The Calvinist’s chief theological opponent should not be Arminianism; it should be Roman Catholicism. The “five points” debate is an Arminian construction, and while Arminianism can be reduced to its “five points,” Calvinism cannot be reduced to such a limited set of doctrinal points. Calvinism is ultimately a comprehensive view of living in the world, just as Roman Catholicism is a comprehensive view of living in the world. Calvinism (with Roman Catholicism) is a unique orientation toward God, one’s neighbor, and creation. Arminianism is just a narrow set of doctrine fitting for analytic philosophers. When Calvinists make Arminians their chief opponent they either elevate Arminianism to something it is not or they demote Calvinism to a pathetically limited set of doctrine. The Arminians should be known for their five points, not the Calvinists.
This led to a very long discussion, by a lot of people. Here’s the gist of why I see Roman Catholicism as the chief of evils to be opposed in our day:
And yet, if you look at the grand sweep of history, it is not hard to see that the Roman Catholic empire (the heir of the old Roman empire) was the cradle and teacher of Islam. Certainly we can go back farther than that, but I think the influence on the overall story-line is somewhat diminished.
But Roman Catholicism is the great influencer of the [western] world we have today. I will go further than the OP in saying that “Roman Catholicism is a comprehensive view of living in the world”, and I will say that Roman Catholicism, in its comprehensiveness, is a major source of evil in the world. [Certainly, some good Roman Catholics have done some good things, and it may even be said that Roman Catholicism helped to enable a world to follow-up with the sciences. But arguably it was the Reformation that was the great enabler of the advances in the world that we see.]
In Rome’s historical quest to dominate the world, it has perpetuated all kinds of falsehoods. Insofar as Rome disfigured the gospel (pursuing its own “authority” even back in the 5th and 6th centuries), it was an enabler of Mohammad. And through some of its machinations in the Middle Ages (such as the quest for world domination – domination of the east – and the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the opponent of Jews), it became a teacher of, a motivation for, and an example to, radical Islam today: that heretics must be tortured and killed.
Roman Catholicism is, quite frankly, the source of huge swaths of what is wrong in the world today.
By comparison, Arminianism is just a piker.
These seem like a strong assertions: "Roman Catholicism...was the cradle and teacher of Islam."
ReplyDelete"Insofar as Rome disfigured the gospel (pursuing its own “authority” even back in the 5th and 6th centuries), it was an enabler of Mohammad."
You seem to suggest these are true because Roman Catholicism sometimes used state power to enforce its beliefs. Yet civilizations throughout history have forced people to believe certain propositions or act in certain ways under threat of torture or death. How can you demonstrate that radical Islam learned its oppressive nature directly from Roman Catholicism?
How would the situation been different if Roman Catholicism had not "disfigured" the Gospel? Do you think a proper Gospel would have somehow contained Islam? (Perhaps launched more effective Crusades?)
Matthew, in the original comment on Facebook I did acknowledge that these are very strong claims that require a lot of investigation. But I don't make these claims in a vacuum.
DeleteWe can all appreciate the struggles for the doctrines of the Trinity and Christology (Chalcedon). However, simultaneous to that, there were power struggles among the leaderships of various churches to, essentially, "argue among themselves as to who was greatest" (a number of Gospel passages will attest to you how serious a problem that it is).
Those who have studied the early history of Islam will point to the mutant understanding of Christianity that is to be found within the Koran. I have drawn short of saying that it is THE CAUSE, merely that it was an enabling cause. But a significant one, I think.
So it's not merely "using state power" but also "asserting state power" and also "setting the tone of a discussion that is not helpful". I see those early discussions as resembling today's 2K discussions, writ large (i.e., those having the discussions actually had "state power", of one degree or another, to wield).
As for the "oppressive nature" part, well, I don't think this is a hard sell at all.
I don't know how a "proper Gospel" could have changed things. God certainly has not ever (that we know of) enfleshed a human history with a "proper Gospel".
However, I'm looking at Stephen's original post as suggesting that Christians (especially Reformed Christians) have only limited resources. What's the best way to be stewards of those resources in the world that we live in today?
Those who have studied the early history of Islam will point to the mutant understanding of Christianity that is to be found within the Koran. I have drawn short of saying that it is THE CAUSE, merely that it was an enabling cause. But a significant one, I think.
ReplyDeleteWell, yes. But which historians move from this fact to your conclusion? Does anyone else argue that it was a "significant" "enabling cause" of radical Islam?
As for the "oppressive nature" part, well, I don't think this is a hard sell at all.
So how would you make your case?
Matthew, I am out and abou now, hut Hillaire Belloc classified Islam as a Christian heresy : http://www.realclearreligion.com/islam_a_christian_heresy.html
DeleteSo did John of Damascus in the eighth century. And he lived in the court of the caliph to boot!
DeleteMatthew, I've responded to your question here, here:
Deletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/08/roman-crusading-fossilized-islam-into.html
John.
ReplyDeleteI had not checked Triablogue in probably a year but just clicked over this morning.
Your latest attempt to lay the blame of the recent atrocities being committed by Islamic jihadists throughout the world at the Catholic Church is without a doubt the most disgusting thing I've ever seen you write. The world is aghast as children, children John, are being beheaded by vicious monsters in the name of their Satanic understanding of God. And what is your response? You try to use it to bolster your ongoing war with the Catholic Church. Of course, the irony is that many of the victims right now in Iraq are Catholics.
You have a dark heart John.
Sean, your inference does not follow from the available evidence. I question whether John can reasonably support his historical assertions, but there seems to be nothing here that demonstrates he has "a dark heart."
DeleteYou seem to forget you were banned from this site. At least you are not posting under some pseudonym this time. I'm surprised the gentlemen over at Called to Communion let you get away with this kind of behavior. Do they know you keep posting at Triablogue even though we have asked you several times to leave?
Matthew Schultz.
ReplyDeleteThis post and the argument attempted is unjust. Being 'banned' by the Triacops here will not stop me from calling it out something so repugnant. Your attempts to frame my response as 'bad behavior' fall flat.
John uses the unspeakable evil being perpetrated today in the flimsiest attempt to put these actions at the feet of the Catholic Church that he hates so much.
And I am the one with the behavior problem?
Perhaps you should muzzle your man, Matthew.
Sean, see the Belloc link. If Rome wants to claim "leadership", it should quit denying responsibility for the evils it has done. Go see my series on the Popes against the Jews at Beggars All. Just as one example.
DeleteWe have asked you to leave many times. Yet you keep returning. In any real life context, that would be unethical, or just plain rude. Again, do the administrators at Called to Communion know about your behavior? Do they condone it? Perhaps I will email them.
DeleteIf you think John's post so "repugnant," go make a post about it at Called to Communion. You have a platform. Triablogue isn't it.
And John is not "my man." That's just your modus operandi--exaggerating for good effect. You can't even acknowledge that I have quested his assertions in this thread nor can you defend your assertion that John has an evil heart. You just name it and claim it.
And yes, using what is happening right now as fodder for a completely removed theological debate is evidence enough of a dark heart. John's obsession is well documented and its reached a point that apparently even Wahabi Salafist Takfir Islamists is even the fault of the big bad Catholic Church.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, using what is happening right now as fodder for a completely removed theological debate is evidence enough of a dark heart.
DeletePeople "used" the Gosnell trials to show the evils of the abortion movement. Do you think that was evidence of malicious motives? To use a more ancient example, Jesus "used" the tragedy of the Tower of Siloam to make a spiritual point. Do you think that was evidence of a "dark heart"?
You can't just claim that any use of "tragedy" is evil.
Sean Patrick: Note the phrase "babies roasted on spits" in this article:
Deletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/08/roman-crusading-fossilized-islam-into.html
These were Roman Catholics crusading at the behest of popes, and with the promise of indulgences. Perhaps you should consider the dark hearts sent forth by the popes of that era.
Matthew.
ReplyDeleteWelcome to the internet. Its a forum for free exchange of ideas. Who are you going to report me too? The internet police? My friends? Maybe my parents? You can report me all you want. I am not apologizing.
And I would be shocked if many that seem this flimsy attempt don't find it equally repugnant.
And, I was not directing anything towards your questioning of his assertions. Great. Congratulations. But you stop short of calling it what it is - a desperate attempt and completely uncalled for in such a horrific time as this.
a desperate attempt and completely uncalled for in such a horrific time as this.
DeleteInteresting how you so willingly excuse all of Rome's evils -- and yet I have a "dark heart" for pointing to the actual historical record.
Wait till I pull out some of the specifics of the Inquisition. Then I'll really be the bad boy.
If I went and spammed Called to Communion with copy and paste comments from Jack Chick tracts and claimed the authors there were desperately wicked, Bryan Cross should publish all my comments because, after all, the Internet is "a forum for free exchange of ideas"? Should I continue to do it even fi Bryan told me my behavior was disrespectful and rude and that I would be banned if I continued?
ReplyDeleteAs to "reporting," I'd email some of the administrators at Called to Communion. (As I already said.) Maybe they wouldn't care. But I can't imagine they would find your current behavior--violating our requests to leave and circumnavigating our (recently reset) ban protocols with pseudonyms--all that moral or upstanding.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJames White has documented Islam's fundamental existence/identity as a denial of Christian truth. It is also a fact of history that as part and parcel of his cultural milieu Muhammed also interacted with Judaism, and Jewish thought.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree that Romanism demonstrably represents spiritual wickedness on an unprecedented scale, IMO it seems flimsy at best to attempt to root Islam in Rome, especially without reference to Judaism.
As an aside, I think a stronger argument could be made that Islam represents a variation on the ancient mystery Babylon religions (of which Rome is also one) which seeks to incorporate various pagan myths into an amalgam with competing religious thought in order to form a one world religion. This has ever been mystery Babylon's agenda since the Tower of Babel.
Thus one may conclude that Islam (and Rome) are both bitter spiritual tributaries emanating from the same wicked fountainhead, but merely taking differing courses through history.
CR, you may be right about both being "bitter spiritual tributaries from the same wicked fountainhead" -- but Rome definitely set the standard before Islam did: and the patters followed by Islam today are those followed by Rome in earlier centuries: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/08/roman-crusading-fossilized-islam-into.html
DeleteIt seems a rather insensitive time to post this.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Celestis, it is the perfect time to bring all this up -- some people, at least, are paying attention.
Delete@Sean Patrick
ReplyDelete"Your latest attempt to lay the blame of the recent atrocities being committed by Islamic jihadists throughout the world at the Catholic Church is without a doubt the most disgusting thing I've ever seen you write. The world is aghast as children, children John, are being beheaded by vicious monsters in the name of their Satanic understanding of God. And what is your response? You try to use it to bolster your ongoing war with the Catholic Church. Of course, the irony is that many of the victims right now in Iraq are Catholics."
1. Speaking for myself, and with all due respect to John Bugay, I don't agree with his argument that "Historical Roman Catholicism is the cradle, enabler, and teacher of radical Islam today."
2. I'd agree what's happening to Christians right now in Iraq is horrific.
3. That said, how is what's happening to Christians substantially different than what's happened to persecuted and martyred Christians in the past? It's not as if groups like ISIS are any more barbaric than many other groups that have persecuted and martyred Christians in the past.
It's not as if current groups like Boko Haram are any less tolerant of Christians.
It's not as if jihadis past and present - if they had their way - wouldn't enslave, subjugate, or murder Christians.
As such, what's in principle so "repugnant" about the specific timing of John Bugay's post? If John had made the same post at any other time, would it have been less morally "repugnant" to you?
At worst, sure, it coincides with a time when the media is (finally!) highlighting Christian persecution. So John's post could be poor timing. But poor timing is hardly worthy of the condemnatory language with which you're denouncing John (e.g. "dark heart").
Speaking of which, your Catholicism might parallel radical Islam in the use of inflammatory language. Perhaps even language worthy of Grand Inquisitor Torquemada.
"And yes, using what is happening right now as fodder for a completely removed theological debate is evidence enough of a dark heart."
No, there are a number of other possibilities. But a "dark heart" wouldn't be the first thing that pops into a reasonable person's mind. Although it might be the first thing that pops into an unreasonable person's mind.
"Who are you going to report me too? The internet police? My friends? Maybe my parents? You can report me all you want. I am not apologizing."
Matthew Schultz doesn't have to report you to anyone. He can simply ban you. And any weblog including Triablogue can ban whomever they like for whatever reason they like at any time they like. No weblog should be under the obligation to entertain every riffraff commenter that passes by.
When the Popes launched all the "horrific events" in the middle ages etc, was that counted as "solemn/infallible judgement" or just a "discipline" or was it "only committed by the secular state"?
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Hi explorer, sorry I did not see this question earlier. Rome distinguishes between "doctrine" and "discipline". And so the judgments were not infallible. Of course, this is an infinitessimally fine distinction at some points -- as is evident in the condemnations by name of individuals like Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia in the 5th council (Constantinople II). This is a bit of an embarrassment in that Nestorius is, in many quarters, no longer regarded as having held to the "Nestorian" heresy. I've posted on that in a number of places.
DeleteHere you go, from the other side of the tiber. They compare Anglicanism (and probably the rest of protestantism) with ISIS.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lmschairman.org/2014/08/to-understand-isis-look-at-anglicanism.html
Hi explorer -- thanks for the link here. Of course, Anglicanism didn't pre-date Islam, nor did it feed into it, nor did it crusade against it, nor did Anglicanism turn the crusades internally, nor did it have an inquisition, etc. Seems like a stretch to me.
Delete