Some of the alleged miracles Craig Keener discusses in his
book, Miracles (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2011), involve
something like the partial or highly gradual healing of an illness. For
example, a person with poor eyesight receives improved sight, but sight that's
still less than normal, or the improvement in sight occurs over several weeks
rather than instantaneously or within a few seconds. By contrast, miracles in
the Bible and common conceptions about the miraculous tend to involve acts of a
more complete and instantaneous or rapid nature. Other modern miracle reports
fall short of what people commonly expect in other ways. For example, Keener
discusses the case of Jeff Markin's resuscitation, which involved shocking
Markin with a chest paddle after praying that he would be raised from the dead
(577-578). Why would God wait until the paddle was applied before performing
the miracle? He wouldn't need medical equipment to perform a miracle, and coordinating
a miracle with the use of such equipment would raise doubts about whether what
happened was miraculous, so why would God perform the miracle in that manner?
What should we make of healings or other miracles that are partial, highly
gradual, or of a lesser nature in some other way?
Sunday, August 05, 2012
Saturday, August 04, 2012
51 Biblical Proofs Of A Pauline Papacy And Ephesian Primacy
In a recent thread, ANNOYED PINOY asked me to repost something I wrote almost a decade ago. It was a list of 51 Biblical proofs of a Pauline papacy and Ephesian primacy. I wrote it in response to a Roman Catholic apologist's list of 50 alleged Biblical proofs of a Petrine papacy. Some of the items in my list are meant to parallel items in that Catholic's list. For example, he cited the performance of a miracle through Peter's shadow (Acts 5:15) as evidence of Petrine primacy. I paralleled that with a citation of Acts 19:11-12 as evidence of Pauline primacy. I don't actually think a Pauline papacy is implied by Acts 19 or any other passage I cite below. What I was doing was demonstrating how the same sort of bad reasoning that Catholics often apply to Peter can be cited to justify similar conclusions about other Biblical figures, like Paul.
Catholics can't object to my list by pointing to post-Biblical evidence for a Petrine papacy, since the issue under discussion is whether the Biblical evidence supports a papacy. Nobody denies that a Petrine papacy eventually developed in Rome. The question in this context is whether that papacy was just a later development or is a teaching of the scriptures as well. If Ephesus had been the capital of the Roman empire and had possessed other advantages the Roman church had, and the Ephesian church had gradually become more and more prominent, the bishops of Ephesus could have claimed that the Bible teaches a Pauline (or Johannine) primacy. In fact, in other places I've noted early patristic material that could be cited in support of an Ephesian primacy.
My list loses some of its force when removed from its original context. But I think it's mostly understandable, even without much knowledge of the background that led me to write what I did. Here are the 51 Biblical proofs of a Pauline papacy and Ephesian primacy, using popular Catholic reasoning:
The Peter narrative
And as history and Tradition show – the Peter narrative continuing and culminating at Rome – the Petrine texts in Sacred Scripture, along with Clement’s epistle, point to a peculiar authority vested in the Church at Rome.
Of course, there are other continuously evolving narratives in post-apostolic tradition. We even have a term for that: legendary embellishment. Take the development of the Simon Magus narrative. For instance:
The volume discusses the post-New Testament Simon Magus from the era of the Church Fathers beginning with Justin Martyr to the early modern era represented in a seventeenth century Baroque relief in the Cathedral of Oviedo, Spain. Sources consulted are artistic, theological texts, historical chronicles, sermons, hagiographies, vernacular literatures, biblical commentaries, and heresiologies. Topics explored are: Traditions and Historiography; Types of Simon Magus in Anti-Gnostic sources; a comparison of the Acts of Peter and the Passions of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul; Jerome and Vincent of Lérins on Simon Magus; the Nicolaitian heresy; the Fall of Simon Magus in the Church Fathers; Simon Magus, Dogs, and Simon Peter; Simon Magus in Irish and English medieval legends; Simon Magus, Nicolas of Antioch, and Muhammad; Vincent Ferrer and the canonical and apocryphal Simon Magus; Simon Magus in the Cathedral of León, Spain; Simon Magus in the Cathedral of Oviedo
So that’s fatal a weakness in the theory of development. Historicized legends. Baptizing creative imagination.
Demagoguery vs an honest hermeneutic
Andrew Presslar 878:
It seems to me, based on the correlation with Matthew 16, that if Isaiah 22:22 is talking about Peter, then what really is the conclusion of the prophecy in Isaiah 22 (that the peg is cut off) is also about Peter.
Christ, of course, is the Rock. God is the Rock throughout the Old Testament; Christ is the Rock in 1 Corinthians 10. Peter is not “Rocky” according to all the commentaries. Of a rocky substance, and perhaps the first rock in the foundation of the church.
If you were familiar with what New Testament commentaries were saying, you would know that Matthew works in various kinds of “parallelisms”. (See Dale Allison, “Studies in Matthew”, pg 210, for example).
Note that in Matthew 11:11 ff, Jesus says of John the Baptist, “among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he”. Jesus is preaching the Kingdom; given that the church is not the kingdom, but rather, “the church witnesses to the kingdom”, Peter’s position as “Rocky” and one of the foundation stones (Eph 2:20, the very concept “church”, “the one new man” you rejected from my comment 875 above), Matt 16:18 is really saying to Peter, “you are rocky, a foundation stone, along with the rest of the apostles and prophets, of the church I will build”.
In other words, while John the Baptist is the last and the greatest of the Old Covenant, Peter is the first among New Covenant.
Christ himself is the cornerstone, however, and Christ himself “builds”.
My “understanding of the New Covenant as fulfillment of the Old” has the advantage of corresponding with biblical understandings of the covenant since the Reformation. Of course, I reject your notion that the Roman Catholic Church is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. But that seems to be your only criticism of what I’ve said. Aside from that, do you have any other reasons why my understanding is “inadequate”?
You are referring to Luke 22:32, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” There is nothing unique about Peter’s “authority” or “charism”. And you are at a loss to actually describe these using Biblical terms.
The Greek word “στήρισον” (“strengthen”) is used elsewhere in a number of places in the NT of the charge of other Christians to strengthen one another in their faith amid persecution and temptation (including 1 Thess 3:2, 3:13, 1 Peter 5:10, Acts 14:22, 15:32, 15:41).
Peter’s sin of denial is extremely serious. Jesus’s prayer for him is a rehabilitation and a restoration to the norm, it is no call to any higher “authority” or “charism”.
Again, the interpretation I have given here is consonant with the text. It does not “read back” later concepts which are not really there, as your Roman Catholic hermeneutic so often does. My “interpretation” relies on the text, and doesn’t try to make the text say something it doesn’t say.
In fact, you are so quick to use this verse to show somehow “the wonders of Peter”, that you completely miss the whole context of what is happening here, in this verse, and that is, the power of Satan is broken.
* * *
I doubt that too many people are watching, but if you are out there, Jason Stellman, what you see here is a very fine contrast between the “Scripture-as-wax-nose” effect of the “Catholic IP”, vs what an actual reading of the text, to understand what the text says, really looks like.
It seems to me, based on the correlation with Matthew 16, that Isaiah 22:25 refers to the downfall of the house of Israel (according to the flesh).
It seems to me, based on the correlation with Matthew 16, that if Isaiah 22:22 is talking about Peter, then what really is the conclusion of the prophecy in Isaiah 22 (that the peg is cut off) is also about Peter.
The rock upon which the Church is built cannot be broken and cast down, per Our Lord’s power and promise.
Christ, of course, is the Rock. God is the Rock throughout the Old Testament; Christ is the Rock in 1 Corinthians 10. Peter is not “Rocky” according to all the commentaries. Of a rocky substance, and perhaps the first rock in the foundation of the church.
If you were familiar with what New Testament commentaries were saying, you would know that Matthew works in various kinds of “parallelisms”. (See Dale Allison, “Studies in Matthew”, pg 210, for example).
Note that in Matthew 11:11 ff, Jesus says of John the Baptist, “among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he”. Jesus is preaching the Kingdom; given that the church is not the kingdom, but rather, “the church witnesses to the kingdom”, Peter’s position as “Rocky” and one of the foundation stones (Eph 2:20, the very concept “church”, “the one new man” you rejected from my comment 875 above), Matt 16:18 is really saying to Peter, “you are rocky, a foundation stone, along with the rest of the apostles and prophets, of the church I will build”.
In other words, while John the Baptist is the last and the greatest of the Old Covenant, Peter is the first among New Covenant.
Christ himself is the cornerstone, however, and Christ himself “builds”.
The remainder of what you say in that comment depends upon an inadequate understanding of the New Covenant as the fulfillment of the Old.
My “understanding of the New Covenant as fulfillment of the Old” has the advantage of corresponding with biblical understandings of the covenant since the Reformation. Of course, I reject your notion that the Roman Catholic Church is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. But that seems to be your only criticism of what I’ve said. Aside from that, do you have any other reasons why my understanding is “inadequate”?
The remainder of the comment repeats your faulty analysis regarding Peter’s being “cut off,” and overlooks the fact that the ongoing Petrine ministry of binding and loosing has precisely the effect of enabling the thirsty to drink the liquor of knowledge–the Petrine charism prominently features the charge and corresponding authority to confirm the faith of the brethren.
You are referring to Luke 22:32, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” There is nothing unique about Peter’s “authority” or “charism”. And you are at a loss to actually describe these using Biblical terms.
The Greek word “στήρισον” (“strengthen”) is used elsewhere in a number of places in the NT of the charge of other Christians to strengthen one another in their faith amid persecution and temptation (including 1 Thess 3:2, 3:13, 1 Peter 5:10, Acts 14:22, 15:32, 15:41).
Peter’s sin of denial is extremely serious. Jesus’s prayer for him is a rehabilitation and a restoration to the norm, it is no call to any higher “authority” or “charism”.
Again, the interpretation I have given here is consonant with the text. It does not “read back” later concepts which are not really there, as your Roman Catholic hermeneutic so often does. My “interpretation” relies on the text, and doesn’t try to make the text say something it doesn’t say.
In fact, you are so quick to use this verse to show somehow “the wonders of Peter”, that you completely miss the whole context of what is happening here, in this verse, and that is, the power of Satan is broken.
* * *
I doubt that too many people are watching, but if you are out there, Jason Stellman, what you see here is a very fine contrast between the “Scripture-as-wax-nose” effect of the “Catholic IP”, vs what an actual reading of the text, to understand what the text says, really looks like.
Evil and the burden of proof
You can accept the extension of the category "evil" to be whatever theists want. It appears to follow from essential theistic claims--that God, is the omnipotent, omniscient, creator--that evils exist only if permitted by God. It also appears to follow from the further tenet that God is perfectly good, that he will permit an evil only if he has a morally sufficient reason for permitting it. Consequently, every actual evil, i.e. every evil that God permits, is such that God has a morally sufficient reason for permitting it. But what possible grounds could anyone have for holding that for every actual evil E God has a morally sufficient reason for permitting E? No theodicist claims to be able to account for every evil, but only to give some justification for broad categories of evil. Yet a single actual instance of gratuitous evil, i.e. evil for which God would not have a morally sufficient reason, is incompatible with the existence of God. Theists must therefore have some basis for confidence that there is no gratuitous evil. What could that basis be? I suspect (sigh) that, in the end (sigh) it will come down once again to the "F" word: Faith.
Parsons is illicitly shifting the burden of proof. Since the argument from evil is an argument which an atheist deploys to disprove God, the onus doesn’t lie on the theist to prove that no instance of evil is gratuitous; rather, the onus lies on the atheist to prove that some instance of evil is gratuitous.
JoePa and Chick-fil-A
What do Joe Paterno and Chick-fil-A have in common? Well, nothing directly, but there’s a roundable connection.
On the one hand, liberals are indignant over Chick-fil-A’s allegedly “homophobic,” “anti-gay” viewpoint. Customers who support Chick-fil-A are “haters.”
On the other hand, JoePa’s reputation is forever tarnished. Why? Because he knew that one of his assistant coaches was molesting boys, but failed to fire him or notify the authorities.
I expect that many of the same people who demonize Chick-fil-A are outraged by JoePa. But here’s the catch: the Penn State scandal is a homosexual scandal. And it’s a familiar narrative we’ve seen play out many times before. Put a homosexual man in a position of authority over younger males, and guess what happens? Homosexuality is the common denominator in the Catholic sex scandal. Homosexual priests molesting underage boys. See a pattern?
If they had their way, liberals would turn Chick-fil-A, and every other business and social institution, into another Penn State. Another homosexual molestation scandal just waiting to happen.
Opponents of Chick-fil-A are half right: hatred is a factor in this controversy. The liberals touting equal rights (often special rights) for homosexuals are child-haters. They empower homosexuals to molest minors.
Circuit breaker
Andrew Preslar said,
But I was referring to the visibility of the hierarchy by means of the tactile succession.
Tactile succession is a very mechanistic model of sacramental grace (e.g. the grace of holy orders). Catholicism reduces the grace of God to an electrical current which must run along a continuous circuit or wire. If there’s a break in the circuit, the Holy Spirit can’t jump the break. Everything below the break is a dead line.
Notice
how that trammels God, as if God’s grace is wired. God can’t act outside the
circuitry. This is similar to Deism and Spinozism, which disallows miraculous
interruptions in the uniformity of nature.
Compare this to Pauline ecclesiology:
4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. 7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills (1 Cor 12:4-11).
Notice on Paul’s view that
God’s grace operates at the discretion of the Holy Spirit. It isn’t confined to
the wiring, where you flip a switch to turn it on or turn it off. God’s grace
is wireless.
Peter, unity, and the “proper exercise of the keys” in Acts
Andrew Presslar 784:
This expectation that “the power given to Eliakim (signified by vestments and the bestowing of the key of the house of David) corresponds to the establishment of the Christian hierarchy–the office of the papacy in particular” is hogwash, as I’ve shown both from this very passage you quote (“it will be cut down and fall, and the load that was on it will be cut off, for the Lord has spoken”), and from Peter’s clearly analogous “first” in the 12 Tribes of Israel “Reuben … my firstborn, … the firstfruits of my strength, preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power, you are unstable as water, you shall not have preeminence”
You rightly note that “the binding and loosing referred to in Matthew 16 almost certainly refers to the inclusion of the Gentiles in the covenant community of God”, but as you say, “it is even more certain that the proper exercise of the keys is not limited to this”.
Jesus himself notes what “the proper exercise of the keys” in the gospels:
Luke 11:52: Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering.”
Marshall notes of this verse: “The scribes have taken away the key of knowledge. They thus prevent other people entering in. The key consists of the knowledge of God and leads to knowledge of God”. In language that refers to “the key that leads to knowledge” of God or salvation, this parallels 1QH 4:11, “And they stopped the thirsty from drinking the liquor of knowledge’, in a context that makes it clear that Torah is meant’. …” Thus, “in and by God’s revelation he himself is known”.
In Matthew 23:13 the keys are “implicit” in a parallel verse: “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.
Thus, Peter, in “the proper exercise of the keys”, is to enable “the thirsty” to “drink the liquor of knowledge”, of the knowledge of God “Torah”, – because “in and by God’s revelation he himself is known”.
By the very words of Christ we have what is “the proper exercise of the keys” – it is the very thing that Peter has done, in opening the Torah first to the Jews (Acts 2), then to the Gentiles (Acts 10-11).
Following that function, he is “cut off” in the book of Acts. This is “the proper exercise of the keys”, and the completion of it is shown, again, in “Scripture alone”. And it is fitting, because this represents the “completeness” of his mission. As Paul writes in Ephesians 2:
This is “church unity” spoken of by Christ. Here, “in himself, one new man in place of the two” (instead of “Jews and Gentiles”, there is “one new man”, the church), ontologically complete, reconciled in one body through the cross.
As others have noted, the binding and loosing referred to in Matthew 16 almost certainly refers to the inclusion of the Gentiles in the covenant community of God (though as still others have had occasion to note it is even more certain that the proper exercise of the keys is not limited to this). Understanding Isaiah 22 by Matthew 16 (the old being fulfilled in the new), the deposed Sobna corresponds to the Jewish hierarchy, while the power given to Eliakim (signified by vestments and the bestowing of the key of the house of David) corresponds to the establishment of the Christian hierarchy–the office of the papacy in particular.
This expectation that “the power given to Eliakim (signified by vestments and the bestowing of the key of the house of David) corresponds to the establishment of the Christian hierarchy–the office of the papacy in particular” is hogwash, as I’ve shown both from this very passage you quote (“it will be cut down and fall, and the load that was on it will be cut off, for the Lord has spoken”), and from Peter’s clearly analogous “first” in the 12 Tribes of Israel “Reuben … my firstborn, … the firstfruits of my strength, preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power, you are unstable as water, you shall not have preeminence”
You rightly note that “the binding and loosing referred to in Matthew 16 almost certainly refers to the inclusion of the Gentiles in the covenant community of God”, but as you say, “it is even more certain that the proper exercise of the keys is not limited to this”.
Jesus himself notes what “the proper exercise of the keys” in the gospels:
Luke 11:52: Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering.”
Marshall notes of this verse: “The scribes have taken away the key of knowledge. They thus prevent other people entering in. The key consists of the knowledge of God and leads to knowledge of God”. In language that refers to “the key that leads to knowledge” of God or salvation, this parallels 1QH 4:11, “And they stopped the thirsty from drinking the liquor of knowledge’, in a context that makes it clear that Torah is meant’. …” Thus, “in and by God’s revelation he himself is known”.
In Matthew 23:13 the keys are “implicit” in a parallel verse: “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.
Thus, Peter, in “the proper exercise of the keys”, is to enable “the thirsty” to “drink the liquor of knowledge”, of the knowledge of God “Torah”, – because “in and by God’s revelation he himself is known”.
By the very words of Christ we have what is “the proper exercise of the keys” – it is the very thing that Peter has done, in opening the Torah first to the Jews (Acts 2), then to the Gentiles (Acts 10-11).
Following that function, he is “cut off” in the book of Acts. This is “the proper exercise of the keys”, and the completion of it is shown, again, in “Scripture alone”. And it is fitting, because this represents the “completeness” of his mission. As Paul writes in Ephesians 2:
Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, [not “the Church is our peace”] who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace [between Jews and Gentiles] and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
This is “church unity” spoken of by Christ. Here, “in himself, one new man in place of the two” (instead of “Jews and Gentiles”, there is “one new man”, the church), ontologically complete, reconciled in one body through the cross.
No notion of a “successor of Peter” anywhere in the Old Testament
In fact, in the proof text that Roman Catholics use, one Old Testament figure of Peter is cut off; the other is “unstable as water” and “shall not have preeminence”.
Andrew Presslar 784:
You cite all of this as if it were quite self-evident, but there are terrible flaws merely in this portion of what you cite.
You cite Isaiah 22:15-25, in which it is “quite clear” that Peter is the “peg in a sure place”, but you fail to mention the very important conclusion of that passage: “In that day, declares the Lord of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a secure place will give way, and it will be cut down and fall, and the load that was on it will be cut off, for the Lord has spoken.”
If you want to suggest that Old Testament prophecies point to the Roman Catholic Church, your “Tradition” surely has an odd way of leaving out the most important things.
In reality, (and Luke recognizes this reality), Peter is “cut off”, and quite abruptly in Acts. He is never seen again after Acts 15.
But if you are looking for a more apt Old Testament parallel to Peter, see Reuben (Gen 49:2-3). The CCC says “Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him.”
This is no mere “typological” identification of Peter with Reuben. The parallel is very clear. The clear implication is that the 12 tribes of Israel were the “foundation” of Israel, and the twelve Apostles were the foundation of the Church. They are placed together in Rev 4:10, “the twenty-four elders”. These are clearly (and not merely implicitly) being equated.
But just as the “peg in the secure place” gives way, is cut down, and falls, so too, Reuben, according to Jacob, “my firstborn, my might, and the firstfruits of my strength, preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power” he is “Unstable as water, you shall not have preeminence”.
These biblical prophecies, some of which you cite favorably, actually speak very strongly against any notions of “perpetuation” or “office” or “succession”, especially with respect to Peter.
Andrew Presslar 784:
Some here have asked for a summary of the case for the institution of the papacy, understood as the Petrine ministry perpetuated in the Church by means of an office established by Christ: The biblical basis for this understanding is quite clear: Our Lord’s words recorded in Matthew 16:18-19, like so much of his teaching, draws from the Scriptures of the Old Covenant, in this case Isaiah 22:15-25, in which a faithless minister is deposed, and a new steward is established as a “peg in a sure place.”
You cite all of this as if it were quite self-evident, but there are terrible flaws merely in this portion of what you cite.
You cite Isaiah 22:15-25, in which it is “quite clear” that Peter is the “peg in a sure place”, but you fail to mention the very important conclusion of that passage: “In that day, declares the Lord of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a secure place will give way, and it will be cut down and fall, and the load that was on it will be cut off, for the Lord has spoken.”
If you want to suggest that Old Testament prophecies point to the Roman Catholic Church, your “Tradition” surely has an odd way of leaving out the most important things.
The subsequent historical record demonstrates (after the manner of historical demonstration) that from Jerusalem and Antioch Peter went to Rome and fulfilled his ministry there, to the point of martyrdom.
In reality, (and Luke recognizes this reality), Peter is “cut off”, and quite abruptly in Acts. He is never seen again after Acts 15.
But if you are looking for a more apt Old Testament parallel to Peter, see Reuben (Gen 49:2-3). The CCC says “Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him.”
This is no mere “typological” identification of Peter with Reuben. The parallel is very clear. The clear implication is that the 12 tribes of Israel were the “foundation” of Israel, and the twelve Apostles were the foundation of the Church. They are placed together in Rev 4:10, “the twenty-four elders”. These are clearly (and not merely implicitly) being equated.
But just as the “peg in the secure place” gives way, is cut down, and falls, so too, Reuben, according to Jacob, “my firstborn, my might, and the firstfruits of my strength, preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power” he is “Unstable as water, you shall not have preeminence”.
These biblical prophecies, some of which you cite favorably, actually speak very strongly against any notions of “perpetuation” or “office” or “succession”, especially with respect to Peter.
Friday, August 03, 2012
The atheist movement
In other words, the most likely course for atheism in the US is that it will remain a marginal preoccupation among well-off curmudgeonly white males.
The Most Interesting Man In The World
The anonymous "TurretinFan"—yes, the guy who refuses to face those he (or she) constantly accuses of biblical and/or moral crimes.
This allegation naturally piqued my curiosity, so I put my private investigators on the elusive trail of Turretinfan. As it turns out, TurretinFan has indeed shown his face on many occasions:
Losing the argument from evil
You can accept the extension of the category "evil" to be whatever theists want. It appears to follow from essential theistic claims--that God, is the omnipotent, omniscient, creator--that evils exist only if permitted by God. It also appears to follow from the further tenet that God is perfectly good, that he will permit an evil only if he has a morally sufficient reason for permitting it. Consequently, every actual evil, i.e. every evil that God permits, is such that God has a morally sufficient reason for permitting it. But what possible grounds could anyone have for holding that for every actual evil E God has a morally sufficient reason for permitting E? No theodicist claims to be able to account for every evil, but only to give some justification for broad categories of evil. Yet a single actual instance of gratuitous evil, i.e. evil for which God would not have a morally sufficient reason, is incompatible with the existence of God. Theists must therefore have some basis for confidence that there is no gratuitous evil. What could that basis be? I suspect (sigh) that, in the end (sigh) it will come down once again to the "F" word: Faith.
Several basic problems:
i) Atheists often cite examples which they deem to be evil. For example, they cite divine commands or divine actions in Scripture that they (the atheist) deem to be evil. So that's not defining evil to be whatever theists deem to be evil.
ii) Aren't there theists like Peter van Inwagen and Mike Almeida who think gratuitous evil is compatible with God's existence?
iii) It's misleading to suggest that every single instance of evil requires a separate explanation, for every evil ultimately has a single ultimate cause in the will of God. So don't we just need a general explanation for our belief in God's goodness and wisdom? Indeed, isn't that in fact premised in the argument from evil ("God is perfectly good").
"Papacy Roundup"
Jason J. Stellman said,August 2, 2012 at 9:24 pmHere’re CTC’s arguments for succession and the papacy:http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/papacy-roundup/
Papacy RoundupAug 2nd, 2012 | By David Anders | Category: Blog PostsThere has been a great deal of discussion at CTC about the rational superiority of the Catholic interpretive paradigm over the Protestant interpretive paradigm. As Michael Liccione, and others, have pointed out, Protestantism has no principled way to differentiate dogma from theological opinion – no coherent way even to identify the contours of Christian doctrine – that does not reduce to question begging or subjectivism. Catholicism, by contrast, posits an objective way to draw such distinctions.
But the logic and coherence of a system does not make it true. It is also important to recognize that there are objective, biblical, and historical grounds for finding the Catholic claims credible. (Whereas the biblical and historical case for Protestantism is weak and contradictory.) Catholics refer to these evidences collectively as The Motives of Credibilty. This evidence is not sufficient to compel the assent of faith. (It wouldn’t be faith, then, it would be knowledge.) But it is sufficient to show that the assent of faith (aided by divine grace) is rational.We have treated some of this evidence – especially for the divine foundation of the Church and Papacy – before. What follows is a brief roundup of some of those articles.Christ founded a visible Church and Magisterium
That Christ founded a visible ChurchThat Christ founded holy orders and established a sacrificial priesthoodThat Christ established a Magisterium in the ChurchSt. Ignatius of Antioch on the ChurchSt. John Chrysostom on the Priesthood
The Papacy in Scripture and History:
That Peter is the Rock of Matthew 16:18That the New Testament ascribes Primacy to PeterThe witness of history on Petrine/Roman PrimacySt. Vincent of Lerins on the MagisteriumSt. Optatus on Schism and the Bishop of RomeSt. Cyprian on the Unity of the Church
The witness of history against key Protestant doctrines
The witness of history against Sola FideThe witness of history against “primitivism” and the claim to have “recovered” the Gospel.The witness of history on baptismal regenerationSt. Augustine on Law and GraceSt. Clement of Rome on soteriology and ecclesiology
To go no further, doesn't this impale them on the horns of their own dilemma? In assessing the "objective, biblical and historical grounds" for the papacy, is the Catholic apologist using the Catholic interpretive paradigm or not?
If, on the one hand, he can assess the biblical and historical evidence without recourse to the Catholic paradigm, then it's not begging the question for Protestants to do the same thing.
If, on the other hand, he must use the Catholic paradigm to assess the biblical and historical evidence, then how does he establish the Catholic paradigm? He can't appeal to the papacy to validate his paradigm at this stage of the argument, for at this stage of the argument he's still making his case for the papacy.
So he needs an argument independent of the papacy to justify his Catholic paradigm. But that's self-contradictory, for it wouldn't be a Catholic paradigm apart from uniquely Catholic assumptions.
Gore Vidal
Gore Vidal died this week. A man of letters, he might be best known or best remembered for his quirky cameo role in Gattaca (as Director Josef), one of the better SF films.
He was cursed to have a certain amount a literary facility that fell short of greatness. Able, but lacking ultimate distinction. A second-rate talent competing for attention. Vidal was witty, but after a while the witticisms become a means without an end. And it's no fun to be an aging queen. So he became more bitter with the advancing years.
Vidal was a New Atheist before the New Atheism was fashionable. Time had passed him by. His caustic wit reminds one of Christopher Hitchens, but Vidal was more self-consciously patrician, which limited his popularity.
A defining feature of Vidal was his homosexuality. He despised his mother. It’s quite rare for men to hate their mothers. Many men have conflicted feelings about their fathers, but they normally love their mothers.
I don’t think the combination of homosexuality and filial loathing is coincidental. By the same token, I don’t think his homosexuality and his atheism is coincidental.
Vidal led a rather aimless existence. Many sodomites of his generation led double lives, with a wife and kids. But in the decadent social circles he frequented, among the literati and glitterati, he didn’t need to conceal his perversion. So his life lacked the structuring principle of a normal family.
For more on Vidal’s life and legacy:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)