tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post1021730923122055822..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: A Calvinist case against a Lutheran's case for CatholicismRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-84615652995299799402007-05-23T16:17:00.000-04:002007-05-23T16:17:00.000-04:00“It is also important to be clear about the doctri...“It is also important to be clear about the doctrine of papal infallibility as taught by Rome. It is certainly the case that wild and extravagant claims were made for the primacy and infallibility of the pope in Luther’s day. The normative doctrine of Rome is subtler and more qualified. The pope is infallible only on matters of faith and morals, and only when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, with the intention of speaking authoritatively on behalf of the whole church. Similar restrictions apply to the infallibility of church councils: their pronouncements are infallible only when they address matters of faith and morals and are intended to be authoritative statements of the teaching of the Church, and only when accepted as such by the pope.”<BR/><BR/>I've always thought this was unusual argument. Catholics complain that a doctrine isn't considered infallible unless it meets the specific conditions of being ex cathedra. But yet, even if you accept papal infallibility, why should such a nuanced structure be accepted? There's nothing in scripture or tradition, even on catholic premises, that warrants such details. Why are only ecumenical councils considered infallible? Why are only statements from the pope, as the pope, on matters of faith and morals, on the last Tuesday of every month (just kidding on that one), considered infallible? This is really nothing but ad hoc, and there's no reason to accept it other than the say-so of the vatican.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65780369718671795182007-05-22T23:20:00.000-04:002007-05-22T23:20:00.000-04:001) I never understood why the saints can give me e...1) I never understood why the saints can give me extra righteousness through the treasury of merit but Christ doesn't impute His righteousness to me.<BR/><BR/>2) Any Catholic who brings up the canon argument needs to present a list of infallible decrees, interpretations, etc. from the Roman Catholic Church and one that was made by the Church itself.geoffrobinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14949411893531888555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-70166904368577167832007-05-22T22:11:00.000-04:002007-05-22T22:11:00.000-04:00::YAWN!::::YAWN!::Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-21317661588681653372007-05-22T21:46:00.000-04:002007-05-22T21:46:00.000-04:00“History demonstrates that churches following the ...<I>“History demonstrates that churches following the Protestant principle must sacrifice either one or the other: either choosing doctrinal purity over unity (conservatives) or choosing unity over purity (liberals and latitudinarians). Only through a visible authority (popes and councils) able to bring controversies to a decisive conclusion can the Church realize both of Christ’s stated intentions for it.”</I><BR/><BR/>You'd think that a person arguing for Catholicism would realize that even the popes and councils have to be interpreted. This is the problem with invoking the ecumenical councils. Let's take the word term "person" as it relates to the Trinity. Who gets to decide what the term means? Boethius? Aquinas? Richard of St. Victor? In other words, did the Middle Ages not happen? What about the filioque? Do we accept the Council of Florence? Why or why not? The invokation of these creeds is not a magic pill that will give us unity.<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>“History demonstrates that churches following the Protestant principle must sacrifice either one or the other: either choosing doctrinal purity over unity (conservatives) or choosing unity over purity (liberals and latitudinarians). Only through a visible authority (popes and councils) able to bring controversies to a decisive conclusion can the Church realize both of Christ’s stated intentions for it.”</I><BR/><BR/>A. Aren't there schismatics within Catholicism?<BR/>B. Are there no liberals? <BR/>C.Isn't an appeal for unity over purity - which he seems to be holding out himself - a tacit admission that he's a latitudinarian? He must have been one in Lutheranism in order to apostatize to Rome. And if Rome continues to tolerate the things it does under its own umbrella, how are they any different than the liberals and latitudinarians, and if Rome decides to excise those who dare disagree with her, how is she better than the conservative Protestants?<BR/><BR/><I>“Lutherans argue that an authoritative Church is unnecessary, since the Scriptures themselves can act as the judge in any case of doctrinal controversy. This claim depends of course on the thesis of the perspicuity or clarity of the Scriptures. I have not been able to find a consistent formulation of this thesis among Lutherans. Sometimes, it is admitted that the Scriptures are not always clear (as Peter writes about some of Paul’s epistles). However, if the Scriptures are not always clear, then there will be questions about which it is not clear what, if anything, the Scriptures have to say. The Lutheran position, however, depends on the claim that, on every disputed question, the Scriptures can always act effectively as the supreme court of appeal.”</I><BR/><BR/>A. Turretin was right in stating that in matters of fundamental doctrines both the Lutherans and Rome erred to excess. More on this later.<BR/>B. That said, how do councils, the Catechism, tradition, Trent, Vaticans 1 and 2, etc. function any better as a supreme court of appeal if doctrinal certainty cannot be had for over a millenium?<BR/><BR/><I><B>“Lutherans have held, in fact, that every doctrine taught by Scriptures is a doctrine upon which church fellowship hangs. The Book of Concord is an attempt (futile, in the end) to settle in advance every possible dispute about the interpretation of Scripture, in order to provide a sufficient and permanent basis for confessional unity.”</B><BR/><BR/>And maybe Lutherans are wrong about that. Perhaps they overplayed their hand. But how is that an argument for Catholicism?</I><BR/><BR/>It isn't. What it tells us that Turretin and the Reformed High Orthodox as a whole were largely right in their views of Romanists and Lutherans on such issues. They err to excess. When the Reformed and Lutherans attempted reproachment, it wasn't the Reformed who demanded absolute first level priority to every dogmatic article, it was the Lutherans. Arminans and Socinians of the day erred "to defect." The Reformed have always sought to tread a middle ground here. You're right Koons just glosses this over, and I would think Protestant history from the Reformation to the 18th century would help him see that.<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>Assuming that this is correct, it would only mean that Lutherans need to scale back some of their exaggerated claims, not that Catholicism is true. In the heat of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, it was quite possible for polemical theology to get a bit carried away, for fear of making any damaging concessions. And, from our distance, it is possible for us to modify or moderate excessive claims.</I><BR/><BR/>Lutherans, to their credit, developed a confessional theology rather quickly, and these were norma normata, subordinate to Scripture. However, when attempts at a Reformed-Lutheran rapprochement were made in the late 16th century, they refused to acknowledge that almost any articles of doctrine had anything less than fundamental status. Ergo, Turretin's characterisation of them later on. As you say, Protestant theology has a capacity for self-criticism because of our rule of faith. On the other hand, the way we've treated error hasn't been consistent between traditions, viz. Lutherans, Reformed, Arminian.<BR/><BR/>The Reformed family developed a hierarchy of error and thus a more flexible way of dealing with errors.<BR/><BR/>A. Against fundamentals – Direct Error<BR/>B. Against fundamentals – Indirect Error<BR/>C. Against fundamentals – Beyond the matter<BR/><BR/>The first is a direct attack. The Socinians directly attacked the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. Many Anabaptists, along with the Catholics attacked justification by faith alone directly. The second would be a doctrine that is subversive of a fundamental. Open theism denies God’s providence by denying infallible future foreknowledge. The attack is indirect, by way of libertarian freedom. Libertarianism itself denies no fundamental if it is construed in relation to prevenient grace, but, in this instance, it is the way it is employed by Open Theists that makes its use an indirect attack on a fundamental, for it is, in Pinnock’s case not only attacking the doctrine of God, but also introducing a post-mortem universalism. The third class involves faith in problematic and curious questions that do not arise from the Word of God plainly, like PPL or “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” or dogmatic statements about supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism, which even Twisse, the supralapsarian at the Westminster Assembly said was probably a question that was better not to have been asked.<BR/><BR/> In their own day, this played out in the way the Orthodox viewed naturalists. By assuming reason alone is sufficient for salvation, they were said to controvert primary doctrine and be infidels. By denying Sola Fide, Romanists denied a fundamental article; ergo Stafer called them heretics, for they accepted the merit system and the supremacy of the Pope, resting the foundation of the whole Church on an institution and not Christ’s Lordship (Stafer, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, IV.xiv.§ 6).<BR/><BR/><BR/>The Lutherans were said to err to beyond the Fundamentals. They denied double predestination but accept Sola Gratia, so they are not heretics; rather their specific formulation of predestination at the conceptual level differed with the Reformed. Functionally, it was no different. However, their doctrine of the Lord’s Super depends on a particular Christology that is implicitly Monophysitic and their doctrine of baptism could lead to a denial of Sola Fide if pressed in a particular direction. Thus, they erred in falling into Christological speculation and losing Sola Gratia like the Arminians.<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>“Lutheran protestations to the contrary, I cannot believe that every proposition in the Book of Concord can be deduced directly from the text of Scripture, interpreted only by means of neutral, grammatical-historical methods. At some point, one has to make judgments about which system of theology best makes sense of the biblical data, and these human judgments will be fallible and variable, except where superintended by the Holy Spirit. Hence the need for an infallible magisterium of the Church.”</I><BR/><BR/>Doesn't the Catholic need to make judgments about whether or not what the Magisterium says or a council says makes sense of the biblical data too? How does he know the Magisterium is infallible? Where is the infallible list of infallible teachings from Rome? Where is the infallible list of infallibly interpreted biblical passages from Rome? <BR/><BR/><I>(Moreover, the idea that every text requires an authoritative interpreter would apply with equal force to papal and conciliar writings. Indeed, it would seem to apply to oral pronouncements as well, leading to a vicious infinite regress.</I><BR/><BR/>So, he's still a little Protestant, ain't he? If this is the case, then we're back to my questions above. An infallible Magisterium doesn't solve the problem he's pointed out.<BR/><BR/><I>“However, the context-independent meanings of the Scriptures are not in fact sufficient to settle all doctrinal disputes that must be settled (including the question of which doctrines are essential and which are not). This is confirmed by the testimony of history, including Lutheran history. If the Scriptures were perspicuous comprehensively, there would be only one major sola scriptura<BR/>denomination, instead of hundreds.”</I><BR/><BR/>A. The infallible Magisterium hasn't settled all doctrinal disputes.<BR/>B. This only highlights the problem of Lutheranism and by inference Catholicism is erring to excess over such questions.<BR/><BR/><I>ii) There are degrees of doctrinal error. Why must one belong to a doctrinally inerrant denomination (or independent church)? Maybe I’m an amil. Does that prevent me from joining a premil church?</I><BR/><BR/>It would if they had written premillenialism into their covenant and you were asked to sign and support that covenant in order to become a member. But how many churches do this? I know of one in my area, and I live in NC, where's there's a church on every corner, almost literally. I can't join my Mom's church, because they've written regeneration through faith into their covenant's statement of faith. I disagree, as I'm committed to monergism. I could, however, join an SBC church that holds the BFM 2000, because it is nebulous at worst, monergistic at best on that article. So, all Koons is doing here is highlighting the problem of erring to excess, which he's assuming is the correct way to by stating: The sola scriptura position puts an impossible burden on each believer: in order to recognize true congregations, the individual believer must evaluate the congregation’s confession for complete freedom from doctrinal error. To perform this task, the believer must not believe the essential doctrines of the faith, he must know exactly which doctrines are essential and which are a matter of legitimate difference of opinion. This seems inconsistent with the variety of talents, gifts and callings: not every believer can be expected to be a theologian. The sola scriptura theory condemns the majority of believers to de facto exclusion from the true church, by virtue of their inability to distinguish truth from error on all disputed matters.<BR/><BR/>In fact, that's not an argument for Catholicism. Logically that's an argument in favor of adopting the Reformed Protestants' views on fundamentals and errors.<BR/><BR/><I>“The early Fathers (Ireneaus, Cyprian, Ignatius, etc.) all teach that apostolic succession was instituted by the apostles themselves and provides a guarantee of orthodoxy.”</I> What did they say about their doctrine? Did they teach that a raw claim to apostolic succession was enough or that a claim was validated by the conformity of the claimant to the rule of faith/Scripture? If "apostolic succession" is enough, then what about all those corrupt popes and bishops and Arians, etc.? If Koons is right, then he's no better off than the liberal latitudinarian.<BR/><BR/><I>“Moreover, this picture seems to ignore the essentially historical nature of human existence, in favor of an excessively individualistic and rationalistic picture of humans as essentially disembodied and non-historical egos.”</I><BR/><BR/>And all along, he's being a rationalist himself, for his entire enterprise amounts to taking a central thesis and then constructing a theology / selecting a church to fit. How ironic. Why isn't his view just as rationalistic as the one he seeks to criticize?<BR/><BR/><I> “The immaculate conception of Mary, God’s supernatural protection of her from the effects of original sin, seems a reasonable inference in light of the uniquely intimate relation between her and Jesus. Would it really be appropriate for the incarnate Son of God to be borne and reared by a woman in the grip of original sin?”</I><BR/>That would then necessitate that her mother was sinless too and so on and so on...has Koons not considered how absurd his argument is?<BR/><BR/><I>“Some Lutherans and Protestants have argued that Marian devotion results from the intrusion of paganism (the cults of Isis, Astarte or Diana) into the Church…the same sort of claim could be made about all of Christian theology. There are many pagan precursors of a dying- and rising-god, for example.”</I> Not only is this faulty scholarship based on parallelomania, it ignores the Betae Transitus Mariae. What about the Gelasian decree? What is its source? Christianity or Gnosticism?GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.com