I’m going to be away from the blog for a few days, so I’m going to leave a few snippets of what I’ve been thinking about. I just wanted to first thank everyone for stopping by. You've all been a blessing to me, whether you wanted to or not.Item #1 Michuta on Luther
Catholic apologist Gary Michuta has started a new website. I saw Gary a few years ago when he debated James White on the apocrypha. He’s taken up the theme of the validity of the apocrypha on his new site.
When you click on the link for his material on the apocrypha, one of the first things you’ll find is a big picture of Martin Luther and this Luther quote: “ "...[Maccabees] has weight with the faithful, but it avails nothing with the obstinate." Now, what is Gary trying to prove? Does he really think Luther held a lifelong commitment to the canonicity of Maccabees? It’s fairly sad when one of the first items on webpage purporting to provide "truth" is a misuse of a Luther quote.
Gary Michuta gives the reference for this quote as "Martin Luther, Second Liepzig Disputation, July 8, 1519." Now, i'm not the best speller, but it's "Leipzig", not "Liepzig". Also, I don't think you will find this quote in the English edition of Luther's Works. I did a quick check, and couldn't find anything.
The topic of debate on July 8, 1519 was purgatory. Catholic apologetic references point out that Luther challenged the canonicty of Maccabees during this debate. The Luther quote Michuta uses implies Luther accepted the canonicity of the book during the Disputation. I would challenge Gary to produce a context, produce a reference, correct his spelling, or delete the Luther quote entirely from his website. If Gary wants Protestants to take his work seriously, he should at least quote Luther correctly. If he's simply putting out "shock" apologetics and using Luther as a pawn, then I will treat his work accordingly. Perhaps one of my Catholic readers can mention this to Gary. I think it's embarrassing.
Item #2 St Basil on Tradition
I came across this quote in a book I’ve been reading:
“Gratian cites an important text from St. Basil’s On The Holy Spirit that claims a mystical and secret tradition coming down from the fathers. Toward the end of the thirteenth century, St. Thomas recognized the existence of such a tradition but did not define its nature. He asserted that the apostles had believed certain things that must be preserved which were not left in scriptures but in the care of the Church through the succession of the faithful.” (John Headley, Luther’s View of Church History, 76).
Sounds Gnostic doesn't it? Secret tradition? Mystical? Yeah, that sounds like the Bible (I mean that with heavy sarcasm). For those of you with the King/Webster Holy Scripture 3 volume set, refer to pages 143-146 in volume 2 for some excellent research on this subject. Webster shows the misuse of Basil by Catholic apologetics, provides context, and clarifies the text. Also check out Colossians 2:8. When I get back, i'm going to write something up on this.
Item #3 Apolonio on the Fairness of God.
It’s been nice having Apolonio Latar around the last few days. He mentioned this:
“…[A] certain religious man in the Americas in the first century who does not know Christ but follows truth the best he can. Does this mean that his ignorance saves him? No. It just means that he is not held accountable for his ignorance. The judgment of this man is God's. *Can* he be saved? Of course, that is certainly a possibility. He may very well have implicit faith (Aquinas).”
Question: Is this part of the plan of salvation put forth in Holy Scripture? It sounds really good doesn't it? It's part of the theology of glory, not the cross. The cross is foolishness. "Glory"theology always tries to work stuff like this out. I mean, it's foolish to think that God would only allow the preached Gospel to reach certain ears throughout history. Certainly, God must offer salvation without the preached Gospel. God is fair guy! Well, i'm Reformed, so I don't have to work out solutions like that put forth by Mr. Latar.
Posts
7 comments:
With regards to Apolonio's comments, I think we can agree with him that people are nort condemned based on what they do not know about God. Rather they are responsibl for how they respond to what they do know. That is where Romans 1 comes in. Romans 1 is quite clear in saying that people invariably distort the truth of God. They always have. There is no reason to be optimisitc about people's responses now.
So the fact is that , sincere intentions aside, no one actually comes to God apart from being drawn to Him, and that is always through Christ. "Implicit faith" is always deficient because of our nature.
Really we see a betrayal of Catholic belief that people deserve top be saved. Hence God must go to all manner of lengths to make sure we are not held responsible for our faults. As if sending His Son wasn't enough, now he has to do an end run around our nature.
Strangely enough, if "Irresistable Call" were used as a measn of geting around our nature, it would render us automotons in Latar's eyes.
Interesting...
The point behind saying that people are only responsible for what they know is not meant to excuse any one; just the opposite. Romans 1 is clear that all people have acess to a true knowledge of God which they nevertheless inevitably corrupt. That universal access is the reason all people are without excuse.
Any denial of Christ that might come later merely consitutes a confirmation of what is already true.
Saying that peopel are not repsonsible for what they do not know simply avoids the idea that we condemn people for not beleiing in a Jesus they might never hear of.
The optimisitc assumption that Apolonio seems to harbor is that people will not twist the knowledge of God. That seems unduly optiimistc given teh biblical data. Alternatively he may believe that they may sincerely seek after God as He is. But that's not true. People seek after a god of their own preference, whic means they seek after an idol.
Only if called by God will people seek Him.
This I say by way of clarification, in case things were unclear previously.
Frank: the dumbest thing I have ever read in my life is the accusation that reformed/Calvinist advocates think people "deserve" to be saved -- as if God's choices are based respect of personal dignity. If you can indicate where in Oddball's comments he says anything resembling your objection, I'll retract my statement that the accusation is dumb.
Hi Frank,
Let me compare what you heard me say with what I said.
I said: "Romans 1 is clear that all people have acess to a true knowledge of God which they nevertheless inevitably corrupt."
You heard: "Romans chapter 1 says that all people have access to the truth"
The differnece is that I have not sai d"the truth" as though that ncluded th egospel. I said that "true knowledge of God". That doesn't imply any particualr extent. But defining extent is not the issue. The issue is that all people have access to some true knowledge. Whatever little it may be, people distort it. My conclusion is that there is no reason to be optimistic that poeple who are unfaithful with a little knowledge wil be anythign else with more. I believe this to be faithful to both Jesus and Paul.
I believe you have misunderstood me.
Frank: "I understand this sentence but am not sure that I can find bible passages which substantiate it."
That would be Ro. 1:20 and context.
Frank "Nowhere do I see clear verses which say all men have access to the true knowledge of God because if they did, they would know about Jesus Christ, the ultimate communication from God."
Again Frank you need to drop the "the" beofre truth. Any knowledge of God that He Himself provides is true knowledge. Ro. 1:20 says he does reveal somethign of himself through Creation. As that is self-revelation, it is true knowledge of Himself. It is available to all. It is not exahustive of Who God is, or of His truth. It is however sufficient to condemn should it be corrupted. And it is, inevitably so.
There is nothing about the Great Commission, or about God's desire to see all peopel come to Himelsf that in anyway contradicts the above staement by me.
You are misunderstanding me.
"I do not think that everyone hasfull access to God as your original statement claimed."
I never made that claim. I always said that all people have access to true knwoledge of God, not full knowledge of God. Whatever hey have, be it little or much, if it comes from God, is true knowledge.
You admit that people do have enough true knowlede of God that they shold be able to acknoeldge his existence (though you shold add that tehy should be able to recognise at least some of his attributes). That's all I have said.
Frank,
I am glad that you've had a chance to go over things again. I hope that you have expereienced that greatness of the gospel in a refreshing way.
I have enjoyed the exchange, myself.
Blessings to you.
Post a Comment