Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Barking up the wrong pedigree

DAVID WALTZ SAID:

I must be atypical then, for affirm that there exists a positive Catholic sense of “private judgment”, as well as a negative one (see my comments HERE and HERE).

Actually, you do a perfect job of illustrating the mentality of a typical Catholic. I said that when we answer a Catholic on his own grounds, it doesn’t make a dent. I then transcribed some portions of an article by Fr. Tavard to demonstrate my point.

How did you respond? It didn’t make a dent! You blew right past my entire argument.

So far from being an atypical Catholic, you’re a stereotypical Catholic.

Lane’s assessment concerning “private judgment” is worth repeating:

“The Reformers unequivocally rejected the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church. This left open the question of who should interpret Scripture. The Reformation was not a struggle for the right of private judgement. The Reformers feared private judgement almost as much as did the Catholics and were not slow to attack it in its Anabaptist manifestation. The Reformation principle was not private judgement but the perspicuity of the Scriptures. Scripture was ‘sui ipsius interpres’ and the simple principle of interpreting individual passages by the whole was to lead to unanimity in understanding. This came close to creating anew the infallible church…It was this belief in the clarity of Scripture that made the early disputes between Protestants so fierce. This theory seemed plausible while the majority of Protestants held to Luthern or Calvinist orthodoxy but the seventeenth century saw the beginning of the erosion of these monopolies. But even in 1530 Casper Schwenckfeld could cynically note that ‘the Papists damn the Lutherans; the Lutherans damn the Zwinglians; the Zwinglians damn the Anabaptists and the Anabaptists damn all others.’ By the end of seventeenth century many others saw that it was not possible on the basis of Scripture alone to build up a detailed orthodoxy commanding general assent.” (A.N.S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey”, Vox Evangelica, Volume IX – 1975, pp. 44, 45 – bold emphasis mine.)

Several issues here:

i) I frame the issue in terms of private judgment because I’m answering the Catholic apologist on his own grounds. That’s how Catholics typically frame their objection to the Protestant rule of faith.

Whether that’s an accurate description of how the Protestant Reformers framed the issue is beside the point. I’m answering the Catholic on his own grounds.

ii) If you think that quoting the Protestant Reformers disproves my position, then you’re barking up the wrong pedigree. The mere opinion of the Protestant Reformers is not, itself, an argument. I’m not a Protestant because I simply wanted to swap one tradition (Catholic tradition) for another tradition (Protestant tradition).

I never start by asking myself, “What did Calvin believe?” “What did Luther believe?”—then adjust my interpretation of Scripture to match theirs. I don’t begin with Protestant creeds or Reformed confessions.

Rather, I begin with Scripture. After doing my exegesis, I will compare my exegetical results with the Protestant creeds or Reformed confessions. It just so happens that my exegetical theology dovetails with Calvinism. But I’m a Biblicist first, last, and always.

You can find Calvinists who begin with their creeds, confessions, and catechisms. That’s their point of reference. If you want to debate that sort of Calvinist, I suggest you pick a fight with someone like Scott Clark.

For myself, I prefer the theological method of a Calvinist like John Murray.

I’m not trying to trace my bloodline back to Calvin to legitimate my theology. I’m not asking Calvin to take a paternity test to see if I belong to the Reformed family tree. My only concern is with the scriptural pedigree of my belief-system.

iii) Every Christian generation has its own challenges and responsibilities. We must be faithful to the situation that God has put us in. Our duty is not to be actors or antiquarians who simply imitate whatever our Christian forebears did. Our duty is to apply Scripture to our own circumstances, which may or may not parallel the situation of the Protestant Reformers.

iv) The warrant for sola scriptura doesn’t depend on whether it can satisfy some a priori condition which we stipulate, like perspicuity or private judgment.

Rather, the warrant for sola Scripture depends on what rule of faith God has imposed on his church. We don’t need to justify God’s judgment.

iv) It’s pretty anachronistic to keep drawing invidious comparisons with the Anabaptists, as if today’s Amish (to take one example) are interchangeable with the Münsterites or Zwickau Prophets. The traditional, knee-jerk antagonism towards the Anabaptists is terribly dated. It’s time to move beyond that.

For example, John Murray, although he was a staunch Scots-Presbyterian and founding faculty member of Westminster, reviewed two books by a couple of Anabaptist writers (Wenger, Herschberger). Murray didn’t dismiss them out of hand. He didn’t demonize the authors as Anabaptist hellspawn. Rather, he gave them are respectful hearing, commended the good things they said, and took issue with where they went wrong.

In my opinion, Anabaptism is asking many of the rights questions. It sometimes gives the wrong answers to its own questions. If you want to take old polemical scarecrows down from the attic, I’d suggest, once again, that you pick a fight with someone like Scott Clark.

If push comes to shove, you’d be infinitely better off as an Anabaptist than a Roman Catholic. So odious comparisons don’t work in your favor.

v) I wouldn’t say, without qualification, that Scripture is its own interpreter. Background information (e.g. biblical archeology) is pertinent to the interpretation of Scripture.

vi) It’s not our place to posit an a priori ideal, like unanimity, then select a hermeneutical method to further that end. Unanimity is a psychological state (of the reader). It has nothing to do with the meaning of a text. Our hermeneutical method should concern itself with meaning, not unanimity. With authorial intent, not reader intent.

Whether an interpretation is correct, and whether an interpretation commands general assent, are two distinct and sometimes opposing issues.

The way in which Jesus and the Apostles construe Messianic prophecy didn’t command the general assent of their Jewish audience. Many Jews repudiated the Messianic claims of Jesus. Does the absence of general assent somehow disprove dominical and apostolic exegesis?

vii) A correct interpretation can be divisive. Unanimity is no index to true interpretation. The preaching of Jesus and the Apostles was very divisive. And they were preaching from the OT scriptures.

viii) If some people willfully misinterpret the Bible, that also serves the purposes of Scripture, for Scripture is—among other things—a standard of judgment.

ix) ”Who should interpret Scripture?” That’s a simplistic question. Some people are more competent than others. We don’t deny that God has given teachers to the church. But when, say, an evangelical commentator interprets the Bible, he appeals to reason and evidence—not his own authority. It should be possible for an intelligent layman to see how the commentator arrived at his interpretation, using responsible methods of exegesis.

“For me the real issue is SCHISM not “private judgment”;

i) That’s the issue for you because you speak as a Roman Catholic. Since you think the church of Rome is the one true church, then “schism” would be a break with the one true church.

Of course, that merely begs the question in favor of Roman Catholicism. Since a Protestant like me doesn’t share your ecclesiology, I also don’t share your priorities vis-à-vis “schism”.

The church of Rome is simply a local church. Because it was situated in the capital of the Western Roman Empire, because it resorted to fraud (e.g. the False Decretals), and because the papacy was aligned with the crown, it rose to the top of the heap. But those are hardly criteria for the true church. To the contrary, they expose the worldly paternity of the Roman Catholic church.

ii) Do people sometimes leave a church for the wrong reasons? Yes. Do people sometimes start a new church for the wrong reasons? Yes.

iii) But it would be a sin not to break with certain corrupt denominations—like the church of Rome.

The Catholic church is a schismatic church. Through it’s unscriptural theology and corrupt morality, it broke with the true church, instituted by Jesus Christ.

“I exercise “private judgment” on a regular basis, putting certain limits on its use by always stopping short of SCHISM.”

I also believe in putting “certain limits” on private judgment. It’s not an autonomous principle. Private judgment must employ sound hermeneutical methods (e.g. the grammatico-historical method).

That’s why I believe in limiting the private judgment of popes, bishops, and church fathers.

The real issue is fidelity to the word of God.

10 comments:

  1. "The Catholic church is a schismatic church. Through it’s unscriptural theology and corrupt morality, it broke with the true church, instituted by Jesus Christ."

    This is important to note. It's quite ironic how the RCC accuses pretty much everyone else of schism, when their doctrines are so odious and repulsive that Orthodox, Protestants, and others have no other choice but to leave. It reminds me of the party host who gets drunk, belligerant, and obnoxious, but then has the nerve to get mad at everyone for leaving early.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "I don’t begin with Protestant creeds or Reformed confessions.

    Rather, I begin with Scripture. After doing my exegesis, I will compare my exegetical results with the Protestant creeds or Reformed confessions. It just so happens that my exegetical theology dovetails with Calvinism. But I’m a Biblicist first, last, and always."


    This is important to note. I'm standing in line behind you Steve.

    "A correct interpretation can be divisive. Unanimity is no index to true interpretation. "The preaching of Jesus and the Apostles was very divisive. And they were preaching from the OT scriptures."

    Hence, one of the reasons for the name of my blog handle.

    "That’s why I believe in limiting the private judgment of popes, bishops, and church fathers."

    Pow!

    ReplyDelete
  3. To underscore what Steve said, exegesis has moved quite a long way since the time of the Reformers.

    Now that exegetes are required to do in-depth exegesis of the texts, they are forced to bring their presuppositions to the surface so that everyone can examine them. We can tell when a commentator is avoiding the meaning of a passage because of his perception that it would lead to unacceptable consequences (e.g. Oswalt's commentary on Isaiah 10).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hello Steve,

    Thanks for responding; you posted:

    Steve:>>Actually, you do a perfect job of illustrating the mentality of a typical Catholic. I said that when we answer a Catholic on his own grounds, it doesn’t make a dent. I then transcribed some portions of an article by Fr. Tavard to demonstrate my point.>>

    Me: First, Tavard’s essay argues (with solid evidence) that the Bull Unam Sanctum, “does not…meet the requirements of Vatican Council I on infallibilty.”

    Second, for your argument to have solid import, you must demonstrate that official/infallible decrees/dogmas on faith and morals (my list, not yours) are somehow “unclear”. You do not make a “dent” by using a Bull that is not part of the corpus that needs to be judged (it would be like me telling you what should and/or should not be part of the Scriptural canon and then using a text that you do not accept as part of the canon to disprove perspicuity).

    And third, as one who embraces “private judgment”, how does your “typical exchange” apply to me?


    Steve:>> i) I frame the issue in terms of private judgment because I’m answering the Catholic apologist on his own grounds. That’s how Catholics typically frame their objection to the Protestant rule of faith.>>

    Me: Once again, the issue of “private jugdment” in and of itself is not denied by me (to use your terminology: “you are barking up the wrong pedigree”).


    Steve:>>Whether that’s an accurate description of how the Protestant Reformers framed the issue is beside the point. I’m answering the Catholic on his own grounds.>>

    Me: Maybe the “typical Catholic”, but not me.


    Steve:>>ii) If you think that quoting the Protestant Reformers disproves my position, then you’re barking up the wrong pedigree. The mere opinion of the Protestant Reformers is not, itself, an argument. I’m not a Protestant because I simply wanted to swap one tradition (Catholic tradition) for another tradition (Protestant tradition).>>

    Me: Then you embrace a different form of sola scriptura than the confessional Reformers; your form would be more in line with a Socinus, than with a Calvin.



    Steve:>>vi) It’s not our place to posit an a priori ideal, like unanimity, then select a hermeneutical method to further that end. Unanimity is a psychological state (of the reader). It has nothing to do with the meaning of a text. Our hermeneutical method should concern itself with meaning, not unanimity. With authorial intent, not reader intent.

    Whether an interpretation is correct, and whether an interpretation commands general assent, are two distinct and sometimes opposing issues.>>

    Me: Agreed.


    Steve:>>vii) A correct interpretation can be divisive. Unanimity is no index to true interpretation. The preaching of Jesus and the Apostles was very divisive. And they were preaching from the OT scriptures.>>

    Me: And they were interpreting the OT in a manner contrary at many points with the hermenutical principle you embrace.


    Steve:>>iii) But it would be a sin not to break with certain corrupt denominations—like the church of Rome.

    The Catholic church is a schismatic church. Through it’s unscriptural theology and corrupt morality, it broke with the true church, instituted by Jesus Christ.>>

    Me: This raises two questions for me: first, when did the Catholic Church become “a schismatic church”; and second, is there any church and/or individual who does not have some error in their teaching and life?


    Steve:>>I also believe in putting “certain limits” on private judgment. It’s not an autonomous principle. Private judgment must employ sound hermeneutical methods (e.g. the grammatico-historical method).>>

    Me: And the primary hermeneutic of Jesus and the Apostles was?


    Steve:>>The real issue is fidelity to the word of God.>>

    AMEN!!!


    Grace and peace,

    David

    ReplyDelete
  5. Me: And the primary hermeneutic of Jesus and the Apostles was?


    Steve:>>The real issue is fidelity to the word of God.>>

    AMEN!!!


    Oh, somehow I don't think so, David. Let's be clear here, you have gone out of your way to cast aspersions on the perspicuity of the Word of God by insinuating on other blogs and, if memory serves, elsewhere that the Bible is not clear enough to distinguish from the Scriptures themselves which is correct: Orthodox Trinitarianism or Mormon or Arian Theology Proper.

    So, no, David, you are NOT concerned about "fidelity to the word of God," you're concerned about fidelity to the Church of Rome, for, in the end, you require Rome's Magisterium to be the standard.

    Steve:>>I also believe in putting “certain limits” on private judgment. It’s not an autonomous principle. Private judgment must employ sound hermeneutical methods (e.g. the grammatico-historical method).>>

    Me: And the primary hermeneutic of Jesus and the Apostles was?


    1. Notice that Waltz waltzes right past this one.

    a. We are not God.
    b. We are not Apostles.
    c. Are we to exegete Scripture exactly like the Apostles? Which of us is writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
    d. The NT, among other things, is an infallible commentary on the OT. The way to understand the NT is by the GHM, thereby the GHM takes account of the "primary hermeneutic of Jesus and the Apostles." The issue isn't the way THEY exegeted the Scriptures, but how WE are to properly understand THEM when they did so.
    e. Perhaps, David, you should take a gander at Carson and Beale. When you've done that, get back to Steve on this response of yours. It's been offered here a number of times by others already.

    Steve:>>ii) If you think that quoting the Protestant Reformers disproves my position, then you’re barking up the wrong pedigree. The mere opinion of the Protestant Reformers is not, itself, an argument. I’m not a Protestant because I simply wanted to swap one tradition (Catholic tradition) for another tradition (Protestant tradition).>>

    Me: Then you embrace a different form of sola scriptura than the confessional Reformers; your form would be more in line with a Socinus, than with a Calvin.


    This is just shorthand for trying to apply the gavel of judgment without having to offer a supporting argument. Why bother when you can just tar your opponent a Socinian in lieu of an Anabaptist. Same assertion as the other, just a different word, this time with an more invidious character.

    Actually arguing this to be the case and demonstrating it aren't convertible.

    Steve:>>Actually, you do a perfect job of illustrating the mentality of a typical Catholic. I said that when we answer a Catholic on his own grounds, it doesn’t make a dent. I then transcribed some portions of an article by Fr. Tavard to demonstrate my point.>>

    Me: First, Tavard’s essay argues (with solid evidence) that the Bull Unam Sanctum, “does not…meet the requirements of Vatican Council I on infallibilty


    a. Irrelevant to Steve's argument. David, you're still breezing past the argument Steve made.

    Steve wrote: Tavard’s analysis illustrates the extreme intricacies and vagaries of interpreting a Magisterial statement from the past, as well as relating that statement to current Catholic theology. You have to look forward and backward. Backward to precedents leading up to the statement to rightly construe the statement in its historical context—and forward to subsequent interpretations and subsequent developments.

    Keep in mind that Unam sanctam is just one Magisterial statement among thousands and thousands. Imagine having to bring the same erudite investigation to every Magisterial statement.

    And Unam sanctam is a very brief Magisterial statement. The longer the statement, the longer the analysis.

    Catholics delude themselves when they suppose that they can sidestep the ambiguities of Biblical exegesis by punting to the Magisterium. Magisterial tradition generates its own hermeneutical layers. Its own imponderables.

    b. Steve already anticipated your objection: Keep in mind that Fr. Tavard was an ecumenist, writing in the wake of Vatican II, so he is inclined to minimize the relevance of Unam sanctam to our own time. A Catholic theologian of an earlier era might well be inclined to offer more of a hardline interpretation and application:

    http://www.catholicism.org/questions-answers-salvation-muller.html

    Ergo

    3. Thanks for demonstrating the incoherence that Vatican 2 introduced into Catholic thinking with regard to Magisterial standards.




    Second, for your argument to have solid import, you must demonstrate that official/infallible decrees/dogmas on faith and morals (my list, not yours) are somehow “unclear”.

    So, on the one hand Scripture is unclear, but on the other (your list) is somehow "clear." How, David, is this NOT a case of you acting like a typical Catholic?

    To answer you on your own grounds...

    “Except for the definition of the Immaculate Conception, there is little clarity about which papal statements prior to Vatican I are irreformable. Most authors would agree on about half a dozen statements” (Dulles, Magisterium: Teacher & Guardian of the Faith, p.72)

    Wow, so Catholic dogmas are so "clear" that there is little clarity about which statements prior to Vatican I are irreformable."

    ReplyDelete
  6. "It's quite ironic how the RCC accuses pretty much everyone else of schism, when their doctrines are so odious and repulsive"

    Which ones in particular? How do you define odious? Is it any more odious than the doctrine that most of humanity is used as pawns in a giant game where they can ONLY lose and be sent hurtling into a fiery furnace for all eternity?

    "After doing my exegesis, I will compare my exegetical results with the Protestant creeds or Reformed confessions."

    And what then if you disagree? Why bother studying Scripture yourself if you're going to accept the creeds or the exegesis of Calvin without reservation? Just listen to them and THEN read the Bible through that lens. It seems silly to pretend you're going to read Scripture AS IF you were going to come up with your own conclusions if you have no attention of accepting those conclusions. It's just a game of "let's see how accurate my initial instincts are".

    ReplyDelete
  7. David Waltz said:

    “This raises two questions for me: first, when did the Catholic Church become ‘a schismatic church’; and second, is there any church and/or individual who does not have some error in their teaching and life?”

    We don’t have to know the year, decade, or century when a person or group entered into error in order to conclude that they entered into error at some point. We don’t know when atheism originated, but we know that it’s erroneous. We don’t know the year when Gnosticism originated, the year when each false teacher named by the church fathers became a false teacher, etc. Part of the difficulty in discussing when Roman Catholicism originated, or discussing when it became erroneous enough to justify separation from it, is that different people define Roman Catholicism in different ways. If a bishop of Rome claimed something like papal authority, but seems to have rejected some of the other teachings of Roman Catholicism, is he to be classified as a Roman Catholic? We don’t have to know something like when Roman Catholicism originated or what year, decade, or century it crossed the line from being a non-schismatic church to being a schismatic one in order to conclude that the denomination is currently unhealthy enough to justify our separation from it.

    Steve referred to “certain” churches with doctrinal and moral error, not all such churches. There are different types and degrees of error, so the issue isn’t “is there any church and/or individual who does not have some error in their teaching and life”. We have standards by which to judge which issues are more or less important (1 Corinthians 15:1-8, Galatians 1:6-9, etc.). And it’s not as though Roman Catholicism has been wrong on only a few issues or for only a small amount of time.

    ReplyDelete
  8. JAMES SAID:

    "Is it any more odious than the doctrine that most of humanity is used as pawns in a giant game where they can ONLY lose and be sent hurtling into a fiery furnace for all eternity?

    I’m sure Pharaoh felt the same way.”

    Thomism is quite deterministic too, ya know. Do you apply the same strictures to Thomism that you apply to Calvinism?

    Even Molinism is functionally deterministic. You don’t get to choose which possible world God will instantiate. If God had given Judas a choice, would Judas opt for the possible world where he ends up in hell?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Gene,

    Thanks for responding to my musings; you posted:

    Gene:>>Oh, somehow I don't think so, David. Let's be clear here, you have gone out of your way to cast aspersions on the perspicuity of the Word of God by insinuating on other blogs and, if memory serves, elsewhere that the Bible is not clear enough to distinguish from the Scriptures themselves which is correct: Orthodox Trinitarianism or Mormon or Arian Theology Proper.>>

    Me: Like “private judgment”, I do not reject “the perspicuity of the Word of God”, but rather, understand that there exists important ‘limits’ to both. Everyone (including Steve) aprroaches the Scriptures with a ‘filter’, this ‘filter’ lends clarity to the Scritpures, but which ‘fitler’ one is to choose…now that is THE question. So, when a Trinitarian reads the Scritpures he clearly sees the doctrine of the Trinity taught; when an Arian reads the Scriptures, he clearly sees Arianism taught; when a Sabellian reads the Scriptures , he clearly sees modalism taught…


    Gene:>>So, no, David, you are NOT concerned about "fidelity to the word of God," you're concerned about fidelity to the Church of Rome, for, in the end, you require Rome's Magisterium to be the standard.>>

    Me: Here you are flat wrong; my commitment is to the TRUTH—I have no culteral, monetary, family, or an other ‘externals’ one might postulate, to keep me a committed Papist—if I became convinced later today that the RCC was indeed a false Church, I leave it…


    Gene:>>The issue isn't the way THEY exegeted the Scriptures, but how WE are to properly understand THEM when they did so.>>

    Me: And should we not do so by approaching the Scriptures as they did?


    Gene:>>e. Perhaps, David, you should take a gander at Carson and Beale. When you've done that, get back to Steve on this response of yours. It's been offered here a number of times by others already.>>

    Me: Give me the titles and I will do so.


    Gene:>>This is just shorthand for trying to apply the gavel of judgment without having to offer a supporting argument. Why bother when you can just tar your opponent a Socinian in lieu of an Anabaptist. Same assertion as the other, just a different word, this time with an more invidious character.>>

    Me: Take a “gander” at Alan W. Gomes insightful essay, “Some Observations on the Theological Method of Faustus Socinus” (Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 70.1 – Spring 2008, pp. 49-71) and then get back to me on this; I am merely following the esteemed professors lead.


    Gene:>> a. Irrelevant to Steve's argument. David, you're still breezing past the argument Steve made.

    Steve wrote: Tavard’s analysis illustrates the extreme intricacies and vagaries of interpreting a Magisterial statement from the past, as well as relating that statement to current Catholic theology. You have to look forward and backward. Backward to precedents leading up to the statement to rightly construe the statement in its historical context—and forward to subsequent interpretations and subsequent developments.

    Keep in mind that Unam sanctam is just one Magisterial statement among thousands and thousands. Imagine having to bring the same erudite investigation to every Magisterial statement.

    And Unam sanctam is a very brief Magisterial statement. The longer the statement, the longer the analysis.

    Catholics delude themselves when they suppose that they can sidestep the ambiguities of Biblical exegesis by punting to the Magisterium. Magisterial tradition generates its own hermeneutical layers. Its own imponderables.

    b. Steve already anticipated your objection: Keep in mind that Fr. Tavard was an ecumenist, writing in the wake of Vatican II, so he is inclined to minimize the relevance of Unam sanctam to our own time. A Catholic theologian of an earlier era might well be inclined to offer more of a hardline interpretation and application:>>

    Me: I see no need to defend Magisterial traditions that do not fall into the corpus protected by infallibility anymore than you should feel the need to defend the Gospel of Thomas.


    Gene:>>So, on the one hand Scripture is unclear, but on the other (your list) is somehow "clear." How, David, is this NOT a case of you acting like a typical Catholic?>>

    Me: Because Scripture IS cyrstal clear when one is armed with the proper ‘filter’.


    Gene:>>“Except for the definition of the Immaculate Conception, there is little clarity about which papal statements prior to Vatican I are irreformable. Most authors would agree on about half a dozen statements” (Dulles, Magisterium: Teacher & Guardian of the Faith, p.72)

    Wow, so Catholic dogmas are so "clear" that there is little clarity about which statements prior to Vatican I are irreformable.">>

    Me: Apples and oranges; Dulles is addressing which definitions should be be in the list, not the clarity of those in the right list.


    Grace and peace,

    David

    ReplyDelete
  10. Me: Like “private judgment”, I do not reject “the perspicuity of the Word of God”, but rather, understand that there exists important ‘limits’ to both. Everyone (including Steve) aprroaches the Scriptures with a ‘filter’, this ‘filter’ lends clarity to the Scritpures, but which ‘fitler’ one is to choose…now that is THE question. So, when a Trinitarian reads the Scritpures he clearly sees the doctrine of the Trinity taught; when an Arian reads the Scriptures, he clearly sees Arianism taught; when a Sabellian reads the Scriptures , he clearly sees modalism taught…

    So, in the end, you believe exactly what I stated you believe. You believe the Scriptures are not clear enough to definitely distinguish between Arianism, Modalism, and Trinitarianism. Thanks for confirming that.

    : Here you are flat wrong; my commitment is to the TRUTH—I have no culteral, monetary, family, or an other ‘externals’ one might postulate, to keep me a committed Papist—if I became convinced later today that the RCC was indeed a false Church, I leave it…

    Then how do you know what the "Truth" is. You were a Mormon, then an Evangelical, then a Catholic...

    You're not committed to the "truth," you're committed to whatever grid you have today. Today, that grid is provided by Rome. So, once again, you've demonstrated I was right. Thanks.


    Me: And should we not do so by approaching the Scriptures as they did?


    We employ the GHM to understand them. You've not provided any supporting argument with respect to us needing to approach the Scriptures as "they" did, nor have you told us what your alterative to the GHM is. I realize you don't interact with this blog very much, but in the past we've littered our archives with responses to your objection. I suggest you take a look.

    Me: Give me the titles and I will do so.

    David, we all know you have an extensive library, yet you don't know of this title? Hmmmm, Google is your friend.

    Me: Take a “gander” at Alan W. Gomes insightful essay, “Some Observations on the Theological Method of Faustus Socinus” (Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 70.1 – Spring 2008, pp. 49-71) and then get back to me on this; I am merely following the esteemed professors lead.

    Been there, done that. Now you're repeating yourself using different synonyms. You're just making invidious comparisons without argument.

    Me: I see no need to defend Magisterial traditions that do not fall into the corpus protected by infallibility anymore than you should feel the need to defend the Gospel of Thomas.

    Then produce your infallible list of infallible statements to defend.

    Me: Because Scripture IS cyrstal clear when one is armed with the proper ‘filter’.

    How do you know Rome is the proper filter?

    Me: Apples and oranges; Dulles is addressing which definitions should be be in the list, not the clarity of those in the right list.

    Wrong, yet again, like so much of what you write. If you can't distinguish which bits are infallible and which aren't, then you can't distinguish what is irreformable from what is reformable. That goes directly to the clarity of those on the list.

    ReplyDelete