Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Quotable Catholics #1
"You see, the problem with lay people trying to [do] exegetical work is this~without a proper foundation in theology, hermeneutics, literary and Bible criticism, ancient history, ancient Greek, Hebrew and Latin languages, and plain inspiration, we are literally stuck with having to take the word of someone "more knowledgeable" to understand even a single verse of Scripture. As our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, once said, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." In order to do this work properly, I have had to read and try to learn what I believe to be necessary for someone like me to write about a passage of Scripture." [source]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
I must first beg for your forgiveness for posting this in the incorrect area.
Dear James, Brother in Christ, created in His holy Image and living as an example, a light on a hill, for the World to see, beleviers and non-believers alike
As always, I pray for your blessing in Christ as you testify to the truth in honesty and integrity before God our Savior and Judge and that "cloud of witnesses" which surrounds us, while I remain only by God's good grace your humble servant and brother in Christ,
Theo, I do not buy any of what you're saying. You can post whatever comments you have on your own blog.
It's hard to judge the character of person based on the words posted to a blog comm-box. But, my gut tells me you're not being your true self. If I'm wrong, well, if you really are the person your words portray, you will be able to forgive me.
You can still post comments to this blog, in the right places, of course, but know that your words have not convinced me of your seeming gracious and humble intent. In fact, the opposite is the case, with each comment you leave.
"You can still post comments to this blog, in the right places, of course, but know that your words have not convinced me of your seeming gracious and humble intent. In fact, the opposite is the case, with each comment you leave"
James, brother in Christ and beloved of God:
Please know that I do not waste my words or prayers nor do I offer them in vain. I am instructed by the Master Himself to be gracious not only to you because you are a brother in Christ, but also because you engage the Church with enmity. I pray for you as I would my own son and try to do so in a manner that you could say "amen" to and also that if I am wrong (I do not believe I am), then still pray for the best.
James, you distrust graciousness. If you think for a moment you might realize that this tells you much more about you than about the source of the graciousness you distrust. Knowing that no person is gracious 100% of the time, you believe the "true" self is hiding, rather than simply acknowledge that some manage a degree of graciousness at all for some portion of their time.
As for testimony about my own flawed nature and crude attempts to act better than it is my wont, I let my yea's be yea's and my nay's be nay's. Those who know me personally may attest to my demeanor and attitude toward them and others. My imitation of Christ is greatly flawed. No doubt that comes across even at the best of times. In my most sincere attempts to act rightly, personal feelings (whether justified or not) of distaste at addressing in charity so obstinately hostile and intellectually dishonest posts as this venue sometimes presents no doubt shine through the chinks.
It may very well be this willful choice for graciousness rather than vitriol that you sense, and that makes perfect sense. It will no doubt come across as insincerity--being its virtuous cousin. Without grace, the best of my best remains filth.
Such is most assuredly true in the case of your "DTKing" posting, above which not only presents a very bad argument, it is insulting, cut off from in context reply and framed inaccurately.
Yet even so, you reply not with a defense or explanation, but merely to suspect me of being a fraud or (as you did elsewhere) a slanderer. And still, I pray that God blesses you with every good gift He provides to equip the saints for His good work.
You judge me as is your nature and wisdom. I believe you are shooting wide. You might be closer to the mark than I recognize (my heart being deceptive). God shall judge us all--even by the most careless words we utter. On that account alone I would be doomed. I do not fear your judgment in the slightest. His I fear greatly, for only by grace shall I pass through, and I am warned to avoid rejecting that grace by willful sin.
By all means James, I do indeed forgive you without hesitation. Your offense is slight and understood. Were your skepticism the worst personal offense I have ever faced, I would shout for joy.
May God bless all you do for His kingdom toward the execution of His will on earth as it is in Heaven.
To all of the above I attest in truth in the presence of God our Savior and Judge and that "cloud of witnesses" which surrounds us, while I remain only by God's good grace your humble servant and brother in Christ,
--Theo
Hi Mr. Swan. I appreciate you quoting me accurately.
As an aside, I wrote this after reading Mr. White's book, "The Roman Catholic Controversy," and Dr. John R. Rice's "The King of the Jews" A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew and after listening to Mr. White's cross examination of Fr. Stravinskas in their debate over Purgatory. I felt that the paper I was writing at the time was not adequate to address some of the issues that those gentlemen raised. I decided that I did not want my paper to be merely a catena aurea so-to-speak, but an actual contribution on the issue I was writing on. Some of that research is reflected in a paper I wrote defending my comments pertaining to Mr. White which may be found here: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/11/defense-of-my-opinion-on-james-whites.html.
What I wrote is merely an acknowledgement of the daunting task and awesome responsiblity concerning exegesis. With that being said, as a Catholic, I believe I have an easier time of it as I believe in an authoritative Church and Magisterium. It seems to me that the problem that I was writing about then is exponentially a much more difficult one for a Protestant. How can a Protestant truly say that he or she is exercising "private judgment" when they lack the same foundational learning? Not all of us can be Father Luther, who had scholastic training as an Augustinian monk and access to some the finest theological training available at the time, or James White, the so-called "leading Christian debater" who devotes his life full time to such endeavors. Is not a Protestant being disingenuous when he says the Catholic Church is wrong because _____ (fill in the blank) unless he can tout all of the credentials that I outlined or do you believe that such is not actually necessary~that one needs to merely be conversant in such things similar to an attorney who may not be familiar with a particular area of the law but because of their training in legal research can come up with an accurate answer if they put adequate time in to discern an answer.
Since the time I wrote those words, I had the good fortune to read a book by Dr. George Eldon Ladd, a professor at the Fuller Theological Seminary, titled "The New Testament and Criticism." He wrote:
"When all this has been said, one final point must not be lost sight of. The fact that the Bible is the living Word of God means that the layman need not wait for the scholars' interpretation before he can hear the saving message of the Scripture."
And further:
"In hearing and obeying the Word of God, the scholar must take the same stance as the layman: a humble response which falls to its knees with the prayer. 'Speak. Lord, for thy servant heareth.'"
To which, I can only add, Amen!
God bless!
I did not read your paper pertaining to Dr. White, nor did the link work that you provided. If it links to the lengthy paper you wrote a few months back, I definitely did not read all of it, nor do I wish to revisit it. Your comments, as they pertain to your critique or disapproval of Dr. White do not interest me.
What I wrote is merely an acknowledgement of the daunting task and awesome responsibility concerning exegesis. With that being said, as a Catholic, I believe I have an easier time of it as I believe in an authoritative Church and Magisterium.
Well, of course, this is not a measurable statement. If Rome provides some way of measuring something like this, I'd like to see it. As it stands it's your personal opinion, not decreed truth. This statement surely cannot be verified by the Bible. Given the amount of Papal pronouncements, Canon laws, encyclicals, centuries of Biblical speculation and commentary, my opinion would be that your task is much more difficult. Your task is not only to probe the Biblical text, but to probe 2000 years of Roman extra-biblical materials, to make sure you're in harmony with Rome and Tradition. Add to this, your personal interpretation of each of these- the pronouncements, in whatever form, require interpretation, and in fact, have led to a variety of interpretation within the Roman sect. The certainty Roman Catholics claim, really falls into meaninglessness, as each tidbit of truth must be interpreted by the individual. As far as I can tell, your task of exegeting Scripture in harmony with the Magisterium and Tradition (and continuing Tradition), is much more difficult than someone who has to consider only the Bible, and the Biblical worldview.
I posted your statement because it impressed me, as I've read so much from the Catholic apologetic community downplaying personal Bible study, and appealing to the need for an infallible interpreter when critiquing non-Roman Catholic positions.The fact of the matter is, very few, if any verses or sections of Scripture have been infallibly interpreted, thus leaving the Roman Catholic in a very similar predicament to the Protestant- that is, interpreting the Bible for oneself. Rome gives you enough leeway, that you could apply allegorical interpretation to a multitude of Biblical passages, as long as you don't step over certain boundaries- or if you're good at your task, you could talk your way around whatever scrutiny attacks your position.
I find the typical Catholic arguments attempting to hoist an "infallible interpreter" on to someone's conscious laughable at this point. The Roman Catholic Magisterium has not really infallibly interpreted Scripture. Even those infallible pronouncements that have a Scriptural basis, are said to have verses supporting them not infallibly interpreted, and if I recall, can be founded on misapplied prooftexts.
How can a Protestant truly say that he or she is exercising "private judgment" when they lack the same foundational learning? Not all of us can be Father Luther, who had scholastic training as an Augustinian monk and access to some the finest theological training available at the time, or James White, the so-called "leading Christian debater" who devotes his life full time to such endeavors.
Given the day and age we live in, I don't think any person who deems the title "Christian" can be anything other than responsible for Biblical study. We live in an age unlike no other. The amount of resources available via free libraries, or the internet, take away any excuse for not studying the Bible. On the other hand, God has written the Bible, and it is a document that, if read through the eyes of faith, as well as by someone wishing to go deeper into the truth, will grow in that truth. Roman Catholics usually focus their attacks against Protestants on the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer (the Spirit illumines the Word in the heart of the believer), while forgetting that Protestants likewise value the church. The church has ministers and teachers, which proclaim and teach the Word. Protestants do not believe, "Me in the woods with my Bible." Your quotes from Ladd intimate this position- hopefully we agree.
You may say, well I have a structure, an "authoritative Church and Magisterium." What you have is what most Christians have- a Structure. I am Reformed, and abide by particular confessions of faith. How does one determine whether a structure is sound? Roman Catholics usually argue, "because my Church is the True Church, the one Jesus established." This of course, is untestable, and it's establishing truth by presupposition. I, on the other hand say, the best way to test the structure is to see if it matches up with what the Bible teaches. this is what so offends me about the Roman sect- they have set themselves to be untestable by adding two authorities outside of Scripture- the magisterium, and the chimera known as "Tradition." Whatever is not proved by the Bible within Rome's teaching, gets subcontracted over to the other two. Rome, by its authority structure, leaves no test by which to judge her truth claims by.
When it comes right down to it, the problem isn't Catholics basing their interpretation on the Magisterium (because that interpretation, is still subject to the way one interprets the Magisterium), and a Protestant, studying and exegeting to arrive at an interpretation. It should be obvious, the Roman Catholic never escapes the same problems he detests in non-Catholic structures. This is blatant and obvious, as I find so much disagreement between Roman Catholics. The problem always is, Rome has two other infallible authorities next to the Bible: Tradition (whatever that is), and the Magisterium. The debate always must begin and end here. Catholics already believe they have freedom to interpret the Bible. You could use the Quadriga, and still be in union with Rome.
In regard to your basic statement:
"You see, the problem with lay people trying to [do] exegetical work is this~without a proper foundation in theology, hermeneutics, literary and Bible criticism, ancient history, ancient Greek, Hebrew and Latin languages, and plain inspiration, we are literally stuck with having to take the word of someone "more knowledgeable" to understand even a single verse of Scripture."
This isn't a problem, but a blessing. God has given certain people tremendous gifts in scholarship. This doesn't mean we check our minds at the door. This should be obvious as my opinion when we discussed the use of Luther citations throughout history. This isn't even contrary to the way in which we live as humans. A silly example: I did not see men land on the moon, firsthand, but I trust the authorities are telling me the truth. I've never circled the globe, yet I believe it's a globe. I trust that many men dedicated to learning Greek and Hebrew in order to probe the depths of the Bible do so with an honest motive.
That being said, i'm currently enrolled in a class doing in-depth study into a particular Biblical book. My apologies if you take the time to respond, and I don't get back to you. My time is precious, and as best as I can, I seek to probe the depths of Scripture.
BTW Mr. Hoffer,
I can appreciate the tone of your recent comments here, but when I visit other blogs and finding you comparing me to "Hillary," ...it just reminds me of why I have such a low opinion of Catholic apologetics.
James, you distrust graciousness. If you think for a moment you might realize that this tells you much more about you than about the source of the graciousness you distrust.
Theo, I'm sure you realize I know you run over to DA's blog and post all the same stuff. I do not trust you, and your behavior does not match the sweetness of your comments. I find it odd as well, your comments on DA's blog lack the typical sweetness you pour out over here. Please, spare me all the flowery talk. I don't buy it, so you're wasting your time with such poetic language.
Hi Mr. Swan: As for the Hillary remark, it was actually in reference to the quality of the research that was put into the book that you were relying upon. It was not meant as a personal reflection of how I perceive you, but of the author who misrepresented the facts of the St. Melitios controversy in an attempt to score points against the Catholic Church. For the most part, our interactions have been cordial as interactions between Christians should be. I hope to continue that.
While I stand by my opinion concerning the quality of the research contained in the work you referenced (on this particular issue at least as I have not read the entire work, I can not opine on the rest of it. This could be an aberration), based on my reading several other works that shed further light on the matter, upon re-reading the comment itself, I do see how you could have taken it as a criticism directed at you personally. That was not my intent. Please accept this note as an amendment of my remarks. If you so desire, I will also post this on Mr. Armstrong's blog as well so that anyone reading it will know to what my criticism was directed.
I also appreciate your thoughts on private judgment in relation to my original comments and will try to address them on a more scholarly basis on my own blog sometime in the future. Again, God bless!
Theo, I'm sure you realize I know you run over to DA's blog and post all the same stuff. I do not trust you, and your behavior does not match the sweetness of your comments.
In case anyone else is reading along, I want to back up James'opinions on Theo. I have also noted inconsistent behavior here and on other blogs. I could say more, but that is all I want to say for now.
I applaud James' for speaking up. It is easy to allow people who use flowery, manipulative language to go unchecked for fear of looking like a jerk (b/c they appear nice), but it is important to expose these methods. Unfortunately, I can think of a few Protestants who have been duped by this behavior and that saddens me.
"Theo, I'm sure you realize I know you run over to DA's blog and post all the same stuff."
James and Carrie:
I do not know what you mean by "the same stuff," except that I reproduced a letter there that I placed here as it was directly related to the subject at hand. How this constitutes misbehavior of ANY sort is beyond me--and the "revelation" that you read AD's comboxes is no revelation, James. Please take a moment to think. You had previously brought your reading habit to my attention when you falsely ascribed another's comment there to me--then posted to my blog in a manner that was suprising in its vindictivenes and childishness. Are you imagining I'm "talking behind your back?"
If my speech to you is even more courteous and formal than my speech with some others, this reflects the seriousness with which I hope to take Christ’s admonitions to both treat brothers as betters and enemies with blessing. As such, my brother, your own methods of misdirection (this very conversation serves as witness) and intellectual dishonesty, and continued hostility to the Church and the full gospel require utmost effort to address in charity while at the same time bear witness to the truth.
My own attempt to exercise our Lord’s mandate of “love your enemy and bless those who persecute you” is most likely flawed; however, until I receive grace to do so perfectly, I will do my best with the humble abilities and gifts I can bring.
Suppose I weaken and allow myself to indulge temptation to return insult with insult, deceit with deceit, personal attack with personal attack, etc.? Does this render of no import the commands Jesus lays upon me?
Were I to heap vitriol and scorn, call one fashioned in God’s own image a fool and pray that he blaspheme God that others might witness his destruction and be saved, would this negate God’s judgment of what spirit motivates it?
Were I to misrepresent the exception as the rule, the anomaly as the method; were I to remove context and imply dishonesty where there is none, would I be less required by God to avoid such abuses?
Were I to employ what humble gifts (“flowery talk”) God has lent me for the edification of believers instead to excoriate, tear down and dishearten others (or even compare them to Hillary—Paul, how could you?), would that forever remove my obligation toward kindness?
What then? Should I then throw my hands in the air and say to myself, “Well now you’ve done it, Theo. You may never again be kind or gracious or you will commit the sin of hypocrisy?”
Regardless, you are as free to accept or reject any and all graciousness just as you are free to accept or reject Grace itself. Still I pray you do neither. The results in either case impact the one who rejects, not the one who offers.
As you say James, It's hard to judge the character of a person based on the words posted to a blog combox (or even an entire blog). Given your switching off the combox in the appropriate area, then reposting again without allowing rebuttal, and given your continued refusal to even aknowledge what rebuttal is made anyway--given these things (and more) I suspect you offer personal attacks for the sake of deflecting from your already-refuted assertion that Jerome affirmed "primacy, sufficiency and ultimate authority of Scripture” and the "Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura."
As I said before, should you desire further in-context conversation on this matter (including the supposition that Jerome in saying “My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the Church is built!” merely was addressing his “pastor in Rome.”), I will be pleased to offer what insight my limited understanding allows by God’s good grace.
Neither my character nor your desire to attack it are an issue of import in this matter, and I’m confident you know this full well.
May He who knows the hearts of all men and to whom we all must account have mercy upon us all. May He also bless you in truth with all gifts that further His Kingdom and bring you into everlasting joy in his fellowship with all the saints. Indeed, may your joy be made full exactly as Jesus Himself desires.
As always, I remain only by God's good grace, your servant and brother in Christ,
--Theo
Hi Theo, I hope you saw my follow up comment to Mr. Swan. I was criticizing Mr. King's work, not Mr. Swan's character. Mr. Swan's name got tied to the comment because he was citing to it. I clarified my remarks both here and on Mr. Armstrong's blog as I do have a great deal of respect for Mr. Swan. Upon re-reading them, I realized that my remarks could easily be misconstrued and sought to correct same.
If anyone still believes that I feel otherwise, please contact me at my website or e-mail (prhoffer@sssnet.com) and I will personally disabuse them of the notion.
James. Please take a moment to think. You had previously brought your reading habit to my attention when you falsely ascribed another's comment there to me--then posted to my blog in a manner that was surprising in its vindictiveness and childishness. Are you imagining I'm "talking behind your back?"
Let's set the record straight. Over on another blog (one prone to silliness, and invective), I found a particular Roman Catholic putting forth outrageous and slanderous comments. This particular person used your blog as his homepage. I forget exactly how I worded it, but I banned you from this blog, if indeed you were that person. You said you weren't, so you were not banned. However, I think it's fairly interesting that when I brought this out, that particular person making outrageous and slanderous comments slunk into the depths of cyber-space, or at least, I haven't seen that person commenting as much. That person used to regularly post invective on this blog, but has not since I accused you of being this same person.
I am not Colombo, nor do I enjoy or look for conspiracies. so, what I say next may seem a little bit like I'm excavating the "grassy knoll" so to speak. I found it very intriguing that the tone of your comments was the exact opposite of the person making the invective comments. Now, that may seem as if you and that person are worlds apart. I, on the other hand, thought perhaps it was characteristic of the same person. I don't care enough to actually research who you are, or the other person is (I've since even forgotten his nickname). However, your comments on the other blog, knowing that I have had volatile relationship with that other blog, lead me to believe you'd rather try and stir up trouble, rather than dialog with me as a "separated Christian brother."
Your flowery language, regardless of your intent, comes off as phony, not just to me, but to others who read your comments. I know of no other Roman Catholics, even ones I'm friends with, that use such language with me. It actually comes off condescending, if not passive aggressive, and believe me, I'm an expert at passive aggression. I know the signs. If you'd like to comment over here, drop your verbal methodology. I think it's the sign of a phony. If I'm wrong about you, then I'd actually be pleased.
Paul-
Thanks for the clarification. No need to post apologies, here or elsewhere.
I am well aware there is a level of rhetoric involved in apologetics and dialog that can't be avoided, from both sides.
Dear James my brother:
My expression is my own. I will frame it as best as I know how. If you'd like other samples you are free to look my blog over. Your attacking it will neither deflect the question at hand nor prompt me to abandon it--nor should it.
Your conspiracy theory (theories?) and commentary about passive-aggressiveness reveal more about you and how and why you think than would an autobiography. I have genuine pity for you, James.
As to your unremitting attack of me personally, I will continue to ask for grace to responded to your baiting with as much patience and charity as I might receive. I have addressed your calumny and then some. Should it continue (That is entirely up to you.) please consider it already answered.
I ask you to consider whether instead of launching this increasingly disturbing campaign it would not have been much easier to simply explain (or DTK could explain) how Jerome merely was addressing his “pastor in Rome," in light of his own words.
As I look forward to your actually addressing the issue at hand (albeit with little hope), I will not relent in praying for your genuine blessing in Christ, our Lord.
Your servant and brother,
-Theo
Theo-
Running over to another blog in order to provoke situations does not coincide with your sweet talk, nor does posting comments in unrelated blog entries. I don't trust you. Do you really think this type of speech fools any of us?
" I must first beg for your forgiveness for posting this in the incorrect area. I would have addressed this in the combox to the article above; however, my primative knowledge of this interface seems to have rendered me unable to find the proper means to add to the ongoing conversation you placed there. Please forgive my posting here to this adjacent article as an alternative to my inability."
Primative knowledge of this interface? You have got to be kidding, thinking this type passive aggression fools me. In fact, I'm simply going to delete your comment.
DTK is a welcomed guest on my blog, and an ordained minister. I consider it an honor when he posts anything here. The material is not posted to bring Romanists to the forefront to harass him. My reasons for closing blog comments, or not making the comment section functional have much more to do with time constraints, and the non-desire to him attacked. You all have your own blogs, or the ability to have your own blogs. Post what you want there. I know of one or two well known Catholic apologists that either won't even allow me to post on their blogs, or have banned me from their discussion boards. Their names are, Steve Ray and Patrick Madrid. Ray wouldn't even allow me to post an innocuous comment on his blog, Madrid banned me for linking to an article on aomin. I try as much as possible, to allow Romanists to voice their opinions. When I think a conversation is over, its over.
James. Please take a moment to think. You had previously brought your reading habit to my attention when you falsely ascribed another's comment there to me--then posted to my blog in a manner that was suprising in its vindictivenes and childishness. Are you imagining I'm "talking behind your back?"
You obviously did not read my words carefully. The comments were asrcibed to you for the reasons and suspicions I mentioned previously. If you would take a moment to think, given all your "gracious" words directed toward me continually, you should at least have the abilty to empathize to the point in seeing that another Catholic of a rabid nature, who uses YOUR blog as his homepage, is indeed quite suspicious. That I've given you the benefit of the doubt and allowed you to continue posting here, should at least show you that aplying the desctiptions of "vindictive" and "childish" are uncalled for.
If my speech to you is even more courteous and formal than my speech with some others, this reflects the seriousness with which I hope to take Christ’s admonitions to both treat brothers as betters and enemies with blessing.
I don't buy this for a second. I wish I kept a record of Theo-isms, like "Dear James, Brother in Christ, created in His holy Image and living as an example, a light on a hill, for the World to see, beleviers and non-believers alike. I've dialoged with Catholics for many years. Your words ring hollow and passive agressive, particularly when considered along with your behavior of running over to DA's blog, and the need to post things in the wrong places and saying things like, "I would have addressed this in the combox to the article above; however, my primative knowlege of this interface seems to have rendered me unable to find the proper means to add to the ongoing conversation you placed there." Sorry, I don't buy it, and I don't buy any of your "sweet" comments.
As such, my brother, your own methods of misdirection (this very conversation serves as witness) and intellectual dishonesty, and continued hostility to the Church and the full gospel require utmost effort to address in charity while at the same time bear witness to the truth.
Let's get this straight. I am not your brother. I consider you under the anathema stated in Galatians 1. Likewise, I know what Rome teaches, and it is not the Gospel. I reject the Gospel Rome teaches, so I'd invite you to pay close attention to Galatians 1, and likewise consider me anathema as well according to your standard. I deny your charges of intellectual dishonesty and misdirection, I would suggest you don't even comprehend why either DTK or myself quote Jerome, or any ECF in the first place. We are not trying to make them Protestants, but to point out what should be obvious, the ECF's are not the property of the modern day Romanist who uses anachronism when reading them.
I'm keeping this comm box open, but Theo, that's it. I'll have no more of your comments about myself or DTK. If you persist in posting here on unrelated issues, I'm going to delete your comments. You have your own blog, use it to voice your opinions.
Post a Comment