Combox for:
Critique of Bedrock (Self-Defeating) Protestant Principles of Authority
[25 September 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-
defeating.html
Brother Dave,
I appreciate this latest entry, and have many affinities to your view of things. I did want to, if you could indulge me a bit, play the part of the interlocutor and try to address your argument from all angles, to see if there are any logical inconsistencies. For while I feel the weight of your argument, I would like to think the best minds of the classical Protestant tradition as having already dealt with your arguments at length. Perhaps with some dialogue we can dig a bit deeper in this matter to see if your position won't hold out under logical scrutiny.
--CONTINUED NEXT POST--
My first series of questions to you, brother Dave, are these:
Is infallibility a precondition to certainty?
If yes, then do you know this from an infallible source or a fallible one?
If the source is fallible, might you not have erred about whether the Church is truly infallible?
If you say, "Impossible" and yet you assert you are of yourself fallible, then I believe you are no less a Protestant in this matter than most classical Protestants.
Dear St. Worm,
At the back of all this is which system stands up. Catholics believe in a Divinely-ordained infallible Church. That's part of their system. Protestants don't. Protestants don't believe in an infallibly ordained Church. It's not part of their system.
Within the Catholic system it is LOGICAL to say-this is the Truth of a given situation, moral problem, and they are confident of that Truth because they beleive in a divinely ordained Church, as I've said.
Within the Protestant system there is no Divinely-ordained Church so the Protestant cannot possibly say-'this is the definitve truth' of a given situation, moral problem. because he has no objective authority to define for him what is the truth.
But Protestans are always pontificating on what is the Truth. But withing the Protestant system objective truth cannot be had, by definition.
So there is an inconsitency there.
An inconsistency in the Protestant system.
It doesn't work. The thing breaks down.
It's not logical, coherent.
That's how you should judge it.
It's pointless trying to undermine words like infallible. The thing is set. What you've got to decide is which one is correct?
Thanks,
Hey Brother St. Worm (I feel like St. Francis . . .),
I appreciate this latest entry, and have many affinities to your view of things.
Cool. Maybe one day we can persuade you of the infallibility of popes, councils, and the Church, and we can be even more alike.
I did want to, if you could indulge me a bit, play the part of the interlocutor and try to address your argument from all angles, to see if there are any logical inconsistencies.
There are few things I enjoy more!
For while I feel the weight of your argument, I would like to think the best minds of the classical Protestant tradition as having already dealt with your arguments at length.
Please direct me to some of these treatments. I'd love to see them. As I noted in the paper, most Protestants today don't even make any claim to fullness of truth anymore. They are flat-out "pessimists" and theological semi-relativists compared to the robust faith of the apostles, fathers, and Catholics.
Perhaps with some dialogue we can dig a bit deeper in this matter to see if your position won't hold out under logical scrutiny.
Fire away!
My first series of questions to you, brother Dave, are these:
Is infallibility a precondition to certainty?
It depends on how one defines "certainty." I would say, briefly, that Catholics and any Christian who accepts apostolic succession, can have the certainty or certitude of faith, which is not absolute (being faith, after all), but is highly dependable and sufficient for a person to know the truth of the matter beyond a reasonable doubt.
Infallibility is assumed in the Bible and by the apostles and fathers. We see it particularly in the Jerusalem Council. They certainly felt as if their ruling was infallible and binding; guided by the Holy Spirit Himself (Acts 15:28 ). Paul is described as going out and proclaiming the teachings of the Council (Acts 16:4).
If yes, then do you know this from an infallible source or a fallible one?
Much more than an infallible source: a divinely inspired ("God-breathed") one: Holy Scripture.
If the source is fallible, might you not have erred about whether the Church is truly infallible?
Since Scripture isn't fallible , the question is moot.
If you say, "Impossible" and yet you assert you are of yourself fallible, then I believe you are no less a Protestant in this matter than most classical Protestants.
Moot point again. Scripture also teaches papal infallibility (at least of a sort, or in effect), in the opinion, not just of Catholic scholars, but Protestant ones:
"So Peter, in T.W. Manson's words, is to be 'God's vicegerent . . . The authority of Peter is an authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community. His decisions will be confirmed by God'" (The Sayings of Jesus, 1954, p.205)
(New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1018 )
"Not only is Peter to have a leading role, but this role involves a daunting degree of authority (though not an authority which he alone carries, as may be seen from the repetition of the latter part of the verse in 18:18 with reference to the disciple group as a whole)."
(R.T. France; in Morris, Leon, Gen. ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, 256)
"Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord puts the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so does Jesus hand over to Peter the keys of the house of the kingdom of heaven and by the same stroke establishes him as his superintendent."
(Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1952 French ed., 183-184)
"And what about the "keys of the kingdom"? . . . About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . (Isa. 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward."
(F.F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1983, 143-144)
Even in Old Testament times, some were granted this gift of special protection from error; for example, the Levites, who were teachers, among other things:
Malachi 2:6-8: "True instruction was in his mouth, and no wrong was found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many from iniquity. For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts."
For much more on this, see:
Biblical Evidence for Papal and Church Infallibility
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...and-
church.html
The Biblical, Primitive Papacy: St. Peter & the "Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven": Scholarly Opinion (Mostly Protestant)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...y-st-
peter.html
The Biblical, Primitive Papacy: St. Peter the "Rock": Scholarly Opinion (Mostly Protestant)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...peter-
rock.html
Reflections on the Papacy: Papal Infallibility and Concluding Postscripts
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...pacy-
papal.html
Interact with the seven part defense of Sola Scriptura by Michael C. Patton
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org...bout-the-canon/
We have a term that we use for people who require infallible certainty about everything: “mentally ill.” Remember What About Bob? He was mentally ill because he made decisions based on the improbability factor. Because it was a possibility that something bad could happen to him if he stepped outside his house, he assumed it would happen. There are degrees of probability. We act according to degrees of probability. Simply because it is a possibility that the sun will not rise tomorrow does not mean that it is a probability that it won’t.
The same can be said about the canon and interpretation of Scripture. Just because there is a possibility that we are wrong (being fallible), does not mean that it is a probability. Therefore, we look to the evidence for the degree of probability concerning Scripture.
2. The smoke screen of epistemological certainty that seems to be provided by having a living infallible authority (Magisterium) disappears when we realize that we all start with fallibility. No one would claim personal infallibility. Therefore it is possible for all of us to be wrong. We all have to start with personal fallible engagement in any issue. Therefore, any belief in an infallible living authority could be wrong. As Geisler and MacKenzie put it, “The supposed need for an infallible magisterium is an epistemically insufficient basis for rising above the level of probable knowledge. Catholic scholars admit, as they must, that they do not have infallible evidence that there is an infallible teaching magisterium. They have merely what even they believe to be only probable arguments. But if this is the case, then epistemically or apologetically there is no more than a probable basis for Catholics to believe that a supposedly infallible pronouncement [either about the canon or interpretation of the canon] of their church is true” (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, p. 216).
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/
Also, you need to interact with David Waltz's positive assessment of the Triablogue article that is worth reading.
RCC arguments against Sola Scriptura have failed completely.
You make a big stretch from those Protestant quotes about Peter and authority to "infallibity of the Pope".
You did not show that at all; and it is completely unbiblical; and the easiest of all RCC dogma that proves the whole thing is false.
What is the reference in the New Bible Dictionary?
you didn't provide the quote. (maybe I am missing something?); and since you are using the 1962 version; the page number is probably different from the 1996 revised and updated edition. Could you give the quote and the article it is under?
page 1018 in the 1996 printing I have is about the book of Revelation, nothing about Peter or Matthew 16 or 18 or the other classic proof-texts for RCC Petrine authority.
your reference:
(New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1018 )
I already annihilated your argument, Ken, in my last post.
You've also proven you are mentally ill (as well as intellectually suicidal), since every Protestant (indeed every true Christian) "requires infallible certainty about everything" in the Bible itself, which is far more than infallible. It's God-breathed and inspired.
So you are clearly mentally ill, to need so much certainty. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
I always had a sneaking suspicion about your mental health. Now the cat's out of the bag. You yourself removed from the suspicion all doubt. And you didn't even know that you did, which is the funniest and funnest part of all.
p. 1018 in the 1962 version refers to the article "Power," written by R.N. Caswell.
You did not annihilate any argument or do anything new -- you have not interacted at all with Patton or Triablogue or Waltz.
You just rehashed your old papers.
We don't require the Bible to be infallible, it already is.
The RCC is "mentally ill" because that is not good enough for him; the Bible is not good enough for him -- he requires another human authority to come along and give him infallible certainty about the interpretations of the Bible, a supposed umpire who can walk into the room and settle all interpretation disputes and give the sensitive soul a feeling of security and certainty. (which has never happened anyway.)
Your position is the "mentally ill" one, because it requires you to be infallibly certain about something. God never puts that burden on us. You use epistemology and philosophical arguments to put doubts about the Bible into the minds of evangelicals and protestants. (The whole Scott Hahn, Newman, Sungenis, Matatics movement)
The Protestant position is only that the Bible is infallible, it had nothing to do with our subjective understanding of the Bible being infallible. God does not require the burden to be put on us humans, that you RCs and RC apologists put on people in trying to get protestants to doubt things and their need for an alleged "infallible interpreter".
Thanks for the article reference from NBD - got it.
p. 946 of the newer edition.
The article has much more that qualifies that statement by T. W. Manson, and anyway, it comes nowhere close to a Protestant affirming "Papal infallibility".
church authority and church discipline is one thing, which Protestants agree on; papal infallibility is a stretch.
One day you'll get it, Ken. We're all praying for ya (asking the blessed Virgin Mary, especially, to intercede).
And please, read my arguments carefully, so you don't misrepresent them. Thanks!
I'll check out Patton, with whom I have interacted in the past.
I looked over the Patton series, and am impressed. I decided to interact with it, and wrote on his blog:
--------------------
Hi Michael,
Hope you are well and blessed these days.
Your in-depth series defending sola Scriptura has just been brought to my attention by one Ken Temple (a Baptist pastor), on my blog. I've looked it over and it looks like it a very respectable piece of work indeed.
I'd like to critique it at length, from my Catholic perspective. Perhaps you and your readers would enjoy interacting as I go along, either here or on my blog, or in both places. You're all most welcome on mine, and will be treated with respect. Ken just implied (and not just as a joke) that Catholics are mentally ill because we believe in the infallibility of the Church, but that's okay; we have a lot of fun and tease each other, and he can be a very entertaining guy.
I eagerly look forward to dialoguing with you (if you want to) and interacting with your series. It's refreshing to see a vigorous Protestant treatment of this all-important issue of authority and Holy Scripture, that is not from an anti-Catholic perspective (i.e., the position that denies that orthodox Catholics are Christians altogether).
I commend you for your thoughtfulness and zeal. I admire it, and respect the effort you have put into this. I also enjoyed our past interactions.
No promises on how soon I can do this (right now I'm working furiously on a new book of mine, trying to finish it, and it is extremely laborious), but it is on my agenda. Maybe I'll do some sort of beginning this weekend, but my family is busy doing some things then, too. After my book is finished it will definitely be a high priority, because I regard this as a truly fundamental, presuppositional issue between Catholics and Protestants. Everything else rests (in both systems) on how we come down on this.
God bless,
Dave
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org...s/#comment-
8060
You have got to read this article regarding Calvinists and "certainty":
http://www.nicenetruth.com/home/
...esuppositi.html
In short what the article is saying is the fact that Calvinists believe in Total Depravity, in which the effects are only diminished by conversion (but not removed), means their conclusions are always tainted by sin RESULTING in perpetual fallibility.
This argument is DIFFERENT from the one to one comparison of "your opinion versus mine" which we often see here and elsewhere. The total depravity system PRECLUDES the notion of certainty and infallibility. Catholics, on the other hand, reject total depravity and instead teach grace raises up man's nature, and in this case certainty and infallibility are not precluded but in fact very possible/logical.
Total Depravity does not mean man is as bad as he can be, but rather that nature is corrupted (as opposed to stripped of super-added grace, like in Catholicism), and thus EVERY act is tainted by sin. This makes infallibility/certainty logically impossible because any act of interpretation is tainted by sin. Even as a Christian, the Calvinist's thought and actions are tainted by sin, the difference is that as a Christian God graciously overlooks the fault and even imputes a value of "good" to actions.
Catholicism doesn't suffer from this because objectively good acts are possible, and man is not "totally depraved" so every act is not tainted by sin. Further, grace raises up objectively good works to supernaturally (above nature) good works. In this system you can logically claim God infuses faith and enlightens the intellect allowing for the possibility of certainty and infallibility.
WHETHER or not you believe the Catholic is giving a fallible opinion to a claim of certainty or infallibility DOES NOT change the fact the Catholic is building from a logical foundation while the Calvinist foundation PREcludes such investigation and building.
What do you guys think?
I never looked it that way but it is rather logical, good work Nick.
I love sniping tulip(s)
Brother Dave,
Thank you for your responses. And thank you for letting me play Devil's Advocate. Again I stress that these questions are for testing your position, and in no way reflects my genuine opinion of things. Like I said, I stand with you on a great many things, so the spirit of this is truly non-combative, rather it is more akin to grappling and sparring -- but for the sake of truth.
You've given me a bunch of things to consider, and perhaps in due time I can respond to every one of your points, but something is sticking out in my mind, and I must insist we dig a bit more deeply in the question of certainty and the need for infallibility.
Do you say Scripture guarantees infallibility to the Church perpetually by implication only or by explication? You say the Scripture "assumes" infallibility of the Apostolic band, which I agree, but I have to wonder in that statement how broadly the Scripture applies the notion. Are there limits and constraints to how the idea is applied? And do you find out from the text itself the character of such infallibility? If yes, then where? I'd be interested to see how you textually flesh that out.
Also, what you say regarding the Fathers, I cannot simply agree (no disrespect intended towards you -- but you see how such a sticky wicket patrology can be), I'd have to see a litany of testimony of the Eastern and Western Fathers to feel rather confident in the idea that it was a universally held belief.
Blessings to you!
P.S. while up here in Wisconsin on a 6 month developer contract job, and while I've had no Anglican church anywhere close by to go to, I've been attending a fully in-communion Roman Catholic Tridentine Mass each Sunday (not to worry, I don't commune). Belongs to some Institute of Christ the King ministry. The church was filled with beautiful ancient hymns from a choir-loft, accompanied by a pipe organ. It was jam-packed with young families, and a sea of veiled heads to boot (99% of the women there were covered)! I love it. The lines to the confessionial were *backed up* even while the liturgy was going. Such a blessing indeed to see the traditional forms taking hold. The diocese up here seems very supportive of the extraordinary Masses. God bless Pope Benedict XVI.
Hello all. I wrote the Van Til critique linked above and have also made my mp3 apologetic lectures available:
http://www.nicenetruth.com/home/...yers-
apolo.html
Jay
Dave,
You write:
"Protestants can claim whatever they like about possessing "fullness of truth." That's easy. But they can't prove this. If some Protestant thinks he can, let him try. I'd love to see it. The Catholic. on the other hand, believes there is a divinely-protected Church, established by Christ, that preserves the fullness of the apostolic deposit through apostolic succession. That's a consistent (and patristic and biblical) view. It requires faith, sure, but it is thoroughly based both on the Bible and Church history."
and
"I've proven this scores of times in debates. The Protestant always flees when they realize they have no answer and that their system is pure subjectivism in the end. They simply have no answer to these sorts of fundamental critiques..."
This is highly problematic from an epistemological point of view. You seem to be saying that Protestants do not have the certainty of truth that Catholics do, because of the promise of infallibility in the Church (which the reformers ditched).
This doesn't make sense. You even admit that the promise of infallibility takes faith, meaning you can' t prove it. Therefore, this promise is based on a subjective principle - faith. You can't claim Catholics have objective certainty and Protestants have subjective confusion.
Protestants do make claims about infallibly defined doctrines (e.g. divinity of Christ, Resurrection, Trinity, etc.). The only difference between a Catholic and a Protestant that I see is the former believe this infallibility is anchored in the Holy Spirit working through the Magisterium of the Church (guided by Scripture and Tradition), the latter place this infallibility in the Holy Spirit working through the individual believer (guided by Scripture and to a certain extent, Tradition).
If you say the Catholic position is objective because the infallible interpretation of Scripture and Tradition is placed outside the individual (contra Protestantism), the easy rebuttal is that the very belief that this "infallible interpretation is found in the Church" is subjective because it is an article of faith.
Finally, you say:
"I know, because I've been in dozens of such debates myself, with many of the leading fundamentalist Protestant debaters."
When you say Protestants do not have answers, this is surely because of the kind of Protestants you are debating - fundamentalists. Plenty of educated Protestants do have answers to your objections. It's unfair to characterize the Protestant position as "self-defeating" and "inconsistent".
Thank you for your responses. And thank you for letting me play Devil's Advocate. Again I stress that these questions are for testing your position, and in no way reflects my genuine opinion of things. Like I said, I stand with you on a great many things, so the spirit of this is truly non-combative, rather it is more akin to grappling and sparring -- but for the sake of truth.
Good. Surely you don't accept papal infallibility, as an Anglican. I suppose an Anglican can accept conciliar infallibility, though I think the Protestant elements of Anglicanism would make that problematic at some point.
You've given me a bunch of things to consider, and perhaps in due time I can respond to every one of your points,
Fair enough. It's getting pretty boring around here, debate-wise. I'm glad to have some feedback from more folks than usual.Seems like every time I tackle the authority issue it gets a lot of response. And well it should.
but something is sticking out in my mind, and I must insist we dig a bit more deeply in the question of certainty and the need for infallibility
Okay.
Do you say Scripture guarantees infallibility to the Church perpetually by implication only or by explication? You say the Scripture "assumes" infallibility of the Apostolic band, which I agree, but I have to wonder in that statement how broadly the Scripture applies the notion. Are there limits and constraints to how the idea is applied? And do you find out from the text itself the character of such infallibility? If yes, then where? I'd be interested to see how you textually flesh that out.
Excellent questions. I'm not sure I could answer all these questions specifically or that Scripture itself does, or intends to. I have to appeal back to the arguments I have already produced. I find the Jerusalem Council example to be the most explicit example I am aware of. I don't see how one can escape that. It's conciliar infallibility, and a good argument can be made that Peter pretty much presided and confirmed, which is the Catholic model, not the Orthodox or Anglican.
We would expect everything to be relatively undeveloped, but I find all the essentials of the Catholic ecclesiology in place: papal supremacy, apostolic succession, tradition, episcopacy, and conciliar infallibility. The argument then becomes (for many) how it applies to future generations. I think that is common sense: What is in the Bible is normative for ecclesiology: both the doctrinal teaching and how we see it working in practice in the Book of Acts. I think it is all there.
I think because all of that is in place in Scripture and early Tradition, the Fathers follow suit and pretty much agree (though less on the nature of the papacy than on the other things). We can discuss more particulars as we go, because it was a very wide-ranging question and can go in many different directions.
Also, what you say regarding the Fathers, I cannot simply agree (no disrespect intended towards you -- but you see how such a sticky wicket patrology can be), I'd have to see a litany of testimony of the Eastern and Western Fathers to feel rather confident in the idea that it was a universally held belief.
One can't find complete agreement among Eastern fathers on the papacy, of course, but there is more than Orthodox usually claim, with strong statements from many prominent Eastern fathers.
I would say as a Catholic that the East (insofar as it disagreed) simply got this wrong. That wasn't unusual in the early centuries. They were wrong on several major issues, according to the joint beliefs of both later parties. Cardinal Newman wrote about the mass apostasy of Eastern bishops in the 5th century, so that if Rome hadn't remained firm, they would have barely stayed orthodox (in Christology) at all. So to be wrong on the papacy is just one more instance of Eastern error.
Blessings to you!
And you!
P.S. while up here in Wisconsin on a 6 month developer contract job, and while I've had no Anglican church anywhere close by to go to, I've been attending a fully in-communion Roman Catholic Tridentine Mass each Sunday (not to worry, I don't commune).
Very interesting. I went to one a few months ago in my parish, but prefer the Novus Ordo Latin.
Belongs to some Institute of Christ the King ministry. The church was filled with beautiful ancient hymns from a choir-loft, accompanied by a pipe organ. It was jam-packed with young families, and a sea of veiled heads to boot (99% of the women there were covered)! I love it. The lines to the confessional were *backed up* even while the liturgy was going. Such a blessing indeed to see the traditional forms taking hold. The diocese up here seems very supportive of the extraordinary Masses. God bless Pope Benedict XVI.
Sounds like a great parish there. I'm glad you found a good place to worship during your time there. We went through Wisconsin twice on our trip out west. I loved the southwest area. It was fun driving the hills.
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your comment.
This is highly problematic from an epistemological point of view.
The Catholic faith does not reduce to mere philosophy (a common erroneous premise in many of these discussions on infallibility that I have observed).
I'm not arguing for absolute philosophical certainty (a thing that is generally rare as it is), but for the certitude of faith, based on many converging evidences of many sorts.
You seem to be saying that Protestants do not have the certainty of truth that Catholics do, because of the promise of infallibility in the Church (which the reformers ditched).
I also simultaneously argue that Protestant ecclesiology is ultimately self-defeating. I have yet to be dissuaded of that position.
This doesn't make sense. You even admit that the promise of infallibility takes faith, meaning you can' t prove it.
That's precisely the difference between epistemology and faith based on reason. One is philosophy; the other is religious faith that is reasonable as far as it goes, but transcends reason: else it is not faith if it is merely reason. This is a crucial distinction in this debate.
Therefore, this promise is based on a subjective principle - faith.
Faith and reason are harmonious, not antithetical.
That's the teaching of both the Bible and the Church.
You can't claim Catholics have objective certainty and Protestants have subjective confusion.
We have a very high degree of certitude of faith, based on Scripture first and foremost and also the development of our ecclesiology. Sola Scriptura is self-defeating by its very nature. Protestants have no way to resolve their internal disagreements because they have a flawed ecclesiology and authority structure. That's why they are forced to adopt a position of theological relativism (on many so-called "secondary issues" -- utilizing the unbiblical notion of primary vs. secondary doctrines). They're forced into it by their history and present diversity.
Protestants do make claims about infallibly defined doctrines (e.g. divinity of Christ, Resurrection, Trinity, etc.).
They internally agree on doctrines where Protestants and Catholics agree. Thank God for that.
The only difference between a Catholic and a Protestant that I see is the former believe this infallibility is anchored in the Holy Spirit working through the Magisterium of the Church (guided by Scripture and Tradition), the latter place this infallibility in the Holy Spirit working through the individual believer (guided by Scripture and to a certain extent, Tradition).
The latter is inconsistent and doesn't work because one needs corporate infallibility and authoritative interpretation and proclamation in order to have ecclesial doctrinal unity. You have just said it yourself. In the latter system the individual decides in the end. But individuals do not agree with each other and end up all over the ballpark. This is the principle of private judgment. It doesn't work. It has brought us rampant sectarianism, religious liberalism, decay of traditional Christian morality, privatization, compartmentalization, subjectivism, pragmatism, theological relativism, secularism, and many other errors that do not help anything.
And the individual deciding on doctrine is radically unbiblical. In the Bible, councils and apostles decided on doctrine and presided over the Church. It shows Peter as the leader of the Church. He and the Church decide issues: not every Joe Q. Protestant.
If you say the Catholic position is objective because the infallible interpretation of Scripture and Tradition is placed outside the individual (contra Protestantism), the easy rebuttal is that the very belief that this "infallible interpretation is found in the Church" is subjective because it is an article of faith.
I don't think it has to even get to a convoluted epistemological discussion (though if any Protestant wants to go there, I'd be happy to: they still can't prevail). Scripture is clear that the Jerusalem Council was self-consciously infallible. Nothing in the text suggests otherwise.
The Bible says that the Church is the pillar and foundation [or "bulwark" - RSV] of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).
When you say Protestants do not have answers, this is surely because of the kind of Protestants you are debating - fundamentalists.
Is Keith Mathison a fundamentalist? No. He's a very articulate Presbyterian who defends sola Scriptura as well as anyone. Both Greg Krehbiel and I have critiqued his arguments at length. To my knowledge there has been no counter-response.
I critiqued Gary DeMar at length. He's a sharp guy, but he wrote to me and declined to dialogue. I've interacted with Lutherans who are not fundamentalists (recently two LCMS pastors at one time). There were other dialogue opponents such as E.L. Hamilton and Carmen Bryant, who are very articulate, educated Protestants with advanced degrees. I've dialogued with several different Lutherans about the consent of the Fathers, which ties into this discussion. You can read those debates and see if you thought they gave adequate answers.
Plenty of educated Protestants do have answers to your objections.
I've yet to see them. It breaks down every time. NO exceptions that I've ever seen. When you get a Protestant to the place of their ultimate presuppositions, they have no adequate answers. I can only report my experience of 17 years debating the issues. If you claim otherwise, then I'd be absolutely delighted if you would direct me to these people that you claim have an adequate answer for these glaring Protestant presuppositional shortcomings. I'd love to see it, and would probably counter-reply. I was just directed to a good series by C. Michael Patton. He's a sharp guy, but I am fully confident that his arguments can be overcome and shown to be internally inconsistent. If his arguments are superior, then I always have the option of going back to Protestantism. I follow truth wherever it leads me.
It's unfair to characterize the Protestant position as "self-defeating" and "inconsistent".
You can say whatever you like. I've done the debates time and again. I've written more about this by far than any other topic, and I have 2050 papers online and 16 books published. I believe I have demonstrated this time and again, whereas my opponents couldn't give any further answers at a certain point. Sola Scriptura and the Catholic notion of authority can't both be true. One has to take a stand on one or the other, or reject both.
It doesn't mean there aren't many wonderful and true things in Protestantism. There certainly are, and I note them and rejoice in that all the time, because I'm as ecumenical as I am apologetical, but on this they are dead wrong, and we see the fruit of their error all around us.
Ken Temple: The Protestant position is only that the Bible is infallible, it had nothing to do with our subjective understanding of the Bible being infallible.
Adomnan: So you are certain that God has revealed something in the infallible Bible, but you are not certain what that is (fallible subjective understanding). How can there be revelation when nothing (certain) is revealed, a non-revealing revealing?
"Listen! Listen, everybody! God has revealed to us -- uh, um, something or other, not sure what."
Dave,
It seems all you're saying is that you believe the claims of Catholicism, specifically regarding the issues of authority and infallibility, are more reasonable than those of Protestants. And this would be a very reasonable thing for a Catholic to say. In fact, it is what I would say.
I could still quibble about much of what you say, but I won't. I just think you are being a bit unfair to Protestants. I could send you to several Protestant blogs, but I'll spare them. They generally hate to get into "apologetic" debates. If you peruse the bogosphere enough, you'll run across them.
In fact, there is a great discussion going on right now between Catholics and Protestants on the issue of the development of doctrine, which inevitably takes up the issues of authority and infallibility. It's been a great exchange with good points made on either side. I think it's led all involved into a greater understanding of the other position. I obviously think the Catholic position is more reasonable, but I would in no way say the Protestant position is unreasonable (which is what you seem to imply).
Apologetics websites like this one can serve a great purpose in educating Catholics on the reasons for their faith, whether those reasons comes from Scripture, the Early Church Fathers, or Church history. It secures Catholics in their faith, by letting them know there are valid reasons for what the Church teaches. This is a very good thing.
However, apologetics has a loathsome tendency to make the other side look unreasonable.I've seen both Catholic and Protestant apologists do this. Unfortunately, I think this post has fallen prey to that tendency.
P.S. The great discussion I mention about the development of doctrine is taking place over at Philosophia Perennis http://perennis.wordpress.com/
If anyone actually wants to (or has the time to) follow the entire thread over at Philosophia Perennis, start here:
http://perennis.wordpress.com/20...hat-time-again/
One of the guys whose been following this discussion says it's over 20 pages typed, single space! There are 3 posts on the subject all together and, I would guess, over a hundred comments. But don't let the large size discourage you. There some good stuff in there for those who are willing to put in the effort. I've found that reading it slowly helps
This is a bit off topic, but some of you guys might be interested in this response to a hardcore-trad-leaning inquirer, and since I was once involved in that silliness, I want to rectify things as best I can. I know a lot of rad trads give Dave bunk:
http://www.nicenetruth.com/home/...nse-to-a-
h.html
If Patton doesn't respond, I'd like to see Dave make a new topic or two refuting Patton's "seven part series."
Don't worry if you need help getting started, the Catholics who commented on Patton's page should show you the problem is not as easily settled as Patton and Protestants think. 
Hi Mark,
I think you are the one who is being quite unreasonable. It's not uncharitable to contend that another position is ultimately inconsistent. That is necessitated anytime we take any position on anything. Something else will be contradicted.
I suspect that that is what is driving your recent statements: trying to be warm fuzzy super-nice to non-Catholics. Well, in my opinion disagreeing has nothing directly to do with being hostile or lacking respect. It is simply, well, disagreeing.
I maintain that the Protestant position is ultimately self-defeating and unworkable, I've argued this many times in many different ways.
You reject that and claim their position is not only not self-defeating, but not unreasonable, either.
Now, if you could, please kindly explain to me how this can be the case, given the following:
1) Catholics believe x about authority.
2) Protestants believe y about authority.
3) x and y are not consistent with each other at all points.
4) x and y, in fact, contradict each other in various ways.
5) Therefore, the one holding x must necessarily believe that y is unreasonable at those points in which it contradicts x.
6) And likewise, the one holding y must necessarily believe that x is unreasonable at those points in which it contradicts y.
7) Thus, assuming x is true, y is unreasonable where it contradicts x.
8 ) And, assuming y is true, x is unreasonable where it contradicts y.
How is it, then, that you claim Protestants are not unreasonable? How can that be, given the normal laws of logic and non-contradiction, and your acceptance of Catholic claims?
I go further than this, to make other points:
1) Protestants massively contradict each other.
2) Contradictions entail at least one position being false, untrue, erroneous, or both positions being so. But they can't both be true.
3) Therefore, where this occurs in Protestantism, someone is promulgating falsehood.
4) Falsehood is not of or from God.
5) Therefore, systems that freely allow (indeed, literally encourage) contradictions and thus falsehood to flourish are not furthering the cause of truth in religion or the biblical worldview that there is one solitary Christian truth and tradition..
Also, I say that Protestant principles of authority are not only unreasonable because they contradict ours, but because they contradict the Bible, and themselves, at various points.
See:
Why Sola Scriptura is Self-Defeating and False if it Isn't in the Bible (Dave Armstrong vs. Kevin Johnson)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-
defeating.html
How Different (In Nature and Ultimate Effect) Are SolO Scriptura and SolA Scriptura? (+ Part II) (Dave Armstrong vs. Keith Mathison)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...ltimate_01.html
Protestant Ecclesiology and Epistemology is Always Ultimately Self-Defeating
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...iology-
and.html
400 Million "Popes": Protestant First Principles on Authority Are Inevitably Arbitrary, Unbiblical, and Viciously Self-Contradictory (+ Discussion) (Dave Armstrong vs. Ken Temple)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...tant-
first.html
Reflections on the Problematic Protestant System of Private Judgment and the Vast Difference in Catholic Epistemology
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...protestant.html
The Problem of Authority: Luther, Calvin, and Protestantism (+ Part II) (Dave Armstrong vs. Kevin Johnson and Tim Enloe)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...her-
calvin.html
The Logical Circularity and Hidden Premises of Sola Scriptura and Private Judgment (Dave Armstrong and Brent Arias)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...and-
hidden.html
Thanks for the heads-up on the development discussion. That's my favorite topic in theology. Mike Liccione does an excellent job in his treatments of it.
Dave,
"How is it, then, that you claim Protestants are not unreasonable? How can that be, given the normal laws of logic and non-contradiction, and your acceptance of Catholic claims?"
You seem to think I equate reasonableness with truth. Obviously x and y are in disagreement. Just because I believe x doesn't mean y is unreasonable. The only way this makes sense is if by "unreasonable" you mean "wrong". But these are not equivalent. All reasonable means is that a particular argument is in accord with reason (i.e. not irrational).
To charge someone with being irrational (another word for unreasonable) is quite a charge. I don't think you can honestly accuse Protestants of being irrational, and this has nothing to do with me wanting to get the "warm fuzzies." Ha! If you only knew me. I'm not a "kumbuya" kinda guy. I've apparently talked to smarter Protestants than you.
Self-defeating propositions are unreasonable, no? That is my claim. You want to poo-poo it, but in order to sensibly and rationally refute my claim, you must interact with it, not just talk about it in sweeping terms without ever dealing with the thing. This is the burden of thought and of logic.
You can keep saying the same things over and over (which is distinctly unimpressive because it has no substance and no concrete back-up), or you can direct me to these people whom you claim have answers for the objections I raise. Or answer my alleged deficiencies yourself, which you have said you don't want to do.
You write: I could send you to several Protestant blogs, but I'll spare them. They generally hate to get into "apologetic" debates.
Well, this is part and parcel of the problem. Very few Christians of any stripe are confident enough in their views to want to ever defend them. That's where we are vastly different from the vast majority of Christians of all stripes through the centuries. We've caved into the postmodernist mentality that says there is no reason to fight (even amiably and cordially, as fellow Christians, with mutual respect) over purely subjective things.
Good grief! Tell that to Luther or to Aquinas or to Calvin or Chesterton or Newman or C.S. Lewis. They would have laughed it to scorn.
C. Michael Patton has enough confidence in HIS views to welcome a challenge from a Catholic. I have immense respect for that approach. He's already written me a warm private letter. So we see that true dialogue doesn't have to pretend that our differences are smaller than they are, and that good dialogue can take place with perfect amiability. I've done it, several hundred times, and I hope to do it many more times. But it's getting more difficult to find people who understand the joy and challenge of dialogue anymore.
People so often now, simply preach and proclaim, and you accept their view as you would vanilla or chocolate ice cream. That's not how biblical or Catholic or classic Protestant Christianity works at all. And if I am to be looked down on for saying so (as I often am: there is a distinct anti-apologetic mood in many quarters now), so be it. It's all part of the package of being an apologist. I don't like it, but I accept it as par for the course. The apologist hearkens back to an earlier era, where men loved disputations and challenges rather than despising and running from them like the plague.
My contribution;
"There's letters sealed' from Hamlet. The reason why he must go to England half way through the play. It always seems to me a rather weak reason why he has to go. 'There's letters sealed'.
It is linked in my mind with Sola Scriptura. A slight link.
Letters are usually pretty ephemeral things. They often go unanswered, they are often not preserved. Would the Apostles have put the Sole rule of faith in a letter? Why would the early Christians rely on such an ephemeral mode of communication for the ETERNAL RULE OF FAITH?
Why is Saint Paul always expressing his deep wish to be with the people in the flesh if the whole rule of faith were in these letters? Why is it that many of his letters is he basically saying I will be able to explain more fully when I see you? In modern parlance; 'I'll tell you it all when I see you'.
'There's letters sealed'.
Brother Dave,
Thanks for more responses. And happy Michaelmas to you.
Some of your responses raise more questions, if you don't mind:
You wrote:
"I'm not sure I could answer all these questions specifically or that Scripture itself does, or intends to.... I find the Jerusalem Council example to be the most explicit example I am aware of. I don't see how one can escape that. It's conciliar infallibility, and a good argument can be made that Peter pretty much presided and confirmed, which is the Catholic model, not the Orthodox or Anglican."
Me:
I appreciate the biblical appeal to the Jerusalem council, but I have to wonder if you couldn't be erring by reading back into the text certain things based on later developments. On the face of things, the text tells us that the Apostles called a council to settle a matter in regards to Gentile conversion. They certainly appeal to the Holy Ghost and their authority ("it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us") to pass judgment after discussing the matter amongst themselves and the elders. This is all we know. But do we really know that the Spirit's work in their midst is equal to a gift of infallibility? Does the phrase, "It seemed good to the Spirit and us" preclude the council members who weren't Apostles? More importantly, is there any hint that the Spirit cannot be resisted in this case by members of the body of Christ, but can be elsewhere (as all Christians are able to do)?
You further wrote:
"We would expect everything to be relatively undeveloped, but I find all the essentials of the Catholic ecclesiology in place: papal supremacy, apostolic succession, tradition, episcopacy, and conciliar infallibility."
Me:
Do you really find these items in place? They might be suggested, or they might seem to fit your present view of things, but could it not be as reasonably suggested the text is talking about a temporal Papal Primacy (or even a primacy without a supremacy)? Apostolic succession is not even discussed in this text. Tradition, insofar as it is a handing down of teaching, I concur. Conciliar Infallibility? May it not be as reasonable to say that fallible men delivered the Spirit's Infallible testimony? If not, then why not (based on this example)?
Finally, you write:
"The argument then becomes (for many) how it applies to future generations. I think that is common sense: What is in the Bible is normative for ecclesiology: both the doctrinal teaching and how we see it working in practice in the Book of Acts. I think it is all there."
Me:
Well I think we both hope you are seeing the text correctly, but I have to wonder if in your view of things would allow the text to correct your understanding if indeed there's a possibility that your belief in an infallibly ecclesial authority is flawed. Or is it the case that, like those who hold to Sola Scriptura, you take that interpretive grid for how you read the text? If your interpretation has oth
Sorry, forgot about the limit.
Let me repost the last part of my questioning here, with some corrections to a butchered sentence!
Finally, you wrote:
"The argument then becomes (for many) how it applies to future generations. I think that is common sense: What is in the Bible is normative for ecclesiology: both the doctrinal teaching and how we see it working in practice in the Book of Acts. I think it is all there."
Me:
Well I think we both hope you are seeing the text correctly, but I have to wonder if in your view of things, you would allow the text to correct your understanding if indeed there's a possibility, that your belief in an infallible ecclesial authority is flawed. Or is it the case that, like those who hold to Sola Scriptura, you take that interpretive grid for how you read the text? If your interpretation has other good and strong possibilities, then how can you even be certain about an infallible Church?
Looking forward to hearing more of your answers.
By the way, I read some of your responses to Keith Mathison and Kevin Johnson's commentary on Sola Scriptura -- you offered some very penetrating analyses. I commend your thoughtfulness.
Blessings.
St. Worm
Hi Worm,
Some of your responses raise more questions, if you don't mind:
Not at all. Thanks for the dialogue.
I appreciate the biblical appeal to the Jerusalem council, but I have to wonder if you couldn't be erring by reading back into the text certain things based on later developments. On the face of things, the text tells us that the Apostles called a council to settle a matter in regards to Gentile conversion. They certainly appeal to the Holy Ghost and their authority ("it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us") to pass judgment after discussing the matter amongst themselves and the elders. This is all we know. But do we really know that the Spirit's work in their midst is equal to a gift of infallibility?
How could the Spirit's direct involvement NOT be infallible? The question is whether the Holy Spirit protected these men and their decision. If one answers yes, then this is explicit infallibility (and I can hardly think of a more explicit narrative example). If they think not, then it seems that there would be a textual problem of the Holy Spirit's mention in relation to the decision.
Does the phrase, "It seemed good to the Spirit and us" preclude the council members who weren't Apostles?
Scripture applies it to the "apostles and the elders, with the whole church" (Acts 15:22; cf. 15:28 ). That looks to me like the entire assembly: very much as the Catholic Church regards ecumenical councils. I don't see any restriction to apostles.
More importantly, is there any hint that the Spirit cannot be resisted in this case by members of the body of Christ, but can be elsewhere (as all Christians are able to do)?
How is that relevant? Of course the Spirit can be resisted by individuals. But the point is a protection by the Holy Spirit shown in this example of the first major council of Christian leaders.
ME: "We would expect everything to be relatively undeveloped, but I find all the essentials of the Catholic ecclesiology in place: papal supremacy, apostolic succession, tradition, episcopacy, and conciliar infallibility."
Do you really find these items in place? They might be suggested, or they might seem to fit your present view of things, but could it not be as reasonably suggested the text is talking about a temporal Papal Primacy (or even a primacy without a supremacy)?
I was referring here to the entire NT evidences in these regards, not just the Jerusalem Council.
Apostolic succession is not even discussed in this text.
I agree. But it is implicitly implied insofar as this council was clearly a model of what should take place in the future of the Church. It shows us the decision process in the early Church.
Tradition, insofar as it is a handing down of teaching, I concur. Conciliar Infallibility? May it not be as reasonable to say that fallible men delivered the Spirit's Infallible testimony? If not, then why not (based on this example)?
I think that's a distinction without a difference. If a result is an infallible decision, what is the logical difference, if it is described as you do it above, or if we say that the pope and/or council was infallible, and delivered an infallible truth? The men are fallible except in those extraordinary instances where the gift of infallibility applies. The gift is obviously (by definition) from God.
Well I think we both hope you are seeing the text correctly, but I have to wonder if in your view of things would allow the text to correct your understanding if indeed there's a possibility that your belief in an infallibly ecclesial authority is flawed.
It's a belief held in faith, of course. This is truly how I interpret the text and how I think Catholics, generally speaking, would interpret it.
I'm always willing to be dissuaded. That is central to my identity as a socratic, and part and parcel of my experience as a convert. I often arrive at new truths and understandings by means of dialogue, so that if what you say in reply seems more plausible than what I have argued, then I could quite possibly change my mind.
Of course, if the Jerusalem Council is somehow shown not to be infallible, that doesn't mean that infallibility collapses, because it isn't based on just one prooftext, but a variety of converging biblical evidences all leading in that direction, taken as a whole.
Or is it the case that, like those who hold to Sola Scriptura, you take that interpretive grid for how you read the text?
I'm sure I do to some extent. We all have biases of creedal affiliation. I'm the first to admit that and state it often. I can only be persuaded otherwise by solid argument that convinces me that my present view is less cogent, coherent, and plausible than a suggested alternative.
If your interpretation has other good and strong possibilities, then how can you even be certain about an infallible Church?
As stated above, because it is based on many considerations, not just one text. I offered this one as the best and most explicit that I have found. It's not like no Protestants argue similarly. E.g., A.T. Robertson in his Word Pictures in the NT for Acts 15:28:
"Definite claim that the church in this action had the guidance of the Holy Spirit . . . Jesus had promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 16:13). Even so the church deliberated carefully before deciding. What a blessing it would be if this were always true!"
Eerdmans Bible Commentary states:
"So completely Spirit-possessed is their consciousness that the community is regarded as the very mouthpiece or vehicle of the Spirit."
F.F. Bruce:
"The Spirit . . . speaks through prophets in the church; [Acts 11:28; 13:1 f.; 20:23; 21:4.10 f.] when the apostles and their colleagues reach a common mind, his is the primary authority invoked in its promulgation; [Acts 15:28] it is he who directs the course of missionary activity. [Acts 13:4; 16:6-10]"
(Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977, p. 208 )
Bruce was Plymouth Brethren; Robertson a Baptist: hardly biased towards a high ecclesiology. So if they can come to these conclusions from their "low church" ecclesiological perspectives, I hardly think it is feasible to be suspicious that my Catholic affiliation is unduly coloring my perception of Acts 15:28. The stuff I note is there! It's not, I submit, excessive or anachronistic at all to describe it as infallibility in action in the early Church.
Looking forward to hearing more of your answers.
Likewise. I am enjoying this a lot.
By the way, I read some of your responses to Keith Mathison and Kevin Johnson's commentary on Sola Scriptura -- you offered some very penetrating analyses. I commend your thoughtfulness.
Thank you. I'm glad you liked it. I also look forward to interaction with C. Michael Patton in the near future. I'm trying to finish a book: working insanely every day on it!
Your patience with me is more than appreciated. Thank you for your candid responses. I've some more questions (surprise? It's the Socratic way, right? BTW, I'm a big Peter Kreeft fan, he turned me on to Socrates.)
You:
"How could the Spirit's direct involvement NOT be infallible? The question is whether the Holy Spirit protected these men and their decision. If one answers yes, then this is explicit infallibility (and I can hardly think of a more explicit narrative example). "
Me:
Would you say the infallible decision rendered in this matter is the same thing as unconditional infalliblity? In other words, do we positively know from this text that the right rendering of the the Spirit's will is positively linked to a perpetual gift of infallibility? Would it not be just as plausible to say, given this text, the Apostles did not err by virtue of their obedience to the Mind of Christ, and it's not necessary to say they could not err because of some personal obstinancy or vice?
It seems to me the term "infallibility" is not a necessary one to interpret what is going on in this text, if indeed it is possible to obediently render a right judgment through revelation and sanctified reasoning (as displayed in the narrative). For if anyone with those two traits, revelation and sanctified reasoning, can render right judgments, are they to be considered infallible?
--MORE TO COME--
You wrote:
"I was referring here to the entire NT evidences in these regards, not just the Jerusalem Council."
Me:
I'm very happy you have other textual evidences to point to, as I do not think the Jerusalem council per se proves infallibility. It might justly be solicited as another example of it, if indeed there were unambiguous/clearer texts promolgating the idea.
"[Apostolic Succession] is implicitly implied insofar as this council was clearly a model of what should take place in the future of the Church. It shows us the decision process in the early Church."
Your understanding of Succession is in no way necessitated by the text itself. There are other plausible understandings of succession that could easily fit what's going on in this chapter, would you not agree? If you insist other texts help us interpet this text, that is fine -- please point me to the texts that have in mind the sort of succession you believe is being implied here. I'll leave that to your discretion -- that, however, might be a bunny-trail since the point of my questioning is to test your view of infallibility.
You:
"If a result is an infallible decision, what is the logical difference, if it is described as you do it above, or if we say that the pope and/or council was infallible, and delivered an infallible truth?"
Me:
I don't believe it's a distinction without a difference if you admit that an infallible source (the Spirit) can communicate Himself through fallible men, without having to ascribe infallibility to the men themselves. For example,in the book of Acts there are a few examples of prophetic utterances: did they require a gift of infallibility for them to be received as true prophecies? If not, why not?
You: "If the Jerusalem Council is somehow shown not to be infallible, that doesn't mean that infallibility collapses, because it isn't based on just one prooftext, but a variety of converging biblical evidences all leading in that direction, taken as a whole."
Excellent! Lead me to these texts. I would be curious if they truly support (unambiguously) your understanding of this matter. As it stands, I cannot find infalliblity a necessary component to the Jerusalem Council, unless you have something more textually to show me in this pericope.
Blessings to you, dear brother.
Very few Christians of any stripe are confident enough in their views to want to ever defend them.
Except the ones that are confident enough and have defended their views are what you call "anti-Catholics". One of them is still waiting for you to debate formally, in person, orally with cross - examination, etc.
And people like me believe you have been answered and refuted and that it is the RC position that is not Biblical; and not early in history either. It was slowly added later over the centuries culminating in the 1870 dogma.
Your syllogism was pretty good; we both see each other as unreasonable (the assumption of an infallible human ruler (Pontiff, Pope, "Holy Father" - only God is Holy Father - John 17) on this earth is a false assumption and completely un-Biblical and an unreasonable demand - "infallible certainty"; and wrong.
I look forward to see how you and Michael Patton carry on. Thanks for interacting with his work.
It's true that anti-Catholics are more zealous in at least having a notion that something ought to be vigorously defended. That is one of their few admirable traits.
Their problem is the false premise that Catholics aren't Christians, and the attitudes in debate and in general that flow therefrom. Because of that, I have (finally!) stopped interacting with them. It's a complete waste of time.
As for debate, seven anti-Catholics turned down my challenge to do a live chat debate on this very fundamental question of definition of Christianity. That was the final straw, I shook the dust off of my feet and left them to their devices after that. "If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."
Michael Patton (like Keith Mathison and lots of other folks I have debated with in the past regarding authority issues) is not an anti-Catholic, which is why gentlemanly, constructive debate is possible with him.
Br. Dave,
Just a side question -- I think you might have answered ths before, but here it goes:
What is formally preventing you from doing a live, moderated debate with James White? He's crossed swords with the bulk of online apolgists in a live forum, from what I can tell. Do you feel your debate skills are better expressed through the "pen" than through vocalization?
Just curious, tis all.
Blessings.
Their problem is the false premise that Catholics aren't Christians,
It is possible, just as in your above syllogism;
(A cannot be non-A and B cannot be non-B) that they sincerely believe that justification by faith alone is the heart of the gospel; and since the RCC officially condemns that doctrine(Tent and beyond); a RC who knowingly with full understanding rejects that, is rejecting the gospel, and therefore, as a doctrinal issue is not regenerate -- is it possible to sincerely believe that and not be "anti-Catholic" ? Because you have assumed their premise is false; and therefore condemn the argument based on it; it seems, because you are feeling "hurt" by being considered "not truly regenerate".
According to your logic in the syllogism you used above; they are following the same king of logic; given that they sincerely believe that knowingly rejecting justification by faith alone is a rejection of the heart of the gospel; and one cannot be saved or a regenerate (born -again ) Christian without embracing the gospel.
I reject justification by faith alone. I believe in justification by faith through grace alone, by means of our Lord Jesus' redeeming death on the cross, and that alone; not by our own works.
So then, I am not regenerate, not a Christian; don't understand the gospel, and cannot only not understand Christian things, but also cannot possibly do ANY good thing, according to total depravity?
Anti-Catholicism is completely self-defeating. It is intellectual suicide. I've tried to debate this very issue with seven of your comrades, Ken, but they all refused. That's their problem, not mine. I am enjoying dialoguing with ecumenical folks like Worm and Michael Patton. They don't come into the discussion with some ludicrous notion that I am not a Christian and that no obedient, faithful orthodox Catholic can be one, either.
You can travel out to that fringe wasteland if you want, but just don't expect that you'll be able to get into many constructive, enjoyable dialogues, because people don't have time for absurd, nonsensical positions. I did my duty in refuting these positions for years, but having done that, I don't have time for it anymore. I never had patience with it at any time.
Hi Worm,
I'll get to your questions later on today. They require more time, and I'm just making short comments on my blog at the moment.
No problemo, Dave. I can't imagine how you devote so much time to blogging as you do. Whether you answer my inquiries today or tomorrow is of no consequence: I'm in no hurry
Blessings.
I do this full-time; that's how I can have the time! And I am usually putting in 60-80 hours of work in any given week. At the moment I'm working feverishly on completing a new book, too (it's up to 240 pages but with a lot to go yet). I hope to announce it within the next few weeks (I think you and many non-Catholics will have an interest in it), and I have some additional significant e-book news too (shortly).
I do have to moderate the Coming Home Network discussion board during much of the day. I am committed to 30 hours a week working for them. Many times what I post over there becomes a new post over here, which works out nicely.
Five of the current seven posts that are posted here (including this very one) actually originated over there. They tend to be relatively less "polemical" because that board is devoted to helping new Catholics, and not to debate per se.
You did not really answer the issue/question of, given the syllogism and law of non-contradiction; can a Protestant hold to believing in “A is not non-A” (justification by faith alone is the heart of the gospel; so full knowledge of it and rejection of it means one is not justified) and be consistent, but be freed from the wrong label of “anti-Catholic” you give?
I reject justification by faith alone.
ok. That is your position.
I believe in justification by faith through grace alone, by means of our Lord Jesus' redeeming death on the cross, and that alone; not by our own works.
Left to itself, those bare words with no more explanation do not necessarily contradict the Evangelical doctrine of Justification by faith alone. (Luther and Calvin and Reformed traditions)
But the fleshing out of it further; that is, the reality of what RC justification doctrine is; (according to official RCC documents and Catechism) is a contradiction of what you wrote; because you must do good works all through your life to gain back your justification, started with baptism (either infant or conversion baptism); but which you lost by the commission of mortal sin. So, you may say, “by faith through grace alone”, but you mean that there are works one must do in order keep getting grace until final perseverance and getting scrubbed clean in purgatory and passing through it, and in order to stay in a state of grace. (baptism, partaking of the Lord’s supper, obeying the Ten Commandments, confession to the priest, prayers to Mary for dispensing of grace from the treasury of merit; or some other saint; visiting saints graves, etc. fasting, extended times of more prayer, meditation, giving to the poor; doing what the priest says as the satisfaction aspect of penance, etc.) These things are contradictions to “by grace alone” (hence they contradict faith alone – Romans 4:16) and they contradict “not by our own works”. You don’t get grace dispensed to you from the treasury of merit, unless you do the works; and that only comes to you after you do those things; those good works, ceremonies, communion (partaking of the Lord’s Supper), hail Marys, prayers, fastings, almsgiving, and obeying the Ten Commandments, etc.
No. 2068 in the RCC Catechism says, “The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians . . . so that all men may obtain salvation through faith, Baptism, and the observance of the Commandments.” ( p. 502, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Liberia Editrice Vatinaa, Imprimi Potest, Cardinal Ratzinger, 1994.
This is contradictory to the end of the your statement, “not by our own works” and contradictory to “by grace alone”.
Also, the Catechism says:
No. 2010 “Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.” ( Ibid, p. 487)
Right, Ken. You know more about the Catholic teachings than I do.
1) Am I a Christian or not?
2) Am I saved or not, according to you?
3) Do I reject the gospel?
4) Am I unregenerate?
5) Is everything I do evil through and through because I am unregenerate?
6) Am I incapable of understanding spiritual things because I am unregenerate, according to you?
7) Will I likely be damned to hell if I don't change my way of thinking?
8 ) Do I have to reject Catholic dogmas (that Catholics are required to believe) in order to be a good Christian like you and save my eternal soul?
I want simple yes or no answers to my eight questions, without all the gobbledygook and obscurantism and obfuscation (if indeed it is even possible for you to do). Here's another one (please answer yes or no):
Can even Arminians or Wesleyans or any other non-Calvinist Protestants be saved, if the possibility of falling away means that they could never have been saved in the first place?
You get more and more like a clone of the good bishop everyday. It's getting quite wearisome, reading your pontifications on this board. Now you've taken to preaching to me about my own faith, as if I don't even know what it is, or understand it less than you do. That's right out of the Anti-Catholic Playbook (Rule #462, section II: "we anti-Catholics always know more about Romish jesuitical popery than the papists themselves know, and so it is our duty to inform them of what they really believe").
Give me a break, huh? Your positions are absurd enough without the sanctimonious preaching and lecturing.
You didn't answer my questions, now you demand little sound bite "yes or no" type stuff?
The Catechism says you must have faith, and be baptized, and obey the Ten Commandments.
That is a clear contradition of "by grace alone" and "apart from works".
I thought the RC position on justification was that initial justification came through baptism, as proof of the fact that it was by faith apart from works. That's how I read Trent anyways.
Also, isn't it the case that justification is used more broadly by RC's than Protestants? What's your understanding?
Thanks
Yes I do demand that, Ken, or you can make yourself scarce from this blog (or be helped by yours truly to do so, without your cooperation). We're not here to be continually preached at by someone who has only a very dim understanding of that which he deigns to lecture informed proponents about.
The least you can do is answer my questions honestly and directly. If you can't, then I've had it with your manifest arrogance and refusal to carry on a normal dialogue without all the histrionics and rabbit trails. You seem to have gotten more hysterical and anti-Catholic as time goes on, so you must have known that it wouldn't be tolerated indefinitely here. I'm a very patient man, all in all (even with anti-Catholic rotgut notions), but not infinitely so.
That's correct, Worm; initially it is through baptism. See also my papers:
Council of Trent: Canons of Justification
Catholic "Initial Justification" & Protestant "Faith Alone": Significant Common Ground?
Catholic Underemphasis on Justification by Faith: My Theory on Why This Is
Trent Doesn't Necessarily Exclude All Variants of Imputation (Kenneth Howell)
Dialogue on Justification in James
Reflections on Justification
Reflections on Faith and Works and Initial Justification
The Interpretation and Exegesis of Romans 2-4 (Justification and Works of the Law) (Includes Very Extensive Patristic Commentary and Definitional Citations from three Protestant Bible Dictionaries)
Commentary on Romans 1:1-3 and Dialogue on Related Issues of Justification
Is Sola Fide (Faith Alone) a Legitimate Development of Patristic and Augustinian Soteriology?
Alister McGrath on the Protestant Innovation (Corruption?) of Imputed Justification
All found on one page:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...aith-
alone.html
Right, Ken. You know more about the Catholic teachings than I do.
I gave you quotes from the Catechism. Was I wrong in that you must do those good works in order to gain back the grace of justification, when it is lost by mortal sin?
Isn’t that what your RCC teaches?
Yes or no
I have answered your questions in pretty short answers. Please remember that this is doctrinal and not personal, even though you seem to be getting angry.
1) Am I a Christian or not?
No; since you reject justification by faith alone; and knowingly reject it; and, if you follow the Catechism, it says you must do works added to faith, in order to be finally saved, --obey the commandments.
2) Am I saved or not, according to you?
No, since you reject justification by faith alone, which is rejecting the heart of the gospel.
3) Do I reject the gospel?
You cut the heart of it out, the part that says it is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, apart from the merit of works.
4) Am I unregenerate?
Apparently so, since you don’t even believe you can know if you are regenerate – you loose justifying grace every time you commit a mortal sin. You have to live under “on and off” mentality your whole life.
continued
5) Is everything I do evil through and through because I am unregenerate?
Yes, but "through and through" is probably not the right understanding - it does not mean everyone is as bad as you could be or like a Jeffery Dahmer, Hitler, or Osama Ben Laden, etc. (there are degrees of sinfulness) It only means that everything we do is tainted by sin, as a wrong motive, but it can appear to be very good deed and loving attitude. Only God knows the heart "through and through".
yes, in the sense that everyone is sinful and totally depraved until they are regenerated. “If you being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good gifts to you? Matthew 7:11
6) Am I incapable of understanding spiritual things because I am unregenerate, according to you? No.
You understand some things, many things; yes; you have great intellectual capacities. You are a very smart person.
7) Will I likely be damned to hell if I don't change my way of thinking?
Yes. Repent.
8 ) Do I have to reject Catholic dogmas (that Catholics are required to believe) in order to be a good Christian like you and save my eternal soul?
Better:
Do I have to reject Catholic dogmas (that Catholics are required to believe) in order to be a Christian and save my eternal soul?
Yes.
I never claimed to be “good” and "I sense much anger in you” (as Yoda would say)
I want simple yes or no answers to my eight questions, without all the gobbledygook and obscurantism and obfuscation (if indeed it is even possible for you to do). Here's another one (please answer yes or no):
Were those answers short enough for you?
Can even Arminians or Wesleyans or any other non-Calvinist Protestants be saved, if the possibility of falling away means that they could never have been saved in the first place?
Of course they can be saved and have a wrong understanding of what sound doctrine is. Many of them are truly saved. Some " Reformed folks" (that go to a Reformed church and intellectually only understand some of the doctrines. Intellectual assent is not faith. So, some of them are not truly regenerated, they think they are. There is always the possibility that someone claims to believe, but they really don’t. ( James 2:14-26)
Some Catholics are truly saved; they just don't know what the doctrines are; they just have simple faith in Christ and His work alone, and not trusting in their baptism and hail Mary's to finally get them in.
Now, Dave, I demand you answer my questions on the law of non-contradiction, using your logic about 2 mutually contradictory things.
I answered you honestly; and it is doctrine, not personal or ad hominem.
and you are very smart.
Got to go to my son's soccer game now; won't be able to do any more today or if at all, late tonight.
Great, thanks for the clarifications, and this was pretty much as expected, given the recent flow of your rhetoric.
My answers are all over my papers. Go read them. It's not like I don't have a detailed record out there of what I believe and why.
Since you are clearly an anti-Catholic (which was not always so clear), then you are one of the group that I no longer bother trying to argue with, after some 16 years of trying until giving up last year, as a completely futile effort.
Nothing personal at all (i.e., the decision to not argue with you) . . . You do correctly perceive that I am fed up with your sanctimonious preachiness, as of late. To me that is utterly justified anger and exasperation, not sinful in the slightest.
Ken,
I personally have nothing against Protestants who say Catholics are not Christian. In fact, I think it helps the discussion because it shows there are lines of 'orthodoxy' that cannot be crossed.
THAT said, I don't think the Protestant system is fair or logically consistent in their claim, and I'm talking about Protestants who allow a whole host of other denominations to be labeled "Christian," but not Catholics. The only fair and logically consistent method a Protestant could take is to say various other denominations are not Christians, but to say that is a risk. THAT is why most Protestant apologetics webpages and ministries don't remain logically consistent and fair on this point because it would bankrupt their private little store overnight.
Also, I DONT like it when the lines between classical Protestantism and Catholicism are blurred, that includes using similar phraseology. For example, I don't think it is a good idea for Catholics to use phrases like "grace alone" without qualifying it. Both Catholics and Protestants believe in "grace alone" BUT we have two radically different definitions of "grace" so that phrase is misleading and/or blurring of the real issues.
If you want a response to the issue of grace, faith and works, as Ephesians 2:8f teaches it, I wrote an apologetics article on this very issue showing how Eph 2 can only fit the Catholic understanding of things.
http://catholicdefense.googlepag...epages.com/
eph2
Ken, if you REALLY want to get to the heart of this, read my article and we can discuss it.
I personally have nothing against Protestants who say Catholics are not Christian.
Me, neither. I simply have the utmost intellectual derision towards their ludicrous ideas.
Let's say I realize sola scriptura is a mess and grant the RCC is infallible. Presumably, this should give me an advantage over my previous SS position. So, what is the next step in always testing whether my beliefs mesh with Magisterial teaching? How do I know I understand the catechism and various councils and encyclicals and the like correctly? My local priest is fallible - he may be interpreting documents incorrectly (I'm sure many lay catholics are more theologically astute than their priests). Shouldn't the Magisterium claim its documents are perspicuous, but I'm not aware of any such claim (I think it's obvious they aren't; the arguments against scripture being perspicuous could just as easily apply to the Magisterium)? Are they clear in the SS sense: only those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation? If they are clear in some sense, why can't Scripture also be clear in some sense? What advantage is the Magisterium offering me? I'm stuck in the same place, interpreting Scripture, or interpreting Magisterial docs, without the assurance the Magisterium is promising me over Scripture. If the answer is, ask the magisterium, well how does someone do that and get an infallible answer?
Moreover, this argument against SS is claiming that infallibility gives you a greater degree of certitude in your beliefs. So shouldn't there be an easily accessible list of infallible teachings? But there isn't, RC theologians disagree over what decrees/canons/etc. are infallible (indeed even sometimes what *sentences* are infallible). You may rightly say catholics are bound to obey *all* teaching, not just infallible teachings (canon 752, Donum Veritatis 23; Lumen Gentium 25) but the whole argument has been over INFALLIBLE teaching and the assurance it gives. Any protestant would also subscribe to his church's fallible teachings.
As an aside about the tangent into justification, Dave, I did not read your articles yet, but on McGrath and the "theological novum" business, have you also happened to read what he says in The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation:
"…an astonishingly broad spectrum of theologies of justification existed in the later medieval period, encompassing practically every option that had not been specifically condemned as heretical by the Council of Carthage. In the absence of any definitive magisterial pronouncement concerning which of these options (or even what range of options) could be considered authentically catholic, it was left to each theologian to reach his own decision on this matter. A self perpetuating doctrinal pluralism was thus an inevitability. The point is of importance for a number of reasons. First it can be shown that Luther’s theological breakthrough involved his abandoning one specific option within the broad spectrum of theologies of justification, and embracing another within that spectrum. In other words, Luther’s initial position of 1513-1514, and his subsequent position (probably arrived at in 1515), were both recognized contemporary theological opinions, regarded as legitimate by the doctrinal standards of the time."
Ken Temple's response to Dave Armstrong:
1) Am I a Christian or not?
No; since you reject justification by faith alone; etc.
Adomnan: In fact, it is Ken Temple who is not a Christian; and I think it would simpler and more honest for us Catholics to admit that.
No Protesant Fundamentalists are Christian (with, as always, some exceptions; few, I fear).
Why not?
The reason is that Ken and all Protestant Fundamentalists believe in penal substitutionary atonement; that is, they believe God condemned Jesus, an innocent man, and punished Him for the sins of others.
Now what does the Bible say about those who condemn the innocent? Look at Proverbs 17:15: "He who acquits the guilty and he who condemns the innocent, both are an abomination to the Lord."
Ken's god condemns the innocent. Therefore, according to the God of the Bible who speaks in Proverbs, Ken's god is an abomination. Ken's god is not the God of the Bible and is not the Father of Jesus Christ.
Ken is not a Christian, but a believer in a false god, an abomination.
If there is a flaw in my logic here, I fail to see it.
Ken is a Christian because the Catholic Church recognizes that trinitarian baptism admits one into regeneration, as a Christian.
Your position on this is about as extreme as Ken's. It is certainly utterly contrary to Vatican II and recent ecumenical documents.
The reason is that Ken and all Protestant Fundamentalists believe in penal substitutionary atonement; that is, they believe God condemned Jesus, an innocent man, and punished Him for the sins of others.
God, the Tri-Une God was in perfect harmony and will and love when God the Son voluntarily came to die and take on the penalty for sin. John 10:18
"The Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering. . . Isaiah 53:10
Of course we hashed this out before over a long period with lots of posts, etc. but your view misses the Unity of the Trinity and God's giving of Himself in love for His people to voluntarily die for sin and pay the penalty of sin.
Now what does the Bible say about those who condemn the innocent? Look at Proverbs 17:15: "He who acquits the guilty and he who condemns the innocent, both are an abomination to the Lord."
That principle is one of the reasons that it makes the cross so amazing and so wonderful and so full of love and so sacrificial - for the Lawgiver Himself to give Himself as the sacrifice.
That principle from Proverbs is the law and wrath of God; and it is absolute for humans, because Humans are not sinless; But the Father and the Son are Sinless and can give themselves in love as the sacrifice and take the punishment; but you forgot the love and mercy and grace of God; of He Himself sacrificing Himself; the Father giving His one and only unique Son, and the Son giving Himself in love.
Ken's god condemns the innocent.
No, God Himself takes the penalty voluntarity in love and satisfies justice -- "Take this cup from Me . . . yet not My will but Thine Be done." Luke 22:44 The three persons in the Trinity are in perfect harmony and unity of fellowship and purpose in the Redemption of His people.
Therefore, according to the God of the Bible who speaks in Proverbs, Ken's god is an abomination. Ken's god is not the God of the Bible and is not the Father of Jesus Christ.
no; I believe in the Trinity -- the Living God of the Bible; you apparently don't believe in John 10:18; Isaiah 53:10, 2 Cor. 5:21 nor Psalm 2, nor John 17, nor Revelation 5. I Tim. 3:16 - He was vindicated in the Spirit. Romans 1:1-5 also and Romans 3:21-28 - God is both pure justice and pure love.
He is just and the justifier of those that have faith in Christ. (Romans 3:26)
"being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly [ on the cross] as a propitiation (satisfaction of wrath/justice against sin) in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, . . . " Romans 3:24-25
Ken is not a Christian, but a believer in a false god, an abomination.
I believe in the Trinity, and in the God of the Scriptures; you apparently do not.
If there is a flaw in my logic here, I fail to see it.
You fail to logically put all the Scripture together in the Trinitarian harmony. God is one and yet three in person, so it is not to see the beauty of this doctrine where pure justice is upheld and pure love is upheld at the same time. You fail to see the wonder of the cross.
Ken,
I must call you on the carpet on this one. Last week you made a post regarding the election that "no intelligent Christian" could cast a vote for Obama. I tongue in cheek said I guess that makes all Catholics Democrats since we aren't Christians to begin with according to you and the so-called "Dr" White. You retorted that you never said nor implied such a thing. Well at least now we all see things clearly. My question is why the charade and the deception previously when I basically asked you the same thing?
On a side note I must say that I always find it laughable when an evangelical claims to "know" the gospel and "knows" what Catholics really believe and think. Even more so they tend to have the audacity to "know" the mind of God so well that they pre-emptively condemn billions of people to hell. This is the complete height of arrogance and hypocrisy!
By the way Ken, your posts have deteriorated over time. Once they were thought provoking and challenging but now they are becoming condescending and sophomoric. You may want to take a break for a while to clear your head and really consider if this is where you should be spending your time and efforts.
DaveArmstong: Ken is a Christian because the Catholic Church recognizes that trinitarian baptism admits one into regeneration, as a Christian.
Adomnan: The validity of Ken's baptism is in doubt. It is quite possible that it had the wrong form.
Moreover, I don't understand how a baptism can be valid if the minister represents an organization that explicitly denies that baptism is anything more than an empty symbol.
If someone were to say, just before administering a baptism, "This rite I am about to perform is simply a symbol. It is not meant to save or regenerate and doesn't." How could such a "baptism" be valid?
I know that in the case of Catholic priests or ministers representing denominaitions that believe in baptismal regeneration (which include most Protestant denominations), it doesn't matter what the personal beliefs of the minister are. But a Fundamentalist minister is a representative not of the Church but of a body that denies baptismal regeneration.
Dave: Your position on this is about as extreme as Ken's. It is certainly utterly contrary to Vatican II and recent ecumenical documents.
Adomnan: I recognize that the majority of Protestants are Christians. Therefore, I acknowledge them as separated brethren just as Vatican II requires. However, I don't have to pretend that every Protestant is a Christian, do I? There are some Protestants who are Christians, and some who aren't. Ken isn't.
In the case of Protestant Fundamentalists, most of them do not believe in the God of the Bible. They believe in a god who condemned and punished an innocent man, and such a being (if he existed) would be an abomination, according to the Bible.
Even if they were validly baptized, they fell away from Christianity when they began to believe in the abomination instead of the God the Bible, and that would have occurred at the moment they accepted the Fundamentalist "gospel" of penal substitution.
For example, would a Catholic remain a Christian, because of his baptism, if he converted to Islam? Would we still call him a brother in faith? Hardly. The same would be true of a Catholic who became a Protestant Fundamentalist. He would have come to believe in a god who was the antithesis of the Christian God. In fact, Muslims (if they aren't fundamentalists of that religion) are much closer to Christians than are Protestant Fundamentalists, because Muslims don't believe in a deity that "condemns the innocent."
Matthew,
I understand why you would feel that way - and yes, I don't always explain or unpack everything I write. (I already write too much on this blog).
Remember the context was politics and moral issues like abortion (and homosexuality and pornography and just our pagan culture.)
What I meant was in no way do I say "all Roman Catholics are not Christians". I think that there is probably a good number of RCs who don't know the details of the doctrinal accuracy but they have child-like faith in Christ alone for their salvation and justification.
That is what I meant.
But even those that understand the issues of justification by faith and Trent and the Reformation, etc. -- should have enough brains in the moral area to not vote for anyone like a pro-abortion/pro-gay/pro-pornography kinds of politians like Obama, John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi, etc.
That was my point about that. Again, I really like Roman Catholics like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, and Bill Bennett and Laura Ingraham. I would expect other Roman Catholics to be like them in their moral issues stances and politics; but many are not - that is what I meant.
Also, I need to say to you and others and Dave A. that when I first came into the blog years ago; what you guys call "anti-Catholic" (what I laid out in the open in an earlier post); was not my position.
I emotionally have wanted to not answer those questions that Dave gave, because, really, I don't know -- that is, I should not judge that/those issues.
But doctrinally, he is the one who forces it always, and it caused me to study more and think about it and I realized that in some sense I was not being consistent all the way with the implications of justification by faith alone; and since I believe it is truth and the heart of the gospel, if it is true, then the opposite has to be false. Therefore, the RC doctrinal position is a false gospel.
Also, the word "Christian" can mean a cultural Christian or nominal Christian, and since infant baptism and our history of Europe and USA and the west reflects that culture; in that sense I had no problem with seeing all Roman Catholics as Christians, in the cultural nominal sense.
But if we are talking about doctrinal accuracy, then a Christian is one is who regenerated, born again, adopted, elect, trusts in Christ alone; justified by faith alone; etc.
So I have slowly come to that conclusion; mostly because Dave's style is to try to force the issue.
Those are the first questions he fires off at Evangelicals who come into the blog and want to discuss and debate; those that have a clear position for what he calls "anti - Catholic", he writes them off as mean and idots, etc.
On a side note I must say that I always find it laughable when an evangelical claims to "know" the gospel and "knows" what Catholics really believe and think. Even more so they tend to have the audacity to "know" the mind of God so well that they pre-emptively condemn billions of people to hell. This is the complete height of arrogance and hypocrisy!
that is exacly why I was very slow about it; and still am about any judgment -- But Dave will not let it lie in mystery - his style is "pugnacious" and angry, while intellectually hiding behind the label of "a good Socratic method debater".
Sorry Dave, your are very smart; but once someone gets on your "bad side"; you are very something. (pugnacious, angry, mean, ad hominem, condescending, sarcastic, caustic, etc.)
I was trying to be kind and gracious; but Dave (and some others will not have it)
I also think the same can be applied to you wanting to look kind and gracious by saying Protestants are Christians by their Trinitarian baptism; but really, with all the doctrines of mortal sin and penance and initial justification, etc. I don't see how you can believe that we are Christians, because we knowingly reject the RC dogmas and so we have committed mortal sin, therefore we are going to hell. That is the consistent position of the pre-Vatican 2 RCC. It is Vatican 2 that seems really deceptive to me and many others.
Adomnan: You cited a number of scriptures that have nothing to do with penal substitution, Rev. Temple.
Anyone can just list verses at random like Chronicles 2:9; Ephesians 3:14, etc that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. What's the point of that?
Ken: That principle is one of the reasons that it makes the cross so amazing and so wonderful and so full of love and so sacrificial - for the Lawgiver Himself to give Himself as the sacrifice.
Adomnan: Do you mean that Jesus is the Lawgiver here, or the Father? If Jesus is the Lawgiver, then this is a true statement. Of course, sacrifice is not penal substitution. In fact, a sacrificial victim isn't punished at all.
If you mean that the Lawgiver is the Father, then you are saying the Father was given in sacrifice. This is a heresy. It's called Patripassionism. True Christians don't believe the Father was given in sacrifice, but the Son rather.
Ken: That principle from Proverbs is the law and wrath of God; and it is absolute for humans, because Humans are not sinless;
Adomnan: Oh, so if you're sinless, than you can commit abominations. Is penal substitution the only "abomination to the Lord" that the Lord committed, or are there others?
Ken provided one verse that arguably has direct relevance to this discussion, the following:
" The Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering. . . Isaiah 53:10"
Evidently, Ken wants us to conclude that because the Lord "crushed" the Suffering Servant in Isaiah, this means that the Father punished Jesus Christ.
This is contrary to the Bible, however. In the book of Job, for example, the Lord is said a number of times to "crush" Job and cause him to suffer. Yet it is made abundantly clear that this "crushing" isn't a punishment and isn't in retribution for any sin. Job is a type of Christ. Neither Job nor Christ is punished by the Lord, although both can be said to have been "crushed" (other translations say "bruised") by the Lord.
In fact, Isaiah 53 explicitly denies that the Suffering Servant was punished by the Lord:
Isaiah 53:4-5: "We thought of him as someone being punished and struck with afflictions by God; whereas he was being wounded for our rebellions, crushed because of our guilt."
In other words, what "we thought" turned out to be false. And what was it that "we thought"? We thought he was being "punished by God." Conclusion: the thought that he was punished by God was false.
Jesus can die for our sins without being punished for them.
Rev. Temple, you will at least concede that, if your theory of penal substitution is fale, then you are not a Christian, won't you?
Adomnan: Do you mean that Jesus is the Lawgiver here, or the Father? If Jesus is the Lawgiver, then this is a true statement.
Jesus and the Father (and the Spirit) are one, so in some sense, they, as One God, all gave the Law. The Father is Yahweh, Jesus is Yahweh, the Spirit is Yahweh. God gave the Law. "I and the Father are one" ( John 10) "if you've seen Me, you have seen the Father" (John 14:9)
Of course, sacrifice is not penal substitution. In fact, a sacrificial victim isn't punished at all.
If you mean that the Lawgiver is the Father, then you are saying the Father was given in sacrifice. This is a heresy.
Yes; that is heresy. That is not what I meant. All those passages together show the unity in the counsel of Trinity for the substitionary atonement --propitiation; satisfaction of the wrath of God against sin. The Father did not suffer on the cross. That is not what I meant. What I mean is that the Father "giving the Son" ( Remember John 3:16) shows the unity in the fellowship of the Trinity; Jesus is also creator and the Holy Spirit is creator. John 1:1-5, Col. 1:15-19; Heb. 1-13; Genesis 1:1-2; Psalm 104:30, etc.
Hi Ken,
those that have a clear position for what he calls "anti - Catholic", he writes them off as mean and idiots, etc.
Not at all; I consider them well-meaning, sincere, brothers in Christ, who have many many admirable qualities and beliefs, but dead wrong in their assessment of Catholicism, and holders of a self-defeating, intellectually-suicidal position in that regard.
But Dave will not let it lie in mystery
In other words, I'm supposed to play the game that I'm a Christian but not at the same time, because you are too "nice" to come out openly and be frank and claim that I am not one at all. It's a pretense and a charade, but we are supposed to play it because of the ludicrous position you have adopted. Makes a lot of sense. But if I dare to be honest about the elephant in the room, I am a mean son of a gun, How dare I state the obvious about your position, and press you so that you will be honest and forthright about it and stop beating around the bush! How uncouth and brazen and ungrateful! It's not charitable to point out that a position is absurd and embarrassing. The person holding it will then have to be embarrassed about it too, and we can't have that in warm fuzzy postmodernist America!
- his style is "pugnacious" and angry,
I dare say that any outside observer who observed your rhetoric as of late, and my own, would consider it precisely the opposite. You're the one raving and ranting and lecturing everyone here, as if we are dumbbells and, as of l ate, lecturing me about my OWN beliefs, as if you know them better than I do myself. Now we have a much clearer understanding of why you do that. And it stinks to high heavens. You are the one being sanctimonious and condescending, flouting a stupid, unbiblical, ahistorical, illogical point of view that none of your comrades even have the courage to defend in an open debate situation in a chat room.
while intellectually hiding behind the label of "a good Socratic method debater".
I see. So now you have to even mock my methodology. It's not enough that you engage in a wholesale mockery and thumbing your nose at my deeply held Christian commitment as a disciple of our Lord Jesus Christ.
You are a classic tragi-comic case in point. As soon as you adopted wholesale anti-Catholicism, at that very moment in time you became more obnoxious and condescending (as we have all observed before our eyes), and now have all these personal beefs against me. This wasn't the case before. Now it is because that follows so often as a result of the false belief of anti-Catholicism. Almost invariably it has to become personal. Since I'm not even a Christian and have done all this work posing as one, defending the Church I am not even part of and the Lord I don't even truly serve, then somehow there has to be something wrong with ME. And so now we see the insults coming out. The good bishop that you idolize openly states that I am self-consciously deceitful, as does Eric the Red, King David and several others of that stripe. I suspect that will be your next stage. Now I can be demonized and passed off as a lying, conniving devil. The position tends strongly to lead to that, by a certain diabolical logic.
I think it is very sad. You've been treated with nothing but respect on this blog for years, and allowed to preach ad nauseum. But because you choose to be swayed by the garbage you hear from the bishop and those like him, this is how you come out. It's truly a step backwards and downwards. You know better than this. And rest assured that God will hold you accountable after your years of interaction with us here, that you have rejected Catholics as your brethren in Christ and have chosen to teach falsely about the truth of the matter where we are concerned. You know too much to have an excuse. Bearing false witness is an extremely serious sin. It's on your head and your soul now. You're not invincibly ignorant if you've been reading my stuff for years.
Sorry Dave, your are very smart; but once someone gets on your "bad side"; you are very something. (pugnacious, angry, mean, ad hominem, condescending, sarcastic, caustic, etc.)
And you conduct yourself like a perfect gentleman at all times (just like the bishop that you idolize and lionize clearly does) . . . you're so far on my bad side that I just defended you as a Christian, over against a fellow Catholic, the day after you denied that I was one.
I was trying to be kind and gracious; but Dave (and some others will not have it)
Everyone knows how well-behaved and gracious and "southern gentlemanly" you've been. You're not fooling anyone. The obnoxious nature of your recent posts are just as annoying as the foolish theological position you now espouse.
1 Who has believed our message?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
[the quote of this and the larger context of John 12:27-43 (Isaiah 53:1 and 6:10 quoted in John 12:38 -40) shows that it was the Jews who rejected Jesus as Messiah and God that were the ones that “considered Him stricken of God” for His own sins (they thought He was committing blasphemy, as John 19:7 clearly shows, along with John chapters 5, 8, 10. “We have a law, and He must die, because He made Himself out to be the Son of God”. So they thought He was being punished for His own guilt and sins; but in actually He was voluntarily taking the punishment for our sins in our place.]
2For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,
And like a root out of parched ground;
He has no stately form or majesty
That we should look upon Him,
Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.
3He was despised and forsaken of men,
A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
And like one from whom men hide their face
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
4Surely our griefs He Himself bore, [not His own]
And our sorrows He carried; [not His own]
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, [for His own griefs, sorrows, pains, transgressions, guilt, sins, iniquities]
Smitten of God, and afflicted. [for His own sins, but God did crush Him for our sins, as verse 10 clearly shows, so all is in context, more supportive of the penal substitution position, in the fellowship and unity of the Trinity.]
5 But [notice the contrast] He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities; [ The contrast is between His innocence and our guilt; not between “we thought God was punishing Him” and “He was not punished at all”. The contrast is between “He was smitten by God the Father out of love for us, the nations, the world, but was innocent as He voluntarily gave His life”
Vs.
“they thought He was being punished for His own sins of breaking God’s law and claiming to be the Messiah and God and the Son of God, etc.”]
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
6 All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the LORD ( the Father) has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him. (the Son)
As an aside about the tangent into justification, Dave, I did not read your articles yet, but on McGrath and the "theological novum" business, have you also happened to read what he says in The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation:
This was posted by Art Sippo a few days ago over at Planet Envoy:
As to Mr. Swan's misrepresentation of Dr. McGrath, it is just the kind of errata I expect from him. Alister McGrath admitted freely when I spoke with him in Oxford that Luther's doctrine was in DISCONTINUITY with the Western Tradition. He also admitted that Luther had not interpreted St. Paul or St.Augustine correctly. Alister's views on justification are more of a modern Anglican version with a concern for the gratuity of grace and an opposition to moralism.
Dave,
I am amazed that you came out that way, after I explained my process and was very honest. Wow.
I wish you the best; I do think you are very pugnacious and angry and it shows. you proved it more by this reaction, and not acknowledging my explanation on my process and what I mean.
I sincerely believe my comments were doctrinal and not what you make them out to be.
You add fuel to the fire by comments about Southern gentleman, etc. -- you really show a lot of attempt on your part to read evil motives into someone. I never did that; I don't think.
You are a very angry person, it seems to me. You cannot even conduct yourself in a nice way with what you call the "anti-Catholic" consistent position when I kept it doctrinal and on the issues, as far as I can tell.
hose that have a clear position for what he calls "anti - Catholic", he writes them off as mean and idiots, etc.
Not at all; I consider them well-meaning, sincere, brothers in Christ, who have many many admirable qualities and beliefs, but dead wrong in their assessment of Catholicism, and holders of a self-defeating, intellectually-suicidal position in that regard.
So, what does it take for you to calm down and not get angry and pugnacious with someone who seeks to hold a consistent position, but not go ad hominem?
Dave,
I am amazed that you did not acknowledge any of this segment, which was honest and explains my journey and struggle with your "just answer me yes or no" style or "answer every point of my papers or nothing counts".
You did not acknowledge any of this segment:
"That was my point about that. Again, I really like Roman Catholics like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, and Bill Bennett and Laura Ingraham. I would expect other Roman Catholics to be like them in their moral issues stances and politics; but many are not - that is what I meant.
Also, I need to say to you and others and Dave A. that when I first came into the blog years ago; what you guys call "anti-Catholic" (what I laid out in the open in an earlier post); was not my position.
I emotionally have wanted to not answer those questions that Dave gave, because, really, I don't know -- that is, I should not judge that/those issues.
But doctrinally, he is the one who forces it always, and it caused me to study more and think about it and I realized that in some sense I was not being consistent all the way with the implications of justification by faith alone; and since I believe it is truth and the heart of the gospel, if it is true, then the opposite has to be false. Therefore, the RC doctrinal position is a false gospel.
Also, the word "Christian" can mean a cultural Christian or nominal Christian, and since infant baptism and our history of Europe and USA and the west reflects that culture; in that sense I had no problem with seeing all Roman Catholics as Christians, in the cultural nominal sense.
But if we are talking about doctrinal accuracy, then a Christian is one is who regenerated, born again, adopted, elect, trusts in Christ alone; justified by faith alone; etc.
So I have slowly come to that conclusion; mostly because Dave's style is to try to force the issue."
Forcing the issue in debate: (Dave's own style of adding pugnaciousness and anger and sarcasm and reading evil motives into people's bare words on the screen; to the Socratic method, force, answer me yes or no and you must also answer every point I make). Even some other Catholics have admitted that your style and demeanor is irritating and caustic.
Ken: I also think the same can be applied to you wanting to look kind and gracious by saying Protestants are Christians by their Trinitarian baptism; but really, with all the doctrines of mortal sin and penance and initial justification, etc. I don't see how you can believe that we are Christians, because we knowingly reject the RC dogmas and so we have committed mortal sin, therefore we are going to hell. That is the consistent position of the pre-Vatican 2 RCC. It is Vatican 2 that seems really deceptive to me and many others.
Adomnan: But I don't believe you are Christians. Some Protestants are Christians, but not those who believe in penal substitution. The problem is that you can't be a Christian without believing in the Christian God. I think everyone would agree with that, right?
And yet the Protestant Fundamentalist god is not the Christian god, because your god "condemns the innocent" as an evil judge, and so is, according to Proverbs (and there are similar passages elsewhere) an "abomination."
I'm not angry at all. Will you take my word on that or not? This is not a personal thing, but a doctrinal and intellectual one.
It is a fact that you tried to preach to me just yesterday and make out that you knew my Catholic beliefs and how they fit together better than I do myself.
I don't attribute evil motives to you or anyone else. I never have with the bishop. But he sure has with me: innumerable times. Eric the Red claims I "engage regularly in a strategy of deceit." David T. King has stated similarly about Catholics en masse. It's a matter of record., I have it documented. Do you now believe that about me? I believe all these men are sincere, well-meaning, and serving Christ as they see fit. But they are burdened with false premises and ideas, and -- oftentimes -- prejudices, which lead them to conclude that Catholics are lying through their teeth.
I'm not angry at people. Life is too short. I'm not angry at you. I'm exasperated and disappointed and frustrated, but not angry. That's been a common theme in the "arguments" of anti-Catholic opponents against me. It has always been dead wrong and laughable from the beginning.These people don't know me from Adam. Not one of them has ever met me in person. They don't have the slightest idea what my actual personality is, or is like. Anyone who does know me and has met me would laugh such a notion to scorn: that I am somehow this boiling teapot, seething with anger and resentment. It's a myth and a joke.
Do you believe me or not?
You know, I was reading a blog sometime ago and this Church of England fella comes on and says he is Catholic and we are not. People got a little annoyed and he couldn't understand the offence and starts telling us how it is his duty in Chistian charity to inform us of this fact. You come on to a Catholic blog and tell us we are not Christian based on your faulty understanding of scriputre, and you wonder why people get a little ticked and verbalize it. I also figure that Dave, may have been a little hot under the collar already after hearing some religious bigots mutilate his character and worse yet, tell him he is not Catholic. Enough is enough sometimes and a person gets emotional. It is pretty rich of you to say:
So, what does it take for you to calm down and not get angry and pugnacious with someone who seeks to hold a consistent position, but not go ad hominem?
Especially when you have observed how Dave conducts himself in a charitable manner on this blog.
Ken, I have witnessed you theologically and exigetically (biblically) evicerated on this blog and the fact that you still cannot see the truth of the Catholic position gives me a cold shudder. There but for the grace of God go us.
Adomnan: Ken, Sorry to be trite, but you want to have your cake and eat it too.
You said, Ken: Yes; that is heresy. That is not what I meant. All those passages together show the unity in the counsel of Trinity for the substitionary atonement --propitiation; satisfaction of the wrath of God against sin. The Father did not suffer on the cross. That is not what I meant. What I mean is that the Father "giving the Son" ( Remember John 3:16) shows the unity in the fellowship of the Trinity; Jesus is also creator and the Holy Spirit is creator. John 1:1-5, Col. 1:15-19; Heb. 1-13; Genesis 1:1-2; Psalm 104:30, etc.
Adomnan: On the one hand, you want to remove the moral enormity of penal substitution by saying that God punished Himself and so he wasn't hurting anyone else.You've made this strange argument a number of times. (As if a wronged person could achieve justice for himself by punishing himself for the wrong that others did to him. Whatever this would be (masochism?), it wouldn't be justice.)
But then you admit that God the Father (one Person) did in fact condemn and punish and pour His wrath out on Jesus Christ (another Person), thus reestablishing the moral problem. The condemnation of Proverbs 17:15 applies to the Father in this case. He is doing what the Scripture calls an "abomination to the Lord." Of course, this is all highly absurd, but that is your position.
Ken, Sorry to be trite, but you want to have your cake and eat it too.
If that is what you call good harmonization and consistent theology of all the verses and the doctrine of the Trinity; then so be it.
So, what does it take for you to calm down and not get angry and pugnacious with someone who seeks to hold a consistent position, but not go ad hominem?
So, Ken, if you truly want to be consitent as you say, then you had better scratch men like St Augustine (not to mention scores of other ECF's) and Martin Luther off of your list of Christians.
I'm not angry at all. Will you take my word on that or not? This is not a personal thing, but a doctrinal and intellectual one.
It doesn't seem like it, honestly Dave. I will take your word, for your bare words on the screen; but you just don't come across that way.
But thanks for at least calming down some.
You didn't acknowledge what I wrote about my process, the moral political issues and context of the word "Christian", my admitted predicament of being consistent or "nice"; nor my desire to leave judging up to God alone; and at least some mystery involved in this thing. You seem to not think it possible for someone to hold that consistent position and be charitable and gracious and admit when he goes overboard and ad hominem.
Peter P.
Not at all -- if you studied that issue completely, the doctrinal position is only that once the Roman Catholic came out and anathemitized justification by faith alone in the council of Trent ( 1540s-1564 ? ); it was only then that created a situation where people on the RC side were knowingly rejecting the truth of justification taught in the Scriptures.
So, NO! I do NOT say that people like Augustine were not Christians. Before Trent, the articulation of it was unclear; so people actually believed in Christ alone by faith alone, even if they didn't realize it or could not articulate it clearly. Adding Luther to that is just plain goofy and obviously I would not do that.
Dave,
These are your statements that just seem very angry and sarcastic and caustic and strident and pugnacious and judging motives and hearts.
I suspect that will be your next stage. Now I can be demonized and passed off as a lying, conniving devil. The position tends strongly to lead to that, by a certain diabolical logic.
. . .
And you conduct yourself like a perfect gentleman at all times . . .
Everyone knows how well-behaved and gracious and "southern gentlemanly" you've been. You're not fooling anyone. The obnoxious nature of your recent posts are just as annoying as the foolish theological position you now espouse.
Ken,
Did you read my Eph 2:8 article yet?
Adding Luther to that is just plain goofy and obviously I would not do that.
I thaught you were of the same brand of Protestantism as James White. My mistake. James claimed that Roman Catholicsm substituted the truth of the gospel with a sacramental religion. Luther was sacramental in a way that you and James are not. So was St Augustine and the other ECF's that you read.
So, NO! I do NOT say that people like Augustine were not Christians. Before Trent, the articulation of it was unclear; so people actually believed in Christ alone by faith alone, even if they didn't realize it or could not articulate it clearly.
But things like purgatory, penance, baptisimal regeneration, etc. were deemed to contradict "Christ alone by faith alone." So if they believed those things how can they have this unarticulated protestantism?
What is it about "faith alone" that took 1500 years to articulate? If everyone really believed that how come nobody wrote that? Were Augustine and the other ECF's that bad at expressing what they believed?
The anti-Catholic position Ken stakes out leads logically to Luther and St. Augustine not being Christians, as I proved years ago in reply to the good bishop that Ken follows (and, as always, he never refuted it; didn't even try at all to do so). It is one of the many absurdities inherent in the anti-Catholic position. Ken doesn't realize it yet; he just needs to get more consistent. See:
"Man-Centered" Sacramentalism: The Remarkable Incoherence of James White: How Can Martin Luther and St. Augustine Be Christians According to His Definition?
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...remarkable.html
Ken,
As stated, I never was angry, so I don't need to calm down. I'll repeat it again: I was exasperated and frustrated. That's a different thing from anger.
I won't be answering your queries anymore, because my policy is to not interact with anti-Catholics, as a matter of principle, based on the utter futility of my years of trying to do so. It's a vain conversation. I know you'll take that personally, as every other anti-Catholic has done, but I can't do anything about that. I am the steward of my time under God.
It is now a question of what your purpose is to be here at all. With your newfound position, we are targets for your evangelization. I have very little patience for that, as we engage in dialogues here; we don't sit and listen to preaching that presupposes we are unregenerate heathen who don't have a clue about the true gospel.
I can only put up with so much tomfoolery. This blog will not become your platform for your inane, self-defeating, condescending anti-Catholic opinions. So I advise you to carefully consider what you post here, if you want to continue to be a presence in this venue.
Ken,
You say:
"What I meant was in no way do I say "all Roman Catholics are not Christians". I think that there is probably a good number of RCs who don't know the details of the doctrinal accuracy but they have child-like faith in Christ alone for their salvation and justification. "
So essentially, you're saying you can be a nominal Catholic (i.e. doesn't know the details of the faith) and be a full Christian BECAUSE they don't know the faith. However, is someone is a Catholic who knows the Church's teachings and believes them then they are certainly damned because they know too much. I tell you Ken, you really need to think about what you write because your posts get stranger and more outlandish as they go.
It really makes no difference of the context of your post, political or otherwise, since Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, etc. despite your admiration for them are going to be sitting in the fiery furnace hoping that St. Ken will dip his finger in water to quench their thirst from above.
You also state:
"I emotionally have wanted to not answer those questions that Dave gave, because, really, I don't know -- that is, I should not judge that/those issues."
If anything you've ever said is correct...this is THE most true statement you've made on this blog in the entire time you've been here.
You continue:
"... and since I believe it is truth and the heart of the gospel, if it is true, then the opposite has to be false. Therefore, the RC doctrinal position is a false gospel."
So again you prove the point that Protestantism in all its forms is inconsistent, incomplete, and the most self-serving form of Christianity. It is the "me-and-Jesus" philosophy that pits Scripture against history, reason, and Church authority and led Martin Luther, as it has most Protestants, to interpret Scripture according to their man made and fallible interpretations and come to incorrect conclusions in many areas.
Lastly Ken you say:
"I don't see how you can believe that we are Christians, because we knowingly reject the RC dogmas and so we have committed mortal sin, therefore we are going to hell."
Easy answer Ken...the authority of and my submission to the teaching of the Catholic Church. Sadly, yours and others only authority are the limits to which you understand Scripture and your personal beliefs.
I can only put up with so much tomfoolery. This blog will not become your platform for your inane, self-defeating, condescending anti-Catholic opinions. So I advise you to carefully consider what you post here, if you want to continue to be a presence in this venue.
Dave, you know, I have been helped immensely by having knowledgable Catholics show the errors in Ken's opinions of the gospel. There must be many others who read this blog who don't comment who feel this way. Who knows how many non- Catholics have been helped to see the errors of Ken's doctrine because of these discussions.
Hi Matthew,
It is playbook, standard anti-Catholic rhetoric, that the only Christian Catholic is the dumb Catholic who rejects dogmas of his own ostensible faith. But a "good Catholic" is not a Christian.
That's why he was honest enough to come right out and say that I am not a Christian, because he knows that I know my faith and what I believe.
I must be quite a fool and character, huh?: to not even be a Christian at all, yet devote my entire life's work to defending Catholicism and larger Christianity. If I ain't a Christian, God is sure getting His "money's worth" out of me, isn't He?
Ken is welcome to stay provided he doesn't go down to the condescending level of pretending that he knows our beliefs better than we do (a stunt he tried with me, above). I have very mixed feelings about his preaching at all, now that he is openly anti-Catholic, not at all because we can't answer him, but because of the principle of the thing, as a matter of good form and respect of one's surroundings, and as a function of my own lack of patience.
I want to come to my own blog to enjoy good discussions with fellow Christians, not this silly, asinine anti-Catholic nonsense. I don't dialogue, myself, with anti-Catholics any longer. I was happy to let others do so here if they wished, but there is a limit to my patience and toleration of something on my own blog, especially when there are a million other places someone can go to engage in such discussions.
Hi Dave,
Yep, you must be the dumbest guy in the Catholic blogosphere LOL
Pretty dumb. But I manage somehow or another to stumble my way, darkly, through life on this mortal coil . . .
Nick,
I have not had a chance to read your article yet.
Dave,
OK - that is your right and freedom; yet, it seems to me to be an excuse for not being able to deal with the issues.
Even your term "anti-Catholic" is not a proper term, which, I know you have a long boring article on that, calling it, a scholarly term.
It is not at all.
It is a purely emotionally label, designed to make the other side look bigoted and full of hatred.
There is no hatred here on my part. I think I have kept it to the issues; but it really seems you are the one who takes it personal. you use terms like "asinine" and "hiding under southern gentlemanly" phrases; and "that will be his next step"; etc. -- who is the one who seems to have anger and ad hominiem?
Also, I acknowledged that are you are very intelligent.
And you still made no acknowledgement of my explanation of
a. it was a process that I have slowly worked through
b. I cannot judge
c. there is mystery, subjectivism involved
d. cultural Christianity and nominal Christianity
e. moral issues that we agree on
Ken,
Can't you see the problem with your positions:
1. Dave accepts scripture
2. Dave accepts Trent
3. Trent is clearly contradicted by scripture
4. Dave is intelligent
So how do you make these fit? Seems like you have to deny one. Either #3 or #4. If you deny #4 you can end up with problem with the next Catholic you run into. So where does it go?
Ken, you're not making a very compelling case for allowing you to be here. Can you do a little better?
1) You insult me again as supposedly not having answers, when I simply choose not to answer now, and appeal to my innumerable past answers.
2) You appeal to the same dumb, stupid, tired anti-Catholic objection to the descriptive term for what you are that is used by many many scholars of all stripes. Rather than accept the undeniable fact, you mock and dismiss it. That's good fundamentalist anti-intellectualism, but will not impress any non-fundamentalist, I can assure you.
3) "It is a purely emotionally label, designed to make the other side look bigoted and full of hatred."
I'll let this pass, knowing that you are upset at the moment, and not possibly this much of an imbecile, to not know what I have clarified some half a billion times by now.
4) I have now expressly denied two times that I have this anger, yet you keep talking about it. Do you not know that there is a difference between impatience and anger?
5) "Also, I acknowledged that are you are very intelligent."
Who gives a flying fig about how intelligent they are, if said person is damned and unregenerate and living an utterly ridiculous life of devoting himself to proclaiming and defending the things of God when he doesn't have an inkling as to what they are? I would say that is not intelligent at all. So you say the kind thing, yet your position requires the ultra-insulting, ridiculous implication. But, being anti-Catholic, of course you don't recognize the logical reduction of what you posit.
6) As I said, our dialogue (i.e., about any serious theological issues) is through, as long as you remain anti-Catholic. That is my policy. I'm only doing this now because I am trying to be courteous. But any chance of reasonable dialogue is now kaput.
As of this point, you are free to post here and others can interact with your arguments if they like, but my patience is razor-thin at your continuing obtuse density as to my positions and my state of mind and emotions, and your continuing misrepresentation of them.
It's all standard anti-Catholicism. How sad that you have chosen to adopt these methods in cookie-cutter fashion. It's extremely disappointing and disturbing to me to watch you go down this road. You know better than this.
I urge all to fervently pray for brother Ken: that God can open up his heart and his eyes, so he can get off this perilous road he has chosen to go down: believing that Catholics aren't Christians unless they are dumbbells about their own theology, etc. It's literally wicked; it divides Christians; it zaps energy; it keeps people preoccupied with nonsensical garbage rather than the important things we should all occupy ourselves with concerning the kingdom. It's a victory of the devil: more Christian division.
And that is more "ad hominem," of course (Ken will say). No it is not. It is the truth: calling a thing (not a person) what it is. The THING is wicked and false and bad. The PERSON is being duped and taken in by it. But you are sincere. You have the best of intentions, you don't hate. You love Jesus and serve Him (of that I have no doubt whatever; that's why this is so tragic). I don't hate you or any anti-Catholic or indeed any person that I am aware of. I'm not angry; I am extremely passionate at the moment. My blood pressure is fine; my heartbeat is fine.
I despise the IDEAS as wicked lies from the pit of hell. And that is not improper language towards it (if anything it is quite mild). St. Paul writes constantly about the wickedness of division and false-speaking, especially about fellow Christians. You need to be jolted to wake up. That's an act of love. I am begging and pleading with you to not adopt this viewpoint. It's spiritual poison and intellectual suicide.
Pray folks, pray. I certainly will.
Brother Dave,
Not trying to kill the tempo here, but have you had
the time to read and digest the 16th century Anglican work by William Whitaker called "Disputation on Holy Scripture?" (Found on googlebooks at http://books.google.com/books?hl...num=1&
ct=result ).
I've been reading it these past three days or so, and have enjoyed its erudition and accessibility. It is a defense of Sola Scriptura, so I thought you might have had a chance to answer the volume.
Anyway, I would like to get back to our discussion on Infallibility whenever you're of the mind to do so.
Blessings to you.
Hi Worm,
I'll try to get to your latest comments tonight, sometime. I've been bogged down with the anti-Catholic stuff and now a new discussion about how I am supposedly caving in on Luther's errors. Meanwhile, I had some frustrating copyright problems come up with my latest book that will take time to work through.
I haven't forgotten ya! I look forward to additional discussion. I have only put off answering because I know that it will take a little time and thought, and I want to give it the proper attention. I want to make our dialogue into a post, for easier access and readability.
I haven't read Whitaker (but have heard of it). If I were to tackle something like that, I'd prefer that I could cut-and-paste, for time's sake, and Google reader doesn't allow that.
I plan, e.g., to start a long, in-depth reply to parts of Calvin's Institutes, in the near future. That's completely online. I already used it in my book, The Catholic Verses.
The last thing of that sort that I did was a critique of the Lutheran Martin Chemnitz.
Dave,
No problem. You're hands are obviously full at the moment (sorry about the copyright headaches), and I'm not impatient about this. I'll keep my ear to the ground for your responses.
Blessings.
Hope you had a happy Michaelmas.
Ken: If that is what you call good harmonization and consistent theology of all the verses and the doctrine of the Trinity; then so be it.
Adomnan: What verses? There are NO verses in the Bible supporting penal substitution, either explicitly or by implication. None whatsoever. The verses you cite, with no comment, have nothing to do with penal substitution. In fact, many of them contradict it.
The Letter to the Hebrews is the clearest expression of how the atonement "works." If there were such a thing as penal substitution, it would be in this letter. It isn't.
Ken: So, NO! I do NOT say that people like Augustine were not Christians. Before Trent, the articulation of it was unclear; so people actually believed in Christ alone by faith alone, even if they didn't realize it or could not articulate it clearly.
Adomnan: Ken's position is that Augustine is a Chrisitan because he did not really believe what he said he believed.
By that criterion, everybody qualifies.
Adoman,
I think I defended the whole context of Isaiah 53 and the NT take on it in John 12 as fully supporting propitiation - the satisfaction of God's justice against sin by the voluntary love of Jesus (John 10:18; Luke 22:44) taking the punishment and God, who so loved the world that He gave His only unique Son . . . The harmony of the Trinity ( John 17) Every passage I quoted and typed has to do with it; and you have not dealt at all with Isaiah 53:1, 3-6, 10-11.
Anyway, I will leave for a while until Dave calms down.
Anything I say now is interpreted wrong and with even more intensity and pugnaciousness and ad hominem, and ok, impatience. impatience is sin also - I Corinthians 13, Galatians 5:22-23
one last comment as I am reading this seven part series on Sola Scritpura and the canon; which has yet to get an answer or interaction.
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org...bout-the-canon/
From Michael Patton at Parchment and Pen:
"We have a term that we use for people who require infallible certainty about everything: “mentally ill.” Remember What About Bob? He was mentally ill because he made decisions based on the improbability factor. Because it was a possibility that something bad could happen to him if he stepped outside his house, he assumed it would happen. There are degrees of probability. We act according to degrees of probability. Simply because it is a possibility that the sun will not rise tomorrow does not mean that it is a probability that it won’t."
Anyway, I will leave for a while until Dave calms down.
My views will be exactly the same on anti-Catholicism a week from now, a month, even 30 years from now. It has nothing to do with mere emotion. It's based on Scripture, history, and reason.
You say impatience is a sin? How about bearing false witness against brothers in Christ?
Or is it okay for the anti-Catholic to be passionate in his anti-Catholic preaching to lowly Catholics, so they can accept the gospel, come out of the Beast, and be saved, while the Catholic is never supposed to be passionate in his denunciations of anti-Catholicism, because that is too uppity and the unregenerate heathen papist has nothing to say to his Protestant overlords?
About the fathers and sola fide, there are degrees of culpability and a difference between explicitly denying a doctrine versus being silent on it or open to correction, between willful disbelief and a teachable spirit. They could be inconsistent in their articulations of grace and soteriology and atonement and the like as those questions simply were not at the forefront of the controversies. You have Augustine/Carthage/Orange and that's about it. I don't think most protestants claim sola fide as articulated in the Reformation was not a development, obviously it was. Just as RCs accept ecf's who did not believe in all aspects of Tridentine soteriology, or accept pre-Nicene fathers who were subordinationists, Protestants also accept fathers who might have been inconsistent or in error on certain points as the church had not yet been guided in tackling all the finer points (and as I showed with my McGrath citation, there was a wide spectrum of soteriological beliefs amongst RCs leading up to Trent (and amongst the representatives at session 6 of Trent itself)- it wasn't some uniform gradual development from Augustine to Trent). God does judge according to circumstances, though, too whom much is given, much is required - we are now in a better position than them so we have a higher degree of culpability; the pharisees were held to a higher standard than laymen.
Also, I'm interested in any answers to my previous post above about infallibility.
Ken: I think I defended the whole context of Isaiah 53 and the NT take on it in John 12
Adomnan: You sure? I don't recall that you even really tried. Do you mean just now or when we had that earlier discussion?
Ken: as fully supporting propitiation - the satisfaction of God's justice against sin by the voluntary love of Jesus (John 10:18; Luke 22:44)
Adomnan: Well, let's us what these verses say.
John 10:18: "No one takes (my life) from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have the power to lay it down and I have the power to take it up again. Such is the command I have received from my father."
This says that Jesus Christ died voluntarily and that this was in accord with the Father's will. Of course, no one doubts that. But this says nothing about the Father condemning and punishing him. So no penal substitution.
Ken, you don't seem to understand. To prove that the Father punished Jesus, you have to provide a verse from the Bible that says the Father punished Jesus. Is that so hard to fathom? Is that too much to ask?
You say that penal substitution IS the gospel. Shouldn't it be mentioned SOMEWHERE in the Bible?
Luke 22:44: "And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling on the ground."
Don't see God punishing anyone here. Besides, this is at the Mount of Olives. I thought you believers in penal substitution claimed God poured His wrath out on Jesus on the cross, not in the garden. So what does this have to do with the discussion at hand?
I suppose you'll say something like, "Jesus was sweating blood because he knew the Father was going to punish Him." Wow! That'd be reading between the lines! It's not there, so let's pretend it is? And then build our whole "gospel" on this pretense. No thanks.
Ken: taking the punishment and God,
Adomnan: Okay. We just looked at those two verses, and we saw that neither says anything about the Father punishing Jesus. Unless maybe your Bible comes with secret decoder glasses that aren't issued to us Catholics.
Ken: who so loved the world that He gave His only unique Son . . .
Adomnan: Only begotten Son. "Only" and "unique "mean the same thing.
Ken: The harmony of the Trinity ( John 17)
Adomnan: What specifically in John 17 do you see as teaching penal substitution?
Ken: Every passage I quoted and typed has to do with it;
Adomnan: We just looked at those passages and they have nothing to do with penal substitution.
Ken: Every passage I quoted and typed has to do with it; and you have not dealt at all with Isaiah 53:1, 3-6, 10-11.
Adomnan: Sigh. Let's look at these too, then.
Isaiah 53:1: "Who has believed what we have reported? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?"
Surely you don't mean to say that this verse teaches penal substitution?
Okay. How about Isaiah 53:3-6? I discussed these verses earlier, or at least 4-5, which in fact directly contradict penal substitution. This passage says that onlookers "thought" the Suffering Servant was punished by God, when in fact he wasn't.
Isaiah 53:10-11: This is the passage about the Lord "crushing" the Suffering Servant. Again, I discussed this above and you ignored what I said. (That's fine; other people read it and it may be helpful to their understanding.) Verse 11 also speaks of the Suffering Servant "bearing transgressions." Yes, in the sense that he is burdened with dealing with them, not that he is punished.
Ken citing Michael Patton at Parchment and Pen:
"We have a term that we use for people who require infallible certainty about everything: “mentally ill.”
Adomnan: We Catholics don't require infallible certainty about everything, but we do require infallible certainty about what God has revealed.
Ken,
You say:
"What I meant was in no way do I say "all Roman Catholics are not Christians". I think that there is probably a good number of RCs who don't know the details of the doctrinal accuracy but they have child-like faith in Christ alone for their salvation and justification. "
So essentially, you're saying you can be a nominal Catholic (i.e. doesn't know the details of the faith) and be a full Christian BECAUSE they don't know the faith. However, is someone is a Catholic who knows the Church's teachings and believes them then they are certainly damned because they know too much. I tell you Ken, you really need to think about what you write because your posts get stranger and more outlandish as they go.
It really makes no difference of the context of your post, political or otherwise, since Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, etc. despite your admiration for them they are self-professed, faithful Catholics who follow the Church's teachings. Again, they are "intelligent" as you consider Dave to be, but they are still un-regenerate, lost, "papists" according to your avowed viewpoints regarding Catholic theology.
You also state:
"I emotionally have wanted to not answer those questions that Dave gave, because, really, I don't know -- that is, I should not judge that/those issues."
If anything you've ever said is correct...this is THE most true statement you've made on this blog in the entire time you've been here.
You continue:
"... and since I believe it is truth and the heart of the gospel, if it is true, then the opposite has to be false. Therefore, the RC doctrinal position is a false gospel."
So again you prove the point that Protestantism in all its forms is inconsistent, incomplete, and the most self-serving form of Christianity. It is the "me-and-Jesus" philosophy that pits Scripture against history, reason, and Church authority and led Martin Luther, as it has most Protestants, to interpret Scripture according to their man made and fallible interpretations and come to incorrect conclusions in many areas.
Lastly Ken you say:
"I don't see how you can believe that we are Christians, because we knowingly reject the RC dogmas and so we have committed mortal sin, therefore we are going to hell."
Easy answer Ken...the authority of and my submission to the teaching of the Catholic Church. Sadly, yours and others only authority are the limits to which you understand Scripture and your personal beliefs.
I know that Sean Hannity openly dissents on the issue of contraception, so he is not a faithful Catholic: that being a grave matter of sin.
Adoman - you just completely ignored the Isaiah 53 passage and the quotes that the NT makes of it in John 12. see below (repeated again because you ignored it; look above; it was there earlier.
1 Who has believed our message?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
[the quote of this and the larger context of John 12:27-43 (Isaiah 53:1 and 6:10 quoted in John 12:38 -40) shows that it was the Jews who rejected Jesus as Messiah and God that were the ones that “considered Him stricken of God” for His own sins (they thought He was committing blasphemy, as John 19:7 clearly shows, along with John chapters 5, 8, 10. “We have a law, and He must die, because He made Himself out to be the Son of God”. So they thought He was being punished for His own guilt and sins; but in actually He was voluntarily taking the punishment for our sins in our place.]
2For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,
And like a root out of parched ground;
He has no stately form or majesty
That we should look upon Him,
Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.
3He was despised and forsaken of men,
A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
And like one from whom men hide their face
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
4Surely our griefs He Himself bore, [not His own]
And our sorrows He carried; [not His own]
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, [for His own griefs, sorrows, pains, transgressions, guilt, sins, iniquities]
Smitten of God, and afflicted. [for His own sins, but God did crush Him for our sins, as verse 10 clearly shows, so all is in context, more supportive of the penal substitution position, in the fellowship and unity of the Trinity.]
5 But [notice the contrast] He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities; [ The contrast is between His innocence and our guilt; not between “we thought God was punishing Him” and “He was not punished at all”. The contrast is between “He was smitten by God the Father out of love for us, the nations, the world, but was innocent as He voluntarily gave His life”
Vs.
“they thought He was being punished for His own sins of breaking God’s law and claiming to be the Messiah and God and the Son of God, etc.”]
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
6 All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the LORD ( the Father) has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him. (the Son)
Ken Temple | 09.30.08 - 12:03 pm | #
you condemn Sean Hannity for that?
See, I was right about RCs who loose their justification through mortal sin -
"Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God interceding for us." Romans 8:33-34
Your doctrine of justification contradicts the Bible, therefore is it wrong and heresy; a false doctrine.
Grace alone also means by the nature of it, that it is by faith alone - Romans 4:16
"For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those of who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of as all. " Romans 4:16
Adomnan: We Catholics don't require infallible certainty about everything, but we do require infallible certainty about what God has revealed.
Adomnan
The Scriptures are not good enough for you to read and study and understand and interpret; you have to have this extra
infallible certainty over which books which belong in the canon; when that is obvious by the nature of the documents themselves, compared to the uninspired writings that were sometimes endorsed by some.
You want an infallible certainty over a few dogmas and doctrines - is it 2 or 4 or 8 or 16 (at the most, I have heard by RCs); but you have no certainty over anything else.
You say you need infallible certainty about which interpretation is the right one; yet there is no list of those infallible doctrines/dogmas/interpretations/verses. And RCs disagree with each other over which ones and to what extent.
And yet, the demand for certainty over how you know Matthew wrote Matthew is contradicted by the official RCC. (They don't even know for sure if Matthew truly wrote it.)
Also, you don't have certainty over your own salvation and justification and acceptance with God, a clear contradiction of I John 5:13.
Raymond Brown: “Roman Catholics were among the last to give up defending officially the view that the Gospel was written by Matthew, one of the Twelve---a change illustrated in 1955 when the secretary of the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission gave Catholics "full liberty" in reference to earlier Biblical Commission decrees, including one which stipulated that Greek Matthew was identical in substance with a Gospel written by the apostle in Aramaic or Hebrew. [Raymond Brown, S.S., The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (New York: Doubleday, 1993), pp. 45-46, fn. 2.] On p. 27 and footnote 5, Brown also notes: "The Roman Catholic Church was one of the last major Christian bodies to regard the date and authorship of biblical books as a doctrinal issue.”
Adomnan: "We Catholics don't require infallible certainty about everything, but we do require infallible certainty about what God has revealed."
Hmm, so why is there no infallible list of infallible teachings forthcoming from the RCC?
How about bearing false witness against brothers in Christ?
Obviously, if I sincerely believe that RC doctrine is wrong, then it is not bearing false witness. To defend against false doctrine is a noble thing, as you believe your RC apologetics is a noble thing.
My views will be exactly the same on anti-Catholicism a week from now, a month, even 30 years from now. It has nothing to do with mere emotion.
So, you have infallible certainty that you are right in your own mind and heart about this position you take and you can infallibly declare into the future that you will have infallible knowledge that it will not change in a week, a month, 5 years, 10 years, or 30 years?
You have a lot of infallible certainty and almost claiming perfect knowledge of the future in your own mind.
"don't lean on your own understanding" Proverbs 3:5-7
"Do not be wise in your own eyes"
Ken Temple is now banned. He insists on continuing his preaching, which I have urged him to be careful about, if he wishes to remain here. There is a big difference between respectful dialogue and sanctimonious, condescending preaching of the most ill-mannered sort.
Specifically I've had enough of two things (just for the record):
1) Ken claiming to know my own faith and motivations better than I do myself. For example, he keeps repeating over and over that I am supposedly "angry" in some kind of fuming, out of control sense. I've denied this over and over but he keeps saying it. He lectured me like a child about aspects of Catholicism that he pretends to know more about than I do.
2) Ken's blatant, hypocritical double standard insofar as he reserves the right to preach (now with his newly-found anti-Catholic mentality) against Catholic doctrine on a Catholic blog, whereas whenever I dare to object to anti-Catholicism on principle, it is immediately dismissed by Ken in a most derisive manner as "hatred" and "angry" and solely "ad hominem" and so forth.
In other words, when he does his thing, it proceeds from the noblest of motivations (our salvation and regeneration). For my part, I was happy to grant that Ken has good motives and is sincere. I did so not far above. But Ken cannot possibly grant the same back to me when it comes to my objections to anti-Catholicism.
Thus, these two particularly annoying and obnoxious manifest attitudes go beyond even being an anti-Catholic. Anti-Catholics have been free to come here and comment as they wish, for the entirety of the time that this blog has existed (4 1/2 years): though they usually don't hang around long. Ken could have stayed, too, even to spout anti-Catholic nonsense, but these two things (clearly unrepented of, with no immediate intention to change) are deal-breakers.
They put me "over the edge," in the context of my usual willingness to allow more or less complete "freedom of speech" on this blog. Certain things are insufferable. It's yet another sad case of a person adopting anti-Catholicism and immediately showing, in rudeness and being oblivious to repeated factual matters.
It's all the more pathetic in a man of the cloth and a missionary. God bless his zeal, but it has now exhausted its purpose and usefulness on this blog. There are plenty of anti-Catholic venues where Ken can express it (places where I have long since been banned; e.g., the chat room of a certain notorious Baptist bishop).
Adomnan: "We Catholics don't require infallible certainty about everything, but we do require infallible certainty about what God has revealed."
Interlocutor: Hmm, so why is there no infallible list of infallible teachings forthcoming from the RCC?
Adomnan: Because God hasn't revealed such a "list." Maybe He isn't a list maker. You may be, but not everyone is, you know.
And He figured we don't need such a list. I know I don't.
There certainly is something at least approximating such a list:
Where Can One Find a List of Infallible Catholic Doctrines?
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...infallible.html
Mark my words, folks.
Wherever Ken goes now to complain about being banned (which is the usual procedure), almost certainly he'll follow the long-established anti-Catholic template and pretend that the reason was simply because he is a proclaimed anti-Catholic, and that I am scared of his arguments and now against free speech.
None of those things are in the least true (let it be made plain for the record). I explained this stuff above. But it'll (almost certainly) be claimed and stated anyway (which will be yet more compelling proof of the behavioral malady I have decried: this business of second-guessing what people say about their OWN opinions and actions).
The REAL reason is exactly as I explained in my post above. it was for relentless hypocrisy, uncharitability, and a certain sanctimonious rudeness, that is not intrinsic to anti-Catholicism, but yet so very often accompanies it: human nature being what it is.
False doctrine can't help but to have ramifications on human behavior.We saw it right before our eyes.
Ken was allowed to preach and express himself freely here for some three years or so, maybe even longer. He was right on the edge of being an anti-Catholic the whole time. He was always appealing to the bigshot anti-Catholic apologists, and arguing almost exactly like them. So no one can say that he hasn't had extraordinary free speech here, whereas I was always summarily banned from anti-Catholic boards and chat rooms (back when I still tried to enter them at all).
But all that will be ignored in the rush to condemn me as a petty tyrant: as if I don't have the right to maintain the tenor of this blog and the "discussion atmosphere" desired. If it ain't Ken himself doing this complaining, rest assured that some bigmouth anti-Catholic will do so.
Ken: You're banned, and so it's a bit cheeky for me to have the last word. So I'll be brief and try to avoid sarcasm.
Ken: [the quote of this and the larger context of John 12:27-43 (Isaiah 53:1 and 6:10 quoted in John 12:38 -40) shows that it was the Jews who rejected Jesus as Messiah and God that were the ones that “considered Him stricken of God” for His own sins (they thought He was committing blasphemy, as John 19:7 clearly shows, along with John chapters 5, 8, 10. “We have a law, and He must die, because He made Himself out to be the Son of God”. So they thought He was being punished for His own guilt and sins; but in actually He was voluntarily taking the punishment for our sins in our place.]
Adomnan: The problem with this analysis is that Isaiah 53 does't say they thought He was punished for His own sins; it just says they thought He was being punished. Period.
You see, if someone bears suffering because of evil that others do (which happens all the time), the suffering is there, but that suffering is not a punishment, from God or anyone else.
I don't deny that Jesus Christ suffered on our behalf. This is the gospel (in part). I deny that this suffering was inflicted by God, and so does Isaiah 53.
Ken, citing Isaiah 53 and adding his own words:
4Surely our griefs He Himself bore, [not His own]
And our sorrows He carried; [not His own];
Adomnan: Your addition of "not His own" is clearly an error, Ken. Are you saying that Jesus had no griefs or sorrows? But that's ridiculous. A perusal of the Passion story will show He had plenty of His own griefs and sorrows. Yes, he bore ours; but you must admit that He bore His own sorrows as well.
Ken, citing more of Isaiah 53 and adding more of his own words to the text:
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, [for His own griefs, sorrows, pains, transgressions, guilt, sins, iniquities]
Smitten of God, and afflicted. [for His own sins, but God did crush Him for our sins, as verse 10 clearly shows, so all is in context, more supportive of the penal substitution position, in the fellowship and unity of the Trinity.]
Adomnan: This verse doesn't say that the Suffering Servant was punished (many translations say "punished" for "stricken") for others' sins. It says "we" thought He was punished, period, but "we" were wrong, period. If we were wrong to think He was punished, then He wasn't punished, period.
As far as what the Jews and/or Romans at the time of the crucifixion thought, some may have considered Jesus guilty and deserving of death; others just used the accusations against Him as a pretext and knew they were condeming an innocent man. But in interpreting this text, that's neither here nor there. The only valid conclusion to be drawn by sticking to the text is that Jesus was not punished by God.
Ken, citing Isaiah 53:6 : But the LORD ( the Father) has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him. (the Son)
Adomnan: Yes, God so arranged things that Jesus Christ, like the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, suffered and died because of the sins of others and to remove them as a sin offering. But not all suffering is punishment. If you claim it is, then you must maintain there is no such thing as innocent suffering. Christ suffered for our sins, innocently and voluntarily; He was not punished by God for them, which would have been unjust.
Furthermore, offerings/sacrifices are NEVER punishments.
Ken: The Scriptures are not good enough for you to read and study and understand and interpret; you have to have this extra infallible certainty
Adomnan: That's right. The Scriptures are suppoed to be divine revelation. A divine revelation that gave us only opinions and questionable interpretations wouldn't be "good enough."
Fortunately, God is good, and what He reveals is certain. Otherwise, it wouldn't even be revealed.
Dave,
I have to agree with your decision. Ken was spiraling further and further and his posts were becoming proselytizing rants at best. I may way off base here but among the anti-Catholic sentiment, and in this case another Protestant minister, there seems to be a faint arrogance or prideful manner in the way they speak. I wonder if this is because most evangelical or fundamentalist pastors are self-appointed? There are many humble, faithful Protestant ministers out there but I'm wondering if there is a link between the self-appointed nature and the loathing anti-Catholic viewpoint. Hmmmmm.....
I believe Ken is Southern Baptist, so he would definitely not be self-appointed. We don't need to go down that road.
I've been accused of that myself, and so can relate to it, but it's not true. I had express approval from very high places (notably, Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., from almost the beginning of my apologetics apostolate).
In a funny sort of way, I think I'm going to miss Ken around here. But I was getting annoyed that he was more interested in preaching to us rather than directly interacting with posts. There were a lot of times he was wrong or had an illogical take on something, and he refused to admit it. He would often post link in good faith which he thought were rock solid but in fact were full of holes...and he would not interact with the criticism of those links.
Oh well...
I'll miss Ken, too: i.e., the old, gentlemanly Ken, not the newly-emergent sanctimonious and patronizing anti-Catholic Ken. How sad.
His case reminds me of that of Kevin Johnson, of "Reformed Catholicism" fame. He had developed into an ecumenical Protestant, with affinities to Catholic views in many regards, but then for some reason gradually fell back into a nasty anti-Catholicism.
There was a huge uproar and sort of "civil war" on his blog, leading to the eventual departure of 75-80% of his former comrades (J. Bonomo, T. Enloe, M. Pahls, etc.), who went on to make their own blog, called "Evangelical Catholicity."
It was another case study of what anti-Catholicism does to a person and a community. Even his own Protestant buddies had to get away from Kevin. Likewise, we need to get away from the new Ken, who has descended into patent theological nonsense and magically now knows interior motivations of others (such as yours truly).
Dave,
I hear what you are saying, but I was just thinking through it. The primary difference between what you do and what a baptist (or any) pastor would do, and are responsible for, I see as being very different--and carries more of a need for charity and love in all things--in short, a true shepherd.
Yes; absolutely. I'm no shepherd; I'm a defender and dialoguer and truth-teller. The pastor should be primarily a shepherd ("pastor" is the same root as "pastoral" in the natural sense) and especially charitable in expression, as one who is ordained or set apart. I couldn't agree more. I was just disagreeing with the characterization as "self-appointed" as applying to Ken.
It does remind me of the GK Chesterton quote about being fair to the church leads to becoming fond of the church. That is, you either have to be anti-Catholic in some way or be slowly drawn to Catholicism. I don't mean in terms of hating Catholics but just in terms of refusing to honestly deal with the questions that Catholicism brings up. Hatred is just one way of cutting off rational thought. You can use pride or anger as well.
Ken, citing more of Isaiah 53 and adding more of his own words to the text:
The Protestant way as started by Martin Luther in Romans.
"There certainly is something at least approximating such a list."
Dave, of course Denzinger and Ott aren't infallible, nor is the catechism. As Dulles even says in Magisterium: Teacher & Guardian of the Faith, "Except for the definition of the Immaculate Conception, there is little clarity about which papal statements prior to Vatican I are irreformable. Most authors would agree on about half a dozen statements." And that is just for a subset of infallible teachings (papal statements).
I'm just holding RCs to their own rules and arguments against SS (we must have an infallible Magisterium). Magisterial documents generate their own hermeneutical layers; Vatican II has various interpretations. Tavard wrote a whole article on Unam Sanctum in the book Papal Primacy and the Universal Church, focused in part on whether the last sentence was the only infallible portion (as advanced by other RC theologians), whether the arguments leading up to the conclusion are themselves erroneous (yet the truth of the conclusion not nullified), or whether it really should even be considered infallible at all, as Tavard says, "It is not a fruitful exercise to try to abstract a core of permanent truth from such a culturally dated and politically limited document as Unam sanctam." This is ONE magisterial document of thousands. As I said above, let's say I grant I need the Magisterium. Well, how do I go about figuring out if my beliefs mesh with it or not, I still have to go about interpreting these documents/canons/decrees for myself, where's this advantageous infallible assurance RCs always champion? And yes I realize authoritative teachings still are obligatory (of course figuring out which teachings hold what degree of force is yet another interpretive issue) even if non-infallible, but the whole argument RCs often advance is the need for infallible certainty (and Protestants also subscribe to fallible authoritative statements, such as their confessions).
The "infallibility regress" argument fails, as I think I showed 12 years ago with "Eric the Yellow" Svendsen:
Dialogue on the Logic of Catholic Infallible Authority
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...f-
catholic.html
And more recently:
Private Judgment and Finding the Right Church: Is the Catholic Rule of Faith and Epistemology Inherently Incoherent?
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ght-
church.html
The gist of it is that Christianity is not a philosophy. One cannot achieve airtight, mathematical certainty in matters of faith. The catholic authority structure is quite sufficient enough for us, as it was for the apostles and fathers.
And what is the particular brand of Protestantism that you espouse and can defend as superior to our system? It's easy to take swipes at the Huge Bog red barn f Catholicism. But the question is: what is the better alternative? Then when we see how Protestants try to resolve authority problems, it gets truly self-defeating and absurd.
That's not true of Catholicism. It's not philosophically airtight, but very few things are, so big wow. That's a big yawner. But (I contend) all forms of Protestant ecclesiology break down and become self-defeating, the more they are scrutinized.
Well, how do I go about figuring out if my beliefs mesh with it or not,
Very simple: read the Catechism. Read the ecumenical councils and (esp. recent) papal encyclicals.
"And what is the particular brand of Protestantism that you espouse and can defend as superior to our system?"
This is it - Protestants don't claim SS gives them a "superior" position epistemologically - just that there's epistemic parity between the 2 systems; infallibility does not give you this great advantage over SS. So that all the talk over "infallible certainty" that the RCC gives (or its apologists at least champion) is really smoke and mirrors. You rightly claim Catholicism isn't all rationalism and philosophy - there's a central element of faith. Do SS proponents claim any different for their position (and yet still get berated, "how do you know?" blah blah)? There are arguments for the RCC to be sure - the whole "must have infallible Magisterium" one just doesn't fly.
As for reading the catechism,encyclicals,etc. sure I can do that. Protestants can do the same with the confessions to discern Lutheran or Reformed or Anglican beliefs. Your answer is fine as long as it's not presupposing the need for the infallible Magisterium. Once that comes into play, the gears start falling off upon closer examination once we come down from theory to application.
Hi Interlocutor,
I've compiled your comments above and am now working on a new post, that will be up shortly. Please make any further comments on that new thread, and we can continue as you please. Thanks!
Commenting by HaloScan
