Sunday, November 03, 2019

The Church's Considered, Mature Rejection Of Roman Catholic Teaching

I want to add something to the points Steve Hays has been making lately about development of doctrine. It's common for Roman Catholics to tell us that the church often doesn't define a doctrine until it's been violated. Supposedly, the church develops a fuller understanding of the faith, or expresses what it understands more fully, as it struggles against heretics and other opponents. Or something that existed in seed form all along won't grow into a tree until the church later gives the subject more consideration for some other reason. Large and complicated beliefs that are not only consistent with scripture, but also implied by it, such as Trinitarianism and the canon of scripture, are often cited as examples.

But what about beliefs that aren't so large and complicated, seem to be contradicted by scripture, and were also contradicted by the early patristic Christians? I've cited prayer to the dead and angels as examples in the past. We've argued at length that the Catholic view of prayer is contradicted by both scripture and early patristic Christianity. Prayer has existed since the earliest generations of human history. And you wouldn't expect an understanding of the proper recipients of prayer to take as long to develop as it takes to develop an understanding of something as large and complicated as Trinitarianism or the canon of scripture. The Bible comments on thousands of years of prayer in human history. It's a topic that's addressed explicitly and frequently in scripture. The same is true of prayer in the early patristic sources. Men like Tertullian and Cyprian wrote entire treatises on the subject. Celsus was objecting to the Christian view of prayer, namely that Christians pray only to God, when he wrote against Christianity in the second century. Origen responded to Celsus in the third century by defending the Christian view that we should pray only to God. Why should we have to wait until thousands of years after prayer originated, and hundreds of years into church history, after an initial widespread Christian agreement that we shouldn't pray to the dead and angels, before an understanding is developed that we should pray to them? As Steve noted in his earlier posts, not all developments are of the same nature. To put the development of Trinitarianism in the same category as the development of prayer to the dead and angels is perverse.

To cite another example, what about the sinlessness of Mary? If you go here, you'll find links to three articles I wrote about opposition to her sinlessness in the Bible and other pre-Reformation sources. Those sources include medieval Popes. And, as with prayer to the dead and angels, it's not as though we'd expect people to need as long to develop an understanding of Mary's alleged sinlessness as they need to develop an understanding of something like Trinitarianism or the canon of scripture. The scope of human sinfulness was on people's minds well before the patristic era. Probably the most famous example is what Paul said about the subject in Romans 3. But that's not the only place where scripture discusses the topic, and Paul wasn't the only Biblical author to address it. Patristic writers gave the issue a lot of thought as well, which is why they wrote so many comments about how Jesus is the only sinless human. (In addition to referring to Mary as a sinner by name and detailing some of the sins they thought she committed.) Why should we think the church needed more time to think about whether Mary was a sinner or that there was no need to clarify the church's supposed belief in her sinlessness when church fathers and Popes had been contradicting her sinlessness for hundreds of years?

I've discussed other examples of a similar nature elsewhere. See here on the papacy, here on purgatory, etc.

Even without taking factors into account like what scripture teaches or how widespread a belief was in extrabiblical sources, how would a Catholic adequately explain why particular individuals contradicted Catholic belief? When Clement of Rome contradicts the Catholic view of justification, Hermas contradicts the Catholic view of prayer, or Hippolytus contradicts the Catholic view of Mary's perpetual virginity, for example, how plausible is it to argue that such sources living in Rome were ignorant of Roman Catholic traditions allegedly handed down since the time of the apostles? If there was such an erroneous understanding of the faith in a location as important to the church as Rome was according to Roman Catholicism, then wouldn't a clarification (development) have been appropriate at that point?

Catholics sometimes appeal to the popularity of Catholic beliefs in more recent church history, such as the popularity of a belief in seven sacraments from the medieval era onward. If Catholics want to appeal to that sort of more recent consensus among professing Christians, why should we think a modern consensus is right? Why think it overrides a consensus of earlier generations? Polling indicates that many Catholics don't believe in some of the teachings of Roman Catholicism, such as transubstantiation. If we combine those Catholics with non-Catholics who are identified as Christian in some manner, and there's thereby a majority who reject transubstantiation, should we conclude that a rejection of transubstantiation is part of the understanding of the eucharist that the church has developed over time? Since Catholics don't want us to think of development along those lines, what's their alternative, and how can we verify that it's correct?

23 comments:

  1. Please get some of your notable and astute theologians to address the topics and issues you are struggling to address; perhaps, they will have better language and better arguments than what you are doing here. Frankly, you sound childish regardless of how many pages you write. At best, you entertain and mostly, confuse your people. Until you have competent and authoritative theologians on your side begin to publicly make, in a "mature", the arguments you are making, you can't assume you are saying anything against the Catholic Church. In Catholicism, we have enormous consideration for the "source" (authority of the writer/speaker).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jason can speak for himself, but your comment is silly on multiple levels:

      i) You don't refute a single thing he said. You just resort to pejorative rhetoric that begs the question.

      ii) From a Catholic standpoint, it's irrelevant what "authoritative" Protestant theologians say since Catholics don't acknowledge the authority of Protestant theologians.

      iii) What matters isn't primarily the speaker but whether the statement is true, supported by accessible evidence. The important thing isn't whether a statement is issued by an authority figure, but whether it's right. A speaker/writer needn't have authority to be right.

      iv) Apropos (iii), your "enormous consideration" for the source (=authority) begs the question since we don't grant the authority of Catholic sources.

      So your entire little screed is circular. Don't get dizzying running in circles.

      Delete
    2. I was not trying to refute anything Jason wrote because he does not make any sense to my Catholic mind and neither do you. I was simply trying to help you understand how an informed Catholic mind reads what you put out on this blog concerning the Church. You may be brilliant, Steve, but you really can't expect any of your eleven readers ( considering the number of comments your posts receive) to think, for example, that your response to Cardinal Muller is anything but a low grade comic relief. If you don't grant Catholic authority (which in fact you do grant; consider what you wrote about Cdl. Muller) whose authority do you grant? What is wrong with the Protestant mind?

      I. Mole

      Delete
    3. By the way, there are Protestant theologians that I admire and listen to. I loved R.C. Sproul, as stunchly anti Catholic as he was tried to present Catholicism as fairly as possible and without unnecessary animosity. The other individual that I listen to is Albert Mohler. He simply is enjoyable to listen to but not as much as Sproul. Once in a while, I tune into the Whitehorse Inn program, but these guys do not seem to have joy in their presentations. Your national association of evangelicals could get serious, come together and address the so called errors of the "Roman" Church instead of folks like you and your ilks engaging in soliloquies. Dominus Jesus spoke in a clear manner to Protestants. Speak so we know who you are, in the first place.

      I. Mole

      Delete
    4. Inno Mole

      "I was not trying to refute anything Jason wrote because he does not make any sense to my Catholic mind and neither do you."

      So illogical. Anyway just because something doesn't make any sense to you doesn't mean it's not true. In fact, it may say more about your "Catholic mind" than about Jason's arguments, viz. Jason's arguments are perfectly clear and understandable, not to mention reasonable, but you admit you don't grasp them.

      "I was simply trying to help you understand how an informed Catholic mind reads what you put out on this blog concerning the Church."

      Jason and Steve have interacted with top notch Catholic "authorities" (as you say). That's where they get their information from. Unless you're a Catholic "authority" (e.g. bishop), why should it matter what you think as a lay Catholic in contrast to Catholic "authorities"?

      "You may be brilliant, Steve, but you really can't expect any of your eleven readers (considering the number of comments your posts receive)"

      So now you're an expert on how many readers Triablogue gets despite having no access to our internal stats?

      What makes you think the number of comments reflects the number of readers?

      What's more, we don't write for current readers alone, but for posterity. Triablogue should be available for future readers so long as the internet isn't wiped out in some apocalypse or something along those lines.

      "that your response to Cardinal Muller is anything but a low grade comic relief."

      Well, there were satirical posts alongside serious posts. I'm not confident you can distinguish between the two.

      "If you don't grant Catholic authority (which in fact you do grant; consider what you wrote about Cdl. Muller)"

      You're equivocating. Steve and Jason can grant that Müller has "authority" as a Catholic cardinal within the Catholic church hierarchy, but that doesn't mean they grant the concept of "Catholic authority" is biblical.

      "whose authority do you grant?"

      God's.

      "What is wrong with the Protestant mind?"

      Nothing, but what's wrong is that you yourself confess that what Jason wrote "does not make any sense to my Catholic mind", even though what he wrote is quite clear and comprehensible, so maybe there's something wrong with "the Catholic mind"!

      Delete
    5. "By the way, there are Protestant theologians that I admire and listen to. I loved R.C. Sproul, as stunchly anti Catholic as he was tried to present Catholicism as fairly as possible and without unnecessary animosity. The other individual that I listen to is Albert Mohler. He simply is enjoyable to listen to but not as much as Sproul. Once in a while, I tune into the Whitehorse Inn program, but these guys do not seem to have joy in their presentations."

      Sproul, Mohler, and Horton are largely popularizers. I wouldn't consider any of them "theologians".

      I've read and listened to many Catholics including ecclesiastical "authorities" (e.g. Bishop Barron, Pope Benedict XVI aka Ratzinger, Pope Francis).

      "Your national association of evangelicals could get serious, come together and address the so called errors of the "Roman" Church instead of folks like you and your ilks engaging in soliloquies. Dominus Jesus spoke in a clear manner to Protestants. Speak so we know who you are, in the first place."

      Just look through Triablogue's archives on Catholicism to see who we've interacted with.

      Delete
    6. "You're equivocating. Steve and Jason can grant that Müller has "authority" as a Catholic cardinal within the Catholic church hierarchy, but that doesn't mean they grant the concept of "Catholic authority" is biblical"

      Again, a very nonsensical responsible!

      Delete
    7. Protestants and Catholics are asymmetrical in what they think about and how they rely on ecclesiastical "authorities". It's comparing apples to oranges. Your "Catholic mind" about "authority" doesn't work on Protestants, for the simple reason that Protestants don't accept the "authority" of popes, theologians, councils, historical tradition, and so on in the same way Catholics accept these "authorities".

      Delete
    8. I. Mole: ///Steve and Jason can grant that Müller has "authority" as a Catholic cardinal within the Catholic church hierarchy, but that doesn't mean they grant the concept of "Catholic authority" is biblical"

      Again, a very nonsensical responsible!///

      This is because they are analyzing his responses within the context of Roman Catholic authority. We reject it, but the question is, does not Roman Catholic authority contradict itself with these responses? That is what makes the concept of Roman Catholic authority null and void for Protestants.

      Delete
    9. I. Mole: ///considering the number of comments your posts receive///

      This blog typically makes anywhere from 5-10 blog posts per day, some are very long and detailed, and this group of writers is known for its lucidity. One reason there are very few comments is because most of its readers end up agreeing with what is said (and that is because the arguments here are good ones).

      Delete
    10. "I was simply trying to help you understand how an informed Catholic mind reads what you put out on this blog concerning the Church"

      You're not our standard of comparison.

      "you really can't expect any of your eleven readers…"

      Triablogue is currently approach 11,000,000 page views.

      "that your response to Cardinal Muller is anything but a low grade comic relief."

      Which is not a refutation.

      "If you don't grant Catholic authority (which in fact you do grant; consider what you wrote about Cdl. Muller) whose authority do you grant? What is wrong with the Protestant mind?"

      Your comment is confused. I can comment on individuals who are "authoritative" in Catholic circles with regarding them as authority figures from a Protestant standpoint. I'm simply responding to Catholics on Catholic grounds by choosing their most competent and/or "authoritative" spokesmen.

      Delete
  2. Please get some of your notable and astute theologians to address the topics and issues you are struggling to address; perhaps, they will have better language and better arguments than what you are doing here. Frankly, you sound childish regardless of how many pages you write. At best, you entertain and mostly, confuse your people. Until you have competent and authoritative theologians on your side begin to publicly make, in a "mature", the arguments you are making, you can't assume you are saying anything against the Catholic Church. In Catholicism, we have enormous consideration for the "source" (authority of the writer/speaker).

    Inno Mole (Facebook)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By all means stay on the burning, sinking ship of Catholicism. The sharks will appreciate the fresh protein.

      Delete
    2. So, here we have an individual who initially posts anonymously, then identifies himself as Inno Mole, who frequently uses poor spelling and grammar, telling us that we should communicate better and should appeal to figures he recognizes as authorities. He often cites no authorities to support the claims he's making, much less does he limit himself to individuals we would recognize as authorities, even though he expects us to do that when addressing Catholics. He doesn't explain why the authority of God or the apostles, for example, would be inadequate or why having truth would be inadequate and would need authority added to it. He doesn't explain how he goes about identifying or interpreting his authority figures to begin with. Instead, we get an unjustified, inconsistent appeal to the authorities Inno Mole prefers.

      If he'd been paying more attention to what he's responding to, he'd recognize that we've frequently cited Popes, church fathers, and other figures Catholics consider authoritative to support what we've been saying about Catholic belief, church history, and other issues. He claims to be interested in hearing from his preferred authority figures, but shows no interest when those individuals are cited against what he wants to believe.

      Delete
  3. This was a very helpful post. Thanks!

    Hawk: "Sproul, Mohler, and Horton are largely popularizers. I wouldn't consider any of them "theologians"."

    Sproul, Horton, and others like them are often portrayed as mere "popularizers." But in my experience the ability to communicate complex theological ideas to a popular audience is more indicative of mastery. Christ was one of those.

    Teaching Sunday school to children is a great way to learn that there is very little to say--even to a third grader--unless you know 'what' you want to say.
    Kudos to those who know 'how' to say it.
    Laureates to those who know 'why' we say it!
    Horton: "know what you believe, and why you believe it"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RJ Patten

      Well:

      1. To be fair, I didn't portray them as "mere" popularizers. I said they were largely popularizers. That leaves some wiggle room to say they've done others non-popularizer things as well.

      2. What I was trying to get at is that Sproul, Mohler, and Horton are hardly on the same level as someone like Frame, Poythress, Berkhof, Warfield, Bavinck, Alexander, Hodge(s), Owen, Edwards, Turretin, Calvin, Luther, Anselm, Augustine, Aquinas.

      3. More to the point, I disagree "the ability to communicate complex theological [or other] ideas to a popular audience is more indicative of mastery".

      a. Some masters of a field can communicate complex ideas to a popular audience, while some can't. One can be a genius but not all geniuses are gifted communicators. Consider the stereotype of the professor who only cares about research but not teaching and (no surprise) is a great researcher but terrible teacher.

      Consider Stephen Hawking. Arguably a great physicist (though not all would agree but I'll concede the point here). His A Brief History of Time is aimed at a popular audience. However it's one of those books that everyone has heard of, and many people have bought, but few have ever read and understood. Often people who tried to read it gave up because they couldn't follow it all. Later Hawking wrote A Briefer History of Time (with Leonard Mlodinow) to simplify his ideas even further. Yet this doesn't imply Hawking wasn't a "master" of physics.

      Consider Richard Feynman. A great physicist. His now classic Feynman Lectures on Physics series was targeted at undergraduates. However, Feynman failed in his goal to communciate physics to them. If I recall, Feynman even conceded this. Feynman also admitted he wasn't a great teacher. He admitted he couldn't even communicate a basic joy for science to his daughter who instead ended up taking up photography, though in fairness he was more successful with his son. Anyway, it's a great lecture series on physics, but it's best appreciated by fellow physicists. That was in evidence at the time Feynman gave his lectures too because at the beginning of the series there were many undergraduates in attendance but by the end it was largely grad students and professors in the audience. Yet no one would say Feynman wasn't a great physicist despite his inability to communicate the complex ideas of physics to others who lacked a strong background in physics.

      Take Einstein himself. Surely one of the greatest physicists of all time. He wrote the book Relativity: The Special and the General Theory in order "to give an exact insight into the theory of relativity to those readers who, from a general scientific and philosophical point of view, are interested in the theory, but who are not conversant with the mathematical apparatus of theoretical physics". However, judging by the book, Einstein wasn't all that successful in this goal. His book doesn't reflect the ability to communicate relativity to a popular audience. I'm not judging Einstein's book by our standards, but by the standards of his day. What many of his contemporaries thought. Of course that doesn't mean Einstein wasn't a "master" of physics despite failing to communicate .

      This focuses primarily on their writing, though Feynman's lectures were transcribed and turned into books. In any case one could likewise judge their communication in speech. For instance, wasn't Einstein the epitome of the absent-minded professor when he spoke and taught? Often hard to follow his train of thought (no pun intended)?

      Delete
    2. b. Likewise, some who aren't masters of a field are gifted communicators. Consider how well science journalists tend to write and communicate despite having backgrounds in English or literature rather than science (e.g. James Gleick, Richard Preston). Indeed, salespeople are often highly effective communicators of complex ideas (e.g. cars, pharmaceuticals), but that doesn't mean they have a mastery of cars like an automechanic let alone engineer or pharmacist.

      c. By the way, my working assumption is the majority of Triablogue commenters are a cut above a "popular audience" level. At least it seems to me it typically takes a higher than average intelligence to be able follow the issues and debates involved in Christian apologetics at a place like Triablogue.

      d. Speaking for myself, I don't think Horton is all that great of a communicator in writing or speech. I think Sproul and Mohler are good communicators in writing and speech.

      4. All that said, maybe we can come to a compromise by calling these guys something like "popular theologians" as opposed to "theologians"? :)

      Delete
  4. Look, we are on the same team.
    You might have had me at "Sproul, Mohler, and Horton are largely popularizers"—but you lost me at "I wouldn't consider any of them ‘theologians.’” Should a person feel less a theologian if his life’s burden is to bring biblical truth to the masses rather than to the academy? Your point to ‘Inno Mole’ (whose comment was more about winsomeness than competence) might have been made without impugning your brothers-in-arms.

    My point again is this: You cannot communicate what you don't know. Should that surprise anyone? When Nobel Physicist Richard Feynman wrote on his blackboard, “What I cannot create I do not understand,” he was reminding himself and his students that unless you can take a concept or a theory apart, and build it from scratch step by step, you do not truly understand it.

    This is entirely consistent with my words, "the ability to communicate complex theological [or other] ideas to a popular audience is more indicative of mastery.” The point was not that smart people can be lousy communicators, or that “some who aren't masters of a field are gifted communicators”—that’s obvious. And so it seems the extended rationale you offer… ‘protests too much’.

    This is a danger for those of “higher than average intelligence” like the alleged “majority of Triablogue commenters [who are] a cut above a ‘popular audience’”: they are smart enough to rationalize just about any position—even wrong ones. Behavioral science happens to agree. And this is what Feynman was getting at when he said: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.” He knew that smart people have a hard time saying “I don’t really know what I’m talking about” or “I went too far with what I said.” What I respect about Steve Hays is that he seems to point the laser of logic at himself first, before he directs it at others. My apologies to Steve if I have that wrong.

    Comparing theologians to physicists isn't helpful. Physics is about understanding “new” truth; theology is about uncovering and understanding old truth, i.e., “Have you not read?”. Not every man can be a physicist. But every man is a theologian—for better or worse—as R. C. Sproul said.
    Nevertheless, Einstein and Feynman were not only popular figures in physics; but popularizers too. Each of them, on multiple occasions, cited the imagination as more important to their success than any other factor. That’s something a popularizer can identify with.

    Einstein when asked to explain his theory of relativity: “When you sit with a nice girl for two hours you think it’s only a minute, but when you sit on a hot stove for a minute you think it’s two hours. That’s relativity.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RJ Patten

      "Look, we are on the same team."

      You're acting like I attacked you. In fact, I wrote you a friendly reply. Unless you're so sensitive you think any kind of disagreement is tantamount to hostility. I'd suggest you re-read what I said. Again my intention was friendly, not hostile.

      "Should a person feel less a theologian if his life’s burden is to bring biblical truth to the masses rather than to the academy?"

      All I said was I wouldn't consider Sproul, Mohler, and Horton theologians like I would Frame, Warfield, etc. That doesn't mean I don't think Sproul, Mohler, and Horton have done tons of other valuable work for the kingdom of God.

      "Your point to ‘Inno Mole’ (whose comment was more about winsomeness than competence) might have been made without impugning your brothers-in-arms."

      1. How does it "impugn" someone to say I wouldn't consider them a theologian like Frame, Warfield, etc.? What if I said I wouldn't consider Phillip E. Johnson (of Darwin on Trial) a scientist? That doesn't mean Johnson didn't do a lot of valuable work including pioneer much of the modern Intelligent Design movement. It doesn't "impugn" someone unless you think there's a moral problem with not being a scientist or a theologian, but I don't think there is.

      2. I think your assumption is that saying someone isn't a theologian "impugns" them because it's supposed to be an insult (or something along those lines). That's a false assumption. I'm not "impugning" myself when I say I'm not an engineer or a lawyer or an MBA. There's nothing wrong with not being an engineer, lawyer, or an MBA. Likewise there's nothing wrong with not being a theologian. Everyone has their own God-given aptitudes, interests, and opportunities that they can use in God's service.

      3. As for Inno Mole, the reason I did that is because Inno Mole expects Protestants to study the best there is in Catholicism, but if that's the case, then I expect him to study the best there is in Protestantism (Calvinism). I expect Inno Mole to study the best theologians we have on our side rather than popularizers if he expects us to study the best there is in Catholicism. It'd be like if I told him I've only studied Dave Armstrong and Jimmy Akin, not Ratzinger or Cardinal Muller.

      "My point again is this: You cannot communicate what you don't know."

      Actually your original point was a much stronger statement. You said: "the ability to communicate complex theological ideas to a popular audience is more indicative of mastery."

      "When Nobel Physicist Richard Feynman wrote on his blackboard, “What I cannot create I do not understand,” he was reminding himself and his students that unless you can take a concept or a theory apart, and build it from scratch step by step, you do not truly understand it."

      That's quite different than whether Feynman was able to "communicate complex ideas to a popular audience". I gave more relevant examples which you can re-read.

      "This is entirely consistent with my words, "the ability to communicate complex theological [or other] ideas to a popular audience is more indicative of mastery.”"

      It may be consistent, but it wasn't your original point. But at the time I can only respond to what you originally wrote, not what you've written after the fact.

      Delete
    2. "they are smart enough to rationalize just about any position—even wrong ones. Behavioral science happens to agree."

      Sure, but this is a separate issue that takes us farther away from what you originally said.

      "Comparing theologians to physicists isn't helpful. Physics is about understanding “new” truth; theology is about uncovering and understanding old truth, i.e., “Have you not read?”."

      That's an overly simplistic view of physics. In fact, Feynman wrote "What I cannot create I do not understand" in part because he wanted to motivate himself to solve physics problems that others had already solved hundreds of years ago. He wanted to do this in part because he wanted to "uncover understand old truth" for himself. See James Gleick's biography of Feynman for example.

      "Not every man can be a physicist. But every man is a theologian—for better or worse—as R. C. Sproul said."

      1. I doubt Sproul himself meant every Christian could be a "theologian" like Augustine or Calvin.

      2. In any case, clearly when I say "theologian", and when I support that by giving examples of theologians like Frame, Warfield, Calvin, Augustine, etc., I'm not using "theologian" in that sense, in a popular sense. Otherwise one could say the dying thief on the cross was a theologian in the same vein as Anselm or a godly but illiterate grandmother was a theologian on par with Bavinck.

      "Nevertheless, Einstein and Feynman were not only popular figures in physics; but popularizers too."

      I gave you specific examples of how Einstein and Feynman appeared to have failed in their attempts at popularization, but I guess you missed those.

      "Each of them, on multiple occasions, cited the imagination as more important to their success than any other factor. That’s something a popularizer can identify with."

      Yet it's obvious not everyone has the same creative "imagination" that Einstein and Feynman had. Not everyone could "see" things the way they saw things.

      "Einstein when asked to explain his theory of relativity: “When you sit with a nice girl for two hours you think it’s only a minute, but when you sit on a hot stove for a minute you think it’s two hours. That’s relativity.”"

      1. That quotation is often attributed to Einstein, but there's debate as to whether Einstein actually ever said that.

      2. At any rate, if the quotation is supposed to encapsulate special and general relativity to a layperson, then Einstein clearly failed, because there's far more to general and special relativity than what's in the quotation.

      Delete
    3. By the way, if you want someone who is a good theologian as well as a good communicator, then I'd recommend J.I. Packer. Packer is largely a popularizer today, but in the past he wrote some solid works on (historical, Puritan) theology (e.g. Concise Theology, 18 Words, various essays in A Quest for Godliness like his classic essay "An Introduction to John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ"). Also, I think Packer's earlier works like Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God and Fundamentalism and the Word of God are evidence he could do apologetics quite well.

      Delete
    4. Hawk,
      A reminder of my original statement: “in my experience the ability to communicate complex theological ideas to a popular audience is more indicative of mastery.”
      It’s clear I’m talking about theology. And about mastery that is “more” rather than “less” indicative of mastery.
      But you expanded what I said to include “[other]” ideas this way: “the ability to communicate complex theological [or other] ideas.” That is a misdirection, a red herring—and one that successfully led me to misquote myself after I repeated your version of my own quote!

      You doubled-down on the misdirection by citing physicists who are unable make themselves understood to lay audiences. But that too is not the same as saying:
      “you cannot communicate what you don’t know,” and “the ability to communicate complex ideas to a popular audience is more indicative of mastery.” Read: “as more indicative of mastery than not.” I see nothing absolute or universal implied in my original statement.
      Nevertheless I followed along with your misdirection far enough to humour you with instances of Einstein and Feynman doing their own “popularizing.”

      More importantly, you ask: “How does it “impugn” someone to say I wouldn’t consider [Sproul, Mohler, and Horton] theologians like Frame, Warfield, etc.?”
      You support this by saying Phillip E. Johnson, a law professor, shouldn’t feel himself impugned by being denied the label “theologian.”
      You add that you yourself would not be impugned by being denied the labels engineer, lawyer, or MBA because, presumably, you are none of those.
      Do you see the problem here? You have shifted the argument with a classic red herring. Phillip Johnson doesn’t *claim* to be theologian. You don’t *claim* to be an engineer, lawyer, or an MBA.
      But Sproul, Mohler, and Horton DO claim to be theologians. PhDs, in fact.

      You equate Sproul/Mohler/Horton with Dave Armstrong and Jimmy Akin: “I expect Inno Mole to study the best theologians we have on our side rather than popularizers if he expects us to study the best there is in Catholicism. It'd be like if I told him I've only studied Dave Armstrong and Jimmy Akin, not Ratzinger or Cardinal Muller.” I'll write that comment off as hasty.

      Your other comments too strike me as hasty and picayune.

      This is why I respect those who can first turn the laser of logic upon themselves, because smart people “are smart enough to rationalize just about any position—even wrong ones.” Feynman was right, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.” You claim this was a diversion—I say it is spot-on relevant to our discussion.

      About your book recommendations, or further discussion on this matter—no thanks. I wouldn’t consider you one of those “cut above” Triablogue “thinkers.” And you are “hardly on the same level as someone” like Engwer, Bugay, or Hays.

      You see? It isn’t about one’s pedigree or reputation. It’s about whether a theologian of any stripe can faithfully discern biblical truth, and accurately represent those—even giants—whose shoulders they stand upon.

      Delete
    5. RJ Patten

      1. I've been respectful toward you this entire time, but you're obviously upset or angry with me or something. In any case, your judgment is clouded by your emotions. I'm not sure you're able to reason well enough to have a rational discussion (e.g. you're behaving passive-aggressively toward me). However others can read our comments and come to their own conclusions if they wish. In fact, I'd recommend you yourself come back to this when you've calmed down and re-read everything that's been said.

      2. Yes, I agree with you: I'm "hardly on the same level as someone like Engwer, Bugay, or Hays". They're all intellectual heavyweights, while I'm a lightweight. That's completely true, and I've never claimed otherwise. In fact, I'd say a good analogy is at best I'm to Engwer, Bugay, and Hays as Sproul, Mohler, and Horton are to Frame, Warfield, Bavick, etc. (though my own evaluation is I'm far worse in comparison!).

      3. That said, here's a crucial point: it's highly ironic you're fine negatively comparing me with other Christians, but you think it's wrong for me to have done the same with Sproul, Mohler, and Horton. If I'm "impugning" Sproul, Mohler, and Horton by negatively comparing them to other Christians, then you're "impugning" me by negatively comparing me to other Christians too.

      4. No, these aren't "red herrings" nor "misdirections" as you allege. They're arguments from analogy. That should be obvious. If you can't see it, I'd suggest you need to brush up on your basic logic.

      5. The point isn't what someone claims about themselves, but rather what they are based on what they've done. For example, I could claim I'm a theologian like Frame, Warfield, Calvin, Augustine, etc., but that doesn't make me a theologian like Frame, Warfield, Calvin, Augustine, etc. Far from it!

      Delete