tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post5390419609807851489..comments2024-03-13T11:10:01.605-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Did Martin Luther believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary?James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-81047018063671529092023-02-04T13:48:33.744-05:002023-02-04T13:48:33.744-05:00🙏🏼🙏🏼Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-37638850019757775072013-07-21T08:24:11.107-04:002013-07-21T08:24:11.107-04:00This is all every strange beating on a dead horse....<i>This is all every strange beating on a dead horse. </i><br /><br />Watch out for the tiger drinking tea in the building with snuggles.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-37794766800505467272013-07-16T12:59:07.956-04:002013-07-16T12:59:07.956-04:00This is all every strange beating on a dead horse....This is all every strange beating on a dead horse. <br /><br />Does God have a mother?<br /><br />http://levibenrubin.blogspot.com/p/mother-of-god.htmlbrightlighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03005585002183523839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-68558884306114571232010-10-03T16:49:31.007-04:002010-10-03T16:49:31.007-04:00"scholars often don't turn to primary sou..."scholars often don't turn to primary sources or even very reliable secondary sources"<br /><br />Sadly, this happens way too often.Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-10682594273504985202010-10-03T13:06:25.343-04:002010-10-03T13:06:25.343-04:00TF,
That is the type of information I was lookin...TF, <br /><br />That is the type of information I was looking for. <br /><br />Upon looking at the context (which was critical in this case), the "flesh and blood of Mary" is clearly speaking of Christ's humanity, not Mary herself. Thus this text was invalid proof. <br /><br />The 1545 quote is a bit different. The context need not be on Mary, since this was a passing comment. This could go either way though. Luther is talking primarily about Mary as ever virgin (which I don't think he ever denied), and the comparison would lose it's force if Luther didn't believe in Mary's sinlessness. But given that the focus is mockery, it is possible he was mocking the Pope's view. <br />This is inconclusive evidence. <br /><br />It is fair to say these two "proofs" do nothing whatsoever in terms of proving or maintaining Luther held the belief. <br /><br />And as I said in the last post, if Luther dumped the Feast Days off the calendar - which James says he did - that's strong proof right there. Especially if he retained the feast days for other popular saints. <br /><br />This is all simply to emphasize that doing a head count of scholars is dangerous, and that scholars often don't turn to primary sources or even very reliable secondary sources (which is a scandal in itself).Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-78023239719848295712010-10-02T19:28:37.177-04:002010-10-02T19:28:37.177-04:00And it seems that Mr. Swan beat me to the punch on...And it seems that Mr. Swan beat me to the punch on that third one (<a href="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/luther-god-has-formed-soul-and-body-of.html" rel="nofollow">link to Mr. Swan's comments</a>).<br /><br />-TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-83418606099245395042010-10-02T19:27:00.942-04:002010-10-02T19:27:00.942-04:00Nick:
Specially for you I created a blog post res...Nick:<br /><br />Specially for you I created a blog post responding to the three quotations provided previously in this comment box (you've already seen the responses to two of them, the third is also addressed in my new post).<br /><br />(<a href="http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/10/immaculate-conception-in-later-luther.html" rel="nofollow">link to post</a>)<br /><br />-TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-12054986521724092682010-10-02T12:17:49.090-04:002010-10-02T12:17:49.090-04:00And one last thing Nick- When you read this commen...And one last thing Nick- When you read this comment from Luther:<br /><br /><i>...would rather (without any council) believe in and worship Your Hellishness. Just tell us beforehand what we must do; “Good Teacher, what shall I do?” [ Mark 10:17 ]. Then we shall sing the glad hymn to Your Hellishness, “Virgin before, in, and after childbearing,”  since you are the pure Virgin Mary, who has not sinned and cannot sin for ever more.</i><br /><br />Do think that when I say this quote doesn't prove Luther's later view, that my opinion can be decribed as follows:<br /><br /><i> (d) a willful blindness to the facts that entrenches one in a misinterpretion of a text, no matter how strong the evidence against one's reading is. This can also be called "digging in" or "denial."</i><br /><br />That's what another Romanist says I do (said in response to some comments you made on another blog).James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-20937223861292458522010-10-02T09:04:39.658-04:002010-10-02T09:04:39.658-04:00By the way, when I said, "Tfan has already po...By the way, when I said, "<em>Tfan has already posted a great example of this for you, an example I came across quite a few years ago</em>." I noted that because Tfan looked up this quote without my prompting him to do so. Like me, he simply read the context. I invite you to do the same, and let me know what you think. If you're going to respond to anything at all, let me know what you think of that quote, and if Roman Catholics should use it as proof of Luther's view.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-6715920514437847372010-10-02T08:45:51.871-04:002010-10-02T08:45:51.871-04:00Nick said...This thread appears to have gone off t...<i>Nick said...This thread appears to have gone off the rails.</i><br /><br />Well, I've deleted a number of comments, and you'll notice I've only be interacting with those comments related to the subject.<br /><br /><i>Context is always preferred and very helpful - but it's not always available nor is it always necessary.</i><br /><br />I completely disagree, especially with Luther. The man's words simply cannot be isolated from context.<br /><br /><em>A point can be made that makes sense and is accurate without context,</em><br /><br />That's true with Luther when it comes to issues in which his position is well established.<br /><br /><em>and if this subject was only covered in passing, we would only expect a passing comment not so much dependent on context.</em><br /><br />If I understand you correctly, I'm completely on the other side. A subject covered in passing is indeed a good reason to go look at the context. Tfan has already posted a great example of this for you, an example I came across <a href="http://tquid.sharpens.org/luther_mary2.htm#V" rel="nofollow">quite a few years ago</a>. In LW 41:263-264, Luther’s statement on Mary is embedded in a highly rhetorical and sarcastic statement. Using this reference to substantiate Luther’s lifelong commitment to the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception is quite a stretch. Not only is Luther insulting the pope, he isn’t even in the mode of presenting an explanation of doctrine. He’s using the phrase, “the pure Virgin Mary who has not sinned” as an insult.<br /><br /><em>The problem there is that means the issue never was considered in any depth - and that's also considering he originally preached on and celebrated the Feast of Mary's Conception (and if he stopped celebrating this feast day later on, there's strong grounds he repudiated the doctrine - with the opposite conclusion if there is proof he continued to keep this feast on the liturgical calendar). </em><br /><br />See <a href="http://tquid.sharpens.org/luther_mary2.htm#Appen1" rel="nofollow">this link</a>. Gritsch notes that Luther abandoned the festival of Mary’s Immaculate Conception and her Assumption:<br /><br />“He rejected the festivals of Mary's Immaculate Conception, December 8, and her Assumption, August 15.”<br /><br />“According to Luther Mary should be honored in festivals that focus on Christ, which is why he eventually rejected the celebrations of her Immaculate Conception (December 8), her birth (September 8), and her Assumption (August 15). He did honor her in the festivals of the Annunciation (March 25), the Visitation (July 2), and Purification (February 2), since these are connected with the birth of Christ. "We dare not put our faith in the mother but only in the fact that the child was born."<br /><br />“Luther continued to preach on these festivals, but stopped preaching on the other three festivals after 1523.”<br /><br />When one actually reads Luther’s Marian sermons, one finds that Mary is usually not the main subject, Christ is. Hence, Luther generally emphasized Mary far less than Roman Catholics do (both then and now).James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-88680254904271138952010-10-02T08:06:19.067-04:002010-10-02T08:06:19.067-04:00Now there's an exchange that would be worth wa...<i>Now there's an exchange that would be worth watching!</i><br /><br />I really would be grateful for a Roman apologist to simply interact with the texts that are available. What did Luther say? Where did he say it? What was the context? This is basic stuff. This would be interesting, and beneficial.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-42837682886493548502010-10-02T07:39:26.888-04:002010-10-02T07:39:26.888-04:00As for the 1545 quotation, here is the context:
“...As for the 1545 quotation, here is the context:<br /><br />“The Most Hellish Father, St. Paul III, in his supposed capacity as the bishop of the Roman church, has written two briefs  to Charles V, our lord emperor, wherein he appears almost furious, growling and boasting, according to the example of his predecessors, that neither an emperor nor anyone else has the fight to convoke a council, even a national one, except solely the pope; he alone has the power to institute, ordain, and create everything which is to be believed and done in the church. He has also issued a papal bull  (if one may speak like that) for about the fifth time; now the council is once again to take place in Trent, but with the condition that no one attend except his own scum, the Epicureans and those agreeable to him—whereupon I felt a great desire to reply, with God’s grace and aid. Amen!<br /><br />First, I beg you, for God’s sake, whoever you are, a Christian, indeed, even if you still have natural reason, tell me whether you can understand or comprehend what kind of a council that would be, or whether it could be a council, if that abominable abomination in Rome, who calls himself pope, has such reservation, power, and authority to tear up, change, and ruin everything that is decided in the council, as most of his decrees bellow. Doesn’t it seem to you, my dear brother in Christ, or my dear natural-reason friend, that such a council would have to be nothing but a farce, a carnival act put on to amuse the pope.<br /><br />What is the use of spending such great pains and effort on a council if the pope has decided beforehand that anything done in the council should be subjected to him, that nothing should be done unless it pleased him very much, and that he wants the power to condemn everything? To avoid all this trouble it would be better to say, “Most Hellish Father, since it makes no difference at all what is or will be decided before or in or after the council, we would rather (without any council) believe in and worship Your Hellishness. Just tell us beforehand what we must do; “Good Teacher, what shall I do?” [ Mark 10:17 ]. Then we shall sing the glad hymn to Your Hellishness, “Virgin before, in, and after childbearing,”  since you are the pure Virgin Mary, who has not sinned and cannot sin for ever more. If not, then tell us, for God’s sake, what need or use there is in councils, since Your Hellishness has such great power over them that they are to be nothing, if it does not please Your Hellishness. Or prove to us poor, obedient “simple Christians”  whence Your Hellishness has such power. Where are the seals and letters from your superior that grant such things to you? Where is written evidence which will make us believe this? Won’t Your Hellishness show us these things? Well then, we shall diligently search for them ourselves, and with God’s help we shall certainly find them shortly” (LW 41:263-264).<br /><br />(<a href="http://tquid.sharpens.org/luther_mary2.htm#_edn86" rel="nofollow">source</a>)<br /><br />As you can see, the comment is one that is made in the midst of a rhetorical and sarcastic comment directed at the pope. Luther isn't necessarily setting out his own view of Mary any more than he is trying to analyze the pope's view of her. He's simply trying to mock the pope.<br /><br />And, of course, the conception of Mary isn't in view at all. In other words, even if we assumed that Luther was describing his own view of Mary, it would only describe her sinlessness, not her immaculate conception.<br /><br />Again, we see that the Romanist who brought this quotation was taking the comment out of context and distorting its meaning.<br /><br />-TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1552017448393574162010-10-02T07:34:49.832-04:002010-10-02T07:34:49.832-04:00Nick:
By the way, let me provide more context, so...Nick:<br /><br />By the way, let me provide more context, so you can judge for yourself whose immaculate conception is being considered in the 1540 quotation:<br /><br />"Every man is corrupted by original sin and has concupiscence. Christ had neither concupiscence nor original sin. Therefore he is not a man: Response: I make a distinction with regard to the major premise. Every man is corrupted by original sin, with the exception of Christ. Every man who is not a divine Person [personaliter Deus], as is Christ, has concupiscence, but the man Christ has none, because he is a divine Person, and in conception the flesh and blood of Mary were entirely purged, so that nothing of sin remained. Therefore Isaiah says rightly, "There was no guile found in his mouth"; otherwise, every seed except for Mary's was corrupted."<br /><br />(<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20030813090438/www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-divinity.txt" rel="nofollow">source</a>)<br /><br />Note that, as I said, this text actually proves the very opposite of what the Romanist had cited it for. It also shows that Mr. Marshall didn't do his homework.<br /><br />-TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-57598210972600110992010-10-01T16:12:24.691-04:002010-10-01T16:12:24.691-04:00Catholicism is so far off of Biblical truth that e...Catholicism is so far off of Biblical truth that even the pope can't defend Roman Catholicism from the Bible <a href="http://reformation500.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/not-called-to-communion-dishonest-about-%E2%80%9Cexegesis%E2%80%9D//" rel="nofollow">without subterfuge</a>.<br /><br />Meanwhile, anyone interested in <a href="http://willgwitt.org/theology/on-the-development-of-doctrine/" rel="nofollow">development</a> should know that there are two different kinds: the legitimate kind and the illegitimate kind. Newman wrapped them all into one. <br /><br /><i>So the “development” of incarnational and Trinitarian doctrine that takes place at Nicea, Chalcedon, etc., is really simply the necessary logical unfolding of what is already clearly present in the New Testament. ... Mozley speaks of this kind of development in terms of what I will call “Development 1.” Development 1 adds nothing to the original content of faith, but rather brings out its necessary implications. Mozley says that Aquinas is doing precisely this kind of development in his discussion of the incarnation in the Summa Theologiae.<br /><br />There is another kind of development, however, which I will call “Development 2.” Development 2 is genuinely new development that is not simply the necessary articulation of what is said explicitly in the Scriptures.<br /><br />Classic examples of Development 2 would include the differences between the doctrine of the theotokos and the dogmas of the immaculate conception or the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In the former, Marian dogma is not actually saying something about Mary, but rather something about Christ. If Jesus Christ is truly God, and Mary is his mother, then Mary is truly the Mother of God (theotokos). She gives birth, however, to Jesus’ humanity, not his eternal person, which has always existed and is generated eternally by the Father. The doctrine of the theotokos is a necessary implication of the incarnation of God in Christ, which is clearly taught in the New Testament. However, the dogmas of the immaculate conception and the assumption are not taught in Scripture, either implicitly or explicitly. They are entirely new developments.<br /><br />The same would be true, of course, for the doctrine of the papacy. The New Testament says much about the role of Simon Peter as a leader of the apostles. It does not say anything explicit, however, about the bishop of Rome being the successor to Peter. The Eastern fathers, e.g., Cyprian, interpret the Petrine passages that Rome has applied to the papacy as applying to all bishops.<br /><br />Other examples of Development 2 would include purgatory and indulgences.<br />Newman presents his argument for development as a dilemma. Anglicans (and Protestants in general) accept the dogmas of Nicea, of the Trinity, of Chalcedon, etc., but these are not taught explicitly in Scripture. They are developments. But Anglicans do not accept the doctrines of the papacy, the Marian dogmas, etc., which are also developments. Anglicans are accordingly inconsistent. To accept one development is logically to accept the others as well.<br /><br />Mozley’s response is that Newman conflates two quite distinct kinds of development. Development 1 adds nothing new to the content of faith. Development 2 does. Accepting Development 1 is a necessary consequence of taking seriously what the New Testament actually says. Development 2, however, adds something genuinely new to the content of faith. Nicea is an example of Development 1, not Development 2. The infallibility of the papacy is an example of Development 2, not Development 1. Accepting Development 1 does not logically entail accepting Development 2. By not distinguishing between the two kinds of development, Newman commits a logical fallacy, and his argument collapses.</i>John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-60556410174313196332010-10-01T15:54:42.445-04:002010-10-01T15:54:42.445-04:00This thread appears to have gone off the rails.
...This thread appears to have gone off the rails. <br /><br />Context is always preferred and very helpful - but it's not always available nor is it always necessary. A point can be made that makes sense and is accurate without context, and if this subject was only covered in passing, we would only expect a passing comment not so much dependent on context. The problem there is that means the issue never was considered in any depth - and that's also considering he originally preached on and celebrated the Feast of Mary's Conception (and if he stopped celebrating this feast day later on, there's strong grounds he repudiated the doctrine - with the opposite conclusion if there is proof he continued to keep this feast on the liturgical calendar).Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-56010386416233076372010-10-01T14:44:03.342-04:002010-10-01T14:44:03.342-04:00Tim goes on and on about the abominable supposed o...<i>Tim goes on and on about the abominable supposed opinions and behaviors of the dreaded, despised "Catholic converts"</i><br /><br />As well he should. What is abominable is the raw material -- Roman versions of history -- that you are working with. <br /><br />I think that all of the 1700 or so posts that James Swan has done are corrections of falsities that have been perpetrated by Roman Catholics at one time or another.<br /><br />From the false stories that circulated (and were believed as true) about Peter in the second century, spurious [fictional] documents leading to Marian dogmas, through such blatant forgeries as the Donation of Constantine, Pseudo-Dionysius and the False Decretals -- all believed as Gospel truth during the middle ages and beyond -- abominations are passed on as truths and then codified by the supposedly "infallible" Magisterium as dogma.<br /><br />Roman Catholicism truly is the personification of "Hitler's Big Lie." <br /><br />And those of you who hawk Catholicism are spreading the lie.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-84025767599513290092010-10-01T13:14:27.864-04:002010-10-01T13:14:27.864-04:00Hey, John, I'm just a guest here. You can rec...Hey, John, I'm just a guest here. You can recite anything that appears here at your leisure, and for whatever reason you like. :)<br /><br />I also think it's a worthwhile conversation in a lot of ways. Convert-itis is a really serious disease in lay Christianity these days, on both sides of the Protestant/Catholic divide. Both churches (speaking on a macro-scale) are failing to really educate their people, and that, in tandem with the loss of anything approaching the ancient and Medieval-Renaissance ideal of the education of free men and women in the public school system, has resulted in a "mass culture" full of shallow, sound-bite driven, easily manipulable layfolk who can't tell the difference between truth and fantasy or produce serious, reasoned, reflective arguments for most of their most important beliefs.<br /><br />It's a tragedy of epic proportions.Tim Enloehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00496999199258689044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-35539667137639272632010-10-01T12:17:29.238-04:002010-10-01T12:17:29.238-04:00Tim, this is a worthwhile discussion, and if it...Tim, this is a worthwhile discussion, and if it's all right with you, I'd like to bring it up and start a new post. I'll be able to keep the comments focused that way.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-20006901758232432652010-10-01T11:55:51.983-04:002010-10-01T11:55:51.983-04:00[cont]
By equal-and-opposite contrast, in your r...[cont] <br /><br />By equal-and-opposite contrast, in your run of the mill Protestant church (not Reformed), the people are also not taught much of anything serious either about the Bible or about anything else. They go through their Christian life thinking that Christianity is all about their private feelings about Jesus, their private views about “the literal interpretation” of the Bible, and “sharing their testimony” with others so that those others, too, can “invite Jesus into their hearts” and “get saved.” <br /><br />They are never taught anything about basic principles of Bible interpretation, the history of the faith outside of their own denomination, how to think about cultural issues in a biblical fashion, and, most basically, how to have a faith that is just simply <i>not afraid</i> of the world. Most of them don’t read widely (let alone deeply), unless you count the Left Behind novels, Max Lucado devotionals, and the church bulletin’s sermon outline every Sunday as “wide” and “deep” reading.<br /><br />No wonder people like this fall prey to a no-context citing blowhard like “Taylor Marshall, Westminster Seminary, 2003” or to a “Where’s your <i>authority</i>? In the peace of Christ” blowhard like Bryan Cross, or to any of 1,000 virtually identical mushy-gushy conversion testimonies on EWTN. <br /><br />No wonder they radically upend their entire religious lives - and sometimes their entire home lives, complete with radical effects on their spouses and children - because some hack on the Internet told them that three citations from Ignatius of Antioch and a tract about how Luther invented sola fide from scratch because he hated authority and thought he was divinely inspired provide unbeatable proof that Roman Catholicism is the one true Church that Christ founded.<br />b<br />Nobody ever helped them prepare to deal with any of this, let alone to deal with the complexities of the world and how to relate their faith to it. A pastoral intern in the PCA church I attended in Dallas once came to me after the service and told me that Bryan Cross was running around several Protestant pastors’ blogs spewing his tripe about “authority,” and the pastors were just blowing him off, despite the fact that their own people, their own sheep whom God gave them to protect from sophists like that, were getting very confused about Scripture and their faith in Christ from reading Cross’ inanity. This intern then asked me if I had any materials he could present to these pastors and people so that they could be inoculated against Cross. I did, and I passed them on, but the whole thing just deeply saddened me and made me realize how, for all our wonderful apologetics ministries, somehow we Protestants are still deeply failing to prepare our people for dealing with the world outside the church walls.<br /><br />You’re right, John, none of these people, Catholic or Protestant, are necessarily idiots. They’re for the most part just deeply (and often unconsciously) scared, spiritually shallow, improperly shepherded, intellectually unprepared human beings who got all destabilized by some spiritual trauma they endured, and very much like human beings, flailed around until they grabbed whatever life preserver they could find. On the one hand, sharp words are sometimes necessary to puncture their illusions, but on the other hand, they also need to be pitied and prayed for and somehow, as hard as it is, reasoned with in the hopes that they’ll come to realize, with all the wise men of the Bible, that they are nothing and they know nothing and that only by realizing that they are nothing and know nothing will God ever give them wisdom.Tim Enloehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00496999199258689044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-64649424116144591372010-10-01T11:54:53.120-04:002010-10-01T11:54:53.120-04:00It's interesting, this theme of the humanity o...It's interesting, this theme of the humanity of these apologists. I was talking with a fellow teacher a few days ago about the Bible course here, and she mentioned in passing that she had grown up Catholic, but never "got saved" until she got into college.<br /><br />On the one hand, that's typical Evangelical talk - the whole "I wasn't saved until I prayed the Sinner's Prayer and asked Jesus into my heart" - which, from a Reformed point of view is just bad theology. Christ saves us when we exercise faith given to us by God, and the giving of that faith and the exercise of it can take different forms for different people, and can occur at very different times of life. 4 year old children can be saved without ever saying a prayer. Adults can be saved in spite of saying some prayer full of bad theology and spending half their Christian life in a whacked out church full of radically Bible-ignorant people. Salvation is not up to us, it's up to God. So in that way, my fellow teacher's "testimony" (dare I say, "conversion story" is just as bad as most of these Catholic convert conversion stories: it is purely subjective account of a life change that was not grounded in any really deep or mature knowledge, and it is indicative of a faith that, at the time, was very immature and shallow.<br /><br />Yet, on the other hand, it's easy to see where the shallowness comes from. In Catholicism, contra the rhetoric of Vatican II and the fantasies of Evangelical laymen who convert and then promptly filter all Catholic beliefs through their Evangelical grid, the laity don't matter as much as the clergy, and large numbers of the clergy are themselves lacking in a substantive grasp of the faith or else are flaming liberals of one variety or another. The supposed awesome virtue of the infallible pope at the top of the whole thing rarely ever matters on the ground (except to converts, who romanticize the entire thing), and the people are rarely ever taught serious Bible teaching or anything else really serious, for that matter. <br /><br />This is how ladies like my fellow teacher can grow up Catholic, yet come to realize later in life that they know almost nothing about the Bible, and come to characterize their experience as a Catholic as "we just went to Mass twice a week, and that was it." Well, given that kind of experience, it's no wonder that when someone exposes them to the pages of the Bible, they get blown away, convert to some form of Protestantism, and then spend their life claiming that they never heard about Christ in the Catholic Church, and never "got saved" until they were in college.<br /><br />[cont]Tim Enloehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00496999199258689044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-33770348281564305382010-10-01T11:23:20.546-04:002010-10-01T11:23:20.546-04:00Sharp words become necessary because their self-de...<i>Sharp words become necessary because their self-delusions need to be shattered before the substance can be discussed. </i><br /><br />I agree.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-22597354766957086892010-10-01T11:10:49.753-04:002010-10-01T11:10:49.753-04:00John, thanks for your thoughts on the technologica...John, thanks for your thoughts on the technological and economic issues. I had not considered some of that before, and it seems right on and to dovetail with what I was saying about the perceived value of "degrees" in the culture at large.<br /><br />As for the humanity of Catholic apologists, well, yes, I quite recognize that. My seemingly "harsh" remarks about that community are meant not to belittle other human beings, but to try to shock them into realizing that for the most part they are just blowing smoke and calling it real knowledge. <br /><br />We have some screwed up ideas in this culture, even as Christians, about what "love" and "kindness" are. Scripture is our model for these things, and Scripture is not "nice" as so many people demand that those who criticize them be. Proverbs says that the wounds of a friend - the WOUNDS that a FRIEND gives! - are faithful, and that those who truly seek wisdom should receive correction, even if it is in the form of rebuke. So I place no stock in Catholics who whine about my "rhetoric" when they themselves are usually quite guilty of vain prancing around, pretending to know things they do not know, fancying themselves God's Own Chosen Instruments for Defending the One True Church Against Heretics, and so forth. <br /><br />Such people need to be rebuked sharply in the hopes that they will come to their senses and begin to act more like responsible wisdom-seekers instead of like little children being tossed to and fro by every wind of whim and fantasy that crosses their undisciplined, unreflective minds. Rebuking them is actually the only truly KIND and LOVING thing to do, biblically speaking. BECAUSE they are fellow image-bearers, they need to be confronted with the areas in which they are failing to live up to that image.<br /><br />This does not entail trying to read their hearts, of course. I stay away from pretending that I know this or that "Romanist" isn't really saved because he says he believes all the decrees of Trent, and so forth. God alone knows hearts. I only know what has been revealed, and the internal state of someone's soul in terms of salvation has not been revealed to me. What <i>has</i> been revealed to me, by their own words, is that most of the time they are very intellectually shallow and emotionally vulnerable people who got snookered by sophistical arguments they were not prepared to rationally examine and weigh. It would be nice if we could do nothing but focus on those arguments, but usually these people are too wrapped up in the glory of their conversion experience to do that. Sharp words become necessary because their self-delusions need to be shattered before the substance can be discussed.Tim Enloehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00496999199258689044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-26435528508501175142010-10-01T10:51:52.617-04:002010-10-01T10:51:52.617-04:00Instead, I look at my own home town, Pittsburgh, w...Instead, I look at my own home town, Pittsburgh, where we've fared well, in things like education and technology and medicine. Where's the "growth opportunity" here? UPMC (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center) is now the largest employer, and we've got an aging population. My kids are going into the medical arena, because that's where there's a need, but that's not a thing that's going to drive hope, growth, and opportunity in the future. <br /><br />But I do think there is a strong need, now, in the human person. The need to "understand it all," to put life into perspective. Where did we come from, where are we going? Those question, now that all of our physical and entertainment needs can constantly be met, are still going to be there, where they always are. And that's where blogs (and other sources) like this one are going to fill a tremendous need. <br /><br />Like you, I want to write to fellow Protestants -- to share the Protestant heritage as I understand it (and with as much honesty and accuracy as I can bring to it). There were some rough moments, but Schaff is correct: on balance, the Reformation was one of the greatest "moments" in church history, and in fact, in human history. There is a richness in the study of the Reformation that you can't really get from other forms of study. I think that Protestants of all stripes -- Lutherans, Reformed, Anglicans, Anabaptists, and all their descendants -- can gain a tremendous amount of perspective by just bringing these things to mind (much less, studying the period in detail). A rising tide will lift all boats.<br /><br />Another, equally important goal of mine, though, is to specifically address the "buyer's remorse" that I know some of these "Catholic Converts" must be feeling. Some of them aren't dumb. So they have got to realize the "90% nonsense and self-deceiving foolishness" that they find themselves participating in. They're human like the rest of us. <br /><br />It's true, Roman Catholicism has had a lot of time to "get its story together." It promises a lot. As time goes on, people realize these are false promises, based on untruths in many cases -- and when you're in search of answers to some of those basic questions that we all have, you don't want to have to admit that something foundational to you is an untruth. I'm sure that eats away at these guys, despite all the bravado that they lead with. Over time, the untruths will eat away at them like a cancer -- all of them, except for the most idiotic partisans. (I think this is why Steven Wedgeworth points to some of the more honest Catholic scholars -- individuals like Raymond Brown and Francis Sullivan an some of the others that he mentions. They're at least trying to look for ways to understand "the promise" of Catholicism in the light of the historical research that denies it.)<br /><br />And as the internet facilitates the spread of knowledge and understanding, that process of cancerous untruth is going to come more and more into the light. <br /><br />We may not have the largest numbers, in terms of conservative confessional Protestantism. But I believe this is where the truest of the "true truth" can be found. That's a body of knowledge that will continue to build, and it will be sought out by more and more people in a world that seems to have everything else but meaning.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-81510086659860762872010-10-01T10:51:25.907-04:002010-10-01T10:51:25.907-04:00Hi Tim -- Sorry I didn't get much of a chance ...Hi Tim -- Sorry I didn't get much of a chance to respond to you yesterday, but I do appreciate your comments here and also the perspective on history that you bring.<br /><br />You said: <i>In point of fact, thanks to the massive vocational-technical shift in college training in America since World War II, most degrees these days aren't worth the paper they're printed on in terms of saying something about real thinking ability.</i><br /><br />I think this has gone through several iterations -- I would have loved to attended college in the 50's or early 60's, when much of the older-style rigorous and classical kind of education was still part of the picture. By the time I got there in the 70's, basket weaving and women's studies were all the rage. I think technology over the last 30 years has changed things in ways that we still don't understand -- why might a computer science person need to understand German or Latin or Koine Greek? -- and of course, the economic gyrations of the 1999/2000 and the last few years have got people understandably nervous about just how to prepare themselves to make a living and maybe prepare for retirement.<br /><br />Of course, I've been caught up in all of that like many people. And having as many kids as I do, I wonder what's coming next down the pike," especially in an economic sense. The "American Dream" was such that there was a constant opportunity to improve yourself. In the early day, land was cheap, and almost there for the taking. As people moved further west, a whole economic structure developed to help people to get there. From the railroads, and the coal and oil and steel industries that grew up to support all that - then the auto industry, and the wars of the early 20th century and the recoveries from those -- expansions of the 50's and 60's and even the development of the whole new areas of technology over the last 30 years -- all of these things in their own eras were tremendous drivers of economic growth.<br /><br />But aside from some of the technology refinements like cell phones and iPad types of gizmos, the normalization of streaming video, it doesn't seem like technology can go too much further. The internet has as much bandwidth as it will ever need. Corporate computer networks are in great shape; just needing maintenance and tweaks. All of our homes are both "wired" and "wireless" to the point that they're not going to need to change much at all. There's not a "revolutionary new thing" on the horizon, as I see it. There's not an internet-style transformation of communication "out there". What there's going to be is a slow equilibrium. There will be pockets of growth as some other countries modernize, but we've maxed out technology as an economic driver, and reached "diminishing returns." <br /><br />cont...John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-29983095164582678212010-10-01T07:42:33.974-04:002010-10-01T07:42:33.974-04:00Here's the deal: if a Romanist can argue their...<i> Here's the deal: if a Romanist can argue their case with a context, I'd gladly look over the evidence. If they can prove their case- I would change my position.</i><br /><br />Now there's an exchange that would be worth watching!John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.com