My goodness, Dave, did you need all the mocking rhetoric? Afterall, Johnson's article wasn't mocking you personallity, and he only referenced you by posting your name. One might think the Catholic apologist was stung just a little bit? I guess when what you are most vain about (in this case your 'unity') is ruthlessly exposed and shown to be a toupee it is rather difficult to endure.
Actually, I didn't read a mocking tone in Dave Armstrong's response. I did, however, read a well-structured response that laid to rest Mr. Johnson's thesis.
You must have missed the giant pic of Baghdad Bob (and the reference to Phillip "Baghdad Bob" Johnson).
Dave, you should have taken a breath before responding and maybe, based on what Johnson wrote, asked him if it's possible he may be in unity with some Catholics? I mean, that would spark an interesting discussion.
I would suggest taking a deep breath and interact with Dave's entry rather than characterizing it.
1. The Catholic Church houses many people who disagree on theological issues, and dissent from magisterial teaching.
2. The Catholic Church is therefore on an ecclesiological par with Protestant denominationalism.
If that conclusion isn't a non-sequitur, then I don't know what is.
David, you must have missed this post from Phil's thread:
DJP:
The Bagdhad Bob of Rome:
"There is no division here!"
(http://humor.beecy.net/misc/baghdadbob/)
Exactly. I only got the Baghdad Bob idea when it was applied to me in that thread, so I turned the tables. My response was mocked before anyone even replied rationally to it. And the presence of centuri0n (one of my severest critics) in that thread (and even on this blog) virtually guarantees a mocking tone before all this is over.
All I've done is point out nonsense and ridiculous material when I see it. I know it'll sound harsh to those on the receiving end, but then let them defend this monstrosity of an article, if it is so reasonable. If not, then it deserved all it got from me, IMHO, because it is another distorted presentation of Catholicism.
Phil Johnson is not a dummy, and should know better than this, no matter what he thinks of the Catholic Church. But he is very anti-Catholic (I know from personal experience). And that invariably clouds one's reasoning to a great degree. I have never seen an exception to that rule in my 15 years of Catholic apologetics.
Did you notice also Johnson's casual reference to the Bayside alleged apparitions (in the same breath as Fatima), as if regular old Catholics accept them? As anyone knows, who follow these things, this phenomenon has been renounced by the Catholic Church. That was made very clear in the very Wikipedia article that was linked to.
So it is another case of some nut from within Catholic ranks coming up with some non-Catholic claptrap, and then anti-Catholics acting as if this is part of the whole Catholic system. What else can we do, besides condemn false teaching?
Even then, it'll be implied that the thing condemned is nevertheless part of Catholic belief, thus showing a remarkable divisiveness akin to the Protestant chaos? 
Well, the syncretism, for instance, that occurs in Catholic regions in the third world are a bit harder to brush away than the seeing of the Virgin Mary in a water stain or whatever. The unity argument of Catholic apologists is an Achilles heel, which is why you reacted in the manner you did, IMO. You can try to sew it all up by saying the church leadership condemns such things (do they, by the way, all of it?), but that is also true for Protestants: the Bible condemns false doctrine and remains the standard and authority for faith and practice. And JWs, Unitarians, and Mormons, and other similar movements, are very obviously regarded as being not biblical by Protestants who hold to the Bible as both the Word of God and as authority. Nobody is writing books and 'witnessing' to OPC members because they believe Jesus is God.
I have heard first-hand the absurdity that guys like Chesterton, Newman and Tolkien are not real Catholics, but Third Worlders and guys who bury statues of St. Joseph in their backyards are. Leaving aside the possibility that this is a safe and convenient way for Christians to be racists AND the fact that it is an insult to the incredibly faithful and orthodox from those regions, lets just distill it to the basic fact--anti-Catholics are putting their best and brightest forward, while dredging up all the worst examples for the Catholic position. This is like going up to the Coach of the U. Of Michigan football team in mid-game and saying his first string isn't the real team and they need to sit down, while the fat slobs swilling beer in the stands need to suit up because they are the real Michigan team.
Survey sez: BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAPPPPP!
Scott
I still think it's an interesting challenge to Johnson to ask him, based on his own definition of what the Bible means by unity, if it's possible then that he might be in legitimate unity with some Catholics? I mean, if unity doesn't refer to organisational unity but to spiritual unity with Christ, and if the Catholic Church contains as many or more types and divisions of believers as Protestantism (as he says) then it might follow there may be some types and divisions within the Catholic Church that Phil Johnson would consider to be in unity with Protestants like himself? Of course, he might say no based on some big deal-killer like the Pope or something, but would it not be possible at least in some way? How about people in the Catholic Church who don't recognize the Pope in a way that effects their faith? It's at least an interesting aspect to Johnson's article to bring up and ask him about.
"You can try to sew it all up by saying the church leadership condemns such things (do they, by the way, all of it?), but that is also true for Protestants: the Bible condemns false doctrine and remains the standard and authority for faith and practice."
This is not also true for Protestants, because there is no authoritative leadership. The foundational principles of Protestantism puts everyone on equal footing when it comes to authority to interpret scripture. Authority resides in people, not in inanimate objects. The Bible has no authority distinct and separate from the people reading and understanding it. Since Protestants reject any real hierarchy of authority within the Church, there is no way to establish who's interpretation is in fact correct and set the standard which defines unity. Your accusations against the Catholic Church are drawn from your own operating principles, not the Church's.
Hi Dave,
>>Well, the syncretism, for instance, that occurs in Catholic regions in the third world are a bit harder to brush away than the seeing of the Virgin Mary in a water stain or whatever.>>
Can you point me to official Catholic documents that embraces synchretism as a perfectly optional form of worship? Perhaps a Papal Audience? If you can't, then you're simply equating that which is at odds with Catholicism with Catholicism itself.
>>The unity argument of Catholic apologists is an Achilles heel, which is why you reacted in the manner you did, IMO.>>
Quite contrarily, it's the strength of Catholicism and one of the realities that made me convert to the faith.
>>You can try to sew it all up by saying the church leadership condemns such things (do they, by the way, all of it?), but that is also true for Protestants>>
What, pray tell, do "Protestants" condemn as a unified body outside, say, the Trinity? Speaking in tongues? (I know plenty of Protestants who condemn this). Infant baptism? Abortion? Same-sex marriage? Contraception? Faith only soteriology?
>>but that is also true for Protestants: the Bible condemns false doctrine and remains the standard and authority for faith and practice.>>
Same questions. What are the true doctines as it pertains to those issues and how do Protestants condemn them?
>>And JWs, Unitarians, and Mormons, and other similar movements, are very obviously regarded as being not biblical by Protestants who hold to the Bible as both the Word of God and as authority.>>
I was a Jehovah's Witness for twenty-seven years. I believed the Bible to be the word of God and to have ultimate authority. Who determines what's biblical in Protestantism? I spent about four years in Protestant Churches, so I'm interested in learning your view on this.
Peace,
James P. Caputo
David,
Do you stand by Phil Johnson's article or not? It seems like you do but you have not actually shown where Dave's reply falls short. You have complained about the tone but not the substance. You have gloated about Achilles heels and such but you have just ignored Dave's post which cuts you position apart. Are you not even going to try and deal with his arguments? Did you think nobody would notice?
My initial impression was Dave Armstrong didn't make much of an effort to engage Johnson's actual article. He quoted about 3% of it then pasted some old material from his archives. But that's neither here nor there for me. I'm a Protestant, you guys are Catholics, we know our differences. I find it interesting, though, that by what Johnson himself wrote there may (?) be a possibility he considers himself in unity with 'some' Catholics. He'd have to respond to that though.
Hi Dave,
>>"I find it interesting, though, that by what Johnson himself wrote there may (?) be a possibility he considers himself in unity with 'some' Catholics.">>
I think you're unwittingly making a categorical error in your thinking. The unity of which Mr. Armstrong is speaking is ecclesiological in nature. Hence, if Mr. Johnson is not Catholic, he cannot be in unity (in the ecclesiological sense) with any Catholics, much less 'some.'
James P. Caputo
> My initial impression was Dave Armstrong didn't make much of an effort to engage Johnson's actual article.
That impression was quite correct, because of my policy (notorious in some circles) of not engaging anti-Catholics in actual sustained dialogue. I only dealt with it tangentially, as I stated in my reply. I don't think it deserves the dignity of a response (also, as usual with anti-Catholics). But it deserves to have at least some of its glaring whoppers exposed.
I had had enough of Phillip Johnsonway back in 1996, when he wrote the following in two of our "dialogues" (ha ha):
"To embrace someone as a 'brother' who denies the gospel is also a sin, according to Galatians 1:8-9 and 2 John 9-11."
"As far as I am concerned, you are an apostate from the truth. Worse, you have abandoned the truth with full knowledge of what you are rejecting. Now you are on this list with the express purpose of drawing other people into Rome with you. For me to embrace you warmly and greet you as a dear brother would be the moral equivalent of Judas' kiss (see Gal. 1:8-10). Sorry to be so blunt, but I rather suspect that is what you were probing for anway."
"Apologetic Masochism": A Case Study of Interaction with the Anti-Catholic Mentality
http://web.archive.org/web/20010...smus/
RAZ453.HTM
So there you have it. That's what he thinks of Catholics (unless he has changed his opinion). But I continue to regard him and all trinitarian anti-Catholic Protestants, as brothers in Christ.
I'm talking about from Phil Johnson's view, not a Roman Catholic's view. It's the Roman Catholic who has the organizational view of unity, as Johnson's article points out. Many very hardcore biblical Protestants - real Calvinists let's say - struggle with how to view rank and file Catholics as opposed to the RC clerical hierarchy. The Word and the Spirit can do their work anywhere, and many Catholics show signs and discernment that is a mark of regeneration and that they are doctrinally indifferent or incurious doesn't make them totally different from a Protestant who may be doctrinally indifferent or incurious and yet has saving faith in Jesus Christ. I.e. doctrinal knowledge and understanding to the degree a Calvinist theologian has it is not a condition for salvation. So, I'm just curious how a Phil Johnson would respond to the question I've put a couple of times now in comments above.
Maybe DA's last comment has answered my own. Yet since that was Johnson in '96 I wonder if maybe he has, not necessarily changed, but, thought more about the subject and come to some kind of different position?
I think Protestants react differently to Catholic apologists than to Catholics in genera thoughl. Protestants like Johnson consider apologists to be presenting themselves as teachers and hence are to be held to a the standard Protestants hold teachers to -- the Word of God.
Do you think Catholics can be good Christians and "saved" if they hold to all of Catholic dogma, David? What is your own affiliation?
My position is effectual calling and regeneration - effected by the Holy Spirit usually via the instrument of the Word of God - gives one the ability and desire to know the truth, including at the most basic level doctrinal knowledge necessary for having saving faith in Jesus Christ and repentance, i.e. a basic level necessary for conversion.
Now, can I see that a rank and file Catholic could have the above? Yes. They would get into trouble, though, the moment they began to teach any unbiblical dogmas of their church. But that's a different subject. So, again, I'd say yes, with the caveat that they would have to be, for whatever reason, very incurious if not indifferent to biblical doctrine beyond the basic level necessary for conversion to remain in a church that teaches unbiblical doctrine. Still, I can see how a person, a rank and file believer, can be in the Catholic Church and be saved. I, though, separate the teaching hierarchy, or teaching church, because once you begin to teach you enter new territory regarding what God demands of you vis-a-vis holding to His standard, the Word of God.
I'm tempted to put many more caveats on that, but I'll refrain and leave it at that.
What is this obsession with Dave asking Phil how he views "spiritual" unity with Catholics?
Ask him yourself. . .
It seems a little disingenuous to put words into Phil's mouth, or make assumptions about his answers to such questions. It would appear from his article that he doesn't have any interest in the question of "spiritual" unity with Roman Catholics.
>they would have to be, for whatever reason, very incurious if not indifferent to biblical doctrine beyond the basic level necessary for conversion to remain in a church that teaches unbiblical doctrine.
Therefore, it follows that I am myself "incurious if not indifferent to biblical doctrine", seeing that I not only "remain" in the Catholic Church, but fully believe everything it teaches and enthusiastically share and defend it. Right, David?
And that is exactly what I am getting at: it's merely sophisticated anti-Catholicism to claim that "the only 'good' Catholic [i.e., 'real' Christian] is a 'bad' Catholic [i.e., one who picks and chooses Catholic dogmas to believe; i.e., a Catholic liberal or quasi-Protestant']."
That is still anti-Catholicism. It is no credit to be gracious enough to "concede" that an ignoramus Catholic or liberal Catholic can still squeak by and get "saved" by the skin of his teeth. You still deny the essential Christian character of the Church as it is.
But we don't do that with Protestants: we regard Protestantism as truly Christian.
I just revised the above post, slightly; nothing substantial has changed.
David,
You still didn't tell me what denomination you are part of.
My initial impression was Dave Armstrong didn't make much of an effort to engage Johnson's actual article. He quoted about 3% of it then pasted some old material from his archives.
If that is 3% then the article must be VERY long. I can see why Dave would not address it all. But on the points Dave makes about Matatics and Catholic Answers, is he right or is Phill Johnson right?
But that's neither here nor there for me. I'm a Protestant, you guys are Catholics, we know our differences.
So you didn't really want a discussion? Why ask Dave to reply at all? You complain his arguments are retrieved from the archieves but have they ever been addressed? I know as a protestant I assumed all the classic protestant positions had been eloquently defended against the normal Catholic apologetic. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is the classic case of a baseless charge from a protestant being refuted by a catholic yet it continues to be repeated. You have a ton of confidence but you have no argument.
I find it interesting, though, that by what Johnson himself wrote there may (?) be a possibility he considers himself in unity with 'some' Catholics. He'd have to respond to that though.
Why is this interesting at all. Unity in the protestant sense is pretty vague. It amounts warms fuzzies at infrequent meetings and not much more. Sure theologians use strong language to describe christian unity but mostly the churches just do their own thing.
Well, folks, "David" is our old friend, the notorious troll "ct" or "alexander" or "Matthew Lowell Johnson" or "Christian" -- real name (maybe?) Caroline Trace (she is a woman; we know that).
The dead give-away was the immediate recourse to regeneration when asked about denominational affiliation, and not giving any denomination.
That got me suspicious and I went to Haloscan to check IP numbers. Sure enough, "David's" was very close to "ct" who showed up recently, so I banned a range of numbers (since she will use different ones to get back in). She remains the only person ever banned from this blog, as an extraordinary case, except for one vulgar idiot who showed up one day. In fact, Caroline's own semi-frequent vulgarity was what made me ultimately ban her. That is a clear reason for banning, in virtually anyone's opinion.
I'll keep a close eye to see if she tries to sneak in again under the usual false pretenses. For anyone unfamiliar with this pathological liar and rabid anti-Catholic, see my papers:
Potty-Mouthed "Anti-Papist" Troll "Alexander" is a Woman (Caroline Trace)!
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...pist-
troll.html
ct / Caroline Trace / Alexander / Matthew Lowell Johnson / Vlad the Impaler et al Now Banned From This Blog
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...er-
matthew.html
I believe Phil Johnson has banned Caroline (so have fellow anti-Catholics centuri0n and Steve Hays). That would explain why she / he / it was so interested in me confronting Phil Johnson. She cannot, and so wanted to essentially do it through me.
Very clever; but very immoral, since lying is a serious sin . . .
Dave,
Thanks very much for the heads up and correction about Matatics. If you would send me the details about when and why he was formally excommunicated, I'd be happy to revise my article accordingly.
You didn't mention Mr. Sungenis. How does he (or his apostolate) exemplify (or not) your perspective of Catholic unity?
Mr. Johnson is clearly operating from a faulty understanding of what institutional unity means as the Catholic Church understands it. Also, what's with that picture of German soldiers marching in lock step? Was that supposed to be some sort of hint?
While the article itself (sans the picture), like I said, operates from a faulty assumption, I wouldn't necessarily consider it Baghdad Bobbish. Speaking of the use of the Baghdad Bob picture (which Dave has since taken down)and comparing Mr. Johnson to him, Dave, I find it hypercritical of you to do that. I mean anytime someone does the same to you, you bawl like a baby. You sure can dish it out, but you can't take it.
The way you conducted yourself in the whole atomic bombing debate earned you title of Demogogue Dave.
You then embrace the Stephen Hand with "How good is it for brothers to dwell in unity" language.
The anti-Catholic Phil Johnson, in his worst moments, is far more charitable than the Catholic Stephen Hand.
Then there is Mark Shea and his libelous attack on Michael Ledeen, falsely accusing him of being an advocate for murder. You not only not fraternally correct him, you circle his wagons.
Has Johnson engaged in similar behavior?
Like I have said to you before, until you and other certain Catholic apologists clean up their act and start holding each other to at least the same standard they hold anti-Catholics like Johnson to, you have no business criticizing him or any other of his ilk.
As an orthodox Catholic I cannot in good conscience stand by and watch the image of the Church be tarnished by the growing lack of integrity on the part of certain Catholic apologists.
As our Lord says:
Why do you see the speck in your neighbour’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbour,“Let me take the speck out of your eye”, while the log is in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbour’s* eye. (Matt. 7:3-5 RSV)
Dave, why did you put the expression "Catholic denominationalism" in quotes, as if I claimed RCism is guilty of "denominationalism"? Read again. Every use of the word denominationalism in my article was either expressly modified by the word protestant or clearly referring to Protestant denominations.
My point about the Roman Catholic Church is regarding the glaring lack of spiritual unity among her various priests and apostolates. I nowhere called that a kind of "denominationalism," or even hinted at that. I simply said it's not the kind of unity Jesus prayed for.
If you can dismiss Catholics who hold different opinions from the unity equation simply by saying those who don't faithfully follow the pope aren't true Catholics, how is that different from the Protestant who points out that someone who doesn't faithfully follow the Bible is not a true Protestant?
To put what I was saying another way, it seems to me that the Roman Catholic church absorbs more dissidents than she excommunicates, and while this may seem at a glance to provide for a rather disorderly appearance of "unity," it is emphatically not the kind of unity Jesus spoke of. When you dismiss individual Roman Catholics who disagree with you as not true Catholics, you begin to sound as arbitrary as an Anabaptist.
Or to bring the point to very practical terms, without all the baggage of the expression you tried to saddle my view with: would you say that Keating and Sungenis exemplify the unity Christ prayed for in John 17?
I was going to say something, but Phil beat me to it.
Hi Phil.
Hi Phil,
Thanks for your polite, considerate tone.
>Thanks very much for the heads up and correction about Matatics.
You're welcome.
>If you would send me the details about when and why he was formally excommunicated, I'd be happy to revise my article accordingly.
He was as soon as he decided to go that route, which was "early last year" (2005), according to him. He incurred latae sententiae (automatic excommunication), based on cc. 751 and 1364 of the Code of Canon Law. The first states: the aforesaid canons defines schism as "refusal of subjection to the Roman Pontiff, or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him". The second states that the penalty for is automatic excommunication. That's
why Abp. Lefebvre, founder of the SSPX, was excommunicated, when he ordained bishops without the consent of the pope.
Here are the exact words:
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG...NG0017/
_P2G.HTM
Can. 1364 §1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of Can. 194 §1, n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in Can. 1336 §1, nn. 1, 2 and 3.
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG...NG0017/
_P50.HTM
Are you ready to revise your article yet?
>You didn't mention Mr. Sungenis.
Why would I, since you didn't (as I recall)? Even if you did, I only dealt directly with a portion of your article, anyway.
>How does he (or his apostolate) exemplify (or not) your perspective of Catholic unity?
I think he is a "traditionalist" in an excessive manner, but to my knowledge he has not questioned the validity of the Novus Ordo mass, or the authority of Vatican II, let alone questioning whether the prersent pope really is pope (in fact, he debated Matatics on these issues). He doesn't dissent from any Catholic dogma, as far as I know. Therefore he is not in schism, and has much more in common with me than you do with, say, a Methodist Arminian. He's a Catholic; he's not anything else.
Ben Douglass, who frequents this blog, and is his associate, could verify all of this.
>Dave, why did you put the expression "Catholic denominationalism" in quotes, as if I claimed RCism is guilty of "denominationalism"? Read again. Every use of the word denominationalism in my article was either expressly modified by the word protestant or clearly referring to Protestant denominations.
>My point about the Roman Catholic Church is regarding the glaring lack of spiritual unity among her various priests and apostolates. I nowhere called that a kind of "denominationalism," or even hinted at that.
Why must there be a false dichotomy between "spiritual" vs. "organizational" unity.
I think the argument could be made that the disunity that Phil uses as examples in the Catholic Church are themselves examples of "organizational" DIS-unity. By and large these folks have rejected the "organizational" unity of Rome.
Also, just because you have an organizational unity does not mean that you can't have spiritual unity as well. The Roman Catholic Church believes that these two co-exist.
----- CONTINUED
. . . I simply said it's not the kind of unity Jesus prayed for.
Duly noted, but it still boils down to your bogus claim that there is more disunity in Catholicism than in Protestantism, which is sheer nonsense by any reasonable definition of the word. I can freely grant that on a personal level there is quite a bit (see Greg Mockeridge's swipes at me, two posts above, and the troll cparks' nonsense here lately!), but that is irrelevant to the question of doctrinal unity, which is what concerns me.
Protestants institutionalize their divisions and schisms; we do not. We maintain the unity in truth, precisely as St. Paul so often commands us to do.
>If you can dismiss Catholics who hold different opinions from the unity equation simply by saying those who don't faithfully follow the pope aren't true Catholics
Of course they aren't. Why be a Catholic, if you don't even accept papal authority? Why bother? You can be Orthodox or high Anglican and be freed from the pope altogether if that is your desire. And if it is a formal rebellion, as in sedevacantism; as I have shown, that incurs an automatic excommunication; surely you won't argue that an excommunicate is a Catholic in good standing??!!
>how is that different from the Protestant who points out that someone who doesn't faithfully follow the Bible is not a true Protestant?
The latter is quite subjective; it immediately requires some kind of authority for determining what is entailed to "faithfully follow the Bible" in the first place. Protestants say this about each other, but how does the proverbial "man on the street" decide who is right? They all appeal to the Bible. But whether or not a man doesn't submit to papal authority is a very straightforward thing: not subjective at all. Catholics are required to do this. It's as simple as concluding that a self-proclaimed Calvinist who denies all tenets but one in TULIP, is really no Calvinist at all. He is being deceptive in language and identification.
>To put what I was saying another way, it seems to me that the Roman Catholic church absorbs more dissidents than she excommunicates,
How these liberals are dealt with, and whether they in fact dissent from known, identifiable Catholic teaching, are two different things.
>and while this may seem at a glance to provide for a rather disorderly appearance of "unity," it is emphatically not the kind of unity Jesus spoke of.
Jesus and Paul spoke about complete doctrinal unity; not just spiritual and "warm fuzzy" relational unity. Of course, we ALL fall short in the latter dept. (no argument there!), but the huge qualitative difference lies in the first area. Catholics have that doctrinal unity and certainty; Protestants do not, and non one can argue otherwise. Who cares if liberals dissent? They will always be with us, in all our camps. They're the scourge of the earth.
>When you dismiss individual Roman Catholics who disagree with
Dave said this:
I have argued strenuously that Jehovah's Witnesses and other non-trinitarian cults like it are not Protestant, and that it is an insult to Protestants to make such a foolish claim, because - quite obviously - Protestants as traditionally understood make belief in the Holy Trinity central to their theology. Catholics (it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand) make belief in the papacy central to their ecclesiology (or, in other words, "it ain't optional"). Whoever rejects the Trinity, then, is no Protestant, and whoever rejects a validly-elected pope is no Catholic. To deny either scenario is ludicrous.
I think Dave has just affirmed all the logical premises required to affirm that Catholicism is, in fact, a denomination.
I could be wrong.
(CONT.)
. . . you as not true Catholics, you begin to sound as arbitrary as an Anabaptist.
Again, I showed you how Matatics has been automatically excommunicated. He is no Catholic. Case closed. You can do with that information what you will. He is the only one I said anything about by name. With liberals, you have to look at each individual case. The same canon said that a heretic (one who obstinately refuses to believe a required Catholic dogma) is automatically excommunicated too.
Whatever they may dissent on doesn't change the fact that it IS dissent, nor does it change what the Church teaches one iota. The liberals haven't gotten anything they desired (women priests, married priests, contraception, ecclesiological democracy, freedom to deny any number of dogmatic doctrines, such as papal infallibility, etc.). They haven't weakened the doctrinal unity at all. But look at the Anglicans, if you want to see the clear difference in principle.
>Or to bring the point to very practical terms, without all the baggage of the expression you tried to saddle my view with: would you say that Keating and Sungenis exemplify the unity Christ prayed for in John 17?
In matters of required Catholic beleif, pretty much, yes. Perfect John 17 unity, no. But my point is that Catholicism is infinitely closer to that high sublime ideal than Protestantism is. And that should tell anyone quite a bit about where the entire apostolic deposit is likely to be found.
There's a simple way to solve the matter, Dave, as to whether there is Catholic denominationalism: do you or do you not accept the sociological defintion of denominations? That is, if that definition yields more than one Catholic denomination, doesn't it prove you to be incorrect about your assertion?
In matters of required Catholic beleif, pretty much, yes. Perfect John 17 unity, no. But my point is that Catholicism is infinitely closer to that high sublime ideal than Protestantism is.
Let's also not forget the Sacramental aspects of this whole thing. There are aspects in which the Catholic Church has pure John 17 unity, e.g., the Eucharist. In that instance, the Church is literally and truly one with Christ in truth.
Protestants reject the realist concept of the Sacraments, so doctrinal unity is all they've got. And not only would doctrinal unity be required, the doctrine itself would have to be correct and consistent, which isn't true for any strain of Protestantism. It isn't our fault that Protestantism's own claims require doctrinal uniformity to be able to claim any sort of real unity.
On the other hand, even if the Catholic Church didn't have perfect doctrinal unity (which She does, of course, objectively, but I'm speaking of subjective belief), She still has perfect Sacramental unity. In that respect, we can also ratify that Eastern Orthodox churches, which have valid Sacraments, are true particular churches; they have true unity in that regard.
To summarize, the Catholic argument against Protestantism from sociological denominationalism is based on the further premise that if there is no doctrinal unity, then there is no unity at all. It is fallacious to reverse the critique, since Catholics claim Sacramental unity in addition to doctrinal unity. Hence, an argument dealing solely with subjective belief can defeat Protestantism but not Catholicism.
Sorry if this is a duplicate post. I'm posting from a different computer, and Haloscan seems to be not liking it.
Dave: "Gerry Matatics' schism was a rare case, and neither Catholic Answers nor the Church can be blamed for that."
I rather suspect that Gerry's case is not as rare as you wish. I also think you missed my actual point, which is not about who's to blame, but merely that the visible, behold-how-they-love-one-another kind of unity Christ prayed for in John 17 is really no more evident in the Roman Catholic system than it is in the typical Protestant denomination. And (despite your brave efforts to make it seem otherwise) Rome is proof that such unity cannot be effectively imposed by an earthly hierarchy of bishops.
I would further say that it seems to me that your view requires you to pare down your notion of essential Christianity almost to the doctrine of Papal authority alone. (That's hyperbole, perhaps, but you get my drift.) Your reply reveals that anyone who remains "subject" to the pope (by profession, at least) has achieved the only kind of "unity" you celebrate. As I said, Mother Angelica and Fr. Greeley seem to have almost nothing in common besides the name "Roman Catholic" and their formal compliance with the papacy.
Dave: "Phillip Johnson makes his "argument" even more ridiculous by stating: "Matatics insists he remains loyal to the Catholic Church. And, in fact, not only has he remained in communion with Rome, but he has also enlisted several other influential Catholic leaders who have come to his defense against Keating's charges." Now, this article is dated 20 August 2006 (that's two days ago as of this writing), and was posted on a related blog at the same time, far as I can see."
Well, it wasn't so "ridiculous" when I actually wrote it, and I herewith offer my apologies for not making the original source and date of my blogpost clear: That article was actually written in 1999 and originally published in Onward, Christian Soldiers: Protestants Affirm the Church. What I said about Matatics was true at the time and for several years afterward. Assuming I can take what you say at face value, Matatics's relationship with the church only changed "early last year." So even after I revise my article (which I will do as promised as soon as time permits), there's a point to what I was saying that is hardly nullified just because 6 years later Matatics excommunicated himself.
I think you've given your best shot at a response to my actual point when you wrote that you think any distinction "between 'spiritual' vs. 'organizational' unity" is "a false dichotomy."
That's the real problem with your position, in my assessment: You have confused what is heavenly and spiritual with what is merely earthly, carnal, and tempo
(cont.)
That's the real problem with your position, in my assessment: You have confused what is heavenly and spiritual with what is merely earthly, carnal, and temporal. Moreover, the failure to recognize such necessary distinctions has always been a large part of the problem, and something that tends to the corruption of the Roman Catholic system.
When a rank liberal priest who is a complete relativist in matters of truth can (because he has no conscience) stay in communion with Rome simply by kissing the Pope's ring; yet conservatives (because they are more conscientious and honest) are regarded as automatically excommunicating themselves when they suggest that some of the Vatican II innovations seem rather clearly in conflict with ideas earlier popes have taught with a certainty of conviction usually reserved for infallible dogma—then it doesn't take a quantum physicist to calculate the drift.
--- HALOSCAN! GGGGGRRRRRRRrrrrrr!
Very eloquent (but shot through with falsehood).
I appeal back to my heavily biblically-documented paper two notches down from this post and thread:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ce-
against.html
Your beef on this score is ultimately with the Bible, not with me. Perhaps that is why most of what Protestants try to do when this vexing issue comes up is appeal to the alleged fact that Catholics have more disunity than Protestants. Along with the weak treatments of the canon issue and amazingly tunnel-visioned defenses of the fatally self-defeating sola Scriptura outlook, this is one of the very weakest and most fallacious arguments that Protestants make. Even your earlier articles in that same series acknowledged that denominationalism was a severe scandal.
You work out that cognitive dissonance one way, that is, IMO, grossly inadequate and desperate special pleading. I and others work it out another way (much more biblical and self-consistent, if I do say so).
I'm glad to hear that your article was actually written in 1999. But that doesn't get you off the hook for your failure to check the current facts about Matatics before again making these claims publicly; nor are you excused from your laughable argument that former Catholic Answers staffers prove some nefarious disunity when that is not the case at all, nor from your mistaken belief that somehow SSPX is in union with Rome, or that the Bayside nonsense is at all acceptable among orthodox Catholics and the teaching magisterium.
There is still plenty of error to go around, which I hope you will correct in the service of honest representation of those you seek to critique.
Dave,
But are you seriously denying that the liberal take over of most universities and seminaries (at least in the Western world) is a scandal and even more scandelous given that those who claim to be Christ's Vicar on earth have done precious little about it?
I would say that Protestants are unified in the faith: justification by faith, the authority of the scriptures and the trinity, among other issues. It's unfortunate that there isn't agreement on all issues, but the same could be said of Rome.
Let me give an example -- when the pope kissed the Koran not a single bishop denounced this blasphemous act. So if this is "unity," I'll look someplace else.
3rd time Jeb: will you answer my question about what you think of Catholicism?: is it Christian? Can a Catholic who accepts all Catholic tecahings be a Christian and saved?
Three strikes and you're out: ignore it again and I'll ignore you henceforth and assume your non-answer shows that you are an anti-Catholic.
As for your question, I've already answered it in recent comments and posts and in other papers of mine about the liberals. So why waste my time now?
The Catholic Church is NOT Christian.
Jeb: uh-oh. You just stepped in it.
Hey Dave:
You said --
126. There is the unbroken Catholic Tradition, which is easily-enough ascertained, and then there is the dissenting opinion of dishonest liberal Catholics. The mere fact of their dissent doesn't change the verifiable fact of Catholic dogma one whit.
Roughly speaking, what percent of, um, Catholics in the second century were baptized as infants? I'd settle for really rough pecentages -- less than 10%, 20, 40, 60, 80, more than 90%, or 100%? The answer to that question is a pretty good thumbnail for the substantiation of your claim.
Can I stipluate your point #130?
I'll ask about it this way:
[1] is there a difference between thinking you are right and thinking you are infallible? What woudl that difference be?
[2] Do Protestant confessions of faith exist? If so, do these define denominations or not?
[3] If someone is teaching laymen at a Catholic institution and he teaches something contrary to the Magisterial line, is he automatically anathema, or does he get to keep his tenure? If the latter, in what way is the RCC "a self-consistent mechanism to determine orthodoxy"?
[4] Does failure to learn something on the part of "liberals" inside Catholicism (for example, birth control) indicate that the teacher cannot communicate truth directly, or something else?
For #132, I'd ask my questions #1, 2 and 4 (aboce) again.
#124 is funny -- because what it says is, "just because we have an infallible magisterium doesn't mean it actually does anything."
I'd be willing to front you this much: something can be infallible and be misunderstood or ignored. But if this is true, what's the use of infallibility? How's it matter in the spiritual economy? You know: the Law of Moses is infallible -- yet it turns out that nobody keeps it!
Aside from your really neat philosophical construct, what's magisterial infallibility doing right now that matters to (for example) John Kerry, who can still take communion in spite of supporting abortion on-demand as a Senator?
123 is not obvious -- because, for example, when I say to Doug Wilson that his view of baptism is overbroad and therefore his view of Catholics is overgenerous, he's already a kind of presbyterian and I'm already a kind of Baptist. We knew that -- but that doesn't make him a heretic!
He and I agree that baptism is required of the believer; he and I agree that baptism is required for membership in the local church; he and I agree that without faith, the baptism means nothing; he and I agree that baptism is by water and not by vinegar or to be self-administered. We disgaree that it is to be administered to babies.
By Jove! HOLY WAR!? No: disagreement.
Now, when you look at this, you think, "gosh, that can never be resolved," and maybe you're right -- I can't force Doug to take my view, and he can't force me to take his.
But, on the other hand, if Rome says, "no condoms, married people: it violates the sanctity of life," but Sean and Sioban O'Reilly decide that Sean's factory job can only support 4 kids and they start using condoms to make it stick, where's that get decided? Here at your blog? Rome said it, and that settles it -- except Sean and Sioban can't be forced to agree.
It doesn't look like your authority works the way you say it does. Note: the question is not "does the teaching exist?" The teaching clearly exists, and I think I represented it fairly. The question is, "when does it matter?" or "how does that teaching demonstrate unity in the case of Sean and Sioban?" In your view, based on how you judge Doug and I, there's no unity of the kind you seek. There's no resolution of disagreement -- just an assertion which people ought to (ought to in what way? what is the compulsion? when does it take effect?) do something they don't want to do.
How is the O'Reillys vs.Rome different than Wilson vs. Turk?
#122 is interesting because you change your mind int he middle of it. You start by saying, "See: Rome takes out the really bad apples, but the Protestants never, um, I mean, when Protestants take out bad teachers these bad apples join another denom or start their own."
The problem is multi-faceted:
[1] Comparing Rome to all of Protestantism is like comparing the state of Iraq with the EU: one is a sovereign nation, the other a confederacy or collection of sovereign nations. Rome is (giving you the benefit of the doubt) one heirarchical entity; the PCUSA is one herirarchical entity. That's a fair ccomparison. All of Presbyterianism is not a fair comparison to the church of Rome, and how much less is comparing all of Protestant belief with the Roman heirarchy?
[2] But that said, what happens to those tossed out by Rome? Do they go to jail, never to be heard from again? No -- they go on with their lives, still publishing, writing, speaking, some even evangelizing ... No? Are you sure -- because it seems to me that this is what happened at the Reformation. It's even what happened after the Council of Nicea -- Arianism ran wild until Athanasius almost single-handedly refuted the movement. How can that be is Rome's ipse dixit carries the kind of weight you say here is does, Dave?
[3] Why does Rome change its mind? For example, how can all men who accept the 66-book canon be -- at Trent -- anathema, but today their followers be "Christians" and "separated brethren"? That's a pretty big swing. Remember: the question is not, "why did Rome repeal the anathema" but "How can an infallible teacher change its mind? Isn't 'all that I have commanded' a 'deposit' of truth?"
And it's almost miodnight, Dave, so I'm off to bed. I'm sure this is all very boring for you, but somebody reading might not have considered these questions before. Seeing your side will, undoubtedly, help them.
How is the O'Reillys vs.Rome different than Wilson vs. Turk?
Can you really not see the huge differance. Nobody asks who is rght between the O'Rielly's and Rome. Rome is right. They speak for God. Some obey. Some don't. Many prophets encountered disobedient responses. Jesus did as well. It does not diminish legit authority at all.
In Wilson vs Turk you have no idea who is right. You might dig into the differances and come to an opinion but if God didn't bless us with a pope we would never know for sure who was right. So you decide that the issues are unimportant, which is clearly wrong. Eventually you might decide most every question is unknowable and/or unimportant. You end up with a stripped down that over time has more and more personal preferences and less and less revelation from God.
Eventually people will come back to the faith. The only place they can find the truth about contraception is the catholic church. It is still there dispite the O'Rielly's. Nobody else has kept the faith intact.
Centuri0n,
You're questions don't really do anything to respond to Dave's points, they only serve your intended objective of confusing the issues.
Dave's arguments illustrate that it is very easy to determine the official Catholic teaching on an issue. This is done easily by consulting the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is available to anyone at virtually any bookstore.
There is no ambiguity on the official teaching of the Church. Whether or not somewhere part of the Faith is taught incorrectly this does not diminish the fact that the "Correct" teaching is defined and easily determined.
Any teaching that deviates from this is not true Catholic teaching. It is relatively easy to determine if someone's teaching is "in communion" with Rome. If not, then they are creating Schism. However, the Church is not likely to come and lock them up. They go on spreading their heresies. Catholics just know to ignore them because they are not in communion. In this manner the true Catholic maintains unity (spiritual and organizational) with all other Catholics in communion with Rome.
No-where in "protestantism" can you find anything similar except many competing confessions. And there is no authority to decide which confession is correct. But Protestants argue that these are all derived by the help of the Holy Spirit.
I don't find a Holy Spirit with MPD in the Bible.
Jeb Protestant,
If you're a representation of a Christian, I'd rather be an atheist or something. Honestly, you don't sound like a Christian. Not a bit.
Layne --
Thanks for your answer. If Catholics "know to ignore them", why exactly can Dave (who was being 100% honest, btw, and I admire that) cite the statistic that something like 70 or 80% of Catholics ignore the teaching on the Eucharist (which is the ultimate sign of unity, right?) and on borth control (which would be a violation of human dignity)?
See: the core criticism of Portestantism by Catholics is, "Protestants have no unity to speak of, but we do." The problem with that statment is that it measures "unity" by two different standards. If we use that standard that the doctrine is taught, therefore it is unifying, the reality is that Protestants have a much higher level of unity than either you or Dave will admit. However, if we use the standard of compliance to teaching, which is the standard you and Dave use for Protestants, and apply that to Catholicism, Catholicism doesn't fare very well.
Both standards may be valid and useful to say something, but unless they are applied to both subjects in question, we are kidding ourselves.
And I'm trading in my fingers for some that can type inerrantly. Sheesh.
"If we use that standard that the doctrine is taught, therefore it is unifying, the reality is that Protestants have a much higher level of unity than either you or Dave will admit."
Is their a single set of standard doctrine taught by Protestants, or do you just claim the Bible as authority without actually having a defined set of meaningful doctrine extracted therefrom? Seams to me you just cloak your lack of agreement on doctrine by rolling it up into a meaningless statement that the Bible is your sole rule of faith. As soon as you delve into the details, you immediately run into disagreements over primary issues, e.g. Baptism of infants, the nature of the eucharist etc., with no other real authority to resolve them.
Randy --
Trapped in meetings until lunch. Will try to get back to you later today.
John --
I didn't "just claim the Bible as authority without actually having a defined set of meaningful doctrine". I said that is the standard is that a doctrine is taught to people, and that equals unity, Protestants fare pretty well.
For example, the SBC just issued a resolution on prohibition (affirming it). It may be a stupid, cowardly, unbiblical and mean-spirited resolution, but it is taught -- baptist know what the standard is. That must be unity.
If the question is whether or not the doctrine is itself "true" or not, that's a whole other kettle of fish -- but that's not the argument Dave is fronting, and it's not the argument the rest of you are fronting, either. You're trying to establish a system which says "RCism is united and Protestantism isn't", and the one you're exercising right now doesn't do that very well.
I think that you are missing the Catholic argument here.
We are NOT arguing that "compliance to teaching" for Protestants is the sign of unity. I don't think that you will find a high level of "compliance to teaching" in many places. (Not even in my calculus classes ).
I would be the first to admit that percentages of Catholics that don't follow official teaching, is no better than any other faith. However, you can't judge the value of a teaching by how many people don't or can't adhere to it. "For we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
Catholics who don't believe in the real presence, are in the same group as Calvinist's who can't adequately explain TULIP, or reject part of it.
I myself grew up in a Baptist church. My Dad has been a Baptist minister all his life, and still is. Using my Baptist upbringing as an example, Baptists believe in the "Priesthood of the believer". As long as someone reads scripture with the "Holy Spirit as a guide", their interpretation is deemed "correct". However, when two people both read the same scripture in good conscience and come to different conclusions how do you account for that?
A perfect example of this is the relatively recent controversy in the Southern Baptist Convention regarding missionaries that speak in tongues, or the current spat in the American Baptist Churches over homosexuality. The Baptist teaching would be that if you read scripture in good conscience and come to a conclusion, that it is valid even if it disagrees with others. However, as soon as a missionary claims to speak in tongues they want to revoke his funding because (more or less) "we don't believe in that."
This is a bigger issue than pointing out how many within a group don't follow the official teaching (your Dad is uglier than mine). It is about having a unified teaching in the first place.
A funny thing to notice is that it is much easier to pick out dissenters (which Phil points to) when you actually have a unified teaching. But to then use these folks as examples of "good Catholics" is disingenuous.
Layne, John:
Please don't feed the troll.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...olic-
jerry.html
Turk's standard MO is to fallaciously impute a position to his opponent and then accuse the opponent of intellectual dishonesty when he refuses to be saddled with a position he never adopted. You can detect the pattern by language like "the standard you and Dave use for Protestants" and "that's not the argument Dave is fronting, and it's not the argument the rest of you are fronting, either." This is more or less the only play in the playbook for anti-Catholic apologists. See my comments in this thread:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...live-
radio.html
This is why Dave no longer deals with these guys, and why you shouldn't either. There is ample evidence that they are consitutionally incapable of representing Catholicism and Catholic arguments reasonably.
| Can you really not see the huge difference.
Nope. I can’t.
| Nobody asks who is right between the
| O'Rielly's and Rome. Rome is right. They
| speak for God. Some obey. Some don't.
Well, hold on, Randy: Even if you and I could agree that “Rome is Right”, we have the problem that the O’Reilly’s don’t think Rome is right. That is: Rome may be right in theory but not in practice. In refusing to do what Rome has said – and let’s assume it’s for some sinful, greedy purpose like Sean wants a new motorcycle and Sioban likes to wear new platinum jewelry and not a more humane objective like “we want to make sure we can pay the rent and put 3 squares on the table” -- implicitly makes it clear that the O’Reillys think Rome is wrong to decide for their family how much sex they can have and whether or not that sex will conceive a child.
Even if the rest of us have decided Rome is right, the O’Reillys have not. How, then, can we say that Rome is united?
| Many prophets encountered disobedient
| responses. Jesus did as well. It does not
| diminish legit authority at all.
Yes. As I said, the 10 commandments are authoritative and 100% infallible and inerrant – yet people don’t follow those either. If you can grasp that matter, then you should see the problem with your own reasoning.
In your view, if the Magisterium says it, that’s it: there’s a unitive teaching, and even if people don’t follow it, there’s unity. Problematically, though, the Westminster Confession of Faith makes a pretty comprehensive statement about what Christians ought to believe, but some people don’t follow it, either.
Now, your answer will undoubtedly be (more or less), “that’s because all Protestants are inherently disobedient and they have no obligation to follow the WCF or any other confession.” But the answer “disobedience = disunity” has to be applied to Catholicism if it is a valid criticism. If disobedience equals disunity, Catholics are clearly in disunity. And because the Catholic view places such a high value on authority and unity, the stakes around the issue of disobedience are much higher for the Catholic than for the Protestant.
That is: because the authority of the RCC is the shibboleth of unity, disregard for that authority must logically represent disunity. A hierarchy which does not create agreement does not create unity: is reveals disunity.
And let’s keep something in mind: I think the Gospel is true. The declaration that Christ died for sins in accordance with Scripture, that he was buried and was raised on the third day in accordance with Scripture is historically, factually, and theologically true. Period. This is not about whether there is a Christian faith: it is about what constitutes that faith.
-more-
-cont-
| In Wilson vs Turk you have no idea who is
| right. You might dig into the differences and
| come to an opinion but if God didn't bless us
| with a pope we would never know for sure
| who was right. So you decide that the issues
| are unimportant, which is clearly wrong.
I didn’t say that. The disagreement I have with Doug Wilson’s position on baptism is extremely important: it is simply not the grounds for calling Doug a heretic. The question is whether or not it is so important that I must treat him as if he is in sin over the disagreement.
I will admit to you that there are some Baptists who think that all Presbyterians are crypto-Catholics and drunkards, and thus demand separation from them – and that, in fact, is sin because it is willful ignorance of the truth. The question, really, is if we can call a Presbyterian who was baptized as a baby a “Christian” even though we see his baptism and either too much or not enough, or both.
I think we can call him a Christian – by the standard of the Gospel as determinative propositions. Dave actually made a great point in the last couple of days: it’s ludicrous to call JWs or Mormons “Protestants” because they have abandoned the Trinity. But in that distinction, the question is not “what kind of baptism did they have” but “who is Jesus?” If one worships a Jesus who is an exalted man, that’s not the Jesus who is able to save; if one worships Jesus who is another god apart from Jehovah, that’s not the Word which became Flesh. It is the falsification of the Gospel not the failure to be baptized which rules out these kinds of errors.
And in that, the Gospel has a relatively-succinct definition. So those who say that Jesus is compatible with Buddhism have violated the Gospel by addition. And, frankly, that’s the Reformational beef: it has nothing to do with your baptism, and everything to do with whether the Gospel is being preached.
Is baptism necessary? Why yes: it is. Why is it necessary? You say it is to save a man’s soul – it regenerates from original sin. Wilson says it is a sign and a seal. I say it is an act of obedience. We are not arguing, then, about necessity but about efficacy and use. Is this nuancing of baptism an essential part of the Gospel? Probably not.
So is having a final determination – one which we all ought to abide by, and that we all actually abide by – necessary for unity in the faith? If it is, then we are back to the problem of Catholics wanting to call others disunited when they themselves do not exist inside their own definition of unity.
| Eventually you might decide most every
| question is unknowable and/or unimportant.
| You end up with a stripped down that over
| time has more and more personal
| preferences and less and less revelation from
| God.
I would agree that this is possible, but it is ironic to note that among the few Protestant denomin
gah.
I would agree that this is possible, but it is ironic to note that among the few Protestant denominations which actually practice sola Scritpura, the trajectory is actually in the opposite direction – that is, toward more agreement, away from doctrinaire disagreements, and toward a robust orthodoxy.
| Eventually people will come back to the
| faith. The only place they can find the truth
| about contraception is the catholic church. It
| is still there dispite the O'Rielly's. Nobody
| else has kept the faith intact.
It’s been 500 years, Randy. I’ll grant you’re an optimist.
Randy:
Sorry I missed you in the list above. Please don't feed the troll either.
There is ample evidence that they are consitutionally incapable of representing Catholicism and Catholic arguments reasonably.
Ex-Catholics being the worst offenders. In my years interacting on forums, not once did a disgruntled Catholic ever articulate a distinctly Catholic teaching correctly, not even by accident. For instance, instead of saying "here is the Church's teaching on the Immaculate Conception, and here is why it is wrong." Instead we get the tired, The-Church-teaches-Mary-didn't-need-a-Savior-in-
contradiction-to-her-own-words argument barfed up from the anti-Catholic playbook. It's pathological.
In my years interacting on forums, not once did a disgruntled Catholic ever articulate a distinctly Catholic teaching correctly, not even by accident.
It starts at the top. Calvin didn't even get the Trinity and the Incarnation right (his autotheos belief was tritheist, and his Christology was Nestorian), and most of his subsequent screw-ups on Catholic doctrine can be traced to that. Notably, he botches his interpretation of three of his major sources: Augustine, Bernard, and John Chrysostom. So what is happening among our contemporary anti-Catholic opponents isn't exactly new; the mistakes they are rehashing are the same errors the Reformed tradition has committed for five centuries.
If the Reformed tradition had been forced to survive on theological merit, it wouldn't have lasted (by contrast, in historical Christianity, there were several times Christianity survived because of theological merit). Reformed theology survived by historical accident; princes saw the opportunity to aggrandize more power to themselves, and they used the Reformation as their excuse to do it. If Protestants actually had to buy into the medieval apocalypticism that drove the Reformers (coming from the spiritual Franciscans), they would never go along. But because of the historical accident of their cultural heritage, they have incentives to rationalize the Reformation as if it had some sort of coherent theological justification as opposed to being some massive train-wreck resulting from the machinations of men, even if that justification is just, as in the case of Calvin, wrong.
One might view all of Protestantism as hagiography of incompetent theologians for cultural reasons.
>Please don't feed the troll.
But they look sooo hungry.
Sorry, didn't know the history behind this one.
>. . . didn't know the history behind this one.
You don't want to, believe me.
I guess I'm having trouble understanding. Is centuri0n typical or atypical of protestant apologists? If he is typical then it seems like there is some value in practicing argumentation. James White seems like a rite of passage. If you can soundly defeat him then you are a serious apologist. Turk is a notch lower but when he is being civil he does provide some good fun. I like to go a few rounds with guys like that to sharpen me up for the discussions that really count. Like the ones with my family and friends. Anyway, I don't want to annoy you folks so I will stop.
JP:
I think you're the first person I've ever met who will call Calvin a tri-theist and a nestorian. Could you point me to someone from the last 400 years who credibly substantiates your claim?
"If he is typical then it seems like there is some value in practicing argumentation."
The two questions are: will it do any good for the person in question, and will anyone with any sense actually listen to them? In the case of Turk, the answers are "no" and "no." In the case of White, the answers are "no" and "maybe." That's the only difference; White has sufficient reputation to be somewhat believable to those who know better. You don't want to "try out" arguments in hostile interactions with unreasonable people; it's not the best way to assess how good your arguments are. You have to find opponents with some intellectual charity, and if you find those sorts of people, then you will know for certain how good your arguments are. If you're going to dissect these sorts of arguments as an exercise, I'd recommend offline discussions over email. Don't do public confrontations unless there is a benefit to be gained for someone.
See what I mean, though? No concept of the history at all. As if it's news that Calvin was Nestorian and that autotheos was tri-theistic! Doing homework? Actually studying historical Christology or Triadology? Fugeddaboutit!
I'm off for a brief vacation, so y'all have a good weekend!
Hi Randy,
You're free to do as you wish. My own advice to ignore trolls is a practical suggestion, not a requirement of this blog. So you need not feel compelled to stop. It's entirely up to you.
>Is centuri0n typical or atypical of protestant apologists?
I make a sharp distinction between (ecumenical) Protestant apologists and anti-Catholic Protestant apologists, or even a sub-category of the latter who concentrate mostly on the anti-Catholic aspects of classic Protestant apologetics.
There are great, woinderful Protestant apologists, such as Norman Geisler or J.P. Holding, or, in fact, C.S. Lewis. I feel a great kinship with them indeed, as a fellow Christian apologist. Let's not mix them up at all with the likes of White, Svendsen, Turk, Hays et al.
Frank Turk is in the sub-category of the latter. White actually has a lot of good material that I linik to myself: such as against Mormonism, KJV-only, and Islam. Turk may start out good and semi-interesting, but invariably (it never takes very long) he will resort to insult and the typical anti-Catholic timeworn tactics, and often you'll find him making mocking comments on his own forum or other places (such as at Phil Johnson's blog) where he thinks he is mostly in friendly territory, and it'll go undetected.
You can learn for yourself if this is true or not, but be forewarned . . .
Further info. on Mr. Turk (aka "centuri0n" can be obtained on my anti-Catholic blog. He is one of the more colorful characters in the anti-Catholic world.
I don't completewly agree with Jonathan about the utility of arguing with these people. I've made a decision to stop, mostly because I can no longer tolerate the sophistry and refusal to accept correction that goes on, and because it is futile discussion.
But I don't deny that there are instances where one can show that these people are wrong. You won't convince them, but others reading can see who had the facts on their side. And that is always valuable.
Typo alert again SIGH
"my anti-Catholic blog . . ." (three paragraphs above)
Anti-Catholicism web page, rather; over on the right sidebar.
The problem with Protestant teaching and their confessions is that they have no legs. There is no hierarchy of authority and so choice of teachings and confessions is entirely arbitrary to how each individual weighs it against his personal understanding of the bible. The fundamental principle of sola scripture prevents anyone from being able to claim a unifying authority outside of himself and his bible. The Catholic Church claims such a hierarchy of authority instituted by Christ Himself the culminates in a single identifiable individual. Such a hierarchy must exist and be localizable to a single person, because Unity means one and you have to be able to find the one to have unity. This does not mean that all issues have been formally decided, as this is a living process within the Church. Unity within the Catholic Church applies to those who believe all that the Catholic Church teaches. Pointing to those who claim the moniker of Catholic, but who knowingly reject what the Church teaches is a meaningless argument since they are essentially Protestant in all but name.
Ok, hows about this?
I have had so many 'Bible thumping' sessions. I've experienced this. Protestant 1 says "XYZ" is true because of this passage of the Bible. Protestant 2 says "XYZ" is untrue because of this passage of the Bible. Protestants1 and 2 spend the next hour shouting Bible verses at one another. One of them storms angry convinced the other is being obtuse because they won’t submit to the Bible.
I've been in a hundred of these 'debates' which are nothing more than Bible wars. Each side is convinced that if they simply quite Bible verses at one another they'll resolve the issue. But it never is.
The point?
Appeals to the Bible as the final authority that unifies has never proven a resolution to theological conflict. I have never, ever met two Protestants who had the same theology, the same doctrines. Not one. The Bible is not a definition in and of itself with no human authority because it can't solve single doctrinal issue. This has always bothered me even in my semi-Protestant, heterodox days. I always got fed up when theological discussion became Bible thumping sessions. It never resolved anything with each side just pointing as passages in the Bible and shouting at the other because they didn’t 'get it.'
Now, Protestants like to talk about 'Primary and secondary' doctrines but this is nonsensical two because...
If issues like the form of Baptism are unimportant and multiple opinions are allowed, why can’t the Lutherans and Baptists join up on this? Why can't Protestants Unify under these Primary doctrines? Because whatever one Church defines as secondary is essential to another! Thus, the Bible alone cannot be a definer of doctrine around which the Church can unify. It's never worked even back to the good old Arians who were refuted by apostolic succession.
So, when it comes to denominationalism the Catholic Church wins because it CAN define doctrine. Protestants can't. They defy the very doctrine. My Calvinist Anglican flatmate was aghast that the CoE (in theory - never reality) states the Bishops can define doctrine. Not for my flatmate. Doctrine is defined by being in the Bible, not anywhere else! The Catholic Church can define it's own beliefs. It can make those beliefs binding on it's members. Thus, everyone knows what the Catholic Church believes. We know the Church states that Mary was 'Every virgin.' This doctrine gets everyone outside the Catholic Church in an uproar, but everyone knows what Catholics believe!
No-one knows what Protestants believe. Technically, no Protestant can write a binding set of doctrines because all confessions must be judged by the Bible - interpreted by the individual. So each individual, doctrinally, is a denomination in his or her own right because no binding set of doctrines can be made. Any disputes between Protestants are never resolved because everything is up for grabs. No-one can define primary and secondary doctrines, the nature of Baptism, the Eucharist, even homosexuality. An individual can even dissent from his own Churches teaching because the individual is above the Church in so far as he is a 'Bible alone Christian.' Each man is an island. Unity can only come through individuals having a vague acceptance of similar doctrines and attend the same (or even a similar) denomination.
So, the Catholic Church has its dissenters, it has its liberals. History is like that. But the Catholic Church can establish doctrinal Unity by establishing doctrine, enforcing it and defining what is taught. People can talk of the beliefs of the Catholic Church. It can even have Churches worldwide with the same theology. Those who dissent can be excommunicated. They may not be but they can be! No what Protestant Church can excommunicate anyone? What does that mean to a Protestant? Nothing. Because it's between him and Jesus alone, the Church is just a weekly meeting of vaguely like minds for some worship. The individual can set up his own 'Church' with him and his best mate Jim in his living room very Sunday because, ultimately, Church doesn’t mean anything! Thus Unity does not really mean anything.
Now, the cry here is "Because you have dissenters you don’t have unity." Sure, but you always have dissent. But the Catholic Church can call ecumenical councils. Who else can do this? Even the Orthodox can't. The Catholic Church can define doctrine. Who else can? Even the Orthodox can't, not since the schism. The Catholic Church can write a catechism that is binding on the conscience of the individual. Dissenters may disagree but the Catholic Church can state "This is the mind of the Church - period." The dissenters may remain (we have always had them!) but they don’t CHANGE our theology and cannot state that our doctrine is wrong because the Individual say so. They might believe it but our system of theology prevents the congregation defining our theology for us. It's the other way around.
Protestantism in the last fifty years alone has changed its mind on contraception, married priests, the status of homosexuality (in some quarters at least) even the very existence of Hell. The 'uniformity' of Protestant belief has got smaller and smaller. It consists of "Sola Scriptura" (arguments about "Solo Scriptura' abound) and "Sola fide" (Except even that is up for grabs in some quarters." Er, that's it. Yet the Catholic Church holds to the same beliefs of 1000 years ago (bar some development - a subject I had over to Dave but not reversals!) Furthermore, the Catholic Church has rules on all sorts of things that are marked as binding on the congregation. Protestants can't define a thing without a bust up.
Sure, you can say (as you are) you have dissenters and even a couple of breakaway groups. Yup. That's true. You can even go so far as to say that these groups equal denominations. Yup. But the Catholic Church remains, it keeps (even unpopular) beliefs and unified dogma such that it can produce binding catechisms. The UK media keeps slagging the Catholic Church off for its anti-abortion, anti-Divorce stance. But it can attack the Catholic Church because the media KNOW we don’t go a bundle on divorce. The BBC does not normally have a go at Protestants because there is not unity of belief for it to interact with! That's why the Catholic Church is often shown as the 'rule' of Christianity in the media (negatively portrayed) because it's the one place where doctrines are clear and can be slagged off! With Protestants I have to find out what their beliefs are before I can even engage in discussion! I can met fellow Catholics and hey believe the same as me. I don’t know one Protestant who has the same exact same doctrinal beliefs as any other. Not one. None agree even with members of the same denomination. Even our dissenters have less doctrinal differences that Protestants among themselves. And, on top of all of that, someone has the authority to say, "That's what the truth is - put up for shut up." That stops the endless Bible thumping I see among Protestants. It's a totally different system. W
It's a totally different system. We have dissenters. In essence, all Protestantism has is a bunch of individuals with a Bible.
Got to go, I'll be offline so carry on with out me. But I tell you, the 'Bible thumping sessions I have had with Protestants was one huge sign to me that something was wrong with Protestantism somewhere...
Excellent observations!
JP:
I really enjoy being told I "didn't do my homework" when I actually asked for the homework assignment. If you can point me to two or three sources for your claim here about Calvin, I'll hunt them down and read them.
I admit that I have never written a doctrinal thesis about Calvin, but I am also not ignorant on the subject of the man. It seems to me he clearly condemns and refutes Nestorians in Institutes 2.14.4, but of course you have a much broader defintion of "Nestorian" than the average person.
All I ask is for sources you use to substantiate this claim becasue it's nopt a common claim. I found one French guy who seems to lump barth and Calvin together as Nestorians, but that's it. Is that really an affront to ask for your source?
Here's an interesting discussion of the way Calvin's fell in various errors in his attempts to defend orthodox doctrine:
http://theology.dawncaller.org/2...nd-
trinity.html
That essay mentions recent scholarly criticism of Calvin as Nestorian or crypto-Nestorian. However, Catholic writers have long argued that in some respects Calvin fell into Nestorian error. For example, in St. Alphonsus Liguori's History of Heresies & Their Refutation, p.319, St. Alphonsus observes that "Cardinal Gotti says, that like Nestoriius, [Calvin] recognized two persons in Christ."
In a footnote to that observation, St. Alphonsus cites Calvin's Institutes l. 1, c. 13, sec. 9, n. 23, 24. Anybody got a way of tracking down that cite?
>All I ask is for sources you use to substantiate this claim becasue it's nopt a common claim.<
check this out: http://theology.dawncaller.org/2...nd-
trinity.html
Also this: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=c...us&ct=clnk&
cd=2
That's hilarious; the Catholics know more about Calvin than the Protestants do!
For my Catholic brethren, the most honest admission of Calvin's screw-up on autotheos, along the charitable lines of Bellarmine, comes from Turretin:
http://www.upper-register.com/ot.../
monogenes.html
But Calvin's subsequent inheritors have not limited Calvin's statements to their application against the anti-Trinitarians, nor corrected them to enunciate an adequate positive formulation.
The Nestorianism is clear from Calvin's sacramentology and iconoclasm. I think the passage Jordan cited can be found here (Scroll down to s. 9):
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/
...s.iv.i.xiv.html
I believe St. Alphonsus is objecting to the following interpretation of the communicatio idiomatum:
"An attempt is made to evade this from the fact, that this name is given by Moses to the altar which he built, and by Ezekiel to the New Jerusalem. But who sees not that the altar was erected as a memorial to show that God was the exalter of Moses, and that the name of God was applied to Jerusalem, merely to testify the Divine presence? For thus the prophet speaks, "The name of the city from that day shall be, The Lord is there," (Ezek. 48: 35.) In the same way, "Moses built an altar, and called the name of it JEHOVAH-nissi," (Jehovah my exaltation.) But it would seem the point is still more keenly disputed as to another passage in Jeremiah, where the same title is applied to Jerusalem in these words, "In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness." But so far is this passage from being adverse to the truth which we defend, that it rather supports it. The prophet having formerly declared that Christ is the true Jehovah from whom righteousness flows, now declares that the Church would be made so sensible of this as to be able to glory in assuming his very name. In the former passage, therefore, the fountain and cause of righteousness is set down, in the latter, the effect is described."
This relation of savior and saved by cause and effect rather than ontological union (Christ's assumption of the human nature) is classically Nestorian.
More on Calvin's soteriology. If this is the best defense of Calvin than can be conjured, it isn't worth much:
http://www.quodlibet.net/tan-union.shtml
Note the damning admission at the end:
"In spite of the parallels between the hypostatic union and our union with Christ, nonetheless, there is evidently a more robust ontological emphasis in Calvin’s soteriology, centered on the notion of unio mystica (which radiates out into his doctrines of the Church and the sacraments),as compared to the more utilitarian bias in his Christology. This tension between his Christology and soteriology is indicative of the sharp distinction, which Calvin posits between the hypostatic union and unio mystica. Hence, the more universal, cosmic emphasis of salvation in the Greek patristic notion of theosis is not evident in Calvin as he sides with the Augustinian-Thomistic soteriological construal of double predestination."
Problem is that the "robust ontological emphasis" is pure Nestorianism, precisely as is his double predestination. Augustine and Thomas can both reject double predestination precisely because they *accept* the real, ontological aspects of salvation. Note especially Calvin's development of Christ's *function* as Mediator as the basis for the union, as opposed to the person of Christ in Himself. Calvin, like Nestorius, localizes union in will and causation rather than person and nature, so even his supposed claims of unio mystica are spurious compared to his primary sources for the doctrine, Bernard and Augustine. It's a virtual admission of my charge against Calvin.
Wow, Jonathan; that is impressive and fascinating. I'll have to further pursue this at some point. I don't know enough yet to make any informed judgment on it.
More from the section Mr. Turk cited:
"For we must put far from us the heresy of Nestorius, who, presuming to dissect rather than distinguish between the two natures, devised a double Christ."
Calvin is simply wrong about this; this was the Samosatene heresy more than the Nestorian heresy. Because many Protestants believe this was the reason Nestorius was condemned, they take the discovery that Nestorius didn't actually believe it to be a demonstration that Nestorius was orthodox! In point of fact, Nestorius's error was in positing a union according to modes of action and not person. This is the same sort of error that leads people to replace "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" with "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier." Modes of action are common to the Trinity; only person is irreducible and distinct. Thus, Nestorius's error is to localize the personal union in Christ in something other than person itself.
This is covered in gruesome detail in John Anthony McGuckin's seminal work, reprinted as Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy, but even McGuckin is only repeating in detail what John Meyendorff found in his survey of neo-Chalcedonian theology and Nestorian-type monotheletism in Christ in Eastern Christian Thought. Calvin doesn't understand why Nestorius was condemned, so he glibly commits the same error:
"For it is strange how the ignorant, nay, some who are not altogether without learning, are perplexed by these modes of expression which they see applied to Christ, without being properly adapted either to his divinity or his humanity, not considering their accordance with the character in which he was manifested as God and man, and with his office of Mediator."
Note the two functions Calvin cites: "manifested as God and man" and "office of Mediator." Calvin later cites another function as evidence of the union:
"For the present, one passage will suffice—Christ would not have called his body a temple (John 2:19), had not the Godhead distinctly dwelt in it."
Of course, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is another function, and it is no coincidence that numerous Nestorian heretics held that the hypostatic union was an indwelling so close that the two actually became one person. Once again, function, not person, is the basis of the union; somehow this functional union becomes "so close" that they are *called* one person. Calvin uses that one too:
"But we see the Scripture loudly protesting against this, when *the name* of the Son of God is given to him who is born of a Virgin, and the Virgin herself is *called* the mother of our Lord (Luke 1:32, 43)."
Calvin's denial is an admission of the same belief for which Nestorius was actually condemned.
Commenting by HaloScan
