Hey, I thought I'd start off this new thread with a quick question to end my hiatus. Jacques Maritain, who was a well-renowned Catholic philosopher theologian/philosopher and had a great impact on reviving Thomistic philosophy in the 20th century. I learned recently that his most famous work, "The Range of Reason", is availible online, and have been planning to read it for a while now. I would just like to ask if Mr. Armstrong or anyone else here is familiar with his works and would reccomend him. If any of you are intersted in the man and his works, check out this Wiki article on him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Jac...acques_Maritain
It also includes a direct link to "The Range of Reason" as I stated above is availible online.
The picture above shows just how far we have fallen. Instead of GK Chesterton debating we have Al Sharpton and Kirk Cameron. Instead of George Bernard Shaw we have Richard Dawkins. Just so much less depth.
Dave,
So often you see a Catholic say something along the lines of "If you really want to know Catholicism, you need to read the Catechism," or they'll ask something like "Have you actually read Trent?" Is it fair to say on the other hand that in order to truly engage or learn about Reformed theology, one should take the time to read Calvin's Institutes or read Luther's Catechism to understand Lutheran belief, or is that not a wise undertaking?
I ask because I have another question regarding Reformed theology. When Francis Beckwith took a beating in his comboxes, many were Reformed who did so. But my understanding is that salvation in the Reformed mindset is entirely monergistic and completely out of the hands of the believer. Wouldn't Dr. Beckwith simply be acting as one who simply is not one of God's preordained elect, or have I completely created a straw man through my perception of their views on predestination, assuming you've read Calvin extensively.
And please forgive the horrid writing of my second paragraph. To think I used to teach English...
Mr. Armstrong,
I think it only fair to tell you that the people over at Triablogue have posted a critique of Robert Koon's paper concerning "Luther's Proof of Catholocism". The post was put up by your long-time dialogue opponent/critic, Steve Hays:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/
Hi Dave!
I was talking to you over in the comment section under your post about the radio program when you spoke about Jehovah's Witnesses, but since that post is long since past, I thought I would just re-start a question along those lines here.
You said that, as a Catholic, you would no longer define a cultish belief as salvation by more than faith alone, but now rather as more than grace alone. However, my question is, do groups like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses actually deny salvation by "grace alone" according to your definition? Whenever I've pressed a member of these types of groups, or seen them pressed by others, on this issue, they always end up defending their soteriology the same way that I've seen you do it: "Well, yes, works do in part save us, but it's all because of God's empowerment working in us," etc etc.
So, in what way do these groups actually espouse a cultish, heretical sotieriology?
I fee terrible today, guys (fighting a cold) so I may not get to these questions today. Clearly I need some serious rest (though I don't want to!).
Nick,
I took a course in witnessing to JW's back in my protestant days. They do have questionable sotieriology. The book they were using back the, "You Can Live Forever In Paradise On Earth", had a whole chapter on savation. It didn't mention Jesus once. It was all about Jehovah's righteous acts. That is very different from the Catholic view. It is easier to argue the Catholic view because the Sola Fide position is contradicted by the bible in many places. JW's know this.
Thomas,
I looked over at Steve Hays post. We will see if Rob Koons replies. It is pretty long and contains mostly the predicatable portestant answers. Most of them have been long refuted. I know all the Catholic counterpoints but I don't really have time to write it all up. There is a lot of formatting to be done if you want to make the post readable. I just noticed my blog over at St Blog's doesn't do color. That eliminates the most readable method of posting a reply.
I would just like to ask if Mr. Armstrong or anyone else here is familiar with his works and would reccomend him.
I would call him the best author on Thomist metaphysics. I don't know that my opinion counts for much, but the favorable opinion has been echoed by several philosophers, including Leo Sweeney, SJ. Even people who disagree with him on the natural law generally concede that Maritain is the Thomist metaphysicist par excellence.
Hi Randy,
I looked online, and I found a brochure by the same name on the official JW website, here:
http://www.watchtower.org/librar.../
article_08.htm
In it, Jesus is referred to several times, including in the quotation of several Bible verses:
"The gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord."—Romans 6:23.
"Everyone exercising faith in him [will] . . . have everlasting life."—John 3:16.
They also say this:
'What would I need to do to get God's favor at this world's end and live on into his new world?' you may ask. You need to do what Jesus indicated in a prayer to God: "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ."—John 17:3.
I also found an entire article through the same site proclaiming the JW belief that "Jesus Saves", here: http://www.watchtower.org/librar.../
article_02.htm
JWs do believe that Jesus' death makes salvation possible, as Catholics and Protestants do, so again my question stands: In what way does the JW, Mormon, or any other cultish group's soteriology deny sola gratia according to the Catholic definition?
Nick,
I'd have to send you to http://catholicxjw.com
It has been a while and I don't remember the details of their theology. A lot of it is around what they mean by salvation. Still I do think their view of Christ is very different. The question I remember was 'How much of their soteriology would have to change if Jesus had never lived, died and been raised?' The answer clearly was 'not much'. He was glued in but He was not central.
Randy,
Thank you for your comments about the post on "Triablogue", though I doubt Mr. Hays would find his own critique so easily refutable 
Another time I remember when Paul Manata(on Triablogue) refuted 80 questions from the "Rational" Response Squad (who two of its members were the atheists who debated Cameron and Comfort on the infamous ABC debate). He did a great job refuting their inane questions, and its amazing to think that they are pretty good apologists but so anti-catholic.
Mr. Prejean,
Don't sell yourself short, I highly value your opinions, as your knowledge of theology is far greater than mine. I have a question: when I was skimming the material on the sidebar of your blog, I read "The Atheist's Prayer" for the first time. Is it meant to be a joke, or is it really an actual prayer for atheists?
P.S. I will definitely get around to reading "Range of Reason" later this summer.
Randy,
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately none of the articles that I see there address the issue that I'm asking about. I'm specifically interested in how JW (or Mormon, etc) soteriology denies sola gratia. If you could point me to an article there that explains that, or explain it yourself, I would be grateful.
The last section of that second paper, "Jesus' Death Has Great Value," seems to indicate pretty clearly that Jesus' death is the one and only solution to sin making salvation possible for all men. Am I missing something?
Nick
Thank you for your comments about the post on "Triablogue", though I doubt Mr. Hays would find his own critique so easily refutable
I wonder about that. I can give all the standard Catholic replies but he has heard them all before. I guess the point is Rob Koons has considered both sides of the debate and has found the Catholic position to make more sense. That Luther's reading of Paul on justification has no basis in tradition or logic. He does not really grapple with that but just takes a few shots.
Another time I remember when Paul Manata(on Triablogue) refuted 80 questions from the "Rational" Response Squad (who two of its members were the atheists who debated Cameron and Comfort on the infamous ABC debate). He did a great job refuting their inane questions, and its amazing to think that they are pretty good apologists but so anti-catholic.
This is hard to understand. People can be very impressive defending their ideas some of the time and then offer really poor reasoning when interacting with Catholics. It is called tradition. We all have so many things that influence how we think without us knowing it. Very deeply ingrained assumptions that we can't seem to question for emotional or spiritual reasons. We think we are being totally logical but we are not. Catholics have this too but we have the advantage of sacred tradition. That is we have a tradition that we can trust because God protects it from error. Protestants rely on the traditions of men. They think they are using scripture and plain reason. That is why these discussions become so hard.
I have a question: when I was skimming the material on the sidebar of your blog, I read "The Atheist's Prayer" for the first time. Is it meant to be a joke, or is it really an actual prayer for atheists?
I'm not sure whose blog that was, but I remember some Catholic having written a satirical prayer on self-worship, so you might have found that one.
I note that today marks the anniversary of the release of the Edict of Worms, in which Martin Luther was declared both heretic and outlaw. The Roman church threw Luther out and rejected his call for reformation in the way of the Gospel. And, appropriately, in yesterday's mail came a perfect example of why the Reformation was needed then, and needed now.
http://
cyberbrethren.typepad.com..._catholic_.html
Mr. McCain complains because in a Marianist mailing he received "it is shocking that nowhere in the card is there any word of Christ and the Gospel".
I find it equally appalling that in his blog entry about this, Mr. McCain makes no mention of "sola fide"! Gasp! Does this mean he's no longer a Protestant? And he doesn't mention the Trinity! Is he a Unitarian?!!?
Well, no.
I have seen Mr. McCain make this sort of absurd "argument" before - complaining because some author doesn't mention something or other in some article or other that McCain seems to think ought to be mentioned - even though not every article needs to mention every. single. thing. As if failure to mention it proves some horrible deviation from orthodoxy.
Oh, but it should be pointed out: he says the mailing mentions the Mass. But there, in capsule, is the Gospel. There in the Mass is the Lord Jesus Christ. So not only does Mr. McCain have absurd expectations for demanding explicit mention of things (when it suits him) - he doesn't even get it right this time.
I failed to mention papal infallibility in that last post! Does that mean I'm not Catholic?!!?
In Mr. McCain's world it might - but no, not in the real world where I'm writing in a combox and have a word limit.
Oh, I'm sure that if they had tried just a little bit they may have found room to squeeze in the Gospel: you know, "minor details" like .... the Resurrection of Christ in a memorial card to be used with and for grieving Christians.
As for mention of the "Mass" being the Gospel. Nope. No good news there either in the mailing, just an offer to buy some masses to be said, and merits to be borrowed from priests. No comfort there either. Just the offer of works of others, instead of the promise of the merits of Christ.
Like I said, just business as usual for Romanism, same old, same old heresy and error.
It's a mailing intended for Catholics, Mr. McCain. As such its authors have every reasonable right to assume its recipients understand the meaning of the Eucharist, and the significance of a Mass said for the dead. You evidently do not understand these things, but no one would expect that of you, since you are not Catholic.
Oh, BTW: I notice that this Lutheran congregation requires prospective members to pay $10 for materials.
http://
www.christlutheranchurch....CategoryID=1260
Are they selling salvation, Mr. McCain? Goodness! Charging for things you *have* to do in order to be Lutheran!!! Sounds almost legalistic!!!
In contrast: my parish gives away over $50 worth of books and countless pages of other free material to prospective new members: over 30 of them last year, IIRC. No obligation.
So who's in business here, Mr. McCain? Who are the simoniacs?
I hope my point is obvious: the Marianists aren't simoniacs, any more than those Lutherans are who are charging for those materials.
If you don't understand something, it's really better not to go making brash and sweeping judgments about it.
Mr. Prejean,
I'm sorry if this is a case of mistaken identity, but I distinctly remember seeing the alledged "prayer" on your blog, "Crimson Catholic". I will notify you if I find it again, or if I am wrong.
On a rather dismal note, my brother who is pre-teen, stayed up last Friday, and the only thing he could watch was programming for small kids! The amount of objectionable/stupid material on late night T.V. is simply staggering. My problem is not with belief in God, merely devotion to Him. Not only with dealing with so much trash that saturates our culture, but having interests that turn my mind away from God. I remember Randy's advice, to seek "the good", and several of the books and anime I read/watch, is very entertaining without having objectionable content. My problem is that my only criteria for things to persue are overall quality. Now I am deeply conflicted with things suitable to watch as a Catholic.
Rev. McCain, Looking at that Lutheran website Reginald linked to with all of those chains depicted on it-am I to infer that those rascally Lutherans are trying to subliminally enslave us too? BTW, for my own edification, are all Catholics Romanists? Or do you call Catholics who are not "Roman" Catholics something different? Byzanteenies? Mel-go-fly-a-kitists? I thought labels like "Romanism" and "Papists" went out with the No-nothings and the Klan. If "Lutheran" is descriptive of the Christians who identify with the belief system and discipline advanced by Martin Luther, why don't Lutherans recipocate and call us by the name of the person who founded us since you believe the Catholic Church is not the true Church?
I don't claim to be an apologist nor do I suggest that I have anywhere the sort of learning that you do, but it seems to me that if you are going to criticize a Catholic doctrine, you should at least actually state the doctrine accurately first before you challenge it. Attacking the doppelganger version of "merit" that you portray on your blog doesn't take any serious effort. At the very least, you should have taken a moment to explain that Catholics do not believe that one can earn their way into heaven by having a Mass said for them, but believe basically that the soul of a deceased person which must spend time in Purgatory (I use the word "time" relatively since we do not know if the concept of time is even applicable) to be purged or cleansed of the effect of sin (not the sin itself since Christ's sacrifice on the cross already did that for us) prior to entering Heaven can have that time shortened through the intercession (prayer) of other Christians. One can disagree with that teaching and explain their reasons for their disagreement without the artificial melodrama of poorly-written novel. I do thank you for not calling us Catholics Pelagians (at least this time)
Upon reading Luther's Small Catechism (1943 ed), sections 296 through 328 on the Sacrament of the Eucharist and the exhortation of praying for one's neighbor (just not a dead one) in section 210, one would have to conclude that Lutherans believe that participation in the Sacrament of the Eucharist has the power to forgive sin (just like Catholics) and in intercessory prayer (just like Catholics). The difference between the Catholic system and the Lutheran system appears then to be only a matter of degree in this area wouldn't you say? Maybe the differences are explained better in Dr. Luther's "Big" Catechism? Is there one?
I would like to link to a forum on Catholic Answers, where a young poster named "Hermione", is struggling tremendously with several of my own problems with proper christian devotion and faith. She seems to be suffering greatly, so I ask for any of you with accounts on the forums (I don't, and I don't plan to in the near future), to console her, and offer her prayers and guidance.
On a seperate note, there has been a breif off topic discussion on that thread contrasting contrasting atheistic naturalism with Christian metaphysics and if there can be a moral system without God, which I think is based on a key error from the athiest's part: it is what Aquinas identified as "universal truths found by natural reason". Atheists agree to the Golden Rule, but no system of natural ethics (the closest is Aristotle's system), can drive one to the level of altruism acheived by the saints. Atheists agree that extreme selfishness/evil is self-distructive, yet at which degree does the atheist check his selfishness? That is one of the reasons why I am not an atheist, I detest more and more the secular outlook, but paradoxically I still enjoy it very much, even after I post this I will watch anime, a product from a country (Japan) whose Christian community is 1% of it's population . Any reference to Christianity is either superficial, misinformed, or in some heavily philosophical, dramatic anime (yes these are cartoons, but they cover every topic/genre/age-group), mildly hostile, like one I watched callled "Ergo Proxy" which deals with existentialism (I think it was mostly Sartre's).
Sorry, got so caught up in my rant I forgot to post the link to the thread:
http://forums.catholic.com/showt...ead.php?
t=48285
Dave,
A friend of mine named Scott was a teenager in the '60s and early '70s. Another friend of ours (currently in his 30s) commented that it was neat that Paul McCartney was still putting out music after all these years. Scott, who has sought purity since he was a pre-teen, replied that clearly we don't know the real Paul McCartney. Paul, John Lennon, the rest of the Beatles, and Neil Young (to name a few) did huge damage to our culture with their music and lifestyles. Would the sexual revolution have occurred without them? Possibly. One could even argue "probably".
Admittedly, some of the Beatles' music is whimsical and harmless, but some of it is openly brazen. "Yellow Submarine" describes the Marijuana craze and became a euphemism for it. "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" was clearly about LSD. Many of their songs describe flippant relationships, one night stands, and love based on emotions rather than true love. And if we looked at Neil Young I'm sure we'd find songs about drugs, sex, and rebellion.
My point with all of this is that you seem to glamorize guys like Paul McCartney, John Lennon, and Neil Young without realizing what a devastating effect their music and influence have had on the American culture. If I'm wrong, I apologize. And please don't get me wrong; I'm not someone who thinks we can only listen to Christian music, watch Christian tv, and go to Christian places. There are some neat tv shows that aren't pushing ungodly agendas, some secular songs that raise interesting questions, and places that provide good forums for hanging out with unbelievers; but when it comes to things we "glamorize", I think we should be careful. While I'm sure you agree with that statement, you may not think it applies to Paul McCartney or Neil Young.
What do you think? Am I being over-sensitive to the effect these guys have/had on our culture, or am I right?
.
Grubb,
Same problem I'm having with my interests. I'm scared for my brother, since there seems to be so much objectionable material in the popular media. Some of the anime I watch contains heavy sexual innuendo, others contain realistic characters with complex pasts/motives, and beautiful, deep naturally developing relationships (I used to hate romance, but after watching anime and reading fanfiction I actually like romantic sub-plots). There is one anime called "Trigun" which seems to have a slight Christian morality underlying it's themes. If you want to watch it you can go to Youtube, and watch the episodes subbed or dubbed (Most of the time the original Japanese cast does a better job acting out the roles, but I can understand how reading subtitles can be very weird). If you want to learn more check out this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigun
Another anime called "Black Lagoon" is an anime like The Godfather movies, in that it portrays villains sypathtically. It contains heavy swearing, explicit reference to pornography (a minor character is editing pornography on the computer, and you can hear the sounds), a pair twin pre-teens who are sociopaths and are contracted assasins. The part though is the "Church of Violence", a gun smuggling operation run under the guise of convent. They dress up as nuns and even have daily Mass, but they are all carry firearms, and contradict every rule from the book. You can understand if I don't post a link, and I'm sorry for offending anyone here. Unlike Kill Bill, the main character Rockoro is an everyday man who acts as the show's "conscience". He is a good man who nevertheless bonds with the villains in order to survive, and he does become their freind.
I'm just giving an example of harmless, harmful material.
Sorry for the spelling mistakes, it's hard to type in a forum, feels like talking in realtime and I'm feeling pressured. The correct spelling is "sympathetically", and it's supposed to read "a pair of twin pre-teens..."
Mr. Prejean,
I found the alleged "Atheist's Prayer". It's in the paper you link to On the Very Problem of the Problem of God
in Zubiri and Unamuno by Brad Elliot Stone. I just skimmed through the article for a second, and spotted it right after the intro. So it wasn't technically on your blog, I apologize.
I noticed Thomas drawing attention to a article by Steve Hay's where he critiques Dr. Koons conversion article. Recently Mr Hays has also posted a critique of Scott Hahn's new apologetic book here http://triablogue.blogspot.com/
2...s.html#comments
I know Mr Hays is often dismissed for a number of reasons, but it they don't seem to add up, because Dave spends a lot of time rebutting James White who often does not respond back. This is not the case with Mr Hays. Not only that I think he is more well read than Dr White on a number of issues and is gain notoriety as defender of the Reformed faith specifically and Christianity in general. So why the apprehension about refuting Mr. Hays who constantly critiques Catholic works?
Hi Grubb,
I like good music. People who make good music will not all be saints. Just because they aren't, doesn't mean that the music shouldn't be listened to.
That's the short answer. A discussion about the ethics of what to watch and listen to is, of course, a long and involved one. But if you start with questionable premises, you'll get nowhere fast.
I'll try to get to some earlier questions that were asked of me in this thread as soon as I can.
I know Mr Hays is often dismissed for a number of reasons, but it they don't seem to add up, because Dave spends a lot of time rebutting James White who often does not respond back.
Often? How about "virtually never"?
This is not the case with Mr Hays. Not only that I think he is more well read than Dr White on a number of issues and is gain notoriety as defender of the Reformed faith specifically and Christianity in general. So why the apprehension about refuting Mr. Hays who constantly critiques Catholic works?
I'm not "apprehensive" about refuting anyone. But there are also various factors that go into the determination as to whether to make a rebuttal of Paper X by Person Y. As for Steve Hays, I wrote about particular factors that make it difficult for a Catholic to engage him. I did not hear back from him at the time:
Observation About the Futility of Attempted Debate With Steve Hays
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...1889345/
#132522
Perhaps he didn't see this comment of mine.
I don't understand why James White comes into your decision not to respond to Steve Hays. Sure they know eachother but Ken Temple knows and respects James White as well. You have debated him. White is not the center of the universe. Just ignore him for a while.
I am not sure I would want you to spend time on Steve Hays. He does spend a lot of time on small issues. On the big questions he does not have much new to say. He makes long posts so responding does take a while. The hardest part is to get him to stay on topic. He digs up something some member of the Pontifical Biblical Commision wrote decades ago and just keeps bringing it up.
The White connection in that particular instance was because Steve Hays wanted to debate a point that James White was obliged to defend (I had just challenged White to a debate in his chat room).
I contended that Jimbo needed to defend his own arguments and not always have everyone else do it for him. It's a cop-out and an intellectual laziness and passing-the-buck.
Hi Terry,
Sorry for my tardiness.
So often you see a Catholic say something along the lines of "If you really want to know Catholicism, you need to read the Catechism," or they'll ask something like "Have you actually read Trent?" Is it fair to say on the other hand that in order to truly engage or learn about Reformed theology, one should take the time to read Calvin's Institutes or read Luther's Catechism to understand Lutheran belief, or is that not a wise undertaking?
Yes, that is an excellent "plan" (or at least to have a working knowledge of the major Protestant figures, based on substantial familiarity with their own writings).
I ask because I have another question regarding Reformed theology. When Francis Beckwith took a beating in his comboxes, many were Reformed who did so. But my understanding is that salvation in the Reformed mindset is entirely monergistic and completely out of the hands of the believer. Wouldn't Dr. Beckwith simply be acting as one who simply is not one of God's preordained elect,
In their rationalized understanding, that is how they would see it: having left the fold, he thereby "proved" that he was never in it. Of course, this is circular reasoning, as I have noted many times. John Calvin himself says that we cannot know who is in the elect. But Calvinists have to play this game because of the box that their presuppositions force them to be in. It often clashes with both reason and reality.
This is how someone like good ole Bishop James White has approached me for 12 years: I was never regenerated; therefore it is futile to reason with me because the unspiritual cannot comprehend the things of God, etc. He MUST explain me away by casting aspersions upon my character and person. It's essentially a Pharisaic outlook on spirituality. I dealt with some of this in a recent thread on Total Depravity.
But of course not all Calvinists (by any stretch) think in these jaded, condescending terms. Mostly, it is the anti-Catholic wing who do that.
Hi Nick,
My apologies to you, too, for taking so long to reply to this question you asked.
I was talking to you over in the comment section under your post about the radio program when you spoke about Jehovah's Witnesses . . .
You said that, as a Catholic, you would no longer define a cultish belief as salvation by more than faith alone, but now rather as more than grace alone.
Yes. Pelagianism is the true dividing line; not the faith alone question, which is a Protestant novelty and corruption, fully and correctly understood.
However, my question is, do groups like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses actually deny salvation by "grace alone" according to your definition? Whenever I've pressed a member of these types of groups, or seen them pressed by others, on this issue, they always end up defending their soteriology the same way that I've seen you do it: "Well, yes, works do in part save us, but it's all because of God's empowerment working in us," etc etc.
So, in what way do these groups actually espouse a cultish, heretical sotieriology?
I can't speak so much for Mormons, because I haven't studied them in anywhere remotely near the depth that I studied the JWs.
Generally speaking, however, cults like these flow from rationalistic liberalism. This is esp. true of the JWs. The more liberal and "rationalistic" one gets, the less supernatural they tend to become. Hence, JWs cannot fathom the Trinity, because it goes beyond reason. They "refute" with facile, idiotic comments like "how can three equal one?" and so forth. This is classic rationalism (in the bad sense of that word), which assumes that reason is all there is and that anything ultimately beyond our rational comprehension must be false.
Now, how this ties into soteriology is as follows: JWs deny the omniscience of God. The JW "god" does not even "know" the future, let alone exercise His control and Providence over it (as Christians believe):
". . . Would not limiting God's knowledge of the future undermine his almightiness?, you might ask. Not at all."
(The Watchtower, 15 July 1984, 4-5)
"Is his exercise of foreknowledge infinite, without limit? . . . Or, . . . selective and discretionary, so that whatever he chooses to foresee and foreknow, he does, but what he does not choose to foresee or foreknow, he does not? . . . The argument that God's not foreknowing all future events and circumstances in full detail would evidence imperfection on his part is, in reality, an arbitrary view of perfection."
(Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, "Foreknowledge," 595)
If He can't know the future, then He can't elect believers, as Catholics believe, along with Protestants. We believe in election and predestination of the saved. But they cannot because they have limited "Jehovah" to a Being who has lost much of the traditional attributes of what Christians understand of God. He (the Father) is not omnip
(cont.)
. . . omnipresent either, in their theology, and has a body:
"The true God is not omnipresent, for he is spoken of as having a location. His throne is in heaven."
(Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, 1543)
"God is a person with a spiritual body . . . They will then see God . . . and also be like him (1 Jn. 3:2).This, too, shows that God is a person, and that he has a body."
(You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, 1982, 36-37)
Without God's electing grace, it necessarily falls upon the person to create their own salvation, so to speak, and this is pure Pelagianism. So we see how a disbelief in necessary supernatural attributes of God necessarily create the heresy.
Moreover, I wrote in my paper:
"The Watchtower believes in a "partial works" atonement by Jesus, whereby He made only a "down payment" for the "debt" of our sin. All Jesus did was buy back for us what Adam lost -- no more, no less. Therefore, Jesus' work was not completely sufficient for attainment of salvation and eternal life, as Christians believe.
". . . a ransom that exactly corresponded in value with what the sinner Adam lost for his descendants . . . the perfect Jesus as a human sacrifice did not outbalance in value the human perfection and life that Adam lost."
(Things in Which it is Impossible For God to Lie, 1965, 232-233; emphasis in original)
Following this line of thought, the book, You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth (1982, p. 63) has a picture with Jesus and Adam balanced on a scale, with the caption: "Jesus was the Equal of the Perfect Man Adam." A similar picture appeared in The Watchtower, 15 November 1982, p. 9. This is blasphemy, and is thoroughly refuted by the verses having to do with salvation and justification already recounted above, and many others, such as Jn 1:29, Romans 3:25, 5:9,14-17,20-21, 1 Cor 15:22,45, 2 Cor 5:21, Gal 1:4, 3:13, Col 2:13-14, 1 Pet 2:24, 1 Jn 1:7, 2:2, and Rev 5:9."
Furthermore, by denying that Jesus is God, JWs have made it impossible for His work of redemption to save man. They have cut out the essence of the cross: the incarnation: God becoming man, so as to redeem the human race by His death on the cross.
Hope this was helpful to you. See my lengthy paper:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...tic-
arians.html
Dave,
I'm not saying don't watch secular tv or listen to secular music at all (although that would probably be more beneficial than harmful to do), but rather be guarded about what we allow into our hearts and what we encourage others to partake of. I think about some of the Beatles' music like "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" which seems innocuous enough until you think about the nature of the relationship the singer is trying to establish. It's not a relationship built on getting to know someone intellectually and personally; it's one built on good looks and the physical gratification of physical contact. Even though holding hands seems harmless, it leads to closer contact, embracing, kissing, and other stuff. People 50 and 60 years ago understood that. Now it's such a part of our culture, even Christian parents don't give it a 2nd thought.
They understood it in '29 when Gone with the Wind came out. Theaters were burned down, because the movie had 1 curse word in it. I'm not advocating burning down buildings, but 1 curse word in 1 movie opened the door to what we have now. There are more curse words in some of Disney's 'G' rated movies than Gone with the Wind.
Proverbs 4:23 says, "But above all else, guard your heart, for it is the well-spring of life," and King David said, "I will be careful to lead a blameless life -- when will you come to me? I will walk in my house with blameless heart. I will set before my eyes no vile thing." (Psalm 101:2-3a) David and Solomon seemed to understand that we need to be ruthless in avoiding exposure to anything that can make us impure. Some secular songs are good stories, have good morals, and ask good questions. But those are generally the exceptions in my opinion.
But leaders are called to a higher standard, and Paul (the Apostle not the Beatle ) said he would sacrifice his freedoms to avoid causing others to stumble. Is posting songs by McCartney & Young encouraging others to listen to other parts of their body of work? I can definitely see why you posted Young's; it's an excellent story of the damage drugs can do.
My biggest qualm isn't with posting a song or 2, it's with people (not necessarily you Dave) not guarding their hearts and listening to any old thing on secular radio or tv. This is intended to be more of a thought provoking, self analysis kind of question than a "Grubb's got it all figured out" comment. I hope that's how it comes across. Like many other Christian principles, I think this one is VERY easy to figure out but VERY hard to implement. Figure it out: we shouldn't watch or listen to anything that impedes Godliness in our lives. Implementing it: not partaking of anything that impedes Godliness, because some of those things are SOOOOOOOO enjoyable. Tru dat? Double True!!
I look forward to anyone else' comments as well.
.
I "stumble" infinitely less listening to an innocuous McCartney song (and I rarely even listen to lyrics) than your average sexually provocative TV commercial during an NBA playoff game.
The problem is, of course, the perennial one of how to be in the world but not of it. This stuff doesn't cause me to stumble at all. It's music. I love music. I'm an amateur musician (as seen by my posted blues and folk recordings below).
Each person -- clearly -- has to make his own choices. We can't get legalistic on this stuff, unless it is utterly obvious (e.g., hip hop songs glorifying rape or generally demeaning women).
So if the McCartney video is in danger of causing someone to fall headlong into sin, I would wholeheartedly urge them simply not to click on it. My blog is only one of a million places that might cause a weak person to stumble.
But it doesn't follow that I can't do anything that might cause one or two people in a hundred to stumble. If we tried to live like that, wee could do virtually nothing.
I discussed some of this in the recent controversy over my horrendous use of the word "ass" (meaning "donkey") over at Jimbo Swan's blog. I quickly showed how ridiculous that was (including proving that John Calvin and Shakespeare used it in the same way).
In making a reply, I noted how extremely strict we are in what our kids watch (and listen to). I haven't watched network TV regularly for over 30 years. I thought it was becoming inane and stupid even before I became a committed Christian.
We watch carefully selected documentaries, old TV shows that have no "mature" content, sports, etc. So I've already long since been living this more controlled life that you urge. I just don't think the argument is all that simple to make, that we shouldn't listen to a Beatles song because they all were fornicators and had an overall deleterious effect on popular culture.
The Sexual revolution, of course, was inevitable because of the Baby Boomers coming of age in the mid-60s and many other cultural indicators (such as the Pill). It would have happened whether any of the Beatles had ever been born.
Good point, Mr. Armstrong. My teacher Mr. Hill when I first became a student of his in 2004, had not watched T.V. for eight years. Many of us were shocked, not because he actually gave us intellectual reasons for believing Christianity, but he practiced what he preached. I beleive that certain truths can be learned through reason without any appeal to religion (like Aquinas conceeded). However, there is so much shows with garbage and errors in them (including the Christian Television Network!), that it is hard to watch any medium without there being some objectionable content. I remember in one of Kreeft's lectures, he talked about Pope Leo XII who had a dream about God giving Satan rule over the 20th century. It's not just the sexual revolution, but the ideas that spurned them. Sigmund Freud beleived that humans are driven by sexual disire. Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy declared selfishness a virtue. The rise of New Age cults. Several prominent satirists were atheist e.g. Kurt Vonnegut, Douglas Adams, Penn and Teller (they do comedy besides magic shows), and George Carlin, who actually was on my favorite kid's show when I was little "Shining Time Station" . Terry Pratchett is one of my favorite authors, but he is an atheist and supporter of the British Humanist Society. You have political correctness and Tolerance, which naturally dispises Christian particularism. You have shows like "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy" who treat religion like a joke, like one of Carlin's infamous skits. It's amazing that there has been so much Christian apologetics in the last hundred years. It's amazing to think the great British writer's Chesterton, Lewis, Tolkien, and Newman, come from a country where today 62% of the UK don't beleive in God! So the sexual revolution had a major part to play, but in my opinion in was the radical movement of the second half of the century from traditional morality, ala Post-Modernism.
No doubt. I emphasized sex because that was noted by Grubb related to the Beatles.
There are lots of options today to avoid all the garbage whatsoever: DVDs being the best. We are members of Netflix. Great material that we choose and no commercials . . . One can do that, or rent DVD's. No need to sit through idiotic commercials. The main time we have to endure those are during the NBA playoffs (my beloved Pistons).
A couple more things to add to that odious list. Jean-Paul Satre's athistic existentialism, Jacques Derrida's Decontructionsm (we discussed him in high school philosophy class; Mr. Hill showed us why this system was erroneous). Worst of all we were taught what to believe, not given rational reasons to believe it. There are currently several people besides Mr. Hill promoting apologetics in my area, and I was shocked to learn how widespread apologetics is, almost like an underground movement. But you still have hundreds of people taking the "Blasphemy Challenge" on Youtube, and them quoting atheist sites as "Evidence" if you are interested in promoting aplogetics online via posting videos on the Tube, might want to visit GodTube: http://www.godtube.com/ * Be warned that there is a sizeable amount of anti-cathalic material on this site.
Man, my spelling is getting worse! This is a bad sign, because I'm planning to go into journalism. If I knew how to an embarrased "smiley" I would.
I'm beginning to make my future prospects bleaker and bleaker 
My sympathies for anyone who plans on doing writing for a living. But if you can land a job at a newspaper or other regular journalist work, at least you would have a stable paycheck.
Yeah, one of the things my dad warned me about when I was thinking of becoming a proffessional author is that their salries depends entirely on royalties, which is highly unstable. Although your book "A Biblical Defense of Catholocism" is mentioned on other sites, the religious section at the local bookstore is small. 
Again, sorry for the spelling mistakes.
Hi again Dave!
I completely understand the length of time it took you to respond; you were ill, for goodness sake, I don't hold it against you.
Thanks for your comments on the JWs, your explanation helped me understand your position a lot more clearly. I did not know, especially, the part about a JW belief that God has a body (which I did know about Mormons). However, it did get me thinking...The Bible does say that God's throne is in heaven, that the Earth is His "footstool", in the Lord's Prayer it is said that the Father is "in heaven," etc. In what sense, in the Catholic understanding, are these things the case? In what way way will we see the Father or the Holy Spirit in Heaven (1 John 3:2, etc)?
Thanks again!
Heaven (like hell) is more so another realm or dimension, as opposed to a geographical location, though if its inhabitants partake of spatial and physical qualities, it would have to be somewhere. If there turn out to be 100 dimensions or something, then that would explain a lot.
But the passages you mention are emphasizing mainly, I think, the notion that heaven is "other" than the earth. All that we know about seeing the Father is that He is a light. We can't see the Holy Spirit, either:
1 JOHN 1:5 (KJV) . . . God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. {cf. Ps 27:1, 1 Tim 6 16}
REVELATION 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: . . . {cf. Is 60:19}
REVELATION 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb {is} the light thereof.
JOHN 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time . . .
JOHN 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
JOHN 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
COLOSSIANS 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
1 TIMOTHY 1:17 . . . the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, . . .
1 TIMOTHY 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: . . .
1 JOHN 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time . . .
Thus, we see God physically only when we see Jesus.
Aquinas makes the same point regarding seeing God. We see God with our eyes only in the person of Jesus Christ. It is with the "eye" of the soul that we see God the Father and the Holy Spirit. This is some interesting material for meditation. It leads one to consider how the saints can sometimes be in nearly perfect union with God, all while going around on earth doing things for people (e.g., feeding the poor, preaching, etc.) With their eyes, they see what is physically in front of them, but with their souls, they see God.
Great news everyone! The state of Oklahoma has officially banned abortion with it's recently passed anti-abortion bill/law. No more abortion funding or procedures for "most abortions" in state hospitals!! Read the great news here: http://www.reuters.com/article/d...Type=RSS&
rpc=22
I found out about it after browsing Jimmy Akin's blog.
Dave & Thomas,
I understand this is a tough topic, partly because everyone isn't tempted by the same thing. My wife may see a Haines commercial with girls in nothing but their underwear and not be tempted to lust at all. Me, I'm not so lucky. The only rebut I'd offer to that is that David said, "I will set before my eyes no vile thing." (Psalm 101:3a) He didn't say he wouldn't set before his eyes vile things if they tempted him or caused him to sin. Women publicly running around in their underwear on tv is vile whether it causes one to sin or not, and certain lyrics are "vile" whether we pay attention to them or not.
One of the biggest comments I heard from youth when I was helping lead our youth ministry was that they didn't listen to the lyrics of the songs they liked. They'd listen to Limp Biscuit, Marylyn Manson, and Gwen Steffani (to name a few) and say they didn't listen to the lyrics. But then they'd be driving by in the parking lot singing along word for word with some secular song. Often we don't realize how much of the lyrics actually DO get into our head.
Both videos you posted links to were fairly harmless; I'm not necessarily addressing those two works, and it sounds as though your personal purity regarding what you and your family watch is guarded. I'm not suggesting you were posting "vile" material, but music is powerful and influential and very hard to give up. My best friend growing up is a pastor, and he said surveys have been done on what people would be willing to do in their church services to help their children enjoy coming more and choose to keep coming even after they leave home. People were generally willing to change nearly any aspect of church from the order of events to how the pastor preaches to how long the service was; but almost across the board those polled weren't willing to change the music. Whether we bring in contemporary music or not is a huge deal to many people! Whether we allow drums and electric guitars (even if only doing old hymns) is a big deal to many people.
Music is a big deal, and even after we're convicted to stop listening to stuff that's dishonoring to God, it's hard to stop. My hope is that everyone reading this will reevaluate what they listen to in the light of what David and Solomon said about guarding our hearts and what we let into them.
Guarding one's heart against sinful influences (including lyrics) isn't legalism, it's a Biblical mandate.
.
Grubb, I understand but you must remember two things:
1) St. Thomas Aquinas conceeded that certain truths can be discovered through natural reason. So you can have a very strong moral movie like "Hotel Rwanda" without any reference to Scripture.
2) Secular mediums have become so saturated with error/objectionable content, that it is a personal crisis for any beleiving Christian. My research into Catholocism has been more spurned by fear of death and curiosity than piety. I have had many ups and downs, going from dispairing agnostic to almost beleiver several times. I look to Christianity now as the best system of ethics there is, but it is also the hardest religion to live by. Consider this dillemma: I like anime, so I wanted to see if my little brother would like it to. I picked a show called "Ranma 1/2" for several reasons. One, it had a 10+ age rating. It is a romantic comedy/action, featuring no swearing, and at worst excessive cartoonish slapstick violence. Also the English voice acting was done very well, so I didn't have to bother with subtitles. But the thing is, it contained many scenes of casual female nudity (showing bare breasts when get into a bath ect.). It also featured a perverted martial arts master who frequently steals women's underwear. For people who are shocked at having naked females portrayed in animation I must tell you several things.
I think you have the general right idea, Grubb and commend you. How each individual works this out in their own life is a complex issue, as you admitted.
Praise God for Oklahoma! Yes! if that is permitted to stand, then any state could do the same thing.
Cont.
1) That much of the nudity shown was non- sexual in nature, but it did a few sexual undertones in a few scenes.
2) Japan has a differernt set of social mores than the U.S. Animation is scene as any other medium: it can be applied to different audiences/age groups. Remember, only 1% of Japanese are Christian (dispite persecution of Christians in the 1800's and a Marian apparition in in the 1970's). Christianity has not there flourished like in China or South Korea. Shinto/Buddhism has been replaced largely with secular indiferentism, not outright disbelief. Because Japan has a strong cultural pride. There are several shows which would shock most conservative North Americans. In fact, when started to really catch on by the 80's, it became a peice of well-known American. Here we are complaining about violent foreign cartoons, when no one complained about Bugs Bunny's "cross-dressing" to avoid villains, nor two others which featured on-screen "suicide" with no blood or gore depicted. As a matter of fact, media censorship became an in-joke in 90s cartoons which I grew up with like "Tiny Toons" and "Animaniacs" both shows featured some very similar subtle "adult humor". They would break the "fourth wall", by having people from "The Network" come and stop an episode mid-way through and have them re-do an episode to make it more "kid freindly". One cartoon character was forced to go to a pop physchologist to stop using slapstick humor to "fight" his bullies.
Note: I'm sorry for bringing up so much secular material into a religious forum. If it has brought the discussion off topic, irritated or offended anyone, my apologies. These interests are paractically my life, so I reference to them alot.
Kids are are virtually "programmed" to reject traditionalist values, it's amazing so many young people are at Catholic Answers forums.
Sorry for the mistakes once again. It should be "indifferentism" and "...when anime started to really catch on in the 80's..." and "Many anime shows would shock most American conservatives".
All the other mistakes I don't need to talk about, since they're obvious to anyone that is better at English than me
Grubb,
I think this is one issue where we need to be careful about judging other Christians. People will make different choices about what they allow in their life and what they don't. We need to make sure our choices are very different from society at large. We should not be exposing ourselves to the same influences as nonchristians do. Certainly that is common amoung church going people and it should not be. Our faith needs to make a huge difference in what choices we make.
That does not mean we cannot appreciate the art of our culture. God is present in beauty. There is much beauty in the art of non-christians. If we have been given an apreciation for certain music we might be called to be a fan in a christian way. Others might find God calling them to ignore all pop music. One should not question the other's decision.
We are not supposed to add any unnessecary burdens to those who might come to Christ. To say every Christian must avoid Paul McCartney, Niel Young, and all similar artists will be quite a burden to some people.
Sorry, one last fix. It should read "...a well-known piece of American hypocresy." I feel embarrassed for taking up so much cyberspace like this
Thomas,
Don't worry about taking up cyber-space, I think it's fairly inexpensive. Also, most of the times it's easy to figure out what you meant from the context. Every Christian is at a different place in their walk with Christ. I became a Christian when I was 23 but didn't stop watching 'R' rated movies until I was 35. It's not that it was ok to watch them, it just took the Holy Spirit time to adequately convict me I needed to stop. I've heard it said, "Jesus accepts you just as you are, but He doesn't want you to stay that way." A great, life-changing transformation occurs when one becomes a follower of Jesus, but the work isn't completed. Then we start the journey of pursuing Godliness.
I couldn't quite discern from your comments whether you've chosen to follow Jesus whole-heartedly or if you're still considering it. You're correct, it's a hard road to travel just in trying to attain personal purity. But the benefits (both in this lifetime and the next) are exceedingly worth it. I understand you're trying to find common ground with your brother and have something in common to talk about. It may be that by abstaining from things you consider to be sinful or harmful (like animes with nudity) your brother may respect that and do the same thing. One of the great truths of the life Jesus called us to is that when unbelievers see it, it's an attractive thing.
Even if they choose not to follow the Christian path, unbelievers often look at what believers have with admiration. I played softball with a guy one time who said, "I would give anything to have what you guys have." He was referring to our spiritual and family lives. Neither his spiritual life nor family life was in good shape.
The younger one is, the easier it is to break undesirable habits. I hope you choose to follow Jesus whole-heartedly for your entire life if you haven't already. And if you have, I hope the Holy Spirit empowers you to make right decisions about what influences you allow into your mind and heart.
.
Randy,
I think this is one issue where we need to be careful about judging other Christians.
Careful? Yes. Non-existent? No. Paul said, "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. Purge the evil person from among you." (I Cor 5:12-13) If Christians can't look into each other's lives and point out areas that might need improving, who can?
If we have been given an apreciation for certain music we might be called to be a fan in a christian way. Others might find God calling them to ignore all pop music.
Have we been given an appreciation for certain music or developed it? I'm pretty sure God was displeased with me listening to "Hot for Teacher", "I Want Candy", "I Want Your Sex", and the likes in the '80s; but that's the music I developed an appreciation for.
One should not question the other's decision.
That's not true. I Cor 5:12-13 says we should question, and Prov 27:17 says, "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." If a Christian sees his brother listening to something ungodly, he's called to "correct, rebuke, and encourage -- with great patience and careful instruction." (I Tim 4:2b) If I say to Dave, "I know you have a great appreciation for the Beatles and the quality of their music, but songs like "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", "Yellow Submarine", "Money (That's What I Want)", and "Why Don't We Do It In The Road" all have lyrics that are completely at odds with Christian values," and he replies, "I only listen to the songs that are innocuous like, "Help", "Paperback Writer", and "Penny Lane""; I might be satisfied he's guarding his heart and let it go.
If someone listens a great deal to secular radio stations, there's a good chance they're not guarding their heart with regard to music. It doesn't mean they're not Christians, it doesn't mean they don't change stations when offensive songs come on; but it could very well mean that they're hearing a lot of music that glorifies premarital sex, extra-marital sex, and revenge. You started out saying we need to be careful in judging what others listen to, but I think I've done that. As I've been a visitor to this blog for nearly 2 years now, I've seen posts about John Lennon, Johnny Cash, Nat King Cole, and the Beatles (to name a few). With so many secular artists being revered and no Christian artists that I recall, isn't that enough reason to at least bring up the topic? I'm not saying he hasn't posted stuff about predominantly Christian artists; I just don't remember them.
Christians can't succumb to our culture's aversion to judging. Wouldn't you agree? And don't you agree that if you see a close friend who says he's a follower listening to music with dishonoring lyrics, you should say something to him?
.
Dave,
Thanks. I agree each person has to work it out for himself and hope that bringing it up helps some do just that.
What did Oklahoma do? I haven't heard.
.
Grubb,
I'm considering it. Like I said in my original post, I like to see it from both sides, the religious and anti-religious sides. I don't like people who bash religion, like George Carlin or Monty Python. But I am disconcerted that people find lots of reasons not to be religious. I am absolutely appalled that atheists would like to take the clear standards. Sure they would hold to the Golden Rule, but what reason would they have for thinking pornography wrong, or death metal wrong. Some of their morality would be reduced to moral opinions. Atheism would promote only a somewhat hashed recopy of religious ethics. One thing that fascinates me in that atheism has been around well before Christianity, but it hadn't gained any ground until the 18th century, basing their proofs on the findings on the findings of Christian scientists. One atheist once quipped that we need God because He doesn't exist! On the one hand you have Sigmund Freud who was incredibly afraid of death, on the other you have atheists who went to their deathbeds satisfied by their own works, which were ultimately meaningless! One of the best articles I have read on the ultimate failure of atheism can be found here. http://www.michaelnovak.net/Modu...iew.aspx?
id=227 by the a great Catholic philosopher/theologian named Michael Novak, in my opinion a very brilliant man.
Dave and friends,
here's another useful reference book for the collection. This one contains some interesting Papal Bulls.
European treaties bearing on the history of the United States and its dependencies to 1648 by Frances Gardiner Davenport (1917).
http://www.archive.org/details/
e...iesus00daverich
http://books.google.com/books?id...ring%
22#PPA1,M1
And see external links section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Rom...omanus_Pontifex
I can see your point Grubb. I just think the sin of something needs to be much more obvious before we assume somebody's discernment process needs correction. I didn't see it in the posts you were responding to. I think it is charitable to assume Dave has thought about these issues and is making good choices as a mature Christian. I know other Christians who do things I would never do. It is just so easy to jump to the conclusion that they have a spiritual problem. I don't have the right to extend my authority over others. In my family I can do that. Beyond that I need to respect the fact that the church has seen fit to give a lot of freedom in this area.
Anyway, I know your heart is in the right place but it is very easy to come on too strong in calling people to account. I didn't see Dave's response before I wrote mine or I probably would not have bothered. The issues are not only complex but they are personal. god bless.
I finally made it out to St. Mary’s Seminary (just in time for a mini deluge) and was able to locate the source of a quote (apparently paraphrased) by St. Augustine, originally posted here: http://www.haloscan.com/comments...1937211/
#141112
Jonathan Prejean suggested (very sensibly) that I ask my parish priest for the source, rather than trying “to find a needle in a haystack.” This I fully intended to do should all else fail. But first, I wanted to see –just as a little challenge- if I could track it down myself. And as far as I can tell, I have. So here, then, is what Augustine wrote:
“What is the drift of my words? This: since we realize the Last Day will come – it is well for us that we know it will come, and it is also well that we do not know when – we must keep our hearts in readiness be leading a good life, so that far from fearing its advent, we may even desire it. For as that day increases the woe of the unfaithful, so it puts an end to that of the faithful. As yet, before it comes, you have the power to decide which class you will belong to; once this will be beyond you. Chose, therefore, while there is time; for what God in His mercy conceals, He in mercy delays."
----FIRST DISCOURSE ON PSALM 36 (EXPOSITION 1 OF PSALM 36).
Source: Ancient Christian Writers, vol. 2, ed. by Johannes Questan (1961):
http://books.google.com/books?
q=...nG=Search+Books
I photocopied pp. 250-51, just in case there is a problem with the Google images. http://thumbsnap.com/v/RRq5muiB.jpg
Some of the volumes in this collection are now available at the Internet Archive, but not, as yet, the volume in question. http://www.archive.org/search.ph...stian%
20writers
Hi Grubb,
"Yellow Submarine" as far as I know, is simply a children's song.
. . . lyrics that are completely at odds with Christian values,"
In Yellow submarine? Where?
"I only listen to the songs that are innocuous like, "Help", "Paperback Writer", and "Penny Lane"";
Penny Lane has at least humorous homosexual references, by the composers' own report (I won't go into it here). The humor was so dry that no one noticed it.
I might be satisfied he's guarding his heart and let it go.
I already explained that music doesn't make me stumble at all. If it makes you stumble, by all means avoid it. If a hearing of Yellow Submarine will endanger your soul to go down the path of godless secularism, then I would be the first to urge you to not listen to it! Run for the hills whenever you hear it!
My four children do not use "cuss words." I've never heard any of them utter even one: not even the mildest ones (and they are 16, almost 14, 10, and 5). They aren't allowed to listen to rap music. They aren't allowed on the Internet. We closely monitor their TV watching and friends they hang out with (mostly children of our friends or kids from Catholic and Protestant youth groups).
They're home-schooled, so they aren't subject to the crap that goes on in public schools (I'm not saying everyone must home-school, but it does protect kids from a lot of potential bad influences). They have intelligent, mature viewpoints about sex.
This is the fruit of how I live my life "Christianly" and how I teach my children to deal with the surrounding culture. Hyper-legalism doesn't do anyone any good. Some significant strictness in the case of children is very helpful and necessary. Children eventually react against excessive legalism in upbringing, and don't forget that once they move from your house, they can and will do whatever they want.
a lot of music that glorifies premarital sex, extra-marital sex, and revenge.
No question about it. But a lot of Christians and denominations do the same thing. Whole denominations sanction divorce, which in many cases will produce a situation with ongoing adultery, possibly endangering people to hellfire if they know what they are doing.
This is not pop music; it is Christians calling good evil. Same thing with contraception, which undeniably led to abortion: both psychologically and legally. This is where the serious problems truly lie; not with Yellow Submarine and Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds (which began with a child's picture that Lennon's son Julian drew (I just saw the drawing on Wikipedia, but I was familiar with the story).
Entire Christian denominations wink at fornication and cohabitation and will say nothing about it. And you're worried about pop songs? You should go on a mission to reform the compromised morals of much of Protestantism. How about the mountain of lies that come from anti-Catholics? You have Protestan
(cont.)
. . . Protestant pastors on this very blog saying scandalous, insulting things and being lousy witnesses for Christ in how they fail to control their tongues. I think Christian disunity based on lies and misinformation is infinitely more harmful and pleasing to the devil than my listening to McCartney's Silly Love Songs or My Girl by the Temptations. And I think if you ponder this some more, you'd agree with me.
As I've been a visitor to this blog for nearly 2 years now, I've seen posts about John Lennon, Johnny Cash, Nat King Cole, and the Beatles (to name a few). With so many secular artists being revered and no Christian artists that I recall, isn't that enough reason to at least bring up the topic? I'm not saying he hasn't posted stuff about predominantly Christian artists; I just don't remember them.
Then you have a poor memory. Johnny Cash was a serious Christian. I wrote a paper about him:
A Sacred Song Speaks a Thousand Words (The Impact of Johnny Cash's Last Christian Songs)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...sand-
words.html
That's the intersection of music and Christianity. And that was not my only such paper. Here are more:
John Lennon's Short-Lived Intense Interest in Evangelical Christianity
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ed-
intense.html
Happy Birthday to Mozart (250 Today) / Mozart's Catholicism
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-250-
today.html
Anton Bruckner: the Devout Catholic and Great Symphonist (+ Discussion)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...tholic-
and.html
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...4708283/
#136381
I can't say that I recall writing about Nat King Cole. If you happen to find this paper, please let me know.
Like I said, this becomes an extremely complex discussion. I agree with you, largely, as a matter of personal vigilance and avoiding of the decadence and spiritually-numbing aspects of popular culture. You make a number of excellent points. But it is impossible to make an ironclad rule.
Even popes apparently disagree on rock music. Pope John Paul II heard a concert by Bob Dylan, but I hear that Benedict XVI doesn't like rock music at all.
First off, just like to celebrate my birthday today in this culture of death. I realize how lucky I am to be typing this right now, when 4,000 babies a day never get a chance to experience life. If my words come off as prideful, they are not meant to be so. I hate to say it Dave, but as soon as you mentioned how you raise your kids, I got a mental image of Ned Flanders (there stereotype, perfect fundamentalist overprotective Christian). They did a parady of the Don Imus affair, and there's this scene where Flanders is staying up late, taping each late night show, and seperating them into "Naughty" and "Clean" categories, of which only 2 are in the clean category. He goes onto an online Christian chatroom where his name is "God's nitpicker". This analogy is not meant as an insult to you Mr. Armstrong, merely the analogy that popped into my head, which goes to show how effective the media has become. Which is why I am shocked time and again to see many young people on Catholic Answers forums.
Dave,
First and foremost, guarding one's heart diligently isn't hyper-legalism. That may not be what you meant when you said, "Hyper-legalism doesn't do anyone any good" and "Children eventually react against excessive legalism in upbringing, and don't forget that once they move from your house, they can and will do whatever they want", but it sounded like that's what you were implying.
Sin deceives the sinner first. When a man is convinced that an hour worth of pleasure is worth committing adultery, Satan has convinced him of a lie. When a woman buys a dress and knows she's going to have to lie to her husband about it, because they don't have money for it, Satan has convinced her that the dress is worth the lie. Yes, I know I stereotyped...sue me. You say music doesn't cause you to stumble, and you may be right; or it may cause you to stumble in a way the Holy Spirit hasn't revealed to you yet. Others reading this may say music doesn't cause them to stumble and realize that they're just making excuses to listen to what they want even though they know it causes certain thoughts or emotions in them that they shouldn't have.
I haven't forsaken all secular music, but I do try to avoid songs with lyrics that are anti-Christian values. "You are what you eat" and "Garbage in, garbage out" are old adages for a reason. If you let garbage in, it's going to affect you somehow. So I try to keep as much garbage out as I can and encourage others to do the same. To me that's the difference between being legalistic (which doesn't honor God) and diligently guarding one's heart (which does honor God). It sounds like you're doing that far better than most in America with your family.
You said, "Entire Christian denominations wink at fornication and cohabitation and will say nothing about it. And you're worried about pop songs? You should go on a mission to reform the compromised morals of much of Protestantism." The two aren't mutually exclusive. I can rail against both.
I literally laughed out loud when I saw the Phil Keaggy post and your comment. You have a good wit and sense of humor Dave. It's easy for this to come across as Grubb attacking Dave, but my primary intent was to give a warning about secular music and encourage you and others to reevaluate your stance on it. When I was in my teens & 20s, the only Christian music was Gospel and Easy Listening (I didn't care for either). Genre is no longer a barrier to listening to Christian music. There's so much good Christian music out there now, that secular music should be the alternative for Christians not their main input.
.
Cont.
Have you heard of the rock group Nickleback. Ithink only three of their songs are objectionable.
"Rock Star" which glamorizes the dangerous life style of the famous. "Enough" which is a very dark song about domestic violence. "Way Too Damn Good" is a cynical song about trying to find the perfect relationship. But most of their songs have pretty good messages to them. "Far Away" is a very beautiful love song. "If Everyone Cared" is similar to the Beatle's "Let It Be".
On a side note, if you want to read an in depth interview of Francis Beckwith after his conversion to the RCC, watch this link. http://ncregister.com/site/article/2772
Dave,
On the lighter side...
"Yellow Submarine" is a euphemism for Marijuana (MJ). I don't know if it was before the song or not. If you read the lyrics knowing that, it actually does seem as though it could be about it. The "sea of green" could represent MJ. The "life of ease" can represent the state one gets in when smoking MJ. Paul McCartney vehemently denied it and said it was written as a children's song. I can certainly see that, but were the Beatles really doing children's songs on a top 40 album? Maybe they were.
"Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds": no one denies this is about LSD and its affects.
"Penny Lane": I didn't realize that...I was never a big fan of that song anyway.
Did you ever hear Johnny Cash' "When the Man Comes Around"? I did enjoy that song.
I love me some Jimmy Buffett, but I choose to avoid many of his songs. Some of them (Why Don't We Get Drunk..., Uncle John's Band, and West Nashville Grand Ballroom Gown to name just a very few) either have 1 or 2 words or whole ideas in it that are completely offensive to the Christian.
I love me some Christafari and OC Supertones, and I don't have to avoid any of their songs.
Anyway, I've enjoyed discussing this with you, Thomas, and Randy and look forward to more discussions.
.
Dave,
Please forgive my own tardiness in expressing gratitude for answering my questions.
The Beatles were my favorite group when I was a teenager, I had all their albums, know every song by heart, (as far as I know) but I after I became a believer in Christ, I had to get rid of all those albums for years because the focus and repetition in my head was drawing me away from thoughts on the Lord. That was over 20 years ago. I listen to some of the fun and innocent stuff now, even though even the "clean" love songs are talking about making love, etc. At least it was indirect in those days.
There was a great program/analysis on the Beatles by Alistar Begg a while back. I really enjoyed his approach and that Evangelicals missed opportunities to speak to them, because they reacted in anger to them, especially when John Lennon made his remarks about being more popular than Jesus.
http://www.thekindlings.com/inde...eatles&
sbutt=Go
The post you did on his investigation into Christianity was interesting. But it seems that he later turned completely away, because I think, “Imagine” and some of his other blasphemous stuff ( “I don’t belive in God, only John”, etc.) came out later than that period. (But I would have to go back and look at the dates again.) He was in a lot of pain and his melancholic (Help, “I’m a loser”, “Don’t Let me Down”, “Yer Blues”) and angry nature came out in lots of his songs.
The Beatles contributed lots of "one line" philosophy through their music, relativism, "all you need is love", “Let it Be”, “it doesn’t matter if I’m wrong or right”, “It feels so right, now hold me tight”. “The love you take is equal to the love you make”.
I think “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer” is really morbid, about a serial killer who kills people with a hammer. (McCartney could put out weird and dirty stuff too, coming close to John some times – Why Don’t we do it in the Road?, and “Hi, Hi, Hi” is very, very dirty, for example.)
I still think Eleanor Rigby is the greatest pop song ever written. The harmonies, the haunting words, the string arrangement, . . . wow. It made my flesh crawl the first time I heard it.
The harmonies and catchy phrasing of Nowhere Man is also my favorite of Lennon’s.
I love the straight catchy rock and roll of
You Never Give me your money along with
Carry That Weight/The End on Abbey Road – the three part back and forth guitar licks are some of the most fun music I have heard, and one of Ringo’s rare drum solos!
Day Tripper (But “she only played one night stands” is obviously bad)
I Feel Fine
A Hard Days Night
Back in the USSR
Lennon’s Revolution (the hard version, not the insipid slow boring version on the white album – I never understood why he even put that one out.). The hard version is great rock and roll, but some of the philosophy is very bad; especially when Lennon adds “in” to “count me out” about changing the Constitution. He was a very confused man.
Get Back – (But “Sweet Loretta Modern thought she was a woman, but she was another man” – sounds like some transvestite stuff. As does some parts of “Obla Di Obla Da”
Roll over Beethoven (George does a great job singing and playing guitar on that one. I think the Beatles did a better job than Chuck Berry’s version.)
Jet (McCartney solo) (But “I thought the major was a little lady, suffragette” stuff is weird.
Juninor’s Farm (McCartney solo) – one of my favorites also, but it seems to be about running from the Law and hanging out low at Junior’s farm.
Band on the Run is great, but the same thing, the content is about running from the law because of his marijuana busts and run ins with the law.
I saw her Standing there (But obviously has indirect references to teenage sex and making out – which most of their early stuff had)
Twist and Shout – the harmonies and the screams and the rock together make that one of the greatest songs also. The Beatles did not write that one, but they did it better than the original 50s version, -- The Shanels, I think.
The Beatles music was great, but yes, we all have to be careful what we fill our minds with.
Never heard that before about Yellow Submarine and Penny Lane.
Strawberry Fields is definitely LSD influenced also; (but its still cool sounding to me) so is Dr. Robert, Tomorrow Never Knows, and I'm only sleeping. I am the Walrus fits in that LSD Lennon period also.
Lennon's Imagine is one of the most celebrated songs in Rock history by lots of skeptics, unbelievers, atheists, and the general culture, yet one of the most anti-Christian. Very bad.
When Lennon was withdrawing from heroine he wrote and recorded "Cold Turkey". A hard rocker, but really disturbing when you hear him sreaming for 7 minutes after the 3 minutes of lyrics.
"O I'll be a good boy, Please get me well.
I promise you anything, get me out of this hell.
Cold Turkey has got me . . . on the run"
McCartney had some pretty bad stuff also:
Why don't we do it in the Road? (on the White Album)
It really doesn't matter if I'm wrong I'm right, where I belong I'm right, where I belong"
(I'm Fixing a Hole" - Sgt. Pepper)
Paperback writer:
"Its a dirty story of a dirty man, and his clinging wife doesn't understand"
Great rock and roll and harmonies, but questionable lyrics, glorifying adultery or pornography or philandering.
Hey Jude:
"let her under your skin" ( ?? ) Many have made comments and trying to interpret that over the years.
Paul said it was for Julian Lennon when John and Cynthia got divorced, originally, "hey Jules, don't make it bad", etc. Later morphed into "Hey Jude"
Lennon:
The Ballad of John and Yoko is a very catchy rock song, but the refrain, using Christ's name in vain and saying "there going to crucify me" is one that I cannot listen to anymore.
Helter Skelter is a great rock song, but because it inspired Charles Manson's murders, I cannot listen to it anymore. (McCartney wrote and sang most of that one!)
Once one starts looking at all the lyrics and different influences, it is an amazing trip of nostalgia and history back to the sixties and seventies (their begiinning solo years.
George's Hinduism is also very evident -- My Sweet Lord -- a terrible song in its meaning and Hare Krishna worship, but catchy and musically great.
Another point on my part. I was recently watching another anime called "Shakugan no Shana" (remember what I said earlier about my intersts). Everything was relatively clean until the 10th/11th episode, which introduced a pair pre-teen brother and sister who are icentuous. This is shown explicitly, with them sharing several erotic kisses in public. I was so disturbed I abadoned the series. There are other anime which feature gay/lesbian characters, but I am heterosexual and do not watch shows where such relationships are a main part of the plot, except one called "Saber Marrionette J", this is a weird one, because it takes place on a different world where biological women have become extinct, and the main protagonist is considered "weird" for having heterosexual tendencies. His job is to make the first three recreated females (initially robots who are turned into biological women). The beautiful thing about this show is that besides the fact that all three are "programmed" to love him, they begin to overide their protocols and love him for himself as a person. Although they are romantically in love with him, he each has a special "freindship" kind of love with them. His relationship is contrasted with the main villain who also has three robot women who also are "programmed", to love him, at first he treats them cruelly and like tools, but later reforms and learns to care about them as individuals. This is known as "harem" anime, where several males/females are in love with the protagonist, though the the protagonist usually has implicit/explicit feelings for one of the other characters and sometimes the ending is open ended.
Helter Skelter is a great rock song, but because it inspired Charles Manson's murders, I cannot listen to it anymore.
That song was about a children's slide. It had nothing whatever to do with Manson, who simply picked it up for some reason (maybe because the title sounds exotic) and distorted it into a weird, Satanic thing.
The Beatles had no more to do with Manson's murders than Dennis Wilson of the Beach Boys, who heard him sing some songs and hung around his place. The Beach Boys even recorded a song reputed to have been written by Manson: Never learn not to love.
How's that for some rock trivia!
Cont.
Not to say that all of anime is corrupt. There are several anime that gradually show a beautiful developing relationship between a male and female characters. The problem is that even this can be modified, to seem immoral to christians, such as a male lead looks younger than he actual is to a female lead. But there are others, which can tell a meaningful story, while having a good background/environment. I think you would like this quote from an anime called Haibane Renmei: "The one who recognizes their sin has no sin." While this may seem Christian in nature, and it does superficially have Christian symbolism, keep in mind that Japan has a small Christian community. The highest point of Christianization of Japan was when it was persecuted, aand was smothered during the Nationalist regime of WWII. While the Americans made the emperor renounce his "divinity" by the end of the war, the American influence there has been one more of secularism/consumerism than religion. Although you might want to check this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Mar...ian_apparitions to find that there was a Marian apparition in Akita, Japan, in 1973.
Yes, I know that about Helter Skelter,-- I was not saying that McCartney intended anything by it; I was agreeing that Manson took it to mean something else in his sinful and warped mind. It "inspired" him, and because of those associations, I don't listen to it much, ( I think once or twice in the last 20 years), it gives me chills because of the TV documentary I saw years ago on Manson and because I read the whole book, Helter Skelter in the 70s, which told the story of Manson and his cult.
Yes, it was originally about a slide in England. But McCartney seems to imply other things (Do you, don't you want to make you? . . . you may be a lover but you ain't no dancer)
Well, Ken and Grubb, perhaps you can understand the reaction we Catholics have to vehement anti-Catholicism, such as that from Luther and Calvin, where so many of the sacred aspects of the Catholic faith are mocked, pilloried, lied about, caricatured, and dismissed. Luther's woodcuts, e.g., showing popes coming out of the rear end of a goat or cardinals being hanged on a gallows.
Are we supposed to find that edifying, and uplifting of our faith? Yet it was standard fare for early Protestantism, and the rhetoric along the same lines continues to this day.
We find that (not to mention Luther's frequent gutter language) as sinful and disturbing and offensive as just about anything that could be found in the lyrics of a mere pop song.
Yet it is accepted by millions as Gospel truth.
Personally, I agree that Luther's gutter language and woodcuts of passing gas in the pope's face, and other woodcuts you mention was disgusting and sinful and wrong. I don't condone that; but it was history, so it is talked about.
God recorded David and Solomon and Abraham's sins, but did not approve of them.
But I did not live back then. "ass" and "hell" and "damn" had and sometimes have legitimate uses.
And we never claim Luther as infallible or Impeccable. He had many foibles and troubles; but he got it right on Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, the Bondage of the Will, and his rebukes of indulgences.
I can see the way you used the word "ass" and sometimes you use "damn" -- (or others do) are legitimate uses. But usually in history, men who were courteous abided by rules to only talk that way when no women were around, etc. And I suppose "damn" can be used in a theological context -- I even used it, on the post below, in "those doctrines are damning false doctrines".
I don't go as far as Grubb goes with his point, but I do agree that we need to be careful.
The subject of the Beatles is a fun subject for me to talk about and analyze, because they were such a big part of my life as a teenager.
Personally, I agree that Luther's gutter language and woodcuts of passing gas in the pope's face, and other woodcuts you mention was disgusting and sinful and wrong. I don't condone that; but it was history, so it is talked about.
And let us not forget this one: “Luther suffers pain and expects his end” (no pun)
http://books.google.com/books?as..._maxy=&
as_isbn=
No wonder Luther complained about the bad behavior of young people. He himself set the example!
“...women and girls begin to bare themselves behind and in front, and there is nobody to punish and hold in check, and besides, God’s word is mocked.”
“But it is specially evil that the young maiden folk are exceedingly bold of speech and bearing, and curse like troopers, to say nothing of their shameful words and scandalous coarse sayings, which one always hears and learns from another.” http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mar...i/
Martin_Luther
continued...
And we never claim Luther as infallible or Impeccable. He had many foibles and troubles; but he got it right on Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, the Bondage of the Will, and his rebukes of indulgences.
Ken,
So how do you know Luther got anything right? Just because he said so? And although I freely concede that Luther had many talents, he lacked the necessary virtues (such as humility) to reform even basic morals. In fact, thanks to the his and the efforts of other so-called 'reformers', sixteenth century morals ( not particularly edifying to begin with ) took a MAJOR nosedive! This fact alone puts Luther et loony al, out of the running as reformers of anything, especially doctrine for heaven's sake!
Christ said (to paraphrase), "if you do my will, you will know my doctrine."
"If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 THEN you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
http://www.biblestudytools.net/O...t=1&
showtools=1
The reformers should have reformed themselves first! THEN they might have know his doctrine.
Ken, I give you a friendly challenge; do what Protestantism has ever failed to do, namely, seriously compare/contrast the lives of the reformers with that of the holy apostles, saints and martyrs. It is their lives which show forth the Christian faith (not the embarrassing lives of the reformers), and which also can provide a powerful antidote for youth to the degeneracy of most rock musicians.
And then if you still insist, you can always proclaim to the whole world that the "reformers", just like those holy apostles, saints and martyrs, "SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father?" http://www.biblestudytools.net/L...t=5&
version=kjv
But failing that, we can always just talk about the Beatles, whom I also love.
Dear Dave,
In my quest to find to find good Christian apologetics sites, I stumbled onto a website called "Bede's Journal" run by one James Hannam
who just recently finished a PhD study of physics. He a rare member of the U.K. who is a devout Christian, whose faith statement runs by the Anethesian Creed. In the latest post on his blog http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/ "Bede's Journal" He argued that philisophical materialism is compatible with Christian faith. He seems to have a misrepresentation of the Christian doctrine of bodily ressurection, claiming that the soul can't exist without the body, citing such examples that Alzheimer's destroys personality. However, he maintains that only an omniscient God would have the distinctive knowledge to recontruct our brains after death. He is an anomaly to me, while having extensive knowledge of British atheists (He is a member of the U.K.), such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Peter Atkins ect, while still maintaining Christian beleif. His opinion runs contrary to other contemprary Catholic experts in physics such as Stephen M. Barr, a theoretical particle physicist at the University of Delaware. Read these two articles of his from First Things Magazine "Faith and Quantum Theory" March 2007 issue, "Retelling the Story of Science" March 2003 issue. You can find them in the "First Things" archives: http://www.firstthings.com/issue...issues-
list.php also Stanley Jaki, a Benedictine preist who is also a leading physicist, agrees with Barr that the soul is immaterial. If you want to know more about Jaki, check this short Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sta...ki/
Stanley_Jaki Would you please read all these links before giving me your reply and/or your critique of Hannam's Christian materialism.
Also, Stephen Barr's book, "Modern Physics and Ancient Faith" argues that Christianity is not against science, but only the current philisophical materialism driving most scientist's today. check out this Amazon page here: http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Phy...n/dp/
0268034710
A side-note: There is no need to be scares by the complex topic. Both Hannam and Barr have a sympathy for laymen who have no scientific background. They both convey the concepts in a way to make it understandable. I recently learned of an interesting story. Frank Tipler, a former atheist turned Christian has recently released a book called "The Physics of Christianity' where he claims that the the main Christian doctrines (Virgin Birth, ressurection of Jesus, ect, can be proven by our current knowledge of quantum theory/physics. Sounds dubious, but still worth a look: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product...onDate&
n=283155
The relationship between holy living and insight into God is one of the casualties of Sola Scriptora. Revelation becomes based on 'scripture and plain reason' to use Luther's phrase. One can read scripture and draw inferences from it regardless of your holiness or lack thereof. It is just like doing mathematics. A proof is a proof regardless of who came up with it.
I can't think of any examples of this in scripture or tradition. There were some fathers of the church who later left the church but they were bishops while they were writing so they were seen as holy men. There were some less holy prophets like Jonah, Balaam, and even Peter but God was dealing with them. It's not like their unholiness didn't matter.
Catholics distinguish between the holiness of the office and the holiness of the person. There is biblical evidence for the idea that an unholy man occupying an office still carries the grace of that office. This is similar but different. The argument is considered valid even if the man making it is not holy.
Logically that seems OK. But spiritual matters are not pure logic. They involve 'the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.' Can those things really be overcome by human reason? It is interesting.
It is the kind of argument that makes sense when you already see history a certain way. It doesn't seem that likely to convince somebody to change their view of history. Sure the Catholic story is a bit more natural but the protestant version is not totally impossible.
Today I discovered a great insight into proper devotion on this blog: http://et-tu.blogspot.com/
on how to constantly seek God's will. Yet two things have always bothered me. One of my key problems to the doubts about God, is one thing: proper devotion. Consider these verses: "I the Lord your God am a jealous God" "Keep every thought captive in Christ" and the analogy that the road to the kingdom is very small and few ever receive it. My problem is this: we are material beings with a Fallen nature. Aquinas said that because the Angels have direct knowledge of God, they fall as soon as they sin. Human beings, having no direct knowledge except Revelation, are constantly waring with themselves to become servants of God.C.S. Lewis states that temtation becomes harder the more you fight with it. One argument for atheism that I think Aquinas never thought to deal with: the argument from multiple religions. He overlooked this because obviously, Europe was thoroughly Christianized. But today we have literallly hundreds of schisms within our own religion, and many professing Christians do not exhibit Christ-like behavio. Yet how can God, who is omniscient and allows us free will, allow other religions to distract othersfrom the Truth. How can he allow Blaise Pascal to have a mystical vision of Him, yet not allow a seeking agnostic to personally experience. I know of the private revelation of Sister Lucia, who received a vision of Hell. I also know that Pope Leo XIII, experienced a dream where God gave Satan dominion over the 20th century. Christian apologetics have been given a rebirth within the last 100 years, and frequent Marian apparitions have occured since Fatima. Yet, even many practicing Catholics, from Peter Kreeft's Red Sox "fanaticism", to Jimmy Akin's interest in sci-fi, constitute pastimes whereby the mind can be
driven away from God. This must be the absurdity of sin; seeking imperfect representations of the Good, True, and Beautiful by other means. We are distracted by physical things, yet by abandoning the self to God, not only will we can infinitely what we seek in this life, but also will one day get our bodies back. It is very easy to fall into New Age teachings like where the soul reincarnates until it has become perfect like Jesus. I understand the tha these are the false teachings St. Paul warned us about, and I know of St. Fausina's message from Jesus that He gives more mercy to the greatest sinner. Yet I can't imagine how hard it is for a Muslim to enter Heaven, when it seems a Herculean task to be a Catholic layman and live in a secular environment. I recently put up a crucifix in my room, yet I constantly have other interests which draw me away from thinking about God. If God's wrath will be terrible for our sins, why did He allow Satan to rule the 20th century as described by the late Pope Leo, although I realize that as a Catholic I don't need to beleive this, yet it is a disturbing thought. I'm beginning to und
Sorry for the mispellings it's "behavior" and St. Faustina. My cut-off remark refers to the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity, and though while erroneous, is easy to fall into. I apologize if my doubts cause others to stumble, as I look to apologetics to strengthen my faith.
Mr. Armstrong
I would like to direct you, James Akin, Mark Shea, Michael Liccione and any other catholic apologist with the sufficient degree of theology to refute the claims of this site: http://www.arian-catholic.org/ar...arian-
home.html as the name of the website suggests, this website claims that the teachings of Arius were true, that Jesus was NOT divine in nature, and that he is only a human example to be followed. PLEASE, PLEASE read the introductory articles, as they will tell you WHYsuch a site exists, I encourage you to embrace this with an open mind, NOT to take in any perceived error, but to understand WHY such error is seen by others as truth.
Hi Thomas,
He argued that philisophical materialism is compatible with Christian faith. He seems to have a misrepresentation of the Christian doctrine of bodily ressurection, claiming that the soul can't exist without the body, citing such examples that Alzheimer's destroys personality.
This can't be squared with the biblical data, no way no how. There are some Christian groups, however, such as Seventh-Day Adventists, that believe this or something similar.
Would you please read all these links before giving me your reply and/or your critique of Hannam's Christian materialism.
If I had unlimited time, I'd be happy to, but as I don't (and I will have much less if I get this full-time job I've been trying to get), I can say with a strong assurance that such a doctrine is thoroughly incompatible with Scripture. It's a case of allowing one's academic premises of overtaking Christian tenets.
The other pole of this matter-spirit spectrum is someone like David W. Chalmers, who is an atheist but not a materialist. He doesn't think materialism is the only position that an atheist can take. See my paper:
A Philosophy of Mind, Consciousness, and the Soul Consistent With Christianity
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...usness-
and.html http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ess-
and_17.html
At some point in the future, I may be interested in interacting with Hannam (I've made a bookmark to his site), if he tries to defend this heresy from the Bible, but in general I take a very dim view of positions that I think are pretty much self-evidently contra-biblical.
I just quickly skimmed his site and I see that he makes no argument from the Bible (at least not on the current front page). If he is a Christian and accepts biblical authority, it is imperative that he must do so at some point.
The basic biblical arguments in favor of the immaterial soul can be seen in my response to the Jehovah's Witnesses (Part II, section VIII):
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...tic-
arians.html
Your long posts raises many important issues that I cannot get to today (even if I knew how to answer such a complex post) because I have to do some writing that I'm (for once) getting paid for. I hope someone else takes it up, though, as you raise several important issues there. I have several articles on the Problem of Evil on my Philosophy & Christianity index page.
this website claims that the teachings of Arius were true, that Jesus was NOT divine in nature, and that he is only a human example to be followed. PLEASE, PLEASE read the introductory articles,
I don't need to read this to understand it, either, because I have long since understood what Arianism is, and have thoroughly refuted it (the JW study above -- they are modern-day Arians -- and also my debate with a Muslim, who argued in very similar ways):
(cont).
Reply to a Muslim Apologist Concerning the Two Natures of Christ and Trinitarianism (Dave Armstrong vs. Shabir Ally)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...concerning.html
Beyond that are my hundreds of biblical christological and trinitarian proofs that dispose of these claims:
The Holy Trinity: Biblical Proofs
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...cal-
proofs.html
Jesus is God: Biblical Proofs
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...cal-
proofs.html
There is nothing new under the sun. Arianism is a 4th century heresy. There are massive disproofs of it in the biblical data, but if someone insists on believing error, they will do so, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Don't be taken in by these guys. It should be enough for you to know that all mainstream Christian churches and denominations for 2000 years have opposed both errors (materialism and Arianism). God guides the faithful and the Church. If virtually no one has believed these doctrines except for heretical and cultic groups, then we can be assured that they are untrue (beyond the very clear biblical evidences).
See also my debate with a Jehovah's Witness. You can see how poorly he defends his Arian heresy:
Dialogue with a Jehovah's Witness on the Deity of Christ and Trinitarianism: Direct Statements of Jesus' Equality With God the Father: Jesus Own Words (+ Part Two)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...s-on-
deity.html http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...n-
deity_17.html
Ken,
Thanks for providing supporting material. While I really enjoyed some of the Beatles' music in my youth (mostly the top 40 stuff), I don't know the lyrics nearly as well as you and Dave do.
I'm curious for you, Dave, and anyone else who's willing to answer, when do you stop listening to, watching, reading, or generally partaking of something that you realize has ungodly or anti-godly aspects to it. For example, I chose not to watch Will & Grace, because it was all about normalizing homosexuality and making it more acceptable. The show didn't cause me to stumble whatsoever, and the few clips I saw of it were REALLY funny. But I chose not to watch it, because I didn't want to support that cause. I try to do the same thing with lyrics. I don't want to support songs that have lyrics with values contrary to Christian values, as well as keeping "garbage" lyrics out of my heart.
I guess my question is, where do y'all draw the line and why?
.
Thomas,
You ask why God allows competing religions and for some people to become Christians and some not to. God says, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." (Exo 33:19b), and He spoke through Isaiah, "'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,' declares the LORD. 'As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.'" (Isa 55:8-9)
My daughters often can't understand why I let one do something but not the other or why I don't allow them to do something other parents allow. When questioning my reasoning, they fail to understand that I usually have extremely good and well thought out reasons for requiring or disallowing things. I think the short answer for why God allows competing religions is "for His glory". The unanswerable question (because we can't come even close to understanding all of God's good, well thought out reasons) is how is He glorified through allowing false religions? Not sure, but just as I know my ways are so much higher than my daughters' (and I know that to be true), God's ways are so much higher than mine (and I know that to be true too). Note, I'm not bragging when I say my ways are higher than my daughters, just trying to make a point.
.
Grubb,
Thanks for the remarks. I often forget that faith is supposed to mean trust in God, not blind beleif. It's just that, I have recently begun studying the Marian apparitions to the six seers in Međugorje, Bosnia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me%.../Me%C4%
91ugorje. I know of the controversy surrounding these apparitions, but the findings of scientists and pilgrims alike have made me take this seriously, even though the Church has made no official backing (Though Pope JPII and Ben16) support the spirtual fruits of the apparitions. The Virgin Mary has promised that she give an insestructable miracle to convert unbeleivers in the near future, and there will be short time to convert because God will give punishment for the world's sins. I am beginning to fear for myself and my family. I just celebrated my birthday yesterday (20), yet time seems to go by so fast; Our Lady has cautioned by the time of the miracle it will be "too late for many". This fills me with so much dread, yet maybe fear of the Lord would be best persued now.
Dave,
Sorry for putting so much on your plate, I didn't know you were so busy. I will read some of these articles (hopefully) within the near future.
Thomas,
First, let me congratulate you on turning 20! May the lord grant you many, many more years.
Now on the subject of apparitions in general, I would just like to say this:
In the Old Testament, it was part of God’s pattern of salvation that angels (messengers) would communicate divine messages to man.
And the New Testament, this pattern was clearly meant to be continued (after all, the NT itself begins and ends with PRIVATE REVELATIONS!).
http://www.biblestudytools.net/
O...urrentChapter=1
http://www.biblestudytools.net/O...w=1&
showtools=1 And of course the entire Book of REVELATION!
So I fully believe it is part of God’s plan that heavenly beings should participate in his dealings with his people.
Nevertheless, I believe one should exercise great caution in the matter of private revelations; particularly with regard to those that are highly controversial and about which the Church has not rendered a final judgment.
Regarding Međugorje in particular, I really can’t say too much since I haven’t paid much attention to it since the late 1980’s. But given all the controversy, it might be a good idea to spend a little time meditating on these passages:
http://www.biblestudytools.net/O...w=1&
showtools=1
http://www.biblestudytools.net/O...w=1&
showtools=1
http://www.biblestudytools.net/O...w=1&
showtools=1
So how do you know Luther got anything right?
Just read and meditate and pray on the words of Scripture. On those issues, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, and against indulgences, Luther's interpretation to the clear mind seems good. It is only the Presupposition of an infallible Papal interpreter that blocks one from seeing those things; along with just the regular sinfulness of the mind.
On the Bondage of the Will, the first time I read it, I did not agree, and wrote a paper on it; at that time, I was not a Calvinist. But years later, after struggle and process, I have come to see the truth of it -- John 8:34, Acts 16:14, John 6:44, Romans 8:7, John 8:43 --
Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word."
So, his interpretations on those issues make sense. God gives us a brain and responsibility to think.
By accepting your dogmas (those specific issues that Evangelicals disagree with RCC), it seems like one has to shoot his brain in order to accept them.
-bowing down to the concecrated host
-indulgences
-treasury of merit
-praying to Mary
-that she is a co-mediator - a direct violation of 1 Tim. 2:5
-praying in front of pictures, statues, lighting candles for them, etc.
-penance rather than repentance
-that Mary is a perpetual virgin, a contradiction of Matthew 1:25 and 12:47 and 13:55-56
-baptismal regeneration - a contradiction of so many verses that one is saved and justified by faith
Colossians 2:11-12 "by faith in the power of God who raised Him from the dead."
-sinlessness and immaculate conception of Mary - a contradiction of Romans 3:9-23 and Luke 1:28 and 1:47
So how do you know Luther got anything right?
Just read and meditate and pray on the words of Scripture.
Of course. That's what Protestants have done for 500 years and we know the marvelous unity that they have on all doctrines.
On those issues, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, and against indulgences, Luther's interpretation to the clear mind seems good.
Alright. So since he got those right (and you presuppose that he was right and the Church of 1500 years wrong, just like he did), then, by implication we can trust him on his other heresies.
It is only the Presupposition of an infallible Papal interpreter that blocks one from seeing those things;
That's right: we believe in a pope and so we are blinded to things (sola fide) that no one saw for 1500 years (acc. to McGrath and Geisler).
along with just the regular sinfulness of the mind.
Yes, of course. You must throw that in, too. The only problem is: now every Protestant (or Catholic) who disagrees with you on anything, must do so because of sin, not honest disagreement. So when Luther and Calvin disagree, who is the unregenerate sinner? Neither one could see the "obvious" truth of adult, believer's baptism, and they advocated killing those who did. You would have been killed by the early Lutherans and Calvinists far quicker than I would have been. You derive your doctrines from folks who would have drowned you without mercy? That's odd . . .
On the Bondage of the Will, the first time I read it, I did not agree, and wrote a paper on it; at that time, I was not a Calvinist. But years later, after struggle and process, I have come to see the truth of it -- John 8:34, Acts 16:14, John 6:44, Romans 8:7, John 8:43 --
My sympathies.
Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word."
Am I blinded, too, or am I regenerate (because I was once a Protestant) and just dense and stupid, so that I can't see these obvious truths of Scripture?
So, his interpretations on those issues make sense.
According to Pope Temple III . . .
God gives us a brain and responsibility to think.
So Catholics who disagree with Protestants are either stupid and brainless or utterly evil, not being regenerated and "saved." But actually, the first flows from the second: Total depravity necessitates that you view Catholics in this way. That's the sad thing. A nice guy like you gets taken in by this unbiblical hogwash of viewing everyone who doesn't agree with Baptist theology as unregenerate pagans who supposedly can't receive or comprehend obvious spiritual truths.
By accepting your dogmas (those specific issues that Evangelicals disagree with RCC), it seems like one has to shoot his brain in order to accept them.
And 10,000 internal contradictions in Protestantism do not suggest any intellectual problems at all. Everyone should just become a good Baptist and all such inc
(cont.)
. . . inconsistencies would be cleared up.
-bowing down to the concecrated host
Luther did that, at least earlier in his life.
-indulgences
-treasury of merit
-praying to Mary
-that she is a co-mediator - a direct violation of 1 Tim. 2:5
-praying in front of pictures, statues, lighting candles for them, etc.
-penance rather than repentance
-that Mary is a perpetual virgin, a contradiction of Matthew 1:25 and 12:47 and 13:55-56
Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, the English "reformers", all believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.
-baptismal regeneration - a contradiction of so many verses that one is saved and justified by faith
Luther's view on this matter was even stronger than the Catholic position. How, then, could he believe in both justification by faith alone and regenerative baptism? And if that was a huge mistake, how can he be trusted for faith alone? You put your "theological trust" in people who can't even get basic things right?
Colossians 2:11-12 "by faith in the power of God who raised Him from the dead."
-sinlessness and immaculate conception of Mary - a contradiction of Romans 3:9-23 and Luke 1:28 and 1:47
Luther believed in this, too. So if he was so wrong on baptism, perpetual virginity of Mary, and the Immaculate Conception, and believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, how can he possibly be trusted on sola fide and sola Scriptura?
You have put your trust in oh-so-fallible and sinful man and man's traditions that contradict God's apostolic tradition, passed down from Jesus and the apostles to the Church. This is your fundamental error. You have made yourself your own pope, without a shred of biblical justification to do so. Thanks for making it so obvious where your fundamental problems lie.
Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word."
So, his interpretations on those issues make sense. God gives us a brain and responsibility to think.
By accepting your dogmas (those specific issues that Evangelicals disagree with RCC), it seems like one has to shoot his brain in order to accept them.
Isn't this just arrogance? My opinion is right because I am so so smart? EVERYONE who thinks Catholic teaching is right is not as smart as me. There has never been a smart Catholic...ever. You are correct. That is the unavoidable conclusion of protestantism. the trouble is the conclusion is absurd. So you have inadvertently proven protestantism false by reductio ad absurdum. Not only does it have the spiritual problem of arrogance but it does not hold together logically.
The Pope was talking the other day about Tertullian the other day. He said:
“This great personality – commented the Pope – this figure so rigid in his convictions, who demanded Christians face persecution heroically, spurs me to thought. In the end it becomes clear that he lacked simplicity, the humility to become one with the Church, accepting its weaknesses”.
It seems odd but accepting the church's weakness frees us to accept the church when it is right and we are wrong.
I have exposed your presuppositions, that
1. being confident in one's ability to interpret Scripture is arrogance.
2. there has to be a human infallible interpreter on earth to tell us the right interpretation.
You have not defended them on reason or logic or Scripture, you have only assumed them, and that was only possible after 1870, and then indirectly taught them, and used John Henry Newman's idea of actually leaving the evidence of history and just assuming that 1870 was there from the beginning. He actually went against Vincent of Lerin’s dictim, and wrote that “asking the primitive centuries for their testimony”, that it “is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result the solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem.”
Development of Doctrine, Newman, p. 27
You also seem to be afraid of argumentation that mentions the problems with specific RCC dogmas and doctrines and practices, claiming that they cloud the issue.
Been trying to post this for a long time. Lots of traffic and I keep loosing stuff. I do have answers, but I will have to post them later. This is the last one for now. Got to work on my sermon for tomorrow.
Dave wrote:
That's right: we believe in a pope and so we are blinded to things (sola fide) that no one saw for 1500 years (acc. to McGrath and Geisler).
That is not exactly what they said. James Swan proved that McGrath has been taken out of context and one must read the whole book to get what he is saying. Read his articles at his web-site. McGrath even wrote in another place in that same book, it seems, that the Reformed view of justification was there, it was just not as strong in history. But the bottom line is the Scriptures on that, not history. Just as the Galatians “so quickly deserted Him who called you by the grace of God for another gospel” (Gal. 1:6), it was also possible for the early church to start corrupting things at a very early stage.
Geisler wrote“scarcely”, but even that is an exaggeration. (p, 502) Swan shows from other historians and from Raymond Brown, the Catholic Scholar of more evidence for “faith alone” in the history of the church before Luther, more than Geisler thought and others popularly keep saying. Swan has it all nicely organized at his web-site, which I know you look at because you comment so much on his writings.
Your 1870 dogma is worse than sola Fide of 1500s. Even more un-historical.
And 1854 is worse than 1500, and 1950 (Bodily Assumption of Mary) is even worse than all of them!
Clement (96 AD) and Ambrosiaster (300s) and others taught "faith alone", but no one taught your dogmas until much later.
along with just the regular sinfulness of the mind.
Yes, of course. You must throw that in, too. The only problem is: now every Protestant (or Catholic) who disagrees with you on anything, must do so because of sin, not honest disagreement.
[I am not saying that as an insult, but as a fact that we all must deal with the noetic (of the mind, from the Greek noos) effects of sin on the mind and understanding. You throw in that “who disagrees with you on anything ”, and that is not what I said or mean.}
So when Luther and Calvin disagree, who is the unregenerate sinner? Neither one could see the "obvious" truth of adult, believer's baptism, and they advocated killing those who did. You would have been killed by the early Lutherans and Calvinists far quicker than I would have been. You derive your doctrines from folks who would have drowned you without mercy? That's odd . . .
I did not live back then, so the point is moot, in terms of what is right or wrong or the right interpretation. I recognize the reality of history and the stranglehold that infant baptism had on all the European culture from Roman Catholicism from the 4th or 5th Century onward. They inherited that thinking. That idea is tangled up in the idea of a state church and political issues. We just happened to be blessed to have been born in a time and a country (USA) that benefited from all the struggles of the church/state issues and got free from the bad stuff and came up with a pretty good solution for this governing in this world. It seems to be the best yet, in a practical sense.
You put your "theological trust" in people who can't even get basic things right?
My trust is not in people, but in Christ and His word, and it seems that they (Calvin and Luther) got some things really right, but were also wrong on some things.
Besides, Baptists and Presbyterians are friends for the most part, and disagee over infant baptism in a brother way. (see James White’s debate with Pete Sisko and John McArthur’s debate with R.C. Sproul on infant baptism issues.)
Colossians 2:11-12 "by faith in the power of God who raised Him from the dead."
You could not deal with that verse, so you skipped it.
-sinlessness and immaculate conception of Mary - a contradiction of Romans 3:9-23 and Luke 1:28 and 1:47
Luther believed in this, too. So if he was so wrong on baptism, perpetual virginity of Mary, and the Immaculate Conception, and believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, how can he possibly be trusted on sola fide and sola Scriptura?
Why does it have to be either/or with you on this? What planet do you live on? They were right on some things, and wrong on some things, I humbly submit.
You have put your trust in oh-so-fallible and sinful man
(as you do with your Pope)
and man's traditions
(no, yours are the traditions of men)
that contradict God's apostolic tradition,
(no way, apostolic tradition is in the canonical scriptures and we base everything on that Scripture)
passed down from Jesus and the apostles to the Church.
(yes, the early church was great, but they, like the Galatians, began very quickly to add and corrupt some things and later in history, it got worse and worse until Wycliff, Hus, and Luther started questioning things.)
the Didache immediately said, “don’t fast on certain days like the hypocrites, but rather fast on other days”, one of the first signs of legalism and the type of thinking that becomes typical RCC practice and doctrine, legalisms and tying salvation to rituals and formulas.
This is your fundamental error. You have made yourself your own pope, without a shred of biblical justification to do so. Thanks for making it so obvious where your fundamental problems lie.
There is no such thing as a “pope” in the first place in the Scriptures or in the earliest church history, as defined by 1870 Vatican I. Cyprian spoke against the idea, as early as 250-258 AD. So I reject your imputing me with the appellation of “Pope Temple III” etc. and I reject Randy’s charge of arrogance. It just does not follow that humble confidence about an interpretation is arrogance.
The holoscan started taking so I kept going. smile
As of this point, Ken has still digressed enough to avoid answering the fundamental difficulties of his position, so I will ask the question yet again, hoping that Ken has a "moment of courage" and will directly answer this crucial question):
"So you're saying the interpretation in this instance strictly comes from yourself? That gets back to the authority question again. Unless you have an authoritative interpretive / theological tradition backing you up, there is no more reason to accept the validity of your interpretation (or mine), than the man in the moon's. So do you not appeal to any authority outside of yourself?"
I have exposed your presuppositions, that
1. being confident in one's ability to interpret Scripture is arrogance.
Confident is one thing. Saying the Catholic interpretation is unreasonable is quite another. I would say that about some interpretations like Jehovah's Witnesses and such but to say that about Catholics makes it hard to explain a huge number of intelligent Catholics, some converts and some cradle Catholics. It is just a point that won't fly.
The trouble is if you say Catholic scripture interpretation is reasonable but you don't agree with it. Then you get a different set of problems. Why is your opinion right? Why not follow the opinion with the strongest tradition? Why did Luther break up the church when the catholic church's teaching was arguably in line with scripture?
2. there has to be a human infallible interpreter on earth to tell us the right interpretation.
I didn't say that. I would say that there should be a way to determine the gospel of Jesus with some confidence. Not a subjective feeling of confidence but objective confidence. If Jesus allowed His gospel to be lost in a mass of contradictory teachings that is pretty strong evidence He is not God. An infallible interpreter is one way Jesus could have solved this problem.
You also seem to be afraid of argumentation that mentions the problems with specific RCC dogmas and doctrines and practices, claiming that they cloud the issue.
Not afraid. I do feel that argumentation does not clarify things. It can eliminate certain unreasonable options but it can rarely cause somebody to leave their pet doctrines. Catholic doctrine has way to much pedigree to ever be declared unreasonable so that part is long settled.
Certainly we need to visit all the topics and learn the reasons for them in detail. I know I needed to. IT is just that there is a bigger picture you need to get first. You need to understand how God's revelation works.
Ken,
Just so I can better understand where you are coming from, perhaps you could give your opinion regarding this SACRED PROPHECY in Luke 1:48.
“All generations shall call me blessed.” http://www.biblestudytools.net/O...w=1&
showtools=1
“All generations” of course implies concept of an UNBROKEN SUCCESSION. Luther comments: http://thumbsnap.com/v/pENfspfr.jpg
http://books.google.com/books?as..._maxy=&
as_isbn=
Luther’s insistence that "there never will be a time when [Mary] will not be praised,” appears to raise a troubling difficulty. Consider:
1. Luther held that that Mary should be ALWAYS PRAISED throughout “all generations.”
2. Yet this same Luther also held to the notion that that the gospel itself WOULD NOT BE ALWAYS PRAISED by reason of its having been ‘LOST!”
Furthermore, since, as Luther himself insisted, "everything happens of necessity,"
http://books.google.com/books?as..._maxy=&
as_isbn= it must necessarily follow that this PERPETUALL PRAISE of the Blessed Virgin, RATHER THAN OF THE GOSPEL, must have been by DIVINENLY DECREED!
Does this really make sense to you?
Personally, I believe that, not only does it NOT make sense, but for Luther to have even hinted at such at possibility borders on outright blasphemy!
What say you?
Everyone,
I posted this earlier but think it may have gotten ignored due to the late posting on Friday. I'm interested in how everyone would answer the following question.
When do you stop listening to, watching, reading, or generally partaking of something that you realize has ungodly or anti-godly aspects to it. For example, I chose not to watch Will & Grace, because it was all about normalizing homosexuality and making it more acceptable. The show didn't cause me to stumble whatsoever, and the few clips I saw of it were REALLY funny. But I chose not to watch it, because I didn't want to support that cause. I try to do the same thing with lyrics. I don't want to support songs that have lyrics with values contrary to Christian values, as well as keeping "garbage" lyrics out of my heart.
I guess my question is, Where do y'all draw the line and why? This, after all, is where the rubber meets the road for anyone claiming to follow Jesus. It's where we take what we say we believe and apply it to our lives.
.
Grubb,
I think God wants us to live by love and not by lines. That is why He draws so few lines for us. How far can we go before marriage without sinning? How many drinks can we have before we have had too much? How strongly can we word an argument before it is unchristian? We are given many areas where we have to avoid evil but we are not told precisely where the evil begins. Drawing a line will cause us to walk as close to the line as we can wothout crossing. My feeling is we should not try and walk anywhere near the line. We should follow whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable....
So what does that mean in real life? I have found it fairly easy to live without popular culture. Secular music and TV are just about out of my life. I don't miss them. I still watch selected movies but very selected.
My problem is what to do when my kids get a bit older. My oldest is almost 12. She hasn't started demanding more pop culture yet. My second oldest might beat her too it just because he is more demanding that way. I just had him memorize Phil 4:8. We will see how it goes.
Ben M,
I completely understand. Many New Age beliefs are based on the "channeling of physics", gathering knowledge from the "Ashakti Records". Such reported physchics are almost always money grubbers/attention seekers, and I regard what they say to be trash. On an interesting note, Edgar Cayce, "world renowned Sleeping Prophet" and one of the leading members of the New Age movement, was a lifelong member of the Disciples of Christ, and often wondered if his "knowledge" contradicted Christian theology. Check out the biography of Cayce here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Cayce
However, the Marian apparitions of Međugorje appear to be different. The main message of the six seers does not run contrary to Catholic teaching; they say to pray the rosary daily, fast on Wednesdays/Fridays, receive monthly Confession, and communion. The controversy lies in two things: one they have been allegations that several of the statements contradict Catholic teaching (although theese came from unofficial sources), and other Marian apparitions occuring around the world simmultaneously to the ones in Bosnia. The Vatican can't make on official statement about the visions until they stop which won't happen soon. Two scientific studies were done on the six visionaries, in 1987 and 1998 by seventeen investigative scientists. The results were the same: they were not suffering from any phychosis hypnotic effects while in there "ecstatic" and several phenmenon occurred that is presently unheard of/impossible. If you want to veerify these claims I got them from the following source: http://www.marian-times.com/ I understand if you are skeptical (especially because this is an unofficial source), but please consider it with an open mind.
Randy,
I understand that abandoning secular media can be hard. Take Nick Hardesty (aka "phatcatholic") with regards to liking secular music. He can't deny that he likes it, and he wants his fellow young catholics to know it. I thought rap/death metal music was bad before I even found out what Led Zepplin's "Whole Lotta Love" is about. My dad grew up with this music from the 60's 70's 80's ect. He even knew a couple of people who did drugs, but he wasn't close friends with them, and always declined their offers. Same thing with my friend, who has sinced moved away, was into rap, slasher films, and wrestling. My brother has had trouble sleeping since he was 4, because he was in the living room while we were watching "Halloween". I often watched wrestling when he was little (though my parents told me to stop). After he showed an interest in it, I would "subtly" let it slip that is was on, so he and I could watch it. I stopped watching wrestling a year ago because the storylines were out of hand and increasingly gross/offensive, such as Vince Mcmannon starting his own "church" and Shawn Michaels being a proffessed "Christian" while breaking every rule in the Bible. Two of the anime I watch now contain sexual innuendo/gore. The sexual innuendo doesn't affect me nearly as much outright porno, and the gore would be tolerable so long as they don't keep exxagerating it. I was just wondering Randy, do you find any current movies comfortable to watch? Finding Nemo and Happy Feet are both great films, though the latter contains some sung lines from hip hop that you might object to. I could reccommened some children's anime movies for you which is clean and entertaining.
By the way, before anyone starts flinging mud my way, know that I have actually broke down and cried several times over the past four years, because I've thought that I've had a bad influence on my brother. I also watch several "clean" anime, such as a very good one about Little League softball, and nothing in it which is objectionable. Many anime that are made for children are clean and very entertaining for kids. Keep in mind, that while these anime does not implicitly/explicitly promote anti-Christian themes, Christianity has no impact on their culture. So if you wouldn't mind having the kids watch something else from the sheer shalowness/stupidty that has haunted American Saturday mornings for the past few years, I'd be happy to offer some suggestions.
Randy,
That is why He draws so few lines for us.
I understand what you're saying about drawing lines and then walking as close to them as we can, but that's not my goal. You say God doesn't draw too many lines, but I'm not sure that's accurate. And the lines He draws can be very restrictive too.
How far can we go before marriage without sinning?
"But I tell you that anyone who looks lustfully at a woman has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matt 5:28 ) That pretty much takes care of adultery, premarital sex, pornography, and lust. The line He draws is "don't lust". That's far more restrictive than simply not kissing a girl or having sex before getting married, don't you think?
How many drinks can we have before we have had too much?
"Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness" Rom(13:13a). Behaving decently is more important than the number of drinks and it's much harder to manage.
How strongly can we word an argument before it is unchristian?
"And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct." (II Tim 2:24-25a) This goes beyond strongly wording an argument. It addresses whether we should argue at all.
And David said, "I will set before my eyes no vile thing." (Psalm 101:3) I presume he wouldn't set before his ears vile things either. If we love the Lord, we should love the things He loves and hate the things He hates. Living a life of love is good. As you pointed out, Paul told us to focus on whatever is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent, and praise worthy. Does secular music with questionable lyrics fit into those categories? God gave us freedom, but Peter said, "Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover up for evil. Live as servants of God." (I Pet 2:16)
My wife likes it when I do/don't do certain things. I do/don't do these things, because I love her not out of a legalistic "this is what my wife insists on" mentality. Paul said, "Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs—he wants to please his commanding officer. Similarly, if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not receive the victor's crown unless he competes according to the rules." (II Tim 2:3-5)
Paul appears to be saying we can and should follow guidelines based on love. And the guidelines we follow aren't necessarily our own. They're God's.
(continued below)
.
Is it ever right to expose myself to things God dislikes? Paul said, "Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory." (II Tim 2:10) I would watch Will & Grace or listen to Beatles' questionable lyrics (within reason) if I was at a lost person's house trying to witness to them, but I choose not to in my personal life out of love for God and in an effort to keep my heart pure as He's commanded me to.
God may not set specific rules, but He definitely has rules for us that can be far more restricting than what we set for ourselves, and to live by them isn't necessarily legalistic...unless we do it grudgingly.
It sounds as though you've forsaken much of the tv & secular music out of love for God and a pure heart if you don't really miss it. I think when we continually miss something, it can be an indication that we still harbor a love for it. Like you, my eldest child is 12, and she's starting to question why we don't let her listen to secular radio when friends of hers get to. I've explained more than once and will again. Just as with potty training, manners training, turning off the lights training, soccer training, and every other kind of training, we have to repeat ourselves over and over to get the message accurately through. I'm convinced that living a life of loving God for them to see is paramount. The apple don't fall far from the tree. Ted Tripp said in "Shepherding A Child's Heart", "To effectively shepherd your child's heart, you must first shepherd your own." As Snoop Dog would say, "Ouchizzle."
I trust God to use my example of avoiding pop culture to impress on my children how serious I am about following Jesus. If it conveys legalism, I'll address that then. But it's always easier to loosen the too tight reigns than tighten the too loose reigns.
.
Another note regarding atheism/skepticism. I recently was browsing an atheist discussion forum
where I saw one thread titled "Atheists In a Theocrastic America'. I find it odd that atheists constantly refer to themselves as the most hated minority in America. This contradicts the fact that many prominent people in the media and entertainment promote secularism/disbeleif. Consider that comedians such as Woody Allen, Monty Python, George Carlin are atheists, and their skits are frequently anti-theist. The Who's rock opera "Tommy" is about the bad side of treating a person like a "god". Two Monty Python movies "Life of Brian" and "The Meaning of Life" are very atheist. I've already mentioned how famous satirists and pop culture shows treat religion like a joke. Many of leading intellectuals of the 20th century (Freud, Satre ect.) were atheists. America as a demographic oddity in that is one of the few industrialized nations which has not had a sharp, steady decline in religious practice. There can be seen by some to be a digruntlement among non-beleivers in America that Christian apologetics has received a renaissance in the West. Protestant/Catholic apologists, actually see the rise of atheism as a last gasp, before theism triumphs. This is especially prominent among people like Alister Mcgrath, J.P. Moreland, and catholic philospher Michael Novak. Obviously atheists look to these increasing statisticts with optimism. What I can't stand is the "data spinning" on both sides as they try to gather morale for their respective camps.
Paul Copan gives some good information http://www.paulcopan.com/ Particularly his article on relativism http://www.bethinking.org/resour...ource.php?
ID=54 This is a great part “What could a thoughtful person say in response [to relativism]?
If my belief is only true for me, then why isn’t your belief only true for you? Aren’t you saying you want me to believe the same thing you do?
You say that no belief is true for everyone, but you want everyone to believe what you do. You’re making universal claims that relativism is true and absolutism is false. You can’t in the same breath say, ‘Nothing is universally true’ and ‘My view is universally true.’ Relativism falsifies itself. It claims there is one position that is true – relativism! You’re applying your view to everyone but yourself. You expect others to believe your views (the ‘self-excepting fallacy’).”
Kyl,
Is your post regarding to me, or it is directed to a point in my post, or is it in regards to Randy and Grubb's posts. I'm confused, please elaborate on what/who your post is refering to.
That was mainly a general information post (it wasn’t directed to any particular person). I was primarily sharing information with others. People can always add, comment, or critique the information. Thanks for asking. Btw (I bought the kingdom Triangle book you were talking about).
No problems, here Kyl. I haven't read Moreland's book, as I'll be honest, apologetics has not been a vocation, more like a hobby for me. I have a lisr of over a hundred apologists to read (Protestant/Catholic), but have only read a few. Four by Lewis, three by Chesterton, one by Kreeft. My knowledge is mostly by websites/blogs, which is how I found out about the book. Just my opinion, but I think Kreeft has the most thorough refutation of relativism around: http://www.peterkreeft.com/
audio..._relativism.htm in my opinion one of his best besides the LOTR lectures
Dear Thomas,
I certainly don’t want to in any way discourage you from examining the various private revelations (PR), alleged otherwise, especially since I too believe in and accept certain private revelations - Lourdes, Fatima, and La Salette for example. It’s just that over the years I’ve personally witnessed how some people have developed an unhealthy attachment to certain questionable “revelations.”
So if I may, I would like to offer one simple word of advice in this area – obedience! Obedience to your lawful superior, and obedience to the decision of the Church.
These I believe are truly paramount when it comes to PR! Without such obedience we become, in effect, Protestant, i. e., a law unto ourselves, arrogating the power -- the absolute power -- of determining what we will and will not believe. And, as I am sure you know, that kind of absolute power corrupts absolutely!
Now as a source of further guidance in this area, I would like to offer the following articles. You might note particularly the following words, which have helped to guide my own thinking regarding PR.
“After error itself, the mark of a false mystic is willfulness and disobedience. Blessed Faustina Kowalska wrote, "Satan can even clothe himself in a cloak of humility, but he does NOT KNOW HOW TO WEAR THE CLOAK OF OBEDIENCE" (Diary, par. 939). Genuine mystics, like Blessed Padre Pio, are MODELS OF OBEDIECE. They never pretend to set up Christ against His Church.” (my emphasis) http://www.ad2000.com.au/
article...2000p20_38.html
And from the article on Sister Faustina and the "Divine Mercy."
In Scripture, Mary teaches us to say to the Lord, "Let it be done to me according to Your word" (Lk 1:38 ). In the Diary, she teaches St. Faustina to "practice the three virtues that are dearest to [her] — and most pleasing to God. The first is HUMILITY, HUMILITY, and once again HUMILITY; the second virtue, purity; the third virtue, love of God" (Diary, 1415). http://www.thedivinemercy.org/ne...ry.php?
NID=2665
Just remember Thomas, we should not put our trust in ourselves, but in the lord, and also in his saints (i e., all the holy Doctors, Saints, and Fathers of the Church).
"Hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all the saints" - Philemon 1:5
I hope this helps.
God Bless,
Regina Coelis, ora pro nobis
Ben M,
Thank you, I've read the first article, and I understand how one must be cautious. Like I said, I understand that the Church has not made an official statement about it, they nevertheless accept the spiritual fruits gathered by these visionaries.
Now the two most controversial things about the visions arise in three things: 1. The local bishop does not support it 2. The Holy See can't make an official statement until the visions stop 3. Other visions are/were occuring in other places. But please consider three things before I stop talking about it. 1. The main messages to the visionaries: Daily prayer of Rosary, Fasting wednesday/friday, monthly confession, communion, urgent conversion. Several alledged contraversial statements made by the visionaries (UFOs exist, the soul is instilled at 4 1/2 months during pregnancy). These came from unofficial sources other than what I linked to, so these can't be confirmed. 2. Two scientific investigations were done on the visionaries (1987, 9
, by seventeen investigative scientists, and both results were the same: they were not suffering from any physchosis or self-induced delusion. The team urged the Vatican to accept the spernatural happenings in Bosnia. It's all in the website, but since I respect the fact that I can't speak for the Church, and so as not to potentially lead others astray, which is the last thing I want, as I am suffering through my own crisis of faith, and look to these visions as a concrete sign of God, I will stop talking about it until after the matter is settled. I would urge all who have read my posts to treat them with an open-minded skepticism such as Ben has suggested.
Dave, I have just learned some disturbing information. Hans Kung, the well-known Catholic theologian, denies that the office of the Pope is infallible. Although he was fired for teaching his heretical statements at the University where he was proffessor of theology. This is disturbing because we can excommunicate Catholic politicians for promoting abortion policies but this man, who denies papal authority remains a Catholic preist? It is stuff like this which always holds me back from a stronger faith. Read the Wiki article on Kung here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Kung
Dear Mr. Armstrong,
I am sorry for having put so much on your plate, as I have all the time in the world (four months off of college while you are struggling to provide for your family. Clearly our lifestyles are incredibly mismatched, so I got a little irritated when nobody has responded since yesterday. Being morally upright has its disadvantages, because I have abandoned my most recent anime (Shakugan no Shana) and book (A Song of Fire and Ice), due to objectionable content, I have been trying to occupy my time (started to read Maritain's book yesterday), and have fought boughts with boredom. I just hope comments won't get swallowed up in the backlog before you can respond.
Sorry for the lousy spelling again (I'm beggining to see a pattern here...
Thomas,
We need to simply trust God's appointed leaders to handle people like Hans Kung according to what is best. There is a long list of people I would have been harder on of I was in charge. God has not seen fit to put me in charge. I need to accept that.
Being Catholic is more about accepting a set of leaders than it is about accepting a set of doctrines.Those leaders teach, govern, and sanctify. The teaching involves doctrine but in that case we have some assurance that they won't teach error. With governance we have no assurance they won't make errors. Still we need to respect them as God's bishops and God's pope. That is hard but it is the only way we can be one body.
Dave,
how about starting a new thread on Epistemology from the last 4 or 5 posts I made (or the last 10 ) from the dog chasing their tails post that just went into archive.
To reduce your argument against Protestantism, you and the whole RCC apologetics do it by reducing everything to:
either
1. arrogance or 2. relativism.
How's that for finally deriving a short version ?
1. Arrogance on the part of the Evangelical (who think they can interpret Scripture and be confident that theirs is right against the Papal infallibility interpretations or the RCC or on secondary issues with other Protestants.
or
2. Relativism as to doctrine (the disunity, mixture of Post modernism in some, and secondary doctrines issue).
I think I am getting closer to the analysis of the epistemology which you so passionately call for.
Thomas,
Congratulations on abandoning the two sources of objectionable material; you'll be glad you did if you aren't already. There are plenty of other sources of acceptable "enjoyment" out there. The old saying "Idle hands are the work of the devil" is more right than wrong. There's nothing wrong with a little "down" time, but in general if we let ourselves have too much free time, we often get into things we shouldn't. If you don't have a summer job, you might consider getting one. If you can find a hobby that you can make money at (woodworking, painting,...), that might be a good thing too. If you want to volunteer at some sort of non-profit organization, that would probably give you a good sense of using your time wisely. I'm not saying eliminate all free time, but maybe use more of your time productively.
The older one gets (I'm now 41), the more he realizes how much of his life he's wasted. I like playing Halo, but in all seriousness, I could know Spanish fairly well if I had spent as much time learning it as I've spent on Halo in the last 4 years. I'm not saying I should abandon video games altogether, but I'm trying now to minimize how much time I spend on them. From 26 to 37, I didn't play any video games and didn't miss them at all. Augustine said, the goal is to love the right thing to the right degree with the right kind of love in the right way. Not sure I got the ordering right, but they're interchangeable. The time we waste today can never be gotten back. We don't get do-overs with missed time. We may get 2nd chances, but I can't get yesterday back.
This isn't a legalistic do or don't do this or that. This is an encouragement for you and anyone else who has the summer off to do something constructive and God honoring with your time. You'll be glad you did. Relax and enjoy the summer, but you can do that without wasting the entire summer too.
I see you seeking Jesus at 20 in a way I didn't until I was nearly 30. I pray that you'll choose to follow Him whole-heartedly as He draws you closer and closer.
.
How about starting the thread with a definition of epistemology Just kidding.
.
Randy,
Still we need to respect them as God's bishops and God's pope. That is hard but it is the only way we can be one body.
Does that mean PTs and RCs can never be one body? Dave is encouraging ecumenism between the two denominations, but can there really be unity between two groups that have such a differing view on church leadership? Dave pointed out that the RCC doesn't believe there are secondary doctrinal issues that we can agree to disagree on. With regard to doctrine and decrees (and possibly dogma), the RCC is unwavering. It has it right, and the PTC has it wrong. The only way to achieve long-term unity, it seems, is for the PTC to change all of its beliefs which are contrary to the RCC's. Is that right?
You also said, "The teaching involves doctrine but in that case we have some assurance that they won't teach error."
But some HAVE taught error. Bishop Cawcutt of South Africa was teaching that homosexuality was acceptable. A Texas priest supported him. Here's part of an article about it,
One of the priests, Fr. Cliff Garner, 36, described his passion for a young Latin American youth minister, and praised a liberal dissident homosexual South African auxiliary bishop, Reginald Cawcutt, for his attacks on Vatican authorities: "You are doing God's work," Garner claimed, "and because of that - you and the rest of us will be beaten and crucified - but we will rise!!!! Peace be with you!!"
Later on the article said,
Fr. Garner and fellow chat-group member Fr. Art Mallinson of Lancaster, Texas were allowed to continue at their parishes even though Bishop Joseph A. Galante and the diocese's chancellor, Mary Edlund, were told of their activities more than three years ago, according to documents obtained by the Times.
Is it possible they were teaching pro-homosexual doctrine? We know Cawcutt was; he openly did so. It's possible and even probable that Garner & Mallinson were. I'm not bashing the RCC, because of these guys. The RCC has gotten it right regarding homosexuality. I also understand that PTCs have similar instances. I'm addressing the notion that you can trust everything a priest or bishop teaches.
My whole point is this: you say that you can trust whatever your church authorities teach, but some have taught heresy, which would indicate that you CAN'T implicitly trust whatever church officials teach.
.
Grubb, thanks for the prayers, and I've understood what Chesterton said: "Morality is like good art, you have to draw the line somewhere". But the hard part about doing work is based on two things: 1) I have a slight physical handicap, so I can't drive and it would be very hard to find a job, and I receive financial aid from the government because I am in college, so I am not pressed for money. I wanted to join a parish volunteer group but my parents are too busy with their separation/jobs to help me. Don't praise me so fast, Grubb I may have abandoned them, but I'm still watching two that contain sexual innuendo and gore, and one that shows gore is very heavy lacerations, decapitations, blood splater, actual on-screen talk of rape ect. Although the show is a dark action/adventure, the director is making it "more" gory than it's original source (Japanese comic book), and it airs late at night in Japan. The problem here is different views here: The late John Paul II/conservative catholics/protestants like yourselves, see such entertainment as "spiritually corrosive". Our post-modern culture sees it as entertainment/fun/hobby. Let me ask you something: would you hate the Charlie Brown Christmas Special if I told you the late Charlie Schults was a Humanist (which he was) or that several devout Catholic bloggers like Douglas Adams' "Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy" even though Adams was a "radical atheist" and his ant-theism shows in his works, although some parts of his stuff everyone can laugh at. I despise Michael Jackson as a person, yet I like his music. I know you, Dave, and everyone else here, can agree with me that we can (and should) sometimes seperate the work from the person, as St. Augustine distinguished the sin from the sinner.
Cont.
I don't understand why Madonna's "Like A Prayer" video was so insulting to Christians, clearly to me the saint and the person she makes love with are two seperate people. I could understand that the Rock Opera "Tommy" would be insulting to Christians , as well as Monty Python's satire (which I haven't seen). I like Terry Pratchett because he can laugh at his own atheism, while Adams never did. By the way, if you want to check out a great critique of Adams' life/work from a Christian apologist's perspective, check out this link: http://www.arn.org/docs/
williams...adamsreview.htm (In my opinion Peter S. Williams is the best critiquer of Richard Dawkins around, check out his other articles here: http://www.arn.org/authors/williams.html
Like I was saying, it is easy for me to avoid big errors, (porn, incest, torture) than to avoid smaller errors (mild innuendo, gore, swearing, crude jokes ect.). I'll be dead honest and say that I am paradoxically going into errors, mostly because these less extreme shows (well, technically the only thing wrong in Shakugan no Shana was the on-screen incest), are easier for me to except. I can honestly understand why you can critique my views based on Lewis' advice in avoiding all error, but there you go, I won't bother putting on a false front.
Does that mean PTs and RCs can never be one body?
Not fully. Not to the degree Jesus wants us to. We are intended to have one church, one eucharist, and one faith. God's way of making this happen is to bless us with leaders -bishops and a pope. He knows if we got to choose our own leaders we could never agree.
Dave is encouraging ecumenism between the two denominations, but can there really be unity between two groups that have such a differing view on church leadership?
Some unity, yes. Much more than there currently is. Right now there is so much misunderstanding and judgement. We can do a lot better.
Dave pointed out that the RCC doesn't believe there are secondary doctrinal issues that we can agree to disagree on.
We do have secondary doctines we can disagree on. The list of 'main' doctrines is longer than most protestants make it. That does not mean it includes everything. There are doctrines like the morality of the death penalty where disagreement is allowed.
With regard to doctrine and decrees (and possibly dogma), the RCC is unwavering. It has it right, and the PTC has it wrong. The only way to achieve long-term unity, it seems, is for the PTC to change all of its beliefs which are contrary to the RCC's. Is that right?
Yes, the principle of recognizing the pope as an instrument of unity is essential. That means the pope would resolve doctrinal conflict according to scripture and tradition. The reality is the RCC does have it right on most issues. The idea is to arrive at God's truth. It is not to even out who wins on how many issues.
That was my big issue in becoming Catholic. I wanted to meet the church halfway. Many arguments were making sense but ALL of them? Could God's truth really be that far away from where I thought it was? It was just ego. I had done so much honest seeking after God's truth from inside my reformed tradition that I felt I should be closer that I was.
You also said, "The teaching involves doctrine but in that case we have some assurance that they won't teach error."
But some HAVE taught error
When I said 'some assurance' I was trying to refer to the concept of infallibility without explaining the whole thing. A bishop can teach something that contradicts the church. There are ways to deal with that. With matters of governance the local priest or local bishop decide a lot of things. Coming from a very different background than they do their decisions can be quite hard to understand. Much harder then matters of doctrine.
A brief break from the above discussion thread~Simple Switch turns any cell into an embryonic cell. Technique removes need for eggs or embryos for stem cells. It looks like the pro-infanticide crowd might have one less excuse to justify the murder of the unborn or for society to fund it...
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/...ll/
447618a.html
Dave,
I discovered a couple of interesting (and a bit amusing) comments by Augustine on heresy and division while browsing around Rice U. library - http://www.rice.edu/ Thought you might like to have a look.
Source: Sermons of Saint Augustine: Sermon 46, Vol. 3, part 3. Isbn0911782850
http://books.google.com/books?
id...=isbn0911782850
http://thumbsnap.com/v/bCyf4fgP.jpg pp.280-81
http://thumbsnap.com/v/GBLdmiEU.jpg pp. 281-82
Kinda gives a new meaning to name "The Partridge Family" don't you think?
And just for the heck of it, thought I'd throw in (at no extra charge) some pics of Rice, including a couple of me (self-taken) standing on "Laboratory Road."
http://thumbsnap.com/v/sCN5VfDY.jpg William Marsh Rice
http://thumbsnap.com/v/fgr71wLM.jpg Front of Fondren library
Fondren library, forth floor. Here is a peek at Rice's fantastic collection of theological works!
http://thumbsnap.com/v/YupDS3hl.jpg
http://thumbsnap.com/v/uGRgYQ2b.jpg
http://thumbsnap.com/v/NpUZyynW.jpg
Part of the Corpus Reformatorum.
http://thumbsnap.com/v/fXd7K75q.jpg http://thumbsnap.com/v/HShOt6zy.jpg
http://thumbsnap.com/v/dHUV8z32.jpg D’Aubigne
http://thumbsnap.com/v/AIXcXcZH.jpg
http://thumbsnap.com/v/Fwob6gud.jpg
Thomas,
Few people clean up their lives overnight. For most of us God uses the Holy Spirit to convict us to address one area of our life or another as He sees fit. That's not to say we shouldn't strive for holiness in every area of our lives or be content to work on specific "sins" later. But it's good to give thanks and praise to God for victories small and large. I think you'll notice that sin's grasp is like the earth's gravity; the further you get from the earth, the less pull it has on you. The further we get from old sins, (usually) they have much less control over us.
I usually base the merits of a product on the product itself rather than the producer. I can listen to Elvis Presley do Gospel songs, because the songs are good. I can listen to Amy Grant do secular songs, because they're not anti-Christian values. I can listen to some Beatles' songs, because they're innocuous in their message. Watching Charlie Brown doesn't bother me, even if Schultz was a humanist. Atheists physically make cars, soap, rugs, paintings, and many other things that are good. I don't avoid them, because the manufacturer or artist isn't a Christian; I avoid stuff (or try to) that has content contrary to Godly values.
I hope you find something productive and/or edifying to do this summer.
.
This is from Dave's "Four Million Popes" thread with the pictures of dogs chasing their tails post. (with Ken Temple) that just went into archive.
Dave sincerely believes that I did not really answer his question to me, (probably still). I believe that I sincerely answered those issues to the best of my ability at the present time.
My answer in short (er) form is
A. It is possible to not be arrogant, but have humble confidence that one’s interpretation is right, and conflicts with the RCC and on other issues, deemed secondary by all Protestants, with other Protestants.
B. We have at least some authoritative interpretative history for our positions of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide and the priesthood of the believer. (But we have more Biblical support than the RCC historical development opposite views, which started later).
C. There is no such thing, in the Biblical truth sense, as a pope in the first place, and an infallible pope as an infallible interpreter and one with jurisdictional authority over all churches in the world; in the Biblical sense of truth and right and wrong. (That is a RC development of history that started in some people’s understanding, by a wrong interpretation of Irenaeus, (and then adding back in the bishop issue of Ignatius and Clement, although they also do not teach any such thing) in the 200s, but more clearly much later than the first 400 years of Church history.)
D. The church can go astray in history, and did just as the Galatians did very quickly (Galatians 1:6-9) on some things for some periods of time, but God always has His elect people in various churches and nations who trust in Christ alone for their salvation from sin.
I also sincerely believe that Dave has not answered the questions of: (conscious or unconscious)
1. that one can interpret Scripture for himself and go against those 8-20 issues (depending on how you group them) that Protestantism has with RCC and yet still be confident and humble.
2. That he is confusing and mixing the method of knowing something is true (epistemology) with the end results (doctrine, content, theology) when he makes his arguments.
Epistemology – how we know that something is true; having to rely on our own mind in order to think about all these issues and decide in his own heart and mind which one is right.
Mixing Epistemology with the end results or contents or doctrine (RCC vs. Protestantism); in his argumentation with me, without seeing that he uses the same method of knowing something in order to arrive at the conclusion content or doctrine that the Pope is infallible and there is this inherent need for an infallible human interpreter on earth in history; this mixing and confusing the issues seems to hide the fact that he is using the same method in order to arrive at the doctrine that there is an infallible pope.
3. Also, in the intellectual sense, (not as a person all the time); he charges me with either being arrogant on the issue of being reasonably certain that I have the right interpretation, say on baptism (to think I can know the right interpretation of a certain passage) when it goes against RCC, and also when it may also go against some protestants; or if we say there are “secondary issues”, then he charges us with “relativism”, and yet Calvinistic Reformed Evangelicals are some of the most non-relativistic people in the world.! We believe in right and wrong and are zealous to defend doctrine in apologetics. Dave seeks to force the issue into either a. arrogance or b. relativism; and it just not follow reasonably or logically, understanding all the complicated things about exegesis and over 2000 years of church history, that one can boil every thing down to those 2 categories, which is basically what it seems that RC apologetics as against Protestantism does.
4. Also charge that I cannot use specific examples of bad interpretations or history or Scripture, etc. regarding the papacy or Mary or baptism or indulgences; in my argumentation, but he is fully able to use things like Protestant dis-unity over secondary issues, and something like baptism vs. infant baptism to make his case against Evangelical Protestantism as a whole.
Grubb points out some good things and principles on matters that Protestants deem as "secondary issues". But there is great unity between Calvinistic Baptists and Presbyterians and other Calvinists, independents and "Third wave Calvinists" (C. J. Mahaney and Wayne Grudem, for example)
See www.togetherforthegospel.org
or
http://www.t4g.org/
Arrogance or relativism. I can think of a 3rd option many protestants choose. I was listening to a radio show where they had a spoof of the dating game where you needed to choose your end time prophesy view. I thought that was insightful but it is not restricted to end times theology. All truth is up for grabs in the protestant dating game. So you go out and choose a preacher, a theologian, or a school of thought you like and you make that your authority. Then you can avoid arrogance and relativism.
The reference to the dating game was a comment on how this choice often gets made. Many times people become comfortable with a church for very superfical reasons - the music, the style of preaching, the number of people you know there, etc. For many truth comes way down on the list. Some even consider the Catholic church when doing their dating. I wonder if it would be good for them to come to the Catholic church for purely superfical reasons. Usually the protestants win the beauty contest but there are exceptions.
Anyway, I think it is a legitimate 3rd option and I can think of many protestants who use it. They find an authority. There tends to be a subtle arrogance in there because they do use their own opinions in choosing. Still they are recognizing they don't have all the answers and are asking God to lead them. They have the right idea in that they are searching for authority. Still they often hold onto unspoken assumptions that exclude the Catholic church from their consideration.
Ken,
Brief response:
A. You don't have to feel arrogant. But if you come into conversation with someone who honestly disagrees how do you avoid arrogance and still declare with great confidence you are right and they are wrong? Then you have the cases where a plethora of early church fathers disagree with you. How do you avoid arrogance when you say you are sure they are ALL wrong?
The 'deemed secondary' phrase is hiding a ton of assumptions.
B. Those are great claims. When you try and prove them you get into trouble. It is a long process to get a sense of the evidence on such a wide variety of issues. After many years of reading protestant/catholic debates I just could not longer believe that kind of protestant bravado.
C. This begs the question. You say "only private interpetation is consistent with my private interpetation".
D. If 'God always has His elect people' then where were they for 1500 years? They aren't hard to find. Many of them were Catholic priests and bishops. There were many people who were willing to teach very hard, unpopular truths when compelled by scripture and the Holy Spirit. Still they never discerned protestant truths. Not just one or two people but hundreds of very impressive Christians over many centuries missed these clear biblical truths.
". . . carrying their crosses in expiation for their own sins and those of others, certain that they could help their brothers to obtain salvation from God the Father of mercies."
From official Papal Encyclical, Indulgentiarum Doctrina,
Referenced at James White’s Web-site, under “Francis Beckwith gives his reasons ( # 3)
www.aomin.org
This kind of doctrine, according to Galatians 2:21 nullifies the grace of God, which is what RCC doctrine does. Only Christ’s work on the cross can propitiate or even expiate our sins. We trust in the work of another. Carrying our own cross are the results of God’s grace and faith in our heart, not conditions for obtaining salvation. And each one must stand on his own by his own faith or lack of it before the judgment seat of God and Christ. No one can supply you with grace from any treasury of merit or prayers. Those doctrines are so unbiblical, it is amazing that some cannot see that.
White shows good historical authoritative interpretative history for both Sola Fide and Sola Scritpura. Excellent. His argumentation is sound.
One of the most significant facts is that Augustine’s “On the Unity of the Church” has not been translated into English yet !! Goode and Chemnitz translated some of it in their apologetic works against the Roman Catholics in the 16th Century, but it has yet to be translated fully; so it is not a part of the standard works of “The Early Church Fathers” collections; as is the problem with many other works, like other works by Irenaeus and Tertullian and Athanasius, (Four Letters on the Holy Spirit against the Tropici), etc.
So, he is right to question whether anyone can get a good grasp on the Early Church fathers and church history by staring to read in January of 07 until April or May of 07.
Grubb,
Thanks for your insights, as it deals very much with how I lost toch with pornography. I never watched "hardcore" or anything with rape/extreme fetishes. I only looked at softcore pictures, which didn't even show full body nudity. Then I watched anime shows which had "fanservice" (a term used to imply heavy/mild innuendo for the mere sake of "pleasing" fans. Sounds weird when talking about cartoons, but remember anime is for all groups/ages. You can be assured that many kids don't watch the heavier stuff.
Although you might be surprised; There was this "manga" (Japanese comic book), called "Magic Teacher Negima" which was rated 16+ cause it had fanservice of underage girls. However, when they made the anime, the innuendo was completely taken out, because the show was airing on Saturdays for kids. The hard part about watching anime, is that Japan has different social mores than us. So if I were to take out every anime in my collection that had some objectionable content, I'd be left with about quite a few actually now that I think about it. Remember Grubb, if you ever want any recommendations of anime movies/series for your kids, or if you even want to watch a cartoon which doesn't talk down to you but engages you in the story, I'm alaways up for some recommendeations Two things though; I might not have watched some titles I haven't watched, so go for it with an open mind. The Japanese language track is almost alaways equal or better than the English dub, as it is after all, the original language it was done in, though there are quite a few titles you could enjoy in English or Japanese. I've only watched anime consistently for five years, so I'm no expert. Though the guys who seem to review anime for a living don't seem to be seasoned veterans either
Boy, I really need to work on my spelling!
It's supposed to read "I may not have watched some titles I recommend." To say that "... I haven't watched some shows I have'nt watched watched" has got to be the most redundant statement of the year! Maybe that circular reasoning Dave was talking about is catching
By the way, Grubb, we (my mom, brother and I) took a belated trip to the local bookstore for my birthday, and I got three new books to tie me over for the next two weeks
Randy:
Remember, it is basically Daves’ point of boiling down Protestantism to an either or of two things, a. arrogance or b. relativism. Your third category is still deemed as in the arrogant category in Dave’s argumentation. (and yours also) To argue in this way is to seek to put the opposing view “on the horns of a dilemma”; to force one to have to choose for RCC, because both arrogance and relativism are both wrong. This method of argumentation hides the fact that the RC person also uses his own mind to discover truth and come to decisions.
So you guys, are "your own pope also", because you used your mind to decide that there is such a thing as an infallible pope.
1. I don’t feel arrogant. That is the charge that Dave (and you by saying if something thinks the Early Church fathers were wrong, then they are arrogant.)
Tertullian was right to question the baptism of infants, that the sponsors would be in more danger and accountability, rather than waiting “until they grow and can know Christ”.
Tertullian was right to say the Mary and Joseph had a normal sexual marriage relationship after Jesus was born. He is one of the few people, (it seems) that had his mind clear when he read Matthew 1:25.
Cyprian got it write when he wrote that “no one has the authority to claim that they are bishop of bishops”.
Those quotes about Scripture and the Church that White provides from Augustine and others are right.
Athanasius was right when he wrote that the canonical Scriptures are the only infallible source for doctrine and practice. “In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. . . “ Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and others also wrote this.
Irenaeus was right to expose that the Gnostics a. get their doctrines from other sources, and claim a secret oral tradition from the apostles, which was not written down. That is what the RCC does.
Jerome got it right on the Apocrypha. RCC is wrong.
There are many others, but for the sake of the blog and space; I will try to keep is shorter.
Hi Ken,
Remember, it is basically Daves’ point of boiling down Protestantism to an either or of two things, a. arrogance or b. relativism.
But don't forget: a vicious logical circle and thoroughly incoherent (at bottom). Also, institutional chaos and indifferentism. It doesn't have to be straight relativism. It can be this attitude most Protestants exhibit, that they simply don't care that Christians contradict themselves all over the place on a host of doctrines. They despair of ever finding the biblical truth of those, and so adopt the "eternal quest" mindset: the Protestant is forever searching for the truth of these matters and it is fine! They can't resolve it and so set out to rationalize and justify necessary contradiction and error and falsehood in their ranks.
I've written about this strain of thought here:
Anglican Anti-Traditional Principles of "Development" & the "Cult of Uncertainty" (vs. Dr. Edwin Tait)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...principles.html
Response to Rev. Michael Pahls on "Theological Humility" and the Protestant "Non-Quest" Regarding Christian Certainty (vs. Rev. Michael Pahls)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...l-pahls-
on.html
how about starting a new thread on Epistemology from the last 4 or 5 posts I made (or the last 10 ) from the dog chasing their tails post that just went into archive.
That's all included in the "Discussion" portion of the dialogue that is already now posted.
I'm bored with this discussion. I've done it a hundred times, and don't have the patience for the runaround.
I specifically went to short socratic questions in order to get you to focus on your premises. But that never works because you refuse to give short, succinct answers. to put it in common terms: we never even got to first base.
One can't deal with everything at once. You haven't overcome your difficulties in the slightest. They are all still there. Those who are willing to examine it with an open mind can, I believe, see the difficulties, and some may consider that Catholicism has a far better, logical, biblical solution to them.
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing! Gal 2:20-21
So being crucified with Christ is part of what Paul is talking about. It is in the verse prior to James White's proof text. Somehow carrying your own cross cannot be part of that. What about taking up your cross and following Christ? Didn't Jesus teach that? So why do you assume this papal encyclical is talking about it in a different way than Jesus and Paul talk about it? Because James White says so?
You say, "Carrying our own cross are the results of God’s grace and faith in our heart." So how does this document contradict that? God gives us the grace to be holy and even to bring His grace to others potentially leading to their salvation. This comes through our own cross. Paul knew this better than most.
Protestants believe pretty much all of this except they would want to separate it from justification. The church does not do this but the bible does not do it either.
As a protestant I took on much suffering to try and make myself holy and to try and bring others to Jesus. The biggest difference now is I no longer need to see the logical connection between the two. I was willing to suffer for the kingdom but only if it was obvious how my suffering would help. So I would give money to a cause but I would not fast for it. I would pray a petition to God for something but I would not say an "Our Father" for it. My sacrifice has to be effective.
Over time I got more and more skeptical about which sacrifices were working. I was having very limited success. I kind of always believed sacrifices could work in an unseen spiritual way even if the physical effect seemed to fail. So the Catholic tradition of prayer and sacrifice without a human plan behind it made sense even if it seemed strange. To spend your life praying in a cloister seemed incomplete. You were preparing for something but you never did anything. Why wasn't the prayer and the sacrifice alone valuable? I didn't have a good answer but it felt wrong.
Anyway, I am going a little long but the point is that much of the difference here is a matter of comfort rather than a matter of doctrine.
Thomas,
Don't worry about the spelling; in most cases I read what you meant. Thanks for the offer of suggesting anime shows worth watching. Right now I'm weaning myself off tv as much as possible, and the way I've been doing that is not picking up new shows when my old favorites go off the air. I'm down to 2 that I watch regularly, and may be down to 1 next season. That's not to say I don't watch tv, but I'm trying to make the stuff I do watch more edifying like: the History Channel, Discovery Channel, Fox News, and Sports Channels. Ok, so sports aren't that edifying, but it's not very addicting either. I can usually take or leave most sporting events. Except for the 1 hour show and the 1 half hour show, I'm rarely tempted to sit down and watch tv. Now I just do it when I have free time and feel like vegging...which doesn't happen that often.
I won't encourage my daughters to watch anime, but if they somehow get to where they want to watch it, I'll definitely need your opinion on where to start. Thanks again. I'm glad you got some reading material and happy belated birthday.
.
So you guys, are "your own pope also", because you used your mind to decide that there is such a thing as an infallible pope.
Using your mind is not the problem. In fact, clinging to what you were brought up with requires less work for your mind than anything else. Cradle Catholics who remain Catholic out of theological laziness give us all a bad name.
The problem is not thinking but having to high an opinion of your thinking. Making your own thinking the last word. We need to give Jesus the last word. When we become Catholic we do that. We desire to think with the body of Christ. We want to be obedient to what Chist tells us through that body. Obedience does not mean you stop thinking. Atheists say that about evangelicals and evangelicals laugh but then they turn around and use exactly the same logic for Catholics.
Relativism or arrogance. Which was it when each of the following occurred: the early church fathers declared there was a Holy Trinity; when the RCC started praying to dead saints; when the RCC said priests must come from the pool of those called to be celibate; when the first RC bowed down in front of a statue of Mary and thought it was ok; when Buddha became a saint or Thomas' sainthood was largely removed; when popes were declared infallible with regard to papal decrees?
These are all doctrines/dogmas that have come about in the RCC since the early church. You call it developing doctrine, but each one was initiated by an individual. It's not like every RC priest, bishop, cardinal, and pope said at the same time, "Priests MUST come from the pool of men called to be celibate." For centuries many may have thought it individually. Were they arrogant? Were they relativistic? By the RCC's standards today they were neither; they were right. Back then, however, they would have been considered relativistic or arrogant, because they believed a dogma that wasn't yet established. Nor is it the case that none of these doctrines/dogmas were considered by anybody until the pope declared it so.
Was Luther arrogant when he said indulgences were wrong? Ok, maybe he was , but he was still right.
Isn't it possible to humbly disagree with an organization that appears to be wrong based on scripture? You may say it's arrogance, but I'm simply believing what I read. I know you have the 3 legged stool, but the church & tradition don't trump the Bible, do they? It's not "majority wins" is it? If tradition & church say it's ok to pray to heavenly saints, but scripture says pray to Jesus/God only and puts that forth as the example EVERY single time someone prays in the Bible, one of them must be wrong. It can't be the Bible.
I know I'm a Grubb-come-lately to this topic, may be repeating stuff Ken has already said, and understand you're tired of it Dave; so this will probably be my final comment on it. Just thought it was interesting that the RCC has changed doctrine and dogma as much as it has, and yet it isn't considered relativistic or arrogant.
.
Grubb,
It is not change that is the issue. It is how we arrive at truth. So suggesting a development of doctrine would not be a problem. Defining it would be if you are not given the authority from God to define it. The idea is to submit to something outside yourself.
When you consider a consensus in the body of Christ not just now but one that has been there a long time. That should make you very unsure of yourself if you are going to say they are wrong. You say you might have scripture on your side but everyone in the church respects scripture. You should not assume your have read scripture right and everyone else has read it wrong. The difference is in your mind and not in the scripture. You are confident your mind is superior to anyone else's mind.
Do church and tradition trump the bible? You assume they can be in conflict. It is not majority wins. It is like when people say Jesus and Paul are in conflict. You start with the assumption they cannot be. The full truth must affirm both. Your saints "conflict" is a good example. Praying to saints is never condemned in scripture. There are a lack of explicit examples but scripture's relative silence does not produce a conflict.
To say every christian who has every asked a saint to pray for him is wrong would be arrogant. That sets yourself up as a judge of many very holy people. You assume your understanding of the issue is somehow better than theirs. You have to be ignorant of how many people disagree with you and what kind of Christians they were. If your grasped that you would never be able to say it. If you grasped that you would be Catholic.
You know, this talk you guys are having on prostestant doctrine reminds of something that came up a month ago. Me, dad, and my grandma (who is devout Catholic), were watching the movie "St. Francis of Assisi". There's a scene where Francis has come back from Jerusalem, and his fellow friars are arguing over whether they should be working for money to support the Fransciscan Order. St. Francis gets angry and exclaims "You are changing the words of Christ, they should be taken without interpretation!" (paraphrase).
And afterwards I got into a small conversation about Martin Luther and why the Protestant Revolution got started. My grandmother and my dad didn't know about Luther, so I discribed it like this: Luther was upset at the corruption of the church (indulgences, Popes trying to establish dynasties by electing family members as bishops ect.). Now, instead of merely fixing what was wrong, Luther, being overzealous, broke away from the Cathoolic Church and established the Sola doctrines. The main error in Protestism, I told them, is that they have no authority outside the Bible, and the Magesterium is the only body capable of interpreting Scripture properly. In World Religions class in high school, we had several talks on the Reformation, and Mr. Hill (who is an apologist), told us that the reason why Protestants were s splintered was because they can't agree on interpretation.
Protestants, obviously, see Reformed Theology as positive changes from the corruption of the Church. What do you guys think, have I made any good points, my knowledge of theology is very poor.
Just as an aside, presuppositionalism is cool.
Hi Ken,
God always has His elect people in various churches
Well if that’s true, then it surely must be true of the Church at Rome! Indeed, the New Testament itself bears witness to the fact that it was the GREAT CHURCH AT ROME which alone had the distinction of being the standard by which “all the churches of Christ” (Rom.16: 16) judged “their own fidelity to the gospel truth.”
For proof of this, Ken, I would suggest you read a booklet by one Adam S. Miller, entitled:
“The Roman Catholic Church: A Divine Institution or a Human Invention?
I believe you will find it quite an eye-opener!
One caveat though: Unfortunately, Mr. Miller is a traditionalist who believes that no one outside the Catholic Church can be saved. On this I must disagree with him. Apparently he simply misunderstands the Church’s teaching on this business of “no salvation outside the church.” But be that as it may, he nevertheless makes some extremely interesting points regarding the unique role and authority that God has given to no other church but the Church at Rome.
And I can guarantee that after carefully and prayerfully reading this, you'll never again look at the epistle to the Romans in the same light! And I also think you will begin to see that, logically, if ever a church qualified as being the “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15), it most assuredly had to have been the Church at Rome!
You can preview a few pages from chapter 1 here:
http://www.lulu.com/content/335642
You might want also to ponder these words of St. Irenaeus:
http://books.google.com/books?id...jv5X-
2U8H92oaA0
The fact of the matter, my friend, is that the Scriptures (particularly the book of Romans) and the Fathers stand as a monumental testament to the Divine authority and privilege of the Roman Church over and against the reformers Lucifer-like lust to usurp that authority.
Now, instead of merely fixing what was wrong, [Martin] Luther, being overzealous, broke away from the Catholic Church and established the Sola doctrines.
My understanding of history is that Luther tried to correct & “reform” the RCC — hence “Reformation” — but was rebuffed by the Papacy. They demanded that he renounce his alleged errors by rejecting the clear teaching of Scripture. He replied, “Here I stand; I can do no other.”
I think he made the right choice.
And I still think that presuppositionalism is cool. Hint, hint.
Hier stehe ich; ich kann night anders.
And I still think that presuppositionalism is cool. Hint, hint.
Great. If you'd like to defend it, I have several papers posted that you can pick at. Be my guest.
See my Calvin and Calvinist page.
Dave,
I did make it succinct and I boiled it down and focused on what you wanted; but now you say you are bored with the subject; but when you thought you were "winning the argument" (at end of the "400 million popes" post with dogs chasing their tails), you said, "we are just getting started".
Which is it? getting started, or now "giving up?"
Maybe it is because you don't have an answer. You own mind is your own pope also, just agreeing with all the Newman argument as a comfort to doubt about history, unity, authority, and the Lord's supper.
Randy wrote:
Making your own thinking the last word.
I understand the argument, from Proverbs 3:5-6 "Do not lean on your own understanding", etc.
The principle is true, basically. But nowhere does the Bible say that the human leaders after the apostles die in history are going to be infallible and get all the interpretations right.
But Ignatius Loyola took that Biblical principle and applied to the human leaders of the church.
Whatever we say is black, but it appears to your eyes as white, you must agree with us (Jesuits, church leaders, popes, etc.) that it is black. (paraphrased)
that is killing one's mind.
We need to give Jesus the last word.
We do. "the words I have spoken to you are Spirit and are life". The flesh profits nothing.
"I am the true vine . . . "
I am the door
I am the bread of life
I am the light of the world
I am
no one comes to the Father except through Me" John 14:6
Mother Teresa went against this when she said her job is to make Hindus better Hindus and Buddhists and Muslims better Buddhists and Muslims.
The Pope went against Jesus when he said that those who have never heard of Jesus and don't have faith in Jesus can be saved by
sincerity
seeking
lack of pride.
No. All sinners are proud in their heart, and there is no one who sincerely seeks God; unless God first works it in them by His grace.
And grace only comes through faith; and faith only comes by hearing the message. Romans 10:9-17. And the Spirit draws only some from all the nations. John 6:44, Rev. 5:9
Which is it? getting started, or now "giving up?"
Bored, just like I said.
Maybe it is because you don't have an answer.
Believe as you wish. If it makes you feel better to pretend that I have no answer, then whatever floats your boat . . . that has no effect on how others reading our "exchange" will react. I'm always writing to the general reader, not simply the person I am interacting with at the moment.
Bored ?
but at the end of the Dogs chasing their tails post, you said, "we are just getting started" , so how did it come to being bored?
Once I caught on to epistemology and stayed on that issue, you now say, it is boring.
Interesting. . . Oh well.
Great. If you'd like to defend it, I have several papers posted that you can pick at. Be my guest.
I have already offered some comments & clarifications. More than a week ago, actually. Just checking to see if anyone noticed.
(Randy did make one brief comment.)
Nisi crediteritis non intelligitis.
Comments in the comboxes of the original posts? I wouldn't know about that because they are in the archives and I don't check after they go off the front page.
Conspiracy theories will get you nowhere, Ken.
You are the polar opposite of Bishop White. He flees in terror at any challenge and makes no reply at all.
You, on the other hand, write 71 times more words than your challenger and make cogent and orderly, sensible response so impossible that your challenger forfeits based on not knowing where to go next, or rather, first (like a mosquito in a nudist colony), sheer exasperation, or . . . . boredom (none of which have anything whatsoever to do with ability to answer or the inadequacy of your actual argument -- insofar as it can be ascertained in the reams and reams of words).
But at least you do put up some kind of a reply, no matter how discombobulated and impossible to reply to in dialogue fashion without spending a hundred hours reinventing the wheel and doing all the usual tedious spade work that Protestants require to fully understand Catholic doctrine. For that you have my eternal admiration.
Where should I post comments?
Ken,
St Ignatius' comment was obvious hyperbole. He was saying obedience cannot be under the condition that it makes sense to YOU. That makes YOU the center again. That is our #1 temptation as men. It does not mean killing your mind. It just means directing your mind towards God and not towards yourself. Liberalism always directs thinking towards how can I get to the conclusion I want. Giving up on that agenda is the net effect of obedience to the church.
Saying you will give Jesus the last word is great. The church is the body of Christ. Obedience to the church is giving Jesus the last word. What you did was chose which word of Jesus to apply and added your own spin. So YOU are back at the center. It is human nature to do that. Once we have wiggle room we all tend to make God into our own image. Only the church can save us from that.
But nowhere does the Bible say that the human leaders after the apostles die in history are going to be infallible and get all the interpretations right.
But where does it say authority ends with the apostles? Does it say sacraments don't end when the apostles die? Why does authority need to be explicitly continued when other things are assumed to apply to today? It is because we want that authority for ourselves. That is simple rebellion against God.
Where should I post comments?
Right here if you want to do a critique (because all comments not related to posts on the front page go here). If you have a serious amount of material, I could open up a new thread devoted to this.
Thanks for the clarification. I had just stumbled across this site while looking for some resources on presuppositionalism, so I posted my comments following the relevant posts. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
As for material... Well, how much material do you want?
I have some posts from "convesations" with atheists that could be profitably adapted. Assuming, of course, that you really want to get into some of the more interesting questions in the debate.
Best...
Well, lemme look at your existing comments first. I'm assuming you are a Calvinist? Van Tillian too, perhaps?
John, I don't see where you have interacted much with the substance of Dave's arguments in those posts. Did I miss something?
And speaking of not knowing where to post something.... Hope it’s o k if I interject a few more online works here.
Homes and Haunts of Luther
http://books.google.com/books?
id...s_brr=1#PPP7,M1
And a whole slew of Patristic writings: The Fathers of the Church, a New Translation, by Schopp and Deferrari et al.
http://www.orthodox.cn/
patristic...newtrans_en.htm
And I’m embarrassed to admit my ignorance, but I just discovered in this collection a work (among many) with which I was completely unacquainted. I am referring to St. Augustine’s “Admonition and Grace” (De correptione et gratia, vol. 4, pp. 245-305).
The editor's introduction (p. 241), states that Augustine regarded this work as “his fullest and best exposition of the doctrine of perseverance.” So this one should make for very interesting reading indeed.
The works of Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo: a new translation (1872), vol. 6. Letters 1-93. http://www.archive.org/details/
t...ureli06dodsuoft
Reginald,
As for the two threads on James White, I don’t really know anything about Mr. White. I have no great desire to defend him if he is confused or unpleasant. Therefore, I limited my comments to the observation that Mr. Sproul, while valuable in other areas, is clearly confused about the nature of presuppositionalism.
Presuppositionalism requires a sometimes-difficult paradigm shift to fully grasp. I know from bloody experience. Misapprehension does not mean that one is “exceedingly stupid.” It simply means that paradigm shifts are psychologically difficult.
As to Mr. Armstrong’s comments on Dr. Bahnsen’s article, Mr. Armstrong returns repeatedly to the claim that Bahnsen is presenting a Straw Man of evidential apologetics by accusing evidential apologists of neutrality. This criticism appears to be Mr. Armstrong’s core complaint, which he repeats throughout the article. To that extent, I do think that I have interacted with the substance of his comments. I hope I have done so politely & amiably. I do not wish to be disagreeable, but I hope I have made my basic disagreements fairly clear. I hope, too, that you will not think me cowardly if I did not wish to introduce myself to this community with a lengthy criticism of our host, especially when it is possible that our disagreements can sorted out through a simple clarification of terms & issues.
Peace,
Mr. Armstrong,
I would describe myself as a Reformed Baptist, following broadly within the Van Tillian tradition, especially as developed by Greg Bahnsen on the one hand & John Frame on the other. (Both were students of Van Til.) By common consent, Dr. Van Til was a poor writer, one whose sparkling analogies sometimes appeared in the oddest places. And, no doubt, there are additional issues, clarifications, & corrections to be addressed by Christian thinkers to day & in the future. However, it is worth noting that Van Til’s writings anticipated many of the important developments in 20th Century philosophy. The challenges posed by Wittgenstein, Kuhn, Quine, Sellars, Polanyi, & Plantinga to “modern philosophy” support Van Til’s general critique of unbelief.
Peace,
John,
As I have stated several times in this forum, fighting unbeleif is very hard in this era. Sigmund Freud, Jean-Paul Satre, Jaques Derrida, Ayn Rand, Karl Marx, H.G. Wells, ect. were many of the leading proponents of atheism/secularism in the last 200 years. I will gladly except the individuals that you listed as making considerable contributions greatly to Christian apologetics. Consider this though: the growth of unbeleif grew greatly after the Reformation. Christians, having split themeselves apart, fighting over theology, while advancements made in science at that time contributed to skepticism when it was rebuked by some church officials. The doctrine of Sola Scriptora (sp?) has done more harm to Christianity than the sceptics did, if anything it gave them a solid footing. Might I add some more to your list?: C.S. Lewis, Jacques Maritain, Karl Barth, G.K. Chesterton, William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Ken Samples, Fulton Sheen, Michael Novak, Frank Sheed, and Norman Geisler. I realize these people do not fit your views, but their contributions to apologetics should not be denied either.
Randy,
Sorry it's taken me so long to reply.
To say every christian who has every asked a saint to pray for him is wrong would be arrogant.
Not if I'm right. Am I arrogant to say every person who thought they could work their way into heaven is wrong? We all agree one can't work his way into heaven...I presume. Am I arrogant to say 2 + 2 = 4? The truth spoken lovingly isn't arrogant.
That sets yourself up as a judge of many very holy people. You assume your understanding of the issue is somehow better than theirs.
First of all, judging isn't all bad. Paul said, "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. Purge the evil person from among you." (I Cor 5:12-13) Secondly, I'm not judging anyone. I'm simply pointing out what scripture says and doesn't say. It says pray to Jesus/God alone, and there's only one mediator between God and man; and it NEVER says pray to heavenly saints. Why is it arrogant to point this out?
You have to be ignorant of how many people disagree with you and what kind of Christians they were.
No I don't. I don't think King David & King Solomon were dolts, because they thought the earth was flat. They just didn't have it right on that issue. I don't think every person who's prayed to angels and heavenly saints were idiots; but I don't think they were sticking to God's Word on the issue either.
If your grasped that you would never be able to say it.
Why? Many brilliant people throughout history haven't understood the earth was round. Am I being arrogant by proclaiming it to be true?
If you grasped that you would be Catholic.
Catholic...but not Roman Catholic.
.
Sorry it's taken me so long to reply.
No problem. We are all busy.
Not if I'm right. Am I arrogant to say every person who thought they could work their way into heaven is wrong? We all agree one can't work his way into heaven...I presume. Am I arrogant to say 2 + 2 = 4? The truth spoken lovingly isn't arrogant.
If you say you can't work your way to heaven based on revelation from God that they don't have or have not adequately contemplated then you are not arrogant. You are just pointing out what God is saying and not your own opinion. If you are using the same source of information about God and they simply disagree about what it means you are being arrogant even if you are right. Your only authority is your opinion. Asking people to bow to your opinion and discard their own opinion is arrogance. Asking people to bow to the church's opinion is very different.
First of all, judging isn't all bad. Paul said, "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. Purge the evil person from among you." (I Cor 5:12-13) Secondly, I'm not judging anyone. I'm simply pointing out what scripture says and doesn't say. It says pray to Jesus/God alone, and there's only one mediator between God and man; and it NEVER says pray to heavenly saints. Why is it arrogant to point this out?
You are not simply pointing out what scripture says. You are pointing out what YOU think scripture says. You are taking YOUR opinion and giving it to God. You are being a false prophet. Claiming to speak for God when you do not. You need to grasp the implications ofyour own fallibility.
No I don't. I don't think King David & King Solomon were dolts, because they thought the earth was flat. They just didn't have it right on that issue. I don't think every person who's prayed to angels and heavenly saints were idiots; but I don't think they were sticking to God's Word on the issue either.
Saying they were not sticking to God's word is saying they were idiots. They meditated on God's word constantly and did not come to the conclusion you did. Why? You are so sure you are of what it says. What is their problem? They must be defective. All of them.
Why? Many brilliant people throughout history haven't understood the earth was round. Am I being arrogant by proclaiming it to be true?
Completely wrong analogy. You have the same bible they did. If your opinion comes from scripture and not from your tradition, your prejudice, your lack of faith, etc. then they should find it in scripture to. The roundness or flatness of the earth can be known now because there is new revelation like pictures taken from space. Sola Scriptora says there is no new revelation. Everything we know must be in scripture and it must be clear. So the saints were studying scripture and missing a bunch of it's clear teachings.
Grubb,
I tried to make my response more readable on my blog:
http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.c...-grubb/
#respond
Randy,
You did a good job to concisely recap our conversation, but leaving out my happy faces takes out some of the levity and/or intended humor. Just an observation.
Unfortunately I have to get some work done today. I'll try to comment tomorrow. As usual, I have much to say.
Dave,
I saw your post firected to Apolonio Latar on his blog, and, although I can't speak for him, not even being an aquaintance, I beleive he will here you out eventually. He has always been to me to be deeply pious, and having a very keen intellect. It would be great loss to Christian apologetics, if he were to not enter apologetics as vocation. If you would follow this link: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/ Apolonio has written several apologetic articles/debates. I think he beleives in more practical service to God, but that's just my personal opinion.
We exchanged personal letters and he assured me that he wasn't referring to me in his negative remarks about apologetics. I just wanted to be sure. We have maintained mutual links on our blogs.
Hi Dave!
Question for you:
I remember reading in one of your papers that an example of an extra-biblical tradition/reference mentioned in the Bible is the "Moses' seat" example when Jesus was talking about the authority of the Pharisees, which you said is a reference found no where in the Old Testament.
Well, my pastor was giving a message the other day (on a topic completely unrelated to Jesus' reference, actually) and was talking about Exodus 18, where I read in verse 13, "The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening." From there to the end of the chapter is all about how Moses was a judge among the Israelites, and also how he appointed others as judges to lighten the load. Do you still think that Jesus' reference is no where in the Bible, or might he have been referring to the authority spoken of in Exodus 18?
Also, on a related note, a couple of people from my church went to Israel a few months ago, and brought back pictures, stories, etc. Again without any reference to Jesus' reference, they showed pictures of an old synagogue there. I don't know if you are aware of this, but there actually is/was a literal seat in the synonagogue, called "Moses' seat," where rabbis would read from the Torah to the people there. I don't know how or if that affects your argument at all, but I thought it was an interesting fact.
Your thoughts?
Hello everyone, I have some bad news. As I have said before, I will post about my secular interests alot on this forum, as it partains to my struggles, in contomplating a more religious life. Such as yet another anime I have begun to watch, a sequel to another show that I absolutesly love. In the second episode, (which I am still watching), it features a breif interlude where two main villains are introduced, twin female assasins who are shown implicitly shown to have a incestuous intimacy with each other, and it comes dangerously close to full frontal nudity, barring camera angle shots to hide genatalia. I am not, repeat NOT, trying to make other people stumble, although my descriptions might cause disgust or disagreement among my peers here. If I have caused anyone to stumble with my secular ramblings, then by all means rebuke me, but PLEASE DON'T FLAME! if any of you feel that I am endorsing error/sin, please understand that that if I do, I do so unwillingly. I approach anime with a moderate understanding of the content from reading reviews, but I can only prepare so much beforehand. My defense of anime seems to be gaining less credibility mostly to myself, as for every anime with good, neutral entertainment, there is 20 more with objectionable content, and overall poor quality. Many see service to God as liberating, yet I can't help but see the incredibly narrow path to the Kingdom as one of burden. Intellectually, obviously, I know this as Pride, yet such is the adsurdity that we are made for God, yet seek pleasures in this life (like me). I was warned that this anime was darker than the prequels, but if this continues, I might have to abandon this series too. I hope the material was isolated, but still, it is so frustrating!
Thomas,
You need pastoral counseling. Airing this in cyberspace is not wise at all.
St. Worm,
I admit that ranting into cyberspace is not, in fact, solely healthy, but this is my only course of action for several reasons, 1) I have a slight physical handycap so I can't drive 2) More importantly, I don't know the specific timetables of any parish closest to me, 3) My parents are too busy still settling a court dispute to help me. 4) It's still uneasy for my parent's with my newfound interest in religion. There's also the issue of anime in of itself: would the counselor give me specific intructions on how to deal with it, or would he advise me to examine my own conscience. I would not blame him, if he could not give me any advice that specifically dealt with the problem, but I'm not sure; I know for a fact that my parents will be too busy over the next little while to help, so for now I'm stuck.
Hi Nick,
I would say these references / sites do not describe an office of "Moses' Seat" as a kind of succession or formal office. In that sense it is not mentioned in the OT.
Commenting by HaloScan
