tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post3347436650225743251..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Catholic Historian on Trent and SalvationJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-18171270641771780652007-10-11T16:40:00.000-04:002007-10-11T16:40:00.000-04:00"So you don't believe the Gospel is a revelation f..."So you don't believe the Gospel is a revelation from God. At least you have the courage to admit you aren't truly a Christian."<BR/><BR/>How on the Lord's green earth did you derive that absurd conclusion? My point is that your contention that revelation from God and philosophy are somehow mutually exclusive is an expression of your own philosophy.<BR/><BR/>Is this an example of your ability to ferret out the true meanings of others' writings? If so, you don't give me much confidence that you can correctly represent the Word of Truth. <BR/><BR/>Philosophy itself is neither good nor bad. It refers to the approach we apply to reason. Scripture happens to contain a good deal of both reason and philosophy. You can no more have a theology without an associated philosophy than you can have a language without an associated grammar. It is not the language itself, but it helps define its structure.<BR/><BR/>Philosophy is no more the exclusive realm of atheists than science is the exclusive realm of materialists or mathematics the exclusive realm of empiricists. Come, let us reason together, says the Lord.<BR/><BR/>As for you saying that I am not a Christian: This is not a nursery, and "Nyahh nyahh nyahh. You're a doodie head," is not an argument. Grow up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-43292434278956339582007-10-10T20:43:00.000-04:002007-10-10T20:43:00.000-04:00faithful said... "The Gospel, however, is based...<I><B>faithful said...<BR/><BR/> "The Gospel, however, is based on REVELATION FROM GOD, not philosophy."<BR/><BR/> That's an interesting philosophy.</B></I><BR/><BR/>So you don't beleive the Gospel is a revelation from God. At least you have the courage to admit you aren't truly a Christian.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-46881464671974763532007-10-10T16:59:00.000-04:002007-10-10T16:59:00.000-04:00At any rate, I've spent too much time on here the ...At any rate, I've spent too much time on here the last few days, and I have a feeling I'm about to wear out my welcome to boot. So that's it for me. I'm disciplining myself NOT to come back here, at least not for a good while. Thanks for the interaction.Tim Enloehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00496999199258689044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-89108148101484316022007-10-10T16:22:00.000-04:002007-10-10T16:22:00.000-04:00Saint and Sinner,Backing up quite a bit: yes, Calv...Saint and Sinner,<BR/><BR/>Backing up quite a bit: yes, Calvin knew some Medieval scholasticism and theology and gave quite a negative response to Trent. So what? I didn't say "everyone" who attacks Trent is ignorant. But certainly about 80% of layman blowhards who appear in blog comboxes ranting about "false Gospels" are profoundly ignorant and really ought to spend their time in more constructive pursuits. Like, oh, maybe reading some <I>real</I> apologetics and theology books instead of pop-Evangelical "The Romanists are coming! To arms, to arms, the Romanists are coming!" trash that never teaches you anything but one narrow-minded view and <I>never</I> answers for its own assumptions.<BR/><BR/>At any rate, Calvin's theology was influenced by Nominalism, and his intellectual pursuits were immersed in very complicated philosophical-theological debates that had been going on for centuries without any resolution. At the very least, there are huge questions of faith and reason operating behind the scenes of the Reformation battles--or rather, they're behind the scenes to us because we don't have the kind of training the Reformers did. Things just aren't as simple as picking up English translations of Trent and setting them side-by-side with Galatians and "comparing them" to see what "plain truth" is. <BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, many people are terrified out of their skulls at the prospect that the realm of things they can be "certain" about is not quite as big as they'd like it to be, and so there's a lot of angry, fearful denunciation that occurs whenever someone comes around and smudges the nice, neat, pretty little lines. I find that most Protestants on the Internet who bluster about Trent's "false Gospel" and quote the Reformers' trash-talking against "papist dogs" have little to no concept of the shape of the intellectual landscape at the time. This makes their opinions pretty much worthless, and more on the level of bigoted slander than intelligent argument.Tim Enloehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00496999199258689044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-73162424526298455822007-10-10T16:06:00.000-04:002007-10-10T16:06:00.000-04:00Jeff wrote:Are you asserting there was no fundamen...Jeff wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>Are you asserting there was no fundamental soteriological disagreement between dogmatic statements coming out of Trent and those of the reformers?</I><BR/><BR/>No, I'm not asserting there was no fundamental difference. At the very least, there's a huge metaphysical difference in conceptions of "grace."<BR/><BR/><I>In other words, do you assert that Rome put forth a doctrine of justification that saves?</I><BR/><BR/>Well, in the first place there is not any <I>doctrine</I> of justification anywhere that saves. Doctrine does not save, faith in Christ does. Justification is by faith alone, not by believing in justification by faith alone. To say otherwise is to turn human willing and running--in this case, human theologizing--into a work that brings or denies salvation.<BR/><BR/>This being the case, it is wrongheaded to analyze Catholic doctrine on the principle "does this doctrine save?" Of course it does not, but then, neither does Reformation doctrine. Again, doctrine does not save, faith in Christ does. All of that said, I think it's ludicrous to imagine that messing up intellectual concepts of the relationship of justification and sanctification excludes a person from salvation. This is pretty much to collapse the Reformed understanding of the tripartite nature of saving faith into only one of its aspects, the intellectual (<I>notitia</I>). And, as numerous infinitessimally parsed debates on justification well show, by making justification depend on whether you can say "shibboleth" correctly, it is not only a scheme of justification by works but a scheme which excludes the vast majority of human beings, who aren't gifted with the kind of legalistic intellect that likes to wrangle about <I>words</I> all day long, from the possibility of salvation.<BR/><BR/>Take care how you construe Reformation polemics against the 16th century doctrinal constructs of certain Roman theologians. There's a lot more going on in both the polemics and their targets than most people today, 500 years later, are able to appreciate--especially if their understanding of the issues comes from pop-apologetics books and websites and they can't be bothered to take the time to learn fundamental concepts and contexts first.Tim Enloehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00496999199258689044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-9640856444523820662007-10-10T15:56:00.000-04:002007-10-10T15:56:00.000-04:00Pilgrimsarbour, I didn't say that Phil. 2 is a tex...Pilgrimsarbour, I didn't say that Phil. 2 is a text that supports the Catholic doctrine of meritorious justification. I said, in context of Carrie's general remarks about "cooperation" in salvation, that certainly we do have to "cooperate" in some sense. The key being that Protestants, via the distinction between justification and sanctification, confine the cooperation to sanctification whereas Catholics use the word justification to describe the whole salvific experience.<BR/><BR/>At any rate, none of this touches the point that if Catholic theology is read through the lens of Augustine's statement that "our" merits are really God's and He is crowning His own gifts to us, quite a different picture of Catholic doctrine emerges than one might find in, say, the latest hot polemical book about Rome's "false Gospel of works righteousness."Tim Enloehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00496999199258689044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-8233849622198889842007-10-10T14:46:00.000-04:002007-10-10T14:46:00.000-04:00"My mother. Was I wrong to believe her? Who told y...<I>"My mother. Was I wrong to believe her? Who told you?<BR/><BR/>Was your mother Catholic? <BR/><BR/>I learned about the real Jesus from the Bible."</I><BR/><BR/>Which Bible?<BR/><BR/>E i EAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-75453362841144089052007-10-10T14:43:00.000-04:002007-10-10T14:43:00.000-04:00"The Gospel, however, is based on REVELATION FROM ..."The Gospel, however, is based on REVELATION FROM GOD, not philosophy."<BR/><BR/>That's an interesting philosophy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-18017862792170113912007-10-10T14:26:00.000-04:002007-10-10T14:26:00.000-04:00"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy ...<I> "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>This verese does not say all philosophy is bad, just that it can be used as a vehicle for deception. The verse itself could be considered theologically philsophical. Does that mean the verse is warning against itself?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-20417032365248390472007-10-10T14:20:00.000-04:002007-10-10T14:20:00.000-04:00"I also believe that distinguishing the wheat from..."I also believe that distinguishing the wheat from the tares is not so easy as separating those who can recite the Apostle’s or Nicene Creed from those who cannot."<BR/><BR/>I absolutely agree! Now, who told <B>you</B> it is your job to separate the wheat from the tares? According to scripture, whose job is it? <BR/><BR/>Enough is EnoughAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-43233331071431399262007-10-10T14:11:00.000-04:002007-10-10T14:11:00.000-04:00" I believe the warnings to “work out my salvation..." I believe the warnings to “work out my salvation” and “be sure that I am in the faith” are not because my works contribute to my justification before God, but because my works provide me with the proof/assurance that I have been justified by God and am in possession of the true saving faith that is necessary to attain eternal life."<BR/><BR/>Then you deny the same scripture you claim to follow exclusively, for the warnings against apostasy are not in vain, and if your salvation were sacrosanct, you would require no warning--or in fact, no correction whatsoever, being utterly justified, as you claim.<BR/><BR/>Now of course you do not agree with this interpretation; however, it is absolutely in line with sola scriptura as you and others here have presented it as your authority.<BR/><BR/>Seriously look at the debates you folks have over essentials: the fate of children and the retarded, the salvation of those who gravely sin after being saved, the very need for amending one's life after salvation lest one lose it (As far as I can see the only unforgivable sin some Reformed-minded believe any Christian can commit is to become a Catholic, e.g.: the Beckwith affair.), doubts and contention about who is and who is not saved (an all time favorite game that I --God forgive me if I'm wrong-- that I wager you play on a regular basis)... All of these are up for grabs, and for any one of you who champions one view via sola scriptura, another is ready to deny it along with his or her litany of proof-text verses. <BR/><BR/>And amid all this, you astoundingly continually return with the assertion that it is the Catholic traditions that preach "another gospel."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Enough is EnoughAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-49024563547361622862007-10-10T13:56:00.000-04:002007-10-10T13:56:00.000-04:00" believe it is possible to believe one has faith ..." believe it is possible to believe one has faith in Christ only to find out that their faith was misplaced, otherwise, why do the goats seems so surprised by Jesus’ answer to them? "<BR/><BR/>Isn't it the goats who failed to demonstrate their faith in action? Why where they surprised, indeed? Sounds like they could just as easily be Reformed as Catholic goats.<BR/><BR/>E i EAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-55404473729796509412007-10-10T13:51:00.001-04:002007-10-10T13:51:00.001-04:00PS. I'm sorry that you don't like being identifie...PS. I'm sorry that you don't like being identified as an anti-Catholic zealot. We "apostate Romanist / Papists / Heretics" simply see you that way. Apparently what's good for the goose makes the gander get uppity. <BR/><BR/>E i EAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-42066957057338279252007-10-10T13:51:00.000-04:002007-10-10T13:51:00.000-04:00Carrie:Is this the confession of the demons who "b...Carrie:<BR/><BR/>Is this the confession of the demons who "believe and tremble?" <BR/><BR/><BR/>E i EAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-57456247228173395682007-10-10T11:57:00.000-04:002007-10-10T11:57:00.000-04:00Do you (a person who has never met me and who know...<I>Do you (a person who has never met me and who knows virtually nothing about my life) somehow know that this is not “true saving faith?” If so, what faith is and how did you gain the role of its judge, which is the role of Jesus alone?</I><BR/><BR/>I will assume you are asking me this question. <BR/><BR/>I never said I was the judge of who does or does not have “true saving faith”, if you can quote me on that I would be happy to repent. Otherwise, I will assume you are just attempting to poison the well (like when you labeled me an “anti-Catholic zealot”) in which case I will no longer spend my time responding to your comments.<BR/><BR/>That said, I do believe I have some responsibility to judge a tree by its fruit, otherwise, why would Jesus have ever have told me to so? I also believe that distinguishing the wheat from the tares is not so easy as separating those who can recite the Apostle’s or Nicene Creed from those who cannot, otherwise why would that task only be capable of being done my the Lord himself? I believe it is possible to believe one has faith in Christ only to find out that their faith was misplaced, otherwise, why do the goats seems so surprised by Jesus’ answer to them? I believe that I am told by Jesus and the Apostles to be aware of false prophets who come in sheep’s clothing and therefore may have an appearance of truth yet be a ravenous wolf. I believe the warnings to “work out my salvation” and “be sure that I am in the faith” are not because my works contribute to my justification before God, but because my works provide me with the proof/assurance that I have been justified by God and am in possession of the true saving faith that is necessary to attain eternal life.<BR/><BR/>If you need verses for the above, let me know and I will work on that when I get home.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-32767550619335052982007-10-10T11:48:00.000-04:002007-10-10T11:48:00.000-04:00egomakarios says:The Reformers continued certain c...egomakarios says:<BR/><BR/><I>The Reformers continued certain corrupt traditions of Rome that have their basis in philosophy not in Scripture.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, that's very easy to say and not so easy to prove. But we'll just give you a pass on the historical-theology scene since your above statement cannot even be analyzed until your understanding of "philosophy" is made more explicit. I'll ask you again for the meaning of the <I>ta stoicheia</I>, "the elements of the world," that qualifies Paul's use of the word "philosophy" in Col. 2:8. What were the <I>ta stoicheia</I> which Paul wishes the Colossians not to be taken captive by? It is not philosophy <I>per se</I> that Paul is warning against, but the philosophy that proceeds from the <I>ta stoicheia</I>. It's right there in black and white. You do see it, right? Now, once you've identified the <I>ta stoicheia</I> that qualifies "philosophy" in the verse, what might you conclude about what Paul advocates as the solution--namely the "philosophy that is according to Christ"? Here's a hint: what was Paul in trouble with the learned men of Athens for in Acts 17?Tim Enloehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00496999199258689044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-67410245226288989382007-10-10T11:10:00.000-04:002007-10-10T11:10:00.000-04:00"Oh, I forgot, egomakarios, maybe the Reformers we...<I>"Oh, I forgot, egomakarios, maybe the Reformers were unbiblical morons, too, since they had quite a bit of philosophical training..."</I><BR/><BR/>The Reformers continued certain corrupt traditions of Rome that have their basis in philosophy not in Scripture. I wouldn't call them "morons" but they clearly were allowing something other than Christ to lead them. The Gospel, however, is based on REVELATION FROM GOD, not philosophy.<BR/><BR/><I>"Why didn't they just read Colossians 2:8? It's so plain."</I><BR/><BR/>Indeed it is. "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-88552374150575844042007-10-10T10:09:00.000-04:002007-10-10T10:09:00.000-04:00"No, any "faith" is not good enough. You have to h...<I>"No, any "faith" is not good enough. You have to have true saving faith - even the demons believe in Christ.<BR/><BR/>So, how can you tell the difference?</I><BR/><BR/>Excellent question.<BR/><BR/>This is my faith: <BR/>I believe:<BR/><BR/>that Jesus is the living and only begotten Son of God;<BR/><BR/>that He is one in being with God the Father;<BR/><BR/>that through Him all things were made;<BR/><BR/>that for us and for our salvation he became man, suffered and died as the one and only sacrifice worthy to atone for our sins;<BR/><BR/>that He died, was buried, and rose from the dead;<BR/><BR/>that He alone will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead;<BR/><BR/>that His kingdom will have no end;<BR/><BR/>that He is my only Lord and Savior;<BR/><BR/>that no person ever comes the Father but by Him;<BR/><BR/>that He alone is worthy;<BR/><BR/>that He alone is The Holy One;<BR/><BR/>that He alone is The Lord;<BR/><BR/>that He alone is my salvation;<BR/><BR/>that He alone is the most high: Jesus Christ who reigns with the Holy Spirit in the glory of God the Father forever and ever;<BR/><BR/>that He is the second person of the one and only Triune God who is One God and the one and only thing in the universe that I worship.<BR/><BR/>Is this the confession of the demons who "believe and tremble?" <BR/><BR/>Do you (a person who has never met me and who knows virtually nothing about my life) somehow know that this is not “true saving faith?” If so, what faith is and how did <B>you</B> gain the role of its judge, which is the role of Jesus alone?<BR/><BR/>E i EAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-5160524936449890922007-10-10T09:53:00.000-04:002007-10-10T09:53:00.000-04:00You outright stated that you need Catholics to be ...<I> You outright stated that you need Catholics to be unregenerate and apostate so that you can have some idea of what the process of not believing the Gospel looks like so that you can better understand your own salvation, but now you say you have no anxieties about your salvation.</I><BR/><BR/>No, I did not say that or mean to imply that. I am sorry if my writing was unclear on that.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-59667232251041449412007-10-10T09:05:00.000-04:002007-10-10T09:05:00.000-04:00Saint and Sinner: What problem was Paul addressing...Saint and Sinner: What problem was Paul addressing in Galatians 1? And did he consider the Apostle Peter, who was neck deep in that problem, a heathen?Tim Enloehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00496999199258689044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-78634554812308660932007-10-10T09:02:00.000-04:002007-10-10T09:02:00.000-04:00Oh, I forgot, egomakarios, maybe the Reformers wer...Oh, I forgot, egomakarios, maybe the Reformers were unbiblical morons, too, since they had quite a bit of philosophical training, particularly in the Nominalist school. Not to mention Wycliffe, who thought that Holy Scripture underwrote philosophical Realism.<BR/><BR/>Why didn't they just read Colossians 2:8? It's so <I>plain</I>.Tim Enloehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00496999199258689044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-24317105461074526232007-10-10T08:54:00.000-04:002007-10-10T08:54:00.000-04:00OK, Carrie, since I believe in letting people expl...OK, Carrie, since I believe in letting people explain their own beliefs I have no choice but to accept your explanation of your words, even though they make little sense to me. You outright stated that you need Catholics to be unregenerate and apostate so that you can have some idea of what the process of not believing the Gospel looks like so that you can better understand your own salvation, but now you say you have no anxieties about your salvation. OK, whatever you say.<BR/><BR/>I can see that I'm not helping you at all, so I'll stop addressing you. Thanks for your patience.Tim Enloehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00496999199258689044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-15977448570869893772007-10-10T08:52:00.000-04:002007-10-10T08:52:00.000-04:00egomakarios, why don't you quote Colossians 2:8 pr...egomakarios, why don't you quote Colossians 2:8 properly, eh? It says let no one deceive you with philosophy based on <I>the elementary principles of the world</I> (ta stoicheia), but to seek after the <I>philosophy</I> of Christ. It does not excoriate philosophy <I>per se</I>. <BR/><BR/>Plenty of Christian philosophers from Justin Martyr to the present have excellent insights into the relationship of philosophy and faith. Perhaps you take Tertullian's position on Jerusalem and Athens, but not everyone does, and it requires a great deal of sophisticated argumentation to establish Tertullian's view over others. Shoot, it just might even require some <I>philosophy</I> to do it.<BR/><BR/>Everyone has a philosophy about all kinds of things. Philosophy is in one way just a description of how you think about things. How you approach history is your philosophy of history. How you think about the human mind's access to Truth is your philosophy of thought. How you think about God's relationship to the created world is your philosophy of being. How you approach Bible study is your philosophy of exegesis. What you think about science is your philosophy of science. You can't get away from philosophy. All you're supposed to do is avoid the philosophy based on "the elements of this world"--a phrase which has a context in the world of the New Testament. Do you know what that context is, or do you just trust in your own amazing ability to read "plain words" in the Bible and have a completely self-contained worldview based on them?<BR/><BR/>You'd better demonstrate that you can think clearer than a carte blanche denial of "philosophy" if you expect to be taken seriously. The kind of hermeneutically naive, "face value," Bible-Only fundamentalism that your comment displays is simply intellectual laziness, and it cripples apologetics. Get yourself any good primer on apologetics and you might not make such ill-considered remarks in the future. On the other hand, maybe guys like R.C. Sproul and Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen were just morons who didn't observe the plain meaning of Scripture, since they had to go and get quite learned in philosophy as part of their theological and apologetical training.Tim Enloehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00496999199258689044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-66369339667680954362007-10-10T08:13:00.000-04:002007-10-10T08:13:00.000-04:00Be horrified all you like at what I said to Crimso...<I>Be horrified all you like at what I said to Crimson Catholic. In my opinion, if more Evangelicals would study the rise and decline of Evangelicalism,</I><BR/><BR/>By the way Tim, your comment on Crimson Catholic was critical first of the “Evangelical” understanding of the Gospel and also the Reformed understanding of the Gospel. As I read it, it seemed neither had a firm grasp of the Gospel in your opinion but somehow the Catholics you were speaking to had something to offer?<BR/><BR/>It was all quite confusing and certainly not a very charitable remark towards either camp. That is what I was “horrified” about.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-3477760063490775242007-10-10T07:09:00.000-04:002007-10-10T07:09:00.000-04:00So, how can you tell the difference?Well, I tried ...<I>So, how can you tell the difference?</I><BR/><BR/>Well, I tried to explain this by my personal story but that didn't work out so well ;).<BR/><BR/>MacArthur has a good article on this, let me look for it.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.com