Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Did The First Council Of Constantinople Condemn Premillennialism?

The subject of the condemnation of premillennialism by an ecumenical council has been prominent in some recent discussions here, so I thought I'd repost some of my comments on the subject from another thread. Jnorm888, an Eastern Orthodox, originally claimed that premillennialism was condemned as a heresy by an ecumenical council in the sixth century. He later retracted that claim and replaced it with the claim that the doctrine was condemned by the First Council of Constantinople in the fourth century. NPMcCallum, another Eastern Orthodox, also argued for a condemnation by First Constantinople. Here, below, is my latest response to NPMcCallum on the subject, from the thread here.

NPMcCallum said:

"Jason, I would agree with you 100% if it were not for 'whose kingdom shall have no end.' 'Whose kingdom shall have no end' is the ONLY phrase added to the Christological portion of the creed at Constantinople, the same council which condemns a known chilliast (and I think two known chilliasts, if I can find the source). Why add this phrase to the Creed? There is no other context for this phrase other than chilliasm. I'll happily accept correction if you can show otherwise."

As I explained earlier, I don't know much about the history of the creed in question. I don't know the timing of the addition you're referring to or much else about its background. I know there's been disagreement among scholars regarding where different portions of the creed came from. I haven't followed those disputes in detail.

You've made a lot of assertions, but the only source you've cited so far has been a letter of Gregory Nazianzen, which mentions premillennialism, briefly, as one of the beliefs of some of the heretics in question. It wasn't the central belief of those heretics, and the council itself condemns multiple groups of heretics without any reference to premillennialism. If the phrase in question in the creed came from the council, and the council meant to condemn premillennialism of some type, I would want more evidence before concluding that a condemnation of premillennialism in general was in view. As I said before, an allusion to Luke 1:33 doesn't contradict premillennialism as it's commonly perceived, so the phrase itself shouldn't be seen as a condemnation of premillennialism. You would need to combine the phrase with something else indicating that a condemnation of premillennialism was in mind.

Philip Schaff writes, concerning this addition to the creed:

"This addition likewise is found substantially in the Antiochian creeds of 341, and is directed against Marcellus of Ancyra, Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata, who taught that the union of the power of God (ἐνέργεια δραστική) with the man Jesus will cease at the end of the world, so that the Son and His kingdom are not eternal Comp. Hefele, i. 438 and 507 sq." (source, note 1441)

That heresy isn't part of premillennialism in general. As I said earlier, a condemnation of a heretical form of premillennialism wouldn't qualify as a condemnation of premillennialism in general. You have to attach a heresy to premillennialism that isn't part of premillennialism itself in order to place some form of premillennialism under this condemnation.

You say that "there is no other context for this phrase other than chilliasm", but Schaff's comments above provide another context. The eternality of Christ's reign is relevant to heretics who denied that Christ and His reign are eternal. No condemnation of premillennialism in general is needed to make sense of the creed.

Of the scholars I've read on the history of premillennialism so far, none have argued that the doctrine was condemned by the First Council of Constantinople. And as I noted earlier, the doctrine continued among mainstream Christians after First Constantinople. Furthermore, whoever composed the portion of the creed you're referencing probably realized that premillennialism had been a widespread belief, accepted by the likes of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. In light of such factors, a condemnation of premillennialism in general seems unlikely. The evidence I've seen so far is against your conclusion.

24 comments:

  1. Hi,

    This is not relevant to the current post, but I thought I'd post my questions somewhere.

    How would you gentleman respond to the following assertions about early and recent Christianity?

    (1) The history of the Church shows that private judgment applied to scripture has frequently resulted in errors and heresies. Early heretics expressly relied on scripture over other forms of authority when they believed the former to support their viewpoint and the latter to reject it. Their Catholic opponents, on the other hand, drew on both scripture and other sources of authority in order to counter heresies.

    (2) The possibility of reasonable and holy men differing in interpretation of inspired scripture is made clear in the theological debates of early Christianity. Thus, men often need another authority to help them interpret scripture in a way that prevents them from becoming Arians, Manichees, etc.

    (3) While it is possible to find fathers who seemed to believe in justification by faith, and while various interpretations of particular early patristic sources can be advanced to support some aspects of modern evangelical Christianity, the preponderance of the evidence DOES NOT look anything like modern evangelical Christianity. Rather, it appears that Christians who knew the apostles (or who knew men who knew them) and who were obviously neither Gnostics nor Arians, and who served as living examples of apostolic Christianity for the next generation, lived a Christianity centered around: obedience to their Bishop, rejection of the many rival claimants to the chair of their Bishop, and celebration of the Eucharist.

    (4) A person who reads scripture and concludes that it contains no errors or self-contradictions, when confronted with a handful of supposed errors or contradictions, should not say: "Oh, I guess I was wrong about scripture." They should say: "Maybe these supposed errors and contradictions need to be interpreted in a different way, so that I can once again see clearly the truth of scripture." If this is the correct approach to take with scripture, then why can one not take this approach in dealing with the handful of "obvious" errors and self-contradictions in Catholic teaching?

    (4) The accusation that the modern Catholic Church teaches heretical beliefs about salvation outside the Church is adequately answered, not by the possibly sinful actions of popes and bishops, but by the documents of the Magisterium. The relevant document today is "Dominus Jesus":
    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

    (5) Reasonable people, with reasonable interpretations of scripture, and reasonable interpretations of history, have lived holy lives while calling themselves by the despised name "Catholic," have lead many to love and to serve Jesus, and have served as an inspiration for those in the darkness of unbelief to reject atheism, etc, and to embrace Jesus Christ. And they have done all this while asking Mary to pray for them, while preserving and honoring the relics of Saints, and while praying before the blessed sacrament, in Churches decorated with beautiful art.

    Given your responses to the above questions, I have to ask: is the intention of the anti-Catholic comments on this website to keep other people from falling into the trap of being as holy as St. Francis? or as holy as St. Therese? or as holy as Blessed Teresa of Calcutta? or as holy as St. Josemaria? or as holy as Edith Stein? or as holy as St. Maximilian Kolbe? Are you surprised that people would look at the lives of these men and women and wish to belong to their Church?

    Do you really believe that a person who values truth, who loves God, who loves his fellow man, and who seeks to follow Jesus and his apostles, is a sinner and a fool for looking at the evidence of scripture, early Christianity, and the history of the Church and her saints, and concluding that he would like to be a member of the Catholic Church?

    I would like to see more respect for Catholics and Catholicism on this site. Have any of you even befriended a devout and practicing Catholic? If you have, do you really believe that their distinctively Catholic beliefs and practices have harmed them in any way?

    I don't know a better way to put this, so I'll say it this way: there is a lot of arrogance in your statements about the Church. I cannot believe that people as intelligent as you would publicly state such beliefs if you knew practicing Catholics personally and if you tried arguing with us extensively. I can only believe that your intelligence and good will would cause you to concede that we also have arguments favoring our positions, and we also have relationships with Jesus Christ.

    I am praying for all of you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Harvard,

    I suppose you could answer my questions:

    (1) The history of the Church demonstrates that priests should not be left alone with small boys. Further, the wide range of beliefs within the Catholic Church is divisive (the Jesuits, the Benedictines, the Dominicans--I mean, c'mon, which one is it?).

    (2) The actuality of popes contradicting themselves rends papal infallibility a joke. (If you're concerned, just note that my logic is impeccable as well as infallible.)

    (3) While it is not possible to find Catholics who do not believe in Vatican II before it was forced down the throats of all good believing Vatican I followers, the perponderance of historical evidence DOES NOT look anything like Vatican II either.

    (4) The vast and many contradictions amongst Catholics are only resolved by private judgment, so why shouldn't we use private judgement when resolving supposed contradictions in Scripture?

    (5) Reasonable people living reasonable lives and reading the Bible in a reasonable sense have gone under the dreaded label of "Protestant", have never bothered to worship Mary, could care less about the distinction between dulia and latria (except insofar as I think you dulia in the latria, but only when you're in the woods). They have converted atheists, fed the poor, clothed the homeless, and Mary had nothing to do with it.

    Given your questions (not your response since you haven't responded yet), I find your anti-Protestantism to be quite offensive, irrational, and delusional. I would like to see more respect for Protestantism from you.

    For that matter, I would like you to show more respect for simple logical thought and coherent reasoning. Your assertions are riddled with logical fallacies (hence my reductio response to them). I doubt you'll get the point, but no one else should have problems with it.

    There is a lot of arrogance in what you say about Protestants. I mean, you come in in the middle of a discussion with Ortodox and assume it's a Catholic converstaion to begin with (great reading skills you have!).

    I am praying Isaiah 45:18-22 for you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The history of the Church shows that private judgment applied to scripture has frequently resulted in errors and heresies.


    1. So what? We should begin with the NT model of the church, not a utilitarian model of what a rule of faith should do. We should be concerned with what is true not what we think has "worked."

    2. According to the NT, heresies must arise so that the truth can be known and made evident.

    arly heretics expressly relied on scripture over other forms of authority when they believed the former to support their viewpoint and the latter to reject it.

    Actually, they would often substitute their own authority for that of Scripture by claiming that Scripture wasn't clear. Try reading Against Heresies to find the documentation.

    Their Catholic opponents, on the other hand, drew on both scripture and other sources of authority in order to counter heresies.

    You misstate the Protestant rule of faith. One wonders if Roman Catholics ever pay attention. We do not deny that other sources of "authority" exist or that they are useful. We deny that those sources are infallible. Scripture alone is the final arbiter of the truth, because it alone is God-breathed and infallible.

    By the way, every time you try to proselytize a Protestant to Catholicism, you're inviting him to use his private judgment. You can't very well deny the right of private judgment and then appeal to it whenever it suits you.

    The possibility of reasonable and holy men differing in interpretation of inspired scripture is made clear in the theological debates of early Christianity.

    See above.

    Thus, men often need another authority to help them interpret scripture in a way that prevents them from becoming Arians, Manichees, etc.

    Problem is, you can't make infallible authority jump from the page or the mouth of a speaker into the mind of the reader or hearer. So, this statement doesn't get you where you want to go. We both agree Scripture is infallible. If God's own written Word that is infallible won't keep a man from becoming an Arian or Manichee or a Mormon, then why would the Magisterial statements of Rome do it? What makes the Magisterial statements of Rome do what the Bible won't? All you've done is move the problem back one step. You've not solved anything.

    While it is possible to find fathers who seemed to believe in justification by faith, and while various interpretations of particular early patristic sources can be advanced to support some aspects of modern evangelical Christianity, the preponderance of the evidence DOES NOT look anything like modern evangelical Christianity.

    1. This assumes, without benefit of argument, that history is the true rule of faith. Where's your supporting argument?

    2. Calculus doesn't look very much like Algebra 1 and neither look too much like Preschool Math, do they? Yet by your logic, calculus would be false and Preschool Math would be true.

    3. Your communion advances a theory of doctrinal development. We really don't have a problem with that. What we have a problem with is your assumption that evangelical Protestantism, particularly Reformation Protestantism is an illegitimate development. Where's the supporting argument?

    Rather, it appears that Christians who knew the apostles (or who knew men who knew them) and who were obviously neither Gnostics nor Arians, and who served as living examples of apostolic Christianity for the next generation, lived a Christianity centered around: obedience to their Bishop, rejection of the many rival claimants to the chair of their Bishop, and celebration of the Eucharist.

    Which bishop of which See? If you look at early Church history, you'll find the Bishop of Rome's authority was not universally recognized. So this argument doesn't help you.

    We affirm that the members of the local churches should recognize the authority of their bishops, elders, and deacons or their presbytery.

    The church I attend celebrates the Lord's Supper every Sunday evening. I'm a Reformed Baptist, I attend a PCA church right now.

    There is no dominical command or apostolic command to celebrate the Lord's Supper every week. Why should we celebrate it that often? Because the early church did so? The Subapostolic Church also did many things that Rome does not do? Do you baptize by immersion with a 3fold formula, dipping 3 times like Tertullian? No.

    A person who reads scripture and concludes that it contains no errors or self-contradictions, when confronted with a handful of supposed errors or contradictions, should not say: "Oh, I guess I was wrong about scripture." They should say: "Maybe these supposed errors and contradictions need to be interpreted in a different way, so that I can once again see clearly the truth of scripture." If this is the correct approach to take with scripture, then why can one not take this approach in dealing with the handful of "obvious" errors and self-contradictions in Catholic teaching?

    So, now you're saying the individual should exercise his private judgment with respect to Scripture AND Magisterial teaching? If so, this is opposed to your argument in 1.

    The accusation that the modern Catholic Church teaches heretical beliefs about salvation outside the Church is adequately answered, not by the possibly sinful actions of popes and bishops, but by the documents of the Magisterium. The relevant document today is "Dominus Jesus":
    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html


    The Magisterium is not our rule of faith.

    Reasonable people, with reasonable interpretations of scripture, and reasonable interpretations of history, have lived holy lives while calling themselves by the despised name "Catholic," have lead many to love and to serve Jesus, and have served as an inspiration for those in the darkness of unbelief to reject atheism, etc, and to embrace Jesus Christ.

    In Catholicism, faith is divided between Christ, the merit of others, and your own congruent merit.

    By the way, we deny Romanists can give us a credible profession of faith.

    We leave a saving profession of faith between that person and God Himself.

    Read our archives for the explanation.

    And they have done all this while asking Mary to pray for them, while preserving and honoring the relics of Saints, and while praying before the blessed sacrament, in Churches decorated with beautiful art.

    The Marian dogmas cannot be found in the Subapostolic Churches.

    The sacrament is not "blessed." It is ecclesioatry to pray before it as you do.

    Many of our churches are decorated with beautiful art.

    Given your responses to the above questions, I have to ask: is the intention of the anti-Catholic comments on this website to keep other people from falling into the trap of being as holy as St. Francis? or as holy as St. Therese? or as holy as Blessed Teresa of Calcutta? or as holy as St. Josemaria? or as holy as Edith Stein? or as holy as St. Maximilian Kolbe? Are you surprised that people would look at the lives of these men and women and wish to belong to their Church?

    Yes, we believe Catholicism is in serious error.

    If any of these people were "holy" it was due to the righteousness of Christ, not their own righteousness.

    Do you really believe that a person who values truth, who loves God, who loves his fellow man, and who seeks to follow Jesus and his apostles, is a sinner and a fool for looking at the evidence of scripture, early Christianity, and the history of the Church and her saints, and concluding that he would like to be a member of the Catholic Church?

    Do you really believe that a person who values truth, who loves God, who loves his fellow man, and who seeks to follow Jesus and his apostles, is a sinner and a fool for looking at the evidence of scripture, early Christianity, and the history of the Church and her saints, and concluding that he would like to be a member of the Mormon Church?

    Do you really believe that a person who values truth, who loves God, who loves his fellow man, and who seeks to follow the Prophet Muhammed Blessed be His name , is a sinner and a fool for looking at the evidence of scripture, early Christianity, and the history of the Church and her saints, and concluding that he would like to be a Muslim?

    Get it?
    I would like to see more respect for Catholics and Catholicism on this site.

    You don't get to tell us what to post.

    Have any of you even befriended a devout and practicing Catholic?

    Half my family is Roman Catholic.

    If you have, do you really believe that their distinctively Catholic beliefs and practices have harmed them in any way? Yes

    I don't know a better way to put this, so I'll say it this way: there is a lot of arrogance in your statements about the Church

    I don't know a better way to put this, so I'll say it this way: there is a lot of arrogance in your statements about the Church

    cannot believe that people as intelligent as you would publicly state such beliefs if you knew practicing Catholics personally and if you tried arguing with us extensively.

    Thank you for the psychobabble. Unfortunately for you, we've done both.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lvka said...

    Experiment. >:)


    It doesn't speak well of the integrity of the Orthodox when not just one (Orthodox) but now a second (Lvka) tries to defy his permaban.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You say: "(1) The history of the Church demonstrates that priests should not be left alone with small boys. Further, the wide range of beliefs within the Catholic Church is divisive (the Jesuits, the Benedictines, the Dominicans--I mean, c'mon, which one is it?)."

    My response to the latter point is: in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. Does St. Benedict disagree with St. Dominic about the essentials of the faith? Are either of these figures uncharitable? If not, then what is the problem?


    You say: "(2) The actuality of popes contradicting themselves rends papal infallibility a joke. (If you're concerned, just note that my logic is impeccable as well as infallible.)"

    My response is: I could say the same thing about contradictions in Genesis, or foolishness about the ages of people in the old testament, or contradictions in the chronology of who saw Jesus after the resurrection. But I don't say that about the Bible because I believe that one needs to interpret the Bible carefully in order to see the truth behind the apparent errors. Just as one needs to interpret the history of Catholic teaching carefully. Do you have specific examples that you would like to bring up?

    You say: "(3) While it is not possible to find Catholics who do not believe in Vatican II before it was forced down the throats of all good believing Vatican I followers, the perponderance of historical evidence DOES NOT look anything like Vatican II either."

    My response is: There seems to be an extra not in your first clause. But (if I am interpreting your point correctly), I would say that if you would like to find a Catholic who believed in Vatican II before it happened, check out St. Josemaria Escriva. As for the preponderance of historical evidence not looking like Vatican II, please elaborate. To cite one example against your claim, compare the Mass as explained by St. Justin Martyr with the Novus Ordo. I think they look phenomenally similar.

    You say: "(4) The vast and many contradictions amongst Catholics are only resolved by private judgment, so why shouldn't we use private judgement when resolving supposed contradictions in Scripture?"

    My response this time is another question: do you think that private judgment ever leads to errors in interpreting scripture?

    You say: "(5) Reasonable people living reasonable lives and reading the Bible in a reasonable sense have gone under the dreaded label of "Protestant", have never bothered to worship Mary, could care less about the distinction between dulia and latria (except insofar as I think you dulia in the latria, but only when you're in the woods). They have converted atheists, fed the poor, clothed the homeless, and Mary had nothing to do with it."

    My response: But I don't believe that you are necessarily worthy of invective, nor do I believe that you are necessarily going to Hell for being a Protestant. What do you believe about me?

    You say:
    "Given your questions (not your response since you haven't responded yet), I find your anti-Protestantism to be quite offensive, irrational, and delusional. I would like to see more respect for Protestantism from you."

    My response: see above about not necessarily going to Hell. I respect you enough to try to engage in a meaningful discussion with you.

    You say:
    "For that matter, I would like you to show more respect for simple logical thought and coherent reasoning. Your assertions are riddled with logical fallacies (hence my reductio response to them). I doubt you'll get the point, but no one else should have problems with it."

    My response: Would you be charitable enough to share with me my many fallacies? Perhaps I can be improved by discussing them with you.

    You say: "There is a lot of arrogance in what you say about Protestants. I mean, you come in in the middle of a discussion with Ortodox and assume it's a Catholic converstaion to begin with (great reading skills you have!)."

    My response: I am sorry if it was arrogant of me to butt into the discussion. But I thought we might have a fruitful discussion and I didn't know a better way to do it than to make a comment after the most recent post.

    Are you willing to answer my original questions with a non reductio response? I made the post with the intentions of: (1) eliciting a serious response that I could read with interest, and (2) taking the opportunity to prod you guys into considering whether you have been uncharitable towards Catholics in your invective. While (2) may be a better topic for later, I would still be interested in your take on (1).

    ReplyDelete
  6. GeneMBridges, I don't think I can reply to everything you said at once. But, regarding private judgment, my point is not that we shouldn't exercise it (as you correctly pointed out, how could we not exercise it?), but rather I wanted to see if you agreed that good and reasonable people could easily disagree using private judgment. If you do agree with this, then I wanted to ask whether you thought it was unreasonable for people to think it likely that God would respond to this deficit with an infallible teaching organ. Again, I know your opinion on the Church's infallibility in interpreting scripture, but what I wonder is whether you consider the fact that many people view the antecedent probability of such an organ as high to be an unreasonable belief.

    Regarding infallible authority of interpretation, I agree with you completely, except for the following: the living authority of the Church is designed to counter serious errors in the application of private judgment to her infallible interpretations by making it possible for her to issue subsequent clarifications when the need arises. The whole history of the controversy over the divinity, the person and the nature of Christ is a case in point.

    Regarding the history of the early Church looking more like Catholicism than Evangelical Protestantism: consider the fact that there are many "Bishops" of Washington, D.C.. In the early Church, this would have been cause for confusion, since early Christians would want to follow the advice of St. Ignatius in obeying The Bishop, yet different Bishops would ask for different behaviors from the flock in that city. So I think it matters a great deal which Bishop of Washington, D.C. is The Bishop of that city. Do you have an argument for which one is The Bishop?

    Regarding the accusation that the Catholic Church teaches heresy, it is irrelevant that you don't believe in the Magisterium. The point is that Catholics do, and so if you are going to accuse Catholics of believing false teaching, then you need to actually cite the real teaching, not the actions of popes and bishops that were cited elsewhere on this blog to claim Catholics teach heresy.

    Finally, regarding the last issues you raised. . .the point is that the saints I cited were Christians. Mormons and Muslims cannot make a credible claim to follow Christ's commands of believing in him, of eating his flesh, and of following his apostles. I think that we Christians should be careful when arguing with each other to distinguish between people who are actually trying to follow Christ's commands as if he were God, versus those people who do not believe he is God at all. The invective you have used against Catholics is indicative of us not being misguided Christians who still manage to shine the light of Christ, however dimly, through our lives, but rather villains who are not only not Christian but who positively lead people away from the faith.

    Regarding you getting to decide what to post: of course you do. But as a fellow Christian, it is my duty to Jesus Christ to encourage you to be charitable, and to try to build unity through a reasonable and charitable exposition of our differences.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As Peter said, there are a lot of problems with Harvardman's post. Any knowledgeable Evangelical could spend hours responding, but I would prefer not to. Harvardman vaguely criticizes our past material on Roman Catholicism, but makes no attempt to interact with any of it. He wants us to address his claims and questions, though. I'll briefly respond to some of his comments.

    He writes:

    "The history of the Church shows that private judgment applied to scripture has frequently resulted in errors and heresies. Early heretics expressly relied on scripture over other forms of authority when they believed the former to support their viewpoint and the latter to reject it. Their Catholic opponents, on the other hand, drew on both scripture and other sources of authority in order to counter heresies."

    The current thread is an example of how simplistic that assessment is. Roman Catholicism isn't premillennial, yet the earliest premillennialists claimed justification for their eschatology both from scripture and from oral tradition. "Other sources of authority" can come in many different forms, and something like the oral tradition of Papias isn't equivalent to Roman Catholic Tradition.

    The appropriateness of sola scriptura today doesn't require its application to every previous generation. Judgments have to be made case-by-case, and men like Papias and Irenaeus were living in significantly different circumstances than ours.

    He writes:

    "While it is possible to find fathers who seemed to believe in justification by faith, and while various interpretations of particular early patristic sources can be advanced to support some aspects of modern evangelical Christianity, the preponderance of the evidence DOES NOT look anything like modern evangelical Christianity. Rather, it appears that Christians who knew the apostles (or who knew men who knew them) and who were obviously neither Gnostics nor Arians, and who served as living examples of apostolic Christianity for the next generation, lived a Christianity centered around: obedience to their Bishop, rejection of the many rival claimants to the chair of their Bishop, and celebration of the Eucharist."

    Evangelicals don't deny that church leaders should generally be obeyed, just as we should generally obey parents and government officials. But church leaders, like parents and government officials, are subordinate authorities. There are circumstances in which it's appropriate to disobey them in obedience to a higher authority. The New Testament affirms this principle (Acts 4:19-20, 3 John 9-11, Revelation 2:2), as do many patristic sources (The Didache, 4, 11, 15; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:26:2-5; Cyprian, Letter 67).

    Nobody denies that a choice has to be made among rival claimants to a church office. But two pastors of two Baptist churches, for example, in a particular city aren't usually rivals for the same office. The two churches are governmentally independent. Sometimes governmentally independent churches are significantly different from one another, and sometimes they aren't. There were rival churches in the patristic era (Hippolytus, The Refutation Of All Heresies, 9:7), and there have been disagreements about who the legitimate bishop of Rome was during some portions of church history. For example:

    "The legitimacy of [Pope Leo VIII's] pontificate, at least until [Pope] John XII's death, has been contested; it depends on the validity, debated among canonists, of John's deposition....[Pope Silvester III's] right to be considered an authentic pope is open to question....Usually classified as an antipope, [Alexander V's] claim to be an authentic pope is still debated, and some historians give him the compromise description of 'council pope'." (J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary Of Popes [New York: Oxford University Press, 1996], pp. 127, 144, 237)

    What's your point?

    Regarding "celebration of the Eucharist", how many Evangelicals don't celebrate communion? If you're referring to a particular view of the eucharist, why didn't you say so? And how many of our articles on the subject have you consulted?

    None of the three issues you've mentioned are unique to Roman Catholicism. Why did you choose those three?

    Regarding other issues:

    The Papacy (Part 1)
    The Papacy (Part 2)
    The Episcopate
    Apostolic Succession
    Infant Baptism (Part 1)
    Infant Baptism (Part 2)
    The Eucharist
    Justification
    The Sinlessness Of Mary (Part 1)
    The Sinlessness Of Mary (Part 2)
    The Assumption Of Mary (Part 1)
    The Assumption Of Mary (Part 2)
    The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary
    The Woman Of Revelation 12
    Other Marian Doctrines
    Purgatory
    The Veneration Of Images
    Prayers To The Dead
    The Apocrypha
    Eschatology
    Sources Of The Patristic Era Other Than The Church Fathers

    The above are just a small portion of the relevant articles that can be found in our archives.

    Harvardman writes:

    "A person who reads scripture and concludes that it contains no errors or self-contradictions, when confronted with a handful of supposed errors or contradictions, should not say: 'Oh, I guess I was wrong about scripture.' They should say: 'Maybe these supposed errors and contradictions need to be interpreted in a different way, so that I can once again see clearly the truth of scripture.' If this is the correct approach to take with scripture, then why can one not take this approach in dealing with the handful of 'obvious' errors and self-contradictions in Catholic teaching?"

    We have sufficient reason to believe in the Divine inspiration of scripture, whereas we don't have sufficient reason to believe in the authority claims of Roman Catholicism. We have reasons to trust scripture that we don't have for trusting the Roman Catholic denomination. And the existence of the charge of error in both sources doesn't tell us the level of reasonableness of the charge in each case. The fact that such a charge is brought against both sources doesn't lead us to the conclusion that the two are equally suspect.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Doesn't seem like the 1st Council of Constantinopole condemned premillenialism.

    As a side note, wasn't Harvard founded by Calvinist Puritan by the name of Jonathan Edwards?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Does St. Benedict disagree with St. Dominic about the essentials of the faith? Are either of these figures uncharitable? If not, then what is the problem?"

    Most of the disagreements within Protestantism are over non-essentials. So why the double-standard?

    "My response is: I could say the same thing about contradictions in Genesis, or foolishness about the ages of people in the old testament, or contradictions in the chronology of who saw Jesus after the resurrection."

    This is the fallacy of analogy. We actually give answers to those so-called problems whereas you give no solutions (or very bad ones that cannot sustain the test of history) to the problems with papal infallibility.

    "As for the preponderance of historical evidence not looking like Vatican II, please elaborate. To cite one example against your claim, compare the Mass as explained by St. Justin Martyr with the Novus Ordo. I think they look phenomenally similar."

    The question is not whether you can match up VII with one church father here or one church father there. It's that VII directly contradicts several official statements by Popes (considered ex-Cathedra prior to VII) as well as Plenary Councils.

    "My response this time is another question: do you think that private judgment ever leads to errors in interpreting scripture?"

    Sure, but your argument is similar to the Postmodernist argument that no one can know anything for certain because they're conditioned by their social environment. The response to that is that everyone is conditioned, but we would say that conditioning isn't the only factor that goes into a set of beliefs. So, by way of analogy, yes, our reading of Scripture is not objective, but that does not mean that we cannot arrive at the right conclusion without an infallible interpreter.

    "I respect you enough to try to engage in a meaningful discussion with you."

    Harvardman, part of Peter's tone comes from the fact that we've been over these Roman Catholic arguments over and over ad nauseum, and we have to repeat them every time some smart-@$$ thinks-he-knows-it-all Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox) discovers this blog. [Tip: Check out the Topical Index. The link is on the right hand side.]

    ReplyDelete
  10. If you do agree with this, then I wanted to ask whether you thought it was unreasonable for people to think it likely that God would respond to this deficit with an infallible teaching organ.

    1. Oh, He has...in Scripture.
    2. We shouldn't begin with an apiori idea of what we think is reasonable. We should begin by asking what God has actually done. Where is an infallible teaching organ promised to the New Coveant era community?
    3. If you think that infallible organ is the Roman Magisterium, it's up to you, not me, to provide the supporting argument.
    4. I don't think that disagreement is a deficit. The same Paul who wrote the infallible text of 1 Corithians said that such differences not only would arise, but they served a particular purpose.

    Regarding infallible authority of interpretation, I agree with you completely, except for the following: the living authority of the Church is designed to counter serious errors in the application of private judgment to her infallible interpretations by making it possible for her to issue subsequent clarifications when the need arises.

    You can be true to tradition without tradition being true. How are we to verify that these infallible interpretations are correct?

    You've made no effort to demonstrate the infallibility of Rome.

    The whole history of the controversy over the divinity, the person and the nature of Christ is a case in point.

    1. We just had a discussion over Nicene Subordinationism here. Is it heresy to deny Nicene Subordinationism? Is the creed infallible or not?

    2. Actually, there was a great deal of discussion over the meaning of the term "person." Try reading Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, V.4. The creed did not stop the discussions. Every creed has to be interpreted, so appealing to a creed doesn't get you where you want to go.

    Regarding the history of the early Church looking more like Catholicism than Evangelical Protestantism: consider the fact that there are many "Bishops" of Washington, D.C.. In the early Church, this would have been cause for confusion, since early Christians would want to follow the advice of St. Ignatius in obeying The Bishop, yet different Bishops would ask for different behaviors from the flock in that city. So I think it matters a great deal which Bishop of Washington, D.C. is The Bishop of that city. Do you have an argument for which one is The Bishop?

    I'm not Catholic, nor am I Anglican. I deny episcopal polity. Ergo, iIt's not up to me to provide an argument for the primacy of any one bishop.

    Regarding the accusation that the Catholic Church teaches heresy, it is irrelevant that you don't believe in the Magisterium.

    No, it's not irrrelevant. Why should I take the Magisterium's word that it doesn't teach heresy. I wouldn't expect them to admit it.

    My rule of faith is Sola Scriptura. So I let Scripture determine what is heretical and what isn't.

    The point is that Catholics do, and so if you are going to accuse Catholics of believing false teaching, then you need to actually cite the real teaching, not the actions of popes and bishops that were cited elsewhere on this blog to claim Catholics teach heresy.

    The folks at BeggarsAllReformation have done that very nicely.

    Also, you can see our archives.

    The actions of Popes and bishops are relevant, because if they differ with the Magisterial teaching, it goes to your utiltarian view of what a rule of faith should do.

    Finally, regarding the last issues you raised. . .the point is that the saints I cited were Christians

    The point I was making is that your claim is convertible with that of any Muslim, Mormon, or such like, given the way you framed it.

    Mormons and Muslims cannot make a credible claim to follow Christ's commands of believing in him, of eating his flesh, and of following his apostles.

    Now you've shifted your argument. This was your first claim:

    Do you really believe that a person who values truth, who loves God, who loves his fellow man, and who seeks to follow Jesus and his apostles, is a sinner and a fool for looking at the evidence of scripture, early Christianity, and the history of the Church and her saints, and concluding that he would like to be a member of the Catholic Church?

    This is your revised caveat:

    the point is that the saints I cited were Christians. Mormons and Muslims cannot make a credible claim to follow Christ's commands of believing in him, of eating his flesh, and of following his apostles.

    Do you honestly not see the difference? Number 1 focuses not on the credibility of a profession of faith, but on the examination of the ethical lives of certain persons, the following of Jesus and his apostles (Mormons say that they do too), etc.

    I think that we Christians should be careful when arguing with each other to distinguish between people who are actually trying to follow Christ's commands as if he were God, versus those people who do not believe he is God at all

    1. I deny you can give me a credible profession of faith at this point.
    2. That's not the point. I merely responded to you on the ground by which you framed your argument.

    The invective you have used against Catholics is indicative of us not being misguided Christians who still manage to shine the light of Christ, however dimly, through our lives, but rather villains who are not only not Christian but who positively lead people away from the faith.

    You're guilty of ecclesioatry. It is my duty to point that out.

    But as a fellow Christian, it is my duty to Jesus Christ to encourage you to be charitable, and to try to build unity through a reasonable and charitable exposition of our differences.

    Maybe in your sanitized version of Christian ethics, but not mine. Sola Scriptura is tota Scriptura. Scripture is laced with lots of invective directed at false teachers.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Harvardman writes:

    "My response to the latter point is: in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. Does St. Benedict disagree with St. Dominic about the essentials of the faith? Are either of these figures uncharitable?"

    Despite your portrayal of your denomination, we see a lot like this in Roman Catholicism's history:

    "Henceforward the Immaculate Conception became an apple of discord between rival schools of Thomists and Scotists, and the rival orders of the Dominicans and Franciscans. They charged each other with heresy, and even with mortal sin for holding the one view or the other. Visions, marvelous fictions, weeping pictures of Mary, and letters from heaven were called in to help the argument for or against a fact which no human being, not even Mary herself, can know without a divine revelation. Four Dominicans, who were discovered in a pious fraud against the Franciscan doctrine, were burned, by order of a papal court, in Berne, on the eve of the Reformation. The Swedish prophetess, St. Birgitte, was assured in a vision by the Mother of God that she was conceived without original sin; while St. Catherine of Siena prophesied for the Dominicans that Mary was sanctified in the third hour after her conception." (Philip Schaff, The Creeds Of Christendom [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998], Vol. I, pp. 123-124)

    There's a lot that's good in your denomination, in its people and in the majority of its beliefs, for example. But there's also a lot that's bad, more than your posts have suggested.

    You write:

    "The invective you have used against Catholics is indicative of us not being misguided Christians who still manage to shine the light of Christ, however dimly, through our lives, but rather villains who are not only not Christian but who positively lead people away from the faith. Regarding you getting to decide what to post: of course you do. But as a fellow Christian, it is my duty to Jesus Christ to encourage you to be charitable, and to try to build unity through a reasonable and charitable exposition of our differences."

    Though many Roman Catholics surely have been Christians, the denomination teaches a false gospel, and many of its members promote that false gospel. How did the apostle Paul respond to such groups and individuals, as reflected in Galatians, for example?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Harvardman, Episcopalian bishop John Shelby Spong claims that the Roman Catholic Church has flip-flopped in its interpretation of some passages in Scripture:

    "However even the Catholic Church has changed its mind concerning the Book of Jonah. The 1908 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia was very adamant that this story of Jonah was historical fact, and it went to great lengths to discredit those scholars who disagreed:

    'Catholics have always looked upon the Book of Jonah as a fact-narrative. In the works of some recent Catholic writers there is a leaning to regard the book as fiction. Only Simon and Jahn, among prominent Catholic scholars, have clearly denied the historicity of Jonah; and the orthodoxy of these two critics may no longer be defended: "Providentissimus Deus" implicitly condemned the ideas of both in the matter of inspiration, and the Congregation of the Index expressly condemned the "Introduction" of the latter.

    --1908 Catholic Encyclopedia: Jonah'

    The 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to make its point by putting the resurection of Jesus Christ and the reputation of the Catholic Church on the line: "If, then, the stay of Jonah in the belly of the fish be only a fiction, the stay of Christ's body in the heart of the earth is only a fiction."

    Contrast that with the 1970 edition of the Catholic Bible, bearing the signature of the Pope himself. In the preface to the Book of Jonah it states, "this book is a didatic story with an important message." All claims to this being a historical fact-narrative are gone. The Catholic Church has quietly made a complete reversal of its previous position that it defended so adamantly, and is left yet again in the embarassing position of admitting that it was wrong."

    From: The Book of Jonah

    I'm an ardent opponent of Bishop Spong (I think he's a heretic), but his claim here about the RCC and its changing interpretations of Jonah does make me pause somewhat.

    Any ideas, Harvardman, to account for what Bishop Spong has observed?

    ReplyDelete
  13. S&S said:
    ---
    Harvardman, part of Peter's tone comes from the fact that we've been over these Roman Catholic arguments over and over ad nauseum
    ---

    Actually, the tone of my post was reflecting the tone Harvardman set (although what S&S points out here is also true). In fact, you can find an almost point-by-point correlation if you compare his original post with my response. I numbered it the same way and used the same types of fallacies in my responses that he used in his assertions (except I pointed out that I was engaging in a reductio whereas Harvardman didn't realize his shakey ground).

    In any case I, for one, find it very ironic when someone comes in and says, in essense: You Anti-Catholics are so uncharitable, how can you live with your pathetic selves and still pretend to call yourselves Christian?

    So I slap it back in their face (hence the Anti-Protestant label, etc.).

    Frankly, I get nauseated when people approach bearing false platitudes. It's like they're handing you candy apples with razor blades in them: "Look at this nice fruit I'm giving you. Doesn't it look so tasty? Just ignore what it does to your mouth when you try to consume it."

    I figure if charity was really their ultimate goal, they would be a bit more (what's the word I'm looking for? Oh yes!) charitable in their interactions with us.

    Not that Harvardman is the worst I've ever seen (seeing as how Dave Armstrong exists).

    Oh, and also for what it's worth regarding Truth's statement on Edwards...

    Edwards was the third (or possibly the fourth) president of Princeton. Without doing any research on this topic, as far as I know he had nothing to do with Harvard. I could add an anti-Harvard joke here--something like "No sane person would"...but that would be uncharitable as Harvard men can't help it... :-D

    ReplyDelete
  14. Perhaps, harvardman should not have posted his questions but, rather, emailed them. But they were expressed with civility and are interesting. So, I would like to follow up by asking:

    Where does the Bible claim for itself the primacy that you are asserting it has? Do the approximately 34,000 Protestant denominations not suggest that "sola scriptura" has some problems?

    What did the first generations of Christians rely on in the absence of a Bible? Before the invention of the printing press, how many Christians are likely to have owned a Bible? In the absence of something resembling mass literacy, how many people would have been able to read a Bible, even if it were available to them?

    Who selected, safe-guarded and transmitted the books of the Bible that we have today?

    I don't have high expectations of a civil response; I have no expectation of a charitable one. I have been reading this blog and poking around in the archives for a couple of weeks, after being introduced to this blog by someone who posts here occasionally. As interesting and valuable as so much of the information is, the stridency of your tone is often downright toxic.

    Since it is your blog and absolutely your call, as to how you will model Christ to your readers and chance visitors, I will move on to more charitable pastures.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Gene,

    It is an interesting phenomenon.

    The thing is this: it is hard to find "Orthodox" folks who have any interest in theology at all on the Internet.

    Part of the reason is that they are not a large fraction of the English-speaking world, another part of the reason is that nominalism is rampant in "Orthodoxy," but the biggest part of the reason is that the focus of their religion is not refining or defining doctrine.

    So, with respect to Lvka's and "Orthodox"'s zeal, it takes a special breed of EO person to get involved in these sort of debates in the first place.

    May I suggest, and as an outsider I realize I may have little sway, that you consider commuting the permaban to something temporary (say a month or so) to let him cool his tongue and consider how his attitude reflects on his religion, without preventing him from coming here to interact?

    -Turretinfan

    ReplyDelete
  16. "May I suggest, and as an outsider I realize I may have little sway, that you consider commuting the permaban to something temporary (say a month or so) to let him cool his tongue and consider how his attitude reflects on his religion, without preventing him from coming here to interact?"

    I've interacted with LVKA for many months now, and he has not shown the level of logical argumentation that would count as passing...unlike that of other Orthodox like energeticprocession.

    He frequently repeats arguments that we've already responded to. In my opinion, if we're to spend any time dealing with the Orthodox, then we would be better off interacting with the guys at Perry Robinson's blog (though he has a bad habit of begging the question as well).

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi Maggie,

    I'll try to make this post irenic.

    "Do the approximately 34,000 Protestant denominations not suggest that "sola scriptura" has some problems?"

    First of all, that number counts all of the independent churches as individual denominations. It also counts differences in worship style between churches that share the same theology. For instance, two Southern Baptist Churches, one with traditional style singing and one with contemporary, would count as two 'denominations'. Also, many denominations hold to the same confession (esp. Reformed churches). Lastly, the number of Roman Catholic denominations listed is 226!

    Really, the differences between Protestant churches form from a permutation of a small group of doctrinal issues:

    1. Predestination/Free-Will
    2. Paedo/Credo- Baptism
    3. Charismatic Gifts
    4. Church Government, etc.

    These are minor issues in terms of things to be believed in order to come to a knowledge of the truth, and the Protestant doctrine of perspicuity never says that everything is clear in Scripture. [I will note that most non-presbyterian systems will admit that their form of church government is not taught in Scripture and was not the model in the early church.]

    As to number 1, we have quoted Arminians several times on this blog admitting that their belief system is derived from philosophy and then read into Scripture. It's in their systematic theologies and polemical works.

    ReplyDelete
  18. May I suggest, and as an outsider I realize I may have little sway, that you consider commuting the permaban to something temporary (say a month or so) to let him cool his tongue and consider how his attitude reflects on his religion, without preventing him from coming here to interact?

    I'm always open to lifting a ban. I've entertained the idea with Orthodox himself, but his behavior doesn't warrant it when he's been allowed back. I'll let the others here weigh in on the matter. As it stands, I went through the archives the other night and found warnings from Steve to Lvka beginning abt the same time he arrived. So, he's had plenty of time to cool his heels IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Where does the Bible claim for itself the primacy that you are asserting it has?

    The Roman Catholic Church agrees with us that the Bible is infallible, so it is hardly controversial to point that out.

    The Bible never says anything about the need for an infallible teaching authority. If, Maggie, you think it does, it's up to you to provide the supporting argument.

    Do the approximately 34,000 Protestant denominations not suggest that "sola scriptura" has some problems?

    1. Not if we don't start with the idea that the existence of denominations is a problem or that disagreement is not be tolerated.

    2. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/08/33000-denominations.html

    3. The number you cite gets exaggerated all the time. One minute is 20k, another 33k, another 34k. Can't Roman Catholics get their story straight?

    What did the first generations of Christians rely on in the absence of a Bible?

    1. The Scriptures handed down to them from the Jews. How did the Jews muddle through without an infallible determination of what was canonical and what was not? There was also no God-given mechanism to resolve doctrinal disputes in 2nd Temple Judaism. Does this mean the OT rule of faith was a false rule of faith?

    2. With the Apostle's teaching and that of the elders they appointed in the local churches.

    3. Protestants do not deny (1) or (2). We deny that there is any extant Apostolic tradition to be found in any other place than the Bible. You see, it's up to you to supply the documentation of that claim, not us. If you can document the claim, then by all means try, but if you can document it, it's written, and if written, you've proven the primacy of written material over oral tradition. QED

    4. Let's reverse your argument. Since there is disagreement over individual interpretation among Roman Catholics, it therefore follows your rule of faith is improper. True or false? Given your argument, it must be true, yet you deny that.

    Here's the problem, merely claiming that an infallible teaching authority exists and does what you say it does isn't proof that the claim itself is true. Moreover, it doesn't get you where you want to go.

    1. How do we ascertain - infallibly - who the infallible interpreter is in the New Covenant era?
    2. Infallibility never gets from the printed page to the one place where it is needed: the mind of the reader.Even if the interpreter is "infallible" (the Church and its teachers, who convey its teaching) it's infallibility would never get from the printed page or the audible words to where it is needed, the mind of the interpreter.So, the problem isn't related to the necessity of an infallible interpreter (teaching office), it's the necessity of an infallible hearer/reader (person in the pew, reader, etc.).


    Before the invention of the printing press, how many Christians are likely to have owned a Bible?

    The fact that there was no mass production of Bibles via the printing press doesn't select for the need for an infallible Magisterium.

    Protestants do not deny the calling or authority of teachers, elders, etc. We deny their authority is infallible. We deny that the authority of Scripture is derivative of the authority of "the Church." Such claims require you to exegete them from the text - but if you rely on Rome's statements about them and then use them to validate Roman Catholic authority claims, this invites a vicious regress, and it reduces to the bare fideistic claim that Rome has such authority. How can we validate that claim? If you don't depend on Rome to exegete them for you, then you don't need Rome to interpret the text for you, which undermines your rule of faith. Which road will you take?

    In the absence of something resembling mass literacy, how many people would have been able to read a Bible, even if it were available to them

    The Jews were not "mass illiterates." The Subapostolic Church was not "illiterate." That's a fallacious line of argumentation that atheists make. You're equating the Medieval period with the Subapostolic period.

    Who selected, safe-guarded and transmitted the books of the Bible that we have today?

    The local churches and the monasteries, by God's providence. Who denies this? By the way, the Orthodox would deny the claims of Rome. So they would ask you the same question. Just because they safeguarded the Scriptures, it doesn't therefore follow that we should follow their teachings. The Jews safeguarded the OT, but the Jews also fell into apostasy.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well, Gene, old boy:

    it's either us or Catholics or Orientals. Choose. And if You don't like these choices, feel free to circumcise and convert to either Judaism or Islam.

    Namaste! >:)

    ReplyDelete
  21. In view of the fact that Lvka doesn't seem to be able to respect the ban for even a few days, perhaps my suggestion of clemency for him was premature.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Other posters have already made some good points in response to Maggie, but I want to add that issues like the ones she's raised have been addressed by Steve Hays in an e-book he's written on the subject of sola scriptura.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Actually, the tone of my post was reflecting the tone Harvardman set (although what S&S points out here is also true). In fact, you can find an almost point-by-point correlation if you compare his original post with my response."

    I stand corrected.

    ReplyDelete