I've decided to close comments on more (but not all) of my posts. I do not have the desire to wade through the usual exchanges that pile up on these threads and attempt moderation. This merely results in charges of inconsistency from various quarters, and it would take too much time to effectively carry out in any case.
I'm also not interested in babysitting comment boxes when people who have been banned from the blog swing by for another personal snipe or gratuitous assertion. Closing comments will save me from cleaning up after the immaturity of certain individuals.
If you'd like to make a (reasonable) comment on one of the posts I make and the comments section happens to be closed, simply send me an e-mail. The address is located on my blogger profile. If it merits thorough attention, I might start another post and open comments for some discussion.
This policy, of course, only applies to the material I post. The other contributors at Beggars All will continue as they see fit.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
By What Authority?
"The framers of the [Westminster Confession of Faith], by treating the topic of Holy Scripture in chapter one, show their theological astuteness. They were acutely aware that the primary issue in religion is an epistemological one, that of authority. No matter what they later confessed, they knew that they could always be challenged with the questions: "How do you know that what you confess is so? What is your authority for saying what you do?" Accordingly, they address this epistemological issue at the outset, even prior to their treatment of the doctrine of God." Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Second Edition, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 55.
"Then the article [WCF 1.4] states the sole reason why the Bible ought to be believed and obeyed: because God, who is truth itself, is in a unique sense its author, and therefore because it is the very Word of the one living and true God. In sum, it receives its authority from heaven; it requires no earthly advocacy in regard to the issue of its authority. Its authority is intrinsic and inherent; that is, it is self-validating. In no sense is its authority derived from human testimony." Ibid., 73.
"Then the article [WCF 1.4] states the sole reason why the Bible ought to be believed and obeyed: because God, who is truth itself, is in a unique sense its author, and therefore because it is the very Word of the one living and true God. In sum, it receives its authority from heaven; it requires no earthly advocacy in regard to the issue of its authority. Its authority is intrinsic and inherent; that is, it is self-validating. In no sense is its authority derived from human testimony." Ibid., 73.
To Be Deep in History - excellent article by Keith Mathison
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/be-deep-history/
Keith Mathison, at Ligonier Ministries, and in the September 2010 issue of Tabletalk, has an excellent article on John Henry Newman's claim to be deep in history . . . and he compares Newman's take with another Anglican who converted to Rome in the 19th Century, Henry Edward Manning.
Here is an excerpt at the end. Excellent analysis of this shibboleth that is deceiving modern day evangelicals left and right.
"Cardinal Newman recognized the obvious difference between the current Roman Church and the early church. He was too deep in history not to see it. He had to develop his famous idea of doctrinal development to explain it. He argued that all the later Roman doctrines and practices were “hidden” in the church from the beginning. They were made explicit over time under the guidance of the Spirit. But the problem that many Roman Catholics fail to see is that there is a difference between development and contradiction. It is one thing to use different language to teach something the church has always taught (e.g., the “Trinity”). It is another thing altogether to begin teaching something that the church always denied (e.g., papal supremacy or infallibility). Those doctrines in particular were built on multitudes of forgeries.
Cardinal Manning solved the problem by treating any appeal to history as treason. He called for blind faith in the papacy and magisterium. Such might have been possible had the fruits of the papacy over 1,500 years not consistently been the precise opposite of the fruit of the Spirit (Matt. 7:16).
Cardinal Newman said that to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. The truth is that to be deep in real history, as opposed to Rome’s whitewashed, revisionist, and often forged history, is to cease to be a Roman Catholic."
Keith Mathison
From Ligonier Ministries and R.C. Sproul. © Tabletalk magazine. Website: www.ligonier.org/tabletalk. Email: tabletalk@ligonier.org. Toll free: 1-800-435-4343.
Keith Mathison, at Ligonier Ministries, and in the September 2010 issue of Tabletalk, has an excellent article on John Henry Newman's claim to be deep in history . . . and he compares Newman's take with another Anglican who converted to Rome in the 19th Century, Henry Edward Manning.
Here is an excerpt at the end. Excellent analysis of this shibboleth that is deceiving modern day evangelicals left and right.
"Cardinal Newman recognized the obvious difference between the current Roman Church and the early church. He was too deep in history not to see it. He had to develop his famous idea of doctrinal development to explain it. He argued that all the later Roman doctrines and practices were “hidden” in the church from the beginning. They were made explicit over time under the guidance of the Spirit. But the problem that many Roman Catholics fail to see is that there is a difference between development and contradiction. It is one thing to use different language to teach something the church has always taught (e.g., the “Trinity”). It is another thing altogether to begin teaching something that the church always denied (e.g., papal supremacy or infallibility). Those doctrines in particular were built on multitudes of forgeries.
Cardinal Manning solved the problem by treating any appeal to history as treason. He called for blind faith in the papacy and magisterium. Such might have been possible had the fruits of the papacy over 1,500 years not consistently been the precise opposite of the fruit of the Spirit (Matt. 7:16).
Cardinal Newman said that to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. The truth is that to be deep in real history, as opposed to Rome’s whitewashed, revisionist, and often forged history, is to cease to be a Roman Catholic."
Keith Mathison
From Ligonier Ministries and R.C. Sproul. © Tabletalk magazine. Website: www.ligonier.org/tabletalk. Email: tabletalk@ligonier.org. Toll free: 1-800-435-4343.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
On trusting your own eyes and your own mind, vs believing what the Roman church tells you to believe
Because of work and family constraints, I haven't been able to participate in some of the comments that have come up below. But something has come up which I think illustrates a key, foundational difference, and it is something that needs to be emphasized.
In the Paul Hoffer thread, I asked: How much better would it be for you to work for clarity in these matters? Doesn't your Catholicism bind you to honesty? Or does it rather bind you to blind partisanship?
Truth Unites … and Divides responded: That such questions are reasonable makes it suitable to assume the latter.
And the truth is, the whole Catholic theological structure is set up to perpetuate "the latter":
The earliest church did not make its decisions this way.
Earlier, Paul Hoffer had said: If one is going to assent to being a Catholic, then one must assent to its teachings or else one should not call oneself a Catholic.
This is my understanding of the way it works, and this is why I ultimately rejected the whole thing.
[The way in which one assents to its teachings leaves quite a bit of room for disunity, as is shown in the Alexander Greco thread below. It is said that "unity in the faith" is the kind of unity that Christ desires. Protestants would say that we have unity in Christ -- unity in the Gospel ("Christ died for sinners" -- and as we turn to him in faith and repentance -- yes, we are drawn to do so by grace -- we receive the new birth, adoption, union with Christ. This is the unity for which Christ prayed in John 17. This is His prayer, answered.)]
To accept unity around the pope is to have to accept a whole lot of things that were created by and are sustained by a false system. The distinctively Roman Catholic doctrines themselves have become a false system. If you recall, God's primary complaint against Israel is that they were whoring after false gods. They were seeking a kind of "fullness of the faith" that God simply did not provide.
PH: However, once one accepts by a reasoned faith the truth of the teachings of the Church, then there is no room for doubting the validity of them for doubt is the opposite of faith. Thus, "the Church as a living, dominically instituted authority that is divinely preserved from error under certain conditions” is a item of faith which allows no doubt.
Consider the doctrines it "proposes for faith, which allow no doubt" -- the Assumption of Mary, papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception of Mary. As I looked into these, they were so far-fetched and so "without basis in history" that I took them as clear evidence that the Roman church "could not be what it said it was."
PH: Interjecting the notion of Catholic theologians tends to obfuscate issues as the extent of a theologian' authority depends on their relationship to the Magisterium. Even Pope Benedict takes pains to distinguish between what his personal views as a theologian and his pronouncements in his capacity as pope.
It is true: there is a distinction between what a theologian says (it has no "binding" force") and what "the Church" pronounces as "dogma."
But there are two things to note on this:
1. I brought up "theologians" because this is what this pope actually said.
And 2., this is how the process actually works: it is not the job of the theologians to understand what the true meaning of the Scriptures was, not to understand what the earlier doctrines and theologians were saying. It is actually their job to begin with current "Catholic teaching" and, precisely as these popes articulated, "to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition.” Again, one writer, who went through this process in a Seminary, called this "Dogma Appreciation 101".
The Roman Catholic process is not one of finding truth. It is one of defending itself, by "picking and choosing" -- things out of context if necessary -- bits and pieces that it thinks support its doctrines in history.
This is one reason for the existence of the the contorted view that some things are "implicitly found" in Scripture. To counter this, the Protestants (following Irenaeus and others) say, "Scripture interprets Scripture".
Here's an example of that: the Catholic Church posits a statement like this:
[For some background, see first of all, Turretinfan's article on "fittingness" as a kind of standard by which "fittingness" counts as part of this "elevation to divine revelation". See also his article on some of the early sources of Marian dogma.]
It truly would be "fitting" if Scripture actually saw it as "wholly fitting" that Mary should "be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness." But Scripture does not see Mary that way. Eric Svendsen, for example, did a thorough exegetical analysis of every single mention of Mary in the New Testament, and while Mary did end up appearing "with the disciples" in Acts 1, it was not because of some imagined "Immaculate Conception". It was because she went through the process that many of the other disciples went through, and she herself became a disciple. Eric concludes:
PH: What you of hit upon here is the the reason that it would be impossible for me to be a Protestant, because your use of private judgment factors in human doubt. If there is doubt, there is faithlessness. Period. What certainity/certitude of the truth does Protestantism have there is room to doubts the tenets for which an adherent to it holds?
This is a clear instance in which I would rather read God's word, and exercise "private judgment," and believe my own eyes, and trust in my the ability to understand that God gave to me, than what the Roman church tells me to believe. And if in this one instance, one sees reason to reject the Roman teaching, then one must reject all of the authority of the Roman church.
[Note: This post is about the specific differences in the ways that Catholics and Protestants accept sources of authority. It is not intended to bring up issues within Eric Svendsen's study, which is an honest and fair treatment of Mary in the New Testament. Any derogatory comments about him or his work will be immediately deleted.]
In the Paul Hoffer thread, I asked: How much better would it be for you to work for clarity in these matters? Doesn't your Catholicism bind you to honesty? Or does it rather bind you to blind partisanship?
Truth Unites … and Divides responded: That such questions are reasonable makes it suitable to assume the latter.
And the truth is, the whole Catholic theological structure is set up to perpetuate "the latter":
With regard to the Catholic Church, [the leading assumption] is a blatant form of revisionism. This is evidenced by Pius IX’s method articulated in his Letter, “Gravissimas inter,” to the Archbishop of Munich-Freising, Dec. 11, 1862, reiterated in Pius XII’s statement in Humani Generis, “theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition.”One can't stress this enough. For those of you who interact with Roman Catholics at any level, and you can't seem to understand why they see things as they do, you can know that, at its heart, there is a difference in the way that they look at things, and this difference has its roots deep in history, and it comes from the highest levels.
This is further explained in a variety of sources. One Roman Catholic theologian wrote, “We think first of developed forms for which we need to find historical justification. The developed forms come first and the historical justification comes second.” (“Ways of Validating Ministry,” Kilian McDonnell, Journal of Ecumenical Studies (7), pg. 213, cited in Carlos Alfredo Steger, “Apostolic Succession in the Writings of Yves Congar and Oscar Cullmann, pg. 322.) ...
Aiden Nichols, “The Shape of Catholic Theology” (253) notes that for the last several hundred years, according to these popes, “the theologian’s highest task lies in proving the present teachings of the magisterium from the evidence of the ancient sources.” One internet writer called this method “Dogma Appreciation 101” (related in a discussion of his studies in a Catholic seminary.) Nichols calls this, “the so-called regressive method,” and notes that Walter Kasper (now a Cardinal) has traced the origins of this method to the 18th century.
The earliest church did not make its decisions this way.
Earlier, Paul Hoffer had said: If one is going to assent to being a Catholic, then one must assent to its teachings or else one should not call oneself a Catholic.
This is my understanding of the way it works, and this is why I ultimately rejected the whole thing.
[The way in which one assents to its teachings leaves quite a bit of room for disunity, as is shown in the Alexander Greco thread below. It is said that "unity in the faith" is the kind of unity that Christ desires. Protestants would say that we have unity in Christ -- unity in the Gospel ("Christ died for sinners" -- and as we turn to him in faith and repentance -- yes, we are drawn to do so by grace -- we receive the new birth, adoption, union with Christ. This is the unity for which Christ prayed in John 17. This is His prayer, answered.)]
To accept unity around the pope is to have to accept a whole lot of things that were created by and are sustained by a false system. The distinctively Roman Catholic doctrines themselves have become a false system. If you recall, God's primary complaint against Israel is that they were whoring after false gods. They were seeking a kind of "fullness of the faith" that God simply did not provide.
PH: However, once one accepts by a reasoned faith the truth of the teachings of the Church, then there is no room for doubting the validity of them for doubt is the opposite of faith. Thus, "the Church as a living, dominically instituted authority that is divinely preserved from error under certain conditions” is a item of faith which allows no doubt.
Consider the doctrines it "proposes for faith, which allow no doubt" -- the Assumption of Mary, papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception of Mary. As I looked into these, they were so far-fetched and so "without basis in history" that I took them as clear evidence that the Roman church "could not be what it said it was."
PH: Interjecting the notion of Catholic theologians tends to obfuscate issues as the extent of a theologian' authority depends on their relationship to the Magisterium. Even Pope Benedict takes pains to distinguish between what his personal views as a theologian and his pronouncements in his capacity as pope.
It is true: there is a distinction between what a theologian says (it has no "binding" force") and what "the Church" pronounces as "dogma."
But there are two things to note on this:
1. I brought up "theologians" because this is what this pope actually said.
And 2., this is how the process actually works: it is not the job of the theologians to understand what the true meaning of the Scriptures was, not to understand what the earlier doctrines and theologians were saying. It is actually their job to begin with current "Catholic teaching" and, precisely as these popes articulated, "to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition.” Again, one writer, who went through this process in a Seminary, called this "Dogma Appreciation 101".
The Roman Catholic process is not one of finding truth. It is one of defending itself, by "picking and choosing" -- things out of context if necessary -- bits and pieces that it thinks support its doctrines in history.
This is one reason for the existence of the the contorted view that some things are "implicitly found" in Scripture. To counter this, the Protestants (following Irenaeus and others) say, "Scripture interprets Scripture".
Here's an example of that: the Catholic Church posits a statement like this:
And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent.Now, is it better to believe what the Scriptures (as a whole) say about Mary? Or should we go with "the Church's" take on this? This is not rocket science.
[For some background, see first of all, Turretinfan's article on "fittingness" as a kind of standard by which "fittingness" counts as part of this "elevation to divine revelation". See also his article on some of the early sources of Marian dogma.]
It truly would be "fitting" if Scripture actually saw it as "wholly fitting" that Mary should "be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness." But Scripture does not see Mary that way. Eric Svendsen, for example, did a thorough exegetical analysis of every single mention of Mary in the New Testament, and while Mary did end up appearing "with the disciples" in Acts 1, it was not because of some imagined "Immaculate Conception". It was because she went through the process that many of the other disciples went through, and she herself became a disciple. Eric concludes:
"Taken together, [Marian passages in the New Testament] portray Mary as someone who initially receives the word of God with great enthusiasm; who hen struggles to understand her true role vis-a-vis the conflict between her role as mother of Jesus (in which she exercises her will over him) and her new role as servant of Jesus (in which she humbly submits to his will); who at times gets it right, while other times not; who at times even opposes Jesus' mission and sides with those who deem Jesus "insane"; and who then finally becomes a full-fledged disciple."Now, a "plain reading" of the Scriptures will not tell you that the writers of the New Testament, either implicitly or explicitly, thought that "it was fitting" that God should have protect Mary from sin via an "immaculate conception." An exegetical study like Eric's simply confirms, over and over again, that the impressions one receives about the person of Mary in the New Testament, from "a plain reading of Scripture," are indeed accurate impressions.
PH: What you of hit upon here is the the reason that it would be impossible for me to be a Protestant, because your use of private judgment factors in human doubt. If there is doubt, there is faithlessness. Period. What certainity/certitude of the truth does Protestantism have there is room to doubts the tenets for which an adherent to it holds?
This is a clear instance in which I would rather read God's word, and exercise "private judgment," and believe my own eyes, and trust in my the ability to understand that God gave to me, than what the Roman church tells me to believe. And if in this one instance, one sees reason to reject the Roman teaching, then one must reject all of the authority of the Roman church.
[Note: This post is about the specific differences in the ways that Catholics and Protestants accept sources of authority. It is not intended to bring up issues within Eric Svendsen's study, which is an honest and fair treatment of Mary in the New Testament. Any derogatory comments about him or his work will be immediately deleted.]
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
"Objection, Your [dis]Honor!"
I owe a few responses to Paul Hoffer -- he chimed in over at Called to Communion near the end of the thread.
Paul Hoffer in Comment 60: Hello all, since Mr. Bugay indicated in his comments to my article on his misuse of Rev. Lampe’s book that I should have directed my energies to interact with Chapter 41, I have had the opportunity to take up some time studying the thesis presented there.
This, by the way, fails to comply with the Called to Communion posting guidelines, which mandates that one address someone in the second person ("you") rather than in the third person voice.
PH: It seems to be founded on a notion that Rome’s titular churches (home-churches) were so fractionated that they could not have been overseen by a single bishop.
A mere "notion"?
Long before Lampe, there were scholars writing about the absence of a monarchical bishop in Rome. In the 40's and 50's, Oscar Cullmann ("advisor to three popes") was detailing significant shortcomings in the traditional Roman position; this was followed up by intensive studies by Daniel O'Connor ("Peter in Rome") Raymond Brown et. al ("Peter in the New Testament"), as well as others. Lampe's detailed work provided solid confirmation for what others had held based on things long understood in the history of that topic.
For example, Schaff has sections on "the Peter of History" and "The Peter of Fiction." Sorting out these two has been difficult, not least because "the Peter of Fiction" was a strong and mighty early pope. The reality of it is quite different, although Peter may in fact have died at Rome, it is highly questionable that he founded the church there, (it is certain that "Peter and Paul" did not "found" the church at Rome -- a testimony that is given by Irenaeus), it is highly questionable that he ever "commanded" anyone, given his role and status as one who traveled there as a missionary.
There are many other factors too that go into the "notion" that there was not a monarchical bishop at Rome. Ignatius, who was an aficionado of the word "bishop" does not seem to have been able to locate a bishop when he writes to Rome. True, this "could" have been an oversight, but for him to purposely have ignored such a person would have been a great affront.
In a completely separate piece of evidence, Hermas states clearly that the city was ruled by a plurality who "fought among themselves." You may want to say that "this doesn't explicitly deny" that there was a monarchical bishop. But both of these are far clearer statements than those upon which an early papacy has historically been founded; but even if there were a monarchical bishop in charge of Hermas's unruly bunch, that would speak volumes about the incompetence of such an individual's [lack of] leadership.
Lampe's work provides confirmation for many, many points of fact that other researchers had strongly suspected. That is the value of his work.
Further to this, you risk here committing the word fallacy of semantic anachronism, that is, using a word in a later manner that was not intended by the New Testament writers. You must be aware that this happens all the time, for example, whenever Catholic writers see the word "episkopos" and related -- they think it means what "bishop" means to day -- and worse, when Catholics see "Peter" they reflect "pope" back on that. Two worse fallacies could not be envisioned in this type of study.
What safeguards have you taken to assure yourself (much less, our readers here!) that you are not committing these fallacies?
PH: Reviewing the data that he sifts through does not actually show that the Roman churches were fractionated and is based on a more modern-view of what a mono-episcopal bishop was supposed to be. As pointed out by David Albert Jones, a professor from Oxford and Oswald Sobrino, such an argument is based on several false assumptions and is a poor argument.
Your mention of names here does not show how the arguments actually shape up. It does not surprise me that partisan Catholics would put forward their own takes on these things. Bryan Cross (to his credit) tried to provide an analysis of Lampe's own analysis of Hegesippus's "list". Unfortunately, the tone of this, as I noted in that thread, was very much a tone that said, "these things as I've written them are not 100% excluded, and therefore, given that they support the Roman tradition they must not only be potentially true but actually true." It is wishful thinking of the highest order.
PH: As pointed out by David Albert Jones, a professor from Oxford …
You mean the bioethicist, who is not a historian?
PH: … and Oswald Sobrino, such an argument is based on several false assumptions and is a poor argument.
Who is this guy anyway?
PH: Adrian Fortesque, Henri Daniel-Rops, Prof. Edward Weltin, … seem to concur based on the preliminary researches that I have started …
How could they "concur"? Fortescue (whose work I have outlined here) pre-dated all of these studies. But I would encourage you to keep reading. It will give you a good idea of just how far away from the truth of history someone like a Fortescue could get.
Henri Daniel-Rops also pre-dated this work and therefore could not have interacted with it. It does not seem as if Weltin published in this area. You must be in some arcane sources.
As far as Bernard Green, OSB, it does seem as if he's addressing Lampe's work. But again, he does so from the position of a partisan, and his "objections" seem to be along the lines of those raised by Bryan Cross.
What is your intention in throwing out these names? Are you intending to show that there is some sort of great groundswell of scholarship that is addressing and defeating the body of scholarship that I've presented? If so, you are hardly making a dent. In reality, your citation of these individuals shows your desperation in this matter -- the distances you must travel to find someone who holds a contrary opinion.
PH: Note too that Mr. Bugay does not address the fact that Schatz, Sullivan, Eno or even Raymond Brown whose views tend to mirror in some respects Lampe’s views, do not argue (Schatz and Sullivan especially) that this argument negates the validity of apostolic succession or the basis for the papacy.
I'm trying to take one thing at a time; Perhaps you could tell me how this comment is not a deflection from the main subject?
Nevertheless, I want to make you happy. To be sure, Schatz and Eno pretty much exclusively dealt with the papacy. Sullivan talked about the transition [and it was not a close transition] of "apostles to bishops". He does not try to "negate the validity of apostolic succession" but rather he does clearly state at the end of the work that he (like Brown) believes that the lengthy "process" by which "bishops" succeeded the Apostles was directed by God and therefore was of "divine institution." To quote him (as I have done in various places, "Although development of church structure reflects sociological necessity, in the Christian self-understanding the Holy Spirit given by the risen Christ guides the church in such a way that allows basic structural development to be seen as embodying Jesus Christ's will for his church."
If you want to cite Raymond Brown -- he is even more detailed with respect to the New Testament:
The fact is that the connection of "authority" of "priestly succession" going back to the New Testament is a false one, and Rome's recent bombast that "the communities of the Reformation" don't have this succession is just a non-starter for many Protestants who do know and understand the roots of this "development" and reject it.
The fact is that all of Rome's supposed foundational connections to authority -- priests, bishops, popes -- are later developments that can easily be rejected on the basis of the New Testament. Lord willing I will get around to putting all of these pieces together.
PH: The whole notion is fractionation is sort of making a mountain out of molehill as all it shows is that the Catholic Church back in the day practiced setting parishes up based on geographical boundaries which we still do today.
If the papacy is claiming that it has authority that it never had, then it is not a molehill, it is an important topic to investigate. Your statement here about "geographic boundaries" is another red herring that ignores the whole area of what authority actually meant in the earliest church. Nobody denies that there was a practice of setting up parishes based on geographic boundaries. In fact, if you had read more closely, you would understand that Lampe uses this very practice to establish the picture he draws of house churches, by tracing the titular parishes of the fifth century, for whom we have names and signatures.
All this shows is that, as a lawyer, you are skilled in the art of obfuscation -- you throw out a lot of highfalutin words that seem to have some meaning, but when investigated more thoroughly, there is much to be desired.
How much better would it be for you to work for clarity in these matters? Doesn't your Catholicism bind you to honesty? Or does it rather bind you to blind partisanship?
Paul Hoffer in Comment 60: Hello all, since Mr. Bugay indicated in his comments to my article on his misuse of Rev. Lampe’s book that I should have directed my energies to interact with Chapter 41, I have had the opportunity to take up some time studying the thesis presented there.
This, by the way, fails to comply with the Called to Communion posting guidelines, which mandates that one address someone in the second person ("you") rather than in the third person voice.
PH: It seems to be founded on a notion that Rome’s titular churches (home-churches) were so fractionated that they could not have been overseen by a single bishop.
A mere "notion"?
Long before Lampe, there were scholars writing about the absence of a monarchical bishop in Rome. In the 40's and 50's, Oscar Cullmann ("advisor to three popes") was detailing significant shortcomings in the traditional Roman position; this was followed up by intensive studies by Daniel O'Connor ("Peter in Rome") Raymond Brown et. al ("Peter in the New Testament"), as well as others. Lampe's detailed work provided solid confirmation for what others had held based on things long understood in the history of that topic.
For example, Schaff has sections on "the Peter of History" and "The Peter of Fiction." Sorting out these two has been difficult, not least because "the Peter of Fiction" was a strong and mighty early pope. The reality of it is quite different, although Peter may in fact have died at Rome, it is highly questionable that he founded the church there, (it is certain that "Peter and Paul" did not "found" the church at Rome -- a testimony that is given by Irenaeus), it is highly questionable that he ever "commanded" anyone, given his role and status as one who traveled there as a missionary.
There are many other factors too that go into the "notion" that there was not a monarchical bishop at Rome. Ignatius, who was an aficionado of the word "bishop" does not seem to have been able to locate a bishop when he writes to Rome. True, this "could" have been an oversight, but for him to purposely have ignored such a person would have been a great affront.
In a completely separate piece of evidence, Hermas states clearly that the city was ruled by a plurality who "fought among themselves." You may want to say that "this doesn't explicitly deny" that there was a monarchical bishop. But both of these are far clearer statements than those upon which an early papacy has historically been founded; but even if there were a monarchical bishop in charge of Hermas's unruly bunch, that would speak volumes about the incompetence of such an individual's [lack of] leadership.
Lampe's work provides confirmation for many, many points of fact that other researchers had strongly suspected. That is the value of his work.
Further to this, you risk here committing the word fallacy of semantic anachronism, that is, using a word in a later manner that was not intended by the New Testament writers. You must be aware that this happens all the time, for example, whenever Catholic writers see the word "episkopos" and related -- they think it means what "bishop" means to day -- and worse, when Catholics see "Peter" they reflect "pope" back on that. Two worse fallacies could not be envisioned in this type of study.
What safeguards have you taken to assure yourself (much less, our readers here!) that you are not committing these fallacies?
PH: Reviewing the data that he sifts through does not actually show that the Roman churches were fractionated and is based on a more modern-view of what a mono-episcopal bishop was supposed to be. As pointed out by David Albert Jones, a professor from Oxford and Oswald Sobrino, such an argument is based on several false assumptions and is a poor argument.
Your mention of names here does not show how the arguments actually shape up. It does not surprise me that partisan Catholics would put forward their own takes on these things. Bryan Cross (to his credit) tried to provide an analysis of Lampe's own analysis of Hegesippus's "list". Unfortunately, the tone of this, as I noted in that thread, was very much a tone that said, "these things as I've written them are not 100% excluded, and therefore, given that they support the Roman tradition they must not only be potentially true but actually true." It is wishful thinking of the highest order.
PH: As pointed out by David Albert Jones, a professor from Oxford …
You mean the bioethicist, who is not a historian?
PH: … and Oswald Sobrino, such an argument is based on several false assumptions and is a poor argument.
Who is this guy anyway?
PH: Adrian Fortesque, Henri Daniel-Rops, Prof. Edward Weltin, … seem to concur based on the preliminary researches that I have started …
How could they "concur"? Fortescue (whose work I have outlined here) pre-dated all of these studies. But I would encourage you to keep reading. It will give you a good idea of just how far away from the truth of history someone like a Fortescue could get.
Henri Daniel-Rops also pre-dated this work and therefore could not have interacted with it. It does not seem as if Weltin published in this area. You must be in some arcane sources.
As far as Bernard Green, OSB, it does seem as if he's addressing Lampe's work. But again, he does so from the position of a partisan, and his "objections" seem to be along the lines of those raised by Bryan Cross.
What is your intention in throwing out these names? Are you intending to show that there is some sort of great groundswell of scholarship that is addressing and defeating the body of scholarship that I've presented? If so, you are hardly making a dent. In reality, your citation of these individuals shows your desperation in this matter -- the distances you must travel to find someone who holds a contrary opinion.
PH: Note too that Mr. Bugay does not address the fact that Schatz, Sullivan, Eno or even Raymond Brown whose views tend to mirror in some respects Lampe’s views, do not argue (Schatz and Sullivan especially) that this argument negates the validity of apostolic succession or the basis for the papacy.
I'm trying to take one thing at a time; Perhaps you could tell me how this comment is not a deflection from the main subject?
Nevertheless, I want to make you happy. To be sure, Schatz and Eno pretty much exclusively dealt with the papacy. Sullivan talked about the transition [and it was not a close transition] of "apostles to bishops". He does not try to "negate the validity of apostolic succession" but rather he does clearly state at the end of the work that he (like Brown) believes that the lengthy "process" by which "bishops" succeeded the Apostles was directed by God and therefore was of "divine institution." To quote him (as I have done in various places, "Although development of church structure reflects sociological necessity, in the Christian self-understanding the Holy Spirit given by the risen Christ guides the church in such a way that allows basic structural development to be seen as embodying Jesus Christ's will for his church."
If you want to cite Raymond Brown -- he is even more detailed with respect to the New Testament:
A more traditional Catholic explanation of why individual Christians are not specifically designated as priests in the NT is that the apostles who presided at the Eucharist were priests in everything but name, for the name was too closely associated with the Jewish priests of the temple. But this explanation is based on a serious oversimplification about apostles in the NT, as we shall see in Chapter Two, and suffers from the added difficulty of unwarrantedly supposing that in NT times the Eucharist was thought of as a sacrifice and therefore associated with priesthood.
Because of the origins of Christianity in Judaism we would really have to suppose just the opposite: animal sacrifice would be thought of in terms of blood and there was no visible blood in the Eucharist. True, there are sacrificial overtones in the traditional eucharistic words of Jesus (the mention of the shedding of blood, the covenant motif, the "for you" theme), but this coloring was understandable because Jesus spoke these words before his bloody death. There is no proof that the Cristian communities who broke the eucharistic bread after the resurrection would have thought that they were offering sacrifice.
In these observations I am not questioning the legitimacy of the development in later theology whereby the Church came to understand the Eucharist as a sacrifice; indeed, a recent study by a Calvinist argues that there was real continuity in such a development and that it is loyal to the implication s of the NT. I am simply pointing out that such a theology was a post-NT development, and so we have no basis for assuming that early Christians would have considered as a priest the one who presided at the eucharistic meal. (Brown, "Priest and Bishop," New York: Paulist Press, 1970, pg 16.)
The fact is that the connection of "authority" of "priestly succession" going back to the New Testament is a false one, and Rome's recent bombast that "the communities of the Reformation" don't have this succession is just a non-starter for many Protestants who do know and understand the roots of this "development" and reject it.
The fact is that all of Rome's supposed foundational connections to authority -- priests, bishops, popes -- are later developments that can easily be rejected on the basis of the New Testament. Lord willing I will get around to putting all of these pieces together.
PH: The whole notion is fractionation is sort of making a mountain out of molehill as all it shows is that the Catholic Church back in the day practiced setting parishes up based on geographical boundaries which we still do today.
If the papacy is claiming that it has authority that it never had, then it is not a molehill, it is an important topic to investigate. Your statement here about "geographic boundaries" is another red herring that ignores the whole area of what authority actually meant in the earliest church. Nobody denies that there was a practice of setting up parishes based on geographic boundaries. In fact, if you had read more closely, you would understand that Lampe uses this very practice to establish the picture he draws of house churches, by tracing the titular parishes of the fifth century, for whom we have names and signatures.
All this shows is that, as a lawyer, you are skilled in the art of obfuscation -- you throw out a lot of highfalutin words that seem to have some meaning, but when investigated more thoroughly, there is much to be desired.
How much better would it be for you to work for clarity in these matters? Doesn't your Catholicism bind you to honesty? Or does it rather bind you to blind partisanship?
Alexander Greco knows best
This is from a comment that Turretinfan deleted yesterday [he deleted a number of comments because they were getting off topic]. But I though it perfectly illustrated the lack of unity among those who believe that they exhibit "unity" merely by being Roman Catholics [and even "good" Catholics]:
You stated that you are a seminarian, so I believe that it would be well to find out who you are, what you have written, and see how orthodox you really are. We have enough incompetent priests and bishops as it is. Better to help convince them of their errors prior to ordination. If the rectors of seminaries were doing their job of weeding out those not fit for clerical office, then the Church would be in much better shape than it is currently in. I've seen the mess first hand while in the seminary for two years in Mexico.
Monday, September 13, 2010
A Quick Comment on the White - Ferrara Debate
If you heard the recent White - Ferrara "Debate on the Immaculate Conception & Sinlessness of Mary" you heard Mr. Ferrara repeatedly appeal to the absolute trustworthiness of Rome. Consider though the following:
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Ten years after the Vatican divulged one of the church's best-kept secrets -- the third part of the message of Fatima -- a small band of skeptics and critics are still questioning the official explanation.
More than 100 of them gathered at a hotel not far from the Vatican in early May for a weeklong conference on such topics as "Fatima and the Global Economic Crisis," "The Present Need for the Consecration of Russia" and "Is There a Missing Text of the Third Secret?"
For those in attendance, the answer to that last question is a no-brainer.
"The evidence points to only one conclusion: that something has to be missing," said Christopher A. Ferrara, a U.S. attorney and Catholic commentator who spoke at the conference.
Ferrara pointed to what he described as a series of incongruities and inconsistencies in the Vatican's version. Among people truly familiar with the events at Fatima, he said, only a minority "cling steadfastly to the notion that an ambiguous vision of a bishop dressed in white outside a half-ruined city is all there is to the third secret."
I'm assuming the person above in this article is the same man from the debate.
I'm not sure when this debate will be available, but I highly recommend it.
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Ten years after the Vatican divulged one of the church's best-kept secrets -- the third part of the message of Fatima -- a small band of skeptics and critics are still questioning the official explanation.
More than 100 of them gathered at a hotel not far from the Vatican in early May for a weeklong conference on such topics as "Fatima and the Global Economic Crisis," "The Present Need for the Consecration of Russia" and "Is There a Missing Text of the Third Secret?"
For those in attendance, the answer to that last question is a no-brainer.
"The evidence points to only one conclusion: that something has to be missing," said Christopher A. Ferrara, a U.S. attorney and Catholic commentator who spoke at the conference.
Ferrara pointed to what he described as a series of incongruities and inconsistencies in the Vatican's version. Among people truly familiar with the events at Fatima, he said, only a minority "cling steadfastly to the notion that an ambiguous vision of a bishop dressed in white outside a half-ruined city is all there is to the third secret."
I'm assuming the person above in this article is the same man from the debate.
I'm not sure when this debate will be available, but I highly recommend it.
Michael Liccione on The Authority Question
Or, "We simply assume 'the Church'."
In comment #24 of the "Called to Communion" thread, Michael Liccione said:
1. How to locate and identify "the Church" is a question to be answered by divine revelation.
2. How to locate and identify what kind of teaching authority "the Church" has is a question to be answered by divine revelation.
(Nearby, he describes his larger argument this way: I will say that the form of the argument is conditional. Thus, if we are to reliably distinguish between divine revelation on the one hand and human opinions about the “sources” on the other–whatever those sources are taken to be–we need “a living, dominically instituted authority that is divinely preserved from error under certain conditions.” Taking Scripture “alone” as the needed “final” authority doesn’t cut it. For one thing, Scripture is a book, and books do not tell us how to interpret them. For another, given that Scripture itself does not assert sola Scriptura, taking Scripture alone as the final authority is itself a developed doctrine that cannot be considered irreformable if the Church is always fallible.)
Elsewhere he says virtually the same thing: in order to distinguish “the propositional content of divine revelation from mere human opinions about the data taken as sources,” disputes about how Scripture and Tradition answer the above questions only be settled by a living, dominically instituted authority that is divinely protected from error under certain conditions.
Talk about starting with your conclusion. The Roman Catholic Church actually posits itself as "“a living, dominically instituted authority that is divinely preserved from error under certain conditions.”
So we can set out the argument this way:
P1: If we are able to reliably distinguish between divine revelation and human opinions [about what actually is "divine revelation"], then [God will provide(?)] “a living, dominically instituted authority that is divinely preserved from error under certain conditions.”
P2: We [can only assume that God would give us an infallible way to] reliably distinguish between divine revelation and human opinions.
C: Therefore, [God provides(?)] “a living, dominically instituted authority that is divinely preserved from error under certain conditions.”
I hope someone will please let me know if I am missing something here.
Elsewhere, he says "But the debate is precisely about the extent to which something called "the Church," the Mystical Body of Christ which, together with the risen Christ, makes up "the whole Christ," has been granted such authority. I don't believe, and never have been able to believe, that we can dispense with the living voice of "the" Church—whichever communion of churches that may be—in ascertaining what God has revealed to us. In that belief, I am far from alone."
The authority question restated, February 5, 2009.
I've discussed this at length. Here, for example, Adrian Forescue "assumes the church":
In this way "the living Teaching Authority" is equated with "divine revelation" in that it identifies both "the Church" and also "how to locate and identify what kind of teaching authority "the Church" has".
Am I missing something? Is this the Michael Liccione method?
In comment #24 of the "Called to Communion" thread, Michael Liccione said:
How to locate and identify “the Church,” and what kind of teaching authority she has, are questions to be answered by divine revelation.This of course was part of a larger argument he makes, but these are his foundational assumptions. Breaking that out into two separate items:
1. How to locate and identify "the Church" is a question to be answered by divine revelation.
2. How to locate and identify what kind of teaching authority "the Church" has is a question to be answered by divine revelation.
(Nearby, he describes his larger argument this way: I will say that the form of the argument is conditional. Thus, if we are to reliably distinguish between divine revelation on the one hand and human opinions about the “sources” on the other–whatever those sources are taken to be–we need “a living, dominically instituted authority that is divinely preserved from error under certain conditions.” Taking Scripture “alone” as the needed “final” authority doesn’t cut it. For one thing, Scripture is a book, and books do not tell us how to interpret them. For another, given that Scripture itself does not assert sola Scriptura, taking Scripture alone as the final authority is itself a developed doctrine that cannot be considered irreformable if the Church is always fallible.)
Elsewhere he says virtually the same thing: in order to distinguish “the propositional content of divine revelation from mere human opinions about the data taken as sources,” disputes about how Scripture and Tradition answer the above questions only be settled by a living, dominically instituted authority that is divinely protected from error under certain conditions.
Talk about starting with your conclusion. The Roman Catholic Church actually posits itself as "“a living, dominically instituted authority that is divinely preserved from error under certain conditions.”
So we can set out the argument this way:
P1: If we are able to reliably distinguish between divine revelation and human opinions [about what actually is "divine revelation"], then [God will provide(?)] “a living, dominically instituted authority that is divinely preserved from error under certain conditions.”
P2: We [can only assume that God would give us an infallible way to] reliably distinguish between divine revelation and human opinions.
C: Therefore, [God provides(?)] “a living, dominically instituted authority that is divinely preserved from error under certain conditions.”
I hope someone will please let me know if I am missing something here.
Elsewhere, he says "But the debate is precisely about the extent to which something called "the Church," the Mystical Body of Christ which, together with the risen Christ, makes up "the whole Christ," has been granted such authority. I don't believe, and never have been able to believe, that we can dispense with the living voice of "the" Church—whichever communion of churches that may be—in ascertaining what God has revealed to us. In that belief, I am far from alone."
The authority question restated, February 5, 2009.
I've discussed this at length. Here, for example, Adrian Forescue "assumes the church":
All we suppose, before we come to the Church, is that our Lord Jesus Christ was a man sent by God and whom we must follow if we wish to serve God in the proper way; that he founded one visible Church, to which his followers should belong; that this Church is, as a matter of historic fact, the communion of Rome (not, however, supposing anything about the papacy, but supposing only visible unity and historic continuity). This much must be presupposed and therefore does not rest on the authority of the Church. All else does. (Pgs 26-27, the parenthetical note is Fortescue's).Before him, John Henry Newman said:
Till positive reasons grounded on facts are adduced to the contrary, the most natural hypotheses, the most agreeable to our mode of proceeding in parallel cases, and that which takes precedence of all others, is to consider that the society of Christians, which the Apostles left on earth, were of that religion to which the Apostles had converted them; that the external continuity of name, profession, and communion, argues a real continuity of doctrine; that, as Christianity began by manifesting itself as of a certain shape and bearing to all mankind, therefore it went on so to manifest itself; and that the more, considering that prophecy had already determined that it was to be a power visible in the world and sovereign over it, characters which are accurately fulfilled in that historical Christianity to which we commonly give the name. It is not a violent assumption, then, but rather mere abstinence from the wanton admission of a principle which would necessarily lead to the most vexatious and preposterous scepticism, to take it for granted, before proof to the contrary, that the Christianity of the second, fourth, seventh, twelfth, sixteenth, and intermediate centuries is in its substance the very religion which Christ and His Apostles taught in the first, whatever may be the modifications for good or for evil which lapse of years, or the vicissitudes of human affairs, have impressed upon it.And once you make this assumption (and only then), then do you [or rather, Catholic theologians]
return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition.”These "implicit" or "explicit" ways that "the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority" are found either in the Scriptures or Tradition or both? ("Tradition" not being genuine "tradition," but rather, something that some church father or council may have said that this "living Teaching Authority" has "picked and/or choosed" to be a part of "Tradition"?)
In this way "the living Teaching Authority" is equated with "divine revelation" in that it identifies both "the Church" and also "how to locate and identify what kind of teaching authority "the Church" has".
Am I missing something? Is this the Michael Liccione method?
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Luther: To kill a peasant is not murder
The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading "Social Justice":“To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them. Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog!” – “If they say that I am very hard and merciless, mercy be damned. Let whoever can stab, strangle, and kill them like mad dogs”[Erlangen Vol 24, Pg. 294].
Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." With this quote, they attempt to show Christ taught one should thirst after justice, while Luther wrote unjustly towards the peasants.
Documentation
Luther, Exposing the Myth cites "Erlangen Vol 24, Pg. 294." Before evaluating this reference, recall that Luther, Exposing the Myth has stated, "...when not having quoted from the original sources I have quoted from those authors who have draw from the original sources." We will see this quote demonstrates this is not a true statement. The quote is taken from secondary sources, and, not only that, it's three different quotes from two different treatises.
Luther, Exposing the Myth also cited this same reference for another quote. This is an indication this quote was probably taken from this secondary source, Martin Luther, Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor by Peter Wiener. The quote was put together from an extended section from Wiener:
But once Luther had made up his mind which side he was going to back, which side it was more profitable to back, his violence knew no limits. On May 6 of this fatal year Luther published his pamphlet, “Against the Peasant Bands of Robbers and Murderers”, which Funck-Brentano has described as a “horrible document which it is impossible to read, not only without disapproval but without disgust. The Reformer, who always had the Gospel on his lips, now talked of nothing but killing, torturing, burning and murdering the very people whom his work had driven to rebel.” Let us listen to the Reformer, the so-called champion of Christian freedom.
To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them! Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog!. . . Our princes must in the circumstances regard themselves as the officers of the divine wrath which bids them chastise such scoundrels. A prince who failed to do so would be sinning against God very badly. He would be failing in his mission. A prince who in such circumstances avoided bloodshed would become responsible for the murders and all the further crimes which these low swine might commit. It is no longer a question of tolerance, patience, pity. It is the hour of wrath and for the sword; the hour for mercy is past.”
Luther is full of similar advice. “It is a trifle for God to massacre a lot of peasants, when He drowned the whole world with a flood and wiped out Sodom with fire. He is an almighty and frightful God.” “If there are innocent men amongst the peasants, God will certainly prepare and keep them, as He did with Lot and Jeremiah." “will not forbid such rulers as are able, to chastise and slay the peasants without previously them offering terms, even though the Gospel does not permit it."” Once more, the Devil is brought into it." “he peasants serve the Devil. . . . I believe that there are no devils left in hell, but all of them have entered into peasants." And Luther surpasses himself when he exclaims: “what strange times are these when a prince can enter heaven by the shedding of blood more certainly than others by means of prayer!"” And he ends with the peroration: "Come, dearly-beloved lords and nobles, strike them, transfix them, and cut their throats with might and main. Should you find death in so doing, you could not wish for one more divine, for you would fall in obedience to God and in defending your like against the hordes of Satan."” I know of no example in history (with the exception of Hitler'' famous, or rather infamous, June 30, 1934) where a man turned in such an inhuman, brutal, low way against his own followers—merely in order to establish his own position, without any reason. Treason of any kind is, in my opinion, honourable compared to Luther's change of colours.
The effect of Luther's pamphlet was terrible. It was exactly what the princes had hoped for. “It was due to Luther's pamphlet against the peasants, so said the Strasburg preacher Capito, that the country had passed from the turmoil of insurrection to the horrors of retaliation and revenge.” The princes translated the Reformer's inhuman orders into practice with a terrifying speed.
Even Luther's own followers got frightened. They reproached him, they tried to explain that the irrational, quick-tempered Luther had acted on the spur of the moment, that he did not mean what he said. In cold blood Luther replied: “An insurgent is not worthy of being answered with reason, for he cannot understand it; such mouths must be stopped with fisticuffs till their noses bleed. The peasants would not hear, would not listen to reason, therefore it was necessary to startle their ears with bullets, and send their heads flying in the air. . . .If they say I am very hard and merciless, mercy be damned. Let whoever can stab, strangle, and kill them like mad dogs” (E24, 294). “The intention of the Devil was to lay Germany waste, because he was unable in any other way to prevent the spread of the Evangel.”One can see how Luther, Exposing the Myth selectively cited Wiener, making one quote from five paragraphs! Wiener did not rely on a primary source, but rather sifted some of these quotes from another secondary source, Luther by M. Funck-Brentano (London: Jonathan Cape Ltd., 1939). Funck-Bretano's work was originally in French, Wiener quotes the English edition. So, through Wiener one gets an English version of a French translation of Luther's German. Luther, Exposing the Myth cited a secondary source that relied on a secondary source. This is hardly drawing from the original sources as they claim was their process in putting their web-page together.
Gordon Rupp points out about Funck Bretano's work, "M. Bretano has a pleasant habit of garbling whole paragraphs into one sentence without any warning, and then giving his own very free translations the appearance of being the actual words of Luther." Here is what Rupp means. The following is a breakdown of Funck-Bretano's / Wiener translation of the quote Wiener used compared to a direct German to English translation from an actual edition of Luther's works:
This comparison text shows the context says a bit more than Luther, Exposing the Myth, Peter Wiener, and M. Funck Bretano allow the reader to see.
With this tedium out of the way, let's look at the reference provided, "Erlangen Vol 24, Pg. 294." This page can be found here. From a cursory look, the German original indicates this documentation only refers to some of this quote (it's actually three quotes from two different treatises!). Quote #1: "To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them. Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog!" This can be found at Erl. 24: 289-290. Quote #2: "If they say that I am very hard and merciless, mercy be damned." This can be found at Erl. 24:298 (in a different treatise!). Quote #3: "Let whoever can stab, strangle, and kill them like mad dogs." This is the only quote located at Erl. 24:294.
Most of the quote (#1, #3) is from Wider die räuberischen und mörderischen Rotten der Bauern (Against the Robing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants, 1525). Quote #2 is from Ein Sendbrief von dem barten Büchlein wider die Bauern (An Open Letter on the Harsh Book Against the Peasants, 1525). Both of these treatises have been translated into English. Against the Robing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants can be found in LW 46:53-57. An Open Letter on the Harsh Book Against the Peasants can be found in LW 46:57-87.
Context
In Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants, Luther begins by pointing out the peasants had ignored his earlier Admonition to Peace, even though they had vowed to heed his admonition. He finds them guilty and worthy of death on three counts: 1) treason against established authority 2) they are in rebellion: "they are starting a rebellion, and are violently robbing and plundering monasteries and castes which are not theirs; by this they have doubly deserved death in body and soul as highwaymen and murderers" (LW 46:49) Here we find the second half of the quote used by Luther, Exposing the Myth. In context, the admonition is for rulers to stop societal anarchy by suppressing seditious peasants:
Furthermore, anyone who can be proved to be a seditious person is an outlaw before God and the emperor; and whoever is the first to put him to death does right and well. For if a man is in open rebellion, everyone is both his judge and his executioner; just as when a fire starts, the first man who can put it out is the best man to do the job. For rebellion is not just simple murder; it is like a great fire, which attacks and devastates a whole land. Thus rebellion brings with it a land filled with murder and bloodshed; it makes widows and orphans, and turns everything upside down, like the worst disaster. Therefore let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just as when one must kill a mad dog; if you do not strike him, he will strike you, and a whole land with you [LW 46:50].The third violation according to Luther is that seditious peasants consider themselves Christians, which is nothing other than blasphemy, and they attempt to spread their blasphemy by inducing others to join them. Luther then advises the temporal authorities:
Now since the peasants have brought [the wrath of] both God and man down upon themselves and are already many times guilty of death in body and soul, and since they submit to no court and wait for no verdict, but only rage on, I must instruct the temporal authorities on how they may act with a clear conscience in this matter.
First, I will not oppose a ruler who, even though he does not tolerate the gospel, will smite and punish these peasants without first offering to submit the case to judgment. He is within his rights, since the peasants are not contending any longer for the gospel, but have become faithless, perjured, disobedient, rebellious murderers, robbers, and blasphemers, whom even a heathen ruler has the right and authority to punish. Indeed, it is his duty to punish such scoundrels, for this is why he bears the sword and is “the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer,” Romans 13 [:4] [LW 46:51].Luther then instructs temporal authorities who may be Christians. They should "go beyond our duty, and offer the mad peasants an opportunity to come to terms, even though they are not worthy of it. Finally, if that does not help, then swiftly take to the sword" (LW 46:52). Luther concludes the treatise with the section including the third quote,
Finally, there is another thing that ought to motivate the rulers. The peasants are not content with belonging to the devil themselves; they force and compel many good people to join their devilish league against their wills, and so make them partakers of all of their own wickedness and damnation. Anyone who consorts with them goes to the devil with them and is guilty of all the evil deeds that they commit, even though he has to do this because he is so weak in faith that he could not resist them. A pious Christian ought to suffer a hundred deaths rather than give a hairsbreadth of consent to the peasants’ cause. O how many martyrs could now be made by the bloodthirsty peasants and the prophets of murder! Now the rulers ought to have mercy on these prisoners of the peasants, and if they had no other reason to use the sword with a good conscience against the peasants, and to risk their own lives and property in fighting them, this would be reason enough, and more than enough: they would be rescuing and helping these souls whom the peasants have forced into their devilish league and who, without willing it, are sinning so horribly and must be damned. For truly these souls are in purgatory; indeed, they are in the bonds of hell and the devil.
Therefore, dear lords, here is a place where you can release, rescue, help. Have mercy on these poor people!Let whoever can stab, smite, slay. If you die in doing it, good for you! A more blessed death can never be yours, for you die while obeying the divine word and commandment in Romans 13 [:1, 2], and in loving service of your neighbor, whom you are rescuing from the bonds of hell and of the devil. And so I beg everyone who can to flee from the peasants as from the devil himself; those who do not flee, I pray that God will enlighten and convert. As for those who are not to be converted, God grant that they may have neither fortune nor success. To this let every pious Christian say, “Amen!” For this prayer is right and good, and pleases God; this I know. If anyone thinks this too harsh, let him remember that rebellion is intolerable and that the destruction of the world is to be expected every hour [LW 46:54].Quote #2 can be found in another treatise, An Open Letter on the Harsh Book Against the Peasants, 1525. Luther wrote this to further explain the position he took in Against the Robing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants and the Admonition to Peace. Luther's Works explain,
In this treatise Luther defends at length the views he had advanced in Admonition to Peace and Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants. The peasants should not have rebelled, for the duty of a Christian is to suffer injustice, not to seize the sword and take to violence. His opponents, Luther says, can criticize him as they will, but they cannot change the fact that in the light of God’s word the rebellious peasants deserved to be put to death and to have their insurrection suppressed by the full force of the governing authorities. Force was the only language the rebels understood. Furthermore, Luther argues, his critics’ sudden surge of sympathy for the defeated peasants marks them as secret rebels against God and state. But if there was no excuse for the peasants to rebel, neither was there any excuse for the rulers to indulge their lust for rebel blood. Here, however, Luther is not moved by any sense of “fair play.” He disclaims responsibility for the wanton cruelty of the rulers, which, he says, is nothing but the flagrant abuse by the princes of their God-given office. Such cruelty is as reprehensible and sinful as insurrection. The princes, he says, will surely reap God’s wrath for such conduct. (LW 46:61)The quote in question can be found early in the treatise:
First of all, then, I must warn those who criticize my book to hold their tongues and to be careful not to make a mistake and lose their own heads; for they are certainly rebels at heart, and Solomon says, “My son, fear the Lord and the king, and do not be a fellow-traveler with the rebels for their disaster will come suddenly and who can know what the ruin of both you and them will be?” Proverbs 24 [:21–22]. Thus we see that both rebels and those who join them are condemned. God does not want us to make a joke out of this but to fear the king and the government. Those who are fellow-travelers with rebels sympathize with them, feel sorry for them, justify them, and show mercy to those on whom God has no mercy, but whom he wishes to have punished and destroyed. For the man who thus sympathizes with the rebels makes it perfectly clear that he has decided in his heart that he will also cause disaster if he has the opportunity. The rulers, therefore, ought to shake these people up until they keep their mouths shut and realize that the rulers are serious.
If they think this answer is too harsh, and that this is talking violence and only shutting men’s mouths, I reply, “That is right.” A rebel is not worth rational arguments, for he does not accept them. You have to answer people like that with a fist, until the sweat drips off their noses. The peasants would not listen; they would not let anyone tell them anything, so their ears must now be unbuttoned with musket balls till their heads jump off their shoulders. Such pupils need such a rod. He who will not hear God’s word when it is spoken with kindness,12 must listen to the headsman, when he comes with Iris are. If anyone says that I am being uncharitable and unmerciful about this, my reply is: This is not a question of mercy; we are talking of God’s word. It is God’s will that the king be honored and the rebels destroyed; and he is as merciful as we are (LW 46:65-66).
Martin Luther's book, Against The Robbing And Murdering Mobs of Peasants is sometimes cited as evidence that Luther had the peasants killed. That is, his writing directed the princes to slay the peasants, so on his order, they did. This common caricature views Luther as somehow in charge of Germany. The princes simply waited for Luther's command and then followed this advise he gave.
Not quite. Luther's Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants was actually published after the peasants war began. The treatise was delayed, and did not have an immediate role during the war. The German nobility were not spurred by Luther's words. They were spurred by the peasants who strove towards anarchy and civil unrest.
In regards to this period of history, Luther wrote more than simply Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants. Luther earlier published The Admonition to Peace. In this treatise, Luther also blames the princes and rulers for the unstable state of affairs. After Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants, Luther actually went on to chastise the Princes for being too harsh on the peasants.
For those who want to charge Luther of gross injustice toward the peasants, no amount of history or research will convince them otherwise. Roland Bainton points out, "Catholic princes held Luther responsible for the whole outbreak" of the Peasants War. Nothing has changed, except we're not dealing with princes anymore, but rather Rome's cyber-denfenders.
Addendum (2016)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2010. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Luther: For we account a man to be justified by faith alone, without the works of the law
The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading "Faith and Good Works":Christ taught, “Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your father who is in heaven”[Matt 5:16, Cf. Apoc 20:12, Gal 6:2, 1 Jn 3:18, Jas 4:17, I Cor 13:2, II Peter 1:10, Gal 6:9. There are also many warnings in scripture that warn against falling away from salvation (Gal 4:9, Col 1:23, 1 Tim 1:19, 4:1, Heb 3:12-14, 12:14-15, 2 Pet 2:20-21, Apoc 2:4-5)]. Christ taught (in the words of St. James) “What shall it profit, my brethren, if a he has faith, but has not works? Shall faith be able to save him? So faith also, if it have not works is dead in itself” [James 2:14-17]. Luther teaches: “For we account a man to be justified by faith alone, without the works of the law.” – On Translation and on the Intercession of the Saints
Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." With this quote, they attempt to show Christ valued works as part of salvation, while Luther taught justification before God was by faith alone without works.
Documentation
Luther Exposing the Myth cites "On Translation and on the Intercession of the Saints." This quote was probably taken from this source that Luther Exposing the Myth appears to have heavily plagiarized from:
While no edition or page number is provided, the quote does appear in Luther's Letter on Translating from 1530. The complete original text can be found in WA 30 II: 632-646. This text has been translated into English. It can be found in LW 35:175-202, and also PE 5, 10-27. There are online versions as well, for instance that done by Michael D. Marlowe, June 2003 (nicely aligned with the German text) and that provided by Project Wittenberg.
Context
This particular quote comes from the very beginning of the open letter:
To the Honorable and Worthy N., my favorite lord and friend.
Grace and peace in Christ, honorable, worthy and dear Lord and friend! I received your letter with the two questions, or inquiries, requesting my response. In the first place, you ask why in translating the words of Paul in the 3rd chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, Arbitramur hominem iustificari ex fide absque operibus, I rendered them, "We hold that a man is justified without the works of the law, by faith alone," and you also tell me that the papists are causing a great fuss because Paul's text does not contain the word sola (alone), and that my addition to the words of God is not to be tolerated. Secondly, you ask whether the departed saints intercede also for us, because we read that angels intercede for us. Regarding the first question, you can give the papists this answer from me, if you like.
Conclusion
Luther then goes on to give a detailed explanation of why he uses the word "alone" in Romans 3:28. This type of selective citation employed by Luther, Exposing the Myth shows an utter unfamiliarity with Luther's theology. It attempts by the use of a single sentence, snatched from its context and ignores Luther's actual understanding of the relationship of faith and works.
An honest translator, Luther freely admitted the word “only” does not appear in the original Greek at Romans 3:28. He never sought to have the word added into any ancient manuscript. He states,
I know very well that in the original text this word does not occur. Nevertheless it belongs in any good German translation… Whenever we place two things in opposition and want to make clear that we acknowledge or accept the one and reject the other, we use the word ‘only.’ ‘The farmer brings no money but corn only.’ ‘No, at the moment I really have no money, but only grain.’ ‘I have only eaten, but not yet drunk.’ ‘Have you only written, without rereading?’ This is the form which we use in countless expressions: over against ‘not’ or ‘none’ we have the word ‘only,’ to make the contrast clear.Luther Exposing the Myth repeatedly uses quotes from Luther suggesting works were not important in his theological system. Luther though understood that even our best efforts were tainted with sin. If God demands perfection in order for one to be justified before Him, no one would ever be justified. For Luther, justification was actually totally of works, but those works were perfect and performed by the perfect savior, Jesus Christ. These works are acquired by faith, imputed to the sinner. Luther says elsewhere,
[I]f you desire to believe rightly and to possess Christ truly, then you must reject all works that you intend to place before and in the way of God. They are only stumbling blocks, leading you away from Christ and from God. Before God no works are acceptable but Christ's own works. Let these plead for you before God, and do no other work before him than to believe that Christ is doing his works for you and is placing them before God in your behalf [The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther 1:110].For Luther grace, faith, and the work of Christ are essential ingredients that justify, and that justification is a gift as well as the very faith involved. As Paul says in Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory.” If God judges a man by Christ’s perfect works, why should any Christian ever care about leading a righteous life? If grace, faith, and justification are God’s gifts, what is left for us to do? Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
Paul answers in Ephesians 2:10, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.” Faith performs good works, not to keep one justified, but out of heartfelt gratitude to God graciousness. Salvation is unto good works. Note what this means: good works are not unto eventual salvation. We are saved in order to perform good works, not by performing them.
“Faith,” wrote Luther, “is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith” [link]. The book of James describes a real true faith in Christ: a real saving faith is a living faith. If no works are found in a person, that faith is a dead faith (c.f. James 2:17). James then describes a dead faith: the faith of a demon. A demon has faith that God exists, that Christ rose from the dead- I would dare say a demon knows theology better than you or I. But is the faith of this demon a saving faith? Absolutely not. Luther says, “Accordingly, if good works do not follow, it is certain that this faith in Christ does not dwell in our heart, but dead faith…” (LW 34:111).
Addendum (2016)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2010. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Intellectual Inconsistency in the Infallible Magisterium?
Truth Unites... and Divides said...
Q: Does the Magisterium pick and choose among all the writings of the Early Church Fathers to come up with its doctrine? To be more precise, does the Magisterium pick one aspect of what an ECF wrote while rejecting other parts of what that very same ECF wrote that happens to contradict what the Magisterium has declared as Church dogma?
Yes or no?
If so, then why all this blabbering about citing Lampe and not accepting Lampe's other conclusions? After all, if the Magisterium cites an ECF on one issue, but doesn't accept that ECF's other conclusion on other matters, isn't John Bugay merely doing what the Magisterium has done way before John Bugay was ever born?
Hypocrisy. Pot. Kettle. Black. Special pleading. Etc. Are just some of the words that come to mind when reading the criticisms lobbied at Bugay and others by their Catholic detractors.
5:38 PM, September 10, 2010
Q: Does the Magisterium pick and choose among all the writings of the Early Church Fathers to come up with its doctrine? To be more precise, does the Magisterium pick one aspect of what an ECF wrote while rejecting other parts of what that very same ECF wrote that happens to contradict what the Magisterium has declared as Church dogma?
Yes or no?
If so, then why all this blabbering about citing Lampe and not accepting Lampe's other conclusions? After all, if the Magisterium cites an ECF on one issue, but doesn't accept that ECF's other conclusion on other matters, isn't John Bugay merely doing what the Magisterium has done way before John Bugay was ever born?
Hypocrisy. Pot. Kettle. Black. Special pleading. Etc. Are just some of the words that come to mind when reading the criticisms lobbied at Bugay and others by their Catholic detractors.
5:38 PM, September 10, 2010
Protestants can face history with eyes open
In the light of all the recent discussions, in which I and other have been accused of "being inconsistent" for the practice of citing the works of certain scholars without swallowing whole everything else those scholars seem to say or believe, Tim Enloe has made the following helpful comment:
it's really fascinating to me to see all these pop-apologists complaining that you can't cite a source on Point A without also accepting his view of Point B, and since Point B materially attacks the Christian Faith in a way that you yourself would not accept, you should not accept his view of Point A.Tim is very close to finishing his Master's degree studies at the University of Dallas.
This is just absurd, and shows the lack of critical thinking ability in the pop-apologetics community. Of course you can cite a scholar on Point A without accepting his view of Point B - it's called weighing arguments. Pop-apologists operate with a goofy, uncritical standard that is really a double standard. When scholarship supports them, they love it ("All these Protestant scholars admit that Peter was the Rock! Why don't you?"). Yet when scholarship contradicts them ("The papacy relied on forgeries for many centuries, and this materially affects its claims to sovereignty in the Church"), they darkly suspect it - and anyone who relies upon it.
The simple fact of the matter is that sober historical inquiry, a discipline given to us by thoroughly committed Christians in the Renaissance, has never been the friend of many of Rome's dogmatic claims, but has in fact demonstrated that the "historical" support for her dogmatic claims is weak, suspect, or else very easily and quite reasonably challengable. If you're a papalist, it's pretty hard to grapple soberly with Lorenzo Valla, or even Erasmus - both good Catholics - and still maintain that your doctrines have "historical" support, so lots of modern Catholics don't even try to grapple with them. They just dismiss them by a specious and really quite intellectually childish appeal to having a superior "faith."
It's just a lot of hand-waving, and it makes you glad to be, as my friend Peter Escalante says, a Protestant since as a Protestant you can face history "with your eyes open" instead of following Belloc's childish dictum, "Always hold the hand of nurse, for fear of finding something worse."
More on the donum superadditum and the unBiblical Roman Doctrine of Grace
There are more than a few areas where Protestants and Roman Catholics differ at a very fundamental level. One of these is over the very meaning of the word "grace." And when we talk about something as fundamental as being "saved by grace," we really end up talking about two different things.
I noted yesterday at the top of my post (which unfortunately was ignored in the comments throughout the day) how 1 Clement (supposably a pope!) misunderstood the New Testament concept of grace. That's one area of study that I hope to follow through with here.
A second area of fundamental difference (closely related) is in the doctrine of man. In Protestant theology, man was very good when God created him. In Roman Catholic doctrine, natural man wasn't quite good enough, and so over time and apparantly upon reflection the Roman church, needed something more.
Ludwig Ott, in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (103 ff.) puts it this way:
My hope is that more of this will follow -- I do want to get into Torrance's study of how the definition of the word "Grace" changed over time -- and how the Roman church, at least, lost its original meaning in favor of later constructions. That will have to come later.
I noted yesterday at the top of my post (which unfortunately was ignored in the comments throughout the day) how 1 Clement (supposably a pope!) misunderstood the New Testament concept of grace. That's one area of study that I hope to follow through with here.
A second area of fundamental difference (closely related) is in the doctrine of man. In Protestant theology, man was very good when God created him. In Roman Catholic doctrine, natural man wasn't quite good enough, and so over time and apparantly upon reflection the Roman church, needed something more.
Ludwig Ott, in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (103 ff.) puts it this way:
Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De Fide.)That's what the dogma is. What follows is sort of like the supporting cast, the theological underpinnings of the dogma:
The Council of Trent, in opposition to Pelagianism and to modern Rationalism, teaches: If anyone will not confess that when the first man Adam had transgressed the mandate of God in paradice he did not immediately lose the sanctity and justice in which he had been constituted ... [let him be anathema -- Council of Trent, session V (June 17, 1546) Decree on Original Sin, D. 788]
The elevation to the state of grace is indicated by the intimacy between God and the progenitors of the human race in Paradise. A scriptural proof is provided by St. Paul's teaching on the Redemption. The Apostle teaches that Christ, the second Adam, restored what the first Adam had lost, the state of holiness and justice. But if he had lost it, he must previously have received it.Ott gives the following Scriptural verses in support of this doctrine: Romans 5:12 ff, Ephesians 1:10, Ephesians 4:23 ff, 1 Corinthians 6:11, 2 Corinthians 5:17, Galatians 6:15, Romans 5:10 ff (not sure why he didn't list this up with 5:12, except maybe that this is an illustration again of how Roman Catholics treat the Bible: it's not God's Word to us, but a series of "proof-texts" to be mined in support of Catholic dogma, wherever they can find it.), and Romans 8:14 ff.) Continuing with Ott (Latin omitted):
The Fathers find the supernatural endowment with grace indicated in 1:26 (supernatural identity of image and likeness with God); in Genesis 2:7 (supernatural life-principle), and in [the apocryphal] Ecclesiasticus 7:30 ("Only this have I found that God made man right").So this is the doctrine of the donum superadditum. Ryan posted a comment fairly far down the other thread, a selection by Gordon Clark that goes into some detail about the origin of this doctrine, and I thought it would be helpful to reproduce some portion of it:
St. Augustine declars that our renewal (Eph 4:23) consists in this that: "We have received justice from which man had fallen off through sin" (De Gen. ad Litt. VI 24, 35). St. John Damascene says: "The Creator has communicated His Divine Grace to man and thereby made him a participant in his community" (De fide orth. II 30).
As regards the time of man's elevation to the state of grace, most theologians, including St. Thomas and his school, are of the opinion that the first men were created in the state of sanctifying grace. Petrus Lombardus and the Franciscan school, on the other hand, teach that the first human beings on their creation received only the preternatural gifts of integrity, and were required to prepare themselves with the help of actual grace for the reception of sanctifying grace. The Council of Trent has deliberately left the question undecided.
"The idea that God created man in his own image is so clearly stated in Genesis that the early church fathers could not miss it. It is also such an amazing idea that they could not refrain from discussing it. Some of the first attempts were, naturally, less than intelligible. For example, Gregory of Nyssa expatiates in flowery metaphors conveying awe of the subject, but which lack any explanatory clarity. Well, perhaps there is one clear point: The image has something to do with human intelligence. This is at least better than Justin Martyr’s identification of it with the bodily form. Augustine took the image to be the knowledge of the truth, and he took the likeness to be the love of virtue. In his Summa Theologica (Q. 93, Art. 9) after stating some views to be rejected, Thomas Aquinas in his usual form writes, “On the contrary, Augustine says, ‘Some consider that these two were mentioned not without reason, namely image and likeness, since if they meant the same, one would have sufficed.’ “This attempt to distinguish rather than to identify image and likeness was not one of Augustine’s happiest tentatives. If the Bible were written in the technical language of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, one could well imagine that the two words bore different meanings. But in literary language such as the Bible uses, two such words can be synonymously used for the sake of emphasis. The Psalms are replete with this device: “I cried unto Thee, O Lord, and unto the Lord I made my supplication”; and “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, and whose sin is covered,” where there are two pairs of synonyms; and “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path.” There are many such.- Gordon Clark, "The Biblical Doctrine of Man" (pgs. 11-14)
Even so, it is not fatal to the doctrines of grace if a distinction, without faulty additions, is made between image and likeness. Since the New Testament refers to knowledge and righteousness, we could call the one the image and the other the likeness. Such a speculation, however, is rather fanciful and futile. One must therefore consider what distinction the Roman church imposed on the terms and how it fitted into a distortion of Biblical truth."
"In support of the distinction, Thomas had already (Q. 93,Art. 1) argued that where an image exists, there must be likeness; but a likeness does not necessarily mean an image. Now, the Roman church developed this, which so far is innocuous, into something that contradicts important parts of the Biblical message. Their present view is that the image itself is rationality, created because, when, and as man was created. But after man was created, God gave him an extra gift, a donum superadditum, the likeness, defined as original righteousness. Man therefore was not strictly created righteous. Adam was at first morally neutral. Perhaps he was not even neutral. Bellarmin speaks of the original Adam, composed of body and soul, as disordered and diseased, afflicted with a morbus or languor that needed a remedy. Yet Bellarmin does not quite say that this morbus is sin; it is rather something unfortunate and less than ideal. To remedy this defect God gave the additional gift of righteousness. Adam’s fall then resulted in the loss of original righteousness, but he fell only to the neutral moral level on which he was created. In this state, because of his free will, he is able-at least in some low degree-to please God.
Obviously this view has soteriological implications...One horrendous implication of all this is that although Christ’s death remains necessary to salvation, it is not sufficient. Human merit is indispensable.
However logically implicated this soteriology is, the present study should not stray too far from the image itself. Above, it was said that an assertion of a distinction between image and likeness, by itself, is not fatal. But it is not Biblical either. Scripture makes no distinction between image and likeness. Not only does the New Testament make nothing of such a distinction, even in Genesis the two words are used interchangeably. Genesis 1:27 uses the word image alone, and Genesis 5:1 uses likeness alone, though in each case the whole is intended. The likeness therefore is not an extra gadget attached to man after his creation, not a donum superadditum, like a suit of clothes that he could take off. It is rather the unitary person."
My hope is that more of this will follow -- I do want to get into Torrance's study of how the definition of the word "Grace" changed over time -- and how the Roman church, at least, lost its original meaning in favor of later constructions. That will have to come later.
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Life after the Return to Rome
A couple more comments from the Called to Communion thread:
Francis Beckwith (#5) said: John, to whom are you going to file your grievance in order to remedy this great historical wrong, a wrong that extended over the entirety of Christendom from (if you’re right) the 3rd century until the 16th?
This was right out of the box, and to some degree it is a fair question. We Protestants do have grievances not with the entire process of church history (although after Constantine that notion picked up some steam) -- but with small, and in some cases not-so-small things. For example, as I've written about in the past (and intend to write more about in the future), T.F. Torrance has done an analysis of the word and concept of "grace," as it's articulated in the New Testament, and as it is picked up in the Apostolic Fathers, and Clement, for one, holds to a doctrine of grace that misses the point of "grace" in the New Testament.
Also, Clement pretty much flatly contradicts the writer of Hebrews:
Is this a part of the "great historical wrong" that Beckwith posits? It certainly looks serious.
Beckwith #5: The hoodwinking was so clever, so sublime, so sophisticated, and so diabolical that it developed in such a way as to fit seamlessly with the Church, its doctrinal development, its liturgy, its councils, and its declarations on the canonicity of Scripture. The deception was so well done–by the Enemy, of course–that it displays an elegance that makes it seem to be, in retrospect, just how one would expect the Church to have developed.
I noted in my comments that my view of how the early church began to go wrong required more nuance than he was allowing for here, ("sarcasm is the protest of people who are weak"), and I posted this link and offered to clarify if he didn't feel as if he wanted to go to a link. There was not very much at all, by the way, that could be described as "seamless" in early church history.
Francis Beckwith #9: I think Michael makes a good point. Take the quote he reproduces above:
(Citing Michael Liccone): “Rome’s exegesis of Matthew 16 and its historically developed claim to authoritative primacy in the Christian world simply cannot be demonstrated and sustained from Scripture itself. This claim is surely one of the great hoaxes foisted upon professing Christendom, upon which false base rests the whole papal sacerdotal system.”
I would add to Mike’s excellent point the observation that the quote is not only an almost textbook case of crass question- begging its assertion about the “Christendom” is more incredible than the exegesis it claims cannot be sustained. Here’s what I mean: who precisely did the foisting and why was it so relatively easy to accomplish? The ecumenical councils of the first five centuries–including all its bishops–were all duped. But by whom and for what insidious purpose? Even the Eastern Churches, though rejecting the Catholic claims of the papacy, maintain some view of petrine primacy (i.e., first among equals). So, even those who were uneasy about Rome’s claims about the papacy shared with Rome the belief in petrine primacy as well as apostolic succession and the visible Church as the means by which grace is given through the sacraments.
Francis Beckwith (#5) said: John, to whom are you going to file your grievance in order to remedy this great historical wrong, a wrong that extended over the entirety of Christendom from (if you’re right) the 3rd century until the 16th?
This was right out of the box, and to some degree it is a fair question. We Protestants do have grievances not with the entire process of church history (although after Constantine that notion picked up some steam) -- but with small, and in some cases not-so-small things. For example, as I've written about in the past (and intend to write more about in the future), T.F. Torrance has done an analysis of the word and concept of "grace," as it's articulated in the New Testament, and as it is picked up in the Apostolic Fathers, and Clement, for one, holds to a doctrine of grace that misses the point of "grace" in the New Testament.
Clement definitely thinks of charis as referring to a gift of God without which the Christian would not be able to attain to love or salvation. But there is little doubt that this is held along with the idea of merit before God; for grace is given to those who perform the commandments of God, and who are worthy. He may use the language of election and justification, but the essentially Greek idea of the unqualified freedom of choice is a natural axiom in his thoughts, and entails a doctrine of "works" as Paul would have said. In all His dealings with men, God is regarded as merciful; but the ground for the Salvation He gives is double: faith and ... [ellipses in original].It's almost as if he's adopted Pelagianism before Pelagius.
Clement "thinks of God's mercy as directed only toward the pious" (55)
Also, Clement pretty much flatly contradicts the writer of Hebrews:
When he said above, "You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law), then he added, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.And now here is Clement, using some of the same language, though in an opposite sense:
And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
"This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,"
then he adds,
"I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more."
Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin. (Hebrews 10)
These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behoves us to do all things in [their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times. He has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service to be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours. Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable to Him. Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.Without going into a thorough analysis of these passages, it's clear to see that there's just a different understanding of what Christ's sacrifice has accomplished, and what it really meant for Him to have "sat down at the right hand of God," where "there is no longer any offering for sin."
Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him. Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death. You see, brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed. (1 Clement 40, 41)
Is this a part of the "great historical wrong" that Beckwith posits? It certainly looks serious.
Beckwith #5: The hoodwinking was so clever, so sublime, so sophisticated, and so diabolical that it developed in such a way as to fit seamlessly with the Church, its doctrinal development, its liturgy, its councils, and its declarations on the canonicity of Scripture. The deception was so well done–by the Enemy, of course–that it displays an elegance that makes it seem to be, in retrospect, just how one would expect the Church to have developed.
I noted in my comments that my view of how the early church began to go wrong required more nuance than he was allowing for here, ("sarcasm is the protest of people who are weak"), and I posted this link and offered to clarify if he didn't feel as if he wanted to go to a link. There was not very much at all, by the way, that could be described as "seamless" in early church history.
Francis Beckwith #9: I think Michael makes a good point. Take the quote he reproduces above:
(Citing Michael Liccone): “Rome’s exegesis of Matthew 16 and its historically developed claim to authoritative primacy in the Christian world simply cannot be demonstrated and sustained from Scripture itself. This claim is surely one of the great hoaxes foisted upon professing Christendom, upon which false base rests the whole papal sacerdotal system.”
I would add to Mike’s excellent point the observation that the quote is not only an almost textbook case of crass question- begging its assertion about the “Christendom” is more incredible than the exegesis it claims cannot be sustained. Here’s what I mean: who precisely did the foisting and why was it so relatively easy to accomplish? The ecumenical councils of the first five centuries–including all its bishops–were all duped. But by whom and for what insidious purpose? Even the Eastern Churches, though rejecting the Catholic claims of the papacy, maintain some view of petrine primacy (i.e., first among equals). So, even those who were uneasy about Rome’s claims about the papacy shared with Rome the belief in petrine primacy as well as apostolic succession and the visible Church as the means by which grace is given through the sacraments.
I responded to his apparent factual misunderstanding and also the notion about orthodox views not being the "divine institution" that Rome requires.
But note, again, the bolded selection: It was the Roman bishops themselves, in their quest to aggrandize themselves, that did the "duping". This wasn't an intentional thing -- it was more a case of "arguing among themselves as to who was greatest." It was a case of Roman bishops being invited to a banquet, then taking the highest seat when such a thing was not offered to them. But the characterization of "duping" -- that is a straw man, and someone with his academic credentials should know about this sort of thing.
But note, again, the bolded selection: It was the Roman bishops themselves, in their quest to aggrandize themselves, that did the "duping". This wasn't an intentional thing -- it was more a case of "arguing among themselves as to who was greatest." It was a case of Roman bishops being invited to a banquet, then taking the highest seat when such a thing was not offered to them. But the characterization of "duping" -- that is a straw man, and someone with his academic credentials should know about this sort of thing.
But he goes further.
Beckwith #9: The scope and depth of the conspiracy is global and virtually unopposed. And we are supposed to, in light of this, abandon the universal and visible church because some Reformed writer happens to draw our attention to the fact that the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16 has its detractors and thus we cannot conclusively prove from the text petrine primacy. But this Cartesian skepticism cuts both ways, since one can find among even the Reformed disagreements on justification and the passages in Scripture employed by partisans on all sides (e.g, Wright v. Piper). The problem with scorched Earth apologetics is that you may “win” the argument but there’s no Earth left on which to revel in your victory.
So now he accelerates the "duping" language into a full-blown conspiracy theory.
Beckwith #9: The scope and depth of the conspiracy is global and virtually unopposed. And we are supposed to, in light of this, abandon the universal and visible church because some Reformed writer happens to draw our attention to the fact that the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16 has its detractors and thus we cannot conclusively prove from the text petrine primacy. But this Cartesian skepticism cuts both ways, since one can find among even the Reformed disagreements on justification and the passages in Scripture employed by partisans on all sides (e.g, Wright v. Piper). The problem with scorched Earth apologetics is that you may “win” the argument but there’s no Earth left on which to revel in your victory.
So now he accelerates the "duping" language into a full-blown conspiracy theory.
In the first place, the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16 is clearly opposed. Read the responses of Cyprian and Firmilian to Stephen, for example. It is opposed in a most strenuous way.
It's simply not the case that "the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16 has its detractors." It is the case that "the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16" had not a single advocate until the 250's, when Steven decided that he could use it to, what, somehow claim some greater authority than others thought that he had.
But again, note the bolded selection. The "conspiracy theory" has becomes "scorched earth."
But again, note the bolded selection. The "conspiracy theory" has becomes "scorched earth."
An academic with Beckwith's credentials should have no problem debunking my thesis, if indeed it can be debunked. As I noted:
* * *
I'm pointing these things out to note that his argumentation here did not align itself with his academic credentials. Although, I've always noted a certain screechiness when he interacts with, say, the folks at Triablogue. But here, the screechiness takes on a shrill and unbecoming level.
One of the benefits of being an old guy is that you've just plain seen things with your own eyes that others may not have been aware of. In one important respect, I've traveled the path that Beckwith has followed and advertised: I grew up as a cradle Catholic; left for one reason or another, and then I "Returned to Rome" and even resided there quite happily for a time.
But the Holy Spirit is not one to give up on people. And there did come a time when the unease grew, over having to say "black" when my eye saw white. This unease was strikingly apparent at Mass, when I would receive communion, and I was not getting the good touchy-feely sentiments of having just received "the Body of Christ." Watching people bow to statues of Mary made me cringe. It was Christ himself who drove me out of the Roman church -- over time, to be sure, but the drive was persistent.
Some Catholics might think that this is just a "dark night of the soul." That they can just put up with it and put up with it and then it will go away. I would not be surprised if not only Beckwith, but more than a few of the Called to Communion guys, over time, experience this sort of thing. These are individuals who claimed to once have been Reformed; they claimed to know the Scriptures.
If indeed they once did know the Scriptures, the Scriptures will not let go of them. The choice, then, is, "is this really a "dark night of the soul?" Or is it the very Holy Spirit of God calling upon you to repent and return to receive his free grace?
Nobody really knows what's going on inside Francis Beckwith to generate the very un-academic responses he gave here. But I can say from personal experience that to "Return to Rome" isn't necessarily to live happily ever after.
I assure you this is not “scorched earth.” Because I can show you examples of how the “critical historical scholarship” which is seemingly doing great damage (hence your use of “scorched earth” terminology) is actually confirming very important elements about the life of Christ. I can live with that, and I believe that the entire church will be better off with that understanding in place.So far as I can tell, Francis Beckwith did not show up again.
* * *
I'm pointing these things out to note that his argumentation here did not align itself with his academic credentials. Although, I've always noted a certain screechiness when he interacts with, say, the folks at Triablogue. But here, the screechiness takes on a shrill and unbecoming level.
One of the benefits of being an old guy is that you've just plain seen things with your own eyes that others may not have been aware of. In one important respect, I've traveled the path that Beckwith has followed and advertised: I grew up as a cradle Catholic; left for one reason or another, and then I "Returned to Rome" and even resided there quite happily for a time.
But the Holy Spirit is not one to give up on people. And there did come a time when the unease grew, over having to say "black" when my eye saw white. This unease was strikingly apparent at Mass, when I would receive communion, and I was not getting the good touchy-feely sentiments of having just received "the Body of Christ." Watching people bow to statues of Mary made me cringe. It was Christ himself who drove me out of the Roman church -- over time, to be sure, but the drive was persistent.
Some Catholics might think that this is just a "dark night of the soul." That they can just put up with it and put up with it and then it will go away. I would not be surprised if not only Beckwith, but more than a few of the Called to Communion guys, over time, experience this sort of thing. These are individuals who claimed to once have been Reformed; they claimed to know the Scriptures.
If indeed they once did know the Scriptures, the Scriptures will not let go of them. The choice, then, is, "is this really a "dark night of the soul?" Or is it the very Holy Spirit of God calling upon you to repent and return to receive his free grace?
Nobody really knows what's going on inside Francis Beckwith to generate the very un-academic responses he gave here. But I can say from personal experience that to "Return to Rome" isn't necessarily to live happily ever after.
Luther: A Good Life from Good Works Leads to Damnation
The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading "Faith and Good Works":"There is no scandal greater, more dangerous, more venomous, than a good outward life, manifested by good works and a pious mode of life. That is the grand portal, the highway that leads to damnation" [Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), VOl. II, pg. 128].
Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." With this quote, they attempt to show Christ valued works as part of salvation, while Luther held leading a good life based on good works leads to damnation.
Documentation
Luther Exposing the Myth cites "Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), VOl. II, pg. 128." I have a hard time believing Luther Exposing the Myth actually used this source. My speculation is that it used a source that quoted Denifle / Paquier. Luther Exposing the Myth cites Denifle / Paquier four times. Each citation and reference is also used in this book: Two Arguments for Catholicism (1928) by Antonin Eymieu. This particular quote can be found on page 46:
The great danger is the doing of good works. It is what the Papists call the practice of virtue. "There is no scandal greater, more dangerous, more venomous, than a good outward life, manifested by good works and a pious mode of life. That is the grand portal, the highway that leads to damnation [(Footnote 5) Dollinger III, 124].Luther Exposing the Myth does not mention or refer to Eymieu, but I would be surprised if Two arguments for Catholicism was not (ultimately) the source used for this quote. In fact, it becomes more probable when one notices that footnote four (documenting a quote previous to the one in question) in Eymieu refers to "Denifle II, 128." In other words, Luther, Exposing the Myth mis-documented the quote during its probable plagiarization of Eymieu (the quote was actually supposed to be documented with "Dollinger III, 124"). Luther et Lutheranisme II:128 can be found here. Checking page 128 of Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme II, one is hard pressed to discover exactly what's being cited, for it doesn't appear the quote is cited on the page. The quote does appear though on page 124 of the French edition of Dollinger's La réforme III (it is on page 128 in Dollinger's German). Here is what Dollinger says:
Here is the German:
In the French edition, Dollinger cites "L.c. XI, 349 et suiv" as his reference for this Luther quote. This refers to Walch vol. xi, p. 349 and what follows. This was a set of Luther's works published 1740-1753 by Johann Georg Walch. The set was revised from 1885-1910 and is also known as the St. Louis edition. Volume XI refers to Kirchen-Postille Evangelien-Predigten, or Luther's Church Postil. Here is page 349. These Postil sermons have a tedious and complicated legacy (see the introduction to LW 75). The text in question appears to be:
The text being cited is a section from Luther's sermon Am Sonntage nach dem Christtage (Luc. 2, 33-40). This sermon is available in English. It can be found in Lenker's Church Postil: Sunday After Christmas Sermon (Luke 2:33-40)., and it can be found in LW 52:102.
Context
Lenker:
51. Finally Simeon says that all this will happen that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed. What a blessed and necessary fruit of this falling and speaking against! But in order to understand this we must notice that there are two different kinds of temptation among men. There is the temptation to gross sins, as for instance to be disobedient to parents, to kill, to be unchaste, to steal, to lie and blaspheme, etc., which are sins against the second table of the law. The people who do these things need not take offense at a sign which is spoken against; their thoughts are sufficiently revealed by their evil life. The Scriptures speak little of this temptation.
52. But the most dangerous temptation is prefigured by Cozbi the daughter of Zur, a prince of Midian, because of whom twenty-four thousand were slain in Israel, as Moses writes in Numbers 25, 15. This is the temptation through the bright and shining sins of good works and the service of God, which bring misfortune upon the whole world and against which nobody can guard sufficiently. These are the sins against the first table of the law, against faith, the honor of God and his works.
53.For a life of good works, blameless conduct and outward respectability is the greatest, most dangerous and destructive stumbling-block. The people leading such lives are so upright, reasonable, honorable and pious that scarcely a single soul could have been preserved or saved, if God had not set up a sign against which they might stumble and by which the thought of their hearts might be revealed. Thus we see their hearts behind their beautiful words and good works, and find that these great saints and wise men are pagans and fools; for they persecute the faith for the sake of their works and will not suffer their ways to be rebuked. Thus their thoughts are laid bare and they become manifested as trusting in their own works and themselves, sinning not only continually against the first commandments, but endeavoring also in their enmity against God to exterminate and destroy all that belongs to God, claiming to do this for the sake of God and to preserve the truth. Behold, such are the pope, the bishops and almost all the priests, who have filled the world with innumerable snares and stumbling-blocks by making an external glitter of the spiritual life. Among them there is no faith, but only works,the Gospel does not prevail, but only human laws.
54. The whole Scriptures speak of this stumbling-block,and God with all his prophets and saints contends against it.This is the true gate of hell and the broad highway to eternal damnation, wherefore this harlot is well called Cozbi, "mendacium meum," my lie. Everything that glitters lies and deceives, but her beautiful ornaments and embellishments deceive even the princes of Israel, and so she is not merely called "mendacium," but "meum mendacium," my lie, because with her deception she attracts and tempts almost everybody. (Lenker, 277-278).LW 52:
For there is no bigger, more dangerous, more poisonous stumbling block than the external good life lived in good works and blameless conduct. The people living such lives are such upright, sensible, honorable, pious people, that not a single soul could be saved or remain unseduced, if God had not set up his sign and target, over which they stumbled and revealed the thoughts of their hearts. Through their beautiful words and good works we see into their hearts and discover that these eminent saints and wise men are heathen and fools; for they persecute the faith for the sake of their works and they want to be unpunished in their conduct. Thus their thoughts are discovered and become visible, showing how they trust in their works and in themselves and how they not only sin unnecessarily against the first commandments, but also, full of hatred, strive to blot out and to destroy everything pertaining to faith and to God. They always behave as if they were doing so for the sake of God and in order to preserve the truth. The pope, the bishops, and almost all the clergy are of this disposition; they have filled the world with their snares and offenses by turning the spiritual life into external glitter. And yet there is no faith, but only works; the gospel does not rule here, but only human laws.
All of Scripture speaks of this offense and God fights against it with all his prophets and saints. This is the true gate to hell and the broad highway leading to damnation. Thus, this harlot is aptly named Cozbi, mendacium meum, “my lie.” Everything that glitters is falsehood and deception, but her beautiful adornment and jewels deceive even the rulers of Israel. She is named not only mendacium, but meum mendacium, “my lie,” because her deception entices and tempts everybody [LW 52:120-121].
Conclusion
This quote has some history. It was reviewed by in the 1800's in Luther Vindicated. Charles Hastings Collette examined the quote being used out of context by Reverend S. Baring-Gould:
Having examined a passage from which the rev. gentleman has dropped two words from Luther's text, and thereby made it appear that he preached adultery, I now will note a deliberate shifting of a couple of words, by which an equally atrocious sentiment is attempted to be fixed on the Great Reformer.
In page 15, n. 44, we are referred to vol. xi., col. 346, Walch edition of Luther's works, the correct column is 349. Here Luther not only exposed the heresy of advancing good works as a meritorious cause of justification; but, like Paul, he warns us against those who have "a form of godliness," and by an outward life and show,—in fact, what he called " coloured hypocrisy,"—deceive others as well as themselves. This deceit, he tells us, is still more destructive to the soul. Luther's words are :—
"There is no scandal greater, nor more dangerous, nor more venomous than the outward good life in good works and holy conversation. That is clear, the very gate and the broad highway which leads to destruction. Oh, what a horrid abomination of unbelief and ungodliness underlies this fine life, a wolf in sheep's clothing, a harlot underneath the bridal garland !"
The reader will be somewhat surprised to find what the rev. gentleman has been enabled to make of this by a skillful shifting of the position of words which I have placed in italics, making the "good life manifested externally by good works," to be condemned by Luther, instead of the sham or pretence and hypocrisy veiled by a show of good works. The Rev. S. Baring-Gould says were most dangerous, as they prevented man from a total surrender of himself to God to do with him as He saw fit. And he laid down that it is far more dangerous for a man to remain till death in a state of grace and good living than to be plunged in profligacy and stained in innumerable crimes. 'There is no scandal greater,' says he, ' nor more dangerous, nor more venomous, than a good life manifested exteriorly by good works and a pious conduct. It is the carriage-gate to damnation.'" "Charity rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth." The rev. gentleman, however, seems to take a special delight in attributing iniquity to Luther, and this at the expense of truth [source].The context clearly shows those whom Luther was talking about: "trusting in their own works and themselves, sinning not only continually against the first commandments, but endeavoring also in their enmity against God to exterminate and destroy all that belongs to God, claiming to do this for the sake of God and to preserve the truth." These are the people Luther had in mind who are on "the highway that leads to damnation" with their pious works.
Addendum (2016)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2010. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
