The actual content of Jason’s thread is concise, accurate, and presented in a charitable, non-controversial, manner.
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/09/triablogue-thread-worth-reading.html
Yes, that would be typical of Jason. Jason is a Christian gentleman, which makes him twice the man I am.
However, if Waltz truly thinks that a charitable, non-controversial manner is a virtue, then he’s in the wrong denomination since Catholicism has a long history of controversialists, not to mention a decidedly uncharitable treatment towards dissenters.
So why doesn’t Waltz join an Amish community?
As I reflect upon the material, I am left asking myself the question: “where does all this lead”?
It leads to the real world. You know, the world that God chose to make.
Questions concerning interpretation, development of doctrine, eccesiology, schism, church discipline, et al., are racing through my thoughts…
But God chose to make a world in which schism occurs, even though it lay within his power to make a world in which schism does not occur. For example, he could choose not to create schismatics. They would never be born. Never be conceived. Or he could strike them dead in the crib. So schism must serve a purpose in the providence of God.
And what about church discipline? Did the Catholic church discipline predatory priests who molest underage children? Did the Catholic church discipline bishops who were complicit in the priestly abuse scandal?
If it hadn’t been for the media, and lawsuits, and prosecutors, would there have been any accountability whatsoever?
Does the Catholic church discipline high profile Catholic politicians who promote abortion or stem cell research? How many of them have been excommunicated?
If Waltz truly believes that church disciple is a virtue (or even a mark of the true church), then he belongs in the wrong denomination.
If one jettisons the possibility that there exists an infallibility teaching authority instituted by Jesus Christ and His apostles to guide His Church through the perils of heresy and schism, what is left?
I don’t think anyone jettisons that “possibility.”
I also don’t jettison the possibility that Martians are living in subterranean cities beneath the barren surface of the red planet. It’s possible that they’re hiding from us. That’s why we can’t find them.
Here’s another possibility: once upon a time, a wicked witch cast a spell on a handsome young prince, turning him into a loathsome toad. He labored under that accursed condition until, one day, a beautiful princess broke the spell by kissing him on the lips. They lived happily ever after in a marble place, surrounded by swans and puppy dogs and butterflies.
Here’s another possibility: once upon a time an evil stepmother was envious of her beautiful stepdaughter. So she locked her stepdaughter in a tower, and posted a man-eating ogre to guard the tower. Then, one day, as a knight in shining armor was riding by the tower, he heard her piteous pleas. He slew the ogre and rescued the fair damsel. They lived happily ever after in a marble palace, surrounded by fawns and bunny rabbits and nightingales.
Here’s another possibility: once upon a time there was one true church on earth. Everybody belonged to the one true church. Every member of the one true church agreed with every other member of the one true church. The angel Gabriel appeared to every member of the one true church and catechized them in the one true faith of the one true church. Heresy and schism were unheard of. Church discipline was swift and effectual. And they all lived happily ever after.
What’s left? What’s left is the real world. The real church.
How did God guide Abraham’s servant to find a wife for Isaac? (cf. Gen 24). Did Abraham consult the infallible teaching office of the church? Or did God silently guide Abraham’s servant through the providential orchestration of opportune circumstances?
Are we to attempt to identify qualified, authoritative “teachers” to assist our private interpretation/s? If so, how does one come to know that they speak the truth?
As a convert to Catholicism, didn’t David Waltz have to identify qualified, authoritative teachers? If so, how he did he come to know that they spoke the truth? Can he use the Magisterium to test the Magisterium?
If one replies, “we test them by the Scriptures”, does this not raise the question: “if I can discern whether or not their teachings conform to God’s Word, why do I need them
Simple: you evaluate which commentator makes a better case for his interpretation. This is something we do all the time in other walks of life.
Once more, “where does all this lead”?
It leads us out of ecclesiastical fairy tales and back into the real church of the real world.
Are we to attempt to identify qualified, authoritative “teachers” to assist our private interpretation/s? If so, how does one come to know that they speak the truth?
ReplyDeleteHmmm, let's see...according to David...
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?
David: Because Scripture IS cyrstal clear when one is armed with the proper ‘filter’.
So, if we follow Mr. Waltz's own argument the answer is "Yes."
Therefore we should ask: How does anybody know that Rome provides the proper filter? In order to know which filter is the right one, we must have some idea of what the right one must look like before you find it, or is it just one of those things you know when you see it, sort of like the right color of blue shoe that will match your purse? Where's the supporting argument?
Isn't ecclesiolatry grand?
Hello Steve,
ReplyDeleteI have really struggled over whether or not I should respond to the castigations you have leveled at me, for to do so, seems to lend credence to their value.
To respond, also seems to muddy Jason’s cogent thread—I am sincerely, and prayerfully, reflecting on what Jason has written—his is a witness that commands such respect. Jason’s post has brought me back to the table of Reformed thought for some renewed study, while your witness pushes me away…
Now, with these reservations mind, I shall briefly comment on the following you wrote:
>> Yes, that would be typical of Jason. Jason is a Christian gentleman, which makes him twice the man I am.
However, if Waltz truly thinks that a charitable, non-controversial manner is a virtue, then he’s in the wrong denomination since Catholicism has a long history of controversialists, not to mention a decidedly uncharitable treatment towards dissenters.>>
Me: So two “wrongs” make a right?
>>So why doesn’t Waltz join an Amish community?>>
Me: Why would you even think of recommending a sect that does not preach “the Gospel”?
Grace and peace,
David
David said:
ReplyDelete---
I have really struggled over whether or not I should respond to the castigations you have leveled at me, for to do so, seems to lend credence to their value.
---
That's only because Steve's statements are accurate.
Well, David, I certainly hope you'll keep up the dialogue here. I think I speak for many when I say that we lurkers know arrogance when we see it and manage quite well to separate the substance from the spite.
ReplyDeleteHere's my two cents: don't draw attention to personal attacks leveled against you on this blog.
It's a bit like thrusting a bloodied hand into shark infested waters.
I think I speak for many when I say that we lurkers know arrogance when we see it and manage quite well to separate the substance from the spite.
ReplyDeleteSigh...here we go again.
Some Christians think that a claim to be a Christian by an interlocuter entitles him to be treated "nicely."
Then, when that doesn't happen, people like Jen here take it upon themselves to start calling others "arrogant" and spiteful.
So, on the one hand, it's unbecoming for Steve to treat David in a particular manner, but on the other, it's okay for Jen to drive by and say this. Steve is uncharitable, but Jen isn't. W.O.W.
But, since it's too hard for either Jen or David to figure it out:
Jason’s post has brought me back to the table of Reformed thought for some renewed study, while your witness pushes me away…
1. Jason is not "Reformed." Why do people who visit this blog continue to think this?
2. Notice the passive-aggressive attempt at emotional blackmail. Steve pushes David away, Jason, because he's a nice guy makes David want to come back. So, we can conclude that David doesn't care about the substance of what is stated, rather he just wants to be wuved.
However, if Waltz truly thinks that a charitable, non-controversial manner is a virtue, then he’s in the wrong denomination since Catholicism has a long history of controversialists, not to mention a decidedly uncharitable treatment towards dissenters.>>
Me: So two “wrongs” make a right?
David has done nothing to demonstrate that he has been treated "wrongly" or that anything Steve wrote leads to the conclusion that "two wrongs make a right."
1. The Bible lays down some harsh invective about false teachers. If David, or Jen, has a problem with the way Steve has treated him, then David, or Jen, needs to consult the Bible.
Ah, but David believes the Bible is only clear when it has the proper "filter..."
2. And that proper filter is Rome. What is Rome's history on controversialists and the charitable treatment of those who differ?
QED...David has simply been measured by his own yardstick. Is that illicit? No.
Here's a note for the future, frequently the writers of this blog peg their responses to the way others themselves frame the issues. Take note: if you don't like the responses you receive, many times you have only yourselves to blame, for frequently, you're only the recipient of a response at your own level.
Me: Why would you even think of recommending a sect that does not preach “the Gospel”?
Because, David, you chose to frame the issue about what makes for an inviting environment one in which people are treated nicely, gentlemanly, etc. That's typical of an Amish community. You didn't frame your statements in terms of "The Gospel," you framed them in terms of the way you're treated.
JEN H. SAID:
ReplyDelete“Well, David, I certainly hope you'll keep up the dialogue here. I think I speak for many when I say that we lurkers know arrogance when we see it and manage quite well to separate the substance from the spite.”
“Arrogance”! Ah, yes! My "arrogance." While we're on the subject, let’s compare my Protestant “arrogance” with some salutary examples of Catholic humility and intellectual modesty:
**************************************
Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."
Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm
By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MUNIF.HTM
You missed my point Gene.
ReplyDeleteI have no expectation of "niceness" on this site and neither should David, but I hope he'll press on nonetheless, occuppying the high ground in the name of clarity. That's why I made the appeal to David, not you guys. My reasons are utterly selfish: I find the topic fascinating.
I know you and others here are sincere in the belief that you're doing the right thing. I happen to disagree, but I'm not going to try to argue with you about it.
So if you, for example, want to turn the table on me at this point and claim that I'm actually being the arrogant one, that's perfectly fine. My aim, after all, isn't really to harp on arrogance (yours or mine); it's to convince David to go another round or two despite blowback.
As for the encyclical, I'm not an apologist for Catholicism, so your claim (Steve) that it is "arrogant" is someone else's problem. Also, I'm not sure what your trying to justify with it. Protestants get to be arrogant because Catholics are too?
"Steve pushes David away, Jason, because he's a nice guy makes David want to come back. So, we can conclude that David doesn't care about the substance of what is stated, rather he just wants to be wuved."
I can only speak for myself, but there was nothing "nice" about Jason's post. Jason's post won me over, first and foremost, because the arguments he presented were solid. As for the tone, it struck me as even-handed. That's an added bonus. Tone is no substitute for good arguments, but it does help establish credibility.
DAVID WALTZ SAID:
ReplyDelete“I have really struggled over whether or not I should respond to the castigations you have leveled at me, for to do so, seems to lend credence to their value. __To respond, also seems to muddy Jason’s cogent thread—I am sincerely, and prayerfully, reflecting on what Jason has written—his is a witness that commands such respect. Jason’s post has brought me back to the table of Reformed thought for some renewed study, while your witness pushes me away…”
Uh-huh. Of course, you’re launching into an ad hominem attack on me in the same breath as you profess to deplore ad hominem attacks.
“Me: So two ‘wrongs’ make a right?”
Of course, that assumes it’s wrong to be “uncharitable” or a assume the role of a “controversialist.”
I don’t share that assumption. Paul was writing as controversialist in Galatians (to take one example). And I doubt the Judaizers felt he was being charitable towards them.
So, by my Scriptural standards, there’s nothing inherently wrong with being either uncharitable or assuming the role of a controversialist. It all depends on the opponent.
But I realize that, as a Catholic, you reject Scriptural standards of right and wrong, so you don’t share my assumptions.
As to your own position, it’s a good first step when you admit that your own denomination was wrong for being so uncharitable in the past—not to mention it’s tradition of polemical theology (Catholic “controversialists”). Of course, you’re admission would have more ringing sincerity if you took the next step of separating yourself from a denomination whose conduct you disapprove of.
And, of course, you don’t speak for your denomination. It’s not as if Innocent IV ever recanted the use of torture on targets of the Holy Inquisition.
“Me: Why would you even think of recommending a sect that does not preach ‘the Gospel’?”
i) I never classified the Amish as a “sect,” and I never said the Amish deny the Gospel.
This is your modus operandi, David. You impute positions to your opponents which you cut out of whole cloth.
ii) Moreover, even if I did think of the Amish as a “sect” which denies the Gospel, my own evaluation is irrelevant.
I was answering you on your own grounds. If you commend the kinder and gentler approach, then you should belong to a kinder and gentler denomination rather than a militant denomination with the violent, coercive history of Roman Catholicism—especially when you identify the church of Rome with the one true church. That leaves you less leeway for picking and choosing what you approve of.
jen h. said...
ReplyDelete“As for the encyclical, I'm not an apologist for Catholicism, so your claim (Steve) that it is ‘arrogant’ is someone else's problem. Also, I'm not sure what your trying to justify with it. Protestants get to be arrogant because Catholics are too?”
i) You drew and invidious comparison between the conduct of Tblog and the conduct of Waltz. Waltz is a Catholic apologist. It’s therefore fair game for me to measure him by the historical standards of his own denomination—especially considering the lofty claims he makes for his own denomination.
ii) I didn’t concede your charge of arrogance.
Hello Steve,
ReplyDeleteThanks for responding; you posted:
Steve:>>Uh-huh. Of course, you’re launching into an ad hominem attack on me in the same breath as you profess to deplore ad hominem attacks.>>
Me: Ad hominem - an attack upon the person.
My words: “I have really struggled over whether or not I should respond to the castigations you have leveled at me, for to do so, seems to lend credence to their value.” Hmm…an attack on your person? (No mention of YOU as a “fuzz-brain; or “serial killer” or even YOUR “value”.)
And: “Jason’s post has brought me back to the table of Reformed thought for some renewed study, while your witness pushes me away…” Hmm…once again, an attack on your person? All I did was state a fact. (No mention of YOU as a “fuzz-brain; or “serial killer” or that you as a PERSON pushes me away.)
Steve:>>“Me: So two ‘wrongs’ make a right?”
Of course, that assumes it’s wrong to be “uncharitable” or a assume the role of a “controversialist.”>>
Me: One can be charitiable and and a “controversialist”; the two are not mutually exclusive.
Steve:>>I don’t share that assumption.>>
Me: I think that is becoming quite apparent.
Steve:>>Paul was writing as controversialist in Galatians (to take one example). And I doubt the Judaizers felt he was being charitable towards them.>>
Me: To borrow a line from your friend Gene, “Are you an apostle?”
Steve:>>So, by my Scriptural standards, there’s nothing inherently wrong with being either uncharitable or assuming the role of a controversialist. It all depends on the opponent.>>
Me: Paul infallibly knew that the Judaizers he was addressing were wrong.
Steve:>>But I realize that, as a Catholic, you reject Scriptural standards of right and wrong, so you don’t share my assumptions.>>
Me: To borrow one of your lines, “you are prevaricating.”
How about this standard:
“But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect…” (1 Peter 3:15 – NIV)
Hmmm…I guess everyone except lay a Catholic; and a lay Catholic who has more than once declared that he embraces the following:
==
1. The following elucidations underline the consensus reached in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JD) regarding basic truths of justification; thus it becomes clear that the mutual condemnations of former times do not apply to the Catholic and Lutheran doctrines of justification as they are presented in the Joint Declaration.
2. „Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works“(JD 15).
A) We confess together that God forgives sin by grace and at the same time frees human beings from sin's enslaving power (...)“ (JD 22). Justification is forgiveness of sins and being made righteous, through which God „imparts the gift of new life in Christ“ (JD 22). "Since we are justified by faith we have peace with God“ (Rom 5:1). We are "called children of God; and that is what we are“ (1 Jn 3:1).We are truly and inwardly renewed by the action of the Holy Spirit, remaining always dependent on his work in us. "So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!“ (2 Cor 5:17). The justified do not remain sinners in this sense.
Yet we would be wrong were we to say that we are without sin (1 Jn l:8-10, cf. JD 28). "All of us make many mistakes“ (Jas 3:2). "Who is aware of his unwitting sins? Cleanse me of many secret faults“ (Ps. 19:12). And when we pray, we can only say, like the tax collector, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner“ (Lk 18:13). This is expressed in a variety of ways in our liturgies. Together we hear the exhortation „Therefore, do not let sin exercise dominion in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions“ (Rom 6:12). This recalls to us the persisting danger which comes from the power of sin and its action in Christians. To this extent, Lutherans and Catholics can together understand the Christian as simul justus et peccator, despite their different approaches to this subject as expressed in JD 29-30.
B) The concept of "concupiscence“ is used in different senses on the Catholic and Lutheran sides. In the Lutheran Confessional writings "concupiscence“ is understood as the self-seeking desire of the human being, which in light of the Law, spiritually understood, is regarded as sin. In the Catholic understanding concupiscence is an inclination, remaining in human beings even after baptism, which comes from sin and presses towards sin. Despite the differences involved here, it can be recognized from a Lutheran perspective that desire can become the opening through which sin attacks. Due to the power of sin the entire human being carries the tendency to oppose God. This tendency, according to both Lutheran and Catholic conception, "does not correspond to God’s original design for humanity“ (JD 30). Sin has a personal character and, as such, leads to separation from God. It is the selfish desire of the old person and the lack of trust and love toward God.
The reality of salvation in baptism and the peril from the power of sin can be expressed in such a way that, on the one hand, the forgiveness of sins and renewal of humanity in Christ by baptism is emphasised and, on the other hand, it can be seen that the justified also "are continuously exposed to the power of sin still pressing its attacks (cf. Rom 6:12-14) and are not exempt from a lifelong struggle against the contradiction to God (...)“ (JD 28).
C) Justification takes place "by grace alone“ (JD 15 and 16), by faith alone, the person is justified „apart from works“ (Rom 3:28, cf. JD 25). "Grace creates faith not only when faith begins in a person but as long as faith lasts“ (Thomas Aquinas, S. Th.II/II 4, 4 ad 3).The working of God’s grace does not exclude human action: God effects everything, the willing and the achievement, therefore, we are called to strive (cf. Phil 2:12 ff). "As soon as the Holy Spirit has initiated his work of regeneration and renewal in us through the Word and the holy sacraments, it is certain that we can and must cooperate by the power of the Holy Spirit...“ (The Formula of Concord, FC SD II,64f; BSLK 897,37ff).
D) Grace as fellowship of the justified with God in faith, hope and love is always received from the salvific and creative work of God (cf. JD 27). But it is nevertheless the responsibility of the justified not to waste this grace but to live in it. The exhortation to do good works is the exhortation to practice the faith (cf. BSLK 197,45). The good works of the justified „should be done in order to confirm their call, that is, lest they fall from their call by sinning again“ (Apol. XX,13, BSLK 316,18-24; with reference to 2 Pet. 1:10. Cf. also FC SD IV,33; BSLK 948,9-23). In this sense Lutherans and Catholics can understand together what is said about the "preservation of grace“ in JD 38 and 39. Certainly, "whatever in the justified precedes or follows the free gift of faith is neither the basis of justification nor merits it“ (JD 25).
E) By justification we are unconditionally brought into communion with God. This includes the promise of eternal life; "If we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his“ (Rom 6:5, cf. Jn 3:36, Rom 8:17). In the final judgement, the justified will be judged also on their works (cf. Mt 16:27; 25:31-46; Rom 2:16; 14:12; 1 Cor 3:8; 2 Cor 5:10 etc.). We face a judgement in which God’s gracious sentence will approve anything in our life and action that corresponds to his will. However, everything in our life that is wrong will be uncovered and will not enter eternal life. The Formula of Concord also states: "It is God’s will and express command that believers should do good works which the Holy Spirit works in them, and God is willing to be pleased with them for Christ’s sake and he promises to reward them gloriously in this and in the future life.“ (FC SD IV,38). Any reward is a reward of grace, on which we have no claim. (ANNEX TO THE OFFICIAL COMMON STATEMENT.)
==
Steve:>>As to your own position, it’s a good first step when you admit that your own denomination was wrong for being so uncharitable in the past>>
Me: So I am to account and apologize to you in a combox for all of the Churches past (fallible) failures even though I am a 21st century lay Catholic? Got it, that makes a lot of sense.
Steve:>>And, of course, you don’t speak for your denomination. It’s not as if Innocent IV ever recanted the use of torture on targets of the Holy Inquisition.>>
Me: And, of course, you don’t speak for all Calvinists. It’s not as if Calvin ever recanted for advocating the execution of heretics.
Steve:>>“Me: Why would you even think of recommending a sect that does not preach ‘the Gospel’?”
i) I never classified the Amish as a “sect,” and I never said the Amish deny the Gospel.>>
Me: So the Amish are not a sect? Right. And the Amish affirm justification by faith alone, through the imputation of Christ’s righteouses alone? Right.
Steve:>>This is your modus operandi, David. You impute positions to your opponents which you cut out of whole cloth.>>
Me: I disagree.
Steve:>>I was answering you on your own grounds.>>
Me: Right.
Steve:>>If you commend the kinder and gentler approach, then you should belong to a kinder and gentler denomination rather than a militant denomination with the violent, coercive history of Roman Catholicism>>
Me: Like the second Vatican Council, and that mean and nasty John Paul II. Got it.
You are just not making much sense to me Steve—and this is not an attack on your person; I don’t know you as a person—I think in the future I will try to limit my interactions with content that makes sense to me. Hopefully, starting tomorrow, I will attempt such an interaction with Jason’s cogent comments—Lord willing.
Grace and peace,
David
David,
ReplyDeleteYou’re now resorting to special pleading, which is what I expected. Of course you’re attacking the person. You didn’t attempt to refute my charges. So it wasn’t directed at the substance of the accusation.
But I don’t expect you to have the moral discernment to admit or even recognize your own double standards, so we’ll move on.
You then accuse me of launching an ad hominem attack on you. Once again, this illustrates your elementary lack of logic.
Did I say that I adopted your standards? No. I was pointing out the irony of your complaint.
There’s no inconsistency on my part if I draw attention to your failure to live up to your own standards. Since they’re your standards, not mine, I don’t have to be consistent with your standards.
“Me: One can be charitiable and and a “controversialist”; the two are not mutually exclusive. “
As usual, you can’t follow your own argument. You praised Jason for presenting his position in a “presented in a charitable, non-controversial, manner.”
This implies that if he had presented his case in a controversial rather than non-controversial manner, his presentation would have been less admirable.
Once again, I’m responding to you on your own grounds. And when I do so, you shift grounds.
“To borrow a line from your friend Gene, ‘Are you an apostle?’”
You were the one who said that “two wrongs don’t make a right.”
And you stated that in a context wherein an uncharitable or controversial manner would be wrong.
Are you now claiming that Apostolic ethics represents a different ethical code than Christian ethics generally?
And are you also claiming that Biblical discourse should not be a model for Christian discourse?
“Me: Paul infallibly knew that the Judaizers he was addressing were wrong.”
i)Now you’re shifting ground again. The question at issue was not whether the Judaizers were wrong, but whether it’s wrong to be to adopt an uncharitable and controversial tone towards one’s opponents.
ii)Are you now claiming that it’s not wrong to adopt an uncharitable and controversial tone towards your opponents as long as you know they’re wrong?
Of course, you didn’t include that qualification in your initial statement. Indeed, it looks to all the world as if you made a careless statement, and are now having to improvise ad hoc qualifications to save face.
“How about this standard… (1 Peter 3:15 – NIV).”
Nice try, but you’re behind the curve since I’ve addressed that objection in the past. You might try learning how to read a verse in its historical setting. In context, who is Peter referring to? To ignorant pagans.
Is Peter gentle and respectful to everyone? Was he gentle and respectful to Simon Magus? (cf. Acts 8:20-23.) Was Peter gentle and respectful to the false teachers in 2 Peter?
“Hmmm…I guess everyone except lay a Catholic; and a lay Catholic who has more than once declared that he embraces the following.”
Of course, it’s easy to embrace a deliberately vague, ambiguous interfaith statement like the Joint Declaration. Real Lutherans aren’t taken in by these duplicitous statements. Cf. R. Preus, Justification & Rome.
“Me: So I am to account and apologize to you in a combox for all of the Churches past (fallible) failures even though I am a 21st century lay Catholic? Got it, that makes a lot of sense.”
Once again, you were the one who framed the issue in terms of “two wrongs don’t make a right.”
So you were already imputing error to your own denomination. And the harsh measures which the Catholic church resorted to in the past aren’t limited to fallible policies of the ordinary magisterium, but include the policies of ecumenical councils as well (see below).
“Me: And, of course, you don’t speak for all Calvinists. It’s not as if Calvin ever recanted for advocating the execution of heretics.”
You’re disregarding the qualifications which I, unlike you, did include in my initial reply, such as: “especially when you identify the church of Rome with the one true church. That leaves you less leeway for picking and choosing what you approve of.”
“Me: So the Amish are not a sect? Right.”
That’s what passes for your counterargument?
“And the Amish affirm justification by faith alone, through the imputation of Christ’s righteouses alone? Right.”
Try reading John Murray’s review of J. C. Wenger’s Introduction to Theology for a Reformed take on whether Anabaptists preach a false gospel. Cf. Selected Writings of John Murray, 4:292-96.
“Me: Like the second Vatican Council, and that mean and nasty John Paul II. Got it.”
Now you’re retreating into to your customary dissimulation. Was I referring to modern Catholicism? No.
This was my explicit reference: “a militant denomination with the violent, coercive history of Roman Catholicism.”
Did you catch the key word? “History.” As in the past. In fact, Turretin Fan just did a nifty little post on that very subject:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2008/09/inconvenient-conciliar-truth-part-16.html
“You are just not making much sense to me Steve.”
It’s hard to make sense to an insensible opponent like yourself.
Good morning Steve,
ReplyDeleteGiven the length and breadth of your last reply (and what I perceive as a misreading of many of my points), at this time I am going to address but ONE issue: 1 Peter 3:15.
Your commentary on that verse was:
>>Nice try, but you’re behind the curve since I’ve addressed that objection in the past. You might try learning how to read a verse in its historical setting. In context, who is Peter referring to? To ignorant pagans.>>
Certainly the immediate context pertains to the Gentiles. Peter starting in 2:11ff. makes this quite clear. However, the question that needs to be asked is this: Are the principles set forth by Peter applicable only with reference to the Gentiles?
For instance, we read in 2:11-12:
“Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts, which wage war against the soul. Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may on account of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation.” (NAS)
Is one to conclude that in a non-Gentile society (e.g. Calvin’s Geneva, early Puritan settlements in America, et al.) one no longer needs to “abstain from fleshly lusts, which wage was against the soul”? I think not.
What about the principals set forth in 1 Peter 3:15? Are those principles applicable ONLY in the immediate context? I submit that there are two compelling reasons for not narrowly restricting those principles: first, the actual choice of words used by Peter; and second, the broader context of NT canon as a unitary whole. Concerning the first we read:
“‘Give an answer.’ The admonition to ‘give an answer to everyone who asks you’ is not limited to times when a Christian must take the stand in a courtroom. In some instances the Christian must defend himself against verbal attacks from hostile unbelievers. At other times he is asked to teach the gospel to a neighbor who shows genuine interest in understanding the Christian religion. The term everyone is inclusive and relates to all circumstances. When we revere Christ as Lord, we experience that ‘out of the overflow of the heart [our] mouth speaks’ (Matt. 12:34). Accordingly, our verbal expressions should be exemplary, gracious, and wholesome. We should demonstrate an ability to give an answer to everyone who asks us about our faith in Christ (compare Col. 4:6)…When we sanctify Christ in our hearts, we should exercise gentleness and respect towards all men. In our behavior we exert ourselves to demonstrate gentleness toward persons who are spiritually weak (see Rom. 15:1-2).” (Simon J. Kistemaker, Peter and Jude, pp. 134, 135.
And the second:
“The New American Standard BIBLE – Side-Column Reference Edition” sitting in my lap cross references 2 Tim. 2:25 with 1 Peter 3:15; Paul wrote:
“And the Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.” (2 Tim. 2:24-26 - NAS)
Grace and peace,
David
DAVID WALTZ SAID:
ReplyDelete“Are the principles set forth by Peter applicable only with reference to the Gentiles?… What about the principals set forth in 1 Peter 3:15? Are those principles applicable ONLY in the immediate context?”
If you want to see how Peter’s principles apply in general, then the obvious way of answering that question is to see how Peter himself applied his principles in different settings. That’s why I gave you some concrete examples.
What does Peter mean by “gentleness” and “respect”? To whom does this apply? What does Paul mean by “kindness,” “patience,” and “gentleness”? To whom does this apply? If you want to see how they understood the scope of their own principles, then you need to see how they put their principles into practice.
But, in your typically evasive maneuvering, you ducked my questions. So I’ll have to spell it out for you. How did they actually speak about their opponents? How did they actually treat their opponents? Let’s see them in action:
Acts 8:20-23
20But Peter said to him, "May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! 21You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. 22Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. 23For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity."
Acts 13:9-11
9But Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him 10and said, "You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord? 11And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and unable to see the sun for a time." Immediately mist and darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking people to lead him by the hand.
Galatians 1:9
9As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
Galatians 2:4
4 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery—
Galatians 5:12
12I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!
2 Peter 2:12-14,17, 22
12 But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction, 13suffering wrong as the wage for their wrongdoing. They count it pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, while they feast with you. 14They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children!… 17 These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm… 22What the true proverb says has happened to them: "The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire."
At this time, I would like to address a SECOND issue raised by Steve: The Amish.
ReplyDeleteFirst, are the Amish a sect?
>>Sect – A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.>> (The Tormont Webster’s Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary, p. 1511.)
>>The Amish movement was founded in Europe by Jacob Amman (~1644 to ~1720 CE), from whom their name is derived. In many ways, it started as a reform group within the Mennonite movement -- an attempt to restore some of the early practices of the Mennonites.>> (http://www.religioustolerance.org/amish.htm.)
Since the Amish form a “distinct unit within a larger group” (i.e. Mennonites), the Amish are a sect (a sect which subsequently split into even smaller sects).
Second, do the Amish believe in the same “Gospel” as delineated by such Reformed scholars as R.C. Sproul, who wrote:
>>The conflict over justification by faith alone boils down to this: Is the ground of our justification the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, or the righteousness of Christ working within us? For the Reformers the doctrine of justification by faith alone meant justification by Christ and his [imputed] righteousness alone. (R.C. Sproul, Faith Alone, p. 73.)
Reformed theology insists that the biblical doctrine of justification is forensic in nature…Here the term forensic refers to the judicial system and judicial proceedings. (Ibid. p. 95)
The question of inherent versus imputed righteousness goes to the heart of the Reformation debate. (Ibid. p. 99.)
If the gospel is the announcement of sola fide, as the Reformers believed, and if sola fide with its stress on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is essential to the gospel, then any denial of it is certainly a threat to it. (Ibid. p. 113.)>>
The Mennonite view:
>> Justification –
The Bible speaks of both God and humans as being justified. God is justified when his acts of judgment and salvation are openly displayed, and recognized and praised as just (Isaiah 45:22-25, Romans 3:3-5). Humans are justified when God declares them to be righteous in his judgment (Romans 8:33-34, 1 Corinthians 4:4). The early Anabaptists eagerly anticipated God's eschatological deliverance of the righteous and condemnation of the wicked. In this sense, they emphasized the coming justification of God. Nevertheless, when Anabaptists and Mennonites used "justification" terminology they were usually referring to a major dispute between Roman Catholics and Protestants that began in the Reformation: to the question of how a man or woman can be considered righteous by God and thus be freed from fear of condemnation.
Catholics argue that justification is a comprehensive act in which God not only declares persons to be righteous, but also makes them so. Justification, then, cannot be sharply distinguished from the process of sanctification. Sanctification is attained as humans cooperate with divine grace, which is imparted largely through sacraments and other ecclesiastical channels. Protestants counter that in order to truly begin sanctification, individuals must first be justified. For unless they are first freed from fear of condemnation, simply by faith in Christ's atonement, individuals can never perform those selfless acts of love which produce true sanctification.
Anabaptists seldom used "justification" to describe their own views, for they approached the issues involved from a different angle. Like Protestants, they emphasized that God initiates the salvation process, and that individuals enter it through faith. Yet they often complained that Protestants, by emphasizing "faith alone", minimized sanctification and encouraged sub-Christian behavior. Like Catholics, Anabaptists insisted that sanctification, or actually becoming righteous, is the goal of God's saving work. Yet they argued that this occurs not within Catholicism's ecclesiastical framework, but primarily through acts of love in daily life. And although human co-operation is involved in the process, most Anabaptists maintained, as did Michael Sattler, that the works involved "are not the work of man, but of God and Christ, through whose power a man does such works ... because God through them wishes to give to man something of his own." (CRR 1:113)
Today there is probably little value in seeking to identify the Mennonite perspective with either traditional Protestantism or Catholicism. Since Anabaptists viewed the issues from a different angle, Mennonite contributions to the often stalemated discussion can best be made by seeking to recover this perspective. Perhaps consideration of the eschatological justification of God, as an overarching (though formally unarticulated) horizon for Mennonite theologizing, can provide helpful insights for rediscovering that perspective. (http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/J879ME.html.)
Dr. Winer in his A Comparative View of The Doctrine and Confessions of the Various Communities of Christendom – With Illustrations From Their Original Standards wrote:
"As respects to the notion of justification, Protestants generally understand by it the absolution of a sinner in the sight of God, on the ground of the merit of Christ, and the imputation of faith of the righteousness of Christ. The Romanists, on the other hand, add to the forgiveness of sins sanctification also, that is, the internal change of the sinner into a righteous person, or a divine infusion of habitual righteousness, which makes the man capable of securing his salvation by good works. To the former, justification is an actus forensic; to the latter, an actus physicus, or hyper-physicus. With the Romanists on this point ranged the Mennonites and the Quakers…" (Page 178.)
Now, on this issue Steve wrote:
>> Try reading John Murray’s review of J. C. Wenger’s Introduction to Theology for a Reformed take on whether Anabaptists preach a false gospel. Cf. Selected Writings of John Murray, 4:292-96.>>
First, I think Steve meant the “Collected Writings of John Murray”, 4:292-292 (The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982).
Second, Murray does not relate to his readers Wenger’s position on justification, though he does say:
“This book is Anabaptist-Mennonite. We should expect, therefore, that characteristically Mennonite positions would be maintained.” (Page 293.)
So, with all due respect, given the data that has been presented, I currently see but two options concerning Steve’s view on this issue:
1. Steve does not believe that with Sproul (and other Reformed scholars) that the “stress on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is essential to the gospel”.
2. Steve does not correctly understand the historic Mennonite position.
If there are other possible options, I am sure Steve will let us know.
Grace and peace,
David
Ooops...typo corrections:
ReplyDeletechange "4:292-292" to 4:292-296
and eliminate "that" before "with Sproul"
Me thinks I have happy fingers today (grin)
David
Hello again Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
>>What does Peter mean by “gentleness” and “respect”? To whom does this apply? What does Paul mean by “kindness,” “patience,” and “gentleness”? To whom does this apply? If you want to see how they understood the scope of their own principles, then you need to see how they put their principles into practice.
But, in your typically evasive maneuvering, you ducked my questions. So I’ll have to spell it out for you. How did they actually speak about their opponents? How did they actually treat their opponents? Let’s see them in action>>
Me: I see a significant difference between the condemnations leveled by the apostles while under DIRECT INSPIRATION from the Holy Spirit, and the admonitions that they imparted to their disciples.
Now, if you believe with the Charismatics/Pentecostals that God gives some of the saints the gift of “the word of knowledge”, such that you KNOW a person’s heart condition, then, I could see how one could take the stance you do; however, if you believe that such gifts ceased with the apostolic age, then I sincerely believe your take is not a consistent one.
I know for a fact that I do not have the “gift of knowledge”, so I do not know your heart—hence, in good faith, I try to apply the principles laid out in 1 Peter 3:15 and 2 Tim. 2:24-26 (though I shall be the first to admit that I have not always carried out those principles as well as I should have, but with the assistance of the grace of the Holy Spirit, I am trying).
Grace and peace,
David
DAVID WALTZ SAID:
ReplyDelete“At this time, I would like to address a SECOND issue raised by Steve: The Amish.__First, are the Amish a sect?… Since the Amish form a ‘distinct unit within a larger group’ (i.e. Mennonites), the Amish are a sect (a sect which subsequently split into even smaller sects).”
As usual, Waltz is being duplicitous. Words like “sect” have more than one meaning. “Sect” often carries a pejorative connotation. Consider a couple of the definitions supplied by the OED: “a system differing from what is deemed the orthodox tradition; a heresy…sometimes applied spec. to parties that are regarded as heretical, or at least as deviating from the general tradition.”
And “sect” is customarily used in a pejorative sense by Catholic polemicists when describing Protestant bodies.
“Second, do the Amish believe in the same “Gospel” as delineated by such Reformed scholars as R.C. Sproul.”
Waltz is equivocating. “Same” in what respect? Same in every respect? No. Same in no respect? No.
Anabaptism has the same Gospel (as Calvinism) in some respects, but not others. There are some major errors in Anabaptist theology. This doesn’t mean we can simply accuse them of preaching a false gospel.
That’s why John Murray wrote a balanced, evenhanded review. He rightly criticized the theological errors in Wenger’s systematic theology. But he didn’t pan it wholesale. He also found many things to commend:
“Dr Wenger is an evangelical believer in the historic sense of these terms. He bases his theology squarely on the Bible which he accepts as the world of God,” Collected Writings, 4:293.
“It may be arbitrary to select anyone feature of this book for appreciative evaluation. But the reviewer has been impressed most of all perhaps by the sustained emphasis upon the love of God and the reciprocal response on the part of the believer in the simplicity of love and trust…And much else might be quoted from Wenger and from the sources he quotes to evince zeal for the fervor of evangelical simplicity in the faith of God’s love and in the love which is the fruit of the Spirit,” ibid. 296.
“Steve does not believe that with Sproul (and other Reformed scholars)…”
Of course, Murray is also a Reformed scholar. And he’s a more significant Reformed theologian that Sproul—who’s a popularizer.
Let’s also remember that Sproul is targeting the ecumenism of ECT.
So you subscribe to a two-tiered morality. While a garden-variety Christian must be gentle, kind, respectful and patient, an apostle can be harsh, unkind, disrespectful, and impatient. Is that your position?
ReplyDeleteFor you, Biblical discourse is not a standard for Christian discourse? For you, apostolic practice is never exemplary for Christians?
Hey Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
>>Waltz is equivocating. “Same” in what respect? Same in every respect? No. Same in no respect? No.>>
Me: That is why I included this following quote (just prior to the Mennonite view) in the same post:
>> “If the gospel is the announcement of sola fide, as the Reformers believed, and if sola fide with its stress on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is essential to the gospel, then any denial of it is certainly a threat to it.”>>
>>Anabaptism has the same Gospel (as Calvinism) in some respects, but not others. There are some major errors in Anabaptist theology. This doesn’t mean we can simply accuse them of preaching a false gospel.>>
Me: Fair enough. So would you then say that Sproul’s assessment is incorrect (i.e. that “stress on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is essential to the gospel”)?
>> Of course, Murray is also a Reformed scholar. And he’s a more significant Reformed theologian that Sproul—who’s a popularizer.>>
Me: Agreed. And, I would add that Charles Hodge is also a Reformed scholar who is a “more significant Reformed theologian than Sproul”, and that he sheds some important insights on the issue of a “pure” gospel:
“The doctrine of Romanists on this subject is much higher. Romanism retains the supernatural element of Christianity throughout. Indeed it is a matter of devout thankfulness to God that underneath the numerous grievous and destructive errors of the Romish Church, the great truths of the Gospel are preserved. The Trinity, the true divinity of Christ, the true doctrine concerning his person as God and man in two distinct natures and one person forever; salvation through his blood, regeneration and sanctification through the almighty power of the Spirit, the resurrection of the body, and eternal life, are doctrines on which the people of God in that communion live, and which have produced such saintly men as St. Bernard, Fénélon, and doubtless thousands of others who are of the number of God’s elect. Every true worshipper of Christ must in his heart recognize as a Christian brother, wherever he may be found, any one who loves, worships, and trusts the Lord Jesus Christ as God manifest in the flesh and the only Saviour of men. On the matter of justification the Romish theologians have marred and defaced the truth as they have almost all other doctrines pertaining to the mode in which the merits of Christ are made available to our salvation. They admit, indeed, that there is no good in fallen man; that he can merit nothing and claim nothing on the ground of anything he is or can do of himself. He is by nature dead in sin; and until made partaker of a new life by the supernatural power of the Holy Ghost, he can do nothing but sin. For
Christ’s sake, and only through his merits, as a matter of grace, this new life is imparted to the soul in regeneration (i.e., as Romanists teach, in baptism). As life expels death; as light banishes darkness, so the entrance of this new divine life into the soul expels sin (i.e., sinful habits), and brings forth the fruits of righteousness. Works done after regeneration have real merit, “meritum condigni,” and are the ground of the second justification the first justification consisting in making the soul inherently just by the infusion of righteousness. According to this view, we are not justified by works done before regeneration, but we are justified for gracious works, i.e., for works which spring
from the principle of divine life infused into the heart. The whole ground of our acceptance with God is thus made to be what we are and what we do.” (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3.135-136 – 1981 Eerdmanns reprint – bold emphasis mine.)
Later on, Dr. Hodge states, “All Protestants cheerfully admit that many Romanists are holy men; but they no less strenuously denounce Romanism as an apostasy from the pure Gospel.” (Ibid., page 583.)
So, if Dr. Sproul is in essence stating that Rome’s Gospel is “false”, in the sense that it is not “pure” but still retains much truth, and maintain with Dr. Hodge that “Every true worshipper of Christ must in his heart recognize as a Christian brother, wherever he may be found, any one who loves, worships, and trusts the Lord Jesus Christ as God manifest in the flesh and the only Saviour of men”, then I would have to say that he is being consistent.
And if Dr. Murray is saying that Mennonite gospel is not “pure”, in the sense that it contains errors, but also that it is not a “false” gospel in that it retains much truth, that too seems consistent.
Anyway, for what it is worth, those are my thoughts on the matter.
Grace and peace,
David
One more post before I get a run in…
ReplyDeleteSteve wrote:
>>So you subscribe to a two-tiered morality. While a garden-variety Christian must be gentle, kind, respectful and patient, an apostle can be harsh, unkind, disrespectful, and impatient. Is that your position?>>
Me: I do not see it as an issue of “morality” but rather, one of authority. By analogy: an FBI agent, armed with a valid wire-tap, has the authority, and duty, to arrest a Mafia hitman who has confessed on tape to a murder for hire. A civilian might suspect (and may even be in possession of solid evidence) the man of the same crime but does not have the authority, nor the necessary data, to arrest him.
>>For you, Biblical discourse is not a standard for Christian discourse?>>
Me: If I am not privy to the same information concerning one’s heart condition as was Jesus (all the time), and some of His disciples in the Apostolic age (part of the time), then I feel in my heart and mind that it would be presumptuous to mimic some of their judgmental discourse/s on a ‘hunch’ (even if I was 99% sure I was correct). I think the parable of the wheat and tares lends us some important insight here.
>>For you, apostolic practice is never exemplary for Christians?>>
Me: I would say that it is not ALWAYS exemplary for Christians (based on reasons I have already submitted).
Grace and peace,
David
DAVID WALTZ SAID:
ReplyDelete“Me: I do not see it as an issue of ‘morality’ but rather, one of authority.”
i) So whether we’re harsh or gentle, kind or unkind, respectful or disrespectful, patient or impatient has nothing to do with ethical conduct or misconduct. These are morally neutral deeds or attitudes. It’s really a question of amoral authority. Is that your position?
ii) Hence, an apostle has the authority to be harsh, unkind, disrespectful, and impatient. Is that your position?
“Me: If I am not privy to the same information concerning one’s heart condition as was Jesus (all the time), and some of His disciples in the Apostolic age (part of the time), then I feel in my heart and mind that it would be presumptuous to mimic some of their judgmental discourse/s on a ‘hunch’ (even if I was 99% sure I was correct).”
As usual, when I answer you on your own grounds, you shift grounds. You originally argued for the universal applicability of Peter’s statement, quoting a scholar who said: “The term everyone is inclusive and relates to all circumstances.”
So, on that interpretation, the principle enunciated by Peter applies at all times and places to all people without exception. And you implied the same for the Pauline statement.
However, as soon as I cite some concrete counterexamples from Peter and Paul, you instantly back peddle.
What was originally unconditional suddenly becomes conditional. It no longer applies to everyone. Apostles are exempt. If it’s the opponent of an apostle, then the standing obligation to be gentle, kind, respectful, and patient is suspended. Is that your revised position?
David,
ReplyDeleteTo say that a theological tradition denies the gospel or preaches a false gospel is to say that said tradition isn’t even Christian.
Hodge is unavailable for comment. And I can’t speak for Sproul. But I wouldn’t expect him to take the position that the Anabaptist tradition isn’t even Christian.
Steve posted:
ReplyDelete>>i) So whether we’re harsh or gentle, kind or unkind, respectful or disrespectful, patient or impatient has nothing to do with ethical conduct or misconduct. These are morally neutral deeds or attitudes. It’s really a question of amoral authority. Is that your position?>>
Me: If someone says to me: “If you do not leave the Catholic Church before you die and accept the Protestant gospel, you are goin to hell for eternity, you heretic”; or if someone says to me, “In my heart of hearts, I fear for your eternal soul if you do not leave the Catholic Church before you die and accept the Protestant gospel”; neither statement is moral or immoral (IMHO).
>>ii) Hence, an apostle has the authority to be harsh, unkind, disrespectful, and impatient. Is that your position?>>
Me: If God has revealed the true intent and heart of the individual he is speaking to, then yes.
>>“Me: If I am not privy to the same information concerning one’s heart condition as was Jesus (all the time), and some of His disciples in the Apostolic age (part of the time), then I feel in my heart and mind that it would be presumptuous to mimic some of their judgmental discourse/s on a ‘hunch’ (even if I was 99% sure I was correct).”
As usual, when I answer you on your own grounds, you shift grounds. You originally argued for the universal applicability of Peter’s statement, quoting a scholar who said: “The term everyone is inclusive and relates to all circumstances.”>>
Me: You did not answer me on my own grounds; but rather, are conflating two distinct issues: how one is to defend ones theology, with the issue of judgment. I believe that I am commanded to defend my theology to anyone who asks with “gentleness and reverence”—NO EXCEPTIONS (be it with Jews, Baptists, Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists, et al.); that as a bond-servant of the Lord, I “must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition”—NO EXCEPTIONS (be it with Jews, Baptists, Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists, et al.). However, when one shifts from defending ones theology to having to make a judgment about an individual who is actively engaging in immoral behavior, then I believe one must judge such a person, following Apostolic command and example (see 1 Cor. 5:1-7). I have no problem with anyone condemning pedophile priests and stand side-by-side with them in doing so; but I do have a problem with someone saying that John Paul II is now in burning in hell for his theological beliefs.
>>So, on that interpretation, the principle enunciated by Peter applies at all times and places to all people without exception. And you implied the same for the Pauline statement.>>
Me: Yep (see above).
>>What was originally unconditional suddenly becomes conditional.>>
Me: Nope, the “original” is still unconditional; the added component/situation is conditional (see above).
Grace and peace,
David
Steve wrote:
ReplyDelete>>Hodge is unavailable for comment. And I can’t speak for Sproul. But I wouldn’t expect him to take the position that the Anabaptist tradition isn’t even Christian.>
Here is how the ‘landscape’ appears to me: Anabaptists can hold to justification by infusion, conflate justification and sanctification, and deny the doctrine of original sin, yet still be Christian; but Catholics who affirm all three are not Christian.
Sure seems inconsistent to me…
Grace and peace,
David
DAVID WALTZ SAID:
ReplyDelete“Me: If someone says to me: ‘If you do not leave the Catholic Church before you die and accept the Protestant gospel, you are goin to hell for eternity, you heretic’; or if someone says to me, ‘In my heart of hearts, I fear for your eternal soul if you do not leave the Catholic Church before you die and accept the Protestant gospel’; neither statement is moral or immoral (IMHO).”
i) As usual, you’re changing the subject. The point at issue is not the content of the statement, but the tone of the statement or attitude of the speaker: harsh/gentle, kind/unkind, respectful/disrespectful, patient/impatient.
ii) In addition, it’s quite possible to warn someone without being harsh or disrespectful or impatient. So your latest face-saving maneuver fails to account for the harsh, disrespectful tone which Peter and Paul use with some of their opponents.
“Me: If God has revealed the true intent and heart of the individual he is speaking to, then yes.”
Which contradicts your original appeal to 1 Pet 3:15. That was your prooftext, and you approvingly quoted a commentator who offered this interpretation: “The term everyone is inclusive and relates to all circumstances.”
So, if we go with that interpretation, then there is a universal obligation to be gentle, kind, respectful and patient with everyone under all circumstances.
You are now reversing yourself. There are actually circumstances in which it’s okay to be harsh, unkind, disrespectful, and impatient: namely, if God has revealed the true intent and heart of the individual whom the Christian speaker is addressing.
“I believe that I am commanded to defend my theology to anyone who asks with “gentleness and reverence”—NO EXCEPTIONS… However, when one shifts from defending ones theology to having to make a judgment about an individual.”
But you do make an exception. You carve out a very large exception. The speaker has a duty to must be gentle, kind, respectful and patient with everyone except when the speaker is being judgmental. When the speaker switches to his judgmental mode, then it’s okay for him to be harsh, unkind, disrespectful, and impatient.
“Then I believe one must judge such a person, following Apostolic command and example.”
If you believe in following apostolic example, then that would include their use of harsh language.
Yet you originally said that we don’t have the right to follow apostolic example in this regard since we aren’t privy to the state of our opponent’s heart.
“Me: Nope, the “original” is still unconditional; the added component/situation is conditional (see above).”
According to your original interpretation of 1 Pet 3:15, which you provided by favorably quoting Kistemaker, “The term everyone is inclusive and relates to all circumstances.”
If it’s applicable in all “circumstances,” then it’s applicable in all “situations.” Once you qualify the force of the statement by claiming that it’s actually relative to the situation, you flatly contradict Kistemaker’s interpretation, which you originally quoted in defense of your appeal. It ceases to be unconditional, and is now contingent on the concrete situation, which varies in time and place.
“Here is how the ‘landscape’ appears to me: Anabaptists can hold to justification by infusion, conflate justification and sanctification, and deny the doctrine of original sin, yet still be Christian; but Catholics who affirm all three are not Christian.__Sure seems inconsistent to me…”
i) Anabaptist theology gets some things right that Catholicism gets wrong.
ii) There’s a difference between saving faith and a complete belief-system.
Hello Steve,
ReplyDeleteI think this thread is pretty much coming to an end, as such this will be my last post in it.
I shall end with 1 question, with 1 comment, and a summation; first, the question:
You posted:
>>i) As usual, you’re changing the subject. The point at issue is not the content of the statement, but the tone of the statement or attitude of the speaker: harsh/gentle, kind/unkind, respectful/disrespectful, patient/impatient.>>
Me: I was reacting to your questions concerning morality, and this leads to my question: Is one’s tone and attitude a moral issue, or would it be better to say that it is an issue of proper etiquite; if a moral issue could you give examples of how one’s tone would be constured as moral, and then examples of one’s tone as immoral?
Now to the comment; you wrote:
Me: I think you are completely missing Kistmaker’s context which is ALL within the subject matter being discussed—the defense of one’s theology/paradigm/worldview.
My summation:
1 Peter 3:15 and 2 Tim. 2:24-26 are direct apostolic commands to ALL the disciples delineating what sort of tone and attitude they should exhibit in defending their theology/paradigm/worldview to ALL. I am not aware of any apostolic commands to ALL the disciples that restrict the ALL in the context mentioned. You believe that specific/historic apostolic examples of tone and attitude should serve as examples to be followed by ALL; I believe such examples are limited to those with the authority and the needed charismatic gifts for said application.
And with that, I close; I shall leave the last word to you.
Grace and peace,
David
DAVID WALTZ SAID:
ReplyDelete“Me: I think you are completely missing Kistmaker’s context which is ALL within the subject matter being discussed—the defense of one’s theology/paradigm/worldview.”
So you only have to be gentle and kind when you’re defending your theology/paradigm/worldview. Outside that context you can be as mean and nasty as you please!
Subject matter dictates whether you should be nice or nasty. That’s such a convincing way to salvage your original claim!
“I believe such examples are limited to those with the authority and the needed charismatic gifts for said application.”
As long as you’re in authority, it’s okay to be mean and nasty. Many past popes and Grand Inquisitors would agree with your interpretation!
And the more charismatic you are, the more license you have to be mean and nasty. Yeah, that’s really persuasive.