From the latest post by Bryan Cross:
Of the various philosophical factors that helped me become Catholic, one was teaching through Plato’s Republic.
That’s always what a Catholic apologist must fall back on. Since exegetical theology is not his friend, since historical theology is not his friend, he must ultimately appeal to what (according to him) is antecedently probable.
First, it is reasonable to expect that Christ, being God and therefore all-wise, would establish for His Church the best form of government, not a form of government faulty in some respect. That does not mean that the government that Christ established for His Church would never err, only that the form of this government would be the best one.
i) An obvious problem with this assertion is the presumption that there’s a best form of gov’t. But on the face of it, there are tradeoffs between one form of gov’t and another. Some have advantages the others do not–but with the advantages come corresponding disadvantages.
ii) We don’t have to speculate on how God governs or establishes his church. We actually have an inspired history of the NT church. What do we find when we read Acts? Do we find Peter headquartered in Rome, where he directs and coordinates the expansion of the church? No.
We see free-lance agents like Philip. We also see Peter as one among several different delegates to the council of Jerusalem.
Second, the best form of government is one that is capable of preserving the unity of the society it governs.
That’s hardly self-evident, or even evident. Isn’t justice more important than unity?
First, it is reasonable to expect that Christ, being God and therefore all-wise, would establish for His Church the best form of government, not a form of government faulty in some respect.
ReplyDeleteI always find it funny how Catholic apologists appeal to intuition or what's "reasonable" instead of allowing Scripture to inform them of God's ways (which aren't man's). I can do what they do too, and better. I too could find it "reasonable" that God "would establish for His Church the best form of government." The best form is a direct theocracy. So, by that logic, Christ should never have ascended to heaven. After His resurrection He should have immediately set up His Kingdom in all its fullness.
In fact, by that kind of logic, God should have skipped the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic Covenants and STARTED with the Messianic Covenant. Pushing it further, Christ should have incarnated soon after the Fall. Actually, some commentators suggest that Eve may have had that very expectation when she said "I have gotten a man, EVEN JEHOVAH" (an alternate translation of Gen. 4:1). That way there would be many more in heaven and fewer in hell since the Gospel would have been available to all of Adam's descendants from the start and would be available to them wherever they migrated. This seems more "reasonable" than evangelizing them so late in history that believers have to travel great distances to get the message to "the uttermost parts of the earth" (Acts 1:8). If I recall, this is the very argument Celsus used to argue for the UNreasonableness of Christianity.
I realise I've said all this before. But, it goes to show how mere human reason will naturally go contrary to the way God actually does things.
Echoing Van Til...if the Catholic view of libertarian freedom were true, then how in the world could God providentially ensure the proper formation of the Church, the Papacy or the Canon of Scripture? Only a truly Sovereign God (like that found in Calvinism or original Lutheranism et al.) can account for and solve all the problems mentioned above.
That does not mean that the government that Christ established for His Church would never err, only that the form of this government would be the best one.
Why not? That seems TOTALLY arbitrary. Talk about ad hoc. It's like how they define Papal Infallibility to mean that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra. But he just so happens to not be speaking ex cathedra whenever he does make a mistake. In other words, they're painting concentric circles wherever their arrows fall. It seems reasonable to me that if the Papacy were true that God would never have allowed the Great Schism of the 11th century. Nor would God have allowed there to be two anti-popes such that they would need the Council of Constance to determine which of the three papal claimants is genuine.
Nor would God have allowed the Arian Ascendancy when for 5 decades the majority of the Church's leaders were heretical in their Christology. Fifty years or so is long enough for someone to live and die believing the heresy the Church taught him. Nor would God have allowed the Reformation or even the need for the Counter-Reformation. These are things Protestants have been saying for generations.
It seems clear to me that if the Papacy were true that God would have made the office (along with its powers and succession) abundantly clear in Scripture and/or Church Tradition. But Church tradion is clearly AGAINST the notion of the Papacy. In this area Eastern Orthodoxy clearly has a greater claim to historicity than Catholicism. I say all this as a former Catholic. Even now, I find the Papacy a great idea. In my opinion, it IS reasonable and appealing. But unfortunately it's reasonable and appealing to my MERELY HUMAN reason and FLESHLY (and lazy) desires. It's easier to outsource my responsibilities for finding the truth to the Pope.
ReplyDeleteI'd just like to observe that The Republic is not actually a political text, but an allegory about the soul and justice. Anyone attempting to base an actual political ideology on it should recognize that it was not intended for that purpose.
ReplyDeleteSecond, the best form of government is one that is capable of preserving the unity of the society it governs.
ReplyDeleteWell by Bryan's own yardstick, then, the Catholic Church cannot be the true church. It didn't do a very good job of preserving the unity of its society when Martin Luther questioned its doctrines. And it does a shoddy job today, given the widely diverse range of beliefs among Catholic theologians.
Concealing your disunity behind the common face of Catholicism doesn't mean the disunity isn't there.