"I think James Swan does a good job as far as the historical Luther goes."
"He's certainly a great resource for rooting out unfair catholic biases and myths about Luther. But I'd not remotely call him unbiased. He's polite and tries to be fair, but he's as biased against the catholic viewpoint on Luther issues as the catholic apologists he critiques.It's certainly true that each of us has "bias." The way though that I would put is that each of us has a worldview as the result of our presuppositions. It's the template we use to make sense of the world. It's my contention that Roman Catholic presuppositions that inform a Roman Catholic worldview do not make sense of the basic facts of reality.
In the end, there ARE no unbiased humans. It's part of being fallen. If you read Swan's stuff, be sure to read some catholic stuff to offset his bias. Belloc's "How the Reformation Happened" is far from 'unbiased' but still does a great job of revealing some the big picture cultural issues that made Luther and Calvin's peculiar ideas resonate when they would otherwise probably have been ignored by most of history. Belloc is at least as biased as Swan. Perhaps less polite, but about the same amount of hubris!"
This is why, for instance, when a Roman Catholic says something like, "Luther added a word to Romans 3:28 and invented sola fide" my response to this charge has been so popular. There I demonstrated that the basic historical facts as interpreted popularly by Roman Catholicism don't describe reality accurately. On another level than the basic historical facts, one comes face to face with an even deeper question: a Roman Catholic may say Luther simply was an innovator and invented sola fide to soothe his delicate conscience. But, who is the real innovator? Luther said it was Rome that had added unbiblical elements to the Christian faith. If one accepts Rome's development of doctrine, one has a ready explanation for Rome's alleged innovations. Then we're off discussing whether Rome's version of development corresponds to reality. Ultimately, it will come down to the issue of authority: a Roman Catholic begins with a presupposition that Rome is the true church (and has the power of infallibility), and a Protestant denies this. Bias? No, it's basic presuppositions and worldview at play.
Addendum 7/21/13
My reign of terror over at Catholic Answers continues:
As to the mention of Mr. Swan - he is perhaps one of the more charitable bloggers that has problems with Catholic theology. He does visit here from time to time as well. However, I would caution accepting anything he says about Luther too, based on some of what I have read of his--what comes to mind is an encounter on Luther and Purgatory he, I, CatholicDude, and some others had a while back (see posts 29 and following; my major post is 54). Swan posts as Tertum Quid. That being said, I've found some useful source material from his blog now and then anyway.
If I recall that "encounter", I was basically expected to do all the work and research in order for others to comment and critique. I stand by the bulk of my comments, particularly #68 and #69, and #74. The discussion reiterated to me a valuable lesson- that, if a fruitful historical discussion is to happen in a forum like Catholic Answers, one person should not be expected to do hours of research for everyone else.
See also my blog post here.
Posts
12 comments:
Well said.
If, as you says, Rome's starting point is Rome itself, then it is simply inescapable that all the relevant data (history, scripture etc.) will be interpreted in a way that validates and confirms that starting point.
One problem I keep running into is the persistent, naive view of history that simply takes for granted that Rome is the mother church from which all other churches and "ecclesial communities" (read: Protestants) derive.
Sometimes I run into RCs who are willing to concede that the "church catholic" is prior to the "Roman Catholic Church," but who nevertheless believe that the "church catholic" is best preserved within Romanism.
But I like to counter that this is only superficially the case and that, doctrinally speaking, Rome departed from the "church catholic" long before the Reformation.
I'd be interested in any resources (books, blogs, whatever) that you could recommend that more clearly spell out at what point "Roman Catholicism" could be clearly distinguished from "the church catholic."
Does the thesis that, more or less starting with Constantine, Roman Catholicism emerged as a distinct form of Christianity have any merit in your opinion?
MT
Hi James,
I second that. You are really exceptional. Most of us get carried away easily and become less than objective when discussing issues. When I read something in your blog I know it is realiable without having to think twice or taking it with a pinch of salt.
Regards,
Martin Yee
I'd be interested in any resources (books, blogs, whatever) that you could recommend that more clearly spell out at what point "Roman Catholicism" could be clearly distinguished from "the church catholic."
Does the thesis that, more or less starting with Constantine, Roman Catholicism emerged as a distinct form of Christianity have any merit in your opinion?
That sounds more like a question for John Bugay than it does for me. I haven't done a lot of study in this area.
Thanks Martin!
Does the thesis that, more or less starting with Constantine, Roman Catholicism emerged as a distinct form of Christianity have any merit in your opinion?
No.
Prayers for the departed, for instance, were never a matter of contention between Christianity and Judaism in the first 1,500 years of its existence, since both faiths profess a resurrection from the dead. Likewise, prayers to Angels and living Saints (Elijah) go back to pre-Christian Judaism. Icons of Holy Angels adorned the two Temples and the Tabernacle, as well as the walls of ancient synagogues, like that of Dura-Europos. Jewish prozelyte baptism did not exclude the converts' children, and the list could go on..
What does have some merit however, is the historical reality of Protestantism emerging as a distinct form of Christianity starting with Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli in the 16th century..
___________________________________
On related terms, I just found out why Protestantism is wrong: Christ never likens the process of salvation to a one-sided or monergistic action: He speaks of a Sower who planted seeds, not whole-grown trees, and of a Master who gave His servants a investment, not a complete sum, expecting them to multiply their talents.
Lvka,
So in your understanding, Protestants teach that in the overall process of "salvation", God is the only one doing anything?
Michael Taylor -- I'm reading G.R. Evans's "The Roots of the Reformation". I've not gotten all the way through it, but see this on post on the history of "the sacrament of penance":
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-brief-history-of-sacrament-of-penance.html
See also this history of the interpretation of Matt 16:18 traced through history:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-brief-history-of-interpretation-of.html
There is also a post on this site, entitled "Answers for Dozie" that traces some of the difficulties over time.
I would say that misunderstandings and corruptions started creeping into things as early as Clement (see T.F. Torrance's work on the doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers. If you search "Cullmann" and "Torrance" together on Triablogue, you'll find a lot that I've written on that topic.
With Constantine, what you'll see is the beginning of the wholesale adoption of Roman [pagan] culture as "church". But that process lasted several centuries.
Calvinism specifically teaches the doctrine of Total Depravity. Zero talents. Christ teaches that each man receives at least one talent from his Master.
misunderstandings and corruptions started creeping into things as early as Clement
Q.E.D.
Don't be silly. "Total Depravity" doesn't mean "zero talents". It's a lack of one particular "talent" that every human being is subjected to.
Regarding Clement, I'm not just making a claim; I’ve documented it extensively.
Lvka,
Like John said. You have some misunderstandings.
Short version:
Monergism doesn't say God plants full-grown trees; it says something about how he plants faith as the seed, in the beginning of the overall process of salvation in which we do work and steward and develop.
What you're rejecting isn't Calvinism. In other words, we have more common ground than you think, and I implore you to see it and appreciate it. Without that, fruitful discussion of our actual differences--and whether they warrant any kind of separation & divisiveness--can't happen.
Longer version, which I hope you'll not skim but rather truly read:
------------
Monergism has particular focus on regeneration: It means that the "coming to life" happens entirely as the one-sided work of God. (Calvinists use Lazarus' resurrection as a parallel: Jesus calls to Lazarus, and then Lazarus is alive; he didn't have to cooperate for him to come alive.) The life He has given then guarantees that we will respond in faith, develop our talents, and "work out our own salvation in fear and trembling".
Applied to the parable of the talents, monergism doesn't say that we don't work to develop our talents--it says that the initial giving was entirely God's decision & God's work, not even being dependent on our deciding to receive them. In other words, even our faith & repentance is a gift, monergistically given. God gives us a new heart. God then justifies us & indwells us with the Spirit, and gives us gifts which we are to manifest. The effect of salvation is that we become zealous for good works.
Monergism doesn't say that we have no talents, which we are supposed to actively steward: It says something primarily about how we come to faith. Applied more broadly, it says that our talents are gifts, and it says something particular about the way they're given.
And in the broader view of of Calvinistic soteriology--e.g. Effectual Calling and Preservation of the Saints--God guarantees that we will work out our salvation in fear and trembling. That initial "monergistic" action and God's ongoing grace guarantee that we will work. But in the Reformation-influenced view of justification, even that guaranteed-by-God working is only the fruit of salvation, not in any sense the ground of God's reconciliation & acceptance of us. (Our good works are fruit of salvation, not grounds for justification. We're saved by grace through faith, not as the result of works. And even that faith is a monergistic gift.)
-------------
Your critique is an accidental strawman. (Though Calvinists are self-confessedly bad at communicating sometimes, and this particular strawman is related to one major example of often-bad communication: Calvinists and "choosing".) But if you spend any time googling--even look at the Wikipedia article on regeneration--you'll be able to confirm that "monergism" has a particular focus on regeneration. And you'll find people talking about the difficulty of trying to apply the term to other specific aspects of salvation.
Thank you John Bugay for the links and recommendations.
Blessings to you and thanks for the good work you are doing.
Mike Taylor
Mike Taylor -- regarding this statement of yours:
Sometimes I run into RCs who are willing to concede that the "church catholic" is prior to the "Roman Catholic Church," but who nevertheless believe that the "church catholic" is best preserved within Romanism.
Remind them that Pope Ratzinger did not hold to that thesis (although Cardinal Walter Kasper did).
In fact, check out the "dialogue" between Kasper and Ratzinger (from the time before Ratzinger was pope) -- it was a fairly strenuous discussion over whether, ontologically, "the universal church was prior to the local church", (as Ratzinger asserted) or the local church had priority.
As part of that dialogue, Ratzinger said something to the effect that if the universal church does not have ontological priority, the universal claims of the papacy are meaningless.
(I believe it was from 2002, and it can be found online in various places).
Post a Comment