Shucking corn

DAVID WALTZ SAID:

"Thanks to a good friend (it would be nice in the future if you would link to those you ‘tabloid’ on)"

That would deprive you of the wonderful incentive to read our blog every day. I'd never think to deny you so much spiritual edification.

“Hmmm…Dr. Hodge’s assessments are now a ‘pseudoresponse’…”

Yes, it’s a pseudoresponse.

i) On the one hand, Hodge wasn’t writing with Jason and me in mind. His stated position is irrelevant to the specific arguments that Jason and I brought forward.

ii) On the other hand, you’re also using Hodge as a shortcut to avoid interacting with the specific arguments of Jason and myself.

On all counts, then, your appeal to Hodge is a pseudoresponse.

The only reason you introduce him into the discussion is to pull rank, as if debates in Protestant theology are settled by merely citing the opinion of big-name theologian. But Hodge would never appeal to his own person as an argument.

“Me: False, Dr. Hodge deals directly with the initial issue raised by Jason.”

Which demonstrates, once again, your deficient reading skills. So many books–so little reading comprehension.

“Me: Perhaps your ad hominem attacks sooth your conscience, but to those who embrace objectivity, they are little more than childish rants.”

It’s very droll for a Catholic, who exalts the pope as the “Holy Father,” to accuse a Protestant of “childishness.” By definition, every Catholic is a perpetual child in relation to the pope. Roman Catholicism elevates arrested development to the status of dogma.

And the Catholic mindset is quite pertinent to the issue at hand. Catholic epologists like Waltz are trying to motivate evangelicals to convert to Rome. They appeal to their motives. They treat to cultivate spiritual insecurities in the mind of the evangelical. So motives matter.

Waltz converted from a paternalistic cult to a paternalistic denomination. He, like other Catholic converts and reverts, suffers from a juvenile need for parental approval. The pope is their surrogate father-figure.

“Me: Indeed—address his arguments Steve.”

Address the arguments of Thornwell, David.

And while you’re at it, go back and address the arguments of Jason and me, David.

“Me: Yep, and on slavery too!!!”

If you want to bring up Thornwell’s misguided defense of slavery, then is that the cue for me to bring up the Inquisition? What about the priestly abuse scandal?

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…

i) The Joint Declaration wasn’t issued by the Vatican. And even if it was, it's hardly an expression of the extraordinary Magisterium.

ii) Catholics don’t really believe that justification takes place by “faith alone.” Read the fine print. That joint affirmation will die the death of a thousand qualifications.

ii) Since I don’t think the Holy Spirit initiates regeneration through word and sacrament, all you’ve succeeded in doing at this point is to document a serious error in Catholic theology. Thanks for making my case.

iii) To say that “God’s grace does not exclude human action” is deliberately equivocal. A statement like that can be developed in either an acceptable or unacceptable direction.

iv) In what sense does the Holy Spirit merely “initiate” regeneration? Does this mean regeneration has stages, and the Holy Spirit is only responsible for the initial stage?

So what about Hodge?

“Does the Church of Rome retain truth enough to save the soul?”

i) That’s hardly a “direct,” “heads-on” response to what Jason and I were talking about. We weren’t discussing the question of whether there are isolated cases (few or many) in which an observant Catholic can be saved.

Rather, we were discussing the question of whether Catholic justification is sufficiently analogous to the position of the Judaizers to fall under the Pauline anathema.

ii) And as far as the salvation or damnation of individual Catholics is concerned–which is not the issue we were discussing–even if that were the issue at hand, the question wouldn’t be whether individual Catholics can be saved, but whether the Catholic belief-system in toto constitutes a credible profession of faith.

“They retain the doctrine of the Incarnation, which we know from the infallible word of God, is a life-giving doctrine. They retain the whole doctrine of the Trinity.”

One thing that has changed since the days of Hodge is that Catholics are now allowed to entertain a far more sceptical views on the historicity and authorship of Scripture. At that point, the Catholic prooftexts for the Incarnation and the Trinity lose their traditional footing.

“They teach the doctrine of atonement far more fully and accurately than multitudes of professedly orthodox Protestants.”

Catholicism teaches the insufficiency of the atonement. It must be supplemented by various gimmicks and expedients.

“They hold a much higher doctrine, as to the necessity of divine influence, than prevails among many whom we recognize as Christians.”

“Necessity” is not the issue. Sufficiency is the issue.

“They believe in the forgiveness of sins.”

So do Moonies, Mormons, and Muslims. A statement like this is just a cipher. It means next to nothing until a theological tradition defines the key terms. What specific doctrine of forgiveness is actually in view?

“These doctrines are in their creeds, and however they may be perverted and overlaid, still as general propositions they are affirmed.”

Of course, the interpretive overlay is the nub of the problem. How does one proceed to unpack these general propositions? What do they actually mean in Catholic theology? And what do they mean to the individual Catholic?

“And it must be remembered, that it is truth presented in general propositions, and not with subtle distinctions, that saves the soul.”

Assuming that the individual Catholic shucks the Catholic husk off the underlying cob, and gives the cob a Scriptural sense.