Latrine duty

Ryan responds:

http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.com/2009/09/17/steve-hays-replies/

“Why not? Both the Anglicans and the Lutherans reject the papacy based on actions of popes. So they accept as part of their reason for existence that office-holders can destroy an office.”

i) That begs the question of whether there’s an office to destroy.

ii) Even assuming there’s an office, that also begs the question of whether or not we should hold officeholders to certain minimal standards. Scripture does, but Catholicism does not.

iii) If you’re going to reject an exegetical argument out of hand simply becomes it comes from the pen of a non-Catholic, then, by the same token, I can reject an exegetical argument out of hand simply because it comes from the pen of a non-Protestant.

“But Jesus does not seem to agree. He says the office holders are bad and still says the office is legit.”

Show me somewhere, anywhere in the Gospels that Jesus even talks church office-holders.

“So they are forced to try and convince themselves that Jesus isn’t really saying these things.”

Since Jesus never said the scribes and Pharisees were office-holders, it doesn’t take much convincing not to see something that wasn’t there in the first place.

Of course, I realize that Catholics are used to seeing things that aren’t really there–like apparitions of the BVM in a grilled cheese sandwich. Expectations have great autosuggestive powers.

“Sure we do. Nobody is saying holiness for officeholders is unimportant. Before they are ordained there should be diligence to insure they are holy. But nobody can be certain.”

True. In which case, after they’ve been ordained, if they prove themselves to be unfit for church-office, they should be defrocked.

How many corrupt popes or bishops have been defrocked on a regular basis?

“The ultimate job of protecting the church, which 1 Tim 3 says is ‘the pillar and foundation of the truth’, is not the job of the office-holders which we hope are good but the job of God who we know is good.”

In that case, let’s skip the middleman and join the Plymouth Brethren or the Strict & Particular Baptists.

(I’ll pass on Ryan’s conventional, acontextual misappropriation of 1 Tim 3, which I’ve discussed on multiple occasions.)

“Jesus was not choosing people to sit in the seat of Moses. He was reacting to a reality that these people were there. His reaction was to point out the evil they were doing but to instruct His followers to obey them anyway. God was going to remove them in time but that was not even relevant. Right now they hold an office that demands your obedience.”

Which disregards other caveats that he introduces in this same chapter.

“So what? Jesus says the sit in the seat of Moses. What does that mean? It means they are to be obeyed. Is it such a stretch to call that an office?.”

The only religious “office” in Judaism at that time was the priesthood (and variants thereof). Yet you didn’t have to be a priest to be a scribe or Pharisee.

So if you’re going to redefine “office” so loosely that a layman can be a religious office-holder, then that undercuts the lay/clerical dichotomy which is fundamental to your argument, and Catholicism generally.

Remember, many Pharisees were layman. If a layman qua layman can be an office-holder and authoritative teacher, then you’ve just underwritten the right of private judgment.

“It just establishes the idea of an office.”

i) No, it doesn’t. You’re assuming what you need to prove.

ii) And even if it did, most evangelicals have no problem with the idea of an office. That’s not the issue.

“Obeying imperfect leaders is one of them.”

The Bible does not command unconditional obedience to human leaders. An apostate monarch or high-priest could be deposed. Indeed, that happened in the OT.

Office-holders must comply with the terms of the covenant which authorizes their office. If they turn out to be covenant-breakers, then they disqualify themselves.

“It is a key one because sinful popes and bishops was used to justify the reformation.”

One reason among many.

“Like Augustine said against the Donatists. The pope and bishops are what they are by grace and not by works.”

i) Of course, that begs the question.

ii) Since Augustine was a bishop, it comes as no surprise that he subscribes to episcopal authority.

Likewise, you can quote members of the junta who extol the virtues of a banana republic.

iii) In the contest between the catholics and the Donatists, I’d say both sides were partly right and partly wrong.

“Then why not just read the text in the most natural way? Do you expect me to believe that the implications for the legitimacy of the office of pope and bishop were not in the back of your mind or that of Nolland or Powell? People bring biases to a text that are often more obvious to another than to the person themselves. One good reason why interpreting scripture in union with the church is important.”

Which reflects your own bias. Pointing to someone’s bias to undercut their argument cuts both ways.

“Sure. But that is why we need grace. God can bless you even if blind guides tie up heavy loads and put them on your shoulders. God is still there. You may question whether this leader’s decision is a good one or a bad one but you must still obey. If you don’t you would only obey leadership you agreed with. That is no obedience at all.”

i) To begin with, Jesus says that if you follow a blind guide, he will lead you into a pit.

ii) Jesus also pointed out on more than one occasion that the Pharisees were false teachers on some key issues (cf. Mt 12:1-14; 15:1-20; 16:6-12; 19:3-9).

So is it the Catholic position that Christians are duty-bound to obey false teachers? Is it the Catholic position that the pope is a false teacher, but we should obey him anyway? Is that how you defend the papacy in relation to its (alleged) Pharisaical counterpart?

“But this is not why Jesus said to obey them. He does not even use the word ‘scribe’.”

He doesn’t use the word “scribe” in Mt 23:2? How do you translate “hoi grammateis”?

“The reason for the obedience is because they sit on Moses seat. The fact that they knew stuff is nice but not the point.”

So Christians are duty-bound to obey a total ignoramus? Is the pope a total ignoramus?

“Not really. It just needs to mean something. What position or tradition it was connected with is unimportant. What matter is Jesus says it exists and it demands obedience from His followers. That means some sort of office was being legitimized by Jesus.”

It’s fallacious to infer office from obedience. Has it ever occurred to you that you should obey someone if he’s right?

“If it referred to the WC they used it would make no difference.”

If you wish to use the WC as a parallel for the papacy, that’s fine with me. So, according to you, a Petrine office-holder is equivalent to a latrine office-holder. Okay. That sounds reasonable to me. Doesn’t strike me as the best way to defend the papacy, but I’m not one to look a gift horse in the mouth.

“Jesus says it means that even blind guides who sit on Moses seat need to be obeyed.”

You keep missing the biting irony of a “blind guide.” Where do blind guides guide you? Into a pit.

“Really? Suppose it was today.”

If it was today, I wouldn’t need to ask someone else what the Bible says. The text of Scripture is readily available.

“You ask if you can divorce your wife. Would it matter if you ask a United Church pastor or Catholic bishop? I think it would.”

What matters is who has the better argument for his interpretation.

“I am not glossing over it. It is precisely what gives the text it’s force. If Jesus was asking his followers to obey some good and holy men then the passage loses all it’s meaning. The fact that they are ‘blind guides’ makes this a hard truth but it is still a truth.”

So you think Jesus is telling Christians to follow false teachers into a pit. Well, that’s an apt image of the Catholic church–I’ll grant you that.

“Not to credit the claims of Jesus. Spiritual leaders have no authority over your private thoughts. But to refrain from publicly saying Jesus was the messiah. Yes, I would say at this point that Jesus would want his followers to obey that.”

He wouldn’t have any followers in the first place if they were duty-bound to obey whatever his enemies in the religious establishment were saying about him.

“There is a problem here. It is why believing in the teaching of Jesus on authority ultimately forces you to believe in infallibility. You cannot have contradictory or false teachings that demand the assent of the faithful. Were these teachings infallible? I don’t know. They may have had a hierarchy that could resolve conflicts. They may have had monarchical leaders in certain areas. Jesus does not explain. He says what He says and I assume it made sense to His hearers.”

The Gospels themselves draw attention to conflicting “authorities,” viz. Sadducees and Pharisees.