1.I see (albeit intermittently) that David Waltz has offered a pseudoresponse to Jason Engwer and me.
I almost never read his blog. For one thing, it’s only of those odd blogs that is only online between 2AM-3AM every leap year. You know the kind– “Can’t find server…can’t find server…can’t find…”
He reminds me a survivalist on his the ham radio in the hinterlands of Idaho.
2.After promising to address our objection “directly” or “head-on,” Waltz does nothing of the kind. Instead, he quotes a dated statement by Charles Hodge. Needless to say, that doesn’t begin to “directly” refute a single thing that Jason or I have said. That’s more like “tails-on” than “heads-on.”
3.Mind you, I’m gratified that Waltz finds theological inspiration in Chas Hodge. I’d encourage him to keep moving in that direction.
3.Unfortunately, Waltz still has the mindset of a cult member. Dear old Nipper…I mean…Waltz simply transferred his canine fealty from owner to another–“His Master’s Voice.” Transferred his tether from the Watch Tower to the Vatican. No doubt the Vatican has a better-appointed kennel, but a gilt leaf kennel is still a kennel.
And because he’s incapable of thinking outside his ecclesiolatrous paradigm, Waltz acts as though he’s played a trump card when he can cite Hodge’s opinion on 19C, pre-Vatican II Catholicism.
Well, Hodge is not my rule of faith. Hodge is not my pope. He’s certainly entitled to a respectful hearing. I own most of his writings. But it comes down to the argument, not the man.
4.I’d add that Hodge didn’t even speak for all American Calvinists on this score. There was a celebrated contretemps between Hodge and Thornwell on the validity of Catholic baptism:
http://tinyurl.com/y9fhxxx
5.Keep in mind, too, that Roman Catholicism is a denomination which keeps going from bad to worse.
Keep in mind also that Hodge was a paedobaptist. So, for us Baptists, citing Hodge is a non-starter.
ReplyDeleteJames Boyce was a Baptist. He studied under Hodge. Both held to Reformed soteriology.
What did Boyce think of Catholic baptism?
The view of most Reformed folks before Hodge was that Rome's baptism was valid but, contra Hodge, Rome was a false church. See, for instance, the French Confession. Many have and continue to disagree with Hodge's position.
ReplyDeleteHello Steve,
ReplyDeleteThanks to a good friend (it would be nice in the future if you would link to those you ‘tabloid’ on), I have learned that you have “responded” to my recent thread—you posted:
>>1.I see (albeit intermittently) that David Waltz has offered a pseudoresponse to Jason Engwer and me.>>
Me: Hmmm…Dr. Hodge’s assessments are now a “pseudoresponse”…
>>I almost never read his blog. For one thing, it’s only of those odd blogs that is only online between 2AM-3AM every leap year. You know the kind– “Can’t find server…can’t find server…can’t find…”>>
Me: Get back on your meds (grin)…
>>He reminds me a survivalist on his the ham radio in the hinterlands of Idaho.>>
Me: Yawn.
>>2.After promising to address our objection “directly” or “head-on,” Waltz does nothing of the kind. Instead, he quotes a dated statement by Charles Hodge. Needless to say, that doesn’t begin to “directly” refute a single thing that Jason or I have said. That’s more like “tails-on” than “heads-on.”>>
Me: False, Dr. Hodge deals directly with the initial issue raised by Jason.
>>3.Mind you, I’m gratified that Waltz finds theological inspiration in Chas Hodge. I’d encourage him to keep moving in that direction.>>
Me: “keep moving in that direction” ??? I have been reading the writings Dr. Hodge (and so many other Reformed theologians) since the late 70’s, and have not ceased in doing so; I would truly enjoy sitting down with you face-to-face and discussing what he penned.
>>3.Unfortunately, Waltz still has the mindset of a cult member. Dear old Nipper…I mean…Waltz simply transferred his canine fealty from owner to another–“His Master’s Voice.” Transferred his tether from the Watch Tower to the Vatican. No doubt the Vatican has a better-appointed kennel, but a gilt leaf kennel is still a kennel.>>
Me: Perhaps your ad hominem attacks sooth your conscience, but to those who embrace objectivity, they are little more than childish rants.
>>And because he’s incapable of thinking outside his ecclesiolatrous paradigm, Waltz acts as though he’s played a trump card when he can cite Hodge’s opinion on 19C, pre-Vatican II Catholicism.>>
Me: My-oh-my Steve, did you really think this through at all? If Hodge thinks “pre-Vatican II Catholicism” is Christian, what would he do with VII, “Evangelicals and Catholics Together”, and the “Joint Declaration”?
>>Well, Hodge is not my rule of faith. Hodge is not my pope. He’s certainly entitled to a respectful hearing. I own most of his writings. But it comes down to the argument, not the man.>>
Me: Indeed—address his arguments Steve.
>>4.I’d add that Hodge didn’t even speak for all American Calvinists on this score. There was a celebrated contretemps between Hodge and Thornwell on the validity of Catholic baptism:
http://tinyurl.com/y9fhxxx>>
Me: Yep, and on slavery too!!!
>>5.Keep in mind, too, that Roman Catholicism is a denomination which keeps going from bad to worse.>>
Me: Silly, response Steve…
From the “Annex” to the “Official Common Statement” of the “Joint Declaration” we read:
++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).==
“Bad to worse”, oh yeah Steve, oh yeah…you are such an objective voice…