Good job Dave. This guy seems quite bright and is not afraid to tackle passages most protestants avoid. I wrote a reply to his exegesis of John 6 on my blog.
I do think the idea of remnant and the idea of pillar and foundation of truth are really in conflict. A pillar and foundation of truth must teach one truth that is easily discernable. You pointed out quite well that after the reformation they multiplicity of denominations made that impossible. But before the reformation the church was either flying under the radar or it was embracing a bunch of false doctrines. Either way you can't make the pillar and foundation thing fit.
Even their own example of St Athanasius does not work. He is help up as a remnant but he is hardly protestant. How can your remnant be wrong about Mary, the eucharist, the papacy, etc. In fact, it was the authority of the pope that saved his bacon. So he wan't a successful remnant in spite of his belief in the pope but rather because of that belief. So how can you put him up as the small, true church and still say he was so wrong.
Turretinfan chimes in on his blog, writing about yours truly:
"Who knows? Perhaps the harder he lashes out, the deeper the struggle within himself. Maybe this recent spat of harsh words is symptomatic of inner turmoil.
". . . His positions are indefensible Scripturally, analytically, or rationally (S&S is in the process of demonstrating that, as so many have done before) - where else does DA have to turn but rhetoric and emotion?
"Let's keep applying the Word, and bearing testimony to the Truth. God will do the rest."
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/...ong-
dodges.html
S&S made a little "addendum" post on the invisible church:
The Eisegeted Verses, The Invisible Church
Just so that everyone’s clear…
According to Protestant theology, the visible church is composed of all who call themselves ‘Christian’ and profess the essential doctrines of the faith.
On the other hand, the invisible church is composed only of the elect. This is why Peter, instead of addressing his letter to the ‘Church’, addresses it instead to the ‘elect’ (1 Peter 1:1). This is also why Paul says that he endures all things for the sake of the ‘elect’ (2 Timothy 2:10). According to Protestant theology (and the Scriptures!), the non-elect within the visible church are interlopers.
As to the charge that this doctrine cannot be found in church history (as if the Bible isn’t part of church history!), I cite two of the fathers:
“For it is not now the place, but the assemblage of the elect, that I call the Church.” –Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata 7.5
“The second rule is about the twofold division of the body of the Lord; but this indeed is not a suitable name, for that is really no part of the body of Christ which will not be with Him in eternity. We ought, therefore, to say that the rule is about the true and the mixed body of the Lord, or the true and the counterfeit, or some such name; because, not to speak of eternity, hypocrites cannot even now be said to be in Him, although they seem to be in His Church.” – Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.32
=========================================
I replied:
Read closely. I didn't deny that there is any sense of an invisible or mystical church at all; only that it is wrong if it replaces the visible Church altogether.
Thus, St. Clement of Alexandria, as I would fully expect, has these mystical ideas (see, J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 1978 ed., 201-202), but he also believes in the visible, apostolic Church. E.g., in the same work you cite, Book VII, 17:
----------
[I]t is evident, from the high antiquity and perfect truth of the Church, that these later heresies, and those yet subsequent to them in time, were new inventions falsified [from the truth].
From what has been said, then, it is my opinion that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one, and that in it those who according to God’s purpose are just, are enrolled.
For from the very reason that God is one, and the Lord one, that which is in the highest degree honourable is lauded in consequence of its singleness, being an imitation of the one first principle. In the nature of the One, then, is associated in a joint heritage the one Church, which they strive to cut asunder into many sects.
Therefore in substance and idea, in origin, in pre-eminence, we say that the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, collecting as it does into the unity of the one faith—which results from the peculiar Testaments, or rather the one Testament in different times by the will of the one God, through one Lord—those already ordained, whom God predestinated, knowing before the foundation of the world that they would be righteous.
But the pre-eminence of the Church, as the principle of union, is, in its oneness, in this surpassing all things else, and having nothing like or equal to itself."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/
...v.vii.xvii.html
St. Augustine, of course, also believes in a visible, apostolic, authoritative Church. See many proofs along these lines in the following paper, section VII:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...tholic-
but.html
That was very enjoyable to read. Using the same two fold principle all good apologists use: first, use the opponents own logic (and accusations) against them, and second, not only answer all their significant objections (which they don’t dare do), but “raise the bar” with concluding questions for them (sadly they often end up being rhetorical).
It is worth noting that the Epistles to Titus and Timothy were in fact private letters to edify these Bishops, not for a public reading in which each man came to their own opinions about what St Paul said.
I am glad you pointed out the fact the term “bishop” is used because as we all know many denominations have no such office and thus their fidelity to Scripture is questionable right there. I also thoroughly enjoyed the quotes from your debate with White/Svendsen, that was a very sad display on their part.
As for S&S’s claim “it was given to every head of each household to teach their sons and daughters God’s law privately”
He appears to forget that this “parent teaching” was in fact the parents using tradition and scripture to teach the children, this is especially significant considering at that early on there was constant direct contact between God and Moses regarding any given situation. It isnt much different from Timothy in 2 Tim 3:14 “continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it”
NOWHERE is Tradition or authority downplayed. The very context of Deut 6:7ff is that of: “be careful that you do not forget the LORD, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.” It was this very issue of REMEMBERING the life they fled from and passing this sentiment on that was the driving force here (6:20-25 says it explicitly).
Next he says, “The invisible church manifests itself visibly when it congregates”
LOL, this doesn’t make sense one bit. EITHER it is visible or it is INVISIBLE. Either Pastor Jim is ALWAYS visibly representing “the Church” or he isnt. FURTHER what happens when two or more OPPOSING “congregations” come together? Which is the congregation that is the “visible church”? Apart from claims to historical roots it becomes a stalemate.
Finally, the utterly laughable comment, “although they agreed with Rome on almost everything, were part of that Remnant”
LOL. He must be speaking of the Early Church Fathers and even the Scholastics. WHICH of these were actually Protestants though Catholics throughout the ages never realized it? Go ahead and name some names.
To be fair, Turretinfan was just commenting on the introductory exchange. He has another post on this latest exchange which does have much more substance. I don't think he adds much. Just a little cheer leading for S&S.
Yes, TF did a rather silly running cynical commentary on the structure of my argument. Nowhere does he actually engage the argument itself. Apparently this will be the modus operandi.
More from S&S's blog (his words in italics):
Hi S&S,
Again, Dave, I don't deny the visibility of the church since it is a manifestation of the elect bride. However, that visible institution can become corrupted by the non-elect as Satan sows the tares amongst the wheat.
I agree 100% that institutions can and do become corrupt. The Catholic Church went through several terrible periods of corruption and decadence. There were several "bad popes", etc.
During the time of the prophets, the visible institution became corrupted by idolaters and no longer taught the true faith. It became so corrupt that God had to destroy the whole nation, uproot everyone, and only send back the faithful.
But that was during the Old Covenant. In the New Covenant, Jesus has promised that His Church would never defect (Matt 16:18 ). This is so because it is God's will, not because men are more holy now than they were before. It always goes back to God's grace and power and providence and omnipotence.
During the time of Athanasius, the Arians took over all but a handful of the bishoprics including the apostolic sees. They had control of the Catholic Church. They WERE the *visible* Catholic Church. Athanasius contra mundum, remember? Yet, the Trinitarians who didn't possess any of the sees (or very few) and who only gathered in secret were the REAL church. The REAL church is only composed of the elect.
I've already documented how this is a myth, a fiction. The Arians never controlled the Catholic Church: the Church headed by the pope in Rome. It never happened. They overran many of the eastern patriarchates for long periods of time, as I documented in papers 15 years ago. But not Rome. How could Athanasius seek refuge in the Roman See if Rome, too, had been taken over by the Arians? You can't document that it has. Prove it, if you think it is so. so far all you have provided is empty claims, whereas I have documented councils and cited reputable Protestant reference works to the contrary.
Also, of course Augustine believed that the visible church of his day was the Catholic Church. It taught true doctrine. That doesn't take away that the visible institution can become corrupted and God could "start-over", like in the days of the Old Testament prophets, with a new visible institution using His same invisible church, the elect.
The visible Church can never become completely corrupted, so that it has forsaken the Christian faith. This is one of the many self-contradictions of anti-Catholicism. The anti-Catholic has to fight against the Bible and history both to claim that there was such a thing as a visible, apostolic Church all those years, that supposedly condemned the gospel in the 16th century and left the fold, and then Luther and Calvin picked up the ball and became this "new" Church that you refer to.
Do you intend to comprehensively respond to my arguments in my lengthy counter-reply or not? You have a lot to do, assuredly, and people are looking for straight answers.
S&S continues on his blog:
"But that was during the Old Covenant. In the New Covenant, Jesus has promised that His Church would never defect (Matt 16:1
."
When you critique Protestant theology, it is helpful to try to think of the way in which we would exegete any verse from the standpoint of our own theology so as not to commit the fallacy of begging the question.
As I said in my post, whenever the New Testament writers refer to "church", they are almost always using that as a synonym for 'elect'.
Thus, I would interpret "church" in Matt. 16:18 to refer to the invisible church. In other words, within the paradigm of my own theology, I could affirm this verse as much as you can (though with a different meaning) and still have the visible church become so corrupt that God can start over with a new visible church (though the invisible church never changes).
Secondly, Matt. 16:18 has nothing to do with indefectability. [Though, I would affirm that the invisible church (i.e. the elect) could never become corrupted since that was the promise of the New Covenant as found in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.] Gates are defensive blockades, not offensive weapons which the church has to defend against. Thus, it is the church militant who will triumph in breaking into the devil's dominion to bring back a host of captives (I am at work and so I can't give you any Scripture to cite). It is a promise of evangelism, not infallibility, but we can discuss this when I get to that point in your book.
"I've already documented how this is a myth, a fiction."
I don't know of anyone else who really denies this. First of all, the appeal by Athanasius to Rome didn't mean that he viewed Rome as the head of all Christendom. That's a misreading of church history that's common among RC apologists. Second, wasn't Liberius deposed and Felix II, the anti-pope, took his place? Didn't Liberius sign the creed of Sirmium provoking Hilary of Poitiers to say:
“I anathematize you Liberius and your associates…Anathema to you prevaricating Liberius, twice and thrice!”
-Hilary of Poitiers, as found in William Webster, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Vol. II (Battle Ground, Washington: Christian Resources, 2001), p.449.
And in another place:
“I say anathema to the prevaricator and the Arians!”
-Hilary of Poitiers, as found in William Webster, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Vol. II (Battle Ground, Washington: Christian Resources, 2001), p.450.
Dollinger comments:
“Liberius purchased his return from exile from the Emporer by condemning Athanasius, and subscribing an Arian creed. ‘Anathema to thee, Liberius!’ was then the cry of zealous Catholic bishops like Hilary of Poitiers. This apostasy of Liberius sufficed, through the whole of the middle ages, for a proof that Popes could fall into heresy as well as other people.”
-Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), p.56.
My reply:
As I said, the Catholic position does not rule out any notion whatever of an invisible or mystical Church. So Calvinist and Catholic ecclesiology on that point are not as far apart as some might think. But I think it is fair to say that we emphasize the visible Church proportionately more, whereas Calvinists place relatively more emphasis on the invisible church of the elect.
Either way, your task is to explain how your conception of the Church (whatever it is, and whatever Calvin's is) can make sense of the Church being the pillar and bulwark of truth. This is impossible for a Protestant to do. Hence, virtually none even try to do so anymore, because I think they realize deep down that they can't possibly do it, given the state of Protestantism, with so many mutually contradictory beliefs and doctrines.
I knew Liberius would be brought up. He signed one more or less vague statement under extreme duress and compulsion. He didn't sign a second statement that was more explicit. Even the first was not promulgated as binding on the Catholic Church. It wasn't even agreed to with the pope's free will in the first place.
The Catholic Church never formally adopted Arianism. If you think otherwise, again, prove it. The documents are all out there. Show where we supposedly switched over from orthodox trinitarianism to Arianism. That should be easy enough if you believe it happened in history. Theoretically, even popes could be personal heretics. We believe only that they will never proclaim that heresy shall become binding on all Catholics.
For more on Liberius, see the article, "The Alleged Fall of Pope Liberius"
http://www.mwt.net/~lnpalm/librius1.htm
Also, a comment by Cardinal Newman:
http://www.newmanreader.org/work...cs/part3-
2.html
First of all, the appeal by Athanasius to Rome didn't mean that he viewed Rome as the head of all Christendom.
I didn't claim that he did. He may have; he may not have. I'm sure there are reasonable people who differ. But that forms no part of my present argument, which is that Rome didn't succumb to the Arian heresy, and that because of this, Athanasius took refuge there, physically and theologically. He could do that whether he regarded the pope as head of all Christendom or as the foremost of equals, as the east tended to think, and the Orthodox after they split off.
Either way, it has no bearing on whether Rome defected from orthodox Christology or not.
That's a misreading of church history that's common among RC apologists.
Perhaps so, but it is irrelevant in our present argument.
Hi Dave
If S&S is going to trot out liberius as "proof" that Rome fell into Arianism shouldn't we point out that when the Bishop of Constantinople fell, that fact was shouted from the rooftops of the city. Yet when Rome fell all we got was rumors of the Pope's falling and three different creeds 2 of which were vague in wording.
OK. Then, I don't get your argument. What are you trying to argue for when you bring up Athanasius?
I guess you have forgotten parts of your own argument:
The true remnant of God never died and cannot die (Matthew 16:18 ), but the visible/outward authority can just as it did under Elijah the prophet or under Athanasius during the Arian ascendancy (see the Luther quotes above). [your post]
During the time of Athanasius, the Arians took over all but a handful of the bishoprics including the apostolic sees. They had control of the Catholic Church. They WERE the *visible* Catholic Church. Athanasius contra mundum, remember?
[Comments above]
This was your claim. I have denied it by saying that the Roman see did not officially succumb to heresy. I gave evidence for same. I stated that how could it be heretical at the same time that Athanasius was appealing to it for refuge? So that makes no sense.
Then you resorted to the later incident with Pope Liberius, using the garden variety anti-papal arguments of Dollinger, regurgitated by David T. King.
I have denied that Liberius promulgated heresy to be believed by the entire Church. It is NOT true that "They had control of the Catholic Church" as you claim. Liberius was forced to sign a semi-Arian statement by compulsion and ill treatment. If I came to your house and said I would poke your eye out or something if you didn't concede the argument with me, and you succumbed to physical threat, would that really represent your true opinion? Of course not.
To use an analogy, during the Reformation there were probably not a few Roman Catholic strongholds in Europe where Protestant writers could write as they pleased without physical threat (though the bishops wouldn't have accepted the theology).
We had no such luxury after you guys started stealing our monasteries and churches and forbidding the Mass. Do you really want to go down this road?
As to Rome being a safe-haven theologically, I don't know what you mean by that. Do you mean that they accepted the same theology?
Rome never became officially Arian. I have challenged you to prove this but you cannot.
That wouldn't be true since there was an Arian sitting on the chair of Peter.
That's not true. There was a man who was forced to sign a statement that he neither believed himself nor wrote himself.
Athanasius was free to believe what he wished,
As long as he was protected by the Roman See.
but then again, so were many Protestant writers during the Reformation.
And some Catholic ones.
Do you mean that he could still accept communion?
Where?
As to Liberius,
It wasn't so much what the creed said that made the signing heretical as much as what it didn't say. By signing the creed which didn't contain the homoousian clause, he was officially accepting the semi-Arian position. The creed was heretical by silence.
This is a big discussion in itself, and I refuse to go very far with it at this point because it is a side issue of a side track of a side track:
1) visibility
2) indefectibility
3) Liberius as a supposed proof of Roman and visible defectibility.
But you support one of the points I made. How can Liberius be accused of positively promulgating heresy for simply an omission? It's an argument from silence. It certainly proves neither that he was a heretic, let alone that he proclaimed heresy for all Catholics to believe.
This is why Hilary anathematized him for signing it, and it is why many of the Medieval theologians used Liberius' example as proof that the Pope could err in his official capacity.
There are all sorts of debates about these things, and Catholics differ amongst themselves on some fine points. All that matters in our present debate is that Rome never officially became Arian. You can play with this all you like but it doesn't prove your point.
the "remnant" argument is generally ridiculous, since any group can claim it: sspx, old-calendarist greeks, russian old-believers, anglican continuum, lcms, sda's, baptists... it's standard schismatic boilerplate when one trots it out as an alternative to real ecclesiology.
the notion does have its legitimate applications _within_ ecclesiology-- when one speaks, for instance, of the Catholic remnant in ukraine or romania or siberia**, or of that remnant of the american Church not swept away in the modernist crises. these, in the context of Catholic ecclesiology, are genuine 'remants'.
within a well-developed ecclesiology, one can make a meaningful (if not necessarily true) claim to be a 'remnant'. the lcms or the "orthodox presbyterian church" would be decent non-Catholic examples of this (though of course, their respective ecclesiologies concur neither with one another nor with mine); both have a notion of what "the church" is, where the majority have fallen, and who has preserved the truth.
without that ecclesiological clarity, though, it just gets you nowhere to claim to be the 'remnant'. everyone does, and without the necessary grounding in clear thought about history and structure it's just a piece of rhetoric.
anyone who claims that their entire church is a "remnant" of another, will soon be faced with the prospect of a "remnant of the remnant". and so on.
since protestantism was never a unified or coherent movement even in its very inception (let alone today), any claim that "protestantism" --as if there were a single thing so called-- represents a Christian 'remnant', is laughable prima facie.
(**yes, siberian catholics! a genuine 'remnant'... http://rumkatkilise.org/necplus.htm)
It looks like S&S is setting the stage to ignore my paper and avoid defending his own positions:
--------------------------
Here’s Dave’s attempted rebuttal [link to my long reply]. I would encourage everyone (who has the time!) to read my post [link], write down the specific points/arguments/counter-arguments that I made, read Dave’s post, and see if he actually responded meaningfully with anything I said. Good luck!
Voluminous writing tends to obscure the real issues, divert the topic elsewhere, and make one’s opponents look like they said something they didn’t.
Also, here [link] is Turretinfan’s analysis of Dave’s ‘rebuttal’.
http://contra-gentes.blogspot.co...hurch-
part.html
---------------------------------
I'm of a mind at this point to end my participation in this sham "dialogue" if he goes ahead and ignores my reply. That would amply qualify this as a Pauline "vain conversation", as far as I am concerned. My patience with this runaround with anti-Catholics and their intellectual cowardice and lamebrain excuses for same is just about at its end by now.
Randy asked over there:
"So Dave's rebuttal is 27 pages and you find it too long? I hope you don't plan to do any serious work as a theology scholar. That requires a lot of reading which you seem incapable of."
S&S replied:
"It's not that I find it too long. It's just that he rants and raves ad nauseam and ends up drifting away from the issue. Nevertheless, I will give a short response later."
https://www.blogger.com/
comment.g...094199069946462
I'm through right now with this farce-of-a-pseudo-"dialogue". I was stupid enough to be drawn into it. But it was worthwhile to demonstrate once what little substance these criticisms of my book had, and how indefensible they are (judging by my opponents' apprehensive behavior and evasions).
I won't even read S&S's "short reply". We know that even it will be filled with straw men and obfuscation and obscurantism, seeing how he characterizes my reply. There is no hope of achieving a true, constructive dialogue with these clowns Jonathan Prejean is exactly right.
I've known it for a long time, too, but idealism dies hard. I am nothing if not an idealist: always hoping that reason and dialogue can break through any error.
Probably the only way you could keep these guys on-topic and focused at all would be a live chat dialogue, but they always refuse that. White has twice, and Swan refused too, when challenged.
Be sure also to read the two relevant posts about how this "dialogue" was sabotaged by S&S, that I added to the thread of the "Too Long to Respond" post:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=34153#152672
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=34153#152673
I may have rambled a bit over on S&S's blog but I thought I would cross-post it here as well:
(in the combox of his latest post about the unclear clarification of the "invisible" church)
-start-
Well, I don't believe I've posted any straw men, but I have asked a question elsewhere in the comboxes which has remained unanswered: As far as the "invisible church" being made up of the regenerate, how do you know who the regenerate are? Since the question touches on, among other things, your assurance of salvation and the authority of what you allege to be the sole infallible rule of faith, it behooves you to demonstrate who the regenerate are so that those among the regenerate who claim to be called to the episcopate (eldership, ordained ministry, whatever name you wish to give the office depending upon your ecclesiology/denominational distinctive) can be relied upon to "give the lie," as it were from your perspective, to the denial of absolute assurance/perseverance and sola scriptura. I'll elaborate if necessary, but I really don't want a "tu quoque" answer. You have asserted that:
"When Christ and the apostles spoke of the “church”, almost always, they were referring to a group set called the “elect”, those who had been predestined unto eternal life from the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:1-4, 2 Timothy 2:10, 1 Peter 1:1-2, Jude 1, etc.)."
I would like to know how you can this is so "almost always." Please give me chapter and verse.
Are you saying everyone in the Ephesian church to whom St. Paul wrote was regenerate? There was no darnel among the wheat in Ephesus then?
Please explain how you know that "the elect" always and every time refers exclusively to those who will ultimately persevere. Why would St. Paul exhort the hearers of some of the very epistes you cited to not fall away if they couldn't fall away?
It is my contention (although not original to me, of course) that to remain faithful to the meaning of the texts and condust proper exegesis one must understand that there is an "election" and then there is an election.
1 Cor. 1:2 is followed by 1:18. Note St. Paul here (and elsewhere) even includes himself among those who are being saved, not as though it were a one-time past-only event, but a process. Elsewhere he decries presumption of final perseverance even for himself, even as he never hesitates to refer to himself in magisterial terms, e.g., Apostle, etc.)
No doubt you are aware that there were office-holders who could, indeed, prophesy and speak authoritatively (or, rather, through whom God spoke authoritatively) who were not regenerate. (Caiaphas comes to mind.) The Catholic Church has always maintained the principle of ex opere operato with regard to sacramental efficacy (not laying aside the separate other half of the equation, namely ex opere operantis). The same underlying idea is applicable to teaching, preaching, etc. (Cf. Phillipians 1:15ff.)
God can use even Satan to te
cont'd:
God can use even Satan to teach Hymenaus and Alexander not to blaspheme.
Rev. 2:9 seems quite clearly to be referring to those members of Israel who did not keep the Covenant and/or rejected Christ. Jude 4ff speaks of those false teachers as "twice dead." This is consistent with Hebrews 6:4-12, etc. Matthew 24:24 has our Lord indicating the hypothetical possibility of the elect (whom you allege will always be eschatologically elect) being deceived and led astray. Why are you using a verse which speaks of the "elect" as possibly becoming a "Synagogue of Satan," anyway? Who is committing eisegesis, here?
Excellent. If you can actually get answers you've done better than I did. Good luck! It should also be noted that John Calvin taught that we can't know for sure who is in the elect, or even if we are ourselves.
Quite so. I remember reading of a Puritan in Rhode Island, I think, who started dwelling on this so much that he eventually concluded that everyone else in the church had shown by their fruit that they were never regenerate. He sort of wound up hermit like with his wife, and was pretty sure she wasn't either.
I am not holding my breath for anything more than the "tu quoque" I expressly asked not to receive. I am willing to lay odds that someone will criticize the two or three typos/accidentally omitted word instead.
I stand corrected. S&S did offer something at least more than a dismissal:
https://www.blogger.com/
comment.g...094199069946462
I posted a follow up. Let's see what develops.
Another thoughtful response from S&S, and another reply from me on his thread. Hope you don't mind if I mention them here, Dave.
Nope. Good for you. If he had actually replied to my stuff too and not ignored and mocked much of it, I'd still be discussing things with him.
Watch, though, for the tactic to possibly be used soon of setting yourself up against me, with you being the "reasonable" Catholic and myself as the unreasonable one who wouldn't even keep talking. The good cop / bad cop routine . . .
Commenting by HaloScan
