tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post5507358613633480198..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Catholicism: 28 Weeks LaterRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-24537153736307573282019-11-11T08:59:09.991-05:002019-11-11T08:59:09.991-05:00> “If there is such a unanimous witness contrar...> “If there is such a unanimous witness contrary to my convictions in so many ages and places, am I really holding on to the historic Christian faith?”<br /><br />One thing which is rarely picked up is that, even (arguendo) if one were to grant this, there's a massive assumption that's been made - that the bulk of Christian history is now past. What if it's not? What if it's future? What if the actual future contains the church world-wide generally agreeing upon the contrary? Out-sourcing your considered opinion on "what is true?" is a rather risky bet. I notice a trend, though, among many highly intelligent Catholic converts that they have idolised a kind of intellectual certainty. The thought that there's something, somewhere, in their theological system which is not perfect torments them. In the accounts they give of their journeys, the underlying assumption is that the one thing absolutely essential is to get rid of all potential inconsistencies and reach a state of intellectual perfection. Rome offers them the "freedom" of being able to out-source all the hard calls, in one go. Dizon's blog ends in a telling place - look, all these entities in history have agreed on this list of things. Even if that list were to be granted (which I don't), all that that would establish in reality is that wrong turns were taken early ... but as Steve points out, we know that from the discussions of false teachers in the New Testament anyway.David Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13177521181432533108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22448051425650835602019-11-10T12:27:51.932-05:002019-11-10T12:27:51.932-05:00Pope Francis really changed the meaning of the old...Pope Francis really changed the meaning of the old joke, "Is the pope Catholic?" didn't he. TheFlyingCouchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03529770322240929051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85195441742762359682019-11-10T06:55:15.831-05:002019-11-10T06:55:15.831-05:00Please do, AP! :) I mean I'd definitely be int...Please do, AP! :) I mean I'd definitely be interested to hear what you have to say if you want to elaborate on anything. And I didn't mind but in fact I completely appreciated your adding the link to my comments. That was very helpful of you. Although I don't think my comments were very insightful, lol. :)Hawkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01142879704651632453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22808839250511630512019-11-10T05:24:34.046-05:002019-11-10T05:24:34.046-05:00Feel free to repeat, elaborate or add to your VERY...Feel free to repeat, elaborate or add to your VERY INSIGHTFUL comments. I didn't mean to steal your thunder, but I had to add the link because you comments are SO very insightful. I'm tempted to elaborate on them myself.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-2852175318263957882019-11-10T05:06:13.499-05:002019-11-10T05:06:13.499-05:0011 For the LORD God is a sun and shield; the LORD ...11 For the LORD God is a sun and shield; the LORD bestows favor and honor. <b><i>No good thing does he withhold from those who walk uprightly</i></b>.<br />12 O LORD of hosts, blessed is the one who trusts in you!- Ps. 84:11-12<br /><br />This passage teaches that God doesn't withhold anything from those who walk uprightly. God's blessings are [in some sense] conditioned on uprightness. With the arrival of the New Covenant we further understand that our uprightness is ultimately sourced in God in some sense. As I fallibly understand it, even Roman Catholics affirm Operating Grace [analogous to Arminian Prevenient Grace] whereby God's grace must first initiate a work in a person's heart before they can positively respond to the offer of salvation. As well as <b>Co</b>operating grace.<br /><br />Ps. 84:11-12 is talking about those who are ALREADY in a gracious state. Given a Catholic Augustinian view how could God withhold the gift of perseverance if people are already walking uprightly? What would interrupt and interfere with their continued uprightness if it's not God's withholding the gift of perseverance? But the passage says that God would not withhold any good thing from those who walk uprightly. Why wouldn't that include the gift of perseverance? So, there would seem to be a contradiction in the Augustinian view of the Perseverance of [only] the Elect which allows for other saints not elected to glory to finally and eternally fall away. Again, I'm open to the possibility of PotE, but PotS seems more Biblically, theologically and logically consistent.<br /><br />There's no need to correct all my typos, but here's one that I think is worth it.<br /><br />//But to dogmatically connect the two as intrinsically intertwined is to violate Paul's own teaching mentioned above. That he DISCONNECTED reception of the Gospel <b>[that brings salvation to its believers]</b> with water baptism. Because he contrasted the two and said Christ DIDN'T send him to baptize, but to PREACH the Gospel. That one <b>[or single]</b> passage is a much greater blow to BR, than all the passages Luis cited in defense of BR <b>[combined]</b>. //ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-5031340303343548462019-11-10T04:12:41.982-05:002019-11-10T04:12:41.982-05:00Thanks, AP!Thanks, AP!Hawkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01142879704651632453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7212223081042517682019-11-10T02:52:07.122-05:002019-11-10T02:52:07.122-05:00According to Fruchtenbaum, When Jesus said "T...According to Fruchtenbaum, When Jesus said "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.", He's denying Nicodemus' assumption that the Kingdom of God was automatically his because of his Jewish birth. Rather, he needed to be both born of water (i.e. born physically as a Jew) and born of the Spirit to see the Kingdom of God. That's why Jesus immediately says, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." So, being "born of water" is equivalent to "that which is born of the flesh is flesh". The passage does not have anything to do with baptism. I'm not as dogmatic on that interpretation, but it's not implausible given the Jewish context and the fact that Nicodemus was <b><i>THE</i></b> teacher of Israel.<br /><br />Regarding Rom. 6:4, an interpretation of BR would contradict Paul's earlier teaching in the previous chapters on justification. Regarding 1 Pet. 3:20-21 and Gal. 3:27, nothing in their statement or surrounding contexts would imply a real metaphysical transaction like that taught in BR. Titus 3:5 is the only passage that [IMHO] could possibly teach that type of metaphysical transaction. But it's not clear that Paul is talking about water baptism. Even if he is, he nor the church might not have believed or taught that it was ONLY through water baptism one is regenerated. <b>To interpret the passage as a clearly teaching BR is to commit the Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy. In fact, there are cases in the book of Acts where people were Holy Spirit baptized BEFORE their water baptism. So, evidently water baptism isn't a necessary concomitant aspect of Holy Spirit baptism.</b> That Paul would connect/associate water baptism with Holy Spirit baptism is only natural since the former represents the latter and under normal circumstances we can't see when someone is baptized in the Spirit. Which is something normally invisible. But to dogmatically connect the two as intrinsically intertwined is to violate Paul's own teaching mentioned above. That he DISCONNECTED reception of the Gospel with water baptism. Because he contrasted the two and said Christ DIDN'T send him to baptize, but to PREACH the Gospel. That one passage is a much greater blow to BR, than all the passages Luis cited in defense of BR. <br /><br />Obviously, more experienced Protestant theologians, exegetes and apologists could better address the Catholic BR prooftexts than I briefly did above. ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-4718565185012464432019-11-10T02:51:39.440-05:002019-11-10T02:51:39.440-05:00//If Baptismal Regeneration is true, then Persever...//<i>If Baptismal Regeneration is true, then Perseverance of the Saints is necessarily false. </i>//<br /><br />It's also the case that if Perseverance of the Saints is false, that doesn't necessarily entail that Baptismal Regeneration is true.<br /><br /><i>//I have oftentimes made the argument that neither Perseverance of the Saints nor the denial of Baptismal Regeneration can be traced back earlier than the Reformation. //</i><br /><br />And similarly there are many distinctive Roman Catholic dogmas that have no precedent in the earliest church fathers. As even other Catholic denominations would argue against Catholicism. Not to mention Protestant apologists.<br /><br /><i>//..yet those very words are a direct quotation from 1 Peter 3:20-21 (I include the previous verse about Noah being saved through the floodwaters lest anyone make the argument that this refers to Spirit baptism, as distinct from water baptism). There are many other passages which point towards baptism’s regenerating ability, which Reformed theologians are at pains to explain away. These include John 3:5, Romans 6:4, Galatians 3:27, and Titus 3:5, among others.//</i><br /><br />None of the passages cited require an interpretation of baptismal regeneration. Regarding John 3:3-5, there are so many possible ways to interpret the passage that it's really dishonest how some (not all) Catholics attempt to prove baptismal regeneration from it. Here's one possible alternative interpretation (among many alternatives). Messianic Jewish theologian Arnold Fruchtenbaum says in mp3 file 4 of his "The Jewish Life of Christ" that the phrase "born of water" was a Pharisaical term to refer to being physically born a Jew which automatically gave one the right to God's Kingdom in Pharisaic theology. Fruchtenbaum goes on to say that the Pharisees believed in 6 types of being "born again". Two of which Nicodemus was not qualified for. Four of which he had already fulfilled.<br /><br />See file 4 starting at 26 minutes and 40 seconds <b><a href="https://www.deanbibleministries.org/index.php/guest-speakers/arnold-fruchtenbaum/message/4-the-introduction-of-the-king-paragraph-26-thru-the-authentication-of-the-king-paragraph-44" rel="nofollow">HERE</a></b>.<br /><br />The Six Ways of Being "Born Again"<br />1. When a Gentile converts to Judaism<br />2. When a Jew is crowned king. However there's no indication that Nicodemus was of the house of David.<br />3. When at the age of 13 a Jewish boy goes through a ceremony that makes him a man. It was later called (what is familiarly now known as) a "bar mitzvah".<br />4. When a Jewish man gets married. Nicodemus, being a "ruler of the Jews", had to have been married. A non-ruler Pharisee needn't be married (e.g. likely St. Paul).<br />5. When a Jewish man is ordained a rabbi. Nicodemus was a rabbi since he was a member of the Sanhedrin.<br />6. Becoming the head of a rabbinic academy. Which Nicodemus was because the definite article is used to refer to him as "THE teacher of Israel".<br /><br />CONTINUEDANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-12066763758744767022019-11-09T20:53:55.142-05:002019-11-09T20:53:55.142-05:00Though, not as bad as Zeus did Tantalus, Augustini...Though, not as bad as Zeus did Tantalus, Augustinian Catholics would seem to have a theology where God tantalizes saints who are elected only for temporary grace but not for eternal glory. Making God an "Indian Giver" (no ethnic slur intended). Where God gives people some taste of salvation, then eventually takes it back by withholding final perseverance which He could have unilaterally granted. How is that loving on God's part? How does that fulfill God's promise that He would never forsake us [Ps. 37:28; Heb. 13:5; Josh. 1:5]? That if God is for us, nothing can be against us [Rom. 8:31; Ps. 56:9]? That he won't withhold any good thing from believers [Rom. 8:32; 2 Pet. 1:3; Luke 12:32; 15:31; Ps. 73:23-24; et cetera]? That God's mercy endures forever [Ps. 136]?<br /><br />[Again, the above critique doesn't apply to non-Augustinian Catholics like Molinists and others]ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1605007267273427392019-11-09T20:25:12.247-05:002019-11-09T20:25:12.247-05:00Instead of thanking God that he didn't baptize...Instead of thanking God that he didn't baptize many people, the Apostle Paul should have been praying that God allow him to baptize <i>MORE</i> people. That is, if baptismal regeneration is true, and is the normative way one enters into a salvific/gracious state. Yet, contrary to Catholic expectations, Paul says God <b><i>DIDN'T</i></b> send him to baptize, but to preach the Gospel. That's not how Roman Catholic missionaries talk, or ought to taught. If Roman Catholic sacramentology were true, we'd expect the NT to have sooo much more teaching on the doctrine, practice and vital [life giving/sustaining] importance of both baptism and communion. The NT authors aren't fixated on baptism and communion as Catholics are. They're fixated on the Gospel and its belief.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66991308995046281722019-11-09T20:11:12.572-05:002019-11-09T20:11:12.572-05:00typo correction:
The preponderance of the New Tes...typo correction:<br /><br />The preponderance of the New Testament evidence is that one enters into a salvific/gracious state under the New Covenant through faith <b>[alone]</b>.<br /><br />The word "alone" is necessary because without it Catholics will agree with the statement.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9187903207265656532019-11-09T19:57:34.311-05:002019-11-09T19:57:34.311-05:00I would also recommend Hawk's comments in a pr...I would also recommend Hawk's comments in a previous blogpost here:<br /><a href="https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/11/no-hard-feelings-right.html?showComment=1573279723567#c2481022789914710132" rel="nofollow">https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/11/no-hard-feelings-right.html?showComment=1573279723567#c2481022789914710132</a>ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52056560880258314482019-11-09T19:56:24.088-05:002019-11-09T19:56:24.088-05:00When it comes to the difference between 1. the Per...When it comes to the difference between 1. the Perseverance of [all] <i>Saints</i> [PotS for short] versus 2. the Perseverance of [only] the <i>Elect</i> [PotE for short], I agree with Luis that that's a real distinction and that the 2nd is a possible way to interpret the NT. That Non-Calvinistic, yet Augustinian interpretation is a viable option in my opinion. While there are undoubtedly NT passages that teach apostasy in some sense, there are also other NT passages that would seem to preclude the possibility that genuinely regenerated believers can finally and permanently fall away. I would argue that PotS can better encompass all of the Bible's teaching than PotE. Proponents of PotS can understand passages of apostasy as referring to those who fell away and were Christians from man's fallible <b><i>epistemic</i></b> perspective. But proponents of PotE would have a very difficult time explaining passages that talk <b><i>metaphysically</i></b> [as opposed to epistemically] regarding how those truly regenerate cannot fall away.<br /><br />For example:<br /><br />No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, <b>for God's seed abides in him</b>, and he cannot keep on sinning <b>because he has been born of God</b>.- 1 John 3:9<br /><br />They went out from us, but they were not of us; <b>for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us</b>.- 1 John 2:19<br /><br />Moreover, there are other theological problems with PotE. <br /><br />For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."- John 6:40<br /><br />He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, <b>how will he not also with him graciously/freely give us all things</b>?- Rom. 8:32<br /><br />If God really loves all saints/believers who are in the covenant via regeneration [BR or non-BR], why doesn't He grant the gift of perseverance to all of them? Why only the elect? That would seem to be a problem for Augustinian Catholics. Though, non-Augustinian Catholics might be able to answer that challenge (e.g. Molinists et al.). ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65340215690723131752019-11-09T19:55:31.188-05:002019-11-09T19:55:31.188-05:00When it comes to baptismal regeneration (BR), ther...When it comes to baptismal regeneration (BR), there is no unambiguous passage in the Bible that teaches it. All the passages proponents cite could easily be (and in my opinion be better) interpreted in ways that don't assume or lead to BR. The preponderance of the New Testament evidence is that one enters into a salvific/gracious state under the New Covenant through faith. I would challenge Roman Catholics to read the NT afresh from Matthew to Revelation and mark down all the times it touches upon entering the New Covenant and how ones does so. The OVERWHELMING NT data points to faith as the instrument by which one enters into it.<br /><br />14 <b>I THANK God</b> that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,<br />15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.<br />16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)<br />17 <b>FOR CHRIST DID NOT SEND ME TO BAPTIZE BUT TO PREACH THE GOSPEL</b>, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. <br />18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.- 1 Cor. 1:14-18<br /><br />We even have Paul <b><i>THANKING</i></b> GOD that he <i>didn't</i> baptize many people in Corinth. The Apostle even goes on to say that <b>Christ didn't send him to baptize, but to preach the Gospel</b>. He calls the <b>WORD</b> of the Cross [i.e. the Gospel message] the power of God for people's salvation. He evidently thought that the reception of the message through hearing and believing led to salvation, not baptism. His use of the phrase "<b><i>WORD</i></b> of the cross" emphasizes the importance and priority of hearing and understanding the Gospel for the reception of its benefits. Why would he <b><i>CONTRAST</i></b> baptism with the preaching of the Gospel if baptismal regeneration is <i>part and parcel</i> to the reception of the Gospel of salvation? Even the thief on the cross was saved apart from water baptism.<br /><br />The <i>few</i> passages cited to support baptismal regeneration can easily be interpreted figuratively. And in ways that we are supposed to understand are not meant to be literal. Peter says in Acts 2:40 "save yourselves". Taken literally, that would imply Pelagianism Or Semi-Pelagianism if the whole context were taken into consideration, but severed from the rest of the NT. But even Roman Catholics reject those interpretations because of the preponderance of positive NT teaching that would go against them. The same is true of baptismal regeneration on account of the NT emphasis on faith and believing the Gospel.<br /><br />Assuming for the sake of argument that baptismal regeneration is false, its development in the early church can easily be explained by misunderstanding the teaching and practice of baptism and taking them to their extremes [what Steve referred to as "superstitious priestcraft"]. It happened with the bronze serpent on a pole [2 Kings 18:4]. The legitimate use of the serpent was turned into superstitious idolatry. That's not to say that baptismal regeneration is necessarily idolatrous. Its origins and early development in the church was innocent enough. But its later development led to a sacramentology that virtually denied the freeness and availability of the grace of God as taught in the NT.<br /><br />CONTINUEDANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-21501439697553968812019-11-09T18:23:31.430-05:002019-11-09T18:23:31.430-05:00I read a report today that Pope Francis denies the...I read a report today that Pope Francis denies the physical ressurection of Christ. I wonder how Luis explains the infallible leader of the one true holy Catholic church being an apostate.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01320569420417469805noreply@blogger.com