tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post8669832595070874701..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Hey Reformers: Got Miracles? If Not, You Were Not Called By GodJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-33459996867013775072012-07-05T17:49:58.546-04:002012-07-05T17:49:58.546-04:00Thanks, Ken!
I will pray for us on each of thes...Thanks, Ken! <br /><br />I will pray for us on each of these points<br /><br />And thanks for sharing that material from Augustine’s <i>Enchiridion</i>. I love having Augustine designated as our Doctor of Grace. In case you are interested, I’ve interacted with some of Augustine’s thoughts on predestination here: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=469776&page=36#530. <br /><br />In Christ,<br />PetePete Holterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01206812695011729322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-12844252462765527672012-07-05T16:17:55.203-04:002012-07-05T16:17:55.203-04:00For me it is many things:
the Pope and the infalli...For me it is many things:<br />the Pope and the infallibility claim<br />the Marian dogmas and practices and piety and emphasis<br />praying in front of statues and icons and prayers to Mary and other dead saints<br />Indulgences and ex opere operato priestly powers<br />Transubstantiation<br />Trent, rejection of Sola Fide<br />Unam Sanctum, etc.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-61950786406961390942012-07-05T15:21:17.708-04:002012-07-05T15:21:17.708-04:00I once asked TurretinFan what the biggest obstacle...<i>I once asked TurretinFan what the biggest obstacle to Catholicism was for him, and for him it was the pope. Would you mind sharing your biggest obstacle? </i><br /><br />I have never been asked that before.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-83090652780228137092012-07-04T14:48:46.390-04:002012-07-04T14:48:46.390-04:00“Since you posted your lengthy responses, I've...“<i>Since you posted your lengthy responses, I've gone through a number of Protestant sources on the baptism of John the Baptist to see what some of the better exegetes have stated. Since this issue is tangential to this post, I'm going to save it for the future.</i>”<br /><br />Hey James! <br /><br />I posted something more on this over at Catholic Answers Forums, in case you wanted to look it over before coming back to this topic in the future: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=578070&page=3#33<br /><br />Also, if you were interested, I have posted previously on the Galatians 2 issue:<br />http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=493493&page=2#21<br /><br />Happy Fourth!<br />In Christ,<br />PetePete Holterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01206812695011729322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-19858230688282322182012-07-04T11:31:35.643-04:002012-07-04T11:31:35.643-04:00By the way, welcome to the Church of Christ, Jason...By the way, welcome to the Church of Christ, Jason and Cindy! Let me know when you two end up on <i>The Journey Home</i>.<br /><br />Oh, and also by the way, James, my wife found a way to watch EWTN through the Roku. So you can get rid of your cable service or whatever it was you were using. :)<br /><br />James: “I don't believe, at all, that Rome speaks for God, especially infallibly.”<br /><br />Thanks again for the reply! <br /><br />I once asked TurretinFan what the biggest obstacle to Catholicism was for him, and for him it was the pope. Would you mind sharing your biggest obstacle? I need to pray for your guys! <br /><br />Speaking of infallibility, what do you think of Pope Benedict’s assertion that papal infallibility “simply means that in Christianity, at any rate, as Catholics believe, there is a final decision making authority, that ultimately there can be binding decisions about essential issues and we can be certain that they correctly interpret the heritage of Christ. In one form or another, this authority is present in every Christian faith community, but it is not associated with the pope” (<i>Salt of the Earth</i>)”? And also that “[w]henever Sacred Scripture is separated from the living voice of the Church, it falls prey to disputes among experts,” and that biblical “science alone cannot provide us with a definitive and binding interpretation; it is unable to offer us, in its interpretation, that certainty with which we can live and for which we can even die. A greater mandate is necessary for this, which cannot derive from human abilities alone. The voice of the living Church is essential for this, of the Church entrusted until the end of time to Peter and to the College of the Apostles” (Homily for the Mass of Possession of the Chair of the Bishop of Rome, 5/7/2005).<br /><br />“The Bishop of Rome sits upon the Chair to bear witness to Christ… [and] his power is not being above, but at the service of, the Word of God. […] The Chair is—let us say it again—a symbol of the power of teaching, which is a power of obedience and service, so that the Word of God—the truth!—may shine out among us and show us the way of life” (Homily for the Mass of Possession of the Chair of the Bishop of Rome, 5/7/2005). And Jesus’ promise made to Peter—that “ ‘the gates of the underworld,’ that is, the forces of evil, will not prevail”—only holds true “inasmuch as he is the faithful steward of Christ’s message” (Homily for the Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul, 6/29/12).<br /><br />With love in Christ,<br />PetePete Holterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01206812695011729322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-39127955448989169492012-07-04T07:32:00.696-04:002012-07-04T07:32:00.696-04:00A miracle would help! :)
Peter,
I do appreciate ...<i>A miracle would help! :)</i><br /><br />Peter,<br /><br />I do appreciate that you took the time to expound on your personal opinion of the baptism of John the Baptist, your opinion of John Calvin, and your interpretation of a few of people from church history, and your interpretation of a few passages from the Bible. Since you posted your lengthy responses, I've gone through a number of Protestant sources on the baptism of John the Baptist to see what some of the better exegetes have stated. Since this issue is tangential to this post, I'm going to save it for the future. One interesting fact though, is I guess Luther doesn't need a miracle, because he believed the baptism of John was different. <br /><br />You will notice though, out of all your lengthy comments, I extracted 4 words, "A miracle would help." I did so, of course, because that's the topic of this current post.<br /><br />I think its safe to say I understand your view that you think anyone taking a theological position contrary to the corrupt Roman church of the 16th Century requires a miracle to validate any or all such things. What you haven't done though is establish this as Rome's official position, but rather, have substantiated it as your own opinion. You've got to also be careful that you don't fall to your own argument when its applied to your own worldview.<br /><br />Then again, even if you were to establish your paradigm as Rome's official position, the discussion then shifts to the fact that I don't believe, at all, that Rome speaks for God, especially infallibly.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-27508887630616107942012-06-29T18:03:13.409-04:002012-06-29T18:03:13.409-04:00In terms of unanimity, the Fathers were not unanim...In terms of unanimity, the Fathers were not unanimous on Galatians 2, so I’m not sure how this is an argument against those times when they <i>are</i> unanimous. But I do think that Augustine had the best summary of the incident:<br /><br />“It was necessary for [Paul] to say this to Peter <i>in front of everyone</i> so that by Peter’s rebuke <i>everyone</i> might be put right. For it would not have been useful to correct in private an error that had done its harm in public. Here I might add that out of steadfastness and love Peter – to whom the Lord had said three times, ‘Do you love me? Feed my sheep’ (John 21: 15-17) – was entirely willing to endure this rebuke from a junior shepherd for the salvation of the flock. Moreover, it was in his rebuke that the one being rebuked proved the more admirable and difficult to imitate. For it is easy to see what you would correct in someone else and to proceed to do so by censure and criticism. It is not so easy to see what ought to be corrected in yourself and to be willing to be corrected even by yourself, let alone by another, and that a junior, and all this <i>in front of everyone</i>! Now this incident serves as a great example of humility, which is the most valuable Christian training, for by humility love is preserved. For nothing violates love more quickly than pride. And therefore the Lord did not say, ‘Take my yoke and learn from me, because I raise four-day-old corpses from the tomb and cast out all demons and diseases from people’s bodies’, and other such things, but rather, ‘Take my yoke and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble of heart’ (Matt. 11: 29)” (Augustine, Commentary on Galatians).<br /><br />That’s funny you mentioned that about de Sales. I was going to use his last name in my first comment, but then I got worried about which way to go on the capitalization issue, so I opted for “Francis.” Ha!<br /><br />With love in Christ,<br />PetePete Holterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01206812695011729322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-31010454460726492092012-06-29T18:02:27.756-04:002012-06-29T18:02:27.756-04:00John Calvin asserted that it was perfectly clear t...John Calvin asserted that it was perfectly clear that the baptisms were the same, but Augustine said that just the opposite was “clear”: “this much still is clear, that the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ are two distinct and separate things, and that the former was expressly called the baptism of John, as is clear both from the answer of those men whose case you quoted, and from the words of our Lord Himself, when he says, ‘The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?’ But the latter is never called the baptism of Cæcilianus, or of Donatus, or of Augustin, or of Petilianus, but the baptism of Christ” (<i>Answer to Petilian the Donatist</i>, Bk. 2, Ch. 37:88). In contradistinction with the possessive form being used when speaking of “John’s Baptism,” “None of the apostles said, ‘my baptism.’ Although there was one gospel of all, yet thou findest that they said, ‘my gospel’ (Romans 2:16, 16:25; 2 Timothy 2:8): thou dost not find that they say, ‘my baptism’ ” (Tractate 5.9 on the Gospel of John).<br /><br />Helping himself to conflate the two baptisms, John Calvin also said that “By ‘water and the Spirit,’ therefore, I simply understand the Spirit, which is water” (<i>Institutes</i>, 4.16.25); and that “I cannot bring myself to believe that Christ speaks of baptism” (Commentary on John 3:5). But the early Church was unanimous in seeing Christ’s Baptism in John 3:5, and John Calvin himself seems to have agreed that “no ancient writer can be quoted who gives a metaphorical meaning to the words” (Antidote to Canon 2 on Baptism; if am I reading him correctly, this seems to be what he’s conceding here). Why should I agree with John Calvin against the Council of Trent and the entire early Church? John Calvin himself was concerned—when discoursing on the Eucharist—to bring forward the witness of Augustine, “Lest any one should despise” what he was saying “as a novel invention” (<i>Institutes</i>, 4.17.21). And yet, here he is, doing just that. A miracle would help! :)<br /><br />It’s not that John Calvin’s Scriptural interpretations are so appalling. And there’s nothing wrong with finding something new in the Scriptures. It’s the fact that his system of doctrine was propounded with pertinacious audacity to the disregard of maintaining “the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3). If John Calvin is going to break unity with the Church of Christ against the prayer of Jesus, then we should expect more than a brilliant mind and plausible exegesis before we become persuaded.Pete Holterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01206812695011729322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-44980304562265567872012-06-29T18:01:55.408-04:002012-06-29T18:01:55.408-04:00Here is Jerome in agreement with Chrysostom:
“[L]...Here is Jerome in agreement with Chrysostom:<br /><br />“[L]isten to the teaching of Scripture: the baptism of John did not so much consist in the forgiveness of sins as in being a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, that is, for a future remission, which was to follow through the sanctification of Christ. […] But if John, as he himself confessed, did not baptize with the Spirit, it follows that he did not forgive sins either, for no man has his sins remitted without the Holy Ghost. Or if you contentiously argue that, because the baptism of John was from heaven, therefore sins were forgiven by it, show me what more there is for us to get in Christ’s baptism. Because it forgives sins, it releases from Gehenna. Because it releases from Gehenna, it is perfect. But no baptism can be called perfect except that which depends on the cross and resurrection of Christ. Thus, although John himself said, ‘He must increase, but I must decrease,’ in your perverse scrupulosity you give more than is due to the baptism of the servant, and destroy that of the master to which you leave no more than to the other” (Jerome, <i>Against the Luciferians</i>, 7).<br /><br />From our point of view, we see Calvin joining with the Luciferians in destroying the baptism of our Lord. <br /><br />Here, too, is Augustine in agreement with Chrysostom, while at the same time displaying the tolerance of the Catholic Church for others who believe that John’s baptism did in fact remit sins:<br /><br />“I ask, therefore, if sins were remitted by the baptism of John, what more could the baptism of Christ confer on those whom the Apostle Paul desired to be baptized with the baptism of Christ after they had received the baptism of John? But if sins were not remitted by the baptism of John, were those men in the days of Cyprian better than John, of whom he says himself that they ‘used to seize on estates by treacherous frauds, and increase their gains by accumulated usuries,’ through whose, administration of baptism the remission of sins was yet conferred? Or was it because they were contained within the unity of the Church? What then? Was John not contained within that unity, the friend of the Bridegroom, the preparer of the way of the Lord, the baptizer of the Lord Himself? Who will be mad enough to assert this? Wherefore, although my belief is that John so baptized with the water of repentance for the remission of sins, that those who were baptized by him received the expectation of the remission of their sins, the actual remission taking place in the baptism of the Lord,— just as the resurrection which is expected at the last day is fulfilled in hope in us, as the apostle says, that ‘He has raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus’ (Ephesians 2:6); and again, ‘For we are saved by hope’ (Romans 8:24); or as again John himself, while he says, ‘I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, for the remission of your sins’ (Matthew 3:11), yet says, on seeing our Lord, ‘Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world’ (John 1:29) — nevertheless I am not disposed to contend vehemently against any one who maintains that sins were remitted even in the baptism of John, but that some fuller sanctification was conferred by the baptism of Christ on those whom Paul ordered to be baptized anew (cf. Acts 19:3-5)” (<i>On Baptism, Against the Donatists</i>, Bk. 5, Ch. 10).Pete Holterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01206812695011729322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-30548573811383227382012-06-29T18:01:32.422-04:002012-06-29T18:01:32.422-04:00Thanks for the reply, James. I’m writing this bec...Thanks for the reply, James. I’m writing this because I want to see you at Mass on Sunday!<br /><br />The Catholic Church does not teach that the baptism of John the Baptist did not bestow the forgiveness of sins. But the Church at least distinguishes between the Baptism of John and the Baptism of Christ and asserts that the latter is of greater efficacy. Choosing to follow Chrysostom’s (and Augustine’s, and Jerome’s, etc.) interpretation of Luke 3:3 is permissible, but it’s not dogmatic. And Chrysostom’s interpretation is certainly a good one. He thinks that Luke has <i>the ultimate end</i> of John’s baptism in view when he says “for the remission of sins”:<br /><br />“[H]ow says Luke, that ‘he came into the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins’? And yet it had not remission, but this gift pertained unto the baptism that was given afterwards; … he adds, ‘for remission,’ as though he said, ‘For this end he exhorted them to confess and repent of their sins; not that they should be punished, but that they might more easily receive the subsequent remission. For had they not condemned themselves, they could not have sought after His grace; and not seeking, they could not have obtained remission.’ Thus that baptism led the way for this” (Homily 10.2 on Matthew).<br /><br />I think that the differences we find between the two baptisms are more substantial than Calvin allowed. For example, John said that “<i>I</i> baptize with water,” but “<i>He</i> will baptize you with the Holy Spirit” (Luke 3:16), which shows John distinguishing his own baptism from Christ’s and admitting at the same time that Christ Himself was not baptizing through his (John’s) baptism. John 4:1-2 helps to accentuate this point when we see that “Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John,” and that “Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples.” Once again we see that Jesus did not baptize through John, but only through His disciples. And it’s not that Jesus was baptizing 50 disciples for every 10 that John baptized, so that they ended up with a collective pool of 60 disciples; rather, the disciples of John and the disciples of Christ are two different sets of people (Matthew 9:14, Luke 11:1, etc.). Hence, the disciples of John were baptized by Paul into Christ even though they had already been baptized by John (cf. Acts 19).<br /><br />Acts 19 is important. To galvanize his position of the sameness of the two baptisms, Calvin did not want to have Acts 19 serve as an illustration of a second baptism, and he thought that Acts 19 was the key text that caused the “ancient writers” to err (<i>Institutes</i>, 4.15.8; you’ll notice that he builds his case for the sameness of the two baptisms first, and only then comes back to offer his interpretation of Acts 19). But baptism “in the Name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5) is shown by the book of Acts to have been a water baptism (cf. Acts 8:16, 38; 10:47-48). And so we might turn Calvin’s objection back upon himself: who would rather listen to Calvin denying that the baptism performed by Paul in Acts 19:5 was a water baptism in the Name of the Lord Jesus than to Luke making it plain for us that baptism in the Name of the Lord Jesus is in fact a water baptism?Pete Holterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01206812695011729322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-64046141596085963602012-06-28T15:09:47.383-04:002012-06-28T15:09:47.383-04:00By the way, apologies to all for at times not pres...By the way, apologies to all for at times not presenting the name "de Sales" in it's proper form. Some folks nitpick this sort of typo.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-2025105514773436522012-06-28T14:53:19.359-04:002012-06-28T14:53:19.359-04:00Hi Peter,
In regard to the baptism issue, if I re...Hi Peter,<br /><br />In regard to the baptism issue, if I recall correctly (and you can certainly correct me if I'm wrong), Trent would curse the position of Calvin that the baptism and John and that of the apostles is the same. Isn't it correct that those John baptized, according to your church, had to be re-baptized because they didn't receive baptismal grace?<br /><br /> I think Calvin is most certainly on to how to figure out truth when he states, <br /><br /><b>"Therefore, let no one be troubled by the attempt of ancient writers to differentiate the one thing from the other. We ought not so to value their authority as to let it shake the certainty of Scripture. For who would rather listen to Chrysostom denying that forgiveness of sins was included in John’s baptism than to Luke asserting to the contrary that John the Baptist preached repentance unto forgiveness of sins [Luke 3:3]?</b><br /><br />The miracles you require for Calvin, really should rather be required by the Roman church to prove her interpretation here against that which Luke 3:3 states.<br /><br />A few things to keep in mind:<br /><br />The baptism of John was instituted by God (Matt. 21:25; John 1:33)<br /><br />John's baptism was connected with a radical life change (Luke 1:1-17; John 1:20-30)<br /><br />John's baptism stood in sacramental relation to the forgiveness of sins (Matt. 3:7-8; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3)<br /><br />John's baptism used water.<br /><br />The above points weren't mine, I followed Berkhof. He points out that John's baptism had some differences, but they are essentially identical. <br /><br />As to relying on the unanimous testimony of the Fathers, the problem is, that magic works only sometimes. You can take a look at the extended section from Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary that I quoted earlier this week on Galatians 2.<br /><br />Here's the bottom line: Calvin isn't adding revelation to the canon of Scripture. He doesn't need a miracle to confirm his interpretation of the Bible. If that's your paradigm, then you'll need to be consistent and apply it across the board to not only Calvin, but to every Roman Catholic interpretation of the Scriptures.<br /><br />Suppose some Roman Catholic who wants women to be priests based on an interpretation of the Bible performs a miracle... what do you do then? Suppose a gay priest who wants gay rights recognized based on his interpretation of the Bible performs a miracle, what then?<br /><br />The whole "confirmed by a miracle" paradigm is fraught with danger. The quicker you folks dump this outdated argument, the better.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-88502383151299091162012-06-28T08:16:42.814-04:002012-06-28T08:16:42.814-04:00Good morning James!
Why should I agree with John ...Good morning James!<br /><br />Why should I agree with John Calvin when he says that he is “perfectly certain that the ministry of John was the very same as that which was afterwards delegated to the apostles. For the different hands by which baptism is administered do not make it a different baptism, but sameness of doctrine proves it to be the same” (<i>Institutes</i>, Bk. 4, Ch. 15.7)? And when he says that the fathers of Trent “vent[ed] their bile… in vain” (Antidote to Canon 1 on Baptism) when they condemned the opinion that “the baptism of John had the same force as the baptism of Christ”? Why agree with Calvin against Trent? Calvin tells me not to “be perplexed because ancient writers labour to distinguish the one from the other,” but I am most perplexed and disturbed by this dismissal. Why agree with Calvin against Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom, etc.? A miracle would help. :)<br /><br />Augustine noted that “the Church increased from its beginning at Jerusalem, and from there it spread into Africa, not by transferring itself there, but by growing there” (Letter 129, 3). But Calvin’s rejection of the Church resulted in such an unprophesied transference. When Jesus inaugurated His religion through His apostles, He bore miraculous witness to their mission. If someone comes along after Jesus and tries to start a new mission in opposition to the one that He Himself started, then I think it’s fair to expect a miraculous validation for this mission.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />PetePete Holterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01206812695011729322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-66491270898969897202012-06-28T06:22:22.785-04:002012-06-28T06:22:22.785-04:00twinwithtwins said...James, You said, "They w...<i>twinwithtwins said...James, You said, "They weren't adding books to the Bible”. Just the opposite, they took out whole books and excerpts from the Holy Scriptures. When I learned that as a Protestant, I felt robbed.</i><br /><br />This comment was either from Jason or his wife. I had assumed it was simply a drive-by from an anonymous Roman Catholic. <br /><br />Quite frankly, the comment is anachronistic. Even some of the best Roman theologians at Trent argued against the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-65685467694236555262012-06-28T06:13:28.334-04:002012-06-28T06:13:28.334-04:00DeSales says, "no one should allege an extrao...DeSales says, "no one should allege an extraordinary mission unless he prove it by miracles." Pope Pius XI says, "[DeSales] seemed to have been sent especially by God to contend against the heresies begotten by the Reformation...it appears that Francis de Sales was given to the Church by God for a very special mission." Jason says, <br /><br /><i>"I see Pope Pius XI marveling at God’s providence in the whole matter of De Sales’s ecclesial ministry. He is accenting the fruitful labors the man had among Protestant converts. He was the right fit for the task. That’s all take from the quote."</i><br /><br />I don't see any of this as consistent, at all. This sort of thing gets compounded even more when some of Rome's current defenders claim to be "<i>called by God to do apologetics</i>." You folks simply assume the infallible authority of the Roman Church, then pick and choose what you need to in order to defend her, whether consistent or not.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-71801773653454037082012-06-27T21:00:15.220-04:002012-06-27T21:00:15.220-04:00At least explain to me what miracle validated DeSa...<i>At least explain to me what miracle validated DeSales as one especially sent by God for a special mission (as per Pope Pius XI).</i><br /><br />I see Pope Pius XI marveling at God’s providence in the whole matter of De Sales’s ecclesial ministry. He is accenting the fruitful labors the man had among Protestant converts. He was the right fit for the task. That’s all take from the quote.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705708341667849956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-80595591126350249012012-06-27T20:32:25.255-04:002012-06-27T20:32:25.255-04:00Jason, double comment fixed. Note: you should be a...Jason, double comment fixed. Note: you should be able to delete your own comments as whoever you are logged in as. Use the little symbol after the posting date.<br /><br />JamesJames Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-59687903522275796112012-06-27T20:30:27.002-04:002012-06-27T20:30:27.002-04:00I'm not exactly sure what the difference is be...I'm not exactly sure what the difference is between twinwithtwins and Jason Stewart. <br /><br />First, I'll start with the last thing you said. I've been well aware of the argument about the "miraculous element". This topic in regards to Romanism has been covered on this blog before, at least 5 years ago (I can find the post if you're interested). On the other hand, I don't recall ever reading DeSales on this point (though I don't have total recall of everything I've read or written). <br /><br />I disagree with you that the symmetry is upset. There is no logical reason why the verification of the miraculous can't be discussed without the former point. <br />Then again, it's Romanism that sets the argument anyway- it's your beginning presupposition that Rome is the true Church, so you get to decide how a ministry is validated. That is, your conclusion is inherent in your premises. <br /><br />I'll gladly discuss the inherent contradictions and double standards that your argument implies, but I'll not do so until you deal with what I've stated already. I made 5 specific points above (I could've made more).<br /><br />My guess is, one of the arguments that swayed you was the "sending" (you said as much in your interview). Once you accepted the Roman premise, the 2nd point just came along for the ride without you scrutinizing it. <br /><br />At least explain to me what miracle validated DeSales as one especially sent by God for a special mission (as per Pope Pius XI).James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-35171069092959300562012-06-27T20:11:40.899-04:002012-06-27T20:11:40.899-04:00James,
The argument De Sales makes from the prem...James, <br /><br />The argument De Sales makes from the premise of divine mission is two-fold: 1. an ambassador of God must be sent by the Church (mediate sending); or, 2. an ambassador of God must have his ministry validated by direct divine intervention via miracles a la the apostles of Christ (immediate sending). The symmetry of his argument is upset if you fixate only on the miracle component. <br /><br />I've just listened to the clip you’ve posted and it’s clear that in the interview I didn’t merely emphasize the lack of the miraculous in the reformers' mission. Following De Sales, I asked, “If God sent them, where are their papers [read mediate sending]? Where are their miracles, if it’s an immediate sending? If he sent them through the Church, then why are they rejecting the Church?”<br /><br />My guess is the miraculous element jumped out at you more than the other because it was new to you as you’ve already mentioned in your original post.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705708341667849956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-77030580903976461732012-06-27T19:23:19.870-04:002012-06-27T19:23:19.870-04:00I think that it is fair for Francis to expect mira...<i>I think that it is fair for Francis to expect miracles in the case of John Calvin</i><br /><br />Peter,<br /><br />This seems a lot like your personal interpretation of Roman Catholicism. <br /><br />Rejecting something requires a miracle?James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-24873844902816352322012-06-27T18:49:14.317-04:002012-06-27T18:49:14.317-04:00James, You said, "They weren't adding boo...<i>James, You said, "They weren't adding books to the Bible”.Just the opposite, they took out whole books and excerpts from the Holy Scriptures. When I learned that as a Protestant, I felt robbed.</i><br /><br />Different issue- your bait will sit on the hook. I've been through canon issues on this blog since I started it years ago. If you'd like to comment on the DeSales argument, do so. If not, the folks on the Catholic Answers boards quibble over the canon daily.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-44459653889142954002012-06-27T18:46:47.274-04:002012-06-27T18:46:47.274-04:00Please don't miss De Sales's main pastoral...<i>Please don't miss De Sales's main pastoral concern for his readers.He's asking why they believed individuals with no divine credentials other than a personal claim that God had opened their eyes to the true message of the Bible. That's what resonated with me and my wife; not the fact that the reformers didn't perform miracles.</i><br /><br />Jason,<br /><br />Actually, I'm going by what you and your wife stated in your interview, and what you and your wife (and the interviewer)highlighted from DeSales. All three of you pointed out the part about miracles.<br /><br />The debate about being "sent" is another matter, and we can deal with that as well at some point. First, let's lay this one to rest: the idea that the Reformers needed miracles to validate their ministry is simply bogus. It is a bogus way to argue, not to mention fraught with double standards. It assumes a Roman Catholic paradigm to be valid. <br /><br />Listen back to the clip I extracted. The interviewer asks, "Where are their papers?" Your wife in agreement states back, "right, where are their miracles?" You, a few minutes later state, "where are their papers? If God sent them, where are their miracles?"<br /><br />I'm well aware of the type of education you received, and probably most of the men you studied under. Could you with a straight face, look Dr. Venema, Dr. Beach, or Rev. Strange in their eyes and ask them seriously where the miracles of the Reformers are? Jason, for whatever valuable point you think DeSales is making, this aspect of it is bogus.<br /><br />I'm not trying to "unconvert" you (as you tried to do to your friend, as mentioned in the interview). Frankly, believe whatever you want. I'm simply pointing out a factual and logical issue: DeSales is making a bogus point. <br /><br />Thanks for stopping by. I plan on re-posting a version of this entry on the aomin blog.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-74153585826647696002012-06-27T18:37:55.324-04:002012-06-27T18:37:55.324-04:00James,
You said, "They weren't adding b...James,<br /> <br />You said, "They weren't adding books to the Bible”.<br /><br />Just the opposite, they took out whole books and excerpts from the Holy Scriptures. When I learned that as a Protestant, I felt robbed.twinwithtwinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00168879925619368970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-60444221207649003072012-06-27T18:07:00.155-04:002012-06-27T18:07:00.155-04:00Hi James!
I think that it is fair for Francis to ...Hi James!<br /><br />I think that it is fair for Francis to expect miracles in the case of John Calvin since Calvin rejected communion with the already existing Church of Christ. Repudiating what came before, physically and doctrinally disassociating yourself from this existing communion, and providing your own new framework for moving forward within this disassociated communion is not to reform something, but is an attempt to start something new. It is an attempt to found a new church in opposition to the Church that Jesus founded. Authentic reform can only come from within.<br /><br />With love in Christ,<br />PetePete Holterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01206812695011729322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1472713604975321282012-06-27T17:34:55.396-04:002012-06-27T17:34:55.396-04:00Dear James,
Please don't miss De Sales's ...Dear James,<br /><br />Please don't miss De Sales's main pastoral concern for his readers. He's asking why they believed individuals with no divine credentials other than a personal claim that God had opened their eyes to the true message of the Bible. That's what resonated with me and my wife; not the fact that the reformers didn't perform miracles. <br /><br />Blessings,<br /><br />- Jason StewartAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705708341667849956noreply@blogger.com