tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post2301321777419519669..comments2024-03-13T11:10:01.605-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: The Pillar and Support of the TruthJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-950894333508024302015-09-09T16:09:17.435-04:002015-09-09T16:09:17.435-04:00I would like to start by saying the Catholic Churc...I would like to start by saying the Catholic Church does not take this verse out of context and does not change it in any way or is dishonest. personally I would have to say you are the one taking this verse so much farther then needed. so far to the point of making it sound ridiculous. the verse 1 Timothy 3:15 ' but if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.' can easily be broke down to mean this... ' but if I were to be delayed' we all know what delayed means, so we can easily figure out what its saying. 'if I am late or am not able to come in time.' next we have ' you should know how to behave in the household of God' this is simply saying we should know how to act reverently. 'in the household of God' could be taken to mean different things but it is told to us what it means in the following sentence. ' which IS the church of the living God.' so household we find means church which most people would think any way. the problem whence we get to this part is many people like to think their own church is the church to which this verse referrers too. to find out which church is the pillar and foundation of faith it doesn't take more the looking into the catechism or even the bible. in the Baltimore catechism you can find a whole chapter proving the Catholic church is the one true church. the one true church is the Catholic Church established by Christ (152) it follows with: (a) many churches which claim to be christen have broken away from the one true church established by Christ. these churches were founded by men who had no authority from God to found a church. (b) Christ intended that there should be only one true Christen church, for he always spoke of His own church as one. (scripture) " and other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and the shepherd" (John 10:16). (153) we know that the Catholic church is the one true Church established by Christ because it alone has the marks of the true church. (154) by the marks of the church we mean certain clear signs by which all men can recognize it as the true church founded by Jesus Christ. (a) Christ willed that the true church should have these marks which would distinguish it from all false religions. (155) the chief marks of the church are four: it is one, holy, catholic or universal, and apostolic. (a) sacred scripture reaches that the one true church of Christ must have these marks. (b) the marks of the church are themselves an indication that God guides the church. (156) the Catholic church is one because all its members, according to the will of Christ, profess the same faith, have the same sacrifice and sacraments, and are united under one and the same visible head, the pope. by the infallibility of the Catholic church is meant that the church, by the special assistance of the Holy Ghost, cannot err when it teaches or believes a doctrine of faith or morals. (a) infallibility, especially papal infallibility, is a doctrine often misunderstood and derided by those outside the church. the term " infallibility" is often distorted to mean impeccability, that is, freedom from all sin. the church has never held that the Pope cannot sin. there is much more but i will only put this so as to not write more then needed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15408930082902077486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-25288886732543756872010-05-12T19:33:47.819-04:002010-05-12T19:33:47.819-04:00"If this definition does not say that the doc..."If this definition does not say that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not "apostolic," then how would you characterize it?"<br /><br /><i>not</i> apostolic??<br /><br />If it says this doctrine "always existed in the church", then how would it be claiming it is not apostolic?<br /><br />[shakes head]Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-33669817188570288952010-05-12T10:45:42.264-04:002010-05-12T10:45:42.264-04:00John, it's not a question of "not listeni...John, it's not a question of "not listening." You have long ago lost my sympathy for your positions. <br /><br />I haven't read all of the sniping back and forth. But if you are interested in resolving questions about "what RCs claim," it's not hard to check the original document:<br /><br />http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marye1.htm<br /><br /><i>And indeed, illustrious documents of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church, very forcibly testify that this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, which was daily more and more splendidly explained, stated and confirmed by the highest authority, teaching, zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the Church, and which was disseminated among all peoples and nations of the Catholic world in a marvelous manner--<b>this doctrine always existed in the Church</b> as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors, <b>and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine.</b> [And given the rejection of the "partim-partim" language, this means it is revealed in Scripture. Except that, in real life, outside of the imaginations of Roman Catholics, and their philosophical machinations, it is not.] For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and <b>defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them;</b> but with all diligence she treats the ancient documents faithfully and wisely; if they really are of ancient origin and if the faith of the Fathers has transmitted them, she strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grown only within their own genus--that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning.</i><br /><br />So now, the explanation for how this doctrine was "always there" is dependent on some theory of "development," some philosophical theory that allows it to have been "revealed in Scripture." <br /><br />And so, miracle of miracles, this "seed form" was nevertheless "never changed, never diminished, never added-to, but always treated faithfully and wisely, always having its full, integral, and proper nature," "known in the same sense" and "having the same meaning."<br /><br />If this definition does not say that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not "apostolic," then how would you characterize it? <br /><br />Edward is correct to suggest that this is a bunch of malarkey.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-69905931090717773312010-05-12T09:09:52.167-04:002010-05-12T09:09:52.167-04:00John B. After all the words expended, why can'...John B. After all the words expended, why can't you listen? The issue is not what you think of the trinity vs the IC, the issue is what RCs claim. I disputed Edward's representation of what Catholics CLAIM. Go ahead and disagree with RCs, but don't misrepresent them.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-70534652998945908002010-05-12T08:01:31.380-04:002010-05-12T08:01:31.380-04:00John, there is no comparison between the Trinity a...John, there is no comparison between the Trinity and the Immaculate Conception of Mary.<br /><br />The Trinity was known -- and someone who calls himself an Eastern Orthodox person, you should know that the Trinity was known from the beginning. There was no "development". See Perry Robinson's statement here and following, to the effect that "the church taught the doctrine of the Trinity prior to any formal definition." <br /><br />http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/determining-the-doctrine-of-the-church/#comment-74189<br /><br />Reformed writers are clear that the three persons of the trinity are clearly attested in the New Testament. Note these statements:<br /><br />Matthew 28: <i>Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. </i><br /><br />2 Corinthians 13:14 -- <i>The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.</i><br /><br />Here, the functionality of all the persons are clearly attested in one passage:<br /><br />Ephesians 1:3-14 -- <i>Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.<br /><br />In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.</i><br /><br />Further, the Spirit is directly attested as God in Romans 8, and Jesus is attested as YHWH by Paul in Phil 2 (see Is. 45:22-25). There are others that could be mentioned. <br /><br />The Trinity is clearly taught in Scripture. <br /><br />On the other hand, the Immaculate Conception of Mary is an inference derived from an inference, and all of that is despite clear evidence that Mary was a sinful person in the New Testament. (Romans 3:23 -- there is no exception made for her then, when it would have been natural to do so, if the Apostle had thought that was the case -- and Mary was among his family saying of Jesus, "he is out of his mind" (Mark 3:20, 21, 31). The origins of the Immaculate Conception are attested in spurious legend. <br /><br />You have been banging your head here for two weeks, and I don't really care how you are spending your time, and I'm glad you are adding up the page views here, but your argument has no basis in reality.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-81836602684872285822010-05-12T00:55:42.877-04:002010-05-12T00:55:42.877-04:00"Newman's doctrine of development means t..."Newman's doctrine of development means the RCC is not just repeating what the Apostles say. This is so blindingly obvious that there is really not much left to say about it. If that is what they are doing, there would be no need for "development". Did the virgin birth "develope"?"<br /><br />Yeah, and if you want to go down that route, it makes everything you said to be nonsense. Did the apostles state that God is a Τριάδος, as three ὑπόστᾰσις in one Οὐσία? No they didn't. So you condemn your own theology by playing weasel words, all in the name of salvaging your error.<br /><br />"Newman believed in "seed" doctrines."<br /><br />But he didn't consider the trinity "seed" to be different in kind to the IC seed. And the question is not whether he is right, the question is what RCs think, since your claim was about what RCs would say, NOT what RC theology implies.<br /><br />The question remains outstanding. Is this statement true:?<br /><br />"the RCs would never say they are just repeating what the Apostles taught"<br /><br />Its only true if we interpret it such that it also applies to your own position. You've now gone on to define it in terms of "repeating what the apostles say", and the dogmatic statements of your own tradition do not fit that criteria.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-61846319854864134992010-05-10T19:35:14.045-04:002010-05-10T19:35:14.045-04:00John,
Spare me the cheap psychoanalysis. You don&...John,<br /><br />Spare me the cheap psychoanalysis. You don't know me at all. I wonder why you are so fond of these ridiculous tricks. You keep trying different ones, and each one seems lamer than the last. Try a new tack, for your own sake.<br /><br />And you should read the overall context before making sweeping comments.<br /><br />You quoted me thus:<br /><br />"the RCs would never say they are just repeating what the Apostles taught"<br /><br />This was sin the context of my reply to Lvka. And in overall context, it is true. Newman's doctrine of development means the RCC is not just repeating what the Apostles say. This is so blindingly obvious that there is really not much left to say about it. If that is what they are doing, there would be no need for "development". Did the virgin birth "develope"?<br /><br />I cited a RC priest thus:<br /><br />"His aim was to solve a problem, that posed by the apparent discontinuity between the Church of the apostles and contemporary Roman Catholicism"<br /><br />Apparent discontinuity seems to imply something new, i.e. something has to develop. Something is now a dogma which was not before. <br /><br />Where is the apparent discontinuity between the doctrine of the Trinity and the Apostles? There is none, because the doctrine of the Trinity is not new, while the IC is new. The RCC claims that e.g. the IC is not new don't stand up to scrutiny--which you yourself allowed. In fact it seems it is you, not I, who misunderstand Newman. Newman believed in "seed" doctrines. So for Newman strict historical continuity is of a secondary importance to faith. And due to his peculiar definition of faith, he means absolute authority. <br /><br />"...The simple account of their remaining as they are, is, that they lack one thing,--they have not faith; it is a state of mind, it is a virtue, which they do not recognise to be praiseworthy, which they do not aim at possessing..."<br /><br />http://www.newmanreader.org/works/discourses/discourse10.html<br /><br />Faith is submitting to an authority, not belief in e.g. the Trinity. And so it follows that to be faithful is to believe without question what the authority says. So, there is nothing wrong, for Newman, with the Church taking the vaguest hints and saying that such and such is a dogma, when it never was before. It was there, according to Newman, in "seed form" which we could not perceive. That is what I called "new", BTW.Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-58873520394214902262010-05-09T19:32:35.896-04:002010-05-09T19:32:35.896-04:00Edward: You seem irritated that I didn't follo...Edward: You seem irritated that I didn't follow you down the IC rabbit warren as a distraction to you documenting or retracting your claim. Here's a reminder of your claim:<br /><br />"the RCs would never say they are just repeating what the Apostles taught."<br /><br />When asked to document this, you quoted Newman, and waffled about the IC. But Newman argued that the IC was no different to the trinity. Thus your claim that RCs would never say they are repeating what the apostles taught is bogus. RCs see this no different from you do. Being wrong about what the apostles taught is a different claim than not thinking your teachings are what the apostles taught. When are you going to be a man and just withdraw the claim? There are no debate victories for misrepresenting your opponents.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-22049610798615743512010-05-09T10:19:21.734-04:002010-05-09T10:19:21.734-04:00John,
You need more evidence and fewer assertions...John,<br /><br />You need more evidence and fewer assertions. If you agree the IC fails the history test you could have said that several posts ago. You chose not to do so for what ever reason.<br /><br />From that if follows that the IC is new. It doesn't matter if the RCC says the IC is apostolic, for that is the very thing under discussion.<br /><br />That is how I see it.Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-41824669317924096592010-05-09T10:12:17.029-04:002010-05-09T10:12:17.029-04:00Edward, being as I am Eastern Orthodox, I have lit...Edward, being as I am Eastern Orthodox, I have little incentive to run down the rabbit hole of this change of subject you have attempted about the IC. I just don't like to see people misrepresent any side of the discussion whether it is my side or not. My point has continually been the problem with your argument, and not allowing you to change the entire argument to be about the IC.<br /><br />If you want my opinion, the IC does fail the history test, but you have to argue it on its own merits, and not by a-priori saying that Rome doesn't claim its teachings are apostolic and avoiding the discussion. You attempted that at the beginning, you appealed to Newman and failed, and you still are pushing onwards with the misrepresentation.<br /><br />Mentioning your church is very pertinent if it demonstrates your position is hypocritical. <br /><br />I have no knowledge of "threatening to stop the discussion". That sounds like your imagination to me.<br /><br />I have supplied all necessary evidence to prove my position, which is that you misrepresented Rome. I know that, because I challenged you to document your claim, all you threw up was Newman, and that was shown to be misrepresenting Newman.<br /><br />And again, the point is not whether the Trinity and the IC are equivalent, the point is that Rome thinks they are. That's why you have to refute the IC on its own merits and not just claim a-priori that it fails because Rome doesn't even claim it to be apostolic. Rome does claim it to be apostolic, and its time you admitted this, so you can if you wish, argue against it on its on merits and not on the basis of a straw man.<br /><br />I'll point out one more time: This is not about the IC, which I have no necessity to defend. This is about my challenging you on a misrepresentation of Rome, and you refusing to admit it, pushing on and pretending as if you weren't caught out.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-82476434452147186272010-05-09T09:05:27.693-04:002010-05-09T09:05:27.693-04:00John,
"Trinity again: neither does Newman sa...John,<br /><br />"Trinity again: neither does Newman say the trinity is new! If you are not happy with the pedigree of IC versus some other dogma, great you can argue about that issue on its merits. But you can't start from the position that Rome doesn't even claim it to be apostolic, therefore you can just reject it before you start. And that's what you were attempting to do."<br /><br />Once again, you prove my point.<br /><br />I agree the Trinity is not new. In fact, that was my point. My point is the difference between the Trinity and the IC. We can see the Trinity in the Scriptures and in the ECFs. The IC does not appear in the Scriptures or the ECFs. That means it <b><i>is</i></b> new.<br /><br />That is a conclusion drawn from "actual facts".<br /><br />You speak of facts and evidence in a general way, but you have not supplied any facts or evidence for IC being Apostolic doctrine. None. This is because there isn't any. Which once again leaves us with the conclusion it is new. <br /><br />You can attempt to portray my arguments as arbitrary, but it would be better if you actually had an argument in favor of your opinion instead of using the various rhetorical tricks you have used here:<br /><br />1) Changing the subject to my church<br />2) Threatening to stop the discussion if I don't behave the way you would like<br />3) Pretending you want to follow evidence when you supply none for your own case<br />4) Ignoring the repeated arguments by me that the development of IC and th development og the Trinity are not the same thing at all<br /><br />Empty rhetoric in place of argument doesn't prove anything except perhaps that even you know you don't have much of a case at all. As that old lawyer saw says, if the facts go against you, change the subject.Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-10624917079659672462010-05-06T19:48:20.411-04:002010-05-06T19:48:20.411-04:00Edward, I played along with your paper trail disc...Edward, I played along with your paper trail discussion to show that its not as clear as you make out that your definition of what is Apostolic is the only reasonable one, and that your definition is rather arbitrary in its evidence requirements. And as Newman pointed out, not having extant documents about something is not the same as proving it was never mentioned before.<br /><br />Now, you're perfectly entitled to form the opinion that you can't accept these things are apostolic, just like it used to be trendy for scholars to say that John was probably written in the late 2nd century, but that doesn't actually say anything about your position vs Rome's other than that your criteria is a bit different than Rome's. And you can argue why your criteria is better or whatever, but it doesn't show that Rome believes it is in the business of creating non-apostolic dogma. You tried to make Newman say that, but failed.<br /><br />And at least to some extent, what is only "tenuous" in the historical record is in the eye of the beholder. Many would say that substitutionary atonement and penal substitution have at best a tenuous relationship to the bible and historical Christianity. Yet many protestants cling to it as if it was the beginning and end of the faith.<br /><br />Yes, if one "creates a new dogma" and claims it is not new *without evidence*, then it would be a bald assertion. But this is exactly my point. You have to debate the evidence on each individual dogma to make your point. You can't simply start with the bald assertion that Rome claims the ability to promulgate non-apostolic dogma, therefore we can reject anything it says from the get-go. No, that's not true, so you'll have to argue from the actual facts.<br /><br />You talk about whether the truth judges the church, or vice versa, and claim that Paul's teaching is that the truth judges the church.<br /><br />You know, the truth is only a set of facts. It doesn't judge anything. That's why when the government makes legislation they also need courts to apply it. Inanimate objects don't judge anything. By your logic, because supreme court judges are in a position to judge the law, therefore they themselves are not subject to the law. Of course that assumption would be wrong. It seems like you want to set up a false dichotomy where either the church is over the scriptures, or vice versa. I see no reason to go down that path.<br /><br />Trinity again: neither does Newman say the trinity is new! If you are not happy with the pedigree of IC versus some other dogma, great you can argue about that issue on its merits. But you can't start from the position that Rome doesn't even claim it to be apostolic, therefore you can just reject it before you start. And that's what you were attempting to do.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-87277841281233055562010-05-06T11:48:14.225-04:002010-05-06T11:48:14.225-04:00John,
"Therefore what the pillar holds up is...John,<br /><br />"Therefore what the pillar holds up is by definition the truth, since the bible says so."<br /><br />Then why did you bother arguing about paper trails and tradition etc.? It doesn't matter if there is any paper trail or tradition, if the Church says it it is true even if no one said it ever before. Indeed, after Newman, all one needs is th emost tenuous statement for something completely new to "develop".<br /><br />"Your effort is better expended in arguing your case about where the church is, than arguing against Paul, or assigning theology to Rome that it does not hold."<br /><br />You keep re-affirming what I claim is Rome's theology. You also keep re-affirming my point that truth does not judge the Church, rather the other way around for RCs. That is not St. Paul's teaching, not in the slightest. And creating a new dogma (IC) and claiming it is not new is no argument at all, it is just a bald assertion.<br /><br />BTW, the EOC, at least most of them, do not claim e.g. the Trinitarian dogmas are new, they are just statements to refute heresies which arise. In other words, the doctrines in question are Apostolic. You have utterly failed to show the IC has a similar pedigree, despite your attempt to equivocate the two.Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-65512883045369046222010-05-06T10:16:24.482-04:002010-05-06T10:16:24.482-04:00Yes Edward, by definition the pillar upholds the t...Yes Edward, by definition the pillar upholds the truth. The verse at the centre of this discussion says so. Therefore what the pillar holds up is by definition the truth, since the bible says so. Your effort is better expended in arguing your case about where the church is, than arguing against Paul, or assigning theology to Rome that it does not hold.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-31468935831508222542010-05-06T10:01:58.980-04:002010-05-06T10:01:58.980-04:00John,
"If you want to admit that Rome claims...John,<br /><br />"If you want to admit that Rome claims its teachings are Apostolic, and then go onto argue why you don't believe that to be so, then you could be arguing from a position of respect to the other position. As it is, you are still claiming you've done nothing wrong."<br /><br />That's right, I have done nothing wrong. Embedded right in this comment of yours is your admission that I am right. You see, since Rome is Apostolic (the pillar, if you will), then what it says is true is true.<br /><br />Thus, the pillar determines what is true, since by definition the pillar upholds the truth. The IC is a good example of this. You have advanced no evidence for its antiquity except alluding to Rome's claim of being Apostolic.<br /><br />So, once again, thanks for proving my point.Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-38018989791045309022010-05-06T09:18:56.167-04:002010-05-06T09:18:56.167-04:00Edward, the issue is not the quality of the paper ...Edward, the issue is not the quality of the paper trail, the issue is you misrepresenting Rome's position. If you want to admit that Rome claims its teachings are Apostolic, and then go onto argue why you don't believe that to be so, then you could be arguing from a position of respect to the other position. As it is, you are still claiming you've done nothing wrong.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-18557967852057173362010-05-06T08:58:15.396-04:002010-05-06T08:58:15.396-04:00John,
There is simply no comparison between the &...John,<br /><br />There is simply no comparison between the "paper trail" of IC and the "paper trail" for the Bible. The Jesus and the Apostles vouch for Genesis, but not for the IC. This is a simple brute fact. <br /><br />Furthermore, the EOC knows nothing of the IC. Are they unaware of history, too? It is more likely that they don'e believe because IC arose from Medieval scholastic theology, to which the EOC didn't subscribe. That is why it had to "develop" (in the sense of somee new dogma) in the West. You simply have no evidence for the IC being Apostolic other than the authority of your church, which makes the RCC the source of truth and not an upholder of truth. Indeed, if there was such evidence, I have no doubt you would supply it. You don't because there isn't any.<br /><br />You also keep trying to make my church the issue. But my church is not the issue. I could be a Moonie and you would still be wrong.Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-44254799029604353712010-05-05T23:35:38.895-04:002010-05-05T23:35:38.895-04:00Edward, you've completely ignored everything I...Edward, you've completely ignored everything I said, and then have the temerity to claim I'm avoiding arguments.<br /><br />Now you seem to be saying that the RCC doesn't claim to be the source of truth, but "de facto" that is how it does doctrine. That in itself is a backflip that you ought to be up front about.<br /><br />You say that the IC developed differently to the trinity. Even if we accept that, it contradicts Newman. And since you appeal to Newman as your source of Rome's claims, all you've done is prove you disagree with Newman, you have failed to show that your view of Rome's teaching is accurate.<br /><br />Do you actually understand the difference between disagreeing with Rome's teachings and misrepresenting Rome's teachings? Can't you do the former without doing the latter?<br /><br />You say that if one can't show something from either the bible or the apostolic fathers, then it isn't apostolic. That's a rather arbitrary cutoff, and doesn't deal with what Newman said. And again, the issue is not whether you agree with Newman or his view of history, the issue is you misrepresented Rome's understanding of the relationship between dogma and history. Just because Rome's cutoff is not in the same year that your cutoff is, doesn't mean Rome's view of dogma being apostolic is different. It just means Rome picked a different cutoff than your arbitrary date.<br /><br />You say there is a paper trail for every book of the bible, but that is not true of the IC. Perhaps you could provide us a photocopy of the paper trail for Genesis as a starting point. But obviously the paper trail for IC starts in some year or other. The paper trail for 2 Peter starts around 200 AD with some very shaky attestation, about 150 years after it would have had to have been written. Just because you are happy with a 150 year paper trail, and are not happy with a say, 200 year paper trail says more about your arbitrariness than the positions involved. And in any case, Rome sees in the writings of people like Hippolytus things like " His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." and Origen "immaculate of the immaculate" as a paper trail for the doctrine, chronologically at least as good as the paper trail for 2 Peter.<br /><br />You ask how one could ever deny something by the Magisterium and offer this as proof that Rome is not acting as a pillar. But by your own definition, pillars uphold the truth. If the Magisterium is a pillar, and it holds something up, then it is the truth. This is according to your own understanding of the metaphor. What I want to know from you is how can you claim your church as a pillar and then simultaneously claim that it can hold up errors so that we have to keep checking and cross checking if its the truth. It sounds like your church is not a pillar, but a boat tossed in the waves. Hopefully it holds up the truth, but other times it doesn't.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-87301161877307756402010-05-05T22:35:39.558-04:002010-05-05T22:35:39.558-04:00John,
"It would be helpful if you concede th...John,<br /><br />"It would be helpful if you concede the things you actually got wrong."<br /><br />I deny I got anything wrong. So far you have avoided each and every argument. First by trying to change the subject and now by bald assertions I got something "wrong".<br /><br />In any case, whether or not the RCC officially claims the passage in qyuestion means the RCC is the source of truth or not, it is de facto how they "do" doctrine. As I pointed out above, your own arguments support my position that the RCC is not just a pillar, but the source of doctrine.<br /><br />"Again, arguing about probabilities about the paper trail supporting the IC going back to the apostles is equivalent to arguing about the paper trail of 2 Peter going back to the apostles."<br /><br />No, it is not equivalent. It is not even similar. As before, you don't supply any evidence for the IC from the Apostles--zip, nada, zilch. There is no "paper trail", which is why it had to "develop". This is a completely different kind of development than we see in e,g, the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. (Indeed, the "development" of Arius' heresy is similar to the "development" of the IC--the product of speculative, academic theology as opposed ot the Apsotolic deposit of faith...)<br /><br />If you cannot show the Apostles or at least the Apostolic Fathers teaching the IC then it is not Apsotolic doctrine.<br /><br />Regarding different books of the Bible, there is a paper trail for every book of the Bible. Some are better than others, but they are there--which is not true of the IC. So your analogy does not apply.<br /><br />The IC is a good example of the "pillar" making up a dogma. I have also shown how, despite your protestations, you approach leads to the Church creating dogmas. How, indeed, could you ever deny something dogmatically proclaimed by the Magisterium? You can't, because the "pillar" is by definition always right. The justifications--"paper trail"--can come later because since Newman there are a lot of "seed" doctrines which then "develop" within the "pillar and ground of truth".Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-9122780640832659362010-05-05T21:27:09.981-04:002010-05-05T21:27:09.981-04:00Edward: It would be helpful if you concede the thi...Edward: It would be helpful if you concede the things you actually got wrong.<br /><br />Even if we accept the proposition that the RCC's position amounts to being a "source of truth" in your categorisations, it doesn't mean that the RCC interprets 1Tim 3:15 to mean that. If the RCC has a dogma about the IC that isn't actually apostolic, that would mean the RCC made a mistake about what is apostolic on the same level as if you made a mistake about 2 Peter being apostolic. It doesn't mean the RCC interprets 1 Tim 3:15 to mean it can create dogmas that are not apostolic. And that is the claim you made, which you ought to withdraw.<br /><br />Until you stop equivocating categories, you won't be able to present a coherent argument.<br /><br />Again, arguing about probabilities about the paper trail supporting the IC going back to the apostles is equivalent to arguing about the paper trail of 2 Peter going back to the apostles. It's not an indication that one accepts the proposition that the Church can create non-apostolic dogmas. Rather it is a difference of opinion about history. Do you suggest that all churches accepting 2 Peter as dogmatically part of scripture be relegated to the category of irreformable?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1283775975730679442010-05-05T20:59:43.325-04:002010-05-05T20:59:43.325-04:00John,
I don't care if you take me seriously o...John,<br /><br />I don't care if you take me seriously or not. The guy who simply abandons his own arguments when they are shown to be weak and then tries to change the subject as implicitly admitted he has lost the argument.<br /><br />You keep trying to change the subject to me and my church. Unfortunately, the Lutheran Church is not the topic of this thread.<br /><br />Here is where things stand:<br /><br />I showed you are wrong abut Newman, and I showed that your own arguments, as well as Newman's work out to the RCC being the source of truth and not something which upholds it.<br /><br />So far you have not shown that the IC developed in a similar manner to the Trinity. This basically refutes your defense of Newman. The Trinitarian doctrines are real developments of th edeposit of faith, the IC is an assertion without Apostolic warrant. This makes the IC a new dogma. I can show Christ's divinity, his co-equality with the Father and the Spirit and the distinctions between the persons. There is no such matrix for the IC.<br /><br />As far as epistemological boats, you are too unaware of what I believe to, well, take such a critique seriously. I have shown this, too.Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-44669516062594177612010-05-05T20:45:55.223-04:002010-05-05T20:45:55.223-04:00" I hold that it interprets it in such a way ..." I hold that it interprets it in such a way that the RCC is the source of new doctrines."<br /><br />Edward, there's a difference between claiming that the RCC is the source of new doctrines and claiming that the RCC interprets 1 Tim 3:15 to say that it has the right to be the source of new doctrines. You continue to claim the latter while only making arguments for the former.<br /><br />When I pointed this out, you pointed out certain things about the history of the IC doctrine, which is a claim about the former, not the latter. You appealed to Newman, but I pointed out that he doesn't see the IC as any different in principle to the trinity.<br /><br />If you can't prove the latter, then you are in the same epistemological boat. You can make probabilistic arguments about this doctrine or that doctrine, but you can't present an overarching argument that the RCC claims to create dogma in a way you don't. So you can make probabilistic arguments about say the IC, and match that up with probabilistic arguments about things in your own tradition, like the originality of 2 Peter, but that's a different kind of argument.<br /><br /><br /><br />If you want to be take seriously, you'll have to stop equivocating on different concepts, and actually defend the argument you make, and not a slightly different one.<br /><br />Yes, you pointed out confessional documents, but then you said that is not everything but you can't identify everything. How is this off topic to point out you can't even identify everything which is the subject of this corrective process that is supposedly a necessary thing?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-59986648248264985082010-05-05T20:03:06.400-04:002010-05-05T20:03:06.400-04:00John,
No, it is not a problem. You keep trying to...John,<br /><br />No, it is not a problem. You keep trying to change the subject to my church. This is a common tactic used by RC apologists when they cannot argue the facts. Even if I am a Moonie it doesn't make your position any stronger. The topic of the thread is how the RCC interprets the text at hand. I hold that it interprets it in such a way that the RCC is the <b><i>source</i></b> of new doctrines. So far all you want to do is change the subject and deny that Newman's doctrine is more than mere development in a similar way to the Trinity. The IC did not develop in a similar way to the Trinity, and that should not be controversial.<br /><br />Also, I will point out that you asked for documentation of what my church teaches. When I pointed you to our confessional documents you just change the subject again to how I answer certain questions. Added to this is the implicit assumption of how we approach <i>Sola Scripture</i>. We just don't fit into your mold. It would help if you didn't try to argue against "protestantism", which is not a confessional grouping. <br /><br />It is clear you are just trying to get away from the topic at hand. This is also shown by your desire to discuss "protestantism" instead of the simple fact that the RCC invented the IC based on its scholastic thheology.<br /><br />"I'm kind of surprised that your best shot at identifying your doctrine is not a specific set of scriptures, but rather the book of concord. "<br /><br />This is because, as I pointed out earlier, you keep trying to fit "protestants" into a pre-conceived mold--and then claim they don't fit into a mold at all because they don;t agree--a rather self-refuting way for you to argue. All this in liu of addressing the issues I have brought up. <br /><br />Now, Show me where the Immaculate Conception is written down by the Apostles and I will recant. Either that, or admit that Newmanian "development of doctrine" allows for the Church to invent new dogmas.Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-13615774149453237682010-05-05T19:35:21.206-04:002010-05-05T19:35:21.206-04:00Edward: It's a bit of a problem if you're ...Edward: It's a bit of a problem if you're going to go around complaining about Churches being irreformable according to doctrine when you can't exactly identify the bounds of doctrine of your own church. As soon as you raise a claim about the necessity for a mechanism of reforming doctrine you have to have a correspondingly clear mechanism for identifying your doctrine.<br /><br />I'm kind of surprised that your best shot at identifying your doctrine is not a specific set of scriptures, but rather the book of concord. Now seriously, does your church have a mechanism for updating the Book of Concord when errors are found? To claim to be reformable you'll have to have a mechanism in place for reforming your false traditions, right?<br /><br />The number of cases of Protestant churches reforming their doctrines has got to be near zero. I've never heard of a Baptist church embracing infant baptism, or a Presbyterian church suddenly eschewing it. Individuals move between churches for doctrinal reasons, and new churches are started for doctrinal reasons, and doctrine drifts through popular culture, but I've never heard of a case of a Church sitting down and saying something like, "oh right, those other guys were right all along, so our church is changing our position on baptism, or church government, or sacramentalism, or paedo-communion or Calvinism or whatever.<br /><br />The idea that Protestant churches are all geared up to be reformed by the word of God is a nonsense. You guys are just as mired in your own history as anyone else. The difference is, you don't make the claim your church is uniquely led by the Spirit so that history can have any meaning.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-20701315358028466782010-05-05T16:42:57.099-04:002010-05-05T16:42:57.099-04:00I'm not using Irenaeus to "trump" th...<i>I'm not using Irenaeus to "trump" the Bible. His comments help to explain it. But it is clear that he did not hold your view. Something else was the "pillar and ground" of the faith. </i><br />That is not clear at all. He used the same metaphor as Paul to communicate a different truth. That does not mean they disagree with each other. <br /><br /><i>This is not a post about what Protestant churches agree or disagree on. As I mentioned, the Roman church was boastful and heretical long before the first Protestant church ever appeared. The real issue is, "are Rome's claims valid, or are they false?" Decide on that.</i><br />Really? So for a long time the only church in existence was boastful and heretical? Good thing the gates of hell never prevailed over the church of Jesus. Are you admitting that protestant churches cannot act as the pillar and foundation of the truth? <br /><br /><i>No one is confounded. Calvin, while coming to a different conclusion than what the modern authors say, still thoroughly rejects Roman claims, and is not confounded by this in any way. Here's a bit of that:…</i><br />Calvin rejects Roman claims. There is a surprise. But what does he base it on? His own judgment of what the truth is. So John Calvin becomes the pillar and foundation of the truth. He is right that we need a church and it must teach the truth. He is wrong on how to find it. So what error would Calvin’s idea prevent? Why couldn’t a Baptist or a Pentecostal make the same argument he does and say Calvin’s church must be false because it lacks truth. His pillar and foundation supports every truth and therefore it supports none.Randyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16751516602395247675noreply@blogger.com