tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8743785227129160208..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Who Speaks For the Romanist?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-80179397247408740332007-07-09T03:40:00.000-04:002007-07-09T03:40:00.000-04:00Gene,rationalism within Protestantism vs. mysticis...Gene,<BR/><BR/><I>rationalism within Protestantism vs. mysticism within Orthodoxy</I><BR/><BR/>I agree with you this is a wide swing of the ax. In fact in Evangelicalism there is quite some mysticism too, that is, the looking for subjective experiences.<BR/><BR/>In Confessional Lutheranism, one is dissuaded in making doctrines out of deductions (rationalizations). You hear them speaking of command, example or explicit statements from Scripture as basis for faith/practice.<BR/><BR/>It is at home in pleading ignorance and is less internally consistent logically speaking in preference to being Biblically consistent.<BR/><BR/>LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-81106875778177133652007-07-07T19:49:00.000-04:002007-07-07T19:49:00.000-04:00Semper Reformanda said:"Steve, I'm curious - have ...Semper Reformanda said:<BR/><BR/>"Steve, I'm curious - have you ever had Roman Catholic apologists try to "weasel" (for lack of a better word) out of the implications of Vatican II by claiming that it's not an ecumenical council and therefore not infallible, etc.? I'm certain I've heard that argument at least once."<BR/><BR/>That's an argument which Gerry Matatics would use. <BR/><BR/>Conservative Catholics are in a bind. They can either be consistent with the past, or consistent with the present—but they can't be both.<BR/><BR/>On the one hand, Matatics has the better of the historical argument. On the other hand, he's trying to rescue the papacy from the pope, which is self-defeating.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47806671929330171372007-07-07T19:18:00.000-04:002007-07-07T19:18:00.000-04:00Steve, I'm curious - have you ever had Roman Catho...Steve, I'm curious - have you ever had Roman Catholic apologists try to "weasel" (for lack of a better word) out of the implications of Vatican II by claiming that it's not an ecumenical council and therefore not infallible, etc.? I'm certain I've heard that argument at least once.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7130682726545551532007-07-07T18:39:00.000-04:002007-07-07T18:39:00.000-04:00"Finally, there is a strong emphasis on rationalis...<I><BR/>"Finally, there is a strong emphasis on rationalism within Protestantism vs. mysticism within Orthodoxy."</I><BR/><BR/>This also too broad a brush.<BR/><BR/>Is this "Protestantism" or is it "Baptistery, Calvinism, Arminianism, Lutheranism, etc.?" In short, which version of Protestantism is in view.<BR/><BR/>What's more, is this true of Protestantism prior to ca. 1725 or after? Is he wanting to trot out the "justification by faith" is the rationalistic principle around which Lutheranism turns argument? Predestination for the Reformed? Libertarianism for the Arminian argument? If so, where is the supporting material?<BR/><BR/>I'd add that Lutheran and Reformed historical scholarship has been rebutting that thesis for some time.<BR/><BR/>If that's his thesis, it too smacks of rationalism, for what makes it "rationalistic" is to look for central theological or historical themes and then construct a theology or history or historiographical tradition around those themes. <BR/><BR/>It seems to turn on an equivocation between that which is "rational" and that which is "rationalistic." The former simply means "systematic or reasonable, logical ordered." What's wrong with that? If Scripture shows that logic is an attribute of God (Frame) then shouldn't this follow in theology too? Shouldn't the Bible, when exegeted properly show that one doctrine logically dovetails with others. Doesn't the doctrine of God underwrite Scripture (the order of being) while Scripture underwrites the doctrine of God (order of knowing)?<BR/><BR/>The former means "constructing a theology, et.al. around a central organizing priniciple, such as a priori ideas about justification or providence." Lutherans and the Reformed accept the former, not the latter. Arminians admit to using libertarianism in the former manner, so, at most, his argument would tack onto Arminianism, not the others.<BR/><BR/>Rationalism did creep into Lutheran and Reformed theology post 1725, but it resulted in (a) a more radical biblicism in response in the local churches, while the consistories and academies reverted to (b) latitudinarianism. Rationalism got the Lutherans the radical skepticism of Continental Lutheranism, leading to liberalism and in the Reformed, Neo-Orthodoxy, but these aren't representative of evangelical Lutherans and the evangelical Reformed.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-57318870317184901262007-07-07T15:05:00.000-04:002007-07-07T15:05:00.000-04:00"While we, as Protestants, may interpret Trent and..."While we, as Protestants, may interpret Trent and other official statements prima facie, we have to be careful not to require all Catholics to interpret their documents the way we do."<BR/><BR/>http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/07/06/roman-catholicism-and-evangelicalism-has-the-battle-ground-changed/#more-273<BR/><BR/>We should require them to interpret Trent the way the Tridentine Fathers and Counter-Reformation theologians like Bellarmine and Stapleton did, as well as the papacy before modernism took hold in the 20C. <BR/><BR/>"My point is that if Catholicism is changing (or, in their view, progressing), then why should we stand as guards at the gate and say “You cannot do this! You must interpret yourselves the way we interpret you and remain under your confessions the way we see them.” Isn’t change/progression what we want? Doesn’t this propose a hope that Protestants should desire?"<BR/><BR/>i) No, not interpret Trent the way *we* do. Rather, we're taking our cue from Tridentine and post-Tridentine theologians. How *they* understood it. Original intent.<BR/><BR/>ii) They are more than welcome to change. What they are not welcome to do is to simultaneously change while retaining their pretensions to a divine teaching office.<BR/><BR/>"He was fascinated by CSNTM’s work of photographing ancient Greek New Testament manuscripts. And he was a good student of church history. This gentleman affirmed a lot of my most precious beliefs: Jesus Christ, the theanthropic person, died for our sins and was bodily raised from the dead; by putting our faith in him we are saved—indeed, we are saved exclusively by God’s grace; there’s nothing that we can bring to the table to aid in our salvation. The good doctor called himself an evangelical. And he also called himself a Roman Catholic."<BR/><BR/>http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/07/03/51-protestant-2/<BR/><BR/>i) American-Catholics are often influenced by evangelicalism. Especially the laity.<BR/><BR/>ii) Contemporary Catholic Bible scholarship undercuts these ringing affirmations.<BR/><BR/>iii) Catholic soteriology is officially synergistic.<BR/><BR/>"Protestantism has no central authority, leaving each denomination or, worse, each local church, to define truth and what it means to adhere to it. One of the things that is attractive to me about Orthodoxy is that it has a hierarchy of leadership which is responsible for maintaining true Christian belief and practice."<BR/><BR/>i) And as a result, it has vicious turf wars over who is in charge, who speaks for Orthodoxy. Who's king of the hill?<BR/><BR/>ii) And what if the hierarchs act irresponsibly?<BR/><BR/>iii) There is no such thing as the Orthodox church. Only a set of semi-autonomous Orthodox churches.<BR/><BR/>"There are no Lone Ranger leaders; each answers to someone up the chain."<BR/><BR/>i) Wrong. There are no Lone Ranger laymen, but there are Lone Ranger *leaders."<BR/><BR/>ii) Yes, each answers to someone "up" the chain. Accountability is a one-way street in Orthodoxy.<BR/><BR/>"The Protestant Reformation gave impetus to the elevation of reason over revelation."<BR/><BR/>It did?<BR/><BR/>"An idea that in essence gave birth to the Enlightenment."<BR/><BR/>One of the problems with this cliche is the facile equation of "the Enlightenment" with a particular school of philosophy. <BR/><BR/>But let's remember that the Enlightenment also gave birth to Bach and Handel, George Whitefield and Charles Wesley, Rembrandt, Racine, and the Puritans, &c. <BR/><BR/>"This has safeguarded the Orthodox branch from theological corruption that is especially the hallmark of Protestantism."<BR/><BR/>Aside from certain corruptions inherent in Orthodox theology, that is only because, until fairly recently, Orthodoxy was ghettoized. But it's liberalizing, too. <BR/><BR/>"Finally, there is a strong emphasis on rationalism within Protestantism vs. mysticism within Orthodoxy."<BR/><BR/>I remember reading an autobiographical book by Nikos Kazantzakis in which he described Greek Orthodox hermits who would literally go mad due to malnutrition (part of their ascetic austerities), and jump off cliffs, hallucinating that they were winged angels.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.com