Roman Catholics Cannot Profess the Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God...
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father...

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins...
---

A Roman Catholic cannot affirm the boldfaced statements.

1) Being seated is wording from Hebrews, and the reason Jesus sits down is that He has completed His high priestly work of atoning for sin. It is for real finished, and that's why Hebrews says that there remains no sacrifice for sin. Yet the Roman Mass neither is nor re-presents the atoning death of Jesus, because it does not take away all sin from the person it benefits. A person can go to Mass 10,000 times and still go to Hell. A person can go to Mass 10,000 times and still die imperfect, and God brings charges against him in Purgatory, in direct violation to Romans 8:33-34.

2) Jesus took on flesh at the Incarnation, and flesh is always located in one place at any one time. Yet Roman Catholic Church affirms that the body of Jesus is located in zillions of different places simultaneously through transubstantiation. So He's not at the right hand of the Father. He's there and also all over the place.


And true, Roman Catholics acknowledge one baptism for remission of sins, but it's the wrong baptism. They look to water when they should be looking to the Spirit. And no, they are not one and the same. Not even close.

The National Shrine of The Infant Jesus of Prague

This Saturday I was passing through Prague, OK (pronounced "Pray-g" when you're in Oklahoma, by the way) and since I had some time to kill, decided to stop at the National Shrine of the Infant Jesus.

What I found was a statue dressed up by faithful adherents.

It reminded me a great deal of the Shinto-Buddhist statues I used to see all over the place in Japan, where the pagans gave "love offerings" to their pagan small-g gods, like so:

 

Shrine to some pagan god in Kagoshima, Japan. Look how some worshiper was so nice to put a hat and sweater on this dumb idol so it would have protection from the rain. Awwww. Maybe it can't grant favors as efficiently if it's wet and cold. Isaiah 44:9-20

I admit to wondering aloud where this idea comes from, that it's a good idea to depict Jesus as an infant. Obviously there are those among my brethren who believe it's never justifiable to visibly depict Jesus in whatever form (I don't entirely agree but am quite sympathetic to the position), but why an infant? What precisely did Jesus ever do as an infant? My guess is that He ate, slept, made cute noises, quietly learned, and pooped. But the Infant Shrine website tells us this:

Many pilgrims visit the Shrine every day to ask the Little Infant for His help and to thank Him for favors He has granted.

They are asking a nonexistent entity for these favors. Little Infant Jesus does not exist any more than little infant Rhology exists. Infancy is intended to be a mere phase in the life of a person, and it doesn't last long. God created Adam and Eve as fully-grown people and while He intended that they reproduce in the Garden and commanded Noah's family (ie, all of humanity) to multiply and fill the Earth after the Flood as well, He did that to produce worshipers. Infants don't worship, they don't teach others to believe all that Jesus commanded, they don't go into all the world and make disciples. They eat, cry, sleep, make cute noises, quietly learn, and poop.
My best guess is that Roman Catholics make a big deal out of Infant Jesus because Jesus is more approachable when a baby than a full-grown man. Already within Roman theology the idea that Jesus is a hard-hearted Judge to be feared is strong and leads people to ask His mom Mary to help them ask Jesus for stuff, since who can refuse one's mother?

This shrine's slogan is "The more you honor me, the more I will bless you." I can only assume this is an extra-biblical revelation from Jesus Himself. To be consistent, should not Roman Catholics start a TertioCanon and append it to the backs of their Bibles, so as to contain the revelations God is giving here in these latter days? 

The saddest part of all about this shrine actually surprised me. As I got closer I noticed this scene at the base of the statue:

Yes, those are coins, much like one might toss into a fountain for "good luck". What in the world do people think these trinkets are supposed to mean to Almighty God who took on flesh and actually died a horrible torturous death for the sins of His people? And a couple of quarters at some lousy shrine is going to attract more love and favor? The evidence of gross deception in play here had me amazed and saddened. At least I got to take the opportunity to teach my kids about such deception and to think about the differences between this kind of nonsense and biblical worship of Jesus. They're getting it, too.

Oh, and I found a good use for some of the quarters.

Boz Tchividjian shocks those who aren't paying attention

Billy Graham's grandson takes to the HuffPo to make the "shocking" claim that sex abuse is worse among evangelicals than among Roman Catholics.

I have a few thoughts about such a claim.

1) Would anyone care about his assertion if he didn't have the grandfather he has? Would HuffPo feature this interview?

2) How is he defining "evangelical"? Does that include Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and groups that basically qualify as cults? What about Church of Christ, who holds the heretical view that water baptism is a pre-requisite for justification?

3) Does he mean sex abuse of children or is he including, say, married pastors committing adultery with other women in his flock?

4) The main reason for "pointing" (as Tchividjian puts it) to Roman Catholics is not that Roman Catholics commit acts of sexual abuse. Who could deny that professing Protestants , or yes, "evangelicals", have done the same?
Rather, the main problem has been that unlike Protestant churches, the Roman Catholic Church claims to be unified under the Pope and Magisterium, to have a holy hierarchy and government, to be the One True Church that Jesus founded, preserved by God all the way from then to today, and that this hierarchy and government has not only ignored but indeed actively protected and hidden men who were known to be gross sexual predators.
Unless and until some grand sex-abuse-concealment conspiracy among numerous different "evangelical" organisations or churches or denominations, what we have chez evangelicalism is an example of bad apples in a large basket, rather than a rotten root. (And no, I'm not denying that the number of apples  is probably quite high.)

The closest parallel to Rome mentioned in the article is probably the missions agencies, who allegedly systematically move and hide known sexual predators. If this is true, those predators need to be called to repent by their church and prosecuted for their crimes, and if they will not repent, they should be excommunicated by their church while under prosecution. The missions agency should fire them, obviously, instead of hiding them. That's a no-brainer.

And for the record, given my experiences with a very large missions organisation whose name rhymes with Shminternational Gission Toard, it would not surprise me in the slightest to learn that many people within that agency are guilty as Tchividjian contends. The hierarchy of that particular place has a well-earned reputation for hiding and ignoring sin, and sin has a way of getting too big for the leash you try to put on it.

Regardless of what definition he is using of "evangelical" and his misunderstandings of the actual issues at hand with the Roman priest abuse scandal, I applaud Tchividjian's efforts and his shining a light on this dark place. Far too many in the evangelical and Reformed world seem to think that calling sinners and possible false converts to repentance in the hopes of reconciling them to God and to their neighbor(s) is bad and sinful, that it's "talking smack about the Bride of Christ". They could not be more wrong and it would be hard to imagine how it could be more self-serving.

Rome in politics

Mere hyperdulia

Acts 12:20-22
Now he was very angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon; and with one accord they came to him, and having won over Blastus the king’s chamberlain, they were asking for peace, because their country was fed by the king’s country. On an appointed day Herod, having put on his royal apparel, took his seat on the rostrum and began delivering an address to them. The people kept crying out, “The voice of a god and not of a man!”

Hey, who's that guy next to James White?

Doing evil that good may result

The gunmen have devastated this Christian monastery, taken away the church vessels, blown up the bell tower, and destroyed the chancel and the font, the Monastery's Abbot Gadir Ibrahim reported on Saturday.
On top of all that, according to the Abbot, they have demolished the statue of the Old Testament Prophet who is venerated in Syria by both Christians and Muslims.

(Source)

 I'm sure they didn't mean to, but the opposition did everyone in the region a favor, spiritually speaking, unwittingly preventing them from incurring further condemnation upon themselves.


2 Kings 18:1-5

Now it came about in the third year of Hoshea, the son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah became king. He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem; and his mother’s name was Abi the daughter of Zechariah. He did right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father David had done. He removed the high places and broke down the sacred pillars and cut down the Asherah. He also broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the sons of Israel burned incense to it; and it was called Nehushtan. He trusted in the LORD, the God of Israel; so that after him there was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor among those who were before him.

Just like Mary and Joseph!

Christian couple maintains abstinence through first two years of marriage

Man, I really admire those people. What discipline it must require!

Mutual understanding

Scott Alt, replying to a commenter to the effect that I am willfully blind to think that the Scripture teaches both of the following facts:
1) Believers who have reached the end of their earthly lives are alive to God, and
2) God forbids us from talking to dead people,

says the following:

Scott_Alt33p· 20 hours agoI think that's right, though the concept of an obstinate refusal to see suggests the kind of freedom of the will that a Calvinist would deny. Interesting to speculate how Rhology would get himself out of that conundrum.

Thus he shows that he doesn't even have the first idea what Calvinism says about the human will. Or, say, Romans 8:

3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

It's just funny. Chalk this up to another "Protestant-to-atheist-to-Protestant-to-Catholic con­vert" who never got close to understanding Reformed theology. The problem here is that Alt thinks he does understand it. And the funny thing is that I get accused of misunderstanding Roman Catholic theology all the time but rarely does anyone attempt to demonstrate where I've mistaken its meaning. That's just projection.

And now, some slightly blasphemous prayers

While out at the abortion clinic, I've noticed that a few older Roman Catholic gentlemen come out as well for ~30 minutes, set out some pro-life signs, and pray what I was pretty sure was the Rosary.

Leaving aside the question of whether the Rosary has any effect on abortion (other than making demons laugh uproariously), last time I was out there, as they finished up their prayers and went back to their car, they passed my way and as we said hello, one of them handed me a pamphlet, saying, "These are the prayers we pray when we're out here."

I later flipped through it and found the following verses of sheer awesomeness, which I thought I'd share here. If you can pray these without wanting to throw up, you need to repent, and quickly.

The Holy Rosary

So how many holy Rosaries does it take to get Joe Biden excommunicated?

An Abolitionist's Open Letter to Pro-Life Roman Catholics

A message to our friends throwing rocks from across the Tiber,

You don't know where we've been.

We were lost. We were blind. We were dead. 

We were hopeless. We didn't care that we were hopeless, yet in some twisted and horrible way, we did care. 

And then a man with pierced hands and feet offered His help. He said we were blind and dead, and that He could save us. He told us to repent of our hopelessness, our lack of trust in our Creator, our evil and wicked deeds. He told us He had accomplished what needed to be done to bring us to our Creator, Whom we had denied so many times. 

This man saved us. This man, God Himself, clothed in human flesh, did it all. He alone bore the punishment, weight, and guilt of our sin. He alone provided the sacrifice to perfect us for all time. He told us we receive the benefits He offers, a slate wiped clean, perfect righteousness accounted to us as an entire gift, on the basis of repentance and faith alone, by His sufficient grace alone and the grace of no other. 

And He gave us the grace and strength to turn away from our former deeds and to do what is right, and we discovered more joy, peace, purpose, and wonder in doing what He told us to do than in anything we had thought we could find before, on our own path. So we started doing those things. And we fell more and more in love with this wonderful man, this wonderful God, that we wanted to do even more of them, and to share them with others, and to make sure that as many people as possible knew about this wondrous Creator, this amazing, loving, merciful, and powerful King. 

Then we discovered that there would be opposition.

The opposition takes many forms, but let me focus on only one example as a representative sample. Apparently, we who desire to obey the Lord Jesus Christ in all areas of life are "scary" and worthy of denigration and contempt.

As I read this article by Katrina Fernandez/The Crescat and was reflecting on the recent flurry of criticism directed our way by Roman Catholics, one saying of our great King came to my mind.

Matthew 5:11-12 - "Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

Based on this passage, I'd like to comment on The Crescat's statements and on the larger context. 

Blessed are you...

First and foremost, we'd like to say to all of you who have been criticising us: Thank you!

You have given us many opportunities to proclaim the Gospel and obey our Lord and repeat the proclamation that saved us from Hell. This is an enormous blessing and this whole thing, including blogposts like this one, has given us the chance to do so.

...when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say...

Why do I apply the word "falsely" here?

The title of the article includes the word "scary", but the author never explains what was scary about Toby's comment.  Further, what is scary about saying "...that does not mean we hate Catholic people; we love them. Everyone at AHA loves them. We also believe that in large  part Western Protesantism is dead, very dead as well"?

Does The Crescat believe love is scary?
Does she believe that self-directed criticism is scary?
Do scary bigots typically exhibit a powerful bent toward reformation within their own circles, as we have consistently called for?

The Crescat compares us to Jack Chick.

But:

-We don't make gratuitous dubious connections between mystery pagan religions and various parts of the Roman liturgy like Jack Chick frequently does.

-We are not King-James-Only. (We think the KJV is somewhere in the Top 5 or so.)

-We don't think demons are cute or stupid.

-We would never picture God the Father in an image.

-Our tone is very different. We are focused on the Gospel. (Not that Jack Chick never preaches the Gospel, but he often chooses to go a different direction in many of his tracts targeting Roman Catholicism.)

Let me share with you, dear reader, some more about this situation:

Recently we have been sharing status updates on our very busy Facebook page of a very general nature. Here are two examples:

So many prolifers love our posters yet reject our ideology...
What they don't understand is that our ideology creates our posters and causes us to share them in the first place. (Source)

We are frequently rebuked for acknowledging theological divisions between us and other anti-abortion groups and advised to stop talking about those divisions for the sake of focusing on what we all have in common: saving babies. The primary problem with that presupposition is that AHA's primary goal is actually revival through the preaching of the gospel, which, we believe, will change the mindset of a culture that approves of abortion in the first place. We will work alongside those with a different gospel or with no gospel to engage in various actions against abortion, but we will not stop evangelizing those who proclaim a false gospel that cannot save or who proclaim no gospel at all. If that is seen as divisive, so be it. The gospel of Jesus Christ always has been. (Source)

It has gotten so bad that even a poster that was created by Bryan Kemper, a Roman Catholic pro-life leader, and shared from his page on our page, attracted a flurry of criticisms against us for being "anti-Catholic".

These had nothing to do with Roman Catholicism, but they attracted a great deal of attention and criticism. We are, according to these critics, "anti-Catholic". Even Bryan Kemper's poster got that treatment. Nobody thinks he meant only the Roman Catholic Church; he no doubt meant all churches, which is what we mean when we call churches to repent and stop wasting their time.

See, clearly there are many Roman Catholics in the world who are hypersensitive to any criticism of their church. And this raises some serious questions about their hearts. It's impossible for us to know this for sure, of course, but it certainly appears to us as if they are more interested in defending their church than proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus.

Why are they coming on to pick fights about us being anti-Catholic? We can't answer that; only they know. But the explanation that many of these critics are at least flirting with idolatry, as evidenced by their defending their church at any cost, is not something we're prepared to rule out. We've seen very little evidence against the proposition and a great deal in favor. So hopefully we can be forgiven for coming to the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence so far.  

...all kinds of evil against you...

To quote a recent Roman Catholic Facebook critic, we have victimised people with "vicious religious intolerance". This is entirely unfair and we reject it outright.

The Crescat calls our reasons for criticising the Roman Catholic Church "stupid" (without evidence or supporting argumentation).

How's this for evil from The Crescat? 

Luke 6:45 - "The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart." 

Those who call us "anti-Catholic" are entirely misled, and in using that label reveal that they have very little understanding of the actual issues at hand. Labeling someone in a bigoted and careless way is evil.

A "Catholic" is an individual human being. To accuse us of being "anti-Catholic" is to say that we want the worst for individual Roman Catholic persons. It is to say that we want them to end up in Hell.

Yet, that is the very last thing we want for any individual of any faith. 

And here's the other thing about that. Saying "anti-Catholic" is entirely hypocritical, as we have never expressed a desire for Roman Catholics to end up in Hell. Yes, our theologies differ. They differ so much that we actually have different gospels. Don't believe me? We certainly affirm that's true. The Council of Trent affirmed it too, and the Roman Catholic Church has never taken it back. The Roman Magisterium has officially anathematised, cut off from fellowship and access to (in its view) the grace-infusing sacraments, those who profess the Gospel that we profess.

If we are to use the standard of judgment that these critics of ours are using, then simply by virtue of being a faithful Roman Catholic, these critics are "anti-evangelical" and "anti-Protestant". Yet when have we ever thrown those terms around?

We profess different gospels. The Roman Magisterium, a much higher authority than any individual Roman Catholic layman, has said so. We certainly say so.

If we have different gospels, that is a very, very serious matter:

Galatians 1:6-9 - I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed (anathema)! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed (anathema)!

And see, if you're all upset about our having used the word "satanic", reason with me a moment. A candidate for the esteemed position of "The Gospel" has two possible sources - God, or Satan.

The Council of Trent, which is, again, a higher authority than mere Roman Catholic laypeople, has said that the Gospel we proclaim is anathema. The enemy of God and the enemy of human souls is Satan. One does not cry out Exsurge Domine to take action against a work that God initiated. Let's not play hypocritical games here. Our positions are fundamentally incompatible, and both sides accept that. Criticisms that we are anti-Catholic entirely miss the point and are far more a product of postmodern political correctness and a victim mentality than a sober, rational consideration of history and of comparative soteriology.

If Trent felt the freedom to call our Gospel a work of the devil, we will not apologise for returning the favor the other direction.

One of us has biblical justification for saying what we say, and the other does not. And since there is absolutely no way to properly interpret the Scripture and conclude that it teaches there is a distinction between mortal and venial sin, that anyone other than Jesus the Messiah is a source of merit, that grace is infused rather than imputed, that justification and sanctification are not entirely separate categories, that sola fide is untrue, and that anyone who ends up in Heaven can die with sin remaining on his record such that he must suffer for its purgation after death, we abolitionists are entirely confident in our eternal destiny and in the need to proclaim this graceful Gospel to others who do not believe it.

...because of Me...

And let us make no mistake. We do not affirm the same gospel as the Roman Catholic Church.

Our good news proclamation is this: We were born dead in trespasses and sins, entirely unable and entirely unwilling to reach God. Then by God's grace, we must repent of our sin. By God's grace, we must put our full trust in the atoning work of Jesus the Messiah on the cross. By His one-time single sacrifice, He has perfected His people for all eternity. He reckons/imputes/accounts all of His infinite righteousness to those who receive it by faith alone as a free gift. He wipes away all sin of all degree of gravity at the cross. The believer is entirely unable to merit anything good. The believer has merited evil. Jesus the Messiah has merited all righteousness and exchanges His righteousness to the believer, and the believer's evil to Himself. He births us anew apart from anything we do, entirely apart from any action on the believer's part. This Gospel is revealed and authoritatively proclaimed in His Word, which is the only final and sole infallible rule of faith for believers.

The Crescat and other Roman Catholics see fit to criticise us for this stance. We are unapologetic. This is our lifeblood and our final answer. By God's grace, we will never waver from this proclamation.

...in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you...

This hypocritical Roman Catholic attitude has been around a long time.
We are not the first, nor will we be the last, people to be Gospel-focused and doing our best to proclaim the glorious Gospel of grace to people who by their own admission have a different Gospel, and to be called "anti-Catholic".

Being called "anti-Catholic" for proclaiming the Gospel, being evangelical, and arguing against various points of Roman theology is just wrong.  We are proud to join the ranks of those who have gone before in engaging in evangelical outreach to those who belong to a church that has officially anathematised the Gospel we proclaim.

Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great...

We are actually rejoicing over this whole episode because we have had the opportunity to proclaim the Gospel in an area of American political and moral life that has been sadly devoid of the Gospel for decades. The pro-life movement has been dumbing down its theology for a long time and has not embraced the Gospel as the solution.

The pro-life movement has been not been focusing on the Gospel but on other things - scientific facts about fetal development, voting blocs, pragmatic political considerations, even things like Mary's rosary. Many of these things are well and good and even necessary to a well-rounded denunciation of the arguments against abortion, but there has been a distinct non-reliance on the power of the Gospel to transform sinners into repentant saints by the grace and forgiveness of Christ.

The Lord is using us to bring light to this dark place. Where the Gospel is not present, darkness is present. We are bringing the Gospel to bear on the question of and in the arena of pro-life.

That's why we don't call ourselves "pro-life"; we are abolitionists of human abortion.
When others have let the Gospel fall by the wayside, we are taking it up and placing it at its rightful place.

While the above is a rebuke, yes, it is a rebuke offered in love. This fight is far from over and our friends in the pro-life movement have, we pray, plenty of time to take up the good fight, to retake up the best weapon in our arsenal - the Gospel of Jesus Christ - consistently, firmly, foundationally, and in the foremost position. Take it up, wield it, use it.

If abortion is to be brought to an end in this country, it will be because of the Gospel of Jesus. 

As abolitionists of human abortion, we will not turn away from this means, nor this end.

We will not rest and we will not be silent until we have effected its abolition.

Tyler McNabb's deleted post combox

The owner of the aforementioned bowling alley may have been displeased at the sight of the unwelcome interloper showing up all the regular club players. For whatever reason, he has decided to pack his ball and pins and close his doors.

Having learned a lesson from the recent Stellman post-then-remove incident, I had the presence of mind to save the page yesterday before it was taken down, so all of my comments and interactions with the club players remain intact.

I have reproduced them here sans the original article, which, out of respect for Mr. McNabb's wishes and recognition that it didn't have much of any substance to it, I will leave unpublished.

You may see it here.

(See also TurretinFan's comment on the combox.)


**UPDATE: Mr. McNabb has apparently deleted his blog entirely. May the Lord Jesus be pleased to open his eyes to the truth.

Catholic Nick and obstinacy

It still amazes me, though it shouldn't, how a clearly intelligent man like Catholic Nick can interact with Reformed bloggers for years and years and yet still fail to grasp the most elementary distinctions because of his Rome-leaning bias. A robust Protestant view of ecclesiology seems so foreign to him that maybe he is literally too far under the surface of the Tiber that everything looks muddy and brown.

We continue:

Sure, I can understand that's what you think about what infallibility is, but it does not exist in real life. And a false claim to infallibility doesn't get us anywhere.
Who cares about infallibility, BTW, if one is RIGHT about something?

The Judaisers DID go on Judaising. That's why Paul had to write Galatians and parts of 2 Corinthians and Philippians. Did you just forget that part? You keep acting like true authority or infallibility would lead to everyone agreeing, including enemies of the faith, but that's not true in the early church nor in RCC throughout history.


Take (almost) any doctrine and notice how some Protestant somewhere will deny it on the basis that the Protestants who believe it are not infallible.

But what do I care about "some Prot somewhere"? Why don't you actually argue in a way that is relevant here? I certainly don't argue that way! If a Prot is wrong about something, it's b/c he's WRONG; I never mention infallibility unless someone falsely claims it for himself.


This is precisely why no Protestant is bound to accept the Westminster Confession,

But what relevance does this have? The Confession is the authority for Presby churches; it serves to make it easier to identify who really agrees with them and who doesn't and thus to call ppl to comply with the set doctrine or to join another church (or to be called out as heretics).
LOok, you HAVE to realise that it's the exact same situation with RCC. Either someone submits himself to RCC and its confessions, or one doesn't. It's as simple as that. There's no force involved, and the authority you think RCC has is only applicable to those who agree to listen to that authority. It's the same with WCF and Presbys.


People can submit to it in the same way an employee submits to the office rules, but that's by no means infallible or binding on all Protestants.

Trading on an inconsistent comparison, like you always do.
It's binding on all WCF-PRESBYTERIANS. Just like CCC and Magisterial docs is binding on all RCs. But you need to compare church to church. Not "Protestants" as a whole.


And from that you can see that it's plainly ridiculous to speak of each and every denomination having their own distinct formally established dogma.

Why is it ridiculous? Each one DOES.


You're not distinguishing between "The Church" and "A Church".

Actually, I did so very carefully. That's why I said "A Prot church".


There is only One Church in reality, with various local manifestations (e.g. parishes), but not in Protestantism

That's completely untrue. I completely affirm that there is only One Church in reality, with various local manifestations (e.g. local churches). Just like in the NT.
There are no "parishes" in the NT, BTW.


In Protestantism, everyone is autonomous

Your Romanist blinders don't let you see the double standard you're using.
What do you mean by "autonomous"?


there is no single denomination where everyone comes together.

So?


You make my point for me, by saying it depends on the denomination you have made church authority worthless.

How so? What authority does the church have over outsiders?
What authority does RCC have over outsiders?


Now anyone can go and start their own denomination and make themself pastor

Anyone can do that with RCC as well, and RCC either intervenes and says "you're not of us" or it doesn't.
Same with PCA as well - someone could do so and call themselves PCA and PCA either intervenes and says "you're not of us" or it doesn't.
Further, there is always the question of the JUSTIFIABILITY of that guy's going off by himself. How does RCC handle the problem that there will always be split-offs? We've seen clearly how they did it in the 16th century - they threaten the lives of the splitters.
You're evincing a 16th-cent mindset; you apparently prefer RCC to operate with force against those who leave RCC. Nice.


All a dissatisfied Presbyterian has to do is go start his own Presbyterian denomination and just rename it.

All a dissatisfied Roman Catholic has to do is go start his own Roman Catholic denomination and just rename it.


That means the PCA is just a bunch of men pretending to have authority over Christians when in fact they hold no divine authority at all.

They have authority over THEIR OWN CHURCH - Matthew 18, Hebrews 13, Titus, 1&2 Timothy.
Just like RC priests and the Magisterium have authority over THEIR OWN CHURCH.


You have not given any indication there is one church Jesus approves of above all others. I

You didn't ask.
He probably approves most of the church that has the best doctrine and conduct. Like in Revelation 1-3.
Just b/c He approves MOST of a given church doesn't mean that other ones aren't true churches.


I have, which I why as a Catholic I say the Catholic Church is the one true Church.

Good for you, but your mistaken assertions mean nothing more than that you are mistaken.


What you're saying is that either there is no way to know which denomination Jesus approves of above all others, or that Jesus doesn't really care where you go as long as you join one.

As long as you join A GOOD CHURCH, there is plenty of reason to think you're doing your due diligence.


In other words, the original Church Jesus established flopped at least once, if not multiple times, and fresh new start ups had to arise from the ashes whenever a prior church went bad. That's pure Mormonism

Yawn. Of course the original church***ES*** flopped. When's the last time you read the NT?
The epistles to the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Titus, Timothy, of John, and Jude, and 3 of the 7 churches in Revelation 1-3 show that early churchES had serious doctrinal problems even in the lifetime of the apostles.
It's not Mormonism, since no one is claiming that the true church totally disappeared, only to reappear in the form of a polytheistic cult later.
Maybe you could exegete Matthew 16, showing that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" means necessarily that "the church in Rome will never experience deadly doctrinal error" or "21st century people will always be able to find definitive historical evidence that Jesus' followers existed in force for a continuous flow throughout history". I'll be happy to see your exegesis along those lines.


There is no historical continuity from Christ upto now in your view. To you the Early Church Fathers practiced an extinct form of Christianity.

Your Romanist bias prevents you from dealing with my true position. You've had so many opportunities to be corrected on this; I'm losing hope that you'll actually ever even be able to deal with a real Protestant position. It's like you're stuck arguing against fading memories of Chick tracts.



The NT does not give a list of Majors/Essentials

Not a list per se, but it certainly seems a pretty shallow mindset to demand a list. Perhaps God preferred to reveal His essentials differently.
And the NT does split out majors/minors quite clearly in numerous places. John 8:24, pretty much all of Galatians (which, of course, condemns RCC quite vociferously), Revelation 1-3, etc. And 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14.
It's like you're not even reading. I've now told you 1 Cor 8 and Romans 14 thrice; when are you going to interact with them?


If it did, then there would never have been debate on issues such as paedobaptism between folks like White and R Scott Clark in the first place.

Proof ≠ persuasion.
Be consistent; your argument proves too much - The RC Magisterium does not give a list of Majors/Essentials, nor can such a list be derived. If it did, then there would never have been debate on issues such as filioque between folks like RCC and EOC in the first place.
Or ...then there would never have been a debate on issues such as predestination in earlier RCC. Or of various Marian dogmas. The role of relics.
The list goes on and on. When will you actually take this into account? RCC does not have the unity it claims it has!



There is no "the church" in Protestantism to be able to follow Our Lord's instructions.

Sure there is. There's the local church.

CatholicNick seems not to have learned much

...at least not on the issue of "church unity" and the 29,000 30,000 33,000 58 zillion denominations argument.

Here is the comment to which I reply.


 I don't see why infallibility is necessary to have formally-established dogma. If a group gets together and says "this is our formally-established dogma. Nobody is infallible of course but this is our formally-established dogma, b/c although nobody is infallible, this dogma is actually true", what's wrong with that? You need to give an argument that infallibility is a necessary precondition for formally-established dogma. A Prot church DOES have a single, unified hierarchy. I have told you this many times; it's disappointing to see you haven't learned anything in the years since I pointed it out to you.

Instead, every pastor is self-appointed and does their own thing. That depends entirely on the church/denomination.

What makes you think these overgeneralisations do anyone any good?


  The PCA has no authority over someone like James White

Duh, but PCA does have authority over someone like a PCA pastor.
Just like an EO priest doesn't have any authority over someone like CatholicNick


  You're stopping short of asking the full question: not "join A church" but WHICH?

Well, of course, but we each have to answer the same question. Which church? Which infallible interpreter? EOC? WatchTower? Salt Lake City? Seriously, these answers have been around for many years. Why haven't you advanced the argument any?


Surely Jesus wasn't saying "I don't care which denomination you attend, just as long as you attend one".

Please argue for this assertion.



Suppose Jason (Stellman) wants to dump the PCA and go solo, so now he's attending his own start-up church. Is that just as good?

If he did so b/c he doubted paedobaptism and embraced credobaptism, that would be a good thing*. If PCA went apostate like Rome has, it could be a good thing. If he did it to reach previously unreached ppl, sure, why not? For reasons of swapping out doctrine, no, it wouldn't be good, b/c PCA's doctrine is very, very good. But all churches are "start-up" churches, so I don't really understand what you're saying. RCC does not extend back from Jesus and the apostles; neither does EOC or any other church.



This only begs the question as to what is "Major" and what isn't. 

Of course it does, but the NT tells us. And I already reminded you of it. A shame you once again refused to advance the argument.


It further raises the question why join a Church that is wrong on "smaller things" rather than seek out or form one that is right on both Major and Minor?

I did, and I found one that is about the closest to right on things major and minor that's in my area. I'm blessed; there are several like that and I am a member of one of them.


Once you start making a list of "Majors" then you'll see things begin to break down.

That's false; I've done that before and it worked out fine. There are also these things called confessions that have stood for hundreds of years. Those also work quite well.


 The difference between Jason and others is that Jason was willing to attempt to derive such a list.

No, the difference between him and others is that he had already given up on Sola Scriptura.


You don't realize that you're essentially acting as Pope when you go around saying "smaller issues like pædobaptism or church polity".

You need to argue for this. I don't think I'm infallible; I merely recognise that I have responsibility to do what Jesus told me to do. And I've already pointed out where the NT teaches the major/minor distinction.


Who says those are "smaller issues" when HISTORICALLY those and similar issues have bitterly divided Protestantism.

The fact that they don't corrupt the Gospel or necessary doctrine fundamentally "says" those are smaller issues. As for whether they have bitterly divided ppl, why should it bother me that men before me have been sinners and let conflicts go farther than they should have? And why doesn't it bother YOU that the same is true of RCC and RC history? One of us can deal with his own history.



Luther and Calvin hated and damned the anabaptists, and the more traditional Confessionally Reformed and Baptists would still find each other objectionable and closed communion.

So? RC and EO bishops/popes/patriarchs have hated and damned each other, and they would still find each other objectionable and closed communion.


  it's absurd to suggest a hierarchic, democratic, and individualist polity are equally acceptable.

I didn't suggest that. I"m afraid you may be having difficulty with the idea that people can recognise that a given idea is a minor matter and also that someone else is wrong on that minor matter and also that, since it's minor, it does not merit wholehearted anathemas. Since Jesus and the apostles did that, who am I to demur?


If you are in a debate about some major point of doctrine or morality with a good friend who's of a different denomination, which "church" do you approach for correction as per Christ's instructions in Matthew 18 to "tell it to the church"?

At the risk of stating the obvious, no church. How am I supposed to address "the church" when we're not part of the same church? How would you deal with an EO friend about his disaffirmation of the filioque?

*It should go without saying that I am a Baptist. I'm speaking as a Baptist here, since Nick asked me the question. 

Catholics for Excommunication

Seen in the right-side advertisement column on my Facebook page today (which, if you think about it, is ironic and sort of funny):

Links to here.


Is not the Roman Catholic Church's teaching on contraception crystal-clear? Perpiscuous Perspicuous?

Or, let us ask it another way:
What might we label a so-called Roman Catholic who advocates ignoring what the Magisterium teaches and instead agreeing with a group of laymen over against what the Magisterium has clearly taught?

Well, what might we label a so-called member of a PCA church who advocates ignoring what the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches and instead agreeing with a group of laymen over against what the WCF has clearly taught?
What might we label a so-called member of a Reformed Baptist church who advocates ignoring what the London Baptist Confession of Faith teaches and instead agreeing with a group of laymen over against what the LBCF has clearly taught? 

In the latter two cases, would not many of our Roman Catholic friends point excitedly to the fact as evidence of the 29 30 33-thousand denominations myth? And/or of disunity among Protestants and chaos? A blueprint for anarchy?

Shall we expect "Catholics for Choice" to face church discipline pretty soon?

My mission

I am currently raising support for the purpose of moving to France on a career basis, though my departure date is currently unknown.

The mission and goal that God has put on my heart is to share the good news of Jesus and the gift of eternal life with the many North African Muslims that live in France. They come from countries where less than 1% of the population loves Jesus, and they have come into a country where less than 2% of the population loves Jesus. Who will reach out to these precious people, Algerian and Moroccan Arabs, Kabyle and Shawiya Berbers?

My wife and I speak French fluently already, so there is no need for language training beforehand. We plan to do a mixture of the following activities as far as outreach:
-Evangelism through tract and booklet distribution
--on the street
--at seaports
--perhaps door to door

-Evangelism through open-air preaching
--I love Ray Comfort's preaching (though his apologetics, not quite as much)

-Seeking extended conversation and relationship, flowing out of these activities
--When we actually live there, we can arrange to meet people later and indeed will seek to do so, often
--We seek not to win debates, but to win people

-Pursuing relationship with the people we meet
--Meeting people and asking them to meet later over coffee/tea/meals
--Getting our families together
--Holidays like Christmas and Easter, and like iftar meals during Ramadan

-Offering free English and French classes
--Many N Africans, especially women, do not even speak French
--We have ESL teaching experience

-Discipling new believers in Jesus and planting churches
--The goal is to get them started and stable, then get out of the way

We are part of a missions agency that has been evangelising Europe for almost 60 years. We have already been appointed by them and our church's elders are 100% behind our going out, though we will of course remain under their leadership, authority, and accountability, even when on the foreign field.

I post this here to ask that any reader prayerfully consider supporting my family and me as we build up our team of partners. As you support us, you yourself join in the effort to share the Gospel with people who desperately need to hear the truth, and you sow blessing (2 Corinthians 8-9, Philippians 4:14-19). May the Lord richly bless all who read and all who are led to give.

Feel free to ask for clarification via email.
Thank you.

You can donate at my mission agency's website.
DONATE HERE

At the This box is for additional detail regarding the designation of your gift. (Name of Project or ministry you would like to support. box, please input "Rhology". That will be directed into my missions account.

Thank you, and may the Lord bless you.

-Rhology

Christopher and the Church "Fathers"

Christopher Lake said:
I meant (that was) my last comment at Triablogue, nor merely my last comment under that thread.

And we can all see what good fruit that bore.


Scripture itself does not say that all we need to believe and do, as Christians, is explicitly stated in Scripture.

How can he then also affirm the words of Psalm 119?

In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, we see the richness of what the Scriptures are, and what they do:
-sacred
-can give one wisdom…
-…so as to be saved (through faith)
-breathed out by God (cf: Matthew 22:31)
-profitable for teaching and correction
-can train one in righteousness
-to render the man of God adequate for every good work.


Jesus thought enough of it to say "The words I have spoken are spirit and are life" (John 6:63).

John 20:30Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
Two things about this passage:
1) John's Gospel alone apparently was, to his mind, sufficient to have life in Jesus' name. What else do I need, again?
2) The "other signs Jesus also performed", which by his own admission receive no mention, are unnecessary to have life in Jesus' name.

I've done a whole debate on this.
So has TurretinFan. Oh, wait, he's done more than that.
James White might have done a few as well.


It does not even say that everything which is "essential" is *clear* in Scripture. 

"All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain." (John Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Thessalonians, 3, v. 5)
More on why Christopher won't accept this teaching from Chrysostom in a moment.


As a Calvinist Protestant, I had to, and did, assert that my own "private judgement" on the meaning of Scripture was better than that of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Augustine, Athanasius, and the other early Church Fathers

And you continue in that to this very day.
Here's the proof - they've said things that are contrary to the modern dogma of Rome, and you don't believe those things.
Now, you or some other Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox might remind us that a given Church Father taught elsewhere something that does in fact agree with the modern RCC/EOC.  So now we have two different teachings from the CF on a given topic. What do we do?

Let's just say for the sake of argument that you're right - the CF taught in more than one other place the opposite doctrine to what the Sola Scripturist already quoted.  

For example, that Athanasius taught Sola Scriptura.  Or that John Chrysostom, Basil of Caesarea, Jerome, Ambrosiaster, Hilary of Poitiers, and (Pope) Clement of Rome taught Sola Fide. Then an RC or EO friend counter-cites one or all of these men with clearly non-Sola-Scriptura/Fide verbiage.

That leaves us with CFs who have contradicted themselves. 

Now, to fulfill what Christopher wants us to do, namely to be consistent with these CFs (and remember, my claim is that modern RCC/EOC is inconsistent w/ them), we would either have to:

A: Teach just as inconsistently as these two guys do, sometimes saying one thing, sometimes the other, or

B: Call these teachings not actually part of Divine/Apostolic Tradition.

The problem with resolution A is that the cognitive dissonance would be pretty much unbearable. The upshot is that I don't know if I'd expect a lot of people to turn away from RCC/EOC in real life.

The thing about resolution B is that they have indeed already done just that. Somehow these godly, forcible, powerful writers, from whom RCC/EOC (and thus, by profession, Christopher) ostensibly derives much of their tradition and doctrine, also produced impious, ungodly, and flat wrong teachings.

Now, how would Christopher know judgment about wrong teachings? Apparently from judging these non-"Apostolic Traditions" by... yup, you guessed it! What The Church® Says.

In the end, it's a vicious circle of question-begging. I claim the modern RCC/EOC is not totally faithful with CFs and then cite them when challenged. Then they say, "Hey, those aren't part of ApostolicTradition!" I say, "Thanks for proving my point."

I also pause to note how pernicious this is. The Lord Jesus set an authoritative example for how one is to judge tradition - by Scripture. The RC/EO refuses to do that and instead appeals to his own doctrinal construct which is already in place to then look back on tradition and Scripture and pick and choose what he will and won't believe. Thus the RC/EO holds to the Scriptural teaching of the Deity of Christ and rejects the Scriptural teaching of salvation by grace alone thru faith alone. He accepts the Trinity and rejects Sola Scriptura. He accepts the fact that we should pray to God as commanded in the Scripture and rejects the fact that prayer to dead people and angels is strictly prohibited in the Scripture.

It becomes easy to see how this not only dishonors God in ideal (that is, that we should not judge men's teachings by God's) but also later in practice (bowing down to images, praying to dead people, trying to work one's way to salvation).

A few more points on this:

As Steve already reminded you, but you either didn't read, were too disingenuous to care, or didn't understand how this wrecks your point, you had to engage in private interpretation to choose Rome over other "infallible interpreters", other rival magisteria, such as the WatchTower, the LDS, the Eastern Orthodox, the Copts.
It's either sheer obstinacy or rank ignorance that brings Roman Catholics back to this ridiculous "argument" time and again. It's as predictable as a priestly sex scandal.

Christopher Lake said further:
anytime that I dipped into the above Church Fathers and found anything faintly "Catholic," I asserted that my understanding of Scripture was simply better than theirs. 

As mentioned above, however, you do that, and I commend you for it. The Apostle Paul's command to "test everything, hold fast to that which is good" is meant for everyone and anyone.  We test the 1st generation of the church just like we test this current generation.
Your problem is that you do the same thing but reproach us for preferring what the Scripture teaches versus the limited selection of "Church Father" teachings that Rome enjoins upon us. This brings up another fundamental incoherency of the "Church Father" argument.

• You don't know that what these guys said is what the church of their time believed. 
• You don't know how what they wrote was received by other churches. Any mere claims to "we believe thus" are not necessarily true. Not without proof, and  more proof than their say-so.
• You don't know whether they were held in the highest respect by their contemporaries.  Maybe you're reading the Charles Stanley of their time - not really all that bad, but quite shallow compared to others, most of the time.
• You don't know whether you have all their writings, or even what % their today-extant writings form of the total things they wrote over their lifetime. Thus you don't know if they ever took it all, or part of it, back.
• You don't know whether what they said in public or in private teachings actually comports with the extant writings you have.
• You don't take everything that is extant from a given "Church Father" and believe it. You believe only the parts that the modern Roman Catholic (though this applies to Eastern Orthodoxy too) Church has dogmatised and accepted for modern times. Why call them "Church Fathers" at all? Seems to me a traditional nomenclature that fails to take the above into consideration, fails to think through the divide between what any of them believed and what modern Rome believes, and has served as a useful tool for you, so you decided to keep it. And it is useful - citing "Fathers" sounds so imperial, so high-fallootin', so mysteriously powerful, that often it causes a brain block within the mind of the Sola Scripturist.  I myself have experienced this many times. 

Is this overzealous, unreasonably radical skepticism? Depends on whom you're asking, I suppose.
What this illustrates for certain is that our certain guide, our certain lamp for our feet, is the Scripture. The Scripture is simply not subject to these kinds of questions (at least not within the RC/EO/Sola Scripturist circle of debate), for we all accept its authority and sourcing - it is the very Word of God.
Such is demonstrably not the case for "Church Fathers", however. We read them like we read DA Carson today - to understand who they are, what they taught, and their theological contexts. They are not authorities. They (and I, or my pastor, or Billy Graham, or John MacArthur) have power only insofar as they repeat the Word of God. Where they do so, let us praise God for the insight they have shared. Where they have not, let us learn not to repeat their mistakes.

The only sense in which they are "fathers" is that they are older and came before us. They made many mistakes, however, and we do not necessarily know even the majority of what any one of them believed and/or taught.

Nobody invests them with great authority - not Sola Scripturists, not RCC, and not EOC.
Sola Scripturists - obviously.
RCC and EOC, for reasons mentioned above - if these men really were their authorities, they would teach like them: inconsistently. And they certainly wouldn't anathematise Sola Fide, for example.
No, for the RC and EO, the modern church is the only authority in practice. "By their fruits you shall know them."

But for us who love and follow Jesus and believe His words in Mark 7:1-13 wherein He told us to test traditions by Scripture, our Church Fathers are named: Jesus, Mark, Luke, Paul, Peter and John and the rest of the 11, James, Jude, and the guy who wrote Hebrews. Do you want to know what the earliest church believed? Read the New Testament.

The super-duper-uper Magisterial authority (aka Part 3)

First came this post and its combox.
Next came this post and its combox.
Then Paul Hoffer wrote up a lengthy reply, found here.  Unfortunately, as we'll see, he has left most of my argument untouched.  His reply consists mostly of responses of the equivalent strength of "Nuh uh!" and self-repetition in the face of substantive rebuttal.
The way I wrote it is addressed to Paul.

You say:
I disagree with Rhology’s question begging statement that the Catholic Magisterium as an interpreter is useless because magisterial statements in turn need an interpreter in order for one to understand them

It's not question-begging.  It's my contention.



unlike the Scriptures, one can consult the Magisterial interpreter and seek clarification of the decision or interpretation.

A point which I addressed clearly in my ROUND 2 post, in at least two ways.  So far you're just ignoring my points, rather than interacting with them.
Namely, 1) the infinite regress (which tries and fails to solve the "problem" of human fallibility) and 2) the fact that the Magisterium virtually never actually does any clearing up of controversies when it easily could do so.



While more questions may have arose about the Church’s understanding of Christ’s nature, the Church was able to respond to them

Now that begs the question, that you can identify "The Church" and that "The Church" that you identify was in the right to do these things. 
Don't go off on a rabbit trail and ask me whether I disagree with those councils' which have been later identified as Big-E Ecumenical Big-C Councils statements w.r.t. Christology; the point is that the later church identifies as "The Church" those people who actually won the struggle.  The winners wrote the history books in a very real sense here.  This is simply pointing to the position with which you agree today and saying "See?  The Magisterium spoke!"  There'd be no way to falsify the statement "The Magisterium spoke." 



one does not have to decide all over again each time they are read what the Scriptures mean as the Church has already done that for them

1) But does one have to decide all over again each time Magisterial proclamations are read what they mean, as the Church has already done that for them? 
2) How can one judge whether the Church spoke correctly in a given case? 
3) How do you know when The Church spoke?  Do you have a list of those infallible proclamations?  If not, doesn't that leave open the very real possibility that you are ascribing authority and infallibility where none exists, and leaves you open to the problem of individual fallibility and error?  And doesn't that mean that "just ask your priest or bishop" would be a completely useless answer?
If so, where is it and does it include itself in the list?

B/c you have no good answers to these questions, what this means for you is that your house is built on sand. Your Magisterium is a paper tiger, a golden gun that's never fired.


Disagreements between adherents who hold different views becomes the means by which doctrines are tested and determined leading to a shared understanding of the what the Church holds thereby leading to greater unity in faith. This is an advantage that those who claim to practice sola scriptura could never have.

Such fideist claims fall apart under scrutiny.


If attorneys were bound by some notion of sola scriptura, we would have to start over and decide what constituted the elements of contract

A statement that makes me think you don't even understand Sola Scriptura.  This is a strawman.  I'd've hoped that you, as an attorney, would put more effort into properly representing your opposition. What was it you said earlier?
“If the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts; if both are against you, abuse opposing counsel.”



we Catholics do not have to re-decide all of the old questions again

How about solving some of the ones that have remained all this time?  I listed quite a few in my ROUND 2 post.  Why don't you go ahead and show us where the Magisterium has cleared all of those up?



I must say though that the James White allusion ("Give me Romans 8 anytime over the code of Canon Law") you use is a bit vague.

I'm a bit of a fanboy, and he has said that numerous times during his Dividing Line webcast, just FYI.  But he first said it in a debate, yes.



as a Catholic I too would say give me Romans 8 over the Code of Canon Law since Romans 8 is part of the Word of God and the Code of Canon Law

Um, except you just finished telling us we need the Magisterium to understand Romans 8 and clear up disagreements about it, whereas the Code of Canon Law comes from The Church, that body that can clear that stuff up for us!  Why move the goalposts now?



Or are you perhaps working off James White’s reputation to lend your argument an air of Protestant magisterial authority?

If the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts; if both are against you, abuse opposing counsel.



Why does one need recourse to a super to the nth power authority in order to make a decision IN RESPONSE TO A DISPUTE?

B/c of the problem you've been trying to solve yourself!  I've already dealt with this, like I mentioned above.  When are you going to take the next step and actually deal with my response?



And if the parties to the dispute both come into the dispute with an “obedience in faith,” that is an attitude of assent to the teachings of the Church, the parties to the dispute will submit to the decision by the Magisterium rather than breaking off to form their own Church or advocate disobedience to the teachings of the Church.

A historically ignorant statement.  This is faithful adherence to Sola Ecclesia! 
"Don't listen; it's the Kool-Aid talking."



we need only one Magisterial authority.

And when ppl disagree about the meaning and application of its proclamations, what then? 
I mean, since ppl's disagreement about the Scr's meaning and application means we need an infallible interpreting authority, let's be consistent, shall we?  Which means you haven't dealt with my points at all. 



Rhology’s smug argument suffers from more question begging as to whether the above referenced scripture passages actually need to be “infallibly” interpreted in order to be understood.

Oh, OK.  Then I'll just say the same thing about any passage YOU bring up and claim that it's unclear.  Unless you're less concerned about consistency than about defending Mother Rome.
For example, you'd said earlier in our interaction the following:
Where the perspecuity of Scriptures falls by the wayside is when there are disputes between Christians as the Scriptures can not arbitrate the dispute. Two people can have sincere differences over the regenerative properties of baptism, paedo-baptism, etc. How does reliance on Scripture help when both parties rely upon them?

Paul Hoffer's smug argument suffers from more question-begging as to whether the above referenced Scripture passages actually need to be “infallibly” interpreted in order to be understood.


No, it is Rhology that introduced the idea that a teaching authority is to be measured by the laity’s response and obedience to it as demonstrated above.

No no no no!  YOU introduced the idea!  You did!  It's in your first comments!  I just quoted you. Here it is again.
Where the perspecuity of Scriptures falls by the wayside is when there are disputes between Christians as the Scriptures can not arbitrate the dispute. Two people can have sincere differences over the regenerative properties of baptism, paedo-baptism, etc. How does reliance on Scripture help when both parties rely upon them?

You still haven't grasped my argument, and it's getting sad.  Do you need to talk over the phone or something, so I can explain it to you?  Maybe this is why you claim (when convenient) the Scriptures aren't perspicuous - you can't even understand my internal critique of your own position, and it's your position.


And since the Church has steadfastly taught since apostolic times that abortion is inherently immoral, evil, and sinful,

And since you can take any two Roman Catholics and ask them about abortion and get 2 different answers... let me virtually-quote Paul again: 
Where the perspicuity of Magisterial proclamations fall by the wayside is when there are disputes between RCs as the Mag proclamations can not arbitrate the dispute. Two people can have sincere differences over the whether it's OK to dismember babies.  How does reliance on the Magisterium help when both parties rely upon them?
If Paul responds, "But it's not true that BOTH are relying on them!", he needs to tell us why that same answer is not available to me as well w.r.t. the Scripture.  I won't hold my breath.


PH had said:
Unlike Protestantism which bolds that each person is his own magisterial authority

I'd responded: How do strawmen help the Roman cause?  Is it Mag teaching that strawmen are the best strategy?  Is that in Lumen Gentium too?

PH never answers but instead quotes some fallible individual who happens to go to his church, saying:  When we speak of private judgment, then, let us be quite clear as to what we mean; it has its uses and it has its abuses. Private judgment, in the sense of compiling a creed for yourself out of the Bible, of accepting this doctrine and rejecting that, of judging what should be and what should not be an integral part of the truth revealed by God -- this, of course, is entirely forbidden, for it is directly contrary to the method of arriving at the truth instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

1) Luke 12:57“And why do you not even on your own initiative judge what is right?"
Matthew 22: 29But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God."
Mark 12:26“But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses"
Luke 6:3And Jesus answering them said, “Have you not even read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him"
Mark 12:10“Have you not even read this Scripture: ‘THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone; 11THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES’?”
Matthew 19:4And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE"

Hmm, isn't that crazy?  Jesus actually pushed people back to the Scripture to correct when 2 people disagreed! 

2) Unless Paul can produce an infallible list of Magisterial proclamations, he exercises private judgment in figuring what things the Church says that are infallible things to be obeyed and what things the Church says that are fallible and non-binding.  Paul seems not to have yet wrestled with this problem, and I've given him several chances now over the course of this interaction.

3) He never apologises for the strawman or withdraws it.  Doesn't encourage me to take his point very seriously, since he seems to be talking to someone else.


When opinion, or private judgment, or to borrow Rhology’s term “logical argumentation,” becomes the measure of truth it is only a matter of time before all doctrinal issues become irrelevant due to the utter subjectivity of one’s own opinion.

How does this address the rebuttal I've already laid out?  It doesn't.


I even read an article where a bi-sexual woman who was promoted to the status of “bishop” in the Protestant Episcopal Church proclaim that abortion is sacramental! Where is Protestant unity on these matters or is redefining what constitutes sin a non-essential matter?

1) Ah, the tried-and-true method of lumping me in with flaming liberals!  Maybe Paul would like to be held responsible for everything Mel Gibson does.  After all, he's "Catholic".  He says so!  Just ask him!
2) Again, such fideist claims fall apart under scrutiny.


As I stated in the FIRST ROUND above, Jesus Christ is the measure of truth since He is the one Way, the Truth and Life, not logical argumentation.

Gosh, I wonder if anyone reading this will stop to wonder whether, when I say "logical argumentation", I mean it in the naturalistic materialist sense, or whether I mean it in the presuppositional Reformed sense, wherein one applies logical and contextual hermeneutics to the final standard of truth - God's Word?  Hmmm... I guess I could go back to my blog and delete all the references to "but, believing in Jesus is more probably true than not b/c the Earth's axis is tilted just right!" 
Oh wait, I don't say that kind of thing.  Never mind.  Then maybe Paul could actually do me the service of remembering to whom he's talking.



After all, I can point to some 252 dogmas that have been infallibly defined by my Magisterium.

That sounds like a fallible list to me.  Where is Paul's imprimatur? 
See, that's the thing - to Paul, apparently, the "authority and infallibility of the Magisterium" is a tool to be pulled out of the shed when convenient, say like a screwdriver, but when he needs to cut through a board, he hides his saw behind his back and tries to convince us all he's actually using the screwdriver. Then he shows us the cut board - "See?" 
Buy into the sleight-of-hand at your own peril.

Um, really? (But let us pray.)

As sometimes happens, a discussion over a relatively minor matter was (most probably accidentally) expanded into a larger concern through a frank admission.

First of all, our co-blogger Ken let us know that:

David Waltz has not returned to Rome - but he is open to Bahai'ism -
see our discussion here at his website- especially in the comboxes.

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/07/seal-of-prophets-is-there.html

"Me: Yes, I remain open to the possibility that the Bahai Faith is true. . . . "

I actually missed that the first time around.  But it gets better.

David Waltz also said in a comment that Blogger apparently ate (since Blogger has been eating comments left and right today, unfortunately mostly to David's detriment): 

you and Rhology are ‘allowed’ a number of worldview and/or ecclesiastical changes in your respective journeys without the worry of derogatory comments being cast your way, but I, who have made fewer changes than either you or Rho, must constantly defend my spiritual journey

Me: 

Um, unthinking heathen -> atheist -> Christian is not very many changes. 1.5 or so. 

He continued:

If I apply your understanding of “change” I have made NONE—I am, and always have been, a Christian.

Me:  

1) No, you haven't always been. You were born an enemy of God.
2) You were once a Jehovah's Witness. Um, that's not Christian.
3) You were once a Roman Catholic. Not Christian either.
4) I have no idea whether you hold to the biblical Gospel, but my educated guess is that you do not.

So no, I'm sorry; your statement is false.

David: 

If JWs are not Christian, what are they? Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim…

So, in reality, though I had begun by thinking this was a relatively minor issue, it is of a much greater concern to all of us, for David, than I had originally thought.  While defending himself from the occasional questioning regarding his spiritual journey and instability, he has honestly and openly called Jehovah's Witness a Christian religion, and it has been revealed that he thinks Baha'i is a live option in the marketplace of ideas.  Let us indeed pray for David Waltz.