Calvin: Which Came first? Scripture or the Church?

"But a most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. As if the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men!"

"But such wranglers are neatly refuted by just one word of the apostle. He testifies that the church is 'built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles' [Ephesians 2:20]. If the teaching of the prophets and apostles is the foundation, this must have had authority before the church began to exist. Groundless, too, is their subtle objection that, although the church took its beginning here, the writings to be attributed to the prophets and apostles nevertheless remain in doubt until decided by the church. For if the Christian church was from the beginning founded upon the writings of the prophets and the preaching of the apostles, wherever this doctrine is found, the acceptance of it — without which the church itself would never have existed — must certainly have preceded the church.

It is utterly vain, then, to pretend that the power of judging Scripture so lies with the church that its certainty depends upon churchly assent. Thus, while the church receives and gives its seal of approval to the Scriptures, it does not thereby render authentic what is otherwise doubtful or controversial. But because the church recognizes Scripture to be the truth of its own God, as a pious duty it unhesitatingly venerates Scripture. As to their question — How can we be assured that this has sprung from God unless we have recourse to the decree of the church? —it is as if someone asked: Whence will we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? Indeed, Scripture exhibits fully as clear evidence of its own truth as white and black things do of their color, or sweet and bitter things do of their taste."

Source: Calvin's Institutes I.7.1-2

How to Become a Catholic

Often on Christian websites you will see a link to somewhere that tells you “how to become a Christian” or “how to be saved” so when I saw the Catholic version on Catholic.com I took a peak.

Some excerpts from How to Become A Catholic:

“Becoming Catholic is one of life’s most profound and joyous experiences. Some are blessed enough to receive this great gift while they are infants, and, over time, they recognize the enormous grace that has been bestowed on them. Others enter the Catholic fold when they are older children or adults. This tract examines the joyful process by which one becomes a Catholic.

A person is brought into full communion with the Catholic Church through reception of the three sacraments of Christian initiation—baptism, confirmation, and the holy Eucharist—but the process by which one becomes a Catholic can take different forms.“


“The Christian fully enters the Church by profession of faith and formal reception. For the profession of faith, the candidate says, "I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God."

The bishop or priest then formally receives the Christian into the Church by saying, "[Name], the Lord receives you into the Catholic Church. His loving kindness has led you here, so that in the unity of the Holy Spirit you may have full communion with us in the faith that you have professed in the presence of his family."

One major thing struck me as I read How to Become a Catholic: the words “Jesus” and “Christ” are not found anywhere in the article. It appears becoming a Catholic is more about faith in the Church than faith in Christ.

-Carrie

Richard Kuiken, senior pastor of the church I belong to (The Pompton Plains Reformed Bible Church), has begun a series of sermons on Homosexuality. The first sermon, Homosexuality Is Wrong In Its Core Essence, was preached yesterday evening. The sermon was an excellent apologetic against homosexuality, and provides valuable information presented with precision. A downloadable MP3 can be be found here.

____________________________________________
"Mr. Swan, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on Martin Brecht's 3 volume work on the life of Luther ."

Excellent volumes (but most people hate reading anything over 110 pages!). Brecht does an excellent job weaving in Luther's theology, which sometimes gets put on the back-burner in historical treatments. The great thing about Brecht's volumes is the consideration of more recent studies of the time period, thus making the book more current than many of the more popular works. But, I would never recommend something like Brecht for a beginner, or someone wishing to get the simple facts. These volumes are for serious minded. They are for those who want more detail, and a better grasp of the time period.
________________________________________________

Catholics on JWs

Catholic Answer's This Rock had an article on Jehovah's Witnesses. I am sure I am not the only one who will find some of the commentary ironic:

Jehovah’s Witnesses are sincere people genuinely striving to do God’s will in their lives. Like us, they go about their daily routines, struggle with life’s concerns, and engage in spiritual activities. Like us, they trust their religious leaders for spiritual guidance, doctrinal instruction, and help in interpreting the Bible....

...Since its inception, the WTS has claimed to be the only organization that speaks on behalf of God (whom they call "Jehovah"). It has called itself God’s "divinely appointed and organized channel of communication" (WT, May 15, 1955, 314), and even "the ark of salvation" (WT, Jun. 1, 1950, 176)...

...Truth-seeking Christians are obliged to ask if the Watch Tower Society is a reliable spiritual guide. Does it really speak on God’s behalf? Are its official teachings objectively true?...

...The Jehovah’s Witnesses have a doctrine known as the "increase of light." It is based on Proverbs 4:18, which in their New World Translation of the Bible reads, "But the path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established." Witnesses understand this passage to mean that God reveals to them a progressively greater understanding of the Bible, known as "light." Over the course of time, then, the WTS is becoming more accurate in its interpretation of the Bible and in its prophecies, as the "light" shines more brightly.

While Catholics agree with the idea of doctrinal development, that is not the process actually taking place within the WTS. When a teaching or belief genuinely develops, its essence remains intact as expanded layers of understanding are added to it. In fact, the first president of the WTS, Charles Taze Russell, said: "A new light of truth can never contradict a former truth. ‘New light’ never extinguishes older ‘light,’ but adds to it" (WT, Feb. 1881, 3)...

...The article went on to ask, "What confidence can one put in the sincerity or judgment of such persons?" This is a point to ponder seriously when assessing the reliability of the Watch Tower Society as a spiritual guide...

-Carrie

Infallibly Interpreted Scripture

"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold;"
- Council of Trent

We know that Roman Catholics must not interpret Scripture in a contradictory way to the Church's teachings. We also know that Roman Catholics must accept everything that their Church professes for their belief.

That said, I have been unable to find a clear list of infallibly interpreted scriptures by the Roman Catholic Church. At best I have found just a few random sources who estimate that a very small number of verses have actually been infallibly interpreted. In light of the restrictions on lay Catholics in interpretation, I would think that knowing the verses that have been infallibly defined would be rather important.

So I am asking the RCs reading here - does anyone actually know how many and what verses of the Bible have been infallibly interpreted? If you can link to a source of that information, that would be great.

- Carrie

I'm doing a little construction on the sidebar. I should have it packed with things in a few days.

The Army of Mary

There is an interesting story that just came out about the Roman Catholic Church’s excommunication of The Army of Mary.

Here are some excerpts:

Calling it a "very grave situation," the Vatican has excommunicated members of a controversial Quebec Catholic movement, the Army of Mary, for their heretical beliefs that derive from the writings of Marie-Paule Giguère, an 86-year-old mystic who claims to be a reincarnation of the Virgin Mary.

In a judgment delivered to the group on Monday, and announced yesterday, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ruled that the ordinations of six priests in the Army of Mary this past June were illegitimate, because they were performed by a priest rather than a bishop.

Founded as a prayer group in 1971, and recognized by the Archbishop of Quebec four years later, the Army of Mary has been a headache for Canadian Catholic bishops ever since.

In her writings, Mme. Giguère described visions and messages she received from God, explaining that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is fully divine, and also that, as her modern incarnation, so is Mme. Giguère. Rather than the traditional Catholic Trinity - in which God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are each fully divine and part of a three-part deity - the Army of Mary now speaks of a "quinternity," including Mary and Mme. Giguère.

In fact, until this week, things stood pretty much as they were 20 years ago, when in 1987 the late Cardinal Louis-Albert Vachon revoked the Army of Mary's status as a Catholic organization, which was meant as a warning of future excommunication. In 1999, Bishop Cazabon was appointed as Pontifical Commissioner, a sort of Papal envoy, but things remained stalled until 2001, when the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a doctrinal note in 2001 stating that the Army of Mary is not a "Catholic association."

Things came to a crisis this June, however, when a leading Army of Mary priest called Father Jean-Pierre Mastropietro ordained six new priests, including a father and son. Under canon law, only a bishop can ordain priests.

He said he regrets the failure of the efforts at reconciliation, because most of the Army of Mary's priests - there are 39 at the Lac-Etchemin centre, for example, in addition to brothers and sisters of the order - are legitimately ordained, one even by the late Pope John Paul II.

But now that Fr. Mastropietro is wearing a Byzantine crown and "acting like a pope" himself, the final line has been crossed.

"I did my very best with these men," Archbishop Prendergast said.

"I like them. I would like them to be Catholic priests. We need Catholic priests, but we have to have Catholic priests who obey what the bishops say ... [But] once you decide Heaven can tell you what to do, it can tell you all kinds of things that go beyond the boundaries."

What I find interesting about this story:
1. It took 20 years for the unified hierarchy to excommunicate this group (after being a legit Catholic association for a few years).
2. That the final straw for the RCC wasn’t that the leader promoted herself as the incarnation of Mary and part of the “quinternity”, but that the group performed an illegitimate ordination.
3. That this cult has many legitimately ordained RC priests as members (who the Archbishop would like to have return).
4. That “unity” is so important that reconciliation with a cult is a worth pursuing.
5. The quote: “... [But] once you decide Heaven can tell you what to do, it can tell you all kinds of things that go beyond the boundaries."

The Infinite Regress of the Infallible Interpreter

In the spirit of the post just below this one...

I asked Leo:

-Since there is no infallible interper (and the system of the infall interper leads to an infinite regress), what other option do you offer?

Leo responded:

-If the Pope has the authority of God on earth, then there you have it, now, what do you mean "regress"?

A quick response:

If he's infallible, then you have to have a way to know infallibly whether what he said yesterday is infallible.
If it is, you need to know infallibly whether that way to know infallibly whether what he said yesterday is infallible is infallible.
If you solve that, you need an infallible interper to tell you the infall interp of what he said.
If you solve that, you need an infallible interper to tell you the infall interp of the infall interp of what he said.
If you solve that, you need an infallible interper to tell you the infall interp of the infall interp of the infall interp of what he said.

Etc.

It's laudable to want to remove all insecurity, all human fallibility from the equation of how we know the truth. But God just didn't make it that way. "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn" (Isaiah 8:20).

Catholic Quotable

"Again, it is illogical to base faith upon the private interpretation of a book. For faith consists in submitting; private interpretation consists in judging. In faith by hearing, the last word rests with the teacher; in private judgment it rests with the reader, who submits the dead text of Scripture to a kind of post-mortem examination and delivers a verdict without appeal: he believes in himself rather than in any higher authority."

-Catholic Encyclopedia

10 Reasons For Mary

My friend Churchmouse has an interesting recent blog entry:

Top Ten Reasons Why We Should Consecrate Our Lives To Jesus Through Mary

Prevenient Grace is Irresistable

This is from several months ago, but this will continue to be an ongoing debate. Pastor Gary L. W. Johnson over at the Teampyro blog finishes his three part post entitled Arminianism: Semi-Pelagianism? I am not here to argue that Arminianism equals semi-pelagianism either directly or practically. I think Greg Welty argued well and reasonably that it doesn't.

I am here to argue, in the spirit of the Arminian/non-Calvinist objection that irresistable grace isn't a biblical concept, that they too believe in a irresistable grace. That is, prevenient grace is irresistable. Let's start by looking at article 4 of the Remonstrance and there understanding of grace.

Article 4.
That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to the extent that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements that can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But with respect to the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, since it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Spirit (Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places).

Now let's turn to one of the theologians in question. In part two of Peter Lumpkins’ interview with Arminian Roger Olson, Olson states:

Arminianism is that God comes to us first, through the gospel which can be efficacious in our lives—through a sermon, a song, a witness, or reading the Bible. But that God the Holy Spirit reaches into our lives first, through prevenient grace, and partially regenerates us, then we have to actualize that with our free will decision which God’s grace makes possible.

This shows my point that prevenient grace is irresistible in its “partial regeneration” because if this “partial regeneration” could be rejected it would be then be semi-pelagianism. Prior in the interview Olson says:

The difference is this: in classical Arminianism--in real Arminianism--if someone gets saved, it’s because God came to them first; the initiative is God’s. God calls them and God enables them. That’s called prevenient grace.

But you don’t hear that in pulpits a lot. What you hear in pulpits and pews is what scholars call semi-Pelagianism; although they don’t know it’s called that.I definitely agree with what Olson said is heard from many pulpits today. If there is no grace acting upon man and man left in his natural, sinful state can make a “decision” without any grace at all we are back to a form of Pelagianism.

Therefore, prevenient grace is irresistible. Proving my point further is one last quote from Olson:

Without God’s prevenient grace, we would not be free, so we don’t believe in Free Will, we believe in the Freed Will. Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism believe that humans have inherent free will apart from any supernatural grace. So, there is a very important difference there.

This basically summarizes my point. Men’s wills are irresistibly freed or otherwise we are back to a form of Pelagianism. So then the irresistibility isn't really the crux of the argument then is it? I will try and address that another time, but for now this will do.

Mark

Not Saying Much with Flowers

A few months back a friend and I were involved in a discussion with a former-Protestant-now-Roman Catholic named Joel on a Challies post. We still talk about this particular exchange:

Joel:“I expected to see idolatrous Marian devotion pervading every fiber of the Catholic’s being, only to find that most Catholics don’t think about Mary all that much at all. She’s a much bigger deal to Protestants than to Catholics.”

Katie:“I am not sure where you are looking in your Catholic church but the ones I know of are filled with Mary statues and shrines. Crowns on her head, flowers at her feet, special songs, holy days etc. Just think of how many prayers on the rosary are to Mary.”

Joel:“Katie, don’t confuse superficial things with doctrinal ones. My own parish has a statue of Mary inside, the Fatima image, because the parish is called Our Lady of Fatima. We put crowns on her head and load her down with honorary titles and flowers, but none of those titles is Savior, Redeemer or God.”

I wonder what they would do to the Mary statue if they DID think about her much…

The infallible list of infallible teachings of Rome

Starting off my time here with a bang, I'd like to get to the bottom of a question that's been on my mind for some time. I was actually able to ask Fr Mitch Pacwa, S.J. this question during the Audience Questions segment at the Eric Svendsen-Pacwa debate in May 2007. It wasn't well read by the moderator so I asked him face to face afterwards and got the same non-response.

Related to the question of Sola Scriptura is how the Canon of Scripture can be known. Roman Catholic apologists are fond of asking, "But Mr. Sola Scripturist, is your Canon infallible?" knowing that the SS-ist has no structure in his worldview to affirm sthg infallibly. The RC apologist will then go on to claim that his position enjoys an epistemic advantage b/c the RC Church can proclaim things such as the Canon infallibly, and indeed has done so at the Council of Trent.
Leaving aside the question of which Esdras-es were included in the Tridentine Canon, this alleged advantage encounters a difficult problem upon examination.

To the SS-ist, Scripture is the only vehicle for infallible teachings. Thus, the Canon of Scripture is the list of infallible teachings. Indeed, it is the complete list of infallible teachings.

Now, I question whether the RCC has a once-for-all settled Canon of Scripture (see the cross-examination section when James White questioned Gary Michuta), but let's grant they do for the sake of argument. Scripture, however, is not the RC's only source for infallible teachings. Certain Magisterial teachings, such as in particular the ex cathedra statements from a Pope, are also infallible.
So, the big question: The RCC claims that the SS-ist is at a disadvantage b/c he lacks an infallible canon of infallible teachings. Very well, where is RCC's?
If you can produce one, is it itself, being an infallible teaching about infallible teachings, listed?
How do you know it is infallible?

If the RCC cannot produce an infallible list, then a fallible list will suffice, as long as it is complete.

From what I've so far seen, this is an unanswerable question for a RC. I've heard the following suggestions:

-The Enchiridion (aka, "Denzinger").
-The Catechism of the Catholic Church
-"History" (that's a good one!)
-Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

However, none of these are infallible. Nor are they complete, it would seem.

If RCC can produce an infallible list, it would constitute an epistemic advantage over the SS-ist position.
If RCC can produce a complete but fallible list, it would constitute an equal epistemic position to that of SS.
If RCC can produce neither, then RCC is in fact at a great disadvantage as far as Canon issues go.

Bottom line - the RCC claims the ability to proclaim things infallibly, but it uses this ability so infrequently and so inconsistently and with such completely insufficient communication so as to render this ability, even if it existed, completely worthless to anyone.

A very quick comment in regard to David Waltz and Phil Porvaznik....

David can't seem to reconcile why in an earlier blog entry I affirmed Joseph Ratzinger affirmed the Scriptures are materially sufficient with a recent entry I posted over on aomin. David says, "With James’ 09/02/07 AOMIN post fresh on my mind, I can truly say that I am at a complete loss for words…".

Phil Porvaznik states, "Goes to show that Swan is pretty good at finding contradictions in Pope Benedict's teaching. On Tues and Thurs he rejects material sufficiency, on Mon Wed Fri he affirms, and other days he's just not sure."

I'm really the one at a loss for words, because in that recent aomin entry I stated, "The real problem as I see it, is that Ratzinger speaks in ambiguous language. At times he appears to affirm material sufficiency, and then other times, he clearly denies it." And then further, I stated, "...whatever form of material sufficiency men like Ratzinger or Congar attempt to embrace, they will never be able to be consistent to an exclusive source of revelation without radical redefinition of terms. In some way, partim-partim will have to be redefined to mean "totem in sacra scriptura- totem in traditione."

C'mon guys, stop being silly.

And Welcome...Continued

I’ve asked a few folks to join me here at Beggars All. My schedule now will be a bit intense until 2008.

Rhology has come aboard. I first found him over on NTRmin's Areopagus, and he also has his own blog Rhoblogy. I've read his blog and NTRmin posts for a while, and I've appreciated his ability to discuss issues with insight, clarity, and charity. It makes perfect sense to me that he has been called to be a missionary.

"We were formerly tentmaker missionaries in Japan. Now we live in the Midwest and wait and hope for the next chance to live overseas. We love Jesus, foreign languages, foreign food, foreign people, and being foreign ourselves. "

Welcome!

Tertullian on the Vicar of Christ

“Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ, (John 14:26) and for this asked of the Father that He might be the teacher of truth; (John 15:26) grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ, neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles,—is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith?”

-Tertullian, The Prescription against Heretics, XXVIII

Quote on Church Authority

"Let us say frankly at the outset, that there has been a little, if we may not rather say a great deal, of exaggeration in the importance people have given to it [the authority of the Council of Trent]. One thing strikes us in the preaching and the writings of the Roman Catholicism of our day: it is the care with which it avoids discussions in detail, and controversies positively doctrinal. The course almost invariably pursued by the great preachers of the day, is to preach authority, the Church, and then to assume as admitted all that the Church teaches….

Such is the sense in which we would say that the importance of the question of authority is at the present day exaggerated...Let him [the Roman Catholic] then be beaten on a single point, and we shall be entitled to say to him, 'Your authority has been mistaken; what you have told us of its infallibility, therefore, is necessarily false. It makes no answer to objections; in fact, it exists only for the man who renounces objecting'…

…We are told that we must renounce our own individual judgment; that to the Church alone belongs the right to interpret the Bible; and, lo, the first thing done, is to give us the Bible to interpret. If the passages adduced seem insufficient, what shall be done? Should they appear conclusive, should the Church, happy to see us enter into her views, tell us that we have judged rightly—we then come to a very simple conclusion, which is this: that if we have made a good use of our judgment once, we cannot believe ourselves incapable of making an equally good use of it another time.

Thus every demonstration of the Church's infallibility is, of itself, a vicious circle. Infallibility gains converts by imposture, not by demonstration."

-L.F. Bungener, History of the Council of Trent (1855)

Catholic Gospel for the Muslim

In light of the combox discussions in my last post, I thought I would share this excerpt from the Catholic Answers article entitled Sharing the Gospel with Muslims:

I am sharing the gospel with a Muslim friend who is being talked to by some Evangelicals. Now he is not sure whether he should be Catholic or Protestant. What should I do?

This is a common situation in this country since there are so many Protestants here. Fortunately, the solution is simple: Tell your Muslim friend that he should follow the truth as he sees it. If he thinks that Protestantism is true, then he should become a Protestant. If he thinks that Catholicism is true then he should become a Catholic.

Tell him that you yourself are convinced that the Catholic Church is true, that it is the Church Jesus founded, and that if he wishes you will be happy to share with him the evidence for this.

Taking this approach not only corresponds with proper evangelism and faith in God, it also is likely to be more attractive to your friend than what his Evangelical friends are doing. Many of them will try to put pressure on him to become Evangelical, and it is likely that he will not appreciate it.

There are also other things that you may find attract your friend to Catholicism. For one, Islam recognizes the human need for ritual and has ritual prayers in addition to spontaneous ones. Catholicism recognizes that too, but Protestantism tends not to. As a result, many Muslims becoming Christian are attracted to Catholicism because it has a strong sense of ritual prayer that corresponds to the need of the human heart.

Catholicism recognizes that people in other religions may be in good conscience with respect to God, who will honor that fact. As a result, it acknowledges that a convert’s still-Muslim relatives may be saved even if they do not become Christians. Many Evangelicals do not recognize this fact and will tell converts from Islam that all of their Muslim friends and loved ones will be damned unless they convert.

This is hard to accept for many converts from Islam, who recognize many of their loved ones as sincere, pious people who are trying to follow God according to what they think is right. The converts’ hearts tell them that it would be unjust for God to damn such people. Catholicism, by recognizing God’s mercy on all who sincerely try to follow him, corresponds to the intuition of the converts’ hearts, whereas the teaching of Protestant Evangelicalism does not.

When Catholics Represent Christianity

James White wrote a post about the poor apologetic support for the Assumption of Mary – I am sure most have you are following this discussion.

One thing he said rang true for me in light of a recent encounter a friend of mine had:

“Just look at how quickly Muslims, for example, assume Rome represents the Christian faith, and you will see how damaging her false teachings are to the promotion of true Christianity in our world today.”

This summer there was an intern in our department from the Middle East who was Muslim. I never had a chance to speak with him much, but my friend (a recent, former Roman Catholic) spent an hour one night talking religion with him.

Turns out that during his stay here in the US, he was rooming with a Roman Catholic who unfortunately ended up representing “Christianity". This Muslim young man was happy to learn from his new Catholic friend that they actually worshipped the same God and were able to come to a “I’m okay, you’re okay” consensus.

My friend did what she could to undo some of the damage, specifically in emphasizing the divinity and centrality of Jesus in the Christian message, but this man had already been warned by his Catholic friend to disregard “other Christians” who claimed Islam was incorrect. “Just tell them to see catechism #841” the Catholic had told him (he actually had the number memorized).

This is one of the many reasons that Roman Catholicism is worth opposing. Not only is Rome leading her own fold in the wrong direction, but she is a false witness to the one true gospel for those outside of her dominion. Personal experiences like this make it difficult to just stand on the sidelines and play nice as some would prefer.


"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims” CCC 841

Odds and Ends

Ends: This PDF article from Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis is fascinating: A Review of "EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong" . I wish I had more time to comment on it, but if you, like me, regularly watch EWTN, you'll find this article interesting.

Odds: On the other hand, a Catholic apologist has proved his own fallible interpretation of the Bible, "Explicit Biblical Evidence for Indulgences: Finding What I Want To In The Bible."

Catholic Piety vs. Superstition

A friend of mine (a former Roman Catholic) recently told me about the practice of burying a statue of St. Joseph in your yard when trying to sell your home. By burying the statue upside-down in your yard, your house is suppose to sell more quickly. You can even buy “St. Joseph Home Sale Kits” from Catholic Supply stores as well as read online testimonials from those who have used this practice “successfully”.

I have noted before that the majority of Roman Catholics (especially those I know in real life) are quite different than the online Roman Catholics I have met who tend to be more well-versed in their Church’s doctrines. Certainly this practice of burying a St. Joseph statue in your yard to sell your house would be frowned upon by well-catechized Roman Catholics, I thought.

So I was surprised to find the following excerpts on the Catholics United for the Faith website:

“The custom of burying a statue of St. Joseph for the purpose of selling one’s home can be in harmony with the teachings of the Church when grounded in prayer for St. Joseph’s intercession. At the same time, the Church cautions against superstitious beliefs such as attributing some power to the act of burying the statue.”

“Burying a statue of St. Joseph for the purpose of selling one’s home is an action similar to wearing a saint’s medal or a scapular…an external sign of their trust in St. Joseph as a powerful intercessor.”

“The Church neither encourages nor discourages this practice. She recognizes that different forms of piety and popular devotion can be beneficial to believers, helping them to grow in faith, trust, and personal holiness.”

However, Jimmy Akin disagrees with CUF as stated in his article on the same topic:

“While it is reasonable to ask St. Joseph for his intercession in helping buy or sell a home… the idea of burying a statue of him upside down has no plausible connection to any patronly interest he might have in housing.

Because an efficacy is attributed to a religious act that has no apparent rational basis, the act qualifies as superstition or a perverse excess of religion. The Catechism notes that "Superstition in some sense represents a perverse excess of religion" (CCC 2110).”

However, some of Akin’s commenters disagreed with him. So who is right?

Apparently this is an area of uncertainty for the Roman Catholic since there is no infallible judgment by their Church and an area of general disagreement as to whether the practice would qualify as “superstitious” or not. On the surface this doesn’t sound like a big deal until you realize that the catechism paragraph that Akin referred to (CCC 2110) deals with the first commandment and keeping the commandments is necessary in Roman Catholic soteriology (CCC 2068).

That leaves the Roman Catholic walking a thin line between honorable Catholic piety and potentially damning idolatry. Despite their possession of an infallible authority to provide certainty in matters of faith and morals, the only thing the Roman Catholic is left with in determining whether the simple matter (with heavy implications) of statue-burying is superstitious or not is their own private judgment.

Funny how that works.


On an interesting side note…in the post by Jimmy Akin, one of his commenters had this to say in response:

“Jimmy, I fear that your Protestant background has coloured your response to this person's inquiry. This practice is not necessarily superstitous, if by it the worshipper is simply intending to visibly manifest his prayer to Saint Joseph.”

If you have ever been the target of online Catholic critiques of your personal motives, you may find Akin’s reponse back amusing:

“You need to be careful in the kind of attributions you make regarding others' backgrounds. I understand the temptation on the part of some to ascribe anything you disagree with that a convert says to his prior religious background, but this is a very dangerous and unreliable thing to do.

It also won't win you friends as nobody likes having their motives psychologically deconstructed as a way of ignoring the arguments they've made.”

I Have NOT been Swimming in the Tiber

I have used the nickname "Tertiumquid" probably around 10 years or so. I picked it randomly out of a Latin glossary in the back of book when trying to pick a user name for an Internet service provider. I am the original Tertiumquid. When I began using it, I doubt anyone was using it.

Do not be fooled by this blog entry:

"Tertium Quid details a touching aspect of grace in his life after becoming Catholic. Check it out."

There is also a band that uses the name, as well as a poet, and bunch of other people as well. In regards to someone with this nickname swimming the Tiber, well, let's just say I would buy the band's CD and listen to the poet before I grant someone well-wishes for embracing sola ecclesia.

Habits resulting in death?

We all have habits both good, bad and indifferent. One of my habits that may fit into any of those catergories on any given night is that while channel surfing I see someone like Joel Osteen "preaching" so I stop and listen. I did this last night and just in time to h ear Joel's "This is my Bible.." confession. So I got to hear about how people are basically good and it's just our bad habits that we need to change.

Osteen mentioned a list of "habits" that most Christians would normally understand to be "sins" as my wife reminded me as she said as much while rolling her eyes at the TV. Osteen stated that people are basically good, but that our habits can ruin our lives. He even stated that "habits determine your destiny". If we take a look at a small section of Romans 6 and think of "habits" instead of sin it just doesn't fit.

Romans 6:17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification. 20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. 22 But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. [NASB]

So how about we say that the wages of bad habits is death, but the changing of those habits is to change your destiny (eternal life)? To be fair, Osteen didn't specifically speak in terms of eternal life, but that is certainly the allusion given the overall context. He even told the old grandfather - grandson story about feeding the good and bad wolves. It's all about us and our habits and choices that guide everything...the ultimate religion of self and morality. I'm thankful in some ways though.

I am thankful that Joel Osteen is so clear in what he teaches. He doesn't hide his teaching at all and comes right out and tells you that it's all about you and your decisions. You don't have to peel anything back to understand where he is really coming from. It's about what you do as an individual and not about what Christ has done. I wish more preachers were as clear. I say this because there doesn't really seem to be that much difference between modern evangelicalism and Osteen's position. Some may even say that he is modern evangelicalism.

Whether you're asked to change your bad habits or make the right decisions in relation to the Christian life aren't these one in the same? Look to yourself and your habits and choices...it's the Theology of Glory. My proposal is that we make life changes and can only do so because of what Christ as done for us. The example of the Apostle Paul rings through when he looks at himself as the worst undeserving sinner only to be changed because of Christ. Paul looks back to the cross not to self.

How about to the observing unbelievers that may be present during said type of worship service? If the Gospel message that the unbeliever gets is that he must "make Jesus Lord and Savior" or "just ask Jesus into his heart" is the extent with no further application then what good is it really? As I see it in these terms the Christian life is reduced to: here is your Gospel card, carry it and be a good person. What message is that sending? The message of just make the right decisions and you'll be okay.

I'm going to close by putting today's altar call in a different in a different presentation instead of "asking Jesus into your heart" and simply making right decisions. How about telling the unbeliever that he doesn't doesn't deserve to walk the aisle and come forward. Just like the Christians in the surrounding pews don't deserve Christ as they are no better than he is. See, it's not about the decisions you make, but the one Christ made to die for sin on the cross for sinners like you and me and to rise again on the third day defeating death that those who trust in Him may live. If you walked through these doors today as an unbeliever and you now trust in Christ and His work on the cross then come forward. Understand that you are not coming forward to get saved, but because of the grace of God opening your eyes to believe so come forward so we all may humbling rejoice together.

One man's observations for now...

Mark

Video Overview on Islam, Featuring Dr. James White

James Kennedy's Coral Ridge Hour is featuring a segment on Islam. The clip runs about 10 minutes, and provides a good overview on the impact of Islam on our world. I mention this because Dr. James White is one of the featured guests in this segment explaining Islam.

View this clip here

Feature: The Religion of IslamWhat challenges of the Islamic faith are being imposed upon us? What is the mission of "Jihad"? Learn some of the startling and interesting facts about this religion. For years, Dr. Kennedy has spoken about the Islamic growth and the vital importance of understanding what this means! Tune in today to The Coral Ridge Hour and find out more about this critical issue.

An Introduction

A little about me…(unlikely to show up on the CHN testimony page).

About a year ago I wrote a post on my personal/devotional blog about my Catholic upbringing and my opposition to Roman Catholicism which in turn attracted some Catholic commenters and led to further posts on that topic. After many months I decided to start a new blog dedicated to exposing the false gospel of Roman Catholicism entitled But These Are Written after John 20:31.

If you have dealt with any Catholic e-pologists, you have likely heard John 20:30 used as a support for tradition: “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book”. The implication is that Jesus did many things that are not written down therefore, there must be a relevant source of information regarding faith and morals outside of scripture (tradition). The absurdity of this proof-text for the necessity of tradition is ironically found in the very next verse: “but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name”. Hence, what has been recorded in scripture is sufficient for salvation and was recorded for just that purpose.

With John 20:31 as my blogging motto, I have set out to document the counter-biblical beliefs of Roman Catholicism and the logical shortcomings of their authority system. In my initial interactions with Catholic e-pologists I dealt mostly with protestantized-types (“separated brethren” types) who were inconsistent with their own Church’s teachings, so I spent a lot of time establishing historical Roman Catholic beliefs from Roman Catholic documents. As such, I enjoy finding quotes/excerpts from Catholic source materials to flush out true Roman Catholic beliefs. I hope to do more of that here.

I would like to thank James for the opportunity to join him here at Beggars All. My work is nowhere near the caliber of James’ (nor near the caliber of many of the commenters here), but I hope I can at least provide some interesting points for discussion. I have no theological or philosophical training, I am simply a believer that loves the gospel and opposes false teachings that deny it.

My focus here will be solely Roman Catholicism.

“Is everything that God taught in the Bible?

No, the rest is in tradition.

‘Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of His disciples, which are not written in this book." (John 20:30)’"

Source: A Brief Catechism for Adults, Lesson 2

And Welcome....Continued

I’ve asked a few folks to join me here at Beggars All. My schedule now will be a bit intense until 2008.

The next to climb aboard is Carrie. I have been very impressed with Carrie's blog, But These Are Written... I like the fact that she digs into sources and finds excellent material, and then makes insightful observations about the truth claims of Roman Catholicism. This is the type of blog I typically enjoy reading, and on more than one occasion, I've thought, "Wow, I wish I made that point or found that quote Carrie posted!"

And Welcome....

I’ve asked a few folks to join me here at Beggars All. My schedule now will be a bit intense until 2008.

The first to climb aboard is John Mark. I’ve known Mark for quite a few years now. We originally met back on the CARM discussion boards. He’s been a good cyber-friend over the years. He probably doesn’t realize this, but he was one of the only people who would ever actually chat with me over on Prosapologian when I first started stopping by. I’ve read his blog for years, and he was actually instrumental (unbeknownst to him) in getting me interested in doing my own blog. He is a solid Christian man, well grounded in the truth, and has been a blessing to me.

He also runs his own blog, Sweet Tea and Theology. He puts forth excellent entries on Reformed issues (an area I generally don’t get a chance to get into). In fact, I’m thankful to actually veer away from Roman Catholicism at times (I never planned on spending so much time with Roman Catholicism), so John Mark’s contributions, on whatever issues and topics he chooses, will indeed be refreshing.

Acts 2:38

From the Pros Apologian chat channel, Marie the Uber-Librarian posted the following:

An elderly woman had just returned to her home from an evening of Church services when she was startled by an intruder.

She caught the man in the act of robbing her home of its valuables and Yelled,"Stop! Acts 2:38!" (Repent and be baptized, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven.)"

The burglar stopped in his tracks. The woman calmly called the police and explained what she had done.

As the officer cuffed the man to take him in, he asked the burglar, "Why did you just stand there? All the old lady did was yell a scripture to you."

"Scripture?" replied the burglar. "She said she had an Ax and Two 38's!"

In Roland Bainton's famous biography of Luther Here I Stand, Bainton gives an example of how "Luther would pass directly from the sermon to the announcements." I've always found this example humorous, and I thought it was worth sharing:

The sermon on the 8th of November, 1528, was on the lord who forgave his servant: This lord, said Luther, is a type of the Kingdom of God. The servant was not forgiven because he had forgiven his fellow servant. On the contrary he received forgiveness before he had done anything whatever about his fellow servant. From this we see that there are two kinds of forgiveness. The first is that which we receive from God; the second is that which we exercise by bearing no ill will to any upon earth. But we must not overlook the two administrations, the civil and the spiritual, because the prince cannot and should not forgive. He has a different administration than Christ, who rules over crashed and broken hearts. The Kaiser rules over scoundrels who do not recognize their sins and mock and carry their heads high. That is why the emperor carries a sword, a sign of blood and not of peace. But Christ's kingdom is for the troubled conscience. He says, "I do not ask of you a penny, only this, that you do the same for your neighbor." And the lord in the parable does not tell the servant to found a monastery, but simply that he should have mercy on his fellow servants.

But now what shall I say to you Wittenbergers? It would be better that I preach to you the Sacks ens fie gel [the imperial law], because you want to be Christians while still practicing usury, robbing and stealing. How do people who are so sunk in sins expect to receive forgiveness? The sword of the emperor really applies here, but my sermon is for crushed hearts who feel their sins and have no peace. Enough for this gospel.

I understand that this is the week for the church collection, and many of you do not want to give a thing. You ungrateful people should be ashamed of yourselves. You Wittenbergers have been relieved of schools and hospitals, which have been taken over by the common chest, and now you want to know why you are asked to give four pennies. They are for the ministers, schoolteachers, and sacristans. The first labor for your salvation, preach to you the precious treasure of the gospel, administer the sacraments, and visit you at great personal risk in the plague. The second train children to be good magistrates, judges, and ministers. The third care for the poor. So far the common chest has cared for these, and now that you are asked to give four miserable pennies you are up in arms. What does this mean if not that you do not want the gospel preached, the children taught, and the poor helped? I am not saying this for myself.I receive nothing from you. I am the prince's beggar. But I am sorry I ever freed you from the tyrants and the papists. You ungrateful beasts, you are not worthy of the treasure of the gospel. If you don't improve, I will stop preaching rather than cast pearls before swine.

And now another point: couples to be blessed by the curate before a wedding should come early. There are seated hours: in summer, mornings at eight and afternoons at three; in winter, mornings at nine and afternoons at two. If you come later, I will bless you myself, and you won't thank me for it. And the invited guests should prepare themselves in good time for the wedding and let not Miss Goose wait for Mrs. Duck.