That degree of agreement is unprecedented in history. Among the delegates to Trent, on the other hand, there was such a diversity of opinion on just about every point that the decrees were carefully worded to make room for everyone there – except the Reformation.
Curate,
Now this is a very interesting issue. I spent a little time on one of the Catholic blogs with some nice RC’s who were talking about how the concept of justification by faith alone was something invented by Luther. So I asked them to tell me just how much development there had been on justification, on the relationship between faith and works and grace and free will, between Carthage (early 5th century) and Trent. This was sort of a trick question since there was no development and at the end of the Medieval era there was a huge degree of latitude in the various theologies of justification, all of which were within the pale of Catholic orthodoxy. I think this a genuine surprise for Catholics. There seems to be an assumption that there was essential agreement within the RCC even before Trent on the major issues that divide Protestant and Catholic. But on justification and so many other issues this is just not true. And as you point out, even after Trent there was still quite a degree of latitude of allowable theologies. On justification, this is evidenced by the Thomist/Molinist debate – Semi-Pelagianism is still alive and well in the RCC as it is in Evangelicalism.
Sean said,
August 21, 2009 at 8:08 am
Truth Unites.
And what is the ‘truth’ that you are trying to get me to see? (Let us try to remain in charity here. Calling one another ‘stupid’ isn’t called for)
Reed Here,
What question are you referring to?
I do not believe that schism is repaired by the Church acquiescing to all varying beliefs and practices. This has already been tried. It’s called Unitarianism.
So, no, I do not believe that schism is repaired by just letting every varying person come to the table and commit sacrilege.
Reference to another site for answers is more that merely bad netiquette.
No it isn’t. The issue is not as basic as ‘Truth Unites’ is trying to make it. It is not simply an issue of “Well, golly if the Catholics would just allow everybody else to have their beliefs and accept them unity would be accomplished.” It is also a straw man to suggest that this is what Catholics want.
Do not waste time posting a comment that at most disparages TU’s screen name – unless of course you make a substantive comment to back it up.
And no, I do not think you have.
Maybe I am missing the ‘truth’ that he is trying to get me to see. I am willing to listen.
Todd said,
August 21, 2009 at 8:25 am
Sean,
Do you hold to the doctrine of implicit faith?
Thanks
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
August 21, 2009 at 8:39 am
Sean: “And what is the ‘truth’ that you are trying to get me to see?”
Re-read my previous comments.
Otherwise, I’ll respond to you much later this evening. I have to go to work. (I wish I could get paid to write comments on blogs!)
P.S. FWIW, and speaking only for myself, as a conservative 5-Sola Protestant I feel that I have more in common with a devout conservative Roman Catholic and a devout conservative Eastern Orthodox than I do with a liberal mainline Protestant or a liberal emerger.
Although I hold that RCC’s and EO’s have a marred understanding of following Christ, at least I recognize that they are following a Christ I recognize. I oftentimes cannot say the same thing regarding militant LibProts.
Pax.
Sean said,
August 21, 2009 at 8:53 am
Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your point.
To me it seemed that your questions were of the ‘Why can’t the Catholic Church just let go of their doctrines’ variety. If that is the case then, no, the Catholic Church will not change its teaching on holy orders (thus those pastors not possessing the sacrament of holy orders cannot consecrate the Eucharist). This also goes for the real presence and other Catholic doctrines that serve as perceived road blocks to unity.
The Catholic Church abandoning orthodoxy would not result in unity but only confusion.
Reed Here said,
August 21, 2009 at 9:08 am
Sean: thanks for the substantive resposnes. It does help advance things.
I think TU is trying to see your desire for unity, as previously expressed, is too simplistic and in need of some of the refining you’ve offered.
I’d observe, combining his list of questions (call the case examples at least confounding your affirmation),
Coupled with your qualifications here,
Makes your previous confidence in a unification of the branches of the Church this side of eternity rather meaningless.
E.g., the RCC won’t have unless until the rest of us return to orthodoxy.
Of course, neither will we have have, until y’all abandon your defects from orthodoxy and return to it.
So we’re back to square one.
GLW Johnson said,
August 21, 2009 at 9:14 am
Curate
Actually, Trent did exclude a lot more than the Reformation in its canons .The Augustinian Bishop Michel de Bay ( Baius) was briefly in attendance at Trent but was not allowed to have any say and left in disgust. He , along with the likes of Cornelius Jansen (Jansenius), were later condemned as heretics.Regretfully, individuals like John Armstrong are now whitewashing all of this in the name of ‘being catholic’ and establishing ‘unity’ among all Christians and have no reluntance about putting the Reformers and the Reformation in the dock to accomplish this..
Sean said,
August 21, 2009 at 9:25 am
What is an “Augustinian Bishop?”
GLW Johnson said,
August 21, 2009 at 9:32 am
That is how Baius is described by the noted 19th. cent. German historian Leopold von Ranke in his masterful three volume work ‘The History of The Popes’ ( see esp. vol.1, pp.136-142)
Zrim said,
August 21, 2009 at 9:41 am
Sean,
The issue is not as basic as ‘Truth Unites’ is trying to make it. It is not simply an issue of “Well, golly if the Catholics would just allow everybody else to have their beliefs and accept them unity would be accomplished.” It is also a straw man to suggest that this is what Catholics want.
Do you think it’s fair to say that a project like Called to Communion is really about everyone coming home to Rome? That is the sense I certainly have. The way I see it, there are really two options: 1) an ongoing “village green” dialogue that is not naive about the essential differences and actually sees the uber-value of everyone staying put and girding the loins of his tradition, or 2) each calling the other to repentance.
I can live with both happening at the same time but in different venues, but what I don’t understand is the second option masquerading as the first. If Romanists want Genevanists to come home, just say so, but don’t collapse the two options and patronize us that this is all about unity.
Sean said,
August 21, 2009 at 9:44 am
What does von Ranke say about Baius’ Pelagian teaching?
Sources I’ve consulted indentify Bainism with a mix of Pelagianism, Calvinism and even Socinianism.
Sean said,
August 21, 2009 at 9:49 am
Zrim,
I don’t think its any secret that those who have sought the Church that Christ founded and identified it as the Holy Catholic Church believe that the only cure for schism is being in communion with the Catholic Church.
Here is the description of Called to Communion.
GLW Johnson said,
August 21, 2009 at 9:56 am
Sean
What sources are you referring to?
Perry Robinson said,
August 21, 2009 at 10:13 am
TU #233
No in fact the Orthodox do not recognize Rome’s orders as “valid” since “validity” is a function of the church and Rome is not in communion with the Church. So that line of reasoning seems to fall flat.
Sean said,
August 21, 2009 at 10:17 am
Henri de Lubac in “Augustinianism and Modern Theology” treats Bainism in detail or for a quicker picture the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Sean said,
August 21, 2009 at 10:25 am
Perry,
Your expressions that Rome is not in communion with the Church is a particular one and definately not any sort of official orthodox view. I have read plenty orthodox sources and know many orthordox christians and none of them believe that Rome does not posses valid orders.
Here is a homily delivered by the Patriarch of Constantinople with Benedict 16th in 2008.
And we have come to you “with the fullness of the blessing of the Gospel of Christ” (Romans 15:29), returning the honor and love, celebrating with our beloved brother in the land of the West, “the certain and inspired heralds, the coryphaei of the disciples of the Lord,” the holy apostles Peter, brother of Andrew, and Paul — these two great, central pillars of the whole Church stretched out toward heaven, which, in this historic city, also offered the ultimate shining confession of Christ and gave their souls to the Lord here through martyrdom, one on the cross and the other by the sword, and thus sanctified this city.
The theological dialogue between our Churches “in faith, truth and love,” thanks to divine help, goes forward despite the considerable difficulties that exist and the well-known problems. We truly desire and fervently pray that these difficulties will be overcome and that the problems will disappear as soon as possible so that we may reach the desired final goal for the glory of God.
Sean said,
August 21, 2009 at 10:34 am
I mean, how is the Pope the first among equals as agreed by Roman and Orthodox representatives if we do not possess valid orders?
See here.
In fact the only disagreement in that meeting of note was Russia leaving the meeting in a huff over a territorial dispute with an oriental patriarch.
Perry Robinson said,
August 21, 2009 at 10:47 am
Sean,
It’d be swell of you to let me speak for my own church. No in fact my position is not atypical. I’d you read for example the response of the Eastern Patriarchs to Leo 13th. http://www.light-n-life.com/shopping/order_product.asp?ProductNum=REPL100
Second, if the Orthodox are the Church, its a plain fact Rome is not in communion with us.
Third, Pat Barth is not a pope. You can’t take the statements of one patriarch as reflective or necessarily binding on all Orthodox. Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople too.
Fourth, there is nothing in what you cited that says that Rome has valid orders. He simply reherses the past facts about Peter and Andrew. Calling the pope our “beloved brother” isn’t a recognition of valid orders any more than it is when said with Pope Shenouda of the Copts.
Fifth, the pope WAS primus inter pares.
Sixth, you can find the same opinion in more moderate theologians like Florovksy.
Seventh, it is the same Pat Barth that said of Rome that we are “ontologically different.”
Perry Robinson said,
August 21, 2009 at 11:06 am
Andrew M,
When I say that one has placed oneself as a judge of the church I had an idea in mind and a distinction between that and another concept. So let me try to clarify. It seems to me it is on kind of thing to try and find out the truth about something and to in fact come to know it. That everyone does. It also seems true that in doing so, one doesn’t have to be infallible to know things, at least in general. So to know that Jesus is messiah or that this or that is the society he founded or that this or that is the right interpretation doesn’t require infallibility. That is one kind of judgmental positional.
Another kind of position is that of making judgments that are normative beyond those of simply knowing. So take for example the council in Acts 15. Were they doing the first or the second? In part there’s was a fact finding mission, but on top of that they were doing something more. Their decision first settled a matter definitively. Second, it promulgated something as divine teaching, which made it obligatory on others regardless whether those so obligated met the conditions on knowledge or not. Here the normativity is beyond that of just getting the right answer. A math text may be inerrant but not infallible and can’t bind one’s conscience to assent to it unless the person knows that the answers that it gives are correct. Such is not the case with God. I am obligated to believe God even if I don’t know what God says is true or not.
Consequently, from my perspective Protestants set themselves up as judges in the second way, making judgments beyond matters of fact. If this weren’t the case, then Calvin, Luther, et al wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. Individual judgment can trump the ecclesiastical so that the latter is really derivative from the former. Or to put it in taxonomic terms, the universal is constructed from the particulars.
When I make judgments as to which is the true church and such I am only trying to meet the conditions on knowledge and not to meet the conditions on making theologically normative statements. So there is a two tier model here of judgment. Consequently, I am not trying the same tact on you since it isn’t clear to me that the differences I pointed out above have been grasped.
I am familiar with Reformation history and the preceding Scholastic period. I used to be Reformed. In any case to speak of “two branches” borders at best on question begging. I am not convinced that some priests and a mess of laymen challenging the church constitute a “branch.” And the reason why is that the Father sends the Son and the Son sends the Apostles and so forth. Sending precedes the message. Sending doesn’t come from the people, but from the apostolic ministry. You may not agree, but when I read the Bible, that is the way it seems to me and I can only report on the way things seem to me.
It may be true that the medieval body in the west was different significantly from the early church. But it is also true that it is significantly different than the Reformation bodies. When I read Ignatius, Clement, Hippolytus, Ireneaus, Theophiliius or Justin, I don’t think Calvin. When I read abut the offering of basil, olives, etc. or read the Eucharistic rites, facing East, etc.it looks pretty much what I see every Sunday.
Granted, there are different levels of divine guidance so we would need to flesh out the respective reasons for thinking it was this or that level. One of my reasons for thinking that the divine guidance is greater than what you take to be the case is that the canon is not revisable, which seems so on Protestant principles. Another we can tease out by a thought experiment. Suppose that there is some possible world that God could have created and most of the history up till the time of Christ is relevantly similar or identical. But then after the establishment of the church, things go terribly wrong. So much so that at a given point and for a significant period of time due to massive persecution and gross pervasive heterodoxy there is only one true Christian left with the gospel. So is it possible, putting questions of perseverance aside for the moment, for that person to have a false gospel? If not, why not?
Here I am not being speculative but giving a thought experiment to pump your biblically informed inuitions.
And taking decisions of councils as infallible doesn’t amount to the claim that they are materially inspired. The councils make a sufficiently clear distinction between the biblical writings and infallible decrees.
As for the “Western church” that depends on what that term means. Do you mean before or after the schism? If before I don’t think infallibility as a divine power was limited to eastern geography. In fact, quite the opposite. After the schism, from my perspective, there is no “western church” but a co-opted structure by the Franks with new theology alien to the apostolic deposit.
In any case, I am not sure how any of this really moves the ball down the field to answer the question of the thread. How does one determine if the lens one is using is correct?
Todd said,
August 21, 2009 at 11:38 am
“In any case, I am not sure how any of this really moves the ball down the field to answer the question of the thread. How does one determine if the lens one is using is correct?”
Or maybe an equally important question – can the reading of Scripture change the lens by which you read the Scriptures?
Perry Robinson said,
August 21, 2009 at 11:58 am
Curate,
I am not sure I buy the “overwhelming agreement” among Protestants. Take Baptism and the Eucharist, and Church polity. Between the Reformed, Lutherans and the Baptists, do they agree here? And isn’t rightly administering the sacraments and church order part of the marks of the church such that there is a lack of recognition form one group to the other that they are a true visible church. You’d think that after 500 years of using the same text there’d be theological convergence on baptism, the eucharist and church gov’t. Why hasn’t more bible reading solved that problem? Must be a “lens” thing.
And if there is such an overwhelming agreement, why do they not have communion one with another? In the scriptures the mark of full and genuine unity is sharing the eucharist, which is why you don’t even eat regular meals with apostates.
As for a lack of biblical citations in my posts, I figured that among those well read in the Scriptures I wouldn’t have to play the “See Jesus Run” game of biblical citation to prove a point. I assume that those familiar with the bible will recognize allusions to biblical texts and dependence on biblical principles when they see them.
Perry Robinson said,
August 21, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Todd,
Good question. If it could, why do we ned a lens? If it can’t, we are back to the original question, aren’t we?
For the first option, this would mean that our methodologies for exegeting scripture would seem to be theory neutral with respect to Jesus, indicating that there are some facts that have meaning apart form Jesus. That seems problematic.
curate said,
August 21, 2009 at 1:02 pm
No. 267. Perry: On Protestant agreement, get yourself copies of the Reformation Confessions, and compare them yourself. Read also Merle D’Aubigne’s famous books, and Bishop Jewel’s Apology of the Church of England.
As for taking Communion, I am able to walk into any Protestant Church and be offered the elements. My parish church here in Dorset would do so, as would just about any other denominational church, including the Lutherans since the Porvoo thing. The Independents would too.
In short, we do indeed have communion with one another.
I would not think about taking Communion in a RCC or EO church for the usual reasons. Both Rome and the East have erred in matters of faith as well as morals, as the Articles say. Until they repent of their works righteousness and depend upon the cross alone for forgiveness, they cannot be accepted as faithful Christians.
We maintain that a man is justified by faith alone, apart from the law, and that anyone who bows to a statue or a picture for religious reasons, to help them in their salvation, is an idolator.
As for the Baptists, unlike our hosts here, I agree with the Reformers that they are not Protestants.
Sean said,
August 21, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Perry.
I’d like to ask, which infallible church council teaches that the Roman Catholic Church does not possess valid orders?
Here is the Greek Orthodox Church in America’s website on the question of Papal Primacy. Even asking these questions would be impossible if the Roman Catholic Church were not a true church and did not possess a valid priesthood.
Can you imagine the Orthodox trying to convene an ecumenical council without the Bishop of Rome? Impossible. But you say there is no Bishop of Rome by virtue of saying that we lack valid orders.
Furher, many of the Orthodox churches are not in communion with one another. Do all of them claim to be the only true church and that only their sacraments are valid? I know a Coptic Christian. His church would not accept Greek Orthodox baptisms. Chaos.
Todd said,
August 21, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Perry,
I think Scripture is the lens by which we interpret Scripture. I am disagreeing with Lane’s original post. It’s not that we come to the Scriptures neutral, but that Scripture changes our presuppositions. All sides in this debate begin with Scripture. The RC’s see Scripture supporting their view of the church and her authority, especially in Matt 16. The problem is not with any pre-concieved lens, the problem is in the right or wrong intrepretation of Scripture. Confessions, history, science, personal experience, etc…all cause us to reexamine our understanding of Scripture, but ultimately Scripture becomes the lens of our understanding, even as our understanding grows through examining Scripture.
Now there is the moral question – are you approaching a text trying to understand God’s truth, and are you admitting your weakness, your need for Christians to help you past and present, your need for salvation, etc…or are you studying for a less noble reason with arrogance, and those are important questions, but probably not for this discussion.
Perry Robinson said,
August 21, 2009 at 1:11 pm
John B,
I agree that God can and does give understanding, but obviously he isn’t giving it out on an equal basis. Secondly, there is no method to detect God’s giving of understanding so appeals to subjective gifts don’t seem to help here. So again, we are back to how clear is the mind of the judge?
I do consider God to speak to us in a language we can understand. Quantum physics is also in a language humans can understand, but most can’t understand Quantum physics. Furthermore, which is clearer, biblical language on the divinity of Christ or the Nicene term “homousious?” If the former, why the need for the term at all? If the latter, then how perspicuous is Scripture as to the *exact* relationship between the Son and the Father?
Third, I’ll see your Augustine and raise you a Peter. 2 Pet 3:16.
Fourth the authors of Scripture also communicate things about God, the Trinity, the two natures, two wills of Christ, and lots of other stuff that is quite hard to understand. Even clearly stated propositions can be hard to understand. You seem to conflate ease of understanding with clarity.
I cited Ockham as the source of the major theological structure of Protestantism. Certainly there are modifications made, but the over all system seems to me to be the same. Consequently Sola Fide seems to be a product of late scholasticism. See Carlson, Justification in Earlier Medieval Theology, & Dempsey, Justification in late Medieval Preaching.
As for the Reformers being fallible men, certainly plenty of Reformed folk I know act as if it isn’t true. They act as if the formulations are beyond possible revision, as if there is no possible way Reformed doctrines could be wrong. That seems out of place given their commitments. What seems warranted is rather a far more conservative attitude recognizing that it is a human reconstruction and therefore the best approximation, so far, rather than talking to people as if they are dead wrong with no possibility of things being otherwise.
If the writers of the confessions were very much in tune with what God has made clear in the Scriptures, why in some cases would political power be needed to remove those who disagreed? Second if they were so in tune, obviously they were not sufficiently well in tune to agree on things like baptism, the eucharist and church polity.
It wasn’t just that Rome edited the Creed unilaterally, but that Rome changed the doctrine of the Trinity. You’d think of all the things to protest, changing the doctrine of the Trinity in a major way would be something Protestants would be up in arms about, but they aren’t. They simply lap up Roman arguments with little or no serious exegesis. Why is that?
So the filioque is theological speculation? If so, why do the Reformed profess and require their ministers to profess and teach “theological speculation” at the level of dogma? You’d think that after five hundred years of biblical exegesis that they’d figure this out. But they ignore it and just keep on teaching it. Why? Because its their tradition, unbiblical as it is. It’s a ”lens” thing I suppose. So its less important to take a stand on the right doctrine of the Trinity?! Got it.
I have no idea of what you think the “real church of the East” amounts to. It seems far too convenient for you to ignore the Filioque as a serious issue when you seem to feel free to press Catholics and others for express biblical justification for their doctrines. That seems like special pleading. Frankly I think you’re being inconsistent with Sola Scriptura.
I don’t see how there is a difference given that Catholic tradition is “out there” too.
The issue really isn’t if dikiao means what Protestants say it means. The issue is the ground for the declaration, in the soul or in a created effect, namely label applied to the agent? And what do you think Horton means when he says that justification is causal and transformative? Sure there’s a way to move forward, you can attack the first level judgments. Isn’t that what you have been trying to do? Secondly, you could try an internal critique rather than an external one. And this is more to the point.
You seem to think that the Catholic or in my case Orthodox position is incapable of falsification based on our own premises. No matter what facts you throw at us we either will not accept them as facts or interpret them differently according to our presuppositions. This I think betrays a fundamental misunderstanding on your part since you think that there are neutral facts one can appeal to ascertained by neutral methodologies and build up one’s theology from there in an incrementalist fashion. The facts will discriminate between models showing which one is true and which is false.
This is a mistake. There are no neutral facts out there to be interpreted, linguistic or otherwise. And there are no theological models built up from disparate verses via an exegetical method that doesn’t presuppose the view it arrives it. This is why even the Reformed view is incapable of falsification in this way. Consequently the problem you pose for Catholics or Orthodox like myself, is actually a problem for your position. Unless of course you think Kuyper, Van Til and Bahnsen are wrong.
I already responded to Hays http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/more-jedi-mind-tricks/
White makes a claim about God and free will that the teaching is biblical and he has not stepped forward to show that it is so. Nor has he referenced any works giving a case that God has the libertarian free will he thinks God enjoys. Nor has Steve or anyone else done so.
And deserve an answer? White claims the Bible teaches something and he isn’t held to account because I supposedly don’t deserve an answer? Do only fellow Calvinists deserve an answer?
History, linguistic scholarship, et al aren’t theory neutral an so won’t give us the reasons independent of the system to tell us if the lens we are using is correct, even if the conclusions are. No more so than history and more scientific study will tell us if something works for the reasons we think it does. False models can work quite well, que Newton’s physics.
As for Hays’ question, all authoritative interpretations, and here I am supposing those made by God are correct, but not all correct ones are authoritative. The former can bind my conscience in a way the latter doesn’t. As I pointed out above, the difference is normative. Is it the Reformed contention that truth and authority are identical? Or that their confessions are true but not normative? Or that there is no difference between a situation where in I hear a truth uttered by God and one found in a Math text? Am I obligated to believe both with the same degree of normativity? That seems awfully reductionistic and naturalistic.
Again, I am not sure how we logically get from, all scholars agree that x term in a natural language means y, to the fact that it is so. Perhaps you could give me the logically premised argument to show that it is so.
What are we to do when 100% of the archaeological community says the Bible is wrong and such and so civilization didn’t exist? Are we to appeal to some mysterious sense of inspiration and an infallible authority that says “nu uh, because we say so.?”
Richard said,
August 21, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Curate: I’d be careful in painting a picture of unity within evangelicalism where there clearly isn’t any and as your own comments portray, i.e. by removing large swaths of godly men and women from being Protestant because of your misunderstanding of the Reformer’s arguments – the Baptists of Calvin’s day are far removed from the Baptists of today especially in the BUGB and numerous FIEC assemblies.
You may be able to take communion in the churches you mention but they all differ on their understanding of communion which seems to be Perry’s point. Even within the evangelical wing of the CofE there are disagreements over who can partake, when and what happens!
St. Robert Bellarmine said,
August 21, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Perry:
What is your opinion of the works of Adrian Fortascue?
Perry Robinson said,
August 21, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Curate,
I used to be Reformed, I own plenty of copies of Reformation texts. I also used to be Anglican so I am familiar with Jewel as well.
So the LCMS is in communion with the PCA and the OPC and the Dutch too? That’s news to me. Where is the official document indicating that they are now in full communion?
To cut off the Baptists from Protestantism, is just the point.
Sean said,
August 21, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Perry.
I think your zeal is getting the better of you.
The filioque is not even Catholic dogma. Millions of Eastern Catholics in full communion with Rome recite the Creed sans filioque during every mass.
Perry Robinson said,
August 21, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Sean,
Try the 8th Ecumenical Council of 880 which anathematizes those who alter the creed with the Filioque. This was accepted by Rome until 1014. Second the synod of Blachernae also condemned the Filioque and then we have the Palamite synods, which are also authoritative. Heretics outside the church do not posses valid orders. And this highlights another difference. Since you claim to be informed about Orthodox theology, when a priest is ordained, if he leaves the church, on Orthodox teaching, is he still a priest?
Second, I’ve read the statement on the GOARCH website and I fail to see how statements made about or by or recommendations by theological consultations amount to official teaching since this isn’t even true of Rome. But perhaps you had this citation in mind?
“If primacy is defined as a form of power, then we encounter the question of whether in the Orthodox church there is a power superior to that of a bishop, i.e., a power over the bishop, and hence the church of which he is head. Theologically and ecclesiologically the answer must be an unconditional no: there is no power over the bishop and his church. In the canonical and historical life of the Church, however, such supreme power not only exists but is conceived as the foundation of the Church; it is the basis of its canonical system”
Or maybe this one,
“We must understand the universal primacy of the Roman Church similarly. Based on Christian Tradition, it is possible to affirm the validity of the church of Rome’s claims of universal primacy. Orthodox theology, however, objects to the identification of this primacy as “supreme power” transforming Rome into the principium radix et origio of the unity of the Church and of the Church itself.”
Secondly, nothing in that statement affirms the validity of Roman orders. Secondly, Roman Catholics accepted into the Orthodox Church would not need to renounce Catholicism and be chrismated upon reception making their baptism valid at that time and not before if Rome had valid orders.
And I agree, asking the question wouldn’t even be possible on Roman principles if Rome did not have a valid priesthood, but that isn’t the question.
As for councils, the fifth council excommunicated a sitting pope, after he made a supposedly “irreformable” judgment. Then the synod decreed infallibly in its horos or sentence, on both our principles, that no Apostle and no bishop required the judgment of any other in the execution of their work. This was obviously directed to Vigilius. So they had a valid council without the Pope. Next, more than one see is Petrine-Antioch and Alexandria, which was Rome’s basis for objecting to canon 28 of Chalcedon and not papal prerogatives as such.
I think you refer to the Non-Chalcedonians and so that really isn’t a counter example. True, the Copts don’t accept Roman baptisms either. And we don’t accept theirs accept by economia via Chrismation and renunciation. And even if there were Chalcedonian bodies not in communion with each other, this has been the case off and on with or without Rome.
Lastly, in posing these questions to me, you are supposing that I haven’t thought about this before. I have read a good amount of Catholic theology. I have read Catholic apologetics against Orthodoxy. But few and far between are the Catholics that have reciprocated. In short, just as with the Reformed here, I know where they are going to go before they go there and the same is true here.
Kevin said,
August 21, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Re 235 Curate said
No. 228. Kevin B: Yes as plain as the beatitudes, and the account of the rich man. Also as plain as James’s teaching that a living faith obeys God’s law.
OK, Good. Then we can agree that, all of grace, by faith in the redemptive work of the risen Christ we are forgiven, and living in faithful obedience to Christ we inherit eternal life. Excellent!
You were right when you said:
Again, the Bible is not written in an inaccessible code known only to the Pope. It is very plain on most things, so much so that even a child can understand what he needs to know for salvation.
Blessings and peace.
KB
Perry Robinson said,
August 21, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Todd,
If we aren’t neutral, then what lens do we bring to scripture? And won’t we interpet the scriptural data according to that lens or does scripture constitute a brute fact?
All sides begin with Scripture? I am not covinced of that. Did the Apostles or did they start from their commissioning? How can they hear unless someone sends a preacher?
Events and such may cause us to re-evaluate our presuppositions,but this is a matter of personal agency and not then a matter of principle.
Todd said,
August 21, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Perry,
When we receive the good news from Scripture of the gospel, whether from reading or hearing it preached, our lens by which we see the world changes. Scripture has given us a whole new lens. Scripture creates the lens for the believer from that point on.
Perry Robinson said,
August 21, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Then why do not all believers agree?
And I am not sure how plausible it is to think that regeneration gives us a specific theological model as a lens.
Todd said,
August 21, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Perry,
Believers all agree on the very basics or they would not be believers. They will all agree in heaven. I did not say regeneration gives us a model, but the truths of Scripture give us the lens to understand more Scripture. Regeneration opens our eyes to accept the truths of Scripture concerning the gospel. We do not all agree now because our understanding is tainted with sin and weakness, and we learn slowly. My basic point is still – a lens does not change our interpretation of Scripture, but the opposite.
Perry Robinson said,
August 21, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Todd,
I am afraid they don’t agree on the basics or even what the basics are. IS sola fide a “basic?” How about the Trinity? The Orthodox don’t even accept a Filioquist model of the Trinity to be Trinitarian. How about baptism? How about whether Jesus had two wills or one, or better yet, two energies or one?
curate said,
August 21, 2009 at 3:13 pm
No. 273. Richard said: I’d be careful in painting a picture of unity within evangelicalism where there clearly isn’t any … EOQ.
I never used the word evangelicalism. I used the word – Protestant – in its historical sense. I suppose there is a usage that says Protestantism is Christianity that is neither RCC nor EO, but I am using the word in its original sense.
Originally Baptists and Anabaptists were not recognized by the Reformed Churches as Protestants. They were seen as being hostile to biblical grace, just like Rome was and is.
Baptists overwhelmingly believe in salvation by works (free will), and they deny the sacramental means of grace, meaning sacramentally conveying the realities that the signs signify. They do not recognize our baptisms at all, which means that they do not recognize our Christianity, and they do not recognize us individually as believers until we are re-baptized.
Evangelicalism is overwhelmingly a baptistic phenomenon, which is why I do not use the term for myself. I do not deny that many evangelicals are godly, just as I do not deny that there are many true believers within the RCC. But that does not nullify the facts.
Perry Robinson said,
August 21, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Bellermine,
Not much. See Adrian Fortescue and the Eastern Christian Churches, 2007,by AnthonyDragani.
curate said,
August 21, 2009 at 3:29 pm
No. 278. Kevin B: Grace to you too.
Perry Robinson said,
August 21, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Sean,
I think you wrongly infer from the fact that some Eastern Rite bodies are not currently required to say the creed that it is not dogma. I’d go read the Council of Florence for starters. I’d also check Allatae Sunt.
Is there anything in the Nicene Creed which is not dogma? And canyou point me to an official statement of the Magisterium that says the Filioque contra Florence isn’t dogma?
Zeal or the lack of it is irrelvant to the arguments I make. Its funny and not a bit that when I was arguing against Protestants earlier you thanked me for my cogent arguments. But now that the shoe is on the other foot, somehow my “zeal” gets the better of me.
As for the Orthodox agreeing supposedly that the current sitting pope is primus inter pares, please notice the language of the document you refeered to.
“In a reintegrated Christendom, when the pope takes his place once more as primus inter pares within the Orthodox Catholic communion, the bishop of Rome will have the initiative to summon a synod of the whole Church.”
Are we in a reintergrated Christendom now? No. Has the pope taken his place “once more as primus inter pares?” No. Hence he isn’t primus inter pares now.
Where there is not the right faith, there can be no gaurantee of sacramental validity and hence a lack of valid orders.
Todd said,
August 21, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Perry,
A believer, to be a believer, must believe *something.* We may use different terms, I’m using the term “believer” in the sense of a sinner saved by Jesus through faith. All true believers agree that they are sinners saved by the cross of Christ. Scripture is that clear. If you use a lens by which you interpret Scripture, what is that lens?
Perry Robinson said,
August 21, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Todd,
That assumes that we mean the same thing when we use the same term. I don’t think we do anymore than when an atheist says its “wrong”to commit murder and a Christians says its “wrong” to commit murder that they mean the same thing in using the term “wrong.” They don’t.
What was the lens the Apostles used to interpret the OT?
Paige Britton said,
August 21, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Todd, do you think there is a difference between what you call a “lens” and what one might call an “organizing principle (or system)” (which we have been calling a “lens” in this discussion)?
So that the “lens” (as you mean it) is what is created in us because of the work of the Spirit and the Word, at conversion and thereafter, to give us the heart to “humbly accept the word planted in us” (Jas 1:21), and thus be willingly shaped in our thinking by God’s point of view (from Scripture)? We might call it new sight, seeing with new eyes, beginning with the acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf.
And the “organizing principle” (or system) comes later, with the accumulation of understanding gained from learning the Scripture, so that it is a cumulative statement of what we believe the Scripture-shaped “lens” affirms?
Because if there could be such a distinction made, then Lane’s original idea is really about which *organizing system* we are using, which would maybe helpfully reinforce the idea of derivative distance from Scripture as well as being about something that is cumulative and systematic in nature, and at least in some way influenced by personal experience and church instruction.
Then the differences we see between “organizing systems,” wherever we find these among *true* believers across the spectrum, would also stand at a distance from the original “lens” of faith that even the simplest and most uniformed believer has been given by the Word & the Spirit.
So as long as we have that original lens, we are doing well: then just comes the hard work of putting it all together, and making distinctions and value judgments between organizing systems.
Am I close to making sense?
Andrew Preslar said,
August 21, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Where there is not the right faith, there can be no gaurantee of sacramental validity and hence a lack of valid orders. (#287)
This is yet another important point at which Orthodox and Reformed ecclesiologies begin to resemble one another. I would love to see greater dialogue between those parties along these lines.
Also, on a related note, it should be noted that the Orthodox churches are not of one accord on the subject of ecumenism. For example: There is a wide gulf between the words and deeds of the Ecumenical Patriarch and the opinions of monks of Mount Athos, which opinions carry a lot of weight in some EO communities.
Keeping on with that related note: Zrim made some interesting comments (#256) about the modus operendi of ecumenical dialogue at Called to Communion (www.calledtocommunion.com).
He gives us two options of engagement. His first option is repugnant to unity. His second option is repugnant to dialogue. And those are supposed to be our options.
There is a third option: to offer reasoned arguments for one’s own position, reasoned critiques of contrary positions, and invite all reasonable people to return the favor. If this involves an incipient call to repentance, so be it. After all, ideas have consequences.
CTC is certainly not short on ideas and arguments, even if they are not always great ideas or good arguments. If Zrim thinks that any of these ideas are false, or arguments fallcious, he is welcome to make any number of his own arguments to that effect. But recommending a false dilemma as the options for dialogue and then accusing CTC of patronizing on that (faulty) basis simply smacks of obscurantism.
St. Robert Bellarmine said,
August 21, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Perry,
Have you read anything by Don John Chapman?
Todd said,
August 21, 2009 at 10:11 pm
“What was the lens the Apostles used to interpret the OT?”
The words of the risen Christ illuminated by the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:27)
Andrew McCallum said,
August 21, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Perry,
Yes, the Reformers were indeed stating something that was normative. Like the RC and EO, they held councils and they made pronouncements as the Church. But it’s not like their writings were a reflection of their individual theological tastes. They were acting as the Church. In some geographies such as England, Germany and France they were the dominant Church. In other countries like Italy and France they were not. It was not just a “few priests,” it was THE Church in many locations. So when we talk with our Catholic friends here they want to tell us that the Protestants were acting as individuals and rejecting THE Church but really what the Protestants were rejecting was the peculiarities of the system of Roman ecclesiology.
So on your Acts 15 example, yes I would agree thatthe Apostles were setting normative doctrine. We don’t know everything that happened at that council but we do know that they settled certain matters concerning the Gentiles. We know about that council what the Holy Spirit wants us to know about it through the Scriptures. So Acts 15 teaches us something infallible because the Holy Spirit tells us what happened. The infallibility originates from God, not because it was a council. So if later extra-biblical councils were meant to be infallible and their pronouncements did not come by the inspiration of God, then how would we know if they were infallible?
We don’t hold that the canon is revisable. There is a necessary connection between inspiration and canonization. We don’t see that it is logically possible to have one without the other. God did not inspire the books and then leave it up to fallible man to assure that they came together correctly. It’s all God’s work special and peculiar work, inspiration and canonization. And on a practical note, I would add that I know of no Evangelical denomination that has brought any part of the canon into question (RC and EO versions of the Apocrypha aside).
Not sure about where you “thought experiment” is going. I guess my answer would be that God would never allow His Church to disappear from the earth.
As for the “Western church” that depends on what that term means. Do you mean before or after the schism? If before I don’t think infallibility as a divine power was limited to eastern geography. In fact, quite the opposite. After the schism, from my perspective, there is no “western church” but a co-opted structure by the Franks with new theology alien to the apostolic deposit.
OK, so I will revise what I said earlier – you hold that after the initial papal schisms and after the Roman bishop began to claim a special functional authority (quite early in the history of the Church) the bishops in the West lost any claim to speak for the Church and only the EO bishops stayed true to the historic Christian faith. Fair enough?
Concerning the Protestants and their communions, I do know of some Lutheran denominations who won’t allow us to take communion (although the rest of would allow them to take communion in our churches) because of our denial of the real physical presence of Christ. No doubt there are other separatist sects in the Evangelical world. But I think the problem is more one of the Evangelical Protestants being too loose in who they allow to the table. This low church, just believe in Jesus and come to the table sort of philosophy is much more prevalent than the idea than a congregation should accept only those of their denomination to the table. I have for instance taken communion in a number of Anglican congregations, some quite Reformed, others not so much. We are all part of Christ’s church so why would I be refused?
Andrew McCallum said,
August 21, 2009 at 10:23 pm
In my first paragraph about it should read “England, Germany and Switzerland….
And on the issue of what lens to use, I would first say that in the history of Medieval thought the Scholastics had lost the sense of the Augustinian concept of the Scripture being superior to the words of the bishops and councils. The Reformation concept of putting the Bible back into the center of theological discourse was truly a new (to that era) lens with which to look at Christian theology.
And I would add for us discussing these matters today, the we all have credal and confessional lenses. We have to try them on, so as to speak, to see if they make sense of the data out there. If they don’t then we have to rethink our foundational theological and philosophical commitments. I know that sounds glib and it is I suppose….
Perry Robinson said,
August 21, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Bellermine,
I am not sure why you are asking me thse bibliographic questions. I make a point to seek out and read the best literature from the other side. Yes I have read some of Chapman’s stuff along with Jugie, Journet and other Catholic authors. As Patton said to Rommel, “I’ve read your book!”
Have you read Golitzen? Or how about Maximus’ Disputation with Pyrrus? Or how about Mark of Ephesus four volume refutation of the Filioque? How about Photius Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit?
What’s your point?
johnbugay said,
August 22, 2009 at 12:31 am
Perry and all — I’ve mentioned “The Church of the East” as distinct from Eastern Orthodoxy. The following description is from Samuel Hugh Moffett, “A History of Christianity in Asia”. Moffett is a mainstream Reformed theologian:
Philip Jenkins, “A History of Lost Christianity,” notes that during the lifetime of the patriarch Timothy of Seleucia, around 800 ad, “more than a quarter of the world’s Christians” looked to him as their spiritual head. Jenkins points to a time when these churches had 19 “metropolitans” when England had two; more than 300 bishops, at a time England had only 25 bishops. These were largely located in modern day Iran and Iraq, but stretched as far as Afghanistan, India, and even China.
I can’t find it right now, but I believe he said there were 21 million Christians in these lands at one point (which was far in excess of the populations of western and eastern Europe combined at the time). [And to dismiss this number as “Nestorian heretics” is “unconscionable” he says.] This was the church that, before the council of Ephesus, suffered persecutions and martyrdom far more severe and greater in numbers than Christians in the Roman empire suffered prior to 313 ad. Moffett:
As for Nestorius’s own theology, Moffett cites Grillmeier as saying, the fault “if there is one,” was that he “failed to take the church’s ancient tradition of the communicatio idiomatum seriously enough.”
Loofs and Pelikan both say that Chalcedon “vindicated” Nestorius, though the later councils moved in a direction away from him. He could not and should not be faulted for that. And in fact, the Reformed do not accept those councils.
Moreso, to cut off the churches that bore the name “Nestorian” for that reason was, and I would agree, “unconscionable.”
Moffett says his “prosopon” formulation was weak theology, but not heretical.
These hugely mistreated “Nestorian” Christians will greet us in heaven when we get there. I would heartily recommend Moffett’s work to anyone interested in understanding what our role is in the grand sweep of history, as well as, just how small and boastful the “infallible” claims are of Rome and Constantinople.
curate said,
August 22, 2009 at 12:33 am
No. 295. Andrew McC: You make a true point that the EO and RCC have a mental habit of accusing Proddys of expressing a mere private judgement. Thanks for pointing out that the Reformation Churches were acting as national churches, not groups of arbitrary individuals.
The English BCPs and Articles were approved by King, Parliament, and Synod, IOW the entire nation assembled in the persons of their leaders. Ditto for Germany, Scotland, etc.
johnbugay said,
August 22, 2009 at 12:35 am
My reason for bringing this up is because it shifts the center of gravity of the early church far, far away from Rome. Rome likes to begin with Peter, and and an unbroken succession; now they are claiming “development” of the papacy (officially, this is so). But the sheer size of the “churches of asia” which paid absolutely no mind to Peter and Rome make Rome’s claims to authority in the early church look both boastful and provincial.
curate said,
August 22, 2009 at 12:51 am
Here is my stab at expressing a scriptural lens for reading scripture, and also for identifying a true church of Christ.
The interpreting rule has got to be the gospel, nothing more or less. The gospel is the account of the birth, life, death, burial, resurrection, session, and Parousia of the Lord Jesus, the Christ – with its authorized apostolic interpretation.
Here is the interpretation: The Lord Jesus was incarnate for us men and for our salvation.
That same salvation is by pure grace, a free gift, by undeserved mercy, purchased by the cross. This gift of salvation is without reference to human works of any kind, as the apostle Paul teaches us in many unambiguous passages.
It by grace that you are saved, and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, lest any man should boast. (Paul the Apostle).
Any gospel that adds works of any kind to grace is an anti-gospel, and any church that does so is an anti-church.
Application: works in our day pass by the name of free will, which is simply a way of describing what a man is able to do or work by his own power and ability. To most churches salvation is by free will, helped by grace, which is a contradiction in terms.
Therefore the RCC and EO churches have erred in setting aside the grace of God by adding works to the cross for forgiveness. Ditto all the once Protestant churches who have abandoned the gospel of free grace, such as those who follow the Billy Graham model of evangelism.
The true churches of Christ are those Reformed and Lutheran churches who steadfastly cling to the gospel of grace. Outside of this church there is no salvation, since it is there that the gospel is heard and believed, and the sacraments rightly administered – which signs and seals are ordinarily necessary for salvation as means of grace.
The is the church that is the mother of the faithful, the heavenly Jerusalem.
curate said,
August 22, 2009 at 12:53 am
Reed, please fix the italics above. Many thanks.
David Gadbois said,
August 22, 2009 at 1:14 am
Perry said if the exegetical method isn’t theory neutral, then it will select a priori and interpret data according to a specific theological model. It still seems to me that you are positing an incrementalist apporach to building up a theological model. I am not sure how that is possible if exegetical methodologies aren’t theory neutral.
God instills humans with base reasoning faculties to communicate with others and absorb information from outside of ourselves, including texts. This is where we ‘start’, and overtime we can and should become more self-reflective over our method, but grasping the ‘meta’ is not necessary to the practice of interpretation. Many points of scriptural exegesis simply are not philosophically-loaded.
Now I don’t grant that human reason is ‘neutral’, but when properly functioning it is sufficient, and need not be self-reflective.
Paige Britton said,
August 22, 2009 at 5:36 am
Andrew P., #291: You wrote, “There is a third option: to offer reasoned arguments for one’s own position, reasoned critiques of contrary positions, and invite all reasonable people to return the favor. If this involves an incipient call to repentance, so be it. After all, ideas have consequences.”
This is a fine-sounding ideal to live up to, and you yourself certainly do it well and irenically. But it assumes at the end of the day a Protestant epistemology, no? That is, that ordinary believers can make reasonable value judgments!
The RCC epistemology that you have explained here in earlier posts would seem to ultimately preclude the apologetic task of persuasion, since any individual’s reasonableness is finally trumped by the teaching of the Church.
Paige Britton said,
August 22, 2009 at 6:11 am
I want to revisit what I wrote above a little bit (#290) and connect it with something Andrew M. just said:
First, to change my terms a little:
Following Todd, I think he is saying that the “Lens” is, at least originally for any believer, the new sight given by the Spirit via the Word, and reinforced thereby, which creates a predisposition to believe God’s words coupled with initial and subsequent propositional content of the faith. So (briefly), “Lens” = the eyes of faith, opened by Spirit via Word.
I want to suggest that the (other) “lens” that we all have been talking about here is really an “organizing system,” but I want now to call this the “Map” that we are using to summarize and systematize the data we have collected via the “lens” of faith.
All of this presupposes the stability & objectivity of texts, the reliability of God’s attempts to communicate to us in writing, and a Protestant epistemology of parity among believers.
So, here is Andrew M. (#295) on Maps:
“We all have credal and confessional lenses. We have to try them on, so as to speak, to see if they make sense of the data out there. If they don’t then we have to rethink our foundational theological and philosophical commitments.”
You know, this discussion has been largely academic and apologetic so far; but I wonder if anybody else has been thinking in practical and pastoral terms, too. Down here among the grass roots I notice that actually only SOME of us have any credal and confessional lenses to speak of. The rest of us have not thought about it much, and are operating with incomplete and unreliable Maps. How many of the people in a Reformed congregation nowadays have been nurtured on the Confessions since infancy? How many more, rather, have wandered in from “outside,” and are still operating with sketchy Maps, now maybe filled out a bit with the Five Points? How long does it take before the content of the WCF becomes internalized enough to be examined and rethought as needed? And are the adults in our congregations being instructed adequately, so that biblical literacy and confessional literacy are brought together to fill out a Map that one can really live by?
Certainly many Reformed congregations are rich with confessional teaching; I don’t mean to knock what is in place already. But wow, what a huge task, to catch evangelical people up on both Bible and Maps! This is the work that I throw myself into (as I am permitted!). Not a quick or easy task, but a worthy one!
Todd said,
August 22, 2009 at 8:02 am
Paige,
Yes, much is dependent on the meaning of “lens,” but where this comes into play pastorally is that we should not suggest to people that the Confession operates as our Protestant Magisterium. We don’t ask people to adopt the Confession because they need a lens to interpret Scripture, and this is the lens the church has approved, so respect the church and adopt this lens. No, we ask them to adopt the Confession because we can demonstrate to them from the Scriptures how the Confession summarizes the truths of Scripture well. This makes all the difference in the world, especially with people new to the reformed faith. And then we allow Scripture to change their lens by which they view Scripture from that point, with the Confession only as a help and guide.
Bryan Cross said,
August 22, 2009 at 8:13 am
Todd,
No, we ask them to adopt the Confession because we [without a lens] can demonstrate to them from the Scriptures how the Confession summarizes the truths of Scripture well.
How do you know that you do this with no lens, with no presuppositions, no interpretive paradigm, no implicit philosophical assumptions, etc.? Is it possible to be unaware that one is using a lens? If so, how do you ensure that your ‘lensless demonstration’ is truly lensless?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Todd said,
August 22, 2009 at 8:58 am
Bryan,
Because of David’s point above- God has given us the reasoning ability to understand his revelation to us, and that revelation, with the aid of the Spirit, is sufficiently clear to change any faulty presuppositions we may have brought to the text.
johnbugay said,
August 22, 2009 at 9:00 am
Bryan — this is where you miss the boat, in that this question forces you to downplay the legitimacy of such things as God’s ability to communicate with us via his Word, and our ability to undertand through such things as Jason mentioned above.
What is it that functions as an “infallible interpreter” of communications between you and your wife? You are “one flesh,” correct? Yet you manage to communicate face to face. If your marriage is a good one, you communicate seamlessly. This is how Christ communicates with his church.
Perry mentioned 2 Pet 3:16. This is worth commenting on:
If you were genuinely interested in seeing what this verse was saying, you would understand that Paul’s letters arose as a subject “only because they were being distorted by the false teachers, and perhaps the converts of false teachers as well.” (Schreiner, New American Commentary, 396).
Zrim said,
August 22, 2009 at 9:10 am
Andrew P.,
Re 291: He [me, Zrim] gives us two options of engagement. His first option is repugnant to unity. His second option is repugnant to dialogue. And those are supposed to be our options.
There is a third option: to offer reasoned arguments for one’s own position, reasoned critiques of contrary positions, and invite all reasonable people to return the favor. If this involves an incipient call to repentance, so be it. After all, ideas have consequences.
CTC is certainly not short on ideas and arguments, even if they are not always great ideas or good arguments. If Zrim thinks that any of these ideas are false, or arguments fallcious, he is welcome to make any number of his own arguments to that effect. But recommending a false dilemma as the options for dialogue and then accusing CTC of patronizing on that (faulty) basis simply smacks of obscurantism.
But the very name, “Called to Communion,” and its stated purpose is to call us to repentance. It is not a village green, like, say, “Green Baggins.” What about “Green Baggins” implies a call to repentance?
Bryan Cross said,
August 22, 2009 at 9:13 am
Todd,
God has given us the reasoning ability to understand his revelation to us, and that revelation, with the aid of the Spirit, is sufficiently clear to change any faulty presuppositions we may have brought to the text.
Is this statement itself a presupposition, or is it falsifiable? And if it is falsifiable, what would falsify it?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
johnbugay said,
August 22, 2009 at 9:18 am
Bryan: Is this statement itself a presupposition, or is it falsifiable? And if it is falsifiable, what would falsify it?
You are giving a philosophically-based answer to a question about Scripture.
I would like to see your response to Schreiner’s exegesis in my post #308
Todd said,
August 22, 2009 at 9:34 am
“Is this statement itself a presupposition, or is it falsifiable? And if it is falsifiable, what would falsify it?”
This statement is not a presupposition, it is in response to the revealed Word. God communicated to us in a book, and in that book we see that we are expected to understand what is communicated in it, with the Spirit opening our eyes and renewing our wills to believe it.
“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” (Rev. 3:22)
“Everyone who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock” (Matt 7:24)
johnbugay said,
August 22, 2009 at 9:43 am
Bryan, it seems to me that the concept of a lens itself is unhelpful. Or maybe it is.
First of all, in optics, when you make a glass thicker, it makes it less clear, and adds distortion. (Your interpolation of philosophy, too, adds distortion. But that is another discussion.)
In Schreiner’s work on 2 Peter, he goes on to talk about Paul’s letters as *Scripture*. In this case, we have “Scripture interpreting Scripture” — and here’s a good example.
This is Scripture interpreting Scripture. Paul is giving us, as members of the church, a Scriptural interpretation of Scripture.
The “free woman” is our mother.
Fast forward to the “infallible magisterium” telling us that Mary is our mother. In order to do this, you have to be saying that Paul himself did not adequately reflect on his own religion. But that is not the case. According to the Optics metaphor, “magisterium” itself is a layer that clouds and distorts the truth.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 22, 2009 at 9:43 am
We don’t ask people to adopt the Confession because they need a lens to interpret Scripture, and this is the lens the church has approved, so respect the church and adopt this lens. No, we ask them to adopt the Confession because we can demonstrate to them from the Scriptures how the Confession summarizes the truths of Scripture well.
Todd,
My perspective is that that the Reformed adopt the confessions for both of the reasons above. We can demonstrate primarily from Scripture and secondarily from tradition that the Reformed confessions are consistent with with the historic Christian faith. But then once adopted, these confessions do provide us with a conceptual framework for interpreting the Scriptures, tradition, and the world we live in. I see the Catholics doing the same thing – I hope they would agree. In their minds they cannot make sense of the data from particularly the tradition of the Church so they change traditions and exchange one set of lenses for another. They believe the teachings of Catholic Magisterium can be derived from tradition and Scripture, but also, once adopted the Magisterium provides a faithful conceptual framework for interpreting Scripture and tradition (I think that I could make a similar case for EO although my limited experience is that EO resists the attempt to systematize their beliefs into a conceptual framework). The discussions with RC’s are then colored by the fact that they are interpreting Scripture and tradition through different lenses than we are. We just have to accept this and understand it.
On the occasions when I have interacted with RC’s, most of my time is spent trying to get them to understand my perspective. I’m tryig to get them to see things through my lenses so as to speak. Curiously I find that I have more problems getting Catholics to understand my perspective if they came from a Reformed background. I think this is because they feel they already understand the Reformed faith and there is nothing they can learn from me. They have already seen the world through my lenses, or so they think.
A few books that I have found very thought provoking on these issues are C.S. Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism and Vern Poythress, Symphonic Theology and Science and Hermeneutics. I put Lewis right at the front because he was a master at understanding others conceptual framework IMO. For Lewis there had to be a thorough understanding of the conceptual framework before moving to the process of criticism proper. It’s primarily a literary work but it has just as much application to theology, philosophy, and worldview, again IMO.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 22, 2009 at 9:50 am
You know, this discussion has been largely academic and apologetic so far; but I wonder if anybody else has been thinking in practical and pastoral terms, too. Down here among the grass roots I notice that actually only SOME of us have any credal and confessional lenses to speak of. The rest of us have not thought about it much, and are operating with incomplete and unreliable Maps. How many of the people in a Reformed congregation nowadays have been nurtured on the Confessions since infancy? How many more, rather, have wandered in from “outside,” and are still operating with sketchy Maps, now maybe filled out a bit with the Five Points? How long does it take before the content of the WCF becomes internalized enough to be examined and rethought as needed? And are the adults in our congregations being instructed adequately, so that biblical literacy and confessional literacy are brought together to fill out a Map that one can really live by?
Paige,
Theses are some great thoughts, thanks! I have been thinking along these lines somewhat this past quarter since I have been teaching an introduction to the Reformed Faith. I hope I am giving the class a good working set of paradigms for understanding the history of the Church. But you are right – there are so few folks even in the Reformed congregations who could articulate what it means to be Reformed and how it changes the way we work within the Church Christ established.
Bryan Cross said,
August 22, 2009 at 9:54 am
Todd,
This statement is not a presupposition, it is in response to the revealed Word.
I don’t know for sure what it means for a statement to be “in response” to Scripture. I’m assuming you mean that you have derived this conclusion from Scripture. If so, then is your derivation falsifible or not? If it is falsifiable, then what would it take [empirically] to show that this conclusion was wrongly derived from Scripture? In other words, at what level of interpretive confusion, disagreement and division would you conclude that your derivation was false?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
johnbugay said,
August 22, 2009 at 10:11 am
Bryan — why should we not see your resort to philosophy here as just obfuscation — a thicker, darker lens?
Andrew Preslar said,
August 22, 2009 at 10:12 am
Zrim,
Nothing in the name “Green Baggins” implies a call to repentance. But something in the content does! And that is all to the good, particularly if the religious opinions of GB are true.
As to the “Called to Communion”: (1) That is a statement of fact, on two levels: (a) The contributors have been called by God into full communion with his Church; (b) we believe that this call, in terms of an offer, is made to everyone. (2) Even if (1a) is false, and we were all called by someone other than God to something other than his Church, it remains true that those who confess that Jesus is Lord are called to full communion with one another in him. And all of these are not in full communion.
Paige (#303),
What you think follows from my take on ecclesial epistemology, which you seem not to understand (my fault), does not actually follow therefrom, as I have explained in #74 and #147.
Bryan Cross said,
August 22, 2009 at 10:50 am
John,
You can avert your eyes, if you find my questions confusing or obfuscating. But it seems to me that a truth-seeker would want to know the answers to these questions.
(It would be contrary to the love of truth, you understand, for a system to label as ‘philosophy’ any questions that reveal foundational weaknesses in that system, and then to forbid “resorting to philosophy.”)
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
johnbugay said,
August 22, 2009 at 11:31 am
Bryan — we are talking about perspicuity and lenses. It would seem as if a statement of Scripture interpreting Scripture, such as “The “free woman” is our mother” is simple, direct, not only derived from Scripture, but it is itself Scripture. It is falsifiable only in the sense that you would have to disagree with Paul to disagree with it. It is a good example of Paul’s exegesis, a pattern for us to follow, and it is only muddied up by such statements as “Mary is our mother.” I do love the truth, and there is such a time as this when your application of philosophy is only muddying the issue.
johnbugay said,
August 22, 2009 at 11:38 am
Bryan — But it seems to me that a truth-seeker would want to know the answers to these questions.
Consider that “all things are lawful, but not all things are helpful.”
johnbugay said,
August 22, 2009 at 11:40 am
Your comment about “averting my eyes” is ad-hominem — a clear indication that you have no better response to my questions.
Bryan Cross said,
August 22, 2009 at 12:17 pm
John,
I agree with you that there are things that logically follow from Scripture. But, the claim in question, that human reason [apart from the guidance of the Church] has the ability to overcome any faulty presuppositions we bring to the text, does not logically follow from Scripture. If you disagree, then you would need to provide the syllogism showing how this claim logically follows from Scripture.
A distinct claim (from the one directly above) is that it is God’s purpose to preserve the unity and orthodox of His Church by giving the Holy Spirit to individuals so that by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, apart from the teaching authority of the Church, each individual comes to the true understanding of Scripture. Having been raised Pentecostal, I’m quite familiar with this claim. But this claim too raises important questions. How do we know who has the Spirit? In practice, the answer is simple: find those who agree with you, because (1) you know you have the Spirit, and (2) you know the Spirit doesn’t contradict Himself. Hence, all those who claim to have the Spirit, but who disagree with you, are being deceived by lying spirits. This is where a non-incarnational, and hence non-sacramental, understanding of the operation of the Spirit leads.
This claim [that the Spirit, apart from the Church’s teaching authority, overcomes the faulty presuppositions we bring to the text] does not logically follow from Scripture, but is an interpretation of Scripture. So it, again, raises the question: What empirical evidence would falsify this interpretation?
If no empirical evidence would falsify this interpretation, then this interpretation is functionally an a priori presupposition we are bringing to the text, implicitly ascribing qualified infallibility to ourselves. So the position, in that case, turns out to be one that claims to allow faulty presuppositions to be overturned, yet reserves at least one presupposition as an a priori unfalsifiable untouchable.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
johnbugay said,
August 22, 2009 at 12:34 pm
But, the claim in question, that human reason [apart from the guidance of the Church] has the ability to overcome any faulty presuppositions we bring to the text, does not logically follow from Scripture.
This is merely a flavor of the “where does Scripture teach Sola Scriptura” fallacy that the esteemed Bellarmine was chastised for presenting up above.
Bryan Cross said,
August 22, 2009 at 12:38 pm
John,
A statement is not a fallacy. A statement can be true or false, but it cannot be a fallacy. An argument can be fallacious. But a statement is not an argument.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
johnbugay said,
August 22, 2009 at 1:03 pm
It is a false statement then. I would guarantee you that I’m the least theologically sophisticated person here.
A distinct claim (from the one directly above) is that it is God’s purpose to preserve the unity and orthodox of His Church by giving the Holy Spirit to individuals so that by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, apart from the teaching authority of the Church, each individual comes to the true understanding of Scripture.
You are not telling the whole story. Because it is not “the illumination of the Holy Spirit” that tells people what the word dikaioo means. There is a certain amount of authority that simply is associated with the correct use of the word.
When Paul says “the “free woman” is our mother,” a true and simple declarative statement, (in the midst of other true and simple declarative statements,” how is it that any human being would either need “the illumination of the Holy Spirit” to know what that means?
johnbugay said,
August 22, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Bryan — One could compile a whole lot of these “true and simple declarative statements” from Scripture — and your objection against the “illumination of the Holy Spirit” would not touch a single one of them.
Bryan Cross said,
August 22, 2009 at 2:13 pm
John,
In #323 I wrote: But, the claim in question, that human reason [apart from the guidance of the Church] has the ability to overcome any faulty presuppositions we bring to the text, does not logically follow from Scripture.
In #326 you claimed that this statement is false.
In rational discourse, we do not simply assert that our interlocutor’s claim is false, because our interlocutor could do the same to our claim, and we would then be no closer to discovering the truth and resolving our disagreement. In rational discourse, if we believe our interlocutor has made a false statement, we show that statement to be false. That is why in #323, I followed my statement by saying, “If you disagree, then you would need to provide the syllogism showing how this claim logically follows from Scripture.”
So, to show my statement to be false, you would need to provide the syllogism showing how the claim “human reason [apart from the guidance of the Church] has the ability to overcome any faulty presupposition we bring to the text” follows logically from some verse (or verses) in Scripture.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
johnbugay said,
August 22, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Bryan — Prior to that, you are loading up the “guidance of the Church” with all kinds of Romanist balderdash that once to tell people “what dikaioo means (even if what they say it means isn’t really what it means).”
Bryan Cross said,
August 22, 2009 at 2:53 pm
John,
Prior to that, you are loading up the “guidance of the Church” with all kinds of Romanist balderdash that once to tell people “what dikaioo means (even if what they say it means isn’t really what it means).
Whether that is true or not, it does not show my statement in #323 (or any other statement I have made) to be false. To show my statement in #323 to be false, you need to lay out the syllogism showing how the claim “human reason [apart from the guidance of the Church] has the ability to overcome any faulty presupposition we bring to the text” follows logically from some verse (or verses) in Scripture. Until you do so, you have not shown my claim to be false; you have merely asserted it to be false.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
johnbugay said,
August 22, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Bryan — there is no reason to even think about granting your definition of “Church” — especially when the history of the Roman church clearly shows that the Roman Catholic church is not what it says it is.
Your definition of “Church” renders the whole thing false before it even gets started.
johnbugay said,
August 22, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Bryan — the little green men on Mars have also claimed “infallible interpretation.” How do you prove them wrong?
johnbugay said,
August 22, 2009 at 3:27 pm
“human reason [apart from the guidance of the little green men from Mars] has the ability to overcome any faulty presupposition we bring to the text”
johnbugay said,
August 22, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Let’s prove that one wrong. What does the syllogism look like?
johnbugay said,
August 22, 2009 at 3:30 pm
just grant me that there are little green men on Mars and that I have submitted to their claim to provide an infallible interpretation.
There, I am in “teachable” mode. Please begin the lesson from here.
johnbugay said,
August 22, 2009 at 3:34 pm
I have to apologize. I’m really slow about some things, and it takes me some time to catch on.
David Gadbois said,
August 22, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Todd said This statement is not a presupposition, it is in response to the revealed Word.
I think Todd’s point is that Scripture holds believers culpable to believe and obey the revealed Word. This assumes at the very least two things – that, on the objective side, God’s Word is sufficiently clear. On the subjective side, it presumes that our sensory perception and reasoning faculties are basically reliable so that, despite the various exegetical challenges, we can understand sufficiently and thus are expected to obey God’s Word.
David Gadbois said,
August 22, 2009 at 3:48 pm
John Bugay, as one of the moderators, I have to ask to please tone down the ‘snark factor’ on your responses.
Plus, I’m surprised you aren’t used to this old song-and-dance by now. If Rome is right and sola scriptura creates insuperable epistemological quandries, their objections cuts both ways, and sola ecclesia can’t work either. What happens if we bring faulty presuppositions to the text of their supposedly-infallible councils?
johnbugay said,
August 22, 2009 at 3:54 pm
David, I appreciate your reason and clarity. I just have been around the block with this a few times, and Bryan does move forward, just simply ignoring such things as you said in #337. And in doing so, he’s able to maintain his own little fortress of logic around himself.
I’ll turn my radio down now and just listen to the response.
Todd said,
August 22, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Yes, thanks David. If I wasn’t clear – Jesus expected all to hear his words and understand them, without appointing official interpreters of his Word for the people. Thus God has revealed in His Word that all who can hear his Word are held responsible to understand and obey it, demonstrating that we have been given the ability from God to hear/read – then understand and respond to God’s revelation, not perfectly, but sufficiently.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 22, 2009 at 5:03 pm
David,
Regarding your comment #338: I addressed this mis-characterization of the Catholic position in my first comment in this thread. (#71)
Sola scriptura does not create “insuperable epistemological quandries,” not in the sense you give to that phrase. Sola scriptura does create an insuperable quandry with regards to the teaching authority of the Church. There is an epistemological principle at work here, but a Catholic construal thereof does not hinge upon the thesis that individuals cannot discern for themselves what is the meaning of a text.
Certainly we all bring presuppositions to the task of exegesis, but some of those presuppositions are unavoidable and necessarily true (e.g., the law of non-contradiction), providing a logical and epistemological basis for objectivity in hermeneutics, with or without appeal to any interpretive authority whatsoever. Objectivity in hermeneutics is attacked by all sorts of folk (Catholics and confessional Protestants included), but their protestations are inevitably self-destructive.
It is certainly salutary to discover as much as one can about one’s presuppositions, and to recognize how those shape (or mis-shape) one’s interpretation of a text. Of course, the fact that we can identify and evaluate our own presuppositions is itself indicative of objectivity and, therefore, the non-futility of reasoning, including rational exegesis. I suppose that my Protestant friends go so far as to affirm the full sufficiency of rational exegesis of Scripture for discerning true Christian doctrine.
The questions between us are whether or not God has established his Word in the context of an abiding interpretive authority, and, if he has, whether that authority has been so constituted by God as to be susceptible to the utterly counter-productive action of dogmatically teaching error. If God has not thus constituted the Church (i.e., as a fallible teacher), then it does pertain to exegesis to submit one’s personal interpretation to the interpretation of the Church, insofar as exegesis proceeds according to the presuppositions that biblical exegesis tends towards theological truth, and that truth is one, whether it is discerned by reason or by submission to authority.
Todd said,
August 22, 2009 at 6:07 pm
“The discussions with RC’s are then colored by the fact that they are interpreting Scripture and tradition through different lenses than we are. We just have to accept this and understand it.”
Andrew # 314,
Thanks, I have read Lewis on criticism, and I’m not sure how his thesis of two kinds of readers relates to this discussion. Maybe I’m missing something. The point is, I’m not a philosopher nor do I play one in the pulpit. Instead of comparing presuppositions, I think the only way to demonstrate to RC’s, or anyone else for that matter who claims Scripture as infallible, of the wrongness of their views, is to demonstrate that their views either contradict or cannot be proven by Scripture. I think pastors should excel in exegesis, not necessarily philosophy. Our Lord corrected Satan’s misuse of Scripture with the right understanding of Scripture. While I understand the temptations were not first and foremost about our spiritual warfare, but Christ’s for us, I think his way of battle there is the right one for us.
Bryan Cross said,
August 22, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Todd,
Jesus expected all to hear his words and understand them
That statement seems to me to be false. Jesus expected that many who were within earshot while He spoke not to hear and understand His words. In fact, not only did He expect it, He intended it. When the disciples asked Him why He spoke in parables, He responded by saying that to the Apostles had been granted the knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom, but not to the others. This understanding had been granted to the Apostles, in that He explained to them in private the meaning of the things He taught in public. That’s why He says, “while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand” (Matt 13:13), “and hearing they may not understand” (Lk 8:10). I think Jesus says seven times in the gospels “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” That wouldn’t make sense if everyone who heard Jesus had ears to hear.
Thus God has revealed in His Word that all who can hear his Word are held responsible to understand and obey it,
There are two senses of the word ‘hear’. One sense includes ‘understanding’ and the other does not. If you mean that all who can hear (in the sense that includes understanding) are held responsible to understand it, then I agree with your statement. But, if you mean that all who can hear (in the sense that does not include understanding) are responsible to understand what they hear, then this claim does not follow from your premise. The Ethiopian in the chariot, for example, was not culpable for not understanding what he was readingi; he couldn’t help it.
demonstrating that we have been given the ability from God to hear/read – then understand and respond to God’s revelation, not perfectly, but sufficiently.
If there were good reason to believe your premise, then you might be able to get to this conclusion. But there is no point in evaluating the logic by which you move from your premise to this conclusion, when there is good reason to deny the truth of the premise.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Paige Britton said,
August 22, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Andrew P., from #318:
“What you think follows from my take on ecclesial epistemology, which you seem not to understand (my fault), does not actually follow therefrom, as I have explained in #74 and #147.”
Thank you for your patience! I am sure the clarity is all on your side, the obfuscation on mine. :)
Paige Britton said,
August 22, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Todd (We don’t ask people to adopt the Confession because they need a lens to interpret Scripture, and this is the lens the church has approved, so respect the church and adopt this lens. No, we ask them to adopt the Confession because we can demonstrate to them from the Scriptures how the Confession summarizes the truths of Scripture well.) —
Yes! And the most fair and effective way to teach the doctrine is to start with Scripture, not the theological vocabulary. (Though the terms are handy handles, so that we can be a little more precise.) My vision for teaching Reformed theology to newcomers is not along the “Magisterium” lines you describe there – rather, if we are as a church adhering to, say, the WCF, we present it as what we are persuaded is the best expression of the message of Scripture, and we explain it clearly and show where it comes from and how it compares to the other “maps” or “lenses” that people have encountered or held previously, and let conviction happen as it may. I know very personally how hard it is to change maps, and the transition from default-Arminian-evangelical to a Reformed perspective can be especially emotional. But I also know personally the goodness of having a map that feels solid and makes sense of the data provided by God in Scripture.
Paige Britton said,
August 22, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Andrew M. —
blessings on your teaching! I think every little bit counts. And I am sure you explain things in a clear and friendly way. Many people have not had any exposure even to the categories of systematic theology prior to encountering Reformed people, and while we don’t want to give the impression that it’s all brain work unrelated to real life, engaging the mind can be a new, good gift that we give to people! At the very least, we show them the places where they should be asking questions, and we teach them to read passages of Scripture with real attention to detail.
I am working with (i.e., providing for contingencies, not teaching) a SS class of salt-of-the-earth men and women who are adults returning to the Bible for the first time since childhood. They are still sorting out whether David and Jesus were contemporaries, and who was/were Saul, Saul, and Paul. This is not the time to teach them the names of doctrines — but of course, the sweet thing is that the Scriptures we read teach the doctrines themselves. (Ah, but my theological lens is showing…)
Paige Britton said,
August 22, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Could someone tell me whether these quotes mean the same thing, or mean different things, about individual believers and their ability to interpret Scripture in the RC view?
Andrew P.: (341) “There is an epistemological principle at work here [Andrew is talking about sola scriptura & Church authority], but a Catholic construal thereof does not hinge upon the thesis that individuals cannot discern for themselves what is the meaning of a text.”
Bryan Cross (323): “…the claim in question, that human reason [apart from the guidance of the Church] has the ability to overcome any faulty presuppositions we bring to the text, does not logically follow from Scripture.”
Todd said,
August 22, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Bryan,
“That statement seems to me to be false. Jesus expected that many who were within earshot while He spoke not to hear and understand His words.”
You are making my point. The Pharisees’ failure to understand Jesus words was a moral failure, not a failure of mental ability to understand Scripture. They are hardened exactly because they refused to believe the Word they were expected to understand. I am using expected in the sense of “responsible for/accountable to.”
“There are two senses of the word ‘hear’. One sense includes ‘understanding’ and the other does not. If you mean that all who can hear (in the sense that includes understanding) are held responsible to understand it, then I agree with your statement.”
That is what I mean
“The Ethiopian in the chariot, for example, was not culpable for not understanding what he was readingi; he couldn’t help it.”
Yes, teachers are a guide in our understanding of Scripture, no doubt.
Bryan Cross said,
August 22, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Paige,
Re #347, they don’t mean the same thing. Andrew P is saying that individuals can discern for themselves what is the meaning of a text. This does not mean that all individuals can correctly discern the meaning of all texts all the time. But it does mean that individuals can possibly determine the correct meaning of texts, depending on many different factors, including the difficulty of the subject matter, the style of the writing, the clarity of the writing, the familiarity of the reader with that style, that subject matter, that context, that language, that author, that people, and the purpose of the text. All those factors (and others) contribute to the degree of successful interpretation of a text by an individual.
My statement, by contrast, is that it does not logically follow from Scripture that human reason has the ability to overcome any faulty presuppositions we bring to the text. We might be able to overcome some faulty presuppositions without the help of the Church, but no passage of Scripture entails that we (simply by the power of human reason, and apart from the help of the Church) can overcome any faulty presupposition we might have, or overcome all the faulty presuppositions we might have, when interpreting Scripture.
Andrew P is saying that we as individuals can certainly get some things right when we come to Scripture. I am saying that Scripture does not entail that we as individuals can overcome any (or all) faulty presuppositions we might have when we come to Scripture. My claim implies that we need the Church to help us understand Scripture in a way that allows us all to attain and maintain the “one faith” of which St. Paul speaks. But our two claims are fully compatible.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan Cross said,
August 22, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Todd,
Re #348, I agree that the Pharisees were culpable for their disbelief. But there is a non-culpable form of hearing without understanding, and it seems that this applies to the many ordinary people who heard His parables without understanding them. Here’s why. If Jesus expected everyone to understand His parables, then there would be no reason for Him to explain the meaning of the parables to His Apostles in private, unless He thought His Apostles were more thick-headed than everyone else who heard Him speak (and I see no good reason to believe that He thought this about His Apostles). So the fact that He explained the meaning of His parables in private shows that He did not expect everyone to understand everything He said. And it would be ad hoc to assume that everyone else who did not understand the parables was purposefully or willfully disbelieving them, but that the Apostles (and only the Apostles) didn’t understand the parables (when they were spoken in public) not because of purposeful ignorance or disbelief, but simply because of stupidity.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
August 23, 2009 at 12:49 am
Here’s a relevant excerpt from this recent blog post by Justin Taylor titled “Evangelicals and Catholics Together”:
Castaldo is the author of a new book, Holy Ground: Walking with Jesus as a Former Catholic, being published by Zondervan next month.
Here are George’s and Beckwith’s endorsements for Castalodo’s book:
“What an encouraging book from a fine young Christian leader! Chris Castaldo speaks from his own spiritual pilgrimage about the unity between believing Catholics and faithful Evangelicals, the important differences that still remain between us, and what all of this means to our witness in the world today. Great stuff!”
Timothy George, founding dean of Beeson Divinity School of Samford University; Senior Editor, Christianity Today
“In a culture in which theological disagreements are treated as no different than matters of taste, Christ Castaldo’s Holy Ground is a refreshing change. He is a former Catholic turned Evangelical Protestant who shows respect for the tradition from which he departed while at the same time not shying away from the doctrinal issues over which Catholics and Protestants are in serious disagreement. He has a knack for clearly and charitably explaining to Evangelicals the diverse factions within Catholicism and how each thinks about its commitment to Scripture, Church, and walking with Christ. Although one may find oneself disagreeing with how Pastor Castaldo conveys or presents a particular doctrine or historical event, as I did on more than one occasion while reading this book, one cannot help but be impressed by his sincere effort to sincerely and graciously assess the issues that continue to divide, as well as unite, Protestants and Catholics.”
Francis J. Beckwith, Professor of Philosophy and Church-State Studies, Baylor University; author of Return to Rome: Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic (Brazos, 2009)
Here are a few more of the blurbs:
“Because the accounts of a number of high-profile Evangelicals converting to Roman Catholicism have hit the press, we sometimes overlook the fact that statisticians tell us that in America, Catholics are becoming Evangelicals faster than the reverse by a ratio of about three to one. What do these converts find? How do they cope? How do they—how should they—relate to their Catholic families and friends? This is the best book I have read that chronicles such pilgrimages. And it is full of godly commonsense.”
D. A. Carson, Research Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
———
Pastor Castaldo is no longer using the lens provided by the Roman Catholic Church. And writes a book about it.
rfwhite said,
August 23, 2009 at 6:51 am
It has been stated here that “the Church does have the charism of speaking her mind in an infallible way (as the Body of Christ, having the mind of Christ).” What is the biblical basis of this claim of a charism of infallibility?
curate said,
August 23, 2009 at 8:13 am
No. 349 Bryan Cross: I am not aware that Protestant theologians do not read the Bible as part of a community, as isolated individuals. A quick look at the bibliography of any modern work demonstrates the opposite.
A cursory read through any book by Calvin, Luther, Chemnitz, Cranmer, etc, will reveal multiple quotes and references to the fathers, not excluding a host of other sources.
This is a fallacy that needs to be put aside.
When Luther began to teach justification by grace alone, through faith alone, other scholars perused his works, and checked them against the scriptures. It was the wide acceptance of his exegesis, supported by the exegesis of many other brilliant men, that spread the light of the truth.
Then in the final stage of mutual interaction, these biblical doctrines were presented to the Kings, Parliaments, and Synods for approval. Only then did Reform happen in a commonwealth.
The Papacy, in stark contrast, simply demanded assent, upon pain of fire and sword. Not much mutual accountability there!
Bryan Cross said,
August 23, 2009 at 9:10 am
Curate,
I did not claim, nor do I believe, that Protestant theologians do not read the Bible as a part of a community, and do not cite the fathers.
I also agree with you that there were other scholars in Luther’s time who were persuaded by his arguments. There were other scholars at that time who were not persuaded by Luther.
Your point seems to be that the Church needs to be accountability to the scholars, as though academia has higher interpretive authority than the successors of the apostles, those uneducated fisherman. And when the Church hierarchy does not accept the verdict of academia, rebellion against Church hierarchy is justified, because academia is a higher interpretive authority (so it is really not rebellion, but submission).
But academia is incapable of being the highest interpretive authority, because it is not a unified entity. What do you do when scholars disagree? Do you start weighing graduate degrees from more prestigious institutions? Majority vote among scholars? Anglican, Pentecostal, Mormon, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, and Seventh Day Adventist, etc. they all have their own scholars, and they all think their own interpretation is better. Is the authoritative interpretation of Scripture ultimately a matter of scholarly authority? If so, must we then count PhDs, and publications of PhDs, and quality of institutions from which these PhDs were obtained, in order to determine the authoritative interpretation of Scripture? And how do we determine the quality of scholarship in a non-question-begging way? This option seems to leave us in the morass of postmodern relativism. That seems to be the ultimate outcome of Renaissance humanism’s influence on the Reformation, placing scholarly authority over sacramental ecclesial authority. And what if the majority of contemporary biblical scholars rejects something like imputation? (See here, where Gundry claims that that is already the case.) Will you then accept that conclusion, or will you claim that the scholars have all gone liberal?
If you reject their conclusion, then how is it not the case that *you* are functioning as the final interpretive authority? In that case the appeal to academia to justify 16th century Protestantism turns out to be a cover for “they are authoritative when I agree with them, but not when I disagree with them,” which in actuality is indistinguishable from “I am my own pope.” Or more likely, you will just accept as authoritative only those scholars who agree with you. But that’s just the academic version of sola scriptura (see comment #5), i.e. selecting as the Church only those persons who satisfy your determination of the marks of the Church, according to your own interpretation.
But if you accept the conclusion of the majority of scholars, then how do you know that they *haven’t* gone liberal? Where in Scripture is there a promise that the Holy Spirit will guide academia into all truth, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against academia? If you make academia your interpretive authority, then you need to be prepared to go down with the ship, when God hands them to a depraved mind and futile speculations and darkened hearts. I’m sticking with the successors of those uneducated fishermen, because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
August 23, 2009 at 9:20 am
Bryan Cross: “Where in Scripture is there a promise that the Holy Spirit will guide academia into all truth, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against academia?”
Setting your rhetorical question aside, the more pertinent question would be to ask whether the Magisterium has exegeted the following verse properly:
“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” (Matt. 16:18)
An answer to this gets us back to the title and question of this post:
Whose Lens Are You Using?
Bryan Cross said,
August 23, 2009 at 9:28 am
Truth Unites,
the more pertinent question would be to ask whether the Magisterium has exegeted the following verse properly
Prior to that question is this question: Who has interpretive authority?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
rfwhite said,
August 23, 2009 at 10:47 am
Bryan Cross: there should be no disagreemen that the church has interpretive authority lest there be no ground for church discipline. The church has the power from Christ to impose admonition, censure, and excommunication on the unrepentant. There seems to be, however, a still more basic question: what is the nature of the church’s authority? Is it a derived and fallible authority or an orginal and infallible authority? Whatever the case, how do we know that the claim is true? Please show us where the citation from Tertullian answers those questions.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 23, 2009 at 11:25 am
Re: #347 and #349:
Great question, great answer.
The Catholic Church affirms the necessity (and the value) of human reason vis-a-vis the interpretation of the Word of God (my point), but she does not affirm the sufficiency of human reason in that respect (Bryan’s point).
johnbugay said,
August 23, 2009 at 11:52 am
There seems to be, however, a still more basic question: what is the nature of the church’s authority?
There is a prior question to that: “What is the church?” — and Rome should not be able to assume (as it does) but must prove the claims it makes about itself. Because it is not what it says it is.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 23, 2009 at 12:05 pm
frwhite (#352):
It has been stated here that “the Church does have the charism of speaking her mind in an infallible way (as the Body of Christ, having the mind of Christ).” What is the biblical basis of this claim of a charism of infallibility?
Those words are from #147, where they were formed as a hypothetical statement, not a claim:
If the Church does have the charism of speaking her mind in an infallible way (as the Body of Christ, having the mind of Christ) …
Part of the biblical basis for the doctrine of ecclesial infallibility lies in the nature of the Church as described in Sacred Scripture, together with the promises made to the Church. The infallibility of the Church, speaking as Church on a matter of faith and morals, may be deduced from Sacred Scripture by good and necessary consequence.
Thus the biblical basis. (I suppose a word study would eventually lead you to all the right passages.) The argument therefrom I have barely sketched in the preceding comments, which is why I have tried to refrain from making bald claims about infallibility, casting the doctrine rather in terms of a hypothesis.
rfwhite said,
August 23, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Andrew P: thanks for what you have said to make clear your position, namely, that ecclesial infallibility lies in the nature of the Church as decribed in Sacred Scripture and that said infallibility may be deduced from Sacred Scripture by good and necessary consequence. That in which I’m actually interested is the specific Scripture texts that form the basis of your position. If you don’t want to develop it here, that’s fine but could you provide a bibliographic reference or a link to a place where you have or another has developed it?
Andrew Preslar said,
August 23, 2009 at 2:07 pm
rfwhite,
Fair enough.
Mt 16.16-19 (cf. Is 22.20-22; Rev 3.7).
Mt 28.18-20
Lk 22.28-32
Jn16.7-14.
Jn 17.
Acts 15 (see v. 28).
1 Cor 2.
Eph 1.
1 Tim 3.14-16.
Such are some of the more obvious passages indicating Christ’s unfailing action in the teaching Church, the repository of all spiritual truth. As is often the in such large matters, it may be that some of the less obvious passages bring to light the substantial claim of ecclesial infallibility in a surpassingly excellent way.
The Catholic Encyclopedia offers brief, historical-critical arguments from a few of these passages to the doctrine of ecclesial infallibility: “Proof of the Church’s Infallibility.”
Joseph Ratzinger has penned a brief and illuminating account of the nature of the Church, titled (you guessed it) Called to Communion.
The nature of the Church, which is determined by God, determines the kind and scope of her power. So Ratzinger’s discussion, which is not about infallibility, is fundamental to the further question of infallibility, while at the same time its clearly points to infallibility (properly understood) as implicit in the nature of the mystical Body of Christ.
rfwhite said,
August 23, 2009 at 2:36 pm
359 John Bugay: I agree with your observation.
362 Andrew Preslar: thank you.
Bryan Cross said,
August 23, 2009 at 3:09 pm
rfwhite,
Re: #357,
There seems to be, however, a still more basic question: what is the nature of the church’s authority? Is it a derived and fallible authority or an original and infallible authority?
I answered that (partly) in #27. The Protestant conception of the Church having “derived authority” just means in actuality that the decisions and councils of the Church only have ‘authority’ if they agree with your own interpretation of Scripture. But, “when I submit (so long as I agree), the one to whom I submit is me.” Hence, “derived authority” is an illusion, i.e. the appearance of submission to an authority, but in actuality retaining final interpretive authority in oneself.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
curate said,
August 23, 2009 at 4:24 pm
No. 354 Bryan cross said: Your point seems to be that the Church needs to be accountability to the scholars … EOQ.
Not at all. Whatever gave you that idea? No, the church must be subservient to God, and the way to do that is by believing and obeying his written word. When it does that, it is the successor to the apostles, when it doesn’t it is not.
Academia is not very good at submitting to God’s word, in my view.
curate said,
August 23, 2009 at 4:34 pm
No. 365. Bryan Cross said of Protestants: …but (they are) in actuality retaining final interpretive authority in oneself. EOQ.
On the contrary, that is exactly the Protestant protest against the Pope. He retains it in himself, when “final interpretive authority” is a prerogative of the written record of the teaching of the apostles and prophets.
Again, the scriptures do not need to be interpreted, as if they were not clear and complete. The authors of scripture provide us with their own interpretation – in the Bible itself.
Think of the parables. Jesus first tells it as riddle, and then provides the explanation. The examples are endless. The Bible is not in a secret code that needs cracking.
Bryan Cross said,
August 23, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Curate,
Re: #366
the scriptures do not need to be interpreted
Is that an a priori presupposition you bring to the text, or is that a falsifiable claim? If it is a falsifiable claim, then what degree of interpretive disagreement would falsify it, if it were false? In other words, how divided what Christians have to get in their interpretations of Scripture before that statement was falsified? Caveat: There are 21 Reformed denominations in Switzerland, 14 Reformed denominations in the UK, and 44 Reformed denominations in the US. How many more Reformed denominations would there have to be, before your statement would be falsified?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Perry Robinson said,
August 23, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Andrew M,
Its true that the Reformers thought they were saying something normative and had councils, but the disagreement is over what a council is and what kind and degree of normativity was enjoyed. And this is just the point. Their belief was that an individual judgment could trump that of those councils.
To say that they were acting “as the church” presupposes that one can have a church without ministers who are commissioned or sent by God, either mediately or immediately. That strikes me as question begging. And yes when the Reformers started out, it was a few priests and laymen, some of those were politicians. Moreover, it is noteworthy that they didn’t carry, except in the case of England, which was top down anyhow, any of the episcopate. This is important because early on the Reformers tried to enlist a good number of bishops and thought this was essential. When it became obvious that they couldn’t get any, they changed their tune.
Furthermore, by your criteria, the Arians were “the church” too and somehow I don’t think you wish to admit as much. And the Protestants weren’t just rejecting the peculiarities of the Rome, since they also rejected the teaching of the East. Their rejection was much wider and deeper than you gloss.
Everyone who thinks that councils are infallible in a derivative sense. This is why I said earlier that infallibility is a divine energy. So your proposed gloss turns on a straw man. The idea is that latter councils are also led by the Spirit. I am sure that Protestants will wish to affirm some kind of cessation of the apostolic ministry in that respect. But for my part given the biblical material on the Spirit’s work through the laying on of hands in ordination of bishops, presbyters and deacons there is a good basis to start thinking that the Spirits working councils didn’t cease. And in fact many of the Ecumenical councils that Protestants accept speak of themselves as “Spirit-inspired” and “infallible.”
You ask, how we would know if they were infallible and I would answer that depends on what the conditions for infallibility are supposed to be. To start thinking about this, what are the conditions on infallibility in general, then for the Scriptures, and then what makes a synod legitimate or “ecumenical?”
And yes, Protestants do hold that the canon is revisable. You are confusing it seems the material canon with the formal canon. If you still maintain that the canon is not revisable, then you must think that the Protestant confessional statements on the canon are infallible. Don’t you think that it is possible that the WCF could be wrong or that the early church got the canon wrong? Isn’t the church fallible in deciding the canon or no? If so, then on your own principles the canon is in principle revisable. So yes, you do think that God left it up to fallible men to see that it came together correctly. This was the principled basis why the Protestants corrected the canon in removing books at the Reformation. It matters not that since the Reformation, Protestants haven’t in fact altered the canon. They did so at the Reformation, and could do so again in principle. At best you could claim that the canon is fixed on a pragmatic basis, but not on a principled one. And the fact that no Protestant denomination hasn’t done so has more to do with tradition than with it being immutable. People just accept books that are given to them at their conversion and then get attached to them. But if you spread the books on the table and asked them to decide, I doubt if books like Ruth would make it.
As to my thought experiment, if the sole Christian left were to speak the faith, would he be speaking with the possibility of error or no? Would it be possible for him to communicate a false gospel or no? If not, why not?
I don’t take earlier papal statements about primacy mean what later statements mean and this is because the term primus evolves. Some of that is due to fabrication and some of that is due to the inadequacy of Latin and other factors. Consequently early language about being “chief”, holding the primacy, etc. cannot be just assumed to mean what they did centuries later when the Franks held control of the papacy as opposed to when the Romans did.
To my knowledge the LCMS and the LCWS will not permit non-Lutherans to partake of the Eucharist. Perhaps ELCA does, but I think you will agree that they have gone the way of all flesh. I take the LCMS for example to be mainstream Lutheranism in the US, but perhaps you think I am mistaken in that judgment.
Canonically before significant liberal alteration in the late 1970’s, Anglicans are prohibited from giving communion to others except Rome and the Orthodox. The REC does permit other Reformed members to partake, but this historically is more of the exception than the rule.
If you are all part of Christ’s church then why isn’t there full communion? Why do you not profess the same faith? How is the sin of schism even possible on such a model?
On your claim that the medievals lost the sense of Scripture being superior to bishops and councils, this depends on what you mean. I think prior periods taught a form of prima scriptura, but prima scriptura and sola scriptura are not the same concepts. So its question begging if by that you mean sola scriptura (and historically implausible) and demonstratably false if prima scriptura.
The Reformers didn’t put the bible back into theological discourse. What they did was to re-organize and re-define the hierarchical authorities and the nature of those authorities. Instead of a kind of continuity between authorities, they posited a radical break. All judgments about Scripture were human and fallible. Furthermore, they set up new teachers as reference points as to how the older tradition was to be re-interpreted. Materially all of the Scholastics thought of Scripture as superior to bishops and councils. There is no shortage of scholarly work on the Scholastics’ view of Scripture to show that this is so. Moreover, Scholasticism per se was never part of the Orthodox tradition, so this narrative loses its explanatory and justificatory power on the basis of that fact alone.
To say that we can try on lenses, well that presupposes that we can interpret facts apart from epistemological assumptions. That’s fine if you wish to reject a presuppositional outlook, but I am not sure that you wish to do so. To say that you can see if they make sense of the data or not, assumes that the data have meaning apart from a model in the first place. How would you know that such is the case? Can you compare the meaning a fact has apart from a worldview and then what meaning a fact has when placed in that worldview? I don’t think this is possible.
Perry Robinson said,
August 23, 2009 at 5:08 pm
John B.,
Again, I would point you to McGuckin’s work, Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy, which corrects a number of mistakes from Loofs and Grillmeier, which is why his work has superseded theirs. This is confirmed in the work of a good number of other scholars on the subject as well. The question is what was the theology of Nestorius, and not how large the Church was in Persia. Neither Moffett nor Jenkins work are adequate to answer that question. And yes, Nestorius did fail to take the communication of properties from one nature to the other seriously enough. He took it to be a verbal exchange of names united by a prosopa that was the product of the union of two essences/substances. So yes, to fail to take the communication “seriously enough” would be indicative of a major Christological error.
And your appeal to these authors strikes me as nothing more than an appeal to authority at this point since there is very little in the way of argument and just statements.
Secondly, you are defending persons and theological claims that your own tradition condemns. Perhaps before using it as a foil to Rome you should try to change your own tradition’s judgment on the matter. Secondly, it is useless as a foil to Rome when talking to someone like me who is Orthodox since we don’t accept the Papacy anyhow.
If you are going to transgress your own confessional and representational boundaries in accepting the Nestorians as Christians, then do you also accept the Copts as well? Furthermore, I am not sure how the number of persecutions is relevant to the truth of the doctrine. By the same standard, the Russian Church should be acceptable as such to you as well. Furthermore, the Nestorians accept many of the doctrines you employ as a basis to condemn Rome as teaching a false gospel. Why is it that on the basis of those doctrines Rome teaches a false gospel (and also the Orthodox) but somehow the Nestorians seem to conveniently escape your condemnatory gavel?
To my knowledge, the Reformed accept the theological judgments up to but not including the seventh council, unless of course you think Monothelitism and monophysitism are open questions too.
Moffett’s judgment that the prosopic rather than hypostatic union is weak theology but not heretical is not in line with the Reformed confessions. Second, his work is not a monograph on Nestorius’ theology, but a survey of the history of the non-Chalcedonians in Persia et al. So I am not sure how it can carry the kind of argumentative weight you wish it to.
If Moffett’s work shows how small and boasful the claims of Rome and Constantinople are, so much the more so with the Reformed. So I am not sure how that actually helps your position.
Perry Robinson said,
August 23, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Curate,
As to the English, the Articles are tricky things. The official text is not the English text, but the Latin. Only the Latin was taken to be authoritative in the realm. And the Latin terms favor a more traditional interpretation. So for example, the term for minister in the Articles, is sacerdos, “priest.” Likewise Article XX while mentioning the errors of various churches in councils excludes the Church of Constantinople. Such is the case with the Articles. They are capable of different interpretations depending on which party was in power since they were formed by different parties. See Bp. Forbes, Explanation of the 39 Articles, & Symonds, The Council of Trent and Anglican Formularies. It is also worthwhile to note that the monarchy removed three articles of a more Calvinistic flavor on the basis of their own authority and that was hardly done as collaborative effort.
Not all of the bishops were as Protestant as Jewel for example. Plenty like Gardiner were quite traditional and this remained so even under the heal of monarchial power. See Duffy’s, The Stripping of the Altars, or Richard Rex, Henry 8th and the English Reformation.
Perry Robinson said,
August 23, 2009 at 5:27 pm
David,
I agree that God instills reasoning faculties and such, but how does it follow that they interpret the data apart from some worldview? This sounds like evidentialism to me. Perhaps you are an evidentialist and that is part of where our disagreement lies, but I don’t take reason and the ability to communicate to be anymore indicative of the existence of theory neutral facts than when an atheist or Mormons claims as much.
I agree that there may be common ground, but I deny that it is neutral ground.
I am not sure how self reflective gets us to interpreting texts apart from a worldview? And won’t that worldview have theological content? And I simply deny that many points of exegesis are not philosophically loaded. The entire methodology is philosophically loaded and relative to some worldview.
Perry Robinson said,
August 23, 2009 at 5:42 pm
John B,
I agree that God has the ability to communicate, but sensory facts like those gotten from reading a text along with conceptual content are interpreted according to a worldview. There are no worldview neutral facts to appeal to in interpretation. Our understanding is a function of our worldview. Following Van Til, the epistemic reason why the unbeliever doesn’t think that say the facts given for the resurrection imply the resurrection is because he presupposes a naturalistic worldview whereby he interprets those facts and the Christian interprets the facts according to his worldview. See Notaro, Van Til and the Use of Evidence, or any of Bahnsen’s work for that matter.
Your example of communication of a husband/wife communication actually undercuts your position, since it would imply that we don’t need an infallible word from God for God to clearly communicate with us. Is that what you wish to say? Secondly, no one is claiming that for communication to be possible that one has to be infallible. The question is about the normativity of that communication and if it can be accessed from some worldviewless or perspectiveless position.
2 Pet 3:16. Peter notes that the unstable misunderstand the things that Paul says that are hard to understand. He doesn’t say that they are hard to understand just to the unstable. Hence nothing you cited from commentaries, as if appealing to authorities proved the claim anyway, touches what I said regarding the passage. Plenty of things in the Scriptures are hard to understand. Just go around your church and start asking people how many wills Jesus has and watch what happens. And without telling them or letting them consult the confession watch what the result is without using the Bible. Clarity doesn’t entail ease of understanding.
Again, you frame the matter as Rome vs Protestant. I am not Roman. The issue is between Protestants and everyone else-Rome, the Orthodox-Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian.
Bob S said,
August 23, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Bryan, in #364 (and #27) you continue to confuse radical anabaptist individualism, if not the current American evangelical view, with the historic Protestant appeal to the multitude of counselors in past and present history and the collective judgement of the Protestant churches in their confessions. IOW what you fail to see is that protestantism is the happy albeit imperfect medium. It is neither the gross totalitarian collective of the infallible “church” as found in and defined by the top heavy papal hierarchy nor gross radical anabaptist individualism.
Further to the point in #354 you write :
Where in Scripture is there a promise that the Holy Spirit will guide academia into all truth, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against academia? If you make academia your interpretive authority, then you need to be prepared to go down with the ship, when God hands them to a depraved mind and futile speculations and darkened hearts. I’m sticking with the successors of those uneducated fishermen, because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God.
Exactly. Never mind academia, where in Scripture has the Roman church been given the promise that it will be guided into all truth and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it?
It would have to be Matt. 16:18: “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it” which you quote in part.
But then if a text out of context is a pretext, we have a little problem. Christ goes on in Matt. 16:23 to call pope Peter, Satan of all things! because Peter refuses to hear and cannot understand Christ’s prophesying of his own death and resurrection at Jerusalem:
“But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”
In other words, the horns of the dilemma upon which we are cast is how can be Peter be not only the Rock upon which the Holy Roman Church is built, but also Satan at the same time, if not a few minutes later on the same day?
Answer: he can’t. Christ is either consistently referring to something Peter said in both instances – not literally Peter himself – or else Peter really is the first “pope” as Rome teaches, though he is married (Mk.1:30), fallible (Gal. 2:11), apostle to the Jews, not the Gentiles (Gal. 2:7), absent from Rome (Rom.16) and ignorant of his office of pope (1 Pet.5:1) – as well as the antiChrist as the Protestant Reformers taught (2 Thess. 2:3-10).
(All this even before we get to #362 which, in conjunction with Matt. 16, essentially asserts that the Eliakim of Is.22:20 is Peter, not Christ, not to mention the even more preposterous, if not pathetic assertion that Peter, not Christ is speaking in Rev. 3:7 in order to shore up the Roman argument for Peter’s primacy.)
Ah, but as you say of academia, if you make Rome “your interpretive authority, then you need to be prepared to go down with the ship, when God hands them [over] to a depraved mind and futile speculations and darkened hearts.” Exactly.
The rock upon which the church is built, is Christ, the son of God, if not faith in and affirmation of this truth, not the apostle who first mouthed it. FTM the early church hardly presents even close to a unanimous affirmation of what Rome teaches on the primacy of Peter.
I’ll stick with the Protestant successors of those uneducated fishermen, in that the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men, who exalt a worldly city, Rome and a man they call the pope over the heavenly New Jerusalem and Christ.
While there are things written in Scripture, as it plainly says, “which are hard to be understood (2Pet.3:16)”, in contrast that which must be known for salvation is so plainly propounded that anyone with the due use of the ordinary means, the reading and hearing of Scripture, may run the race set before them, of which the reward is the crown of life eternal in Christ.
Further, in so much as the true scriptural gospel is that rediscovered and taught by the Reformation; salvation is by faith alone, in Christ alone, through sovereign predestinating grace alone, to the glory of God alone, as found in the Scriptures alone, so too the true church is one that preaches that gospel and not any other church that preaches any other gospel. IOW Rome categorically falls into the last category and not the first.
Further, there are those who say “peace, peace” – if not write, “in the peace of Christ” – when there is no peace, for they heal the hurt of the Lord’s people only slightly, if at all (cp. Jer. 6:14, 8:11). FTM, 2 Kings 9:22 and Jehu’s retort to Joram is applicable. “What peace, so long as the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel and her witchcrafts are so many?”
IOW just as Queen Jezebel usurped the authority of King Ahab to do wickedness 1K 21:8, so too Rome usurps the authority of her master and king, Christ and his Scripture in order to exalt herself, which is of the essence of idolatry and pride, even before we get to the wholesale full scale violation of the Second Commandment in the mass, the host, crucifixes, monstrances and ostensoriums.
Let the reader judge what Scripture, history and the exchange on this forum plainly tell us about Rome and her claims to be the only true and infallible church and the final judge, witness to and interpreter of Scripture.
As for #368 the assertion that the Protestants changed the canon is asinine. The Old Testament canon was established by the Jews and Rome added the OT Apocrypha to it, not the early church. Further, the NT quotes from or alludes to the OT canon but not the Apocrypha.
But in that EO is essentially papist w.o. the pope, I don’t expect much from it much different than one would hear from Rome, i.e. the holy and infallible Mother Church, if not that icons are not idols because we venerate them instead of worship them etc.
Yes, it is Protestantism, which is Chalcedonian, against both Rome and Constantinople.
Thank you.
Bryan Cross said,
August 23, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Bob,
If you disagree with my explanation (in #364) of “derived authority”, what is your definition of “derived authority”? In other words, what does it mean for a creed to have “derived authority,” if not that it conforms to your interpretation of Scripture?
If you think I’m confusing radical anabaptist individualism for historic Protestantism, then to which ecclesial authority should we all submit our interpretations, and on what basis should we submit our interpretations to that ecclesial authority?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Paige Britton said,
August 23, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Bryan Cross, #349 — Thanks so much for explaining. I appreciate that you took the time to do so!
Paige Britton said,
August 23, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Oh, and Andrew P., too — I just found your helpful little summary in the forest of posts.
Paige Britton said,
August 23, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Perry, #368, “To say that we can try on lenses, well that presupposes that we can interpret facts apart from epistemological assumptions…etc.”
Just a thought — I used the idea of “maps” earlier to describe a cumulative sort of summary of biblical data, the more organized of which we call theological systems. If Andrew M. meant by “lenses” what I mean by “maps,” then (when it comes to “trying them on” or examining them) we have a body of verbal content that we may compare with the body of verbal content in Scripture.
This doesn’t solve the problem of presuppositional lenses or infallibility, but it does make the task seem a rational one, doesn’t it? Comparing texts, essentially?
Perry Robinson said,
August 23, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Todd,
You asked Bryan if a given statement of his about the church was falsifiable. Well that presupposes a kind of falsificationism, which I know I reject and I suppose Bryan does as well. I’d also wager that most Van Tillians reject it as well. In order for a proposition to be true it doesn’t require that it be capable of falsification. Is God infallible? Is that capable of falsification? No.
Secondly, following Quine and Van Til, it is impossible to isolate a given proposition from all others in a given conceptual scheme, rendering falsification impossible. This is why Popper’s falsificationism died over thirty years ago.
Paige Britton said,
August 23, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Perry — #377 & 378: Ha, we tied for time but I won. :)
rfwhite said,
August 23, 2009 at 8:18 pm
364, 27 Bryan Cross: Your analysis of the Protestant conception of the Church having “derived authority” seems to be at odds with your doctrine of informed conscience. Here is what I am inferring: in your view, an informed conscience, by defintion, conforms to the decisions and councils of the Church. Is this the case? Can an informed conscience ever say “I must obey God rather than man” and remain innocent before God?
Perry Robinson said,
August 23, 2009 at 8:24 pm
John Buggay,
You wrote “You are giving a philosophically-based answer to a question about Scripture.”
This supposes a number of problematic things. First that scripture lacks philosophical content. Second that the two are opposed in some way. Third that the relevant philosophical grounded perspectives can’t be justified on scriptural grounds.
Perry Robinson said,
August 23, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Paige,
The maps concept won’t work, since it relies on an incrementalist model of building up facts into a theory or model. I don’t think facts disrimiante between models in the first place and I don’t tihnk a presuppositional perspetive does either.
Perry Robinson said,
August 23, 2009 at 8:29 pm
John B.
I am not sure that the appeal to the analogia fide and the historical-grammatical method on Gal 4:21ff can really be brought together. It doesn’t see as if Paul is using the former, even if this is an instance of the latter.
Secondly, not all lenses distort, some amplify.
Perry Robinson said,
August 23, 2009 at 8:35 pm
John B,
You wrote “Bryan — there is no reason to even think about granting your definition of “Church” — especially when the history of the Roman church clearly shows that the Roman Catholic church is not what it says it is. Your definition of “Church” renders the whole thing false before it even gets started.”
There are other definitions of the church other than the Catholic one upon which Bryan’s statements could still go through. So simply rejecting the Roman one won’t help your dismissal.
Secondly, to say that the definition renders the whole enterprise a mistake from the get go is to beg the question against Bryan’s position.
Perry Robinson said,
August 23, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Todd,
Your wrote, “If I wasn’t clear – Jesus expected all to hear his words and understand them, without appointing official interpreters of his Word for the people. Thus God has revealed in His Word that all who can hear his Word are held responsible to understand and obey it, demonstrating that we have been given the ability from God to hear/read – then understand and respond to God’s revelation, not perfectly, but sufficiently.”
If this was the case, why have a system of judges in the OT to interpret and apply the Law? Second, the same goes for the council in Acts 15.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 23, 2009 at 8:45 pm
To say that they were acting “as the church” presupposes that one can have a church without ministers who are commissioned or sent by God, either mediately or immediately.
Perry,
But we do have ministers which are commissioned by God as outlined in the Scriptures. The Reformers were not just individuals who popped and thought that it would be nice to be a theologians and bishops. And look at the bishops, particularly the bishops of Rome (Leo X, etc.), who opposed the Reformers. As you know these people possessed few or none of the characteristics of a Christian bishop as outlined in Timothy, Titus, etc. They were by Rome’s own admission after power and money and women and whatever else, but did not care too much about biblical Christianity. But I think you know all of this story. The one thing they did possess was a pedigree which tied them back to the bishops of the 1st/2nd century. Rome holds that in effect that this is all that matters. But this is hardly in line with either the Scriptures or the Early Church. Your statement above presupposes that Rome did have valid ministers. Should we accept what the criteria that Rome gives us, end of story? Why should the Reformed accept the Roman criteria for validity of ministers? Of course if Rome gets to define the criteria for validity of ministers then Protestantism vanishes into a puff of rhetorical smoke. But I don’t think you should assume that the Protestants had no valid ministers, this needs some proper analysis. What’s a little confusing to me is that I don’t think you would concede that Rome had valid ministers any more than the Protestants.
Everyone who thinks that councils are infallible in a derivative sense. This is why I said earlier that infallibility is a divine energy. So your proposed gloss turns on a straw man. The idea is that latter councils are also led by the Spirit. I am sure that Protestants will wish to affirm some kind of cessation of the apostolic ministry in that respect. But for my part given the biblical material on the Spirit’s work through the laying on of hands in ordination of bishops, presbyters and deacons there is a good basis to start thinking that the Spirits working councils didn’t cease.
I just wanted to point out here that you are not making any argument, but rather just telling what your feeling is. And if you equate infallibility with “divine energy,” what is my response supposed to be? What does this mean?
Furthermore, by your criteria, the Arians were “the church” too and somehow I don’t think you wish to admit as much.
The Arians did claim to be the true church. The Arian claims could theoretically have been correct. But we can refute Arian claims by the Scriptures and secondly Early Church tradition, can’t we? And likewise we see that we can refute so many of Rome’s doctrines by the Scriptures and early tradition. Take papal primacy. Here is claim that can be refuted both from Scripture and Early tradition, right? So moving onto the Reformation, I would say that Rome could theoretically be correct, but why don’t we just analyze Rome as we did with the Arians? If Rome falls short then we don’t want to accord them validity just because they can demonstrate some sort of succession to earlier times. Sounds reasonable?
Don’t you think that it is possible that the WCF could be wrong or that the early church got the canon wrong? Isn’t the church fallible in deciding the canon or no?
The WCF is the product of the mind of man while the Bible is the product of the mind of God. The Church did not decide the canon any more than the Church decided what to put into the individual books. The books of Scripture were written by God and the same God who superintended the writing of the individual books superintended the collection of these books into the canon. The canon is infallible because God is infallible whether or not the Church is. It is superfluous to posit an infallible Church. If the Bible really is the Word of God, and God inspired it, then neither the individual texts not the collection of text is revisable, are they? How could the individual texts be infallible but the collection of texts fallible if this is really God’s Word?
If you are all part of Christ’s church then why isn’t there full communion? Why do you not profess the same faith?
We do not need to be administratively connected to profess the same faith. There are all sorts of Evangelical churches around here where I can and have worshiped. It would surprise me and believers from these other churches if you told us that we were not in communion. Maybe you should describe “full communion.” Is the situation be better if I went down to the local RC congregation? I have a very conservative Catholic friend there who tells me that there are few conservatives like him and his wife there. But are the liberals and conservatives in “full communion” because they all report to the same boss?
You’ve made some other points, but that’s enough for tonight. Cheers for now….
Perry Robinson said,
August 23, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Curate
Your gloss on what constitutes the gospel seems far too narrow. If everyone who thought that human activity is part of justification were pelagian and therefore taught a false Gospel, then Augustine was clearly Pelagian and taught a false gospel. http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/no-gospel-for-augustine/
It seems not only odd, but entirely absurd to convict the doctor of grace of Pelagianism. Something must be wrong with your taxonomy.
Secondly, your protest is not just against the pope. Its against the Laudians as well as the Orthodox, the Copts and the Assyrians too. The disagreement is in principle much wider.
If the Scriptures do not need to be interpreted then biblical writers can’t be offering legitimate interpretations of it, now can they? Second, Scripture itself speaks of being and requiring interpretation.
Bryan Cross said,
August 23, 2009 at 9:11 pm
rfwhite,
Re: #380
Yes, an informed conscience, by definition, conforms to the decisions and councils of the Church. That doesn’t mean that one must conform to whatever a bishop says, simply because he is a bishop. If he told you to rob a bank, you should say no. You already know the moral law, by conscience, and so you already know that such an act would be wrong. Or, if he told you to renounce the Nicene Creed, you should refuse. Why? Because the Church isn’t merely synchronic, but diachronic. An informed conscience would know that in matters of faith and morals, what has already been definitively established or determined by the Church’s magisterial authority, cannot be overturned. So, if a bishop attempted to require someone to renounce the Creed, that bishop would ipso facto show himself to be heretical.
Can an informed conscience ever say “I must obey God rather than man” and remain innocent before God?
Every individual should obey God rather than man, when that individual must choose between obeying God and obeying man. No person who obeys God incurs guilt for doing so.
I’m sure you’ll want to apply to this to our Catholic-Protestant discussion, so I’ll wait for your reply.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Perry Robinson said,
August 23, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Andrew M,
I do not think that you have ministers commissioned by God. Some of the Reformers were laymen all their lives, like Calvin. Second those that were ordained renounced their Catholic ordination vows. Third, among the Presbyterians, they prohibited ordination by the laying on of hands for over a century just to weed out the idea of any spiritual life or power giving through ordination. Any presbyterial tactual succession they could have possibly had was lost. They were ordained by mere voting, quite contrary to the biblical model I might add. Fourth, none of the Reformers works were attended to by miracle and prophecy to authenticate an extraordinary commissioning by God as is the case in the Bible with Moses or anyone else directly commissioned. So given that they lacked both mediate/ordinary and immediate/extraordinary sending, I can’t see what constitutes them as legitimate ministers commissioned by God in the Scriptures.
I am not saying that the Reformers just popped out of nowhere. They came from an existing structure. And at the starting point, it was their judgment against that of the church courts. Their judgment they thought could trump those courts. They even thought this when dialoging with the Orthodox so it wasn’t just a case of resisting Roman corruption.
I am quite aware of Roman abuses at the time, but I fail to see how that justifies dissenting from the biblical model. Secondly, the appeal to Roman abuses simply won’t wash in my case. If you become familiar with say Mark of Ephesus and the council of Florence, I think you’ll see that we were quite aware of such abuses long before Luther was a twinkle in his daddy’s eye. Not only that, bishops like Mark most certainly did have the qualifications to be a bishop. What is the excuse then?
Rome nor the Orthodox do not hold that all that matters is a succession, but also a succession of doctrine. It is only that one is a necessary condition for the other. Even if there were no succession of doctrine, it wouldn’t follow that the succession of office ceased to be a necessary condition and thereby would still preclude the Protestant position.
Why would my statement presume that Rome had valid ministers if I don’t think that Rome does? It would only presume that there were valid ministers and the Reformers rejected these as well. I don’t accept the Roman concept of validity as an Orthodox Christian. All I tried to appeal to was the biblical material about commissioning and sending. On that basis alone, it seems the Reformers failed to be legitimate ministers however right they may have been about protesting abuses. Of course, lots of other Catholics also protested moral abuses too.
I wasn’t relaying feelings or emotions to you, but rather correcting the misunderstanding of the concept I was pointing to. I was also suggesting that one look at the biblical material on what constitutes ordination to pump our thinking on the matter in this discussion.
If you do not know what the Patristic doctrine (and biblical) of the divine energies, maybe you could go look it up?
I don’t see how the Arian claims could have been correct, given the discontinuity with the preceding tradition. I am no Arian sympathizer, but I think until you’ve grappled with the exegesis of someone like Eunomius I think you casually over estimate your biblical case. An Augustinian exegetical model that you are probably working with makes it far more difficult to refute Arianism precisely because it shares so many of the same assumptions. (Hint-look at what Barth says about Calvin’s doctrine of Christ at Church Dogmatics II, p.111)
Even if one could refute the Eunomians, Rome etc. with Scripture alone, won’t that be our judgment? Any argument is only as good as its premises. So why would our judgment as to a successful refutation be normative? It can’t be merely because it is logically valid since one can always reject various premises, which the Arians did and I assume Rome will too in a number of cases. Normativity out runs inerrancy. Jesus taught more than the right ideas, he taught with normativity.
The Church did not decide the material canon, but that everyone grants. But everyone also grants that the church decided the formal canon too. And if you think your church is fallible, there is no reason to think that the Protestants could have or can in the future make a mistake either by including books that don’t belong or by excluding those that do. Why think that the church’s recognition and specifically Protestants recognition is without the possibility of error? If rome can be wrong for 1000 plus years, why not the Reformers for 500?
It is one thing for the bible to be infallible of itself materially speaking, it is quite another thing to think that my recognition of any given book relative to inspiration of that book is infallible. Do you think the church’s recognition of the books was infallible? Don’t you think the church got it wrong and included some books that weren’t inspired?
You ask how the text could be infallible but the collection not be. Simple. The Sadducees did it. They didn’t accept anything outside the Law of Moses as Scripture. Were they fallible in what they judged to be inspired? Yes. Were they wrong? Yes. Something being infallible is quite different than my knowing or recognizing it as such. The first is a metaphysical question as to the nature of the object, and the second is epistemological as to how I know about its nature. You seem to conflate these two. Hence on Protestant principles the canon is revisable.
If you don’t need to be administratively connected to profess the same faith, then why don’t you profess the same faith? The Lutherans, Presbyterians/Dutch and the Reformed Baptists do not all profess the same faith and its been like that for 500 years. And why think that being in full communion has to do with administration? I am talking about the Eucharist. Again, you ask about things being better with the local Roman parish, but I am not Roman so I fail to see why you keep asking me questions about Rome.
rfwhite said,
August 23, 2009 at 10:02 pm
388 Bryan Cross: it seems clear on your hermeneutical theory that an informed conscience is never forced to choose between God and man. Like I said back in #10, there is an interplay of three authorities at work here: that of Scripture, that of the church and its officers, and that of individual conscience. How we configure these three relative to one another yields radical ecclesiastical differences. Roman Catholics say Protestantism delivers us sinners to the anarchy of individualism; Protestants say Roman Catholicism delivers us sinners to the tyranny of authoritarianism. Is there any hope?
Todd said,
August 23, 2009 at 10:15 pm
“If this was the case, why have a system of judges in the OT to interpret and apply the Law? Second, the same goes for the council in Acts 15.”
Perry,
Since I don’t believe in apostolic succession, I cannot accept the idea that the church hierarchy continues the ministry of interpretation the Apostles were given. The Apostles were God’s chosen men to prophetically reveal the mystery that is the OT promises. The NT is the mystery now revealed. Acts 15 is the continuing ministry of the Apostles to explain the new covenant. The canon is closed – the Apostles are dead, that ministry is over. They are the foundation (Eph 2:20), we do not need another foundation.
Also, a help or guide, i.e. pastors and teachers, do not need to be infallible to help us understand truth. My parents gave me a framework by which to understand life, they were good guides, but they did not need to be infallible. The same is true with the church as our mother.
Perry Robinson said,
August 23, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Bob S.
What is the difference between Luther’s position at Worms and that of Anabaptist individualism? Luther rejected the judgment of church courts on the basis of his own judgment and thought such a judgment was binding on himself over against that of the church.
You also frame the spectrum as if there are only three possible positions, Rome, the Anabaptists and the Reformation. Where exactly would the Laudian Anglo-Catholics fit or the Orthodox for that matter? It seems your framing of the matter is a bit skewed.
As for academia, Bryan was quite right to discuss it when it was being posited that academia says dikiao means such and so and Rome disagrees. If Protestants here wish to give up the appeal to academic authorities, I am sure Bryan would be quite happy.
Nor will your interpretation of Matt 16 get you very far since that interpretation doesn’t of itself lend aid to the Protestant position. The Orthodox accept the reading in the main you give, that it was Peter’s confession of the true faith, but that still leaves plenty of room for an infallible church since it is impossible for the *society* Christ establishes to fall away.
Even if you proved papal claims to be false, and I think they are false, this won’t justify the Protestant position or even imply it. There is no a priori reason to take it as the default position over against Rome. There are plenty of other options on the table.
And your requirement of unanimity on the papal perogatives isn’t exactly fair. The early Church hardly presents a unanimous affirmation of the deity of Christ. Furthermore, it certainly doesn’t on the alteration of the Trinity that Protestants get from their mother, the Filioque.
And if your citation about the due use of ordinary means were correct then the Lutherans must not have been using them for the last 500 years. Either that or the Reformed haven’t.
If Sola Fide was the true spiritual gospel, why didn’t Augustine have it since he clearly doesn’t teach it. Was it the Latin? Ok, how about Chrysostom or Cyril who were quite fluent in Greek?
It may be that Jezebel ursurped the authority of the king, but Protestants seem to fall under the rubric of the rebellion of Korah, where they appointed their own ministers out of the succession. (Num 16)
You ask the reader to judge, but what does Jesus say to do with those who won’t listen to the judgment of the church?
As for the canon, if the Jews were fallible, isn’t it possible that they made a mistake? After all, aren’t these the same Jewish leaders who lacked the spiritual discernment to recognize Messiah? Furthermore, not all Jews at the time of Christ agreed on the canon. The Sadducees for example did not recognize anything after the Law of Moses. Plenty of fathers were using the apocrypha or parts of it as scripture long before the council of Rome in 382. And even at that time, everything from Hebrews to Revelation was still in doubt in large sections in the church.
Furthermore, not all scholars agree that the NT doesn’t cite the apocrypha. And even if it didn’t, are we to exclude Ruth now since the NT doesn’t cite it either? The criteria of NT citation is clearly inadequate-its is neither a necessary condition nor a sufficient condition.
As for the Orthodox, saying that we are papist without the Pope betrays I must say gross ignorance. First, it ignores the high esteem that the Reformers held the Eastern church of their own day. Second, it betrays gross ignorance of Orthodox teaching. Just to name a few points of divergence-the Filioque, the distinction between essence and energies in God, our affirmation and Rome’s (as well as Protestant) denial of dyoenergism (two energies in Christ), our lacking of limiting the sacraments to seven or two for that matter, not to mention our different understanding of icons, which is one reason why in general the Orthodox do not permit statues. Since you seem quite iconophobic, perhaps you can explain something to me. If when people fall before the incarnate Christ and kiss his feet, is the worship passed on to the divine person or do they worship his body? And is the divine property of immortality and the divine glory given to matter, to creatures or is it some created intermediary between God and man as say Arius supposed? And where does the Bible say God is absolutely simple again?
As for the ChalcedonianChristology, I’d suggest that this isn’t the case with the Reformed. Just pick up Muller’s Christ and the Decree, which is sufficiently clear that the Reformed (happily I might ad) dissent from Chalcedon. And Muller is no Orthodox toady. Just notice Calvin’s remarks in the Inst, bk 2, chap 14, sec 5,
“Now the old writers defined ’hypostatic union’ as that which constitutes one person OUT OF two natures.”
Well, that’s not Chalcedon. In fact, its something else entirely. And Calvin wasn’t alone in his non-Chalcedonianism. You can find it explicitly in Vermigli’s dialog on the two natures as well as in Bucer, Bullinger, Musculus, et al. Just take a look at McCormack’s remarks here http://aboulet.com/2008/05/20/reformed-christology-and-the-westminster-htfc-report/
It makes reading WCF 8.2 all the more interesting.
Perry Robinson said,
August 23, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Todd,
So the deacons in Acts 6 weren’t laboring in the ministry of the apostles but some newly founded ministry? And Timothy and Titus, were they continuing in the Apostle’s ministry or some other?
The Apostleship isn’t defined by the giving of inspiration. Luke and Mark were not apostles and many apostles wrote no scripture at all.
Secondly the doctrine of apostolic succession doesn’t teach that there is a modern day apostle but that a portion of the apostle’sministry continues today, and this is what the fathers at Nicea and Constaninople meant when they spoke of the church being “apostolic.” To deny this is to reinterpret the Creed and insert your own innovation.
It is true that one doesn’t need to be infallible to understand, but if that were the issue, we wouldn’t even need fallible church courts, now would we, but just teachers. I don’t need a court to help me understand do I? Surely then the matter is not about understanding, but about normative judgments, resolving disputes, etc. And that was exactly the point. If it were a matter of mere understanding why the judges in the OT and the system of councils in the NT?
Consequently I can’t see how your remarks touch my question.
Bryan Cross said,
August 23, 2009 at 11:19 pm
rfwhite,
Re: #390,
it seems clear on your hermeneutical theory that an informed conscience is never forced to choose between God and man
Actually, in #388 I gave two examples of an informed conscience being obligated to choose to obey God rather than man.
Protestants say Roman Catholicism delivers us sinners to the tyranny of authoritarianism. Is there any hope?
Yes. There is hope, because the God we serve is able to bring us back together.
In order to determine whether it was right for the early Protestants to go against the Church authorities, we need to know the principled difference between those situations in which one is justified in acting against Church authorities, and those situations in which one is not justified in acting against them. Otherwise, the individual could treat every case in which he disagrees with the Church as a case justifying his acting against the Church.
The Protestant position, by implication from the very history of its separation, is that unless the individual is convinced from his own interpretation of Scripture that what the Church is saying is correct, he is not obligated to accept it. As Luther said, “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason …”
The Catholic position, by contrast, is that holding a different interpretation from the Church is not a justification for not conforming to the Church, because the Church has an interpretive authority that we do not have. By discovering what the Church has determined about a doctrine, we discover what the Holy Spirit teaches about this doctrine. Moreover, by recognizing the Church’s interpretive and teaching authority, we can know what has been definitively determined, and thus in those matters we can distinguish between what is orthodox and what is heterodox. If some bishop is going against what has already been definitively determined by the Church, or what has been universally believed and taught by the bishops, then we must not accept what he says. But if the bishops in ecumenical council come to a conclusion about a hitherto unresolved question in the Church, and their conclusion is contrary to our interpretation of Scripture, then we must submit to the interpretive authority of the Church.
One important difference between Catholics and Protestants on this point is that Protestants accept, but Catholics reject ecclesial deism. We believe that by the imparted gift of the Holy Spirit to the Apostles and their successors, the teaching office of the Church will never depart from the faith, but will ever be guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth. But Protestantism cannot believe that (without undermining itself). As a result, in Protestantism the individual necessarily has final interpretive authority, because for any Church decision or council, he has to judge for himself whether or not that decision or council came to the ‘right’ conclusion, based on his own interpretation of Scripture. Hence ecclesial deism serves as the basis for the solo scriptura that is intrinsic to Protestantism.
That’s why the ecclesial deism issue is so important. Ecclesial deism undermines the possibility of reconciliation and reunion, because it leaves each individual to do what it is right in his own eyes, according to his own interpretation. And that is the “anarchy of individualism”, as you put it.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 23, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Andrew,
First, thanks for your efforts in defending Reformed confessionalism.
Question for you: As you know, Catholics insist that apostolic succession, while not a sufficient condition, is nevertheless a necessary one for valid orders. Now is your view the same, i.e., that succession is necessary but not sufficient, with your disagreement being over what the other necessary conditions are?
Or, are you arguing that succession is not necessary at all and never has been?
Or a third option, are you arguing that apostolic succession was at one time necessary, but at a given point in history there were no available bishops who had all the necessary and sufficient conditions for valid orders, and so therefore God eliminated the need for succession altogether?
Thanks in advance.
JJS
Curate said,
August 24, 2009 at 12:38 am
Bryan and Perry, you consistently refuse to engage with the actual arguments, and retreat constantly into, Yes, but if this then that theorizings. You accuse us of radical individualism, then, when proven otherwise, you make irrelevant points like, Ah, but you couldn’t take the bishops with you, and, not everyone was as Protestant as Jewel.
While this demonstrates your familiarity with historical details and philosophical speculation, it all evades the argument that has been made over and again, from scripture, that the biblical authors included their own explanations of what they wrote.
Then there is this priceless statement from Perry: If the Scriptures do not need to be interpreted then biblical writers can’t be offering legitimate interpretations of it, now can they?
I have been saying from the beginning that the biblical authors interpret their own writings. Doh! Perhaps it was late when you wrote that one Perry. The biblical writers own interpretation is itself scripture! Yes, it must have been late.
You have been given many examples, such as a parable that is followed by its explanation, or Paul interpreting the OT in Galatians, saying, Do you not know what the law says?, followed by an explanation.
Here is a straight question to the two of you: does scripture interpret itself? If it does – and Perry has already said it does – then what is the role of your infallible Pope Bryan, or your tradition, Perry? To explain the explanation?
If scripture contains its own explanations, and it does beyond all contradiction, then the Protestant position is shown to be correct.
Curate said,
August 24, 2009 at 12:49 am
Perry, Augustine is the great defender of the sovereignty of God in salvation against Pelagian free will. He is a hero of the faith to us.
He had a faulty understanding in confusing justification with regeneration, but he knew and taught that all of salvation is by grace apart from works. In that point he grasped the very essence of the gospel, and is a hero to the Lutherans and the Reformed. Brother Martin, Mister sola fide, called him the blessed Augustine, as well he might.
David Gadbois said,
August 24, 2009 at 1:05 am
Perry said I agree that God instills reasoning faculties and such, but how does it follow that they interpret the data apart from some worldview? This sounds like evidentialism to me.
A basic theistic worldview supplied by the light of general revelation is all that is needed. And to an extent perhaps even that is not needed, in the sense that even atheists can correctly interpret much (perhaps all) of the Bible, correctly identifying the author’s intended meaning, even though they don’t believe what they are reading. Yes, you could say that the atheist borrows from the theistic worldview and presuppositions to do this, but that just demonstrates the universality of general revelation.
I am not sure how self reflective gets us to interpreting texts apart from a worldview? And won’t that worldview have theological content? And I simply deny that many points of exegesis are not philosophically loaded. The entire methodology is philosophically loaded and relative to some worldview.
Well, depends on what one means by the term ‘loaded’. I don’t consider it ‘loaded’ to, for instance, assume the law of non-contradiction in the practice of exegesis. I simply mean it is not controversial in most contexts. Most take it for granted, as well they should. Normally-functioning human beings already have such basic presuppositions and tools in place to begin to read the clearer parts of Scripture and thus begin the hermeneutical spiral, leading to further refinement, reflection, and self-correction.
Of course, it is true that in some rare cases one does not have such tools in place. It may be entirely appropriate, then, to teach such a one the basic points of logic and give rational proofs for monotheism, and so forth. I don’t have a problem with a two-step apologetic where basic points of general revelation are covered as a foundational precursor to special revelation.
What you seem to be implying, however, is that we need something outside of Scripture (church, tradition, or whatever) to supply the foundational philosophical presuppositions to exegesis. The problem is that any guide that itself must be exegeted in order to supply the presuppositions has the same problem as the Bible. The church and tradition, too, must be exegeted.
The solution is general revelation, which is not a propositional revelation to be exegeted, but an ingrained reality – man made in the image of God instilled with base reasoning faculties and awareness of both Creator and creature.
Paige Britton said,
August 24, 2009 at 5:33 am
Perry, #382:
“The maps concept won’t work, since it relies on an incrementalist model of building up facts into a theory or model. I don’t think facts discriminate between models in the first place and I don’t think a presuppositional perspective does either.”
Okay, granted the ontology of facts: still, there are bodies of verbal content called confessions and books and papal bulls and articles and ecclesiastical pronouncements. How on earth are we to evaluate the truth of these, if we can’t compare them with a body of verbal content which we believe is normative — whether that be the Bible alone, or the Bible plus [verbally articulated] tradition? Can we not compare such assembled systems with each other as well, and decide that one is more correct than another?
If I have accepted, say, the Reformed or Anglican expression of the faith as true, can I not take the assembled system of facts and interpretations as expressed in a Reformed or Anglican theology textbook or a confession, and compare it to, say, the Eastern Orthodox expression of the faith? What mental processes would have to happen for me to one day say, “I used to be Reformed, and then Anglican, and now I am Eastern Orthodox,” as you do?
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
August 24, 2009 at 6:50 am
Monergism.
Monergistic regeneration.
God gave me the lens. For some, the lens changes over time. For others, it doesn’t.
Monergism + Sola Scriptura = A Sufficient Lens.
If I’m not in full communion with you on this side of Heaven, then I hope to be in full communion with you on the other side of Heaven.
Soli Dei Gloria!
Andrew McCallum said,
August 24, 2009 at 8:48 am
Perry,
I bring up Roman examples because Protestantism is a Western phenomenon. If you want to say that there is no applicability to EO then that’s OK. But I brought up communion with an RC congregation because I think that you would agree that Rome insistence on deriving authority from the original bishops is correct even if you feel that the Bishop of Rome has erred at points in history. I’m trying to point out the fact that communion with a body that claims apostolic succession does not necessarily mean communion with a body that is Christian. So take an EO case now. There are no shortages of Protestant missionaries in countries where EO dominates. When the missionary is asked about the Orthodox church presence, often the answer is that the EO congregations are irrelevant from the standpoint of basic Christian principles. They exist and people go to them but these communions makes no effect on their lives. They are Orthodox but not Christian. So does the formal authority that EO would claim for itself do anything good for the believer in the EO congregation when formality is all that is present? The believer goes through the motions but that’s all they are doing. As with Rome, there are countless Christians who come to Christ out of EO for just these reasons.
On valid orders, when we speak with the RC’s, effectively all that matters is the formal succession. They talk about the four marks of the Church, but when it comes to actually determining validity everything hinges on apostolic succession (assuming they really can draw a line of succession back to Peter – a questionable premise in and of itself). This is why at the Reformation the RCC ascribed validity to anyone who had been chosen to be a bishop even if everything else in Scriptures concerning the officers in question was violated. But I’m not sure that you would disagree with Rome at this point. You are speaking of the biblical model here but you are not appealing to the Bible. I know what the Scriptures have to say about the characteristics of elders/bishops explicitly in the pastorale epistles and implicitly in other passages of Scripture that speak of the proper function of the leaders in congregations. But you are speaking of the biblical model as if it commands that there be a centralized bishopric that has to oversee the picking of bishops on into the future. I agree that one set of officers in a congregation should pick another. This is succession. The Apostles appointed the first elders in various congregations according to the principles of Timothy, etc and these elders picked their successors and so on. But you seem to want to make the descriptive here become the prescriptive for all time, all else aside. But the idea of one set of officers picking the next was meant to guarantee that the explicit commands concerning officers was carried out into the next generation of officers. So at the Reformation the Bishop of Rome was attempting to force just the opposite characteristics on the Church and the Reformers in line with Scripture pointed out Rome’s error. The Reformed congregations picked their officers according to Scripture and the Early Church. So what should the Reformers have done when they knew Rome to be in error? And why would you be complaining about the Reformers washing their hands of the structures that Rome put in place when you think Rome had no claim to authority and her ecclesiastical system is false?
On the canon, I really don’t think you are grappling with my point. You are trying to posit that the Reformed position would necessitate a revisable canon because we reject the notion of an infallible Church defining the canon. But you are not stating why this would be the case. We know that the individuals who wrote the books of the Bible were inspired by God. This means even though they were fallible the fact that God was writing through them meant that the book they wrote was infallible because it was God writing through them. We don’t need to posit an infallible writer to have an infallible book, do we? So then on the canon, if God was working through the collecting of these books, as He was the writing of these books, then why is there any reason to think that the collection of books is any more fallible than the individual books themselves? Our understanding of the canon is grounded in the perfect work of God, not in the imperfect work of the Church. So the question for you is why is it necessary to posit an infallible Church if there is already an infallible God involved? But even if you insist on an infallible Church, note that our grounding of the canon, like our grounding of the books of that canon, are in God’s perfect work and therefore cannot be fallible and thus cannot be revisable. And on a practical note, if it’s correct that the Evangelical churches have a revisable canon then don’t you think that we should see some sort of evidence that Evangelicals have put the concept of a revisable canon into action? So are there lots of different canons within the Evangelical world since the canon is revisable?
And on this topic of Evangelical problems, you want to say that there is an issue of lack of full communion in the Evangelical world. Now I don’t deny that there are separatist groups in the Evangelical world. Some Lutherans in particular want to separate out and say they are the only faithful set of denominations. But this is the exception and the bigger problem for conservative Protestant denominations is just the opposite of what you would suggest. Evangelicalism has big issues with congregations wanting to extend communion to everyone and anyone who says they believe in Jesus. Again on a practical note, I can walk into just about any evangelical communion around here (Baptists, Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Congregational, Community, etc) and they welcome me with open arms.
I don’t see how the Arian claims could have been correct, given the discontinuity with the preceding tradition.
Well of course I would agree with you here, but that’s not my point. We can engage with the Arians and demonstrate the problems in their system from the standpoint of firstly the Scriptures and secondly the tradition of the Church. So then for instance, when Rome claims to be the true Church we can bring the same sort of analysis to this claim as well.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 24, 2009 at 8:53 am
Jason,
It seems to me that RC, EO, and the Reformed all agree that there is a proper succession that originated with the Apostles. The difference is in how this is administered and expressed. Particularly for Rome with its completely centralized notion of ecclesiastical power, there is a complex system of authority that developed that had nothing to do with the Christianity of the Bible or the earliest centuries of Christianity. Rome sees the authority given by the Apostles as something only properly governed by this system. For the EO there is a more decentralized system of power. The EO speak of bishops being autocephalous, there is a collegiality of the bishops and they collectively speak for the Church without one bishop dominating the others. The authority conferred by the Apostles is expressed through the bishops. The Reformed have a looser structure where the congregations pick their successor with varying amounts of oversight from the ecclesiastical community. We explicitly follow the stipulations in Scripture, and unlike Rome or Constantinople, the authority granted by the Apostles is not exercised by an infallible bishop or group of bishops. From our standpoint, these are later innovations in East and West. We express the authority granted by Christ through the congregations. But of course the congregations are not meant to have absolute power and if there is a disagreement at the local level the churches are meant to come together as they did at Jerusalem.
RC and EO want to claim that their administration of the authority given by the Apostles is in line with what is described in Scripture and practiced immediately qafter the time of the Apostles. When we ask them to show how current practice jives with Scripture and early tradition we don’t get much a of a response. At least not much of one that I can see.
Todd said,
August 24, 2009 at 9:40 am
“So the deacons in Acts 6 weren’t laboring in the ministry of the apostles but some newly founded ministry? And Timothy and Titus, were they continuing in the Apostle’s ministry or some other?”
Perry,
Timothy and Titus preached the same message, but they did not possess the same apostolic authority as the Apostles. The word of the Apostles was the word of God. (I Thes 2:13) Not true of successive pastors; they preach the word of the Apostles found in the NT.
“The Apostleship isn’t defined by the giving of inspiration. Luke and Mark were not apostles and many apostles wrote no scripture at all.”
Luke and Mark were dependent on the Apostles as their source of truth. The aspect of the Apostle’s ministry concerning inspiration is over. They laid the foundation – only one foundation needs to be laid (Eph 2:20).
“Secondly the doctrine of apostolic succession doesn’t teach that there is a modern day apostle but that a portion of the apostle’s ministry continues today, and this is what the fathers at Nicea and Constantinople meant when they spoke of the church being “apostolic.” To deny this is to reinterpret the Creed and insert your own innovation.”
Well, we are mincing words. If the church authorities today possess the same interpretative infallibility as the Apostles, then in essence the authorities are acting as modern day Apostles.
“If it were a matter of mere understanding why the judges in the OT and the system of councils in the NT?”
The OT judges resolved disputes by applying the law of God to those particular disputes. The council in Acts 15 was under the authority of the Apostles, who possessed a unique ministry.
I think we are repeating ourselves now. Thanks for the interaction.
johnbugay said,
August 24, 2009 at 10:04 am
David — thank you for your clear explanation in #398.
Perry — I am neither a theologian nor a historian; I study these things on the side.
My interest started from a desire to understand. I am not “making arguments from authority,” but really just trying to raise awareness of some things that many (including you) just seem to take for granted.
The whole area of religion is (or should be) a matter of who we trust to be telling us the truth about the ultimate reality of things. Do you trust the pope telling you he has jurisdictional authority over the whole church? I don’t think so.
Pelikan, who I’ve come to understand as a trustworthy historian, (even though I disagree with his conclusions), reports that Nestorius’s theology was condemned by Ephesus “certainly without an understanding of its primary intent” (vol 1 pg 262). If someone treated something you were saying — a paper you had submitted, which was perhaps reviewed “certainly without an understanding of its primary intent,” I’ll bet you would object to being treated in that way.
This is not simply a quote taken out of context, but it is the way Pelikan treats Nestorius. Chalcedon, he says, “could even be, and indeed was, taken as a vindication of the Nestorian position.” Nor is it an appeal to authority. It is a statement of fact. And it is a statement that we understand.
Moffett, too, (writing in 1991 a book which I acquired in its sixth printing in 2008) points to “the general consensus of scholarship today” which he says “would probably agree … that Nestorius was the better man but Cyril the better theologian” — such things are less important than what those theologies are today.
If McGuckin does not agree with Moffett or Pelikan or “the general consensus of scholarship today,” it is not because he “supercedes” them, but because he is outside of the mainstream.
The Council of Ephesus was conducted, we would say, at gunpoint. How much validity should that have? It “failed to understand” Nestorius’s “primary intent.” How much validity should that have?
There is a lot of interest in “what counts for authority” in the Christian world. I certainy think it is important to take eveyrthing into consideration. And i do think it is really important to ask questions about what passes for authority. Especially in a situation in which a whole segment of Christianity was basically alienated, forgotten about, and left to die. This is horrible. These are, (or were), at minimum, Christians who say the Nicene Creed.
Sean said,
August 24, 2009 at 10:07 am
Curate.
Brother Martin, Mister sola fide, called him the blessed Augustine, as well he might.
I tell you it is difficult to stand before the impact (Puff) of the argument that holy people such as St. Augustine and others were subject to error. For about twenty years I have been greatly concerned about this matter, have argued with myself about it, and have been troubled by the fact that one does not believe all the pope says; likewise, that the church should be in error, and that I should really believe all that the fathers say….
Again, it is an offense to see that so many fine, sensible, learned people, nay, the better and greater part of the world, have held and taught this and that; likewise, so many holy people, as St. Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine.
Sermon on John 3:23-24 on 16 March 1538)
Behold what great darkness is in the books of the Fathers concerning faith . . . Augustine wrote nothing to the purpose concerning faith.
The more I read the books of the Fathers, the more I find myself offended….Jerome should not be numbered among the teachers of the church, for he was a heretic.
Tabletalk had a piece in recent memory about that.
Philip Melanchthon, in his letter to Johann Brenz (May 1531), wrote, Avert your eyes from such a regeneration of man and from the Law and look only to the promises and to Christ . . . Augustine is not in agreement with the doctrine of Paul, though he comes nearer to it than do the Schoolmen. I quote Augustine as in entire agreement, although he does not sufficiently explain the righteousness of faith; this I do because of public opinion concerning him.
Luther’s biographer Hartmann Grisar elaborates this chop shop approach to Augustine:
Luther also quotes St. Augustine, but does not interpret him correctly. He even overlooks the fact that this Father, in one of the passages alleged, says the very opposite to his new ideas on unconditional predestination to hell, and attributes in every case the fate of the damned to their own moral misdeeds. Augustine says, in his own profound, concise way, in the text quoted by Luther: “the saved may not pride himself on his merits, and the damned may only bewail his demerits.” In his meditations on the ever-inscrutable mystery he regards the sinner’s fault as entirely voluntary, and his revolt against the eternal God as, on this account, worthy of eternal damnation. Augustine teaches that “to him as to every man who comes into this world ” salvation was offered with a wealth of means of grace and with all the merits of Christ’s bitter death on the cross.
johnbugay said,
August 24, 2009 at 10:30 am
Grisar is not the best person to “elaborate” anything about Luther.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/02/catholic-historian-hartmann-grisar-on.html
Curate said,
August 24, 2009 at 11:27 am
Sean, go and read Luther for yourself. Put aside the books you are quoting about him. Read him firsthand. Then, open your Bible, and check what he has to say against the Apostle Paul.
Otherwise you will always be working second-hand.
Read the Bible for yourself, instead of relying on what you have been told. Pray to God Almighty that he would open your eyes as you read. In short, stop being a child in theological matters, and become a man.
RdB
Curate said,
August 24, 2009 at 11:33 am
Sean, when I was at theological College, I was talking about the resurrection to an atheist who played in the city’s orchestra. He was a German, an excellent chess player, and very intelligent.
He said to me by way of putdown, It must be hard for you to always be working from a translation. I happened to have my Greek NT on me, so I pulled it out and read some of it to him.
He never used that argument again.
I am not saying that you must learn Greek, although it would benefit you, but it is important to work with the sources.
Ad fontes!
Sean said,
August 24, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Read the Bible for yourself, instead of relying on what you have been told. Pray to God Almighty that he would open your eyes as you read,
Curate. This is exactly what the Mormons told me who knocked on my door several months ago.
Implicit in your statement is a belief that those that disagree with you must not have prayed about it.
Augustine must not prayed about it hard enough or understood the original language because he didn’t quite get it right. The Greek Fathers like Cyprian or Cyril must not have prayed about it or understood the Greek either because they did not reach Curate’s conclusions.
Sean said,
August 24, 2009 at 12:53 pm
John.
How about McGrath?
Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, ‘justifying righteousness’ is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous. Melanchthon drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former ‘justification’ and the latter ’sanctification’ or ‘regeneration.’ For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing . . . The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. Melanchthon’s concept of forensic justification diverged radically from this. As it was taken up by virtually all the major reformers subsequently, it came to represent a standard difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic from then on. In addition to differences regarding how the sinner was justified, there was now an additional disagreement on what the word ‘justification’ designated in the first place. The Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic church’s definitive response to the Protestant challenge, reaffirmed the views of Augustine on the nature of justification, and censured the views of Melanchthon as woefully inadequate . . . the concept of forensic justification actually represents a development in Luther’s thought . . . .
Source
Bryan Cross said,
August 24, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Curate,
Re: #396,
Perhaps you could point me to the argument I have “refused to engage”.
I have not seen any *proof* that the historic Protestant position differs in principle from solo scriptura. In which comment was there such a proof?
Here is a straight question to the two of you: does scripture interpret itself? If it does – and Perry has already said it does – then what is the role of your infallible Pope Bryan, or your tradition, Perry? To explain the explanation? If scripture contains its own explanations, and it does beyond all contradiction, then the Protestant position is shown to be correct.
There are many places in Scripture where one passage helps elucidate another. No one denies that. The fact that some parts of Scripture help clarify other parts of Scripture does not therefore show that the Protestant, the Orthodox, or the Catholic position to be correct, since we all agree that some parts of Scripture help explain other parts. The question is: Who has teaching and interpretive authority in the Church? Your point might be that there was no need for Christ to establish a teaching and interpretive authority in the Church, because Scripture “contains its own explanations,” so that it’s meaning is plain. But just because many parts of Scripture help clarify other parts of Scripture, it does not follow that the meaning of Scripture is so plain and clear that Christ did not need to establish a teaching and interpretive authority, to provide His sheep with guidance in understanding it. In fact, the presence of so many contrary interpretations even among Protestantism shows that Scripture is not sufficiently plain and clear even to unify Protestants. (If you hold to the premise that Scripture *is* sufficiently plain and clear to unify all Christians, then you must hold to the following disjunct: either all Christians holding interpretations contrary to yours are wicked or stupid, or you are wicked or stupid. Are you prepared to bite that bullet?) Not only that, but the fact that we’re dealing with different canons shows that some ecclesial authority is needed so that Christ’s sheep may know which books belong to sacred Scripture. If your position is that the identity of the canon is self-evident, then again, you must conclude that anyone who disagrees with your judgment about the content of the canon is wicked or stupid, or that you yourself are wicked or stupid. Such an implication comes very close to refuting the premise, by modus tollens.
How much more interpretive disagreement would be required before you would believe that Scripture is not sufficiently plain and clear to unify all Christians? Or is your belief that Scripture is sufficiently plain and clear to unify all Christians an assumption you bring to Scripture?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Curate said,
August 24, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Bryan, your position always returns to this question: “Who has teaching and interpretive authority in the Church?”
For starters it is a bogus question, but we won’t go there.
I have already answered that it is the prophets and the apostles, namely, the authors of scripture. Your answer is that it is the Pope, whom you arbitrarily claim is the successor of Peter, and who is exalted above scripture itself.
How much more interpretive disagreement would be required before you would believe that Scripture is not sufficiently plain and clear to unify all Christians?
My experience is that disagreements come when people stop reading the Bible, and refer instead to some other authority.
The WCF extremists seem to me and many others to be almost incapable of answering any question from scripture. It has to be from the WCF, the Three Forms of Unity, or the Heidelburg Catechism. You refer everything to your own self-chosen extra-biblical source.
If you were willing to deal with scripture we would stop these endless philosophical discussions and actually get somewhere.
I have nothing new to add to what I have already said, so you may have the last word.
Curate said,
August 24, 2009 at 3:28 pm
No. 409. Sean: I didn’t think that recommending prayer would provoke emotion. That’s what Christians do, not so? Don’t just pray, read the Bible as well.
If that is what the Mormons also said, then they spoke truly. Being heretics doesn’t mean that they they are always wrong. Even Rome gets it right at times. ;)
Sean said,
August 24, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Curate.
On your blog in addition to claiming that the Catholics and Orthodox are not the true church you also indict the ‘Billy Graham Evangelicals’ as not being a true church. You then go onto say that there is no salvation outside of the true church which you define as Reformed and Lutheran congregations who articulate the mechanics of salvation the same way that you articulate them.
You are also condemning of those Reformed who cling to their confessions but not clear if you are claiming that they are not the true church either.
Is it your assumption that if only those Catholic, Orthodox and “Billy Graham Evangelicals” would pray about it and learn Greek that they would realize their error and run into the bosom of the Lutheran Church?
Sean said,
August 24, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Curate.
What makes you think you evoked emotion?
We prayed about it and still do.
johnbugay said,
August 24, 2009 at 3:39 pm
From the time of Augustine onwards,
Sean — Augustine got significant things wrong because he didn’t know Hebrew and Greek. And everyone who followed him in this just compounded the error.
Todd said,
August 24, 2009 at 3:55 pm
“Or is your belief that Scripture is sufficiently plain and clear to unify all Christians an assumption you bring to Scripture?”
Bryan,
Isn’t the unity you are suggesting the RC church maintains an illusion? I read of RC’s disagreeing with each other all the time. How many interpretations of Vatican II are there. The conservative RC college in the city where I am from was very critical of Vatican II. It seems as long as people have minds and can think for themselves, complete interpretative unity is an illusion this side of glory.
rfwhite said,
August 24, 2009 at 3:58 pm
394 Bryan Cross: you are right, of course, that in 388 you gave two instances in which an informed conscience could be required to obey God and not man. I failed to say what I meant: that on your hermeneutical theory an informed conscience is never forced to choose between God and the Church.
Bryan Cross said,
August 24, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Todd,
Isn’t the unity you are suggesting the RC church maintains an illusion?
No. Unity is one of the four essential marks of Christ’s Mystical Body: one, holy, catholic and apostolic. That is a unity greater than any the world can produce, because the Church’s unity is Christ’s unity. Those Catholics who depart from the Catholic faith (e.g. so-called “cafeteria Catholics” on the one hand, and sedevacantists on the other), have separated themselves from the Church’s unity, either by material heresy, or by formal heresy, and/or by material or formal schism. Mystici Corporis Christi (22) teaches:
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.
So those persons who reject the faith of the Catholic Church, (and do so knowingly, not accidentally or unintentionally), do not meet one of the conditions for membership in the Church. Only those (among those who have reached the age of reason) who believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God, are members in full communion.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
August 24, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Bryan Cross: “Only those (among those who have reached the age of reason) who believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God, are members in full communion.”
Well that leaves out the Eastern Orthodox and the various Protestants out of “full communion” with the Catholic Church.
But as I’ve written before: Monergism.
Monergistic regeneration.
God gave me the lens. For some, the lens changes over time. For others, it doesn’t.
Monergism + Sola Scriptura = A Sufficient Lens.
If I’m not in full communion with you on this side of Heaven, then I hope to be in full communion with you on the other side of Heaven.
Soli Dei Gloria!
Sean said,
August 24, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Augustine got significant things wrong because he didn’t know Hebrew and Greek. And everyone who followed him in this just compounded the error
There we have it. Every Church father got it wrong until Luther. None of the Fathers, even the Greek ones, understood Greek!
johnbugay said,
August 24, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Right Sean, that’s exactly what I said. Another good mark for you.
Sean said,
August 24, 2009 at 6:21 pm
“Everyone” compounded the errors of Augustine. That is what you said.
If I misunderstood please feel free to explain how.
johnbugay said,
August 24, 2009 at 6:26 pm
“Everyone who followed him…”
You are one of the most dissembling and dishonest people I have ever interacted with.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 24, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Andrew,
It seems to me that RC, EO, and the Reformed all agree that there is a proper succession that originated with the Apostles. The difference is in how this is administered and expressed.
OK, so I asked you whether apotolic succession was (A) a necessary but not sufficient condition for valid orders, (B) never necessary for valid orders, or (C) no longer necessary for valid orders. I am not sure you answered my question, possibly because I was unclear.
When I say “apostolic succession” I am using it in the RC/EO sense of “this guy laid hands on that guy, and then that guy laid hands on that other guy.” So in light of that definition, is your view that the church never considered this necessary for valid orders? Or, if the church once held it to be necessary, has it ceased to be so because other necessary conditions, such as actual piety, were not met?
(I’m just trying to understand your position is all. And I do appreciate your bringing the Pauline requirements into the discussion, I’m just wondering if you think them sufficient by themselves, without “sacramental succession.”)
JJS
Todd said,
August 24, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Bryan,
The second paragraph you attributed to me belonged to someone else. But, are are saying there is no debate as to the meaning of Vatican II among Catholics in good standing? Just making sure I’m understanding your point.
rfwhite said,
August 24, 2009 at 7:08 pm
394 Bryan Cross: You state: But if the bishops in ecumenical council come to a conclusion about a hitherto unresolved question in the Church, and their conclusion is contrary to our interpretation of Scripture, then we must submit to the interpretive authority of the Church.
Question: How can we be sure that it is our own interpretation of Scripture that is wrong and not our interpretation of the ruling of the ecumenical council? That is, how do we escape the necessity of private interpretation by saying the Church does the interpreting for us when we still must interpret the Church’s statements? In addition, if there is to be any advantage to accepting our own interpretations of the Church rather than our own interpretation of Scripture, must we also assume that the Church has done a better job of speaking perspicuously than did the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture?
Sean said,
August 24, 2009 at 7:51 pm
John,
So now we know that Augustine did not teach the Lutheran doctrine of justification. Glad that is settled.
Because it started with, “We follow Augustine.” Then its, “Oh, Augustine was wrong because he didn’t understand Greek and the followers of Augustine only made it worse.” (Notwithstanding the fact that you and Curate had just claimed to follow Augustine!)
Sorry if you take me as ‘disassembling.’ I am only trying to follow your argument.
johnbugay said,
August 24, 2009 at 7:56 pm
You are not attempting to follow anything. You put the worst possible construction on everything.
Luther followed Augustine on his teachings about grace; not justification. Luther came to his understanding of justification following a deep study of Scripture. (Not just Romans and Galatians, but the Psalms).
TurretinFan said,
August 24, 2009 at 8:15 pm
I recall Chrysostom making at least one rather amusing error because he didn’t know Hebrew. I can’t recall similar, as glaring, errors on Augustine’s part – but it would not surprise me.
Bryan Cross said,
August 24, 2009 at 9:04 pm
rfwhite,
Re: 427:
Question: How can we be sure that it is our own interpretation of Scripture that is wrong and not our interpretation of the ruling of the ecumenical council?
By asking our priest or bishop to confirm that our interpretation of the council is correct.
That is, how do we escape the necessity of private interpretation by saying the Church does the interpreting for us when we still must interpret the Church’s statements?
We all must use our intellect and will to understand any speech-act. The question is not whether we can avoid using our own intellect and will. (We can’t!) That’s why that question is a red herring. The actual point in question is: Who has greater interpretive authority: the individual, or the Church?
In addition, if there is to be any advantage to accepting our own interpretations of the Church rather than our own interpretation of Scripture, must we also assume that the Church has done a better job of speaking perspicuously than did the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture?
We never assume that must choose between the Holy Spirit and the Church. We believe that the Holy Spirit ordinarily speaks and acts *through* the Church, because the Church is the Body of Christ, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ. The Holy Spirit never intended the Scripture to govern us in a solo scriptura way. Rather the Holy Spirit intended the Scripture to be known and used in an ecclesial/liturgical context. Therefore, just because the Scripture is properly known to us in the Church and through the guidance of the Church, it does not follow that the Church is doing something better than did the Holy Spirit. By using the teaching office of the Church to help us better understand the meaning of Scripture, the Holy Spirit is doing something through the Church that He did not intend to be done apart from the Church. So the objection poses a false dilemma, in not recognizing that it is the Spirit working in both cases, and in not recognizing that the Spirit’s work of inspiring the Scriptures was not intended to make the Scriptures sufficiently clear to make an ecclesial teaching/interpretive authority superfluous. Just as the Spirit’s work on the first day of creation should not be considered deficient because it did not make the earth entirely suitable for human life, so the Spirit’s work in the inspiration of Scripture should not be considered deficient because it did not make the Scripture entirely sufficient for ecclesial life and unity. Scripture was never intended to function apart from the teaching/interpretive authority of the Church.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
August 24, 2009 at 9:19 pm
“Recently we advertised that we would pay $100,000.00 to any Roman Catholic who could pin down the official Roman teaching about certain issues. The challenge was issued in response to the oft-argued, extremely tired line of reasoning that Protestantism is illegitimate by virtue of the differences in belief within Protestant denominations–or, as Scott Hahn likes to call it, the “anarchy” of Protestantism. Obviously if this line of argument is legitimate, then it must also act as a standard by which to measure the legitimacy of any religious system. So, we decided to test the Roman Catholic’s own system using this same measure.
… We think the comments from the Roman Catholic contenders who responded to the Challenge pretty much speak for themselves.
While reading through the contestants’ responses to the challenge questions, the reader will be struck by the fact that Roman Catholics tend to misread statements rather consistently.
Challenge Questions and Responses
General Comments
Tell us how you came to decide that Rome was the “true” church without engaging in the very private judgment that Rome condemns as illegitimate.
Demonstrate that those ecclesial systems that follow “Scripture plus an Infallible Interpreter” are more unified in their beliefs than those ecclesial systems that follow Sola Scriptura.
Demonstrate that you picked the “true” church from among all the other “true” churches that say you can’t rightly understand the Bible and church history without their help, such as the Eastern Orthodox church, the Watchtower Society, Mormonism, and every other cult that exists (remember, you can’t use private judgment for this since you are fallible).
Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on the Inerrancy of the Bible–does it contain errors or not?
Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on Predestination–is it the position of Augustine? Scotus? Molina? Aquinas?
Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on interpreting the Genesis account–was there a literal Adam and Eve, or did evolution take place?
Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on whether or not Jonah was really swallowed by a “great fish.”
Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (“no salvation outside the church”). Is it the view of Vatican II, or the view of every Roman document before Vatican II? Should Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox be embraced as “brothers” (as Vatican II teaches), or should they be eternally condemned as heretics (as all pre-Vatican II documents teach)?
Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on Vatican II. Was it an infallible ecumenical council? Does it contradict earlier teachings of Rome (as the Traditionalists claim)?
Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on Divine Revelation. Is it all found in Scripture, or is it partly in Scripture and partly in Tradition?
Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on the decisions of the synods of Hippo and Carthage (which lists the books of the canon). Were these infallible “councils”? Were they right in their list of OT books, or was Trent right in its list instead?
Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on the Greek manuscripts of the NT. Are we to trust the Byzantine text-type (as Roman Catholic apologist Bob Sungenis does), or are we to trust the Eclectic test type (as do almost all of Sungenis’ colleagues)?
Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on the Eucharist. Is it a “real,” bodily presence, or is it a sacramental presence?
Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on Transubstantiation. Is this something the church has “always held from the beginning” (as Trent claims), or did this belief develop over time? And for that matter . . .
Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on the formulation of doctrine. Was the apostolic deposit complete in the first century (as Trent claims), or did doctrine develop over time (as Newman claims)?
Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on how to interpret the Bible. Should we use critical methods such as redaction criticism and form criticism, or were these officially condemned by Pius X’s Pascendi Dominici Gregis?
Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on the novus ordo mass? Is it binding and infallible? Or is it just an option among other options? Is the Latin mass still valid, or is it merely an accommodation to those who are not inclined to change with the Roman times?
Did Mary die?”
From here.
(h/t: To New Covenant Bible Church on this comment thread.
Sean said,
August 24, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Truth Unites.
I am curious as to what the ‘challenge’ is supposed to prove. Half of the questions are questions posed on questions that the Church has not made any dogmatic decree on.
So, “Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on predestination. Is it Augustine, Thomist, Molinst etc” is a non-question. There isn’t a ‘Roman Catholic position” on predestination like there is a ‘Calvinist position.’
Is that supposed to prove something?
$100,000? Sure.
I don’t think anybody here (at least I hope) believes that this sort of childish mockery represents a spirit of charity and genuine dialog.
Imbedded in almost every question is a straw man waiting to be knocked down. Please.
Sean said,
August 24, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Truth.
I was bored to I answered the ‘challenge’ here.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
August 24, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Sean: “Truth Unites.
I am curious as to what the ‘challenge’ is supposed to prove.”
Do you need help comprehending what you read in the first paragraph of comment #432?
Curate said,
August 25, 2009 at 12:55 am
Truth Unites … , thanks for that valuable link. The Roman position always boils down to its own claim to absolute authority. We must believe them because God has given them authority, therefore to disagree with them is to disagree with God.
They help us to validate and verify their claims by pointing out to us that wherever we disagree with them, we are wrong. There is nothing more to it than that. That really is their bottom line.
If we compare their claims to the claims of God’s word, and find a discrepancy, it is because we have misunderstood the Bible. Even if there is a glaring and plain teaching that contradicts scripture, for example, that a man is justified by faith plus works, we must believe that we are theologically delusional, and submit to the Pope.
RCs almost NEVER attempt to answer an issue from the Bible, as this thread has demonstrated. In almost every instance a query about a scriptural teaching is waved away with a theoretical and philosophical monologue about their own authority.
When the Pope eventually deigned to send one of his Cardinals to speak with Doctor Luther, it became obvious that the delegate knew nothing of the scriptures. Luther said of him, He knows Plato and Aristotle, and so do I. He knows the Schoolmen, and so do I. But I know the scriptures, and he does not.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
TurretinFan said,
August 25, 2009 at 4:55 am
“I don’t think anybody here (at least I hope) believes that this sort of childish mockery represents a spirit of charity and genuine dialog.”
I find it ironic that the challenge is derided in this way.
The Roman “side” suggests that differing opinions among “Protestants” proves “Protestantism” to be an invalid religious system.
Yet the Roman “side” has differing opinions among itself.
Therefore, by the Roman “side”‘s own standards, it lacks a valid religious system.
Or, in other words, this “blueprint for anarchy” argument is a bunch of childish mockery. “Childish” in the sense that it lacks sophistication and “mockery” in that it is not a reasoned argument. The challenge, on the other hand, is both reasoned and sophisticated: it takes the proffered standard, applies it to the critic’s religion, and demonstrates that if the standard condemns us it condemns the critic’s religion as well.
-TurretinFan
Paige Britton said,
August 25, 2009 at 5:39 am
I keep going back — waay back — to Zrim’s comment about sight being the opposite of faith (#206), and the RCC’s and the EOC’s desire to have a source of infallible sight in this age, and their insistence that we do have it, through the pope/Church.
Perhaps this is really the unspoken presupposition behind the RC / EO position on the infallibility of the Church as interpreter: That it is insufferable to exist in a universe where we must walk by faith, not by sight — and that surely this is not what God intended for us. He intended that we have not only an infallible revelation, but an infallible interpretation of it.
The trouble is (and many of us have mentioned it from the beginning, here) that fallible interpreters receiving infallible interpretation are really no better off epistemologically than fallible interpreters receiving infallible *revelation*!
Andrew McCallum said,
August 25, 2009 at 5:45 am
OK, so I asked you whether apotolic succession was (A) a necessary but not sufficient condition for valid orders, (B) never necessary for valid orders, or (C) no longer necessary for valid orders. I am not sure you answered my question, possibly because I was unclear.
Jason,
Thanks for holding my feet to the fire and pointing out that I had not really answered your question! Although my answer in #402 did make an important distinction that I will come back to momentarily.
OK, in our denomination, if someone were to pop up and say that they were an officer with no approval from other elders, their claim would be rejected, right? They would first have to be examined and approved and then ordained and commissioned by the laying on of hands. This is I’m sure what you experienced when ordained as a Teaching Elder. What Paul told Titus to do was what the elders who commissioned you did. So we believe that one set of elder/bishops commissions another, correct? We believe that to have valid orders (although we don’t use this exact terminology) there has to be commissioning, laying on of hands, etc – just as we read about in the New Testament. This authority comes from the Scripture so yes we believe in Apostolic succession.
Now at this point of course our RC friends here are going to argue that what I am describing is not what was spoken of in the NT. And Perry from the EO side is going to tell us that we are both wrong and neither RC nor Prot has valid orders. This is the distinction that I made in post #402. To start with, the RC side will argue as per CCC #1594, that orders are only valid within the context of “the authority of the Pope, the successor of Peter.” And we Protestants and the EO will point out that there is no basis for such a claim either in the Scriptures where we find the original description of these orders, nor in the early documents of the history of the Church. Rome tries to connect her claim of valid orders with a principle that we see as invalid from the standpoint of early Christianity. Concerning the EO claim for valid orders, I can’t say that I’ve had enough opportunity to interact with folks like Perry to really comment, but I would imagine that they would see valid orders being tied to the original bishops with no one bishop dominating the others. Their concept of the bishoprics being “autocephalous” has some resonance with us Protestants, but then of course we have to ask our EO friends as to whether their model really reflects the biblical model or is it like the Roman model, just another blending of biblical concepts with human traditions. When we look at the concept of orders in the Sub-apostolic Church at a point in time when there was no distinction between elders and bishops, let alone a clear monarchial bishop, how could there have been “valid orders” as Rome or Constantinople would have later defined the concept?
Certainly for Rome, and I think for EO, there has to be this unbroken chain of succession. In Rome’s case they can and do practically ignore all other marks of the Church and all other biblical commands concerning the characteristics of officers when determining whether or not valid orders exist.
For the Reformed one set of elders/bishops chooses the next set of officers although the specific logistical operations vary from Reformed Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, etc. But men are ordained through the Church as per the stipulations in the Scriptures. These commands laid down by the Apostles as authorized by Christ are what we know as Apostolic succession and yes, we still need them. So my answer is option A with the stipulation that we need to define “valid orders” since RC, EO, and Prot define the concept differently.
Is there a reason for adding traditions such as the aforementioned Roman stipulations from CCC #1594? Well if so, that’s up to our RC friends to prove.
Do you think I’ve answered your question yet?
Cheers….
Sean said,
August 25, 2009 at 6:15 am
Yet the Roman “side” has differing opinions among itself.
This is what I mean by a ‘straw man’ being implicit in the ‘challenge.’
Unity in the Church does not mean that there everybody would be like ‘the borg’ from Star Trek. It does not mean that all Catholics agree about every imaginable issue (even ones where the church allows disagreement or questions where the Church has not spoken.) That I may be a Thomist and the guy next to me in the pew is a Molinist does not do damage to the Catholic Church’s claim of unity.
The Church’s fidelity to Her teaching is the test of her unity.
Concerning those Catholics that purposefully reject the doctrines of the church, let me quote Bryan from above, “Unity is one of the four essential marks of Christ’s Mystical Body: one, holy, catholic and apostolic. That is a unity greater than any the world can produce, because the Church’s unity is Christ’s unity. Those Catholics who depart from the Catholic faith (e.g. so-called “cafeteria Catholics” on the one hand, and sedevacantists on the other), have separated themselves from the Church’s unity, either by material heresy, or by formal heresy, and/or by material or formal schism.”
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
August 25, 2009 at 7:26 am
Curate: “Truth Unites … , thanks for that valuable link.”
You’re very welcome.
TurretinFan in #437, thanks for your comment.
Sean, your comment in #440 affirms the statement in #432 about how “the reader will be struck by the fact that Roman Catholics tend to misread statements rather consistently.”
There is no “strawman” implicit in the challenge. The challenge is most definitely not saying that all Catholics agree about every imaginable issue.
What it is saying, however, is that the actual facts don’t support your written statement stipulating that:
“The Church’s fidelity to Her teaching is the test of her unity.”
Please don’t be dense.
Sean said,
August 25, 2009 at 7:27 am
RCs almost NEVER attempt to answer an issue from the Bible, as this thread has demonstrated.
That is false. There is tons out there on Catholic teaching and scripture. Volumes and volumes. Go pick up a copy of the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” and note the pages and pages of scriptural references. Go pick up any Scott Hahn book (I think you mentioned him before). It is filled with scriptural arguments for Catholic teaching on just about anything. Go pick up some monastic writtings from Benedict the Cistercian or something. Those writtings are literally dripping with scripture. Check out Scripture Catholic.com sometime.
But in a dialog like this, what use is it to quote scripture if you are just going to disagree with our interpretation and we are just going to disagree with your interpretation?
Any conversation about the interpretation of scripture must come back to a conversation about ‘who has the correct interpretation and why?’ If we do not address this question than we’ll just end up poudning the table and throwing bible verses at one another.
During this conversation, you have made it clear that we would agree with your interpretation if we only prayed about it. This is a very teneous claim and the reason should be obvious.
rfwhite said,
August 25, 2009 at 7:27 am
431 Bryan Cross:
You said, by asking our priest or bishop to confirm that our interpretation of the council is correct we can be sure that it is our own interpretation of Scripture that is wrong and not our interpretation of the ruling of the ecumenical council.
I respond: can’t we then not wonder whether we have rightly interpreted the priest or bishop’s confirmation? In other words, is not private interpretation an inescapable responsibility — just as “the soul that sins shall die”? Fathers aren’t to be punished for their sons’ sins, nor sons for their fathers’ — even when those sins are sins of the intellect and of interpretation.
You said: The actual point in question is: Who has greater interpretive authority: the individual, or the Church?
I respond: There is, however, another way to construe the matter. Either one enters an infinite regress — the Church tells the individual how to interpret the Scripture, and then how to interpret the Church’s interpretation, and how to interpret that, etc. ad infinitum — or one recognizes that private interpretation is an inescapable individual responsibility.
You say: We believe that the Holy Spirit ordinarily speaks and acts *through* the Church, because the Church is the Body of Christ, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ.
I respond: is it not the case, however, that what you have said here assumes that one has made the proper identification of the Church, which begs the question? Yes, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church to preserve the treasure of the gospel in it. Is it, however, this group or that group that is we are to identify as the Church? Whose testimony shall we accept and why? Shall the group itself be allowed to answer that question for us? If so, how is it that the group has not made itself its own judge?
Sean said,
August 25, 2009 at 7:37 am
Truth Unites,
What it is saying, however, is that the actual facts don’t support your written statement stipulating that:
I don’t think you understand the Church’s claim to unity. Most of the ‘facts’ derived from the ‘challenge’ only reveal that there is not complete hegemony among Catholics on issues where the church is silent (like Predestination or whether Mary actually died). This does not harm the unity of the church because the church’s claim is not that all Catholics agree on things where she is silent.
Other ‘facts’ gleamed from the question are based on questions with a false premise. Example: That Vatican II somehow undid other ecumenical councils. This is a false premise and only a very uncharitible reading of Vatican II would give the impression that Vatican II undid Catholic doctrines.
Maybe you can help me? Which ‘fact’ derived from the ‘challenge’ do not support the Catholic Church’s claim to oneness?
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
August 25, 2009 at 7:38 am
Lotta traffic on the Tiber. Yowsa!
I just went to this page about the authors of “Called to Communion” and I counted 11 guys who poped!
But as D.A. Carson noted in #351: “Because the accounts of a number of high-profile Evangelicals converting to Roman Catholicism have hit the press, we sometimes overlook the fact that statisticians tell us that in America, Catholics are becoming Evangelicals faster than the reverse by a ratio of about three to one.“
Andrew Preslar said,
August 25, 2009 at 7:53 am
Re #438:
The trouble is (and many of us have mentioned it from the beginning, here) that fallible interpreters receiving infallible interpretation are really no better off epistemologically than fallible interpreters receiving infallible *revelation*!
This wrong-headed critique of the Catholic position has been repeated several times in the course of this thread. It was addressed back in comment #71, and several times thereafter.
For ease of memory, allow me to summarize the Catholic position in three points:
(1) The Church’s charism of teaching is given due to the need for learning.
(2) The authority of the teaching charism is given due to the need for unity.
(3) The infallibility of the teaching charism is given due to the need for unity in truth.
None of this presupposes that texts cannot be read and understood by means of common sense (rational) exegesis. It does presuppose that the ability to read does not obviate the necessity for teaching.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 25, 2009 at 7:59 am
In Rome’s case they can and do practically ignore all other marks of the Church and all other biblical commands concerning the characteristics of officers when determining whether or not valid orders exist.
I recommend that you look into the process of actual ordinations, beginning with discernment and culminating in the sacrament, in the Roman Catholic Church. If you spent five minutes doing so (visit a diocesan website and follow the links, or visit a seminary website), you would be unable to repeat the above canard, at least not without blushing.
Sean said,
August 25, 2009 at 8:06 am
Truth Unites and Curate,
In case I am not being clear:
The first part of the ‘challenge’ I have adequately addressed…this would be disagreements on matters on which the church is not dogmatic.
The second part of the ‘challenge’ is aimed at demonstrating that dissent within the Catholic Church puts the Catholic Church on equal footing with Protestantism.
The truth of God’s acts and revelation are not judged (as a matter of truth) based on how many may reject them. These truths do not cease to be what they are. The Church teaches certain things and a definite theology and set of doctrines that can easily be identified; and they don’t change because many Catholics are disobedient.
Most of our disagreements are simply matters of theological liberals refusing to submit to what everybody knows is the Catholic teaching (example: on contraception, divorce, or priestly celibacy). But when Protestants have a difference, they form new denominations, and sanction and institutionalize the dissent. There is a huge logical and qualitative difference.
When Israel sinned by disobeying the prophets or judges they did not cease being the one and only Israel. They did not split off into different camps and build their own tabernacles. God called them home to the only temple. The only tabernacle.
When Paul preached to the Corinthians he had many dissenters. Because of those dissenters you did not see Paul authorizing schism! You saw him calling everybody to the one faith passed on by the church.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 25, 2009 at 9:00 am
I recommend that you look into the process of actual ordinations, beginning with discernment and culminating in the sacrament, in the Roman Catholic Church. If you spent five minutes doing so (visit a diocesan website and follow the links, or visit a seminary website), you would be unable to repeat the above canard, at least not without blushing.
Andrew P.,
Did you pick up on the fact that I was speaking of the context leading into the Reformation? We Protestants sometimes ask how some of the truly horrerndous Bishops of Rome (by the assessment of even Catholic historians), Alexnader VI, Julius II, Leo X, etc, could have been considered “valid.” There was nothing about these folks that was remoitely Christian in any biblical sense and we don’t get any argument from our Catholic friends here. But, we are told, they were chosen validly and were in direct line with the Roman See so they are bishops with valid orders.
So do you see my point? I’m not saying that conservative Catholics don’t care about anything else. I am saying that someone like Leo X can be judged valid even if he showed none of the characersitcs of a Christian bishop as outlined in Timothy, Tutus, etc because of his valid succession from the earliest bishops of Rome. In effect, this is all that matters to the assessment of valid orders. Is this not fair? If not, why not?
rfwhite said,
August 25, 2009 at 9:09 am
446 Andrew Preslar: can you tell us from whom the Roman church gets its identification as the possessor of the charism of teaching? Is it a self-identification or something else?
johnbugay said,
August 25, 2009 at 9:24 am
Andrew M: We Protestants sometimes ask how some of the truly horrerndous Bishops of Rome (by the assessment of even Catholic historians), Alexnader VI, Julius II, Leo X, etc, could have been considered “valid.”
They never added anything to the official body of Catholic doctrine, and so they’re ok.
I call it the “Alias Smith and Jones” defense of the papacy. For all the trains and banks they robbed (or whatever other crimes they committed), “they never taught anybody.”
johnbugay said,
August 25, 2009 at 9:31 am
Sean: Most of our disagreements are simply matters of theological liberals refusing to submit to what everybody knows is the Catholic teaching (example: on contraception, divorce, or priestly celibacy).
This is the point. How does “everybody know” when these so-called theological liberals — even some in high places, are appointed by, and sanctioned by, the Vatican.
For example, and I am sorry this needs to be repeated, but Raymond Brown was appointed by two popes. You have posited that he was merely appointed to “fill out the range of opinions” but that is perfectly ridiculous given that there was no official sanction; not only Brown, but literally thousands of other such “theological liberals” FILL the Vatican and high official places (including bishops and cardinals who appoint them and are in turn brought up through the system), and it goes on like that from generation to generation.
So the simple question is, “how does everybody know?”
Bryan Cross said,
August 25, 2009 at 9:35 am
Paige,
Re #438:
Perhaps this is really the unspoken presupposition behind the RC / EO position on the infallibility of the Church as interpreter: That it is insufferable to exist in a universe where we must walk by faith, not by sight — and that surely this is not what God intended for us. He intended that we have not only an infallible revelation, but an infallible interpretation of it.
Part of the content of the faith is believing in the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church”, because that is part of the Church’s Creed, which term comes from ‘Credo’ = I believe. Protestantism has no visible catholic Church. It has only denominations (none of which is the visible catholic Church), and individual congregations, and individual believers. There is in Protestantism not some one additional entity to which the term “visible catholic Church” refers, and to which those denominations, congregations, and individual believers, belong. NAPARC, for example, is not the catholic visible Church. (Anything with the name “North American” in its name is not catholic.) So when a Protestant speaks that line of the Creed, he has to redefine the term ‘Church’ to refer to the set of all the elect. But of course that wasn’t at all the meaning of the term as used by those bishops who wrote the Creed at the second Ecumenical Council, or by the entire Church at that time, or anywhere until the 16th century. We know that there will be tares within the one, holy, catholic and catholic Church, until the angels remove them at the end. But there can be no tares within the set of the elect. And we know that matters of discipline can be brought before the Church, as Christ tells us in Matthew 18. But matters of discipline cannot be brought before the set of all the elect. So, it is not the Catholic who is lacking faith; the Protestant’s faith is deficient precisely in that line of the Creed; he does not believe in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan Cross said,
August 25, 2009 at 9:40 am
rfwhite:
Re: #443,
can’t we then not wonder whether we have rightly interpreted the priest or bishop’s confirmation?
If you ask, “Does the council mean X?”, and the bishop replies, “yes”, then if you aren’t sure you heard him correctly, you can just ask him to repeat his answer. But insofar as we have reached the age to understand the difference between the meaning of ‘yes’ and ‘no’, as soon as we know that he said ‘yes’, then we do not need to keep asking for further interpretive clarification.
There is, however, another way to construe the matter. Either one enters an infinite regress — the Church tells the individual how to interpret the Scripture, and then how to interpret the Church’s interpretation, and how to interpret that, etc. ad infinitum — or one recognizes that private interpretation is an inescapable individual responsibility.
This dilemma trades on an ambiguity in the term ‘private interpretation.’ Private interpretation is said in two ways. In one way, it makes the individual to be the final interpretive authority within the Church. In another way, it treats the individual as needing to use his own intellect and will to understand any speech-act. If the term ‘private interpretation’ is used in the latter sense, then the two options listed in your dilemma are the only two options. And that’s fully compatible with the Catholic position. But if the term ‘private interpretation’ is used in the former sense, then the two options listed in your dilemma are not the only two options, because the third option is precisely that the individual, while needing to use his intellect and will to understand any speech-act, is not the final interpretive authority within the Church.
is it not the case, however, that what you have said here assumes that one has made the proper identification of the Church, which begs the question? Yes, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church to preserve the treasure of the gospel in it. Is it, however, this group or that group that is we are to identify as the Church? Whose testimony shall we accept and why? Shall the group itself be allowed to answer that question for us? If so, how is it that the group has not made itself its own judge?
When I said that the Holy Spirit speaks through the Church, I wasn’t intending to specify the referent of the term ‘Church’, because I assumed that we would agree that the Holy Spirit speaks through the Church, even while we recognize that we each believe that the term ‘Church’ picks out a different referent. Protestants pick out the Church in a different way than do Catholics. For Protestants, the gospel (as determined by their own interpretation of Scripture) picks out what is the Church. But for Catholics, the Church (as determined by apostolic succession) gives us the authoritative interpretation of Scripture, and hence teaches us what is Christ’s gospel. Those are two different paradigms, and it is difficult to evaluate them against each other, in a non-question-begging manner. I have written more about that difference here.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
turretinfan said,
August 25, 2009 at 10:15 am
“Unity in the Church does not mean that there everybody would be like ‘the borg’ from Star Trek.”
That could be equally applied to the Reformed churches.
In other words, if it is “straw man” with respect to Rome, the objection to which the challenge responds is a “straw man” with respect to the Reformed churches.
Either way, you lose.
-TurretinFan
David Gadbois said,
August 25, 2009 at 10:20 am
Bryan Cross said So when a Protestant speaks that line of the Creed, he has to redefine the term ‘Church’ to refer to the set of all the elect.
That’s just flat wrong. In WCF the term ‘catholic church’ is used to refer to the visible church, as in WCF 25.2. Of course, it also uses it in another sense to refer to the invisible church (25.1), but that does not negate the former usage.
Protestantism has no visible catholic Church. It has only denominations (none of which is the visible catholic Church), and individual congregations, and individual believers. There is in Protestantism not some one additional entity to which the term “visible catholic Church” refers, and to which those denominations, congregations, and individual believers, belong.
Ahh, but when you say there is no ‘entity’ you have in mind a top-down institution. For Protestants all of the true churches in the world form a composite group called the catholic church. We simply reject the assumption that ‘the’ church universal must be a hierarchal institution.
Sean said,
August 25, 2009 at 10:32 am
TFan.
“Unity in the Church does not mean that there everybody would be like ‘the borg’ from Star Trek.” – That could be equally applied to the Reformed churches.
In other words, if it is “straw man” with respect to Rome, the objection to which the challenge responds is a “straw man” with respect to the Reformed churches.
When Protestants have a difference, they form new denominations, and sanction and institutionalize the dissent. They either find a church that teaches what they believe or build churches that teach what they believe. They remove communion. They set up their own sacraments. They form new doctrines irrespective of what has been passed down and start ordaining one another. And then they call this ‘the church’ and submit to it.
On the other hand, when Israel sinned by disobeying the prophets or judges they did not cease being the one and only Israel. They did not split off into different camps and build their own tabernacles. God called them home to the only temple. The only tabernacle.
When Paul preached to the Corinthians he had many dissenters. Because of those dissenters you did not see Paul authorizing schism! You saw him calling everybody to the one faith passed on by the church.” This is the Catholic position. This is the exact definition of church that we get from the fathers.
Either way, you lose.
This isn’t a contest.
Bryan Cross said,
August 25, 2009 at 11:01 am
David,
Re: #456,
Of course I agree that persons who subscribe to the WCF affirm that there is such a thing as a visible catholic Church. The problem is that in Protestantism, there is no referent to this term ‘visible catholic Church’. It is just a term. That can be shown by the fact that if there were no actual visible catholic Church, but only the term ‘visible catholic Church’, the denominations, the congregations, and the individual believers, nothing in Protestantism would be any different. All the denominations, congregations, and individual believers would be exactly as they are. So that shows that this term ‘visible catholic Church’ does not refer to an actual unified entity, but is just a name used to refer to a plurality of things that are only mentally united by the speaker.
We simply reject the assumption that ‘the’ church universal must be a hierarchical institution.
Exactly. And that’s why in Protestantism the term ‘visible catholic Church’ has no actual unified referent. Reformed Protestants recognize that local churches, in order to be visible must be hierarchical. No one would say that the fact of there being believers in a city ipso facto constitutes a local visible church. But, that is set aside when they speak of the visible catholic Church, while simultaneously denying that it is hierarchical. If the local church must be hierarchical in order to be visible, then Reformed Protestants must either form a worldwide hierarchy if they wish to affirm a “visible catholic Church”, or they need to drop the language of “visible catholic Church,” or they need to add an exception clause explaining why the visible catholic Church needs no hierarchical unity, while local visible churches do need hierarchical unity.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
David Weiner said,
August 25, 2009 at 11:12 am
Bryan,
Which of the Creeds contains the word visible?
David Gadbois said,
August 25, 2009 at 11:35 am
Bryan said So that shows that this term ‘visible catholic Church’ does not refer to an actual unified entity, but is just a name used to refer to a plurality of things that are only mentally united by the speaker.
You are simply begging the question by insisting that the whole cannot be defined by the sum of its parts. That’s fairly common in other definitions and taxonomies.
But, that is set aside when they speak of the visible catholic Church, while simultaneously denying that it is hierarchical. If the local church must be hierarchical in order to be visible, then Reformed Protestants must either form a worldwide hierarchy if they wish to affirm a “visible catholic Church”, or they need to drop the language of “visible catholic Church,”
We don’t grant the assumption that the local church needs to follow the same rules or definitions as the univeral church. Its not like we are saying that the universal church is a big ball of Play-Doh, made by combining many smaller clumps of local church Play-Doh. What is predicated of the whole cannot be predicated of the parts, and vice versa. The universal church is not just a really big and powerful version of the local church.
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
August 25, 2009 at 11:48 am
On the other hand, when Israel sinned by disobeying the prophets or judges they did not cease being the one and only Israel. They did not split off into different camps and build their own tabernacles. God called them home to the only temple. The only tabernacle.
Oddly enough, comparison with Israel actually seems to work in favor of the Protestant view of the church. Paul makes it very clear in Romans 9-11 that the unity of Israel was never essentially a visible one, but rather was according the election of God, which could be very hidden at times. Even so, the fact that the visible church is not perfectly unified does not eliminate the reality of a one universal church…
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
August 25, 2009 at 11:49 am
And the temple/tabernacle they were finally called to was a heavenly, invisible one. Zion wasn’t replaced by the Seven Hills of Rome, but by a heavenly one, visible only to the eyes of faith.
Todd said,
August 25, 2009 at 11:54 am
“On the other hand, when Israel sinned by disobeying the prophets or judges they did not cease being the one and only Israel. They did not split off into different camps and build their own tabernacles. God called them home to the only temple. The only tabernacle. ”
Sean,
Throughout the OT, many of the duly appointed prophets and judges went bad; they prophesied falsely, and Israel was told not to listen to them when they prophesied falsely, as we see in Jeremiah. The RC’s on this list keep using the OT judges as examples of those with authority to interpret. But when those OT appointed judges and leaders were evil, what was Israel to do? If it was possible for the old covenant authorities to prophesy falsely, why not also the new covenant authorities? The leaders of Israel thought Jesus was an imposter. Were some of the people of Israel justified in not listening to them? So if the Bible demonstrates that duly appointed spiritual authorities can turn evil and prophesy falsely, how would we know if that is happening to the RC authorities if we are constrained to receive their authority regardless if we believe what they say matches with Scripture?
turretinfan said,
August 25, 2009 at 12:03 pm
“When Protestants have a difference, they form new denominations, and sanction and institutionalize the dissent. They either find a church that teaches what they believe or build churches that teach what they believe. They remove communion. They set up their own sacraments. They form new doctrines irrespective of what has been passed down and start ordaining one another. And then they call this ‘the church’ and submit to it.”
That’s a bit of a broad brushstroke … but let’s say “yes, that often happens.”
“On the other hand, when Israel sinned by disobeying the prophets or judges they did not cease being the one and only Israel. They did not split off into different camps and build their own tabernacles. God called them home to the only temple. The only tabernacle.”
Well, in fact, when Israel sinned they tended to forsake the tabernacle/temple. Jeroboam, however, did set up competing places of worship, as did they also in Samaria.
Furthermore, they did have denominational divisions: the Pharisees and the Saducees were the most prominent at the time of Christ.
“When Paul preached to the Corinthians he had many dissenters. Because of those dissenters you did not see Paul authorizing schism! You saw him calling everybody to the one faith passed on by the church.” This is the Catholic position. This is the exact definition of church that we get from the fathers.”
Actually, the fathers defined the church by the faith, not the faith by the church. Tertullian, for example, in De Pœnit. 10 states, “Where one or two are, is the church, and the church is Christ,” and in another place states “For though you think heaven still shut, remember that the Lord left here to Peter and through him to the Church, the keys of it, which every one who has been here put to the question, and also made confession, will carry with him.” Tertullian, Scorpiace, Chapter X.
(see here for more evidence)
More importantly, while it may be that “yes, that often happens,” the Reformers emphasized the fact that breaking off of fellowship is something that ought not lightly to be undertaken.
“This isn’t a contest.”
Yet another point where there is no borg. But the point was not the point of contest, but of argument.
– TurretinFan
Andrew Preslar said,
August 25, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Andrew,
Re: #439, 447, 449
My mistake. In fact, a part of the very bit I cited should have clued me in: when determining whether or not valid orders exist.
I got hung up on the practically speaking bit, and did not check what you were claiming we were being practical about. I assume that you meant that the preponderance of weight, when discerning whether or not orders have been validly conferred, rests with the sacramental nature of the ordination.
As you know, the oath to uphold the catholic and orthodox faith is part and parcel of the sacrament of Holy Orders. We hold that a man is morally bound and ontologically changed by the character of this sacrament, whether or not his personal character is what it should be. In short, Catholic theology of sacrament, and, by extension, Orders, gives weight to the promise of God in the sacrament, which we believe cannot be abrogated by the will of man. So the difference between us on this point is probably one of fundamental sacramentology, which goes to the heart of our differences on baptism, the eucharist and ecclesiology in general. It is indeed a profound difference.
I apologize for reading your “practically speaking” comment out of context, and even more for commenting on what I clearly misunderstood.
Bryan Cross said,
August 25, 2009 at 12:18 pm
David G,
Re: #460,
Let S refer to the set of the following four things: Putin’s favorite hat, the highest point on Mt. Everest, the shell of the oldest living tortoise, and my left thumb. Suppose you said, “S refers to an actual unified entity.” Then I replied, “You are simply begging the question by insisting that the whole cannot be defined by the sum of its parts.”
You see the problem. It is my reply that would be begging the question by assuming that S refers to an actual whole, because that is precisely what it in question. In actuality, the referent of S is not an actual unity, but only a plurality mentally unified. So, what is needed here for the resolution of our disagreement is a principled way of distinguishing between an actual unified entity, and a plurality that is only mentally united. They each present themselves as a unified whole composed of parts. But only the former are actual wholes; the latter are not actual wholes.
The principled difference between an actual unified entity, and a plurality that is only mentally united, is that in the case of actual unified entities, in order to remove the whole and leave the parts, you have to change the world. For example, in order to remove me and leave all my parts, you have to change the world (I have to die). But in the case of a plurality that is only mentally united, one does not need to change the world in order to remove the whole and leave the parts. The members of S would be just as they are, whether or not I had mentally conjoined them into the set S.
When we apply this test to the Catholic Church, we find that in order to remove the whole and leave the parts, we have to change the world. This is because its hierarchical unity changes the activity of its parts.
But when we apply this test to the Protestant conception of the “visible catholic Church”, we find that we can remove the whole and leave all its parts (i.e. denominations, congregations, individuals), without changing the world in the least, just as in the case of S. And hence, in Protestantism the term “visible catholic Church’ does not refer to an actual unified entity, but only to a plurality that is mentally united, such as in my example of S.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew Preslar said,
August 25, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Re: #450
can you tell us from whom the Roman church gets its identification as the possessor of the charism of teaching? Is it a self-identification or something else?
rfwhite,
We believe that this identification comes from our Lord himself, who gave the charism of teaching to the Apostles and to St. Peter in particular. The historical and sacramental continuity of the Church of Rome with the Apostolic Church, and her profound connection with St. Peter, are a couple of points in favor of this identification.
But my point in #446 (et al) is logically independent of the question of which church has infallible teaching authority. Thus, yours is a further question.
Bryan Cross said,
August 25, 2009 at 1:06 pm
The sentence in #466 that reads:
Suppose you said, “S refers to an actual unified entity.”
Should be:
Suppose you said, “S does not refer to an actual unified entity.”
Sorry!
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Sean said,
August 25, 2009 at 1:31 pm
TurretinFan.
The Fathers did not have a Protestant ecclesiology. Any attempt to show that from snippets of their writings is in vain.
They believed and expressly taught that the Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. From Tertullian whom you quoted.
“But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,–a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. …To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine…Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.”
Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 33 (A.D. 200).
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
August 25, 2009 at 2:04 pm
“Question: How can we be sure that it is our own interpretation of Scripture that is wrong and not our interpretation of the ruling of the ecumenical council?
By asking our priest or bishop to confirm that our interpretation of the council is correct.”
Bryan, are there any liberal priests or bishops? Are there any priest or bishops lawfully ordained who are rebellious in doctrine? If not, are you serious?!? If so, how am I to determine whether he is rebellious in doctrine? Oh, by whether he agrees with the teaching of the church…but I’m supposed to ask him if my understanding on the teaching of the church is correct…
Ah, you might say, if a priest appears to be rebellious in doctrine, I should go to the bishop. But on what grounds am I going to the bishop? My priest has told me that this is what the council means–am I permitted to challenge his interpretation by my own personal one? If I am not, how can I go to the bishop? If I am permitted to pit my interpretation of the council against his in order to conclude that he is apparently rebellious in his doctrine and thus that I should go to the bishop, how is that different from the Protestant view of the Scriptures?
turretinfan said,
August 25, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Sean,
Your selective emphasis is quite odd. Tertullian explicitly affirms that new churches can likewise be apostolic if they have the same faith as the apostles. The part of the text you conveniently omitted is how we determine if they have the faith of the apostles:
– Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, Chapter 33
That’s the antecedent to which “to this test” refers in your quotation, and the second of the “two tests” that you mention (providing only that convenient for your position). Tertullian does not absolutely require a chain of ordinations back to the apostles, but offers the test of comparison between their doctrine and the doctrine of the apostles. How would we find out what the apostles’ doctrine was? I’ll give you a hint: look at their writings.
So, yes – Tertullian defines the church by the faith, not the faith by the church – as do many other fathers. Selectively emphasized snippets (to use your description) are no match for the weight of the historic evidence.
-TurretinFan
P.S. I assume that your misquotation was simply due to the fact that you relied on some secondary source (such as, for example, an article from John Salza) rather than reading the fathers for yourself. As you can see, that kind of thing is dangerous – since a number of Romanist apologists are less than scrupulous when it comes to their quotations from the early church fathers. If your misquote was deliberate rather than careless, though – there’s really no reason for this dialog to continue.
David Gadbois said,
August 25, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Bryan said The principled difference between an actual unified entity, and a plurality that is only mentally united, is that in the case of actual unified entities, in order to remove the whole and leave the parts, you have to change the world.
Not necessarily. Sometimes a category is simply tautological and therefore one cannot coherently remove the whole and leave the parts. The category ‘a dozen eggs’ cannot be ‘removed’ from the parts as long as I have 12 eggs.
The question of whether an entity is *really* unified depends entirely on the nature of unity in the particular context. We say that every true, visible local church is unified under Christ and His Gospel, all bearing the true marks of a church, all being composed of those who profess the true religion and their children. That is the unifying principle, and all that is needed to coherently define the ovearching category of the catholic church in the visible sense.
Sean said,
August 25, 2009 at 2:34 pm
T Fan,
The quotes you provide and I provide are not mutually exclusive. You cannot have one without the other. He is not saying the Church has apostolic succession ‘or’ the preach what we preach and then they can be a church without apostolic succession. He is saying that the church with apostolic succession does preach the faith of the apostles.
Here is the work you are quoting. I challenge anybody to read the whole thing and then profess that Tertullian is prescribing anything but apostolic sacramental succession for the church without blushing.
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
August 25, 2009 at 2:35 pm
You included the key section, even though you did not place it bold:
“churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine…”
There are two tests for an apostolic church: succession OR doctrine. The Reformers argued extensively that they were apostolic in doctrine: i.e., they agreed with the apostles, who teachings were established in the Scriptures, and followed by the early church before innovations set in (that’s the burden of much of Book IV of the Institutes, for example).
Sean said,
August 25, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Joshua.
That is crazy. There are not two churches: succession OR doctrine. Lunacy. The theory blows up when you compare the faith of the Reformers to the faith of the Fathers on almost every doctrine. The Reformers not only departed from the apostolic succession, they departed from the doctrine. Do you want to compare the Reformers against Tertullian on the doctrine of justification, the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration? I don’t think you do.
Read the quote IN CONTEXT again. Tertullian prefaces what you just quoted by saying that heretics cannot produce apostolic succession and he says, “BUT IF THEY DO…” their doctrine cannot stand.
Here is the key phrase between the two quotes, “But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step….” because….”your quote.”
Read the link of his letter I provided.
Sean said,
August 25, 2009 at 2:49 pm
(meant to say that there are not two “tests” for the church) – Apostolic OR doctrine.
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
August 25, 2009 at 2:51 pm
“Now, what is there in our Scriptures which is contrary to us? What of our own have we introduced, that we should have to take it away again, or else add to it, or alter it, in order to restore to its natural soundness anything which is contrary to it, and contained in the Scriptures?”
This is Tertullian’s proof for the apostolicity of the churches: agreement with Scripture. And this is not just non-contradiction of Scripture, but addition–the Protestant argument is that, in fact, Rome contradicted apostolic teaching on the gospel, and added much as well. But Tertullian invites comparison of the church’s teaching with Scripture. I’m not sure Rome does that, since we’re not allowd to compare Rome’s teaching with Scripture, because Rome’s teaching actually explains what Scripture means…
But that removes Scripture as an independent witness to the truth of the church’s teachings, which is what Tertullian clearly assumes and welcomes. Just like a Protestant.
Sean said,
August 25, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Seriously.
Cannot emphasize this enough. Read the entire letter in context. After re-reading it I simply cannot believe I am being challenged on it.
Here it Tertullian expressly talking about bishops, succession and every thing else and you are using him for your ecclesiology based on a ‘what if’ he provides just in case the heretics try to produce evidence of succession!
Where are your bishops? Unfold their succession back to the apostles for me.
Read his letter.
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
August 25, 2009 at 2:54 pm
I’m following Tertullian’s example. He doesn’t say “Compare the church with me.” He says “Compare the church with the Scriptures.” That’s what Protestants do.
Furthermore, you seem to have got Tertullian backward in the very place you quote him. He says that even if the heretics were able to produce a succession of bishops going back the apostles (although it would be a “contrivance”), then they would not advance a step, because their doctrine is not that of the apostles, as set forth in Scripture. So, even if someone could produce a list of bishops, the test would still be whether the teachings fit with Scripture.
Sean said,
August 25, 2009 at 2:57 pm
John W Smith.
You cannot simply remove Tertullian’s statement that the church must have apostolic succession from the rest of it.
The material sufficiency of scripture, a Catholic doctrine, does not prove that the church must have apostolic succession as Tertullian teaches (and every other father).
PS The Catholic Church does not ‘add to’ or ‘take away’ from the scriptures.
Tertullian never pitted scripture AGAINST the church. It is extremely dishonest for you to use him for that.
Sean said,
August 25, 2009 at 3:01 pm
He says that even if the heretics were able to produce a succession of bishops going back the apostles (although it would be a “contrivance”), then they would not advance a step, because their doctrine is not that of the apostles, as set forth in Scripture.
OK, if you say so let us compare Tertullians doctrines which apparently you believe is scriptural and ‘of the apostles’ against the Reformers.
I’ll start.
On the Eucharist.
“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body…He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: ‘I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,’ which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood.”
Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212).
Now why did the Reformers abandon this doctrine if they are the true church because of their doctrine and you are using Tertullian as proof of the legitimacy of the Reformed churches?
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
August 25, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Ours is a new church, recently founded, as is still happening today. For those churches, Tertullian clearly indicates that we need to show apostolic doctrine, not a succession of bishops.
I am reading in context. Sure, here is Tertullian “talking about succession, bishops and everything else”–but just talking about them is not the same thing as setting forth the current Roman doctrine of succession over Scripture.
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
August 25, 2009 at 3:05 pm
So wait, you’re saying that Reformers are Docetists? It’s clearly from the Tertullian quote that he’s talking about the actual body that Jesus had. Look at that third sentence: “that is, a figure of my body.” Yeah, a figure, not the actual substance. So, Tertullian on our side there.
johnbugay said,
August 25, 2009 at 3:12 pm
There have been some comments in here about who’s gaining the converts etc.
Here’s a survey that was recently completed on why people join or leave their churches or religions, and where they go:
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=409
Bottom line numbers are that some 30% of “cradle Catholics” leave Catholicism — half of these become Protestant or Evangelical, the other half just go off into oblivion.
Only 3% of individuals raised Protestant or Evangelical leave, and very few of these become Catholic.
I think discussions like this one are extremely healthy — informed Protestants encountering the arguments that Catholic Apologists are making — the more play that these things get, the better able folks will be to resist the serpent-like charms of these “why can’t we all just get along, come home to Rome” Catholics.
Bryan Cross said,
August 25, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Joshua,
Re: #470,
The original question (asked by rfwhite) in #427 was “How can we be sure that it is our own interpretation of Scripture that is wrong and not our interpretation of the ruling of the ecumenical council?” My reply, in #431, was “By asking our priest or bishop to confirm that our interpretation of the council is correct.”
Your question, in #470, is essentially this: Since some priests and even some bishops are rebellious, how can we determine whether a priest or bishop is rebellious? And the answer is to see whether his teaching agrees with that of the other bishops in communion with the successor of the Apostle Peter. Your rejoinder then, is: Since my purpose in approaching the priest or bishop is to determine whether I have correctly understood the Church’s position, I must not yet know the Church’s position. Therefore, since I do not yet know the Church’s position, I cannot determine whether this particular priest or bishop is rebellious or not.
The problem with this rejoinder is that it’s conclusion is a non sequitur. It is possible, in the short-term, for a person not to recognize that his priest or bishop is rebellious. That is especially so if the priest or bishop does not talk about that doctrine or doctrines concerning which he is in rebellion. But if the priest or bishop talks about the doctrine(s) about which he is in rebellion, it doesn’t take long for the persons under his care to recognize that what he is saying is contrary to what the other bishops are saying on this point. And as soon as a priest or bishop is discovered to be in rebellion against the Church, then his determination of the meaning of a council document should not be trusted. We’re part of a community that extends around the world. So our access to the Church’s magisterium is not limited to our local priest or bishop.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan Cross said,
August 25, 2009 at 3:16 pm
David G,
Re: #472,
Sometimes a category is simply tautological and therefore one cannot coherently remove the whole and leave the parts. The category ‘a dozen eggs’ cannot be ‘removed’ from the parts as long as I have 12 eggs.
“Four things” cannot be removed from S, so long as it has 4 members. So do you wish to concede that S is an actual whole, or do you wish to show the principled difference between twelve eggs and S, such that the former is an actual whole, while the latter is not?
We say that every true, visible local church is unified under Christ and His Gospel, all bearing the true marks of a church, all being composed of those who profess the true religion and their children. That is the unifying principle, and all that is needed to coherently define the overarching category of the catholic church in the visible sense.
I’m aware of what Reformed believers say. Saying that you believe in a visible catholic Church is fully compatible with your ecclesiology entailing that the term has no actual unified referent. The problem, as I have shown, is that when you speak of the visible catholic Church, your denial of its hierarchical unity entails that there is no referent to the term, because it reduces its unity to that of S, which is not an actual entity.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Sean said,
August 25, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Joshua,
Tertullian says nowhere that there are or that there will be ‘new churches’ that won’t have apostolic succession. You are reading something into the text that just is not there.
Josh,
No Reformer taught what Tertullian is teaching about the consecrated Eucharist in the passage I provided.
You are making claims here that no serious Protestant scholar would make because it just isn’t there.
JND Kelly, Protestant writes:
“Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks , ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument ], based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the eucharist ‘the flesh feeds on Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water.” (Kelly,EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES pg 211)
I don’t know how much longer I have today.
johnbugay said,
August 25, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Here are some early fathers holding to a “symbolic” view of the Lord’s Supper:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/my-questions-concerning-rcism-45336/#post572016
Note, Sean, in your own posting from Tertullian, it is a “figure”:
‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body…
But you have taken Tertullian out of context. (Typical for you). What is Tertullian actually talking about? “First a veritable body” is a direct address to the Docetists (Marcion, duh!) — it had nothing to do with a discussion of the Eucharist. It is a “figure,” a “symbol.”
Sean said,
August 25, 2009 at 3:33 pm
John.
The Catholic Church also teaches that the Eucharist is symbolic to the degree that it symbolizes the communion of the whole church everywhere and in other ways.
Augustine said that it is a sin not to adore ‘worship’ the eucharist and he said that ‘only the Eucharisted (blessed) bread ‘becomes Christ’s body.’
The recent appearance of Reformed apologetic websites trying to prove their sacramentology from the fathers runs utterly contrary to all the scholarship you like to quote (not to mention their own words.)
Remember earlier in this thread it was claimed that Augustine taught Lutheran justification? I see that this was backed away from after I quoted Augustine and leading protestant scholarship which proved otherwise.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
August 25, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Sean, #444: “Maybe you can help me? Which ‘fact’ derived from the ‘challenge’ do not support the Catholic Church’s claim to oneness?”
Okay.
Question #7: Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on whether or not Jonah was really swallowed by a “great fish.”
(For the record, here’s your answer, Sean: “The Church has not dogmatically professed whether or not Noah was swallowed by a ‘great fish.’ I personally believe that he was swallowed by a great fish and this would be the majority opinion from the fathers.”)
The Catholic Church has changed its mind concerning the Book of Jonah. The 1908 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia was very adamant that this story of Jonah was historical fact, and it went to great lengths to discredit those scholars who disagreed:
“Catholics have always looked upon the Book of Jonah as a fact-narrative. In the works of some recent Catholic writers there is a leaning to regard the book as fiction. Only Simon and Jahn, among prominent Catholic scholars, have clearly denied the historicity of Jonah; and the orthodoxy of these two critics may no longer be defended: “Providentissimus Deus” implicitly condemned the ideas of both in the matter of inspiration, and the Congregation of the Index expressly condemned the “Introduction” of the latter. …
Not a single Father has ever been cited in favor of the opinion that Jonah is a fancy-tale and no fact-narrative at all.”
From The Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent website.
Now let’s look at this staggering contrast by the 1970 edition of the Catholic Bible, bearing the signature of the Pope himself. In the preface to the Book of Jonah it states, “this book is a didatic story with an important message.” All claims to this being a historical fact-narrative are gone. The Catholic Church has quietly made a complete reversal of its previous position that it defended so adamantly.
Sean, the Catholic Church previously held that the Book of Jonah was historical fact-narrative *ONLY*. Now the Catholic Church is permitting that the Book of Jonah may be interpreted as didactic fiction also.
So much for an Infallible Interpreter.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
August 25, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Sean, #444: “Maybe you can help me? Which ‘fact’ derived from the ‘challenge’ do not support the Catholic Church’s claim to oneness?”
Okay.
Question #7: Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on whether or not Jonah was really swallowed by a “great fish.”
(For the record, here’s your answer, Sean: “The Church has not dogmatically professed whether or not Noah was swallowed by a ‘great fish.’ I personally believe that he was swallowed by a great fish and this would be the majority opinion from the fathers.”)
The Catholic Church has changed its mind concerning the Book of Jonah. The 1908 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia was very adamant that this story of Jonah was historical fact, and it went to great lengths to discredit those scholars who disagreed:
“Catholics have always looked upon the Book of Jonah as a fact-narrative. In the works of some recent Catholic writers there is a leaning to regard the book as fiction. Only Simon and Jahn, among prominent Catholic scholars, have clearly denied the historicity of Jonah; and the orthodoxy of these two critics may no longer be defended: “Providentissimus Deus” implicitly condemned the ideas of both in the matter of inspiration, and the Congregation of the Index expressly condemned the “Introduction” of the latter. …
Not a single Father has ever been cited in favor of the opinion that Jonah is a fancy-tale and no fact-narrative at all.”
From The Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent website.
Now let’s look at this staggering contrast by the 1970 edition of the Catholic Bible, bearing the signature of the Pope himself. In the preface to the Book of Jonah it states, “this book is a didatic story with an important message.” All claims to this being a historical fact-narrative are gone. The Catholic Church has quietly made a complete reversal of its previous position that it defended so adamantly.
Sean, the Catholic Church previously held that the Book of Jonah was historical fact-narrative *ONLY*. Now the Catholic Church is permitting that the Book of Jonah may be interpreted as didactic fiction also.
So much for an Infallible Interpreter.
Sean said,
August 25, 2009 at 3:36 pm
PS.
Puritan Board also had a thread several months ago about Baptismal Regeneration in the Fathers. In this thread it was admitted that EVERY father taught Baptismal Regeneration just like what Zwingli claimed.
turretinfan said,
August 25, 2009 at 3:36 pm
a) Tertullian does not say that churches MUST have apostolic succession.
b) Tertullian offers “two tests” of whether or not the heretics are apostolic: one is the “genetic test” (were they appointed by someone who was appointed by someone … who was appointed by an apostle?) and the other is the “doctrinal test” (does their doctrine match the apostles’). If he really thought (as you seem to want to suggest) that the real test is the genetic test, it would be pointless for him to present the second test (especially if people can’t discern, by private judgment, the apostles’ teachings from the Scripture).
c) The best explanation of Tertullian’s two tests, instead, is as two arguments why these folks shouldn’t be trusted: (1) they weren’t properly ordained (you may be surprised to learn that the Reformed churches also teach that ordination – not self-ordination – is the proper way of making elders) and (2) they don’t teach what the apostles taught.
d) Although you’re wrong, I find your comment: “You cannot have one without the other,” to be a bit interesting. Tertullian appeals to the private judgment of his readers to determine what the apostles taught and compare that to the teachings of the heretics. When we do that to Rome, we find Rome teaching tons of things that the Apostles never taught, and a significant number of things that contradict that apostolic teachings. Thus, even if Rome had “succession” she would fail the second of the two tests.
e) Furthermore, Rome would fail the first of those two tests as well. The so-called Babylonian Captivity and Pornocracy periods (not to mention the numerous other contested bishops) should remove any doubt as to whether or not there is a credible chain of succession from Benedict XVI back to Linus.
f) Finally, if we can wave our hands regarding the gaps and question marks in the Roman list, we might as well wave our hands at the gaps and issues in the Antiochian list. Yet, Antioch and Rome don’t agree on doctrine … which shows the need for the second test – the test of Scripture.
g) That is really the bottom line: it takes an appeal to Scripture to distinguish the truly apostolic churches (such as the Reformed churches) from heretical and/or apostate churches such as Rome has become.
-TurretinFan
Sean said,
August 25, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Truth Unites.
“The Catholic Encyclopedia” is not the deposit of sacred tradition.
turretinfan said,
August 25, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Note as well Tertullian’s comment: “as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.” (with the editors suggesting “[Linus and Cletus must have died or been martyred, therefore, almost as soon as appointed. Our author had seen these registers, no doubt.]”)
Of course, there are other theories as well – such as that there was more than one elder in Rome in the beginning, or simply that the registers were more legend than history.
The whole attempted reliance on “succession” rather than Scripture is filled with these sorts of annoying historical nuances: inconvenient facts that show the claims of the “ancient” churches to be absolutely incredible.
Bryan Cross said,
August 25, 2009 at 3:56 pm
TurretinFan,
I dealt here with Tertullian’s two tests. There I wrote:
How does Tertullian propose to show that the doctrine of these heretics is contrary to that of the Apostles? He does so with two tests, and these two tests are related to each other. One necessarily comes before the other, and depends on the other. First, he uses the test of apostolic succession. “Let them produce produce the original records of their churches, let them unfold the roll of their bishops ….”. King appeals to the second test, without realizing that for Tertullian, the second test depends on the first test. The second test is comparing whether the ‘faith’ proposed by the heretics agrees with the doctrine held by the Apostles. How is this second test to be conducted? To determine whether the doctrine of the heretics agrees with the doctrine of the Apostles, Tertullian doesn’t say, “Look at the Scriptures.” He says that the ‘faith’ of the heretics must be compared to the faith of the churches which are in agreement with the churches founded by the Apostles. So the apostolic churches (the ones founded by the Apostles and maintaining the succession from the Apostles) are still the standard for what is the Apostolic faith. For Tertullian, how do we know which churches have the Apostolic faith? By comparing their doctrine to that of the apostolic churches, i.e. the one’s having the succession from the Apostles. So the second test (i.e. comparing the faith of the heretics to that of the Apostles) depends on the first test (i.e. apostolic succession).
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
rfwhite said,
August 25, 2009 at 4:02 pm
467 Andrew Preslar: thanks.
454 Bryan Cross: in 470 Joshua W. D. Smith’s last question is especially the point I had in mind back in 427. I should hope I would ask this question of you, even were I not a Protestant.
Your comments on the contrast between Protestants and Roman Catholics when it comes to picking out the Church show that both the Protestant and the Catholic are making individual interpretations of data based on criteria with which they are presented. I raised the question of how the individual determines what is the Church. You answered by citing the different criteria used. What is it that would tell the individual conscience to listen to the Church and to use the criterion of apostolic succession? Does Scripture?
Joshua W.D. smith said,
August 25, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Re 487:
Tertullian clearly refers to
“churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine.”
So, those are churches that cannot roll out their list of bishops going back to an apostle, but for them it is doctrine that is the mark of their apostolicity.
As for the Eucharistic teaching, in the passage you provided Tertullian is only teaching that the bread is a figure of Christ’s body. All the Reformers taught that. The context is the reality of Christ’s body, contra Marcion’s “phantom body.”
Sean said,
August 25, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Josh.
I don’t have the time to keep on gong back on the same things. Read the context of what you are quoting (the passages directly prior to and after). And/or read the whole text. And/or read Bryan’s response he linked just a second ago #496. There is no point in you keep on saying the same thing and us responding the same way and talking past one another.
What you are claiming is certainly a new idea and one that even Protestant historians missed.
Sean said,
August 25, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Wow 500 comments.
I must bow out now however as my week is picking up fast. Thanks all for the dialog. Let us pray that the Holy Spirit brings us closer together and not farther apart.
Joshua W.D. smith said,
August 25, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Tertullian in principle acknowledges that Scripture is the true source of apostolic doctrine, as he says later:
“Now, what is there in our Scriptures which is contrary to us? What of our own have we introduced, that we should have to take it away again, or else add to it, or alter it, in order to restore to its natural soundness anything which is contrary to it, and contained in the Scriptures? What we are ourselves, that also the Scriptures are (and have been) from the beginning. Of them we have our being, before there was any other way, before they were interpolated by you.”
Here, it is clear that in principle, the test of the catholic church is its agreement in doctrine with the apostles, i.e., the Scriptures. Of course, Tertullian is asking rhetorical questions, but the Reformers argued that, in fact, there were such things: things added, things taken away, things contradictory.
Joshua W.D. smith said,
August 25, 2009 at 4:51 pm
While I’m not chiefly concerned with Kelly, it’s important to pay attention to sources. Only one page later, Kelly suggests that Tertullian “remains conscious of the sacramental distinction between” the symbols and the elements.
Bryan Cross said,
August 25, 2009 at 4:55 pm
rfwhite,
Re: #497,
in 470 Joshua W. D. Smith’s last question is especially the point I had in mind back in 427
Sorry, I missed that question. (And I agree that it is an important question.) Here’s the question, from #470:
If I am permitted to pit my interpretation of the council against his in order to conclude that he is apparently rebellious in his doctrine and thus that I should go to the bishop, how is that different from the Protestant view of the Scriptures?
The context of there being other bishops in the Church cannot be abstracted away, without creating an artificial hypothetical. The bishop, since he is a successor of the Apostles, has greater interpretive authority than does the individual lay person. So, all other things being equal, I must submit to my bishop regarding the teaching of the Church. But, as I pointed out above (#485) if I come to discover that my bishop is rebelling against the Church, then I must submit to the Church’s Magisterium, and not follow this rebellious bishop.
How does that differ from the Protestant view of the Scriptures? The Protestant makes himself the final interpretive authority of Scripture. The orthodox Catholic never takes that authority to himself. He submits to the teaching/interpretive authority of the Magisterium. Even when going against a rebellious bishop, he is not merely going by his own interpretation of Scripture, but always remaining in submission to the Church’s Magisterium. The Magisterium, we believe and profess, is indefectible.
What is it that would tell the individual conscience to listen to the Church and to use the criterion of apostolic succession? Does Scripture?
Scripture can play a role, as I pointed out here, and so can the Church herself. But the external basis for believing the Magisterium of the Church to bear Christ’s authority, and for believing that His authority is handed down by apostolic succession, is Tradition. Wherever the Apostles went, throughout the world, there we see in the Tradition the practice of apostolic succession. (I explained the problem (for those who deny apostolic succession) in comments #24 and #27 of this thread.) In this way, the Tradition of the Church testifies that this was the Apostles practice and teaching. To reject this universal practice of the early Church, we must fall into ecclesial deism, which is a lack of faith in Jesus Christ.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Joshua W.D. smith said,
August 25, 2009 at 5:03 pm
As for 485, you say:
if the priest or bishop talks about the doctrine(s) about which he is in rebellion, *it doesn’t take long for the persons under his care to recognize* that what he is saying is contrary to what the other bishops are saying on this point.
So, clearly, the parishoner can interpret the teachings of the bishops without access to his own priest or bishop. Why are the teachings of the magisterium more clear than Scripture?
Furthermore, it is a question of standing. When the parishoner goes to the archbishop and says “Bishop X is appears to be teaching against the tradition,” the archbishop would no doubt ask: “And why do you think that?” The answer would then be: “Because what he says doesn’t seem to fit with what I understand the tradition to be saying.” Thus, the only reason he’s questioning that bishop is because of his private judgment on the meaning of certain documents. Should the archbishop listen to the parishoner and investigate that bishop? If so, then the archbishop is accepting private judgment over the ordained status of the bishop. What if the archbishop is corrupt, and doesn’t find the bishop in rebellion on doctrine? And so forth. At some point, the church has to act based upon a private, individual interpretation of the tradition against the hierarchical succession…
Joshua W.D. smith said,
August 25, 2009 at 5:06 pm
So Tradition points to apostolic succession, but the authority for Tradition is…apostolic succession. That is, of course, circular. Now, when we get to basic presuppositions, there must some circularity. But I’m not clear why that is located in the traditions of man rather than in the words of God.
drollord said,
August 25, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Am I understanding the CTC crowd here to say that the Church (?) (understanding the magisterium [is that what the RCC would call it?]) alone has the authority (and right?) to interpret Scripture? Would it then be considered an usurpation of authority for anyone else to interpret Scripture other than the Church (magisterium)?
drollord said,
August 25, 2009 at 5:18 pm
BTW, 500+ comments is an obscene number to sort through. Wow.
turretinfan said,
August 25, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Bryan Cross:
You wrote: “By comparing their doctrine to that of the apostolic churches… .” You’ve nailed the only alternative to “comparing their doctrine with Scripture.” Which then is right: your option or mine.
Consider Tertullian’s words: “For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner.”
Notice that Tertullian appeals to the apostles directly and not to those who came after the apostles. We see Tertullian going in the very next chapter to a discussion of the apostles’ doctrine, and so we can see how he proposes to do this: “Besides all this, I add a review of the doctrines themselves, which, existing as they did in the days of the apostles, were both exposed and denounced by the said apostles.”
How does he discover the apostolic doctrines? Does he state the present day teachings of the bishop of Rome, or the bishop of Alexandria, or his local bishop? Of course not – he turns to:
1 Cor. xv. 12.; Gal. v. 2.; 1 Tim. iv. 3.; 2 Tim. ii. 3.; 1 Tim. i. 4.; Gal. iv. 9.; Rev. ii. 14.; 1 John iv. 3.; Col. ii. 18.; and Acts viii. 18.
Then after that application of Scripture to the heretics of his day, Tertullian states at the start of the next chapter: “These are, as I suppose, the different kinds of spurious doctrines, which (as we are informed by the apostles themselves) existed in their own day.”
So, with all respect, I have to agree with King that it is by comparison with Scriptures – not by comparison with the allegedly apostolic churches (those with the registers). While the statement itself might leave such a possibility open, the context closes that possibility.
-TurretinFan
Bryan Cross said,
August 25, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Joshua,
Why are the teachings of the magisterium more clear than Scripture?
Because Christ has given to divinely appointed men both the authority and the gift of explaining the Sacred Scripture to His people. There would be no point to the gift of teaching, if the teacher’s words did not clarify that which he taught. Just as God ordained the Levites to teach the Scripture to the people of the Old Covenant, so we believe He ordained a perpetual succession of bishops to teach the Scripture to the people of the New Covenant.
Should the archbishop listen to the parishoner and investigate that bishop?
Quite possibly yes, especially on the testimony of two or three witnesses. (1 Tim 5:19)
If so, then the archbishop is accepting private judgment over the ordained status of the bishop.
No. Investigating a claim against a bishop by a layperson does not entail granting the layperson greater ecclesial authority than the bishop being investigated.
What if the archbishop is corrupt, and doesn’t find the bishop in rebellion on doctrine?
The question is too open-ended for me to answer.
At some point, the church has to act based upon a private, individual interpretation of the tradition against the hierarchical succession…
I can’t tell from your statement exactly what you are referring to by “the church”. As I said in #503, we believe that the Magisterium is indefectible. It will never be the case that the Magisterium will depart from the faith delivered once and for all to the saints. The Holy Spirit will guide the successors of the Apostles into all truth. The Church will remain the pillar and ground of truth, until Christ returns. The gates of hell will never prevail against the Church. If the Magisterium fell away from the faith, the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church. So, your scenario is for us an impossible hypothetical (e.g. what would have happened if Jesus had sinned?).
So Tradition points to apostolic succession, but the authority for Tradition is…apostolic succession. That is, of course, circular. Now, when we get to basic presuppositions, there must some circularity. But I’m not clear why that is located in the traditions of man rather than in the words of God.
I didn’t claim that “the authority for Tradition is apostolic succession”. There is both internal evidence and external evidence. Internal evidence is evidence that is uniquely available to us once we have accepted the Church’s authority and teachings. Those outside cannot perceive this evidence as evidence. (If an analogy would be helpful, think of the evidence for Christianity that is not available to an atheist, so long as he remains an atheist.) Such evidence seems circular, to the outsider. But, there is also external evidence, i.e. evidence available to the outsider, and thus not seemingly circular to the one outside the Church.
If we want to find where Christ’s Church is today, we need to start with the Apostles and then trace it forward through time until we come to the present day. The person who, living in 2009, says, “I’ll find Christ’s Church by reading the Bible, and then finding that group of persons who agrees with my interpretation of Scripture”, fails to recognize that the Body of Christ is a living organic being, that was born on Pentecost and has been growing continuously through space and time over the last two thousand years. That historical evidence of the geographical expansion and theological and liturgical development of Christ’s Church over these past two millennia is available to anyone, inside or outside the Church. If we want to understand Scripture, we need to try to understand it as those who first received it understood it. And how do we do that? By reading the Fathers. In the Fathers we find the mind of the early Church, and thus the mind of the Apostles that they had powerfully communicated to the churches they founded. So the Tradition of which I speak should not be conceived as something to be chosen over and against Scripture, but rather as precisely that through which best to understand those who wrote and received Sacred Scripture, and thus that through which best to understand Sacred Scripture itself.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
M Burke said,
August 25, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Sean, your quote of Tertullian, (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212)) should be reexamined. You seem to be arguing that Tertullian is suggesting a real presence concept, but in context he’s arguing against Marcion’s denial of Christ having real flesh, (pseudo-gnostic). Of course your quote is partial, so it is difficult to find it in Adversus Marcionem, but it is in IV, 40,
Tertullian is saying, as is clear to those who read the work, that Christ had real flesh and real blood and that the Supper could not be a figure thereof apart from that fact. This is an anti-gnostic argument, not a declaration of or defense of the modern Roman Catholic belief in transubstantiation.
Bryan Cross said,
August 25, 2009 at 7:01 pm
TurretinFan,
Re: #506,
So, with all respect, I have to agree with King that it is by comparison with Scriptures – not by comparison with the allegedly apostolic churches (those with the registers).
A good hermeneutical rule of thumb is to try to avoid interpreting a writer in such a way that you make him out to be contradicting himself. By claiming that Tertullian does not find the apostolic doctrines by comparison with the apostolic churches having the succession from the Apostles, you make him directly contradict himself in two ways: first, in what he explicitly says in the first test (see #496), and second, in what he says in the link I provided in #356. My explanation of Tertullian, by contrast, does not make him contradict himself at all.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
rfwhite said,
August 25, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Bryan Cross: You have alleged, “The Protestant makes himself the final interpretive authority of Scripture.” You have said this again and again in different words, and your meaning is not clear to me. Let me put it this way: what does it mean to be “the final interpretive authority of Scripture” as you see it? Let me add these comments in the hope of contextualizing this question. The Protestants I know do not deny the church has, from Christ through the Spirit of truth, both interpretive authority and formative and corrective disciplinary authority over individual interpretation: individual interpretation is affirmed but is done properly in covenant community where the Spirit and His gifts are operative. Protestants, then, would affirm that, to safeguard the integrity of the church’s confession (interpretation), Christ has given her the authority to admit into her fellowship all who agree to submit themselves to Christian discipleship according to her confession (interpretation), and the authority to exclude from her fellowship all who will not agree to do so. Having affirmed this authority, Protestants also observe that the church is not infallible in its exercise of authority, for Scripture itself amply attests to its interpretive and disciplinary failures throughout the Testaments. Where, then, does this leave us?
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 25, 2009 at 9:54 pm
RFW,
After debating with Bryan for the last year, I think I can state what he means when he says that Protestants make ourselves the final interpretive authority (not that he can’t answer for himself, but perhaps hearing it said in a different way will help clarify his position).
The reason Bryan says that we make ourselves the final interpretive authority is because the Reformed churches to which we submit are not in and of themselves authoritative (as in, we don’t expect United Methodists to obey our ruling elders since they haven’t voluntarily submitted to them). Rather, our churches are only authoritative for those who have decided to join them. Who, Bryan asks, joins our Reformed churches? Well, those people who are in a good measure of agreement with those churches. So we read Scripture and deduce its main doctrines and then find a church that conforms to what we believe, for the most part.
“But you do the same thing!” we scream. No, Bryan says, we don’t. The Catholic convert did not align with Rome for the same reasons we align with Geneva. Rather, he says, the Catholic becomes convinced (yes, through use of his reason and will) that the church that Jesus founded is still around and is headquartered in Rome. So he submits to that church because it’s the church, and not because he has already decided that it agrees with him.
(Can you tell I’ve been going back and forth with these fellas for some time?!)
And for what it’s worth, I see a lot of question-begging going on from our side of this discussion. I wouldn’t have thought so a year ago, but having been dialoging with Catholics for so long, I can see things from their perspecive in a way that I couldn’t before. This is why I am happy to see the recent interaction with the fathers like Tertullian, for I think it can help avoid question-begging to bring the discussion back to a period when we were both on the same team, so to speak. If we both think the fathers are ours, then let’s go ad fontes and see what they said. But simply saying things like, “Well, Rome anathematized the gospel at Trent” may be a good way to convert the choir, but it doesn’t further constructive dialogue in any way, since all it amounts to is faulting Catholics for not affirming sola fide (or, for not being more Protestant).
So I am happy to listen to men like John Bugay and Sean, since I am not a patristics scholar, nor to I play one on TV.
Bryan Cross said,
August 25, 2009 at 10:06 pm
rfwhite,
Re: #510,
You have alleged, “The Protestant makes himself the final interpretive authority of Scripture.” You have said this again and again in different words, and your meaning is not clear to me.
For a Protestant, the Church and tradition and creeds all have only derived authority. Derived authority means that they only have authority insofar as they conform to his interpretation of Scripture. He is not obligated to conform his interpretation to that of the Church; rather, the Church is picked out precisely by his own determination from Scripture of the marks of the Church.
The Protestants I know do not deny the church has, from Christ through the Spirit of truth, both interpretive authority and formative and corrective disciplinary authority over individual interpretation:
Correct. But notice how they define ‘church’. (I began to explain in this comment #5.) They define ‘church’ by using their own interpretation of Scripture (as influenced by whatever particular traditions have played a role in their formation), to find that denomination or broader tradition that seems to match most closely their interpretation of Scripture. If what they refer to as ‘church’ deviates too far from what they think church should be (according to their own interpretation), they leave, and find another congregation/denomination that is a better fit. We’re so used to this, that we don’t even see it for what it is. We *expect* to see different denominational church signs on every other street corner. We don’t see this as a myriad of schisms, each satisfying a demand niche in the ecclesial consumerism market, in fulfillment of what St. Paul predicts in 2 Tim 4:3.
Protestants, then, would affirm that, to safeguard the integrity of the church’s confession (interpretation), Christ has given her the authority to admit into her fellowship all who agree to submit themselves to Christian discipleship according to her confession (interpretation), and the authority to exclude from her fellowship all who will not agree to do so.
They have done this only after departing from the Catholic Church in the 16th century, by appealing to their own interpretation of Scripture. They left the Church in which they had all been baptized, started various ‘churches’ that agreed with their own interpretation, and then required all their members to submit to their ‘church’. The first Protestant leaders didn’t submit to their Catholic bishops, but they required their followers to submit to them. That ad hoc. You can’t separate Protestantism from its origins. What it is by its very essence lies in how it came to be. And from the Catholic point of view, Protestantism came to be by individuals appealing to their own interpretation of Scripture to justify defying the established Church authorities, redefining ‘Church’ according to their own interpretation, and then requiring those who followed them to submit. Of course that pattern is familiar to Protestants. That’s why there are thousands of Protestant denominations, because the individual taking to himself final interpretive authority is part of the essence of Protestantism, that by which it came into being and remains in being.
Having affirmed this authority, Protestants also observe that the church is not infallible in its exercise of authority, for Scripture itself amply attests to its interpretive and disciplinary failures throughout the Testaments. Where, then, does this leave us?
We need to distinguish two possible ways in which something can be infallible. A thing can be infallible absolutely, that is, always and everywhere protected from making any error. Or, it can be infallible in a qualified or restricted sense. If we don’t make this distinction, then it easy to think that the only alternative to absolute infallibility is absolute fallibility, i.e. the absence always and everywhere of protection from making any error. But the notion that the Church is absolutely fallible, as I showed in the last two paragraphs of #394, is what entails that the individual holds final interpretive authority. The Catholic position is not that the Magisterium is absolutely infallible, but only infallible in a qualified sense. When the Magisterium of the Church proposes a teaching of faith or morals as definitively to be held by all the faithful, then she is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. But in her other actions (e.g. discipline, canon law, liturgical stipulation), she is not necessarily protected from error. Because of this gift of qualified infallibility, she retains magisterial/interpretive authority over the individual. If the Magisterium did not have at least qualified infallibility, the individual would have final interpretive authority, and we would all be Protestants.
(And Jason’s latest comment accurately describes the Catholic point of view.)
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 25, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Sean,
I want to return to the discussion of Tertullian on the Eucharist. Here’s the way the dialogue seemed to go from my perspective (and please correct me if I’m wrong):
Sean: “Tertullian clearly taught that the bread was Jesus’ actual body, as this citation demonstrates.”
Others: “Well, in that citation Tertullian explicitly says that the bread is a figure of Jesus’ body, which we also believe.”
Sean: “Well, the Catholic church does teach that the Eucharist is a figure or symbol of our unity in Christ.”
Others: “But that’s not what you originally claimed. Your quote from Tertullian proves our view, not yours.”
Sean: “Augustine said it’s a sin not to adore the host.”
Look, I’m not saying you haven’t made some valid points here (such as your point about Tertullian and succession), but on this one it looks like you got caught and then started to employ backtracking and smokescreens.
Care to clarify?
Bob S said,
August 25, 2009 at 11:02 pm
374 Bryan,
Materially Rome does not believe in derived authority. After a hurried perusal of Scripture, only long enough to ascertain that she is infallible, the bit is in her teeth and she is off and running. Protestantism as well as segments of Rome, for egs. the ultra montane French no? at one time, assert the validity and authority of a multitude of counselors as found in the fallible councils of the church, who in light of Scripture, make application and draw out its teaching, which in turn are correctable by other councils. With Trent, if not Vatican I, Rome trampled on the light of Scripture, if not exalted the pope to infallibility over and above her infallible Trent.
392 Perry, your response is simply pathetic however verbose and longwinded.
Forget about Luther at Worms. What about Christ, Peter, John, Paul, Stephen and the rest of the apostles, disciples and early church? They all opposed the religious authorities of the day. Likewise Jeremiah and Micaiah. What gives?
And you should know as well as anybody that Laud and EO are bosom buddies of Rome, in that they all exalt and worship tradition as the supreme authority, i.e. deity.
As for academia, I got no complaints, only that Bryan’s criticisms apply to Rome just as well as academia. Somehow that got conveniently overlooked in your reply.
As for Matt. 16, my interpretation at least appeals to Scripture and context to overturn the nominal Roman appeal to Scripture and the example of Peter. What more do you want? Eggs in your beer, as we used to say on the playground in elementary school? Because it is elementary. Rome can be easily shown to be a decrepit fraud exposed by a minimum amount of yapping rather than the Great Oz it pretends to be.
But if the early church didn’t present a unaminity on the pope, so much for the Roman claims to be the champions of the monolithic tradition and early church fathers. Gone in a heartbeat. So where is her authority now and upon what does she base it?
As for Sola Fide, do you deny that it is taught in Scripture? Oh, that’s right. Holy mother Rome and the EO haven’t found it, so it can’t be there.
I asked the reader to judge, because what does Jesus say: They will haul you into the synagogues and persecute you, thinking they are doing God a favor because they do not believe. Claiming to be the seed of Abraham and trusting in the carnal flesh (accusing those who oppose them as being sons of Korah) chanting that they are the church, that they have the temple, that they are the people of God, they are no such thing. Again if not Christ, Peter, John, Paul, Stephen and the rest of the apostles saw this first hand. IOW grace is immediate. It is not necessarily tied to an institution or Abrahamic/apostolic succession. True apostolic succession is in doctrine and truth, not genealogical and carnal. This both Rome and EO stumble at. As was foretold by Christ Matt.21. The wind blows where it will. So too the Spirit. Jn3.
As for the Jewish canon, if the Jews had reneged on their responsibilities, surely our Lord and the apostles would have said something instead of appealing without qualification to the OT as they did so many times in the NT. The Jews were certainly chided where they had gone off track. As far as the NT canon goes, it is a sticky question, but it was generally resolved by consensus long before the Vatican papa began boasting and yapping, beginning with Leo.
Again, the Orthodox with Rome idolizes tradition. In principle, there is little difference, though the holy father, the pope is not recognized in Constantinople. True, the Reformed held Cyril Lucaris in high regard in their day, but he was assassinated by his own. So much for the Reformation in EO.
Ah yes, we now come to the great divide and material difference: two dimensional icon/idols good, three dimensional statue/idols bad. Huh? Further, that people worshiped Christ when he came in the flesh, is no reason to worship icons of Christ now. Chalcedon teaches there are two natures in one person, without confusion, composition or conversion. So who is contra Chalcedon now, in assuming the communication of divinity to the material substance of an icon, – not of the human nature of Christ, not even the believer in Christ, but a piece of painted wood? Neither do we as united to Christ by faith, ever participate in the Godhead or deity. But both Rome and EO have their reasons and arguments to deny this and worm their way around it, with the pope at least for Rome claiming divine power. IOW your argument is incoherent. I’ll grant you, it is on par though with one of the greatest presbyterian and reformed latitudinarians alive today, one Johannus Framesius: that since there were images on the retinas of the disciples, ergo images of Christ are lawful today, but for my money, you both are on sabbatical from the LSD School of Theology. Sorry about that.
As for Chalcedon, whatever, Muller, Calvin or McCormack say, are you claiming that the West. Confession in Chapt. 8 departs from that tradition?
Regardless, IMO you don’t have a leg to stand on and neither would a centipede, when it comes to the EO over and against Rome, if not Protestantism. The Bible and the Bible alone is the only infallible rule for faith and life. It judges all, churches, councils and fathers, even the little papa
Thank you.
MG said,
August 26, 2009 at 12:04 am
Todd—
You wrote:
“Timothy and Titus preached the same message, but they did not possess the same apostolic authority as the Apostles. The word of the Apostles was the word of God. (I Thes 2:13) Not true of successive pastors; they preach the word of the Apostles found in the NT.”
If Timothy does not have Apostolic authority, why is he included in the Apostolic “we” (1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2:7)? And if Titus does not have such authority, what is the difference between him and Timothy? What kind of authority does Paul attribute to Titus, when he tells him “Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one look down on you.” (Titus 2:15)?
You wrote:
“Luke and Mark were dependent on the Apostles as their source of truth. The aspect of the Apostle’s ministry concerning inspiration is over. They laid the foundation – only one foundation needs to be laid (Eph 2:20).”
Sure the divine inspiration of revealed content is done and over. But this doesn’t settle the question of Apostolic authority being transmitted to successors (see below).
You wrote:
“Well, we are mincing words. If the church authorities today possess the same interpretative infallibility as the Apostles, then in essence the authorities are acting as modern day Apostles.”
First of all, this does not deny Perry’s point. At most what you show is that the Nicene Fathers were inarticulate and foolish for thinking that they were essentially modern day Apostles.
Second, your comment that they were “essentially modern day Apostles” assumes that the only way of being infallible is as an infallible revealer. But this isn’t true, because interpretation and revelation are not the same. If the two are distinct, then there can be infallible interpreters (under some conditions) that are successors to the Apostles without this entailing that they be revealers of divine teaching. The difference is between form (mode of expression) and matter (content). Interpretation is a reformulation of already existing content in a text or tradition; revelation is the introduction of new content into a body of tradition (teaching). Revelation only came from the Apostles; authoritative interpretation comes from the Apostles’ successors, who have divine teaching authority transmitted to them by the laying-on of hands.
You wrote:
“The OT judges resolved disputes by applying the law of God to those particular disputes. The council in Acts 15 was under the authority of the Apostles, who possessed a unique ministry.”
Sure the judges applied the law. But were their judgments and applications more normative than the judgment of those that lacked their authority?
Would you say New Testament ministers have less authority than those of whom Jesus said “do whatever they tell you”? (Matthew 23:2-3)
St. Robert Bellarmine said,
August 26, 2009 at 2:00 am
Bob S:
“The Bible and the Bible alone is the only infallible rule for faith and life.”
Here is the problem- where is this truth found in the scriptures?? You see, the lens you use is Sola Scriptura-where is this doctrine found implicitly or explicitly in scripture? John Bugay keeps on giving me circular arguements.
Andrew M. or Jason S. would you like to have a go?
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 26, 2009 at 2:11 am
SRB,
I think it has been pointed out to you already that Sola Scriptura doesn’t insist on prooftexting as a method of deducing biblical doctrine. So your question has a false assumption. It would be like me asking you to point me to one church father who taught the entire content of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (read: it’s an illegitimate and unfair challenge).
johnbugay said,
August 26, 2009 at 3:36 am
Bellarmine, I don’t believe I have interacted with you at all here. How can you say I am giving you circular arguments?
Paige Britton said,
August 26, 2009 at 4:45 am
Okay, sports fans, if you are just tuning in at the 518th at-bat, here is where at least the Western part of this debate has taken us, as best as I can remember it:
The Protestants began by expressing gratitude for a “confessional lens,” which they find a helpful tool (but only a tool) for organizing and understanding the clear but complex Scriptures. Given God’s infallible revelation in the Bible, plus the Spirit’s work of regeneration & illumination, plus the use of “ordinary means” such as reason & exegesis, plus the checks and balances of one another (including a Scripturally-normed confessional lens), the P’s are hopeful about reaching a sufficient understanding of what God means to communicate to his church.
The RC’s counter that this is a biblicist approach, and that God never intended for the Scriptures to be read and interpreted apart from the infallible input of the Magisterium. Divinely guided teachers in apostolic succession are necessary in order to keep truth unified, as is made plain by the appalling abundance of individualist Protestant interpretations.
While weeping over the arrogance and ignorance behind so many Protestant divisions, the P’s respond that the RC position presents some apparent epistemological and historical difficulties; for example:
1. How do fallible interpreters know that their understanding of the RCC’s infallible interpretation is sound?
2. What is it that would convince a non-Catholic individual’s conscience that the Magisterium indeed offers infallible interpretations? (Does one take their word for it? Find it in Scripture? – but the individual’s ability to understand revelation without the guidance of the Magisterium is in doubt!)
3. What to do with the multiplicity of RC interpretations of Bible passages and doctrines over time and across the world?
In addressing these and other questions, the RC’s rejoin that he P’s should not be ridiculous, of course human reason is adequate to understand texts, be they ex cathedra pronouncements or the Bible itself. But if you are reading the latter, just make sure at the end of the day that you have not brought home any new friends who would not be sanctioned by the Church. (And, by the way, you are defining “Church” incorrectly – not to mention “holy,” “catholic,” and “apostolic”!)
Which leads me to one last speculative thought, here: Let’s say I am a RC layperson with a Bible. What, exactly, shall I do with this Bible? On the one hand, it’s a text, and I understand that I can understand texts reasonably well, if I read carefully. In fact, I could go ahead and really STUDY this text if I wish to, carefully following arguments such as Paul’s in Romans, and noting implications and connections and the writer’s own definitions of his terms.
But on the other hand, as a RC I am conscience-bound to make sure that I do not stray from the official teaching of the RCC at any point. Since I do not have a priest at my elbow (let alone a bishop or the pope!) checking my interpretation of every word and phrase and verse, perhaps I should purchase a set of officially-sanctioned RC commentaries? (And perhaps I should just read the commentaries? [The rabbis went in this direction! One only has so much reading time!])
Or perhaps I should wait until I have heard a series of RC expository sermons on each biblical book before I open it, taking really good notes? (Would I be waiting a pretty long time?)
Or perhaps I should just give up the attempt to study the Scriptures in depth for myself, instead trusting wholeheartedly that the indefectible Magisterium has the last word on the Word, whatever it is, and I can leave it all up to them?
It does not seem, at the end of the day, that the RC view offers much practical hope (or motivation) at all for a layperson ever to seriously read the Bible for herself, despite protests that our brains function well enough to understand even these texts adequately. I would think that there are too many layers, too many warning stickers, too many possibilities for error, for a conscientious RC layperson ever to begin the daunting task of Scripture study while desiring to stay within the limits of the Magisterium’s interpretations (though I can see where occasionally reading a few devotional passages would seem safe). It would seem to be much safer and easier just to do what you’re told by those who know more than you do.
And I guess that if you don’t read the Bible at all, you don’t have to worry your head over which lens you are using, be it presuppositional, or Magisterial, or confessional! (– But you may have other worries down the line.)
Paige Britton said,
August 26, 2009 at 5:07 am
From Bryan, #507 — “Internal evidence is evidence that is uniquely available to us once we have accepted the Church’s authority and teachings. Those outside cannot perceive this evidence as evidence. (If an analogy would be helpful, think of the evidence for Christianity that is not available to an atheist, so long as he remains an atheist.) ”
This is very interesting! I have been wondering if, in the RC view, it would take a move of the Spirit to overcome the noetic effects of Protestantism!
Bryan Cross said,
August 26, 2009 at 5:23 am
Paige,
Re: #518,
What, exactly, shall I do with this Bible?
Two years ago, Pope Benedict gave a series of talks on the Church Fathers. In this talk on St. Jerome, he addresses your question.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Sean said,
August 26, 2009 at 5:48 am
Jason.
After promising that I wouldn’t be back I saw your question and since its 6:39AM and I have a minute thought I’d take a crack.
I only focused on Tertullian because this was the father that was being focused on. There isn’t a whole lot of explicit teaching on the matter from Tertullian.
The Catholic Encyclopedia draws out some more however here. Towards the bottom paragraph that begins, “Tertullian’s doctrine on the Eucharist…” In addition, the scholarship such as JND Kelly whom I quoted earlier affirms what I tried, although failed, to demonstrate from the quote I provided.
Admittedly its not best to tackle these questions from single quotations. But there are others that are more illuminating.
A famous passage on the Sacraments of Baptism, Unction, Confirmation, Orders and Eucharist runs: “Caro abluitur ut anima maculetur; caro ungitur ut anima consecretur; caro signatur ut et anima muniatur; caro manus impositione adumbratur ut et anima spiritu illuminetur; caro corpore et sanguine Christi vescitur ut et anima de Deo saginetur” (The flesh is washed, in order that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed [with the cross], that the soul, too, may be fortified; the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands, that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may have its fill of God —
“Deres. Carnis.”, viii
Further, he testifies to the practice of daily communion, and the preserving of the Holy Eucharist by private persons for this purpose. What will a heathen husband think of that which is taken by his Christian wife before all other food? “If he knows that it is Bread, will he not believe that it is simply what it is called?” This implies not merely the Real Presence, but transubstantiation.
johnbugay said,
August 26, 2009 at 5:58 am
Internal evidence is evidence that is uniquely available to us once we have accepted the Church’s authority and teachings.
Paige — you should ask Bryan about the secret handshake.
johnbugay said,
August 26, 2009 at 6:06 am
Sean — Philip Schaff is a much more reliable and trustworthy historian than you are. He says that the early church
Of course, you are not doing this. You are doing something else, and you have a good reason for it, too; likely it is whatever seems to you to suit the needs of the moment. Actual truth does not matter.
johnbugay said,
August 26, 2009 at 6:27 am
I know that you appreciate Keith Mathison, because you are always citing his “Sola Scriptura” study. Here is what he says of the doctrine of the eucharist in the early church:
TurretinFan said,
August 26, 2009 at 6:36 am
Bob had written: “The Bible and the Bible alone is the only infallible rule for faith and life.”
Pseudo-Bellarmine writes: “Here is the problem- where is this truth found in the scriptures?? You see, the lens you use is Sola Scriptura-where is this doctrine found implicitly or explicitly in scripture?”
We suppose that our Roman acquaintance will at least grant us the fact that the Bible describes itself as an infallible rule for faith and life. If he will not grant us that, we can prove it for him.
From that common ground, we simple note that the Bible describes no other infallible rule for faith and life, thereby at least implicitly teaching that the Bible is the only such rule. While Roman Catholics may wish that the teaching was more explicit, they ought as well to accept the implicit testimony of Scripture and to agree with Augustine who said:
– Augustine, Letter 147
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 26, 2009 at 6:46 am
Bryan Cross wrote:
Simply claiming that using Scripture to determine Apostolic doctrine contradicts the first test isn’t very persuasive to me, because there is no logical reason for thinking that it contradicts that test. Vague references to linked material aren’t helpful either. Whether or not your interpretation of Tertullian leads to him contradicting himself: (a) you haven’t actually demonstrated how my position would lead to a self-contradiction in Tertullian, and (b) your interpretation is based on ignoring the context that I’ve already brought to your attention.
Or to phrase things differently, the best hermeneutic is to let the author explain himself – which in this case he does. He tells us how he determines apostolic doctrines in the very next chapter (as I’ve already explained above), which is from Scripture. He actually applies the test he proposed, and in doing so shows us what he meant. Ignoring his explanation (whether or not such leads to a self-contradiction in Tertullian) is really inexcusable.
Furthermore, of course, when you ignore his explanation and then say (in essence) that it would contradict the first test, you demonstrate that your own understanding of his first test is errant. In other words, when you identify an apparent contradiction between “position A” and “position B” you must not simply assume that the first position you held is the correct one, and that the latter one (contradicting it) is incorrect. Instead, you must also evaluate the possibility that your attempt to read Tertullian’s first test as you do is the mistaken portion of the equation.
-TurretinFan
GLW Johnson said,
August 26, 2009 at 7:02 am
I would refer everyone to the action of the Cornerstone Presbyterian Church (PCA) and the recently adopted ‘Affirmations and Denials: A Call to Confessional Renewal Regarding the Doctrine of Scripture’. This is posted over at http://theaquilareport.com/index.php?opyion=com_content&view=article&id=398:affirmat…
Sean said,
August 26, 2009 at 7:16 am
John,
I think we’ve done this before. The extant evidence is overwhelming and confirmed by other scholars all over the place (like Kelly whom I cited earlier).
“Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
“Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity” (ibid., 197–98).
Your quotes are not wrong when they say that there was development in how this doctrine which we commonly refer to as ‘the real presence’ eventually came to be understood.
I have no worries or fears about anybody who is interested taking up any church father at any time and investigating the question. So, if anybody is watching and there are any doubts go to the source.
This conversation has drifited into an almost impossible-to-follow format and the original questions about ‘which lens to use’ came back with a response that is basically ‘just pray about and God will show you.’
One more from Tertullian that I found:
“There is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed (in baptism), in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands (in confirmation), that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds (in the Eucharist) on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God”
The Resurrection of the Dead 8 A.D. 210
The Council of Nicea in Canon 18 calls the Eucharist ‘the Body of Christ’ and is concerned that deacons are offering it without priests.
An Eastern Father, Cyril writes, “The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ.” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
The bread is only bread and then it is prayed over and ‘becomes the body of Christ.’ Compare that statment to the WCOF which calls this truth ‘idolotry.’
And from the Proto-Calvinist St. Augustine of Hippo himself: “What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).
Your faith obliges you to accept that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ.
I believe a topic like this is certainly worthy of its own thread (at the very least) but you the weight of the evidence is overwhelming. It is almost hard to keep a straight face.
Sean said,
August 26, 2009 at 7:34 am
One last thing.
None of the scholarship you cite says anything remotely close to ‘the early church fathers affirmed the WCOF’s understanding of the Eucharist.’ Not even close.
Different fathers at different times emphasized different mysteries behind the blessed sacrament which is completely understandable. The mystery like all doctrines were once delivered but organically developed in the church. Even so, the very first statements we have on it (Irenaeus/Ignatius et al) are so completely realist that even Kelly and others admit it.
Sean said,
August 26, 2009 at 8:20 am
PS. Even the Council of Trent refers to the Eucharist as a ‘symbol’ in a particular context. Are you prepared to accuse the Council of Trent of denying the real bodily presence of Christ in the consecrated elements?
johnbugay said,
August 26, 2009 at 8:20 am
Sean: I think we’ve done this before.
If by this, you mean that you have misrepresented a particular position, gotten called on it, and then skipped on to something else, I agree.
Your quotes are not wrong when they say that there was development in how this doctrine which we commonly refer to as ‘the real presence’ eventually came to be understood.
And note that I had not gotten to Tertullian yet; only second century sources.
You said, i>The extant evidence is overwhelming and confirmed by other scholars all over the place (like Kelly whom I cited earlier).
The saga continues.
Up above, you said of a particular Tertullian quote, “a famous passage,” you called it, This implies not merely the Real Presence, but transubstantiation.
Here is more Mathison — whom you love to quote — on Tertullian:
Again, this is Mathison summarizing Kelly. Totally different from you attributing “transubstantiation” to Tertullian.
And of course, you are trying to weasle out of this by jump into to Nicea and Augustine.
You are right, the conversation has “drifted into an almost impossible-to-follow format,” and you yourself are leading the confusion. I was merely responding to it. (You have still not responded to the fact that Tertullian was not talking about “the Eucharist,” but was responding to Marcion’s docetisism. See my comment #488, or M Burke in 508, and Jason Stellman in 513.)
None of the scholarship you cite says anything remotely close to ‘the early church fathers affirmed the WCOF’s understanding of the Eucharist.’ Not even close.
Straw man. I didn’t even suggest this. I was merely trying to hold your own feet to the fire on your ridiculous claim of “Tertullian taught transubstantiation.”
I will say it again: You are one of the most dishonest, dissembling people that I have ever seen in these discussions.
But this is how Catholicism defends itself, at least from the times of the Jesuits and their well known casuistry. It may be Roman Catholic — in fact, it is exemplary Roman Catholic. But it is in no way Christian.
johnbugay said,
August 26, 2009 at 8:26 am
As for Augustine and as you say, “what my faith obliges me to accept”:
Augustine (354-430): “They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 25, §12.
Augustine (354-430): Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe on Him. For to believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. A babe within, a new man within. Where he is made new, there he is satisfied with food. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 26, §1.
Augustine (354-430): The Lord did not hesitate to say, this is my body, since he would give a sign of his body. See Turretin, Vol. 3, p. 479. See also John Daillé, A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1856), p. 109.
Latin text: Non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere, Hoc est corpus meum; cum signum daret corporis sui. Contra Adimantum Manichaei Discipulum, Liber Unus, Caput XII, §3, PL 42:144.
Augustine (354-430): Not in vain then was the voice of the. Physician as He hung upon the tree. For in order that He might die for us because the Word could not die, “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” He hung upon the Cross, but in the flesh. There was the meanness, which the Jews despised; there the dearness, by which the Jews were delivered. For for them was it said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And that voice was not in vain. He died, was buried, rose again, having passed forty days with His disciples, He ascended into heaven, He sent the Holy Ghost on them, who waited for the promise. They were filled with the Holy Ghost, whom they had received, and began to speak with the tongues of all nations. Then the Jews who were present, amazed that unlearned and ignorant men, whom they had known as brought up among them with one tongue, should in the Name of Christ speak in all tongues, were in astonishment, and learnt from Peter’s words whence this gift came. He gave it, who hung upon the tree. He gave it, who was derided as He hung upon the tree, that from His seat in heaven He might give the Holy Spirit. They of whom He had said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” heard, believed. They believed, were baptized, and their conversion was effected. What conversion? In faith they drank the Blood of Christ, which in fury they had shed. NPNF1: Vol. VI, Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, Sermon 30, §5.
Sean said,
August 26, 2009 at 8:30 am
John.
Peace be with you. My disagreeing with Matthison’s conclusions and siding with Kelly’s conclusions in no way makes me a liar or snake charmer.
Believe it or not John, people who love Jesus and love truth see things differently than you. It seems that this is hard for you to accept hence the constant name calling and calling into question of motives.
This isn’t a playground. We’re all adults. I am going to let my statements here be weighed and measured as they stand.
I hope you find peace.
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 8:41 am
Curate,
If you think I don’t engage the actual arguments, then please point this out rather than baldly asserting such. Usually if this…then that, is a valid form of reasoning called modus ponens in logic. If I argue in that form, I am actually engaging the argument in question. I have yet to see proof that sola doesn’t in fact reduce to solo scriptura. Here is the idea again.
When Luther for example was making his protest, there was no Protestant ecclesiastical structure to appeal to. It was his judgment that trumped that of Catholic teaching authority. Subsequent, all Protestant bodies were formed around the representational and collective judgment of individuals. This is why protestant ministers are on their own principles laymen elevated y other laymen to a functional status. Consequently, no one’s conscience on Protestant principles is absolutely obligated or bound by any doctrinal formulation because all such formulations are a human reconstruction and fallible. They are therefore by their very nature unable to absolutely bind the conscience since qua formulation they are the doctrines of men.
There were a number of points about a lack of Episcopal succession. First, because the Reformers seemed to think early on that having bishops was necessary and then when it became apparent that none would budge, they revised their theological position. Second since there is no historical data of a case of legitimate succession coming through the presbyterate alone, the lack of succession is problematic.
If Scripture included explanations for every passage we wouldn’t really need teachers or commentaries. Secondly, the analogia fide presupposes a correct theological model and set of exegetical presuppositions in order to come to specific conclusions. Without it, you will not necessarily reach orthodox conclusions say on the deity of Christ, which is why Athanasius thought you should teach people the creed first which functioned as a grid for their reading of the scriptures. Eunomians for example were quite adept at rendering consistent explanations using the analogia fide showing that it is insufficient for to reach the proper conclusions if one has improper exegetical and theological presuppositions.
My comment about the authors of Scripture not offering interpretations was in response to your claim that the Scriptures didn’t need interpretation. If that were so, then the authors can’t be offering legitimate interpretations but doing something else. This is a legitimate reductio ad absurdam of your position.
Furthermore, the authors of scripture do not offer interpretations of their own writings in a great many cases, for example regarding baptism. Paul remarks in Galations 3 that those who have been baptized have put on Christ. Well, what exactly does that mean to put on Christ? Do you suppose the Lutherans just don’t read the Bible’s supposed self interpretation?
And even if the analogia fide were sufficient to come to the right interpretation, it in no way follows that right doctrine has its normative force merely by virtue of being correct. Divine statements are normative not merely because God is without error. The Scriptures are not merely without error, it is impossible for them to be in error, indicating that the root question here is one of normativity and not merely arriving at the correct understanding.
On the protestant position, it seems to me, that divine teaching should be able to bind my conscience, to obligate me to believe it even if I fail to meet the conditions on knowledge regarding it. But this isn’t true in principle of any Protestant theological formulation since they are all fallible and revisable and hence no Protestant theological formulae could rise to the level of divine teaching.
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 8:48 am
Curate,
Augustine may defend a strong predestinarian position, but so did Anselm and Aquinas. They aren’t fundamentally different with regards to Pelagianism. Secondly, Augustine clearly includes our works in justification. See On the Spirit and the Letter 45 and Sermon 158.4. for example.
There are a number of points here. While it is true that initially Augustine lacked competence in Greek early on, this wasn’t so much the case in the last third of his career. Second, sola gratia and a strong Augustinian predestinarianism isn’t co-extensive and doesn’t necessarily imply the doctrine of sola fide. Sola Fide then must be defended on its own grounds since one can logically accept sola gratia without sola fide. Consequently, Augustine cannot be used as a witness for sola fide, and Luther admitted as much.
Further, it seems implausible that if none of competent Greek speakers could see the doctrine in a text for well over a thousand years that this doctrine is in fact in the text. There are plenty of doctrines more obscure and difficult such as the Trinity, two wills in Christ, Christ’s human soul and intellect, etc. and yet they managed to teach those doctrines.
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 9:02 am
David G,
I am not sure that appealing to some basic theistic worldview will help and here is why. First, it seems like regeneration produces dispositions in soul and body and not conceptual information. Second, what exactly is basic theistic worldview and what does it include? Does it include some notion of “God in general” as in natural theology? And how is this different from an appeal to natural theology and how exactly does that square with the Reformed doctrine of total depravity? I don’t see how it can.
Secondly, it may be true that atheists can come to the right interpretation, but this only shows that there is some common ground, but not that the common ground isn’t worldview specific and incommensurable. And it seems even if we appeal to general revelation here that this still leaves the point untouched, namely that all exegetical models will presuppose and select for theological content. That thesis doesn’t entail that the reader is aware of the content anymore than when an atheist believes in causation that he endorses and is fully aware and believes in the God that makes a justification for such causation possible.
As to the law of contradiction, isn’t this worldview specific such that while many paradigms employ it, not all can justify their usage of it? Or do you think than an atheist or a Mormon can justify their adherence to the laws of logic? I fail to see how a lack of controversy regarding it, that it is not in dispute implies that it is theory neutral. How exactly does one get from the former to the latter?
And what constitutes a clearer part of Scripture also seems to be in dispute. Take Luther’s defense of the eucharist. He takes John 6 to be explicitly clear and the Zwinglians and the Reformed do not. They take it to be more of a figure of speech. So appealing to the analogia fide doesn’t seem to do the kind of work you wish here.
My point is this. If exegetical methods are not neutral and if the proper exegetical method is necessary for arriving at the correct understanding of major scriptural doctrines, then it will be impossible to derive these doctrines without having the correct exegetical method, and hence theology in place first.
Its true that any document will be required to be exegetes, just as any appeal to facts will require a presupposed worldview and the case of both, the former cannot be justified without the latter. But all that requires is a transcendental type of argument to select for the necessary preconditions for a proper interpretation of the text, not that such a view implies an infinite regress of sorts. So here I think you draw the wrong conclusion.
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 9:12 am
Paige,
Regarding the mapping analogy, you ask if an incrementalist approach won’t work, how are we to compare models with say the text to discriminate between models. At least that is what I think you are asking. I think I indicated that that kind of comparison is not possible in a theory neutral way. We’d first need to find a way to acquire the right model to get to the right interpretation and only in that context would a comparison be possible. It is analogous to the way we have to find the right worldview to interpret the facts regarding the death of Jesus and only then will we come to the conclusion that Christ rose from the grave. On atheistic presuppositions such a conclusion will never be drawn.
You ask if we can compare entire systems. Surely we can, but this act of comparison is always done from within some system. There is no perspectiveless perspective to occupy to carry out that function.
You ask what kind of reasoning process one would have to go through to reach my position. Here is a sketch. This in part will entail finding serious internal inconsistencies and also digging out what the necessary and perhaps in some cases, the sufficient preconditions are for certain theological dotrines. For example, I don’t think one can consistently adhere to Chalcedonian Christology and Calvinistic Predestination or Sola Scriptura and absolute divine simplicity or the FIlioque. It is only because the system adheres to both ends that I can generate an internal critique. Likewise, if divine teaching can obligate me beyond the conditions on knowledge, then if there is divine teaching, then in principle no Protestant teaching can rise to the level of divine teaching since no Protestant formulae meets the necessary or sufficient preconditions to do so. They are in principle ruled out on a transcendental basis.
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 9:15 am
Truth Unites,
Monergistic regeneration won’t work to answer the lens question anymore than synergistic regeneration will since neither of them convey propositional content. They produce dispositions in the soul and body. Dispositions are states, not concepts. Second, if it were true, the Bible would become unnecessary since all the requisite information would come via mongergistic zapping. Third, if this were true, then obviously either the Reformed, Reformed Baptists or say the Lutherans aren’t regenerated and perhaps not elect either. That seems implausible.
rfwhite said,
August 26, 2009 at 9:33 am
511 Jason Stellman and 512 Bryan Cross: I appreciate the help. Forbear with me as I offer an alternative analysis of final interpretive authority and the choice to align with Rome or not to align with Rome. One is a Roman Catholic because he has judged, with final interpretive authority for himself, that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church Jesus founded and he should submit to it if he wants to avail himself of its benefits. Another is a Protestant because he has judged, with final interpretive authority for himself, that his Protestant church is part of the Church Jesus founded and he should submit to it if he wants to avail himself of its benefits. I’ll have to leave it there. Thanks again for the conversation.
TurretinFan said,
August 26, 2009 at 9:49 am
“PS. Even the Council of Trent refers to the Eucharist as a ’symbol’ in a particular context. Are you prepared to accuse the Council of Trent of denying the real bodily presence of Christ in the consecrated elements?”
Of course not … the Council of Trent would be accused instead of anachronistically applying new meanings to old words. Using symbol for something that’s not a symbol is only one such example.
Mike Brown said,
August 26, 2009 at 10:13 am
Jason,
Re: #511
The Catholic convert did not align with Rome for the same reasons we align with Geneva. Rather, he says, the Catholic becomes convinced (yes, through use of his reason and will) that the church that Jesus founded is still around and is headquartered in Rome. So he submits to that church because it’s the church, and not because he has already decided that it agrees with him.
True, but for many confessional Prots (like me) this is precisely one of the reasons we do not feel the allure of Rome. This line of reasoning seems to make the decision come down to a choice of the fathers (for the RC) or Scripture (for the Prot) as the basis for our confession (Trent for the RC or the WS/TFU for the Prot). If the RC claims that he doesn’t read the fathers apart from Scripture, we can also claim that we don’t read Scripture apart from a cloud of witnesses either, namely, the exegetical arguments of the Reformers and Reformed Orthodox. And the merry-go-round keeps spinning.
If we both think the fathers are ours, then let’s go ad fontes and see what they said.
Indeed let’s. But let’s also not reinvent the wheel here and be guilty of “chronological snobbery.” Our tradition already went ad fontes. When we read Owen or Turretin or any of the Reformed Orthodox who were part of the codified Reformation, we see their vast use of them. They knew the fathers and quoted them everywhere, so it seems that they must have been either:
a) ignorant of what they were saying (i.e. unsophisticated),
b) deliberately misusing the fathers (i.e. lying), or
c) convinced that their use of the fathers sufficiently made their case.
After studying the RO for some time, I can safely say that they did not use unsophisticated arguments (and I won’t waste time talking to anyone who says they did), and I am pretty sure they weren’t lying. So, perhaps an important question here is WHY were they convinced that their use of the fathers sufficiently made their case?
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 10:23 am
Andrew M
Since I already noted that Apostolic Succession includes right teaching and that tactual succession as a part of it is a necessary condition for both of the former, it should be clear that a mere line of succession isn’t a sufficient condition for a body to be Christian. But it is a necessary condition. If Protestantism lacks a necessary condition to be a church then that precludes it from being a viable option all by itself, papacy or no papacy.
I am well aware that in many of the home countries there are nominal members who do not for whatever reason take advantage of what the church offers them. That is true and I will be first in line to exhort them and to condemn the inconsistency. Some of this is due to Communism or Turkish occupation for long periods of time where for reasons of pure survival the ethnicity and the religion became conflated.
That said, the situation is no different in principle or degree in western Europe with Protestantism. And I’d say not too far off in being the case in the US. People discover that they can go through the motions of daily life without going to church, which is one reason why the unaffiliated is a growing sector of the US population. That said, I wouldn’t be so fast to claim that this is true for everyone. Even in the most nominal congregations in my experience, there are devout believers, even if they are token. And as far as making no difference, it seems that in say Russia the Presbyterian missionaries now have taken to violating their own theology to attract nominal members. In some places they are putting up icons in the narthex to attract nominal members. So while in such places there are scads of nominal members, the Protestants aren’t exactly acting in a stellar Christian fashion. What difference does the WCF make if Presbyterians are putting up icons and permitting people to venerate them, just to draw members away from the dominant Christian body in the area?
More directly to the point, the difference it makes is this. Certain matters are beyond revision. Debates in fact get settled. It is not like we are going to have another Unitarian crises along the lines of Arianism. But the Reformed did. Why? Because on their own principles their theology is revisable. In the early church after the Acts 15 council, I am sure plenty of members of the church were nominal and went about their daily lives with no significant difference. What difference did the council make to them? The same could be said about all of the major councils. All of that is to note that formal authority to that degree is not sufficient for regeneration. But that doesn’t mean that it is indispensible or untrue, anymore than you think the existence of the “Frozen Chosen” or “Dead Dutchmen” implies the inadequacy of the degree of authority that you think the WCF or other Reformed confessions enjoy.
And it is true that Protestants make converts by the truck load in some of the home countries from the Orthodox. Most of these go into Evangelicalism, lured by their passions, and not to the Reformed. Added to this is the fact that most of them did not have anything like a firm grasp of their church’s teaching or made availed themselves of the means to do so. Consequently, I think you confuse a lack of effective teaching with teaching authority. And in any case, while you may get plenty of people who were nominal, we get just the opposite from Protestantism. We get seminarians, seminary professors, broadcast directors, CEO’s of publishing houses, biblical translators, and philosophers. Most converts from Protestantism to Orthodoxy are better educated and far more committed and hence much less likely to leave than nominal members. They also spiritually reproduce like rabbits. One of them is worth, evangelistically speaking, a hundred nominal member.
Apostolic succession per se, even in Roman theology doesn’t turn on succession from Peter but from the Apostles as a whole. Its quite true that some bishops have been bad. The Orthodox surely have our share of them. That said, I fail to see how it implies that succession is not a necessary condition. Judas was morally horrible, yet he was an apostle and worked miracles nonetheless with the others. And it isn’t as if Protestants do not have their own gems in terms of moral failure and a retaining such persons by the overall system. You don’t need apostolic succession for that.
When I speak of the biblical model, I mean things like ordination by the laying on of hands, that a real spiritual gift was given through such action, etc. Apostolic Succesison and Episcopacy doesn’t of itself require that there be only one bishop in a locale. That is canonical principle, and not a formal part of those doctrines. A monarchial episcopate entails rather that the bishop alone is the source of ordination and the gift received, just as the Father alone is the source of the other persons of the Trinity. Mon-arche=one source. I don’t know of any biblical data or any case in church history that indicates where presbyters and deacons could ordain by themselves and I don’t by the simplistic argument that presbuteros and episcopoi are used interchangeably and therefore presbyters were equivalent to bishops. All bishops may be presbyters but the converse doesn’t follow necessarily. Further, it would imply that all presbyters are apostles which is absurd and also since diakonos is used interchangeably with presbuteros that deacons are now equivalent to presbyters. To think that presbyters can ordain in my mind confuses Trinitarian theology since it posits the Son as the hypostatic source as well as conflating the Persons of the Father and the Son.
And I didn’t say officers should pick one another. The Biblical data is in fact that the laypeople pick and the Apostles and bishops ordain. Electing isn’t the same as ordination in the Scriptures. (Acts 6) Generally, this is how things went, which is why the emperor for example held a veto over papal elections for centuries. So here you are representing a staw man-this is not the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. Secondly, given that the Presbyterians forbade ordination by the laying on of hands for a century, I can’t see how they either preserved the form of biblical ordination or any succession even if it came through the presyterate. As for descriptive/prescriptive line, I don’t think this helps your position if it is meant to stick to mine for the following reason. Suppose presbyters were bishops and vice versa. Why do you take this supposed fact to be prescriptive for all time? Hence your argument can only go through on pain of posing a problem for your own position from which it is launched.
I freely grant that people electing their own officers is biblical, but that is not just what the Reformers did. They had lay people ordain their officers and there is simply no biblical example that I know of in the OT or NT or anywhere in church history for that.
I mentioned the structures in Rome to highlight the point that even if such structures were corrupted, it doesn’t entitle one to set up a new altar and a new structure anymore than corrupt priests in the OT entitled Hebrews to build a new temple. Do you think that what Rome did was worse than worshipping Ashtorath or Baal in the OT?
On the canon, I am grappling your point exactly. You are confusing the material canon inspired by God with the collection of books judged to be infallible by fallible men. If the men who judged the books to be infallible could have made a mistake, then they could have included or excluded books of the canon. And this is exactly how the Reformers argued against the apocrypha. And yes I did state why it would be the case that on Protestant principles the canon is revisable, since the protestant judgment about the canon might be wrong. Make inspiration of the text as strong as you like. Endorse a dictation theory if you like, but so long as the judgment regarding the books is fallible, then it will in principle be the case that the canon is revisable.
We would only know that God was working to select for these books if we already knew which books he selected and which model of providence was right, which is question begging. Second, obviously God didn’t select for all the books Protestants take to be inspired since not all of the Jewish leadership took them to be inspired and in some cases included more. Likewise on the same principle the church took many books to be inspired that Protestants reject. If providence was guiding the church, then God guided it to accept works Protestants reject. (BTW inspiration isn’t tantamount to writing. God inspires authors, authors write the message in their own way and out of their own character and chosen words. Your gloss on inspiration borders here on Montanism.)
If it is sufficient to get the correct understanding, why posit an infallible text instead of an inerrant one?
And in the last century Presbyterian scholars for example argued and tried to have 3rd John removed from the canon given its strong implicit support for episcopacy. (Diotrephes is lower than an apostle but superior to presbyters). And secondly, they did so at the Reformation by removing the apocrypha. And thirdly, it wouldn’t mater if they did so or not, if the canon is in principle revisable, then it is revisable even if it has not yet been revised.
Again, the PCA is not in communion with the main Lutheran body in the US,the LCMS. Why? Is the OPC in communion with the LCWS or the Reformed Baptists? These are main conservative bodies in the US and not just sects. Why aren’t they in communion and made any significant headway on agreement about say baptism in 500 years? Has tradition blinded all of them? And no, if you are PCA for example, the Lutherans won’t permit you to take communion.
Todd said,
August 26, 2009 at 10:25 am
I asked this question before of the Roman Catholics on this list and was either missed or ignored, so I’ll try again. The Lord promised in the old covenant to always have a covenant people from whom the Messiah would be born (Gen 3:15, 12:1-3). He also appointed spiritual authorities over the covenant people; to teach, judge, etc… Yet often these spiritual authorities were corrupt and the corrupt prophets prophesied falsely in His name. In other words, though the leadership was fallible, the Lord still fulfilled his promise of a covenant people and a Messiah from those people. So my question is, why can’t this happen in the new covenant also? Why can’t Christ build his church and the gates of hell not prevail against it, even with fallible authority, not only in matter of morals, but of doctrine? He did it before, why not now?
Thanks.
johnbugay said,
August 26, 2009 at 10:34 am
Peace be with you. … I hope you find peace.
This is another mischaracterization of yours — if you think for a moment that I am lacking in peace or any other grace of God, you are sorely mistaken.
My disagreeing with Matthison’s conclusions and siding with Kelly’s conclusions in no way makes me a liar or snake charmer.
This is funny, because Mathison also cites Kelly’s conclusions. I wonder which of you gets it wrong, you or Mathison.
<i.Believe it or not John, people who love Jesus and love truth see things differently than you. It seems that this is hard for you to accept …
Another instance of bearing false witness on your part. I can and do accept this — I have no need to explain myself to you but I am a part of a Presbyterian church and yet have dear friends among Baptists, Charismatics, Methodists and others. One of my best friends is a devout Orthodox believer.
No, my “calling into question of motives” in your special case has nothing to do with any lack on my part. It derives from the large number of instances of arguing this stuff with you, and having to put up with your constant, as I have said, dishonesty, dissembling, and misrepresentation.
I am going to let my statements here be weighed and measured as they stand.
I’m happy with that. You’ve been called on things by enough people that they know where you stand.
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 10:36 am
Todd,
While its true that Timothy and Titus preached the same message, that is irrelevant and leaves my question untouched and here is why. The question was about the ordination to the ministry. Does everyone have to be ordained to preach? If on the one hand you say yes, then there are clear examples in Acts to indicate otherwise. If you say no, then the fact that they preached the same message will not be indicative that they were of the same ministry as the Apostles.
Second, I didn’t claim that bishops like Timothy were Apostles and had all of the same authority. That isn’t the doctrine of Apostolic Succession but a straw man. The doctrine is, that like the deacons, the bishops enjoy some of the authority of the apostles and continue their ministry.
As for Luke and Mark, while its true that they were dependent on their information from the Apostles, they themselves weren’t apostles, so apostleship doesn’t imply or necessitate the ability to write inspired texts. Again, plenty of Apostles wrote no scripture at all. And the doctrine of Apostolic Succession doesn’t imply that there is new general revelation so Eph 2:20 is irrelevant since I am not advocating such an idea.
And even though the inspiration of Scripture is done with, since not all apostles wrote inspired scripture it in no way follows that if the former is terminated that everything of the latter is, anymore than the cessation of OT prophets with John the Baptist implied the cessation of inspired Scripture.
Luke and Mark were dependent on the Apostles as their source of truth. The aspect of the Apostle’s ministry concerning inspiration is over. They laid the foundation – only one foundation needs to be laid (Eph 2:20).
And no I am not mincing words. In fact I am being precise. It doesn’t follow that if the Apostles have something and it is continued by a subordinate office that the subordinate office is equivalent to that of the Apostle. Were deacons apostles since they took over part of the ministry of the apostles? Were presbyters apostles since they took over some of the ministry of the apostles? Obviously not. And this is demonstratably the idea in the minds of the Fathers of Nicea and Constantinople at their respective councils as evidenced in their writings and canons.
You concede the point on the issue being one of right understanding, namely it isn’t. The matter required in the OT and the NT a judge. Notice that in Acts 15 they appeal to Scripture but it took a judgment to resolve the matter.
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 10:45 am
John B,
On the contrary, the matter of religion is not of trust but of truth, since one can have misplaced trust. And If I can’t trust church fathers, councils and such, so much the more reason not to trust you or the Reformers.
Pelikan’s work depends on the older scholarship of Grillmeier and Loofs. (Pelikan’s work is a survey in any case and is nearly 30 years old.) This has been largely overturned as exemplified in MCGuckin’s work and the last 10 plus years of ensuing scholarship which has now become the dominant position among patristic scholars. Part of the older scholarship was ironically made by Harnack and Catholic historians who wanted to see Leo’s Tome as the decisive text. Leo’s Tome is theologically weaker and hence was seen as moving the council closer to that of the Nestorians. What has been demonstrated is that this is not the case. First because the council used Cyril’s teaching as the touchstone to which Leo’s Tome had to be compared. This is evidenced in the special session and appointed examiners that the council set up to see if Leo’ Tome matched up with Cyril’s teaching and not the other way around. These are facts that Loofs, Grillmeier and Pelikans works either ignore or do not take into full measure. The great irony here is that you are defending a reading of Chalcedon meant to buttress claims to papal supremacy.
Consequently your subsequent remarks are irrelevant. McGuckin is the mainstream.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 26, 2009 at 10:55 am
On the canon, I am grappling your point exactly. You are confusing the material canon inspired by God with the collection of books judged to be infallible by fallible men. If the men who judged the books to be infallible could have made a mistake, then they could have included or excluded books of the canon.
No Perry, you are not grasping my point. The whole point of my various paragraphs was just the opposite of what you try to represent above. The men who judged could not have possibly have made a mistake. I said this over and over again. You agree with me that they could not have made a mistake. The difference between us is the basis for this conclusion. Until you understand this, you have not grasped my point.
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 10:57 am
Andrew M,
In your response to Jason, you remark that ordination of someone in your church (assuming you are Presbyterian) would have to be by the laying on of hands. As I already noted, this is not theologically or historically true in Reformed theology.
As for Rome and the concept of validity, you confuse valid orders with licit orders. Rome says that the Orthodox have valid but not licit orders. This is because the validity of succession doesn’t come through Petrine succession as such. I’d suggest looking a Augustine’s works for example against the Donatists on what constitutes validity. You also conflate monarchial episcopacy with the idea of one bishop being over the others or only one bishop in a locale with the idea of the bishop being the source of the other two lower orders.
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 11:06 am
Andrew M,
So which council which selected the books of the bible could not have made a mistake, that is were infallible?
So now you agree taht the church has infallible authority to judge in some areas but not others?
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 11:07 am
Rfwhite,
While its true that all documents, even infallible ones need interpretation, this isn’t the problem that you seem to think it is. First, if we had an infallible interpreter, while we may continually ask for clarification, it is no less true that a normative answer has been given and a matter in fact settled without possible revision in the future. Second, if we don’t need an infallible interpreter, why do we need an infallible text on the same principle of the problem you posed? Why not just an inerrant text?
And to private judgment, this is not historically speaking the idea of each person judging the truth of the matter. It picks out a normative judgment on the conscience. On Protestant principles no ultimate normative judgment by the church can bind the conscience. The only thing that can do so is the conscience of the individual. This is why on Protestant principles every judgment of a Protestant church is capable of being overthrown by the individual, and it was on this basis that Luther made his initial protest, regardless of the fact that a new superstructure was to be built on top of it at a later date. That superstructure of confessions is the mere joint and representational assent and judgment of all its members, which is why the document is fallible.
So we have judgment at the level of meeting the conditions on knowledge, which everyone does. Then we have a judgment that entails a greater degree of normativity. Protestants ground that in the individual, Orthodox, Catholics and some Anglicans ground it in the church.
This is why if Orthodox, Anglicans and Catholics do the first, they aren’t engaging in private judgment since they aren’t proposing something as ultimately normative on themselves and others. There are two levels or kinds of judgments being made, not one.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
August 26, 2009 at 11:10 am
Me: “Monergism + Sola Scriptura = A Sufficient Lens.”
Perry Robinson, #538: “Monergistic regeneration won’t work to answer the lens question anymore than synergistic regeneration will since neither of them convey propositional content.”
Of course, the term “monergistic regeneration” conveys propositional content. Don’t be silly. Go to a website called http://www.monergism.com and read its many articles about monergistic regeneration.
“They produce dispositions in the soul and body. Dispositions are states, not concepts.”
False bifurcation.
“Second, if it were true, the Bible would become unnecessary since all the requisite information would come via mongergistic zapping.”
Your gross misunderstanding of the doctrine of monergism reveals itself in your poor caricature of it in the statement above. Monergism never states that the Bible becomes unnecessary as a result of monergistic regeneration.
Let’s just assume you had a temporary brain fart.
“Third, if this were true, then obviously either the Reformed, Reformed Baptists or say the Lutherans aren’t regenerated and perhaps not elect either. That seems implausible.”
Okay. Looks like you’re having a long temporary brain fart.
Smells bad.
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 11:14 am
Todd,
You remarks about OT covenant authorities being corrupt. When that was the case, when all those through ordinary commissioning, that by God via other men through sucession, how were extraordinary ministers brought about? By divine direct commissioning attested to by miracle and/or prophecy. This seems to exclude the Reformers.
Secondly, referring the context constantly only to Rome makes it much easier for the Reformed, but the context is wider than that. They also appealed to Constantinople, which wasn’t subject to the kind of gross moral papal errors usually trotted out. Again, it came down to the fact that the Reformers placed their own judgment higher than anyone elses.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
August 26, 2009 at 11:16 am
Perry Robinson: “Why not just an inerrant text?”
And that is precisely what God has given us in His 66 Books of the Bible. Please see the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 11:17 am
Turretinfan,
You wrote”Furthermore, they did have denominational divisions: the Pharisees and the Saducees were the most prominent at the time of Christ.”
I wouldn’t exaclty call them denominations since they all worshipped in the same Temeple regardless of their differences on the canon, the soul, etc.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 26, 2009 at 11:17 am
And for what it’s worth, I see a lot of question-begging going on from our side of this discussion. I wouldn’t have thought so a year ago, but having been dialoging with Catholics for so long, I can see things from their perspecive in a way that I couldn’t before. This is why I am happy to see the recent interaction with the fathers like Tertullian, for I think it can help avoid question-begging to bring the discussion back to a period when we were both on the same team, so to speak. If we both think the fathers are ours, then let’s go ad fontes and see what they said. But simply saying things like, “Well, Rome anathematized the gospel at Trent” may be a good way to convert the choir, but it doesn’t further constructive dialogue in any way, since all it amounts to is faulting Catholics for not affirming sola fide (or, for not being more Protestant).
Hello again Jason,
You asked me a question ealier so I will ask you one. Not too long ago I remember saying some things like you did above about getting back to the words of the scholars of antiquity. But I wonder now. I’ve tried pointing Catholics to the words of various early Christian Fathers particulary in the Sub-apostolic era and asked them to compare them with RCC writings from later centuries. But the problem is that for the RC, the words of the earlier fathers must be compatible with the later ones, in a similar although not idetical sense in which to us the words of (for example) Isaiah must be comatible with the words of Matthew. In the Catholic mindset there is a consensus patrum which is fundamental to their thinking. So is their position potentially falisifiable if this understanding of consensus patrum is a presupposition?
I’m not sure there is any way out of the morass. When we listen to each other we seem to be even more sure than before that the other side has erred in their thinking. But from my standpoint, I know more of the Catholic mindset than I did a year or two ago and that’s certainly something valuable.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 26, 2009 at 11:29 am
So now you agree taht the church has infallible authority to judge in some areas but not others?
No Perry. The Church was never given a gift of infallibility. Is she was, where in the first few centuries did the Fathers say that their collective words were the words of God as Peter, Paul, etc did of the words of Scripture.
The judging of the canon was based on God’s infallibility. Again if God is infallible and he chose the canon through the Church, then positing an infallible Church is purely superfluous. If God works infallibly through a fallible collection of men, the result will be infallible. So here is the criticial point: the infallible result is predicated on God’s infallibility, not the Church’s. I’m not asking you to agree with the last line, just to note that if it is correct then there is no reason to tell us that the canon is revisable given our persepctive. Unless you want to try to make the case that God’s work is fallible (and I hope you don’t want to go there).
johnbugay said,
August 26, 2009 at 11:35 am
Perry — I believe I said something to the effect that “who we trust with the truth” — and I certainly know about misplaced trust, having once been a devout member of the RCC, even of Opus Dei. I am far more inclined to trust the Reformers and the Reformed Orthodox, given who their opponents were.
Pelikan wrote in 1971, and for you to say that he is dependent on Harnack and Catholics for his conclusions is ridiculous. Was it you or your friend Photios who criticized Michael Horton about not reading primary sources? Yet Pelikan offers more Primary Source material than anybody — he came to his own conclusions. (And given that he converted to Orthodoxy, you ought to like his conclusions).
Moffet’s bibliography is 30 pages long. Soro wrote in 2007, and had access to McGuckin, though he cited only McGuckin’s 1996 article “Nestorius and the Political Factions” and not his 1997 work on Cyril. He also cites extensively from the Book of Heraclides.
There is obviously room for more [scholarly] discussion on this. What is notable for me is that it is all speculation about the inner workings of God and Christ.
John Frame (who I know is himself controversial) is on record as saying,
And the question he asks really is, Is this issue really designed by God to be a test of orthodoxy?
You and others have made it so. But in making it a “test of orthododoxy,” the whole “church of the East” was branded as “Nestorian” (even though they accepted in principle the definition of Chalcedon).
And, don’t forget, this is a subset of a “Whose Lens” discussion — are the councils infallible, and if not, why not? (or, look at the objections you have to overcome in order to say that they are infallible).
And whatever you say about Nestorius, Moffett was correct about the council of Ephesus (431): “Its legality is questionable. Its conduct was disgraceful. Its theological verdict, if not overturned, was at least radically amended by Chalcedon.”
What does that say about “councils” in general? Look at them with a wary eye.
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 11:50 am
Truth Unites,
So on your view, the bible is not infallible, but jus tinerrant? Thats a big departure from Classical Reformation teaching.
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 11:53 am
Bob S,
If you think that my response was inadequate, then please show where, because so far as things stand, your responses to me are sophistic at best and paralogistic at worst.
Simply ignoring the case of Luther, Calvin, et al leaves my point untouched that they put their own judgment above anyone else’s.
Second, Christ, Peter, John, Paul etc did miracles, wrote inspired Scripture and gave prophecy to confirm their message as did the prophets and Moses before them. If you wish to compare a supposed commissioning and judgment of the Reformers with Jesus and the Apostles, it is obvious that the former fail the test in terms of possessing a normative judgment anywhere near the latter.
If you think the Laudians were bosom buddies with Rome, then you clearly haven’t availed yourself of the primary source material such as Crankenthorpe’s, Defense of the English Church and an army other Laudian anti-Roman literature. Secondly, if you think the same regarding the Orthodox, it is obvious that the same is the case with the polemical works of say Saint Mark of Ephesus at and after the council of Florence. You won’t find a more exacting critic of the medieval papacy than Mark. So frankly it doesn’t seem likeyou know of what you speak.
As for Sola Fide, Augustine didn’t find it either, andneither did Chrysostom, Cyril or Maximus and they had a command of Greek equal to none, save the Maker.
If the Apostles saw that grace was immediate, why does Paul say it comes through the laying on of his hands? Why did Jesus breath on the apostles? Why did clothes of the Apostles heal? The disparity that you posit between matter and divine power borders on Gnosticism. The Spirit never blows without the Incarnate Word since he eternally proceeds through him and not from him as Protestants like Rome mistakenly teach. Who is the child of Rome now?
The sadduccess clearlydid not accept anything beyond the Law of moses as canonical, hence there was no unanimity on the canon. And besides, why reject the fallible tradition of believing Christians for the fallible tradition of unbelieving Jews?
And the Lucaris confession is apocryphal. If you don’t understand the general prohibition on statues, I’d suggest you actually become familiar with the theology of the 7th council from primary sources before you ask questions about it or make charges against it. So much for ad fonts.
I just asked a question about Christology, which you seem unable to address. Did people worshipping Christ worship his body or was the worship passed on to his divine person? As for images see Paul in Galatians 3. I don’t think the people in Galatia saw Christ crucified except as “portrayed” to them.
As for Chalcedon, that’s nice, but Calvin isn’t Chalcedonian, as I pointed out previously. The Orthodox teaching doesn’t teach that the divine essence is communicated to the icon so here you can’t even represent the teaching correctly. Try reading Theodore the Studite for example. The theology is that the divine energies sanctify the image and the honor and love rendered in act is passed on to the *person* depicted. As Peter notes, we become partakers of the divine nature, the problem is that you accept unscriptural doctrines like absolute divine simplicity that equat energy with essence so it is not possible to believe the scriptural teaching since to participate in the divine nature would be to become God by essence. The problem is your Platonism, not Orthodox teaching
Yes, I am saying that Muller indicates that Calvin departs from Chalcedon. Its fairly clear in the snippet I gave, but there are plenty of others. Calvin’s deformed Christology is dependent on corrupt Latin texts say from John of Damascus for example. Calvin takes the person of the mediator, of Christ to be OUT OF the two natures, which is not Chalcedon, which says IN two natures. Must be hard finding out that you’re Nestorian Bod.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 26, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Perry,
because the Reformers seemed to think early on that having bishops was necessary and then when it became apparent that none would budge, they revised their theological position.
Could you point us to some sources for this early and later Reformed approach to succession?
Thanks,
JJS
TurretinFan said,
August 26, 2009 at 12:06 pm
“I wouldn’t exaclty call them denominations since they all worshipped in the same Temeple regardless of their differences on the canon, the soul, etc.”
Well – since Temple worship is replaced by the “in spirit and truth” worship of the NT, I guess there cannot be denominations.
A better touchstone would be the synagogues, where the denominationalism (then, as in churches now) can be seen more plainly.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 26, 2009 at 12:11 pm
“As for Sola Fide, Augustine didn’t find it either, andneither did Chrysostom, Cyril or Maximus and they had a command of Greek equal to none, save the Maker.”
You may want to read this (link) which suggests otherwise.
For example (to whet your appetite):
– John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 18-45, 27.7
Zrim said,
August 26, 2009 at 12:13 pm
The Catholic convert did not align with Rome for the same reasons we align with Geneva. Rather, he says, the Catholic becomes convinced (yes, through use of his reason and will) that the church that Jesus founded is still around and is headquartered in Rome. So he submits to that church because it’s the church, and not because he has already decided that it agrees with him.
Bryan,
Jason describes your outlook thus and you agree.
But what do you say to confessional Protestants for whom particular adherence may not be as much a matter of the radical individualism and ecclesial consumerism you rightly abhor? What if some of us considered Rome and Geneva and decided, like you, from “an act of reason and will,” that the church that Jesus founded is still around and is located twenty minutes from our driveway; and we submit to that church because it’s the church, and not because we have already decided it agrees with us?
Or, put another way, what do you do with those of us confessional Protestants who still consider that the dogmatic formulations of our tradition are still things we don’t always immediately understand, yet we consider them things into which truer piety grows; or what about those of us who don’t always agree with particular ecclesial actions, yet we endure for the sake of love? What about those of us who have a disdain for ecclesial consumerism and endure a particular Reformed denomination we reckon individually as wayward but as yet still true? What do you do with those of us who remain in certain Reformed denominations while our fellow Reformed brethren cast us as weak and compromising, who don’t seem to understand that those who opt to stay loyal to a bad spouse might need more encouragement than judgment?
I could be wrong, but my hunch is that you consider anyone not Catholic to be categorically guilty of radical individualism and ecclesial consumerism. My problem is that just doesn’t square with my own high view of the church and general experience as a confessional Protestant.
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Andrew M,
Your wrote “The MEN who judged could not have possibly have made a mistake. I said this over and over again.”
Which men were these and were they fallible or not?
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Turretinfan,
Thats called the Word-Concept fallacy. Try again.
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Truth Unites
I didn’t say the TERM monergistic regeneration doesn’t have propositional content, I referred to the EVENT of it. You seem confused. Being regenerated doesn’t put biblical concepts in my head. That’s why you need preachers SENT to preach so people can HEAR. Capiche?
Designating the distinction between dispositions and concepts a false bifurcation requires some argument. So far all I have is your bald assertion. Perhaps you can give me a case where a concept in the mind is a disposition of the will or of some other faculty of soul or body?
You seem unable to draw an inference. IF regeneration put concepts in your head about God, then obviously we wouldn’t need to read a book like the bible to get them, now would we?
And if the EVENT of regeneration put concepts about God in your head, then either God is giving false concepts to some, or not all are regenerate. So either all of the Reformed are regenerate but not the Lutherans or vie versa or the Reformed Baptists are, but not the Reformed or Lutherans since they don’t all have the same concepts.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
August 26, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Perry Robinson: “Truth Unites,
So on your view, the bible is not infallible, but just inerrant? Thats a big departure from Classical Reformation teaching.”
Dear Perry,
Where, in any of my comments, have I ever stated the view that the Bible is not infallible, or even implied such?
C’mon Perry, I know your game is better than this.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 26, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Todd,
Re #542:
Short answer is that the Incarnation and the actual ratification of the new covenant in the blood of Christ has made the salvific relation of being “in Christ” ontologically superior to that same relation as enjoyed by the saints before the Incarnation of our Lord. One implication of this is that the authentic interpreters of the Word of God for Israel were not in the same ontological (hence, not in the same epistemic) relation to the Word of God as the authentic interpreters of the the Word of God for the Church.
The theological category of the “covenant of grace” tends to flatten out (without obliterating) the distinction between the administration of the new covenant before and after the Incarnation. (cf., WCF 7, WCF 27.5) If you are thinking about Scripture and the Church from within that theological paradigm, then no, the Incarnation will not seem to be determinative for the nature of the Church in the manner Catholics claim it to be.
Sean said,
August 26, 2009 at 12:26 pm
TF.
Case and Point. I almost couldn’t believe that you would try to convince Perry of all people that the Golden Mouth taught ‘sola fide.’
Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience.” He shows that not faith only, but a virtuous life also is required, and the consciousness to ourselves of nothing evil. Since the holy of holies does not receive “with full assurance” those who are not thus disposed. For they are holy, and the holy of holies; but here no profane person enters. They were sprinkled as to the body, we as to the conscience, so that we may even now be sprinkled over with virtue itself.
(Chrysostom, Homily XIX on Hebrews, NPNF 1 vol.14. Page 445.)
But wherefore hath He chosen us? “That we should be holy and without a blemish before Him.” That you may not then, when you hear that “He hath chosen us,” imagine that faith alone is sufficient, he proceeds to add life and conduct. To this end, saith he, hath He chosen us, and on this condition, “that we should be holy and without blemish.”
(Chrysostom, NPNF 1 vol.13. Page 50.3.)
Way up in the thread Allister McGrath was quoted proving that the Lutheran doctrine of justification was ‘theological novum.’
It is frankly silly and a little bit insulting to try to demonstrate something from the fathers that everybody knows is not there.
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 12:34 pm
John B.
Uhm Harnack wrote long before Pelikan and Pelikan is quite aware of his views, so it is hardly absurd to say that Pelikan’s views are in some measure dependent on Harnacks gloss. And while Pelikan was a church historian of the first rank, it wouldn’t be the only time he followed the model concerning some event in church history by scholars who came before him.
I agree that Pelikan came to those conclusions, but the conclusions have been shown to have been wrong. And secondly, no scholar has read everything in their field. Its impossible. I know firsthand.
So what Moffett’s bibliography is 20 pages long. So what? How does it follow that his argument is a good one? It doesn’t. Quantity of pages doesn’t imply a good argument.
And Moffett’s work isn’t a specialized monograph on the question of Nestorius theology. That means, its not an indepth analysis comparable to McGuckin’s or a few other works that have some out since then. You are comparing apples with oranges.
If this is all speculation about the inner workings of God and Christ, then why are the Reformers guilty of it too? Secondly, its “speculation” that all the Reformed confessions take to be biblical doctrine derivable from scripture alone. Do you disagree? You’d have to reject all of the Reformation Confessions on Christology and the Trinity.
Frame is not a patristics scholar and he states nothing much more than the obvious. You are citing someone as an authority out of their area of expertise. Nothing he wrote shows that the teaching of the councils is unscriptural, speculative or wrong. So Frame offers you no help here.
And we didn’t make it so all by ourselves. The Reformed agree with us or so they say. So again, your argument is an argument against the Reformers and the last 500 years of Reformation teaching. You are cutting off the branch you are sitting on.
If I should look at councils in the way you suggest, all the more so to take your judgment to be suspicious.
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Jason,
Here are some snippets, The Augsburg Confession as an earlier source notes in part i. art. 22 that bishops are to be obeyed “jure divino.”
Melancthon wrote, “I would to God it lay in me to restore the government of bishops. For I see what manner of Church we shall have, the ecclesiastical polity being dissolved.”
Beza “If there be any (which you shall hardly persuade me to believe) who reject the whole order of episcopacy, God forbid that any man of sound mind should assent to the madness of such men.
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Turretinfan,
Faith alone is not the idea that Abraham had faith and that the declaration of righteous or just or vindicated was grounded in that state of his soul. That is what Augustine and Chrysostom mean. Abraham only had faith at that moment, it was the only virtue he had, and so God accepts it as righteousness. This is why even Trent says that faith is the root of justification. Both Chrysostom and Augustine explicitly include our works in justification after the reception of grace. Augustine for example in noting that we can actually increase in our justice before God.
Sola Fide on the other hand is the concept that faith by itself does not merit divine favor so as a state or virtue of the soul respective to justification it is worthless. But it acts as the formal cause or instrument by which the declaration is applied taxonomically to the agent so they are now classed as righteous. But this new classification is not grounded in, on or derived from anything in the agent. This is why the concept depends on Nominalism, that taxonomies are a matter of will and not nature. That is objects can be classed any which way because there is no common underlying nature. So God can classify you as just, even if you are not so. Taxonomies are a matter of will and such taxonomies group the only things that have genuine reality, namely particulars. This is why it was impossible for Augustine to believe in Sola Fide-he was a realist about taxonomies.
So your citing this passage is an example of the word-concept fallacy. You have to show not that the term was used, but that the concept is expressed. And Chrysostom nowhere to my knowledge expresses the idea of faith as the formal cause of justification and that such a justification is not grounded in the graced state of the soul.
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Truth Unites,
I asked if just being correct was sufficient then why an infallible bible? I was implicitly invoking the principle of parsimony.
To which you responded, if I recall that that is exactly the case.
To which I then querried that you seem to be departing from the Reformation view that the bible is not only inerrant, but infallible. So by implication to your affirmative, you seemed to agree that the bible was inerrant, but not infallible.
C’mon, can’t you do better than this? ;)
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Andrew Preslar,
Ah,here’s a nub. As to the ontological difference in light of the incarnation between the covenants, do you take the ontological difference to be created effects in the humanity of Christ and by extension our own, or to be uncreated effects? How can the divine nature be communicated to humanity given Rome’s doctrine of God?
David Gadbois said,
August 26, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Perry said First, it seems like regeneration produces dispositions in soul and body and not conceptual information.
Regeneration isn’t required. General revelation is available to the regenerate and unregenerate.
Second, what exactly is basic theistic worldview and what does it include? Does it include some notion of “God in general” as in natural theology? And how is this different from an appeal to natural theology and how exactly does that square with the Reformed doctrine of total depravity? I don’t see how it can.
Romans 1 says that unbelievers have knowledge of both God and their sin (and that it deserves death). That they suppress the knowledge to some degree or other does not mean that they don’t know it. VanTil taught that unbelievers ‘borrowed’ from the Christian worldview to live their lives. They denied the truth and lived inconsistently with it, but they still knew it through the light of nature.
Secondly, it may be true that atheists can come to the right interpretation, but this only shows that there is some common ground, but not that the common ground isn’t worldview specific and incommensurable. And it seems even if we appeal to general revelation here that this still leaves the point untouched, namely that all exegetical models will presuppose and select for theological content.
Sure. I do believe that general revelation is not ‘neutral’ and that it carries theological and philosophical baggage.
As to the law of contradiction, isn’t this worldview specific such that while many paradigms employ it, not all can justify their usage of it? Or do you think than an atheist or a Mormon can justify their adherence to the laws of logic?
Who cares if they can justify it or not? Epistemic justification is something philosophers are obsessed with, but it simply isn’t necessary to the actual practice of exegesis or other fields of inquiry.
And what constitutes a clearer part of Scripture also seems to be in dispute. Take Luther’s defense of the eucharist. He takes John 6 to be explicitly clear and the Zwinglians and the Reformed do not. They take it to be more of a figure of speech. So appealing to the analogia fide doesn’t seem to do the kind of work you wish here.
This is where systematic theology (which really is just a way of using the analogy of faith) informs exegetical theology. In cases where there are more than one exegetical option, and no clear evidence in the immediate context to tip toward one option or the other, then your Christology will determine the conclusion.
Its true that any document will be required to be exegetes, just as any appeal to facts will require a presupposed worldview and the case of both, the former cannot be justified without the latter. But all that requires is a transcendental type of argument to select for the necessary preconditions for a proper interpretation of the text, not that such a view implies an infinite regress of sorts. So here I think you draw the wrong conclusion.
Justifying one’s presuppositions is not necessary. Having the right presuppositions is necessary.
johnbugay said,
August 26, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Perry — you are a busy guy these last few days.
You are dissing Pelikan, “whose conclusions have been shown to have been wrong,” by one guy, McGuckin. I’m sure McGuckin is a respectable theologian, but come on, how does the work of any one guy trump (as Moffett says) “the general consensus of scholarship”? You are the one making the argument from authority here.
I trust Reformers on such items as they “speculate” in that they rely quite heavily on Scripture and Scriptural characterizations of God. And honestly, I’m not sure that any of them put a great deal of stock in the council of Ephesus. It’s certainly one of the things I’d like to look into in my lifetime. But I don’t see any Reformed writers giving more than a passing mention it (or Cyril or Nestorius or any of this.)
MG said,
August 26, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Turretinfan–
This is of relevance to your attempt to show Chrysostom believed in sola fide:
“Then that no one should say, How are we to be saved without contributing anything at all to the object in view? he shows that we also offer no small matter toward this, I mean our faith. Therefore after saying, “the righteousness of God,” he adds straightway, “by faith unto all and upon all that believe.”
–St. Chrysostom, Homilies on the Letter to the Romans VII
This shows that Chrysostom thought faith was a morally positive quality that contributed toward justification.
David Gadbois said,
August 26, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Bryan Cross said “Four things” cannot be removed from S, so long as it has 4 members. So do you wish to concede that S is an actual whole, or do you wish to show the principled difference between twelve eggs and S, such that the former is an actual whole, while the latter is not?
I will ‘concede’ that S is an actual whole on the condition that there is a principle of unity among them. You simply listed as an example 4 things that don’t relate to each other. ‘Putin’s favorite hat, the highest point on Mt. Everest…’ and so forth. No relation or principle of unity. But what about a dozen eggs? There is a rather obvious relation there amongst the parts.
So it is a coherent broader category. Such categories need not be, as you assume, self-existent entities that are then populated by constituent parts and groups.
The dozen eggs is also a good example of how the properties of the whole are not identical with the properties of the parts. What can be predicated about the whole cannot necessarily be predicated about the parts, and vice versa.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 26, 2009 at 2:12 pm
In #566 I wrote:
the Incarnation and the actual ratification of the new covenant in the blood of Christ has made the salvific relation of being “in Christ” ontologically superior to that same relation as enjoyed by the saints before the Incarnation of our Lord.
Disregard the word “same”- I was trying to express the idea that the OT saints were “in Christ” in some sense, but not in the same sense that the NT saints are in Christ, but the way I put this bit seems to undermine my main point about the ontological difference between the Church and Israel.
Perry,
Re #572:
If by the divine nature you mean the divine essence, then it seems that Rome’s doctrine of God is the only doctrine that allows us to participate in the divine nature. The means by which we will see God as he is is God himself (cf., St. Thomas Aquinas’ accounts of the Beatific Vision in the Summas). The indwelling Holy Spirit creates and sustains in us the capacities which will lead us to this Vision, which is the end of man and constitutive of eternal happiness. Until that Day we must walk by faith and not by sight, which is to say that the created gifts themselves do not constitute the means by which we will see God.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 26, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Andrew M.,
Re: #555
You wrote of the canon:
If God works infallibly through a fallible collection of men, the result will be infallible. So here is the criticial point: the infallible result is predicated on God’s infallibility, not the Church’s.
How, on this view, is the modus operindi of the canonization of Scripture different from that of the inspiration of Scripture?
tom said,
August 26, 2009 at 2:31 pm
#542 Todd,
Would it be fair to say that since the New Testament is enacted upon better promises that we should expect something different from what came before? The issue is not so much what God can do, heaven knows that He is all-powerful and needs us not, but is what has He bound us to and promised us, namely the Church as a sure guide for salvation.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 26, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Perry,
I should add in response to the dilemma you posed in #572 that the uncreated Spirit, who is God in essence, is the means by which we abide in Christ Jesus, being made partakers of the divine essence, which is an ontological change involving both the gift of the uncreated Spirit and the gifts of the created virtues. This partaking of the divine nature awaits a future consummation, as evidenced by the fact that the process of deification now involves the created virtues of faith and hope, which are destined to give place to sight.
Mike Brown said,
August 26, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Tom,
I don’t think we can say that, actually. The “better promises” upon which the new covenant is enacted is in contrast to the the promises of the old covenant, which, according to Hebrews 8 and Galatians 3-4 is the Mosaic covenant, not the Abrahamic. The promises of Gen 3.15 and the Abrahamic covenant are one in substance with the new covenant.
Todd may be wrong in what he is suggesting (although I am not sure he is), but he is not wrong for the reason you are bringing up.
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 2:41 pm
John B.
It is not “dissing” to note that a scholar has been shown to have been wrong. It happens all the time. It only takes “one guy” if the argument is good. Moffett as you noted was writing before the change in scholarship that I noted. I gave some of the reasons why the consensus has changed and why McGuckin has a better argument. Until you read him or engage the reasons I gave previously for the change in judgment my points remain untouched.
When the Reformers condemn Nestorianism and Nestorius, they aren’t “speculating.” And the language in the Protestant confessions is adequate for generations of Reformed Protestants to take it as dogmatic and authoritative for their own tradition. Just go read Calvin on Nestorius and Cyril and see for yourself how much stock they put in the conclusions of Ephesus. Or ask any of the Reformed seminarians here how far you’ll get labeling Christology as “speculation” or attempting to vindicate Nestorius at Westminster.
Curate said,
August 26, 2009 at 2:43 pm
The fathers usually understand the word, to justify, as both forensic and regenerating, as Rome does.
But not always.
The same fathers often are forced by the exegesis of a passage to acknowledge the proper meaning of the word, which is purely forensic, and to exclude works from it.
Augustine, on Ps 31: If the ungodly is justified, then an unjust man becomes a just one. But how? You have done nothing good, yet forgiveness of sins is given to you.
Hilary, on Matt.9, says: It disturbs the scribes that sin, which the law could not remit, is forgiven by man, for ONLY faith justifies.
Cyril, on John 6, says: Grace justifies, but the commandments of the law condemn the more.
Oecimenius, on Romans 3, says: How does justification take place? Through the remission of sins, which we obtain in Christ Jesus.
In every quote above, works are totally excluded as a ground, reason, and basis of justification. You see that the fathers are not as consistent on this matter as you would like.
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Andrew Preslar,
I don’t see how an intentional union is adequate given that it is still extrinsic to nature and hence an extrinsic relation. Second, a union with the mind won’t make sense of our participation in God according to the immortality of the body. Third, I’d argue that the consensus partum is against seeing the divine essence in the next life, as indicated by Athanasius, the Cappadocians, John Chrysostom, Cyril, and Maximus.
The indwelling of the Spirit really only moves the question since the Spirit is deity. Are the capacities natural or supernatural, created or uncreated? If we participate in or become what is created, how is that the divine nature? If the ontological change still leaves us on the created side of the matter how is that participation in the divine nature?
If deification awaits the future consummation, what then are we to make of the Apostle’s miracle working power or the incorruptible relics and such? What are we to make of the eucharist which according to the fathers is the medicine of immortality?
If faith and hope are created things, are they natural or supernatural? If they are natural, then isn’t grace superfluous? If they are supernatural,how can they be created?
And why would Rome’s doctrine alone permit participation in the divine nature as opposed to the Orthodox? What makes you think the Orthodox view would preclude it?
Andrew Preslar said,
August 26, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Perry,
Throwing a litany of questions at one’s interlocutor is not the same thing as a rational discourse. Interacting with the points I raised about the temporary nature of the virtues of faith and hope would have been better. I suggest that this is not the forum in which to carry on a protracted discussion on this topic, which is what a response to the ten questions you asked in your last comment would require. I did think that courtesy and general credibility demanded a short response to your orignal question.
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Andrew,
It wasn’t my intention to be discourteous. All of the questions process around the same question.
The reason why I would propose not to dismiss this topic is that now after 500 comments we have finally reached the heart of the disagreement, which is where it has been all along-Christology.
It seems to me that the difference in ecclesiology lies here on the question of Christ’s humanity and the nature of the union and if there is any transfer of properties to or change in the humanity of Christ or not. If there isn’t then it won’t be possible to sustain a high ecclesiology and hence the whole position of an infallible interpreter falls apart.
Consequently, deification is the heart of the matter. If the Roman position cannot make a plausible case for it, then there is a problem. It is exactly here with Christ as the extrinsically predestined man that it becomes apparent why the Reformed cannot reach the conclusion of a church that is infallible.
Christ’s consubstantiality with human nature leaves human nature perfectly enclosed and rather autonomous. That is, Christ’s assumption of human nature causes no change in human nature across the board.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
August 26, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Hey Perry,
The Bible is inerrant and infallible.
Now what are we arguing about? I forget.
BTW, does the Orthodox Church regard the Scriptures as inerrant and infallible? Do you?
Todd said,
August 26, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Andrew # 566 and Tom # 578,
Interesting answers, thanks for responding to my question. Since you are finding discontinuity between the covenants with the promise of infallible guides for the new covenant, what do you do with all the new covenant warnings of false teachers who will prophesy falsely in Christ’s name?
Matt 24:24, Acts 20:29&30 (note – “even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth”), II Tim 2:16-18, 4:3&4.
I look forward to your reponse.
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 4:56 pm
TU,
yes and yes.
Bryan Cross said,
August 26, 2009 at 4:58 pm
TF,
Re: #526,
Simply claiming that using Scripture to determine Apostolic doctrine contradicts the first test isn’t very persuasive to me,…
I did not claim that using Scripture to determine Apostolic doctrine contradicts the first test. You claimed (in #506), “How does he [Tertullian] discover the apostolic doctrines? … not by comparison with the allegedly apostolic churches (those with the registers)” That claim explicitly contradicts both what Tertullian says in this first test (see #496), and what he says in the two quotations I provided in the link at #356, where he explicitly denies that we should appeal to Scripture with heretics, without first determining (based on apostolic succession) who has interpretive authority. So when we consider the entire Tertullian corpus, then we can see why for Tertullian the second test cannot be separated from the first, and only takes place in light of the answer to the first.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan Cross said,
August 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm
rfwhite,
Re: #539,
One is a Roman Catholic because he has judged, with final interpretive authority for himself, that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church Jesus founded and he should submit to it if he wants to avail himself of its benefits. Another is a Protestant because he has judged, with final interpretive authority for himself, that his Protestant church is part of the Church Jesus founded and he should submit to it if he wants to avail himself of its benefits.
A key difference that your description does not mention is the *basis* for determining that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded, or that the Protestant denomination is “part” of the Church founded. The latter determination is done by comparing that denomination’s doctrine with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. The former determination is done by tracing the Church forward through history, learning from her history the principled difference between a branch and a schism, so as not to confuse a schism for a branch, and then accepting her doctrine as the framework within which to understand and interpret Scripture. When the respective bases are included, then we see that the two determinations are not at all the same.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew McCallum said,
August 26, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Your wrote “The MEN who judged could not have possibly have made a mistake. I said this over and over again.” Which men were these and were they fallible or not?
Perry – I speak of the men whom God used to receive the canon. Athanasius discuses the practice of the churches concerning these books. Jerome speaks from a textual standpoint concerning what books ought to be considered canonical. You know these folks. Yes, they were fallible. Could they have been fallible in general but infallible because God worked through them? Analogize this to the case of Paul. Could we think of him as fallible in general but infallible when he wrote his epistles because God who was working through him was infallible, not because Paul had been given any special gift of infallibility?
I’m not sure what your points are above concerning the Reformers and the episcopacy. There are Reformed Anglicans and Episcopalians. I worship at A Reformed Anglican church when I am in London. The difference between them and us Presbyterians is not much that I can see. The issue historically is not over an episcopacy per se. It is over the Roman version of the episcopacy.
On Augustinianism and soteriology, we don’t claim the Augustine took just the same positions as the Reformers. But then neither did he take the same positions as Rome. There was very little progress in the West over soteriology between Augustine and the Reformation. Perhaps Constantinople fared better in this regards?
Bryan Cross said,
August 26, 2009 at 5:52 pm
David G,
Re: #575,
The sort of unity had by a dozen eggs [say, in an egg carton] is spatial proximity, as had by a heap of rocks. The members of S don’t have that. If these twelve eggs were each located in a different country, then this dozen would have the same unity as S, i.e. merely mentally imposed unity. This dozen wouldn’t be an actual whole.
But all the denominations, congregations, individual believers and their children do not have a unity of spatial proximity, as does a heap. They are spread out all over the world, like the members of S. Therefore, the example of a dozen eggs does not show that the catholic visible Church (in Protestant ecclesiology) is an actual whole.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Perry Robinson said,
August 26, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Andrew M,
I am not clear on what you are claiming exactly. Are you claiming that by virtue of being inspired the authors of scripture determined the canon? If so, this again confuses the material with the formal. Or are you claiming that later church fathers determined the canon and they were infallible in so doing? If so, with Athanasius for example they also took books you reject as Scripture. So I am not clear on how that helps your position. Further it seems rather ad hoc. Why are they infallible on the canon but not on the Trinity? And what evidence do you have that would lead you to think that they were infallible in “receiving” the canon?
The analogy with Paul is fine, but I’d need a reason from you to think it was in fact the case here with church councils and the canon. Secondly the issue with Paul is regarding the matter of scripture, not ascertaining which works are in fact inspired, which is a formal question.
As to the Reformers and episcopacy, the point was in discussing it with others that it is a necessary condition, even if not a sufficient condition. As for low church Anglicans like say the REC, they retain tactual succession but not apostolic succession, since they deny that any spiritual gift is conveyed and that it is of the esse of the church. Rather they judge episcopacy to be merely beneficial to the church’s existence. If your objection was to the “Roman version” of episcopacy, then I see no reason why you’d object to high church Anglican or Orthodox teaching regarding it. Furthermore, I am not clear on what you take to be the “Roman version” of episcopacy.
As to Augustinianism, on the crucial questions, Augustine is often put forward as a type of historical anchor to show that Reformed Soteriology is not a novelty. I am not demanding that they agree with everything from Augustine, but on the crucial question of what constitutes the gospel, Augustine’s sola gratia doesn’t amount to the reformation doctrine of sola fide.
I am no fan of Latin scholasticism, but I really have to balk at the howler that there was very little progress between Auustine and the Reformation on Soteriology. Not only is it question begging since it assumes that the reformation distinctive of sola fide was the goal to be advanced towards, but betrays a lack of familiarity with the Carolingian theology in Alcuin and other Frankish theologians on up to Anselm and John Scotus Erugena Then we have the scholastics such as Albertus Magnus, Bonaventure, Henry of Ghent, Aquinas, Scotus on up to Suarez. I can’t see how anyone familiar with the writings of these men however wrong they may have been can make the kind of statement you have. See Carlson’s work on Justification in Earlier Medieval Theology just for starters.
Zrim said,
August 26, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Bryan,
At 511 Jason says: The Catholic convert did not align with Rome for the same reasons we align with Geneva. Rather, he says, the Catholic becomes convinced (yes, through use of his reason and will) that the church that Jesus founded is still around and is headquartered in Rome. So he submits to that church because it’s the church, and not because he has already decided that it agrees with him.
And you seem to concur.
But what do you do with confessional Protestants who may not be quite as guilty of radical individualism and ecclesial consumerism as you seem to allege? What do you do with those of us who have also become convinced (just as much through our use of reason and will as you) that the church that Jesus founded is still around and is located twenty minutes from our driveway and about nine seconds past St. Stephens off Wealthy Street, and so we submit to that church because it’s the church, and not because we have already decided it agrees with us?
What do you do with those of us confessional Protestants who consider that even if we don’t yet fully understand every jot and tittle of Reformed dogmatics that a truer piety is one that gradually grows into such an understanding (since the very gospel itself is an alien thing)? What do you do with those of us who lament various ecclesial decisions in our denomination yet stay for the sake of love and unity, and who, for doing so, endure fellow Reformed casting us as weak and naive for conceiving of our church in marital terms and remaining loyal to a wayward (but non-adulterating) spouse?
My hunch is that you regard us—those who aren’t Catholic but are Protestant— as categorically individualistic and consumeristic. But I fail miserably to see why you get to regard yourself as more immune to radical individualism and ecclesial consumerism simply because you’re you and I’m not. To be quite frank, your consistent suggestion that we confessional Protestants are categorically individualistic and consumeristic is pretty insulting to those of us who really do believe, just like you do, that to have God as our Father also means we must understand the church to be our Mother, even when she treats us poorly.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
August 26, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Dear Bryan Cross,
Your iron-sharpener Steve Hays does not want to be guilty of sparing the rod and spoiling the child. Consequently, he has written a post titled “Cross-Purposes” which if you approach with a humble spirit and attitude, you’ll be profitably edified along with having the peace of Christ in your heart towards Steve Hays.
Should you do so, you will then be a blessing and model for Perry Robinson on how to gracefully receive instruction and correction from someone who has taken the time and effort to disabuse you of muddled thinking. Because he is probably next.
(John Bugay, quit hogging the popcorn and pass some over to me.)
;-)
Bryan Cross said,
August 26, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Zrim,
Re: #593,
To be quite frank, your consistent suggestion that we confessional Protestants are categorically individualistic and consumeristic is pretty insulting to those of us who really do believe, just like you do, that to have God as our Father also means we must understand the church to be our Mother
You claim to have “the church” as your mother. From the Creed we know that the Church is “one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” And you claim that the catholic church is visible (WCF XXV.2). Protestantism, however, does not have a visible catholic Church, as I showed in #453 and in the subsequent exchange with David. So you can’t have as your mother what does not exist in your own ecclesiology. (Of course, I do believe there is a visible catholic Church which is our mother; it is the one from which our Protestant ancestors separated almost 500 years ago.) Even if NAPARC were the visible catholic Church that Christ founded, your denomination (the CRC) is not in NAPARC, so you would presently be estranged from your mother.
Instead of being insulted by my argument, the better response is to try to refute my argument (#453). Or, if you find that you can’t do so, you can change your position in one of three ways so as to avoid the argument’s implication: (1) give up the claim that you belong to a visible catholic Church, or (2) claim that the visible catholic Church is the CRC denomination and is only the CRC denomination, or (3) become Catholic.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew Preslar said,
August 26, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Perry,
I also believe that Christology is at the heart of the matter, as indicated in my first, and subsequent, comments. In order to raise my point about ecclesial epistemology, I have posited that the Church is the Body of Christ in some sense wherein “Body of Christ” is not merely interchangable with other descriptions of the Church (e.g. Bride of Christ), nor merely metaphorical, but is the best available form of sounds words whereby to express a peculiar and mysterious fact about the relation between Jesus Christ and his Church.
I appreciate, and share, the desire to “make a plausible case for” this mystery in terms of fundamental theology, and I understand that you believe that the Catholic Church cannot do this, whereas the Orthodox Church can. To pursue the matter along those lines, however, does not seem necessary, in this context, wherein the focus of the debate is fallible authority or infallible authority, at least until the basic ecclesiological position that the Church is the Body of Christ in some real way is challenged by the falliblists.
Curate said,
August 27, 2009 at 12:10 am
No. 595 Bryan Cross said: Protestantism, however, does not have a visible catholic Church … EOQ.
Don’t be absurd. That is possibly the most extreme argument you have made. Just having the word Catholic on your church board does not make one catholic. To you catholicism is synonymous with Romanism, which is possibly why you said what you did.
Catholicism is defined by the real catholic church in a different way – the gospel. The catholic church exists wherever the gospel is preached and believed, and where the sacraments are rightly administered.
Central to the gospel is the pure, free grace of God in forgiving sins. By that most important criterion your sect is outside of the catholic church.
Without wishing to overstate the case, the RCC is seen as a sect precisely for the things that you think make it catholic.
First, there is the raft of doctrinal innovations since the 1000s that the Pope imposed upon the church, such as transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, Papal supremacy, the whole Mary thing, infallibility, etc.
Worst of all is the decree that works are central to the remission of sins, thereby nullifying the cross of Christ, and setting aside God’s grace, as Paul taught the Galatians.
The Creed does NOT say, I believe one holy, Roman Catholic and apostolic church! No, the catholic church is defined, and brought into being, by the gospel itself.
johnbugay said,
August 27, 2009 at 2:12 am
Perry #580: When the Reformers condemn Nestorianism and Nestorius, they aren’t “speculating.”
The Reformers certainly didn’t have the complete story about Nestorius, with Nestorius’s own writings having been, as far as possible, collected and burned. None of them had access to his Book of Heraclides. See Loofs comments on Luther, page 20-21 of his work on Nestorius. I’m having trouble locating any comments that Calvin made on Nestorius.
Whatever those individuals thought about Nestorius, who likes the thought that an innocent person was framed and executed on false charges? Who in our day likes the thought that they’ve come to conclusions without having considered the whole story?
I can forgive you for thinking McGuckin has the right formula — it seems he agrees with you in advance. For some reason (and maybe you can direct me to a source), the Reformed rejected the 5th council.
Or ask any of the Reformed seminarians here how far you’ll get labeling Christology as “speculation” or attempting to vindicate Nestorius at Westminster.
I’m sure, because of their emphasis on Scripture, that the Reformed Seminarians here will far more careful with their understanding of Christology than you’re giving them credit for.
Just so we’re clear, my purpose here is to gain exposure for how the early church did business, how criminals like Cyril were able to build their own little empires with far worse results than even Benny Hinn or Oral Roberts have done (because they also had political power), and generally, to open such things up because sunshine is the best medicine.
And I want to work to clarify the people and events that count for “development” of the papacy — that mockery of Satan which, as Calvin said, “has polluted everything that God had appointed for our salvation” (Institutes 4.1.1.)
johnbugay said,
August 27, 2009 at 2:20 am
Truth Unites… #594: I will gladly share the popcorn with you as fast as my little microwave can produce it.
It’s been my experience though that Bryan Cross stays away from Steve Hays — though Steve has really put his arguments into perspective.
And Perry seems to have done the thing that Steve said he always does, and that is, make everything a matter of Christology and then declare himself the grand champion.
Perry, at least, has the courage of his convictions to interact with Steve.
johnbugay said,
August 27, 2009 at 2:38 am
Sean #567 — … Mcgrath …
You have such a short memory. If you recall this thread:
Ron Henzel is extraordinarily kind there to say that “accuracy” is your problem. You continue to make the same false statements which he so kindly clarified for you.
I am certain your problem is much more sinister than mere “accuracy.”
Maybe if you keep repeating the same false statements with greater frequency and urgency, it will help make them true.
Curate said,
August 27, 2009 at 3:38 am
BTW a little word on Trent contra Protestantism: according to the Joint Declaration on Justification signed by the present Pope and some Lutheran Churches in 1995, Trent did not condemn the Lutheran doctrine per se, but condemned the view that one can be justified without being regenerated. They acknowledged that the Protestants do not in fact teach or believe that one can be justified without being regenerated, but that the man who is justified is also made new in holiness.
IOW they are now saying that Trent is not aimed at Protestantism as it actually is, but at a heresy that both sides condemn.
To confirm this google the Joint Declaration on Justification.
Curate said,
August 27, 2009 at 3:40 am
correction 601. : signed by the present Pope inter alia ..
Paige Britton said,
August 27, 2009 at 5:19 am
Perry (#537) —
Thanks for addressing for me the idea of comparing maps. I would simply note that whenever Andrew M. brought up the idea of “trying on lenses” and evaluating them, he was probably talking about the ordinary task of comparing [Christian] worldviews, not about stripping down to a philosophically neutral stance and comparing foundational presuppositions (without any presuppositions getting in the way of the comparison!). So I would agree that we can’t do any such comparisons in a philosophically neutral way — all facts are interpreted — but simply that what Andrew suggested is an ordinary cognitive task that all of us have done to one degree or another, and that on that level it is a valid description of human activity.
Paige Britton said,
August 27, 2009 at 5:37 am
Bryan, #520 —
Thank you for directing me to that little speech of Pope Benedict. You are right that it addresses exactly what I was thinking (about “What shall I do with this Bible,” if I were a RC layperson — oh dear, that phrase just kicked off a song in my head…) — but only to a point. In this small speech I saw first a high regard for the Bible, and a delight in it, and an exhortation to others to get to know it. But then we bump into a big, glaring warning sticker:
“For Jerome, a fundamental criterion of the method for interpreting the Scriptures was harmony with the Church’s Magisterium. We should never read Scripture alone because we meet too many closed doors and could easily slip into error. The Bible has been written by the People of God and for the People of God under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Only in this communion with the People of God do we truly enter into the “we”, into the nucleus of the truth that God himself wants to tell us. For him, an authentic interpretation of the Bible must always be in harmonious accord with the faith of the Catholic Church. It does not treat of an exegesis imposed on this Book from without; the Book is really the voice of the pilgrim People of God and only in the faith of this People are we “correctly attuned” to understand Sacred Scripture.”
Which is exactly what I was noting — a RC layperson would actually NOT be encouraged to study the Bible in-depth on her own, because there is too much possibility for error. So…..what do RC people do? Buy commentaries? Listen to Pope Benedict online? Go to Bible studies at their church? Read limited passages devotionally? Or not pursue knowing the Bible very much at all?
In my observation, the last of these options is prevalent: the RC people that I know are about as familiar with the Bible’s content as my neo-orthodox Jewish friends are with the Tanakh, which basically means not at all.
johnbugay said,
August 27, 2009 at 6:35 am
In my observation, the last of these options is prevalent: the RC people that I know are about as familiar with the Bible’s content as my neo-orthodox Jewish friends are with the Tanakh, which basically means not at all.
These people don’t matter Paige. What’s really important is that the infallible Magisterium has, never ever, not once in their wittle itty bitty lives, taught an error.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 27, 2009 at 7:11 am
Are you claiming that by virtue of being inspired the authors of scripture determined the canon?
Perry, I really don’t know why you are struggling with understanding me so much. The point we are contesting here is that the Church spoke infallibly when she decided the canon. All I am saying is that it is not necessary to posit such a gift of infallibly. God did not need an infallible Church to have an infallible canon. If you think there must have been an infallible Church in order to have an infallible canon, then why? Remember I’m not trying to disprove the infallibility of the Church here, just point out that it’s superfluous with respect to the concept of an infallible canon.
Roman episcopacy means the understanding the episcopacy outlined in the theology of the RCC. The question is whether there a logical and necessary development between the theology of the episcopacy when it appears at the beginning of the 2nd century with the doctrine of the episcopacy in the Middle Ages. It seems to us that there is little connection.
On soteriology, you have some interesting names in Erugena, Magnus, etc. So was their theology progress or not? That was exactly the question that reformers in and then later outside of the Church dealt with in the late Middle Ages and beyond. There was no dogmatic guidance so who was to say? The latitude on allowable theologies on these matters was massive. There were many many opinions and little to hang your hat on in terms of official theology. The simple statements of Carthage could hardly be expected to guide the sorts of soteriological questions that were being asked in the late Middle Ages. Given this, then what can we say about soteriological “novelties” that did not run afoul of any Church teaching?
Zrim said,
August 27, 2009 at 7:22 am
Bryan,
Re #596: I know you’ll hate this and dismiss it out of hand, but I make a distinction between “denomination” and “church.” I consider that a denomination is a way of doing church, which means that a denomination can do either a stellar, mediocre or shabby job of doing church, but none of those performances affect the essential nature of church which is defined by confessing what Scripture clearly teaches.
But I think you missed my larger point, which really was to wonder why Catholics get to exercise their intellect and will to decide just where the true church is located but Protestants don’t. I gather it’s because Catholics agree with their own conclusion and that’s only because they think they’re right, which means Catholics are functional Protestants but dysfunctional Catholics. Moreover, if to be Protestant and not Catholic is to be, by definition, an ecclesial consumer, what do you make of those of us who endure a Protestant denomination that does church shabbily and resist the temptation to shop denominations to meet our ecclesial felt needs?
Perry Robinson said,
August 27, 2009 at 7:35 am
John B,
Neither Steve nor you it seems have grasped the apologetic strategy I employ. I generate an internal inconsistency in core areas of your theology, such as Christology. You then either have to find a tertium quid or pick one core theological commitment over the other. In so doing, one then has to embrace positions that one’s own tradition condemns as heresy. If I can show a position entails a position that it itself condemns, game over. I don’t simply appeal to Christology and then blindly claim victory.
Steve’s answers usually are on the order of, “Well I don’t believe that part of the Confession, my standard is the Bible.” Or “I don’t have to believe that part of the Confession.” Well the question isn’t what Steve personally believes, but what the Reformed tradition and position are in fact committed to. If Steve has to back off Reformed commitments in this way to defend it, then the point has been made. All of those retreats are implicit admissions that there is an inconsistency at the level of core presuppositions. Just so long as the Reformed claim to adhere to Ephesus, Chalcedon, etc. they are inconsistent embracing the former and a predestinarianism that commits them to monoenergism and other major Christological errors.
Or you have cases where Steve simply ignores the inconsistency such as when I pressed him to give a scriptural defense of divine simplicity or the Filioque where no scriptural defense has been forth coming. And then the most recent where I showed that Steve was clearly wrong, that Adam’s good nature doesn’t render the fall inexplicable on Orthodox principles as it does on Reformed principles. http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/more-jedi-mind-tricks/
Steve said that it was “too long” to address, when it seems he could have pick out the main point and addressed it, and my posts is apparently not any longer than anyone elses that he discusses.Funny how when he has been clearly refuted, its “too long” to address.
But hey John, perhaps you’d like to give a biblical defense of the Filioque or absolute divine simplicity? I don’t think you can show that these doctrines are derived from Scripture and so you are inconsistent with your own principle of Sola Scriptura.
Perry Robinson said,
August 27, 2009 at 7:37 am
John
Or maybe you’d like to defend James White’s claim that the Bible teaches libertarian free will with respect to God? Where exactly is that in the bible?
Perry Robinson said,
August 27, 2009 at 7:42 am
#608 should be directed to Truth Unites and Divides.
Andrew Preslar,
If the ontological difference due to the incarnation is the basis for the difference and hence the lynchpin, it won’t be possible to sustain your claim without at least giving a sketch of what that ontological difference is, how it constitutes a robust metaphysical participation in the divine nature, and how it is conveyed to humanity in general.
tom said,
August 27, 2009 at 7:54 am
John,
“…has the courage of his convictions to interact with Steve.” John, such comments are what make these discussions into a matter of winning or losing rather than a real desire to engage in dialogue seeking the truth in love. To engage the gentleman you mention would, sadly, not be productive. Why? Let’s see, name-calling, personal attacks…is that really what one wants to do with their time? Ahh, yes the internet has so much potential for good but also a lot of potential for bad, namely, the treating of your interlocutor as a computer screen and not a living image of the loving God.
Sean said,
August 27, 2009 at 7:58 am
Truth Unites.
Thank you for linking up Steve Hay’s thoughts. Reading it gave me even more confidence in our position.
Perry Robinson said,
August 27, 2009 at 8:07 am
John B,
Well certainly the Reformed tradition has had access to the information that you allege for quite some time. Don’t you think the better part of a century is sufficient time to revise their confessions and position? For Calvin, try book 2 of the Institutes.
You can forgive me for thinking McGuckin is right? What is that supposed to mean? And you seem to think that is argument is worthless and he is prejudiced just because he also happens to be Orthodox. How then do you explain his convincing along with other scholars, those scholars who once took the older view when they are not Orthodox? This is absurd. If I show you are wrong, you simply allege without basis that the sources are prejudiced. This is an ad hom. Furthermore, if when shown clear evidence to the contrary your interlocutor keeps attacking the source, it is a sign of prejudice on their part. “Don’t confuse me with the facts because I’ve already made up my mind.” I suppose its too important to you to condemn Rome no matter what, even if it requires you to condemn the Reformation position as well.
To my knowledge, the Reformed accept the theological decisions of the fifth council regarding. All of the representative sources that I have seen indicate as much. What makes you think that they reject the 5th council?
And just so we’re clear, I am not defending the papacy, so I don’t know why you keep bringing it up. I am defending the traditional Christology that the Reformed profess to adhere to.
Bryan Cross said,
August 27, 2009 at 8:16 am
Curate,
Re: #597,
My argument (#453, #458, #466) is not refuted by calling the one who made it “absurd” or by calling it “extreme.” I agree that merely having the word ‘Catholic’ on one’s church board does not make one catholic.
To you catholicism is synonymous with Romanism, which is possibly why you said what you did.
It is not true that to me the term ‘catholic’ means Romanism. The word ‘catholic’ means universal, not merely provincial, but for all peoples. I discussed the meaning of this term ‘catholicity’ more here.
Catholicism is defined by the real catholic church in a different way – the gospel.
What is the difference then in meaning between the terms ‘catholic’ and ‘apostolic’ in the Creed when we say “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church”? If you think those two terms mean the same thing, then were those who made the Creed simply being redundant by adding the word ‘apostolic’? Can you name one person in the first 1500 years of Church history who defined the term ‘catholic’ as having or holding the true gospel?
Central to the gospel is the pure, free grace of God in forgiving sins. By that most important criterion your sect is outside of the catholic church.
We too believe and profess that central to the gospel is the pure free grace of God in forgiving sins.
First, there is the raft of doctrinal innovations since the 1000s that the Pope imposed upon the church, such as transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, Papal supremacy, the whole Mary thing, infallibility, etc.
In order to discuss these properly, they would each need their own thread. We would first need to agree on a principled distinction between (1) an authentic development as the Church comes to understand more deeply the content of the deposit of faith, and (2) a novelty. We would also need to agree on the criteria for distinguishing between (1) and (2).
Worst of all is the decree that works are central to the remission of sins,
To which decree are you referring? We believe in one baptism for the remission of sins. Are you concerned that baptism is a work?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
johnbugay said,
August 27, 2009 at 8:17 am
Perry: Neither Steve nor you it seems have grasped the apologetic strategy I employ.
Cooking popcorn now.
Tom #611: such comments are what make these discussions into a matter of winning or losing rather than a real desire to engage in dialogue seeking the truth in love.
“Seeking the truth in love” is not something a Roman Catholic can do, by definition, because everything must lead back to the corruptions of Rome or else it doesn’t really count as “truth”. “Seeking the truth in love” is really a coded designation for “equivocating on words, compromising on Reformed principles, and turning off one’s intellect to “submit” to the magisterium saying “black,” even when one’s eyes see white.” For as Calvin has outlined “those corruptions by which Satan, in the papacy, has polluted everything God had appointed for our salvation.”
To engage the gentleman you mention would, sadly, not be productive. Why? Let’s see, name-calling, personal attacks…
I am the one who engages in name calling and personal attacks. Steve is a perfect gentleman, who nevertheless has point-by-point addressed what Bryan has said in this thread, for example. Steve deals directly with the arguments. In that sense, it would be productive, to help Bryan either clarify his muddled thinking, or else think through what he has done.
johnbugay said,
August 27, 2009 at 8:23 am
Perry How then do you explain his convincing along with other scholars, those scholars who once took the older view when they are not Orthodox? This is absurd. If I show you are wrong, you simply allege without basis that the sources are prejudiced. This is an ad hom.
At some point, I’m just chiding you for taking yourself so seriously.
But seriously, I still don’t know what McGuckin’s work is from you. The only thing you’ve done is to say “Read McGuckin, He’s refuted all the other guys.” I’ve at least reproduced here what the other guys are saying, and why. All you’ve done is present an argument from authority.
I plan on reading McGuckin. And Norman Russell. I happen not to have a job now, and so my ability to get books is rather limited.
Perry Robinson said,
August 27, 2009 at 8:26 am
Andrew M,
Here is why I am struggling to understand you so much. On the one hand you say that the church is not infallible and that the men who canonized the bible, that is, the list you hold to be inspired books, were fallible. Then you turn around and say they were infallible, but just in this instance. Now I want to know who exactly was infallible in this one instance, what council or Father or group of Fathers and when, what year?. And where from the Bible does it teach as much since you adhere to Sola Scriptura?
I understand your argument from parsimony that you think an infallible church is unnecessary, but I don’t think you can maintain that position and here is why. You admit it seems that the church needs to be infallible at least in one instance. So clearly it isn’t unnecessary for the church to be infallible. What we are disagreeing about now is the scope of that infallibility.
I don’t think God needs an infallible church for there to BEbooks that are inspired and hence infallible, but we aren’t talking about what is a necessary condition for God to produce such a thing. We are talking about the necessary conditions for the list of books men have compiled to be infallible and unrevisable. If you think the list of books in say the WCF can’t be changed as listed in the WCF, why not? If it can, then the point is made, you are committed to a formal canon that is revisable. If your church isn’t infallible on this point then it could revise the canon in the future and make a mistake or its revision in the past could be a mistake also.
As to episcopacy, I am not sure what you think is essential to the Roman view of Apostolic Succession. I think you confuse the Roman claims regarding the necessary and sufficient conditions for unity among those in the succession (the Papal claims) with the conditions for apostolic succession. Rome admits that bishops not in union with Rome can and do have valid orders, which is why Rome admits that the Orthodox have valid orders.
So far as I can see, there is nothing in medieval theology per se that would lead you to believe that Rome departed from the earlier views on apostolic succession per se in the medieval period. The idea that only bishops can ordain, that a real spiritual power is conveyed through the laying on of hands, etc. are all the same. So what do you think Rome added in the medieval period.
As to Augustinianism, I am not sure how we get from a plurality of views to a lack of development. Certainly the period you are speaking of matches up more with the latter periods of scholasticism and not with say the period from Alcuin to Aquinas. So I think you are painting with a broad brush. And Orange was lost by the time of Anselm and wasn’t recovered till after. But that didn’t stop the Thomists and Augustinians from protesting against the Ockhamists.
steve hays said,
August 27, 2009 at 8:31 am
Perry Robinson said,
“Neither Steve nor you it seems have grasped the apologetic strategy I employ. I generate an internal inconsistency in core areas of your theology, such as Christology.”
Since I’ve often commented on Perry’s apologetic strategy, he must be suffering from faulty memory.
“All of those retreats are implicit admissions that there is an inconsistency at the level of core presuppositions.”
Perry needs to demonstrate that these are “core presuppositions.”
And the choice of the term “presupposition” is rather odd. Even if X were an article of faith, that doesn’t necessarily make it a presupposition.
“And a predestinarianism that commits them to monoenergism and other major Christological errors.”
Of course, that’s reversible. If predestination is true, then any Christology at odds with predestination is defective.
“Or you have cases where Steve simply ignores the inconsistency such as when I pressed him to give a scriptural defense of divine simplicity or the Filioque where no scriptural defense has been forth coming.”
Another example of Perry’s faulty memory. I’ve repeatedly defined my position on those issues, as well as defending my positions.
“Steve said that it was ‘too long’ to address, when it seems he could have pick out the main point and addressed it, and my posts is apparently not any longer than anyone elses that he discusses.Funny how when he has been clearly refuted, its ‘too long’ to address.”
I never said it was too long to address. But I have more than one thing to address. There’s an order in which I respond.
Perry is making a number of sloppy accusations. Maybe he’s losing track because he spends so much time lately posting comments at Green Baggins.
Bryan Cross said,
August 27, 2009 at 8:33 am
Paige,
Re: #604,
Which is exactly what I was noting — a RC layperson would actually NOT be encouraged to study the Bible in-depth on her own, because there is too much possibility for error. So…..what do RC people do? Buy commentaries? Listen to Pope Benedict online? Go to Bible studies at their church? Read limited passages devotionally? Or not pursue knowing the Bible very much at all?
The options are not limited to (1) not learning the Bible, or (2) learning the Bible on our own apart from the guidance of the Church. The third and correct way of approaching Scripture is to learn and study it carefully and deeply in light of and as informed by the guidance offered by holy mother Church. The more we know the decisions of the councils throughout the history of the Church, for example, the better we can avoid interpreting Scripture in such a way as to fall into a heresy, (the heretics all read and quoted Scripture too), and instead interpret it according to the mind of Christ who is the Head of His Body, the Church. To read Scripture with the mind of Christ is to have our eyes opened, just as Christ opened the Scriptures to the disciples on the road to Emmaus. To read Scripture without the guidance of the Church is to be like the Ethiopian eunuch, who did not understand what he was reading. His answer to Philip’s question represents the epistemic position of all who try to read Scripture apart from the Church: “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” (Acts 8:31)
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Perry Robinson said,
August 27, 2009 at 8:36 am
John B,
I already sketched for you some of the evidence, namely that the touchstone was not Leo’s Tome, but Cyril. Consequently the previous reading that took Leo’s Tome as decisive for the council and hence that it moved the council closer to Nestorius’ position is wrong. If this had been so, Leo’s Tome would not have received the scrutiny that it did. The council had to approve of Leo’s Tome and not the other way around as the older scholarship had maintained. Cyril’s teaching was the standard to which Leo’s Tome had to conform.
So no, I have given you evidence and not just said “read McGuckin.”
TurretinFan said,
August 27, 2009 at 8:42 am
Mr. Cross:
I had written:
You responded:
Thanks for clarifying your position.
Several responses:
a) The second test is applicable in cases where there are no such registers as mentioned in the first test, as Tertullian himself indicated. Thus, your claim that the two tests cannot be separated is rather absurd.
b) You’ve drawn a mistaken conclusion from the quotations of Tertullian to which you linked (Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 19)(Ibid., Chapter 37). He may well suggest that we should not argue with heretics from Scripture (whether he was consistent about that, we can leave for another day) but that is not (in itself) contradictory with him identifying the faith of the apostles from the Scripture (rather than from the churches).
c) Most significantly, of course, even in the passages you quote, he condemns the the heretics from Scripture. For example:
– Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics, Chapter 37
That reference there to “their will and testament” is a reference to Scripture, namely the New Testament. It is by those documents which Tertullian accepts (and Marcion does not) that Tertullian adjudges Marcion’s doctrine to be different from that of the apostles.
Yes, Tertullian doesn’t think that Marcion’s church is apostolic – but it is not simply because it lacks a register: it is (as Tertullian explains) because Marcion does not follow the teachings of the apostles found in the New Testament.
-TurretinFan
johnbugay said,
August 27, 2009 at 8:44 am
Perry #620: Oh yeah right. But I haven’t got a dog in the Leo/Cyril fight. I dislike them both. What has mattered more to me is just exposing how those guys operated.
Perry Robinson said,
August 27, 2009 at 8:45 am
Steve,
I don’t doubt that you’ve commented on my strategy, but you seem confused since commenting isn’t the same as showing it to be in error. Yes, I suppose I need to demonstrate that Chalcedonian Christology is a core presupposition of Reformed theology. I suppose I shouldn’t take their professions of adherence to Chalcedon for the last five hundred years at face value.
Quite true its reversible, which is just to admit the dilemma, you can give up one of the Reformed commitments, but you can’t have both. Thanks for making my point.
I agree you have defined *your* position and defended your position, but not the Reformed position. Where again is the scriptural proof for the Filioque as held by the Reformed again? Just one verse please and something like an exegesis will do.
If you’ve addressed my 2nd reply about the gnomic will and the possibility of the fall of Adam, then please point to it. So far, I haven’t seen anything addressing this from you.
tom said,
August 27, 2009 at 9:14 am
John,
Be assured of prayers for a job.
Bryan Cross said,
August 27, 2009 at 9:24 am
Zrim,
Re: #607,
I know you’ll hate this and dismiss it out of hand, but I make a distinction between “denomination” and “church.”
So do we. From a Catholic point of view denominations are schisms from the Church.
I consider that a denomination is a way of doing church, which means that a denomination can do either a stellar, mediocre or shabby job of doing church, but none of those performances affect the essential nature of church which is defined by confessing what Scripture clearly teaches.
Does Scripture clearly teach that women should not be ordained as presbyters? If so, then why do you remain in the CRC? But if not, then why do the PCA and the OPC think it is?
But I think you missed my larger point, which really was to wonder why Catholics get to exercise their intellect and will to decide just where the true church is located but Protestants don’t.
I never said or claimed that Catholics don’t ‘get to’ exercise their intellect and will in deciding where the true church is. For an explanation, see #589.
Moreover, if to be Protestant and not Catholic is to be, by definition, an ecclesial consumer, what do you make of those of us who endure a Protestant denomination that does church shabbily and resist the temptation to shop denominations to meet our ecclesial felt needs?
One can be loyal to a brand originally chosen on the basis of ecclesial consumerism. Ecclesial consumerism doesn’t entail the non-existence of brand loyalty.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
steve hays said,
August 27, 2009 at 9:50 am
Perry Robinson said,
August 27, 2009 at 8:45 am
Steve,
“Yes, I suppose I need to demonstrate that Chalcedonian Christology is a core presupposition of Reformed theology. I suppose I shouldn’t take their professions of adherence to Chalcedon for the last five hundred years at face value.”
Now you’re equivocating. You’ve mentioned a number of other things as well, such as divine simplicity.
Is divine simplicity a “core presupposition” of Reformed theology? And, if so, which version of divine simplicity is the core Reformed presupposition?
Likewise, you act as if Reformed identity is reducible to a set of historic creeds. But Reformed identity also involves the living judgment of the church, in terms of how the creeds are construed and enforced by the session, presbyterian, and GA (or equivalent bodies in the Dutch Reformed tradition).
Sean said,
August 27, 2009 at 9:57 am
Steve Hays.
Different GA’s interpret the creeds and confessions differently. Just yesterday I was reading the PCUSA’s GA report from 2006 which voted to approve the position paper that called for creativity when expressing the Holy Trinity. “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” can be “Rainbow, Ark, and Comforter” etc.
Is that the “Reformed Identity” or are you referring to other GAs? If the later, which GAs?
TurretinFan said,
August 27, 2009 at 10:08 am
Perry Robinson wrote: “Thats called the Word-Concept fallacy. Try again.”
When one asserts that the word-concept fallacy is being employed, one bears the burden of demonstration. Specifically, when I find a church father using the same exact words to describe his theology as I use to describe mine, the burden is on the objector to show that (in this case) Chrysostom means something different by his words than I mean by mine.
Such an off-handed comment as you’ve provided does nothing to advance the discussion – instead persuading us that you’ve simply got your own ideas of what’s right and will stick to them even when the fathers express not only the same concepts as we do, but even in the same words we do.
Stubbornness is not per se a fallacy, but it leads to the sort of comments we see above, where smoking gun quotations are dismissed by facile appeals to fallacies without the necessary supporting argumentation.
Now, your second comment seems to express a realization of this problem and provides at least some attempt to explain the difference. Let’s take a look at your comment.
The first problem with your analysis is that it employs what amounts to a straw man. Your definition of Sola Fide attempts to make the theological dispute about the relationship between faith and nature and not about the relationship between faith and other human behavior, such as works and sacraments.
Of course the issue of Sola Fide (as a Reformation doctrine) was framed in the late medieval West, not in the modern East. While you might personally object to sola fide because you imagine that it conflicts with a proper understanding of theosis, you are not free to redefine the theological issues in order to accuse us of word-concept fallacies.
Why is Chrysostom being quoted here?
First, it is to point out that Chrysostom viewed faith alone as a sufficient basis for salvation. There’s really no argument from your side on this point. In fact, it seems you agree.
Second, it is to point out that Chrysostom specifically disclaims the need for the Old Testament sacrament of circumcision using an argument that proves the same point as to Baptism. You may not agree that the argument also proves that Baptism is not necessary to salvation, but you ought to agree that if Chrysostom is right about circumcision being unnecessary, then the same argument would apply to baptism. You ought to acknowledge that even if we discover that elsewhere Chrysostom inconsistently argued that baptism is strictly necessary (which we don’t need to address right here).
Third, it is to point out that Chrysostom specifically views the issue is one of declaration of righteousness. You seem to try to argue with this point by stating that what Chrysostom means is that Abraham’s only virtue so far was faith and that “God accepts it as righteousness.” That’s not what Chrysostom says: he says that Abraham is declared righteous.
to which we might add a fourth point now
Fourth, one ought also to note that Chrysostom indicates that these patriarchs mentioned (Abraham, Abel, etc.) offered sacrifices “when our nature was still in an imperfect condition.” (Ibid.) Yet, even at that time, while his nature was still imperfect, God declared Abraham righteous and the patriarchs “gained salvation on the basis of faith.” (Ibid.)
While the short quotation naturally does not bring out every last nuance of the sola fide position (which would be a most unreaslistic explanation), we can see that it does express at least a primitive (less well developed and explained) form of the position, particularly with respect to declaration of a person as righteous and this based on faith alone.
So, aside from your attempt to make our claim something it isn’t, you haven’t substantiated your word-concept fallacy assertion, nor have you properly understood what Chrysostom was writing.
-TurretinFan
steve hays said,
August 27, 2009 at 10:21 am
Sean said,
“Different GA’s interpret the creeds and confessions differently. Just yesterday I was reading the PCUSA’s GA report from 2006 which voted to approve the position paper that called for creativity when expressing the Holy Trinity. ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit’ can be ‘Rainbow, Ark, and Comforter’ etc. Is that the ‘Reformed Identity’ or are you referring to other GAs? If the later, which GAs?”
Since you’re Roman Catholic, maybe you should ask yourself the same question with respect to Catholic identity. Consider, for example, the way in which the present pope has changed his mind on the correct interpretation of Vatican II:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/from-ratzinger-to-benedict—17
TurretinFan said,
August 27, 2009 at 10:31 am
Sean wrote:
I don’t have any misconceptions about Perry’s receptivity to Reformed teachers. Nevertheless, his understanding of Chrysostom could be improved, and I hope I’ll help him in that regard.
You quote Chrysostom thus:
You seem to assume that “necessary” there means “necessary for salvation.” You ought to read the context (here’s a link) so that you would learn that he means that it is necessary for the full assurance of faith.
You also quoted:
Again, the question you should be asking yourself is “sufficient for what?” – and when you look at the context, you may find an answer. I welcome you to read the whole homily (here’s a link) and come to your own conclusion from that, but I’d suggest one reasonable possibility is that he is referring to the Christian life.
Finally, you wrote:
I realize that it may not be only insulting but also shocking that we don’t accept everything that McGrath says on the basis of the authority of McGrath’s name. For the sake of the argument, let’s suppose that we ought to treat McGrath as an infallible historian. Are you willing to do so too, or are you asking me to accept what McGrath says about Reformed doctrine while you refuse to accept what he says about Roman Catholic doctrine? If not, how can it be anything short of hypocritical for you to act insulted when we don’t accept everything McGrath says without question?
-TurretinFan
Perry Robinson said,
August 27, 2009 at 11:02 am
Steve,
If I am equivocating, please show where I am using the same term in two different senses.
Sure I have mentioned other things as simplicity, but so far, neitheryou nor anyone else have given a biblical justification for them. Again, where is just one passage of scripture that teaches that the eternal person of the Spirit is generated from the Father and the Son? Just one and then give a few sentences to justify it exegetical. I noticed that you ignored this again.
Sure simplicity is a core theological presupposition. Can you show it from Scripture alone or did the Reformers just accept it carte blanch from Rome?
Take any version out of the Augustinian tradition, Thomistic, Scotistic, whatever. Hodge is more Scotistic and Turretin for example is more Thomistic, but they are all working within the Augustinian Platonic view. Which one comes from Scripture alone?
I don’t act as if the Reformed tradition is reducible to the confessions, but it certainly isn’t less than such statements is it? No. And what sessions enforce on lay people isn’t the question. It is what they confess to believe and hold their ministers to hold to. Do you really think they are going to let a minister opt out of the Filioque or simplicity, especially in the later case when their ire is already up concerning it due to Open Theist pressure? I don’t think so. Try it and lets find out.
Can you give me an example of a presbytery in the OPC or the PCA that allows ministers to opt out of the Filioque? How about the Dutch?
Besides, it ignores the fact that these Reformed doctrines are not derived from Scripture alone but imposed on the text from natural and philosophical theology.
The fact that the Reformed for 500 years have held to and defended a doctrine which is clearly not derived from Scripture alone, isn’t in Scripture, but part of a platonic philosophical theology that they have inherited shows that not only are they not consistent in their advocation of sola scriptura, but that their lens is functionally a tradition that is employed to interpret Scripture in a normative way.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 27, 2009 at 11:14 am
Bryan,
A key difference that your description does not mention is the *basis* for determining that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded, or that the Protestant denomination is “part” of the Church founded. The latter determination is done by comparing that denomination’s doctrine with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. The former determination is done by tracing the Church forward through history….
(I skipped down from 589, so this may already have been brought up.)
You are correct that there is a difference between the Protestant process of arriving at doctrinal conclusions and then finding a church in agreement, and the Catholic process of tracing an historical line from Peter to B16. But is it not also true that before you (or any convert to Catholicism) begins said historical tracing you must first determine that THAT is how the church is to be identified? In other words, the historical work is only undertaken after you’ve come to believe that Jesus founded a visible church characterized by an episcopal hierarchy in communion with the bishop of Rome, the authority of which is passed down by apostolic succession. So before you even bother to roll up your historical sleeves you have a good chunk of your ecclesiology worked out already.
(I mean, it’s not like you were a happy and content Protestant who, on a lazy Saturday afternoon, just happened to be tracing a successive line of Roman bishops through history for some totally unrelated project, or just for fun, and then realized that this very succession of bishops, in addition to giving you something to do in your spare time, also calls your ecclesiology into question. No, you did the historical work because of prior ecclesiological issues which you worked out from Scripture.)
So here’s the proper analogy between the Catholic and Protestant approaches to finding a church: We come to some conclusions based on our reading of Scripture, then look for a church that we consider Scriptual. You, in similar manner, come to some conclusions based on Scripture, and then look for a church that meets those requirements.
But when it comes to the historical tracing of the line of bishops that you insist separates you from us, that step for the Catholic is tantamount to the step where we open the phone book (read: after some significant Bible study has been done).
Perry Robinson said,
August 27, 2009 at 11:25 am
Turretinfan,
Yes, and I provided justification for the word-concept fallacy claim.
Second, your subsidiary quotes are not from me.
No the burden is on the one making the claim that the concept is the same in both theological contexts. Simply citing the passage isn’t sufficient to show an isomorphic conceptual relationship. Second, I met my burden but you haven’t met yours.
I agree that Chrysostom thinks that at that point, all Abraham had was faith. Everyone agrees on that point. But that isn’t the concept of justification by faith alone. That concept is the idea that faith was not a virtue acting as a ground for the declaration of justified, but rather that it was a formal cause and of itself worthless relative to that declaration, both at the beginning of salvation all the way to the end. That idea is not expressed in Chrysostom’s quote, just as it isn’t in Augustine when Augustine then clearly states that we contribute to our justification after faith. This is how both authors reconcile James with Paul.
If you think Chrysostom teaches that faith is the only formal cause and is an instrumental cause and not the ground of justification in the soul of the believer, please show me where and how he expressed that concept, because so far, the citation you gave doesn’t express such an idea. Merely noting that it came before circumcision does no work since everyone agrees already that faith is the root of justification. Furthermore, it doesn’t of itself exclude baptism or baptismal regeneration for Chrysostom since Chrysostom doesn’t think that baptism is absolutely necessary, only generally necessary so that the absence of baptism doesn’t of itself damn, but its rejection will.
My definition of sola fide is taken from Reformed authors. One of the key point is that the declaration of justified is not grounded in the soul or any state of virtue in the believer as Augustine had thought. Rather it is forensic, it is an alien righteousness, not grounded in the nature of the object to which it is applied. God labels you just even though you are not in fact just. Without a denial that the imputation is grounded in the state of the soul, our actions could then be construed, like faith, love, hope, as contributory to justification. This is what Luther and the other Reformers expressly precluded and this is why the declaration is not grounded even in faith, for faith acts as an instrumental cause only. So no, my description is not a straw man at all.
As I noted before, no one denies that it is about a declaration of righteousness. What is at issue between the parties is the grounding for the declaration. Is it a virtue of the soul such as faith, which is what Augustine and Chrysostom teach or is it not grounded in the state of the person to which it is applied but on a created moral credit transferred to them by and from Christ?
And Chrysostom says that it was on the basis of having faith that he was declared righteous. He doesn’t say that faith acted as an instrument to apply moral credit to him which was not grounded in the state of the soul. There is nothing inconsistent in saying that Abraham is declared righteous on the basis of faith as a virtue. If so, please show me how it is so.
Sure, Augustine notes that we are justified because of the state of our soul due to grace even though the justice is not fully extended in us. If Chrysostom notes that our nature is still imperfect, it doesn’t from that, any more than it does for Augustine, that the declaration isn’t grounded in the virtue he does have so far. You are assuming that the justice we have by virtue of the grace of God must not only be qualitatively perfect, but quantitatively as well.
So I quite agree that the patriarchs gained salvation “on the basis of faith.” He doesn’t say that they gained it on the basis of a declaration ungrounded in their own virtues. The first is perfectly consistent with Augustine and the second is sola fide. So far, there is no demonstration that the latter is expressed in Chrysostom’s text.
It doesn’t have to bring out every nuance, it just needs to express the concept. Where is the concept of sola fide expressed there?
So far you haven’t demonstrated that Chrysostom expressed the concept of sola fide, but only that he thought that our declaration of justified is on the basis of faith alone. That by itself doesn’t express sola fide, because as I noted, Augustine says as much and Augustine denies sola fide. Second, I showed what the two concepts were and how you were simply assuming that the same utterance expresses the same concept and hence was a word-concept fallacy. If you really think Chrysosotm teaches sola fide, can you bring to bear anysecondary authorities among specialists in Chrysostom who judge so? I don’t think you can.
The problem is that it seems you aren’t in fact clear on what the doctrine of sola fide is as a concept.
Sean said,
August 27, 2009 at 11:30 am
Steve Hays.
I wonder if you could answer the question about which GA represents the ‘Reformed Identity?’
TF.
It isn’t even really worthy of debate that Chrysostom did not teach justification by ‘faith alone.’
Luther certainly never tried to show that Chrysostom taught sola fide. John’s language makes any reading into sola fide impossible.
He, like every church father, taught plainly baptismal regeneration for crying out loud.
“For if no one can enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? These verily are they who are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail and the birth which comes through baptism: by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed Head.”
John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood, 3:5-6 (A.D. 387).
steve hays said,
August 27, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Sean said,
“I wonder if you could answer the question about which GA represents the ‘Reformed Identity?’”
i) Notice that Sean dodges the question of how to define Catholic identity when I construct a parallel argument to his objection using the present pope as my example.
ii) I never said the GA represents Reformed identity, now did I? Rather, I said there’s more to Reformed identity than historic creeds. Another factor is the living judgment of the church.
Rephrase your question to accurately state what I actually said.
And while you’re at it, which interpretation represents the correct interpretation of Vatican II?
Bryan Cross said,
August 27, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Jason,
Re: #631,
In my own case, I already had an M.Div. from Covenant seminary and thirty years of studying Scripture under my belt, before considering Catholicism. (When I was a child, my grandmother would give my siblings and me money for every chapter of the Bible we memorized.) But when I began considering Catholicism in my mid-30s, I hadn’t already determined simply from Scripture that apostolic succession was the way to find the Church. If a person doesn’t know anything about Church history, I highly doubt he will derive apostolic succession from Scripture. He might derive from Scripture some sense of passing on an anointing (I saw that all the time in my Pentecostal upbringing). But the notion that he needs to be connected to someone having a succession going all the way back to the Apostles is not something he will likely deduce from Scripture alone. At least, I’ve never met anyone who deduced it from Scripture alone. (And growing up Pentecostal is a great test case, because there are many Pentecostal persons who know next to nothing about Church history. When I mentioned the Church fathers to a relative of mine about ten years ago, this relative, an elder in his Pentecostal church, replied, “Who are the Church Fathers?” He had never even heard of them. I’m not intending to insult Pentecostals; and yes, I’m fully aware that there are Pentecostals who are familiar with the Fathers.)
What provoked me to consider Catholicism, was not primarily Scripture, but Church history. In studying early Church history, and in the Fathers, I found the early widespread practice of apostolic succession and an episcopal form of Church government. So I had to choose between ecclesial deism and apostolic succession. That discovery within Church history placed before me two paradigms through which to understand Scripture and determine the identity of the Church. The sola scriptura paradigm in which the elders are authorized by the congregation, and not by apostolic succession, defined the Church in terms of our determination from Scripture of the marks of the Church. The Catholic paradigm, in which the bishops receive authorization by apostolic succession from the Apostles, defined the Church in relation to that sacramental succession from the Apostles. According to the former paradigm, the word ‘apostolic’ in the Creed means “in conformity with the Apostles doctrine, as determined by our own interpretation of Scripture.” But according to the latter paradigm, the word ‘apostolic’ in the Creed means having the succession of authority from the Apostles, and the charism by which the truth of Christ’s gospel, handed down by His Apostles, is preserved and authoritatively determined and promulgated. Those are two very different ways of understanding that particular mark of the Church, i.e. apostolicity. At some point, I could not longer justify the former paradigm over the latter paradigm.
So while I agree that the historical work of tracing the Church forward through history probably often follows a good familiarity with Scripture, I don’t think that ‘tracing the Church forward’ normally follows a determination from Scripture that some form of apostolic succession is true. Something has to provoke the ‘Bible only’ [or Bible + Protestant confession] person to investigate early Church history more deeply, and find there the concept and practice of apostolic succession. Often that something is either conversations with Orthodox or Catholics (or Anglicans), or reading the Fathers for one’s own edification.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Sean said,
August 27, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Steve.
Here is the issue.
There was only one Council of Vatican II. There were not dozens of different Vatican councils going on at the time. There was one. Anybody can point to its decrees and say, “Yup, this is the product of the council of Vatican II which was called and approved by the bishop of Rome.”
In contrast, in America every year there are dozens of General Assemblies representing dozens of reformed churches. (Notwithstanding elsewhere in the world.)
Since you don’t like the way I asked the question let me ask it this way:
Which of the 30 or so annual GAs represents is the living judgment of the church?
I believe this is a fair question. After all, you pointed to the GAs as being a component of the living judgment of the church didn’t you?
I’ve already stated a glaring difference between my question for you and your question for me. But before going any further about the question you asked, which is valid, I think you should answer my question.
TurretinFan said,
August 27, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Sean:
These drive-by quotations are amusing at best. I see you’ve abandoned the last like the children of fornication and brought forth a new one:
Now, (for the sake of the argument) let’s take that statement at its most literal extreme (ignoring the implications for the Old Testament saints). Does it mention justification? No. It does not.
And when Chrysostom does speak about justification and faith as opposed to works, what does he say? Well, unsurprisingly he follows the teachings of Paul as also the Reformed churches who maintain that truly catholic and apostolic faith:
steve hays said,
August 27, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Sean,
How do you think that distinction helps your case? If there was only one Vatican II Council, then it should be all the easier to come up with one correct interpretation. So, in light of the Dulles’ article on the various interpretations of the Council by the very same theologian, now pope, tell us which interpretation represents Catholic identity? Or is Catholic identity fluid and elusive?
David Gadbois said,
August 27, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Bryan Cross said The sort of unity had by a dozen eggs [say, in an egg carton] is spatial proximity, as had by a heap of rocks. The members of S don’t have that. If these twelve eggs were each located in a different country, then this dozen would have the same unity as S, i.e. merely mentally imposed unity. This dozen wouldn’t be an actual whole.
Spatial unity is only one type of principle of unity that can be in play. If those 12 eggs were the only eggs in existence, they would form part of a coherent, broader category (‘all the eggs in existence’) even if they were spatially separated. Just as the catholic church is all of the true visible local churches in existence.
And that is not even to mention the other principles that unite the local churches – common profession and mystical union and governance by Christ.
This is an extraordinarily weak line of argument. I suggest you just move on.
David Gadbois said,
August 27, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Turretinfan, like most good catholics, Sean has the chronic problem of confusing salvation, broadly speaking, and justification, as well as confusing descriptive conditions of salvation (Christians do good works) and prescriptive conditions (good works don’t *cause* justification).
That is why he systematically misinterprets reams of quotations.
Sean said,
August 27, 2009 at 12:58 pm
TF.
I am not abandoning citations, merely giving more.
Steve.
I don’t get the impression that you are going to answer my question but I’ll ask one more time.
Which GAs represent the living judgement of the church?
I will discuss your question, which isn’t problematic at all, once you answer mine. I fear that if I answer mine we’ll never get back to your question and the conversation will be shifted.
Sean said,
August 27, 2009 at 1:00 pm
David.
We are interpretating justification and salvation in the way the father’s defined them.
The Reformer’s interpretation was a departure from orthodoxy.
David Gadbois said,
August 27, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Sean said We are interpretating justification and salvation in the way the father’s defined them.
Thanks for the assurances. But in order to establish that you’d have to do responsible exegetical work. But you can’t do that when you don’t make proper category distinctions.
Sean said,
August 27, 2009 at 1:08 pm
David.
Its not up to me to prove that Lutheran justification was a deparature from orthodoxy 650 comments into a thread about confessional lenses.
There are volumes written on this and vast scholarship backing it up.
Luther himself wrote horribly about the church fathers for the precise reason that they did not teach what he taught.
David Gadbois said,
August 27, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Its not up to me to prove that Lutheran justification was a deparature from orthodoxy 650 comments into a thread about confessional lenses.
Irrelevant to the fact that you have misinterpreted many of the texts *you yourself* have brought forth on the basis of your failure to make rather basic category distinctions.
Bryan Cross said,
August 27, 2009 at 1:17 pm
David,
Re: #639,
If those 12 eggs were the only eggs in existence, they would form part of a coherent, broader category (’all the eggs in existence’) even if they were spatially separated.
If “all the x’s in existence form ipso facto form an actual whole”, then it would follow that all the left toes in existence form an actual whole, and all the “longest eyelash on each person” form an actual whole. But those claims are obviously silly. But, if it not true that “all the x’s in existence ipso facto form an actual whole”, then the twelve eggs, scattered around the world (and not forming a whole), do not magically become a whole when all the other eggs are destroyed.
It is one thing to share some property or category with other particulars. It is something else to form an actual whole. Wholes and categories are not the same thing. You confused the two back in #472, when you wrote, “Sometimes a category is simply tautological and therefore one cannot coherently remove the whole and leave the parts.” A category is a type, not the instantiation of a type; a whole is not a type though it is the instantiation of a type.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Sean said,
August 27, 2009 at 1:19 pm
David,
Martin Luther – Behold what great darkness is in the books of the Fathers concerning faith; yet if the article of justification be darkened, it is impossible to smother the grossest errors of mankind….Augustine wrote nothing to the purpose concerning the faith; for he was first roused up and made a man by the Pelagians, in striving against them. I can find no exposition upon the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, wherein anything is taught pure and aright. O what a happy time have we now in regard to the purity of the doctrine; but alas, we little esteem it.
The more I read the books of the Fathers, the more I find myself offended…
Source
It doesn’t seem like Martin Luther recognized his doctrine in the fathers does it?
TF,
Check out the link. Luther isingles out Chrysostom too.
David Gadbois said,
August 27, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Sean said It doesn’t seem like Martin Luther recognized his doctrine in the fathers does it?
Irrelevant to your D student exegesis of the Fathers.
Sean said,
August 27, 2009 at 1:30 pm
David.
Charging the Catholic position as being deficient in understanding ‘catagory distinctions’ is just a charge.
David Gadbois said,
August 27, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Bryan said If “all the x’s in existence form ipso facto form an actual whole”, then it would follow that all the left toes in existence form an actual whole, and all the “longest eyelash on each person” form an actual whole. But those claims are obviously silly.
Obviously?
What isn’t obvious is how you differentiate an ‘actual whole’ from a coherent broad category of constituent parts. Nor is it obvious why the catholic visible church must be the former rather than the latter.
David Gadbois said,
August 27, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Sean Charging the Catholic position as being deficient in understanding ‘catagory distinctions’ is just a charge.
I did more than make the charge, I noted the specific distinctions which you gloss over in your hermeneutic.
Bryan Cross said,
August 27, 2009 at 1:49 pm
David,
Re: #650,
Obviously?
So you think that all the left toes in existence form an actual whole? Really? How do you know that this not merely a set of things having something in common, but not forming an actual whole?
What isn’t obvious is how you differentiate an ‘actual whole’ from a coherent broad category of constituent parts.
When you refer to them as “parts”, you’ve already begged the question.
The members of a set do not necessarily form an actual whole. That’s what the example of S shows. That is still true, even if all the members of the set have something in common. Merely having something in common does not entail that they form an actual whole.
Nor is it obvious why the catholic visible church must be the former rather than the latter.
Because, as I explained in #466, an actual whole cannot be removed without changing the world, while in the case of an actual plurality that is mentally united, the ‘whole’ can be removed without changing the world, because it is mentally imposed. You can remove the ‘whole’, and keep the set without changing the world in the least. Given Protestant ecclesiology, the “catholic visible Church” can be removed without changing anything at all. Therefore, it is in actuality only a plurality that is mentally united, not an actual whole.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Curate said,
August 27, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Bryan, no. 614. BOQ: What is the difference then in meaning between the terms ‘catholic’ and ‘apostolic’ in the Creed when we say “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church”? EOQ.
First, it does not say, i believe IN one holy …. it says, I believe one holy …
Be that as it may, we are not going to disagree that catholic and apostolic have different meanings. Catholic means universal. Specifically it means not only Jewish, but also Gentile. That is the biblical idea that the word kat’olos expresses. Once upon a time the church was exclusively Jewish. Since the appearance of Christ that has changed, and now the Gentiles have been brought in together with believing Israel.
Apostolic means the church that believes and obeys the teaching of the apostles of Christ, excluding the Roman impostor, who is not and apostle, and never will be. Apostolic refers to the written word of God, written by the same.
The catholic church was brought into being by the preaching of one man in particular – Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles. He is the person who unites the terms catholic and apostolic. He is the apostle who preached the catholic church into being.
This Paul teaches that when men add works to the grace of God in the cross of Christ, they set grace aside, and nullify their salvation. Read all about it in Galatians. A church that makes works necessary for forgiveness is an anti-church, an anathema, as Paul teaches.
Bryan: We too believe and profess that central to the gospel is the pure free grace of God in forgiving sins. EOQ.
If we believed you we would be in the same church. The official position of your church is not pure free grace, but grace mixed with works for forgiveness, which is an oxymoron, a contradiction.
Bryan: We believe in one baptism for the remission of sins. Are you concerned that baptism is a work? EOQ.
We don’t really believe you when you say that either. We are not calling you liars, but confused. This is the central issue that sparked the Reformation. Baptism gives us a full remission of our sins for the whole of our lives, both in this world and in the next.
You teach that it wears off really quickly, and has to be made new by means of confession to a priest, the mass, and good works. If you were speaking the whole truth, you would say that you believed in baptism and these other works for the remission of sins.
The position of the Reformation is that you deny this article of the creeds by your additions.
Yours
Curate
St. Robert Bellarmine said,
August 27, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Jason:
The main idea is what did Christ say about his Church? The NT are also historical documents. The problem is when you interpret the Bible, how do you know you are right? I know I am right about the RCC, because Christ gives his revelation about the Church through his Bishops.
Calvinists do not believe in secondary causes.–thats the key.
Perry Robinson said,
August 27, 2009 at 2:47 pm
David G,
It is rather anachronistic to read back into earlier periods distinctions that were clearly not made. Second, it is question begging to assume that your distinction between justification ungrounded in the agent and a sanctification that is, is the correct way to categorize the matter. Third, like most good schismatics, you have habit of confusing works per se with works born of grace. Surely no one thinks works per se cause justification or are its ground, but that is not the question, is it? The question is whether works after regeneration contribute to and increase justification or not. I can’t think of contemporary scholars who specialize in Chrysostom who think that he thinks that justification is ungrounded in the state of the agent and that human activity post regeneration does not participate in justification. Can you?
Bryan Cross said,
August 27, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Curate,
Re: #653,
This Paul teaches that when men add works to the grace of God in the cross of Christ, they set grace aside, and nullify their salvation.
This question, of the relation of works and grace and salvation, deserves its own thread. Probably wouldn’t be best to do it in this thread. But, I would be glad to discuss it at some point, with a commitment to charity and respect, with you and my other Reformed brothers.
Read all about it in Galatians. A church that makes works necessary for forgiveness is an anti-church, an anathema, as Paul teaches.
We affirm every verse in the book of Galatians as true and inspired by the Holy Spirit. So the disagreement is at the level of interpretation. Again, we would have to look carefully at the verses in question.
The official position of your church is not pure free grace, but grace mixed with works for forgiveness
We believe that repentance is necessary for forgiveness, for a person who has reached the age of reason. A person (of the age of reason) who has not turned away from sin, toward God, remains unforgiven. But I don’t know where you are getting the idea that the Catholic position is that forgiveness involves “grace mixed with works”. It would be easier to talk about the Catholic position on this subject by discussing actual Magisterial teachings on this subject, instead of your own speculations about what the Church teaches.
We don’t really believe you when you say that either. We are not calling you liars, but confused. This is the central issue that sparked the Reformation. Baptism gives us a full remission of our sins for the whole of our lives, both in this world and in the next.
So do you think that once a person is baptized, that person can never lose salvation? Neither Catholics nor Orthodox nor Reformed believe that.
You teach that it wears off really quickly,
No. Baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul. That is why a person can never be re-baptized. But, we believe (as has the whole Church) that the life of God that we receive in baptism can be expelled from the soul by our own free choice to turn away from God, through apostasy or some other mortal sin, just as Adam and Eve did in the Garden.
If you were speaking the whole truth, you would say that you believed in baptism and these other works for the remission of sins.
To evaluate the Catholic Church’s teaching, let’s go by what the Catholic Church officially teaches, i.e. her official documents, e.g. the Catechism.
The position of the Reformation is that you deny this article of the creeds by your additions.
Until we see these “additions” in a Magisterial teaching of the Church, your claim remains unsubstantiated.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
David Gadbois said,
August 27, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Bryan said So you think that all the left toes in existence form an actual whole? Really? How do you know that this not merely a set of things having something in common, but not forming an actual whole?
A whole *what*? It depends entirely on the nature of ‘wholeness’ in a given context. This is not an unusual way of speaking. In biological taxonomy, for instance, we speak of felines as being a part of the whole subphylum of vertebrates, which itself is a part of the whole kingdom animalia.
You are simply assuming that the whole must be more than the sum of the parts.
as I explained in #466, an actual whole cannot be removed without changing the world, while in the case of an actual plurality that is mentally united, the ‘whole’ can be removed without changing the world
Is the kingdom animalia a category whose parts are only mentally united?
Reformed Sinner said,
August 27, 2009 at 3:34 pm
At this point the only interest left for me in this thread is who will make the #666 post… :)
David Gadbois said,
August 27, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Perry said It is rather anachronistic to read back into earlier periods distinctions that were clearly not made.
Making category distinctions in exegesis is not the same as reading one’s own distinctions into the text. For instance, what happens if we gloss over the distinction between person and essence as we approach trinitarian biblical texts? Its a mess.
Second, it is question begging to assume that your distinction between justification ungrounded in the agent and a sanctification that is, is the correct way to categorize the matter.
It may or may not be the ‘correct way’ to categorize the matter in dogmatics, but that is not relevant to the exegesis of the fathers, who should be interpreted on their own terms.
Third, like most good schismatics, you have habit of confusing works per se with works born of grace. Surely no one thinks works per se cause justification or are its ground, but that is not the question, is it?
If you have done any responsible amount of reading of Lutheran and Reformed writers, you’d know that we haven’t confused the two. This objection is 500 years old , and has been responded to for just as long.
The conceptual distinction between has always been granted, but the early Reformers all vigorously opposed the principle of congruent grace that would make works born of grace legally acceptable.
I can’t think of contemporary scholars who specialize in Chrysostom who think that he thinks that justification is ungrounded in the state of the agent and that human activity post regeneration does not participate in justification.
I never mentioned my take on Chrysostom in my response to Sean. I only commented on his flawed hermeneutic in dealing with patristic exegesis.
Bryan Cross said,
August 27, 2009 at 4:16 pm
David,
Re: #657,
A whole *what*? It depends entirely on the nature of ‘wholeness’ in a given context. This is not an unusual way of speaking. In biological taxonomy, for instance, we speak of felines as being a part of the whole subphylum of vertebrates, which itself is a part of the whole kingdom animalia.
One type, or kind, or category can be said to belong to another type or kind, or category. So the feline category is a sub-category of the animal category. But that doesn’t mean that all cats are parts of a whole composed of all existing animals. Categories and wholes are not the same thing. A category is entirely formal. But a whole is not entirely formal.
You are simply assuming that the whole must be more than the sum of the parts.
If you are talking about “parts”, then you are begging the question, if the question is, Do they form an actual whole?” Denying that the whole must be more than the sum of the ‘parts’ commits you to accepting that S is an actual whole. But, which is more obvious: that the “catholic visible Church” is an actual whole, or that S is not an actual whole? If defending WCF XXV.2 requires affirming that S is an actual whole, then why not rather drop WCF XXV.2, rather than bite the “S is an actual whole” bullet?
Is the kingdom animalia a category whose parts are only mentally united?
The kingdom animalia is a category, not a whole. It doesn’t have parts. It has members. Those members (i.e. animals) belong to sub-categories (e.g. vertebrates). Other things (e.g. rocks) do not belong to animalia. What makes the members of animalia belong to animalia is that they all have something in common, not that they form a whole. They have unity of type, not unity of composition. In order to be a whole, they would have to have, in addition to unity of type, unity of composition.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Zrim said,
August 27, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Bryan,
At 624 this:
(Me to you) “But I think you missed my larger point, which really was to wonder why Catholics get to exercise their intellect and will to decide just where the true church is located but Protestants don’t.”
(You to me) I never said or claimed that Catholics don’t ‘get to’ exercise their intellect and will in deciding where the true church is. For an explanation, see #589.
I wonder if you meant “Protestants” instead of “Catholics”? Assuming that to be the case, then it seems to me you are saying we both may employ our intellects and wills, but it is only finally legitimate when it is to choose Rome; when Geneva is chosen it becomes profane.
(Me to you) “Moreover, if to be Protestant and not Catholic is to be, by definition, an ecclesial consumer, what do you make of those of us who endure a Protestant denomination that does church shabbily and resist the temptation to shop denominations to meet our ecclesial felt needs?”
(You to me) One can be loyal to a brand originally chosen on the basis of ecclesial consumerism. Ecclesial consumerism doesn’t entail the non-existence of brand loyalty.
So, if one employs his intellect and will for Protestantism he is categorically an ecclesial consumer. If he employs these things for Catholicism, he’s not. Why is it not enough to simply say the Protestant chose wrongly instead of impugning a moral degeneracy?
Perry Robinson said,
August 27, 2009 at 5:02 pm
David G.,
Granted that making category distinctions is not the same as reading them back into a text. But demanding that an exegete make the theological distinctions that a specific system does in evaluating a text and an author from another period on an a priori basis is anachronistic.
I don’t take the distinction between essence and person to be non-derivable from the text. And there is ample evidence in the literature of Chrysostom’s time and form his own writings that he doesn’t make the Protestant distinction and neither does Augustine. That doesn’t make them bad exegetes per se, but only indicates that their theology is in fact different from that of the Reformers. If Sean is a bad exegete for not distinguishing the two, then so is Augustine, Chrysostom and plenty of other competent readers of the biblical languages.
I agree that the Fathers should be interpreted on their own terms and that was my objection to TF, that he was bringing his theological content to the text. And likewise to demand that the Reformation distinction between justification and sanctification is a necessary conceptual distinction that Sean somehow overlooked seems to me to beg the question. It may be so if we presume the Reformation understand of justification and sanctification, but why do we have to assume that in exegeting Chrysostom?
Yes I have done a reasonable amount of reading in the relevant literature. The Reformers understanding of congruent grace relies on metaphysical presuppositions that the advocates of it do not share and hence they end up with a distorted understanding of it. This is why they tend to collapse it back into works done apart form grace giving them the same essential standing relative to justification. They view the matter as activities by God and a human agent as akin to two men pulling a load, as discrete particular acts. Consequently, congruous grace amounts to for them a natural activity in contiguity with a divine act and so it is still inadequate since it is at bottom a natural activity, rather than say Augustine who views our acts and God’s acts as one and the same rather than two discrete yet contiguous activities. Their problem is with their understanding of nature.
I agree that Reformation writers have responded, but I don’t agree that they have in fact adequately addressed the point.
Bob S said,
August 27, 2009 at 5:58 pm
558
Perry,
If you think that my response was inadequate, then please show where, because so far as things stand, your responses to me are sophistic at best and paralogistic at worst.
As below, Dr. Perry heal thyself.
Simply ignoring the case of Luther, Calvin, et al leaves my point untouched that they put their own judgment above anyone else’s.
As you do yours in choosing Rome. Tell me you don’t agree or believe that it is the True Church, but you submit to it anyway and you will have some (limited) credibility.
Second, Christ, Peter, John, Paul etc did miracles, wrote inspired Scripture and gave prophecy to confirm their message as did the prophets and Moses before them. If you wish to compare a supposed commissioning and judgment of the Reformers with Jesus and the Apostles, it is obvious that the former fail the test in terms of possessing a normative judgment anywhere near the latter.
Are you telling me that the Church does miracles, writes inspired Scripture and gives prophecy and that obviously we are then to believe in the Holy Roman/Eastern Church as we do Christ and the apostles?
If you think the Laudians were bosom buddies with Rome, then you clearly haven’t availed yourself of the primary source material such as Crankenthorpe’s, Defense of the English Church and an army other Laudian anti-Roman literature. Secondly, if you think the same regarding the Orthodox, it is obvious that the same is the case with the polemical works of say Saint Mark of Ephesus at and after the council of Florence. You won’t find a more exacting critic of the medieval papacy than Mark. So frankly it doesn’t seem like you know of what you speak.
Again, my point – which you sophistically ignored – was that Laud, EO and Rome in principle all worship/ deify/account as infallible mere men/tradition/holy mother church. But Christ and the apostles did no such thing. Houston, we have a problem.
As for Sola Fide, Augustine didn’t find it either, and neither did Chrysostom, Cyril or Maximus and they had a command of Greek equal to none, save the Maker.
If the Apostles saw that grace was immediate, why does Paul say it comes through the laying on of his hands? Why did Jesus breath on the apostles? Why did clothes of the Apostles heal? The disparity that you posit between matter and divine power borders on Gnosticism. The Spirit never blows without the Incarnate Word since he eternally proceeds through him and not from him as Protestants like Rome mistakenly teach. Who is the child of Rome now?
Why did the apostolic signs and wonders disappear? What did Christ say of a generation that demands signs and wonders? Answer: With the close of the NT canon and death of the apostles, the apostolic gifts were unneeded and redundant, as well that it is a wicked and perverse generation that desires signs and wonders. Rome, if not EO, appeals to her apostolic miracles. The Reformed appeal to their apostolic doctrine.
The sadduccess clearlydid not accept anything beyond the Law of moses as canonical, hence there was no unanimity on the canon. And besides, why reject the fallible tradition of believing Christians for the fallible tradition of unbelieving Jews?
This is a sophism again. The sadduccees were a minority and obviously unbelieving, denying both angels and the resurrection as Scripture tells us. Their view of the canon is consequently immaterial. Rather the orthodox Jews confessed that the Scripture was the Word of God, just as papists, roman and eastern do, but denied its clear and perspicuous teachings. For that they were chided when Christ came in the flesh, but he never once faulted them for perverting the canon.
And the Lucaris confession is apocryphal. If you don’t understand the general prohibition on statues, I’d suggest you actually become familiar with the theology of the 7th council from primary sources before you ask questions about it or make charges against it. So much for ad fonts.
A sophism again. Calling a dog a cat to evade the leash law doesn’t wash. At best. it’s only a distraction. According to the Second – not the First – Commandment, two dimensional images, as well as three are not to be idolized however we care to equivocate and speak of doulia and hyper doulia, essence and energy, veneration etc.
I just asked a question about Christology, which you seem unable to address. Did people worshipping Christ worship his body or was the worship passed on to his divine person? As for images see Paul in Galatians 3. I don’t think the people in Galatia saw Christ crucified except as “portrayed” to them.
Rather you asked a question re. Christology which you are unable to adequately and plainly articulate. As you do so again. Christ’s natures are indivisable in his person. Christ was worshiped as the Son of God come in the flesh. Again, we do not become divine even when glorified in heaven with a perfect human nature and body, even united to Christ by faith, much more a material and inanimate piece of painted wood that communicates with those it represents.
The Galatians saw Christ as “portrayed” in Paul’s preaching. Anybody who thinks Paul is referring to stained glass windows, SSchool curricula, Michaelangelo or icons is profoundly confused.
As for Chalcedon, that’s nice, but Calvin isn’t Chalcedonian, as I pointed out previously. The Orthodox teaching doesn’t teach that the divine essence is communicated to the icon so here you can’t even represent the teaching correctly. Try reading Theodore the Studite for example. The theology is that the divine energies sanctify the image and the honor and love rendered in act is passed on to the *person* depicted. As Peter notes, we become partakers of the divine nature, the problem is that you accept unscriptural doctrines like absolute divine simplicity that equate energy with essence so it is not possible to believe the scriptural teaching since to participate in the divine nature would be to become God by essence. The problem is your Platonism, not Orthodox teaching.
No, again the problem is EO equivocation and special pleading, i.e sophistry. Try explaining to Moses, what the Jews did with the golden calf according to your take and see how far you get. Did the EO find this energy/essence teaching taught in Scripture or did they suck it out of their thumb? Man was made in the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness and holiness, which are communicable attributes of the divine and which Christ renews in the believer.
Yes, I am saying that Muller indicates that Calvin departs from Chalcedon. Its fairly clear in the snippet I gave, but there are plenty of others. Calvin’s deformed Christology is dependent on corrupt Latin texts say from John of Damascus for example. Calvin takes the person of the mediator, of Christ to be OUT OF the two natures, which is not Chalcedon, which says IN two natures. Must be hard finding out that you’re Nestorian Bod.
No, that was not my question. Rather it was whether or not the WCF departs from Chalcedonian theology (after all confessions trump individual theologians), mind you not that any reply of yours is gonna be a deal maker and giant slayer that redeems the despicable idolatry of the fallible Roman/EO church hierarchy of its absence, much more condemnation in Scripture, which plainly tells us of those who set aside the commandment of God on account of their tradition, if not put people out of the synagogues and thinketh they do God a favor by killing those who walk by faith rather than by sight as they do.
IOW I think the memo from Screwtape to little papa and the orthodox reads: Squash the competition, if not ignore it. Don’t let people read the Bible and whatever you do, don’t preach from it. If that’s not possible, obfuscate as much as possible. Confess that you believe in Scripture nominally and then ignore it by going right back to flogging the agenda and claiming, if not parsing, an incommunicable attribute, infallibility, as belonging to the church hierarchy, Roman or EO.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Bob S said,
August 27, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Bryan,
in 520 you refer us to a talk by Benedict on Jerome. But time is of the essence. Why can’t you give us a summary of what Satan’s successor said? Surely your powers of synthesis and rhetoric are sufficient to the task? Besides, you are considerably more short winded than Perry, though more devious and sophisticated philosphically – at equivocation. Not that I am trying to get your goat, but I am distinctly unimpressed by your appeal to and posture of peace. Regardless of your personal character, you are essentially apologizing for a most despicable institution that has murdered the saints with verve and aplomb, whenever it had a chance to. One of your own, Lord Acton, referred to the papacy as the fiend behind the crucifix in regard to the Roman doctrine of breaking faith with “heretics” and its history in instances like the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre or the Waldensians. But as infallible, the Roman holy mother never has to apologize and certainly doesn’t. IOW the home office tainted this discussion long before you arrived and nothing you can say will change the home office.
In 631, you essentially give us Sola History to establish the doctrine of apostolic succession. This from your own experience, not the Magisterium or even Scripture, which Rome nominally appeals to. I stand flabbergasted, amused and confused. Perhaps you care to rephrase the Reformation Solas to read more like Sola Church History and Sola Church Hierarchy, if not Sola Christ AND the Apostles as the defining poles of your theology. That, if not the horns of the dilemma with which Sola Scriptura is gored to death. OK, but then on my part, I have to accept that church history is infallible, which arguably is a corollary of the infallibility of the church.
Hmm. This is getting interesting.
drollord said,
August 27, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Will I take #666?
drollord said,
August 27, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Sure.
drollord said,
August 27, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Reformed Sinner,
There. You have your numbered beast.
Perry Robinson said,
August 27, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Bob S,
You seem early on in your reply to me to think that I am Catholic, which I am not. For the nth time, I am Orthodox and not Catholic.
I don’t use private judgment to choose a church. The concept of private judgment is not just any judgment that an individual makes. It is the idea that the conscience of an individual alone can bind the conscience on theological questions and propose normative doctrinal formulae. Consequently, no church council can trump bind the conscience of the individual without their assent. Consequently, I don’t engage in private judgment as to what constitutes church doctrine since I am not making judgments for the church. I agree that the church can bind my conscience even if I dissent from it, contrary to Luther for example. Making judgments as to which church is the true society founded by Christ isn’t private judgment, since it only seeks to meet the conditions on knowledge, and not to meet the conditions on producing normative judgments binding on others.
Moreover, you implicitly concede my point, namely that Luther and the Reformers placed their own judgment as to what constituted the doctrine of the church above everyone elses by employing a tu quo que argument.
I don’t need to claim that the Church does miracles and writes inspired Scripture today. The relevant point was that you were comparing the Reformers to Jesus and the Apostles in terms of commissioned authority and judgement. To which I replied that the commissioning of Jesus and the Apostles was assured by miracles and prophecy, something not so in the case of the Reformers. The only form of biblical commissioning open to the Reformers then is ordinary commissioning through a succession, but they either never had it, as in the case of Calvin, or they rejected it as was the case with Luther, Zwingli, etc. Consequently, Jesus and the Apostles have a normative authority in judging the church that the Reformers lacked.
Your point seemed to me that the Laudians were essentially Catholic, which as I showed was not the case. The same is true with the Orthodox. Its true that the Orthodox think that the Apostles and Fathers of the Church enjoy and participate to a greater degree in the divine energies and hence are deified, (not all Fathers are ordained btw) but it is also true that Rome’s doctrine isn’t isomorphic to ours since they don’t retain the biblical and patristic doctrine of divine energies. Furthermore, if the Church is the body of Christ and participates qua body in his divine energies by virtue of the hypostatic union, such as immortality, love, holiness, the divine glory, etc. then there is nothing objectionable per se in the notion that the church also participates in the energy of infallibility either.
And I do think that Christ and the Apostles speak of the church as being deified. Christ speaks of his empirichoretic relationship with the church in his high priestly prayer. Paul speaks of being conformed to the icon of Christ, and Peter says we partake of the divine nature. To top it off, Augustine says that Christ and his Church make up one whole Christ.
You seem to confuse all of the apostolic prerogatives together. It doesn’t follow that if tongues (whatever one takes them to have been) and other miracles ceased with the death of the apostles, that all of the powers associated with the apostolic ministry also ceased. Secondly, Christ himself says that the miracles he does are sufficient for belief. Jn 10:38, 14:11
You speak of the Reformed putting forth their apostolic doctrine. Well then, surely you can justify the Reformed belief in the Filioque from Scripture alone. Can you give me just ONE passage from Scripture and briefly explain how it teaches that the eternal person of the Spirit is generated from the Father and the Son?
Secondly, it seems to me that the church was Trinitarian from day one and the doctrine of the Trinity seems much more difficult to articulate and explicate than say sola fide and yet we can find it expressed more or less very early and continuously in the life of the church, either in the liturgies or in patristic writings. So much the more reason to expect to find the doctrine that faith is an instrument and the only instrument whereby a created moral credit is transferred to us and is and always remains ungrounded in the agent among competent users of the biblical languages. And yet, we don’t find it. It is much more probable then that it is a product of late medieval scholasticism and humanism with the human agent laying hold of the merits through an instrument. This laying hold of the merits was a key phrase of the Pelagians of old and the Neo-Semi-Pelagian Okhamists just prior to the Reformation. All the Reformers did was retain the Pelagian apparatus and ground it in Augustinian pre-emption. The Thomists of the time, to their credit and by contrast took the opposite view, that we didn’t lay hold of Christ, but rather following Augustine and Aquinas that Christ lay hold of us.
If a wicked generation looks for signs, then certainly a far more wicked generation tries to manufacture them for their leaders as was done in the Reformation period, changing the date of Luther’s birth for example to fall under a favorable astrological sign or in the case of the Scots under Knox practically fabricating stories of miracles and predictions to authenticate their commissioning.
Even if the Sadducees were a minority, they were a minority of Jews and that is sufficient to show that not all Jews agreed on the canon. Second, the Essenes and the Zealots weren’t all of one mind either. To say that they were unbelieving presupposes what you are supposed to be proving, namely that those books that they rejected were inspired. I fail to see how appealing to fallible and unbelieving Jewish tradition is superior to the believing Christian tradition of the Church. If the latter isn’t adequate, so much the more reason not to take the tradition of those who rejected Messiah.
You write of “orthodox Jews” would those be the Pharisees? That seems odd since Jesus doesn’t seem to take them as “orthodox.” Furthermore, not all of the Pharisees agreed on the canon either so that isn’t any help here. And it is fallacious to think that even if the Jews all agreed on the canon that universal agreement implies the truth of their position. It doesn’t. If a thousand Frenchmen can be wrong, then certainly can the Jewish leadership. This is a censensus gentium fallacy.
We don’t treat icons as idols and this was a point even the iconoclasts admitted since the distinction between the prototype and the image was always retained. Given that Scripture applies the same term of “worship” to God and honoring the king, Scripture itself indicates a distinction between honor and worship with the same outward act directed to the king and the Lord. (1 Chron 29:20) Unless you think they actually worshipped the king in the same way theyworshipped God.
As for Galatians three, if the term portrayed there means only to hear, then it is odd that Paul refers to seeing with their eyes. This is in line with the earliest churches found in Anatolia which are replete with images from the life of Christ, as were the local synagogues replete with images from the life of Moses.
It is true that the two natures are indivisibly united in his one divine person, but it in no way follows from that that when people saw the incarnate Christ they were seeing the divine essence. Hence to have an image of Christ doesn’t of itself imply having an image of the divine essence anymore than having a picture of you implies having a picture of your soul. Person and essence are not the same thing, unless you are eutychian or nestorian. Your argument here rests on a non-Chalcedonian Christology which views the person as the product of the union, as I noted with Calvin. The person then is a composite image or appearance from the two natures, as Nestorius thought. This results in one energy of operation, monoenergism or in other words, the divine will uses the human as an instrument and subordinates it. Monergism is just the heresy of monoenergism in anthropology. This single appearance is therefore a divine and human person as the WCF 8.2 indicates. The existence of the two natures in the one *divine* person doesn’t render the humanity of Christ beyond depiction.
And certainly we do become deified in the resurrection and share in God’s immortality and glory. (1 Co 15, Jn 17:22-24) For immortality is a chief mark of God alone. (2 Tim 1:10, 1 Tim 1:17, 1 Tim 6:16) Moreover, Scripture itself indicates that material objects can bear the divine power as when the woman with the issue of blood touched Jesus’ robe, for Jesus was aware that the dynamis or power or energy had gone out of him. Not only that but Acts makes it clear that objects touched by the Apostles can bear the divine power and bring healing to those disposed with faith to receive it. And even in the OT this is true for the man who touched the bones of Elisha was healed. (2 Kings 13:21) And the flesh of Christ shone with the divine and eternal glory at the Transfiguration, just as ours will at the Resurrection. Matter is not incapable of redemption and bearing the divine glory and power as the Gnostics and iconoclasts thought and you seem to think.
As to the principle I asked and which you ignored, if the honor paid to the body of Christ does not pass on to his divine person, then you convict those who did so of worshipping a human body. On the other hand, if the principle is legitimate then you cannot object in principle to the idea that the honor paid to a picture is passed on to person it depicts. Besides, do you think burning the flag means nothing?
The Hebrews and the golden calf is an example that won’t support your case for a number of reasons. First the Orthodox prohibit images of the divine essence and of the other two persons who never became incarnate. Secondly, we don’t identify the image with the prototype as the Hebrews did when they exclaimed that it was the golden calf that brought them out of Egypt. If you wish to know of the distinction between nature and energy is in the scriptures, perhaps you should look for the how the terms energia, , doxa, phusis and dynamis are employed there. I already mentioned a few examples. Moses never saw God, but only the divine Glory, with which his face shone. Call the divine light that the people saw with their eyes anything you like, energy or whatever, it makes no difference to me, just so long as you believe it is something uncreated and not a created thing, exchanging the glory of the Creator for the glory of something created as the Reformers did in taking the theophanies to be created light and glory, following Rome.
To claim that the human agent receives communicable attributes won’t work for a few reasons. First, attributes are judgments of the mind about an object. They are in us, not in the object. Attributes are not properties. On the Reformed view, like Rome, God has no properties since that will compromise God’s simplicity. Consequently, this is why Turretin for example argues against the Lutherans that the communicatio idiomata cannot be a transfer of some attributes to the human nature of Christ, but is in fact a created simultude.
“For the Son of God only is ‘the image of the invisible God’ (Col 1:15)-the essential and natural, and no mortal can attain to it because the finite cannot be a partaker of the infinite. And if we are said by grace to be ‘partakers of the divine nature’ (2 Pet 1:4), this is not to be understood of an essential, formal and instrinsic participation, but an analogical, accidental and extrinsic participation (by reason of the effects analogous to the divine perfections which are produced in us by the Spirit after the image of God).” Institutes of Eclenctic Theology vol. 1, p. 465
“Third, either all of the properties of the divine nature were communicated or none because they are inseparable and really one…Nor can it be answered that there is a difference between God’s attributes: that some are energetical, exerting themselves outwards in peculiar operations, an the communication of them was necessary to the mediatorial office; others inoperative, not needing to be communicated. For such a difference holds good only in respect to effect and to us, not really in themselves and intrinsically where no difference can be granted on account of the perfect simplicity of the essence; nor even a diversity in communication.” Institutes of Eclenctic Theology, vol. 2. p. 324
Consequently, it is not open to you to claim that some attributions are communicable since attributions are predications or judgments made by us about a simple object and second because on your traditions own doctrine of divine simplicity they are all the same object so that to have one of them is to have all of them. Consequently, as evidence in Owen, Berkhof, etc, take your pick, your traditions view is that the believer participates in a created effect similar to the divine nature and therefore has a created intermediary between God and man in the soul or applied to it, that is either as a created legal principle or a created accident in the soul. This is the Roman and Reformed doctrine of “created grace.” This is why at the end of the day there is no real disagreement between Rome and the Reformed. Both advocate a created intermediary between God and man. This is why it is so very hard for Reformed writers to give a clear explication of what exactly constitutes union with Christ.
Calvin and the WCF depart from Chalcedon as I noted before. Most Reformed theologians do so from Calvin, Vermigli, Musculus, Bucer and Bullinger all the way to the post reformation scholastics into the Puritans like Owen. (See Muller, Christ and the Decree) In the WCF its fairly plain in 8.2 as I noted previously. Christ is not on Chalcedon a human-divine person, but always a divine person.
And frankly I am getting a little tired of your insults. If your argument is good enough, then you shouldn’t have to use insults. Besides, Scripture seems to speak of speaking with gentleness and respect which you seem to lack.
Bryan Cross said,
August 27, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Zrim,
Re: #661,
My answer can be found in #589 and #635.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Curate said,
August 28, 2009 at 1:09 am
Bryan no. 656: But I don’t know where you are getting the idea that the Catholic position is that forgiveness involves “grace mixed with works”. It would be easier to talk about the Catholic position on this subject by discussing actual Magisterial teachings on this subject, instead of your own speculations about what the Church teaches.EOQ.
Bryan, I have assumed up to this point that you are arguing in good faith. Now I am beginning to wonder. Either you are unfamiliar with the very magisterial decrees that you mention, or you are employing sophistry. This point about free grace contra grace plus works for forgiveness is the central controversy between Rome and the Reformation.
Are you seriously suggesting that Rome and we are teaching the same thing on the subject? Come now.
So do you think that once a person is baptized, that person can never lose salvation? Neither Catholics nor Orthodox nor Reformed believe that.
A believer, in baptism, receives the full and complete remission of his sins for the whole of his life. When a believer sins it is not held against him, for Christ’s sake. He does not fall from grace for that reason. A man falls from grace by turning away from God and Christ.
To evaluate the Catholic Church’s teaching, let’s go by what the Catholic Church officially teaches, i.e. her official documents, e.g. the Catechism.
I accept your challenge. Show from the magisterial teaching of your denomination that you teach pure grace uncontaminated by works of any kind in the matter of forgiveness.
Regards.
johnbugay said,
August 28, 2009 at 4:02 am
Curate: Papal deception begins at the top.
In December, Scott Clark commented on a “Reformation Day” address given by Pope Ratzinger, in which he said,
This again is how Rome’s cleverly conceived arguments are Satan’s way of “corrupting” and “polluting everything that God has appointed for our salvation.” (Institutes, 4.1.1.)
Paige Britton said,
August 28, 2009 at 5:34 am
Bryan, #604, Thanks for addressing a little more for me the question of “what shall the RC layperson do with her Bible?” I have to say that while I find your words eloquent, I still do not have a clear picture of HOW a RC reads or learns the Scriptures hand-in-hand with Mother Church. So far both you and Pope Benedict have said essentially what I speculated the RCC would say (and I paraphrase here):
“Knowing the Bible is a beneficial thing and we should all do it!! [WARNING: Do NOT attempt this at home.]”
Okay…so as to your “third and correct way” (as opposed to studying alone or abandoning study altogether), so far the details that have emerged are that we should accept “the guidance offered by holy mother Church” and “know the decisions of the councils throughout the history of the Church.” Since we are talking about unified content that must be communicated to people who may not have been born knowing it, so that they will not fall into grave error when reading the Bible, does this mean that in every single Catholic church that I could walk into, I would find in place mandatory courses in church history, council decisions, patristic writings, and so forth? Or if not mandatory, highly recommended? And what percentage of a particular parish’s adults avail themselves of such instruction? And how many years of instruction does it take before the students are allowed to open the Bible (in the presence of the Church’s teachers, of course!)? And do they have to pass a periodic examination in patristic studies before they are allowed to advance to (or stay in) Romans?
I am being a bit facetious with these questions, because I have the sense that there really is no such unified educational thrust among Catholic churches; but I am not a RC, so I don’t have any firsthand experience to go by. Perhaps there is more instructional nurture than I assume! Is such instructional care of the sheep deemed necessary, or superfluous?
johnbugay said,
August 28, 2009 at 5:54 am
Bryan — I read briefly your “conversion” story up above in 635 and in the “ecclesial deism” article you linked to. And I am struck by the way that you permit only the two choices, saying “I had to choose between ecclesial deism and apostolic succession.”
This is just a false choice. For you, everything seems to fit into neat categories — and philosophy rules your way of thinking. But life cannot be categorized that way. Life is messy — I think you know this first-hand.
Turretin (the real Turretin) described this choice of yours some four hundred years ago. He says,
This is exactly the way that you argue. “There must be this category of infallible church that cannot fail.” (I have seen your process of exegesis and it is lacking in this.) “There is only one church that claims this; it can’t be the Mormons, and the Protestants don’t seem to exhibit this monolithic trait of “church which cannot fail,” therefore it must be Rome.”
Turretin continues:
And you have repeatedly been cited for assuming the thing that you must prove.
You must look at the particulars, because the categories you have set up for yourself are wrong. Here is a broad description of early Christianity from the outside:
Celsus must be writing in the early 200’s at this point. Though he opposed Christianity, there is no reason to believe he was lying about it. In fact, this picture is corroborated at many points, by many of the historians I have been citing.
How do you square such descriptions with your statement “In studying early Church history, and in the Fathers, I found the early widespread practice of apostolic succession and an episcopal form of Church government.”? Do you look point-by-point at such things and dismiss them each for each? No, you simply make a category-wide assumption and dismiss the whole thing.
You do not tell the whole story, and in fact, you hide and gloss over facts that are very inconvenient for you:
There’s a whole world in that “Etc.”
That’s why Turretin goes on to say,
You would say that “faith or doctrine ought to be known from the church rather than the church from the doctrine and faith” (3). In the same way, the Jews boasted “that they were the people of God” yet they persecuted the prophets, and “with rage cast out and cruelly treated the Lord of the vineyard himself.”
That is precisely what the Romanists have done since the day of the Reformation.
The nub of the problem for you seemed to be Mohler’s need to “pick and choose”. But there is another word for that — discernment. We look at the early church, and say there were any good and pious people, but they in no way held to the monolithic position of the Church which you, in your effort to categorize, have attributed to them.
“The way of discussion and examination of doctrine,” Turretin says, “is long and dangerous.” But your way is “short and indubitable.
I know that you have encountered facts that are uncomfortable for you. You are not a dumb guy. I would suggest that God did not give you an intellect so that you could “submit” it to the “teachings” of such an obvious liar as “Pope Benedict” (as was explained in the Scott Clark link that I posted just above here, #671).
Catholicism indeed is “good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise.”
If you don’t see that Scriptural connection, consider that Aristotle’s first category is “equivocation.” That is precisely what Benedict did. (Or, put yourself at pains to say precisely why this is not “equivocation”).
What do you think about that? Does God ask you to submit your will to a liar?
johnbugay said,
August 28, 2009 at 5:59 am
Jeremiah 8:8:
How can you say, ‘We are wise,
and the law of the LORD is with us’?
But behold, the lying pen of the scribes
has made it into a lie.
Bryan Cross said,
August 28, 2009 at 7:15 am
John,
Re: #671,
… of such an obvious liar as “Pope Benedict” (as was explained in the Scott Clark link that I posted just above here, #671).
How is Pope Benedict’s statement (found here): “For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love”, a lie? In other words, how do you know that he intended to deceive, and did not intend to communicate that that statement is true? (Intending to deceive is a necessary condition for a lie.)
Re: #673,
And I am struck by the way that you permit only the two choices, saying “I had to choose between ecclesial deism and apostolic succession.”
This is just a false choice.
So, how does your third option (whatever that is) avoid ecclesial deism? Please describe the third option, and show how it avoids ecclesial deism.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
johnbugay said,
August 28, 2009 at 7:30 am
Intending to deceive — the statement itself is intended to persuade people that there is no difference between the doctrines, when there is a great difference. That is the lie.
johnbugay said,
August 28, 2009 at 7:33 am
How indeed is Satan’s statement not intending to deceive? All three elements were true: “4 “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” All three true statements. And Matt 4. The temptations of Jesus, he granted them as all true. Yet nevertheless the outcome is horrifying.
johnbugay said,
August 28, 2009 at 7:38 am
And with a question, you fail again to answer a question.
You begin with another fallacy, that there are only two choices, one of which is “ecclesial deism”. You defined this as “a belief that God made the world, and then left it to run on its own.”
You are assuming here that God would not in a Calvinistic way permit (decree) anything like “Protestantism” to occur. But the Old Testament is full not only of warnings, but of examples. The nation of Israel splintered itself like crazy, and went after all sorts of foreign “gods”. Romans 9 — “not all Israel is Israel” — is the very response to your question.
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has so decreed history that what you see in Protestantism is the very thing he intended. And to this day, “the gates of hell” do not prevail against the church.
I do not have to describe that “third option” to your satisfaction in order to affirm that it exists.
When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable it seems to you, must be the truth?
History itself screams against your notion of “Church”. “Ecclesial deism” is a false construction. Therefore, there is some third possibility.
johnbugay said,
August 28, 2009 at 7:44 am
You are (and Roman Catholicism) is a living example of the statement, “those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.”. The slow decay of the Roman church is amost an exact duplication of the fall of the nation of Israel in the OT.
tom said,
August 28, 2009 at 8:48 am
I have to confess to be being baffled by the opposition to the charge of ecclesial deism. Ecclesial deism simply means one who believes that Christ was and is indifferent to such things as a visible, hierarchical structure of the Church, one deposit of the faith (faith and morals)etc…. It would appear that in order to be Protestant one has to believe such things. I ask anyone who is Protestant, in all honesty, how are you not an ecclesial deist? And let me stress, I ask because I really am intrigued to see if there is an answer.
johnbugay said,
August 28, 2009 at 8:57 am
Tom: It is easy to see that God could design a “messy” system; at the same time, history shows that such a thing as “a visible, heirarchical structure” has absolutely no resemblance with the Christ it claims to serve.
And in asking this question, you again sidestep the possibility that this “heirarchical structure” could have, within the space of several hundred years, could have been hijacked by the very sinister power which opposes God.
He sent his own son to die; why would He not have allowed Satan to grab hold of (and indeed to develop) the papacy?
Todd said,
August 28, 2009 at 8:58 am
Hey Tom,
What about my question in # 586 in response to your answer on the NC promise, opposed to an OC promise, of an infallible guide?
Thanks
tom said,
August 28, 2009 at 9:12 am
John,
I am not side-stepping that this structure developed (that is beside the point). I am just intrigued by the offense taken to the charge of ecclesial deism. If one claims not to be an ecclesial deist then there should be an answer to it. There should be no problem with accepting this charge because it appears to me that a Protestant has to be an ecclesial deist. Was Jesus indifferent to the structure of the Church?
johnbugay said,
August 28, 2009 at 9:28 am
The sole total offense is provided by your “heirarchy”.
That and the fact that, as a Calvinist, deism is a foreign concept. So my answer to it is that God intended exactly what we have, for his own reasons, and for his own glory.
johnbugay said,
August 28, 2009 at 9:28 am
The charge of “deism” is simply false.
johnbugay said,
August 28, 2009 at 9:41 am
What about the “Israeli deism” of the OT?
tom said,
August 28, 2009 at 10:14 am
John,
Let me stress that the term deism is not being used to suggest that one believes that God is indifferent to the affairs of the world. Thanks be to God that you believe in the Trinity, the Incarnation, the work of the Holy Spirit. Thanks be to God you recognize that God is intimately involved in the world and our lives.
The term deism is being used to refer to the indifference aspect as it regards to the structure of the Church. A Protestant must, it seems, be indifferent to this because they believe our Lord was indifferent to it. To the question: “Did our Lord Jesus Christ intend and establish one, visible Church structured hierarchically with a codified doctrine and practice?” A Protestant would have to say that our Lord was indifferent.
tom said,
August 28, 2009 at 10:16 am
Todd,
I will respond shortly to you, I promise!
Mike Brown said,
August 28, 2009 at 10:41 am
Tom, Bryan, et al,
With all due respect, this notion about Protestants holding to ecclesial deism or thinking that Christ was indifferent about a visible church is just plain stupid. How does one read Belgic Confession Articles 27-35 and come to the conclusion that the Protestants of the Reformation thought that Christ was indifferent about a visible church? I, nor any confessional Reformed minister I know does not think such things.
But we are not compelled to give a defense over a blog when our ecclesiastical and visible confessions have already stated what we believe. Moreover, read what our tradition says in sources such as Calvin’s Book IV, Turretin’s Vol 3 (which John has wisely quoted), or the plethora of works from the Reformed Orthodox. Or read the biblical-theological works of Vos or Kline and see if you get from those confessional men the notion of ecclesial deism. We (the Reformed tradition) have already stated in ink and confess with our mouths what we believe regarding the visible church – and it certainly isn’t the notion that Christ was indifferent to a visible structure.
Curate said,
August 28, 2009 at 10:47 am
John Bugay: One good thing that we do have to note is the change in tone from Rome. They no longer breathe fire and the sword at us, but have made a genuine attempt to speak to us with respect, and to listen to what we have to say.
Here is a link to the 1995 Joint Declaration on Justification between Rome and a large segment of the Lutherans.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html
They are no longer simply demand that we submit to their authority and take our opportunity to remain silent. They are actually listening, and there has been a genuine attempt to find common ground on the central issue of forgiveness.
For example, Rome is saying that we are talking about different things, but using the same word, dikaiosunh. They are suggesting that if we look beyond the word to the things that are intended, we will find common ground.
Having said that, there is still no real agreement.
The Reformation is not over, and neither is the need for it. Until they come round to the biblical teaching on forgiveness,we will walk apart.
Finally, don’t forget that the Reformers opposed other groups too, like the Anabaptists. The reason was the same: they exalted free will above God’s free gift of grace. Luther said they were joined at the tail, despite their differences, and he was right.
IOW we ned to call these other non-Protestant groups to repentance too.
Todd said,
August 28, 2009 at 10:47 am
“Did our Lord Jesus Christ intend and establish one, visible Church structured hierarchically with a codified doctrine and practice?” A Protestant would have to say that our Lord was indifferent.”
Tom,
Obviously you’ve never been to a Presbyterian General Assembly! Our codified doctrine is the WCF, and you can find the PCA and OPC Book of Church Order on-line. You may not agree with our agreed upon doctrine or structure, but indifferent to church structure? Come on now.
tom said,
August 28, 2009 at 11:00 am
Todd,
I was an ordained minister of word and sacrament in the PCA in the New York Presbytery.
Zrim said,
August 28, 2009 at 11:28 am
Perry Robinson said to Bob Suden:
Given that Scripture applies the same term of “worship” to God and honoring the king, Scripture itself indicates a distinction between honor and worship with the same outward act directed to the king and the Lord. (1 Chron 29:20) Unless you think they actually worshipped the king in the same way they worshipped God.
Some Calvinists also wish to make an important distinction between obedience and worship, but it’s to make the case for two kingdom theology, piety and practice instead of iconography. It’s interesting how Perry’s Protestant interlocutor here is also one to those Calvinists who would a better pilgrim theology.
Todd said,
August 28, 2009 at 11:48 am
“I was an ordained minister of word and sacrament in the PCA in the New York Presbytery.”
Tom,
Well, since we can assume you did not receive your ordination through a two-week, on-line course, that means a governing body of Presbyterers with real spiritual authority examined and approved you for ordination, laid hands on you, gave you a written call, and you swore in your ordination vows to uphold the WCF as well as the process of church administration and structure in your PCA Book of Church Order, etc… Please explain how all that equals being indifferent to ecclesiastical structure?
tom said,
August 28, 2009 at 11:59 am
Todd,
Let me say that the presbyterial structure of the Church according to the PCA is not of the Church’s essence. Thus, one could believe in congregationalism, episcopacy, or presbyterianism and still be a Church. BCO 1:7 says that Presbyterian government is not essential to the Church’s existence.
I did not say that the structure was unimportant to the Presbyterian, anybody who has taken a polity class and studied Roberts’ rules knows that. But it is important not because it is of the esse of the Church but because for its good order.
Also I am going to get back to you on your other question. My students are taking a test so I should have some time.
Todd said,
August 28, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Tom,
I understand your point now, what is considered esse helps, though indifferent and unimportant are fairly close synonyms.
tom said,
August 28, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Todd,
I think we all could be agreed that just because God allowed the People of Israel to divide into two Kingdoms that God intended that for His people. We know God allows for murder but not one of us would dare say God intends and desires murder. We all would be agreed that we do not do theology based off of God’s allowance of something.
That being said, the Old Testament story reveals that Israel was called by God to be the answer to the problem of Adam and be the people through whom redemption and salvation would come. Israel, however, failed various and sundry times, but God remained faithful to His promise, especially to David, that he would have a son on the throne. This people of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, this people of the twelve tribes, this people of Moses, of David eventually tragically divided into two Kingdoms, North and South. Soon after they were exiled from their land, first the North and then the South. The Temple so cherished as the abode of God was destroyed inflicting grief upon this people and the people were carried off to a strange land (Psalm 137). They were promised though that this exile would not have the final word. There would be another Exodus, like the one before with Egypt but even greater. They were promised a deliver, like Moses, a great King like David, and, yes, the scattered 12 tribes would be re-gathered around one Shepherd. No more would division reign in their land, finally they should be as one. (So much more could be said but time does not permit).
To the New Testament we see the life of Jesus as the recapitulation of Israel. Matthew paints for us a picture of Jesus as the history of Israel in person. He goes down into Egypt, He comes up out of Egypt, He comes the water and goes out the other side entering the land. He is led into the wilderness and is tempted. He passes the test, whereas Israel had failed. He ascends to the mountain to give His law, a new Moses. He defeats the enemy of God by His miracles. He calls twelve to be His Apostles, a re-gathering of the twelve tribes. He then comes to Caeserea Philippi and is revealed to be the long-awaited Christ, the true Son of David. Soon after He enters the prophetic period. His messages of warning, blessing and curse, judgment and woe are not listened to. He is rejected and He Himself, like Israel is captured by His enemies. At last, on the cross, He dies the cry of exile, the cry of Israel, forsakenness! Yet, the cross is not the final word, but return, Resurrection, the hope of the prophets has happened. Israel has been re-gathered around the twelve tribes, the promise of one people and one shepherd has come to pass. The Kingdom has been inaugurated and the Christ sits upon His throne. He established one His twelve to be the royal steward of His house, His Prime Minister, like Joseph of old under Egypt, and Israel (Isaiah 22). He promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against this kingdom and promised to be with them until the end of the age.
The cry of Israel has been heard. The long-awaited promise of the prophets has happened. God has been faithful to Israel. Israel has been re-gathered, her King has come and the Gentiles have been made sharers in the family of God. To go back to the scattering and division of the Old Covenant is unthinkable. To borrow the analogy of others, it would be like going back to act 2 while your in act 5, it makes no sense. So, yes, I believe the Catholic Church is the Church intended and established by Jesus Christ and because it is established by Jesus Christ it is founded upon better promises and out of confidence in Him and His power to keep His promise, I submit to this Church out of loyalty and love to Him.
Happy Feast of St. Augustine!
johnbugay said,
August 28, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Tom 687: the term deism is not being used to suggest that one believes that God is indifferent to the affairs of the world.
Now you are serving up straw. Here is what he said:
The whole concept of “the Magisterium of the Church” itself is a corruption.
But that does not mean “Christ withdrew” in any way. God very much is concerned with and indeed is ordering the steps of the church today.
johnbugay said,
August 28, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Curate: One good thing that we do have to note is the change in tone from Rome. They no longer breathe fire and the sword at us, but have made a genuine attempt to speak to us with respect, and to listen to what we have to say.
They do not listen with the intent of understanding. The “Joint Declaration” you write about is well known to be an exercise in equivocation. The only reason they have sheathed the sword now is because they no longer have a sword.
They are still not to be trusted.
Mike Brown said,
August 28, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Tom,
Correct me if I am wrong, but your argument basically seems to go like this:
In the OC, we see God’s church with visible, hierarchical structure.
The NC is founded on better promises than the OC with Christ is now seated on his throne.
Therefore, we should see in the NC church a centralized, organized, hierarchical structure like that in the RCC.
Do I have this wrong?
tom said,
August 28, 2009 at 1:28 pm
John,
I am not sure why you are disagreeing with that when you said in 681 that it is easy to see that God could have designed a messy system. I take that to mean the messy system of the Church and its structure, visible unity etc… these things are really not that important. Under this system Jesus is indifferent to these things. The Church’s structure is established because it is helpful to have somebody or some group in charge, not because Jesus established it, intended it or commands it and expects us to submit to it. If I am wrong please, if you would, clarify what it is you believe Jesus intended and established as regards to His Church.
johnbugay said,
August 28, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Tom: He intended and established exactly what we have now.
The burden of proof is on you to say exactly why and how “the Catholic Church is the Church intended and established by Jesus Christ and because it is established by Jesus Christ it is founded upon better promises and out of confidence in Him and His power to keep His promise.”
But you don’t — none of you guys has ever done so. You can’t.
Scripture does not support this.
History does not support this.
All you have is wishful thinking.
Todd said,
August 28, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Tom,
I appreciate you answering with Scripture – but that didn’t really answer my question about the verses I cited. Paul warned us that even in the new covenant (like the Old) false prophets and teachers would arise from our own number. If that can happen, how would we know if it happens if we are forced to accept the heirarchy of the church no matter their interpretation of Scripture? And those promises of unity are true; all God’s redeemed are united under him and in him regardless of the outward structure of the church. On another note, if you feel free, I’d be interested in what happened in your thinking that took you from Atlanta to Rome.
johnbugay said,
August 28, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Tom — just so we’re clear, saying “he intended and established exactly what we have now” is a far different thing from saying “he’s indifferent”.
tom said,
August 28, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Todd,
I would love to speak of that but this forum is not the best place. Podcast #7 on Called to Communion has me and Tim discussing some issues that led to our move to the Church.
By the way, two great Catholic writers who are well versed in typology, covenant etc… are Brant Pitre and Matthew Levering. My pitiful efforts in the scriptural story don’t do justice to the very good work these men have done and are doing.
tom said,
August 28, 2009 at 5:40 pm
John,
Indifferent means to have no real preference one way or the other. So as to the structure of the Church, since you stated that what we have now God intended and established, God is indifferent. Namely, God is indifferent towards Presbyterian government, Episcopal government, Congregational government. Given that you believe that what we have now is what God intended and established (multiple groups, contrary doctrines being taught all under the umbrella of e.g. Evangelicalism) if God has a preference we really do not know what that preference is. When I used to fence the table I would invite those who were members in good standing of a bible-believing church.
The charge of ecclesial deism (or if you prefer ecclesial indifferentism) does not mean you’re wrong for thinking that. If Jesus was indifferent to the heirarchical structure of the Church, then I too should believe the same way and if I did believe that I would not be in full communion with the Catholic Church. I would find a church that I think best reflects my understanding of the Bible. I just don’t believe a reading of the New Testament and the earliest writings of the Church allow one to credibly to believe that.
Now I am off to the football game.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
August 28, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Whose Lens Are You Using?
Seems to me that the late Senator Edward Kennedy used his own private lens of judgment as a cradle Catholic. To wit:
“U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy was raised from birth to cherish his Catholicism, and it became both a source of comfort and conflict throughout his life.
The son of the country’s most famous Catholic family defied church teachings when he divorced his first wife, then was granted an annulment only after he admitted he wasn’t being honest when he promised her he’d be faithful. His most significant and public break with the church came with his support for abortion rights.
Yet Kennedy also advocated for signature Catholic causes, such as help for the poor, health care and immigration reform, and opposition to the Iraq war. His faith remained a regular part of his life until it ended this week with a priest at his bedside.
The apparently conflicting portrait of a man loyal to the church despite widening disagreement on key issues “almost perfectly represents” the views of most American Catholics, said Boston College professor Alan Wolfe.
A commitment to Catholicism was not always evident in Kennedy’s personal life, which was marred by problems with alcohol and philandering. In 1983, he was forbidden from receiving communion after his divorce – which the church forbids – from his first wife, Joan.
The public learned more than a decade later that he’d been granted an annulment after he was seen accepting Communion at his mother’s funeral. Joan later said that Kennedy requested the annulment, which she did not oppose, on grounds that his marriage vow to be faithful had not been honestly made, Clymer said.
Kennedy never discussed his annulment and also rarely spoke publicly of his Catholicism.
“There’s this big, ‘What if?'” said Catholic author Michael Sean Winters. “If Ted Kennedy had stuck to his pro-life position, would both the (Democratic) party and the country have embraced the abortion on demand policies that we have now? And I don’t think so.”
Russell Shaw, former spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said when Kennedy defied the church on issues such as abortion and later, gay marriage, he reinforced a corrosive belief among Catholics that they can simply ignore teachings they don’t agree with.
Kennedy’s differences with the church never kept him from Mass. When he was in Washington, Kennedy would attend Blessed Sacrament Church in Chevy Chase, Maryland, and sometimes stop in at St. Joseph’s on Capitol Hill, said Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the Washington Archdiocese. In his last days, Kennedy leaned hard on his faith. Creedon said he visited with Kennedy last Friday, offering him a blessing and praying the Lord’s Prayer with him.
“He just was a man of deep piety and devotion, as well as public commitments in the area of the Gospel,” Creedon said.
Kennedy’s relationship with the Catholic church was rocky, Shaw said, but there’s no doubt it was enduring. Judging the quality of Kennedy’s faith isn’t for him, he said.”
Excerpted from here.
Hmmmmmmm, Catholics who use the lens of their own private judgment…. and purportedly there are many who do …..
Hmmmmmmmm, and Catholics accuse Protestants of wrongfully using private judgment…..??
Pharasaic H.Y.P.O.C.R.I.S.Y.
Bryan Cross said,
August 28, 2009 at 10:04 pm
John,
Re: #676,
Concerning Pope Benedict’s statement, “For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love”, you wrote:
the statement itself is intended to persuade people that there is no difference between the doctrines, when there is a great difference. That is the lie.
(1) How do you know that Pope Benedict’s statement is intended to persuade people that there is no difference between the doctrines? In other words, how do you know that he was not simply intending to explain that Luther’s statement “faith alone” is correct if we conceive of faith as informed by [i.e. made alive by] the supernatural disposition of love for God?
(2) How do you know that he is intending to deceive? Why is it not possible that he is actually intending to explain truthfully the *difference* between the Catholic and Lutheran positions on sola fide? That is the more charitable interpretation, and the principle of charity requires that we take the more charitable interpretation, rather than assume that someone is intending to deceive, if the statement can reasonably be understood according to the more charitable interpretation, as it can in this case.
Re: #678,
You begin with another fallacy, that there are only two choices, one of which is “ecclesial deism”.
As I explained in #325, a statement is not properly said to be a fallacy. A statement can be true or false, but it cannot be a fallacy. An argument can be fallacious. But a statement is not an argument. So, my statement in #635, “I had to choose between ecclesial deism and apostolic succession” might be false, but it is not a fallacy. If you think my statement is false, and you wish to falsify it, then you need to provide the third option, and show how it is truly a third option (i.e. does not fall into either of the two options I mentioned). So far, you have not provided a third option, and so you have not falsified my statement.
When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable it seems to you, must be the truth? … “Ecclesial deism” is a false construction. Therefore, there is some third possibility.
I agree with you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains must be the truth. But you have not shown “apostolic succession” to be impossible. So, since you seem not to want to embrace ecclesial deism, and because you have not provided a third option, therefore, we seem to be left with the only remaining option: i.e. apostolic succession.
… one of which is “ecclesial deism”. You defined this as “a belief that God made the world, and then left it to run on its own.”
That’s the definition of ‘deism’, not the definition of ‘ecclesial deism.’
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has so decreed history that what you see in Protestantism is the very thing he intended.
Every rapist could use a similar line on his victim. And every schismatic could seek to justify his schism by means of a similar line. Given such a line, it would follow that no schism ought ever to be mended, and no divorced couple ever reconciled, since the division is “the very thing He intended.” But that is obviously false. Therefore, by modus tollens, the fact of schism does not justify the human act of schism, or indicate divine approval thereof.
And to this day, “the gates of hell” do not prevail against the church.
Since you in other conversations have denied the visible church (saying you didn’t find it in Scripture), how would you even know if the gates of hell had prevailed over the invisible church (i.e. the set of all the elect)? What would such a prevailing even look like? Since there is no possible world in which even one member of the set of all the elect could be lost, how is the promise of Matt 16:18 not reduced to nothing more than a trivial truth?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Curate said,
August 29, 2009 at 12:52 am
Bryan Cross, I am still waiting for you to support your assertion that Rome teaches forgiveness by pure grace unpolluted by works. Do you need more time?
Curate
Curate said,
August 29, 2009 at 1:00 am
John Bugay no.618: I am by no means praising the Joint Declaration John. The change in tone was the only thing I liked. Trent itself is a masterpiece of deceit and equivocation. But Rome is no longer the same church since Vatican II. They have embraced modernism just like the once Protestant churches. Sadly, they did not embrace the bible.
Curate said,
August 29, 2009 at 1:05 am
Tom, no. 703: Tom, did you use your Protestant private judgement when you went to Rome? Or did you just stop thinking for yourself like a good Papist, check your brain in at the magisterium, and do what you were told?
Those two possibilities exhaust the options I think, unless there is an as yet unnamed third one.
Bob S said,
August 29, 2009 at 1:35 am
668 Perry
And frankly I am getting a little tired of your insults. If your argument is good enough, then you shouldn’t have to use insults. Besides, Scripture seems to speak of speaking with gentleness and respect which you seem to lack.
Briefly, since it’s late and I just got to this, I am insulting and you’re not long winded, patronizing and evasive?
Please.
Again briefly, for the third time for but one point, my comment was that the EO, Rome and Laud essentially worship/laud/venerate tradition/church history whatever there other distinctives. Your response totally ignores this, as well many of your other responses, which are long and at length but are “non-responsive” – as Curate pointed out some time ago re. both Bryan and yourself. . . later
johnbugay said,
August 29, 2009 at 9:07 am
Bryan #706: how do you know that he was not simply intending to explain that Luther’s statement “faith alone” is correct IF we conceive of faith as informed by [i.e. made alive by] the supernatural disposition of love for God?
As Scott Clark says, the full import of Benedict’s statement is in what follows: “transformed by his love, [the implication being “and only transformed thusly”], we can truly be just in God’s eyes…”
But that is the lie. IF your aunt had testicles, she would be your uncle. IF
If he were intending to say “faith alone,” even untransformed, we are made just — because that’s what Luther said and meant, and that is the biblical doctrine of justification. Using the words of the Bible. At the moment we believe, however impure we are, whatever deeds we have done or not done, we are justified in God’s eyes.
If Ratzinger had intended to say “faith alone,” he would have said “faith alone.” That he sought to qualify it in some way indicates that it is not alone. He should rather have said that “by faith alone the sinner is justified, so as to understand that nothing else is required to cooperate in the attainment of justification, and that it is in no way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will.” This would have been a genuinely true statement.
Here again:
If he were more careful to define his terms, it would be easy to take the “more charitable reading” of it. However, he continues to try to obfuscate, to blur the lines, to equivocate. For this reason, there is no reason to give him a more charitable reading.
Your own effort, “Called to Communion,” is dishonest, in that it tries to hide your real intention — “that they may all be one under the pope” — under the guise of something that might be genuinely good if not for your unstated intention.
That is, and has been, “Catholic method” for centuries.
johnbugay said,
August 29, 2009 at 9:25 am
Curate — I understand that you appreciate that our lives are no longer in danger, but in a way, the new tone can be seen to be even more insidious, if we are not on our guard.
I would rather say, too, that some of Rome has embraced modernism; but that situation has not clarified, but rather, it has muddied.
David Wells, in his “Revolution in Rome,” has well described the post Vatican II situation:
In what follows, he describes the actual mechanics of the hermeneutic:
That fact alone is bad; the hermeutic (which we’ve seen all along, most recently in Ratzinger’s statement above) is very dangerous.
Bryan Cross said,
August 29, 2009 at 10:50 am
John,
Re: #711,
Nothing you say here is incompatible with Pope Benedict not intending to deceive. So, your assumption that he intended to deceive is neither justified nor in keeping with the principle of charity. Christ too was called a “deceiver,” (Matt 27:63, John 7:12) so it is no surprise to us that His servant is falsely accused of being a liar and a deceiver, even the “successor of Satan” (#664). “If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign the members of his household!” (Matt 10:25) As I have said before, if you want to find the true Church, follow the hate (last paragraph).
Your accusation that my effort at Called To Communion is “dishonest” likewise is an uncharitable ad hominem (see also #224). I have explained clearly and openly what is my position viz-a-viz the Catholic Church, and what is my ecumenical philosophy. We do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. We speak the truth openly, and without dissimulation, with the charity of divine grace and in the peace of the Holy Spirit.
You seem to be presuming dishonesty and intent to deceive, where there is none. The relation of charity and truth entails that when charity diminishes (as we know that it will in the last days – Matt 24:12) the clarity of truth likewise diminishes, because charity is the light by which we see the truth. (1 John 2:11) And we know that deception will increase in the last days. (2 Tim 3:13) If you distance yourself from charity, you will place yourself in the darkness of deception. This is the self-deception that Scripture enjoins us to avoid. (1 Cor 3:18) Those perish in deception, says the Holy Scripture, who have not received love [agapen] of the truth, so as to be saved. (2 Thess 2:10) If you pursue charity, the light of truth will brightly shine on you. Only if we are pursuing charity, can we (Protestants and Catholics) reach agreement concerning the truth. So if you wish to compete with us, then outdo us in charity. But as the Holy Spirit teaches through the Apostle Paul, let us not go on passing judgment on other men’s hearts; Christ will bring to light the motives of men’s hearts when He comes in glory. (1 Cor 4:5)
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
johnbugay said,
August 29, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Nothing you say here is incompatible with Pope Benedict not intending to deceive.
Bryan — The vehicle through which God chooses to work is his “Word”. There is a huge amount of significance in this.
Satan “disguises himself as an angel of light”. He is “a liar,” in fact, “the deceiver of the whole world.” He can be a liar and a deceiver while making true statements, as he did in Gen 3.
There is a very clear contrast between the true word and the lying word. There are also many different kinds of deceit. Perhaps in your mind you have some category for each and every type of deceit, and I simply have not come up with the correct one.
But I am not going to try to argue this on your ground. I am not writing an academic paper here. It is one thing to be able to “prove” “intent” in a rigorous way. It is quite another thing to discern and understand a pattern.
And that pattern is “equivocation.” Whether there is personal intent to deceive, there is institutional policy as described very well by David Wells above to be “so brilliantly ambiguous as to be capable of serving the interest of both parties”.
Equivocation is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).
The council of Trent condemned the term “faith alone” in the strongest possible terms. Now there is a pope who has “discovered” that really, “faith alone is not so bad, if only it is [not alone].” Are we to believe that?
Those are the two words that the whole ruckus was about.
No word that a pope speaks in public — or rather, very few of them, are not calculated or thoroughly screened. For a pope to try and appropriate the phrase “faith alone” for himself, even couching it in the history of Luther as he has done, is de facto going to cause confusion in people’s minds, especially for those who, in the case of a public audience (and a wider public who will be exposed through the media) are not going to be familiar with the issues. Such a thing is only going to create confusion.
He said, For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true … if … ”
In the first place, Luther’s phrase “faith alone” is true in every sense he used it, with no qualification.
You tried to soften this: Why is it not possible that he is actually intending to explain truthfully the *difference* between the Catholic and Lutheran positions on sola fide? That is the more charitable interpretation, …
We are not required to take a charitable interpretation” with known liars. I attribute plenty of charity to my Arminian friends.
We are also counseled to “flee” the devil, so as not to become entangled in his lies.
If a pope were to come around with a history of accurately defining his terms, stating clearly what differences are, then we would understandably have some motive to try to listen more closely.
But Ratzinger did not do that. He deliberately chose words which would evoke one meaning [“faith alone is true”] while trying to equate that phrase with its opposite.
That is called “deceit.” And so you know that, here is a definition:
Deception (also called beguilement, deceit, bluff, or subterfuge) is the act of convincing another to believe information that is not true, or not the whole truth as in certain types of half-truths.
Your own “ecumenical philosophy” is really quite meaningless, given Rome’s stated purposes. Rome would categorize any of the individuals here as “deprived of a constitutive element of the Church” and would in no way accord them the status of “equals” in any official discussion, but would by definition view them as deficient.
johnbugay said,
August 29, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Bryan: continuing: The relation of charity and truth entails that when charity diminishes the clarity of truth likewise diminishes, because charity is the light by which we see the truth.
Who is it with the official policy to be “so brilliantly ambiguous as to be capable of serving the interest of both parties”?
And we know that deception will increase in the last days.
Yes, we see it in Rome’s official policy.
If you distance yourself from charity, you will place yourself in the darkness of deception.
We are told to flee deception and to flee the devil.
Those perish in deception, says the Holy Scripture, who have not received love [agapen] of the truth, so as to be saved.
It is Rome which does not admit to the clear meaning of “dikaioo,” but instead obfuscates the meaning. As for my own love of the truth, I am quite confident.
Only if we are pursuing charity, can we (Protestants and Catholics) reach agreement concerning the truth.
I do not see “Called to Communion” seeking out Rome’s errors, or persuading Rome to move in the direction of the Reformation.
You yourself downplay centuries of tyranny by saying such things as the worst of popes “exhibited human weakness” and things like that.
But as the Holy Spirit teaches through the Apostle Paul, let us not go on passing judgment on other men’s hearts;
I am testing your words. I’m sure you are quite convinced in your heart.
Bryan Cross said,
August 29, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Curate,
Re: #707,
Bryan Cross, I am still waiting for you to support your assertion that Rome teaches forgiveness by pure grace unpolluted by works. Do you need more time?
The Catholic doctrine is that our sins are forgiven as a free gift of grace, merited by Christ, and received through the sacrament of faith, i.e. baptism. The Catechism, quoting from St. Peter’s Pentecost sermon, states: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (CCC 1226) “By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins” (CCC 1263). “It is by faith in the Gospel and by Baptism that one renounces evil and gains salvation, that is, the forgiveness of all sins and the gift of new life.” (CCC 1427) Through baptism we are united with Christ in His Mystical Body, and made partakers of the divine nature. We cannot earn or merit this. Both faith and baptism are free gifts of God, as is the grace that comes to us through this sacrament.
We cannot merit forgiveness by works, though in small ways we can do things to make some restitution (even though utterly/infinitely disproportionate) for the wrongs we have done to God and to others. We see this in the story of Zaccheus. But there is no Catholic doctrine that we must do works in order to earn forgiveness of our sins. Rather, the Church says:
In that way, the Church rejects semi-Pelagianism.
For sins committed after baptism, since we cannot be baptized again, we have another sacrament:
We do not have to do works to gain or merit forgiveness. We must, however, have genuine contrition for our sin, and intend to turn away from it. Without contrition the sinner continues at that moment to give offense against God, and hence remains both in need of forgiveness and therefore unforgiven.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Perry Robinson said,
August 29, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Bob S,
I may be longwinded, but that is only because I try to address every point in a comprehensive manner. So I suppose I can be convicted of the fault of being longwinded.
I haven’t tried to be evasive or patrionzing. If so, then I am sorry for being so as that was my not intention. I do admit your insults got my ire up at one point. But rest assured, I am back on the path of ascesis!
If you think I was evasive on a point, please point it out to me.
As for the Laudians, since I don’t recognize my position or that of the Laudians in your construal it will come as no schock that I don’t concede your point. They like me, viewed tradition as being Spirit inspired and directed. Scripture is part of that tradition, though to a greater degree and perhaps kind of inspiration. Scripture itself is a tradition handed on either in textual form or by word of mouth as was the case with many of the earliest works of the OT.
I have addressed every single point, point by point. I have been anything but non-responsive. Either I am long winded or non-responsive, but I fail to see how I can be both!
And my long windedness is no excuse for your deliberate continued insults.
In any case, the conversation seems to have fizzled out, at least as far as the better commenters are concerned.. All that is left from your side it seems are insults and fist pounding, the bald assertions that John Buggay mistakes for an actual argument. Unless you have a response that addresses the substance of my points rather than me personally, I think I shall unsubscribe.
johnbugay said,
August 29, 2009 at 5:09 pm
ha ha ha Perry, you are good for about a laugh a minute.
Also, please note that you have consistently misspelled my name this whole thread. For as long as this is, and for as smart as you are, I can’t believe that’s just an accident.
Curate said,
August 30, 2009 at 1:04 am
Bryan Cross no. 716: Bryan, that was a good attempt, but no cigar.
We agree that forgiveness is ministered in baptism, and that it is free and gratis at that point. The WCF says that the sacraments convey the things that they signify, as do all of the Reformation Confessions, with the condition that it is mixed with faith, not ex opere operato, which is your position.
Where your argument fails is in limiting the efficacy and scope of our forgiveness. The biblical teaching is that forgiveness is full and complete, not partial and incomplete, needing to be added to over and over again.
You said that for sins committed after baptism, we have ANOTHER sacrament, confession to a Roman priest.
Where does the bible teach this? Nowhere. And please don’t quote James, as he does not mention Rome or priests. Also, the forgiveness granted to Christians is quite different from the forgiveness granted to non-Christians.
The bible teaches that a Christian can only lose his forgiveness if he falls away from God and Christ.
What can separate us from the love of God that is Christ Jesus?
Our remission received in baptism is always working to keep us clean before God. You teach that we lose it for things as petty as not attending church on a Day of Obligation, like Easter. This is a mortal sin, apparently, and another example of the arbitrary invention of new gospel-denying doctrines by the Papacy.
In this way you minimize and trivialize the full remission that God gives us through Christ.
You say that works are not necessary for forgiveness after baptism, just contrition. Surely you are not serious? Your authorities misquote James on this subject over and over at us:
so you see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
Do you disagree with your magisterium on this point?
RdB
Sean said,
August 30, 2009 at 5:52 am
Curate.
Sacrament of Confession in scripture.
And it simply begs the question to off the bat tell us that the orthodox interpretation of the epistle of James is wrong.
You are basically saying, “Show me this from scripture but you cannot use this book or that book because I know you guys are wrong.”
The bible teaches that a Christian can only lose his forgiveness if he falls away from God and Christ.
You are going to get plenty of disagreement on that point from many of the Protestants on this board hope you realize.
Sean said,
August 30, 2009 at 5:53 am
Second to last center in above should be italicized or quoted as your words.
Sean said,
August 30, 2009 at 5:56 am
PS.
“All mortal sins are to be submitted to the keys of the Church and all can be forgiven; but recourse to these keys is the only, the necessary, and the certain way to forgiveness. Unless those who are guilty of grievous sin have recourse to the power of the keys, they cannot hope for eternal salvation. Open your lips, them, and confess your sins to the priest. Confession alone is the true gate to Heaven.”
Augustine, Christian Combat (A.D. 397)
Curate said,
August 30, 2009 at 8:42 am
Sean, so you are disagreeing with Bryan that forgiveness is by grace alone apart from works, aren’t you? Which of you two is expressing the RCC doctrine?
Richard said,
August 30, 2009 at 9:14 am
Roger, it is pretty clear that the RCC see grace as mediated through the Church (as did the Reformers) ergo Sean and Bryan are not disagreeing they are simply pointing out different aspects of their common heritage.
Curate said,
August 30, 2009 at 10:27 am
If anyone shall say that the wicked are justified by faith alone, so as to understand that nothing else is is required to cooperate for the obtainment of the grace of justification and is necessary from no part, that he should be prepared to and disposed by a motion of his own will, let him be anathema. Trent;Session 6; Canon 9.
We se from this that free will is necessary to cooperate with grace. Free will means that power within man that enables him to act or work. Ergo, grace plus works are necessary for the remission of sins.
The Apostle Paul teaches to the contrary, that a man is justified by faith alone apart form the works of the law.
Therefore it is no the man who wills or runs, but God who has mercy.
It is by grace you have been saved, and this not of yourselves, not by works, lest any man should boast.
Richard, grace is indeed mediated through the church, but on the basis of grace alone, not grace plus works. Grace plus works for forgiveness and acceptance by God is the error that the Galatians embraced, and that Paul condemned with the anathema.
Regards
Bryan Cross said,
August 30, 2009 at 11:46 am
Curate,
Re: #719,
Where your argument fails is in limiting the efficacy and scope of our forgiveness. The biblical teaching is that forgiveness is full and complete, not partial and incomplete, needing to be added to over and over again.
Why then did Jesus teach us to pray daily “and forgive us our sins”? (And why did the Church for the first 1500 years after Christ pray daily for the forgiveness of sins? Did all Christians just entirely fail to realize that the line should be amended to “thank you this day, for having already forgiven all of my sins (past, present, and future) at my baptism”?
You said that for sins committed after baptism, we have ANOTHER sacrament, confession to a Roman priest. Where does the bible teach this?
Your assumption that everything we are to believe and practice must be explicitly taught in Scripture is itself not itself explicitly taught in Scripture, and thus fails its own test. But the sacrament of penance can be found in the authority Christ gave to the Apostles to forgive and retain sins. “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” (John 20:23) This authority did not pass away with the death of the last Apostle, but continued in their successors, the bishops. Otherwise, those who fell into apostasy after their baptism (and you agree that those who do so lose their salvation) could never be restored; apostasy would ipso facto entail eternal damnation.
The bible teaches that a Christian can only lose his forgiveness if he falls away from God and Christ.
No. Many will say to Him on that day, “Lord, Lord” (Matt 7:22), and He will say to them, “I never knew you. Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.” Not every who believes in Christ is saved, as shown by the very fact that the demons believe in Christ (James 2:19) Those who claimed to love Christ, but did not love their neighbor, will be cast out into “eternal fire”. (Matt 24:31ff) St. Paul tells us clearly:
If a person believes in Jesus, but does any of those things, without repenting, he will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Our remission received in baptism is always working to keep us clean before God.
By your tradition of men you nullify the Word of God. The divine and omniscient Son of God taught us to pray daily for the forgiveness of our sins. But by your tradition you correct Him, as though you know better than Him, saying that we do not need to ask daily for forgiveness, since our baptism keeps us clean.
But for you, apparently, our baptism stops “working to keep us clean” if we apostatize, since you said, “a Christian can only lose his forgiveness if he falls away from God and Christ.” But if our baptism can stop working in that sin, then there is no principled reason why it can’t stop “working” for other grave sins, such as the sins St. Paul lists in 1 Cor 6:9-10.
You teach that we lose it for things as petty as not attending church on a Day of Obligation, like Easter. This is a mortal sin, apparently, and another example of the arbitrary invention of new gospel-denying doctrines by the Papacy.
When the Church speaks, Christ speaks, because the Church is His Body. You don’t understand this, because you do not know the Church. You follow your own interpretation of Scripture. The Church that authoritatively determined that Christians must not eat animals killed by strangling (Acts 15:29) is the same Church that authoritatively determined the precepts regarding holy days of obligation. What is arbitrary is not the Church, but your accepting the former as binding while rejecting the latter as non-authoritative.
You say that works are not necessary for forgiveness after baptism, just contrition. Surely you are not serious? Your authorities misquote James on this subject over and over at us: “so you see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.” Do you disagree with your magisterium on this point?
I do not disagree with Scripture nor with the Magisterium. But notice that you have jumped from speaking of “forgiveness” to “justification.” For us the two terms are not synonymous.
Re: #725,
We see from this that free will is necessary to cooperate with grace. Free will means that power within man that enables him to act or work. Ergo, grace plus works are necessary for the remission of sins.
If you are now defining ‘works’ as any act of the will, then either you still have not believed the gospel (since that would require an act of the will on your part), or you too believe that grace plus works are necessary for the remission of sins.
The Apostle Paul teaches to the contrary, that a man is justified by faith alone apart form the works of the law.
We also believe this. The mistake you are making is to assume that “works of the law” means “any act of the will”.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
curate said,
August 30, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Bryan no. 726: Why then did Jesus teach us to pray daily “and forgive us our sins”?
I pray every day for God to forgive me too! The difference is in the changed relationship. God forgave me first as my judge, and in doing so he became my Father. Now he forgives me as a father forgiving a beloved child, not as a king pardoning an enemy.
There is no equivalence.
Your assumption that everything we are to believe and practice must be explicitly taught in Scripture is itself not itself explicitly taught in Scripture, and thus fails its own test.
The scripture is the word of God, and thus it is above every other word. It is a necessary inference. Indeed, nothing could be inferred more certainly. God’s word judges every other word. It is unlawful to require faith and obedience to anything that is contrary to God’s word, because it is necessarily hostile to God.
You are of course referring to your tradition, by which you overthrow the scripture. Where is your tradition, that I may read it and know what it is? Which apostle or prophet spoke it? I already have their teaching in the tradition that is scripture. That is the tradition I venerate.
Your tradition is proven false by the tire-to-the-track test of comparing it to scripture. A man is justified by faith alone, apart from the works of the law. Your tradition denies that, so it is necessarily false.
But the sacrament of penance can be found in the authority Christ gave to the Apostles to forgive and retain sins. “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” (John 20:23) This authority did not pass away with the death of the last Apostle, but continued in their successors, the bishops.
If you look at the Reformed liturgies, you will see that corporate and private confession are retained, citing the very text that you mention above. That authority was given to Christ’s ministers, as we teach and believe. Hence we absolve the sins of those who sincerely repent and truly believe the gospel. No problem. But it is not a sacrament.
As for bishops, the scripture interchanges the words for elder and overseer, or, Presbyter and Episkopos. Therefore I am a bishop according to the apostolic pattern, being the Presbyter of a congregation, and I declare absolution to my flock as God authorized and commanded me to.
No. Many will say to Him on that day, “Lord, Lord” (Matt 7:22), and He will say to them, “I never knew you. Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.”
I get your point and agree. My point is that the people mention above were never true Christians, since the Lord will say, I never knew you. I was speaking of those with a living faith, the faith that justifies.
When the Church speaks, Christ speaks, because the Church is His Body.
True. Provide it speaks according to God’s word. Did God speak through Peter when he withdrew from the Gentiles in Antioch through fear of the Judaizers? Surely not! When even prophets and apostles speak and act against the gospel, they are liars.
The question is whether the RCC is a church of Christ or not. With all the Reformed Churches, I do not grant that, because you have set aside the grace of God by placing yourselves under a self-chosen law for salvation, the laws of the Pope.
The church of Christ teaches and believes that the cross is the sufficient atonement for the sins of everyone who believes.
But notice that you have jumped from speaking of “forgiveness” to “justification.” For us the two terms are not synonymous.
Therein lies your greatest error. Justification in scripture never ever means an infusion of life-changing power, as you teach. It always means to declare righteous.
You teach that justification is both forgiveness and regeneration, contrary to every single instance of the word in scripture. Even James uses it in a purely forensic sense.
If you are now defining ‘works’ as any act of the will, then …
Too hasty, hence a non sequitur.
The Apostle Paul teaches to the contrary, that a man is justified by faith alone apart form the works of the law. You replied: We also believe this.
Then come on and join us! You will find a very warm welcome.
tom said,
August 30, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Curate,
You said something that was very interesting, “Hence we absolve the sins of those who sincerely repent and truly believe the Gospel.”
If you could develop what you mean when you, as a Pastor, absolve someone, I would appreciate it. Also, may I take you to hold that you may retain the sins of one as well?
curate said,
August 30, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Tom, no.728: If you could develop what you mean when you, as a Pastor, absolve someone, I would appreciate it.
Hello. This comes as a surprise to many people. The Reformers all retained confession and absolution, both corporately and privately. The Lutherans did, and so did the Reformed. Check out the liturgies for yourself.
God has given commandment and authority to his ministers, to declare to his people, being penitent, the absolution and remission of their sins. We use the same text that you do, noting that it is not addressed to Peter in particular, but to his disciples in the plural. The word is you, not thee. We understand that to mean that the power of the keys is given to the church as a whole, and in particular, to the ministers of the gospel and sacraments.
Also, may I take you to hold that you may retain the sins of one as well?
Yes. The church has power to excommunicate obstinate sinners, and to declare to them their alienation from Christ and his people because of their rebellion.
The power of the keys is the pastoral application of sola fide.
Regards
tom said,
August 30, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Curate,
I asked you a legitimate question and I appreciate the answer. (I did know that Luther wanted to retain confession, at least to some degree). What I don’t get is the sarcastic tone (now I concede that this medium is not conducive for given proper context for tone, so if I am wrong in that I apologize, only you know how you intended it).
I never heard it put that way at RTS. The way my profs taught this passage (John) was that this was anticipatory of the Gospel message being preached and that in the preaching of the Gospel, if one believed the message they were forgiven, and if one did not, they remained in their sins. In my time of being Reformed no minister ever proposed to me that he would hear my confession. Nor did I ever propose to my people to come to me for confession.
TurretinFan said,
August 30, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Sean quoted Augustine thus:
I wonder whether you are familiar with how Augustine thought one could deal with venial sins? or whether you are familiar with how many times Augustine thought one could avail oneself of this “confession” of which he speaks.
Perry is quick to call “word-concept fallacy” above, but here is an instance where he ought to be speaking up.
-TurretinFan
johnbugay said,
August 30, 2009 at 6:03 pm
TurretinFan — I was looking for this particular Augustine quote but the only place it appeared was in its out-of-context location on several of the Catholic proof-text sites. It seems to be taken from a work translated in 1947 and not generally available.
If you get a chance, some time, can you fill in some of the details on this?
By the way, Steve Hays has responded at length to Perry from this thread, here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/08/chicago-overcoat.html
Bob S said,
August 30, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Perry,
My apologies for the delay in reply to yours of 717 and 668.
Nevertheless somebody still doesn’t get it.
True, if you care to take that for an insult, I can’t stop you. But this is a Protestant site after all and plain speaking is a desideratum, as well ridiculous arguments deserve to refuted by ridicule (Prov. 26:5).
Of course, you don’t think your arguments are ridiculous, but neither do you think your “comprehensive” replies largely irrelevant and consequently frustrating as I do.
Regardless again, if you think my saying so is an insult.
Nevertheless in the main, from my point of view, I see a continual assertion, accompanied by an occasional nominal appeal to an infallible and perspicuous Bible, to assert and establish:
1. The definition of the church as primarily to consist of the external and visible hierarchy of the same, whether centered in the Roman bishop or Eastern bishops over and against the spiritual and invisible community of all who confess Christ.
2. The infallibility, if not deification, of that same “church” over and against the again infallible Scripture which many times in the NT is addressed to the entire congregation, if not the children in the same, as well that in 2 Tim. 3:15-17 Paul plainly tells Timothy he has known the Scripture from infancy – it is perspicuous – which is able to equip the man of God for every good work – it is sufficient. In short, I take the Roman/EO assertion as an insult to the Word of God.
Further you chide me for using the common terms finite creatures must use in discussing the infinite indivisible and simple Creator, all the while EO usurps infallibility for herself. Again, I think this arrogant and a grand insult to the infallible God and his Word, though you do not, but rather your reverence of the church is the height of obedience and piety and reflects well on the Lord. Very well, but again, the charge of insults goes both ways.
3. Further, the distinction between two dimensional and three dimensional images and subsequent scholastic hair splitting and explanation is largely specious and irrelevant to Protestantism, if not – you saw this coming – an insult to the plain statement of Scripture in the Second Commandment. While images themselves of things earthly are not unlawful, idolatry is what it is, an undue reverence for and substitution of something in the place of God, if not that we are forbidden to worship God by way of an image, whether icon or statue. As for the worship/respect paid to the king, it is hardly the same as that given to icons and statues. It is civil rather than religious and the difference is all the world.
4. To insist that Protestants may revise the canon is simply nonsense. For one, in the NT Christ many times appealed to the law of Moses and the prophets without qualification, the inference being he considered it common knowledge and the Jews in the main had not molested the OT canon, whatever the exceptions with the Sadducees. The Protestants simply took that canon at face value. To deny this and and add the Apocrypha to the OT as Rome and the EO do, to me seems to be the height of arrogance, if not to impugn – or insult – Christ’s witness and testimony on the same. But so it goes and what else is new?
As for the better commentators leaving the field and all you are left with is the dregs, one, I think John B does quite well, thank you and two, if it is up to us hacks to turn out the lights and lock the door, we will do what we can by the grace of God to uphold the Word of God as the only infallible rule for faith and life over and against all insults and innovations, ancient and modern which attempt to supplant or subvert it.
Thank you very much.
Sean said,
August 30, 2009 at 8:34 pm
You can also discredit these John.
From Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book 5, chap. 21
Wherefore God gives the sacrament of grace even through the hands of wicked men, but the grace itself only by Himself or through His saints. And therefore He gives remission of sins either of Himself, or through the members of that dove to whom He says, “Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.”
For the sake of brevity we can spare the pieces about doing penance for mortal sins in the church at the discretion of the bishop.
Bob S said,
August 30, 2009 at 8:52 pm
713
Christ too was called a “deceiver,” (Matt 27:63, John 7:12) so it is no surprise to us that His servant is falsely accused of being a liar and a deceiver, even the “successor of Satan” (#664). “If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign the members of his household!” (Matt 10:25) As I have said before, if you want to find the true Church, follow the hate (last paragraph).
Dear Bryan,
I hesitate to ask if you and Perry ever consult behind the scenes. After all, if I have been so boorish as to insult him, I fear what an objective examination of the above statement might lead to regarding your own reputation and credibility on this site.
Again, in #664 I was so forward to recommend to you in general the witness of Lord Acton regarding the Waldensians and the Hueguenots. (This the same individual responsible for the famous statement that “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely”. That it was in context of discussing ecclesiastical and political tyranny or papal infallibility and the divine right of kings is not so well known. See his Select. Works II:383. ) After all, the Aug. 23 anniversary of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of 1572 in France has just passed.
But in light of the above statement of yours in 713, you show no knowledge of the event or if you do, you wilfully choose to ignore it. (I’d say arrogantly regarding the last, but that would open me up to charges again, of intemperate and inflammatory “insults”, so I will bite my tongue.) Briefly the French Protestants were lured to Paris for a royal marriage, wined, dine, feted and then slaughtered without mercy. The king then sent word to the provinces to do the same. Not all did, but that is small consolation.
More to the point, the most holy reverend and infallible papal successor to Satan upon hearing the news celebrated with grand distinction. He had guns fired, said a mass of thanksgiving, issued a bull, struck a medal and commissioned a fresco in the Sixtine Chapel from Vasari that still graces its walls today, though off limits to tourists.
“Follow the hate” indeed. If not that “thou shalt know them by their fruits.” Thus the Roman rule – not the exception – at the Reformation, and it would be the same today, but that her power was broken then.
We may heartily thank God for it and stand guard against her ongoing attempts to pervert and persecute the truth as it is in Christ and his Word, as well his saints, however much her apologists, advocates and simple dupes today resort to honeyed obfuscations and jesuitical half truths in excusing, if not promoting her wickedness.
Bob S said,
August 30, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Stephen, late of Grimm’s fairytales, regardless if yours of 692 is true or not, it is irrelevant to the discussion here.
Rather the real point of your posting is that you are still upset for getting whooped on over at Old Theo.Society on the Christian America thread. Therein you not only insisted on defending, excusing and apologizing for the bureaucratic policy of the government schools in Alameda, Ca. which forced Christ’s little ones in the fourth grade to regurgitate LesbianGayBiTransgendered vomit, you also charged the parents of the same with transformationalism and activism contra 2Kingdom theology. (Whether one’s children, made in the image of God, are to be rendered unto to Caesar’s govt. schools in the first place is another question for another time.) Whatever.
IOW I still think it’s time for you to quit sulking and repent. Publicly. On the Chr. America thread. Instead of essentially bringing it up here.
Thank you.
Bob S said,
August 30, 2009 at 9:11 pm
. . .you also charged the parents of the same with transformationalism and activism contra 2Kingdom theology [insert] because they had the audacity to file a lawsuit.
curate said,
August 31, 2009 at 1:05 am
Tom no. 730: What I don’t get is the sarcastic tone (now I concede that this medium is not conducive for given proper context for tone, so if I am wrong in that I apologize, only you know how you intended it).
No sarcastic tone at all. I was speaking entirely factually, even with good-will. I apologize if I sounded that way.
Regarding your time at RTS, I am guessing that they reflect the CURRENT atmosphere within American Reformedom, which is heavily influenced by baptistic categories.
You can check this out online. Look up the LC-MS liturgies. They all include a congregational confession and absolution, as does the BCP 1662, which no-one can accuse of being Anglo-Catholic, and is as Reformed as it gets.
From Morning Prayer:
… and hath given power, and commandment, to his Ministers, to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the Absolution and Remission of their sins
The Visitation of the Sick:
Here shall the sick person be moved to make a special confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter. After which confession, the Priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and heartily desire it) after this sort.
OUR Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to his Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in him, of his great mercy forgive thee thine offences: And by his authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
At Morning Prayer, if a layman is leading he may not say the absolution, because that is reserved for the appointed minister of the word and sacraments. He is given a different form of words that excludes the word absolution. It is one of the Trinity collects.
The Continental Reformed Churches had a congregational confession and absolution, see the Strasbourg liturgies, but in time the wording was changed to express God’s general desire to have mercy, and an absolution that became more generalized.
Modern evangelical liturgies tend to remove the word absolution, in line with the thinking that you found at RTS. While their explanation is correct, as far as it goes, it is incomplete.
Regards, straight up, no sarcasm. :)
Paige Britton said,
August 31, 2009 at 5:39 am
#738: Just to add a tiny bit to what Curate said, in the LC-MS where I grew up, part of the liturgy included this Absolution:
“Upon this your confession [congregational], I, by virtue of my office, as a called and ordained servant of the word, announce the grace of God unto all of you, and in the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ I forgive all of you all your sins in the name of the [Trinity].”
I had never thought of this difference before, but now I realize that the same idea (of pastoral authority to absolve) is never conveyed in the [soft] liturgy of the PCA church I’ve attended for 3 years now; instead, after a congregational confession, a Scripture is read celebrating God’s forgiving character and his promise to do so.
Thanks for that insight, Curate. That’s something interesting to think about.
Bryan Cross said,
August 31, 2009 at 6:15 am
Curate,
I pray every day for God to forgive me too! The difference is in the changed relationship. God forgave me first as my judge, and in doing so he became my Father. Now he forgives me as a father forgiving a beloved child, not as a king pardoning an enemy.
The question is whether or not all your sins (past, present, and future) were forgiven at your baptism. Whether the relationship is changed is a red herring. If all your sins (past, present, and future) were forgiven at baptism, then your continuing to ask for forgiveness is at best to show your unbelief in what He has already fully accomplished, and at worst to call God a liar, by implying through your request for forgiveness that He has not yet forgiven you. But if we are to continue to ask daily for the forgiveness of our sins, that means that it is false that all of our sins (past, present, and future) were already forgiven at our baptism.
That authority was given to Christ’s ministers, as we teach and believe. Hence we absolve the sins of those who sincerely repent and truly believe the gospel.
That authority to forgive sins was given to the Apostles, and to those bishops whom they ordained, and subsequently to those bishops whom those bishops ordained. This is the nature of apostolic succession.
As for bishops, the scripture interchanges the words for elder and overseer, or, Presbyter and Episkopos. Therefore I am a bishop according to the apostolic pattern, being the Presbyter of a congregation, and I declare absolution to my flock as God authorized and commanded me to.
Just because a bishop is also a presbyter, it does not follow that the two offices are identical. The Church for 1500 years recognized the distinction between them (read the epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch), and the need for a bishop to ordain. The Protestants rejected the distinction because of their solo scriptura approach. Thy also rejected apostolic succession, because they didn’t have it. You claim to be a bishop. But you were not ordained by someone having the authority to make you a bishop, because whoever laid hands on you had not himself been ordained by a bishop, and so on, back to the Apostles. Anyone can claim to be sent. But only those sent by the successors of the Apostles are sent by Christ and speak for Christ by His authorization. The rest are those who do not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep.
The church of Christ teaches and believes that the cross is the sufficient atonement for the sins of everyone who believes.
That is true, but St. Paul also teaches that he fills up in his flesh, on behalf of Christ’s Body (which is the Church), that which is lacking in Christ’s afflictions. (Col 1:24)
Justification in scripture never ever means an infusion of life-changing power, as you teach. It always means to declare righteous.
When God declares, what He declares is made actual. Your nominalism makes God out to be a liar. He declares a person righteous, and yet that person is nevertheless actually unrighteous. If God did this at the Final Judgment, then unrighteous people would be in heaven forever, while still unrighteous. The God we worship is a God of truth; He never lies. Those whom He declares righteous are truly righteous.
You teach that justification is both forgiveness and regeneration, contrary to every single instance of the word in scripture. Even James uses it in a purely forensic sense.
You assume that the mind of Christ contained in the Scriptures is determined by matching it to the minds of contemporary pagans, as these words have been collected in lexicons. But the wisdom of God is greater than the wisdom of man, and the Word of God exceeds the words of men. Hence the meaning of the Word of God is not restricted to the meaning of the words of men. The interpretation of Scripture belongs to those whom Christ authorized, i.e. the Apostles and their successors. They have the mind of Christ, and the Spirit of Christ. These men, and the whole Church, for 1500 years, never understood justification in a “purely forensic sense”. So your claim presupposes ecclesial deism, that for 1500 years the Spirit of God misled or abandoned the Church on the question of justification. But ecclesial deism is not the way of faith; it is the way of doubt, trusting in man over God.
The Apostle Paul teaches to the contrary, that a man is justified by faith alone apart form the works of the law. You replied: We also believe this. Then come on and join us! You will find a very warm welcome.
You say “come on and join us!” But who is that “us”? You are an independent congregation, not even affiliated with any denomination. That is not the “catholic visible Church”. The Protestants left the Catholic Church in the sixteenth century. They went out from us, immediately thereafter fracturing into hundreds of schisms of their own making. For that reason the movement by which we are to be reunited cannot be any other than a return by Protestants to that which they left almost five hundred years ago.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
TurretinFan said,
August 31, 2009 at 6:48 am
Mr. Bugay,
An English translation of Christian Combat can be found in volume 2 of the Fathers of the Church series (in-progress index of series here). As you will see at the index I’ve linked above, you can actually read the book on-line or download it in either pdf or text format (the text format is the work of text-recognition software, so user beware).
The bottom line is that the “confession” and “penance” of Augustine’s era is radically different from the “confession” and “penance” of Roman Catholicism today. Even the venial/mortal categories Augustine uses are different from the venial/mortal categories of Roman Catholicism today.
What Sean is doing is with these drive-by quotations is simply showing an unwillingness to get deep in history. If he were to examine history more closely he’d note:
1) The “penance” in Augustine’s day was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, not something that one did every week to get ready to commune.
2) The “confession” in Augustine’s day was generally public, not private.
3) The “confession” in Augustine’s day was generally only for major sins like murder or adultery.
4) In fact, Augustine specifically indicated that minor sins did not require any church procedure, being able to be handled between the individual and God.
So, while there may be some verbal similarity between what Augustine talks about and what Rome does today, it is naive at best (and deceptive if one actually knows the history) to suggest that Augustine held to the idea of “confession” as practiced in Roman Catholicism.
-TurretinFan
Sean said,
August 31, 2009 at 7:28 am
TF,
The fact remains that in Augustine’s day (and before and after) the church held that her priests would forgive sins, sacramentally, by hearing confessions and giving penance. This authority comes from Jesus in his sending out the apostles (John 20). This is the constant teaching of the church.
My only hope in showing particular quotes (I would quote entire works’ if time and space allowed) is to demonstrate to anybody watching that the Catholic Church is practicing the faith of the Fathers.
“Father who knowest the hearts of all grant upon this Thy servant whom Thou hast chosen for the episcopate to feed Thy holy flock and serve as Thine high priest, that he may minister blamelessly by night and day, that he may unceasingly behold and appropriate Thy countenance and offer to Thee the gifts of Thy holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority to forgive sins…”
Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, 3 (A.D. 215).
“In addition to these there is also a seventh, albeit hard and laborious: the remission of sins through penance…when he does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord.”
Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 2:4 (A.D. 248).
“For although in smaller sins sinners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of communion: now with their time still unfulfilled, while persecution is still raging, while the peace of the Church itself is not vet restored, they are admitted to communion, and their name is presented; and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands Of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the eucharist is given to them; although it is written, ‘Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.'”
Cyprian, To the Clergy, 9 (16):2 (A.D. 250).
“It is necessary to confess our sins to those whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries is entrusted.”
Basil, Rule Briefly Treated, 288 (A.D. 374).
“Just as in the Old Testament the priest makes the leper clean or unclean, so in the New Testament the bishop and presbyter binds or looses not those who are innocent or guilty, but by reason of their office, when they have heard various kinds of sins, they know who is to be bound and who loosed.” Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, 3:16,19 (A.D. 398).
The Reformers abandoned the constant biblical (Matt 16/John 20) teaching of the church because it did not agree with their interpretation of scripture.
Perry Robinson said,
August 31, 2009 at 8:46 am
Bob S,
If you had given a logical demonstration that my views were ridiculous then the passage from proverbs might avail you, but no such demonstration has so far been given. And granted that this is a Protestant blog, but I would think that Scriptural teaching regarding gentleness and respect would prevail nonetheless, or at least a desire to persuade and save some on the other side. You aren’t going to persuade people by insulting them every other sentence.
I’ll simply note that you ignore my previous points about the Filioque and its non-Scriptural basis along with the demonstration by Turretin that there are no communicable attributes available to you in soteriology to claim that we partake of divine attributes and that all that we have is a created similitude or created intermediary between God and the redeemed.
Regarding 1, I don’t divide or hold the relation between visible and invisible, external and internal to be as anemic and attenuated as the Protestant position. So it is a something of a caricature to posit that I hold that the visible and external is over and against the spiritual and internal. If I did so, it seems to me that the sin of schism would be practically impossible to commit. Moreover, I don’t share the same ecclesiology with Rome so foisting a Roman understanding on the Orthodox won’t work. This is why we don’t take Rome to have valid orders for example. Our understanding of the Church is different than theirs and yours.
Second Hebrews 13 and other passages of Scripture seem to indicate some hierarchy that “rules over” others and that is something spiritual and not merely a hold over from life in the polis.
2. Since I think that the flesh of Christ is deified in the Transfiguration, and in fact his entire life is a recapitulation and deification of humanity culminating in the Resurrection and Ascension, why would it be an objection to my view that I also think that the Body of Christ is deified? I already stated that infallibility is a divine energy. If the Church is such and the scriptures are such, then since nothing in or of God is opposed to God, the two cannot be opposed to each other as you suggest.
More specifically, 2 Tim 3 speaks of the “man of God” but all biblical usages that I know of limit that usage to a king, prophet or priest, someone divinely commissioned by God and not just anyone. The sense of the passage is that Timothy as a Bishop, has Scripture as a tool for all of the purposes Paul lays out. So Paul doesn’t seem to indicate that everyone is a teacher on the order of Timothy. This is not to say that there can be no secondary application, but the primary sense seems to rule out the gloss you wish to give it as some kind of egalitarian usage and deployment of the Scriptures.
I chide you for holding people’s feet to the fire for doctrines that you claim are not found in the Scriptures, when the Reformation churches hold to doctrines regarding the nature of God and the Trinity which are equally not found in the Scriptures such as divine simplicity and the Filioque.
And I don’t think the Orthodox usurp what has been given them. As Jesus says, if they won’t heed the judgment of the church, treat them as an unbeliever. What kind of reverence and more pointedly deferment to the judgment of the church do you think Jesus has in mind when he says such things? And would that be the judgment of the visible or invisible church in your estimation?
3. If you were familiar with the Iconoclastic disputes, the distinction between three and two dimensional images and the other imposed rules for icons wouldn’t seem like hair splitting. The second commandment doesn’t preclude the use of images in the liturgy per se, it precludes the usage of images of the divine essence, of which we have none. Likewise we do not permit images of the Father or the Spirit since they were not incarnated. This is why icons of God creating the world depict the Incarnate Christ. So we have no images that we substitute for God. Such a substitution would entail a thesis that we reject, namely the identification of prototype with the image.
The passage from Chronicles I gave where honor is given to the king and worship to God in one act of prostration was a religious context since Israel had no secular kingship just for starters and worship of God is obviously religious. You seem to conflate civil with secular and the two are not necessarily the same ideas. And second, the fact that they are doing both at once indicates the context is religious. Moreover, Jesus in Revelation says he will command unbelieving Jews to come and worship at the feet of the saints. (Rev. 3.9) At their feet? Sounds like prostration to me. If you wish to claim that this command and prophetic statement by Jesus doesn’t amount to a “religious context” be my guest, but I find it utterly and unspeakably implausible to impute such secularism to the God of creation.
4. Surely Christ does appeal to the prophets, but Christ nowhere to my knowledge delimits what books constitute “the prophets.” And again, even if it were true that Protestants simply took the canon of the Jews, how does it follow that Jewish tradition is correct? Is Jewish tradition more reliable than the tradition of those who believe in Jesus as Messiah? If Church tradition is fallible and unreliable, why take Jewish tradition to be superior? That seems to border on Judiazing by getting the order of improvement from the Old Testament to the New backwards.
The Apocrypha was more or less used by pre-Christian Jews and the early Church. There were a plurality of canons since a canon is a rule and since you had a plurality of bishops and given the time and effort of transmitting texts, it was reasonable that there would be a plurality of canons. I know of no source in the ancient church that has exactly all and only the books as canonical that Protestants claim today. And if the Protestant canon is a fallible collection, then it is certainly revisable. And Jesus doesn’t cite every book in the OT either. Where is Ruth cited in the NT for example? Citation isn’t a necessary condition for canonic
steve hays said,
August 31, 2009 at 9:49 am
Bryan Cross said,
“That authority to forgive sins was given to the Apostles, and to those bishops whom they ordained, and subsequently to those bishops whom those bishops ordained. This is the nature of apostolic succession.”
Notice that Bryan is preaching Catholic dogma rather than doing Catholic apologetics. To announce the self-serving claims of Rome is hardly a reason to believe it.
“You claim to be a bishop. But you were not ordained by someone having the authority to make you a bishop, because whoever laid hands on you had not himself been ordained by a bishop, and so on, back to the Apostles. Anyone can claim to be sent. But only those sent by the successors of the Apostles are sent by Christ and speak for Christ by His authorization. The rest are those who do not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep.”
Once again, notice that he doesn’t argue for his claim. He’s just preaching at us. How is he any better than a Mormon missionary?
“When God declares, what He declares is made actual. Your nominalism makes God out to be a liar. He declares a person righteous, and yet that person is nevertheless actually unrighteous. If God did this at the Final Judgment, then unrighteous people would be in heaven forever, while still unrighteous. The God we worship is a God of truth; He never lies. Those whom He declares righteous are truly righteous.”
Is Bryan a perfectionist? Are Catholics sinless? If not, then Catholicism makes God out to be a liar by declaring that men are actually righteous when they are actually sinful.
“You assume that the mind of Christ contained in the Scriptures is determined by matching it to the minds of contemporary pagans, as these words have been collected in lexicons.”
So Bryan can only defend Catholicism by dismissing lexicography?
“Hence the meaning of the Word of God is not restricted to the meaning of the words of men.”
And what about the words of inspired men. Inspired words?
“The interpretation of Scripture belongs to those whom Christ authorized, i.e. the Apostles and their successors. They have the mind of Christ, and the Spirit of Christ.”
Bryan is preaching at us. Not doing apologetics.
When do his empty assertions carry any more weight than Benny Hinn’s?
“But ecclesial deism is not the way of faith; it is the way of doubt, trusting in man over God.”
He makes these pompous pronouncements as if we’re supposed to fall at the feet of his ipse dixit.
Sean said,
August 31, 2009 at 10:03 am
Steve.
Maybe you missed it from earlier but since you are back:
Which GAs represent the living judgement of the church?
tom said,
August 31, 2009 at 10:06 am
Curate,
I guess my only response to you is, how come you disagree with what Bryan is saying when you affirm, it seems, that you have a power as a minister to absolve and retain sins (not just declare that so and so is the case, as the PCA might put it, or even say that the John 20 passage is about preaching the Gospel)? In what meaningful way do you absolve and retain sin and how is that different from what the Catholic Church teaches?
Paige Britton said,
August 31, 2009 at 11:05 am
#754 – “Bryan is preaching at us. Not doing apologetics.”
Um…I thought the apologetics part of the thread was back there a couple hundred. You all seem to be doing something else now.
steve hays said,
August 31, 2009 at 11:52 am
Sean said,
“Maybe you missed it from earlier but since you are back: Which GAs represent the living judgement of the church?”
Sean,
Maybe you missed it from earlier but since you are back: Which interpretation of Vatican II represents the correct interpretation?
Sean said,
August 31, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Steve.
I already advised how the Council of Vatican II is remarkably different than any of the given 30-40 annual Presbyterian GAs that commence in the US every year. We know which of the councils in the Catholic church represent the living judgment of the church. Everybody does. We are not forced to pick and chose among multiple councils that happen every year.
You on the other hand cannot answer the question even though it was you who claimed that the GAs represent the ‘living judgment of the church.’
Which GAs?
In the spirit of dialog it would be customary for you to answer a question rather than just an attempt a tu quoque especially when no reasonable person would think that the ‘to quoque’ even applies in this instance given that the questions are not the same.
Earlier in the thread you tried to make a big deal about me not answering a question of yours specifically enough and now you won’t even address my question.
This would make me think that you don’t really want to pursue truth or engage in dialog but rather you are just looking to score points. I am not willing to do that.
So, if you wish to continue having a dialog I would ask that you ask the question that I’ve asked several times now.
Maybe it would help to imagine that a Catholic was not asking the question but a fellow Presbyterian of another Reformed American denomination.
Bryan Cross said,
August 31, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Steve,
Re: #754,
Notice that Bryan is preaching Catholic dogma rather than doing Catholic apologetics. To announce the self-serving claims of Rome is hardly a reason to believe it.
Speaking of me in the third-person, when I am a participant in the conversation, is impolite and uncharitable. Let’s lift the level of conversation up, and be respectful, even if we disagree with each other.
When I state and explain the Catholic position on something, you refer to it as “preaching”. Putting a label on it doesn’t refute the truth of what I say. (In fact, it usually shows that the other person doesn’t know how to falsify it, and so has to resort to name-calling.) If you think a statement or explanation of mine is untrue, or lacks sufficient support, the proper response is not to call it “preaching” (or some other name), but either to ask for substantiation or to falsify the claim.
Is Bryan a perfectionist? Are Catholics sinless? If not, then Catholicism makes God out to be a liar by declaring that men are actually righteous when they are actually sinful.
If you understood the metaphysical basis for the distinction between mortal and venial sin, you would see how we can be truly righteous, even while retaining both the disordered desires we call concupiscence and while committing venial sins. This is how “Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time” (Gen 6:9), and how Job was said to be “blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil” (Job 1:1) and Daniel likewise is called “righteous” (Ezek 14). Asa likewise was said to be blameless all his days (2 Chron 15:17). The Old Testament frequently refers to the righteous and those who are blameless before God. But that does not mean that they never sinned. It means that they did not live in mortal sin, even though they committed venial sin. God is not a liar when He says that Job is blameless (Job 1:8), even though a righteous man sins seven times a day. What explains this is the difference between mortal and venial sin.
Because you are speaking of me in the third-person, you show that your questions are merely rhetorical. If you really wanted to know the answers to these questions, you would simply ask me.
So Bryan can only defend Catholicism by dismissing lexicography?
No, that would be a non sequitur.
When do his empty assertions carry any more weight than Benny Hinn’s?
I didn’t claim they carried any “weight”. I am claiming that they are true. You are free to disbelieve them, to call them “empty”, to falsify them, to ignore them or to believe them.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
curate said,
August 31, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Bryan Cross: What Steve Hays said in post 754. You are not advancing an argument, but merely asserting.
curate said,
August 31, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Tom, no.756 asked:In what meaningful way do you absolve and retain sin and how is that different from what the Catholic Church teaches?
Absolution is related to the gospel of pure grace. As an orthodox Protestant minister in an orthodox church, I am in possession of the true gospel. The absolution is a pastoral application of God’s grace, a means of grace to believing and penitent sinners.
This differs from the Roman Church in that we have the gospel, and they do not. Thus we are in possession of salvation, and they are not. Rome’s message is forgiveness by law, and ours is grace, to simplify things.
Rome therefore has absolutely no basis to absolve sins, since by the law comes the knowledge of sin, not the knowledge of grace. What you call grace is not grace, but law.
Thus absolution in the Roman church is an empty name.
Bryan Cross said,
August 31, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Mike Brown,
Re: 697,
With all due respect, this notion about Protestants holding to ecclesial deism or thinking that Christ was indifferent about a visible church is just plain stupid. How does one read Belgic Confession Articles 27-35 and come to the conclusion that the Protestants of the Reformation thought that Christ was indifferent about a visible church?
For some reason, your comment just recently came through, so I just saw it today. I have not argued that Protestantism is indifferent about a visible church. My claim is that Protestantism has no “visible catholic Church.” My argument in support of that claim can be found in my interchange with David Gadbois in this thread, consisting of sixteen comments, starting at #453, and ending at #668. (The numbering mentioned within the comments themselves is now different.)
As for ecclesial deism, I have argued here and in podcast why ecclesial deism is necessarily intrinsic to Protestantism.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
TurretinFan said,
August 31, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Sean wrote:
No, they didn’t. The “Confession” that existed at that time in connection with penance was made to the brethren – it was public confession. The understanding of the operation of the acts of the penitent were supposed to produce the effects (not a judicial declaration from a priest). It was imposed under the administration of a bishop, not a priest, etc. etc. (I’ve mentioned other significant differences before). It was not the same thing, and the similarities are actually relatively remote.
Sean also wrote:
Sean said,
August 31, 2009 at 5:50 pm
TF.
Augustine was a Catholic bishop. I’ve read everything of Augustine’s that has survived.
The beautiful thing is that anybody can read church history and benefit from it. When I was a Presbyterian I did not read church history hoping to see Catholicism. I was hoping to see Presbyterianism. I was hoping to see the five solas. I was hoping to see TULIP. I was hoping to see two sacraments. I was hoping to see that the Catholic Church invented things out of thin air in the middle ages. I didn’t see any of that.
I honestly do not know what to say to somebody who claims to have read church history and thinks it favors Reformed Protestantism. I find it so unbelievable. I was reading “Confessions” the other day again and came to a three or four page story that Augustine tells about the bones of some martyrs that were carried through the streets and people venerated them and were healed. Come on. Does that sound remotely Presbyterian? Not a chance.
I never said that Augustine’s practice of the sacrament of confession is exactly the same as the Catholic Church’s practice of the sacrament of confession. But Augustine clearly taught that the priests in the Catholic Church had the authority to forgive sins and administer penance. I quoted a bunch of other church fathers both east and west who say the same thing. I’d like to see you interact with those instead of just putting to the side and declaring that your practices are favored by antiquity.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 31, 2009 at 6:37 pm
The more I think of it, the more I feel that what we need here is a thread dedicated to Newman’s idea of the development of doctrine. Without a theory on whether development is legitimate, and if it is, what constitutes true/false development (as well as who gets to decide), all our citations of the fathers will justi cancel one another out.
Sean said,
August 31, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Good call Jason.
A good practice, as well, is to discern the difference between a development and a complete reversal.
Example: The sacrament of confession that we are talking about. Anybody can see the relation to the Catholic sacrament of reconciliation where the penitent confesses their sins to a priest who gives penance and absolves sin and what Augustine described as opposed to taking the stance that “Augustine was wrong about that so we got rid of it completely.”
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
August 31, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Jason J. Stellman: “The more I think of it, the more I feel that what we need here is a thread dedicated to Newman’s idea of the development of doctrine. Without a theory on whether development is legitimate, and if it is, what constitutes true/false development (as well as who gets to decide), all our citations of the fathers will justi cancel one another out.”
“To explain the lateness of His [the Spirit’s] recognition as God he [Gregory Nazianzus] produces a highly original theory of doctrinal development.” [J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev ed 261, referencing Gregory’s Theological Oration 31]
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 31, 2009 at 9:29 pm
You also get some stuff on development from Vincent of Lerins (fifth century?).
I think Newman is interesting because he states very plainly in his Introduction that there was plenty of disagreement among the fathers, and that basically no single one of them taught the fullness of Catholic faith. Instead, you’d get a bit from this guy and a bit from that guy. But what he seeks to defend is the idea that to demand a complete consensus from all the fathers on everything, or to expect that a fully-developed theology be present from the very beginning, is to entertain a false and unrealistic expectation.
What we need to determine, I think, is (1) Is development of doctrine a legitimate concept? (2) If so, how do we know the difference between a legitimate development of the apostolic deposit of faith and a departure from it? and (3) Who gets to make such a determination, if anyone?
johnbugay said,
September 1, 2009 at 12:30 am
Jason — of course development is legitimate. But you’ve got to nail down the definition of development, first of all.
Turretinfan has written some good stuff about this, though I’m not able to find it right now. Newman’s theory was primarily a theory that would enable all of the disparate RC doctrines to cohere. It was intended to be a kind of glue for all that. But as we’ve seen regarding the early history of the papacy, the actual facts of the case just tear Newman’s idea of development all to pieces. It can’t hold up to the strain of the actual history.
As Steve Hays says, “truth is normative.” I like that and am going to repeat it a lot.
curate said,
September 1, 2009 at 3:25 am
Woa John B! By development they are talking about their tradition which they add to scripture, and which ends up nullifying it. In their view scripture is insufficient and incomplete, needing to be developed by the addition of tradition. Tradition, or development, completes what is lacking in the inspired scriptures.
Tradition works like a magic portal. Anything can be introduced into the faith through it, and mere word, tradition, somehow makes it all orthodox. Basically they can invent any new doctrine they please, and write it off to development.
curate said,
September 1, 2009 at 3:30 am
Sean, you say that Augustine was a catholic bishop. He taught absolute predestination, which is what he is famous for. Do you know of a single present day RCC bishop who believes and openly teaches absolute predestination?
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
September 1, 2009 at 3:31 am
I think the preferred phrase or term is …
Living Tradition.
Paige Britton said,
September 1, 2009 at 4:54 am
Hey, Perry, if you are still checking in, here are two informational questions for you, related to authority and interpretation in the EOC:
1. How does the EOC compare with the RCC regarding their view of individual study of the Bible? Is there also a major caution given here, lest the individual traipse down the wrong interpretive path? And a sub-question: How is “official” interpretation communicated to the individual EO believer?
2. I would also love some practical help: I am curious to research different takes on Col. 1:20, and I understand that the EO have a view of the redemption of the cosmos that differs from the view of most Protestants. Can you direct me to any online resources that might fill out an EO perspective on that idea or that verse?
Thanks much!
TurretinFan said,
September 1, 2009 at 7:13 am
Sean wrote:
No one denies that Augustine Catholic – what we deny is that he was Roman Catholic. Many of the distinctive doctrines of Roman Catholic theology are either entirely absent from Augustine’s theology (as, for example, the Assumption of Mary) or are contradicted by Augustine’s theology. Likewise, the practices of the churches in Augustine’s day is different from the practices of the Roman Catholic church either of the Reformation era or of today. Neither doctrinally nor practically was he a Roman Catholic, though (like us) he was a Catholic in the true sense of the term.
Sean wrote:
Your experience is what it is. Mine is that the more I study church history, the more I see that Rome’s claims are Scripturally, Historically, and Logically invalid.
Sean wrote:
I used to be puzzled by comments that seem to assume that we think that the folks in Augustine’s time believed and practiced the same way we do today. They didn’t. They weren’t PCA and they weren’t CRC. They weren’t Lutheran and they weren’t Anglican. They certainly weren’t Roman Catholic, although (like the Reformed churches) they were Catholic (in the true sense of the term).
As I mentioned above, in a point to which you didn’t respond, there is a reason for our variance from their beliefs and practices. It is a reason that would have been accepted (at least in principle) by most (if not all) of the Early Church: Sacred Scripture.
Sean wrote:
It’s not really a matter of “exactly the same” – it’s a matter of being radically different. Exomologesis as practiced in the 5th century has only superficial similarities today Rome’s view of penance today.
Compare Canon 11 of the Council of Toledo (about A.D. 589):
This brings us back to my point above, namely that you and we both vary from the practice of the early medieval church. We justify our variance from Scripture, but what will you find to justify your practice?
As for interacting with the quotations, I don’t necessarily mind addressing what each of those individual authors spanning hundreds of years thought, but does it really make a difference to you? There is really no doubt that they don’t believe or practice what you believe and practice, and we’re willing to concede that their beliefs and practices also do not perfectly align with ours? Who then will be the umpire between us?
The fourth century Eastern bishops had an answer:
– Basil of Caesarea, Letter 189 – To Eustathius the physician, §3.
And likewise:
Gregory of Nyssa, On the Holy Trinity, and of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit, second paragraph.
Those brothers have proposed a mechanism for resolving the kind of dispute with which we are faced. I wonder why you reject their proposal for how to address this problem?
Since you have read so much of Augustine, perhaps this comment of his has gotten lost in the back of your head. Let me refresh your memory:
– Augustine, Letter 147.
And, as perhaps you recall, Augustine included himself and his own writings in that same category of things that should not be accepted if they are not supported by Scripture. So, we have the tools to reform the practices of the churches in general – but Rome refuses to submit to the authority of Scripture for the purposes of reformation of her doctrines and practices. While she says many kind things about Scripture, she refuses as a practical matter to submit to the authority of Scripture. Thus, at the most fundamental level, she is a different church from our churches and those churches that flourished in the 4th-5th centuries.
Sure, we do have differences both in the way we express certain things, as well as with respect to what we believe and practice in various details. Nevertheless, we agree with the early church that the ministers of God have a responsibility to be involved in church discipline. We don’t necessarily have a problem with the concept of requiring demonstration of repentance before excommunicated persons rejoin communion. We don’t require the particular mechanisms that were in widespread use by the 4th-5th century churches – nor does your church.
In the churches within the Scottish Presbyterian tradition, our position with respect to the power of the elders is expressed this way:
– WCF 30:2
I’m not sure what part of that definition the selective quotations you provided are supposed to contradict by our view. Yet the more important point remains – given that our and your doctrines and practices don’t fully align with those of Augustine’s church, how shall we decide who is right and who is wrong?
-TurretinFan
Sean said,
September 1, 2009 at 7:17 am
Curate.
The Catholic Church, following St. Augustine (e.g., Grace and Free Will, 1,1; Sermon 169, 11,13), accepts predestination of the elect to heaven, but also affirms the freedom of the human will, thus staking out a position distinct from Calvinism. Predestination to hell, in Catholicism, always involves man’s free will, and foreseen sins, so that man is ultimately responsible for his own damnation, not God (double predestination is rejected).
If that is ‘absolute predestination’ than yes I know many Catholic bishops who would teach that.
Here is Augustine’s “On Grace and Free Will.”
johnbugay said,
September 1, 2009 at 7:36 am
Curate — I did not intend to shock you. There’s a lot to be said about “development.” Of course, Catholics want to lump everything under the one thing. This is the “word=concept” fallacy.
Dr. William Witt, an Anglican, wrote a bit about Newman and development, and here he defines here identifies two different kinds of development. He cites Mozley, who accuses Newman of using the same word to mean two different things. These he distinguishes as “development 1” and “development 2”:
I think it would be important to note here, that whereas for a thousand years the Roman church taught that the papacy was “immediately given”, it has only recently conceded “a continuity of development” with regard to the papacy. (I’ve written plenty about this at Jason’s blog, and also here).
Also, William Cunningham wrote a scathing indictment of Newman in his work “Discussions on Church Principles” (available as a Google Book).
He notes that Newman:
Of course, Dr. Witt also outlines Chadwick’s “From Bossuet to Newman,” in which the primary argument against Protestantism changed from “We are the religion that never changes” to “We can change all we want cause we’re in authority.” (Of course, I’ve summarized a bit, but that’s the gist of it.)
Sean said,
September 1, 2009 at 7:41 am
TF.
No one denies that Augustine Catholic – what we deny is that he was Roman Catholic.
Why? Apparently because his theology and practice is not exactly the same as the Church’s practice and theology in 2009. But this would mean that Augustine was not really Catholic either since his theology and practice was not exactly the same as Clement’s or Irenaeus’.
You cannot pretend that there is no development of doctrine and practice in the church and then accuse the Catholic Church of not being Catholic because it is not exactly the same as Augustine’s Church.
Augustine believed in and explicity taught that the Catholic bishops are held in union by the Bishop of Rome. He believed that this church as a matter of faith taught the true doctrine and had the authority to define dogma.
“Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail”
Augustine, Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 (A.D. 393).
“I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by…and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate.”
Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).
As far as Augustine and the material sufficiency of scripture, we believe that. But like Augustine we believe that the church alone has the authority to interpret scripture.
“But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church.”
Augustine, On the Trinity, 4,6:10 (A.D. 416).
“But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things.”
Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2 (A.D. 397).
I think Jason made a good point that our discussion at this point needs to be about the development of doctrine.
Perry Robinson said,
September 1, 2009 at 7:45 am
Sean,
As to providence and freedom, this isn’t exactly sufficiently clear. You seem to be equivocating. Catholic theologians like Aquinas and Scotus affirm the freedom of the will, but what they have in mind is a soft determinist notion of freedom. They do not endorse a libertarian notion of freedom where alternative possibilities are a necessary condition for the will to be free. This is why they hold that the saints in heaven do not choose between alternative goods since God is simple, there are no alternative goods to choose between.
At best in my judgment, Rome, like the Reformers can only say at the end of the day that such actions are voluntary, but not that they are free. So our position is actually on that score on the same page as the Reformers.
So to say that Catholicism with Augustine upholds human free will is just to say essentially the same thing as the Reformed, free agency, where an agent is free in that they execute their desires effectively and unobstructed.
Sean said,
September 1, 2009 at 7:51 am
Perrry.
Augustine really fleshes it out in the text I linked, “On Grace and Free Will.” As a good Catholic I am free to accept the teaching of that letter.
If a Reformed person once to read it and claim all of it than perhaps we’re closer than we once believed on this question.
johnbugay said,
September 1, 2009 at 7:55 am
Perry: Sean … You seem to be equivocating.
Welcome to the “We’ve Caught Sean Fudging” club.
Members:
Ron Henzel
Jason Stellman
TurretinFan
Steve Hays
John Bugay
M. Burke (#510)
Probably others. What’s curious is that he has no shame about this.
Perry Robinson said,
September 1, 2009 at 8:22 am
Sean,
I’ve read it and plenty of other things by and about Augustine. In the beatific vision for Augustine, Aquinas, Scotus, etc., how many good options are there to choose between? They do not affirm a libertarian notion of freedom. At best they are Source Incompatibilists.
Why does God give sufficient and efficient grace to some but not others for Aquinas or Augustine? Why not give them to everyone? Why does God elect some to grace but not to glory?
Did the Theotokos have free will in choosing to be immaculate or not? Could she choose between good and evil options in this life or no? Were both options accessible to her?
Trying to gloss Augustinianism as libertarianism just isn’t plausible. When you speak of free will you don’t mean what libertarians mean. Your position is at the end of the day the same as the Calvinists.
Perry Robinson said,
September 1, 2009 at 8:26 am
John,
Would that be like the “We Can’t Defend all our doctrines from Scripture alone like the Filioque” club?
Second, you don’t get it. His position is fundamentally the same as yours on predestination and grace. God elects some and not others when God could elect all and prevent all evil. When he says “free will” he doesn’t mean libertarian free will. He’s a compatibilist or at best a Source Incompatibilist.
johnbugay said,
September 1, 2009 at 8:31 am
Perry — I’ve responded to you over at Triablogue. Reymond gives a very thorough explanation of it, complete with exegesis. And I’m very happy with Reymond’s explanation. For my part, you should already know that I’m not a passionate devotee of the Filioque. It’s there, but I don’t see it as something to die for.
johnbugay said,
September 1, 2009 at 8:32 am
And for what it’s worth, this could be a live example of why the creeds and confessions should not be held as infallible.
Sean said,
September 1, 2009 at 8:34 am
Perry.
I do not know what I said to make you think that I am advocating ‘libertarianism’ in regards to free will. I am not sure I even know what you mean by ‘libertarianism.’
The Catholic position is not the same as Calvinism.
Calvin teaches a positive predetermination to sin, and an unconditional Predestination to the eternal punishment of hell, that is, without consideration of future demerits.
Augustine did not teach that and this was rejected as false doctrine by the Particular Synods of Orange, Quiercy & Valence and by the Council of Trent.
This is a good discussion about this topic.
Zrim said,
September 1, 2009 at 8:37 am
(TFan to Sean) “No one denies that Augustine Catholic – what we deny is that he was Roman Catholic.”
(Sean to TFan) Why? Apparently because his theology and practice is not exactly the same as the Church’s practice and theology in 2009. But this would mean that Augustine was not really Catholic either since his theology and practice was not exactly the same as Clement’s or Irenaeus’.
You cannot pretend that there is no development of doctrine and practice in the church and then accuse the Catholic Church of not being Catholic because it is not exactly the same as Augustine’s Church.
Huh? Isn’t the point of Roman Catholicism that there is an exact precision on down the line, that what Benedict teaches today is what Peter taught? But, yes, Sean, that the Bishop of Hippo 300 diverges from Benedict 2009 is precisely why he cannot be reckoned Roman Catholic. How is that not crystal clear?
And I don’t think this side of the table is being disingenuous to wonder why it is that the other side can admit wrinkles in succession and 1) not have it bear significantly on the integrity of Catholic claims to succession and 2) blame this side for divergences within the ranks (i.e. we can because we’re us, but you can’t because you’re you).
Perry Robinson said,
September 1, 2009 at 8:42 am
John,
I’ve read Reymond, Frame, et al already. Where in your response did you provide the exegesis from Reymond that shows how to derive it from the biblical text? It just isn’t posted.
It doesn’t matter if your stuck on the Filioque or not. The fact is that its part of the Reformed tradition and in its confessions and yet can’t be justified by Scripture alone. Neither can other doctrines like divine simplicity, which is taken over from Platonism.
So your position is inconsistent in demanding that the doctrines of other churches be derived from Scripture when some of your own doctrines in core areas of theology like the Trinity can’t be. Why aren’t you protesting Reformed churches like Rome for having unbiblical doctrines?
It could be an example where Protestant Confessions are revised, but so far and for five hundred years, it isn’t. We have to go with what the Reformed churches consistently profess, not what they might or might not in some imaginary future.
Sean said,
September 1, 2009 at 8:42 am
Isn’t the point of Roman Catholicism that there is an exact precision on down the line, that what Benedict teaches today is what Peter taught?
Zrim.
No. There is no claim of ‘exact precision’ on dogma and practice down the line.
Practice changes all the time. By this I mean something like priestly celibacy.
Dogma does not change but it can grow in understanding. We see this in the first several centuries. The hypostatic union was not immediately taught. But something akin to it in seed form was understood. This does not mean that those that defined it ceased being Catholic does it?
steve hays said,
September 1, 2009 at 8:44 am
Bryan Cross said,
“Speaking of me in the third-person, when I am a participant in the conversation, is impolite and uncharitable. Let’s lift the level of conversation up, and be respectful, even if we disagree with each other.”
I’m curious: what is Bryan’s standard of respect, courtesy, and civility? For example, does Bryan think Pope Leo X lived up his standards in “Exsurge Domine”?
“When I state and explain the Catholic position on something, you refer to it as ‘preaching’. Putting a label on it doesn’t refute the truth of what I say.”
Since Bryan didn’t present an argument, there’s nothing for me to refute.
“(In fact, it usually shows that the other person doesn’t know how to falsify it, and so has to resort to name-calling.)”
The fact that someone like Bryan typically makes question-begging claims usually shows that such an individual doesn’t know how to verify his claims, and so has to resort to tendentious assertions.
“If you think a statement or explanation of mine is untrue, or lacks sufficient support, the proper response is not to call it ‘preaching’ (or some other name), but either to ask for substantiation or to falsify the claim.”
Bryan is a Catholic epologist. He’s also a doctoral candidate in philosophy. And he’s plugging Catholicism a Protestant blog. The notion that he should only have to present an argument for his Catholic claims upon request is absurd. He acts as if the truth of Catholicism is the default position. That’s hardly a given when he’s initiated a debate with Protestants.
“If you understood the metaphysical basis for the distinction between mortal and venial sin, you would see how we can be truly righteous, even while retaining both the disordered desires we call concupiscence and while committing venial sins…The Old Testament frequently refers to the righteous and those who are blameless before God. But that does not mean that they never sinned. It means that they did not live in mortal sin, even though they committed venial sin.”
Bryan needs to make an exegetical case to demonstrate his contention that when the OT refers to certain individuals as “righteous,” or “blameless,” this means they committed venial sin, but no mortal sins.
“God is not a liar when He says that Job is blameless (Job 1:8), even though a righteous man sins seven times a day. What explains this is the difference between mortal and venial sin.”
Bryan is beginning with his extrascriptural preconception of what must be the case for God to truthfully declare that someone is righteous, then superimposing that preconception onto Scripture.
“Because you are speaking of me in the third-person, you show that your questions are merely rhetorical. If you really wanted to know the answers to these questions, you would simply ask me.”
Actually, I’m speaking for the benefit of other readers, and drawing their attention to deficiencies in Bryan’s position.
“I am claiming that they are true.”
Of course Bryan *claims* that his assertions are true. Everyone does that, whether Catholic or Calvinist or Lutheran or Anabaptist or Hindu or Marxist or Wiccan or skinhead, &c.
Perry Robinson said,
September 1, 2009 at 8:46 am
Sean,
I am not sure how that constitutes a meaningful response. Rome teaches in its representative theologians that some people are predestined to glory, given sufficient and efficient grace, while others are not given them. It matters not if there is equal ultimacy here. To be passively predestined to hell or actively doesn’t make a big difference if you’r e in hell, when God could have given efficient grace to everyone and made everyone impeccable from conception like Mary.
Consequently, your notion of freedom is still essentially compatibilist and soft determinist. To say that you uphold human freedom and divine providence is no more meaningful than when Calvin says it or when Plotinus said as much.
Sean said,
September 1, 2009 at 9:06 am
Perry.
If you don’t think there is a difference between Calvin and Augustine (or Thomas) than I don’t think I can convince you. It is a long conversation not best suited for 800 comments into a thread and for the sake of space I cited a good source discussing the distinctions.
Steve Hays.
I understand that you cannot answer my question, “Which GAs represent the living judgment of the church?”
That is not surprising because there is not a good answer that does not push everything back on individual interpretation of scripture which was the very thing you were trying avoid by pointing to General Assemblies as ‘the living judgment of the church.’
Bryan can speak for himself but I find it interesting that you write several blogs about him in a definite uncharitable spirit and then come back here and basically copy/paste that into the combox while continuing to refer to him in the third person as if he isn’t here.
The lack of charity shown continually in this thread by several of you is unfortunate.
Perry Robinson said,
September 1, 2009 at 9:13 am
Sean,
I think there are difference between Calvin and Augustine, but at the end of the day, Aquinas and Calvin do not fundamentally disagree on predestination for example. God elects some and doesn’t elect others. If you’re a fan of Lagrange, just read him or Brian Shanley.
I mean really, whats the difference between God electing Mary and making her immaculate at conception apart from her choice and the Calvinist who thinks God elects Joe Smith for salvation apart from his choice and irresistibly determines him to salvation? Like what, you think the Mary might have sinned? I mean you don’t even affirm the ancient traditions that she died.
Besides, none of what you wrote addresses my theological questions to you.
Sean said,
September 1, 2009 at 9:16 am
Perry,
I am not sure I fully understand your theological questions so I cannot provide an off the cuff answer.
I do believe that Mary died by the way.
Perry Robinson said,
September 1, 2009 at 9:24 am
Sean,
Your church does not say that Mary died. It is silent on that question. Where is the clear voice of Rome here? Why hasn’t that doctrine “developed?” (Orthodox don’t believe in doctrinal development, btw) If concupiscence causes guilt and death, if Mary lacked the two former things, how is it that she died? And how can she have died without having the guilt of original sin? The obvious problem that Bernard of Clairvaux pointed out is that the immaculate conception is incompatible with free will as well as the idea that she died. This is why Rome says she completed the course of her life, not that she died.
tom said,
September 1, 2009 at 9:26 am
Steve,
With all due respect, it appears that you think your style of dialogue helps you present your case. As one looking in on this discussion, it comes across to me as disrespectful and unbecoming, especially since we bearers of God’s image.
Turretin Fan,
May I ask: Did you celebrate the feast of St. Augustine the other day? The ancient maxim holds, and hopefully you kept it, lex orandi, lex credendi.
Sean said,
September 1, 2009 at 9:30 am
Perry.
I’d like to know how Orthodox escape development when many of their doctrines are obvious developments. The ecumenical councils did not all happen at once.
I know that Rome is not dogmatic on whether or not she died. Perhaps in the future if great controversy arrises it will be dogmatically addressed in a future council. Until then, I am not losing sleep over it.
In what writting did Bernard deny the immaculate conception?
Perry Robinson said,
September 1, 2009 at 9:45 am
Sean,
Asserting that doctrines developed isn’t proof that they did. Second, you need to get clear on what exactly development is. Its an Idealistic theory that implicit and hidden conceptual content is drawn out through a dialectical process, whether rational or by an élan vital or something of that ilk. It is a common notion among Idealists like Plato up through middle and Late Platonism up into German Idealism, which was the ground of Newmans model. If you don’t understand Hegel, then Newman’s theory looks really neat and new, but its not. Its just like Darwinism, which is Idealistic development put into the context of biology.
Terms like homoousia would have to have conceptual content for there to be doctrinal development to take place. Philosophy would have to be a handmaiden which provided the conceptual content of theological terms. But since God is beyond being or huper Ousia, those terms are apophatic and hence have no conceptual content. So no development is impossible. The councils then were doing the exact opposite of developing doctrines. They were unraveling the intrusion of philosophy into theology as was the case in say Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism and Iconoclasm. It was the use of philosophy that distorted the theology. This is why the key theological terms are apophatic and hence preclude conceptual development.
The funny thing is that Rome and the Reformers fundamentally both need a theory of development to justify their theological distinctives. With the Protestants, its Sola Fide. They appeal to developmental theories to explain how it wasn’t clear early on, but became clearer later. Same song and dance as Rome, just a different tune. Sometimes the things that are the most unlike are actually the things that are the most alike.
As for Bernard, you can read it here. It is well known that he opposed the idea ad contrary to the apostolic deposit.
Zrim said,
September 1, 2009 at 9:46 am
Practice changes all the time. By this I mean something like priestly celibacy.
Dogma does not change but it can grow in understanding. We see this in the first several centuries. The hypostatic union was not immediately taught. But something akin to it in seed form was understood. This does not mean that those that defined it ceased being Catholic does it?
Sean,
So, at some point it was determined that priests mayn’t marry, and this is considered perfectly kosher (so to speak), a legitimate change in practice. But if tomorrow it was determined that women could be ordained I take it this would throw a wrench into things? I have heard Catholics claim that such a determination not only “couldn’t happen,” but that if it did it would signal the loss of authority. Why can priestly celibacy be considered within the pale of legitimate development while female ordination marks scandal?
The notion that “dogma does not change but it can grow in understanding” is a curious way of putting it. I suppose it makes the world safe for those who have an aversion to ever simply admitting they were just plain wrong. I don’t think the Protestant mind has any problem with the notion of development, but it understands that it is also quite necessary to admit that a more honest conception of development must include the notion of repentance. That means one must admit he was wrong, which is quite distinct from saying, “Well, we could have been said it better and now we are, but it really isn’t fundamentally any different from what we originally said because, as we all know, everything hangs on us being right in the first place.” Again, huh?
Sean said,
September 1, 2009 at 9:57 am
Zrim.
The male priesthood is dogma. Celibacy isn’t.
As John Paul II wrote in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, ” “Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
Perry,
I would have to think about your last comments as I never really gave any thought to the Orthodox view on development of doctrine. Although I obviously reject that we are in the same boat as the Reformers and think that Newman draws out the difference adequately.
Is there an expanded treatment of Orthodoxy and development that you could recommend?
Perry Robinson said,
September 1, 2009 at 10:08 am
Sean,
Sure, you can read some St. Mark of Ephesus or St. Photios. :) Start there.
In terms of how the development is judged sure there is difference between Rome and Protestants just as there is a difference between the One and the Many. You have one judge, they have many. But the fundamental assumptions between you both are the same. Neither of your distinctive doctrines can be justified from the beginning and through the tradition without an appeal to a theory of development. They need it just as much as you do.
And btw, Vincent’s notion isn’t isomorphic with Newman’s. Vincent’s model was constructed to refute Augustine’s innovations.
Andrew Preslar said,
September 1, 2009 at 11:01 am
But the fundamental assumptions between you are the same.
If you mean by “fundamental assumption” that there is such a thing as development of doctrine, then, perhaps, Catholics and some Western Protestants share a fundamental assumption in common. But a look at what each party means by “development” calls into question whether their fundamental assumptions about this phenomena are really quite the same.
I could with equal plausibility assert the sameness of the fundamental assumptions between Western Protestants (Calvinists, Lutherans, etc.) and Eastern Protestants (Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox [of whatever variety], etc.).
I, like Sean, would be glad to acknowledge whatever we actually have in common with our Protestant brethren. I hope, Perry, that you are likewise thankful for the common heritage of your churches and the ecclesial communities of the Reformation.
TurretinFan said,
September 1, 2009 at 11:13 am
I had written:
Sean responded:
No, you’re confusing categories. Being “Catholic” in the true sense of the term is not a sectarian designation like “Roman Catholic.” You should have realized this from the fact that we (Reformed Christians) are “Catholic” even though we don’t practice or believe exactly the same as Augustine.
You selectively appeal to places where you think Augustine’s views are more similar to yours than to ours. Even if you were correct in a few instances, what difference does it make? You can’t give a good account of your reason for disagreeing with him (or the rest of the early church) where you do so, while we can.
Sean wrote:
It’s absurd to claim I pretend there is no development. My central accusation against Roman Catholicism above is development that is not in accordance with Scripture, which I have contrasted with the Reformed development that is in accordance with Scripture.
Sean wrote:
No, he didn’t. You provided two quotations which seem to have been cut and pasted from another website. They don’t support your contention, even without investigating their integrity. But when we do investigate, we find some falsification. Consider, for example, that the hymn against the Donatists states “sacerdotes” (priests) where your translation has “bishops.” Same thing in the work against the Fundamental Epistle of Mani “sacerdotum” (priests) but your translation says “bishops.” Someone who claims to be so familiar with Augustine’s writings surely knows Latin (after all, much of his work survives without an English translation). So tell me: is my knowledge of Latin on this point correct or incorrect? If correct, why are you using these non-standard and inaccurate translations to try to bolster your position?
And worse than the mere translation error is the fact that Augustine admits the fallibility of what he considers the “Catholic Church.” At the close of the very section from which your quotation of the work Against the Epistle of Mani called “Fundamental,” was drawn we find this:
– Augustine, Against the Epistle of Mani called “Fundamental,” Book 1, Chapter 4 (Section 5)
-TurretinFan
Perry Robinson said,
September 1, 2009 at 11:21 am
Andrew,
In so far as they both accept an idealistic model of development, they share the same assumptions and that doesn’t seem innocuous. At bottom, the concept of development is the same and has the same Platonic roots.
I am not sure how you can call the Orthodox Protestants since it was Rome that went back on its word given at the council of 879 and then in 1014 quietly pretending that the rejection of the Filioque didn’t ever happen, and then altered the Creed. Somehow one Patriarch leaving the communion of the other four Patriarchs seems like Rome is the Protestant.
We could have a common heritage if we had common theology, but we don’t.
Sean said,
September 1, 2009 at 11:56 am
TF.
Being “Catholic” in the true sense of the term is not a sectarian designation like “Roman Catholic.”
I know what Catholic means. “Roman” Catholic is not the name of the Catholic Church and it is the only Church that is truly Catholic.
Its obvious that we aren’t going to agree on the plain words of Augustine.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
September 1, 2009 at 1:14 pm
John Bugay: “By the way, Steve Hays has responded at length to Perry from this thread, here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/08/chicago-overcoat.html“
Bob S.: “Dear Bryan,
I hesitate to ask if you and Perry ever consult behind the scenes.”
Bob S., that’s an interesting question. They might seek fit to consult and console each other on who got the longest and hardest whacks on the rump from Steve Hays as Steve proceeded to fisk their arguments or assertions.
Bryan, I needed 4 bags of popcorn to read through the fisking that Steve gave Perry. It was that long and that detailed. That just shows how much love Steve has for Perry. Right?
Andrew Preslar said,
September 1, 2009 at 1:17 pm
As regards Catholic and Protestant and Orthodox differences and commonalities:
I do think that some of our shared assumptions are innocuous, whether they are shared with our Reformed brethren or the sister churches of the East.
As to Platonic roots, whether or not that is innocuous depends upon the roots. Every affirmation, idea, proposition, syllogism, has a philosophical dimension (i.e., touches upon existence and being), even apophatic terms and propositions. In that sense, everything we affirm or deny is rooted in “Plato,” as in having a philosophical dimension, as in pertaining to existence and being.
Therein lies the common heritage of the human race, affirming and denying, believing and unbelieving.
The relationship of the Catholic Faith to the human sciences (including philosophy) is complex and has been variously construed by Catholic theologians and philosophers. The theological and ecclesial implications of such differences of opinion have likewise been, and are, a matter of debate.
It remains the case that the Catholic Church can and does accommodate a variety of opinions (while excluding some opinions) about the nature of the relation between theology and the human sciences. So far as I can tell, most Catholics, many Protestants, and some Orthodox do not believe that the differences between, say, Gregory Palamas and Thomas Aquinas are intrinsically Church-dividing.
As to Plato and his footnotes:
It seems to me that the fundamental problem with any effort to hermetically seal off some group of propositions (e.g., the text of Sacred Scripture and the affirmations of the ecumenical councils (“we believe that…”)) from any pre-theological affirmations concerning existence and being is that it is impossible to do what theologians must do, i.e., identify divine revelation, formulate propositions, affirm and deny, without at least tacitly, and a priori, assuming certain things about existence and being.
So part of the “common heritage” that we all share is the necessity and inevitability of metaphysics; man is a metaphysical animal (I think that Etienne Gilson wrote this). This fact is, in part, is what makes dialogue such as this thread possible.
But metaphysical knowledge is not reducible to conceptual knowledge, and what we know by revelation is not reducible even to metaphysical knowledge. Thus, much of what we share in common we share by means of, to revert somewhat to the topic at hand, confession of faith.
Of course I agree that there are differences in faith confessed by our communions, perhaps on the level of metaphysics and certainly in propositional content. As to the latter, the Creed of Constantinople is not the same as the Creed of Nicea, nor is the Creed of the Catholic church, which is also confessed by most Protestants, the same as the Creed of the Orthodox churches. Whether these Creeds are substantially the same Creed, on the metaphysical level, is a matter for theologians to discuss and debate.
It is important to note that this discussion is a matter of intra-communal debate, for all three communions, as well as one with ecumenical implications. It is not a specifically Catholic versus Orthodox thing, nor a Catholic versus Protestant thing, nor an Orthodox versus Protestant thing, nor even an ancient versus mediaeval versus modern thing. So lets not bicker and argue over who platonized who. Lets talk about Plato! (I mean, in a thread about Plato, or something.)
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
September 1, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Way, way up earlier on this thread, someone theorized that the main differences between RCC, EO, and Conservative Protestants (I’m visibly nauseous with LibProts and Emergers) is Christology. I think it was Perry who mentioned it.
I’ve been considering that proposition and I really don’t think so. (Or maybe I have to re-read the arguments again.) I think the key difference is ecclesiology. I think that that’s the lens that our vision hinges on.
All three faith-traditions affirm Christ as fully man and fully God, 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity.
But this phrase “one, holy, catholic, apostolic” is not at all understood and promoted in the same way by all 3 “communions.” For example, the word “apostolic”. To EO’s and RCC’s, “apostolic” refers to apostolic succession. But to conservative Prots, “apostolic” refers to the apostolic teaching or doctrine that’s in the Holy Scriptures.
Another difference in ecclesiology is the debate on the meaning between a visible church and an invisible church.
Another debate would be the doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. (IMHO, there seems to be significant doctrinal “development” on this issue.) In fact, I would ask Bryan Cross, Sean, Andrew Preslar and all the other “Called to Communion” bloggers whether they were saved and regenerated into a saving faith before they became Catholic. Yes or No?
It’s ecclesiology, not so much Christology that really separates us all.
TurretinFan said,
September 1, 2009 at 1:44 pm
I had written:
Sean wrote:
First of all, yes, the truly Catholic church does not have a name. Second of all, your church does have that name (whether she wants it or not). Third, how can we judge her claim to catholicity? If Scripture is our guide, she fails. If the fathers are our guide, she fails. It is only if we simply accept her word on faith in her that she can pass.
It’s disappointing to see you quote words that aren’t Augustine’s and then make that kind of comment.
-TurretinFan
steve hays said,
September 1, 2009 at 1:45 pm
tom said,
“With all due respect, it appears that you think your style of dialogue helps you present your case. As one looking in on this discussion, it comes across to me as disrespectful and unbecoming, especially since we bearers of God’s image.”
There is no possibility of having a dialogue with Bryan when he shirks his responsible to present supporting arguments for his many assertions.
You also duck the issue of what constitutes Catholic standards of discourse? What about Pope Leo X. Does that or does that not represent a Catholic standard of discourse?
My “style” was utterly bland and tame compared to that.
steve hays said,
September 1, 2009 at 2:10 pm
tom said,
“With all due respect, it appears that you think your style of dialogue helps you present your case. As one looking in on this discussion, it comes across to me as disrespectful and unbecoming, especially since we bearers of God’s image.”
Since you’re so concerned with the tone of dialogue, here’s example of the tone which Bryan adopts:
“When God declares, what He declares is made actual. Your nominalism makes God out to be a liar…The God we worship is a God of truth; He never lies.”
In other words, the God whom Lutherans and Calvinists worship is a “liar.”
Do you think that helps Bryan to present his case? Does that fit your definition of what is respectful and becoming?
Sean said,
September 1, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Steve.
Would another example of ‘ducking the issue’ be your refusal to address the question: Which GAs represent the living judgement of the church?
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
September 1, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Sean,
Were you saved and regenerated into a saving faith before you became Catholic?
Yes or No?
Sean said,
September 1, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Truth Unites.
As I was baptized as an infant I was regenerated prior to becoming Catholic.
At the same time it is important to understand that we do not view justification as a one time event so the framing of your question might lead to problems in understanding.
It is also important for you to demonstrate that you understand the doctrine you are questioning in the first place.
See the Catechism of the Catholic Church (818-819).
steve hays said,
September 1, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Sean,
Would another example of ‘ducking the issue’ be your refusal to address the question: Which interpretation represents the true interpretation of Vatican II?
Andrew Preslar said,
September 1, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Truth Unites… and Divides,
Re #808:
I agree that we all, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, confess, in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, the same Lord Jesus Christ. Thank God.
In fact, I would ask Bryan Cross, Sean, Andrew Preslar and all the other “Called to Communion” bloggers whether they were saved and regenerated into a saving faith before they became Catholic. Yes or No?
As you know, the Catholic Church teaches that we are regenerated into a saving faith by means of baptism. I was baptized many years before I was received into full communion with the Catholic Church, nor was I “rebaptized.”
I know that it is not always viewed alike on both sides, but I am convinced that Holy Baptism is one of the greatest gifts that we continue to have in common. Because of this gift, we are, in some real though incomplete way, united together in Christ and in his Church.
TurretinFan said,
September 1, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Tom:
You wrote:
I answer:
-TurretinFan
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
September 1, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Sean,
Suppose you never became Catholic after your baptismal regeneration as an infant (let’s put paedo-baptism off to another thread, shall we?). Are you telling me that you would never have been justified if you didn’t become Catholic? Or are you telling me that you would have still been justified even if you never became Catholic?
Can you tell me your understanding of the differences between justification and sanctification?
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
September 1, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Andrew Preslar: “Because of this gift, we are, in some real though incomplete way, united together in Christ and in his Church.”
Thank you Andrew. In other words, this would be an *INVISIBLE* unity in His invisible Church.
Invisible: As you said “in some real though incomplete way” on this side of Heaven. An invisible Church, an invisible Communion, and an invisible unity.
Pax et bonum.
Sean said,
September 1, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Steve.
Are you just hoping that nobody notices that I asked you my question first? It might be a wise idea to cease accusing others of question ducking for the time being.
You seem to have an awful lot to say about the Catholic position on your blog but very little to say about your own position.
I have said before that I will happily engage your question about the interpretation of Vatican II, it isn’t hard, if you simply answer the question that I asked you first.
In a conversation about individualism you argued that the General Assembly represents the “living judgment of the church.” Since you made that statement you should be able to answer the question, “Which General Assemblies?”
After all, I did not make the statement, “The sitting Pope’s interpretation of Vatican II represents the living judgment of the church” so I should hardly have to defend that position!
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
September 1, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Andrew Preslar: “As you know, the Catholic Church teaches that we are regenerated into a saving faith by means of baptism.”
Again, I thank you Andrew. And as you said, you were baptized many years before you were received into full communion with the Catholic Church.
Let’s unpack what the Catholic Church teaches about you being regenerated into a saving faith by means of baptism before joining the Catholic Church and how well or whether it coheres with other Catholic doctrine, such as extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
What I don’t quite understand is that you say that you were saved while you were outside the Catholic Church. But EENS literally says that outside the Church there is no salvation. The only way that I see that could reconcile these two discrepant teachings is that the Church is really *invisible*.
Perhaps you can clarify and reconcile this better than I can. I invite you to reconcile the doctrine that you possess a saving faith via a baptism that was outside of the Catholic Church with the doctrine of EENS.
Because as I currently see it, you never had to become Catholic to have eternal salvation.
TurretinFan said,
September 1, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Perry wrote:
I understand that your second post did attempt that. Whether you succeeded or not is perhaps not something best left for my biased judment.
Perry wrote:
Correct, they are from the same source I had been quoting: Chrysostom. I apologize for any confusion in that regard. I did not mean to suggest that his words (or concepts!) were yours. Perhaps you might consider re-reading my comments in that light.
Perry wrote:
Citing a passage that uses the words at least satisfies the initial burden. Anyhow, the question now that the matter is disputed is whether his words should be read in the sense I’ve suggested or another sense. I don’t see much reason to think they should be read in a sense different from the one I’ve suggested.
Perry wrote:
Leaving aside (for the moment) the issue of the reconciliation of James and Paul (which may be an important issue), it seems to me that saying “declared righteous” suggests that they were declared to be something that their natures did not (at least not yet) fully reflect. As such, it would seem I have prevailed in meeting my burden.
Perry wrote:
I’m really not sure whether that level of nuance can be found in Chrysostom. I didn’t set it forth for that level of nuance, though, so I’m not concerned if it doesn’t display that level of nuance. Do you think that’s unfair of me? Must I show the full level of nuance in the ancient writer? If so, are you willing to apply that same standard to the predecessors of Cyril of Alexandria?
Perry wrote:
Well – if I quote someone as showing a car, and you point out that their car isn’t a Buick Skylark, you would seem to be employing a straw man, even if your description of a Skylark is straight out of the Buick manual.
Perry wrote:
With respect, I think that the issue of declaration of righteousness is very central to the discussion. That was certainly a focal point for me. I realize that your issues with the doctrine would be somewhat different from those of a Romanist.
Perry wrote:
See above, regarding nuance.
Perry wrote:
With respect, I suppose you mean that I’m assuming that your alternative to my position would require that. I, of course, am content with the declaration of righteousness, without it being yet reflective of personal righteousness in the individual.
Perry wrote:
It sounds like you are trying to get specific, negative statements as the only sufficient ground for showing that Chrysostom or Augustine held to a particular position. That seems a little unfair, though perhaps you feel it is reasonable.
Perry wrote:
It does seem that you want a pretty significant level of nuance.
Perry wrote:
There are a few specialists in Chrysostom out there, some of which I have the chance to read, and I will certainly keep my eyes peeled in my reading of them.
Perry wrote:
I, not you, get to define the hill that I’m going to defend. So, whether that sola fide from a very high level perspective, or a very low-level nuanced perspective is really my decision, not yours.
-TurretinFan
Perry Robinson said,
September 1, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Andrew,
To insult the Orthodox and then wax irenic is not exactly conducive to a beneficial conversation. Protestantism is a Frankish-Latin creation and problem. They came out of the milieu and context of the Frankish papacy and theological schools. The Protestants are the children of Rome, not Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem or Constantinople. To tar us with that designation is hardly fair or accurate.
To have shared assumptions assumes either that models are commensurable or that we share a larger paradigm. I don’t think the former is the case, but I do the latter. I take Protestants and Catholics to be paradigm squatters.
If the roots re Platonism are innocuous, that could only be true if theology was a science, and the Orthodox don’t think it is, as Rome and Protestants do.
As for apophatic terms having a philosophical “dimension” this presupposes a view of the world which the Orthodox reject and so is nothing more than question begging. Moreover, such statements lend themselves to theological rationalism with respect to the divine essence.
The problem with your proposal about Palamas is that I can find plenty of Catholic theologians like Martin Jugie, of no small repute who characterized the Orthodox teaching as “heresy” in fact the worst heresy ever as he put it. It is irrelevant if some Catholics think such and so about whether Palamas is reconcilable with Catholic teaching. What is in fact relevant is what the official teaching of the respective bodies is and if in fact it is and to date no demonstration has been forthcoming that they are not church dividing. What is on record so far is simply reducing the metaphysical distinction between essence and energy to an epistemic one. But that is just not to show that Palamas’ teaching is not compatible with Thomas since Palamas explicitly denies that the distinction is epistemic.
More directly, it is a cognitive misfire to place this as a dispute between some supposed later development in the East in theology of Palamas. The Sixth Council already made the distinction in affirming two natures and two energies in Christ and condemned the idea of one energy in Christ. If there is no metaphysical distinction between essence and energy, then the Sixth Council’s teaching of dyoenergism is false. This is why Thomas, Scotus, Albert, Bonaventura, take your pick, all dissent from the Sixth Council’s teaching and the theologian who was responsible for its teachings and canons, Maximus who explicitly affirmed that in Christ there are two energies, which do always choose the same objects, yet without conflict and sin. So in the Passion Christ in fact wills and chooses two different things simultaneously, to preserve his life and to go to the cross without sin. This is not the consistent teaching of the Franks.
Secondly, Florence took the Orthodox teaching to be church dividing and to my knowledge Rome has not permitted its members to not subscribe to the teachings and decisions of Florence. If you were correct here, then we wouldn’t be obligated upon reception to Rome to profess the Filioque as a hypostatic procession, but an energetic procession from the Father and the Son in eternity. But we’re not, which is why at various times and to this day the papacy has imposed the recitation of the Filioque on various Eastern Rite Catholics.
If you were right about the relationship between theology and philosophy then Dionysius (aka Damascius) is clearly wrong, not to mention John Chrysostom, the Cappadocians or Maximus. Moreover, it isn’t impossible to do what theologians must do, know God. It just means that theology isn’t a science, but something much more and far better. In order for your program to get off the ground, God would have to be being, but the East rejects this. God is not being ad intra in any sense whatsoever and this cuts the ground out of any project that sees theology as the highest science.
Its quite true that the Creed of Nicea was amended at Constantinople. It is also true that Ephesus forbad any alteration whatsoever in the Creed after that point. This was re-affirmed by the papacy in the council of 879 when it anathematized the addition of the Filioque. Moreover, as things stand today, we do not confess the same Creed since Rome has an altered Creed, just like the Protestant children.
Perry Robinson said,
September 1, 2009 at 3:59 pm
TU,
Actually, you are mistaken. Calvin and the Reformed tradition dissent from Chalcedon. As I noted before using Calvin as an example, Calvin expressly contradicts Chalcedon by saying that the person of Christ is OUT OF two natures and not IN two natures, those being the key terms upon which the entire statement turns. If you wish to see one of your own express where the Reformed tradition dissents from Chalcedon, just read Muller’s Christ and the Decree or McCormack’s comments over here. http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/a-deformed-christ/
Neither McCormack nor Muller are sympathetic to Orthodoxy, in fact, just the opposite.
Second, you are assuming that ecclesiology stands uninformed from Christology. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist for example to see in the Colloquy of Montbeliard between the Reformed and the Lutherans to see that the differences over baptism and the eucharist were at base differences in Christology.
Second, the Reformed affirm monothelitism and monoenergism since they think that the human will of Christ was moved and determined by the divine and that there is only one activity in Christ.
So no, we don’t have the same Christology, and we certainly don’t have the same doctrine of the Trinity. The Reformed altered the meaning of the creed in asserting that the Son is autotheos as well as rejecting baptismal regeneration and including the Filioque.
And to say that “apostolic” means apostolic succession for the Orthodox and then contrast it with the Reformed who take it to mean apostolic teaching is a caricature, since the Orthodox think that apostolic succession includes right teaching.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
September 1, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Perry: “So no, we don’t have the same Christology, and we certainly don’t have the same doctrine of the Trinity.”
Thanks for sharing with us your problems as an EO. I don’t know how to help you except to perhaps suggest that you take Steve Hays’s loving correction of you with a serious, prayerful consideration.
P.S. But you would agree that there is a glaring and blatant difference in ecclesiology between the three “communions”.
Perry Robinson said,
September 1, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Tu,
Your condescension aside, I simply note that you ignore the facts and arguments I presented.
Second, given that Steve didn’t respond to my last refutation of his claims and arguments (http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/more-jedi-mind-tricks/ ) I have no great hope that he will do so this time either. And his remarks are anything but “loving.”
Third, if you read the comments on his post, notice that he can’t give one single passage of Scripture to support the Reformed Confessional doctrine of the Filioque. Why can’t Steve defend the doctrine professed in his traditions own confessions from Scripture Alone?
Can you prove it form Scripture alone or is that one doctrine you take from tradition, or as Steve put it, a “carry over from Latin theology?”
Just one passage of Scripture that teaches that the eternal Person of the Spirit is generated from the Father and the Son?
JUST ONE..
So much for Sola Scriptura.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
September 1, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Dear Perry,
Ya gotta lighten up, man. I was just joshin’ with ya. Laughter’s good for the soul.
“Third, if you read the comments on his post, notice that he can’t give one single passage of Scripture to support the Reformed Confessional doctrine of the Filioque. Why can’t Steve defend the doctrine professed in his traditions own confessions from Scripture Alone?
Can you prove it form Scripture alone or is that one doctrine you take from tradition, or as Steve put it, a “carry over from Latin theology?”
Just one passage of Scripture that teaches that the eternal Person of the Spirit is generated from the Father and the Son?
JUST ONE..”
Alright, alright, alright. Don’t get your knickers all knotted up without any hope of extraction. Breathe. Deep breaths, Perry.
Here you go:
“Preliminary background: the filioque (Latin for “And the Son”) is the theological notion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, Jesus. This clause is included in the Nicene Creed – seen as a legitimate development – in the Western Catholic Church, but not in the Eastern Orthodox Church, which regards it as a late corruption and heresy. It was not really a matter of controversy until the time of Photius in the second half of the 9th century, but since then it has been of central importance in the East-West schism which finalized in the 11th century. Western, Latin theologians and Fathers (and many Eastern as well) found biblical support for the filioque in such passages as John 14:16; 15:26; 16:7,13-15; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; and Phil 1:19.
From here.
I hope this quenches and satisfies.
Because the doctrine of Sola Scriptura certainly does.
Perry Robinson said,
September 1, 2009 at 4:47 pm
TU,
Why not pick a verse and show me how it teaches that the Eternal Person of the Spirit is generated from the Father and the Spirit. Can you show from Scripture that this doctrine of the Reformed is biblical or no?
Its odd that Steve wouldn’t put forward any of those passages. I wonder why.
Perry Robinson said,
September 1, 2009 at 4:47 pm
TU,
Why not pick a verse and show me how it teaches that the Eternal Person of the Spirit is generated from the Father and the Spirit. Can you show from Scripture that this doctrine of the Reformed is biblical or no?
Its odd that Steve wouldn’t put forward any of those passages. I wonder why.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
September 1, 2009 at 4:57 pm
And deprive you of the fun of doing your own homework? That wouldn’t be right. Perry, you’re a smart fellow, I’m sure you can figure it out yourself. Sorry, but I won’t do your work for you.
Perry Robinson said,
September 1, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Tu,
So again, you either can’t or won’t justify your doctrines from Scripture alone.
My homework? So when you are challenged on a doctrine that your tradition and churches teach to this day, I am the one who has to justify it exegetically? Is that how you deal with Catholics, that you have to justify exegetically their doctrines from Scripture?
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
September 1, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Perry: “My homework?”
Yes. Although you’ll find the assignment easier to do if you remove your EO lenses.
Perry Robinson said,
September 1, 2009 at 5:13 pm
TU,
Again, I note your refusal to justify your own doctrines from Scripture Alone.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
September 1, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Assorted verses were provided (when you only asked for one) for the biblical support of the filioque. You were then asked to simply do the rest as a helpful homework assignment for you.
Again, I note your refusal to think for yourself and do your own work.
Perry Robinson said,
September 1, 2009 at 5:44 pm
TU,
You did cite the usual passages which puts you one up n Steve who wouldn’t cite any, since he knows that exegetically they can’t justify the doctrine.
Second, I asked you to show that any of the verses in question taught the doctrine. Simplyciting a passage doesn’t show that the concept is taught by the passage.
So again, you bear the burden of proof for your doctrines. I have challenged you to justify this doctrine from Scripture. You continue to refuse to support your own doctrines from Scripture alone.
This then must be a doctrine you derive from tradition and not from Scripture. Hence you must not really believe in Sola Scriptura.
At least Rome is honest enough to admit that the doctrine is not exclusively derived from Scripture alone but from their tradition and philosophical theology.
Paige Britton said,
September 1, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Hey, Perry,
I think my early morning questions to you got squashed by the avalanche that followed (#774) — so if you don’t mind addressing something basic for a minute, from a most simplistic of Protestant paradigm-squatters, here are two informational questions for you, related to authority and interpretation in the EOC:
1. How does the EOC compare with the RCC regarding their view of individual study of the Bible? Is there also a major caution given here, lest the individual traipse down the wrong interpretive path? And a sub-question: How is “official” interpretation communicated to the individual EO believer?
2. I would also love some practical help: I am curious to research different takes on Col. 1:20, and I understand that the EO have a view of the redemption of the cosmos that differs from the view of most Protestants. Can you direct me to any online resources that might fill out an EO perspective on that idea or that verse?
Thanks much! (If it is too far below the apophatic stratosphere to address these, just skip it. ;)
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
September 1, 2009 at 5:57 pm
“At least Rome is honest enough to admit that the doctrine is not exclusively derived from Scripture alone but from their tradition and philosophical theology.”
Perry, can you show me where Rome formally and officially states that they don’t have Biblical support for the doctrine of filioque?
I’m rather skeptical of any claims that argue that they don’t.
Just show me one Magisterial document that claims that the eternal Person of the Spirit Who is generated from the Father and the Son has no Biblical support.
JUST ONE.
JUST ONE..”
Paige Britton said,
September 1, 2009 at 5:57 pm
“Western, Latin theologians and Fathers (and many Eastern as well) found biblical support for the filioque in such passages as John 14:16; 15:26; 16:7,13-15; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; and Phil 1:19.”
Perry, do you make a distinction (re. these passages) between an “economic” procession of the Spirit and an “ontological” procession? Is the Filioque an ontological confession? (Does everybody think so? Could it be viewed as a confession of economic procession?)
Perry Robinson said,
September 1, 2009 at 6:15 pm
TU,
I am not Catholic, andso I am not obligated to support their doctrines either. I didn’t say that Rome claimed that they could not derive it from Scripture, but that they could not do it from Scripture alone. You could start with the famed “White Paper” from 1995, but I am not clear on its status with respect to the magisterium. In any case, Rome’s exegetical case depends in large measure on their doctrine of divine simplicity. Since God is simple, the hypostatic and economical processions are identical. So when we read that the Spirit is sent by the Son in the economy, this implies that it is so in eternity, there being no place for an energetic procession. Without the philosophical doctrines, the Filioque won’t go through as evidenced in arguments from Cardinal Dulles to Rahner to Jugie, et al. The same reasoning is brought to the text via Protestant theologians in the period of Protestant Scholasticism up through Karl Barth.
Again I continue to note your refusal to justify the doctrine presented in Reformed Confessions from Scripture alone.
Perry Robinson said,
September 1, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Paige,
The doctrine is that the Person or hypostasis of the Spirit is produced from the Father and the Son as from one principle in eternity. So it is not strictly “ontological” generation, but hypostatic generation.
Yes, everyone who advances the doctrine that I have ever seen has thought so explicitly in both Catholic and Protestant traditions.
So no, it can’t be viewed as economic alone unless one wishes to say that the Person of the Spirit is created at a point in time or give up the idea that the Person of the Spirit is generated from the Father and the Son altogether.
johnbugay said,
September 1, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Perry — I’m wondering why you want me to type out Reymond’s exegetical analysis when you can just read it for yourself.
This is your chance. Put a good whuppin on him. Otherwise, I’ll concede that you lost to Reymond.
Perry Robinson said,
September 1, 2009 at 6:40 pm
John,
Just saying that Reymond says that only John 15 *could* justify the doctrine doesn’t seem to be a justification for the doctrine.
Second, Steve gave Reymond as an example of someone who denied the Filioque, so either Steve is deficient in reading comprehension skills or you are. I’ll leave it to you two to figure out which one understood Reymond correctly.
Steve pretty much admitted that it was a tradition that was a “hold over” from Latin theology.
So as things stand, neither you nor Steve nor anyone else has supported this Reformed doctrine which is part of your doctrine of the Trinity from Scripture alone, and hasn’t even really attempted to do so.
When challenging others to demonstrate their doctrines are form Scripture alone, you and Steve and others demand an exegesis. But when I challenge you, Steve or others, all I get is hand waving, stone walling and a refusal to do so. This is clearly an inconsistency.
If you object to others for not following Sola Scriptura, then pull the log out of your own eye first.
johnbugay said,
September 1, 2009 at 6:56 pm
No doubt Steve has the correct reading on it.
If you object to others for not following Sola Scriptura, then pull the log out of your own eye first.
Nobody cares about this. And you’re just cheesed because it’s your number one issue, and nobody from any other side gives two farts about it.
It’s not like it’s foundational to anyone’s message. It’s an obscure line from an obscure council, that got carried over into some, not all of the confessions. I’m sure there are good Reformed Baptists who just have tossed the whole thing out.
You know, you harped on me about “unsubstantiated claims” when I cited official Roman dishonesty. But Steve dismantled virtually every argument and non-argument that you’ve made in this thread. And all you can do is pound your chest over “just one, just one”.
That really shows what you’re made of.
Perry Robinson said,
September 1, 2009 at 8:11 pm
John,
If Steve has the correct reading on it, then Steve’s economical procession is a denial of the Confessional teaching. And that concedes that the doctrine of the Filioque in the Confessions is inconsistent with Sola Sriptura.
No one among the Reformed cares about the right doctrine of the Trinity? Got it.
So the Trinity isn’t foundational to the Reformed message? Got it.
Are obscure doctrines exempted from the requirement of Sola Scriptura?
If it isn’t important, why not remove it from all of the Reformed Confessions? Why don’tcha try and let’s see what happens. I wonder how long it will take the elders to boot you.
I fail to see how it follows from the fact that they may not care about it, to, that they aren’t required to justify it from Scripture alone. How exactly does that follow?
Which Reformed Baptists removed it from the London Baptist Confession from chapter 2, sec. 3? Someone had better let James White know. (Catholic apologists, take note)
It’s a funny thing, the Pope unilaterally alters the Creed, alters the doctrine of the Trinity and somehow Protestants say “Nobody cares about this.” How odd. Of all the things not to protest!
Sure Steve launched criticisms of what I wrote here. But curiously he ignored my calls for scriptural justification for the Filioque and divine simplicity. He also ignored my demonstration from Turretin that there can be no communicable attributes. And Steve failed to respond to my last sustained refutation regarding free will and the problem of evil. So no, I am not bothered by a post from Steve.
I think its apparent that you can’t meet your own criteria of Sola Scriptura and now you are just lashing out personally at me with insults. It would be beneficial if you could remove your personal remarks and just stick with the arguments.
Perry Robinson said,
September 1, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Paige,
I am more informed on some issues than others but I will do what I can here. Principally the Fathers and the councils are guides to the proper and normative interpretation of the Scriptures. 2nd Nicea lists a number of patristic works which are taken as “inspired” works of the Fathers on core doctrinal matters. Following Athanasius we would generally recommend that they read the Creed and take it as a rule for the right interpretation of Scripture in their reading.
Official interpretations are communicated in a number of ways, but primarily through the liturgical rites and texts. But lay people can avail themselves of catechisms, the canons and theological formulae from the ecumenical councils.
As to 2, I and others have written quite a bit spelling out the “mechanics” of the “cosmic” view of salvation endorsed by the Orthodox over at my blog. As for patristic texts, the shortest one I can think of where this is exemplified is Athanasius’ Against the Heathen and then On the Incarnation.
Those are on line.
From my blog, try
or just try the topic pull down menu.
I hope that helps. You can email me if you have a more specific question at acolyte4236 AT sbcglobal dot net.
Andrew Preslar said,
September 1, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Truth Unites… and Divides,
Re 819, 821:
[Looking back over this comment, it is abominably, perhaps unforgivably, “testimonial”, and I probably wouldn’t read it if I were you, but the way you (TUAD) posed the questions led me to wax rather autobiographical in response. See how liberal I am with the blame? And see how I am going to submit this comment away?]
What I don’t quite understand is that you say that you were saved while you were outside the Catholic Church. But EENS literally says that outside the Church there is no salvation. The only way that I see that could reconcile these two discrepant teachings is that the Church is really *invisible*.
Perhaps you can clarify and reconcile this better than I can. I invite you to reconcile the doctrine that you possess a saving faith via a baptism that was outside of the Catholic Church with the doctrine of EENS.
I think that I see what you mean.
Well, the Catholic Church teaches that every valid baptism is a baptism into the Catholic Church. That answer is bound to be uncongenial to non-Catholics in more ways than one, but that is the teaching.
So, I was visibly united with the visible Catholic Church by baptism. In addition to this, through believing certain Catholic doctrines and obedience to the law of Christ (as best I could understand these from the Bible and through the traditions of my Protestant church), and perhaps in more inscrutable ways, I was also invisibly united to the Church. Such invisible unity does not imply that the Church to whom one is united is an invisible Church.
However, since I was led to believe certain doctrines and to adopt (or not adopt) certain practices that are contrary to the Catholic faith, and since I had no recourse to other sacraments, my communion with the Catholic Church was imperfect.
As to whether I needed to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church in order to persevere in the righteousness imparted by grace in baptism (i.e., being saved/in a state of grace):
Once I became convinced that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ, I had to become fully Catholic in order to be saved. I might very well have been culpable for my non-belief prior to becoming Catholic, but I don’t think that I was, at least, not for a long time. Either way, while I was actively discerning whether or not I should become Catholic, I never got hung up on my current degree of culpability for not being in full communion with the Catholic Church. I just looked for truth and trusted in the mercy and omnipotence of God.
So that is how I reconcile the teaching on salvation by baptism and EENS, i.e., I believe that every baptism is baptism into the Catholic Church, so EENS does not apply in that respect. And as to necessity of perseverance through living faith and, correspondingly, the need for forgiveness of deadly sins committed after baptism (thus to be a living member of the Church, in spite of the imperfection of the union, and satisfy the conditions of EENS):
I do not know exactly how God dealt with the deadly sins that I committed after my baptism and before I made my first sacramental confession, but I am sure that the means of grace which I could receive I did not receive in vain. Those graces which I could not receive in the ordinary way could well have been communicated to me in an extraordinary way, so to preserve me in a living, though imperfect, unity with Christ in his mystical Body.
Now, as a Catholic, I better know by what means God absolves me of my sins and revives and sustains me as a living member of his holy Church, and I participate in those means of grace in the ordinary (covenanted) ways. This is a tremendous blessing, and like every blessing it comes with its own responsibilities. I am grateful, but not, I hope, self-satisfied, complacent, or (worst of all) presumptuous. The “take up your Cross and follow me” gets right in my face, and I am still tempted to decline, to turn away in more ways than I can count.
I hope that helps answer the questions. You probably guessed pretty well what I would say, but, since I am sure that you did not ask vainly, I can hope that the response is not a complete vanity either.
John Bugay said,
September 2, 2009 at 12:07 am
Perry, this is obviously one area where Protestants agree to disagree, but you don’t see anyone losing sleep over it. Nobody but you, that is.
Bob S said,
September 2, 2009 at 12:25 am
Perry,
Since you are upset about the Filioque (and the injunction of Matt. 23:24 on straining gnats doesn’t apply), to deny the clause is to subordinate Christ, just as the denial of Christ’s autotheos does.
As re. #753 all Scripture is inspired of God and useful. Not just 2Tim. 2:24 on being kind and gentle, but also Prov. 24:4, answering a fool according to his folly, Prov. 27:6 faithful are the wounds of a friend, if not Tit. 1:11, the mouths of vain deceivers must be stopped.
Of course it is again true that all the better commentators have gone home, but the JV 3rd string does what it can. We aim to please, even if it ain’t gonna happen.
Further neither you nor any of your Romish friends – you all agree on the infallibility of the church, whatever your differences – are here to be instructed. Neither are you particularly profound controversialists, but you do keep right on ticking. You also all belong to infallible churches of which the implication and inference is hardly lost on some of us here. As in essentially how dare you question or disagree with what we say holy mother church, western or eastern says. ‘Why, that’s an insult, discourteous, rude, etc. etc.’ IOW I daresay you are all trolling in hopes of gathering more immature and unstable, if not untaught Protestants like you yourselves once were to the respective folds you now belong to. But some of us are not only distinctly uninterested in this goal, we are also not deceived by the ploy of ‘hail fellow, well met’ or ‘can’t we all just get along?’ never mind the general and vague charge of insults and hurt feelings. (First you, then Bryan, then Sean and Tom. Will we have to wait for Mr. Preslar to weigh in or will he refrain from piling on? Ah, the suspense of it all. )
As far as a logical demonstration that your views are ridiculous, you continue saying:
You aren’t going to persuade people by insulting them every other sentence.
Hey, wait a minute. Are you saying I’m insulting you?
And even if I am, every other sentence?
But that’s not true. Hey, wait a minute, that’s an exaggeration.
Hey, that’s lying and slander.
Hey, that’s an insult.
Sound familiar? IOW so what? IOW there’s some give and take going on here and if you can’t handle it, you should find someplace else to post. Again, right off the get go, Protestantism considers the Roman/EO position on the infallibility of the church whether centered in one bishop or many, to be an insult to Christ, his Word, his Gospel and his people persecuted and put out of the community of the faithful by the same.
(That without mentioning, when Mr. Follow The Hate, shortly after the anniversary of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, posts his assertion that the true church is the papal church, is the height of ignorant arrogance. No more and no less. Rome largely answered the Reformation, not with the sword of the Spirit in Scripture, but with the sword of the magistrate in his soldiers and executioners, if not the dagger of Rome’s assassins. Only where the civil magistrate converted to Protestantism, did the Reformation take hold and flourish. But don’t dare speak of me in the third person, never mind how someone graduated from a supposedly P&R seminary without being taught any Reformation history. Granted, I don’t think much of Cov. with its roots in Buswell and Wheaton(?), but Rock Reymond is pretty solid on the Roman Protestant differences from what I’ve read.
I know, tu quoque, tu quoque. Somehow, though, I think the Inquisition, the Waldensians and the Reformation put Rome in a league by herself when it comes to insults and injuries to the faithful, which is something the romish apologists studiously ignore.)
1. And if your views are not ridiculous, they come across as really confused. You seem to deny that Adam was made in the image of God in knowledge, righteousness and holiness, because God is simple and indivisible and the whole communicable/incommunicable attribute distinction is unacceptable. You then go on to assert the infallibility of the church, which according to Reformed theology is an incommunicable attribute, but hey, no problem, EO says it, so I believe it.
(FTM, I am a jus divinum presbyterian. I have no quarrel with presbyters or elders, i.e church authority or government. Where I draw the line at is when those who are supposed to minister the Word of God, set themselves over it in judgement. IOW the argument that never mind what Scripture says, we have carte blanche because Christ commissioned the apostles and our authority descends from them is a non sequitur.)
As for your#2:
Since I think that the flesh of Christ is deified in the Transfiguration, and in fact his entire life is a recapitulation and deification of humanity culminating in the Resurrection and Ascension, why would it be an objection to my view that I also think that the Body of Christ is deified? I already stated that infallibility is a divine energy. If the Church is such and the scriptures are such, then since nothing in or of God is opposed to God, the two cannot be opposed to each other as you suggest.
Deification of the Church is not an objection to your view considered in itself. In fact it is consistent. The objection or trouble is, whether it is consistent with Scripture. In that you tell us repeatedly that you “think” this or you “think“ that, you ought to be able to understand others might not “think” what you seem to assume; IOW that because your opinion is consonant with EO and the EO is infallible, connect the dots and get in line to join up. Rather your argument is a non sequitur and a non starter from a Protestant point of view.
Much more it is contra Chalcedon which teaches the two natures of Christ exist in his person, without confusion, change, division or separation. But I thought you and the EO were the champions of Chalcedon after citing Muller and McCormack or something like that. What gives there? Chalcedon was not a holy and infallible church council according to yours of #844?
As for 2 Tim 3, Paul says one, that Timothy understood the Scripture as a child, even before he became a bishop, and two, that the same Scripture is sufficient to every good work that will be required of a pastor, which last gloss the Rome/EO materially deny in pleading tradition.
Psalms 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
Revelation 22:18,19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
The infallible Scripture is both clear and sufficient.
3. I don’t have to be familiar with the Iconoclastic disputes per se to be acquainted ith the Second Commandment which plainly forbids images of anything heavenly or earthly for use in the worship of God. Any image – whether of two or three dimensions – so used or abused is an idol. That is what it plainly says (before one goes on to the reformed doctrine of the regulative principle of worship, wherein whatsoever is not explicitly or implicitly commanded in Scripture is forbidden in the worship of God). If you will insist that graven images only can refer to statutes, it still is to violate the spirit of the commandment, while observing the “letter” to excuse icons.
That God commanded images in the OT ceremonial economy is also immaterial, whether cherubim, pomegranates or the brass serpent. God is God and we are not, regardless of what the EO or the Mormons teach regarding theosis or the divinization of human nature. Of course if you redefine Scripture to include the traditions of men or the Book of Mormon, contra the good and necessary implication of Scripture, which teach its sufficiency, all things are possible, even men becoming God.
Which is exactly what is going on. In #717, you say of the Laudians:
They, like me, viewed tradition as being Spirit inspired and directed. Scripture is part of that tradition, though to a greater degree and perhaps kind of inspiration. Scripture itself is a tradition handed on either in textual form or by word of mouth as was the case with many of the earliest works of the OT.
It is one thing to say the Spirit directs his church; another that he inspires its traditions. Christ’s promise in Jn.16 was primarily to his apostles who went on to give us the NT, which as the Word of Christ, is in a league of its own. For Scripture to share that pride of place as the infallible Word of Christ with anything else, is to categorically degrade it, whatever guarantees one might offer otherwise.
FTM Jesus in Rev. 3:9 is saying that unbelieving Jews will submit/convert to Christianity not that they will literally bow down and prostrate themselves before little papa or the patriarch. Further if John was forbidden in Rev. 22:9 from actually falling down before the angel, how much more mere men. But Rome and EO both carnally interpret the Scripture and the gospel, much more Revelation. If incense symbolizes prayer, we must have it to pray. White robes and golden crowns become necessary to worship God in spirit and truth. Au contraire.
4. Surely Christ does appeal to the prophets, but Christ nowhere to my knowledge delimits what books constitute “the prophets.” And again, even if it were true that Protestants simply took the canon of the Jews, how does it follow that Jewish tradition is correct? Is Jewish tradition more reliable than the tradition of those who believe in Jesus as Messiah? If Church tradition is fallible and unreliable, why take Jewish tradition to be superior? That seems to border on Judiazing by getting the order of improvement from the Old Testament to the New backwards.
Please, do we know how to follow an argument, whether we agree with it or not? As you admit, Christ never specifies which books he means, when he appeals to the law and the prophets. The inference is, his audience knew full well what he meant. It was common knowledge. Granted, there were some who took exceptions, but in the main, the OT canon was known and decided long before the EO and Rome got into the act. Further, if you insist, the Jewish “tradition” has the explicit NT imprimatur of Christ. That is the basis of its authority. Christ vouched for it, not that it was a tradition per se. His audience, as well the early church again, knew what he was talking about. The EO or Roman tradition which adds the Apocrypha to the OT canon has no such witness by Christ to its authority. Hence it is to be disregarded.
Arguably it gets down to Christology as TU&D mentioned recently alluding to your 584. Among other things you say there:
It seems to me that the difference in ecclesiology lies here on the question of Christ’s humanity and the nature of the union and if there is any transfer of properties to or change in the humanity of Christ or not. If there isn’t then it won’t be possible to sustain a high ecclesiology and hence the whole position of an infallible interpreter falls apart.
Consider it fallen apart. All men are liars and the saints and the church are only perfected in heaven, not in the here and now, whatever the eastern or western hierarchy claims for itself erroneously in conflating the apostolic NT church and that descended from it in the course of later time. The only infallible interpreter of Scripture is the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture WestConfFaith 1:9,10
IOW the eastern and western alternative of pretending we should use Ray Charles’s glasses to read the Scripture on Scripture, the church, church tradition or the gospel is not an option. Rather, ‘Hit the Road, Jack’ is the admittedly boorish and populist protestant reply and refrain.
Paige Britton said,
September 2, 2009 at 5:12 am
Hey, Perry, thanks so much for your responses to my questions (839 & 844)! That was kind of you.
pax
Paige B.
johnbugay said,
September 2, 2009 at 6:00 am
Bob S, thanks for your response in #847.
TurretinFan said,
September 2, 2009 at 7:02 am
Andrew Preslar:
“Separated” in the phrase “separated brethren” seems to suggest that the people so described are extra ecclesiam. Your argument above, however, seems to suggested that those folks are not outside the church, but within it.
Lumen Gentium states:
Perhaps you are trying to argue that “the Church” is broader than her visible structure?
Yet Unam Sanctum (Pope Boniface VIII, 18 November 1302) states not only “We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins,” but also “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
I think it is fair to say that the only reasonable interpretation of Boniface VIII is that he meant the there is no salvation outside of the visible structure. Would you agree that we’ve understood him correctly? Whether or not you agree with us in that regard are you subject to B8’s definition?
Finally, do you see a difference between “imperfect communion” and excommunication or anathema. I realize that some folks think that those that are not part of the Roman communion cannot be excommunicated, but if every valid baptism makes one a part of the Roman church in some sense, why would not the sanctions of Trent (for example) not apply?
-TurretinFan
Andrew Preslar said,
September 2, 2009 at 8:54 am
TF,
Regarding “separted brethren”:
It might help to imagine a scenario in which an individual, not visibly contiguous with other members of a body, is constituted a living member of the body by means of an extraordinary operation of the body’s entelechy.
This rather extraordinary scenario was suggested to me by a Protestant philosopher as a means of conceptualizing the unity of an invisible catholic church. I cheerfully borrow this example by way of conceptualizing how someone might be invisibly united to a visible catholic church.
Perhaps you are trying to argue that “the Church” is broader than her visible structure?
Yes, I think that it is safe to say that she is broader than her visible structure, so long as we maintain that the visible structure is of her essence.
As to EENS and Unam Sanctum:
At this point my own ignorance must serve as an excuse to refer you to Mike Liccione’s many discussions of this matter on his blog Sacramentum Vitae. I think that the relevant posts can be found under the category “Development of Doctrine.” I do not like references ad extra, but that is the best I can do on this question just now.
Andrew Preslar said,
September 2, 2009 at 9:32 am
TF,
I did not mean to ignore the other questions.
It might be helpful to consider that although baptism unites one to the Church in a real and visible way, it also orders one (by conferring an objective and indelible mark) towards the other sacraments. Since, on the Catholic view, Protestants do not enjoy the use of these sacraments and are not privy to the full teaching ministry of the Church, and that (in at least some cases) through no fault of their own, the anathemas of Trent and the teaching of Unam Sanctum might not apply to them simply by virtue of their baptism.
In addition, it might help to consider that Trent and Unam Sanctum might not apply in exactly the same way in remarkably different circumstances. This is not to say that the anathemas no longer apply to anyone. We just need to carefully consider a number of factors before deciding whether and how and in which cases they are applicable.
Perry Robinson said,
September 2, 2009 at 9:47 am
Bob S,
Since the teaching is what is most important, I will simply try to ignore your personal remarks and subsequent attempts as justifying your behavior.
My being “upset” about the Filioque is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it is an unbiblical doctrine and that it is inconsistent with your adherence to Sola Scriptura.
To claim that the denial of the Filioque is to subordinate Christ isn’t a proof that it does so. Your confuse assertions with demonstrations. Second, this would only be problematic if we had in hand a notion of subjection that somehow denied the full divinity of Christ. So far you haven’t provided one. Third Scripture speaks of the Son being subject to the Father (1Cor 15:28, Eph 1:17) It does no good to refer these passages exclusively to the economy since this certainly doesn’t seem to be the case with Eph 1:17. Neither will it prove helpful to say that it is true of his humanity, since the propositions are true of the divine person of Christ. Fourth, if to be personally subject to another implied an inequality of essence this could only be true if hypostasis were the same thing as the essence. So your argument turns on Modalist and Arian assumptions-either the Father and the Son are the same person or different persons and so different essences. My wife is subject to me as are my children, but that doesn’t imply any inequality of essence. Your implicit argument seems to be that if the Son isn’t a cause then he will be subordinate and hence unequal to the Father. This is the classic Spanish anti-Adoptionist form of reasoning from the synod of Toledo which first inserted the clause. The problem is that it assumes an Arian view of God, namely that to be God is to be cause. So in order for the Son to be fully God, he must cause another eternal hypostasis, the Spirit. The problems here are manifold. First, if this is so, such that to be fully God is to be a cause of another person, and so the Son and the Father as from one principle eternally cause the person of the Spirit, what eternal hypostasis does the Spirit cause? If none, then you have just argued that the Spirit is not God, for to not be a cause of another divine person is to be subordinate and not fully God. If another, then you have now added a fourth member to the Trinity and will continue to do so since every eternal person in order to be God must be a cause of another eternal person, ad infinitum. Now if to be fully God doesn’t require one be the cause of another eternal person, then the Son doesn’t need to cause the Spirit in order to be fully divine, in which case the bottom drops out of your argument.
Next, the persons of the Trinity are distinguished in Scripture by certain personal properties-the Father is ingenerate, the Son begotten, the Spirit proceeding. Hypostatic differences, essential unity. The categories of person and nature here are paramount. Now you have added another category since the joint generation of the Spirit from the Father and the Son is not due to the divine essence, since if it were, then the Spirit would participate in his own eternal generation, which is absurd. It can’t be a distinguishing personal property on pain of confusing the Father and the Son. So if its not of the essence and not a hypostatic property, what is it? You also seem to be assuming that to be derived implies inequality and this is true perhaps of created things, but why think that it is true of God? You are implicitly assuming the Platonic principle that causes do not fully preserve themselves in their effects so that if the Son is derived from the Father, then he must be subordinate and unequal.
Lastly, this line of reasoning is philosophical theology. You need to show that the doctrine is exegetically derived from Scripture first and then try to give philosophical or systematic considerations to support it or explicate it. So far, there’s been no exegetical demonstration that it is in fact derived from Scripture.
I am sure that the Protestant position considers the Orthodox position on the infallibility of the church an offense from the get-go, but that is hardly a demonstration that the Protestant position is correct. You make much of persecution by Rome, but again, I am not Catholic, Protestantism is a Catholic phenomenon, not an Eastern or Orthodox one. So we haven’t put out anyone from the church relative to Protestantism that was ever in it in the first place. Moreover, if memory serves, Cromwell did plenty of murdering of Catholics in Ireland, not to mention when the Protestants were on top in England in Henry’s reign and then during the 1640’s killing and torturing Anglicans as well. And how about the Reformed persecution of the Anabaptists? And shall we talk about how Calvinists acted in South Africa and other colonial situations? I have enough friends who live on reservations to know all about the wonderful Presbyterians who forced their language, food customs and their religion on the children and the parents. In any case, to keep talking about Rome’s persecutions with me is irrelevant, since I am not Catholic and you seem to know nothing about the sack of Constantinople, which in terms of historical significance and numbers make St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre look like pre-school.
To deny that Adam was created righteous is not confused or ridiculous. It is to deny Pelagianism since the key mark of Pelagianism was to take personal righteousness as natural or “natural grace” as Pelagius and Julian wrote. The Pelagians confused natural goodness with personal goodness and so their heresy like all others turns on a confusion of person and nature. Salvation by works is a consequence of the Pelagian confusion of personal qualities with natural qualities-gee just like the Filioque!. It was from the Neo-Semi-Pelagianism of the Ockhamists that the Reformers picked up the essentially Pelagian view that righteousness was natural to Adam. Augustine on the other hand had held that grace was added to nature and this was the major point of dispute between himself and the Pelagians. For if grace was natural as the Pelagians thought, then all subsequent helps would be external and extrinsic. That is, the fall only affected Adam circumstantially and externally since he was by nature righteous or graced. The only other option would be to say that the imago dei was intrinsically altered at the fall. But to do that would be to create more problems, since now it is possible for human choices to overturn God’s willing human nature to be what it is. Not only that, but if human choices alter nature, then human nature would change innumerable times. And there wouldn’t be a common nature for Christ to assume since every person’s nature would be a different nature. Consequently, I think the Pelagian shoe is on the other foot. I affirm that Adam was created naturally good but personally innocent against the Pelagians and Manicheans. Righteousness was something acquired through personal obedience and habituation. Consequently, I reject the Reformed anthropology for the same reasons I reject the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
More directly to the point, I didn’t deny that there were communicable attributes strictly speaking. What I pointed out was that your own theologians deny that there are communicable attributes. Turretin isn’t exactly a Patriarch of the Orthodox Church. You are free I suppose to disagree with your own theologians, but in this context, you need to give me an argument to show that he is wrong and how there can be communicable attributes. So regardless of my supposed confusion, your theologians say there aren’t and can’t be any communicable attributes.
You seem to wish to present something like the following argument. If there are no communicable attributes, then the church cannot possess them. Infallibility is reputed to be a communicable attribute. There are in fact no communicable attributes. Therefore the church cannot have infallibility as a communicable attribute. Therefore the church cannot be infallible. And subsequently, my objection that there are no communicable attributes can only go through on pain of refuting my own ecclesiology. And so I am somehow confused. I can’t have both. This would be a significant point, if you weren’t confused. And here is why it is a bad argument.
I don’t think God has attributes, communicable or otherwise. The problem is that people think of attributes as properties, but neither in Catholic or Protestant scholasticism are attributes properties. On your view and the Catholic view, God has no intrinsic or constitutive properties. Attributes are judgments we make about an object that lacks all plurality and hence all composition. The judgments diverse, but the reality is simple so that while the judgments may be true, their mode or use of signifying the simple essence is skewed and hence they only refer to God analogically. Attributes are attributions or predications, not properties.
I on the other hand think that God has energies, activities and I reject the Latin formulation and understandings of divine simplicity. I don’t think that plurality necessarily entails composition. Consequently, God can share his glory, knowledge, holiness, love, etc. with us. Infallibility is one of these energies. God has them underivatively and essentially and we can have them derivatively and hypostatically. We share in his immortality, life and glory as the Scriptures indicate and not some created substitute as Turretin and other Reformed writers claim. God needs no created intermediary to be united with his people. Consequently, your counter argument fails.
Further you state that “according to Reformed theology” infallibility is an incommunicable attribute. Well then I guess the Scriptures can’t be infallible can they? Neither then can any of the inspired writers of Scripture when they were writing inspired Scripture be infallible or the prophets when they preached. Some how I don’t think you wish to say this. On the other hand, if following Turretin and other Reformed theologians against the Lutherans, God has no communicable attributes how can Jesus speaking on earth be an infallibly speaking man? How can the prophets be infallible when they preached the divine message? How can the Scriptures be infallible? (que the Catholic and Reformed doctrine of “Created grace.”) So it seems that you can’t maintain that there aren’t communicable attributes and maintain that Scripture is infallible. Which is it going to be Bob?
That’s great that you’re a jus divinum Presbyterian. So you should have a problem with those in your own church who carry over unscriptural teachings like the filioque from Rome into your own confession. Somehow though you don’t. Moreover, the Presbyterians lost any succession that could have come about through the presbyterate when they prohibited ordination by the laying on of hands for a hundred years. Or do you think just casting lots is sufficient to make a man a minister?
Sure I think the deification of Christ’s humanity, his body the church is consistent with Scripture. Or don’t you think you are glorified with God’s glory? Perhaps instead some other lesser created glory? If so, this will imply that Christ is a creature since Christ says he shares his glory with us.
Your counter argument from Chalcedon is confused. You argue that if we participated in the divine nature, this would violate the teaching that the two natures remain distinct in the one divine person. First, as I noted, you don’t believe Chalcedon in teaching that Christ is a divine person a la WCF 8.2, along with Calvin, Musculus, Vermigli, Bucer, Bulliner, et al. As Calvin says, the person of Christ is “out of” two natures.
Second, my position doesn’t violate Chalcedon since I don’t think in the communicatio idiomatum that there is a transfer of essences. I affirm along with the Fathers of Ephesus and Chalcecon that there is a communication of energies. If you want a reformation source documenting this, just read Martin Chemnitz’, Two Natures in Christ. Your objection only goes through if you confuse essence with energy, which I don’t. A transfer of energies doesn’t transfer an essence, anymore than a heated blade becomes fire by essence simply because it is hot and is illumined.
Third, you are confusing phusis in 2 Pet 1:4 with Ousia which denotes essence. For the Orthodox phusis is a wider category than Ousia since the energies are also natural.
Fourth, it won’t do any good to gloss 2 Pet 1:4 as moral properties unless you concede that moral properties comprise the divine nature, at which point, you’ve conceded the point. If they aren’t, then it won’t be a participation or sharing in the divine nature, but a creaturely nature.
Granted that Timothy understood the Scriptures as a child. But if we are to use that as a ground for thinking that anyone can use Scripture as he recommends Timothy do later in the passage, then children will be adequate candidates for ordination. Second, we don’t deny that Scripture is materially sufficient but we do deny that it is formally so and this is in keeping with the passage, since it takes Timothy using the Scriptures to do those things. The judge uses a rule or a canon.
Rev 22 is principally speaking of the book of “this prophecy” not of the whole bible. And even if it were, we don’t add books to Scripture. Secondly, you presume that the canon you maintain is exactly what the early church held to, yet there is no any list in church history that represents the canon exactly with all and only the books you claim as canonical. The pre-Christian LXX contained works of the apocrypha and so there was no hard and fast canon until much later.
The second commandment doesn’t strictly forbid the use of images per se. The fact that God can command images to be made is not immaterial since it informs the meaning of his commandment, lest God contradict himself. Or perhaps you wish to endorse some extreme form of voluntarism wherein God can command image making per se to be immoral but then change it to being not immoral at some later time? (As for the regulative principle, I’d suggest you read Hooker’s Law’s of Ecclesiastical Polity) Second the commandment doesn’t forbid images in the liturgy, it forbids making an image of the divine essence. We don’t have any of those.
And trying to tar the Orthodox with the Mormons is a new low for you Bob. First, theosis is taught fairly widely and quite early with all the Fathers the Reformers wish to claim as their own. Comparing them to the Mormons isn’t exactly helpful to your case. Besides, why would you wish to give all that early church ground to the Mormons? Secondly, the Mormons deny creation ex nihilo, we affirm it. Second, the Mormons believe in a plurality of gods, we don’t. Third, the Mormons think that humans become deities by essence, we don’t and never have affirmed such a blasphemous thing. So to compare us to the LDS I think is indicative of the gross ignorance or prejudice you suffer from.
More to the point, Protestants like the Mormons have to appeal to an apostasy hypothesis to justify their new ministers and prophets with supposed new prophecies. Just look at the writing about “prophecy” in the second Reformation in Scotland. It’s the same old line. The church fell away and we are here to restore it. The Mormons are just manifestation on the American frontier of that hypothesis. So please, spare me the comparison with the Mormons. Besides, I have done my fair share of street witnessing to Mormons at their churches and temples. How many Mormon temples have you been kicked out of for teaching the Trinity?
And besides, it is the claims of the Orthodox that stop Mormon claims of the apostasy in their tracks. They talk about apostasy until I point out that say the church in Thessaloniki that Paul founded is still there teaching the same Orthodox doctrine and that they can go and visit it if they want to. Cold hard reality trumps American frontier mythology.
If I thought that Scripture was a book of logic proofs, then the talk of clear and necessary inference might be persuasive, but natural languages don’t necessarily work that way, which is search engines can never pick out exactly and only what you search for. In the writings of a society of people, some things will get discussed more and more explicitly, some not, some merely hinted at. As if you had a clear exegetical grasp of what baptisms for the dead were/are. But in no way is the Christian religion the product of a human reconstruction process through logical deduction. It is delivered, not deduced. It is a message sent, not one deciphered.
As for direction and inspiration, that depends on how we define inspiration. And second many of the ecumenical councils the Reformed profess adherence to claim divine inspiration explicitly. Not all givers of the NT were apostles nor necessarily disciples of the apostles. Who wrote Hebrews? Do you know? I agree that many of the promises were to the apostles, but so is Matt 16 and 18 and somehow I don’t think those promises ceased with the presence of earthly apostles. Moreover the successive offices were continuations of part of the apostolic ministry so that it continues through them on pain of affirming some new ministry instituted after the apostles died. The deacons, presbyters and bishops weren’t re-ordained after the apostles died. Furthermore, if God inspires and lives within his church its not degrading to Scripture if God does it, so here you are clearly question begging.
As for Rev 3:9 the context is in that of a specific church and the lampstand which is the bishop of that church. If Rev. 3 is teaching that they will convert, why does it say that they will be forced to “come and worship before thy feet?” That doesn’t sound like something purely symbolic. Second, even if it were, why not take the falling down before an angel as symbolic too? Prostration can be for honor/obeisance or worship. The outward act of itself isn’t indicative as the passage from Chronicles indicates. The difference is that in Rev 3 then the “worship before thy feet” is obeisance and the falling down of John is that of worship, which is why he is rebuked.
Another problem is that you anachronistically inject a more modern notion of symbolization as if it were a mere phantasme. Jesus is called the Son but isn’t that symbolic too? Or do you think that Jesus was sexually created? Does the symbol ground itself in the reality and convey it? If so, then the fact that incense is symbolical in Revelation doesn’t preclude using it in church. The real thing can be symbolical, which is probably why John uses it, since the early church like the Jews did as well.
If the inference is that the audience knew full well what he meant by the law and the prophets then why were rabbis raising questions about the canonicity of Ezekiel still at the end of the first century? The same goes for Ruth. Second, I don’t know that his audience knew full well what he meant. Often times his audience doesn’t in fact know so. If the canon was so decided, at what date did this occur? In order for the Jewish tradition to have the sanction of Christ on the canon, we’d need to know what books Christ took to be canonical. Second, the Jewish tradition would have to be monolithic, which it isn’t. Third, if the early church knew what he was talking about, this leaves inexplicable from the earliest times the fact that the early church didn’t ever produce a list of books which includes all and only the books of the Protestant canon. If they knew the canon as you claim, then they must have forgotten it from the time of the 150-170 A.D.
If all men are liars on earth, then Jesus and the Apostles must have been liars. If the Spirit is the only infallible interpreter of Scripture from within it (which I don’t think you can consistently maintain in light of Reformed Christology-just read John Owen) then the WCF can’t be the product of such an interpretation, since it contains doctrines like the Filioque which cannot be proved from Scripture and is a tradition.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
September 2, 2009 at 11:24 am
Andrew Preslar: “Re 819, 821:
Looking back over [my] comments, it is abominably, perhaps unforgivably, “testimonial”, and I probably wouldn’t read it if I were you, but the way you (TUAD) posed the questions led me to wax rather autobiographical in response.”
Honestly, I don’t think it was abominable at all. As far as you thinking it was an unforgivable autobiographical testimonial, I don’t know why you would think that.
“See how liberal I am with the blame?”
Why are you blaming yourself? No offense was intended or taken. And there’s nothing to be contrite, ashamed, or regretful about.
“Once I became convinced that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ, I had to become fully Catholic in order to be saved.”
Why? Earlier you said “As you know, the Catholic Church teaches that we are regenerated into a saving faith by means of baptism.”
I’m trying to follow your line of argument:
(1) You were regenerated into a saving faith by means of baptism.
(2) But you would have lost your saving faith that you once had by means of a valid baptism once you believed that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ.
(3) So then you, in your words, “had to become fully Catholic in order to be saved.”
If this indeed is what you’re saying, then the clear implication is that there’s an exception to the Roman Catholic doctrine of being regenerated into a saving faith by means of baptism.
That exception means that you could indeed lose your saving faith. And that exception would be invoked once you “believed” that the Catholic Church was the Church that Jesus founded and then failed to become a member of the Roman Catholic Church.
Have I understood you correctly? Would you say that your argument is rather representative, more or less, of your “Called to Communion” brethren as well?
Andrew Preslar said,
September 2, 2009 at 12:51 pm
TF,
I was being hyperbolic in my apologies for the autobiographical tone, so no worries.
I am not sure I follow you on those bits about “exceptions.” As you know, the Catholic Church teaches that it is possible to fall from grace, thereby forfeiting the righteousness granted to us in baptism. This is not the same thing as an exception, and there are many ways to fall from grace.
Again, on the Catholic view it is possible to lose the righteousness infused by baptism. To thus “fall from grace” would require an informed and free act of the will whereby one rejects God’s friendship in favor of some created good. Therefore, if I come to realize that the Catholic Church is the “fullness of him who filleth all in all” and then refuse, being under no compulsion, to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church, I would be rejecting God’s friendship by a free and informed act of the will. Thus, like Esau, I would have sold my birthright, the birthright which I received in baptism.
So, to revert back to your question, it would not be my conviction of the truth of the Catholic Church that would result in the loss of salvation. Rather, that loss would be consequent upon my refusal to enter into full communion with the Church after I had become convinced of her claims.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
September 2, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Andrew PresIar: “I am not sure I follow you on those bits about “exceptions.” As you know, the Catholic Church teaches that it is possible to fall from grace, thereby forfeiting the righteousness granted to us in baptism. This is not the same thing as an exception, and there are many ways to fall from grace.
Again, on the Catholic view it is possible to lose the righteousness infused by baptism.”
Okay. So when you write “As you know, the Catholic Church teaches that we are regenerated into a saving faith by means of baptism” you really mean that it should be more fully qualifed and nuanced by saying something like this instead:
“As you know, the Catholic Church teaches that we are regenerated into a saving faith by means of baptism unless you lose or forfeit the righteousness infused by baptism, and there are many ways to fall from grace.”
So this “saving faith by means of baptism” is really a contingent saving faith according to Catholic dogma, correct?
tim prussic said,
September 2, 2009 at 1:47 pm
I think #854 is the single longest blog posting I’ve personally seen. BRAVO!
Paige Britton said,
September 2, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Yeah, and knowing Perry he probably wrote it from an i-phone, too.
Perry Robinson said,
September 2, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Paige,
Do you know me? I would need to be gainfully employed to afford an i-phone.
johnbugay said,
September 2, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Tim Prussic: Try this:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/08/chicago-overcoat.html
It’s a compendium from Perry’s comments in this thread.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
September 2, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Andrew Preslar: “In addition, it might help to consider that Trent and Unam Sanctum might not apply in exactly the same way in remarkably different circumstances. This is not to say that the anathemas no longer apply to anyone. We just need to carefully consider a number of factors before deciding whether and how and in which cases they are applicable.”
Okay. Let’s take a look at what Cardinal Avery Dulles and Francis Sullivan, S.J. via Cardinal Avery Dulles’s book review have said regarding this topic.
(1) “The axiom “outside the Church no salvation, ” proudly proclaimed by Catholics (and many other Christians) in earlier centuries, has fallen on hard times. Vatican II teaches that God’s saving grace is offered to every human being, including those who have never been evangelized and those who sincerely deny God’s existence. This apparent reversal is a crucial test for the standard theories of development of doctrine. Can the concept of “development” encompass such an about-face?
Francis A. Sullivan, a New England Jesuit who has taught ecclesiology for more than three decades at the Gregorian University in Rome, is well qualified for the task. His treatment is scholarly, judicious, and clear. Without getting bogged down in details or in the secondary literature, he presents the main lines of the story, with special attention to official church teaching.
Pope Boniface VIII in his bull Unam sanctam (1302) and several medieval councils (notably Lateran IV and Florence) embraced an apparently rigid interpretation of the maxim that one must belong to the Catholic Church to be saved.
While the belief [of EENS] itself is a dogmatic truth, not subject to change, the formulations have been historically conditioned and require revision.”
Excerpts from Salvation Outside The Church?
Tracing The History of The Catholic Response.
(2) The concluding paragraph of Cardinal Dulles’s essay “Who Can Be Saved?”:
“Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God’s saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. Much will be demanded of those to whom much is given.”
Here.
As a conservative 5-Sola Protestant, I’m delighted to see the progression or doctrinal development from Unam Sanctum to Vatican II regarding the “revised” formulations of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, a dogmatic truth.
Fig leaf, anyone?
Andrew Preslar said,
September 2, 2009 at 5:16 pm
TUAD,
Sorry about #856, which I referred to your comment as a comment by TF.
“As you know, the Catholic Church teaches that we are regenerated into a saving faith by means of baptism unless you lose or forfeit the righteousness infused by baptism, and there are many ways to fall from grace.”
No, I would not rephrase my original statement in this way, since regeneration into a saving faith by means of baptism is regeneration into a saving faith by means of baptism whether or not one later falls away.
So this “saving faith by means of baptism” is really a contingent saving faith according to Catholic dogma, correct?
I am not sure what you mean by “contingent saving faith”, but I would say that the “saving” aspect of faith is contingent upon the life of faith; i.e., we are not saved by a dead faith.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
September 2, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Andrew Preslar: “No, I would not rephrase my original statement in this way, since regeneration into a saving faith by means of baptism is regeneration into a saving faith by means of baptism whether or not one later falls away.”
Andrew, please consider that many people conceive of a “saving faith” as a faith that saves all the way till the end of life.
Whereas in stark contrast, your conception and/or the Roman Catholic Church’s conception is that a “saving faith” might really only be temporal, and it can be lost or forfeit in the many ways to fall from grace.
Does this help clear up your conceptual block?
Andrew Preslar said,
September 2, 2009 at 5:36 pm
TUAD,
Cardinal Dulles captures the essence of the developed doctrine of EENS. He puts the matter quite starkly, but he of course concludes the EENS can and has survived intact. I am not sure from the context whether Dulles or Sullivan described this development as an “about-face.” My guess is Sullivan. In either case, that characterization is a bit of hyperbole. As you probably know, the Magisterium has clarified aspects of this development of doctrine such that it is shown to be very much in keeping with the Catholic doctrines of salvation in Christ alone and EENS.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
September 2, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Andrew Preslar: “I am not sure what you mean by “contingent saving faith”, but I would say that the “saving” aspect of faith is contingent upon the life of faith; i.e., we are not saved by a dead faith.”
Okay. So then when you wrote “As you know, the Catholic Church teaches that we are regenerated into a saving faith by means of baptism” you really mean in fuller, more accurate terms:
“As you know, the Catholic Church teaches that we are regenerated into a saving faith by means of baptism, unless (or except) it’s a dead faith, for we are not saved by a dead faith.”
Sounds reasonable to me. Do Catholic priests teach this to parents who are having their children or babies baptized?
Paige Britton said,
September 2, 2009 at 5:40 pm
860, Perry, I jest — just thinking that someone so over the top as you are would probably be clever enough to manage it. :)
Andrew Preslar said,
September 2, 2009 at 5:51 pm
TUAD,
Does this help clear up your conceptual block?
I think so. By “contingent saving faith” you mean saving faith that saves people at some time, but not necessarily at all times. However, this is perfectly consistent with it being saving faith.
I do consider that there are “many people [who] conceive of a ‘saving faith’ as a faith that saves all the way till the end of life.” I also conceive of a saving faith that saves people all the way to the end. I just believe that this faith is also contingent, as per the end of my comment #863.
Perry Robinson said,
September 2, 2009 at 6:02 pm
TUAD,
You wrote “Andrew, please consider that many people conceive of a “saving faith” as a faith that saves all the way till the end of life. Whereas in stark contrast, your conception and/or the Roman Catholic Church’s conception is that a “saving faith” might really only be temporal, and it can be lost or forfeit in the many ways to fall from grace.”
That may be how it is viewed, but it is also true that among Lutherans, Anglicans and Augustine for example, persons can be genuinely regenerated and fall away. Those who take the Reformed view I think should soften their criticism in light of the fact that not even in the Reformation traditions is their view of perseverance agreed with.
Andrew Preslar said,
September 2, 2009 at 6:04 pm
TUAD,
Okay. So then when you wrote “As you know, the Catholic Church teaches that we are regenerated into a saving faith by means of baptism” you really mean in fuller, more accurate terms:
“As you know, the Catholic Church teaches that we are regenerated into a saving faith by means of baptism, unless (or except) it’s a dead faith, for we are not saved by a dead faith.”
Sounds reasonable to me. Do Catholic priests teach this to parents who are having their children or babies baptized?
Well, baptism, including all of its effects, is a gift from God. And no, our priests do not teach parents that God might give their babies a dead faith in baptism. We believe that the deadness of faith is consequent upon deadly sin. Infants cannot commit deadly sins. As for original sin, that is precisely what is washed away by baptism.
johnbugay said,
September 2, 2009 at 7:21 pm
TUAD: Only people like me are under a curse:
from CCC #846
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
September 2, 2009 at 9:46 pm
John Bugay: “Only people like me are under a curse … from CCC #846.”
Not necessarily. Look at what Andrew Preslar wrote before: “it might help to consider that Trent and Unam Sanctum might not apply in exactly the same way in remarkably different circumstances. This is not to say that the anathemas no longer apply to anyone. We just need to carefully consider a number of factors before deciding whether and how and in which cases they are applicable.”
Furthermore, as Cardinal Dulles wrote: “the formulations [of EENS] have been historically conditioned and require revision.”
So we can plainly observe that there has been doctrinal “development” (or doctrinal latitude or doctrinal flexibility) over time by Rome. For example, let’s re-examine Cardinal Dulles’s statements interspersed with Andrew Preslar’s affirmations:
Dulles: “Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found.”
Preslar: “Cardinal Dulles captures the essence of the developed doctrine of EENS.”
Dulles: “Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled.”
Preslar: “Cardinal Dulles captures the essence of the developed doctrine of EENS.”
Dulles: “Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will.”
Preslar: “Cardinal Dulles captures the essence of the developed doctrine of EENS.”
Dulles: “Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice.”
Preslar: “Cardinal Dulles captures the essence of the developed doctrine of EENS.”
So John, be at peace.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
September 2, 2009 at 10:06 pm
John Bugay: “Only people like me are under a curse … from CCC #846.”
Not necessarily. Look at what Andrew Preslar wrote before: “it might help to consider that Trent and Unam Sanctum might not apply in exactly the same way in remarkably different circumstances. This is not to say that the anathemas no longer apply to anyone. We just need to carefully consider a number of factors before deciding whether and how and in which cases they are applicable.”
Furthermore, as Cardinal Dulles wrote: “the formulations [of EENS] have been historically conditioned and require revision.”
So we can plainly observe that there has been doctrinal “development” (or doctrinal latitude or doctrinal flexibility) over time by Rome. For example, let’s re-examine Cardinal Dulles’s statements interspersed with Andrew Preslar’s affirmations:
Dulles: “Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found.”
Preslar: “Cardinal Dulles captures the essence of the developed doctrine of EENS.”
Dulles: “Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled.”
Preslar: “Cardinal Dulles captures the essence of the developed doctrine of EENS.”
Dulles: “Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will.”
Preslar: “Cardinal Dulles captures the essence of the developed doctrine of EENS.”
Dulles: “Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice.”
Preslar: “Cardinal Dulles captures the essence of the developed doctrine of EENS.”
So John, be at peace.
Bob S said,
September 2, 2009 at 11:37 pm
854 Perry,
If you were going to ignore my personal remarks, you would do that instead of telling me about it. Instead of playing the hurt card. Next time back up your general accusation of insults.
And that you are upset about the Filioque is relevant. I see it largely as a red herring and distraction from the real issue. 1. Rome and EO are confused about the true gospel. (Where the true gospel is preached, there, one will find the true church. More on that later.) 2. Consequently they are confused about the true nature of the church and 3. insist it is infallible. While I don’t really know that much about the controversy, it doesn’t put me in a bind like it does for you and the rest of the Called to Communion with AntiChrist cadre. Again, I don’t affirm the infallible authority of the Reformed confessions or the Reformed church/hierarchy.
Briefly as re. persecution, Ireland revolted and massacred the Protestants. Cromwell put down that revolt. That’s the missing context. The Irish were not killed for belonging to the Roman church. As far as the Anglicans go, Laud was executed in the 1640’s and the Killing Times occurred in the 1680’s in Scotland. Nice try, but there is no comparison. As for the sack of Constantinople, are you saying that was at the hand of Protestants?
Your comments on Adam are extremely confusing and all over the place. Scripture tells us that Adam was created after the image of God in knowledge, righteousness and holiness Gen.1:26, Eph. 4:24, Col. 3:10. Do you deny that? As re. Reformed theology, there are no such things strictly speaking as attributes in the divine and simple Godhead, yet for the nth time, as finite creatures we must use that language to talk about God and the creature. IOW your comments/criticisms are immaterial.
Further, I do not deny so to speak that there are communicable and incommunicable attributes or properties to God . Infallibility is an incommunicable attribute which is why the EO or Romish heirarchy can’t posses it.
Furthermore, Scripture, the prophets and Christ were inspired, as well as infallible. Do you claim that for the EO church? That is the question and disagreement. The Reformed deny that the church after Christ and the apostles is inspired and infallible.
My comments about jus divinum presbyterianism were in response to yours that I did not recognize any church govt. or something like that. That’s the only reason I mentioned it. And again, there are unscriptural teachings and there are unscriptural teachings. You put the Filioque over the gospel and the church. I dissent.
As for deification of Christ’s humanity, this is 1. contra Chalcedon. 2. If we become deified, then we become God. Oh, but not deified in essence. Right. All this kind of argument and reply by the EO strikes me as special pleading and equivocating. So much for the Trinity, never mind the Filioque.
Again, if you believe Christ’s human nature was deified, as you said in 753
“Since I think that the flesh of Christ is deified in the Transfiguration, . . . ”
that is contra Chalcedon. As for the rest not only is Chemnitz a Lutheran, your comments are confused/incoherent. You have done a lot of reading, but that is not the same as understanding it, much less being able to succintly and cogently demonstrate the relevance of all of it to the discussion, much less defining your terms, philosophical and theological, much more establish your position against all objections.
That Timothy could understand the Scriptures as a child presumes the clarity of Scripture on those things that are needed to be known for salvation. Something the EO is confused about, however infallible and inspired that it is. Further, the EO have demonstrated they don’t use or understand the rule/canon in arguing for their authoritative traditions – if not the EO demotes Scripture to tradition as you do in 717 (in admitting some similiarity with the Laudians after all!)
They, like me, viewed tradition as being Spirit inspired and directed. Scripture is part of that tradition, though to a greater degree and perhaps kind of inspiration. Scripture itself is a tradition handed on either in textual form or by word of mouth as was the case with many of the earliest works of the OT.
As to where Scripture teaches that, silence reigns. But that doesn’t stop the successors to the apostles. They are free to depart from the explicit and implict teaching of Scripture, throw in some theological/philosophical talk and voila.
As re. Rev. 22, there is the spirit and the letter. If you insist on the letter, then only St. John’s Apocalypse cannot be edited or amended, but any other book, EO is free to revise or add to. Ahem. . . .
Read the Second Commandment for once, Perry and tell me that it doesn’t explicitly forbid bowing down to images of ‘anything in heaven, on earth or under the earth’ – not,/b> just “images of the divine essence” as you assert.
Neither that God can command something contrary to his commandment, such as Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac, is not for God to contradict himself. Further, he establishes and defines how we are to worship him, however we are forbidden to define and determine that ourselves. Hooker was an Anglican and like the Lutherans, did not see the good and necessary consequences of the Second Commandment as taught in the Reformed confessions. Worship and government are adiaphora and the church is free to do as she pleases, as long as she doesn’t do only what God explicitly forbids. (On the contrary, the so called Regulative Principle of Worship teaches that whatsoever is not commanded, is forbidden.)
As far as tarring the Orthodox with the same brush as the Mormons, Perry, by this time as you ought to know, nothing is too low for me. While the Reformers taught Scripture alone, Rome, EO and the Mormons – I call them the American version of Rome – teach ‘the Bible and’; the Bible and the Magisterium, the Pope, the Apocrypha, Tradition and the Book of Mormon.
As for theosis being taught by all the early Fathers, I will have to admit not hearing that before. But there are a lot of stories I haven’t heard, no matter, that the Reformed don’t ascribe infallibility to the Fathers anyway.
True to form as EO though, you do go on to deprecate reason and logic, in that EO tends toward mysticism, if not double talk and equivocation. (As far as baptisms for the dead, Paul is talking of baptism in Christ if Christ were dead. It would do no good. Hence Christ is alive and Christian baptism a good thing.) Reason or the natural light given us by God (Jn1:9), if not that we have a reasonable soul, makes the study of Scripture not only possible, but a duty. How else do we understand the Word? By osmosis? Miracles and mysticism? You may pooh pooh formal logic, but the use of informal logic and reason is inescapable. If it were not so, we couldn’t even carry on this conversation, much more even begin to define terms. IOW evidently reasonable analysis is not apostolic, which might explain alot about this conversation, its direction and perspicuity. Here’s to mud in your eye or something like that.
As for defining inspiration, exactly. Does it continue past the extraordinary officers in the church, the apostles and their secretaries/understudies with the death of John in 100AD approx. or does it continue even today on the Tiber or the Bosphorus. The reformed affirm the first and deny the second.
If one cares to insist that the Apocalypse, which is a book of prophecy as opposed to a historical or doctrinal book such as Acts or Romans, is a directory for public worship as Rome, EO and the Anglicans do, so be it. But one, Christ came that we might worship in spirit and truth, the OT ceremonial worship for the church in her infancy has passed away/been fulfilled in Christ so that any attempt to revive the typical temple worship or something similar after Christ has come and the church is grown of age would seem to be contrary to the spirit and letter of the law.
As re. Christ appeal to the law and the prophets, you tell me Perry. Did he know what he was talking about? Did his audience? Did they know perfectly, largely and in general or not at all? And if his audience didn’t, then why would Christ appeal to the same?
And finally, when the Scripture says “all men are liars” it is not talking about Christ or the apostles as the inspired authors of the NT. That is elementary. Yet not only does the WCF affirm that the only the infallible interpreter of Scripture, is Scripture itself, and the supreme judge by which everything is to be judges is the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture (1:9,10) it also notes in 31:4 that
,i> 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.
[ Eph. 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
1 Cor. 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
2 Cor. 1:24 Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.]
Thank you.
John Bugay said,
September 2, 2009 at 11:45 pm
TUAD — I am fine. But not every Catholic thinks like Dulles. And besides, I am not in one of those categories you listed. I was a devout Catholic before I wasn’t. That is specifically mentioned in the anathema. And more, I consider their anathemas to be worthless. But there was a time when I didn’t.
Bob S said,
September 3, 2009 at 12:03 am
Read the Second Commandment for once, Perry and tell me that it doesn’t explicitly forbid bowing down to images of ‘anything in heaven, on earth or under the earth’ – not just “images of the divine essence” as you assert.
(No, I am still not interested in joining a church that can’t make typos like this, but can still mange to garble the Second commandment.)
curate said,
September 3, 2009 at 12:47 am
BTW the idea that ordinarily there is no salvation outside of the church is a Protestant doctrine, believed by all the Reformers. The church is of course the community where the gospel of pure grace is found and believed. Without that gospel there is no salvation, since it is that gospel that is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.
That means that Perry is a heretic, without God and Christ, and without hope in the world. Having embraced a gospel that makes works a condition of grace in some confused way, he has set aside the cross of Christ.
You need to repent Perry. Repent of your ecclesial idolatry, your praying to portraits, and ask God to forgive you for Christ’s sake. Give up your trust in your own works and will, and trust in Christ alone for forgiveness from God.
Then come to a real church, the heavenly Jerusalem, outside of the camp.
curate said,
September 3, 2009 at 12:57 am
To all of the Called to Communion men:
You have abandoned the grace of God for swill. You have set aside the gospel of peace for a gospel of doubt. In Rome you cannot have the assurance of salvation, because it supposed to be arrogant. The reason of course is that no-one knows whether they have done enough works to please God, and no-one knows if the works they have done are acceptable to God.
That is what passes for humility in Rome.
Faith, on the other hand, firmly believes the promises of God in Christ of the full remission of sins, and the life of the world to come, apart from works, for the sake of the cross alone. Assurance is the very essence of faith, and you are not permitted to have it.
How is this better than what you had? Come back.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
September 3, 2009 at 7:12 am
John Bugay: “TUAD — I am fine.”
Good! Glad to hear it.
“But not every Catholic thinks like Dulles.”
Whaaaaat? Catholics applying private judgment to infallible Magisterial teaching? But what about the oft-heard criticism that Protestants apply private judgment to infallible Scripture?
“And besides, I am not in one of those categories you listed. I was a devout Catholic before I wasn’t. That is specifically mentioned in the anathema.”
You’ve got a good precedent. Martin Luther. Among numerous others.
“And more, I consider their anathemas to be worthless.”
There you go. And apparently numerous others consider them worthless too. D.A. Carson quoted a statistic stating that 3 times as many Catholics are converting to Protestantism as compared to Protestants converting to Catholicism.
And although I’m not Pentecostal, I heard that when Pope B16 last visited South America, he was concerned about the number of Catholics down there who were converting to Charismatic churches.
But really, it’s two things working in concert. Ex-Catholics think the anathemas are worthless. And Catholics operating with doctrinal development are themselves rendering their own anathemas worthless.
Andrew Preslar said,
September 3, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Curate,
Re #878,
In Rome you cannot have the assurance of salvation, because it supposed to be arrogant.
The subject of assurance of salvation has been discussed at least a couple of times at Called to Communion: here and here. The second article is the first part of what will eventually be a three-part series comparing and contrasting Catholic and Reformed views of assurance.
Andrew Preslar said,
September 3, 2009 at 1:36 pm
TUAD, et al,
Regarding EENS and the developments of the Second Vatican Council:
(1) It is absolutely essential to recognize that the possibility of salvation for people who are visibly outside the Church and / or can make no explicit testimony of faith in Christ Jesus or his Father is absolutely rooted in the Incarnation and the Paschal mystery. Our soteriology is determined by our Christology. (Not that I am trying to tempt good Perry into action.) Among the reasons that Catholics and Reformed Protestants look at the developed teaching on EENS so differently is that we have significantly different understandings of the Paschal mystery, and (probably) some differences, at least of emphasis, on aspects of the Incarnation.
(2) Fr. Sullivan, whom you cited earlier, has written a helpful book on EENS entitled Salvation Outside the Church?. I do not always appreciate the careless manner in which he sometimes wields the tools of critical (so-called) historiography or higher critical exegesis (here or in his other books), but this book is helpful insofar as it finds clear precedents of modern teaching in the early Church fathers and places ancient, medieval and Tridentine teaching on EENS in historical perspective.
Chris said,
September 3, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Bob: “That God commanded images in the OT ceremonial economy is also immaterial, whether cherubim, pomegranates or the brass serpent. God is God and we are not”
So instead of saying that God’s commands about the Cherubim should inform us about correctly interpreting the graven image commandment, you posit that God contradicted himself, but that’s ok because he is God?
That’s not my hermeneutic I’m afraid, and in my opinion that hermeneutic will turn the scriptures into mush.
Perry Robinson said,
September 3, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Bob S.,
I shouldn’t need to back up my accusations of insults when the text is there for all to see. Perhaps I should just write to you like you write to me and see if you find it offensive or not?
Emotional states are irrelevant to the truth of an argument so what I may be upset about or not is irrelevant. What is not irrelevant is the topic of this thread, namely what lens are you using, how does one know if one has the right one and are you capable of revising it?
Apparently you aren’t capable of revising your own lens. I gave an example of a major doctrinal area which lacks scriptural support. No attempt an exegetical foundation for this doctrine has been made. Instead what I get are hems and haws, hand waving and stonewalling. I seriously doubt that if this were taken to the General Assembly it would get any different treatment, which shows quite clearly that the Confessions that your sects adhere to are traditions irrespective of their lack scriptural support.
Second, I don’t know how you can claim we are confused about the real gospel when you can’t even articulate what our teaching of the gospel is. Moreover you can’t even get the doctrine of God right so why should I think that you have the gospel? You wrongly presuppose that the Filioque is a compartmentalized doctrine apart from the Trinity and soteriology that you can just drop without affecting anything.
But given the basic Augustinian framework and that the divine persons are relations distinguished on your view by opposing relations, if the Spirit has no opposing relation to the Father and the Son, how will you distinguish the generation and hence person of the Spirit from that of the Son? With no way to do so, as your own theologians claim (Turretin, Bavink, Hodge, et al) you end up in Modalism or Arianism. It is absurd to think that the doctrine of God has no soteriological consequences. Doctrines aren’t discrete and separate boxes.
The fact that you don’t know much about the Filioque shows how completely blind you are to the true doctrine of God and further illustrates the fact that most educated Calvinists really don’t have more than a textbook understanding of the Trinity and simply gulp down the doctrine from the chancred teats of their Whoring mother Rome like the bastard children that they are. The fact that you don’t really know much about it shows that you don’t know much about the Scriptures and the Trinity. But alas! The scriptures are clear and transparent, so much so that you missed a false doctrine of God in your own confessions. But the scriptures are clear, though your dull head obfuscated them or you were predestined not to understand them. Without the right doctrine of the Trinity sola fide will mean nothing. Yeah, justification by faith alone by a false god isn’t going to do you a whole lot of good. How can you have a pure gospel with a false god?
You scream and howl about others and how they have a false gospel supposedly, but you can’t even attempt to give an exegetical ground for your own doctrine of God. This is not some minor doctrine here and your playing it down shows either your contempt for the most holy Trinity or your ignorance and contempt for the Scriptures. Simply asserting your conditions on where the church is, is a waste of bandwidth. I already know what you teach. You need to stop making claims and start giving arguments.
The real issue Bob, is that you are inconsistent on your own principles and you can’t even admit it. It’s a clear case, so why don’t you put up or shut up? Either produce an exegetical justification for your own doctrine by Scripture alone or stop your putrid howling about sola scriptura. The fact that you don’t view the confessions as infallible just makes your inconsistency and your inability to condemn teachings among your own all the more clear and worthy of condemnation. Pull the log from your own eye first. But you can’t even admit the obvious truth. Your church goes beyond the teaching of Scripture and you can’t even admit it. How do you expect Scripture to be the final judge with this kind of self deception and intransigence?
As for persecution, gee I wonder why Ireland revolted-given the persecution I would have too. Smashing the heads of children against walls and stealing crops and property seems like an adequate justification. And between 1640 and 1662, Protestants were doing plenty of killing. And you seem incapable of following the basic arguments. I brought up Constantinople as an example of Roman persecution that lasted almost an entire century so I don’t want to hear about your whining about persecution when Protestant hands are just as red and Protestant suffering pales in significance to that suffered in the East. And you would not have even had humanism in the West without getting the texts from the East since the Franks were too stupid to preserve anything, except of course the Irish.
If my comments on Adam are extremely confusing, it is because you are an extremely confused Pelagian heretic. I deny your Pelagian reading of the passages you put forward. The righteousness in Eph 4 and Col 3 refer to the Spirit given in baptism since in Christ’s recapitulation of human nature he makes it a fit abode for the Spirit once again, which is why he is baptized. If you knew anything about the true doctrine of Christ you’d know this. Gosh even the Nestorian John Owen figured that part out. Like your Pelagian hell spawned fathers you confuse personal righteousness with nature. Your deception is so utterly complete that you can’t even recognize the original source of your own Pelagian teaching when it is told you in your own native tongue. So yes, against Pelagius, I deny that those passages teach that righteousness is natural. Since you confuse person and nature to make such a view work, what’s next Bob, Sabellianism?
Well no duh Bob, there are no such things as properties of a simple Platonic deity. How ignorant you must be of your own church’s teaching that I have to explain it to you. Your welcome. But what do you expect when you take your doctrine from the Pagan Platonists? And glad to see that you surpassed your past mental density and actually opened a book to find out that what you were saying previously wasn’t even what your own church teaches. But you still seem to not be able to grasp the most basic difference between an attribution or predication on the one hand and a property. The question isn’t whether we must use inadequate language to talk about God, but whether you can claim that there is a transfer of something from God to us when your own theologians say that there can’t be communicable attributes and the Scriptures teach that there is. Or perhaps you think God’s glory is something created along with his immortality? Pay attention to the Scriptures Bob-it is a participation in the divine nature. How do you think the Apostles wrote infallibly if infallibility is an incommunicable divine property? Oh yeah, on your view of God, he can’t have any intrinsic properties.
On top of that the entire doctrine of divine simplicity is even more lacking in scriptural support. Where is that in the Bible Bob? And yes your confession teaches that doctrine too, taken from Rome from Augustine’s Platonism. Oh I can just hear the scramble to systematic theology texts and the thumbing through the pages. Just go look Bob, where is that in Scripture? Oh sure it says God is “one” but the doctrine of simplicity entails oh so much more than unity.
Face it, you’re hypocrite in professing Sola Scriptura since you place the teachings of men and pagan men at that on a par and as if they were derived from Scripture! Where is all the analogia fide now Bob? How come after five hundred years the analogia fide Protestants didn’t even get the doctrine of God right but imported pagan Platonism right into your confession? I mean, you can see the Filioque in Plotinus’ Enneads-The one and nous jointly produces the soul so that you fill in every category of causation-a uncaused cause, a caused cause and an uncausing effect. Somehow I don’t think Plotinus was reading John 15. And then, you defend it by appealing to the reasonings of men! What cowardice this is to not even attempt to give an exegetical ground for your own doctrine of God. Blind guides!
As I noted before from Turretin, since all of what the attributes denote in God are all one and the same thing, the divine essence, there can be no communicable attributes from God. Zipo, nada, nothing, zilch. Comprende Bob? Capiche brain wave? Your own theologians say it.
If infallibility is incommunicable, then hello Dr. Obvious, the Bible can’t be infallible. So now you are committed to denying the infallibility of the Bible, Bob. You are essentially demoting the Word of God to fallible writings of men. So again, Bob, which is it going to be, your unscriptural and pagan doctrine of simplicity or the infallibility of the Scriptures? You pick Bob. Wha? Can’t hear you Bob? Are you going to ignore this problem too?
As for inspiration, you seem equally incapable of following an inference here too as well. The implication is that inspiration may admit of degrees and may not mean the same thing in every context.
You are unable to keep track of points made. Ecclesiology doesn’t float free of the doctrine of God. The basis of the claims of Papal supremacy as claimed by Gregory VII at the Great Schism was that because of the Filioque, and the Pope was the vicar of Christ, the Spirit proceeded into the Church from the pope. All protestants have done is agree on the principle but multiply the popes so that the Spirit comes into the church through every individuals judgment. Same heresy, different direction-one true son or many true sons. And that is hardly a newsflash given Protestantism’s inherently adoptionistic Christology. So no Bob, I don’t put the doctrine of God above the gospel and the church, you are just too blind to see the implications of your own heresy.
As for Chalcedon, here too you have reading comprehension problems. Chalcedon precludes the transfer or transmutation of essences, but our doctrine, which was taught by the fathers of Chalcedon, both before and after is that there is a transfer of energies. The problem is that you confuse deification with a change of essence, which shows that you do not even know the biblical and patristic categories. When Christ says he shares his glory with us and his own body shines with the divine glory, what exactly is that Bob, some created light and sound show? Do you claim that the divine glory is a creature? When the woman with the issue with blood touches Christ and he says the power went out of him, what power but God’s own did she receive? When Christ’s flesh is made immortal in the resurrection, who alone but God is immortal? When the facial cloth of the apostles is passed around for healings, with what power is it imbued? (acts 19:12) So estranged from the material world must this false god of yours be that he cannot risk contact with matter nor can it bear his power it seems.
And if you deny that the humanity of Christ was deified in the Transfiguration, tell me exactly if the glory that shone from the flesh of Christ, was it created or uncreated? How about the immortality of Christ’s flesh, is that a divine property or not? Oh yeah, I forgot, on your view of a simple Platonic pagan god, he has no properties to share!
And way to go Dr. Obvious, Chemnitz is a Lutheran. I recommended him since as you might have forgotten, Lutherans are part of the Reformation tradition and so his work constitutes a hostile witness with respect to Orthodoxy. Even hostile sources like the Lutherans admit the point contrary to all of your cacophonous babbeling.
So not only have I done a lot of reading, I have understood what I have read, which in distinct opposition to yourself who seems to have not done either. You simply do not understand Chalcedon, and in fact, you do not even understand your own traditions doctrine of God since I had to explain it to you. Fools rush in…
Well no duh Timothy understood the Scriptures when he was young, but this is obviously in accordance with his age, As if Timothy when he was the great age of ten was giving discourses on the hypostatic union. Scripture speaks of itself as tradition both through Paul and Luke, not to mention other authors. The names of the gospel writers is a tradition since they were applied by the church passed on through tradition since before the third century there weren’t gospel manuscripts that designated their authors. You seem to be ignorant of the meaning of paradosis.
Uhm Scripture indicates that much of the OT was passé don through word of mouth prior to its being written down and then after that it was passed on via tradition. Why appeal to Jewish tradition for the canon if you don’t recognize this point? Second the NT speaks of the gospel as the message which was later written down but also preached. It was preached first and then written down.
Why do you appeal to the spirit and the letter but then hammer the Adoptionistic exegetical method of the historical-grammatical method? You can’t serve the two masters of Scripture and Theodore of Mopsuestia. When I simply note using your own method that the passage does not have universal scope you run to an “spiritual” exegesis which goes beyond what can be gained from linguistic considerations alone. And given that you don’t think the Scriptures are infallible since infallibility is a divine property, why would editing the Scriptures be a problem for you?
The context of the 2nd commandment is bowing to and serving images of other gods or images of the deity qua deity. Read Romans 1-2-they exchanged the divine glory for gods resembling animals-above the earth, below it and on it. We don’t have any of those, because there is no form that was seen so no image can be made of that which cannot ever be seen, contrary to your bastardized Platonic and Roman teaching of a “beatific vision” of seeing the divine essence, when Scripture explicitly says that not only has God not been seen, but that God can’t be seen. Gotta keep sucking at the chancred teat eh Bob? Where does Scripture teach the beatific vision Bob, that the divine essence is seen? Yeah, again, another instance of where you are inconsistent for the sake of your tradition.
God’s command of the sacrifice of Isaac is pedagogical. Do you wish to claim that his command to make images after the Ten Commandments is pedagogical too? And yes, I am familiar with the regulative principle, but yet somehow you keep violating it by letting women take communion. Where is the command or example of that in Scripture Bob? Gonna forbid women partaking of the little shot glass and cracker now Bob? I can just see the women in your presbytery, “You can have my shot glass of grape juice and Webber White Bread when you pry it from my cold dead hand!” Where does God command women to partake of communion? Where? Chapter and verse please? Gosh, haven’t you read Calvin at least? And no duh, brain wave, Hooker was an Anglican, but perhaps you might do your brain a favor and just read someone outside of your bastardized comfort zone?
Obviously nothing is too low for your Satan loving false god preaching soul. What’s next, pedophilia for Calvin? As I pointed out, like the Mormons you has to postulate some “great falling” way and buy into some X-Files ecclesiology where the church is everywhere in general but nowhere in particular and by doing so make Cerinthus and Valentinius proud.
Well of course you haven’t heard of theosis in the Fathers, since you lack the ears to hear it in the Scriptures. You must not be elect after all! You haven’t heard it because you don’t read the Fathers. They aren’t your teachers. You have new bastard fathers and new teachers-they are the lens through which you interpret everything else, so much so that when pressed on one single example in THE major doctrine of Christianity, the Trinity, you can’t even bring yourself to admit that they were wrong, for all their knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, they exchanged the true God of Scripture with the Baal of Plato. You just keep blindly following that whoring tradition and make the Word of God of none effect. Just go pick up Norman Russell’s The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition or just search on Amazon since there’s only about almost three dozen scholarly books written on the topic over the last forty years. I know it will be hard adjusting yourself to reading actual scholarship when you’re so accustomed to the “See Jesus Run” exegetical method.
I didn’t deprecate reason or logic and the fact that you chalk my position up to some kind of stupid Buddhistic annihilation of the self shows how completely you are tossed around by gossip and stereotypes. What’s next, calling me a Garlic Eater? Noting that the Gospel was delivered by authorized representatives, rather than deduced from a text is just plain old Bible, Bob. The message was delivered or to put in biblical terms, traditioned, paradosis.
As for reason and natural light, its funny how common grace as sin and total depravity go out the window when reason comes into the picture. But true to pagan humanist form, here comes neutral reason to save your posterior. I’ve taught formal logic Bob, why would I disparage it? Have you? The Church has by revelation what the philosophers could never get from reason or haven’t you read Paul on Mars Hill lately? Perhaps its because you are still worshipping that unknown God?
You ask about inspiration, well that will depend on the theory of inspiration now wouldn’t it Bob? And given that I deny that general revelation continues, then inspiration in its fullest sense won’t extend past the Apostolic age. But I don’t expect you to understand since your view of inspiration turns on Nestorian commitments and other false doctrines like the Spirit coming to Christ’s humanity and bringing about “created graces” as Berkhof and other Reformed writers claim. Gotta keep sucking that chancred teat Bob, run home to mamma Rome, that whore you love so much for that doctrine of “created grace” straight from the Scholastics! Run, Bob Run! She’s awaitin’.
I know you are accustomed to making false bifurcations, but why think that prophecy can’t be historical? Gee, can you say Preterism Bob? Like Revelation can’t refer to anything historical? Gosh, even I’ve read Chilton. Symbolic doesn’t equal “non-real.” Yeah, that Spirit and truth included continuing in the apostles teaching, the liturgical prayers and the eucharist (acts 2:42) Christ fulfills the moral law too, do you wish to imply that you can screw your dog now too?
Sure when Christ appealed to the Law and the Prophets he knew of what he spoke, but of course Christ delineates no canon, which was the point, so his knowing it won’t help you since he doesn’t tell you. Given that the Jews were using various groupings of books it wouldn’t be suprising if they had a general idea, some better and some worse, which is just to say that there was no Protestant canon. If you think there was, produce one single list from any discovered manuscript that has all and only the books you judge to be inspired. You can’t. And when Christ appeals to the Resurrection or the Son of God or Son of Man in his preaching, did they have exactly the same idea in their minds? The Scriptures testified about Christ and they knew couldn’t even recognize him even though they were his own! They couldn’t even get Messiah right, even though all of the Scriptures taught them about him, but yeah, Bob, they got that canon down just perfect. If they didn’t understand Messiah, why think they got the canon picture perfect?
Perhaps when you said all men were liars, you should have qualified your statement appropriately. That’s called logic, Bob. But perhaps you were into that kind of brain destroying “mysticism”of Jonathan Edwards or Whitfield. Ever read Whitfield’s Journals Bob how he audible talks to God? Or how about Calvin’s “mysticism” that he draws from Bernard of Clarivaux?
If Scripture is the only infallible interpret of Sctripture via the analogia fide, then I have shown either that that is false or that the Reformed have not been doing so since the Filioque and a host of other doctrines of yours aren’t exegetically derivable from Scripture. Besides, Scripture is a rule, used by a judge, specifically the man of God, which obviously isn’t you.
And since you like citing the WCF so much, here is a reminder. “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which NOTHING AT ANY TIME IS TO BE ADDED, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” That includes the Filioque, created grace, divine simplicity or the beatific vision. Shall I continue with more of your unscriptural doctrines? How about discussing the Pelagian Covenant of Works next, eh?
Now Bob, nestled between the snide condescending remarks and insults, quite in line with your own and a few others here are actual arguments. I decided to give you a taste of your own medicine and I bet you don’t care for it. If this is the kind of dialog you wish, can’t you see that all this will produce is anger and the inflaming of the passions, so that people on either side won’t be able to or will be impeded in their ability to weigh the arguments and evidence so as to figure out the truth? Can’t you muster the least bit of respect as Scripture indicates for Christians to do and refrain from this kind of incendiary writing? It should be obvious that I am generally familiar with Reformed theology and Reformed writers. I used to be Reformed and I still read in that and other traditions on a regular basis. I obvious don’t know everything or read everything, but I strive to be fair and represent the views of others as they recognize them. I try to keep rhetoric to a minimum so that the arguments speak for themselves. So why not put the rhetoric aside and just address the arguments.
The claim that the Reformed can correct their lenses via Scripture seems to have hit a snag in that when a clear case has been given in say the Filioque, they retreat from Scripture and make excuses for their lens, rather than admit it and work to revise it. Why?
Perry Robinson said,
September 3, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Curate,
Do you think I am stupid or unread? Do you think I don’t read the Bible? Like what, you are just going to say such things and I am likely to convert on the spot? I used to be Reformed. I know what you teach by and large. I know what verses you think support your teachings and what exegetical arguments you are likely to give before you give them. I seriously doubt the same can be said in the other direction.
If the gospel of pure grace is sola fide then people like Augustine had a false gospel, which is absurd. Your doctrine of God as I pointed out precludes you from thinking that the gospel can convey divine power. If I am a heretic, then so is Augustine and every Church Father prior to the Reformation. All Christians were heretics by your reasoning prior to the Deformation.
And I can’t do anything but laugh at your lie based on your ignorance that I think that grace comes through some natural ungraced work. You are simply bearing false witness here. Don’t you know that it was an Eastern Ecumenical Council that condemned Pelagius?
You it seems haven’t got the slightest clue what the Orthodox believe concerning the relationship between nature and grace.
I don’t pray to portraits and anyone who had read anything on the topic in the original sources would know how utterly stupid such a remarks is. You only make Calvinists look stupid and bigoted when you say such things. I pray to the person depicted, just as people pass on the honor paid to a flag to the nation it represents.
How can it be idolatry to take the Church as Christ’s body imbued with his life, glory and immortality? But again, you think because of your Platonic pagan view of God, that he can’t share his life with us. What a powerless idol you worship.
I don’t trust in my own works, I just believe what Christ says, that my works born of love and grace are his works. (Matt 25) The love of God fulfills the law as Paul explicitly says. (rom 5:5, 13:8-10) If you think that you do not fulfill the law it must be because you lack the love of God. And if that is so, your faith alone is worthless since it is simply a noise maker even if it is sufficient qua real faith to move mountains. Any professing Christian, as I am, knows that at the end of the day we are most unprofitable servants. Duh.
How can I set aside the Cross of Christ if you do not even know what I think about the atonement? In fact, your theory of the atonement wasn’t even invented until the Deformation period. Consequently you do not even understand the work of Christ on the Cross because you do not understand his work in the Incarnation and because you reject the true doctrine of Christ’s incarnation. But this is no surprise since you reject the true doctrine of the Trinity for some Platonic substitute.
You guys must be the dumbest Calvinists on the planet to keep talking to me like this. Either because you can’t even represent another persons ideas accurately or because you actually think that intelligent people are going to fall down at your feet and ask what they must do to be saved. I am not sure which. But if this is the best you can do, I know I am going to have no trouble at all in continuing to convert your seminarians and seminary professors to the true once delivered faith of Orthodoxy.
Why don’t you actually deal with the arguments I put forward and justify your own doctrines from scripture alone rather than saying such sanctimonious self righteous crap. Here’s a clue Curate, talk to people how you would like to be spoken to. Like they are people made in God’s image deserving of respect and the smallest bit of charity.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
September 3, 2009 at 11:52 pm
“As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another” (Proverbs 27:17).
I don’t know if Bob S. and Perry Robinson are taking turns using a tire iron to club each other over the head with, and all the while yelling “I’m telling you this truth with all the love that is in me for your miserable eternal soul, you grotesque hideous moron!”,
but the abdominal workout from all my continuous belly laughter as I hilariously imagined all the work that Bob and Perry put into spurring each other onto new heights was easily worth a one month’s ab workout at Family Fitness.
Bravo, gentlemen, bravo. Kudos Bob for bringing out the best in Perry. And kudos Perry for making Steve Hays look like PBS’s Mr. Rogers in comparison to your last comment.
Bob S said,
September 4, 2009 at 12:32 am
Perry,
Speaking of you know what, please read #882.
Now there’s somebody that really knows what the i word means!
cordially
curate said,
September 4, 2009 at 1:09 am
Perry
You bow down to religious images, regardless of your hair-splitting about what is in your mind, so you are in violation of the second Commandment. The humanity of Christ has nothing to so with this. You also bow to images of the Father and the Holy Spirit, things which are explicitly forbidden in countless passages.
You deny the sufficiency of the cross for the remission of sins, since you add works to it, whether aided by grace or not. Thus you have set aside the gospel. The cross is a complete and sufficient sacrifice, requiring no works of man of whatever kind. Indeed, any attempt to add to the cross necessarily nullifies it for the person doing it. Read Galatians again.
The distinction between law and grace in justification is absolute. That is an absolutely basic element of the gospel that you need to accept from Paul. That there are few fathers who saw this does not trump scripture. Though every man be a liar, God is always true.
These things come straight from scripture, not tradition. Hear the word of God and obey it.
Here’s a clue Curate, talk to people how you would like to be spoken to. Like they are people made in God’s image deserving of respect and the smallest bit of charity.
Would you like me to imitate your own style Perry? I have not said anything to you in the way of tone that you have not already said to me and to every other person here. You have disrespected us from the very first. We are not even Christians according to you. We are stupid fools, unable to grasp your arguments. The scripture is not addressed to us because it is written to the church, and we are not in the church, and so on.
You are a layman. You are not trained. You have read one or two books and now you are an expert. You have not been commissioned by your own authorities to evangelize anyone. You have no authority even by your own standards. Yet you feel free to insult and offend men who are trained, whose arguments you barely comprehend, and who have been commissioned by their own proper authorities.
If I have unjustly criticized you, I apologize. I testify to you that I have said nothing in anger or contempt.
John said,
September 4, 2009 at 1:42 am
Mental note to self: don’t drink coffee while reading Perry’s posts.
John said,
September 4, 2009 at 1:52 am
“You bow down to religious images, regardless of your hair-splitting about what is in your mind, so you are in violation of the second Commandment.”
So did the Jews. The Ark was covered with pictures of the Cherubim, and the Jews bowed down to the Ark. The Jews called the Ark “God’s footstool”, (see 1st Chronicles 28:2). Psalms 99:5 says to bow before God’s footstool. Psalm 99 says of the God who dwells between the Cherubim (v1) an obvious reference to the Ark, ending with a call to “bow to His holy hill”.
Paige Britton said,
September 4, 2009 at 4:58 am
Well! Lane did tell me that the purpose of this blog was edification. I am certainly being edified. I don’t know which feature is most instructive, though: clubbing each other with tire irons, evangelization via anathema, or the fact that I think some of it is rather funny. Thanks for contributing to my education, guys.
John Bugay said,
September 4, 2009 at 6:09 am
Perry — You know, God is still there, and he is still God, regardless of what anyone says about him, however they think he is constructed (beyond what he reveals about himself in Scripture).
You seemingly are the only person in the world who still cares about the filioque clause. It was so underwhelmingly important at the time of the Reformation that the best, most highly-studied theologians in the world at that time didn’t give it a second thought.
That’s my take on it.
Your recent post has strengthened my conviction that Calvin and the Calvinists are right about total depravity, and that it has been so going all the way back.
The more I study church history, the more I am confirmed in this conviction — and claims of authority or infallibility are really to be looked at with a jaundiced eye.
Here’s something that I put together fairly quickly, and it deals with the early history of the papacy, although I’ve managed to include the council of Ephesus in here, because it is the same kind of thing:
I haven’t studied Eastern Orthodoxy at all, but consider these two personal accounts from Gregory Nazianzus, who at one time presided over the Council of Constantinople (381) and who resigned that office, left that city, never to return:
And this:
Only at the Reformation did these situations get righted, or were there even attempts to make these right, based on Scripture.
Whatever you think about the minor issue of having carried a particular word from their Roman past, the Westminster Assembly was a tremendous model of Christian Conciliarism — a model for discussing and formulating and systematizing doctrines from the Scriptures.
We will not have perfection in this world; and if you keep demanding it, you will be a very miserable person for the rest of your life.
John Bugay said,
September 4, 2009 at 6:15 am
Perry — You know, God is still there, and he is still God, regardless of what anyone says of him, apart from what he has revealed of himself in Scripture.
You seemingly are the only person in the world who still cares about the filioque clause. It was so underwhelmingly important at the time of the Reformation that the best, most highly-studied theologians in the world at that time didn’t give it a second thought.
That’s my take on it.
Your recent post above has strengthened my conviction that Calvin and the Calvinists are right about total depravity, and that it has been so going all the way back.
The more I study church history, the more I am confirmed in this conviction — and claims of authority or infallibility are really to be looked at with a jaundiced eye.
Here’s something that I put together fairly quickly, and it deals with the early history of the papacy, although I’ve managed to include the council of Ephesus in here, because it is the same kind of thing:
I haven’t studied Eastern Orthodoxy at all, but consider these two personal accounts from Gregory Nazianzus, who at one time presided over the Council of Constantinople (381) and who resigned that office, left that city, never to return:
And this:
Only at the Reformation did these situations get righted, or were there even attempts to make these right, based on Scripture.
Whatever you think about the minor issue of having carried a particular word from their Roman past, the Westminster Assembly was a tremendous model of Christian Conciliarism — a model for discussing and formulating and systematizing doctrines from the Scriptures.
We will not have perfection in this world; and if you keep demanding it, you will be a very miserable person for the rest of your life.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
September 4, 2009 at 6:54 am
Perry, you used such big words to convey your restrained displeasure with the Bob S. that I had to go look up their definitions.
Here’s an example: “The fact that you don’t know much about the Filioque shows how completely blind you are to the true doctrine of God and further illustrates the fact that most educated Calvinists really don’t have more than a textbook understanding of the Trinity and simply gulp down the doctrine from the chancred teats of their Whoring mother Rome like the bastard children that they are.”
I never heard of “chancred” before and I wasn’t sure about “teats” but I could kinda guess. Anyways,
Chancred: The primary lesion, sore, or ulcer of any of various diseases, esp. of syphilis. The primary lesion of syphilis; a hard, nonsensitive, dull red papule or area of infiltration that begins at the site of infection after an interval of 10 to 30 days.
Teat: The small projection of a mammary gland [syn: nipple, mammilla, mamilla, pap, tit].
After having looked them up, I then looked at the part of the sentence they were in:
“most educated Calvinists really don’t have more than a textbook understanding of the Trinity and simply gulp down the doctrine from the chancred teats of their Whoring mother Rome like the bastard children that they are.”
This irenic writing conveys such a lovely image. But now that I understand that Whoring mother Rome has chancred teats this bastard child will just never ever feel “Called to Communion” with her, unlike Bryan Cross, Sean, Andrew Preslar, et al who are eagerly gulping and slurping on her chancred teats.
And so I have learned something. And I want to thank you, Perry.
John Bugay said,
September 4, 2009 at 7:04 am
TUAD, I can’t believe that you, a frequent student of Steve Hays, ever had a thought to feel “called to communion” in the first place.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
September 4, 2009 at 7:13 am
John Bugay,
I love your picture, dude. Your smile or grin has such a mischievious twinkle to it that it’s just perfect for the last 100 comments or so.
steve hays said,
September 4, 2009 at 7:14 am
Perry Robinson said,
“Sure Steve launched criticisms of what I wrote here. But curiously he ignored my calls for scriptural justification for the Filioque and divine simplicity.
i) Once again, Perry’s memory is failing. I’ve repeatedly addressed both issues.
ii) I’d also suggest that he keep up with developments in Reformed theology, like reading what Frame has to say about divine simplicity in The Doctrine of God.
“He also ignored my demonstration from Turretin that there can be no communicable attributes.”
That’s irrelevant. Bavinck and Berkhof affirm communicable attributes. So different Reformed theologians take different positions on this issue. As such, Reformed theology per se is not opposed to the communicable attributes.
“And Steve failed to respond to my last sustained refutation regarding free will and the problem of evil.”
i) That’s a diversionary tactic in relation to what he’s posted at Green Baggins, which I did respond to.
ii) Moreover, Perry needs to wait his turn. He’s not the center of the universe. He’s not the only person I’m responding to. Get in line.
Perry Robinson said,
September 4, 2009 at 7:42 am
Steve,
My memory is just fine. You are being rather misleading though. Sure you addressed it in terms of talking about it, but you did not address it in giving some exegesis to support the historical doctrine in your Confessions. So in terms of showing by Scripture that the doctrines in question are derived from Scripture, no, you didn’t address it. In fact, you’ve done everything but address it in terms of giving an exegetical basis for your Confessions doctrines. You’ve made excuses for it, admitted it was a tradition, tried to argue that you aren’t bound by it, that it might be revised in the future so the Confession conforms to Sola Scriptura now, (making all confessions justifiable on that basis btw), etc. etc. But no, you haven’t and can’t justify this doctrine of your confessions from Scripture alone. It’s a clear case of inconsistency on the part of the Reformed and it is an amazing display of the psychology of denial.
Frame agrees that the Filioque can’t be justified by Scripture, which is why he denies it and affirms a sending in the economia. You don’t seem to grasp that the doctrine of the Filioque isn’t about sending per se, but about the generation of the person of the Spirit. If Frame simply shifts the doctrine to the economia, then he will be affirming that the Spirit is created. So no, Frame hasn’t developed the idea that the Person of the Spirit is generated from the Father and the Son, he’s denied it. I fail to see how a denial that the doctrine is derived from Scripture justifies the doctrine taught by your Confessions which claims that it is taught in Scripture. The same goes for Carson btw, who affirms that the Filioque can’t be justified from the Johanine texts.
Oh goodie, Bavink and Berkhof. Why don’t you tell us exactly where they do affirm such and what exactly they affirm. Since the problem that Turretin raises also affects them. I’ve read them already btw. The question is not whether they affirm it, anymore than Rome affirms freedom of conscience. The question is whether they can justify it like say the Lutherans.
Its hardly diversionary when the context was your criticisms of me. Since you stated you weren’t going to respond to my last counter post on my blog to you, its not a matter of turns. You need to eat some blueberries.
Besides, Steve has a team to help him out while I am pumping this out on my own. Or perhaps he doesn’t feel his team players can dialog at this level? I dunno. But hey, sincerely, Steve got glass if he like Cary Grant.
Perry Robinson said,
September 4, 2009 at 7:51 am
TUAD,
If you are going to insult someone, do it with style. Even insults can be a thing a beauty. Otherwise one is just spewing unrefined nonsense.
My point was only to give Bob and others a taste of their own medicine. I don’t wish to have that kind of dialog. I wish to just discuss the arguments and ideas and let them lead where they do. If Bob, Curate and John can’t do that, and I doubt they can, then this is the point where the discussion ends. I will go and find better dialog partners, people who can discuss an argument without personally being an ass and can treat people with a bit of dignity and respect.
The point was that the Reformed get far more theological content from Rome that they cannot justify on their own principles than I think they are aware of. The Filioque is the tip of the iceberg. I just used such imagery since it is the kind of rhetoric one finds in the Reformation period and so I used it against Bob. Think twice about calling the mother of so many of your doctrines a whore.
Perry Robinson said,
September 4, 2009 at 8:20 am
You don’t seem to get it do you? I am not going to be convinced by this combining of fist pounding assertions and insults.
Assertion with no supporting argument-non-responsive to distinctions made-“You bow down to religious images, regardless of your hair-splitting about what is in your mind, so you are in violation of the second Commandment.”
Assertion with no supporting argument-gross ignorance of the actual positions and debate-“The humanity of Christ has nothing to so with this.”
Inaccuracy-the respective canons deny images of the Father and the Spirit can be made-The Orthodox preclude them-“You also bow to images of the Father and the Holy Spirit, things which are explicitly forbidden in countless passages.”
Assertion with no supporting argument-I don’t even think remission of sins requires a penal model of the atonement. “You deny the sufficiency of the cross for the remission of sins, since you add works to it, whether aided by grace or not.” Thus you have set aside the gospel. The cross is a complete and sufficient sacrifice, requiring no works of man of whatever kind. Indeed, any attempt to add to the cross necessarily nullifies it for the person doing it. Read Galatians again.”
I probably read the NT through at least three times in a year. Second, Paul says our works born of grace “please” God. 1 Thess 4:1. What is pleasing other than having his favor? Augustine teaches the same. The problem is your philosophy here. You have inherited a taxonomy of classifying activities that makes mutual inclusion very difficult, it not impossible. You view works born of grace as discerete separate things, unpenetrated by divine power (How Origenistic of you!) Consequently, works born of grace are like two men pulling a load-to the degree that one pulls, the other doesn’t. This is not what Paul or Augustine have in mind. Rather the works are fully mine and fully God’s. They are one and the same work. This is fully consistent with sola gratia as Augustine teaches. Your argument is as fallacious as saying that we add human co-operation in the creation and conservation of the world by affirming secondary causes.
Assertion with no supporting argument-“The distinction between law and grace in justification is absolute.”
Assertion with no supporting argument-“That is an absolutely basic element of the gospel that you need to accept from Paul. That there are few fathers who saw this does not trump scripture. Though every man be a liar, God is always true.”
Few Fathers? Who would the few fathers that taught sola fide be exactly? And where is this great revelation in the scholarly literature, since I am sure it just made someone’s career?
Assertion with no supporting argument-“These things come straight from scripture, not tradition. Hear the word of God and obey it.”
I don’t need you to imitate how I wrote to you since you routinely do it. I would prefer you wrote dispassionately without rhetoric, condescension or insults so that your argument will do the work for you. I tried to convey this to you, but you don’t seem to have gotten the message.
I never said you weren’t a Christian. I said you were heterodox and schismatic, just like Rome. I don’t think you really grasp how the Orthodox view such matters. Perhaps you had find out first what people believe from the inside out rather than just presuming that you know on the basis of your own soteriological assurance. I’ve disrespected you?! Simply outlining what I believe, just as Protestants is simply indicating where the theological lines are drawn and that is necessary if we are going to have a meaningful discussion. If you take that as an insult and disrespect, you need to get thicker skin. Don’t go around the block with the big dogs if you’re going to piss like a puppy. I don’t think I said anyone was a “stupid fool” except in my last rhetorical demonstration to Bob and yourself.
Sure I am a layman, but on your ecclesiology, so are ministers ontologically speaking. Second, in Orthodoxy, some of the greatest theologians have been laymen. Third, I hold graduate degrees in a relevant field, so yes I am quite sufficiently trained. Fourth I have a personal library of about five or six thousand books. Fifth, the arguments are what are matter. If “trained” men can’t produce good arguments, I seriously have to question their training. Experts can be wrong and what matters in any academic field is the arguments one gives, not the letters at the end of their names. If I barely comprehend someone’s arguments, then you need to demonstrate that this is the case and not merely assert it, which you keep doing.
Nothing out of anger or contempt? Seriously, that is all I have gotten from you, that and a whole bunch of undefended assertions.
curate said,
September 4, 2009 at 10:20 am
Perry, you have not understood the argument, so I am going to give this one last go, and then I will bow out.
There are two possible routes to the acceptance with God. One is by means of a free gift, by faith apart from works, to the man who does not work, but trusts God who forgives the ungodly. (You will recognize the texts).
The other route is by means of works. If you do the works required of you, then that will be credited to you as righteousness, and you will not need to be forgiven, because you will have fulfilled the entire law without ever sinning.
The second option is not available to us because all have sinned. Works as a means of acceptance are thus entirely null and void. It not a real option.
That just leaves a free pardon, unconditioned by works of obedience, from a loving and gracious God. The cause of this pardon is God’s free election according to grace, and it is paid for by the cross of Christ, alone.
The sole instrument that takes hold of this grace is faith, simply believing the promises that God makes to us in Christ.
The bottom line is that the cross stands alone, undefiled by works, or it does not stand at all. The end.
PS. 1. If the EO forbid icons of God, then explain the icons depicting the Trinity as three men?
2. Why have I seen pictures of the Father on the ceilings of EO churches?
John Bugay said,
September 4, 2009 at 10:28 am
TUAD: Here you go:
This was actually taken at a company Christmas party, about 2 years ago. It had just started, and yeah, I was pretty relaxed.
Since I’ve been unemployed, I shave less, and so the mustache has grown into a goatee. My wife and daughters like it, and so, who am I to argue. (More gray than I like to see though.)
Perry Robinson said,
September 4, 2009 at 11:34 am
Curate,
I don’t think you know what an argument is. There is no inference rule that I can see at work here and so no argument. You’ve just strung together a bunch of assertions.
The two possible routes remarks are assertions, not arguments. At most they could be premises, but I reject the premise. And in any case, I affirm sola gratia as Augustine did which you don’t seem to grasp. If I am a heretic, then so is Augustine. Is Augustine a heretic?
Third, I agree that when Abraham was initially justified, he was without works, but even Trent says that. That is not the issue. The issue is whether human activity can subsequently be included in the justice that is in the human agent upon which the declaration is made.
Fourth, works born of grace don’t preclude the need for forgiveness since we still sin and some are more serious than others as Augustine teaches.
Your problem is that you have a defective Christology where the divine and human are only extrinsically related such that divine activity can never be human activity so that you can only be like God in terms of moral imitation. Your Platonism is getting in the way of the teachings of Scripture. As Chalcedon notes, the two natures are active in communion with each other, which is impossible given the principles at work in your Soteriology.
I don’t think Jesus needs to climb the ladder of Pelagian merit so that I can participate in a created justice which is a poor substitute for God’s eternal justice and glory. You do not understand the cross because you do not understand the Incarnation and that is so because you do not have the right doctrine of God, which you can’t even justify on your own principle of Sola Scriptura as I have demonstrated. Your Confessional lens is your practically infallible tradition.
You presuppose that faith is only instrumentally valuable for Abraham rather than it being an inhering quality of his own by grace that pleases God. You have to prove this, not assume it. The entire notion of faith reaching up to lay hold of the merits of Christ is straight out of the writings of Pelagius. In fact, he talks about “faith alone” quite a lot in fact. The contrast to Augustine who teaches that God reaches down and takes hold of us, and Athanasius, Cyril and Maximus who teach that he takes hold of all of the human race in his Incarnation a la Eph 1:11. You don’t understand the atonement since you do not understand the Scriptural teaching on Christ’s recapitulation of all things in himself, even the wicked whom he raises. (2 Pet 2:1, Rev 20) No one escapes Christ’s work. You view salvation exclusively in personal terms since you confuse the categories of person and nature, which is why you are hard pressed to explain on what basis the wicked are raised if they are not at the level of nature united to Christ. Univeralism is just the flip side of your position since they both depend on the same faulty assumptions.
Besides, I think I got your view down after reading about 15 volumes of Calvin and sitting at the literal feet of John Gerstner and hearing him talk about it for hours.
As for Rubelv’s icon, it is an icon of the Hospitality of Abraham, which is its official designation, which is a TYPE of the Trinity and no more. There are three angels depicted with Abraham serving them.
If you have a link to the pictures I could take a look at them, but traditionally the domed image on the ceiling is of the Pankrator, Christ the ruler of the universe, not the Father. The Father cannot be depicted since the Father has never been incarnated.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
September 4, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Hey Perry,
I’m not familiar with the EO doctrine of theosis. In addition someone brought up the Mormon Church in a prior comment to you. And so as I was researching theosis I found your comments here on this Mormon blog to be rather interesting.
Curious. Are the EO’s able to convert a significant number of Mormons that they come into contact with away from Mormonism? If so, I highly encourage those efforts since I believe that EO is a far better choice for those people than Mormonism is.
Bob S said,
September 4, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Nice post 878 (and 886).
Mystery post #xxx
Do you think I am stupid or unread? Do you think I don’t read the Bible? Like what, you are just going to say such things and I am likely to convert on the spot? I used to be Reformed. I know what you teach by and large. I know what verses you think support your teachings and what exegetical arguments you are likely to give before you give them. I seriously doubt the same can be said in the other direction.
The answers seriatim to the non sequiturs/foregone conclusions are:
1. No, spiritual discernment, if not salvation is the question.
2. No, again spiritual comprehension is the issue.
3. No, but God does work with the truth.
4. We were nominally Reformed.
5. We think we know what the Reformed believe.
6. See #5.
If the gospel of pure grace is sola fide then people like Augustine had a false gospel, which is absurd. Your doctrine of God as I pointed out precludes you from thinking that the gospel can convey divine power.
This is the key issue. Where the true gospel is found, the true church will be found. The gospel calls the church into being. It is the power – dunamis – dynamite – of God unto salvation Rom. 1:16. If the church is put before the gospel, then genealogy, antiquity, the fathers etc. – i.e. man, the flesh – becomes the focus and the gospel is trampled on. True, God uses his church to preach the gospel, but once she mistakes the order and thinks too highly of herself, God who can raise up the very stones to declare his glory, removes his Spirit (not of inspiration, mind you ) and raises up a replacement. IOW just because Christ has promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his church, that anybody or any ecclesiastical body is unreplaceable.
How can it be idolatry to take the Church as Christ’s body imbued with his life, glory and immortality? But again, you think because of your Platonic pagan view of God, that he can’t share his life with us. What a powerless idol you worship.
God is eternal, not immortal. He is without beginning or end. His glory is an uncreated consuming fire. If we think God is such a one as we are ourselves, then we are guilty of idolatry in substituting a human image and nature for that of God. Christ is God come in the sinless human flesh who redeems our flesh. We do not become little gods. That is because it is impossible for the created to partake of the divine nature.
FTM the Geneva Bible note on 2 Pet. 1:4 says: By the divine nature he means not the substance of the Godhead, but the partaking of those qualities, by which the image of God is restored in us.
Psalms 50:21 . . . thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.
I don’t pray to portraits and anyone who had read anything on the topic in the original sources would know how utterly stupid such a remarks is. You only make Calvinists look stupid and bigoted when you say such things. I pray to the person depicted . . .
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
SCat. Q. 98. What is prayer ?
A. Prayer is an offering up of our desires unto God Ps. 62:8, for things agreeable to his will 1 John 5:14, in the name of Christ John 16:23, with confession of our sins Ps. 32:5,6, and thankful acknowledgment of his mercies Phil. 4:6.
But if this is the best you can do, I know I am going to have no trouble at all in continuing to convert your seminarians and seminary professors to the true once delivered faith of Orthodoxy.
Any “seminarian” or “seminary professor” that will fall for the propaganda of this caliber, of which the above is all too representative, deserves his fate. Those who receive not a love of the truth, will be sent a delusion, that they might believe a lie 2 Thess. 2:10,11.
And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
John 9:39 -41
In other words, we’re talking about a prima facie – on the face of it – argument/response. It is so obvious, we either get it or we don’t. If we get huffy and claim to see clearly, it might be time to check to see if we got cataracts. But only if we claim to be protestants. Everyone else is immune by virtue of an infallible church hierarchy, a sacrosanct appeal to antiquity and unsufferable, as well as unsinkable hubris.
Thank you.
curate said,
September 5, 2009 at 1:01 am
Perry, thanks for your reply.
I agree that when Abraham was initially justified, he was without works, but even Trent says that. That is not the issue. The issue is whether human activity can subsequently be included in the justice that is in the human agent upon which the declaration is made.
Exactly. All of the differences between our churches turn on this point.
Now tell me this. When was Abraham justified first? Was it in Ur of the Chaldeans, or was it in the account of Genesis 15, where he believed the promise of a son, and his faith apart from works was credited to him for righteousness?
You must say that it was in Ur, which is right, for it was then that he first heard God and believed. All agree on this, even Trent.
But then you defeat your argument, for in Genesis 15 Abraham is justified by faith alone AGAIN, apart form works. He is already a believer there, and had been for many years, and had done many works in faith.
It is this second justification by faith alone that Paul uses to support his argument for sola fide in Romans 4.3, to show that it is always by grace apart from works, especially after initial justification.
Referring to all of Abraham’s righteous works, Paul says:
4.2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
Abraham’s righteous works do not stand before God, or they would indeed be a cause of boasting, or, glorying!
And this in Genesis 15, not Genesis 12!
Thus all of Abraham’s works after initial justification are dismissed in this matter. Paul does not mean to say that Abraham was justified by works apart from faith, since that is absurd. When he says works, Abraham’s faith is assumed and taken for granted. One must argue, then, that it is Abraham’s works of faith that are rejected here in justification.
Reinforcing this point Paul says:
Rom. 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness
In further support of the case for justification sola fide after initial justification, Paul quotes David, saying:
4.6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.”
When did David pen these words? When he first believed? No! It was at a time when he had done many righteous deeds, and had been a believer for very many years. Therefore David teaches justification sola fide, and applies it to himself as a mature believer, dismissing all of his righteous works in the matter of forgiveness.
In conclusion then, justification is always of faith apart from works that it might be according to grace.
Richard said,
September 5, 2009 at 2:33 am
Roger,
Could you please deal with Perry’s question regarding St. Augustine? It seems to me that you are quite willing to cite Augustine when he agrees with you but on what grounds would you reject his teaching in the Enchiridion? For example in chapter 72 which is entitled “There are Many Kinds of Alms, the Giving of Which Assists to Procure Pardon for Our Sins” Augustine writes:
curate said,
September 5, 2009 at 11:20 am
Richard no. 905: On the doctrine of faith Augustine erred. On the doctrine of grace he did not.
And thus there are many kinds of alms, by giving of which we assist to procure the pardon of our sins.
Every man who is familiar with Paul on faith and works will have to reject this. See my posts no’s 900 and 904 on the doctrine of faith.
Please note that Protestants do not consider Augustine to be infallible. On grace he is a giant, but he did not grasp Paul on faith apart from works. He did not grasp the sufficiency of the cross.
As a result he died in fear and trembling, weeping for his sins, instead of having a calm and assured confidence that he was right with God by grace through faith, apart from works.
Bob S said,
September 5, 2009 at 11:45 pm
test
Perry Robinson said,
September 8, 2009 at 9:23 am
Curate,
Your argument here is irrelevant and here is why. Even if it were true that it excluded every other human activity than faith, it would still leave faith as a virtue in the soul on which the declaration was made. So it still wouldn’t prove sola fide, that is, that faith is the only formal cause or instrumental cause of a forensic declaration that is unrooted in the agent.
Second, I’d go look at what Augustine says about Abraham at the earlier stages.
Reformed Sinner said,
September 8, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Faith is our active response to our passive reception of God’s grace. Or, to put it another way: God gave us a new heart first, and then out of that new heart we respond to God’s grace in faith. So no faith is not some mystical virtue that remains in us for us to use and abuse at will.
This is pretty elementary Christianity soteriology 101.
John said,
September 8, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Reformed Sinner: If this is so elementary, what is your prooftext verse that very clearly shows that the new heart is first, and faith is second. I think we need a verse mentioning faith and the rebirth and indicating what you say.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
September 8, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Perry,
Steve Hays has posted remarks in response to your comments on this thread here titled “Apostolic Recession.”
There is also another post titled “Revenge of the Sith” that rebuts one of your other posts on your blog.
It takes time to compose a good fisk (as you well know). Steve believes that you’re worth the time. So by that measure, it’s a compliment to you! Albeit a little backhanded at times.
curate said,
September 9, 2009 at 12:39 am
Perry no. 909:Your argument here is irrelevant and here is why. Even if it were true that it excluded every other human activity than faith, it would still leave faith as a virtue in the soul on which the declaration was made …
Perry, your reply is a non-sequitur, because it assumes a fallacy, namely, that faith is counted as a virtue in the same way that works are virtues. It assumes that a man is justified because of faith, which is an error.
You are also misunderstanding the word pistis, or, faith.
This means that you have not grasped the fundamental Protestant doctrine, because you are still thinking on terms of things that must be done to be forgiven, and making faith into a work.
The primary meaning of faith is confident trust. The issue is not what are you doing to be justified? It is who or what are you confidently trusting in to be justified? Is it God and Christ, on the one hand, or is it the law on the other?
Using your definition, you are assuming that we are saying that one must trust in faith. You can see why this is not correct, and why it is a misrepresentation.
Coming back to Romans 4, the point stands that neither Abraham nor David believed that their works counted in the matter of justification. Their excellent works of faith are explicitly excluded in this matter. They understood that they were justified by faith alone, apart from the works of the law.
Abraham had something to boast about, but not before God. David said that he was blessed because God was overlooking his sins, and these things not at the beginning of their faith, but in the maturity of it.
Regards
Hobeirne said,
September 9, 2009 at 6:21 am
Steve Hays and the other defenders of the Reformation are certainly persistent but none of them seem to able effectively answer any of Perry’s (or a number of the Romanists) central questions/objections (despite spilling a huge amount of digital ink).
I just found this blog a month ago and have been following the arguments here and on several other sites. I would say perhaps the Reformed defenders just don’t have the education level that Perry and some of the Romanists have but I don’t think its actally their fault. Rather, it appears that the reason the Reformed position gets beaten so badly is because its fundamentally incoherent. Defending the indefensible won’t work and makes you look bad. For example, just look at how consistently foolish that poor old guy that calls himself Curate looks!
After looking at this situation for a awhile its clear that the Reformed guys have guts. But coming back with the same old arguments just to get beaten up shows a decided lack of judgement.
TUAD, maybe you should reconsider your style. Failed comedy is sad.
Truth Unites... and Divides said,
September 9, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Hobeirne,
Insults don’t constitute an argument. Your should have at least learned that much from Perry.
And if you think that insults do constitute reasonable discourse, then please realize that the same measure that you apply to Reformationists, is also the same response and respect that Reformationists have for the RCC and EO arguments.
The insult knife cuts both ways.
Reformed Sinner said,
September 11, 2009 at 10:03 am
#914:
It’s really funny you say it this way, I have been feeling exactly the same thing (although in reverse) since following post #1. I see a group of Romanists pretty much hijack the early Fathers, selectively highlight their quotes that favors them and ignores the quotes given that clearly don’t, and force interpret that as “proof” for the side of Rome.
Romanists really try to sound smart, and I have no doubt they are, but at the end they are like what Paul said: foolishness before Christ.
As for lack of answers from one side to another. Funny again I see the reverse at work. Romanists keep repeating what they want to say, block out what they don’t want to hear (perhaps they believe that that will dirty their ears and they will be force to chop it off before they go to heaven? I don’t know) and then keep saying “I win, I win.”
But I am really glad you made this post #914. At the end it highlights the fundamental issue (and the reason I don’t engage in elaborated arguments on the blog): at the end it’s not about proofs or evidences or who can articulate it better or whatever, but it’s the “lens” that we live in, which of course, goes back to the original thesis of this thread.
The Lens of Confessions Revisited « Green Baggins said,
September 12, 2009 at 8:58 am
[…] wrote an excellent post Who’s Lens Are You Using? Unfortunately, the comments were hijacked by a Protestant/RCC/Eastern Orthodox debate on authority. […]
Bryan Cross said,
November 4, 2009 at 3:18 pm
In #29, rfwhite asked, “If so, what is your proposal?” In #33, I responded, “we’ll be publishing an article in a few weeks in which we argue that the only principled way of avoiding solo scriptura, is by apostolic succession.” Just so you know, we’ve now posted that article, titled “Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority.”
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
rfwhite said,
November 4, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Thanks for the notice, Bryan.