I've never been a fan of Dreher's -- and his statement "Losing my Catholic faith was the most painful thing that ever happened to me" rings shallow. He was only a "Catholic convert" for a few years. As a devout cradle Catholic, I struggled for years to leave -- I'd say I struggled with it for longer than he ever was Roman Catholic.
An interesting article by a man who really IS still a Catholic in everything except in recognition of the Pope in the Universal Church. He's Russian Orthodox and his story is not all that unique (sadly) due to the poor catechesis we've experienced throughout the Church in the last 50 years or more. Actually, I don't think he really gave up his faith, he's just hearing a better presentation of how to be a Christian from his Orthodox priests. They are really not far off either. I would agree with them in just about everything until we get to the point of discussing the role of the papacy.
SWSr: a Catholic in everything except in recognition of the Pope
There's a whole lot more to it than that. His biggest objection was to the whole Roman hierarchy which turned a blind eye (and still does, to a large degree) to the major, major sex abuse scandals.
the poor catechesis we've experienced throughout the Church in the last 50 years or more
This is an facile excuse for you to try to explain away the massive numbers who have left Rome. The truth is, Rome is not what it says it is -- it never was. The whole notion of apostolic succession was the adoption of a Gnostic concept of authority -- and so-called Roman "authority" was a piling on, because Rome "has to be first". In truth, the whole notion of "successor of Peter" is a fraudulent one.
Both Rome and the EO allowed the Gospel to become buried in worldly crud, and their theologies are after-the-fact attempts to explain away the crud as something other than crud.
Amen to that John. If there ever was a more bandied about expression in Roman Catholic circles nowadays, "they were just properly uncatechized" is definitely on the top of the charts. It's used as a quick dismissal of anyone who ever left the Roman Catholic Church, and reassures the Catholics still on board that they have the real, REAL, Roman Catholic faith, now - finally receiving the true catechesis. What makes no sense of this incredible phenomenon is this - How is it the Holy Spirit of God is making these people born again at baptism, pouring out special grace on them at confirmation, and continuously infusing sanctifying grace into them through communion, unable to properly guide them and keep them in the RC Faith? I am aware of countless numbers of RC's in my circles who have gone through all the Sacraments, been through Catholic School - which included daily Mass, CCD, and weekly Mass on Sundays, who have left the RC church and never had any serious interest of anything Christian. That is, until someone shared the Gospel of Christ with them, God did a work in their heart, and then they hungered and thirst after Christ and continued to walk with Him. The whole "unproperly catechized" defense seems to immediately work against the claims of the RCC, in that you have Born Again, grace infused RC's receiving a lifetime of instruction through the RC church but never really being transformed, growing, or even remotely interested in Christian things - which immediately points to the conclusion that what they were "hearing" was no gospel at all but another. Here's a question, who is culpable, since one cannot leave the RCC with being in Mortal Sin, for leaving the RCC? Is it the person who cannont grasp RC teaching for 20-30 years of their life, or is it the clergy who were incapable of accurately relaying the RC Faith?
Well, the "unproperly catechized" solution works against them in a couple of ways. First, what in the world is the infallible church doing wrong, to "improperly catechize" these folks, If the Roman Catholic religion were true, if it were truly God's message, then people would be attracted to it (as Christ "draws all men to myself".
Then, second, as you say, "who is culpable?" -- to get Rome off the hook for improperly catechizing these people [though it catechize them with "the truth"], it must be the fault of the people -- those "invincibly ignorant". That is how they get off the hook. They never really left the RCC because of the wiggle words with which Rome characterizes even that definition: "Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." (CCC #846). So, "improperly catechized" is merely a result of their own "reformulation" of the "no salvation outside the church" doctrine: if you're "improperly catechized", you can't have ever really known that "the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ". Therefore, you can consider yourself "invincibly ignorant" and find yourselves among those who aren't really going to hell for leaving the RCC.
And we've never heard the Calvinist say, "he wasn't really saved" when someone leaves Calvinism for any number of alternatives, including Catholicism? So, the "improperly catechized" is not something only Catholics use. However, in the case of Mr. Dreher, he left for personal reasons, HE wasn't being challenged, etc. He didn't leave (at least according to his testimony) because the Truth was not there, and I see this far too often in those who have left the Church because they claim they were not being fulfilled somehow, when that is not why we are Catholic or Presbyterian or whathaveyou, or at least that SHOULDN'T be the reason.
Scott -- Calvinism shouldn't be on the table at all here. The issue is a thumb's down on Rome. Calvinism has a biblical reason for people leaving -- and that's the sovereignty of God.
You want it both ways -- Rome gives pure, infallible doctrine. Yet when people hear that doctrine and reject it, then it's their fault, or it's the fault of the "catechesis". You'll never consider that it's Roman doctrine that people are rejecting.
And yet in my case, I thoroughly reject Roman doctrine. I know the doctrine and I reject it.
John, I was not speaking to you, I was referring to the reasons given by Mr. Dreher. Are there some who have been so convinced by the lies of Calvinism that they are "sure" in their decision to give up the one, true faith? Sure, are you one of those? Perhaps, but I am not one who will pronounce judgment on you. As convinced as you may be now, your walk may not be over. You have no validity to anything Calvinist, no Eucharist, no apostolic succession, no history beyond or even a bit less than 500 years. But again, I was not making this about you, personally - my point was that Calvinists make the same argument when someone leaves Calvinism. Like it or not, you cannot avoid this truth.
"And we've never heard the Calvinist say, 'he wasn't really saved' when someone leaves Calvinism for any number of alternatives, including Catholicism? So, the 'improperly catechized' is not something only Catholics use."
Scott, you need to learn how to reason.
i) To begin with, if someone leaves Calvinism, the comparison wouldn't be "he wasn't really saved," but "he wasn't really a Calvinist."
Moreover, there are cases in which that's true.
On the other hand, you have some individuals who were well "catechized" in Calvinism, and knowingly reject it. In their case, they really were Calvinists. Arminius is a paradigmatic example.
ii) In addition, we wouldn't say someone wasn't really saved just because he's an ex-Calvinist. It depends on his adopted alternative. We wouldn't say a former Calvinist who becomes a confessional Lutheran (to take one example) wasn't really saved. We wouldn't say Arminius wasn't really saved.
If, on the other hand, someone leaves Calvinism for Mormonism (to take one example), then he's behaving as though he wasn't never really saved. Even in that case, he might be a backslider rather than a full-blown apostate. Time will tell.
"However, in the case of Mr. Dreher, he left for personal reasons, HE wasn't being challenged, etc. He didn't leave (at least according to his testimony) because the Truth was not there."
He says that all he heard on a regular basis was antinomianism. So he was hearing falsehood rather than truth.
"Steve, Thank you for providing the rationalization which validates my point."
I presented a detailed argument. If you were either unable or unwilling to argue in good faith by presenting a counterargument, then don't waste our time by posting comments here.
Scott: You have no validity to anything Calvinist, no Eucharist, no apostolic succession, no history beyond or even a bit less than 500 years.
Just a word about "validity".
Apostolic succession itself has no validity -- especially not the Roman version.
In reality, it's a late second century invention -- it may have been descriptive of the way that the second century church established its legitimacy vis-a-vis the Gnostics, but to then turn that around and suggest that this method "is prescriptive for all time" is a heinous usurpation of Christ's own authority in the church.
In effect, the Reformation sought to purge the church from its later, unbiblical accretions.
In the sense that the Protestant churches are Biblical, that is where they achieve their "validity".
Roman authority is simply a lie that has been foisted on Christianity, and it's something that the mindless and the thoughtless and the deceived have latched onto.
>> sw: "Steve, Thank you for providing the rationalization >> which validates my point." > > sh: I presented a detailed argument. If you were either > unable or unwilling to argue in good faith by presenting > a counterargument, then don't waste our time by posting > comments here.
sw: And why would I "counter" an argument which supports my own? Well, I'll respond in more detail...
>> sw: "And we've never heard the Calvinist say, 'he wasn't >> really saved' when someone leaves Calvinism for any >> number of alternatives, including Catholicism? So, the >> 'improperly catechized' is not something only Catholics >> use." > > sh: Scott, you need to learn how to reason.
sw: I used sufficient reason, you supplied a bit more "detail" which I accepted.
> sw: i) To begin with, if someone leaves Calvinism, the > comparison wouldn't be "he wasn't really saved," but > "he wasn't really a Calvinist."
sw: OK, I accept the distinction, but it is really one without difference to the point I made. You have just affirmed that point! So reword my initial statement to say, "he wasn't really a Calvinist," and my point not only stands - but you have supported it! I accept the correction and stand by my point.
> sh: Moreover, there are cases in which that's true.
sw: And you affirm it again.
> sh: On the other hand, you have some individuals who > were well "catechized" in Calvinism, and knowingly > reject it. In their case, they really were Calvinists. > Arminius is a paradigmatic example.
sw: And I have not denied that there may be some who may have known the truth and have left in in Catholicism - for whatever reason. Some, I know of, leave the faith because they are divorced and remarried without an annulment and rather than get their life straight - they will be like King Henry VIII and leave the faith - in fact, he is a prime example of just that. Again, I was not saying there are other alternatives only that the Calvinist will make the same sort of argument when someone leaves Calvinism (corrected) "He wasn't really a Calvinist to begin with."
> sh: ii) In addition, we wouldn't say someone wasn't really > saved just because he's an ex-Calvinist. It depends on his > adopted alternative. We wouldn't say a former Calvinist > who becomes a confessional Lutheran (to take one example) > wasn't really saved. We wouldn't say Arminius wasn't really > saved. > > If, on the other hand, someone leaves Calvinism for > Mormonism (to take one example), then he's behaving as > though he wasn't never really saved. Even in that case, > he might be a backslider rather than a full-blown > apostate. Time will tell.
sw: And I agreed with your distinction without a difference (to my point) so I accept what you're saying here.
>> sw: "However, in the case of Mr. Dreher, he left for >> personal reasons, HE wasn't being challenged, etc. >> He didn't leave (at least according to his testimony) >> because the Truth was not there." > > sh: He says that all he heard on a regular basis was > antinomianism. So he was hearing falsehood rather than > truth.
sw: The word "antinomianism" is not used in that article even once. I cannot answer to unsupported evidence. Your point is invalid insofar as this discussion is concerned.
Scott "And why would I 'counter' an argument which supports my own?"
It doesn't support your position.
"I used sufficient reason, you supplied a bit more 'detail' which I accepted."
To accept my details would be using my reason rather than yours. Try to keep that straight.
"OK, I accept the distinction, but it is really one without difference to the point I made. You have just affirmed that point! So reword my initial statement to say, "he wasn't really a Calvinist," and my point not only stands - but you have supported it! I accept the correction and stand by my point."
Since, by your own admission, I corrected your initial claim, I'm hardly affirming your point. I'm not affirming your claim; rather, you're affirming my claim. You have your wires crossed.
"And you affirm it again."
I see that arithmetic is not your forte. To allege that I "affirm it again" implies that this is the second time I affirmed your point, when–in fact–this isn't even the first time.
You made a blanket statement. I made a qualified statement. My qualified statement doesn't affirm your blanket statement. You need to learn how to think. You also need to near how to count.
"And I have not denied that there may be some who may have known the truth and have left in in Catholicism - for whatever reason."
So you're backtracking on your original claim.
"Again, I was not saying there are other alternatives only that the Calvinist will make the same sort of argument when someone leaves Calvinism."
Which is a overstatement, as I explained, and you conceded. You need to learn how to think.
"And I agreed with your distinction without a difference (to my point) so I accept what you're saying here."
Since your point was a hasty generalization, my distinction is substantially different from your original claim. You need to learn how to think.
"The word 'antinomianism' is not used in that article even once. I cannot answer to unsupported evidence. Your point is invalid insofar as this discussion is concerned."
Your response is invalidated by your resort to the word-concept fallacy.
"I believe that would be a valid comparison."
So, just as you reject Calvinism because it's (allegedly) a theological innovation, then by parity of argument, you must think we should reject Christianity because that's a theological innovation in relation to Judaism. I take it that if you were a member of the Sanhedrin, you'd condemn Jesus to death.
"You have no validity to anything Calvinist, no Eucharist"
i) We have the Eucharist which Christ instituted.
"no history beyond or even a bit less than 500 years"
i) On the one hand, no serious Catholic historian imagines that Calvinism popped in out of the blue.
ii) On the other hand, modern Catholicism has plenty of theological innovations, where it's broken with the past.
"no apostolic succession"
i) Calvinism has no need of apostolic succession to validate it. It only needs revelation. Truth is self-validating.
But let's play along with Scott's criterion. Does his own denomination measure up? How does Scott propose to verify every link in the chain?
i) Since valid administration of holy orders requires right intention on the part of the ordinand and the officiate alike, how does Scott verify the presence of right intent? He has no direct access to the mental states of the concerned parties.
ii) Who was the true successor to Gregory XI ? Was it Urban VI? Clement VII? Or Alexander V?
iii) Can Scott point me to an infallible list of the true popes and antipopes?
iv) According to the Annuario Pontificio,
"At this point [i.e. Pope Leo VIII], as again in the mid-11th century, we come across elections in which problems of harmonising historical criteria and those of theologyand canon law make it impossible to decide clearly which side possessed the legitimacy whose factual existence guarantees the unbroken lawful succession of the successors of Saint Peter. The uncertainty that in some cases results has made it advisable to abandon the assignation of successive numbers in the list of the popes," p12.
In light of that admission, how does Scott verify every link in the chain?
"What makes no sense of this incredible phenomenon is this - How is it the Holy Spirit of God is making these people born again at baptism, pouring out special grace on them at confirmation, and continuously infusing sanctifying grace into them through communion, unable to properly guide them and keep them in the RC Faith?"
Ouch.
"I am aware of countless numbers of RC's in my circles who have gone through all the Sacraments, been through Catholic School - which included daily Mass, CCD, and weekly Mass on Sundays, who have left the RC church and never had any serious interest of anything Christian."
Truth: Significantly more than 20, as in almost every single one minus a microscopic few. Yet, the few, who are of the same family, wouldn't recommend learning RCism from anyone else besides themselves, as each one has a better grasp of Real Catholicism than the next.
>> sw: "You have no validity to anything Calvinist, no Eucharist, no >> apostolic succession, no history beyond or even a bit less than >> 500 years." > > sh: You mean, the way Jews attack Christianity as a theological innovation?
You have no validity to anything Calvinist, no Eucharist, no apostolic succession, no history beyond or even a bit less than 500 years.
The Roman parish has no eucharist that's Scriptural but more akin to cannibalism, quite unclear and even conflicting claims to "apostolic succession" (e.g. anti-popes), and a history marred by sin that's more apt to be swept under the rug rather than renounced and repented (e.g. pedophilia).
sh: You mean, the way Jews attack Christianity as a theological innovation? sw: I believe that would be a valid comparison.
I've never been a fan of Dreher's -- and his statement "Losing my Catholic faith was the most painful thing that ever happened to me" rings shallow. He was only a "Catholic convert" for a few years. As a devout cradle Catholic, I struggled for years to leave -- I'd say I struggled with it for longer than he ever was Roman Catholic.
ReplyDeleteStill, I'm happy to see anyone leave Rome.
An interesting article by a man who really IS still a Catholic in everything except in recognition of the Pope in the Universal Church. He's Russian Orthodox and his story is not all that unique (sadly) due to the poor catechesis we've experienced throughout the Church in the last 50 years or more. Actually, I don't think he really gave up his faith, he's just hearing a better presentation of how to be a Christian from his Orthodox priests. They are really not far off either. I would agree with them in just about everything until we get to the point of discussing the role of the papacy.
ReplyDeleteSWSr: a Catholic in everything except in recognition of the Pope
DeleteThere's a whole lot more to it than that. His biggest objection was to the whole Roman hierarchy which turned a blind eye (and still does, to a large degree) to the major, major sex abuse scandals.
the poor catechesis we've experienced throughout the Church in the last 50 years or more
This is an facile excuse for you to try to explain away the massive numbers who have left Rome. The truth is, Rome is not what it says it is -- it never was. The whole notion of apostolic succession was the adoption of a Gnostic concept of authority -- and so-called Roman "authority" was a piling on, because Rome "has to be first". In truth, the whole notion of "successor of Peter" is a fraudulent one.
Both Rome and the EO allowed the Gospel to become buried in worldly crud, and their theologies are after-the-fact attempts to explain away the crud as something other than crud.
Amen to that John. If there ever was a more bandied about expression in Roman Catholic circles nowadays, "they were just properly uncatechized" is definitely on the top of the charts. It's used as a quick dismissal of anyone who ever left the Roman Catholic Church, and reassures the Catholics still on board that they have the real, REAL, Roman Catholic faith, now - finally receiving the true catechesis. What makes no sense of this incredible phenomenon is this - How is it the Holy Spirit of God is making these people born again at baptism, pouring out special grace on them at confirmation, and continuously infusing sanctifying grace into them through communion, unable to properly guide them and keep them in the RC Faith? I am aware of countless numbers of RC's in my circles who have gone through all the Sacraments, been through Catholic School - which included daily Mass, CCD, and weekly Mass on Sundays, who have left the RC church and never had any serious interest of anything Christian. That is, until someone shared the Gospel of Christ with them, God did a work in their heart, and then they hungered and thirst after Christ and continued to walk with Him. The whole "unproperly catechized" defense seems to immediately work against the claims of the RCC, in that you have Born Again, grace infused RC's receiving a lifetime of instruction through the RC church but never really being transformed, growing, or even remotely interested in Christian things - which immediately points to the conclusion that what they were "hearing" was no gospel at all but another. Here's a question, who is culpable, since one cannot leave the RCC with being in Mortal Sin, for leaving the RCC? Is it the person who cannont grasp RC teaching for 20-30 years of their life, or is it the clergy who were incapable of accurately relaying the RC Faith?
DeleteWell, the "unproperly catechized" solution works against them in a couple of ways. First, what in the world is the infallible church doing wrong, to "improperly catechize" these folks, If the Roman Catholic religion were true, if it were truly God's message, then people would be attracted to it (as Christ "draws all men to myself".
DeleteThen, second, as you say, "who is culpable?" -- to get Rome off the hook for improperly catechizing these people [though it catechize them with "the truth"], it must be the fault of the people -- those "invincibly ignorant". That is how they get off the hook. They never really left the RCC because of the wiggle words with which Rome characterizes even that definition: "Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." (CCC #846). So, "improperly catechized" is merely a result of their own "reformulation" of the "no salvation outside the church" doctrine: if you're "improperly catechized", you can't have ever really known that "the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ". Therefore, you can consider yourself "invincibly ignorant" and find yourselves among those who aren't really going to hell for leaving the RCC.
And we've never heard the Calvinist say, "he wasn't really saved" when someone leaves Calvinism for any number of alternatives, including Catholicism? So, the "improperly catechized" is not something only Catholics use. However, in the case of Mr. Dreher, he left for personal reasons, HE wasn't being challenged, etc. He didn't leave (at least according to his testimony) because the Truth was not there, and I see this far too often in those who have left the Church because they claim they were not being fulfilled somehow, when that is not why we are Catholic or Presbyterian or whathaveyou, or at least that SHOULDN'T be the reason.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteScott -- Calvinism shouldn't be on the table at all here. The issue is a thumb's down on Rome. Calvinism has a biblical reason for people leaving -- and that's the sovereignty of God.
DeleteYou want it both ways -- Rome gives pure, infallible doctrine. Yet when people hear that doctrine and reject it, then it's their fault, or it's the fault of the "catechesis". You'll never consider that it's Roman doctrine that people are rejecting.
And yet in my case, I thoroughly reject Roman doctrine. I know the doctrine and I reject it.
John,
DeleteI was not speaking to you, I was referring to the reasons given by Mr. Dreher. Are there some who have been so convinced by the lies of Calvinism that they are "sure" in their decision to give up the one, true faith? Sure, are you one of those? Perhaps, but I am not one who will pronounce judgment on you. As convinced as you may be now, your walk may not be over. You have no validity to anything Calvinist, no Eucharist, no apostolic succession, no history beyond or even a bit less than 500 years. But again, I was not making this about you, personally - my point was that Calvinists make the same argument when someone leaves Calvinism. Like it or not, you cannot avoid this truth.
Scott
Delete"And we've never heard the Calvinist say, 'he wasn't really saved' when someone leaves Calvinism for any number of alternatives, including Catholicism? So, the 'improperly catechized' is not something only Catholics use."
Scott, you need to learn how to reason.
i) To begin with, if someone leaves Calvinism, the comparison wouldn't be "he wasn't really saved," but "he wasn't really a Calvinist."
Moreover, there are cases in which that's true.
On the other hand, you have some individuals who were well "catechized" in Calvinism, and knowingly reject it. In their case, they really were Calvinists. Arminius is a paradigmatic example.
ii) In addition, we wouldn't say someone wasn't really saved just because he's an ex-Calvinist. It depends on his adopted alternative. We wouldn't say a former Calvinist who becomes a confessional Lutheran (to take one example) wasn't really saved. We wouldn't say Arminius wasn't really saved.
If, on the other hand, someone leaves Calvinism for Mormonism (to take one example), then he's behaving as though he wasn't never really saved. Even in that case, he might be a backslider rather than a full-blown apostate. Time will tell.
"However, in the case of Mr. Dreher, he left for personal reasons, HE wasn't being challenged, etc. He didn't leave (at least according to his testimony) because the Truth was not there."
He says that all he heard on a regular basis was antinomianism. So he was hearing falsehood rather than truth.
Steve,
DeleteThank you for providing the rationalization which validates my point.
Scott<<<
Scott
Delete"Steve, Thank you for providing the rationalization which validates my point."
I presented a detailed argument. If you were either unable or unwilling to argue in good faith by presenting a counterargument, then don't waste our time by posting comments here.
Scott
Delete"You have no validity to anything Calvinist, no Eucharist, no apostolic succession, no history beyond or even a bit less than 500 years."
You mean, the way Jews attack Christianity as a theological innovation?
Scott: You have no validity to anything Calvinist, no Eucharist, no apostolic succession, no history beyond or even a bit less than 500 years.
DeleteJust a word about "validity".
Apostolic succession itself has no validity -- especially not the Roman version.
In reality, it's a late second century invention -- it may have been descriptive of the way that the second century church established its legitimacy vis-a-vis the Gnostics, but to then turn that around and suggest that this method "is prescriptive for all time" is a heinous usurpation of Christ's own authority in the church.
In effect, the Reformation sought to purge the church from its later, unbiblical accretions.
In the sense that the Protestant churches are Biblical, that is where they achieve their "validity".
Roman authority is simply a lie that has been foisted on Christianity, and it's something that the mindless and the thoughtless and the deceived have latched onto.
>> sw: "Steve, Thank you for providing the rationalization
Delete>> which validates my point."
>
> sh: I presented a detailed argument. If you were either
> unable or unwilling to argue in good faith by presenting
> a counterargument, then don't waste our time by posting
> comments here.
sw: And why would I "counter" an argument which supports my own? Well, I'll respond in more detail...
>> sw: "And we've never heard the Calvinist say, 'he wasn't
>> really saved' when someone leaves Calvinism for any
>> number of alternatives, including Catholicism? So, the
>> 'improperly catechized' is not something only Catholics
>> use."
>
> sh: Scott, you need to learn how to reason.
sw: I used sufficient reason, you supplied a bit more "detail" which I accepted.
> sw: i) To begin with, if someone leaves Calvinism, the
> comparison wouldn't be "he wasn't really saved," but
> "he wasn't really a Calvinist."
sw: OK, I accept the distinction, but it is really one without difference to the point I made. You have just affirmed that point! So reword my initial statement to say, "he wasn't really a Calvinist," and my point not only stands - but you have supported it! I accept the correction and stand by my point.
> sh: Moreover, there are cases in which that's true.
sw: And you affirm it again.
> sh: On the other hand, you have some individuals who
> were well "catechized" in Calvinism, and knowingly
> reject it. In their case, they really were Calvinists.
> Arminius is a paradigmatic example.
sw: And I have not denied that there may be some who may have known the truth and have left in in Catholicism - for whatever reason. Some, I know of, leave the faith because they are divorced and remarried without an annulment and rather than get their life straight - they will be like King Henry VIII and leave the faith - in fact, he is a prime example of just that. Again, I was not saying there are other alternatives only that the Calvinist will make the same sort of argument when someone leaves Calvinism (corrected) "He wasn't really a Calvinist to begin with."
> sh: ii) In addition, we wouldn't say someone wasn't really
> saved just because he's an ex-Calvinist. It depends on his
> adopted alternative. We wouldn't say a former Calvinist
> who becomes a confessional Lutheran (to take one example)
> wasn't really saved. We wouldn't say Arminius wasn't really
> saved.
>
> If, on the other hand, someone leaves Calvinism for
> Mormonism (to take one example), then he's behaving as
> though he wasn't never really saved. Even in that case,
> he might be a backslider rather than a full-blown
> apostate. Time will tell.
sw: And I agreed with your distinction without a difference (to my point) so I accept what you're saying here.
>> sw: "However, in the case of Mr. Dreher, he left for
>> personal reasons, HE wasn't being challenged, etc.
>> He didn't leave (at least according to his testimony)
>> because the Truth was not there."
>
> sh: He says that all he heard on a regular basis was
> antinomianism. So he was hearing falsehood rather than
> truth.
sw: The word "antinomianism" is not used in that article even once. I cannot answer to unsupported evidence. Your point is invalid insofar as this discussion is concerned.
AMDG,
Scott<<<
Scott "And why would I 'counter' an argument which supports my own?"
DeleteIt doesn't support your position.
"I used sufficient reason, you supplied a bit more 'detail' which I accepted."
To accept my details would be using my reason rather than yours. Try to keep that straight.
"OK, I accept the distinction, but it is really one without difference to the point I made. You have just affirmed that point! So reword my initial statement to say, "he wasn't really a Calvinist," and my point not only stands - but you have supported it! I accept the correction and stand by my point."
Since, by your own admission, I corrected your initial claim, I'm hardly affirming your point. I'm not affirming your claim; rather, you're affirming my claim. You have your wires crossed.
"And you affirm it again."
I see that arithmetic is not your forte. To allege that I "affirm it again" implies that this is the second time I affirmed your point, when–in fact–this isn't even the first time.
You made a blanket statement. I made a qualified statement. My qualified statement doesn't affirm your blanket statement. You need to learn how to think. You also need to near how to count.
"And I have not denied that there may be some who may have known the truth and have left in in Catholicism - for whatever reason."
So you're backtracking on your original claim.
"Again, I was not saying there are other alternatives only that the Calvinist will make the same sort of argument when someone leaves Calvinism."
Which is a overstatement, as I explained, and you conceded. You need to learn how to think.
"And I agreed with your distinction without a difference (to my point) so I accept what you're saying here."
Since your point was a hasty generalization, my distinction is substantially different from your original claim. You need to learn how to think.
"The word 'antinomianism' is not used in that article even once. I cannot answer to unsupported evidence. Your point is invalid insofar as this discussion is concerned."
Your response is invalidated by your resort to the word-concept fallacy.
"I believe that would be a valid comparison."
So, just as you reject Calvinism because it's (allegedly) a theological innovation, then by parity of argument, you must think we should reject Christianity because that's a theological innovation in relation to Judaism. I take it that if you were a member of the Sanhedrin, you'd condemn Jesus to death.
Scott
Delete"You have no validity to anything Calvinist, no Eucharist"
i) We have the Eucharist which Christ instituted.
"no history beyond or even a bit less than 500 years"
i) On the one hand, no serious Catholic historian imagines that Calvinism popped in out of the blue.
ii) On the other hand, modern Catholicism has plenty of theological innovations, where it's broken with the past.
"no apostolic succession"
i) Calvinism has no need of apostolic succession to validate it. It only needs revelation. Truth is self-validating.
But let's play along with Scott's criterion. Does his own denomination measure up? How does Scott propose to verify every link in the chain?
i) Since valid administration of holy orders requires right intention on the part of the ordinand and the officiate alike, how does Scott verify the presence of right intent? He has no direct access to the mental states of the concerned parties.
ii) Who was the true successor to Gregory XI ? Was it Urban VI? Clement VII? Or Alexander V?
iii) Can Scott point me to an infallible list of the true popes and antipopes?
iv) According to the Annuario Pontificio,
"At this point [i.e. Pope Leo VIII], as again in the mid-11th century, we come across elections in which problems of harmonising historical criteria and those of theologyand canon law make it impossible to decide clearly which side possessed the legitimacy whose factual existence guarantees the unbroken lawful succession of the successors of Saint Peter. The uncertainty that in some cases results has made it advisable to abandon the assignation of successive numbers in the list of the popes," p12.
In light of that admission, how does Scott verify every link in the chain?
"What makes no sense of this incredible phenomenon is this - How is it the Holy Spirit of God is making these people born again at baptism, pouring out special grace on them at confirmation, and continuously infusing sanctifying grace into them through communion, unable to properly guide them and keep them in the RC Faith?"
ReplyDeleteOuch.
"I am aware of countless numbers of RC's in my circles who have gone through all the Sacraments, been through Catholic School - which included daily Mass, CCD, and weekly Mass on Sundays, who have left the RC church and never had any serious interest of anything Christian."
More than 20?
Truth: Significantly more than 20, as in almost every single one minus a microscopic few. Yet, the few, who are of the same family, wouldn't recommend learning RCism from anyone else besides themselves, as each one has a better grasp of Real Catholicism than the next.
Delete>> sw: "You have no validity to anything Calvinist, no Eucharist, no
ReplyDelete>> apostolic succession, no history beyond or even a bit less than
>> 500 years."
>
> sh: You mean, the way Jews attack Christianity as a theological innovation?
sw: I believe that would be a valid comparison.
Scott said:
ReplyDeleteYou have no validity to anything Calvinist, no Eucharist, no apostolic succession, no history beyond or even a bit less than 500 years.
The Roman parish has no eucharist that's Scriptural but more akin to cannibalism, quite unclear and even conflicting claims to "apostolic succession" (e.g. anti-popes), and a history marred by sin that's more apt to be swept under the rug rather than renounced and repented (e.g. pedophilia).
sh: You mean, the way Jews attack Christianity as a theological innovation? sw: I believe that would be a valid comparison.
At best, Scott Windsor is Pyrrhus of Epirus.