And now...a brief excursion into the world of the sublime....At this point, I don't really recall why Dave Armstrong no longer mentions my name on his blog, but rather writes about me using an insulting name he's created. I think, if I recall correctly, he's doing it as some sort of punishment. I'm a little fuzzy on all the facts at this point, but if I recall, after his negations via the telephone with Tim Enloe, they both decided to play nice together, and both removed the "Dave is [insert slander] " and the "Tim is [insert slander]" posts from their respective blogs. Of course, that peace only lasts as long as Dave can tolerate. He's recently re-posted his "Tim is [insert slander]" diatribes from long ago. Yes, turning the other check only can last so long in the world of DA. It is very reminiscent of junior high school.
A while back, Armstrong offered the same olive branch to me. He asked that I go through my entire blog, and remove any nasties I may have uttered against the DA empire. Go through my entire blog and edit? That's stuff for people with time to do. Perhaps a full time professional Catholic apologist sitting in his attic all day tapping away on his computer somewhere in Michigan has time for that, but I don't. No, I have a job and responsibilities. But Dave, the spiritual superior in sanctification he is, decided to take the high road, and began to delete all the "James Swan is [insert slander]" material from his blog. I recall at the time being both amazed and perplexed by his efforts. Amazed that he had the time to do it, and perplexed because, well, Dave has a hard time playing nice. Some kids can promise to be good, but that big pile of mud is just too tempting not to throw at someone.
Yes, the great efforts of the superior Catholic showed me the great moral high road... for a little while. He then began using an insulting name for me he made up..."John Q. "Deadhead." Now maybe he explained this ostensive title, if he did, I don't recall what the point is. So, he continued writing the same nasties against me, though without using my real name. Such is Catholic morality 101. This to me seems even worse than before he edited his nasty posts about me and sent me candy and flowers.
Now recently Dave Armstrong stopped by and left a few comments, which surprised me as well, because he vowed to never waste his time over here with me. I admit, I did leave a stray comment on one of DA's recent Luther entries when he posted he had recently "discovered an entire online translation of Martin Luther's tract, Against Henry VIII." I think my comment was "LOL". Discovered? No, he found it....by reading my blog. LOL.
But then DA appeared over here, which was very surprising.
Anyway, both he and Paul Hoffer seemed a bit befuddled by my comment about Gregory of Nyssa: "his language reflects his understanding of sacred scripture. The arguments I would have with him would be over his interpretation of the Biblical text, not his use of words that may not be found in the Bible." Both Dave and Paul thought this comment implied that in some sense, a modern day Roman Catholic (like Dave or Paul) could be considered as to adhering to sola scriptura. I was actually amazed by this sentiment- because, at least with these guys, I assumed each understood sola scriptura. I then recommended a few books for these guys to pick up.
This though was another opportunity for Dave to continue breaking his vow to never interact with me again. He posted, yet again, another one of those "James Swan is [insert slander]" posts. I actually tried to listen to it via his new MP3 feature, but it says "Sorry, this article is not available yet." I can only speculate it's a technical issue, or Dave isn't quite finished either adding or deleting more nasties to it. He tends to post and then edit. Anyway, I didn't save a copy, so whatever form it takes-mudless or mud throwing, is all up to Dave.
Anyway, this isn't all too difficult to explain. One aspect of Sola Scriptura says that the Scriptures are the sole infallible authority for the church. That is, the only evidence of God's infallible special revelation extant in the world today are the sacred scriptures. When Hoffer and Armstrong thought my comments in regard to Gregory of Nyssa's interpretation of the Bible could likewise be applied across the board to all Catholics, they in essence, missed this fundamental point. To my knowledge, Armstrong and Hoffer believe that God's infallible voice of special revelation is not only found in the Bible, but in the teaching magisterium and Sacred Tradition. My math isn't that good, but that's 3 vehicles of infallible special revelation, not 1. Therefore, it would be impossible to say any modern Romanist holding to 3 vehicles of infallible special revelation in any sense held to sola scriptura.
The counter to comment about Gregory of Nyssa would be to prove Gregory of Nyssa held that God's infallible voice of special revelation was found elsewhere. All the material I've seen so far shows that Gregory of Nyssa considered the Scriptures to be the infallible voice of God. I'm no expert on Gregory of Nyssa. Perhaps one could present interesting counter evidence showing at least, Gregory of Nyssa was inconsistent (recall he wasn't infallible). I'm sure Gregory of Nyssa believed the church has authority, well so do I. Sola scriptura does not deny the church has authority. I bet Gregory of Nyssa thought that there have been times in which God's infallible revelation was transmitted orally, well, so do I. Sola Scriptura does not deny there have been such times. I bet Gregory of Nyssa believed in tradition. Well, so do I. Sola scriptura is not a denial of all tradition. Some traditions can be God honoring and useful in the church. They are though, not infallible, and must be tested and scrutinized by the Scriptures. I bet Gregory of Nyssa believed the Holy Spirit guides the church, well so do I. The Holy Spirit can guide the church without her being infallible.
Posts
118 comments:
One can only wonder if those who deny SS are in denial as to what SS actually teaches (so as to have more hay for the straw man). During my Catholic days, I was completely befuddled about SS and was stuck to the literality of the term and never once did I look for explanations. Yet, after years of negligence, I took the time to seriously look at what Protestants meant by it and I had no argument. It made total sense to me. The walls that denied SS came crashing down rather quickly.
I have replied in an Addendum at the end of my original post:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/07/john-q-doe-sez-i-dont-know-or.html
Hi mouse,
Just because you were a clueless ignoramus about SS when you were a Catholic, doesn't mean all of us are. I understood it when I was a Protestant (since I was an apologist and evangelist then, too), and continued to when I became Catholic.
Since the illustrious blogmaster saw fit to ignore my proofs that I understand it, and chose obfuscation instead, perhaps you will be so kind as to refute my understanding of SS as being inaccurate?
Doe will also be thrilled, I'm sure, to learn that the audio of my post is now up and running. Apparently there is a little gap of time when a new post goes up.
No conspiracy here (sorry).
James,
I had not read Luther's reply to Henry VIII. Cut out the typical Luther rhetoric, and it really is quite substantial. The nub of the issue appears early when Luther says:
"For afflicted with chronic insanity they bring nothing against me but the statutes of men, the glosses of the Father and the acts, or ritual, of past centuries, those very things which I deny and impugn and which they themselves confess to be untrustworthy and often erroneous. I dispute de iure, and they answer me de facto. I seek a cause; they show a work. I ask, By what authority do ye do this? They reply, Because we do it and have done it. So for reason they give their will, for authority their ritual. For right they allege their custom, and that in the things of God."
This is precisely what numerous theologians and scholars had been noticing about the papalist faction in the Church for several centuries. Tierney demonstrates the "It's true just because we say it is" phenomenon at work in the papalists in his Foundations of Conciliar Theory when he goes through the centuries of canon law disputes about the limits of papal power and chronicles how the papalists literally thought that the pope was God's substitute on earth and that he did not have to give an account for anything he said or did to anyone on earth.
It really is an amazing phenomenon to behold. When one sets it in the even larger context of classical political discourse, which the Christians picked up, modified, and worked with all throughout the Middle Ages, the inescapable conclusion is that the Reformation was right to describe the papacy as a "tyranny," and it was right to invoke the authority of (to borrow Calvin's terminology) "lesser magistrates" to uphold the laws that the supposed supreme law-upholder was trampling underfoot.
Ironically, perhaps, in a way that's what Henry VIII himself was doing in breaking the stranglehold that the feudalized papacy was trying to exercise on England. The papacy had quite simply strayed far beyond its original mission (compare Bernard of Clairvaux's rebukes in "De consideratione" of Eugenius III at the beginning of the papal monarchy in the 12th century) and was attempting to subvert all authorities lawful and amass their power to itself.
It was a massive case of lawlessness and usurpation, and the Reformation was fully in line with the whole tenor of the Western tradition (classical and Christian) to resist it. I think the lawlessness of the papacy was, in fact, one reason why Luther burned the canon law in response to Leo X's excommunication of him. It was essentially an in-your-face announcement that since the papacy did not truly care even about its own laws, its subjects did not have to, either.
. . . that's what Henry VIII himself was doing in breaking the stranglehold that the feudalized papacy was trying to exercise on England. The papacy had quite simply strayed far beyond its original mission . . . and was attempting to subvert all authorities lawful and amass their power to itself.
Right. And of course, Henry VIII giving himself all power, over against the pope, stealing all the monasteries and churches, getting "married" six times, beheading St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher (a thing that Luther expressed delight about), and drawing and quartering Catholics who simply wanted to keep worshiping as they had for centuries, was undeniably a huge improvement over the "tyrannical" papacy. Who could doubt it? BIG improvement in piety and Church governance there . . .
Hello James,
You wrote:
>> Anyway, both he and Paul Hoffer seemed a bit befuddled by my comment about Gregory of Nyssa: "his language reflects his understanding of sacred scripture. The arguments I would have with him would be over his interpretation of the Biblical text, not his use of words that may not be found in the Bible." Both Dave and Paul thought this comment implied that in some sense, a modern day Roman Catholic (like Dave or Paul) could be considered as to adhering to sola scriptura. I was actually amazed by this sentiment- because, at least with these guys, I assumed each understood sola scriptura. I then recommended a few books for these guys to pick up.>>
Me: And I am “actually amazed” that you still seem to be suggesting that there is a single, monolithic interpretation of what constitutes sola scriptura. You claim that the early Church Fathers held to the SS of the magisterial Reformers, but many Protestant patristic scholars (e.g. Kelly, Lane, Williams) disagree (see THIS THREAD, and the links contained therein, for references).
As for recommended books/essays, you really need to expand your list and include some scholars who are not known for their anti-Catholic bias.
Grace and peace,
David
David (Waltz), it seems to me that James already addressed your concern in his post. The remark of his that he cited made a distinction between Gregory of Nyssa's view of Scriptural authority and Gregory's particular interpretations of Scripture. That's all the Magisterial Reformation sola Scriptura position has to do when it offers historical evidence for itself.
Sola Scriptura is a statement about the nature and authority of Scripture relative to other authorities. It is not a statement about the contents of the history of biblical interpretation, nor is it, as James rightly pointed out, a principle that denies the very category of "tradition" any legitimacy. Although it is certainly the case that the Reformers themselves had a particular hermeneutical method (they were working with a basically Renaissance approach to texts), as far as I can tell, the principle of sola Scriptura does not imply that a particular hermeneutical method be used on Scripture. Let alone does it imply that total interpretive unanimity result from a common confession of the principle that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith.
The contents of bibliographies about sola Scriptura is not the point. The point is that Catholic apologists as a general rule simply do not understand the principle of sola Scriptura, and much of what they write against it is simply irrelevant because flatly wrong.
Tim can make his usual broad, vapid (and inaccurate) remarks about entire classes of folks (in this case, Catholic apologists). But he and Doe and Churchmouse and Mr. Fan and whoever else wants to join in the ignorance-fest cannot prove that this is true in MY case (as one such apologist -- and we know how dumb and stupid Tim thinks I am! LOL).
I've given documentation about my own understanding of sola Scriptura that removes all doubt. I understood the concept perfectly well long before Tim and Doe ever did (back when Tim was in his self-described "incredibly immature" period, which lasted till about three years ago, by his reckoning).
These guys (in this dispute, starting with the claims of my own and Paul Hoffer's alleged extreme ignorance) can only insult and speak in puerile, hackneyed generalities. They'll do anything besides deal with the actual relevant facts of the matter.
This is precisely the distinction between rational argumentation and propagandizing, or attempted smearing and misrepresentation of the opinion of others. Why such tactics are not immediately embarrassing to those who practice them is truly a marvel to behold.
Not that I am surprised to see it, mind you. I've observed this in Doe and Tim for ten years, and when warring against Catholics, anything goes, no matter how ridiculous or anti-factual.
David Waltz,
Wouldn't it be fair to say that "scholars disagree" with virtually any position one takes on anything?
-TurretinFan
I thought Dave A. was not going to interact with "anti-Catholics" any more?
Hi Tim,
Thanks for responding; you wrote:
>> David (Waltz), it seems to me that James already addressed your concern in his post. The remark of his that he cited made a distinction between Gregory of Nyssa's view of Scriptural authority and Gregory's particular interpretations of Scripture. That's all the Magisterial Reformation sola Scriptura position has to do when it offers historical evidence for itself.>>
Me: I (as well as Lane, Williams, et al.) disagree—the SS of Gregory (and so many other early CFs) was not the SS of the Magisterial Reformation. Your position seems to be the virtually same as Mathison’s (as outlined in his The Shape of Sola Scriptura); and you (like Mathison), have yet to provide a cogent critique of Lane’s essay and/or Williams numerous works on this issue.
>>Sola Scriptura is a statement about the nature and authority of Scripture relative to other authorities.>>
Me: Agreed; and I would argue (along with Land and Williams) that the early CFs viewed certain aspects of Tradition quite differently than the Magisterial Reformation.
Grace and peace,
David
"I've observed this in Doe and Tim for ten years, and when warring against Catholics, anything goes, no matter how ridiculous or anti-factual."
Anti-factual?? LOL talk about ridiculous.
Hi TF,
You said:
>>Wouldn't it be fair to say that "scholars disagree" with virtually any position one takes on anything?>>
Me: Yes, I think you are correct here. Yet with that said, in this particular case/issue I think one needs to take into consideration the credentials and presuppositions of the Evangelical authors who are disagreeing.
Grace and peace,
David
David (Waltz), well, I didn't actually say that I personally think the sola Scriptura of the Magisterial Reformers was the same as that of the view of the Fathers. Honestly, I haven't looked at any of that stuff for about 6 years, and I have not read Lane or Williams. My purpose in writing to you was not to try to refute you (this is an apologetics site, but I'm not interested in fighting for its own sake), but to simply say that I thought James had already anticipated your point. The details of particular arguments, such as whether or not the Fathers believed in "sola Scriptura" (definition to be talked about) can be worked out as one goes along.
That being said, yes, my own default position about what sola Scriptura definitionally is is indeed that of Mathison's work. Probably because I have spent so much time studying the Medieval era's intensive debates over a number of important theological and practical loci, I find Mathison's historical case linking the Magisterial position to Tradition I quite convincing, and a very fruitful place to begin one's inquiries.
I did just locate the Williams article on sola Scriptura that you mentioned in one of your blog entries, and I will at least read that. I'm very much interested in growth in my own views, and will certainly be glad to engage with any form of responsible criticism regardless of the source.
Hi Ken,
How are ya!
On this site there are no anti-Catholics, because such a thing doesn't exist in the first place. Don't you know that? :-) :-)
Hello again Tim,
In the latter part of your response, you wrote:
>> I did just locate the Williams article on sola Scriptura that you mentioned in one of your blog entries, and I will at least read that. I'm very much interested in growth in my own views, and will certainly be glad to engage with any form of responsible criticism regardless of the source.>>
Me: Cool; and don’t forget A.N.S. Lane’s insightful essay. Mathison references Lane’s essay in a footnote (#13), on page 86 of his book.
Earlier, in the same post, you penned:
>> David (Waltz), well, I didn't actually say that I personally think the sola Scriptura of the Magisterial Reformers was the same as that of the view of the Fathers. Honestly, I haven't looked at any of that stuff for about 6 years, and I have not read Lane or Williams. My purpose in writing to you was not to try to refute you (this is an apologetics site, but I'm not interested in fighting for its own sake), but to simply say that I thought James had already anticipated your point. The details of particular arguments, such as whether or not the Fathers believed in "sola Scriptura" (definition to be talked about) can be worked out as one goes along.>>
Me: Thanks for the further clarification; however, James’ reflections make little (no?) sense if he believes Gregory’s SS is different than his own—hence the general direction of my first post.
Grace and peace,
David
David, thanks for the link to the Lane article.
I guess we'll just disagree on how to take what James said. I think the basic point is that if a certain view of what Scripture is is distinguished from particular methods of how Scripture is to be interpreted, James' point about divergences between himself and Gregory of Nyssa makes perfect sense. The divergence would not be because one accepted "tradition" as a category of thought relevant to theologizing while the other does not, but only on the particular contents of "tradition" and their relationship to the teaching of Scripture.
If, on the other hand, the case can be successfully made as to your assertion that what "tradition" was for a man like Gregory was something far different than what it is for a man like James Swan, then your post will make perfect sense. But I don't care to get into that debate myself.
What I am concerned with is only that "sola" Scriptura be properly represented in arguments. Of course it is true that there are various views of it even amongst Protestants. This is precisely why the Magisterial Protestant view of the matter (Tradition 1) has to be separated from the Radical Protestant view of the matter (Tradition 0). There is a great deal of confusion about this on both sides, and it contributes heavily to much wasted time and energy.
>> David, thanks for the link to the Lane article.>>
You are more than welcome Tim. While on the subject of links, do you have one for the Williams’ essay? I have a hard-copy, but to-date, have not found it online.
David, I got it through the journal access I have with the University of Dallas Library. I don't know if there are copyright issues with freely sharing such things. Do you?
Hi Tim,
I am anything but a legal expert on such matters; but as long as one is not charging another...
Just a beachbum's thoughts
I would be very interested in hearing from ALL the participants of this thread if they are in essential agreement with THIS ESSAY, written by William Webster—especially when read in conjunction with THIS THREAD.
Grace and peace,
David
I would be very interested in hearing from ALL the participants of this thread if they are in essential agreement with THIS ESSAY, written by William Webster—especially when read in conjunction with THIS THREAD.
Hi David,
Webster is wrong, just as any Protestant who argues that the fathers (many or even a significant minority) adopted some form of SS are dead wrong (as the best Protestant scholars and Church historians themselves affirm: Oberman, Kelly, Pelikan, etc.). I think I've shown this in my book on the fathers, which contains 112 pages on this topic.
You've shown it in your excellent papers. Many others have demonstrated it. But nothing is sufficient for our harshest critics.
William Webster is notoriously deficient and inaccurate in how he portrays both the fathers and Catholic belief. He's not to be trusted in those areas at all, as far as I am concerned. He is especially clueless about development of doctrine. I have refuted him at length, twice, without a single word in reply back from him:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/02/refutation-of-william-websters.html
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/08/refutation-of-protestant-polemicist.html
He acknowledged the first in friendly manner, but I never heard one word back, regarding the content. So I am quite unimpressed with his research and his unwillingness to interact with criticism (a general tendency of the anti-Catholics, as my 12-year online experience abundantly confirms).
I engaged apologist Jason Engwer in a huge, CARM-sponsored debate on SS and the fathers, but alas, he decided to leave the debate less than halfway through:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/reply-to-jason-engwers-catholic-but.html
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/reply-to-jason-engwers-catholic-but_21.html
I've been in many debates about the fathers' views. My experience has been -- almost universally --, that the Protestant (even the many who weren't anti-Catholics, that I have debated) offers no further argumentation, once the Catholic side is presented. That's a shame, because for me, the best part of every debate or dialogue is in the second round, where things get very interesting. It's so rare to find anyone who is even willing to get that far into a discussion. 'Tis a pity. But if one has a weak case, this is altogether to be expected.
Hello Mr. Armstrong,
May I ask you to delineate, in a very specific way, the difference between an "anti-Catholic" Protestant opponent and those Protestant opponents who are not "anti-Catholic?" I'm not asking for names, I'd just like to get a better sense of what Catholics consider to be "anti-Catholic." Thank you.
Respectfully,
Pilgrimsarbour
"I thought Dave A. was not going to interact with "anti-Catholics" any more?"
Yeah, so did I. I guess the Holy-water hot tub business must be at a low ebb.
Golly gee willikers... here I was busy reading up on ol' proto=protestant and sola scripturist (not) St. Gregory of Nyssa and while I have been gone I get all mentioned in an article written by Mr. Swan.
One can represent that I am befuddled and do not understand sola scriptura, but I would suggest the real problem here is that you do not understand what Tradition really is or means to Catholics, which is why I expressed my incredulity at your statement about sola scriptura, Mr. Swan.
In summary:
St. Gregory of Nyssa was a bishop of the Catholic Church, an appointed successor to the apostles themselves. As a bishop of the Catholic Church, he had the right, authority and responsibility to interpret Scripture and to teach others the intent or meaning of Scripture and to bind others to such.
I laughed until I cried when I saw Mr. Fan discuss St. Gregory's hermenutics which in truth is a fundamental aspect of what Tradition is--how doctrines are determined and formulated from the Word of God, whether it comes from written Scriptures or from the writings of the early Church as to what the Apostles taught, liturgical practices, etc. as practiced INSIDE the Church.
Tradition simply put has two components--the thing being transmitted and the act or manner in which that thing is transmitted. The Church and those in it give that Tradition value and authority.
How Catholics use the word Tradition is either inhesive and/or constitutive. Inhesive Traditions are doctrines that are found or described in the written Scriptures. Constitutive Traditions are doctrines not found in Scripture, but can be harmonized with Scripture and are shown through the teaching authority of the Church not to conflict with what is in the Scriptures. Doctrines and dogma taught by the Church fall into these two categories or a combination thereof. If a tradition (or to be more literal a teaching) that is passed on does not fall into those two categories or a combination thereof, then they are not Traditions nor are we required to believe them.
That being said, it is true that we Catholics believe that all Traditions which are approved by the Church, whether they are considered Divine Traditions, Apostolic Traditions, or Ecclesiastical Traditions command our respect. However, even Ecclesiastical Traditions (those which do not expressly contain in themselves the revealed Word of God) are authoritative only because Christ expressly taught "He that heareth you (the Apostles, the disciples, and their successors, the bishops of the Church), heareth Me." (Luke 10:16).
It all boils down to this-sola scriptura can not work because because those who practice it do not recognize the successors of the Apostles as having the authority to bind and loose what one is to believe. Rather, you recognize the non-scriptural notion of private judgment which places you at the pinnacle of authority in opposition to the Church.
It is all fine and good to quote St. Gregory of Nyssa as someone who looked to the Scriptures as ulitmate proof of his teachings, but that is not a problem for Catholics because we believe that the ECF's could authoritatively interpret Scripture and then teach how we, the Faithful, are to understand them. The point where we part ways is the fact that you do not recognize St. Gregory's authority to interpret or teach. You reserve for yourselves the right to pass judgment on what is taught placing yourselves even above the Scriptures.
Comment cont.
What is the point of quoting St. Gregory of Nyssa if you are not going to accept what he teaches? Are you now going to tell me that you accept the teaching of St. Gregory that the substance of the bread and wine are really changed during the Divine Liturgy into actual, physical Jesus Christ? Do you now recognize the Mother of God as the Theotokos, ever-virgin, and the New Eve? Do you now believe in infant baptism and that baptism sacramentally regenerates souls? Do you acknowledge his teaching of the value of intercessory prayer to Mary and the saints?
Tell me, does St. Gregory of Nyssa teach that anyone has the right and authority to interpret the Scriptures and to disregard the teachings of the bishops who lead the Church and yet can call themself a member of the Faithful? Does he teach any of the Calvinistic notions of TULIP? Does he deny the sacerdotal nature of the priesthood or the fact that the sacraments are the means by which God distributes grace?
Are you getting the idea of why I expressed my incredulity at your definition of sola scriptura? Because without its bastard child, private judgment, your expression of sola scriptura is actually reconcilable with what the Catholic Church itself teaches.
Most annoyingly, the fact that folks would cite St. Gregory of Nyssa, who expressly taught the Real Presence, the Sacraments, a fair number of the Marian dogmas, purgation of the soul after death, the generative powers of Baptism, etc., miss the whole point of what Tradition is. While I have no problem with St. Gregory of Nyssa looking to the Scriptures as being authoritative, you are the one with the problem because you do not recognize St. Gregory of Nyssa to interpret the Scriptures authoritatively. Tradition is nothing less than, "the living and teaching body, consituted by Christ, to guard and explain to the Faithful, the Deposit of Faith" of which St. Gregory was a part of himself as a bishop.
BTW, Churchmouse, as I see it, the problem was not whether you were befuddled about sola scriptura, the fact is that you were actually befuddled over the meaning of the word Tradition. I will pray that you return to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church will be sooner as opposed to later.
Since some folks are in the mood to suggest bedtime reading, I suggest that folks read Msgr. George Agius' book, "Tradition and the Catholic Church."
God bless!
Dave, my but you seem to be in a funk! Sorry, if my post offended you, but you must understand, early on--and you are correct--I was one of many "ignoramuses" who relied on the wordy "answers" that folks, such as yourself, provided for me. It was all good and it gave me the warm-fuzzies to know that there were such towers of apologetic eloquence, men such as yourself, to school me on the nuances of inferior Protestant mind and their inability to see the obvious (whatever that may be). After all, issues, such as SS, cannot be understood unless it comes from someone who's been there, wasn't the "ignoramus" that I was, and makes it a living to do so. Yet, in retrospect, it was equivalent to getting caught in the vines with a very dull machete.
Do I spot a challenge? Let me think this out: Do I want to spend hours trying to decipher a tedious, time-consuming, mass of wordiness just so you can pound your chest? And all because there are some here, including me, who don't take you all that seriously? I'm not one of those "ignoramuses" anymore, remember? In the past, I've tried reading your blog and the contents therein, but ultimately, I blank out and hear the incessant rambling of the late great Michael Jackson going "hee hee" over and over again in my brain. I have to tie my legs together just to keep from moonwalking. So, no, the truth is I won't even read it and I will continue being a blissful "ignoramus", at least as far as YOU are concerned. After all, I've got a life to live and very little time to live it.
Cheers! :-)
Hi Pilgrim,
May I ask you to delineate, in a very specific way, the difference between an "anti-Catholic" Protestant opponent and those Protestant opponents who are not "anti-Catholic?"
Sure. The anti-Catholic believes that Catholicism is not a Christian system of theology. They think Catholics deny the very gospel of grace and that an observant Catholic is (in all likelihood) unregenerate. The usual things accompanying this would be to hold that Catholicism is akin to paganism and that it is Pelagian (works-salvation). The Mass is also considered rank idolatry.
The majority of Protestants are not anti-Catholic at all. They recognize Catholics as fellow Christians and believers in the Body of Christ, while they disagree with the usual issues of dispute between Catholics and Protestants, and obviously consider Protestantism a preferable Christian option. That is what I used to believe as an evangelical Protestant.
Does that answer your question?
Hi mouse,
It wasn't my contention that you were an ignoramus. You informed us of this yourself:
"During my Catholic days, I was completely befuddled about SS and was stuck to the literality of the term and never once did I look for explanations. Yet, after years of negligence, . . .
All I did was follow up on that (adding no speculation to it), by stating:
"Just because you were a clueless ignoramus about SS when you were a Catholic, . . ."
You made the comment that those of us who oppose SS are ignorant of it, while admitting that you were profoundly ignorant of the meaning yourself, which strikes me as quite probable projection. When challenged to show me where my definition is inaccurate (which was Doe's foolish accusation that I refuted), you respond with the usual load of insults.
Thanks, at any rate, for the classic display of anti-Catholic obscurantism and fine Christian charity. I have preserved it for posterity in my post.
Hi Dave,
Let me see if I got you correct: My being "befuddled" merits being called a "clueless ignoramus"??? And that's a nice thing?
My "wondering" (<<--qualifier) if those who deny SS yada, yada, yada...is read as me making a "comment that those of us who oppose SS are ignorant of it."
And last but not least, after the provocation, you say...
"Thanks, at any rate, for the classic display of anti-Catholic obscurantism and fine Christian charity. I have preserved it for posterity in my post."
Can I expect any less? After all, Dave does as Dave wants and he wins every time. He pontificates and it is. I stand anti-Catholic and uncharitable because Dave deemed it so.
Now, ask me if I care :-)
Let me see if I got you correct: My being "befuddled" merits being called a "clueless ignoramus"???
Not quite. What merits the description is your self-description of "completely befuddled about SS and . . . never once did I look for explanations . . . years of negligence" coupled with the projection of your ignorance onto those of us who have an honest disagreement as to the truth of SS, and also the complete lack of any rational argument in support of what you "wondered" about.
You are trying mightily to spin this to make me look like an arrogant jerk, but you're failing because you are clearly, obviously twisting my words. Twice now, you have implied that I called you a "clueless ignoramus" in a sweeping sense, which I did not do. I said "clueless ignoramus about SS" (big difference) -- and that was based on your own colorful description.
Greetings Mr. Armstrong,
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
My Catholic upbringing militates against the idea that I was not, in at least some sense, a believer in Christ while a member of the RCC.
On the other hand, there is sufficient biblical and internal witness to evidence, in my view, that I did not, in fact, know Him as I ought. Nor do I believe it likely that had I continued in Catholicism I would have come to know Him as I ought.
However, the Reformed principles regarding election and predestination, of which you are undoubtedly aware, comfort me that believers will be found throughout the world and in history having been members of all kinds of Christian denominations, including the RCC.
Now I may, perhaps, stand to look like a double-minded coward to some here whom I respect, but I cannot at this time in good conscience claim that Catholics are not Christians. I do, however, hold very strong convictions which I will defend should I be asked to give an account of my beliefs.
So once again, thank you for your response. And now the obligatory back-handed compliment: At least you're not a Mormon asking me if I think you're a Christian. ;-)
Blessings in Christ,
Pilgrimsarbour
Hi Mouse,
I misunderstood one of your earlier comments, thinking that your reading of my work was a contributing factor to your decision to leave Catholicism for Calvinism. You wrote:
"I . . . relied on the wordy "answers" that folks, such as yourself, provided for me. It was all good and it gave me the warm-fuzzies to know that there were such towers of apologetic eloquence, men such as yourself, to school me . . . "
Then I read in your combox for a February 2009 post, where you commented:
"I left about 26 years ago and there is no looking back."
http://churchmouse57.blogspot.com/2009/02/thinking-of-converting-to-rome.html
Obviously, then, my apologetics had nothing whatsoever to do with your decision to switch affiliations, since that dates your change back to 1983 (when I was a fervent evangelical Protestant). I became convinced of the truth of Catholicism in late 1990 and was not active in Internet apologetics till 1997 (with some published articles in magazines starting in 1993). You couldn't possibly have seen any writing of mine, then, till ten years after you became a Protestant.
Musta been someone else other than myself. Since I misunderstood your meaning here, I figured some others might do the same; hence the clarification. It was other men (presumably apologists) "such as [my]self". I wonder who they were, back in 1983 and earlier? I know Peter Kreeft was writing at that time.
Greetings Mr. Hoffer,
In regard to (Church) tradition you said:
"...how doctrines are determined and formulated from the Word of God, whether it comes from written Scriptures or from the writings of the early Church as to what the Apostles taught, liturgical practices, etc. as practiced INSIDE the Church."
Is it your view, then, or the view of the RCC, that those students who were under the direct teaching of their mentors the apostles were:
a) on an equal footing with their mentors regarding the Spirit's inspiration in their understanding and dissemination of the gospel, and how can we know this?
b) that those students never departed from what they had received from their teachers when passing it on to their own students, and how can we know this?
c) that those students never departed from what their teachers taught them, and so on down the line?
I am concerned that we may think uncritically about the nature of oral tradition, given what Paul has to say in Galatians 1:6ff. We have here recorded for us in Holy Scripture a very quick apostasy from what Paul himself had recently taught the church there.
My question would be, how can we know infallibly that oral tradition is infallibly contiguous?
Blessings,
Pilgrimsarbour
Hi Pilgrim,
Then you are not an anti-Catholic in my book at all. I'm delighted to hear it.
I came to know Jesus personally as Lord and Savior as an evangelical Protestant, after a profoundly life-changing evangelical conversion in 1977, after six months of deep depression. That relationship has deepened since my conversion to Catholicism.
One can discuss "Christianity" in a strictly doctrinal sense (as I was doing, and tend to usually do; especially in a discussion like this about the terminology of "anti-Catholic") and/or in the sense of personal discipleship, which is equally important, but more difficult to discuss objectively, because by nature it is a subjective and spiritual, internal, deeply personal thing. Nominalism and lukewarmness can be found anywhere. I saw plenty of it in my Protestant days and I certainly see a lot of it in Catholic circles.
So I fully agree that there are many Catholics (just as there are many Protestants) who do not know Jesus "as they ought to." There are tons of hypocrites on both sides. I disagree, however, that it is required for one to become a Protestant in order to experience this personal relationship. If anyone thinks otherwise, The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis will quickly disabuse him. I have posted relevant excerpts from that spiritual masterpiece (written in the 15th century, before Protestants supposedly "restored the gospel"):
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/06/personal-relationship-with-jesus.html
I even wrote a paper proving that all the basic notions expressed in a Campus Crusade "Four Spiritual Laws" tract, are found in every Catholic Mass:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/06/foolishness-of-commonly-heard-charge.html
You're a brave man to express what you did on this blog, and I respect you for it. You'll probably be subjected to all sorts of pressure now, and viewed as a "double-minded coward" and compromiser by some who read this. And above all, you will be suspect because you were friendly and acted normally towards me, which is the ultimate kiss of death in many Protestant Internet circles. I hope they aren't too hard on you. :-)
And now the obligatory back-handed compliment: At least you're not a Mormon asking me if I think you're a Christian. ;-)
LOL That's funny. My first major research as an apologist was starting in 1981, when I studied and wrote about Jehovah's Witnesses, in connection with a local evangelical counter-cult ministry. In 1982 I wrote a paper about the name-it-claim-it errors of Copeland, Hagin et al, which is online on my site (as is my final JW paper). My only radio appearance as a Protestant was talking about JWs one night in 1989, on WMUZ: the largest Christian radio station in metro Detroit. That can be heard on my site as well.
I haven't learned nearly as much about Mormonism, but I have engaged in a debate with a Mormon elder, and the only known photograph of me personally evangelizing, is with the Mormons at the Ann Arbor Art Fair in 1989, a year before I became a Catholic:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FOIrYyQawGI/SH5Q4-Y_7NI/AAAAAAAAAwU/F01E1qZdL64/s1600-h/D3.JPG
Pilgrimsarbour wrote:
"Is it your view, then, or the view of the RCC, that those students who were under the direct teaching of their mentors the apostles were:
a) on an equal footing with their mentors regarding the Spirit's inspiration in their understanding and dissemination of the gospel, and how can we know this?"
I write" To the first part no and to the second part, we do know this because as you pointed out in Galatians as well as in Revelation, people were not getting doctrine correct.
You wrote: b) that those students never departed from what they had received from their teachers when passing it on to their own students, and how can we know this?
I write: Again to the first part No and to the second part~ditto.
You wrote: c) that those students never departed from what their teachers taught them, and so on down the line?
I write: Ditto and ditto.
You wrote: I am concerned that we may think uncritically about the nature of oral tradition, given what Paul has to say in Galatians 1:6ff. We have here recorded for us in Holy Scripture a very quick apostasy from what Paul himself had recently taught the church there.
I write: I am concerned about it too, Tradition is to be viewed very critically which is why the Church was very slow in promulgating certain doctrines. Galatians actually helps prove my point though. Galatians was was perhaps the first epistle St. Paul wrote. From reading it, it appears that men (Judasizers) who did not receive a commission from the apostles or from St. Paul were preaching differently from what the apostles and St. Paul were preaching. Based on Chapter 2, it appears that the letter was written shortly after the Council of Jerusalem when the issues in dispute were decided. At that time, there were no bishops other than the apostles themselves.
As the Church was growing, the apostles and St. Paul realized that they could not be everywhere to ensure that the Gospel message was being taught correctly-they started out by writing epistles, but very soon realized that was not enough. To make sure that there was correct teaching, they did two things-the Gospels were written and they started to appoint bishops. We know that the bishops were appointed to teach because of verses like 1 Tim. 6:20 and 2 Tim. 1:13-14 where St. Paul charges Timothy to "guard" what has been entrusted to him. See also, Titus 1:5 and 2:1.
You wrote: My question would be, how can we know infallibly that oral tradition is infallibly contiguous?
I write: The Scriptures tell us so. The Holy Spirit dwells in the Church (See for instance Jn. 14:26; Acts 20:28), He is the Spirit of Truth (Jn. 14:17), Mt. 16:18-19. Mt. 28:20, etc. Further, we see it in the writings of the ECF's, in the liturgies, in the ancient prayers and hymns, in the pictures and mosaics found in catacombs and early churches. For example, we see in the writings like the Didache, in 1 Cor. 10-11, in St. Ignatius's letters, St. Justin's 1st Apology, in St. Hippolytus' writings etc. a celebration of a liturgy and an Eucharist that is contiguous to this day, likewise Baptism.
However, to the point that I think that you are getting at, it does require faith that Holy Spirit will keep the Church from error. And certainly, noone can doubt that God has the power and sovereignity to make sure His Church does not teach error.
God bless!
Dave:
You call us "Christians" but do you use that term as synonymous with "saved"? Or do you mean something less by that?
-TurretinFan
Dave said:
Obviously, then, my apologetics had nothing whatsoever to do with your decision to switch affiliations, since that dates your change back to 1983 (when I was a fervent evangelical Protestant)....You couldn't possibly have seen any writing of mine, then, till ten years after you became a Protestant.
Musta been someone else other than myself. Since I misunderstood your meaning here, I figured some others might do the same; hence the clarification. It was other men (presumably apologists) "such as [my]self". I wonder who they were, back in 1983 and earlier? I know Peter Kreeft was writing at that time.
I never said it was you, just folks such as yourself. I'm sure my statements were pretty easy to grasp. You can take it pretty much to the bank that if I were still a Roman Catholic today, I probably would be reading Kreeft and not you. But hey, thank God for His sovereign grace and mercy because without it, I would probably be caught up in the distinctives I now detest, which undoubtedly, you spin as being no less "anti-Catholic."
You are trying mightily to spin this to make me look like an arrogant jerk, but you're failing because you are clearly, obviously twisting my words. Twice now, you have implied that I called you a "clueless ignoramus" in a sweeping sense, which I did not do. I said "clueless ignoramus about SS" (big difference) -- and that was based on your own colorful description.
Can't spin what's so blatantly there. I can imagine speaking to a friend as she details how "completely befuddled" she was about computers until she bought one and figured it out for herself. I, in turn, retort "Wow! When it comes to computers you were a clueless ignoramus but I sure wasn't." I really doubt if my choice of words would go well with her. So take your medicine and man up! You came on this combox with a chip on your shoulder and it shows.
Sorry for missing this one...
Paul Hoffer states:
BTW, Churchmouse, as I see it, the problem was not whether you were befuddled about sola scriptura, the fact is that you were actually befuddled over the meaning of the word Tradition.
Now, I'm befuddled about how you deduce that the issue was Tradition. That wasn't even a factor. It's a very simple statement I made. I took the time to read about it and it made total sense. You read too much into this and, thus, analyzed wrongly.
I will pray that you return to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church will be sooner as opposed to later.
Paul, I know you mean well, but it won't be sooner; neither will it be later. In short, it just won't be.
Dave,
That is why I put "anti-Catholic" in quotation marks. It would help if you would get rid of all that terminology, because the term poisons discussion, being a quick label that many others can easily mis-understand.
Dave A. wrote:
I've been in many debates about the fathers' views. My experience has been -- almost universally --, that the Protestant (even the many who weren't anti-Catholics, that I have debated) offers no further argumentation, once the Catholic side is presented. That's a shame, because for me, the best part of every debate or dialogue is in the second round, where things get very interesting. It's so rare to find anyone who is even willing to get that far into a discussion. 'Tis a pity. But if one has a weak case, this is altogether to be expected.
hey Dave, I am fine; and I sent you two emails recently. very short. answers? did you change your email address?
I was always willing to go all the way in those debates on your blog, (when I had the time) except for time constraints.
David Waltz and I (along with a liberal and a Mormon and and Eastern Orthodox) are debating these issues over at his blog.
I think we are actually getting to the roots of the disagreement over the Early Church fathers view of Scripture and what the RCC developed in centuries later and then reads back into the ECF's statements.
The early church fathers never say the bishops/presbyters have the authority to continue to infallibly interpret beyond Scripture or add to the deposit. That is the right that the RCC wants to claim for itself.
See our discussions of these same issues (Sola Scriptura, Tradition, Early Church, etc.)
at these two posts. (and many more if you look around)
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/07/was-irenaeus-view-of-scripture-and.html
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/06/ken-temple-mike-liccione-and-randy-on.html
(71 comments here - Dave Armstrong - see that everyone ran out of steam and stopped discussing with me.)
TAO,
Protestant baptism is valid, sacramental, and regenerative.
Hi Ken,
hey Dave, I am fine; and I sent you two emails recently. very short. answers? did you change your email address?
I have a new one. It's linked on the sidebar. Always was. I don't check the old address very often anymore. I can give some answer, if you like, but I'm not gonna go over old ground and beat dead horses.
Also, if you want to come back onto my blog, that's okay, as long as you refrain from the personal attacks and second-guessing, that I got fed up with last time around. Also, don't expect that I will debate you myself, because of my policy. Many others may do so as they wish.
I was always willing to go all the way in those debates on your blog, (when I had the time) except for time constraints.
I agree. You were one of the few, though oftentimes you simply repeat yourself over and over and reiterate things that I have disposed of long ago. I have lots of our debates posted.
In any event, you should be given a great deal of credit for not running from a challenge or legitimate criticism, like virtually all anti-Catholics do -- e.g., when seven of them turned me down, after I challenged them to a live chat debate about the fundamental question of the definition of Christianity. This is what made me give up all hope of debate with anti-Catholics.
Now that you are anti-Catholic (you weren't for most of the time you spent on my blog), I wouldn't spend time debating you, because that is always futile. It has nothing to do with whether a person is cordial or not. I have no problem talking to anyone and being friendly (as presently), but dialogue and debate are something different.
It's a matter of time stewardship and not spending time where there is little or no hope of any constructive dialogue taking place. I tried for ten years online. We all make those decisions. R.C. Sproul told James White that Catholics aren't worth the time debating. Doe decided that he wouldn't take me seriously when I refuted one of his papers too quickly. So he doesn't take me seriously, yet has written some 60 or so papers about me. Tim Enloe has decided that he will utterly ignore me henceforth. White now (mostly) ignores me, by choice. I've responded to Tim at length recently because he went after Catholics and converts and apologists, and because he is not an anti-Catholic (though close in many ways).
So I can make those same decisions about whom I will spend time with in debate or one-way refutations, when they choose to ignore what I write. We're all stewards of our time under God, and the Bible often warns us about vain conversations and silly disputes: to avoid them.
People can mock that all they want. My 150-200 written debates with or refutations of anti-Catholics remain online for all to see. I did my "apologetic duty" as regards anti-Catholics and all their falsehoods. I'm under no obligation to futilely wrangle forever. I have pretty much the same policy regarding Catholic "traditionalists" and liberals, though it is not ironclad, and I allow some exceptions in some cases. I also have very few debates with Orthodox anymore. These are all deliberate decisions of how I choose to spend my time in the best way I know how. There is still plenty to do, and I haven't slowed down a bit.
Meanwhile, I am systematically responding to Calvin's Institutes, Book IV, because I always allowed an exception of my rule for folks like Luther and Calvin. A Catholic apologist can hardly not deal with them.
Even friendly Protestants will often decide not to debate. You urged me to interact with C. Michael Patton's series on sola Scriptura. I did so: in SIX lengthy parts. Michael was very friendly, but wrote and said he had no time to reply. Woulda been a lot of fun . . . but I do understand time constraints. I just thought the second round could have been a fascinating time of discussion and was disappointed that it wasn't to be.
Hi mouse,
You can have the last word.
May God bless you abundantly with all good things.
"Protestant baptism is valid, sacramental, and regenerative."
Which is a "no" to my question about "Christian" meaning "saved," right?
I'm not sure why you're being so cagey. Do you equate "Christian" and "saved" or not?
I don't debate anti-Catholics anymore, per my above explanation. You had your chance to engage in a live chat debate with me about the definition of Christian and you declined, carping on and on, as you do, about your contention that I am not a bona fide orthodox Catholic in the first place. I won't be baited into it here.
Moreover, my last 36-page installment in my postal debate with James White way back in 1995 remains utterly unanswered to this day, and the topic was specifically about the definition of a Christian. If he cannot answer the hard questions that his goofy positions provoke, then I doubt you or anyone else here would do any better job.
Presumably that is why seven folks turned me down. They saw the old debate, and they wanted no part of an enterprise where they would be sunk by their own self-defeating propositions. See:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/04/is-catholicism-christian-my-debate-with.html
Can't say that I blame them, but in any event, that proved to me beyond all argument that further time spent "debating" people with so little confidence in their own positions, is a completely unjustifiable use of my time, under God.
Dave said:
Moreover, my last 36-page installment in my postal debate with James White way back in 1995 remains utterly unanswered to this day, and the topic was specifically about the definition of a Christian. If he cannot answer the hard questions that his goofy positions provoke, then I doubt you or anyone else here would do any better job.
This presumes that James White didn't respond because "he couldn't answer the hard questions." Is there a possibility that he didn't respond because it was 36 pages in length from a guy who he doesn't respect as a legitimate apologist? Is there a possibility that White doesn't see you as worthy of the time and effort, especially since you won't engage him in a public debate? I'm sure the latter will remedy the former.
He didn't respond (I deduce, quite reasonably, based on many evidences over 14 years) because of his constant record ever since of fleeing for the hills whenever he is challenged on anything. He gets in his insults and blasts and has his say, yes, but as soon as it is challenged and a second round begins, he either insults or dashes full speed on his bike up to the Arizona hills.
If someone doesn't respond to him, he immediately concludes that they are unable to do so. Therefore, when HE runs and doesn't answer, we arrive at the same conclusion he does.
As for public debate between myself and the good bishop, this is factually untrue. I engaged White in a live chat in his chat room: an unplanned, spontaneous, unprepared debate. This occurred on 29 December 200, after Tim Enloe gave up in our planned debate in the same room. White had technical difficulties after a short time and was never heard from again that night. See:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/live-chat-dialogue-on-patristic.html
Later, I twice challenged White to a live chat debate, giving him more time to ask me questions than my time to challenge him. He refused twice. I proposed a "double cross-examination" format. White talks about the glories of cross-ex all the time, and how we Catholics are supposedly so deathly afraid of it. He had two chances to get me into the chair and fire away and make mincemeat of me: golden opportunities.
But he said no, because HE would have to be questioned, too, and he wants no part of that. I'm not scared at all; not in the slightest. The tree is known by its fruit.
I don't do oral debates, due to my own principles that I have explained many times (which have nothing to do with either total inability or fear). I informed White of this in our 1995 postal debate. I told him then that my friend Gary Michuta would be glad to do a live debate with him, but White said no because he hadn't heard of Gary's name in 1995, whereas he had heard of mine (from Surprised by Truth: 1994 and possibly some magazine articles he might have seen). Later, when Gary was more well known, White did do a debate with him, on the Deuterocanonical books. People have to be perceived "big names" in the apologetic world, or White doesn't have the time. He has challenged me to an oral debate many times, so if he thinks I am of no consequence in the apologetics world, that would be rather odd, wouldn't it? This disproves your suggestion that he doesn't respond because I am an idiot and not worth his time.
Beyond my principled objections, I make no claims to great oratory. This is why I don't do lectures. It's not my gift. I am almost solely a writer. But I have appeared on radio, however, about a dozen times. I also did a live Pal Talk exchange with Calvinist apologist Matt Slick, in 2003. A live chat debate is more like an oral debate than a written one, IMO. It ain't "oral" but it is live, and people can observe it as it happens.
It is ridiculous to assert, as White does, that oral debates are the only true debates, to the exclusion of the written format, and that those like myself who prefer the latter, are "hiding behind their keyboards." That would be big news to Plato and Aquinas and lots of Church fathers, who engaged in many written debates with heretics. But he refused the live chat twice, even after being offered big time advantages, and six other anti-Catholics also refused.
Now I am no longer interested, but I'm simply recounting the undeniable facts of previous refusals.
If the anti-Catholics who declined (including the illustrious blogmaster of this blog) say it is because I am an imbecile, idiot, ignoramus, dummy, "evil" (Steve Hays), etc., etc. (zzzzz), then it seems that someone would have jumped at the chance to PROVE this to the world. But they did not. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why they didn't.
Churchmouse, you da man. Thanks for pointing out how practical prudence in both judgment and activity is only something that Catholic apologists are allowed to enjoy. Everyone else is just "afraid" to own up to "simple truth."
Makes sense though. Rome herself treats everyone else as if they are poor benighted clods engaging in self-negating rebellious war with the obvious nature of the world and the Christian Faith. The apologists are just following the Leader.
Dave:
It's amazing you cannot answer a simple and straight question about what the word "Christian" means when you were hounding Reformed folks to debate you on that topic.
I bet the folks who declined simply see this as further evidence of the wisdom of their decision. Meanwhile, I still have held open the option (despite your outright lies to the contrary) of debating you if you will take the Roman Catholic position in the debate.
Hi Dave A.,
Thanks again for your response regarding my question about your use of the term anti-Catholic. You piqued my curiosity because I have had dealings with Catholics in the past regarding their use of the term. Unfortunately, I think the comments back and forth generated more heat than light; I confess to being quite perturbed by one fellow's impugning of my motives for desiring dialogue with Catholics. It got kinda ugly.
It started with a new dialogue in response to my review of Scott and Kimberly Hahn's book Rome Sweet Home back in June of 2007. If you are at all interested (I'm sure you're quite busy) you can read the review and comments here.
Although I had many positive things to say about the book, what was zeroed in on were my comments about the use (and what I deem to be the abuse) of the term anti-Catholic used throughout the book. I had picked up on this phrase in my online travels over the 10 months or so prior to my review. It was these comments that caused all the hubbub with one person in particular.
Sadly, in addition, a dear friend from college days was wounded deeply by my statements in the review and the wound is unlikely to be healed anytime soon. He thought I was saying that most or all instances of real anti-Catholicism have been manufactured, or at least overblown, which is not what I was saying at all. But let the reader decide.
The follow-up post, in which I attempted to fully answer the questions posed to me by "Joseph" is here, should you (or anyone here) be interested.
Thanks for your time,
Pilgrimarbour
I corrected several typos and have re-posted my last comment:
-------------------------
Right TAO. Nice melodramatic flourish there. The pseudo-"negotiations" were beaten to death with many thousands of words -- summarized in a lengthy footnote in my recent paper:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/07/clarification-of-why-i-no-longer.html
You required me to adopt distinctively Protestant tenets (sola gratia = sola fide) in order to be accepted as a "Catholic" so you could lower yourself to debate me in a chat room. Makes a lot of sense. When a prospective debate opponent requires one to adopt his own positions before he will even talk, that is hardly a debate at all. It is ridiculous foolishness not remotely worthy of the name. It's capitulation and surrender of principle.
Therefore, you did in fact decline because your "requirements" were ludicrous and would require me to make huge changes in my heartfelt religious beliefs to even participate.
I'm through debating all anti-Catholics, in terms of working through issues back and forth. You know that full well. You saw me reiterate it in this thread. Yet you tried to bait me into a discussion on the very same topic. Surely you are not so ignorant as to not know the huge vistas of debate that open up when throwing out even one gigantic term like "saved." Surely you are not so naive as to not know that there can be no short answer to that. A short answer would lead to more of your prodding, and then there we are: right back into a debate situation that I have already stated is out of the question, after 12 or so years of trying to have cordial, reasonable discussions with anti-Catholics like yourself.
White's unfinished "reply" from 1995 set the tone and it has never been any different since then. The only constructive dialogues I have had were with ecumenical Protestants. I have had far better and many more good discussions with atheists than I had with anti-Catholics. At least their position was not immediately self-defeating, and they are often quite cordial.
Keep insulting if you wish, or must. It only hurts you. Insults have never remotely stopped me from doing what I do. They only make me more determined, so go ahead and keep up a steady stream.
Lastly, it is irrelevant even what my own theological allegiance is, when discussing the definition of a Christian.That is a proposition that can be discussed by anyone, as long as they introduce the proper objective evidences for their position. It matters not a whit what their own position is.
So even if I am not an orthodox Catholic, as you claim, of what relevance is that? But you go beyond that. You specifically said I had to "accept that Trent denied Sola Gratia by Denying Sola Fide". The discussion was a fundamental one of the definition of Christian, not a technical soteriological discussion. But where do you get off demanding that someone change their beliefs before you will even talk to them at all? I have to become a Catholic (i.e., as you define the term, and your demands and definitions are extremely absurd and out to sea) for you to debate me.
I still have some suspicion that you were merely joking around the whole time (Steve Hays' style). It was just too surreal and anti-logical to have actually been what you believe . . . but maybe not.
Lastly, at the time (and I can quote it) you stated that my refusal was not due to fear. I don't think yours was, either. I think you are a victim of your own false premises (which is what I generally think of what I believe to be false belief-systems). You're a victim of poor logic, not malice, though you obviously think very little of me personally.
Dave:
Amazing that you can type so many words to criticize a flourish (your description) and can't answer a simple question. That ought to trouble you, even if you want to call any criticism of yourself an "insult."
The ones who turned down the chat debate made it very clear at the time, why they did so. For example, Gene Bridges, writing on TAO's blog on 10-25-07:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2007/10/debate-challenge-by-dave-armstrong.html?showComment=1193345040000#c5196332919770302740
". . . you are a chronic liar . . . I'd rather not waste an over an hour of my already brief life on talking to you. It would be poor stewardship of my time. I follow the same policy with you that Steve Hays follows, and since the greater luminaries of the debate world aren't debating you, why should I? You're the one that refuses to debate them in public, . . . And here's another reason Dave: Titus 3 says to reject the factious man. You are the epitome of that man. You've demonstrated that several times. Further, this isn't about the truth for you Dave, however defined, it's about stroking your own overbloated ego. Frankly, after observing your past behavior as well, such as particular artwork that gets posted from time to time, I'm not willing to debate with a person of such obviously low character either."
There you go! I am a wicked, wascally scoundrel,and so ole Gene has no time to debate me!
Hi Pilgrim,
Thanks again for your response regarding my question about your use of the term anti-Catholic.
You're very welcome. Thanks for asking me to explain further, rather than going right to mocking, as if I have no rational, defensible reason whatever for my usage (which is the common reply in these environs, as we see in this very thread).
You piqued my curiosity because I have had dealings with Catholics in the past regarding their use of the term. Unfortunately, I think the comments back and forth generated more heat than light; I confess to being quite perturbed by one fellow's impugning of my motives for desiring dialogue with Catholics. It got kinda ugly.
Well, there are all types on the Internet. Unfortunately, on both sides, terminology of these hot-button issues is often confused. Just as many Protestants (and Catholics) don't properly understand the meaning of "sola Scriptura," so many Catholics misunderstand and abuse the term "anti-Catholic" and often use it as a synonym of "bigot" or as a club to attack anyone with an honest disagreement with Catholicism. And so it is abused, like so many theological terms. Whether this occurred in the discussion you refer to, I don't know till I look at it. If it did, I'd be the first to agree that the term was used wrongly and perhaps uncharitably.
It started with a new dialogue in response to my review of Scott and Kimberly Hahn's book Rome Sweet Home back in June of 2007. If you are at all interested (I'm sure you're quite busy) you can read the review and comments here.
I would be very interested, as I have written a lot about the term and how it is properly used in theological discourse. Does this mean I can reply too? :-)
Although I had many positive things to say about the book, what was zeroed in on were my comments about the use (and what I deem to be the abuse) of the term anti-Catholic used throughout the book. I had picked up on this phrase in my online travels over the 10 months or so prior to my review. It was these comments that caused all the hubbub with one person in particular.
Well, chances are I would agree with Scott's take, but perhaps he overused the term. I'd have to look and see what was written that you objected to.
Sadly, in addition, a dear friend from college days was wounded deeply by my statements in the review and the wound is unlikely to be healed anytime soon. He thought I was saying that most or all instances of real anti-Catholicism have been manufactured, or at least overblown, which is not what I was saying at all. But let the reader decide.
That's sad. It's tragic when anyone has to divide over religious issues; especially when both parties are Christians.
The follow-up post, in which I attempted to fully answer the questions posed to me by "Joseph" is here, should you (or anyone here) be interested.
I will definitely check them out, as time permits: perhaps as early as later tonight.
Thanks for your time,
And yours. God bless.
Dave
Dave A.,
Yes, of course. Anyone is welcome to comment if they think the topic is worth discussing, including yourself.
Best,
Pilgrimsarbour
"It's tragic when anyone has to divide over religious issues; especially when both parties are Christians."
But again - does "Christian" mean "saved"? Dave won't say (choosing instead to focus on flourishes). So, even leaving aside the consistent (per Dave) testimony of Dave's critics as represented by Mr. Bridges, there are some serious questions raised by Dave's ecumenicism.
Psychological (baiting) tactics don't work with me, TAO. I don't play those games. Theology is a serious matter and we should all respect it as such.
Dave said:
He didn't respond (I deduce, quite reasonably, based on many evidences over 14 years) because of his constant record ever since of fleeing for the hills whenever he is challenged on anything. He gets in his insults and blasts and has his say, yes, but as soon as it is challenged and a second round begins, he either insults or dashes full speed on his bike up to the Arizona hills.
It's still a presumption and, thus, not a reasonable deduction Dave. And the emotional tinge of the paragraph and elsewhere (such as to Tim Enloe, TFan, etc.)shows that there are some bitter oats on your part and, for some odd reason, because they chose not to engage you on some level or another. No, it doesn't mean we fear you or think you have something worthy to offer. That's a monster of your making. It just means that we don't want to engage futility.
If someone doesn't respond to him, he immediately concludes that they are unable to do so. Therefore, when HE runs and doesn't answer, we arrive at the same conclusion he does.
Let's see: Catholics simply don't respond and we shouldn't fault them, but White "runs", doesn't answer, and he's at fault. It flies against reason when one assumes that silence is cowardice. I have about 12 years of familiarity with Dr. White and I've never seen him assume that he won, even when it was evident that he clearly did.
As for an public debate with Dr. White, "live chatting" and "letter writing" are so mundane. Think about it, keeping a word count, especially with someone as verbose as you (no offense, but it is what it is), the tediousness that the readers find when having to sift through the arguments--and many times, most readers don't bother to check the sources, biases rule the day and those who came in with them, leave with them, never truly reading but swearing up and down that their side won. In a public oral debate, one can't hide behind poor research, must do his homework, and be ready to lay it on the line. And even though biases may be present, the losing side (assuming there is one) winds up with a nagging conscience. Sure, they can and will pound their fist in victory, but if the victory is superficial, they know it! And those who were there know it as well.
But here is where your nitch fails, Dave. I find it hard to believe that you confine yourself to a keyboard and assume all the while that one is really going to pore over your writings, which lead to "linkups" to other papers, which leads to more reading, which leads to more linkups, forcing one to read ad nauseum, ad infinitum. That's not an argument or refutation, but a maze.
Nothing beats a "face to face." It's not an end-all, at least in most cases, but at least it provokes the listener to react. And THAT'S a good thing.
YAWN. Is that the best you can do? You sure expend a lot of energy for one who doesn't take me seriously. Rather like Doe . . .
Meanwhile, it is still a fact that no one has made the slightest attempt to prove that I did not understand the definition of sola Scriptura, which was (way back when) supposedly the original topic here.
There you go! I am a wicked, wascally scoundrel,and so ole Gene has no time to debate me!
Of course, this is, as usual, a half-truth. Dave has edited the original comment; ergo I have responded on Tblog.
Enough with you, Dave. With every passing post, you evidence one and only one thing: your massively overbloated, attention starved ego.
God bless you abundantly Gene. I'll keep your family situation and you in my prayers, having gone through a similar incident recently where we thought my father was about to die. It's no fun. May God be with you through the terrible times.
Hi Mr. Hoffer,
Thank you for your response. I think one of the areas of your statement that gives me pause is the idea that the "...Holy Spirit will keep the Church from error," and that God "...has the power and sovereignty to make sure His Church does not teach error."
While there is no question, of course, that God has the power and ability to keep His Church from teaching error, given historical circumstances, I would have to ask if it is His intention that the Church (speaking in Protestant terms of the Church Universal) remain free from error at all times. That idea strikes me as an unsupportable presupposition. In fact, it seems to be His plan that both individually and corporately we struggle with understanding doctrine and practice, with varying degrees of success, certainty and assurance, until He comes again.
And I would argue that there have been periods of time when His people corporately went off the rails for awhile. This is certainly true of His chosen people Israel. Should it not also be true of His New Testament Church?
And individually, many of us who follow our Lord Christ today were allowed by the Spirit to persist in error for a long time until, in His timing, He brought us in line with a more comprehensive and consistent expression of His Word.
Many of us will continue in error for a period and, if we're being honest, each of us gets to a stage where we really think we're on the right path finally. For me the process was Catholic to Evangelical Protestant to Reformed Protestant.
This is never to say that I, or anyone else for that matter, has "arrived." But from my perspective as a believing (for clarity's sake) Calvinist, I find great comfort in the fact that the great Lord of the Universe, who wants to be my Heavenly Father, and for me to call Him such, is completely in charge of the entirety of this human undertaking.
And He has been with me every step of the way.
There are reasons I was born into a Catholic family. There are reasons I left that communion. There are reasons He brought me into Evangelical Protestantism. And there are reasons that I've been Reformed now for the past 16 years. And they are, most importantly, His reasons.
There are reasons that a student teacher, The Omen, the dreaded Jack T. Chick, Hal Lindsey, Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, and yes, even crazy ol' Harold Camping--influenced my life. They were not always good influences, and I look back on a lot of error, but I thank God that He deemed them necessary to my sanctification, even if I can't understand it all.
And the influences continue in that I have the privilege of fellowship and friendship with many Westminster Seminary folks, as well as wonderful online opportunities to interact with many decent and knowledgeable brethren.
So while I believe strongly in striving to understand most fully what God intends for us to understand in His Word, I'm pleased to take Him at His Word when He says that the world and all that is in it is His. And that means all of my life, all of our lives, are in His hands. There is no greater relief to the soul than knowing God as King.
Blessings,
Pilgrimsarbour
Hi Pilgrim,
I read your review, which I thought was good and fair, though at the end I thought you dwelt a bit too much on the terminology issue. I suppose that is fair game, though, if that was your biggest objection to the book. A review can only deal with so much. I appreciate the many positive things said. That is rare in Protestant reviews of Catholic books. When I get such a positive review of one of my books from a Pretestant, it is usually from a traditional Anglican.
You didn't cite any specific examples of Scott's use of "anti-Catholic" so I'll look through the book to see if I would have the same opinion as you about overuse and inaccurate use.
For now, I wanted to point out one matter of fact. You wrote:
"Additionally, there is no equivalent use of the term anti-Protestant in apologetics or in the blogs, although that attitude can frequently be found."
This is untrue (especially in the case of James White), and I have documented it many times myself. Oftentimes, the same person who complains loudest about the term "anti-Catholic" uses equivalent "anti" terms themselves. It's okay for them, but not okay for us, even though (as I have also shown three times now) there is a long history of scholarly use of the term among historians, sociologists, etc.
Here are my papers demonstrating all this:
James White (4)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/06/james-whites-use-of-anti-terms-more.html
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/10/james-white-outdoes-all-with-his-anti.html
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/davearmstrong/115963765031338495/?a=18002#115445
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/07/james-white-anti-intellectual-double.html
Turretinfan
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/09/anti-catholic-turretinfan-joins-his.html
Eric Svendsen (2)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/06/eric-svendsens-other-anti-catholics.html
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/06/more-examples-of-eric-svendsens.html
Tim Enloe
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/06/tim-enloes-inconsistent-use-of.html
James White alone has used all of the following terms:
anti-Calvinism
anti-Calvinist
anti-Calvinistic
anti-Christian
anti-Lordship
anti-Reformed
anti-Lutheran
anti-Baptist
anti-Baptists
Eric Svendsen often uses "anti-Evangelical" and has also used:
anti-biblical
anti-Reformed
anti-Baptist (applied in one post to Tim Enloe)
Turretinfan has used:
anti-KJV
anti-YEC
anti-Calvinist (hundreds of times)
anti-soveriegntist [sic] anti-Reformed
anti-Christian
Moreover, there is widespread use of "Romanist," "Romish," "Popish," "Papist," etc.: all clearly derogatory terms, and yet there seems to be no attempt to stop using those terms, which are NOT at all in use in scholarly circles, as "anti-Catholic" continues to be used.
Our gracious blogmaster also uses these terms at times. For example:
"He based his opinion on the work of two recent anti-Reformed writers: Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1999) and C. Gordon Olson’s Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism: An Inductive Mediate Theology of Salvation (New Jersey: Global Gospel Publishers, 2002)."
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2005/12/did-john-calvin-believe-faith-is-gift.html
"This book belongs to the vilifying anti-Luther tradition that I've often commented about."
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/05/luthers-own-statements-by-henry-oconnor.html
"It's the same effect that the modern day anti-Luther Roman Catholic webpages have on me. They provoke me to research."
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/09/art-sippo-on-luther-biographies.html
"Used as a strong dose of anti-Protestant prejudice, Roman Catholic laymen frequently refer to this book."
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2005/12/facts-about-luther-part-one.html
"Check out this anti-Calvinist 'rubber ball thrower'"
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2005/12/popular-calvinist-myths-part-one.html
"A look at C. Gordon Olson's book, which is a repackaging of the the anti-reformed arguments of Norman Geisler and Laurence Vance,. . ."
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/05/team-apologian.html
Hi Dave,
Thanks for checking out the review. I will say that I did write that two years ago. Since then I have come to see the term anti-whatever used all over the net, so it is a bit dated in that regard.
As it is, though, I do not have a problem with the word "anti" as such. Therefore any lack of clarity is my fault.
The points I was trying to make were:
1) a lament for a declining precision in the English language in general, (hence the rant on the word "racist,") and
2) the inappropriate use (in my view) of the term "anti-Catholic." I felt at the time that it was being used indiscriminately to include anyone who disagreed with the RCC, and not only those who spoke rudely and disparagingly about it. I guess I took it personally because I was trying very hard to hold my convictions but with charity and some measure of conciliation.
It seemed an unfair and very broad brush, and I thought it was a tactic being used to deliberately shut down dialogue, much as that tactic is commonly used throughout society today. You can see by the comments that I stirred up a hornet's nest.
But I thank you for your comments and would be interested to know if you thought I was conveying that incidents of anti-Catholicism were exaggerrated as opposed to the idea that term itself was being used abusively. As I indicated before, some did take it the wrong way.
Best,
Pilgrimsarbour
Hi Pilgrim,
I'll answer your post more fully tomorrow. I just finished scanning the Hahn book for uses of "anti-Catholic." You wrote in your review:
"Protestants will struggle with the use of the term anti-Catholic. This loaded term with its accompanying connotations appears often throughout the book, and is applied liberally to both Protestants who express negative personal feelings toward Catholics, and Protestants who merely disagree about doctrine, without qualification or distinction."
I did not find this to be the case at all, and so I wonder how you got this impression. I don't see that the Hahns used the term any differently than I do myself, and you seemed to accept my take on it. Let me give several relevant examples (all Scott Hahn quotes unless indicated as Kimberly's):
"my anti-Catholicism sprang from a zeal for God and a charitable desire to help Catholics be Christians." (p. 6)
[Catholics aren't Christians: classic anti-Catholicism; he is talking about his own past views, not all Protestants, by any stretch]
"I wasn't anti-Catholic in a bigoted way -- I was anti-Catholic by conviction." (p. 7)
[shows that he is not using the word as a synonym for "bigotry" -- what we are often accused of -- since for him the category is much bigger than that, and includes sincere "conviction"]
"Among the Presbyterian students, we [he and Gerry Matatics] were the only ones stalwart enough in our anti-Catholicism to believe the Westminster Confession ought to retain a line most reformed people were willing to drop: the Pope is the Antichrist." (p. 25)
[He is distinguishing his extreme position even from most Presbyterians, let alone Protestants as a whole, thus showing again that he is making the necessary distinctions of category]
"Dr. John Gerstner . . . Calvinist theologian with strong anti-Catholic convictions . . . the Roman Catholic Church, which he referred to as 'the synagogue of Satan.'" (pp. 70-71)
[shows again that anti-Catholicism is an extreme position, to describe Catholics in this fashion; not the position of all Protestants]
END OF PART ONE
PART TWO
Kimberly: "Scott, after all, had been anti-Catholic -- he had thought one could not be a thoughtful Christian and remain Roman Catholic. I, on the other hand, had had a more balanced approach -- Catholics can be Christians, . . ." (pp. 80-81)
[provides a concise definition of how they are using the term: Catholics aren't Christians. Again it shows that they are not using it of all Protestants indiscriminately. Kimberly had many strong, vociferous objections to Catholicism, as I did, from the same position as hers. So clearly, the use of "anti-Catholic" in the book is not a synonym for "all disagreement with Catholicism."]
"Close friends became distant . . . The irony was that, not so long ago, I had been far more anti-Catholic than any of them. In fact, most of them did not regard themselves as being anti-Catholic in any way . . ." (p. 97)
[distinction again made between anti-Catholic and ecumenical Protestants]
"the toughest brand of anti-Catholic either of us had ever come across before, the ex-Catholic fundamentalist . . . To them I was demon-possessed, so they urged Kimberly not even to listen, since Satan was using me to lure her with his lies. . . . anti-Catholic fundamentalists who were concerned for my salvation . . ." (pp. 122-123)
[Catholics aren't Christians: they're dupes of Satan; need to be saved: hardly a broad, indiscriminate definition]
When, on the other hand, they are referring to Protestants across the board, they use the broader, all-inclusive "non-Catholics" -- as on p. 179. And they are very complimentary:
"they do far more with less than many Catholics who have the fullness of Faith in the Church but who are famished and fast asleep."
The glowing way in which Kimberly describes her Presbyterian upbringing (pp. 8-11) clearly shows what they both think of the great majority of Protestants who are not anti-Catholic.
As for Peter Kreeft's remark that you cite: "I would hate to be an anti-Catholic in debate against these two!" carries no necessary sweeping indications. All he was saying (in my take, anyway) was that it would be far more difficult to contend with Scott Hahn coming from an anti-Catholic position, than a standard Protestant position, because it is tougher to prove that Catholicism isn't Christian at all (the anti-Catholic position) than to engage in the usual battles about the papacy, Mary, etc.
Perhaps that explains (at least in part) why seven anti-Catholics turned me down when I wanted to debate the fundamental question of "what is Christianity?" with them.
[also posted on my blog]
Paul said, "I would suggest the real problem here is that you do not understand what Tradition really is or means to Catholics, which is why I expressed my incredulity at your statement about sola scriptura, Mr. Swan."
This may be true in a sense. I've yet to find a unified Roman Catholic explanation of "Tradition." I've found quite a few differing understandings put forth to define and explain it. Rome has never officially defined the relationship of tradition to Scripture. Tradition, can be almost anything you want it to be, Paul.
Can you point me to an official, infallible, Roman Catholic document that uses the terms "Constitutive Traditions" and "Inhesive Traditions"? Then, has Rome presented the contents of the "Tradition" set (clearly presented)? Recall you stated, "we Catholics believe that all Traditions which are approved by the Church, whether they are considered Divine Traditions, Apostolic Traditions, or Ecclesiastical Traditions command our respect." Do you in fact have an exhaustive accounting of these?
"Psychological (baiting) tactics don't work with me, TAO. I don't play those games. Theology is a serious matter and we should all respect it as such."
Apparently, you don't take theology seriously enough to be able to answer a simple question. If "baiting" (your term) doesn't help you to stop evading - would anything help you? Are you just hopelessly unable to answer simple questions? You heart should be doing my job for you, telling you that while you post floods of self-justifying comments for your insults, you cannot actually answer a simple question.
Hi Pilgrim,
But I thank you for your comments and would be interested to know if you thought I was conveying that incidents of anti-Catholicism were exaggerated as opposed to the idea that term itself was being used abusively. As I indicated before, some did take it the wrong way.
I completely agree with the first commenter Theo (I think I know him):
"Thus you may find even among the most otherwise thoughtful individuals, a penchant for quickly assuming the worst of critics, sometimes taking their "hatred of Catholics" for granted. When people develop such delicate sensitivities, they tend to see things in an us-vs.-them mindset, where "they" are anti- "us."
Obviously, this is vastly unfair. . . . especially in the blogosphere one can find many truly anti-catholic people that for whatever reason propagate blatantly false or misleading trash. But truly, there are vastly more who simply either honestly disagree or honestly misunderstand. It is incumbent upon we who might be sensitive to actively look for Christ in all who disagree with us."
I've often noted, myself, how anti-Catholics will claim that Catholics "hate the gospel" or "hate the Bible," or hate the person making the charge, etc. For example, Turretinfan:
"Yes, Steve Ray hates James White
. . . because Dr. White preaches the Truth and exposes the errors and delusions of Rome. May we all be labelled and despised by those who hate the truth, . . . "
(9-24-07)
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2007/09/steve-ray-double-minded-you-decide.html
Or David T. King:
"I already have a very low view of the integrity of non-Protestants in general, . . . most of you are too dishonest to admit what you really think."
(6-5-03, on Eric Svendsen's Areopagus board)
Or Eric Svendsen:
"RC apologists will do or say just about anything--true or not--to advance their cause. They engage in the strategy of deception regularly."
(4-27-03, Areopagus board)
Then there are Catholics who make dumb, extreme statements about Luther. I recently strongly criticized Catholic apologist Matthew Bellisario (often active on this blog) for doing that (to no avail).
Joseph, in your combox, led the discussion astray when he wrote, "I have come to detect what I think is a passive aggressiveness towards devout Catholics in your tone." That is mind-reading, and I haven't detected it in you (quite the contrary).
He did say, though (not to excuse the above at all), that neither you nor your friend are anti-Catholics, so he is making the fine distinctions, too. But on the Internet, motivations and internal dispositions are often rashly speculated about. One sees it repeatedly on this very thread, directed towards me.
Then he gets even more insulting and personal:
"That is why I post on your blog. I don't think you are sincere about your desire to dialogue. Rather, I think that your posts regarding Catholicism are really just passive aggressive attacks on Catholics who respond."
I think this is sinful speculation on your motives. It's wrong. I can certainly relate to being the recipient of such foolishness, because it happens to me all the time (and again, can be seen in several of my critics in this very thread).
I found your answers to the pointed questions in your second thread that you referenced perfectly acceptable and sincere.
I don't have this impression that your friend had, at all. I find it a pleasure to dialogue with you. You were kind to me in this thread, and a breath of fresh air. How ironic that he questions your sincerity in your desire to dialogue . . .
You wrote:
"Nevertheless, I am happy to discuss theology with you anytime. If you can concentrate your efforts on a discussion of issues rather than on personal attacks, we will do well."
Amen! How often I have thought that myself! But this is mostly why I have given up trying to debate anti-Catholics. It's mostly personal attacks, and when there is a halfway rational discussion, it is fatally hampered by relentlessly hostile premises that they are unwilling to discuss (hence my challenge to debate the definition of Christianity, which was scornfully rejected).
This stuff obviously happens on both sides all the time, and it is our responsibility (those of us who detest these tendencies) to do a better job, by example.
I agree again with Theo (from what I know so far) when he defended you, on the basis of having met and observed you.
Joseph again goes on the attack and in my opinion, sins, by stating (among many other unsavory things): "I find your debate tactics deceptive."
So that is my take on your article and reactions to it. I agree with you that you were commenting on abuse of term and not trying to minimize anti-Catholicism itself, where it occurs, even though I think you exaggerated far too much with regard to the Hahns' own use of the term. I did not find it to be the case that they were guilty of overuse and broad-sweeping use, without proper qualifications.
If you can show me otherwise from their book, I'd be interested in seeing that.
I would be honored and privileged to dialogue with you anytime, and you are very welcome to comment on my blog. You're the sort of Reformed Christian I've always sought out and have occasionally been able to dialogue with on the Internet, but sadly, not very often.
God bless,
Dave
Gene posted:
>> Enough with you, Dave. With every passing post, you evidence one and only one thing: your massively overbloated, attention starved ego.>>
Me: Hmmmm…a few Reformed polemicists on the internet are prime examples of Gene’s “charitable” description: “massively overbloated, attention starved ego[s].”
The Beachbum
Hi Dave,
Thanks for taking the time to both read the review and to go back over the Hahn book. That would have required an inordinate amount of time for me to do. What's your secret?
You've made some very good points here.
I do think now that I was not paying careful enough attention to the context of the term's usage. I was reading into it what I thought it consistently meant. But it seems to me that my broad brush analogy still applies in the sense that the term anti-Catholic, as you've demonstrated here, carries with it several meanings depending on the context in which it is used:
1) one opposed to the Roman Catholic system but reserves judgment as to the salvific condition of the individual; interacts with opponents respectfully
2) one opposed to the Roman Catholic system and who sincerely believes Catholics cannot, in any way, be Christians; interacts with opponents respectfully
3) one who believes Catholics are not in any way Christians; one so opposed to the Roman Catholic system and the individuals involved in it that he actively bears false witness against them and behaves in a disingenuous, bigoted or slanderous way toward them
Now that I understand that the term can be used in different ways at different times depending on the context, I'll be less inclined to be taken aback by it until I get further along in discussion with that person, at which time I can make a judgement. I don't mind being called anti-Catholic if the person saying it has definition no. 1 in mind; at least, that's what I would like to think about myself. But it can be very difficult to tell in talking to a theological opponent, especially in the online environment.
I also think that these definitions can apply equally to the term anti-Protestant, given the proper revision of the wording. There is, however, an additional element involved in the Catholic Church's official pronouncements regarding Protestantism. And there remains for me a tension between the anathemas of Trent and the "separated brethren" language of Vatican II so that I don't really know for certain where I stand in the eyes of the RCC.
Your comments regarding Joseph were also helpful. Unfortunately, his comments only served to solidify what I thought the only definition of anti-Catholic could be: Catholics think Protestant theological opponents, in general, hate them, think them fools and idiots, and are out to deceive them at every turn. Joseph seemed unprepared for any other contingency and so could not accept any kind of sincerity on my part. As you can see, I finally had to drop the issue entirely and move on.
I do think it has been useful to talk about these matters, especially considering that there seems to have been a good deal of bad blood on the blogs over the years. May the Lord use whatever may be good and right in our conversation to the edifying of His people.
Blessings in Christ,
Pilgrimsarbour
Hi Pilgrim,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. This has truly been a pleasure.
Thanks for taking the time to both read the review and to go back over the Hahn book. That would have required an inordinate amount of time for me to do. What's your secret?
I dunno. I think I have some "speed reading" abilities if I am looking for particular things. I can spot them quickly. If something interests me, I seem to work faster, too.
You've made some very good points here.
Cool.
I do think now that I was not paying careful enough attention to the context of the term's usage. I was reading into it what I thought it consistently meant.
Fair enough. We all often do this, I think.
But it seems to me that my broad brush analogy still applies in the sense that the term anti-Catholic, as you've demonstrated here, carries with it several meanings depending on the context in which it is used:
I agree. Because it is a complex issue, it stands to reason that a two-word description would have within itself several possible shades of meanings, as with most words.
1) one opposed to the Roman Catholic system but reserves judgment as to the salvific condition of the individual; interacts with opponents respectfully
This gets to the question of subjective vs. objective criteria of what Christian is. Because the Protestant believes that salvation is already attained, most will want to surmise whether this momentous event has happened in the life of a person. Then the Calvinist / Arminian thing comes into it, too. I understand this. I,. too, had a radical life-changing experience in 1977, and again in 1980, when I was, I firmly believe, further filled with the Holy Spirit. Catholics believe that Baptism regenerates: a real change takes place: one is incorporated into the Body of Christ. So these are all big discussions. I think in the end we can only sensibly discuss the issue across the board on a more objective, theological basis: on the creedal level. I usually use the Nicene Creed as a criteria for the definition of a Christian.On this basis, Catholics clearly would be Christians. You said this yourself, so you clearly mean it. But if we speculate on the present spiritual state of individuals, we have no certainty, and it goes round and round. John Calvin said we cannot be certain who is of the elect; even ourselves. Luther struggled with that, too. And both believed in assurance of salvation in some sense, over against an Arminian / Catholic / Orthodox understanding. When a Calvinist clearly forsakes the reformed faith, and is deeply into sin and outward rebellion against God, Calvinist theology requires that he or she is now defined as having never been a Christian or saved or justified or regenerated at all. But it then follows that those who thought he or she was in the past were wrong, and did not have certainty at all. So we just don't know with absolute certainty. We can only go, therefore, by what a person claims to believe, in judging whether they are Christians.
END OF PART ONE
PART TWO
2) one opposed to the Roman Catholic system and who sincerely believes Catholics cannot, in any way, be Christians; interacts with opponents respectfully
This is what I would consider the central definition. The categories forbid Catholics from being Christians. A consistent, obedient, orthodox Catholic cannot possibly be a Christian. To be a good Catholic is to be no Christian. To be a Christian is to be a bad (heterodox) Catholic. Most anti-Catholics, following Calvin and Luther, will leave a tiny loophole for the Catholic individual to have a chance to still be saved. But this is virtually despite the Catholic Church. If one is a Catholic and understands Church teaching and adheres to it, they are out of the fold, by this mentality. Some (like an Baptist preacher friend of mine I once worked for briefly, or one of my best friends, will contend that a former evangelical Protestant like myself was clearly saved, and so therefore (from eternal security) could not have fallen away, even having become Catholic.
3) one who believes Catholics are not in any way Christians; one so opposed to the Roman Catholic system and the individuals involved in it that he actively bears false witness against them and behaves in a disingenuous, bigoted or slanderous way toward them
My own definition of anti-Catholic has no connection whatsoever to behavior. It is strictly theological. Historically and in scholarly circles, the term is often used of intolerant people, Know-Nothings, advocates of violence and denial of catholic rights, etc. But scholars also use it in a strictly theological sense, as I do.
That said, most anti-Catholics I have met have been extremely rude and insulting, and in my opinion, very bad witnesses of Christ in terms of outsiders observing how they act, because they exhibit so little love and attempted understanding of others. That's my experience, but I still don't take any of that into account in my use of the word "anti-Catholic." One could be an anti-Catholic who is a perfect gentleman, or an ecumenical protestant who is an arrogant jerk; human beings being subject to sinfulness and temptations to insult those who differ, always.
Now that I understand that the term can be used in different ways at different times depending on the context, I'll be less inclined to be taken aback by it until I get further along in discussion with that person, at which time I can make a judgement.
I think context is supremely important, yes, and a person's self-report. I have discussed this issue for many years now, and have explained my position countless times. But those who are already hostile don't care. They don't want to hear it, and they remain hostile, and misrepresent my own oft-stated opinions. I can't prevent that, but I can make it easy for anyone to find out what my true position is.
I don't mind being called anti-Catholic if the person saying it has definition no. 1 in mind; at least, that's what I would like to think about myself.
PART THREE
I think it is an unhelpful, improper use. I don't think you are one at all.
But it can be very difficult to tell in talking to a theological opponent, especially in the online environment.
Asking one to define their terms is quite necessary, especially in this case.
I also think that these definitions can apply equally to the term anti-Protestant, given the proper revision of the wording.
Most "anti-Protestants" in an analogical sense to my definition of anti-Catholic, are "traditionalist" Catholics, who wrongly think that Catholicism requires such a view; also some "traditionalist" Orthodox.
There is, however, an additional element involved in the Catholic Church's official pronouncements regarding Protestantism. And there remains for me a tension between the anathemas of Trent and the "separated brethren" language of Vatican II so that I don't really know for certain where I stand in the eyes of the RCC.
This is very poorly understood also. See my papers:
The Catholic Understanding of the Anathemas of Trent and Excommunication
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/01/catholic-understanding-of-anathemas-of.html
How Catholics View Protestants
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/how-catholics-view-protestants.html
Your comments regarding Joseph were also helpful. Unfortunately, his comments only served to solidify what I thought the only definition of anti-Catholic could be: Catholics think Protestant theological opponents, in general, hate them, think them fools and idiots, and are out to deceive them at every turn. Joseph seemed unprepared for any other contingency and so could not accept any kind of sincerity on my part. As you can see, I finally had to drop the issue entirely and move on.
He does not accurately represent authentic catholic thought on this topic at all. Go with what Theo and I are expressing to you. It's infinitely more hopeful and "sunny" and it is the Mind of the Church. Ecumenism has developed rapidly in the last 50-100 years and I am delighted to see that.
I do think it has been useful to talk about these matters, especially considering that there seems to have been a good deal of bad blood on the blogs over the years.
Me, too. This has been one of the best dialogues I've had the pleasure to participate in, in memory.
May the Lord use whatever may be good and right in our conversation to the edifying of His people.
Amen and Amen!
So many words from Dave on his favorite misleading label of "anti-Catholic" and still no answer about whether being Christian means being saved.
One wonders if Dave himself notices this oddity.
-TurretinFan
I notice that you are quite odd (and oddly, inexplicably uncomprehending).
Dave:
Don't let any oddities I possess distract you from answering a simple question, please. Try to focus on the issues. I think that, if you try hard, you can probably bite the bullet and answer the question.
-TurretinFan
[updated to correct typos]
Dave,
Simple question, simple answer. To me its not odd given that the question was a rejoinder to your statement.
(the original question itself got buried under your mountain of comments :)
Hi turr,
Are you the same turr who a couple of years ago, claimed that the Bishops of Vatican I conspired to intentionally teach error?
If so, then good to see you again. We did have our fun didn't we?
God Bless You turr, Tim (not an MD but from MD)
Hi Tim - I'm sure that's not quite how I characterized the matter, but I think what I said that bothered you more was that I didn't view the bishops at that council as having a credible profession of faith.
Hi turr,
Are you actually saying that you did not once claim that an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church had intentionally taught falsehood and that you had the "proof". Don't you remember that it took me dozens of posts to finally pry that "proof" out into the open?
I guess we could probably clear this up if you would answer this question:
Do you now believe that there has ever been a Council of the Catholic Church in which the Bishops conspired to teach falsehood?
God Bless You turr, Tim
Tim: I meant that the "conspiracy/conspired" part didn't sound like me. But, you know, if you remember things differently, you may well be right. You seemed way more interested in whether it was an intentional falsehood than whether it was a falsehood. I was and am much more concerned by the fact that it is a falsehood than by whether it was an intentional one.
That's why I would be surprised if I used the characterization "conspired" or "conspiracy."
But it looks like you are still misplacing your priorities - focusing on whether the falsity of the claims was intentional rather than negligent or innocent instead of focusing on the important fact that the claims are false.
I have no particular interest in proving their intent - I am satisfied to prove that the claims are false.
You asked: "Do you now believe that there has ever been a Council of the Catholic Church in which the Bishops conspired to teach falsehood?"
But to answer your question more directly (lest I accused of being like Dave):
1) Assuming you mean that it's my personal opinion based on a careful consideration of the claims and historical evidence that Vatican I's teaching was so far afield from history that they must have known their claims were false, I continue to have that position.
2) But do I think I can prove their intent to your satisfaction? No.
3) Do I have the slightest interest in trying? No.
4) Would I word my position the way you did above? I wouldn't today if I ever did.
5) If you mean something else, please feel free to clarify your question.
Simple question, simple answer.
Etc.
See my two comments above:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/07/ive-been-refuted-by-da-once-again.html?showComment=1247179514494#c1046335350187004885
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/07/ive-been-refuted-by-da-once-again.html?showComment=1247251688640#c4979763880821479752
Dave said:
YAWN. Is that the best you can do?
You sure expend a lot of energy for one who doesn't take me seriously. Rather like Doe . . .
I expected a wordy, tangential reply like the others, but I get a shorty. Ah, what was it Dave? The implication that you won't be able to hang with Dr. White in a REAL public debate? Or the part about your confusing blog. What's more surprising than the energy I've spent with you is how you continue to indulge the "anti-Catholics" in this combox when you admittedly "swore them off." It's fine though. It's just goes to show that its all an act.
Meanwhile, it is still a fact that no one has made the slightest attempt to prove that I did not understand the definition of sola Scriptura, which was (way back when) supposedly the original topic here.
And, like aways, no one ever will, Irrefutable Dave.
Oh, by the way, Dave. What are you still doing here?
What everyone else is doing here. DUH!
Mainly I'm here due to the excellent conversation I've been having with Pilgrimsarbour. Once that's done I'll move on, since there is an utter absence of any attempted proof that I actually misrepresent sola Scriptura in my writings.
What's more surprising than the energy I've spent with you is how you continue to indulge the "anti-Catholics" in this combox when you admittedly "swore them off."
1) As explained recently, I never said I would not talk to anti-Catholics, only that I would not engage in theological debate with them. You may be a bit dense in some of these matters, but I'm sure you have it in you to understand that simple distinction.
2) The only actual dialogue I have had in this combox is with Pilgrimsarbour. Since he is not an anti-Catholic, this involves no contradiction in my resolve, as you are itching to demonstrate is the case.
3) As you see, I have continually declined T-Fan's baiting, precisely because he is trying to woo me into a theological discussion / debate, which I refuse to do with an anti-Catholic anymore.
You can't have it both ways: mock me for supposedly engaging in what I'm not engaging in, as proven by T-Fans infantile mocking and attempts to goad me. Not that logic is the high point of anti-Catholic gifts and talents, but still . . .
Once that's done I'll move on, since there is an utter absence of any attempted proof that I actually misrepresent sola Scriptura in my writings.
Dave,
I explained my comments, and why I said what I said. As to my response, you've accused me of a "masterpiece of obscurantism" of inventing a "contrived scenario" and that I "decided to take the fool's course and obfuscate and change the subject." In other words, you think I simply lied or made up something as a response.
I haven't deleted you or edited you in this comment box. I've let you post all your links and "refutations." If I'm so dishonest, why would I do this?
Enough is enough Dave. I've let you insult me and my friends. I've let you accuse me of dishonesty, and call me names. At this point, the record stands. You've written a fair amount of material in defense of yourself here and elsewhere. If my comments are as devious and foolish as you make them sound, then simply trust that others using common sense will see that as well.
I think it's best now you go back to your own blog. If you're having good conversations here, simply ask those you're having them with to join you on your blog.
PS: You're welcome for the translation of Martin Luther's tract, Against Henry VIII.
I know telling your readers you found it here, and that you benefit from my Luther blog entries would seem odd to them. We'll keep it our secret.
Of course I made no accusation of dishonesty in this thread, towards Doe. That is the anti-Catholic stock-in-trade, not mine. Bridges and Turretinfan are now calling me a chronic liar over on Triablogue. Obscurantism or obfuscation can be undertaken without the slightest intention of dishonesty. They can flow from false premises and false ideas.
Nor is running from intellectual responsibility dishonest. It's simply being afraid and unwilling to defend one's own accusations.
I knew I'd be banned shortly or asked to leave. No surprise whatever there. I never stay long, anyway in places with blatant double standards in comment "moderation."
Of course I made no accusation of dishonesty in this thread, towards Doe
Dave, I was referring to your blog entry.
That is the anti-Catholic stock-in-trade, not mine.
Strawman.
Nor is running from intellectual responsibility dishonest. It's simply being afraid and unwilling to defend one's own accusations.
Neither myself or Tur8, Churchmouse, etc. is "running from intellectual responsibility"
I knew I'd be banned shortly or asked to leave.
You are not banned. I've asked you to leave this thread, because enough is enough. Feel free to comment on other entries if you want in the future. If you decide to do so, note the rules. Call me "Doe" over on your own blog, for whatever reason you call me that.
Hello James,
Thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss some issues with Dave Armstrong. They are important issues (at least to me), although I realise they are not particularly erudite; a bit of a departure from the norm, perhaps.
I wish to affirm that I hold each person here in high regard, and have done so for a long time. I spend many an hour at the various blogs regularly represented here.
It may appear to you and others here that I'm giving Dave (or anyone else here) a pass for everything that has been said. I know there are real theological and personality issues involved. But I can't make anyone else's history with Dave my own, as that would not be fair to him nor to me.
On the other hand, Dave knows by now, I think, after looking at my blog for a bit, that I can "let people have it" if it should come to that. I actually have to fight my natural inclination toward sarcasm and a desire to be seen as "clever." It's not ideal, and I'm not always successful, but we're all sinners growing in grace, yes?
So Dave and I may end up skewering each other a bit at some point down the road after we've spent some more time conversing. But not today. And hopefully we will manage to keep it good humoured and with charity.
I see here a new opportunity to begin a new history, and I will move forward based on that premise.
So once again, thanks. You're a good and gracious host.
Blessings as always,
Pilgrimsarbour
Is it me, or isn't the definition of what makes someone a Christian fairly self explanatory.
Acts 16:31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
Eph 2:8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
VS.
Baptismal Regeneration? Albeit Christian initiation (heaven only made possible)
John 3:6"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7"Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8"The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."
Those who believe in baptismal regeneration apparently know and control the Spirit's coming and going at the time of baptism.
PilgrimsArbour said
"Many of us will continue in error for a period and, if we're being honest, each of us gets to a stage where we really think we're on the right path finally. For me the process was Catholic to Evangelical Protestant to Reformed Protestant."
Me Too!
So once again, thanks. You're a good and gracious host.
I'm glad you enjoyed your discussions. Had the bulk of the discussions more to do with exactly what I posted in the first place, I'd be more keen on keeping things moving. I've had a very busy week, as I'm sure many others have had as well, so I've fallen behind with my lower priorities (Internet discourse).
I do have some further comments, general comments, not directed toward you, but rather the entire thread.
In regard to what actually interested me, TurretinFan has put together a few interesting blog entries:
What Gregory of Nyssa Considered Inspired
Gregory of Nyssa on Sinlessness: Only Jesus Sinless
Gregory of Nyssa on Rome
As a counter response, Paul's Hoffer's comments both here and a few over on DA's blog about what "Tradition" "is" are interesting. Mr. Hoffer asserts I don't understand "Tradition." I would grant this is within the realm of possibility, however I would say it's more likely I may misunderstand what Mr. Hoffer means by "Tradition," hence the questions I asked early in this comment box. Mr. Hoffer has a more nuanced and articulate version of Tradition- therefore it will probably take longer to boil down to its essential ingredients.
Rome has never officially defined the relationship of Tradition to Scripture. Tradition, for an individual Roman Catholic, can be anything he wants it to be, as long as he works within the parameters of the ambiguous infallible statements Rome has made on the matter. I would need to have clear evidence from him that his position is not based on his or some other person's own private approach to the matter. Some of Mr. Hoffer's co-religionists do believe in constitutive tradition (doctrines not found in Scripture). Others like Congar for instance, have much more complex systems.
My greatest concern is identifying the infallible special revelation voice of God, in whichever form it takes. I have not used this description without thinking it through in regards to Romanism. Armstrong responded to this post by saying, "Catholics do not believe that any 'special revelation' is given by the magisterium. Public revelation ceased with the apostles" and "Doe needs to brush up on his basic categories, in his desperate attempt to comprehend how Catholicism works"
I've used the term "'special revelation' " in a broad sense to identify any infallible statements that may exist outside of Scripture, and I've tried to avoid someone saying, "God has revealed himself infallibly through his creation as well" (that's not relevant to this discussion). If the magisterium or Pope declares something infallible, or something is stated from the chair of Peter, would this not be, in a sense, the very voice of God speaking outside of the Scriptures? It would be, from my perspective, an act of special revelation. Perhaps Romanists have a way of defining it so it's not.
I take sola scriptura very seriously, even when talking to Protestants who say, "The Lord laid this on my heart...." or "The Lord sent me a dream...." etc. If God is giving any sort of special revelation outside of the Scriptures, I want to throw it on the table and cut it open and see if it really is. Whenever I do this, to either Catholics or Protestants, I normally fall under some heavy fire.
If anyone has further comments about this subject, feel free to comment on them. If you want to discuss the term "anti-Catholic," wait for me to post something on it, or go somewhere in which it is the actual topic of discussion.
1) As explained recently, I never said I would not talk to anti-Catholics, only that I would not engage in theological debate with them. You may be a bit dense in some of these matters, but I'm sure you have it in you to understand that simple distinction.
and in another post...
What everyone else is doing here. DUH!
Yes, I guess you are always evolving but "dense"??? That'll get you some time in purgatory. Sorry to get your goat but that piece about not being able to debate Dr. White publically seems to be quite the sore spot. And the fact that the more illustrious Cathopologists have must bear you down.
2) The only actual dialogue I have had in this combox is with Pilgrimsarbour. Since he is not an anti-Catholic, this involves no contradiction in my resolve, as you are itching to demonstrate is the case.
Hey, Pilgrimsarbour is a better man than I. I wish I had half the grace he has. Hopefully, you won't get into the condescention, subtle or otherwise, that's the norm with you. I would bet against it, but I wish the best.
3) As you see, I have continually declined T-Fan's baiting, precisely because he is trying to woo me into a theological discussion / debate, which I refuse to do with an anti-Catholic anymore.
Based upon your pontifications of what a "anti-Catholic" is or isn't of course. I just see a guy who's selective, that's all.
You can't have it both ways: mock me for supposedly engaging in what I'm not engaging in, as proven by T-Fans infantile mocking and attempts to goad me. Not that logic is the high point of anti-Catholic gifts and talents, but still .
It seems that you want it both ways: Engaging "anti-Catholics" for what they say about YOU (and it's always about you, Dave) and ignoring "anti-Catholics" when they ask you to prove your mettle on an issue. All under whatever labels you pontificate.
You really can't see the forest from the trees, can you.
Hi James,
You wrote, "Rome has never officially defined the relationship of Tradition to Scripture. Tradition, for an individual Roman Catholic, can be anything he wants it to be, as long as he works within the parameters of the ambiguous infallible statements Rome has made on the matter."
I know I a coming in on the end of the melee, but I do believe Rome has given a clear understanding of the relationship of Tradition to Scripture in several official documents. For instance the catechism, Dei Verbum and other official church documents tell us about it in detail.
Infallible statements are not the only working parameters that one must abide by. Some statements and teachings that are not "infallibly" taught are still required for a Catholic to hold to. I'm not going to go into detail now. I do not have the time. But infallibility is not the only parameters a Catholic is obliged to follow.
I know you guys have missed me over here lately, since I have been working on other matters. So I thought I would brighten your day and drop in to say hello!
Turretinfan said...
You asked: "Do you now believe that there has ever been a Council of the Catholic Church in which the Bishops conspired to teach falsehood?"
But to answer your question more directly (lest I accused of being like Dave):
1) Assuming you mean that it's my personal opinion based on a careful consideration of the claims and historical evidence that Vatican I's teaching was so far afield from history that they must have known their claims were false, I continue to have that position.
Tim: Turr,
I have to tell you that one of the things that I always liked about you is that you never backed down and you never backed off.
The fact that you would never back down, to me meant that you would contininue to engage, rather than cop out and flee the scene when the going to too “hot”. Of course our last exchange was about two years ago when you were far from legal drinking age so I probably should cut you some slack.
Still though, my guess is that I am probably expected to sign on to your “lifetime experience” and “see” things “your way” because of your vast Christian experience and knowledge of the Scriptures (and all).
Our previous conversation, which took several months, and your finally admitting as to what your “proof’ actually was, demonstrated that your position was not at all compelling.
turr: 2) But do I think I can prove their intent to your satisfaction? No.
Tim: Well, that’s an improvement, because your previous position was that you had “proof” to support your claim. Man was that ever difficult to get you to post.
turr: 3) Do I have the slightest interest in trying? No.
Tim: I understand.
turr: 4) Would I word my position the way you did above? I wouldn't today if I ever did.
Tim: Actually you did but I consider it an "improvement" that you no longer claim to be able to "prove" that an Ecumenical Council deliberately taught a falsehood. Now, I think you would charactorize it as a "feeling".
turr: 5) If you mean something else, please feel free to clarify your question.
God Bless You turr, Tim
Tim:
Thanks for the kind words. Since I don't give out my age on the net, your comment there in the middle seems odd. However, I will take it as a compliment rather than probe it for any deeper significance.
-TurretinFan
"I know you guys have missed me over here lately..."
That's one way of looking at it.
Turretinfan said...
Tim:
Thanks for the kind words. Since I don't give out my age on the net, your comment there in the middle seems odd. However, I will take it as a compliment rather than probe it for any deeper significance.
-TurretinFan
to which Tim responds:
Weird how of all that I said, you wish to take issue with my comments on your age. It would seem that you now accept my account about your claim to have "proof" that Vatican I taught error intentionally, meaning that a WHOLE LOT of Bishops conspired to intentionally deceive.
As for your age thing: It seems that I remember that you claimed to be graduating college when we last spoke, but that you had entered rather young. It seems that I remember you as being 19 a couple of years ago.
Are you denying that you are now 21or 22 or something like that? Or even younger. If you are really the turr that I remember, I don't blame you for now not admitting to your (rather young and inexperienced) age.
God Bless You turr, Tim
Tim:
It seems to me that you don't remember our previous correspondence well, as you are now either conflating it with correspondence you had with someone else or just making up details that were never there.
-TurretinFan
As for the argument from large numbers of servants of Rome being present at Vatican I:
1) The eighth century councils for and against idolatry were both large councils that made opposite historical claims.
2) The Arian councils were huge.
3) There was disagreement from a minority of bishops over the definition of papal infallibility among those who attended.
4) And the council brought on the split that resulted in the "Old Catholics."
Hi turr,
Wow, that's really compelling. You should probably write a book about that stuff. You could become extremely famous as the person who finally destroyed the Catholic Church with actual proof that it is not what it claims to be.
God Bless You turr, Tim
Hi Mr. Swan, I apologize for taking so long in getting back to this thread.
I will try to answer the points and questions you have posted on July 10 at 6:46 am. If you raised more issues later in the comment section, I will try to address them as well in later postings here.
You wrote:
"I've yet to find a unified Roman Catholic explanation of "Tradition."
I write:
You might want to look at Vatican II's Dei Verbum 7-10 as a starting point.
You wrote:
"I've found quite a few differing understandings put forth to define and explain it."
I write:
Please share the titles of the books you have read that exaplain Tradition differently from how I have explained it! The explanations I have seen from the Early Church Fathers starting with St. Irenaeus to the more modern books I have in my own library, such as the 1910 edition of the "Catholic Instructor", Msgr. Agius' "Tradition and the Catholic Church" and William Portier's "Tradition and Incarnation" all pretty much define Tradition the same way. True, most use "inherent" or "innate" or other words to the same effect in the place of the word "inhesive", but they all seem to be saying the same thing.
You wrote:
"Rome has never officially defined the relationship of tradition to Scripture. Tradition, can be almost anything you want it to be, Paul."
I write:
I agree that I could resort to my own "private judgment" and define Tradition to be anything I wanted it to be, but then it would not be Tradition as the Catholic Church understands it, but my own. Again I ask that you read Vatican II's Dei Verbum.
You asked:
"Can you point me to an official, infallible, Roman Catholic document that uses the terms "Constitutive Traditions" and "Inhesive Traditions"?"
I answer: See my statements above. However, Protestants recognize the concept of Inhesive Tradition. In fact, it is fair to say that you insist on it being the only true source of dogma since the Scriptures is its source.
As far as the words "Constitutive" or more precisely the noun Constitution is used extensively in the titles of various dogmatic expressions promulgated in the Councils of the Church. For example, Dei Verbum's English title is the "Dogmatic Constituion on Divine Revelation." I hope that helps some.
You asked:
"Then, has Rome presented the contents of the "Tradition" set (clearly presented)?"
I answer: The concept of Tradition, yes; the content, probably not. Remember, Tradition is nothing less than, "the living and teaching body, consituted by Christ, to guard and explain to the Faithful, the Deposit of Faith." It is essential that man knows what God spoke to us in the past; but it is equally important to know what God is saying to each one of us today. Thus, the fullness of the truth stored up in the mystery of Christ, Jesus is still being revealed to us.
You asked:
"Do you in fact have an exhaustive accounting of these?"
I answer:
It would be exhaustive for me to list all of the dogmas that come to us through Tradition. I would start with the Apostles Creed, the the liturgy of the Mass, and the manner in which the sacraments are conducted if I were to make a list since those things are at the very heart of the life in the Church. Moreover, since I related to you that the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church are intertwined and are premised on both Inhesive Tradition and Constitutive Tradition, it would be pretty hard to separate many of them from the dogmas and doctrines they support. Far easier would be to list the actual essential doctrines and dogmas, like here: http://www.theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm . Even Lorraine Boettner was able to make up a kind of list of what he disagreed with.
God bless!
"Wow, that's really compelling. You should probably write a book about that stuff. You could become extremely famous as the person who finally destroyed the Catholic Church with actual proof that it is not what it claims to be."
Tim:
Thanks for the encouragement. There are, however, hundreds of books that prove that the Roman church is not the Catholic church.
-TurretinFan
After reading the list, (http://www.theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm) i think it would be fair, in general, to classify those dogmas that are extra biblical to be part of what the RCC presently calls Tradition.
That's a hoot turr. The way you guys throw around the word "proof" cracks me up. Luther did the same thing and we are still waiting for that "proof" to be recognized as such.
Tim,
Glad to amuse you. How much of Luther's works have you read?
-TurretinFan
Post a Comment