Part one can be found here.
Part two can be found here.
I have not listened to this debate yet (it's been one of those weeks). I'm somewhat familiar with Dr. James White, so I'm sure he did an outstanding job.
Saturday, April 18, 2015
The Church would have been better off without the Reformation. Agree? Disagree?
Here is the video of the recent debate between Dr. James White and Rev. Dr. Thomas Norris (Priest of the Diocese of Ossory) on the Reformation.
Part one can be found here.
Part two can be found here.
I have not listened to this debate yet (it's been one of those weeks). I'm somewhat familiar with Dr. James White, so I'm sure he did an outstanding job.
Part one can be found here.
Part two can be found here.
I have not listened to this debate yet (it's been one of those weeks). I'm somewhat familiar with Dr. James White, so I'm sure he did an outstanding job.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
25 comments:
I finally got the time to listen/watch this, and did so twice, taking notes the second time.
The Roman Catholic priest, Dr. Tom Norris, was very kind and gentle; no fire -
he spent so much time in his opening statement talking about previous "reform" movements - Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Dominic, and especially Francis of Asissi, that he never really defended his thesis, except just to say that Luther's Reform was negative; then later, in the second rebuttal of Norris he said Luther went too far and caused disunity and breaking up into groups.
The best part of the debate, IMO was the second half - especially from the 27 - 31 minute mark where there was back and forth about development of doctrine vs. corruption.
Dr. Norris admitted about the claim of development of doctrine, "You could use that to justify just about anything" (around 27 minute mark)
Dr. White asked, "How do you know the difference between development and corruption of doctrine?" (around 28 min. mark)
By watching Dr. White's hands about the 3 legged stool and hearing him again; it clicked more for me of how wrong the RC claim of an equal 3 legged stool is.
"The stool does not stand straight" - Dr. White
Indeed, it is lopsided so much that the Church/Papacy leg is so big and overpowering that no one could sit on the three legged stool.
"How can we know when the church goes astray when the church infallible defines both Scripture and Tradition
30:30 mark, Part 2 - about corruption and development -
"Do you see how they could look alike?" Dr. White to Dr. Norris
"Oh, I do! . . . and how dangerous that is . . . " Dr. Norris
Another high point was on the Eucharist and the gospel of the finished work of Christ.
36 minute mark:
Finished work of Christ - Hebrews 10
"You can take the Eucharist thousands of times and still commit mortal sin and then die and loose the grace of justification . . . " Dr. White
(and go to hell)
"Romans 5:1 says, "therefore, having been justifiied by faith, we have peace with God" - "If I can commit mortal sin before I go to bed tonight and become God's enemy, is that what true Shalom (peace) is?"
48 minute mark, part 2
on Mary, latria, dulia
Latin translations of the Hebrew word, Abad עבד - not "ahav" ( the word for love).
cognative with the Arabic and Farsi, Abd - serve, worship. عبد
One of the Alphonso de Ligouri's prayers in the book, "The Glories of Mary"
prayer to Mary - "Save me from the world, the flesh, and Jesus, because by one prayer from you, He will be appeased."
has the Nihil Obstat seal from the RC authorities - gone through 800 reprintings (?)
50 minute mark:
Norris agrees that the prayers to Mary are much more than just "a friend in high places"
Callers repeated several times that the Protestant Reformation contributed to Anti-Semitism and that Hitler used and quoted from Luther.
Dr. White pointed out that the RC church and European culture was very Anti-Seminitic centuries earlier and that the Reformed inherited that view.
They also inherited the state church and government force and execution of heretics.
Dr. White also pointed out several times that sacralism is wrong and unbiblical. (sacralism - complete unity of church and state and state's power to persecute and execute.) Protestants inherited that culture.
Dr. White pointed out that the Papal office and doctrine was largely based on and buttressed by 2 fraudulent documents:
1. The Donation of Constantine
2. The Pseudo-Isodorial Decrees
Dr. Norris admitted that Leo X's Papal Bull vs. Luther was too harsh and cruel. Exsurge Domine - 1520.
Dr. Norris focused on the next Pope - Pope Adrian VI
Given the limitations of the debate, (lack of time, lack of focus on specific subjects, callers and emailers questions and comments)
Dr. White did an excellent job.
Dr. White on the subsequent Dividing Line show, pointed out how people were complaining that Dr. Norris was not a strong opponent;
yet . . .
Dr. Norris has a Phd from Oxford England - and yet had no fire and not much strong points; was very gentle; had a lot less content and less evidence and argumentation that the Reformation was negative;
yet people criticize Dr. White for his doctorate from Columbia Evangelical University, etc. yet Dr. White was more focused and full of content.
Dr. Norris wishes that Martin Luther had met the Basque soldier and founder of the Jesuits, Ignatius Loyola. says they would have agreed with each other.
Dr. White pointed out that they would not agreed on Scripture as the only infallible rule for the church; as Loyola would have said "Scripture and Tradition".
Interesting comment from Dr. Norris:
"Karl Barth said that the Catholicism is characterized by "and" . . .
indeed -
Scripture and tradition and church
Faith and works
Dr. Norris emphasized love and unity,
but never mentioned the way that Roman Catholics demand unity - is for the Protestants to repent and return to Rome and all her de fide dogmas, and submit to the Pope as the Vicar of Christ on earth; and apparently, follow Boniface VIII's dictum:
"It is necessary for salvation for every human creature to submit to the Pontiff of Rome." Unam Sanctum, 1302
"How can we know when the church goes astray when the church infallibly defines both Scripture and Tradition?"
Dr. White, between 27-31 mark in Part 2, the second video.
Dr. Norris emphasized the Body Assumption of Mary dogma of 1950 was an extention of the doctrine of the redemption of the body, which the rest of believers get at the second coming.
Dr. White pointed out that this dogma comes so late (1950) and is not in the NT nor in early centuries of Christian history, how can anyone have beleived it, when it is now called a "de fide" (of the faith) dogma that must be believed in order to be saved.
"Luther lit a match", Dr. White
that was fueled by
1. Widespread corruption and appalling situation of the church and papacy; example - Erasmus and his calls for Reform
2. Erasmus' first printed Greek New Testatment in 1516
3. The Printing Press
4. The Renaissance
The Roman Catholics had long before the Reformation a book on "how to detect witches" - "Malleus Malificarum"
Dr. White recommended the book, The Reformation by Owen Chadwick.
by the way, -
Carl Trueman, at least at one time at the Ref. 21 blog, recommended the book The Reformation, by Diarmaid MacCulloch, which I am trying to slowly work through.
Dr. White pointed out the anti-Semitism in Europe can be traced back to Origen (around 250 AD) and his allegorical interpretation of Scripture, for it recast the OT without the original historical context of the Jewish people and God's love for them.
Hi Ken, thanks for the overview here in the comments.
James, about the title of this post -- the Reformation was absolutely necessary, given what "the Church" had become.
But stepping back, the Church would have been far better off if Roman bishops hadn't decided that they were in charge of things, and tried to enforce their so-called "primacy".
And stepping back, the Church would have been far better off if bishops from larger cities hadn't tried to say "who was most important" or "who had the most honor" etc.
The title of the post came from here:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2015/04/16/the-revelation-tv-debate-link-is-now-available/
I have yet to get to listen to this!
You are quite welcome John!
I would like to see a debate on the whole issue of the RC claim of development of doctrine in church history vs. that they really have added and corrupted doctrine; and the role exegesis of Scripture plays and where the line is to be properly drawn.
But not many Roman Catholics are willing to debate, it seems.
or they are too nice, like Dr. Norris.
Hi Ken,
IMO, the most important issue raised is encapsulated in the following question:
== Dr. White asked, "How do you know the difference between development and corruption of doctrine?"==
The typical Evangelical answer to the question is an appeal to the perspicuity of the Bible; but, I suspect that I am not the only person who finds such an appeal to be of little value. Dr. Lane has cogently exposed the historical reality facing anyone who makes such an appeal:
>>By the end of the seventeenth century many others saw that it was not possible on the basis of Scripture alone to build up a detailed orthodoxy commanding general assent. (A.N.S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey”, Vox Evangelica, Volume IX – 1975, p. 45.)>>
So instead of "Scripture alone", options placed before those who have embraced Dr. Lane's obvious truism include:
Scripture plus the Westminster Confession; Scripture plus the Book of Concord; Scripture plus the First London Baptist Confession of Faith; Scripture plus the New Hampshire Confession of Faith; Scripture plus the 39 Articles of Religion; Scripture plus the first 4 'Ecumenical Councils'; Scripture plus the first 7 'Ecumenical Councils'; Scripture plus what Dr. John MacArthur says Scripture means; Scripture plus what my pastor says Scripture means; Scripture plus debates; etc., etc. ...
As divisions continue to multiply, I cannot help but reflect on the sober words of the seventeenth century Puritan, Thomas Manton, who said, “Divisions in the church breed atheism in the world.” (The Works of Thomas Manton, vol. 2, p. 69, "A Peruasive to Unity in Things Indifferent".)
Grace and peace,
David
Ken,
"How can we know when the church goes astray when the church infallibly defines both Scripture and Tradition?"
Begging the question. It's like asking "How can we know when Christ and the Apostles went astray when they infallibly defined (identified/interpreted) both Scripture and Tradition".
That's why the 3-legged stool stands straight - STM all mutually reinforce and attest to each other. The magisterium can't tomorrow define that Romans is uninspired or the Book of Mormon is (so it's beholden to S) nor can it say Nicaea never happened, or that Orange actually endorsed Pelagianism, or that the Eucharist should be removed from the liturgy (so it's beholden to T). Such movements would indeed be corruptions, not developments.
David,
Didn't you see my comments above?
That very question and Dr. White's probbing of Dr. Norris and Dr. Norris' admission that "development of doctrine" can be used to justify almost anything was the most significant part of the debate, IMO. (see my first comment; and others also above)
I understand the point you are making from Dr. Lane's statement; but I would say instead of perspicuity, rather careful exegesis is the first step.
those other "ands" that you bring in, are based on exegesis and consistent theology.
The issues of disagreement between the Reformers are issues such as baptism, the Lord's supper, and church government.
(they are still the main differences between Presbyterians and Baptists and Lutherans)
To this day, they are the same main issues. They are secondary to the gospel and justification, etc. so the Reformation was a good thing.
Truth is more important than external uniformity.
Hi Cletus,
I disagree; it is not begging the question.
no; they don't mutually reinforce and attest to one another. not at all. There is no such thing in Scripture in any of the issues that Protestats have stood for against the RCC. The RCC Magisterium rules over the other 2 legs as "Whatever we say goes".
The 3 legged stool is lopsided. no one can sit on it. The Scripture leg is the smallests, then the Tradition leg is massive, since it added man-made and false traditions to it; and the Magisterium leg is even 10 times more massive than the Tradition leg, resulting in something that is totally uneven.
The Magisterium may not do those things; they are too obvious, but it did add Mary as a co-mediatrix, thus contradicting 1 Tim. 2:5. Vatican 2 is a contradiction the whole previous history of tradition - contradicts Trent by calling us "separated brethren; and contradicts Cyprian, and the tradition of "no salvation outside of the church" by allowing for atheists and Muslims to be saved without conscience faith in Christ.
Purgatory, indulgences, prayers to saints, relics, statues, Transubstantiation, etc. - these all contradict Scripture.
There is no such thing as a Pope or a "bishop over all bishops", so those also contradict Scripture - it is easy to see the line that the RCC crossed from legitimate development to corruption.
The Magisterium may not do those things; those things you mentioned above they are too obvious,
also, it does seem that between Orange and Trent, semi-pelagianism re-entered into the RCC "in a roundabout way" (R. C. Sproul quoting G. C. Berkower).
see my older article, "From Orange to Trent"
or it was Herman Bavinck who originally wrote that, that "semi-pelagianism re-entered in a roundabout way"
David Waltz and I debated the issue of semi-Pelagianism entering the RCC in a roundabout way in the comboxes here, after he critiqued my article on "From Orange to Trent"
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/06/does-roman-catholic-church-teach-either_29.html
I still maintain that position, and explain it in the comboxes.
Hello again Ken,
Thanks much for responding; you wrote:
==David,
Didn't you see my comments above?
That very question and Dr. White's probbing of Dr. Norris and Dr. Norris' admission that "development of doctrine" can be used to justify almost anything was the most significant part of the debate, IMO. (see my first comment; and others also above)==
Me: Yes, I did; but, I maintain that the real issue that remains is what truly constitutes a true development vs. corruption. (More on this below.)
==I understand the point you are making from Dr. Lane's statement; but I would say instead of perspicuity, rather careful exegesis is the first step.==
Me: OK, let's delve into "careful exegesis". Some of the most detailed and "careful exegesis" of the late 20th and early 21st centuries comes from the pen of Dr. N.T. Wright. His work on the NT, with an emphasis on justification, is unparalleled; and yet, many reject his "careful exegesis", opting for a traditionalized exegesis which is most likely a corruption, rather than a true development.
==those other "ands" that you bring in, are based on exegesis and consistent theology.==
Me: We need to add Thomas Aquinas to the "ands", for their is no question that his theology is "based on exegesis and consistent theology ".(His numerous commentaries on Scripture on often ignored.)
==The issues of disagreement between the Reformers are issues such as baptism, the Lord's supper, and church government.
(they are still the main differences between Presbyterians and Baptists and Lutherans)
To this day, they are the same main issues. They are secondary to the gospel and justification, etc. so the Reformation was a good thing.==
Me: Dr. Wright and so many other current NT scholars believe that the Reformers take on "the gospel and justification" has serious flaws. Having personally read dozens of books (plus a number of essays) on these issues, I am compelled by "exegesis and consistent theology" to concur with them.
==Truth is more important than external uniformity.==
Me: Indeed. What is troubling for me is the possibility (arguably to a high degree) that a good deal of the developments of Western/Latin theology are corruptions...
Grace and peace,
David
Of what I read of N.T. Wright on Justification, I was not impressed. Piper's "The Future of Justification" IMO completely defeated N.T. Wright's arguments.
Piper's was much more rigorous and exegetical.
It is hard to take N. T. Wright seriously on that issue, when he wrote, "the gospel is not an account of how people get saved." ("What Saint Paul Really Said", page 133, cited in Piper, page 18.)
Good morning Ken,
Earlier today you posted:
==Of what I read of N.T. Wright on Justification, I was not impressed. Piper's "The Future of Justification" IMO completely defeated N.T. Wright's arguments.
Piper's was much more rigorous and exegetical.==
You clearly have not read Dr. Wright's "more rigorous and exegetical" works. His commentary on Romans is exceptional, and his detailed response to his critics (including John Piper) in Justification - God's Plan and Paul's Vision is full of "rigorous and exegetical" contributions on hundreds of Biblical passages.
==It is hard to take N. T. Wright seriously on that issue, when he wrote, "the gospel is not an account of how people get saved." ("What Saint Paul Really Said", page 133, cited in Piper, page 18.)==
Piper took Wright out of context, as Wright clearly demonstrates in Justification - God's Plan and Paul's Vision. Wright's understanding of the gospel is comprehensive, and shares a number of common elements with that of Dr. Greg Bahnsen and other Reformed scholars who place a strong emphasis on the covenantal aspects of the gospel.
I am thinking of working on a post that will contrast Wright's Justification - God's Plan and Paul's Vision with Piper's The Future of Justification. I have read both books twice now, and would like to share a few of my reflections...
Grace and peace,
David
"the gospel . . . by which you are saved" I Corinthians 15:1-4
Romans 10:9-10
makes the parallel between justification and salvation
Ephesians 2:8-9 - "For by grace you have been saved by faith . . .
Acts 16:31 - "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved. . . "
Acts 15:9, 11
"cleansing their hearts by faith"
"we are saved in the same that they are - through the grace of the Lord Jesus"
etc.
David,
I look forward to looking at your article and analysis of Piper's book vs. N. T. Wright on Justification.
Seeing what N.T. Wright has written/said in these two blog articles makes him seem less and less credible all the time, as time goes by and I am able to research him more.
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2006/04/righting-and-writing-wrights-wrongs.html
http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/and-all-gods-people-said-wut.html
Post a Comment