Wednesday, June 06, 2012

Someone else said this (thank God!)



I haven’t the desire to tell a Catholic how they define their terms, however they foist themselves to be the only true, holy catholic church, guardians of the faith handed down from the apostles and claim this:
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
CANON X.-If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.
CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.
CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.
These are at the very core of the Reformation, doctrines that all of us who hold to Orthodox Reformed Confessions hold dearer than our own lives. Rome has not rescinded Trent, the same (so-called) church that elevates tradition, and the papacy as co-equal with Scripture. This is the same ecclesiastical body that still has the stain of blood from the Crusades and Inquisition, a church who took up the sword in the name of Christ, and her supreme leader still has the arrogance to name himself infallible on questions of doctrine and practice. He can’t even bring himself to deal with the current scandals besetting his church (such as the epedemic of child molestation) in a way that brings any justice or recompense to the offended. So, fine, Rome can define what she means by her own statements, but I am not inclined in the slightest to believe them.
This is the group that has enticed one of our own to leave the true church, one whose ministry many of us greatly valued – so forgive me if I have little patience to bandy about with words about how Rome now qualifies a statement that it has not rescinded to mean something far from what a plain reading of Trent asserts. Trent says “if any man saith…” doctrines which every member of a Reformed church must confess before being permitted membership, they are “anathema”. Yet Rome doubles back and says that it only counts for those who have left her walls – it drips with duplicity to any honest Protestant by either de-fanging Trent, or stating that Rome does not mean what it clearly asserts, because every confessional Protestant “saith” these very things and mean them wholeheartedly. Stellman must answer to God for his part in these choices to be certain. However, so will those who deceived themselves, seek to bring others into a church that has forefited her claim’s to speak truly on God’s behalf
In forefiting his confidence, and confession of the sufficiency of Scripture, Jason has, sadly, placed his confidence in the hands of fallible men to assure him that their reading of Scripture, amongst other sources of authority can carry his soul safely to heaven (with only a few million years of purgatory, mind you). There may be defect with various Protestant readings of Scripture, but this points to the weakness of men, not the veracity or reliability of Scripture. I may have been more inclined to irenic discussion with Catholics on the web, but after recent events, I frankly just don’t have the stomach for it – not when they raid and pilfer our churches with lies exposed long ago. What Rome asserts as infallible seems to me to be nothing less than a lie from the pit of hell itself.

17 comments:

  1. , Jason has, sadly, placed his confidence in the hands of fallible men to assure him that their reading of Scripture, amongst other sources of authority can carry his soul safely to heaven (with only a few million years of purgatory, mind you).

    Ignoring all the other weaknesses of this article, it's funny how this key line could just as easily be written about the protestant method. Just hit the next line to see it.

    There may be defect with various Protestant readings of Scripture, but this points to the weakness of men, not the veracity or reliability of Scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Crude, there really are no weaknesses in the article. As for "the weakness of men", there is still a difference between the hermeneutic of Rome, and the hermeneutic of the Reformers (and evangelical Protestants today, for that matter). We are continuing to learn more about the languages, more about the cultures, more about the original intentions of the authors. That bodes well for "our reading of Scripture".

    ReplyDelete
  3. Crude left out the first part of the sentence, which is key -

    In forefiting his confidence, and confession of the sufficiency of Scripture, . . .

    John,
    Are those canons of Trent, 9, 10, 11, and 12, the main and only parts of "on justification" that anathematize "Sola Fide" ?

    R. C. Sproul spends a lot of time on 9, 10, and 11 in his book, Faith Alone, and that was very helpful for me back in 95-96 when I read it.

    You have some really great articles on these issues lately - you and Steve and Dr. White and Turretinfan and Carl Trueman and Kruger -

    I am glad the "Called to Communion" (Dr. White has been saying, "Calling to Confusion" ) has caught more of his attention lately.

    Would love to see a full response from Dr. White to:
    http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/the-canon-question/ (The Canon Question by Tom Brown)

    http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/ (Bryan Cross) - Matthison gave a great response.

    I hope at least one of them will take Dr. White's challenge to debate, since Catholic Answers and the others won't debate him anymore. (or Scott Hahn or others)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Ken, thanks, I'll give those links a look.

    I've been mentioning, I really believe we ought to "re-visit" the Reformation, pitting ideas vs ideas in the public square. The turf and terms are so different in our century, and with the way we can communicate instantly these days, I'm certain that Reformed ideas will greatly eclipse Roman Catholic ideas.

    So even though the RCs may (or may not!) pick off a stray sheep like Jason Stellman, the tide of ideas is just going to do some wonderful things (I'm thinking, too, of the articles that Steve linked to, regarding the "search for the historical Muhammed". Things like that are really going to change the world).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Typo

    (Dr. White has been saying, "Called to Confusion" )

    ____________
    I agree that their methods are first to "confuse" people by a certain philosophical method of focusing on certain things first, and hoping the Protestant doesn't ask questions about Mary and Purgatory and Papal sins and mistakes (Honorius, etc.) --

    And every answer the Protestant gives in the combox is met with either - "that is off topic" or "you are committing the "tu quoque" fallacy or the "whatever Latina wordo fallacy" . . .

    Indeed, they (the CtC folks) focus on one small issue, and don't allow other issues to be brought into the discussion and yet they are by nature part of the issue in the whole RC vs. Protestant history; they focus on either the canon or authority for interpretation, or a philosophical grounding / premise starting point, apart from Scripture (see Colossians 2:8) and hope to cause doubt in the minds of sincere believers who take seriously the charge that they are "arrogant" to lean on their own understanding, and use philosophy first, rather than Scripture. In the com boxes, whenever I brought up Mary or Purgatory or bowing down to statues, etc. they would get annoyed and say "quit bringing up Mary and those issues when we are discussing Sola Scriptura or the Canon or apostolic succession or Interpretative authority. "

    That is part of the method and deception, and confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  6. On the articles that Steve linked to about "the search for the historical Muhammad" - Robert Spencer and David Wood debated two Muslims, Anjem Choudary and Sheikh Omar Bakri on the issue of Spencer's book, "Did Muhammad Exist?" and David Wood and Robert Spencer debated each other also.

    http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2012/05/robert-spencer-vs-david-wood-did.html

    While Spencer brings up a lot of interesting points and data, especially the coin that dates from 680 AD with "Muhammad" and the cross on it; most of Spencer's stuff is based on earlier work done by Ignaz Goldziher, Patricia Crone, Micheal Cook and Robert Waynesboro, and Christoph Luxemborgh, one of his main arguments is that Muhammad is not mentioned until decades later (690s under Abdul Malik's rule) - liberals and skeptics and Muslims have been using that argument against the gospels for centuries - that they were only written down several decades after Jesus lived. ( late 40s, 50s, 60s for conservatives; post 70 into 150s for liberals).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Crude, there really are no weaknesses in the article.

    No weaknesses you will admit to. That's okay - that's not necessary.

    We are continuing to learn more about the languages, more about the cultures, more about the original intentions of the authors. That bodes well for "our reading of Scripture".

    Our meaning, what? The tiny sliver of Protestantism you subscribe to, yes?

    Ah, but wait a second. You need to do external research about the Bible? The Bible is already written, John - what in the world would such research have to do with "your reading of Scripture"? I mean, said research wasn't available to so many Christians over the years.

    Looks like Sola Scriptura ain't enough even for Protestants. ;)

    Ken,

    Crude left out the first part of the sentence, which is key -

    Not really, for the point I was making. Though John just made another point for me. Apparently Scripture itself isn't really sufficient to have a proper reading of it. He just showed it's contingent on external research.

    Apparently, you're playing Rome's game whether you like it or not. You've just got more popes than Rome does. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  8. For the record, Ken, I don't believe we've met. It's a pleasure, truly.

    Pardon my acidic tone here. I respect Protestants. I respect the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism. I just happen to be on the ecumenical side. And I dislike Bugay's entry into this debate, because when the Church fights against proponents of gay marriage, abortion, and more within its church, Bugay's hatred of Catholicism is such that he'll back the gay marriage and abortion advocates over the Church, hoping they do maximum damage to traditionalists and orthodox. Sorry, I find that insane.

    ReplyDelete
  9. No weaknesses you will admit to. That's okay - that's not necessary.

    Point something out. You're the one making the accusation

    You need to do external research about the Bible? The Bible is already written, John - what in the world would such research have to do with "your reading of Scripture"? I mean, said research wasn't available to so many Christians over the years.

    Looks like Sola Scriptura ain't enough even for Protestants. ;)


    You really don't understand what Sola Scriptura is, I see.

    when the Church fights against proponents of gay marriage, abortion, and more within its church, Bugay's hatred of Catholicism is such that he'll back the gay marriage and abortion advocates over the Church, hoping they do maximum damage to traditionalists and orthodox. Sorry, I find that insane.

    Last time I checked, it was an officially sanctioned "leadership group" that was advocating "gay marriage and abortion" as you say. I'm not supporting either group, just pointing out the internal contradictions.

    The insanity is all within the Roman system.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am with the RC's side on the social issues, and glad they express historic doctrine in the areas we agree with; and their right to believe that all contraception is wrong vs. ObamaCare forcing their agenda on the RC institutions (and on Baptist and Presb. hospitals also on abortion issues); but when it comes to the gospel and truth and the Bible, the RC is just wrong.

    John is pointing out how the supposed need of an infallible interpreter or living voice to walk into the room and solve problems does not really work in reality.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jason Stellman wrote this on 9-14-09 -

    "I will no longer post anything having to do with Catholicism. "

    yet, he has many articles after that time about Catholicism -

    http://www.creedcodecult.com/search/label/Catholicism

    ReplyDelete
  12. John,

    As someone who holds to 2k, I understand and fully accept that we are theological opponents on some very important matters. On any given day, I am happy to conscientiously defend my convictions, and respect that you will do likewise. But what is happening with Stellman is something that eclipses 2k (which is why I have been so vocal in criticizing Trueman's statements on the matter), rather it, in Jason's own words, "strikes at the vitals" of the Reformed faith and confessions. I gave this comment after coming to the realization that the CtC cabal, and those like them have been given far too much leeway in Reformed conversations, and their aims are anything but mere dialogue - they are after members of Reformed churches. Stellman isn't the first of the most recent defections, and hopefully the Lord will intervene before he joins the ranks of Rome.

    My hope is that those present on the Reformed blogosphere will take this to be nothing less than a call to arms, to defend our faith in light of the pernicious threat that these Roman apologists pose. We need to redouble our efforts to stand firm in our doctrines of Scripture and of the gospel itself, since these are the areas at which they are most viciously attacking. I think we are kidding ourselves if we think that the Catholic intentions in Reformed blogs are benign. Hopefully we can start mounting vigorous counter-attacks, defending what is not only precious to us, but true and founded on the unassailable bedrock of Scripture itself.

    Jed Paschall

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi Jed -- I hope you don't mind my lifting this, but it was a public comment, and I thought it was great.

    I too think that what Jason Stellman is doing "strikes at the vitals" of the Reformed faith and confessions". As I mentioned to another commenter here, I regard Roman Catholicism as having done great harm, over the centuries, and still today, to "the one true church", and I think, with the 500th anniversary of the Reformation coming up, it the next few years can be a "teaching moment" for the church as a whole.

    You are right, the CTC gang certainly is interested in picking off members of Reformed churches. And nor do I think Jason Stellman will allow himself to drift slowly into oblivion.

    So I don't necessarily know about a "call to arms", but definitely we should redouble our efforts to let Protestant believers know what Rome is, and what it is hoping to do.

    BTW, I'm probably not so hostile to 2K as some of the other folks you may have seen over in these parts. I actually had some interest in it; that's how I got to know Jason and his, uh, interest in Roman Catholicism. I was very much a part of his little community over there, when Bryan Cross stopped in one day. But I think James Anderson's review of David Van Drunen's book made a tremendous amount of sense (not sure where that is, check his "Analogical Thoughts" link in the "Blogosphere" section in the right hand column), and Steve Hays has asked some very penetrating questions as well.

    Thanks for stopping by. I am 100% with you on the thought that the CTC gang has been given far too much leeway, and I do understand the pernicious threat that they pose.

    ReplyDelete
  14. New commenter here!

    As a pastor, I have spent many hours helping people recover from the scourge of their RCC past. Whether it is the family wounds that still fester or the personal hurts caused by the faulty teachings and work of RCC churches, I mourn for those who choose to enter that communion voluntarily.

    That Stellman might be leading his own family into that system of lies is just heart breaking. It's one thing for a single adult to go into fallacy, but for a father and husband to do that to his own family is monstrous! I weep for the little ones that will be led into error by the decision of those who had the responsibility to guard them and failed in that duty.

    --DF

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi DF, welcome to Triablogue.

    I know what you are saying.

    ReplyDelete
  16. John,

    Hi Jed -- I hope you don't mind my lifting this, but it was a public comment, and I thought it was great.

    Anything I say in public is fair game, besides I appreciated the feedback. What I meant by "call to arms" may have been a bit over the top, but essentially I mean we need to be prepared with the full array of Truth to combat what are very serious adversaries in the CtC (and related types) contingency within the arena of ideas and theological reflection. God has his hand in all of this, yet we (I) need to be more aware that at times the discussions on the blogosphere are anything but trivial, as they deal with the central tenets of our faith.

    Glad to see you reccomend Anderson, I still side with DVD, but he raises many good points that we 2kers need to better address in the future. I'll try to stop by more often.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Jed, one of the reasons I do what I do is because I have, through my own personal struggles and studies, identified Roman Catholicism as (aside from things like rape and murder) the #1 problem in Christianity today. I don't normally engage atheists, for example, but the kinds of things they rail against have more to do of caricatures of Christianity (which often have Roman Catholic roots) than Biblical Christianity.

    I believe, with the 500th anniversary of the Reformation coming up, that the next five or more years can be a "teaching moment" for Protestants. A moment of unity. A time when we can all look at our historical roots, understand what the real issues historically have been. It took weeks and months for letters to get disseminated in the 15th century, and the publications of books took longer. Now, each day, we can have "mini-councils" or synods. Ideas can become disseminated widely, instantly. I'm all for pitting ideas-vs-ideas in the arena, as you say. Yes, we all have the same discussions over and over again, but there is an effect. Rome itself has pulled back and revised its doctrines of the papacy between Vatican I and Vatican II, based on historical studies of the early church in the last century. They try to pretend they're not doing it, but it's having an effect. I think we should continue to press on things like that.

    One thing that moves slowly is human nature. But, as I told Zrim, I'm in it for the long haul. My handle, "Reformation500", will be good not only in 2017, but 2021, 2030, and even 2036, should the Lord grant me that kind of life span.

    ReplyDelete