tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post3456347422140236546..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Double CrossRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-8605219560223439112008-08-13T22:23:00.000-04:002008-08-13T22:23:00.000-04:00"Indeed, they had the OT. The Apostles and others ..."Indeed, they had the OT. The Apostles and others wrote the New. So, at no time has the Church existed without the Scriptures."<BR/><BR/>And we've yet to hear why we should care. I'm sure everyone is quite aware of the existence of the OT. But we're also aware that the oral teaching exceeded the OT. Thus the apostles were not practitioners of sola scriptura. <BR/><BR/>"Please document these oral traditions for us."<BR/><BR/>Much of the oral tradition is the traditional understanding of scripture. Things like what the eucharist means, who should be baptised, how the church should be run and so forth. I'm sure you know full well the Catholic position on these things.<BR/><BR/>"Are you aware of any that are different from those we find in Scripture?"<BR/><BR/>Different, no. Beyond the boundaries of scripture, perhaps.<BR/><BR/>"How can I know they are Apostolic?"<BR/><BR/>The same way you can know Genesis through to Revelation is prophetic.<BR/><BR/>"I never said that they have never quoted a commentary, so need to prove nothing."<BR/><BR/>So who gives a rip that protestants quote commentaries?<BR/><BR/>"Where can I find the list of infallibly exegeted Scriptures that the Magisterium has interpreted?"<BR/><BR/>Who claimed there is a list or we need a list?<BR/><BR/>"It's different from Steve because Steve doesn't claim infallibility."<BR/><BR/>Functionally it is identical, because Steve never goes against Steve's interpretation.<BR/><BR/>"No, its not. We're comparing two rules of faith here, not "every possible belief system.""<BR/><BR/>Presumably you would see Christianity on a higher epistemological plane than agnosticism, because the Christian accepts revelation about things the agnostic might suspect, but isn't sure of. If so, then a magisterium which clarifies what the bible is unclear about, would put Catholics on a higher plane than protestants. If you disagree, then you must put yourself on the same level as agnostics.<BR/><BR/>"1. Actually, there is a substantial amount of agreement between Protestants when they exegete the Bible."<BR/><BR/>And there's a substantial agreement I would say between the Church fathers in their exegesis. Funny how you always want to play that down and play up protestant agreement. Then again, to prove such agreement you have to make a completely arbitrary delineation between who you are willing to grant the moniker "protestant" and who you will deny it to.<BR/><BR/>"Apparently, the Good Father didn't bother to consider that if true this argument cuts both ways."<BR/><BR/>John made a further distinction - that of a _living_ interpreter. There is a fundamental advantage of having a living teacher compared to teaching yourself. That's why we still have schools, and not just books. That why the eunuch said "how can I understand unless someone guides me?"<BR/><BR/>"Do you require an infallibilist contraint on knowledge? Where's the supporting argument? "<BR/><BR/>What have I said which would lead you to ask such a question? Would you be happy if an agnostic asked you this question because of your committment to biblical inerrency?<BR/><BR/>"4. You've yet to tell us how your rule of faith is superior. How do you know that what the Magisterium says is correct?"<BR/><BR/>Clearly, a rule of faith with an infallible interpreter to resolve disputes is better than a rule of faith with nobody to resolve. That's why we have courts, and appellate courts, and not just everybody or every local court making up their own mind.<BR/><BR/>"So I guess there is no hope that the Magisterium could be subject to scripture, right?"<BR/><BR/>If you want to concede that STEVE cannot be subject to scripture, then we can proceed.<BR/><BR/>"How did the Jews ever muddle along with an infallible Magisterium to define and interpret Scripture for them? How did the Subapostolic and Medieval churches muddle along without Trent's declaration."<BR/><BR/>The Jewish priesthood (call them a magisterium if you like) must have been carrying out their basic functions correctly, since God put them in charge with the responsibility over the temple to carry out their priestly duties for the people. If you want to say that the Jews as individuals were at liberty to abandon the Levites and set up a brand new priesthood if they weren't happy with the preaching of the priests, then you would be at odds with biblical history.<BR/><BR/>"In the Bible we find Paul discussing the fact that the regenerate/elect do in fact understand and respond to the Gospel, for the Holy Spirit opens their eyes to it. To others it is the stench of death."<BR/><BR/>And the way you understand this concept and apply it here makes this blog and discussion obsolete.<BR/><BR/>"Roman Catholics low view of Scripture and ignorance of it is scarcely matched by their low view of providence."<BR/><BR/>We believe God guides his church throughout history and yet we have a low view of providence? Ha!<BR/><BR/>"Where can I find infallible commentaries that the Magisterium has produced?"<BR/><BR/>I think the issue is not whether I can point to a particular commentary which is infallible, but rather that the Church is infallible and the documents it produces, as a whole, considering its various writers, can point you to the Church's infallible understanding. On the other hand a commentary of a schismatic or heretic is simply one opinion versus another, at least as likely to point one away from the truth as towards it.JJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11536602476561826410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-42479020011541213542008-08-13T03:36:00.000-04:002008-08-13T03:36:00.000-04:00Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J.: When one hears today the...Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J.: When one hears today the call for a return to a patristic interpretation of Scripture, there is often latent in it a recollection of Church documents that spoke at times of the ‘unanimous consent of the Fathers’ as the guide for biblical interpretation.But just what this would entail is far from clear. For, as already mentioned, there were Church Fathers who did use a form of the historical-critical method, suited to their own day, and advocated a literal interpretation of Scripture, not the allegorical. But not all did so. Yet there was no uniform or monolithic patristic interpretation, either in the Greek Church of the East, Alexandrian or Antiochene, or in the Latin Church of the West. No one can ever tell us where such a “unanimous consent of the fathers” is to be found, and Pius XII finally thought it pertinent to call attention to the fact that there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, “nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous.” Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Scripture, The Soul of Theology (New York: Paulist Press, 1994), p. 70. <BR/><BR/>Thanks to DTKing for this quote.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53980925678477801332008-08-13T03:31:00.000-04:002008-08-13T03:31:00.000-04:00Actually they are disputing Scriptura. The origina...Actually they are disputing Scriptura. The original quote was relative to the Church never existing w/o her teaching authority and w/o the ORAL tradition in the form of the preaching of the Apostles.<BR/><BR/>Steve replied that the Church has never existed without Scripture.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, they had the OT. The Apostles and others wrote the New. So, at no time has the Church existed without the Scriptures.<BR/><BR/>So, let's test the origninal statement to which Steve replied, JJ. Please document these oral traditions for us. Are you aware of any that are different from those we find in Scripture? How can I know they are Apostolic?<BR/><BR/><I>So... the Magisterium has never quoted a commentary? Quite a bold claim that needs to be proven. How is Steve different to the Magisterium again?</I><BR/><BR/>I never said that they have never quoted a commentary, so need to prove nothing.<BR/><BR/>Where can I find the list of infallibly exegeted Scriptures that the Magisterium has interpreted?<BR/><BR/>It's different from Steve because Steve doesn't claim infallibility.<BR/><BR/><I>How is this a response that makes STEVE different to the Magisterium?</I><BR/><BR/>I've already answered that. <BR/><BR/><I>That's like saying that every possible belief system must be on an epistemological par because they all have to be filtered through one's own ears and brain. </I><BR/><BR/>No, its not. We're comparing two rules of faith here, not "every possible belief system."<BR/><BR/>You're drawing an analogy/parallel without the supporting argument.<BR/><BR/><I>If you want to believe that, hello absolute relativism.</I><BR/><BR/>1. Actually, there is a substantial amount of agreement between Protestants when they exegete the Bible.<BR/><BR/>2. Actually, I'm paraphrasing a Roman Catholic:<BR/><BR/>"If you do not claim to be infallibly certain that your interpretation of the whole Bible is correct, then of what value is it to have an infallible Bible without an infallible interpreter? In either case, your statement crumbles (this is a statement to a Protestant who said that the Bible is the only infallible interpreter he needs). The plain fact is that an infallible Bible without an infallible living interpreter is futile. Infallibility never gets from the printed page to the one place where it is needed: the mind of the reader. The myriad divisions within Protestantism offer ample evidence of the proof of this statement." See John A. O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, rev. ed. (Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1974), p. 117.<BR/><BR/>Apparently, the Good Father didn't bother to consider that if true this argument cuts both ways. This would, of course, apply equally as well to the Roman Catholic if true. Even if the interpreter is "infallible" (the Church and its teachers, who convey its teaching) it's infallibility would never get from the printed page or the audible words to where it is needed, the mind of the interpreter.<BR/><BR/>Every interpreter is a reader/hearer too, and vice versa. So, the problem isn't related to the necessity of an infallible interpreter (teaching office), it's the necessity of an infallible hearer/reader (person in the pew, reader, etc.).<BR/><BR/>The Roman Catholic solution only puts the question back one step or more. So, it's on epistemic par with the Protestant rule of faith.<BR/><BR/>And his final conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Of course, this is a non-sequitur. The divisions within the receivers of teaching say nothing about the fallibility or infallibility of the teaching itself or the text itself. Indeed, Catholicism is divided too, so his conclusion is self-excepting.<BR/><BR/>3. Do you require an infallibilist contraint on knowledge? Where's the supporting argument? <BR/><BR/>4. You've yet to tell us how your rule of faith is superior. How do you know that what the Magisterium says is correct? <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>How is this different to STEVE again? </I><BR/><BR/>How is this different than the Magisterium? The Magisterium (if you can find it), defines what scripture is and defines what it means to themselves and all others. So I guess there is no hope that the Magisterium could be subject to scripture, right?<BR/><BR/>How did the Jews ever muddle along with an infallible Magisterium to define and interpret Scripture for them? How did the Subapostolic and Medieval churches muddle along without Trent's declaration. <BR/><BR/>Steve places himself under the authority of the Bible by studying and exegeting it and obeying it. The Magisterium is in the ugly position of having to claim it infallibly defines that which it - and it only - interprets and telling Catholics they are bound to whatever they say is true. <BR/><BR/><I>I wasn't the one who claimed that internal light is needed to interpret scripture.</I> Actually that statement goes back at least as far as Augustine in the Church Fathers. In the Bible we find Paul discussing the fact that the regenerate/elect do in fact understand and respond to the Gospel, for the Holy Spirit opens their eyes to it. To others it is the stench of death. <BR/><BR/>Roman Catholics low view of Scripture and ignorance of it is scarcely matched by their low view of providence. <BR/><BR/><I>If its internal light that we need, shut up now and let those with internal light bask in it.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, you're now quoting part of Turretin without the rest of what he says.<BR/><BR/><I>But if its commentary we need, then an infallible one is on an epistemologically higher plane than protestant fallible ones. </I><BR/><BR/>Where can I find infallible commentaries that the Magisterium has produced?<BR/><BR/>How can I verify that they are, indeed, infallible?<BR/><BR/>How can I be infallibly certain that what I am reading is correct?GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-82406241076979787562008-08-13T02:43:00.000-04:002008-08-13T02:43:00.000-04:00"But the claim to which he was responding is "But ..."But the claim to which he was responding is "But the Church has never existed without her teaching authority, and without the oral tradition in the form of the preaching of the Apostles."<BR/><BR/>Yeah... and? Neither side is disputing scriptura. It is the sola part which is at issue.<BR/><BR/>"1. Actually, Steve frequently quotes commentaries - and not just Reformed or Protestant commentaries. Try again."<BR/><BR/>So... the Magisterium has never quoted a commentary? Quite a bold claim that needs to be proven. How is Steve different to the Magisterium again?<BR/><BR/>"2. What parts of Scripture has the Magisterium actually interpreted?"<BR/><BR/>All of it presumably, since they read the bible like you and me. What parts of scripture has STEVE interpreted?<BR/><BR/>"3. You have to interpret the Magisterium too. "<BR/><BR/>How is this a response that makes STEVE different to the Magisterium?<BR/><BR/>"4. Our argument is consistently that the two rules of faith are on epistemic par"<BR/><BR/>That's like saying that every possible belief system must be on an epistemological par because they all have to be filtered through one's own ears and brain. If you want to believe that, hello absolute relativism.<BR/><BR/>"The Catholic claim, JJ, is that the Magisterium gets to define what Scripture is (infallibly at that) and then gets the right to interpret it. How can serve that which you yourself define? This invites a vicious regress."<BR/><BR/>How is this different to STEVE again? He defines what scripture is for STEVE and he defines what it means to STEVE. So I guess there is no hope that STEVE could be subject to scripture, right?<BR/><BR/>"Even if the interpreter is "infallible" (the Church and its teachers, who convey its teaching) it's infallibility would never get from the printed page or the audible words to where it is needed, the mind of the interpreter. So, if your objection is true, it cuts both ways."<BR/><BR/>I wasn't the one who claimed that internal light is needed to interpret scripture. If its internal light that we need, shut up now and let those with internal light bask in it. But if its commentary we need, then an infallible one is on an epistemologically higher plane than protestant fallible ones. Here I guess is where you will equivocate on whether we need commentaries or notJJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11536602476561826410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47216741113664365952008-08-12T23:26:00.000-04:002008-08-12T23:26:00.000-04:00Well, whenever possible, I prefer the plain langua...Well, whenever possible, I prefer the plain language of Holy Scripture, and as you have a stated preference for straight talking:<BR/><BR/>Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.<BR/><BR/>Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.<BR/><BR/>Proverbs 26:12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.<BR/><BR/>I hope and pray that God will increase you in wisdom and impart His Grace to you. If you think these verses apply to me, please pray for me likewise.<BR/><BR/>Pax Vobiscum.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-603200093046368312008-08-12T22:56:00.000-04:002008-08-12T22:56:00.000-04:00Which is irrelevant because the Apostolic teaching...<I>Which is irrelevant because the Apostolic teaching, even for a protestant, is not limited to what is found in the OT.</I><BR/><BR/>But the claim to which he was respondingis "But the Church has never existed without her teaching authority, and without the oral tradition in the form of the preaching of the Apostles."<BR/><BR/><I>And in your world, scripture means whatever STEVE says it means. But we're not told how this is different.</I><BR/><BR/>1. Actually, Steve frequently quotes commentaries - and not just Reformed or Protestant commentaries. Try again.<BR/><BR/>2. What parts of Scripture has the Magisterium actually interpreted?<BR/><BR/>3. You have to interpret the Magisterium too. Infallibility in the teaching source doesn't jump from the page to the reader. The reader has to be infallible too. So, Magisterial authority/infallibility doesn't get you where you want to go. <BR/><BR/>4. Our argument is consistently that the two rules of faith are on epistemic par, not that ours is superior to yours. It's you that argue the superiority of your rule of faith.<BR/><BR/><I>That's like saying that because Paul interprets Genesis, therefore Paul is a higher authority than Genesis, and Paul's teaching and interpretation was not subject to the higher court of the Law and the Prophets. Of course, that is silliness.</I><BR/><BR/>The Catholic claim, JJ, is that the Magisterium gets to define what Scripture is (infallibly at that) and then gets the right to interpret it. How can serve that which you yourself define? This invites a vicious regress.<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>Which makes this whole discussion irrelevant, since we cannot empart internal light or prayer via the internet.</I><BR/><BR/>Even if the interpreter is "infallible" (the Church and its teachers, who convey its teaching) it's infallibility would never get from the printed page or the audible words to where it is needed, the mind of the interpreter. So, if your objection is true, it cuts both ways. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Too silly to dignify with a response.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, your post is silly, yet I have dignified it with a response.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37619670975843438742008-08-12T21:43:00.000-04:002008-08-12T21:43:00.000-04:00STEVE: "I'm still waiting for an actual counterarg...STEVE: "I'm still waiting for an actual counterargument to what I wrote."<BR/><BR/>My goodness, you think this is worthy of a response?<BR/><BR/>I'll just point out a few areas of total sillyness:<BR/><BR/>"And the church has never existed without Scripture. The Apostles were preaching from the OT scriptures. From Messianic prophecy."<BR/><BR/>Which is irrelevant because the Apostolic teaching, even for a protestant, is not limited to what is found in the OT.<BR/><BR/>"Scripture means whatever the Magisterium says it means. Therefore, Scripture has no authority over the Magisterium. "<BR/><BR/>And in your world, scripture means whatever STEVE says it means. But we're not told how this is different.<BR/><BR/>"Interpretive or teaching authority is the functional equivalent of the most or highest intrinsic authority because you can’t appeal the Magisterial teaching or interpretation to the higher court of Scripture."<BR/><BR/>That's like saying that because Paul interprets Genesis, therefore Paul is a higher authority than Genesis, and Paul's teaching and interpretation was not subject to the higher court of the Law and the Prophets. Of course, that is silliness.<BR/><BR/>"“Perspicuity does not exclude the means necessary for interpretation (i.e. the internal light of the Spirit, attention of mind, the voice and ministry of the church, sermons and commentaries, prayer and watchfulness)"<BR/><BR/>Which makes this whole discussion irrelevant, since we cannot empart internal light or prayer via the internet.<BR/><BR/>"Trap Jesus in a piece of bread for long enough to swallow him. That way, you have Jesus inside of you. That way, God can’t damn you without damning Jesus. "<BR/><BR/>Too silly to dignify with a response.JJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11536602476561826410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-21932318164619662742008-08-12T15:54:00.000-04:002008-08-12T15:54:00.000-04:00While we're on the subject, I'll take the occasion...While we're on the subject, I'll take the occasion to repost something I posted over in Stellman's combox:<BR/><BR/>“Isn't it strange that Bryan Cross and others who are completely charitible all the time get this kind of garbage thrown at them from other Christians?”<BR/><BR/>Isn’t it strange that Oso can be so very selective and one-sided in his definition of “charity.” Is this a charitable characterization of Protestant theology:<BR/><BR/>“What if we are called to be saints in this life, to be perfect, and yet we only do the very minimum, squandering a life-time of opportunities for acts of heroic virtue? In that case, the minimalistic and nominalistic approach to Christianity that seeks to do whatever just gets people inside the pearly gates.”<BR/><BR/>Is it charitable of Cross to characterize Protestants as ecclesial Deists, ecclesial Docetists, and schismatics? <BR/><BR/>Oso’s agreement with Cross blinds him to the uncharitable ways in which Cross describes the Protestant position. <BR/><BR/>Historically, the Catholic church has not been conspicuous for its charitable behavior toward theological opponents. Was the Inquisition charitable?<BR/><BR/>It’s only after the Catholic church lost its temporal power that it suddenly discovered the virtues of charitable behavior toward its opponents.<BR/><BR/>“I'm not the expert on RC'ism that John is, but from what little I do know about their theology, I cannot say that I recognize it in the caricature above.__If that had been posted here I would ask the commenter to rein in his rhetoric a bit. But since it was a link posted to an article by someone else and then reproduced here, all I can say is that it seems like an unfair representation, not unlike how we Calvinists are portayed by Arminians.”<BR/><BR/>Hi, Pastor Stellman.<BR/><BR/>On what, precisely, to do you base that evaluation? <BR/><BR/>Let’s take a couple of concrete examples. Ted Kennedy, at least in his prime, was a notorious womanizer. Now, to my understanding, that’s a mortal sin in Catholic theology.<BR/><BR/>Was Kennedy ever discipline by his church? Was he ever excommunicated? Or denied communion? No.<BR/><BR/>Let’s take another example. William Brennan was an architect of Roe v. Wade. Yet he was also a weekly communicant. <BR/><BR/>Was Brennan every disciplined by his church for promoting a policy antithetical to the moral theology of his denomination? No.<BR/><BR/>I mention Brennan and Kennedy because these are two famous Roman Catholics. Their Diocesan bishops were well aware of their sinful conduct. And it made not a dime’s worth of difference. No disciplinary action was ever brought against them. <BR/><BR/>So, yes, the message this sends is that if you just go through the motions, go to confession, go to Mass, you can do as you please. <BR/><BR/>“Golden Rule please, everyone.”<BR/><BR/>How, exactly, do you apply the Golden Rule? Did Jesus violate the Golden Rule in Mt 23? Would you rein in Jesus’ rhetoric?<BR/>steve hays | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 3:52 pm | #<BR/><BR/>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/jstellman/1740148499988421468/#70478stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26284570475816862542008-08-12T14:55:00.000-04:002008-08-12T14:55:00.000-04:00"Or just that it is commonly misunderstood by the ..."Or just that it is commonly misunderstood by the lay person?"<BR/><BR/>I don't believe that it is misunderstood by the laity. Rather, it is taken to its logical conclusion just like classical Dispensationalism often is.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34586873328328972362008-08-12T14:54:00.000-04:002008-08-12T14:54:00.000-04:00"Does the common erroneous view of OSAS amongst ev..."Does the common erroneous view of OSAS amongst evangelicals that is subject to the same type of criticism Steve and SR leveled say anything about Protestant theology?"<BR/><BR/>Yes, it is. Classical Dispensationalism's view of sanctification leads to that very thing. Both this view as well as that of Rome should be condemned and called for what they are: heretical and destructive of true piety.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-82457178875286695072008-08-12T12:54:00.000-04:002008-08-12T12:54:00.000-04:00SS,SR said "the fact that all these loopholes and ...SS,<BR/>SR said "the fact that all these loopholes and getaways exist in *Catholic theology*"<BR/><BR/>Does catholic theology contradict itself - presumably not as you refer to "in writing" - but then I guess you're saying the sacramentology practiced by the RCC contradicts its theology? Or just that it is commonly misunderstood by the lay person? Does the common erroneous view of OSAS amongst evangelicals that is subject to the same type of criticism Steve and SR leveled say anything about Protestant theology? I would say no, but seems like I must be wrong.The Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00211478133160497647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34423591453002558162008-08-12T12:33:00.000-04:002008-08-12T12:33:00.000-04:00the dude said, "You say, oh yeah the RCC doesn't r...the dude said, "You say, oh yeah the RCC doesn't really teach that, then say "the fact that all these loopholes and getaways exist in Catholic theology guarantee that people will adopt the attitude that they can sin now and go to confession later" - so which is it?"<BR/><BR/>There's a difference between what Catholicism condemns in writing and what its sacramentology ***creates*** in practice.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22792723117494884442008-08-12T08:59:00.000-04:002008-08-12T08:59:00.000-04:00Thus far the Catholic commenters are doing an impr...Thus far the Catholic commenters are doing an impressive job of demonstrating their apologetic impotence. I'm still waiting for an actual counterargument to what I wrote. Thus far, none has been forthcoming.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31136000136772554362008-08-12T01:03:00.000-04:002008-08-12T01:03:00.000-04:00SR,"the biblical attitude is not that you can simp...SR,<BR/>"the biblical attitude is not that you can simply toss away the penalty for your sins by saying a few Hail Marys or taking communion, but that one must always be in the process of sanctifying one's behaviour and *constantly trying to examine oneself and become more Christlike*, because we are accountable directly to God."<BR/><BR/>Actually, there is some debate amongst Lutherans as to the value of the third use of the Law and whether one should "constantly [try] to examine oneself and become more Christlike". But maybe they're just as unbiblical as that crazy RCC that teaches unrepentant sinners can say a few novenas and all is well - as tbloggers are fond of saying, "care to document that"? <BR/><BR/>You say, oh yeah the RCC doesn't really teach that, then say "the fact that all these loopholes and getaways exist in Catholic theology guarantee that people will adopt the attitude that they can sin now and go to confession later" - so which is it?The Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00211478133160497647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77778541428070339132008-08-11T23:32:00.000-04:002008-08-11T23:32:00.000-04:00OSO FAMOSO: "I stopped reading here"You lasted tha...OSO FAMOSO: "I stopped reading here"<BR/><BR/>You lasted that long? Impressive. The pure silliness was too much for me much earlier.JJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11536602476561826410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18734084723143902062008-08-11T17:32:00.000-04:002008-08-11T17:32:00.000-04:00As for Your continous, senseless remarks concernin...As for Your continous, senseless remarks concerning Baptism and Eucharist, they've already been answered 2,000 yrs ago by John the Baptist and St. Paul the Apostle. <I>Matthew 3:7; Luke 3:7; 1 Corinthians 11:27-32</I>. -- or do You place the Gospels and Pauline Epistles among the Apocrypha also?The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-60240461383390373372008-08-11T16:41:00.000-04:002008-08-11T16:41:00.000-04:00Of course that's not the Catholic teaching! Time a...Of course that's not the Catholic teaching! Time and time again, you miss the point. It's also not the goal of the government that tax loopholes can be used so that the rich can squirm through them while paying very little compared to their income. Yet the very existence of those loopholes pretty much guarantees that kind of behaviour.<BR/><BR/>Likewise, in the Roman Catholic Church, on paper they may "tut tut" scornfully if someone misses mass or fornicates, or what have you but the fact that all these loopholes and getaways exist in Catholic theology guarantee that people will adopt the attitude that they can sin now and go to confession later. It's just one more abhorrent perversion of biblical theology out of many for the Vatican.Semper Reformandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14654695501552603164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64937491574384400492008-08-11T15:51:00.000-04:002008-08-11T15:51:00.000-04:00They concede that Arian exegesis was as plausible ...<I>They concede that Arian exegesis was as plausible as orthodox exegesis</I>.<BR/><BR/>Well, isn't it? :-\ Anyway, glad that You're at least a "normal" Protestant, and not a Jehova's Witness ... :-) <BR/><BR/>We were/are just being frank here: first with ourselves and secondly with others (such as Yourself): we're doomed without Tradition. I don't recall us ever pretending to possess a higher knowledge or superior intelligence than anyone else: all that we ever claimed was being faithful to and steadfast in the paths laid down by our Fathers, fore-fathers, and predecessors in the faith once-and-for-all delivered.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63630287283629455832008-08-11T13:47:00.000-04:002008-08-11T13:47:00.000-04:00By contrast, the biblical attitude is not that you...<I> By contrast, the biblical attitude is not that you can simply toss away the penalty for your sins by saying a few Hail Marys or taking communion</I><BR/><BR/>How ironic because this is not the Catholic teaching either!<BR/><BR/>Why is that some must first mischaracterize Catholicism before attacking it?Oso Famosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08414344918379243324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-32970228831742762272008-08-11T13:24:00.000-04:002008-08-11T13:24:00.000-04:00What is it about Roman Catholics and Orthodox that...What is it about Roman Catholics and Orthodox that they're too thick to understand a simple point? The point is not that there are sinners within a given denomination - that's a given. The point is that Roman Catholic theology is perverse and debased enough to provide loopholes that encourage this kind of behaviour. By contrast, the biblical attitude is not that you can simply toss away the penalty for your sins by saying a few Hail Marys or taking communion, but that one must always be in the process of sanctifying one's behaviour and constantly trying to examine oneself and become more Christlike, because we are accountable directly to God. The nominal person will not be motivated by this, but the regenerate will.Semper Reformandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14654695501552603164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-14485971120745705352008-08-11T10:11:00.000-04:002008-08-11T10:11:00.000-04:00I had Catholic roommates in college, and that IS h...<I>I had Catholic roommates in college, and that IS how they talked</I><BR/><BR/>And I knew a guy in college who was Reformed Presbyterian who got his girlfriend pregnant. I think that I am going to assign that behavior to every Presbyterian I know...thanks!Oso Famosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08414344918379243324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-2310265655239152772008-08-11T03:39:00.000-04:002008-08-11T03:39:00.000-04:00I stopped reading here. Oh, the irony of accusing ...<I>I stopped reading here. Oh, the irony of accusing Bryan Cross of a straw man.<BR/><BR/>Hatefull. Mean spirited. Straw man.</I><BR/><BR/>Saying so and demonstrating it aren't convertible. Indeed notice what that comment was directed toward:<BR/><BR/><I>But what if salvation is more complicated than that? What if there are gradations of happiness in heaven, and our measure of happiness in the life to come has something to do with how we live in this life? What if we are called to be saints in this life, to be perfect, and yet we only do the very minimum, squandering a life-time of opportunities for acts of heroic virtue? In that case, the minimalistic and nominalistic approach to Christianity that seeks to do whatever just gets people inside the pearly gates is a misleading theology that potentially detracts from our eternal happiness.”</I><BR/><BR/>And that's precisely where Catholic piety leads.<BR/><BR/>1. You are regenerated ex opere operate via baptism.<BR/>2. You divide your faith between the merit of Christ, your own congruent merit, and the merit of others.<BR/>3. You can't ever have certainty of your salvation.<BR/>4. Your infusion theology of grace, as if grace was a substance in a wafer or water, leads you to do penance here and there, get absolution through a few novena, Hail Mary's, or whatever, and then you get your weekly or daily infusion of grace in the wafer.<BR/><BR/>That's a recipe for minimalistic piety if ever there was.<BR/><BR/><I>That doesn't prove anything, though. Just because they are Catholic doesn't mean that they won't be damned.</I> No, they'll do time in Purgatory and then they'll go to heaven. <BR/><BR/><I>The Catholic Church teaches that even Popes can be damned, </I><BR/><BR/>We know that. What's the good of an infallible Magisterium if (a) the address changes frequently (see other posts below) and (b) they can't even give you assurance you're saved? <BR/><BR/><I>so the original post is, indeed, a strawman rather than any sort of actual engagement with Catholic thought.<BR/><BR/>I myself read further. Made for a good laugh.</I><BR/><BR/>Tell you what, why don't you demonstrate Steve didn't engage Catholic thought instead of asserting it.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-17171043430793527942008-08-10T22:40:00.000-04:002008-08-10T22:40:00.000-04:00That doesn't prove anything, though. Just because...That doesn't prove anything, though. Just because they are Catholic doesn't mean that they won't be damned. The Catholic Church teaches that even Popes can be damned, so the original post is, indeed, a strawman rather than any sort of actual engagement with Catholic thought.<BR/><BR/>I myself read further. Made for a good laugh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76680267270707841462008-08-10T22:08:00.000-04:002008-08-10T22:08:00.000-04:00Steve: "Noting is more minimalistic than Cath...Steve: "Noting is more minimalistic than Catholic piety. Fornicate Monday through Saturday. Go to confession. Arrive late at Mass. Skip the hymns. Skip the prayers. Skip the homily. Trust in a wafer for your salvation. Light a candle to the BVM when you get in trouble. Pay a priest to recite a requiem Mass for you’re after dead."<BR/><BR/>Oso: "Hatefull. Mean spirited. Straw man."<BR/><BR/>S&S: I had Catholic roommates in college, and that IS how they talked. They bragged about how good it was to be Catholic in that they could do anything that they wanted, and then, all that they would have to do is go to Mass and confession. Disgusting indeed.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43458863976536750702008-08-10T20:38:00.000-04:002008-08-10T20:38:00.000-04:00Noting is more minimalistic than Catholic piety. F...<I>Noting is more minimalistic than Catholic piety. Fornicate Monday through Saturday. Go to confession. Arrive late at Mass. Skip the hymns. Skip the prayers. Skip the homily. Trust in a wafer for your salvation. Light a candle to the BVM when you get in trouble. Pay a priest to recite a requiem Mass for you’re after dead.<BR/><BR/>In Catholicism, the Mass is a mousetrap. Trap Jesus in a piece of bread for long enough to swallow him. That way, you have Jesus inside of you. That way, God can’t damn you without damning Jesus. </I><BR/><BR/>I stopped reading here. Oh, the irony of accusing Bryan Cross of a straw man. <BR/><BR/>Hatefull. Mean spirited. Straw man.Oso Famosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08414344918379243324noreply@blogger.com