William Watson Birch said...
"I swear, if Owen had the authority, he would have burned every Arminian in England."
http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2009/12/display-of-arminianism.html#comment-4692573665897331359
Actually, I think the Arminian prelate Archbishop Laud would probably furnish a more viable candidate for burning all theological opponents if he could get away with it.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
Plus ça change
William Watson Birch said...
"I was just like Owen when I was a Calvinist, and I'll tell you why: I was proud, arrogant, and utterly unloving to other believers with whom I disagreed, and so are those who act like that."
http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2009/12/display-of-arminianism.html#comment-7342754515451996878
Plus c’est la même chose
William Watson Birch said...
"I don't mind zealots, but lying fanatics are another story altogether [emphasis mine]."
http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2009/12/display-of-arminianism.html#comment-2878172821011738928
William Watson Birch said...
"I was just like Owen when I was a Calvinist, and I'll tell you why: I was proud, arrogant, and utterly unloving to other believers with whom I disagreed, and so are those who act like that."
http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2009/12/display-of-arminianism.html#comment-7342754515451996878
Plus c’est la même chose
William Watson Birch said...
"I don't mind zealots, but lying fanatics are another story altogether [emphasis mine]."
http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2009/12/display-of-arminianism.html#comment-2878172821011738928
New Year's [ir]resolutions
[Billy Birch] I hate regrets. But as much I hate regrets, I also learn from them. For example, I think back over this year and remember how poorly I acted at times in debate toward other Christian brothers with whom I have disagreed. That has got to change. I cannot complain about others who act ungodly toward other Christians with whom they disagree and then behave in the same manner. I hate depravity.
As far as this blog is concerned for 2010, I intend on being more gracious with those who oppose my ideas and exegesis of Scripture...
Beginning Wednesday, December 30, 2009, I will be posting on John Owen's book, A Display of Arminianism. This contemptible and paltry book is a classic in Calvinistic literature as a tirade against Arminianism. The blurb on back of the book reads: "Some may ask, 'why another book exposing Arminianism?' A simple answer should suffice for all lovers of the truth ~ Arminianism is heresy!"
Though I have every intention on dialoguing with others in a manner that is becoming a Christian in the coming year, I have every intention of exposing Owen's puerile work for what it is ~ not a mere misrepresentation of Arminianism but a collection of servile lies [emphasis mine].
http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2009/12/2009-and-still-learning.html
Yes, Dr. Sproul, I am equally frustrated ~ especially when liars such as John Owen vomit such excrement as is found in A Display of Arminianism, which is still in print, and which is still being promoted by Calvinists today as an accurate refutation of Classical Arminianism. And what is equally frustrating is when Calvinists tolerate such lies, caricatures, and misrepresentations, without correcting their colleagues with the truth [emphasis mine].
http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2009/12/display-of-arminianism.html
Thankfully he hasn't violated his New Year's resolution, having gotten these jabs in just under the wire.
As far as this blog is concerned for 2010, I intend on being more gracious with those who oppose my ideas and exegesis of Scripture...
Beginning Wednesday, December 30, 2009, I will be posting on John Owen's book, A Display of Arminianism. This contemptible and paltry book is a classic in Calvinistic literature as a tirade against Arminianism. The blurb on back of the book reads: "Some may ask, 'why another book exposing Arminianism?' A simple answer should suffice for all lovers of the truth ~ Arminianism is heresy!"
Though I have every intention on dialoguing with others in a manner that is becoming a Christian in the coming year, I have every intention of exposing Owen's puerile work for what it is ~ not a mere misrepresentation of Arminianism but a collection of servile lies [emphasis mine].
http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2009/12/2009-and-still-learning.html
Yes, Dr. Sproul, I am equally frustrated ~ especially when liars such as John Owen vomit such excrement as is found in A Display of Arminianism, which is still in print, and which is still being promoted by Calvinists today as an accurate refutation of Classical Arminianism. And what is equally frustrating is when Calvinists tolerate such lies, caricatures, and misrepresentations, without correcting their colleagues with the truth [emphasis mine].
http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2009/12/display-of-arminianism.html
Thankfully he hasn't violated his New Year's resolution, having gotten these jabs in just under the wire.
Shucking corn
DAVID WALTZ SAID:
"Thanks to a good friend (it would be nice in the future if you would link to those you ‘tabloid’ on)"
That would deprive you of the wonderful incentive to read our blog every day. I'd never think to deny you so much spiritual edification.
“Hmmm…Dr. Hodge’s assessments are now a ‘pseudoresponse’…”
Yes, it’s a pseudoresponse.
i) On the one hand, Hodge wasn’t writing with Jason and me in mind. His stated position is irrelevant to the specific arguments that Jason and I brought forward.
ii) On the other hand, you’re also using Hodge as a shortcut to avoid interacting with the specific arguments of Jason and myself.
On all counts, then, your appeal to Hodge is a pseudoresponse.
The only reason you introduce him into the discussion is to pull rank, as if debates in Protestant theology are settled by merely citing the opinion of big-name theologian. But Hodge would never appeal to his own person as an argument.
“Me: False, Dr. Hodge deals directly with the initial issue raised by Jason.”
Which demonstrates, once again, your deficient reading skills. So many books–so little reading comprehension.
“Me: Perhaps your ad hominem attacks sooth your conscience, but to those who embrace objectivity, they are little more than childish rants.”
It’s very droll for a Catholic, who exalts the pope as the “Holy Father,” to accuse a Protestant of “childishness.” By definition, every Catholic is a perpetual child in relation to the pope. Roman Catholicism elevates arrested development to the status of dogma.
And the Catholic mindset is quite pertinent to the issue at hand. Catholic epologists like Waltz are trying to motivate evangelicals to convert to Rome. They appeal to their motives. They treat to cultivate spiritual insecurities in the mind of the evangelical. So motives matter.
Waltz converted from a paternalistic cult to a paternalistic denomination. He, like other Catholic converts and reverts, suffers from a juvenile need for parental approval. The pope is their surrogate father-figure.
“Me: Indeed—address his arguments Steve.”
Address the arguments of Thornwell, David.
And while you’re at it, go back and address the arguments of Jason and me, David.
“Me: Yep, and on slavery too!!!”
If you want to bring up Thornwell’s misguided defense of slavery, then is that the cue for me to bring up the Inquisition? What about the priestly abuse scandal?
From the “Annex” to the “Official Common Statement” of the “Joint Declaration” we read:
++C) Justification takes place "by grace alone“ (JD 15 and 16), by faith alone, the person is justified „apart from works“ (Rom 3:28, cf. JD 25). "Grace creates faith not only when faith begins in a person but as long as faith lasts“ (Thomas Aquinas, S. Th.II/II 4, 4 ad 3).The working of God’s grace does not exclude human action: God effects everything, the willing and the achievement, therefore, we are called to strive (cf. Phil 2:12 ff). "As soon as the Holy Spirit has initiated his work of regeneration and renewal in us through the Word and the holy sacraments, it is certain that we can and must cooperate by the power of the Holy Spirit...“ (The Formula of Concord, FC SD II,64f; BSLK 897,37ff).==
“Bad to worse”, oh yeah Steve, oh yeah…you are such an objective voice…
i) The Joint Declaration wasn’t issued by the Vatican. And even if it was, it's hardly an expression of the extraordinary Magisterium.
ii) Catholics don’t really believe that justification takes place by “faith alone.” Read the fine print. That joint affirmation will die the death of a thousand qualifications.
ii) Since I don’t think the Holy Spirit initiates regeneration through word and sacrament, all you’ve succeeded in doing at this point is to document a serious error in Catholic theology. Thanks for making my case.
iii) To say that “God’s grace does not exclude human action” is deliberately equivocal. A statement like that can be developed in either an acceptable or unacceptable direction.
iv) In what sense does the Holy Spirit merely “initiate” regeneration? Does this mean regeneration has stages, and the Holy Spirit is only responsible for the initial stage?
So what about Hodge?
“Does the Church of Rome retain truth enough to save the soul?”
i) That’s hardly a “direct,” “heads-on” response to what Jason and I were talking about. We weren’t discussing the question of whether there are isolated cases (few or many) in which an observant Catholic can be saved.
Rather, we were discussing the question of whether Catholic justification is sufficiently analogous to the position of the Judaizers to fall under the Pauline anathema.
ii) And as far as the salvation or damnation of individual Catholics is concerned–which is not the issue we were discussing–even if that were the issue at hand, the question wouldn’t be whether individual Catholics can be saved, but whether the Catholic belief-system in toto constitutes a credible profession of faith.
“They retain the doctrine of the Incarnation, which we know from the infallible word of God, is a life-giving doctrine. They retain the whole doctrine of the Trinity.”
One thing that has changed since the days of Hodge is that Catholics are now allowed to entertain a far more sceptical views on the historicity and authorship of Scripture. At that point, the Catholic prooftexts for the Incarnation and the Trinity lose their traditional footing.
“They teach the doctrine of atonement far more fully and accurately than multitudes of professedly orthodox Protestants.”
Catholicism teaches the insufficiency of the atonement. It must be supplemented by various gimmicks and expedients.
“They hold a much higher doctrine, as to the necessity of divine influence, than prevails among many whom we recognize as Christians.”
“Necessity” is not the issue. Sufficiency is the issue.
“They believe in the forgiveness of sins.”
So do Moonies, Mormons, and Muslims. A statement like this is just a cipher. It means next to nothing until a theological tradition defines the key terms. What specific doctrine of forgiveness is actually in view?
“These doctrines are in their creeds, and however they may be perverted and overlaid, still as general propositions they are affirmed.”
Of course, the interpretive overlay is the nub of the problem. How does one proceed to unpack these general propositions? What do they actually mean in Catholic theology? And what do they mean to the individual Catholic?
“And it must be remembered, that it is truth presented in general propositions, and not with subtle distinctions, that saves the soul.”
Assuming that the individual Catholic shucks the Catholic husk off the underlying cob, and gives the cob a Scriptural sense.
"Thanks to a good friend (it would be nice in the future if you would link to those you ‘tabloid’ on)"
That would deprive you of the wonderful incentive to read our blog every day. I'd never think to deny you so much spiritual edification.
“Hmmm…Dr. Hodge’s assessments are now a ‘pseudoresponse’…”
Yes, it’s a pseudoresponse.
i) On the one hand, Hodge wasn’t writing with Jason and me in mind. His stated position is irrelevant to the specific arguments that Jason and I brought forward.
ii) On the other hand, you’re also using Hodge as a shortcut to avoid interacting with the specific arguments of Jason and myself.
On all counts, then, your appeal to Hodge is a pseudoresponse.
The only reason you introduce him into the discussion is to pull rank, as if debates in Protestant theology are settled by merely citing the opinion of big-name theologian. But Hodge would never appeal to his own person as an argument.
“Me: False, Dr. Hodge deals directly with the initial issue raised by Jason.”
Which demonstrates, once again, your deficient reading skills. So many books–so little reading comprehension.
“Me: Perhaps your ad hominem attacks sooth your conscience, but to those who embrace objectivity, they are little more than childish rants.”
It’s very droll for a Catholic, who exalts the pope as the “Holy Father,” to accuse a Protestant of “childishness.” By definition, every Catholic is a perpetual child in relation to the pope. Roman Catholicism elevates arrested development to the status of dogma.
And the Catholic mindset is quite pertinent to the issue at hand. Catholic epologists like Waltz are trying to motivate evangelicals to convert to Rome. They appeal to their motives. They treat to cultivate spiritual insecurities in the mind of the evangelical. So motives matter.
Waltz converted from a paternalistic cult to a paternalistic denomination. He, like other Catholic converts and reverts, suffers from a juvenile need for parental approval. The pope is their surrogate father-figure.
“Me: Indeed—address his arguments Steve.”
Address the arguments of Thornwell, David.
And while you’re at it, go back and address the arguments of Jason and me, David.
“Me: Yep, and on slavery too!!!”
If you want to bring up Thornwell’s misguided defense of slavery, then is that the cue for me to bring up the Inquisition? What about the priestly abuse scandal?
From the “Annex” to the “Official Common Statement” of the “Joint Declaration” we read:
++C) Justification takes place "by grace alone“ (JD 15 and 16), by faith alone, the person is justified „apart from works“ (Rom 3:28, cf. JD 25). "Grace creates faith not only when faith begins in a person but as long as faith lasts“ (Thomas Aquinas, S. Th.II/II 4, 4 ad 3).The working of God’s grace does not exclude human action: God effects everything, the willing and the achievement, therefore, we are called to strive (cf. Phil 2:12 ff). "As soon as the Holy Spirit has initiated his work of regeneration and renewal in us through the Word and the holy sacraments, it is certain that we can and must cooperate by the power of the Holy Spirit...“ (The Formula of Concord, FC SD II,64f; BSLK 897,37ff).==
“Bad to worse”, oh yeah Steve, oh yeah…you are such an objective voice…
i) The Joint Declaration wasn’t issued by the Vatican. And even if it was, it's hardly an expression of the extraordinary Magisterium.
ii) Catholics don’t really believe that justification takes place by “faith alone.” Read the fine print. That joint affirmation will die the death of a thousand qualifications.
ii) Since I don’t think the Holy Spirit initiates regeneration through word and sacrament, all you’ve succeeded in doing at this point is to document a serious error in Catholic theology. Thanks for making my case.
iii) To say that “God’s grace does not exclude human action” is deliberately equivocal. A statement like that can be developed in either an acceptable or unacceptable direction.
iv) In what sense does the Holy Spirit merely “initiate” regeneration? Does this mean regeneration has stages, and the Holy Spirit is only responsible for the initial stage?
So what about Hodge?
“Does the Church of Rome retain truth enough to save the soul?”
i) That’s hardly a “direct,” “heads-on” response to what Jason and I were talking about. We weren’t discussing the question of whether there are isolated cases (few or many) in which an observant Catholic can be saved.
Rather, we were discussing the question of whether Catholic justification is sufficiently analogous to the position of the Judaizers to fall under the Pauline anathema.
ii) And as far as the salvation or damnation of individual Catholics is concerned–which is not the issue we were discussing–even if that were the issue at hand, the question wouldn’t be whether individual Catholics can be saved, but whether the Catholic belief-system in toto constitutes a credible profession of faith.
“They retain the doctrine of the Incarnation, which we know from the infallible word of God, is a life-giving doctrine. They retain the whole doctrine of the Trinity.”
One thing that has changed since the days of Hodge is that Catholics are now allowed to entertain a far more sceptical views on the historicity and authorship of Scripture. At that point, the Catholic prooftexts for the Incarnation and the Trinity lose their traditional footing.
“They teach the doctrine of atonement far more fully and accurately than multitudes of professedly orthodox Protestants.”
Catholicism teaches the insufficiency of the atonement. It must be supplemented by various gimmicks and expedients.
“They hold a much higher doctrine, as to the necessity of divine influence, than prevails among many whom we recognize as Christians.”
“Necessity” is not the issue. Sufficiency is the issue.
“They believe in the forgiveness of sins.”
So do Moonies, Mormons, and Muslims. A statement like this is just a cipher. It means next to nothing until a theological tradition defines the key terms. What specific doctrine of forgiveness is actually in view?
“These doctrines are in their creeds, and however they may be perverted and overlaid, still as general propositions they are affirmed.”
Of course, the interpretive overlay is the nub of the problem. How does one proceed to unpack these general propositions? What do they actually mean in Catholic theology? And what do they mean to the individual Catholic?
“And it must be remembered, that it is truth presented in general propositions, and not with subtle distinctions, that saves the soul.”
Assuming that the individual Catholic shucks the Catholic husk off the underlying cob, and gives the cob a Scriptural sense.
Justification by faith or baptism?
Back on December 17, Bryan Cross posted a reply to Jason Engwer and me (mainly in response to Jason). I already posted a rejoinder.
Bryan quickly dropped out of the discussion he initiated, leaving the remainder of the discussion to another commenters. And it seems as if they too have now vacated the field. I’ll post some observations I made in private email, in response to what two Catholic commenters said in reply to Jason:
*********************************************************
Preslar isn't so overbearing or contradictory as Bryan. However...
"This is a really difficult position to be in, especially when it comes to interpreting Galatians 3.23-29 and Titus 3.4-7, where justification is explicitly linked to baptism."
i) Which assumes that Titus refers to baptism.
ii) I thought Fee offered a perfectly plausible, contextual explanation of Gal 3:27–not that Preslar has read it.
iii) There's a deeper problem, too. It never dawns on sacramentalists that the very nature of symbols and metaphors is such that whatever is said of the thing they stand for can be said of them–within the limits of the intended analogy. That's the point of a symbol or metaphor. For instance, Bible speakers and writers attribute spiritual cleansing to baptism since baptism is a watery rite, and therefore functions as a natural symbol or metaphor for cleansing. But, of course, that's figurative, not literal.
Sacramentalists don't even deal with that possibility, even though it's so obvious.
"On my reading of St. Paul, and Galatians 3 in particular, the ontological (union with Christ)..."
Are we in "ontological union" with Christ? What is that supposed to mean, exactly?
"I think that Bryan has made this point, and it is what I was referring to by the Spirit being given proleptically, in anticipation of baptism, wherein he is promised, and given (since God cannot break his promise)."
Of course, "proleptically given, in anticipation of baptism," is just a face-saving distinction.
"You seem to be assuming that if the Spirit is given before baptism, then he is not given in baptism."
He and Bryan keep playing this rhetorical shell-game. But if the Spirit wasn't given at the time of baptism, then, by definition, he wasn't given "in" baptism.
"...I will abide by the negative principle of not denying anything, least of all when it is only 'contradicted' by silence."
i) Of course, your argument has hardly been limited to the argument from silence.
ii) However, if it's a case of telling someone how to be saved, we wouldn't expect the speaker or writer to be silent on a key condition–without which the individual couldn't be saved. That would be like having an oncologist tell you that you can be cured of cancer by undergoing chemo, but neglecting to mention that unless you also undergo radiation, in addition to chemo, you'll die of cancer.
'If Our Lord intended a New Covenant context for his story of the tax collector, then we know, based upon our knowledge of the New Covenant, that the tax collector in Luke 18 would be expected to receive New Covenant baptism.'
That's hopelessly reductionistic. There are three difference audiences for a parable:
i) The fictional audience (i.e. characters who comprise the audience within the story).
ii) The historical audience (i.e. the audience whom Jesus was addressing at the time).
iii) The implied audience (i.e. the audience at whom the Gospel is directed).
In fact, it's wildly allegorical to read baptism into the parable.
"Baptism is explicitly included in Acts 10.44-48. Cornelius and his household received, in baptism, the same Spirit they had received before baptism."
They received the Spirit twice? Once before baptism, and a second time after (or during) baptism?
"Furthermore, based upon all that we know to be promised in baptism, identification with Christ (Romans 6), rebirth (John 3), forgiveness of sins/justification (Gal 3, Titus 3, Acts 2), salvation (1 Pet 3), we can conclude that the Spirit is given in baptism as a beginning of our identification with Christ in his mystical body, and all that this entails, which includes initial justification."
He's citing prooftexts without bothering to exegete them. Which begs the question every step of the way.
"You will of course want to say (or point to where you have said) some things about what the NT says about baptism, but it is important to begin by simply affirming whatever it says about baptism, as in just reading and saying “yes, Lord, I believe your testimony concerning baptism.” It seems to me that this action is fundamental to further exegetical endeavors. No good holding certain bits at arm’s length."
No, that's not a preliminary step inasmuch as he prejudges what they mean.
"...and the temporal sequence involved in repentance/faith/baptism is not sufficient reason to disassociate the gifts given in baptism from the salvific gifts given prior to baptism."
If the very same gifts are given both before and after, or "in" (i.e. during?) baptism, then how can he avoid saying that all these gifts can be given and sometimes are given apart from baptism?
And in that event, what does baptism add to the transaction?
T Ciatoris
"Your rhetoric here is a misdirection. I pointed out that Tertullian is arguing against a group who seems to have a view of baptism similar to yours, and that this means that you haven’t identified here an example of rejection of baptismal regeneration within Catholic tradition. You’ve interpreted this to mean that I am bound to agree with everything Tertullian says, thereby shifting the burden onto me with respect to Tertullian. That’s a non sequitur. You’ve already admitted that the most popular view of baptism was mine, so the onus is on you to produce counterexamples to show the acceptability of “alternative” views of baptism within the Church. Tertullian does not give you one."
This has strayed very far from what Bryan originally posted on. And it's strayed even further from the exchange over at Taylor's blog which got the ball rolling. Bryan took issue with your interpretation of Galatians because you failed to draw what Bryan then indicated was a key distinction between (bad) justification by keeping the ceremonial law and (good) justification by keeping the moral law. After challenged on that, Bryan fell back on other distinctions: between justification under the OT and justification under the NT, between initial justification and progressive justification.
Not surprisingly, the Catholic commenters are now trying to shift the debate to the patristic theory of justification. While there's nothing inherently wrong with debating that, that's hardly the central issue, much less the original issue.
"With respect to your arguments about 'normative' vs. 'exceptional' cases, you still haven’t produced patristic texts that show that baptism and justification are 'normatively' separate. So I’ll have to withhold judgment on that pending the appearance of such texts."
Red herring.
"I asked again for direct evidence that any of the Fathers didn’t interpret John 3:5, 1 Cor 12:13, or Titus 3:5 as referring to the sacrament of baptism."
A diversionary tactic.
Bryan quickly dropped out of the discussion he initiated, leaving the remainder of the discussion to another commenters. And it seems as if they too have now vacated the field. I’ll post some observations I made in private email, in response to what two Catholic commenters said in reply to Jason:
*********************************************************
Preslar isn't so overbearing or contradictory as Bryan. However...
"This is a really difficult position to be in, especially when it comes to interpreting Galatians 3.23-29 and Titus 3.4-7, where justification is explicitly linked to baptism."
i) Which assumes that Titus refers to baptism.
ii) I thought Fee offered a perfectly plausible, contextual explanation of Gal 3:27–not that Preslar has read it.
iii) There's a deeper problem, too. It never dawns on sacramentalists that the very nature of symbols and metaphors is such that whatever is said of the thing they stand for can be said of them–within the limits of the intended analogy. That's the point of a symbol or metaphor. For instance, Bible speakers and writers attribute spiritual cleansing to baptism since baptism is a watery rite, and therefore functions as a natural symbol or metaphor for cleansing. But, of course, that's figurative, not literal.
Sacramentalists don't even deal with that possibility, even though it's so obvious.
"On my reading of St. Paul, and Galatians 3 in particular, the ontological (union with Christ)..."
Are we in "ontological union" with Christ? What is that supposed to mean, exactly?
"I think that Bryan has made this point, and it is what I was referring to by the Spirit being given proleptically, in anticipation of baptism, wherein he is promised, and given (since God cannot break his promise)."
Of course, "proleptically given, in anticipation of baptism," is just a face-saving distinction.
"You seem to be assuming that if the Spirit is given before baptism, then he is not given in baptism."
He and Bryan keep playing this rhetorical shell-game. But if the Spirit wasn't given at the time of baptism, then, by definition, he wasn't given "in" baptism.
"...I will abide by the negative principle of not denying anything, least of all when it is only 'contradicted' by silence."
i) Of course, your argument has hardly been limited to the argument from silence.
ii) However, if it's a case of telling someone how to be saved, we wouldn't expect the speaker or writer to be silent on a key condition–without which the individual couldn't be saved. That would be like having an oncologist tell you that you can be cured of cancer by undergoing chemo, but neglecting to mention that unless you also undergo radiation, in addition to chemo, you'll die of cancer.
'If Our Lord intended a New Covenant context for his story of the tax collector, then we know, based upon our knowledge of the New Covenant, that the tax collector in Luke 18 would be expected to receive New Covenant baptism.'
That's hopelessly reductionistic. There are three difference audiences for a parable:
i) The fictional audience (i.e. characters who comprise the audience within the story).
ii) The historical audience (i.e. the audience whom Jesus was addressing at the time).
iii) The implied audience (i.e. the audience at whom the Gospel is directed).
In fact, it's wildly allegorical to read baptism into the parable.
"Baptism is explicitly included in Acts 10.44-48. Cornelius and his household received, in baptism, the same Spirit they had received before baptism."
They received the Spirit twice? Once before baptism, and a second time after (or during) baptism?
"Furthermore, based upon all that we know to be promised in baptism, identification with Christ (Romans 6), rebirth (John 3), forgiveness of sins/justification (Gal 3, Titus 3, Acts 2), salvation (1 Pet 3), we can conclude that the Spirit is given in baptism as a beginning of our identification with Christ in his mystical body, and all that this entails, which includes initial justification."
He's citing prooftexts without bothering to exegete them. Which begs the question every step of the way.
"You will of course want to say (or point to where you have said) some things about what the NT says about baptism, but it is important to begin by simply affirming whatever it says about baptism, as in just reading and saying “yes, Lord, I believe your testimony concerning baptism.” It seems to me that this action is fundamental to further exegetical endeavors. No good holding certain bits at arm’s length."
No, that's not a preliminary step inasmuch as he prejudges what they mean.
"...and the temporal sequence involved in repentance/faith/baptism is not sufficient reason to disassociate the gifts given in baptism from the salvific gifts given prior to baptism."
If the very same gifts are given both before and after, or "in" (i.e. during?) baptism, then how can he avoid saying that all these gifts can be given and sometimes are given apart from baptism?
And in that event, what does baptism add to the transaction?
T Ciatoris
"Your rhetoric here is a misdirection. I pointed out that Tertullian is arguing against a group who seems to have a view of baptism similar to yours, and that this means that you haven’t identified here an example of rejection of baptismal regeneration within Catholic tradition. You’ve interpreted this to mean that I am bound to agree with everything Tertullian says, thereby shifting the burden onto me with respect to Tertullian. That’s a non sequitur. You’ve already admitted that the most popular view of baptism was mine, so the onus is on you to produce counterexamples to show the acceptability of “alternative” views of baptism within the Church. Tertullian does not give you one."
This has strayed very far from what Bryan originally posted on. And it's strayed even further from the exchange over at Taylor's blog which got the ball rolling. Bryan took issue with your interpretation of Galatians because you failed to draw what Bryan then indicated was a key distinction between (bad) justification by keeping the ceremonial law and (good) justification by keeping the moral law. After challenged on that, Bryan fell back on other distinctions: between justification under the OT and justification under the NT, between initial justification and progressive justification.
Not surprisingly, the Catholic commenters are now trying to shift the debate to the patristic theory of justification. While there's nothing inherently wrong with debating that, that's hardly the central issue, much less the original issue.
"With respect to your arguments about 'normative' vs. 'exceptional' cases, you still haven’t produced patristic texts that show that baptism and justification are 'normatively' separate. So I’ll have to withhold judgment on that pending the appearance of such texts."
Red herring.
"I asked again for direct evidence that any of the Fathers didn’t interpret John 3:5, 1 Cor 12:13, or Titus 3:5 as referring to the sacrament of baptism."
A diversionary tactic.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Gilt-leaf kennel
1.I see (albeit intermittently) that David Waltz has offered a pseudoresponse to Jason Engwer and me.
I almost never read his blog. For one thing, it’s only of those odd blogs that is only online between 2AM-3AM every leap year. You know the kind– “Can’t find server…can’t find server…can’t find…”
He reminds me a survivalist on his the ham radio in the hinterlands of Idaho.
2.After promising to address our objection “directly” or “head-on,” Waltz does nothing of the kind. Instead, he quotes a dated statement by Charles Hodge. Needless to say, that doesn’t begin to “directly” refute a single thing that Jason or I have said. That’s more like “tails-on” than “heads-on.”
3.Mind you, I’m gratified that Waltz finds theological inspiration in Chas Hodge. I’d encourage him to keep moving in that direction.
3.Unfortunately, Waltz still has the mindset of a cult member. Dear old Nipper…I mean…Waltz simply transferred his canine fealty from owner to another–“His Master’s Voice.” Transferred his tether from the Watch Tower to the Vatican. No doubt the Vatican has a better-appointed kennel, but a gilt leaf kennel is still a kennel.
And because he’s incapable of thinking outside his ecclesiolatrous paradigm, Waltz acts as though he’s played a trump card when he can cite Hodge’s opinion on 19C, pre-Vatican II Catholicism.
Well, Hodge is not my rule of faith. Hodge is not my pope. He’s certainly entitled to a respectful hearing. I own most of his writings. But it comes down to the argument, not the man.
4.I’d add that Hodge didn’t even speak for all American Calvinists on this score. There was a celebrated contretemps between Hodge and Thornwell on the validity of Catholic baptism:
http://tinyurl.com/y9fhxxx
5.Keep in mind, too, that Roman Catholicism is a denomination which keeps going from bad to worse.
I almost never read his blog. For one thing, it’s only of those odd blogs that is only online between 2AM-3AM every leap year. You know the kind– “Can’t find server…can’t find server…can’t find…”
He reminds me a survivalist on his the ham radio in the hinterlands of Idaho.
2.After promising to address our objection “directly” or “head-on,” Waltz does nothing of the kind. Instead, he quotes a dated statement by Charles Hodge. Needless to say, that doesn’t begin to “directly” refute a single thing that Jason or I have said. That’s more like “tails-on” than “heads-on.”
3.Mind you, I’m gratified that Waltz finds theological inspiration in Chas Hodge. I’d encourage him to keep moving in that direction.
3.Unfortunately, Waltz still has the mindset of a cult member. Dear old Nipper…I mean…Waltz simply transferred his canine fealty from owner to another–“His Master’s Voice.” Transferred his tether from the Watch Tower to the Vatican. No doubt the Vatican has a better-appointed kennel, but a gilt leaf kennel is still a kennel.
And because he’s incapable of thinking outside his ecclesiolatrous paradigm, Waltz acts as though he’s played a trump card when he can cite Hodge’s opinion on 19C, pre-Vatican II Catholicism.
Well, Hodge is not my rule of faith. Hodge is not my pope. He’s certainly entitled to a respectful hearing. I own most of his writings. But it comes down to the argument, not the man.
4.I’d add that Hodge didn’t even speak for all American Calvinists on this score. There was a celebrated contretemps between Hodge and Thornwell on the validity of Catholic baptism:
http://tinyurl.com/y9fhxxx
5.Keep in mind, too, that Roman Catholicism is a denomination which keeps going from bad to worse.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Warranted Christian Belief
Alvin Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief is available in its entirety over at CCEL.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
How Was John 3:5 Interpreted Prior To The Reformation?
Steve Hays and I have been having a discussion with Bryan Cross on some subjects related to justification, including the role of baptism. The original thread at Bryan's blog is here. Steve recently commented on the thread here and here.
One of the issues raised in the discussion was also brought up by a Catholic poster here in another recent thread. If passages like John 3:5 and Galatians 3:27 aren't teaching justification through baptism, then why were such passages always interpreted in support of baptismal justification prior to the Reformation? Often, the person raising such an objection will mention the church fathers in particular. Why didn't they interpret passages like John 3:5 as Evangelicals commonly do today?
Several points should be kept in mind:
- Appealing to later sources you agree with doesn’t explain earlier sources for whom evidence has been offered of their disagreement with you. You can't justify your view of a passage like John 3:5, Acts 2:38, or Galatians 3:27 solely by appealing to what people like Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Augustine believed.
- The Bible covers a far larger period of time than the patristic era does, and baptismal justification is highly inconsistent with the Biblical view. If I think I’ve misunderstood what a Biblical author says about justification, I can look for clarification elsewhere in his writings. If I think I’ve misunderstood that author, I can look to another Biblical author. Etc. Before we even get to the church fathers, we have multiple documents from multiple Biblical authors giving us information and clarification. For example, Galatians is widely thought to be the earliest New Testament document or one of the earliest. And Paul’s letters circulated widely early on and were highly regarded even before the apostolic generation came to a close (Colossians 4:16, 2 Peter 3:15-16, etc.). If somebody like Luke or John wrote fifteen, thirty, or more years after Galatians was written, then we can take what he wrote as an indication of how he interpreted Galatians or would have interpreted it if he’d read it (assuming apostolic unity, which conservative Catholics and Evangelicals do). It’s not as though we have to wait until the patristic era to get some idea of how a book like Galatians was being interpreted early on. A portion of the New Testament can be a line of evidence as to how another portion of the New Testament was being interpreted. What does Acts or the gospel of John, for example, suggest about how Galatians was interpreted early on? Or how do Paul's later letters suggest that an earlier letter, like Galatians, should be read?
- Advocates of baptismal justification often try to focus the discussion on post-apostolic sources by making the Biblical sources seem less relevant than they actually are. It's often asserted, for example, that justification apart from baptism in the Old Testament era is irrelevant, since baptism didn't become a requirement until later and, thus, there's some discontinuity between the Old and New Testament eras accordingly. But that conclusion needs to be argued, not just asserted. The New Testament authors suggest a high degree of continuity between the means of justification in the Old and New Testament eras. They cite Abraham and other Old Testament figures to illustrate how people are justified today. Bringing in baptism as a new means of receiving justification diminishes that continuity. Such a diminishing of continuity needs to be argued, not just asserted, since Biblical authors like Paul and James don't suggest such a qualified continuity when they discuss the subject.
- Similarly, John’s gospel emphasizes Jesus’ statements about salvation during His earthly ministry (John 3:16, 5:24, 11:25-26, etc.), and John tells us that he wrote his gospel to lead people to salvation (John 20:31), using language similar to Jesus’ language earlier in the gospel. Yet, advocates of baptismal justification often argue that baptism wasn’t added as a means of justification until after Jesus’ earthly ministry. Again, adding baptism diminishes the continuity suggested by the Biblical authors. A reason why many advocates of baptismal justification want to place the adding of baptism after Jesus’ earthly ministry is because that ministry was characterized by Jesus’ forgiving, pronouncing peace, and healing people upon their coming to faith, without baptism. See here. The discontinuity that advocates of baptismal justification want us to accept needs to be argued, not just asserted.
- Josephus tells us that John the Baptist’s baptism wasn't justificatory (Antiquities Of The Jews, 18:5:2). Given the close relationship between John's baptism and Christian baptism, the non-justificatory nature of John's baptism is a significant line of evidence for the non-justificatory nature of Christian baptism. And here we also see an example of the relevance of extra-Biblical sources other than the church fathers (Josephus in this case).
- Even if we limited ourselves to data postdating Jesus' earthly ministry and limited ourselves to Christian baptism, we're still told that justification occurs through believing response to the gospel, prior to baptism (Acts 10:44-46, 19:2, Galatians 3:2, etc.). And there's no reason to conclude that such passages represent exceptions to a rule.
- If the advocate of baptismal justification has to exempt the entire Old Testament era, exempt Jesus' earthly ministry, distance the non-justificatory nature of John's baptism from Christian baptism, and dismiss passages like Acts 10:44-46 as some sort of exception to the rule, then we're not in a situation in which we're looking to the church fathers and other later sources to clarify something that's unclear. Rather, the Biblical evidence heavily favors justification through faith alone. The reason why the advocate of baptismal justification wants to make a series of dubious exemptions (exempting the Old Testament era, etc.) and shift the focus to post-apostolic sources is because the earlier sources are so unfavorable to his position.
- We find a few views of baptism and justification, not just one view, in the patristic sources. The view that justification is normatively attained at the time of baptism was popular, and I consider that popularity the best argument for the doctrine. But we also find the view that justification occurs prior to baptism and views involving at least a beginning of justification prior to baptism. See here.
- When a source like Clement of Rome or Polycarp discusses justification without even mentioning baptism, any assumption that baptism was meant to be included must be argued, not merely asserted. Including baptism in such passages isn't the most natural way of reading the text. And it can't be assumed that such men must have agreed with other sources who advocated baptismal justification. Why not assume, instead, that they must have agreed with the rejection of baptismal justification that we see in other sources, including earlier ones? Clement of Rome could be read in light of Justin Martyr or Irenaeus, but he also could be read in light of Paul or Luke.
- We can know what people believed about baptismal justification by a variety of means, not just how they interpreted a passage like John 3:5 or Galatians 3:27. For example, if a Jehovah’s Witness were to interpret a passage in Isaiah in a manner that contradicts the deity of Christ, we wouldn’t need to have an extant document in which Athanasius comments on that passage in order to conclude that Athanasius probably didn’t view the passage as the Jehovah’s Witness does. Since Athanasius affirmed the deity of Christ, we would assume that he didn’t interpret the passage in Isaiah as the Jehovah’s Witness interprets it. Similarly, we wouldn’t judge whether a patristic source saw baptismal justification in Galatians 3:27 solely on the basis of what he said when commenting on that passage in particular. Since some Christian sources of the patristic era did reject baptismal justification, we can conclude that they probably didn’t see baptismal justification in Galatians 3 without having any documents from them in which they comment on that passage in particular.
- Much of what Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe on other subjects was absent or widely contradicted in early church history. See here. There’s far better evidence for early belief in justification prior to baptism than there is for early belief in the papacy or the sinlessness of Mary, for example.
One of the issues raised in the discussion was also brought up by a Catholic poster here in another recent thread. If passages like John 3:5 and Galatians 3:27 aren't teaching justification through baptism, then why were such passages always interpreted in support of baptismal justification prior to the Reformation? Often, the person raising such an objection will mention the church fathers in particular. Why didn't they interpret passages like John 3:5 as Evangelicals commonly do today?
Several points should be kept in mind:
- Appealing to later sources you agree with doesn’t explain earlier sources for whom evidence has been offered of their disagreement with you. You can't justify your view of a passage like John 3:5, Acts 2:38, or Galatians 3:27 solely by appealing to what people like Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Augustine believed.
- The Bible covers a far larger period of time than the patristic era does, and baptismal justification is highly inconsistent with the Biblical view. If I think I’ve misunderstood what a Biblical author says about justification, I can look for clarification elsewhere in his writings. If I think I’ve misunderstood that author, I can look to another Biblical author. Etc. Before we even get to the church fathers, we have multiple documents from multiple Biblical authors giving us information and clarification. For example, Galatians is widely thought to be the earliest New Testament document or one of the earliest. And Paul’s letters circulated widely early on and were highly regarded even before the apostolic generation came to a close (Colossians 4:16, 2 Peter 3:15-16, etc.). If somebody like Luke or John wrote fifteen, thirty, or more years after Galatians was written, then we can take what he wrote as an indication of how he interpreted Galatians or would have interpreted it if he’d read it (assuming apostolic unity, which conservative Catholics and Evangelicals do). It’s not as though we have to wait until the patristic era to get some idea of how a book like Galatians was being interpreted early on. A portion of the New Testament can be a line of evidence as to how another portion of the New Testament was being interpreted. What does Acts or the gospel of John, for example, suggest about how Galatians was interpreted early on? Or how do Paul's later letters suggest that an earlier letter, like Galatians, should be read?
- Advocates of baptismal justification often try to focus the discussion on post-apostolic sources by making the Biblical sources seem less relevant than they actually are. It's often asserted, for example, that justification apart from baptism in the Old Testament era is irrelevant, since baptism didn't become a requirement until later and, thus, there's some discontinuity between the Old and New Testament eras accordingly. But that conclusion needs to be argued, not just asserted. The New Testament authors suggest a high degree of continuity between the means of justification in the Old and New Testament eras. They cite Abraham and other Old Testament figures to illustrate how people are justified today. Bringing in baptism as a new means of receiving justification diminishes that continuity. Such a diminishing of continuity needs to be argued, not just asserted, since Biblical authors like Paul and James don't suggest such a qualified continuity when they discuss the subject.
- Similarly, John’s gospel emphasizes Jesus’ statements about salvation during His earthly ministry (John 3:16, 5:24, 11:25-26, etc.), and John tells us that he wrote his gospel to lead people to salvation (John 20:31), using language similar to Jesus’ language earlier in the gospel. Yet, advocates of baptismal justification often argue that baptism wasn’t added as a means of justification until after Jesus’ earthly ministry. Again, adding baptism diminishes the continuity suggested by the Biblical authors. A reason why many advocates of baptismal justification want to place the adding of baptism after Jesus’ earthly ministry is because that ministry was characterized by Jesus’ forgiving, pronouncing peace, and healing people upon their coming to faith, without baptism. See here. The discontinuity that advocates of baptismal justification want us to accept needs to be argued, not just asserted.
- Josephus tells us that John the Baptist’s baptism wasn't justificatory (Antiquities Of The Jews, 18:5:2). Given the close relationship between John's baptism and Christian baptism, the non-justificatory nature of John's baptism is a significant line of evidence for the non-justificatory nature of Christian baptism. And here we also see an example of the relevance of extra-Biblical sources other than the church fathers (Josephus in this case).
- Even if we limited ourselves to data postdating Jesus' earthly ministry and limited ourselves to Christian baptism, we're still told that justification occurs through believing response to the gospel, prior to baptism (Acts 10:44-46, 19:2, Galatians 3:2, etc.). And there's no reason to conclude that such passages represent exceptions to a rule.
- If the advocate of baptismal justification has to exempt the entire Old Testament era, exempt Jesus' earthly ministry, distance the non-justificatory nature of John's baptism from Christian baptism, and dismiss passages like Acts 10:44-46 as some sort of exception to the rule, then we're not in a situation in which we're looking to the church fathers and other later sources to clarify something that's unclear. Rather, the Biblical evidence heavily favors justification through faith alone. The reason why the advocate of baptismal justification wants to make a series of dubious exemptions (exempting the Old Testament era, etc.) and shift the focus to post-apostolic sources is because the earlier sources are so unfavorable to his position.
- We find a few views of baptism and justification, not just one view, in the patristic sources. The view that justification is normatively attained at the time of baptism was popular, and I consider that popularity the best argument for the doctrine. But we also find the view that justification occurs prior to baptism and views involving at least a beginning of justification prior to baptism. See here.
- When a source like Clement of Rome or Polycarp discusses justification without even mentioning baptism, any assumption that baptism was meant to be included must be argued, not merely asserted. Including baptism in such passages isn't the most natural way of reading the text. And it can't be assumed that such men must have agreed with other sources who advocated baptismal justification. Why not assume, instead, that they must have agreed with the rejection of baptismal justification that we see in other sources, including earlier ones? Clement of Rome could be read in light of Justin Martyr or Irenaeus, but he also could be read in light of Paul or Luke.
- We can know what people believed about baptismal justification by a variety of means, not just how they interpreted a passage like John 3:5 or Galatians 3:27. For example, if a Jehovah’s Witness were to interpret a passage in Isaiah in a manner that contradicts the deity of Christ, we wouldn’t need to have an extant document in which Athanasius comments on that passage in order to conclude that Athanasius probably didn’t view the passage as the Jehovah’s Witness does. Since Athanasius affirmed the deity of Christ, we would assume that he didn’t interpret the passage in Isaiah as the Jehovah’s Witness interprets it. Similarly, we wouldn’t judge whether a patristic source saw baptismal justification in Galatians 3:27 solely on the basis of what he said when commenting on that passage in particular. Since some Christian sources of the patristic era did reject baptismal justification, we can conclude that they probably didn’t see baptismal justification in Galatians 3 without having any documents from them in which they comment on that passage in particular.
- Much of what Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe on other subjects was absent or widely contradicted in early church history. See here. There’s far better evidence for early belief in justification prior to baptism than there is for early belief in the papacy or the sinlessness of Mary, for example.
Byzantine intrigue
ACOLYTE4236 SAID:
“Somehow I don’t think I’ll take you as an informative source for what the Orthodox teach on eschatology. For starters, you assume that Revelation is even part of Orthodox lectionaries. That’s a good reason to think that you aren’t a reliable source for Orthodox theology.”
I didn’t specify any particular liturgy of any particular church, whether Greek Orthodox or Coptic Orthodox or Roman Catholic. I simply used that example to illustrate a general principle. If a Catholic or Orthodox priest or bishop is preaching a homily on a book of the Bible which implicates the millennium, then he’ll have to teach his view of the millennium. But since he’s not infallible, since there’s more than one position, and since his church hasn’t taken an official position, then it’s quite possible that he will teach falsehood.
And, of course, I could illustrate the same principle using any number of other examples.
What you’re trying to do is deflect attention away from that problem since you yourself have no answer to the problem you pose for others.
“If we were moral legalists in terms of metaethics like Rome or Protestants by and large that worry might have some currency. Comparing us to Rome here just isn’t plausible. We don’t even subscribe to natural law theory.”
Which completely ducks the question of whether an Orthodox priest ever teaches falsehood when a parishioner comes to him for advice on some tricky moral decision. So, Perry, why don’t you “protest” this seedbed of error in the Orthodox church?
“Tell us the obvious doesn’t really move the ball down the argumentative field.”
To the contrary, it creates a direct parallel for what you allegedly find so objectionable in Protestantism. Since, however, you don’t find that objectionable in Orthodoxy, your complaint is duplicitous and disingenuous.
“It is so and when present shows that the person fails to take the term according to its established meaning.”
The important question is whether the worshipper conforms to the established meaning of Scripture.
“Now since the WCF and the LBC fix the meaning in those bodies for the creedal language one isn’t just putting aside the meaning of the Creed, but also that of the Confessions.”
No, they don’t fix the meaning. For the confessions are subject to the interpretation of the churches in question (e.g. the general assembly).
Take the recent debate, in the OPC and PCA over the days of Genesis in the Westminster Standards.
“Secondly, on Sola Scriptura, the original intent of uninspired writer doesn’t ultimately obligate the reader, but it doesn’t follow that it doesn’t obligate the reader at all in the context of their church’s teaching.”
Only insofar as their church’s teaching corresponds to the teaching of Scripture. We are never obligated to believe falsehood. Indeed, we’re obligated to disbelieve falsehood. We are only obligated to believe truth.
“Assuming a Protestant Ecclesiology that is true. Have Reformed Churches revised or redefined their Creeds and Confessions on the Filioque? No. So this is irrelevant and hand waving.”
To the contrary, it’s directly relevant to the way in which you chose to frame the issue. You made original intent the issue, then had a fit at the suggestion that Reformed churches could redefine Confessional usage. Now you’re shifting ground to the admission that, yes, they’re entitled to do so, but don’t. That’s a different objection. You’re not debating in good faith, Perry.
“If the authority of the Creeds and Confessions are derivative, then so is their ability to obligate.”
And how does that rebut what I said? It doesn’t.
“Moreover, dissenting from them in this case only concedes that Confessions are inconsistent since they violate their own principles regarding the doctrine of God.”
It “concedes” the fallibility of an uninspired creed. That was always in the cards.
“True, but I fail to see that it follows that it is dispensible on a whim either on that basis.”
“On a whim” is a malicious mischaracterization of what I said. Did I ever say or suggest that a worshipper is entitled to dissent from the creed (or confession) on a “whim”? No. I made Scripture the criterion. Once again, you’re not debating in good faith.
“The former remarks do not license dispensing with Confessional doctrines just on the basis of individual dissent.”
The authority of Scripture licenses Christians to dissent from anything contrary to Scripture. That’s a standing policy. We don’t need a special dispensation to do that.
“That is to say that the fact that such language is not sacrosanct or completely unrevisable doesn’t entail that dissenters are in a position to argue that the Confessions don’t have the meaning of their original intenders.”
You’re conflating distinct issues. Take, once again, the recent case regarding the days of Genesis.
It was admitted that the Westminster Divines probably meant calendar days. The general assembly then decided that their understanding isn’t binding on contemporary Presbyterians.
“Moreover, I find it not a bit amusing that you have to play the skeptical card about knowing what your Confessions teach in order to try to evade the criticism.”
Once again, I’m just answering you on your own grounds and, once again, you’re not debating in good faith.
You raised general issues regarding the relationship between meaning and intent, as well as the specific interpretation of Confessional language on double procession.
It isn’t “playing the sceptical card” for me to point out that the “meaning of meaning” is a very complicated issue in hermeneutics and philosophy of language. Unqualified appeal to “original intent” is simplistic.
“Is the Filioque language functioning different now in the way the WCF and LBC is taught and believed than centuries ago? No. This is a diversion.”
From what I can tell it’s functioning differently now since there are contemporary Reformed theologians who only defend economic procession.
For you to call that a “diversion” reflects your evident ignorant of the current theological landscape.
“Nor have you established that there has been such an alteration.”
I just did. However, I don’t have to establish an alteration since this is your hobbyhorse, not mine.
“But it is also true that they are pen-ultimately obligated by their Confessions on pain of Sola Scriptura reducing to ‘Solo” Scriptura’.”
Now you’re revisiting the issue of Mathison’s paradigm, which you debated over at Green Baggins.
I don’t operate with Mathison’s paradigm. And I responded at length to your comments at Green Baggins. So you’re barking up the wrong tree.
“A supreme authority doesn’t render all subsidiary authorities void as you well know.”
It’s subsidiary because it’s conditional. The obligation is contingent on its correspondence with revealed truth.
“What is to the point is whether you made your elders aware before your admission to membership and they permitted it or after your admission supposing your view changed some time in the past. If you haven’t done so, then the fact that you haven’t made a secret about this view isn’t really to the point.”
Once again, you’re assuming facts not in evidence.
“What it means or what he takes it to mean?”
In terms of what a worshipper mentally affirms in his profession of the creed, his understanding controls the affirmation.
“Perhaps if I bring something up again it s because your replies were unclear and I am seeking clarification rather than calling you stupid or asking you fallacious complex questions. Or perhaps I wasn’t persuaded that your reply actually addressed the issue and I wish to revisit it to highlight how utterly lame and hobbled it was. That too is possible.”
When you demand answers, and I give you detailed answers, then a few months later you pose the same questions all over again with no acknowledgement of the answers, then you’re not entitled to the benefit of the doubt. If you think my answers were unsatisfactory, then it’s up to you to spell out in what way they were deficient or unresponsive to your questions.
Instead, you simply repeat the same accusatorial questions to reinforce a false impression.
“If I made a mistake its not necessarily due to some deliberate attempt to deceive. It would be helpful to refrain from making personal attacks in this way and just point out a mistake.”
Try leading by example.
“Second, I’ll give you a chance to clarify in the interests of communication. Is it your position that the eternal hypostatic generation taught in the WCF and the LBF is either not in fact taught in those documents, or if it is, that it is in fact justifiable and derivable from Scripture alone?”
i) The framers probably meant to teach hypostatic procession. Having said that, I’d add that it’s a rather perfunctory, pro forma repetition of traditional Latin theology.
ii) IMO, it’s not justifiable/derivable from Scripture.
iii) However, you’re also trying to skew the question as if the really important issue is one of internal consistency. Wrong!
Every theological tradition is obligated to be scriptural, whether or not it acknowledges that obligation.
“If so, what principled difference on that point is there between your position and ‘Solo’ Scriptura?”
“Solo scriptura” is Mathison’s polemical caricature.
i) A Christian should take the history of interpretation into consideration when he interprets the Bible. He should give various representatives of various traditions a fair hearing.
ii) Ultimately, though, he should go with whoever has the best argument to support his interpretation (unless our Christian has an even better interpretation of his own, which is sometimes possible).
The appeal to authority, confessional or otherwise, is illegitimate to constrain our interpretation of Scripture. The only interpretations which enjoy that right-of-way are cases in which one Bible writer interprets another.
iii) A creed or minister has the authority of truth. If what he/it says is true, that’s authoritative by virtue of the truth. If what he/it says is false, then it has no authority.
iv) The clergy are not in a class apart from the laity. The clergy have, at most, the authority of an expert witness. I could say more, but I’ve already said more at other times, and I don’t care to repeat myself.
“Do you mean to say that it is not your view that you don’t bear some responsibility and your church likewise to protest false doctrines about God within it?”
i) To begin with, I don’t automatically view the church down the street as “my church” while the church up the street is not “my church.” I’m not that sectarian or partisan in my view of what constitutes the church or Christian fellowship.
ii) Apropos (i) I think the true church is distributed in a number of denominations, local churches, and independent churches.
iii) Likewise, I don’t confine the notion of Christian fellowship to a particular denomination or doctrinal unanimity.
iv) Finally, I never thought you had to be in total agreement with the theological posture of a denomination (to take one example) to belong to a church. That’s not a reasonable or realistic expectation.
It’s a very naïve or chauvinistic Christian who imagines that his church or denomination can do no wrong. Christians who labor under that childish misconception need to be disabused.
Belonging to a church does not, or should not, carry with it the assumption or expectation that their eyes and ears will be shielded from all possibility of error. We always need to be vigilant. We are not entitled to subcontract our Christian duties to the hired help, so that we can coast.
I’d add that a Christian’s duty varies with his aptitude and opportunities.
“If you dissent from your own Confession, were you received into that body with knowledge of the dissenting views and permission to be said member and to dissent?”
i) You’re assuming that, because I’m a Calvinist, I’d only consider affiliating with a Calvinist church. That’s a false assumption.
ii) You’re also making assumptions about my position on formal church membership.
iii) The Westminster Confession is not “my own Confession.” It’s not like a marriage certificate with my signature.
I’m a Calvinist because I’m a Biblicist–not vice versa.
“Even if this were true of all Reformed bodies as Gene wishes to inform me, it doesn’t follow that they aren’t a condition of ordination or membership, so more hand waving here.”
You’re equivocating. Strict subscription to the Confession (e.g. WCF, LBCF) is not a condition of membership. Not even a condition of ordination (to my knowledge).
“Perhaps I am forgetful. Perhaps not, but I fail to see how that licenses more insulting and rude remarks. Why are you so rude and disrespectful Steve?”
i) You make very presumptuous statements about Calvinism without, apparently, informing yourself.
ii) For years now, you’ve been doing your best to undermine Christian faith in the sufficiency and authority of God’s word so that Christians will put their faith in your denomination. That’s a very heinous thing to do.
“Now let’s take Helm. Did you show that Helm rejects the Filioque?”
He discusses the issue in Calvin’s Ideas as well as Calvin: A Guide for the Perplexed. This includes an exposition of Calvin’s position as well as Helm’s personal evaluation.
“Did you show that it isn’t just something he wrote as part of a philosophical discussion of a matter but was instead something that he brought up before his elders prior to or after his admission as a member or elder of his church? Not that I remember.”
I brought it up in the context of Reformed theology’s internal development and capacity for self-criticism. I didn’t bring in up in the context of church membership, which is your hobbyhorse, not mine.
“Perhaps if you did, you can copy paste it for me. The same goes for Kelly.”
i) No, I’m not going to manually transcribe pages of material. I have other responsibilities. And you’d reject anything out of hand that doesn’t play into your preconceived agenda.
ii) Kelly’s primary discussion is in the appendix to chap. 9 of his Systematic Theology, vol. 1.
“You admit then that the doctrine is inconsistent with Scripture itself.”
I also “admit” that the Orthodox alternative is inconsistent with Scripture itself. However, that’s an irreformable error whereas there are Reformed theologians who are making the necessary adjustments to our own position.
“My aim in pointing out that it can’t be derived from Scripture Alone was to first point out that it is inconsistent with a claim of Sola Scriptura and that both ideas are taught in the Confessions.”
No. Your aim was to suggest that lack of conformity to sola Scriptura discredits Calvinism while leaving Orthodoxy untouched.
“By the same reasoning, the Confessional upholding of Sola Scriptura and the Filioque makes the Confessions and their subscribers inconsistent and culpable.”
Inculpating the Westminster Divines on one arcane issue does nothing to exculpate Orthodoxy on a whole raft of other issues. It’s like the difference between a flesh wound and a mortal wound.
“If Scripture teaches Sola Scriptura, then doesn’t it follow that to be inconsistent with Sola Scriptura is to be inconsistent with Scripture?”
To be inconsistent with Scripture is bad however you arrive at your inconsistency.
“In any case the Confessional adherence to the filioque is inconsistent with the adherence to Sola Scriptura. Consequently the Confessions and their subscribers are in the wrong.”
You don’t make yourself look good by trying to make the other guy look bad. The Orthodox are also wrong on the filioque, but just in a different way. What is more, they are wrong on just about everything the WCF got right. So that’s a sorry consolation for you to clasp to your breast.
“True enough, but we already know that you think I fall into probably the latter and I don’t. Not very informative and not really relevant.”
You tried to skew the issues. I’m righting the scales.
“This is rather evasive.”
When you indulge in a hypothetical fishing-expedition, I refuse to take the bait.
“I’ve already shown that this isn’t a common default position between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.”
A failed attempt, as I demonstrated.
“Only God obligates you, but apparently not to reform your own Confession’s false doctrines about the divine nature.”
i) I’m flattered by your boundless confidence in my authority to unilaterally revise the Confession, but your confidence is misplaced.
ii) Moreover, something can simply become a dead letter through neglect.
“Moreover, your insults do not over turn what I claimed what is of primary importance. They fail to act as an argument demonstrating that the primary importance is something other than internal consistency with one’s theological tradition.”
i) You didn’t argue for your claim. You merely asserted that to be the case. Therefore, I don’t need to present a counterargument.
ii) And, in any case, I’ve argued for the authority of Scripture on numerous occasions. I don’t have to reinvent the wheel for your benefit.
“Furthermore, this concedes that the issue has not been consistency with Scripture, but within the Confessions and between their teachings Sola Scriptura and the Filioque.”
No, it corrects your attempt to skew the issue in a way that exempts Orthodoxy.
“Thirdly, certainly the primary issue isn’t less than the consistency of the Confessions.”
Now you’re equivocating.
“Secondly, if its principles are in fact that it is to be faithful to the word of God and also not faithful to it, then it becomes a primary issue.”
Once again, you’re reducing theology to a language game where the “primary issue” is to play by the rules–and the cardinal sin is to break the rule.
But, no, that’s not the primary issue. The primary issue is whether or not we play by God’s rules.
“This assumes that Sola Scripture can’t be rejected instead of rejecting the other doctrine that it is inconsistent with.”
Sola Scriptura isn’t just another doctrine. Rather, it represents the source and standard of doctrine. You’re committing a level-confusion.
“But that would seem to make the Confessions non-revisable and rather infallible with regard to SS.”
No. The proper comparison is not between sola Scriptura and other doctrines, but between one rule of faith and another rule of faith.
That is a preliminary question of theological method (or prolegomena). Once that is settled, other things flow from that principium.
“Right, and the Creedal and Confessional usage is unacceptable because its usage is contrary to Johanine usage. So saying that the language is justifiable was really hand waving…”
No it wasn’t “really hand-waving” since you and I had different referents. I was talking about the Nicene Creed whereas you were talking about the WCF or LBCF. Try to keep track of the argument. You keep imputing your own referents to me, then generating a specious inconsistency.
“You knew this as well as I did. For some reason it took you about 40-50 pages of text to say as much.”
You still have your wires crossed. I was talking about the recitation of the filioque in public worship. In my experience, that always takes the form of the Nicene Creed.
You then brought up the WCF in the context of candidacy for membership, as if strict subscription is a condition for membership. If anyone’s guilty of hand-waving, that would be you.
“As you instructed me, please do not apply your faulty theological assumptions to my own view. So I simply dismiss your claim about fallible Orthodox Creeds.”
Naturally you don’t accept that. But since you like to keep your thumb on the scales, I’ll continue to correct the imbalance.
“Now suppose we just eliminate the Filioque.”
And while we’re at it, suppose we just eliminate the Orthodox church.
“On the Reformed Confessional view, the persons are distinguished by real relations of opposition. The Father is ingenerate, the Son begotten and the Spirit proceeds. What then is the difference between being begotten and procession? How will the two persons be distinguished without the Filioqueist relation of opposition? I’d suggest that the only way out is to further reject the notion enshrined in the Confessions that the persons are distinguished by relations of opposition. So that’s another part of the Trinitarian theology that can’t be supported by Scripture Alone not to mention becomes irrational and arbitrary. So a rejection of the Filioque for this and other reasons I will eventually bring to bear isn’t as innocuous and easy to do as you suggest.”
i) We don’t need to postulate a principle of individuation. We can just accept the Trinity as a revealed truth.
ii) Moreover, these aren’t real principles of individuation. Terms like “paternity,” “filiation,” and “spiration” aren’t truly principles of individuation. Rather, they merely paraphrase the names of the three Trinitarian persons. Linguistic tautologies or disguised descriptions.
Likewise, terms such as “generation” and “procession” are metaphors. “Generation” is a sexual metaphor while “procession” is a locomotive metaphor. And ingenerate is just a negation of the sexual metaphor.
“As for playing dumb, blame Socrates. And no, the language is not Scriptural for the Scriptures never say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. It isn’t a paraphrase. It’s a philosophical doctrine that went looking for a few biblical terms. The scripture says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and that the Son in the history of the world sends the Spirit. So I am not willing to concede that the language is scriptural.”
Jn 14:26 says the Father “sends” the Spirit. Jn 15:26 says the Son “sends” the Spirit while the Spirit “proceeds” (KJV) from the Father. So “sending” and “proceeding” are treated as synonymous actions.
In the Latinate diction of the KJV, “proceed” is simply an English derivative of the Latin word for “sent forth.”
This isn’t philosophical jargon. It’s ordinary language. And metaphorical language at that. Picturesque metaphors which depict the passage from one place to another.
“Now, if the meaning is the issue, then the wording doesn’t matter. Bringing it up is a red herring.”
You’ve made a big deal about the wording of Reformed confessions. If that’s a red herring, then you’re the fisherman.
“If the meaning is the issue then with respect to a reader it isn’t context dependent and variable relative to that reader. It has a meaning fixed regardless of how the reader takes it.”
Thanks for illustrating your crude, unscholarly grasp of the issues.
“And by protest I mean something along the lines of sitting down with your elders and arguing that it should be dropped from the Confessions, going to requisite meetings where such legislation can be drafted and proposed for a vote and then argue for it.”
Don’t be silly. Such piecemeal change would be next to worthless. To make a real difference, it would need to be top-down, not local.
“I didn’t know that your stated positions here amounted to the proper channels and contexts within your own church for airing such things.”
“Proper channels?” There is no divinely mandated process or procedure to follow. Hence, it’s not incumbent on me to follow “proper channels,” since that’s an imaginary construct on your part.
“Moreover, when you say “amen” at the end of the Creed it implies your belief in the statements made in the creed and a measure of loyalty to the teachings those statements express.”
That’s not a blank check.
“Confessing that one holds to the Creeds carries with it the implicit idea that one holds to the meanings given to those words at the formulation so it strikes me as a bit disingenuous to say that ‘Our church holds to the Creeds’ when in fact they hold to a new interpretation of the Creeds at various points.”
Since you’re putting words in my mouth which I’ve never used, I’ll just point out that the ventriloquist does a lousy job of lip-synching.
“If the ordinand has to state disagreements with the WCF then it seems that the WCF is a standard and requires some significant measure of subscription and obligation in order for ordination.”
i) It doesn’t require strict subscription.
ii) And there’s an obvious difference between voluntarily assuming an obligation, and having an obligation imposed on one unilaterally. In a contract, both parties voluntarily assume a mutual obligation.
“Actually this is false.”
Actually this is true.
“Actually this is false. It is false for a few reasons. First, generation on the Latin model is applied to both Son and Spirit, of which begotten and spiration are types. This is not so on the Orthodox model where each is sui generis. Second, its not so since on the Latin (Catholic and Protestant) the persons are distinguished by relations of opposition. This is not so on the Orthodox model. Third, the Latin model, (Catholic and Protestant) assume God is self subsisting being, which the Orthodox deny since God is huper ousia.”
That’s just a case of tweaking the same basic paradigm. Since you seem unable to recognize the paradigm, here it is:
One divine person originates another divine person.
Both the Greek church and the Latin church operate within that framework. Their respective positions represent minor variants on the same chassis. Thanks for proving my point.
“If Calvin made a correction, then its strange that Calvin teaches the Filioque or so it seems to me.”
Let’s compare your pseudoresponse with what I actually said. I said:
“I think Calvin made a significant midcourse correction with his insight on the autotheistic character of the Trinitarian persons, and I agree with subsequent Reformed theologians like Warfield, Frame, and Helm who’ve been developing a more thoroughgoing formulation of Calvin’s corrective.”
Notice my follow-up statement about other Reformed theologians developing a more thoroughgoing formulation of his corrective. Didn’t you read that far? Or is this another memory lapse on your part?
By implication, Calvin didn’t carry it through in a thoroughgoing fashion. But he redirected the discussion (as in “midcourse correction”). Others have followed his lead, and taken it a step further.
“The paradigm as you gloss it also would include Protestantism.”
So what? Protestant theology is not above correction. The difference is that Catholic/Orthodox traditions involve irreformable errors, whereas residual errors in Protestant theology are reformable.
“Second, the relative terms mean substantially different things between models. You’d need to show that they carry the same meaning between both, which you haven’t and can’t.”
Except that I can, and do so quite easily (see below).
“Latin model-One person acts to generate two others where generation can be applied to both subsequent others. Orthodox model-One person acts to generate another person and the first person processes a third person. There is no common notion of generation between the two on the Orthodox model. Your usage of ‘originates’ presupposes the Latin usage of procedit.”
Wrong. I’ve used several different synonyms. What both models have in common is the generic principle that one person is the source or cause of another person. Terms like ‘generation’ and ‘procession’ are metaphorical ways to gloss or narrow the generic notion of production, causality or source of origin.
And “originate” doesn’t presuppose the Latin “procedit.” Just study the range of usage.
“First, it is interesting that you have to appeal doctrinal development rather than straight up exegesis.”
i) That’s because we’re discussing historical theology rather than exegetical theology. Creeds and confessions. So, yes, historical theology is subject to development.
ii) And I didn’t “appeal” to doctrinal development to justify said development, now did I? You’re the one who wants to talk about historical Reformed theology in reference to the filioque. So, given how you cast the terms of the debate, then it’s relevant to compare past and present views on the filioque. Try to follow your own argument.
iii) Moreover, it’s quite possible for Protestant doctrinal development to converge on exegesis. Indeed, there’s nothing surprising or shocking about the idea that, as time goes on, Protestant theology refines its theological formulations to prune away any residual, unscriptural traditions which it may have inherited from the ancient or medieval church.
You know that, but pretend not to so that you can act surprised and scandalized at the fact.
“If so, then its an implication you have yet to present. If so, its an implication that not only Calvin, but plenty of past and present Reformed theologians have missed. That’s possible, but without a demonstration of how we get from the ascription of autotheos to a denial of the Filioque it seems to be merely an assertion.”
i) I don’t know what modern and/or contemporary Reformed theologians you have read. And there doesn’t need to be consensus on the issue to prove my point since I didn’t claim consensus. One rarely has consensus on anything in theology, as you yourself recently admitted.
ii) Moreover, since you yourself deny the filioque, why do you think it’s incumbent on me to disprove it?
iii) I don’t have to make a case one way or the other. That isn’t my cause in life. I’m simply responding to you. That doesn’t mean you set the agenda.
“As for your insults, again it strikes me that you simply can’t write without insulting others.”
No. It depends on the conduct of the disputant.
“Do you think this advances your argument in some way?”
You have no interest in advancing the argument. Your only interest is to advance your agenda.
So even though I specifically and explicitly qualified my statement, your comment ignored my qualifications so that you could play to the galleries.
“Do you prefer to be spoken to in an insulting manner rather than a civil and respectful way?”
You’re not a respectful opponent. You’re only looking for a gotcha moment.
“There is no generic notion of causality to be had here.”
i) Your distinction between procession and generation does nothing to salvage your argument since these are hairsplitting attempts to distinguish between different kinds of production, causation or origination (pick your synonym).
ii) Moreover, the fact that you use different words doesn’t amount to a conceptual difference. It’s just a rhetorical disguise.
“Sure, its possible, but its also quite possible for Protestant doctrinal development not to converge on exegesis, which is why I asked for an exegetical basis.”
I don’t have to provide an exegetical basis for something I’m not defending in the first place.
This is the silly game you play. You pretend that you’re maneuvering your opponent into a “shocking” admission. Then, when he makes the “shocking” admission, you claim victory.
But I was never playing by your rules in the first place. You’re just using other people as a mirror to see your own reflection.
“And given that the Protestant bodies are fallible, its quite possible that the “refining process” is actually an apostasy process.”
Yes, it’s possible for Protestant denominations to commit apostasy. Another one of the truisms you repackage as if that’s a shocking admission.
And the Orthodox church is hardly exempt from the same process. Indeed, it’s pretty far down the downward spiral.
God saves people, not denominations.
“As for pruning away residual unscriptural traditions which they inherited from the ancient or medieval church, lets take the Filioque. Its been five hundred years and no pruning from the Confessions.”
As for pruning away central unscriptural traditions which they inherited from the ancient or medieval church, lets take iconolatry. It’s been twelve hundred years since 2nd Nicea, and no pruning from the Orthodox gardener.
What’s worse, there’s not even progress in that direction.
“Moreover when I ask you or others what you’re doing about it, you just pass the buck with remarks to the effect that you’re not an elder…”
This is your last-ditch demagoguery, which you keep harping on. It’s not a principled argument.
Rather, it’s just an ad hominem attack, a veiled charge of hypocrisy–despite the fact that you fake adhorrence at ad hominem attacks.
It also reflects a your deficient grasp of ethics and ecclesiology alike.
i) Every prima facie obligation isn’t equally obligatory. There are more prima facie duties than it’s humanly possible for an individual to discharge. So we have to prioritize. In case of conflict, higher duties supersede lower obligations.
ii) Apropos (i), there’s a distinction between individual duties and corporate duties.
iii) Apropos (ii), the church has many different members. They don’t have interchangeable obligations (e.g. 1 Cor 12).
“I didn’t argue that you needed consensus but on any given issues there is usually in a given tradition a small number of theologians that dissent. They then have their followers over time, and often it never amounts to anything more than a handful of dissenters whereas the tradition as a whole remains unchanged.”
I’m not talking about Hans Küng-style dissenters. I’m talking about mainstream diversity among representative theologians.
“So you are saying that it isn’t incumbent upon you to disprove and argue against doctrines professed by other Christians that you belief are unscriptural?”
I guess I need to explain the obvious to you. By definition, someone who identifies with one theological tradition finds far less to object to in his own tradition than alternative traditions. By definition, a Calvinist will have far less (if anything) to criticize in Reformed theology than others traditions which are opposed to Reformed theology in one respect or another.
So you’re trying to trump up an absurd dilemma. If, on the one hand, a Calvinist is in lockstep with every jot and tittle of, say, the Westminster Confession, then you’ll accuse him of being a blind partisan. If, on the other hand, a Calvinist expresses any whiff of disagreement, then you act as though he’s leading a double life.
So you’re not attempting to debate in good faith. Rather, it’s a “heads I win, tails you lose” proposition.
“I would think that doing so in your own backyard would be even more paramount.”
In the nature of the case, I’m pretty satisfied with my own backyard. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be my own backyard. If I wasn’t fairly content with my theological backyard, I’d adopt a theological tradition with a more agreeable backyard. Thanks for the tautology.
“But given your dodginess and apparent recalcitrance to do so...”
You’re just frustrated because I refuse to step into your silly little trap.
“If you don’t have to make a case one way or the other, then I suppose you think that members of the priesthood of all believers is somehow stratified.”
Doesn’t have to be stratified for different believers to have different duties according to their time and talents.
“Your pattern of dealing with people seems fairly consistent in being demeaning, belittling and insulting.”
Due to the kind of people I generally have to deal with.
“Perhaps it is the one type of argument I use. It has proven quite effective.”
Quite effective with unsophisticated opponents. This time you miscalculated.
“Let’s suppose you’re right for the moment…”
You’re making progress! By all means, continue in the same direction!
“Fine, it is still the case that Calvinists are practically inconsistent.”
That’s true of every Christian who ever lived. So your objection either proves too much or too little.
“Now if we carry through with the moral analogy it seems to be not a practical problem, but a moral problem since your churches are now morally culpable for teaching a false view of the Trinity.”
False teaching is morally culpable. And there’s no major theological tradition which comes close to avoiding its occurrence. At most, some traditions claim to restrict its occurrence in a few special cases (e.g. ecumenical councils).
And theological traditions which make infallibilist claims for themselves are morally culpable, not only for all their other errors, but for the error of their infallibilist claims.
“Further, the Confessions as putting forth a system of doctrine are inconsistent at the level of the system that they advance. The inclusion of the Filioque is as a conceptual matter inconsistent with another part of the system. In so far as the system says explicitly that all doctrines have to be justified on the basis of Scripture alone and also implicitly teaches that not all doctrines need to be, there is a logical problem.”
Sola Scriptura isn’t just another doctrine. It’s a rule of faith. It represents the source and standard of doctrine. You’re committing a level confusion.
As I said before, lack of consistency with a standard or criterion is not the same thing as internal consistency. No more so than ethical inconsistency in general. If an ethicist is personally inconsistent, does that mean his system of ethics is internally (i.e. logically) inconsistent? Hardly.
“So Protestants will need to pick between their traditional doctrine of God and the formal principle of the Reformation.”
i) That scarcely presents a dire dilemma for Protestants. Since our doctrine of God was always subject to Scripture, there’s not tension between these two commitments. If some aspect of our traditional formulation is defective, then it’s not a big deal to reformulate it accordingly.
ii) Keep in mind that the traditional formulation in Calvinism is already far more accurate than the Orthodox formulation.
“So even if everything Steve said was true regarding the one criteria I discussed for a council to be ecumenical I think his position is in far worse shape. At least I don’t have to admit that my Church teaches a false doctrine of the Trinity.”
i) So what if Perry doesn’t admit that his church teaches a false doctrine of the Trinity? Does the LDS church admit that it teaches a false doctrine of the Trinity?
ii) In fact, its far worse to have a defective doctrine of not, and not admit it, than have the freedom to admit a problem, if there is one, so that you can take steps to correct it.
“Somehow I don’t think I’ll take you as an informative source for what the Orthodox teach on eschatology. For starters, you assume that Revelation is even part of Orthodox lectionaries. That’s a good reason to think that you aren’t a reliable source for Orthodox theology.”
I didn’t specify any particular liturgy of any particular church, whether Greek Orthodox or Coptic Orthodox or Roman Catholic. I simply used that example to illustrate a general principle. If a Catholic or Orthodox priest or bishop is preaching a homily on a book of the Bible which implicates the millennium, then he’ll have to teach his view of the millennium. But since he’s not infallible, since there’s more than one position, and since his church hasn’t taken an official position, then it’s quite possible that he will teach falsehood.
And, of course, I could illustrate the same principle using any number of other examples.
What you’re trying to do is deflect attention away from that problem since you yourself have no answer to the problem you pose for others.
“If we were moral legalists in terms of metaethics like Rome or Protestants by and large that worry might have some currency. Comparing us to Rome here just isn’t plausible. We don’t even subscribe to natural law theory.”
Which completely ducks the question of whether an Orthodox priest ever teaches falsehood when a parishioner comes to him for advice on some tricky moral decision. So, Perry, why don’t you “protest” this seedbed of error in the Orthodox church?
“Tell us the obvious doesn’t really move the ball down the argumentative field.”
To the contrary, it creates a direct parallel for what you allegedly find so objectionable in Protestantism. Since, however, you don’t find that objectionable in Orthodoxy, your complaint is duplicitous and disingenuous.
“It is so and when present shows that the person fails to take the term according to its established meaning.”
The important question is whether the worshipper conforms to the established meaning of Scripture.
“Now since the WCF and the LBC fix the meaning in those bodies for the creedal language one isn’t just putting aside the meaning of the Creed, but also that of the Confessions.”
No, they don’t fix the meaning. For the confessions are subject to the interpretation of the churches in question (e.g. the general assembly).
Take the recent debate, in the OPC and PCA over the days of Genesis in the Westminster Standards.
“Secondly, on Sola Scriptura, the original intent of uninspired writer doesn’t ultimately obligate the reader, but it doesn’t follow that it doesn’t obligate the reader at all in the context of their church’s teaching.”
Only insofar as their church’s teaching corresponds to the teaching of Scripture. We are never obligated to believe falsehood. Indeed, we’re obligated to disbelieve falsehood. We are only obligated to believe truth.
“Assuming a Protestant Ecclesiology that is true. Have Reformed Churches revised or redefined their Creeds and Confessions on the Filioque? No. So this is irrelevant and hand waving.”
To the contrary, it’s directly relevant to the way in which you chose to frame the issue. You made original intent the issue, then had a fit at the suggestion that Reformed churches could redefine Confessional usage. Now you’re shifting ground to the admission that, yes, they’re entitled to do so, but don’t. That’s a different objection. You’re not debating in good faith, Perry.
“If the authority of the Creeds and Confessions are derivative, then so is their ability to obligate.”
And how does that rebut what I said? It doesn’t.
“Moreover, dissenting from them in this case only concedes that Confessions are inconsistent since they violate their own principles regarding the doctrine of God.”
It “concedes” the fallibility of an uninspired creed. That was always in the cards.
“True, but I fail to see that it follows that it is dispensible on a whim either on that basis.”
“On a whim” is a malicious mischaracterization of what I said. Did I ever say or suggest that a worshipper is entitled to dissent from the creed (or confession) on a “whim”? No. I made Scripture the criterion. Once again, you’re not debating in good faith.
“The former remarks do not license dispensing with Confessional doctrines just on the basis of individual dissent.”
The authority of Scripture licenses Christians to dissent from anything contrary to Scripture. That’s a standing policy. We don’t need a special dispensation to do that.
“That is to say that the fact that such language is not sacrosanct or completely unrevisable doesn’t entail that dissenters are in a position to argue that the Confessions don’t have the meaning of their original intenders.”
You’re conflating distinct issues. Take, once again, the recent case regarding the days of Genesis.
It was admitted that the Westminster Divines probably meant calendar days. The general assembly then decided that their understanding isn’t binding on contemporary Presbyterians.
“Moreover, I find it not a bit amusing that you have to play the skeptical card about knowing what your Confessions teach in order to try to evade the criticism.”
Once again, I’m just answering you on your own grounds and, once again, you’re not debating in good faith.
You raised general issues regarding the relationship between meaning and intent, as well as the specific interpretation of Confessional language on double procession.
It isn’t “playing the sceptical card” for me to point out that the “meaning of meaning” is a very complicated issue in hermeneutics and philosophy of language. Unqualified appeal to “original intent” is simplistic.
“Is the Filioque language functioning different now in the way the WCF and LBC is taught and believed than centuries ago? No. This is a diversion.”
From what I can tell it’s functioning differently now since there are contemporary Reformed theologians who only defend economic procession.
For you to call that a “diversion” reflects your evident ignorant of the current theological landscape.
“Nor have you established that there has been such an alteration.”
I just did. However, I don’t have to establish an alteration since this is your hobbyhorse, not mine.
“But it is also true that they are pen-ultimately obligated by their Confessions on pain of Sola Scriptura reducing to ‘Solo” Scriptura’.”
Now you’re revisiting the issue of Mathison’s paradigm, which you debated over at Green Baggins.
I don’t operate with Mathison’s paradigm. And I responded at length to your comments at Green Baggins. So you’re barking up the wrong tree.
“A supreme authority doesn’t render all subsidiary authorities void as you well know.”
It’s subsidiary because it’s conditional. The obligation is contingent on its correspondence with revealed truth.
“What is to the point is whether you made your elders aware before your admission to membership and they permitted it or after your admission supposing your view changed some time in the past. If you haven’t done so, then the fact that you haven’t made a secret about this view isn’t really to the point.”
Once again, you’re assuming facts not in evidence.
“What it means or what he takes it to mean?”
In terms of what a worshipper mentally affirms in his profession of the creed, his understanding controls the affirmation.
“Perhaps if I bring something up again it s because your replies were unclear and I am seeking clarification rather than calling you stupid or asking you fallacious complex questions. Or perhaps I wasn’t persuaded that your reply actually addressed the issue and I wish to revisit it to highlight how utterly lame and hobbled it was. That too is possible.”
When you demand answers, and I give you detailed answers, then a few months later you pose the same questions all over again with no acknowledgement of the answers, then you’re not entitled to the benefit of the doubt. If you think my answers were unsatisfactory, then it’s up to you to spell out in what way they were deficient or unresponsive to your questions.
Instead, you simply repeat the same accusatorial questions to reinforce a false impression.
“If I made a mistake its not necessarily due to some deliberate attempt to deceive. It would be helpful to refrain from making personal attacks in this way and just point out a mistake.”
Try leading by example.
“Second, I’ll give you a chance to clarify in the interests of communication. Is it your position that the eternal hypostatic generation taught in the WCF and the LBF is either not in fact taught in those documents, or if it is, that it is in fact justifiable and derivable from Scripture alone?”
i) The framers probably meant to teach hypostatic procession. Having said that, I’d add that it’s a rather perfunctory, pro forma repetition of traditional Latin theology.
ii) IMO, it’s not justifiable/derivable from Scripture.
iii) However, you’re also trying to skew the question as if the really important issue is one of internal consistency. Wrong!
Every theological tradition is obligated to be scriptural, whether or not it acknowledges that obligation.
“If so, what principled difference on that point is there between your position and ‘Solo’ Scriptura?”
“Solo scriptura” is Mathison’s polemical caricature.
i) A Christian should take the history of interpretation into consideration when he interprets the Bible. He should give various representatives of various traditions a fair hearing.
ii) Ultimately, though, he should go with whoever has the best argument to support his interpretation (unless our Christian has an even better interpretation of his own, which is sometimes possible).
The appeal to authority, confessional or otherwise, is illegitimate to constrain our interpretation of Scripture. The only interpretations which enjoy that right-of-way are cases in which one Bible writer interprets another.
iii) A creed or minister has the authority of truth. If what he/it says is true, that’s authoritative by virtue of the truth. If what he/it says is false, then it has no authority.
iv) The clergy are not in a class apart from the laity. The clergy have, at most, the authority of an expert witness. I could say more, but I’ve already said more at other times, and I don’t care to repeat myself.
“Do you mean to say that it is not your view that you don’t bear some responsibility and your church likewise to protest false doctrines about God within it?”
i) To begin with, I don’t automatically view the church down the street as “my church” while the church up the street is not “my church.” I’m not that sectarian or partisan in my view of what constitutes the church or Christian fellowship.
ii) Apropos (i) I think the true church is distributed in a number of denominations, local churches, and independent churches.
iii) Likewise, I don’t confine the notion of Christian fellowship to a particular denomination or doctrinal unanimity.
iv) Finally, I never thought you had to be in total agreement with the theological posture of a denomination (to take one example) to belong to a church. That’s not a reasonable or realistic expectation.
It’s a very naïve or chauvinistic Christian who imagines that his church or denomination can do no wrong. Christians who labor under that childish misconception need to be disabused.
Belonging to a church does not, or should not, carry with it the assumption or expectation that their eyes and ears will be shielded from all possibility of error. We always need to be vigilant. We are not entitled to subcontract our Christian duties to the hired help, so that we can coast.
I’d add that a Christian’s duty varies with his aptitude and opportunities.
“If you dissent from your own Confession, were you received into that body with knowledge of the dissenting views and permission to be said member and to dissent?”
i) You’re assuming that, because I’m a Calvinist, I’d only consider affiliating with a Calvinist church. That’s a false assumption.
ii) You’re also making assumptions about my position on formal church membership.
iii) The Westminster Confession is not “my own Confession.” It’s not like a marriage certificate with my signature.
I’m a Calvinist because I’m a Biblicist–not vice versa.
“Even if this were true of all Reformed bodies as Gene wishes to inform me, it doesn’t follow that they aren’t a condition of ordination or membership, so more hand waving here.”
You’re equivocating. Strict subscription to the Confession (e.g. WCF, LBCF) is not a condition of membership. Not even a condition of ordination (to my knowledge).
“Perhaps I am forgetful. Perhaps not, but I fail to see how that licenses more insulting and rude remarks. Why are you so rude and disrespectful Steve?”
i) You make very presumptuous statements about Calvinism without, apparently, informing yourself.
ii) For years now, you’ve been doing your best to undermine Christian faith in the sufficiency and authority of God’s word so that Christians will put their faith in your denomination. That’s a very heinous thing to do.
“Now let’s take Helm. Did you show that Helm rejects the Filioque?”
He discusses the issue in Calvin’s Ideas as well as Calvin: A Guide for the Perplexed. This includes an exposition of Calvin’s position as well as Helm’s personal evaluation.
“Did you show that it isn’t just something he wrote as part of a philosophical discussion of a matter but was instead something that he brought up before his elders prior to or after his admission as a member or elder of his church? Not that I remember.”
I brought it up in the context of Reformed theology’s internal development and capacity for self-criticism. I didn’t bring in up in the context of church membership, which is your hobbyhorse, not mine.
“Perhaps if you did, you can copy paste it for me. The same goes for Kelly.”
i) No, I’m not going to manually transcribe pages of material. I have other responsibilities. And you’d reject anything out of hand that doesn’t play into your preconceived agenda.
ii) Kelly’s primary discussion is in the appendix to chap. 9 of his Systematic Theology, vol. 1.
“You admit then that the doctrine is inconsistent with Scripture itself.”
I also “admit” that the Orthodox alternative is inconsistent with Scripture itself. However, that’s an irreformable error whereas there are Reformed theologians who are making the necessary adjustments to our own position.
“My aim in pointing out that it can’t be derived from Scripture Alone was to first point out that it is inconsistent with a claim of Sola Scriptura and that both ideas are taught in the Confessions.”
No. Your aim was to suggest that lack of conformity to sola Scriptura discredits Calvinism while leaving Orthodoxy untouched.
“By the same reasoning, the Confessional upholding of Sola Scriptura and the Filioque makes the Confessions and their subscribers inconsistent and culpable.”
Inculpating the Westminster Divines on one arcane issue does nothing to exculpate Orthodoxy on a whole raft of other issues. It’s like the difference between a flesh wound and a mortal wound.
“If Scripture teaches Sola Scriptura, then doesn’t it follow that to be inconsistent with Sola Scriptura is to be inconsistent with Scripture?”
To be inconsistent with Scripture is bad however you arrive at your inconsistency.
“In any case the Confessional adherence to the filioque is inconsistent with the adherence to Sola Scriptura. Consequently the Confessions and their subscribers are in the wrong.”
You don’t make yourself look good by trying to make the other guy look bad. The Orthodox are also wrong on the filioque, but just in a different way. What is more, they are wrong on just about everything the WCF got right. So that’s a sorry consolation for you to clasp to your breast.
“True enough, but we already know that you think I fall into probably the latter and I don’t. Not very informative and not really relevant.”
You tried to skew the issues. I’m righting the scales.
“This is rather evasive.”
When you indulge in a hypothetical fishing-expedition, I refuse to take the bait.
“I’ve already shown that this isn’t a common default position between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.”
A failed attempt, as I demonstrated.
“Only God obligates you, but apparently not to reform your own Confession’s false doctrines about the divine nature.”
i) I’m flattered by your boundless confidence in my authority to unilaterally revise the Confession, but your confidence is misplaced.
ii) Moreover, something can simply become a dead letter through neglect.
“Moreover, your insults do not over turn what I claimed what is of primary importance. They fail to act as an argument demonstrating that the primary importance is something other than internal consistency with one’s theological tradition.”
i) You didn’t argue for your claim. You merely asserted that to be the case. Therefore, I don’t need to present a counterargument.
ii) And, in any case, I’ve argued for the authority of Scripture on numerous occasions. I don’t have to reinvent the wheel for your benefit.
“Furthermore, this concedes that the issue has not been consistency with Scripture, but within the Confessions and between their teachings Sola Scriptura and the Filioque.”
No, it corrects your attempt to skew the issue in a way that exempts Orthodoxy.
“Thirdly, certainly the primary issue isn’t less than the consistency of the Confessions.”
Now you’re equivocating.
“Secondly, if its principles are in fact that it is to be faithful to the word of God and also not faithful to it, then it becomes a primary issue.”
Once again, you’re reducing theology to a language game where the “primary issue” is to play by the rules–and the cardinal sin is to break the rule.
But, no, that’s not the primary issue. The primary issue is whether or not we play by God’s rules.
“This assumes that Sola Scripture can’t be rejected instead of rejecting the other doctrine that it is inconsistent with.”
Sola Scriptura isn’t just another doctrine. Rather, it represents the source and standard of doctrine. You’re committing a level-confusion.
“But that would seem to make the Confessions non-revisable and rather infallible with regard to SS.”
No. The proper comparison is not between sola Scriptura and other doctrines, but between one rule of faith and another rule of faith.
That is a preliminary question of theological method (or prolegomena). Once that is settled, other things flow from that principium.
“Right, and the Creedal and Confessional usage is unacceptable because its usage is contrary to Johanine usage. So saying that the language is justifiable was really hand waving…”
No it wasn’t “really hand-waving” since you and I had different referents. I was talking about the Nicene Creed whereas you were talking about the WCF or LBCF. Try to keep track of the argument. You keep imputing your own referents to me, then generating a specious inconsistency.
“You knew this as well as I did. For some reason it took you about 40-50 pages of text to say as much.”
You still have your wires crossed. I was talking about the recitation of the filioque in public worship. In my experience, that always takes the form of the Nicene Creed.
You then brought up the WCF in the context of candidacy for membership, as if strict subscription is a condition for membership. If anyone’s guilty of hand-waving, that would be you.
“As you instructed me, please do not apply your faulty theological assumptions to my own view. So I simply dismiss your claim about fallible Orthodox Creeds.”
Naturally you don’t accept that. But since you like to keep your thumb on the scales, I’ll continue to correct the imbalance.
“Now suppose we just eliminate the Filioque.”
And while we’re at it, suppose we just eliminate the Orthodox church.
“On the Reformed Confessional view, the persons are distinguished by real relations of opposition. The Father is ingenerate, the Son begotten and the Spirit proceeds. What then is the difference between being begotten and procession? How will the two persons be distinguished without the Filioqueist relation of opposition? I’d suggest that the only way out is to further reject the notion enshrined in the Confessions that the persons are distinguished by relations of opposition. So that’s another part of the Trinitarian theology that can’t be supported by Scripture Alone not to mention becomes irrational and arbitrary. So a rejection of the Filioque for this and other reasons I will eventually bring to bear isn’t as innocuous and easy to do as you suggest.”
i) We don’t need to postulate a principle of individuation. We can just accept the Trinity as a revealed truth.
ii) Moreover, these aren’t real principles of individuation. Terms like “paternity,” “filiation,” and “spiration” aren’t truly principles of individuation. Rather, they merely paraphrase the names of the three Trinitarian persons. Linguistic tautologies or disguised descriptions.
Likewise, terms such as “generation” and “procession” are metaphors. “Generation” is a sexual metaphor while “procession” is a locomotive metaphor. And ingenerate is just a negation of the sexual metaphor.
“As for playing dumb, blame Socrates. And no, the language is not Scriptural for the Scriptures never say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. It isn’t a paraphrase. It’s a philosophical doctrine that went looking for a few biblical terms. The scripture says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and that the Son in the history of the world sends the Spirit. So I am not willing to concede that the language is scriptural.”
Jn 14:26 says the Father “sends” the Spirit. Jn 15:26 says the Son “sends” the Spirit while the Spirit “proceeds” (KJV) from the Father. So “sending” and “proceeding” are treated as synonymous actions.
In the Latinate diction of the KJV, “proceed” is simply an English derivative of the Latin word for “sent forth.”
This isn’t philosophical jargon. It’s ordinary language. And metaphorical language at that. Picturesque metaphors which depict the passage from one place to another.
“Now, if the meaning is the issue, then the wording doesn’t matter. Bringing it up is a red herring.”
You’ve made a big deal about the wording of Reformed confessions. If that’s a red herring, then you’re the fisherman.
“If the meaning is the issue then with respect to a reader it isn’t context dependent and variable relative to that reader. It has a meaning fixed regardless of how the reader takes it.”
Thanks for illustrating your crude, unscholarly grasp of the issues.
“And by protest I mean something along the lines of sitting down with your elders and arguing that it should be dropped from the Confessions, going to requisite meetings where such legislation can be drafted and proposed for a vote and then argue for it.”
Don’t be silly. Such piecemeal change would be next to worthless. To make a real difference, it would need to be top-down, not local.
“I didn’t know that your stated positions here amounted to the proper channels and contexts within your own church for airing such things.”
“Proper channels?” There is no divinely mandated process or procedure to follow. Hence, it’s not incumbent on me to follow “proper channels,” since that’s an imaginary construct on your part.
“Moreover, when you say “amen” at the end of the Creed it implies your belief in the statements made in the creed and a measure of loyalty to the teachings those statements express.”
That’s not a blank check.
“Confessing that one holds to the Creeds carries with it the implicit idea that one holds to the meanings given to those words at the formulation so it strikes me as a bit disingenuous to say that ‘Our church holds to the Creeds’ when in fact they hold to a new interpretation of the Creeds at various points.”
Since you’re putting words in my mouth which I’ve never used, I’ll just point out that the ventriloquist does a lousy job of lip-synching.
“If the ordinand has to state disagreements with the WCF then it seems that the WCF is a standard and requires some significant measure of subscription and obligation in order for ordination.”
i) It doesn’t require strict subscription.
ii) And there’s an obvious difference between voluntarily assuming an obligation, and having an obligation imposed on one unilaterally. In a contract, both parties voluntarily assume a mutual obligation.
“Actually this is false.”
Actually this is true.
“Actually this is false. It is false for a few reasons. First, generation on the Latin model is applied to both Son and Spirit, of which begotten and spiration are types. This is not so on the Orthodox model where each is sui generis. Second, its not so since on the Latin (Catholic and Protestant) the persons are distinguished by relations of opposition. This is not so on the Orthodox model. Third, the Latin model, (Catholic and Protestant) assume God is self subsisting being, which the Orthodox deny since God is huper ousia.”
That’s just a case of tweaking the same basic paradigm. Since you seem unable to recognize the paradigm, here it is:
One divine person originates another divine person.
Both the Greek church and the Latin church operate within that framework. Their respective positions represent minor variants on the same chassis. Thanks for proving my point.
“If Calvin made a correction, then its strange that Calvin teaches the Filioque or so it seems to me.”
Let’s compare your pseudoresponse with what I actually said. I said:
“I think Calvin made a significant midcourse correction with his insight on the autotheistic character of the Trinitarian persons, and I agree with subsequent Reformed theologians like Warfield, Frame, and Helm who’ve been developing a more thoroughgoing formulation of Calvin’s corrective.”
Notice my follow-up statement about other Reformed theologians developing a more thoroughgoing formulation of his corrective. Didn’t you read that far? Or is this another memory lapse on your part?
By implication, Calvin didn’t carry it through in a thoroughgoing fashion. But he redirected the discussion (as in “midcourse correction”). Others have followed his lead, and taken it a step further.
“The paradigm as you gloss it also would include Protestantism.”
So what? Protestant theology is not above correction. The difference is that Catholic/Orthodox traditions involve irreformable errors, whereas residual errors in Protestant theology are reformable.
“Second, the relative terms mean substantially different things between models. You’d need to show that they carry the same meaning between both, which you haven’t and can’t.”
Except that I can, and do so quite easily (see below).
“Latin model-One person acts to generate two others where generation can be applied to both subsequent others. Orthodox model-One person acts to generate another person and the first person processes a third person. There is no common notion of generation between the two on the Orthodox model. Your usage of ‘originates’ presupposes the Latin usage of procedit.”
Wrong. I’ve used several different synonyms. What both models have in common is the generic principle that one person is the source or cause of another person. Terms like ‘generation’ and ‘procession’ are metaphorical ways to gloss or narrow the generic notion of production, causality or source of origin.
And “originate” doesn’t presuppose the Latin “procedit.” Just study the range of usage.
“First, it is interesting that you have to appeal doctrinal development rather than straight up exegesis.”
i) That’s because we’re discussing historical theology rather than exegetical theology. Creeds and confessions. So, yes, historical theology is subject to development.
ii) And I didn’t “appeal” to doctrinal development to justify said development, now did I? You’re the one who wants to talk about historical Reformed theology in reference to the filioque. So, given how you cast the terms of the debate, then it’s relevant to compare past and present views on the filioque. Try to follow your own argument.
iii) Moreover, it’s quite possible for Protestant doctrinal development to converge on exegesis. Indeed, there’s nothing surprising or shocking about the idea that, as time goes on, Protestant theology refines its theological formulations to prune away any residual, unscriptural traditions which it may have inherited from the ancient or medieval church.
You know that, but pretend not to so that you can act surprised and scandalized at the fact.
“If so, then its an implication you have yet to present. If so, its an implication that not only Calvin, but plenty of past and present Reformed theologians have missed. That’s possible, but without a demonstration of how we get from the ascription of autotheos to a denial of the Filioque it seems to be merely an assertion.”
i) I don’t know what modern and/or contemporary Reformed theologians you have read. And there doesn’t need to be consensus on the issue to prove my point since I didn’t claim consensus. One rarely has consensus on anything in theology, as you yourself recently admitted.
ii) Moreover, since you yourself deny the filioque, why do you think it’s incumbent on me to disprove it?
iii) I don’t have to make a case one way or the other. That isn’t my cause in life. I’m simply responding to you. That doesn’t mean you set the agenda.
“As for your insults, again it strikes me that you simply can’t write without insulting others.”
No. It depends on the conduct of the disputant.
“Do you think this advances your argument in some way?”
You have no interest in advancing the argument. Your only interest is to advance your agenda.
So even though I specifically and explicitly qualified my statement, your comment ignored my qualifications so that you could play to the galleries.
“Do you prefer to be spoken to in an insulting manner rather than a civil and respectful way?”
You’re not a respectful opponent. You’re only looking for a gotcha moment.
“There is no generic notion of causality to be had here.”
i) Your distinction between procession and generation does nothing to salvage your argument since these are hairsplitting attempts to distinguish between different kinds of production, causation or origination (pick your synonym).
ii) Moreover, the fact that you use different words doesn’t amount to a conceptual difference. It’s just a rhetorical disguise.
“Sure, its possible, but its also quite possible for Protestant doctrinal development not to converge on exegesis, which is why I asked for an exegetical basis.”
I don’t have to provide an exegetical basis for something I’m not defending in the first place.
This is the silly game you play. You pretend that you’re maneuvering your opponent into a “shocking” admission. Then, when he makes the “shocking” admission, you claim victory.
But I was never playing by your rules in the first place. You’re just using other people as a mirror to see your own reflection.
“And given that the Protestant bodies are fallible, its quite possible that the “refining process” is actually an apostasy process.”
Yes, it’s possible for Protestant denominations to commit apostasy. Another one of the truisms you repackage as if that’s a shocking admission.
And the Orthodox church is hardly exempt from the same process. Indeed, it’s pretty far down the downward spiral.
God saves people, not denominations.
“As for pruning away residual unscriptural traditions which they inherited from the ancient or medieval church, lets take the Filioque. Its been five hundred years and no pruning from the Confessions.”
As for pruning away central unscriptural traditions which they inherited from the ancient or medieval church, lets take iconolatry. It’s been twelve hundred years since 2nd Nicea, and no pruning from the Orthodox gardener.
What’s worse, there’s not even progress in that direction.
“Moreover when I ask you or others what you’re doing about it, you just pass the buck with remarks to the effect that you’re not an elder…”
This is your last-ditch demagoguery, which you keep harping on. It’s not a principled argument.
Rather, it’s just an ad hominem attack, a veiled charge of hypocrisy–despite the fact that you fake adhorrence at ad hominem attacks.
It also reflects a your deficient grasp of ethics and ecclesiology alike.
i) Every prima facie obligation isn’t equally obligatory. There are more prima facie duties than it’s humanly possible for an individual to discharge. So we have to prioritize. In case of conflict, higher duties supersede lower obligations.
ii) Apropos (i), there’s a distinction between individual duties and corporate duties.
iii) Apropos (ii), the church has many different members. They don’t have interchangeable obligations (e.g. 1 Cor 12).
“I didn’t argue that you needed consensus but on any given issues there is usually in a given tradition a small number of theologians that dissent. They then have their followers over time, and often it never amounts to anything more than a handful of dissenters whereas the tradition as a whole remains unchanged.”
I’m not talking about Hans Küng-style dissenters. I’m talking about mainstream diversity among representative theologians.
“So you are saying that it isn’t incumbent upon you to disprove and argue against doctrines professed by other Christians that you belief are unscriptural?”
I guess I need to explain the obvious to you. By definition, someone who identifies with one theological tradition finds far less to object to in his own tradition than alternative traditions. By definition, a Calvinist will have far less (if anything) to criticize in Reformed theology than others traditions which are opposed to Reformed theology in one respect or another.
So you’re trying to trump up an absurd dilemma. If, on the one hand, a Calvinist is in lockstep with every jot and tittle of, say, the Westminster Confession, then you’ll accuse him of being a blind partisan. If, on the other hand, a Calvinist expresses any whiff of disagreement, then you act as though he’s leading a double life.
So you’re not attempting to debate in good faith. Rather, it’s a “heads I win, tails you lose” proposition.
“I would think that doing so in your own backyard would be even more paramount.”
In the nature of the case, I’m pretty satisfied with my own backyard. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be my own backyard. If I wasn’t fairly content with my theological backyard, I’d adopt a theological tradition with a more agreeable backyard. Thanks for the tautology.
“But given your dodginess and apparent recalcitrance to do so...”
You’re just frustrated because I refuse to step into your silly little trap.
“If you don’t have to make a case one way or the other, then I suppose you think that members of the priesthood of all believers is somehow stratified.”
Doesn’t have to be stratified for different believers to have different duties according to their time and talents.
“Your pattern of dealing with people seems fairly consistent in being demeaning, belittling and insulting.”
Due to the kind of people I generally have to deal with.
“Perhaps it is the one type of argument I use. It has proven quite effective.”
Quite effective with unsophisticated opponents. This time you miscalculated.
“Let’s suppose you’re right for the moment…”
You’re making progress! By all means, continue in the same direction!
“Fine, it is still the case that Calvinists are practically inconsistent.”
That’s true of every Christian who ever lived. So your objection either proves too much or too little.
“Now if we carry through with the moral analogy it seems to be not a practical problem, but a moral problem since your churches are now morally culpable for teaching a false view of the Trinity.”
False teaching is morally culpable. And there’s no major theological tradition which comes close to avoiding its occurrence. At most, some traditions claim to restrict its occurrence in a few special cases (e.g. ecumenical councils).
And theological traditions which make infallibilist claims for themselves are morally culpable, not only for all their other errors, but for the error of their infallibilist claims.
“Further, the Confessions as putting forth a system of doctrine are inconsistent at the level of the system that they advance. The inclusion of the Filioque is as a conceptual matter inconsistent with another part of the system. In so far as the system says explicitly that all doctrines have to be justified on the basis of Scripture alone and also implicitly teaches that not all doctrines need to be, there is a logical problem.”
Sola Scriptura isn’t just another doctrine. It’s a rule of faith. It represents the source and standard of doctrine. You’re committing a level confusion.
As I said before, lack of consistency with a standard or criterion is not the same thing as internal consistency. No more so than ethical inconsistency in general. If an ethicist is personally inconsistent, does that mean his system of ethics is internally (i.e. logically) inconsistent? Hardly.
“So Protestants will need to pick between their traditional doctrine of God and the formal principle of the Reformation.”
i) That scarcely presents a dire dilemma for Protestants. Since our doctrine of God was always subject to Scripture, there’s not tension between these two commitments. If some aspect of our traditional formulation is defective, then it’s not a big deal to reformulate it accordingly.
ii) Keep in mind that the traditional formulation in Calvinism is already far more accurate than the Orthodox formulation.
“So even if everything Steve said was true regarding the one criteria I discussed for a council to be ecumenical I think his position is in far worse shape. At least I don’t have to admit that my Church teaches a false doctrine of the Trinity.”
i) So what if Perry doesn’t admit that his church teaches a false doctrine of the Trinity? Does the LDS church admit that it teaches a false doctrine of the Trinity?
ii) In fact, its far worse to have a defective doctrine of not, and not admit it, than have the freedom to admit a problem, if there is one, so that you can take steps to correct it.
McChurch
Jason Engwer and I have been debating with some Catholics about baptismal justification and baptismal regeneration. The two primary sources of information about NT baptism are Luke and Paul. Catholic epologists try to fit the NT data into a Catholic paradigm. But the NT data, considered on its own terms, is quite resistant to Catholic domestication or homogenization:
“If one concentrates on certain parts of Acts (chs. 1-2,8-11,16,18-19,22), or rather on parts of these chapters, baptism seems to be the normal and universal way into the Christian church. What are we to do? ask the crowd on the Day of Pentecost. Repent, and let each of you be baptized, Peter replies (2:37-38). The converted Samaritans respond in the same way; Cornelius and his friends, the Philippian jailer and his household, many of the Corinthians, are baptized. If however we turn to the other chapters (and to parts of those listed above) there is silence. The Temple crowd are urged to repent and have their sins blotted out; they are not told to be baptized. There are no baptisms in Luke’s account of the ‘first missionary journey,’ though churches are established (14:23). Apart from Lydia and the Philippian jailer there are no baptisms in Macedonia or in the main account apart, that is, from 19:5) of Paul’s work in Ephesus. No baptisms take place after ch. 19, even in Malta, where Paul made so deep an impression. Again, if we ask, Does the gift of the Spirit precede, accompany, or follow the rite of water-baptism? we get different answers in different parts of Acts. If we ask, Must baptism be complemented by the laying on of hands? there is no consistent answer. What is mean by baptism in (or with) the Spirit? Is it a consequence of water-baptism or is it independent of water-baptism? Who are the proper recipients of water-baptism? Adult believers only, or infants also? None of these questions can be answered with any confidence on the basis of Acts. There is quite enough of baptism in Acts to make it clear that Luke was familiar with the practice; we can hardly fail to conclude that baptism was not, as is commonly supposed, a universal custom in the early church, or at least that some of Luke’s sources (such as that based on Antioch) were not interested in baptism, G.K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles: Introduction and Commentary on Acts XV-XXVIII (T&T Clark 1998), xci.
“At 2:38 it is not quite stated but it is implied that the gift of the Spirit follows upon baptism: Let each of you be baptized…and you will receive…The opposite order occurs in 10:44-48. The Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his friends and to this Peter’s response was, ‘Can we fail to baptize these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did?’ There is further complication in ch. 8 (cf. 19:6) when Philip baptizes the Samaritans and it is not said that they received the Holy Spirit; Peter and John arrive, impose their hands and pray, and the Spirit is given. Is the imposition of hands necessary? It is not mentioned in the other stories we have considered. Is it a rite that only an apostle can execute? We do not know the answers to these questions; see the notes on the various passages. We cannot fail to conclude that Luke gives an unclear account of baptism. He has no fixed principles about its practice, or perhaps its meaning,” ibid. xci-xcii.
Several things stand out in this summary of baptism in Acts:
i) It’s a tribute to Luke’s honesty as a historian that he doesn’t try to shoehorn his diverse material into a preconceived pattern. He simply reports what he heard and saw.
ii) Because he doesn’t attempt to systematize the data into a stereotypical formula or streamline trajectory, what his history reveals is the lack of standardization in the baptismal practice of the NT church. The NT church isn’t McChurch. It isn’t a franchise in which, wherever you go, you find the same menu.
Catholics often complain that the Protestant rule of faith is a “blueprint for anarchy.” Yet Luke’s record of baptism in Acts is fairly…dare we say…chaotic.
iii) For Luke, baptism is clearly important–but just as clearly, baptism isn’t all-important. Why didn’t James and the remaining Apostles convene another council in Jerusalem to impose unity on all this ramshackle diversity? In this respect, among others, the priorities of the high-church tradition are at variance with the priorities of the NT church.
Catholics promote living tradition, but they demote the living church of the Apostolic era.
“If one concentrates on certain parts of Acts (chs. 1-2,8-11,16,18-19,22), or rather on parts of these chapters, baptism seems to be the normal and universal way into the Christian church. What are we to do? ask the crowd on the Day of Pentecost. Repent, and let each of you be baptized, Peter replies (2:37-38). The converted Samaritans respond in the same way; Cornelius and his friends, the Philippian jailer and his household, many of the Corinthians, are baptized. If however we turn to the other chapters (and to parts of those listed above) there is silence. The Temple crowd are urged to repent and have their sins blotted out; they are not told to be baptized. There are no baptisms in Luke’s account of the ‘first missionary journey,’ though churches are established (14:23). Apart from Lydia and the Philippian jailer there are no baptisms in Macedonia or in the main account apart, that is, from 19:5) of Paul’s work in Ephesus. No baptisms take place after ch. 19, even in Malta, where Paul made so deep an impression. Again, if we ask, Does the gift of the Spirit precede, accompany, or follow the rite of water-baptism? we get different answers in different parts of Acts. If we ask, Must baptism be complemented by the laying on of hands? there is no consistent answer. What is mean by baptism in (or with) the Spirit? Is it a consequence of water-baptism or is it independent of water-baptism? Who are the proper recipients of water-baptism? Adult believers only, or infants also? None of these questions can be answered with any confidence on the basis of Acts. There is quite enough of baptism in Acts to make it clear that Luke was familiar with the practice; we can hardly fail to conclude that baptism was not, as is commonly supposed, a universal custom in the early church, or at least that some of Luke’s sources (such as that based on Antioch) were not interested in baptism, G.K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles: Introduction and Commentary on Acts XV-XXVIII (T&T Clark 1998), xci.
“At 2:38 it is not quite stated but it is implied that the gift of the Spirit follows upon baptism: Let each of you be baptized…and you will receive…The opposite order occurs in 10:44-48. The Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his friends and to this Peter’s response was, ‘Can we fail to baptize these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did?’ There is further complication in ch. 8 (cf. 19:6) when Philip baptizes the Samaritans and it is not said that they received the Holy Spirit; Peter and John arrive, impose their hands and pray, and the Spirit is given. Is the imposition of hands necessary? It is not mentioned in the other stories we have considered. Is it a rite that only an apostle can execute? We do not know the answers to these questions; see the notes on the various passages. We cannot fail to conclude that Luke gives an unclear account of baptism. He has no fixed principles about its practice, or perhaps its meaning,” ibid. xci-xcii.
Several things stand out in this summary of baptism in Acts:
i) It’s a tribute to Luke’s honesty as a historian that he doesn’t try to shoehorn his diverse material into a preconceived pattern. He simply reports what he heard and saw.
ii) Because he doesn’t attempt to systematize the data into a stereotypical formula or streamline trajectory, what his history reveals is the lack of standardization in the baptismal practice of the NT church. The NT church isn’t McChurch. It isn’t a franchise in which, wherever you go, you find the same menu.
Catholics often complain that the Protestant rule of faith is a “blueprint for anarchy.” Yet Luke’s record of baptism in Acts is fairly…dare we say…chaotic.
iii) For Luke, baptism is clearly important–but just as clearly, baptism isn’t all-important. Why didn’t James and the remaining Apostles convene another council in Jerusalem to impose unity on all this ramshackle diversity? In this respect, among others, the priorities of the high-church tradition are at variance with the priorities of the NT church.
Catholics promote living tradition, but they demote the living church of the Apostolic era.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Raëlian Catholicism
Back on Dec 17, Bryan Cross posted an ostensible reply to something I posted. I haven’t responded until now in part because I’ve had other things to respond to, and it part because I wanted to let the thread evolve to the point where it was becoming repetitious.
I say “ostensible” because, despite his introductory remarks, Bryan’s post is primarily directed at some of Jason Engwer’s comments.
“What makes this difficult to understand, from a Protestant point of view, is that in Catholic theology there is a distinction between justification and an increase in justification.”
This is one of the pompous ways that Bryan typically expresses himself. If some Protestant disagrees with Catholic theology, it must be because we just don’t understand Catholic theology. And a newbie convert like Bryan, who has no formal training in Catholic theology, will explain it to us.
“There is no such distinction in Protestant theologies, and for that reason Protestants not infrequently treat Catholic statements about the increase in justification as though they are about justification itself.”
Bryan will keep harping on this distinction, as if it salvages the Catholic position. But the problem with this distinction is that increased justification is still a mode of justification. It pertains to the justified state of the believer. It contributes more of the same. And it does so through justificatory works.
So it’s a difference of degree rather than kind. A fundamentally quantitative rather than qualitative distinction. Both initial justification and progressive justification pertain to the same fundamental condition or status. To the nature of someone’s justification.
That, however, doesn’t reconcile Catholic justification with Pauline justification. It doesn’t show that Paul made room for progressive justification, or that he did so on the basis of justificatory works.
So Bryan can repeat himself as often as he likes, but repetition of an otiose distinction does nothing to salvage his position.
“Justification takes place through the sacrament of baptism, and then, if a person falls into mortal sin, through the sacrament of penance. At the instant of justification, the person receives sanctifying grace and the theological (supernatural) virtues of faith, hope and charity (agape).”
i) That’s simply an exposition of Catholic theology. It does nothing to harmonize Catholic justification with Pauline justification.
All Bryan has done is to lift a Tridentine phrase, in which Trent combines three different terms (faith, hope, agape), and apply that set of terms to justification. Bryan will then use that as a prism to view Pauline statements on justification. But unless and until he can show that Paul would combine the same terms in the same way, Bryan is filtering the Pauline data through a prism which is alien to Paul’s own teaching.
ii) Moreover, Bryan’s inference is fallacious. To say a justifying faith is also a loving faith doesn’t imply that love is justificatory. What they have in common is not each other, but a common source (faith). That hardly means one property is identical with another.
The married man may also be a father. But that hardly means a paternal relation is interchangeable with a spousal relation. To be a husband and father are properties of the same man without being properties of each other.
Likewise, a red object may also be a round object. But this doesn’t mean shape and color are the same thing. Or have the same function.
“This does not mean that these cannot be received prior to the actual reception of the sacrament of baptism. Even then, however, they come through the sacrament, and anticipate its reception.”
This is another distinction that Bryan will repeat ad nauseum, as if it’s self-explanatory to claim that someone is justified through baptism even though he can be justified prior to baptism. Bryan needs to pause and actually explain that anachronism.
Does he mean that baptism is retrocausal? Is this a case of sacramental time-travel in which baptismal effects precede their baptismal causes?
“An increase in justification is not the same thing as justification. An increase in justification is not the translation from a state in which one is deprived of sanctifying grace to a state in which one has sanctifying grace. An increase in justification is an increase in sanctifying grace from a condition in which one already has sanctifying grace.”
i) Now he’s using “sanctifying grace” as a synonym for justification. But to show that Catholic justification is reconcilable with Pauline justification, he needs to show that justification and sanctifying grace are interchangeable concepts in Paul. What Bryan has actually done is to swap one for the other, without lifting a finger to demonstrate the Paul would agree with his substitution.
ii) Bryan’s distinguishes the initiation of a state from the continuation (or augmentation) of the same state. Yes, that’s a difference, but that doesn’t have reference to two different states of being. Rather, both have reference to one’s state of sanctifying grace. In the first case, how an individual enters into that state–and in the second case, how he maintains or fortifies that state.
So, once again, Bryan has failed to show that Pauline justification makes room for different phases of justification, as if justification is a process with different stages. If that is Bryan’s position, he needs to exegete that distinction from Paul.
“This is what St. Peter means in exhorting believers to grow in grace. (2 Pet 3:18) An increase in justification is not receiving sanctifying grace where there is none, but a movement of growth from grace to more grace, and thus a growth in conformity to the likeness of Christ, by an increase in the capacity of our participation in the divine nature. (2 Pet 1:4)”
i) Bryan is resorting to private interpretation. His private interpretation of 2 Pet 1:4 and 3:18. Bryan will do that quite often in the course of this thread. But this generates a dilemma:
a) Either private interpretation is illicit, in which case we can automatically discount all of Bryan’s scriptural appeals,
b) Or else private interpretation is legitimate, in which case he can’t automatically discount the interpretations of his Protestant opponents.
ii) Bryan hasn’t shown that Peter’s concept of grace is synonymous with the Catholic doctrine of sanctifying grace. The Catholic doctrine is far more specific than what you can exegete from 2 Pet 3:18.
iii) Moreover, Bryan hasn’t begun to show that 2 Pet 1:4 and 3:18 refer to the same thing as Pauline justification. Where is the supporting argument to bridges this connection? How does Bryan go from Petrine grace or progressive sanctification (or “participation in the divine nature”) to progressive justification? How did he exegete any of that from the terms of his prooftexts?
“The reason this distinction between justification and its increase is important for understanding the Catholic doctrine concerning justification is that although a person can and should prepare for justification (Trent VI.6), he cannot merit justification by any works. But, a person who is already justified and in a state of grace, can merit an increase in justification by doing good works out of love (agape) for God. Among these good works are works in keeping with the moral law, done out of love (agape) for God. God rewards our works done in agape by increasing our capacity to participate in His divine nature, and thus by increasing our participation in His agape. He Himself is our reward, and growth in grace is growth in Him, a reward we receive already in this present life, to be multiplied abundantly in the life to come.”
The question at issue is not what distinctions a Catholic can concoct, but whether one can map Catholic distinctions onto corresponding Pauline distinctions. Where does Paul draw an analogous distinction? Unless Bryan can exegete a relevant parallel, a Catholic distinction does nothing to salvage Catholic justification from the Pauline anathema.
“Does St. Paul teach that justification is by keeping the ceremonial law? No. Does St. Paul teach that justification is by keeping the moral law? No. According to St. Paul, justification is not by works of the law, and in St. Paul ‘works of the Law’ refers to the whole law under the Old Covenant. That’s what Robert is saying, and I agree with him, and nothing I said contradicts what he said.”
This is what Bryan originally said:
“You are not making any distinction between the works of the ceremonial law as part of the Old Covenant, and works of the moral law, done in a state of grace in the New Covenant, out of love [agape] for God. In his letter to the Galatians, St. Paul wasn’t condemning (or even referring to) growth in justification through good works done in a state of grace; he was condemning a return to the Old Covenant by Christians, because that was a rejection of the New Covenant and implicitly a rejection of Jesus as the Messiah who established the New Covenant in which the requirement of those ceremonial laws is done away. If you don’t understand the distinction between the ceremonial law and the moral law, then you have entirely misunderstood Paul’s point in his letter to the Galatians. Then your whole warrant for calling the Church’s teaching a ‘false gospel’ is based on a misinterpretation of Scripture.”
Let’s compare Bryan’s attempt to drive a wedge between the moral law and the ceremonial law with the observations of a leading Catholic NT scholar:
“Given Paul’s Jewish background, and especially his own affirmations about his pre-Christian past as a Pharisee, one might expect that the phrase frequently used by him, (ta) erga (tou) nomou, ‘(the) deeds of (the law’ (Gal 2:16; 3:2,5,10; Rom 2:15; 3:20,28), or in its abbreviated form, ta erga (Rom 3:27; 4:2,6; 9:11,32; 11:6) would have come from Pharisaism…the Hebrew equivalent has turned up in Qumran literature from Palestine itself,” J. Fitzmyer, According to Paul (Paulist Press 1993), 19-20.
“It [deeds of the law] has recently been restricted by J. D. G. Dunn to mean ‘particular observances of the law like circumcision and the food laws’…According to Dunn, such ‘works of the law’ are regarded neither by Paul nor by his Jewish interlocutors as ‘works which earn God’s favour, as merit-amassing observances. They are rather seen as badges: they are simply what membership of the covenant people involves, what mark out the Jews as God’s people,’” ibid. 23.
“Yet it is now seen in the light of this Qumran text that ‘works of the law’ cannot be so restricted. The text of 4QMMT does single out about twenty halakhot, but they are not limited to circumcision and food laws; they are moreover associated by the Jewish leader who wrote this letter with the status of ‘righteousness’ before God….From this Qumran text it is made clear than the sloganlike phrase did indeed have a legalistic connotation and that it was used in connection with the way a Jew would seek for righteousness in God’s sight,” ibid. 23.
So much for Jason’s having “entirely misunderstood” Paul’s point. Unfortunately, Bryan’s conceited ignorance is endemic among Evangelical converts to Catholicism. Not only are they at odds with wide swaths of Protestant exegetical literature, but equally at odds with modern Catholic exegesis.
Continuing with Bryan:
“But, as I will explain below, unless we recognize the difference between the meaning of ‘works of the Law’ as including the ceremonial law, and the New Covenant law that does not include the ceremonial law, we can mistakenly treat St. Paul’s teaching that justification is not by the former as though it also denies increases in justification by means of the latter.”
So Bryan seems to be saying that whereas moral law-keeping wasn’t justificatory under the old covenant, moral law-keeping is justificatory under the new covenant. But there are some fundamental problems with that argument. Let’s consider just two or three:
i) The Judaizers aren’t suggesting that Christian gentiles become old covenant proselytes. They don’t deny that Jesus is the Messiah. They don’t deny that Jesus inaugurated the new covenant.
Rather, they regard circumcision and other aspects of the ceremonial law as an ongoing part of the new covenant. For them, gentile Christians, to be genuine Christians, must convert to Messianic Judaism.
The Judaizers aren’t like the Jewish-Christians in Hebrews who were tempted to deny Christ and revert to the old covenant.
ii) When Paul uses the paradigm-case of Abraham, who was justified by faith rather than works, he does so to underscore the essential continuity between the principle of justification under the old dispensation and the new. Both Abraham and his Christian counterparts are justified the same way: by faith rather than works. That accentuates the analogous rather than disanalogous relation between the old dispensation and the new in reference to the nature of justification.
iii) Does Bryan think that Abraham and other OT saints were not in a state of grace? Does he think that Abraham and other OT saints did not exhibit faith, hope, and love?
“Without sanctifying grace and living faith, we cannot merit heaven; to claim otherwise would be Pelagianism. And that is why we cannot be justified by works. For St. Paul justification is by living faith, and we receive this living faith by hearing (Rom 10:17), and it is poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5) through the sacrament of baptism (Rom 6, Col 2). But none of that condemns or denies increases in justification through good works in accordance with the moral law done out of love (agape) for God.”
i) Notice Bryan’s resort to private interpretation.
ii) Bryan hasn’t shown that, according to Paul, we merit heaven through good works or sanctification. Where’s the argument?
“Jason thinks that the Catholic doctrine is that we are justified by ‘faith and works.’ But that is not true. As I explained above, in Catholic doctrine we are justified not by works, but by living faith, and living faith includes the supernatural virtue [i.e. disposition] of agape. Yet we may increase in justification by works done out of love (agape) for God, according to the order Christ has gratuitously established.”
If good works increase our justification, then we are partially justified by works.
“Here I was pointing out that St. Paul’s condemnation of the teaching of the Judaizers was not for believing that works done in agape (in accordance with the moral law under the New Covenant) increase our justification, but for believing that the keeping of the ceremonial law, and thus returning to the Old Covenant (and a keeping of the whole law) is necessary for justification.”
i) Bryan is interpolating a distinction which Paul doesn’t draw. And he does so in the teeth of what Paul actually says.
ii) The Judaizers weren’t suggesting that we “return” to the old covenant. Rather, they regarded the ceremonial law as an integral part of the new covenant.
“First, the Judaizers were rejecting the New Covenant, in which we are justified by sanctifying grace and [living] faith in Christ, received through the sacrament of baptism instituted by Christ.”
i) Bryan hasn’t show that, according to Paul, we are justified by sanctifying grace, much less that we are justified by sacramental grace. And, by the same token, he hasn’t show that this is what the Judaizers rejected.
ii) Moreover, baptism is the NT counterpart to circumcision. But if, according to the paradigm-case of Abraham, the patriarch wasn’t justified by circumcision, then it follows, by the logic of Paul’s argument from analogy, that a Christian isn’t justified by baptism.
“But the Catholic Church affirms the New Covenant.”
It pays lip-service to the new covenant.
“In fact the Catholic Church is the New Israel, the Israel of the New Covenant (cf. Gal 6:16).”
Except that Paul doesn’t say or even imply that the church of Rome is the New Israel. How does Bryan exegete the church of Rome from Gal 6:16?
“The Catholic Church teaches that we are justified by [living] faith in Christ, a faith that we receive as a gift from God, along with sanctifying grace, in the sacrament of baptism instituted by Christ. Jason’s assumption that St. Paul’s condemnation of the Judaizers’ doctrine applies to Catholic doctrine overlooks the role of the Covenants in the Galatian account. Jason thinks that St. Paul’s concern in his letter to the Galatians is simply excluding works of any sort from justification. It is true that St. Paul recognizes that works cannot justify. But St. Paul’s primary concern for the Galatian believers is that they remain within the New Covenant, and thus remain united to Christ.”
But both sides of the debate (Paul and the Judaizers) affirmed the new covenant, as they understood it. The problem turned on their mutually exclusive understanding of the new covenant.
“By adding the requirement of the ceremonial law they were returning to the Old Covenant, and thus nullifying the New Covenant and the sacrifice of Christ, the long-awaited Messiah and Savior. (cf. Gal 5:1ff) The Catholic Church rejects the requirement of returning to the Old Covenant for justification or salvation. From the Catholic point of view, adding the requirements of the ceremonial law would be nothing less than apostasy from the New Covenant established by the blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God. So in this respect, the Catholic Church does not fall under St. Paul’s condemnation of the doctrine of the Judaizers.”
Actually, the Catholic church merely substitutes one justificatory ceremony for another. Instead of treating circumcision as a justificatory rite, it treats baptism as a justificatory rite. So both Catholics and Judaizers believe in justification by ceremonial works. Ritual law-keeping.
“St. Paul’s condemnation of justification by ‘works of the Law’ is not about increases in justification through good works done in a state of grace under the New Covenant.”
Paul's condemnation is expressed in categorical terms.
“St. Paul rules out justification by works, but so does the Catholic Church. (Cf. Trent VI.1).”
A fallacy of equivocation, since Catholicism redefines key terms and concepts.
“In none of his writings, including his letter to the Galatians, does St. Paul teach that good works done in a state of grace under the New Covenant do not increase justification.”
i) To the contrary, he condemns the principle of justificatory works in general. And he does so by drawing attention to the continuity, rather than discontinuity, between the way in which Abraham was justified under the old dispensation, and Christians are justified under the new covenant. Abraham is the exemplar.
ii) Moreover, this is significant because it uses the same rule of faith as the Judaizers. Because they appeal to the OT, so does Paul.
“My point here is not to demonstrate from Scripture that good works done out of love (agape) for God merit an increase in justification. My point here is to show that claiming that the Catholic Church teaches that we are justified by ‘faith and works’ is false, because such a claim mistakenly conflates increases in justification with justification. A role for works in the increase of justification does not entail that there is a role for works in justification.”
Bryan needs to document these distinctions in the Pauline formulation to avoid the Pauline anathema.
“If in Gen 15 Abraham was already justified, then the justification referred to in Gen 15 either is a ‘maintaining of or increase in justification, based on the act of faith Abraham makes in Gen 15, or is referring back to Gen 12 (or whenever was the first time Abraham believed).”
That hardly follows, either logically or exegetically. In context, Gen 15 describes the inauguration of the covenant.
“Of course it wasn’t accompanied by baptism under the Old Covenant, since Christ established Christian baptism only in the New Covenant. But the absence of baptism in the Old Covenant doesn’t tell us anything about how it is to be received in the New Covenant.”
What we have in the OT is circumcision, which is the OT counterpart to NT baptism. Given Paul’s argument from analogy, baptismal justification makes the same mistake. If baptismal justification were true, then the most direct argument which Paul could deploy to refute the Judaizers would simply be: “Of course the Gentiles don’t need to be circumcised to be justified, for baptism takes the place of circumcision, and as long as you’ve been baptized, then that’s how you’re justified!”
Continuing with Bryan:
“And it seems clear that Abraham’s faith was accompanied by works, as James points out.”
i) It’s methodologically invalid use James to explicate Paul. Bryan needs to construe each writer on his own terms.
ii) The question at issue is not whether we can be justified by works in the Jacobean sense, but whether we can be justified by works in the Pauline sense.
iii) Moreover, Bryan needs to demonstrate that Catholic justification is reconcilable with Pauline justification and Jacobean justification alike. He hasn’t done either–much less both.
“Justification” is an English word, derived from Latin, which is used to translate a Greek word. You can’t start with Catholic usage, then appeal to Biblical usage (in translation, no less!) as if these are synonymous concepts.
“A mere suggestion is not sufficient to warrant schism from the Church, or the public charge that the Catholic Church teaches a false gospel.”
Jason isn’t proposing schism from “the Church.” Rather, he’s attributing a false gospel to Bryan’s sectarian denomination.
“There is continuity between the Old and New Covenants, but the New Covenant exceeds the Old Covenant, and for this reason baptism exceeds circumcision.”
i) That’s a fallacious inference. The fact that the new covenant exceeds the old covenant in key respects doesn’t mean the covenant sign of the new dispensation exceeds the covenant sign of the old dispensation. Bryan is confusing the sign with what it signifies. What exceeds the old dispensation is not the sign, but the significate.
ii) Indeed, one of the major points that Paul was making in Rom 4 is that a covenant sign has no intrinsic value. It doesn’t justify you. Rather, a covenant sign is, at best, a token of a preexisting state. Apart from a prior, underlying act of justifying faith, the covenant sign is nothing more than a bare token.
“It is St. John who tells us at the beginning of his gospel (written later in his life, according to tradition) that Jesus said to Nicodemus, ‘unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.’ (John 3:5) Jesus is the one who ‘added’ baptism, just as He did in Mark 16:16, and just as Peter did on Pentecost: ‘repent, and let each of you be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’ (Acts 2:38) It is baptism that now [in the New Covenant] saves us. (1 Pet 3:21)”
i) Notice that Bryan is resorting to private interpretation.
ii) Concerning Jn 3:5:
a) The sacramental interpretation cuts against the grain of the dialogue. Jesus upbraids Nicodemus for his failure to grasp what Jesus is referring to. But if Jesus is referring to Christian baptism, then Nicodemus would be in no position to know what Jesus referred to since Christian baptism had yet to be instituted. Therefore, Bryan’s interpretation is pitifully anachronistic.
b) The Fourth Gospel frequently uses natural metaphors. And as Jason rightly pointed out, John specifically uses an aquatic metaphor in 7:37-39, where water symbolizes spiritual renewal. So, in terms of Johannine usage, we’d also construe 3:5 as a figurative description of spiritual renewal, using a hendiadys to make his point.
c) As Jason also points out, the use of aquatic metaphors to symbolize spiritual renewal go back to the OT. Many commentators think Ezk 36:26-27 lies behind the picturesque imagery in Jn 3:5.
And some OT allusion or another fits the historical context, since that’s something that Nicodemus would be familiar with.
iii) Concerning Mk 16:16:
a) As Jason rightly points out, this is a spurious scribal interpolation.
b) Even if, for the sake of argument, we concede the authenticity of this verse, then it proves too much. For it would make water baptism a sine qua non for salvation. Yet that’s hardly the position of Vatican II, or even Trent.
iv) Concerning Acts 2:38:
a) There is no fixed sequence between baptism and reception of the Spirit in Acts (cf. 8:12,14-17; 9:17-18; 10:44-48; 19:5-6).
b) Baptism is a concrete metaphor for spiritual purification. The same imagery is used for repentance in 3:19. Therefore, baptism is simply a picturesque figure for God’s forgiveness of the penitent believer. Repentance, not baptism, is what literally results in divine forgiveness. Baptism merely signifies that transaction.
c) Apropos (b), the Book of Acts attributes forgiveness to three different things: faith, repentance, and baptism. How are these related? Do they represent three alternate routes to arrive at forgiveness?
It’s easy to see how faith and repentance are interrelated. These flow from a common source: a change of heart and mind.
In relation to faith and repentance, baptism would symbolize the effect of repentance and faith. It trades on the figurative imagery of washing and cleansing as a concrete emblem of inner purification. What scholars call an enacted parable.
d) In this passage, repentance is a precondition for baptism. Yet infant baptism is the norm in Catholicism. But infants aren’t penitent. Therefore, Bryan can’t cite this as a Catholic prooftext for baptismal justification (or baptismal regeneration.
v) Concerning 1 Pet 3:21:
a) This passage undermines the efficacy of baptism. For one thing, it tells us what baptism can’t do: baptism can’t wash away moral corruption.
b) And its moral inefficacy stands in contrast to a clear conscience.
c) Conversely, baptism is the token of a “pledge” which the baptismal candidate made at the time of his baptism. This is just another way of saying forgiveness is contingent on faith.
For the exegetical details, cf. K. Jobes, 1 Peter, 253-56.
“Faith comes by hearing, of course. But if it comes to a person in its fullness (as a virtue), it has come to them through the sacrament of baptism, even if they have not yet been baptized. The Spirit ordinarily works through the sacrament, but the Spirit is capable of outrunning the sacrament, as John outran Peter at the tomb. This ability of the Spirit to act prior to the sacrament, should not be interpreted as nullifying the sacrament or implying that the Spirit has not come through the sacrament.”
Once again, this is not self-explanatory. If saving faith sometimes occurs prior to baptism, then it comes apart from baptism at the time of its occurrence. So, in that event, what does baptism subsequently confer?
“When Paul says ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?’, he is asking them if they were confirmed when they were baptized.”
i) Is that what he’s asking? What evidence does Bryan adduce that a sacrament of confirmation even existed in the NT church? Can he point to some example in the Book of Acts or Pauline epistles? Later he mentions Acts 8, but there is no fixed sequence for reception of the Spirit in Acts.
ii) Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Bryan’s interpretation is correct. According to Catholic theology, confirmation is normally applied to candidates who reach the age of discretion:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a2.htm
So, if we apply that to Acts 19, then no baptized Catholic has the Holy Spirit unless and until he attains the age of discretion and submits to confirmation.
“St. Paul’s question shows that when the Apostles speak about believing the gospel, they are not speaking of this believing as something merely mental; ‘believing the gospel is a phrase that implicitly (when not explicitly) includes baptism…Faith is not merely an internal epistemic change; it is also a public profession and identification.”
Bryan is equivocating. Faith is a private, mental state. Public profession of faith is a way to share that private mental state with others. But the two are hardly equivalent. Bryan is confusing the nature of a mental state with acting on a mental state.
“Correct, but this believing includes baptism; it is not a merely private, internal epistemic change. It is sacramentally effected in the presence of many witnesses, by Christ.”
i) Except that Bryan admits you can have saving faith prior to baptism.
ii) Moreover, what about the Catholic “baptism of desire”?
“In neither the Cornelius situation nor the Acts 19 situation is faith truly separated from baptism. Faith precedes it, but the Apostles do not take this as nullifying the need for baptism.”
Once again, Bryan is equivocating. The obligation to be baptized doesn’t mean saving faith or justifying faith is equivalent to baptism.
“Likewise, when St. Paul says ‘hearing with faith’ (in Gal 3:2) he is not saying that faith does not come through baptism.”
i) Notice that Bryan doesn’t cite any verse from Galatians where Paul tells us that faith comes through baptism.
ii) And what does that even mean? Does every baptized Catholic have faith? Hitler received Catholic baptism. Did Hitler exercise justifying faith?
“But faith is public.”
Once again, this repeats the same equivocation (see above).
“St. Paul is essentially saying in Gal 3:2: Did you receive the Spirit through the sacraments of the Old Covenant (e.g. circumcision) or through the sacraments of the New Covenant (i.e. baptism and confirmation)?”
If that’s what Paul is essentially saying, then why doesn’t he say that, either explicitly or implicitly?
“Catholics aren’t limited to trying to determine the faith from Scripture. We have the living Tradition from the Apostles, the ‘view from the inside’ handed down to us faithfully within the community of faith, by which we understand what the Apostles were saying. We don’t read Scripture in an ecclesial or historical vacuum; we read it with the living memory of the community to whom it was entrusted.”
i) Bryan will continue to use this fallback for the remainder of the thread. It’s a backdoor admission that he lost the exegetical argument. So his prooftexting is just a charade since, by own reckoning, his prooftexts don’t really prove what he needs them to prove. He can’t get what he needs from his prooftexts. So he repairs to the backup system of the Magisterium.
ii) Needless to say, an argument from authority is comically tendentious without a preliminary argument for his authority. Before he can appeal to the authority of his church, he needs to make a case for his church. What’s the point of telling a Protestant opponent that apostolic tradition has been faithfully preserved by the church of Rome? That begs the very question in dispute.
iii) His Jungian appeal to collective memory is specious. Timothy had a living memory of the apostles. Pope Benedict XVI does not. A living memory is an eyewitness memory.
It’s true that recollections can be passed down from one generation to the next, like family lore. But that’s a precarious and often unverifiable process.
Say I have a living memory of my parents. I might also remember some things they told me about their parents. And that’s about as far back as it goes.
iv) Evangelical Bible scholars don’t interpret the Bible in a historical vacuum. And they don’t disregard the community of faith. But the question at issue is which historical context supplies the relevant context. Which community supplies the relevant community?
Is it future to the text? Or is it past and present at the time of writing? The historical background leading up to the text. The community to whom it was written.
“You don’t seem to realize Who is doing the baptizing. Does the believer exercise his free will in stepping into the font? Of course. But that’s not baptism. Who does the baptizing? Christ. Christ is the Baptizer.”
And the argument for that is what, exactly?
“The gift of eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord is free in this sense — it comes to us from God without any merit on our part. But, we should not therefore think that working out our salvation (Phil 2:12) will require no sacrifice on our part. Jesus said, ‘If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.’ (Luke 9:23, cf. Mt 16:24, Mk 8:34) We are fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him. (Rom 8:17) So the freedom of the gift of eternal life should not be conceived in an unqualified (or antinomian) way, but with respect to the utter graciousness of God’s offer of eternal life to us. On our part, it requires giving up everything. ‘If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.” (Lk 14:26)’.”
i) What percentage of Roman Catholics is regularly called upon to suffer for their faith? Is Pope Benedict XVI suffering for the faith? If he’s suffering, it’s pretty well-concealed. With a game face like that, the Holy Father missed his calling as champion poker player.
Is the College of Cardinals suffering? Is the Archbishop of Boston, Venice, Vienna, Paris, or New York suffering? If that’s what you call suffering, I daresay millions of hurting people around the world would envy their suffering.
Does Bryan have a pain-o-meter to register the rate of Catholic pain and suffering? Are devout Catholics in Monte Carlo taking up their cross every day? Inquiring minds want to know!
ii) Lk 14:26 has reference to a willingness to forgo everything, if push comes to shove. Not a necessity to do so. But something we must be prepared to do, if the situation arises.
If every Catholic followed the example of Mother Theresa, the Catholic church would go broke.
“Assuming that simply going by ‘the most natural way’ of reading the Bible correctly guides you to the proper understanding of the Apostolic deposit of faith is your underlying hermeneutical mistake. To understand the Bible, we need to read it in and with the persons to whom it was entrusted. In the history of the Church, we see that in many cases, the heretic’s most natural way of interpreting Scripture is to see his own heresy in it. That’s the danger of simply going by ‘the most natural way’ of reading Scripture.”
Of course, that’s a popular Catholic argument. I’m struck by the number of Catholic epologists who think it’s a good argument. On the one hand they admit that, if we simply read the Bible on its own terms, then the “heretical” interpretation is the most natural interpretation. So the only way to avoid heresy is override the most natural interpretation by the deus ex machina of Mother Church. Raw authority trumps exegesis.
But that’s what people always say when they lose the argument. Having lost on the merits of the case, they take refuge in authority to silence opposition and compel submission.
“Such a claim presupposes the falsity of the distinction between justification and its increase, and thus begs the question.”
If the question at issue is the nature of Pauline justification, then the onus hardly lies on a Protestant to disprove the Catholic distinction between initial justification and progressive justification. Rather, the onus lkes on the Catholic to document that distinction in Pauline theology.
“We work not for justification, but only for its increase. We can never merit justification. But once justified, we can, by the grace of God, merit eternal life, because in a state of grace (initiated by God), even one act done in agape for the God who is infinite Love merits an infinite reward, and this infinite reward is the eternal vision of God Himself.”
Well, it’s nice to hear a Catholic baldly tell us the reward (eternal life) is directly proportional to our merit.
“Only if we persevere. All the Scriptural warnings about persevering would be heretical if past justification guaranteed future justification.”
To say it’s “heretical” simply begs the question in favor of Catholicism. Bryan makes no effort to argue for Catholicism. He simply preaches at us.
“Mere suggestions do not establish anything, including your public charge that the Catholic Church teaches a false gospel. No schism from the Church is justified by a mere suggestion. If greater continuity were the criterion by which we adjudicated between competing interpretations, Ebionism would be the orthodox understanding of the New Testament. But, Ebionism is not the orthodox understanding of the New Testament. Therefore continuity does not carry the interpretive weight that you suggest. And for this reason your criteria of continuity is a kind of covenantal Ebionism.”
If Bryan wants to make invidious comparisons, then Catholic ritualism and sacerdotalism are Ebionitic in their continuity with OT ritualism and sacerdotalism.
“Of course I’m not denying that living faith is first inward. If justification absolutely depended on works, then even baptized babies who die in infancy could not be saved. But we know that baptized babies who die in infancy are saved. Hence, we know that justification does not absolutely require that the living faith possessed be expressed in works, or that justification be increased.”
Does Bryan think that unbaptized babies who die in infancy are damned?
“You don’t know that Jesus and the apostles didn’t say that. What you mean is that the NT does not explicitly say it. I grant that. I’m speaking as one guided by the Apostolic Tradition, which is a living Tradition, and in which therefore, by the work of the Holy Spirit, there has been growth in understanding of the Apostolic deposit throughout the Church age. All the grace that comes from Christ’s Passion, comes to us in the New Covenant through the sacraments He has established in His Church.”
When Bryan can’t win the argument, he impersonates a cult member. He might as well be a Moonie or Mormon or Raëlian or Rosicrucian, Freemason or Swedenborgian.
“That is true even when this sanctifying grace comes to a person prior their reception of the sacrament. In such a case it is not that sanctifying grace came to them apart from the sacrament; rather, the grace they received came through the sacrament, prior to their reception of the sacrament.”
He keeps making statements like this as if the distinction were self-evident. They receive sacramental grace prior to reception of the sacrament, but somehow, that’s not apart from the sacrament, but through it.
“The canon is determined by the Magisterium of the Church, not by the latest opinion of academic scholars. And the Church has determined that Mark 16:9-20 is inspired and canonical. Jesus didn’t choose twelve scholars to govern His Church; He chose twelve Apostles. And those whom the Apostles chose to succeed them were not authorized to govern the Church by their scholarship, but by the laying on of the Apostles’ hands. And so it belongs to the bishops (i.e. the Magisterium), not the scholars, to determine what is the authentic canon, and which texts belong to it.”
i) Bryan would make a dutiful member of a suicide cult. Such unquestioning, unconditional allegiance. Of course, one problem with being a blind loyalist is that every competing cult makes the same fideistic, totalitarian demands. Yet they can’t all be right.
ii) Of course, the point of evangelical scholarship is not to replace the apostles, but to defer to the apostles by distinguishing their authentic writers from forgeries, and allowing them to speak for themselves.
iii) Catholic Bible scholars also practice textual criticism. It’s not as if the Vatican prohibits textual criticism.
“The Church Fathers frequently refer to John 3:5 to show the necessity of baptism under the New Covenant. You might think that makes ‘little sense’, but that is precisely how the Church Fathers understood it, and how they understood Jesus to be intending it.”
So what? Notice he doesn’t give us a reason for assuming that their understanding must match the intention of Jesus. Bryan constantly substitutes his ipse dixit for reason, evidence, and exegesis.
“It is bad reasoning, because the relative difference in the frequency of terms used in Scripture tells us absolutely nothing about the ontological relation of the referents of those terms. You are seeking to be guided by Ron Fung, published by Eerdman’s in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and by J. Ramsey Michaels published by Thomas Nelson Publishers in Nashville, Tennessee. But I am not an ecclesial deist; I am following St. Justin Martyr, St. Theophilus bishop of Antioch, St. Irenaeus bishop of Lyon, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Augustine bishop of Hippo and the many other Church Fathers, who consistently taught that the sanctifying grace by which we are justified comes to us through baptism. This is what is meant in the Creed by ‘one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.’ This is the faith of the Church, handed down from the Apostles.”
i) It’s fine with me if Bryan can only defend his Catholicism by resorting to rampant anti-intellectualism.
ii) It’s pretty meaningless to quote church fathers to vego to modern scholarship when they had no exposure to modern scholarship. They were indebted to, and reacted to, the cultural influences and challenges of their own time and place.
Suppose Chrysostom was born in Biloxi, Mississippi. Suppose he attended Trinity Evangelical Divinity School or Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Suppose he studied under Tom Schreiner or D. A. Carson.
The church fathers occupied a very different intellectual environment than we do. And it’s asymmetrical. While we know a fair amount about theirs, they know nothing of ours. It’s not as if they consciously rejected modern scholarship. They wouldn’t know what to reject. And there’s no telling whether they’d reject it or accept it. They never had that opportunity.
“Without the Fathers and the Church, you are left groping about, like Nicodemus, trying to understand what Jesus could have meant in John 3:5. And, not surprisingly, your conclusion is anti-sacramental and gnostic. If you start with propositions alone, it is no surprise you end up with gnosis alone.”
To the contrary, Jason interprets Jn 3:5 in light of Johannine usage and Johannine allusions. He is sensitive to the way in which the Johannine Jesus uses aquatic metaphors, as well as how the OT supplies the comparative background for many dominical statements in John. That’s not “groping.” That’s entering into the world of the narrative. Seeing it from within.
“Of course, you are presupposing that justification is not an initial sanctification. The Church Fathers believed and taught that justification is sanctification. According to the Fathers, we come up from the font holy, and without sin. The notion that Christian baptism does not justify, provided the recipient places no obstacle, is not the teaching of the Fathers.”
For Bryan, Biblical exegesis is nothing and patristic exegesis is everything.
“Again, I have an advantage in bringing the Apostolic Tradition to the Scriptures. It makes Scripture so much easier to understand.”
So much easier on the groundless assumption that patristic understanding directly correlates with apostolic understanding. But Bryan doesn’t give us any reason to believe that. All we’re getting from Bryan is the expression of his childish faith in Mother church. But how is his implicit faith any different than a suicide bomber’s implicit faith in the Hadith?
“My intention here (in this exchange) is, as I said above, only to show that the Catholic Church does not teach a false gospel.”
He hasn’t begun to show that. All he’s done is to stipulate that his own denomination doesn’t teach a false gospel. But he never gets around to defending his stipulation.
“I’m not going to take your solo scriptura point of view, and then try to establish from that limited perspective, the Catholic understanding of Scripture. I’m standing with the Church Fathers, and I seek to read Scripture through their eyes, not as though they never existed.”
i) Spoken like a loyal Moonie, Mormon, Raëlian, &c. Does he gets a pat on the head and a doggie biscuit for fealty?
ii) At the same time, this preemptive line of attack sounds the death knell for Catholic apologetics. If you have to be a Catholic insider to properly evaluate the meaning of Scripture, then no outsider can ever be persuaded by Catholic prooftexting since Bryan has automatically disqualified an outsider from sifting the argument.
How did Bryan decide? Did he flip a coin to choose between the “authoritative” interpretations of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or Oriental Orthodoxy?
“I’m not sure who the ‘we’ is, but Catholics and Orthodox read Scripture through the eyes of the Fathers. And the Fathers show that [Christian] faith includes baptism.”
Both groups say they read Scripture through the eyes of the Fathers, and both groups claim to represent the one true church, to the detriment of the other one true church. Do the church fathers have squinty vision?
“That would be a ‘problem’ if I were stuck in the solo scriptura paradigm. But, Catholics don’t need to treat the New Testament as an exhaustive theology manual. We have the Apostolic Tradition by which to understand Scripture. So what looks like a problem from a Protestant point of view, is not a problem from a Catholic point of view, precisely because of the Tradition that provides the interpretive framework by which to understand Scripture.”
What’s the difference between a Raëlian and a Roman Catholic? Their dress code.
“See, we’re talking past each other. When I say that we (Catholics) read Scripture through the Fathers, you respond by saying that Scripture is more authoritative than the Fathers. Of course Scripture is more authoritative than the Fathers. That’s not the question. The question is whether we come to Scripture through the Fathers, or we use our own individual interpretation of nuda scriptura to critique the Fathers, accepting from the Fathers only what fits our nuda scriptura interpretation, and rejecting what doesn’t. (And thus making the Fathers hermeneutically superfluous and irrelevant.) Because Catholics are not ecclesial deists, we don’t use nuda scriptura to critique the Fathers; we come to Scripture through the Fathers and the Tradition.”
i) Bryan makes the Bible writers hermeneutically superfluous and irrelevant.
ii) Bryan accepts from the Fathers only what fits into his 21C Catholic theology.
“The baptizing person acts in persona Christi, because it is Christ who baptizes.”
He says it, but he doesn’t show it. Truth by stipulation.
“Even an atheist can administer a valid baptism, so long as he/she intends to do what the Church does in baptism.”
On the one hand, Bryan cites passages from the Book of Acts to allegedly show that only an apostle could administer the sacrament of confirmation. Yet he tells us that even an atheist can administer baptism. Why can the lesser (atheist) do the greater (baptize), but only the greater (apostle) can do the lesser (confirm)?
Why not have an atheist administer confirmation? Or celebrate the Mass? Why didn’t Jesus appoint the twelve atheists instead of the twelve apostles?
“If you read the Greek, the word in Romans 6:23 is _______, which means gift. There is no word which means ‘free’ in the Greek text of Romans 6:23. Eternal life is the gift of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. And union with Christ requires saying yes to Christ and no to self and to the world. Living faith is not mere internal trust; it includes agape, which is love for God above all other things. The one who claims to have living faith, but does not love God above all things, is deceived. Agape, by its very nature, includes denial of self, flesh and the world. So the person who does not deny himself, flesh and the world, does not have agape, and hence does not have living faith, and hence is not justified and does not have eternal life. The denial of self, flesh, and world is in this way an intrinsic part of the cost of attaining eternal life. This is why there is no justification without repentance, for those who have attained the age of reason. Your notion that eternal life is absolutely free would make repentance entirely optional.”
Bryan has a shallow grasp of saving grace. To say eternal life is absolutely free doesn’t make repentance entirely optional. For repentance is, itself, the effect of spiritual renewal. The grace of God has a transformative dimension as well as a forensic dimension.
“The Scriptures were entrusted by the Apostles to the Church, and in particular to those whom they had ordained. And that is why it belongs to the Church to interpret them. Heretics and schismatics have no right to interpret Scripture, or to tell the Church what Scripture means. Scripture does not belong to them.”
i) Which church would that be? The Eastern Orthodox church? The Oriental Orthodox church? The Roman Catholic church? The LDS church?
ii) What’s to prevent, say, the President of the LDS church from making similar, unaccountable claims? Because it’s a cult? But you’d need some independent criterion to say that.
iii) Even if, for the sake of argument we accept his claim that the Scriptures were entrust to “the Church,” how does that make the trustees reliable interpreters? Imagine Caiaphas resorting to the same argument:
“The Scriptures were entrusted by the Prophets to the Levitical priesthood. And that is why it belongs to the Sanhedrin to interpret them. Nazarenes have no right to interpret Scripture, or to tell the Sanhedrin what Scripture means. Scripture does not belong to them.”
Bryan appeals to the papacy, which he traces back to Peter. But Caiaphas could deploy the very same argument against “Pope Peter”!
“Those documents testify that Christ founded a Church, and that the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. Once we know that, then to understand Scripture rightly, we must submit to the Church’s interpretation of Scripture.”
How does Bryan know those documents testify that dominical institution and indefectibility of the church? If, on the one hand, he knows it through private interpretation, then he didn’t submit his interpretation to the prior review of the church.
If, on the other hand, the Church’s interpretation is his starting-point, then how does he know those documents testify the dominical institution and indefectibility of the church? Unless he already knows that the church which interprets those documents is the same church which Jesus founded and preserves, then there’s no reason to credit that interpretation.
Bryan needs the true church to arrive at the true interpretation, but he needs the true interpretation to arrive at the true church. How does he cut into the circle to even get started?
Unless he knows the true interpretation apart from the church’s interpretation, he has no independent criterion to distinguish a true church from a false church. But in that case, private interpretation takes precedence over the claims of the church.
“As I said before, all the Scriptural warnings about persevering would be heretical if past justification guaranteed future justification. Nothing in your immediate paragraph above resolves that problem. If ‘initial justification’ determined our ‘future justification’, all the Scriptural warnings about perseverance and apostasy would not only be misguided; they would be heretical, i.e. contradicting the doctrine that initial justification guarantees future justification.”
At the risk of stating the obvious, contradicting Catholic dogma is only heretical on the prior assumption that Catholicism is true. The onus is hardly on Jason to resolve a problem which is only problematic on the very assumption which Jason denies. Since Jason isn’t Catholic, that isn’t a problem for him.
What if a Mormon told Bryan that Catholicism was heretical because it contradicted Mormon dogma, and Bryan had thus far failed to resolve that problem?
“For fifteen hundred years (and to this day) the Church believed that justification can be lost. The Orthodox also have always believed that justification can be lost. There are many places in the Fathers where we see that justification can be lost.”
Of course, that’s a silly argument. He’s invoking to tradition to warrant tradition. But it’s just a tautology. Yes, tradition is…traditional. Once something becomes entrenched, then tradition-bound believers continue to say and do the same thing because it is…traditional to do so.
“But we can find the same teaching clearly in the New Testament. Jesus tells us: ‘Anyone who does not remain in Me will be thrown out like a branch and wither; people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned’ (John 15:6). Why is Jesus wasting our time talking about impossible hypotheticals?”
Needless to say, the doctrine of perseverance doesn’t reduce Jn 15:6 to an “impossible hypothetical.” It’s quite possible for nominal believers to fall away. And we also need to make allowance for the limitations of the horticultural metaphor.
“Your implicit argument presupposes your Ebionitic notion of continuity of the New Covenant with the Old Covenant. Christ is the Son of God. He instituted a new and better Covenant with His own infinitely precious blood. So from some weakness in the Old Covenant, it does not follow that the New Covenant suffers from this same weakness.”
In that case, Bryan’s interpretation of Heb 6 & 10 presupposes his Ebionitic notion of continuity of the New Covenant with the Old Covenant. Even though Christ is the Son of God, who instituted a new and better Covenant with His own infinitely precious blood, Bryan assures us that Christians can fall away–just like the members of the Exodus generation who fell away in Heb 3-4. For Bryan, the new covenant suffers from same liability as the old covenant.” Christians are just as vulnerable as OT apostates.
“The fall that he is talking about is falling from grace. The very warning would make no sense unless St. Paul believed it is truly possible to fall, just as did those Israelites. If we couldn’t lose our salvation, then instead of warning them about taking heed lest they fall, he would be enjoining them not to worry, since they could not possibly fall.”
The warning functions as a deterrent. So Bryan is telling us a deterrent makes no sense unless it’s possible for the deterrent to fail. But that’s rather odd. Why would the deterrent value of a warning be contingent on potential failure of the warning to achieve its intended effect? Must a warning be ineffectual to be meaningful? Does it serve no purpose unless its purpose can be thwarted?
“And in his letter to the Galatians he says: ‘You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace” (Gal 5:4). That verse makes no sense if it is impossible to be severed from Christ and to fall from grace.”
In Gal 1:6, Paul uses “grace” as a synonym for the “gospel.” Therefore, Paul is not describing a lapse in their state of grace, as if, in this context, “grace” has reference to their subjective condition. Rather, he’s talking about their defection from the content of the gospel. A contrast between the message of Paul and the message of the Judaizers.
“Notice the warning. He is speaking to Christians. If Christians cannot lose their salvation, then there could be no warning about not inheriting the kingdom of God. It would make no sense.”
He’s speaking to members of the Corinthian church. That doesn’t carry any presumption regarding the spiritual status of anyone in particular. In the nature of the case, a public letter is addressed to a range of different individuals. Paul knew some better than others. And the congregation probably had a certain turnover, with various individuals cycling in and out.
“The warning is an actual warning, because it is truly possible (through committing the mortal sins he lists there) to lose one’s salvation, be cut off from Christ, and not inherit the kingdom of God. He gives these lists of mortal sins frequently: (Rom 1:28-32; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Eph 5:3-5; Col 3:5-8; 1 Tim 1:9-10; 2 Tim 3:2-5).”
i) There’s a difference between saying it’s possible not to be saved if you commit these “mortal” sins, and saying it’s possible to lose your salvation if you commit these “mortal” sins.
ii) Moreover, it’s counterfactually possible to lose your salvation if you do these things. But that doesn’t make it a live possibility. Does Paul think 1 Cor 15:12-19 is a live possibility?
“And in the book of Hebrews we find the same doctrine about the real possibility of losing one’s salvation. These enlightened persons have tasted the heavenly gift and become partakers of the Holy Spirit (through baptism, which was early in the Fathers called the sacrament of illumination/enlightenment), and then rejected Christ. But it would be impossible for them to fall away if they were never regenerated (and hence justified) in the first place. And yet they do fall away — the warning is not merely hypothetical. Such persons cannot be restored to repentance by baptism, because in baptism we are crucified with Christ (Rom 6), and Christ died only once. (But they can be restored by the sacrament of penance.)”
i) Bryan isn’t faithful to his own prooftext. On the one hand, he quotes it show that true believers can commit apostasy. On the other hand, he hastens to add that such apostates can be restored through penance. But, of course, the text doesn’t say that! So his appeal either proves too much or too little.
ii) A basic problem with this appeal is Bryan’s failure to construe the author’s terminology on his own terms. As one scholar explains:
“More importantly, the above analysis sheds some valuable light on the vexing question of the status of those envisioned in Heb 6:4-6. After analyzing the statements in vv. 4-6, McKnight confidently concludes that ‘[i]f the author is accurate in his description of the readers' experience, then we can only say that they are believers—true believers.’49 However, the preceding analysis leads us in a different direction. It appears that in analogy to the old covenant community the people depicted in 6:4-6 are not genuine believers or true members of the new covenant community. Like their OT counterparts, they have experienced all these blessings (vv. 4-5), but like the wilderness generation they are hardhearted, rebellious (3:8) and possess an "evil heart of unbelief” (3:12, 19).50 More clearly, 4:2 poignantly states that both groups (the wilderness generation and the new covenant community) have had the gospel preached to them, but the wilderness generation to which the readers of Hebrews are compared failed to believe, and therefore the message was of no value to them. Thus, the conclusion of Lane that ‘[t]ogether, the clauses describe vividly the reality of the experience of personal salvation enjoyed by the Christians addressed’ is premature.51 Wayne A. Grudem has recently proposed a similar understanding to the one presented in this section.52 According to him, the descriptive phrases themselves in vv. 4-6 are inconclusive as to whether the subjects are genuine believers or not. Here in Hebrews 6 they describe ‘people who were not yet Christians but who had simply heard the gospel and had experienced several of the blessings of the Holy Spirit's work in the Christian community.’53 The falling away (v. 6) is not a falling from salvation, but a failure to exercise saving faith in light of the blessings to which the readers have been exposed through association with the Christian community.54 The preceding analysis of the OT background to 6:4-6 confirms Grudem's conclusions. Thus in analogy to the old covenant community, those envisioned in vv. 4-6 have experienced the blessings of the new covenant (‘being enlightened,’ ‘tasting the heavenly gift,’ etc.), experiences common to all by virtue of belonging to the new covenant community, but have recapitulated the error of their old covenant predecessors by failing to believe and rejecting what they have experienced. In doing so they come under the covenantal curse."
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/04-Numbers/Text/Articles/Mathewson-Heb6OT-WTJ.pdf.
Continuing with Bryan:
“Later in Hebrews the author writes about the apostasy of Christians in chapter 10…The writer speaking as a Christian to Christians, says that if “we” sin deliberately [he's speaking of mortal sin] after receiving the knowledge of the truth, we face the fearful prospect of judgment and a fury of fire. How do we know he is talking about justified people? Because he explicitly says that a man who ‘was sanctified” by “the blood of the covenant,’ who then profanes this blood and outrages the Spirit of grace, will deserve much worse punishment than those (Israelites) who violated the law of Moses and died without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. Then he says that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Under what condition is it fearful? Under this condition: when we who are sanctified by the blood of Christ, then sin deliberately [i.e. commit mortal sin]. Such a person forfeits all the benefits of the grace of the New Covenant, and, if he dies in that condition, is punished in the eternal fires of Hell. Yes, that’s something to fear. The Christian is not told not to fear this possibility because he can never lose his salvation. Rather, the warning (about falling into the “fury of fire” [i.e. Hell]) is precisely to Christians. The warning implies the real possibility of Christians losing their salvation.”
i) The “we” is a rhetorical device. It’s not as if the author feared that he himself was in danger of apostasy by reverting to Judaism.
ii) The author is using categories of ritual purity or impurity. “Sanctify” in the sense of ritual consecration. Cultic holiness rather than actual holiness. As Ellingworth explains in his commentary:
“Koinon [common] contrasts with hegias the [consecrated]…the apostate treats as profane…that which is in fact not only holy in itself, but the source of cleansing holiness for the believer. The language is cultic, not ethical” (540).
Likewise, Hagner says, in his commentary, that “the word for ‘common’ (koinos)…is a cultic world meaning ‘unclean’ or unholy” (172).
Moving along:
"[Andrew Preslar] Interestingly, Protestantism, especially in its Lutheran and some of its Reformed strains, has insisted that saving faith is essentially passive (this is one of the reasons why Luther could sometimes accept baptismal justification)."
I’m not Lutheran. Neither is Jason. The elect are passive in regeneration, but active in faith.
"[Sid Cundiff] Without desiring to start a flame war: The New Perspective(s) on Paul scholarship — the work of E. P. Sanders, James G. D. Dunn, the Right Rev. N. T. Wright, and their precursors Schweitzer and W. D. Davies — as far as I can tell demolishes the Lutheran-Calvinist view of “righteous-making”. And when Calvinists attempted to demolish the NPP, Wright demolished them in his _Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision_, 2009. Frankly, reading these men — and I’m reading now more from them — makes me wonder if classic Protestantism has any Biblical foundation at all anymore.”
i) Of course, it sounds more impressive if you only read one side of the argument. Wright’s book as already been subjected to some withering reviews:
http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_123_2_Editorial.pdf
http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-life/justification-gods-plan-and-pauls-vision.php
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/publications/34-3/book-reviews/justification-pauls-vision-and-gods-plan
ii) It’s a kamikaze mission for Catholics to take refuge in the New Perspective on Paul. If that undercuts the Protestant doctrine of justification, then it equally undercuts the Catholic doctrine of justification. For folks like Wright don’t regard justification as a soteriological category. Yet traditional Catholic theology does regard justification as a soteriological category.
“[Ciatoris] In other words, this is a pivotal moment in St Paul’s argument. It cannot be a mere ancillary illustration. It is, in fact, the hinge that connects justification by faith (for uncircumcised Gentiles of all people!) with the Heilsgeschichte of the promise to Abraham that St Paul has sketched out in chapter 3. His answer? ‘For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus’ (vv. 27-28; cf. 1 Cor 12.13). This is St Paul’s logical warrant for the chapter’s conclusion: ‘And if your are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise’ (Gal 3.29). If St Paul thought of baptism as a “work of the law,” and therefore as in potential conflict with justification by faith, I cannot imagine why he would use it as an “illustration” at such a crucial moment in his argument. That would be misleading in the extreme.”
This fails to adequately address the function of Gal 3:27 in Paul’s argument. As one commentator points out:
“Whereas the Jewish ‘rite of passage’ was reserved for males only, in the new community of God’s people, entered into by faith in Christ Jesus and experienced by the coming of the Spirit, the ‘rite of entry’ was available to all. This is quite the point of the clause that follows (v28), where Paul singles out the three most obvious ways people are ‘distinguished,’ and thus separated, from each other–ethnicity (Jew and Greek), social status (slave and free), and gender (male and female)–but who have now been made ‘one’ Christ Jesus. It is especially true of the last designation, where Paul does not use the more traditional, case specific, language of ‘man and woman’ (cf. Gen 2:22), but the language which puts emphasis on gender as such (from Gen 1:27). Thus the very thing that excluded women from full participation in Israel, the fact that they were ‘female’ and could not be circumcised, has been set aside in Christ, since ‘all of you’ are baptized into Christ. Now ‘all of you’ have the same ‘rite of passage,’” G. Fee, Galatians (Deo Publishing 2007), 140-41.
“It needs to be emphasized that this alone is what the passage is all about; but because of other concerns that have surrounded it, much more needs to be said. We begin with the reference to baptism in v27. This is often read as having to do either with the necessity of baptism or with baptismal regeneration, but that is to read later ideas back into Paul’s text. The ‘for’ does not here explain how they became ‘sons=children’ or how they were regenerated, but what they have in common with all other brothers and sisters in Christ that makes circumcision for men in the Christian community so anathema for Paul…The point is that Paul is not trying to make any point at all about baptism other than the one he makes: it is the common entry point into the Christian community for everyone, irrespective of race, social status, or gender,” ibid. 141.
Continuing with Ciatoris:
“(I should add that if baptism were a ‘work’ extraneous to or even in competition with justification by faith, St Paul would also have been extremely misleading in Titus 3.5-7. There, he opposes baptism to “deeds done by us in righteousness”; he links baptism to the renewal of the Spirit, to justification, and to inheritance; and he does not even mention faith.)”
Of course, this uses one tendentious interpretation of prop up another tendentious interpretation. As Jason rightly points out, aquatic imagery is a common Biblical metaphor for spiritual cleansing. The mere use of aquatic imagery (“washing”) doesn’t imply or even presume that baptism is in view, and Paul had a specific word to denote that rite if he wanted to refer to it without fear of ambiguity.
“Your denial that John 3.5, 1 Cor 12.13(!!), Titus 3.5, etc., refer to the sacrament of baptism instantiates Andrew’s point. Your denial is sufficiently idiosyncratic that I’m at a bit of a loss for how to counter it succinctly and in a way that remotely adheres to the subject and scope of this combox. To my knowledge, your denial is contrary to the entire Christian tradition of scriptural exegesis from the Fathers of the Church forward. And I’m including Luther and Calvin. I suppose you might be able to build a case for your reading if the Bible were interpreted in an ecclesial vacuum. But the Bible is to be read in the Church and through her eyes.”
i) By “idiosyncratic,” Ciatoris apparently means any interpretation which runs counter to tradition. Of course, appeal to tradition is circular. By definition, tradition is…traditional. Tradition represents groupthink. Both synchronic and diachronic groupthink. The next guy repeating whatever the last guy said, and so on and so forth.
But that’s one of the problems with tradition. For it may codify a primitive error. Once the cement is dry, then even if the foundation was laid over a fault-line, the traditionalist will continue to raise one story atop another on that unstable foundation. The superstructure is increasingly precarious the higher it rises.
ii) While it’s certainly possible that 1 Cor 12:13 refers to water baptism, that isn’t clear in view:
a) Although the Greek verb and noun came to be technical terms for the Christian rite of initiation, the words also retain an ordinary meaning in Greek. Whether or not Paul is using the word in a specialized sense must be determined by context. We need to guard against assuming the English connotation of the word every time the Greek term is used.
b) And, as I’ve said before, Scripture frequently uses aquatic imagery as a spiritual metaphor.
c) One problem with assuming that Paul refers to baptism in this verse is that he uses two different aquatic images: to be “immersed in” (or “baptized by”) the Spirit, and to “imbibe” the Spirit. But the imagery of “drinking” is clearly figurative. Do Catholic think we literally sip or guzzle the Spirit? Therefore, it makes more sense to construed the paired images the same way. And that favors a figurative interpretation for both.
iii) Through the eyes of which church should we read the Bible? If we ought to read the Bible through the eyes of the church, then logically we’d read the NT through the eyes of the NT church. And what about the OT? Through the eyes of what church did OT or Intertestamental Jews read the OT scriptures?
However, it’s possible for NT churches to misinterpret NT scriptures. The Corinthians and Thessalonians were both capable of misunderstanding what Paul told them, which is why he had to write follow-up letters. But if the eyesight of the NT church sometimes misreads the NT scriptures, then the vision of the subapostolic church is scarcely more acute.
I say “ostensible” because, despite his introductory remarks, Bryan’s post is primarily directed at some of Jason Engwer’s comments.
“What makes this difficult to understand, from a Protestant point of view, is that in Catholic theology there is a distinction between justification and an increase in justification.”
This is one of the pompous ways that Bryan typically expresses himself. If some Protestant disagrees with Catholic theology, it must be because we just don’t understand Catholic theology. And a newbie convert like Bryan, who has no formal training in Catholic theology, will explain it to us.
“There is no such distinction in Protestant theologies, and for that reason Protestants not infrequently treat Catholic statements about the increase in justification as though they are about justification itself.”
Bryan will keep harping on this distinction, as if it salvages the Catholic position. But the problem with this distinction is that increased justification is still a mode of justification. It pertains to the justified state of the believer. It contributes more of the same. And it does so through justificatory works.
So it’s a difference of degree rather than kind. A fundamentally quantitative rather than qualitative distinction. Both initial justification and progressive justification pertain to the same fundamental condition or status. To the nature of someone’s justification.
That, however, doesn’t reconcile Catholic justification with Pauline justification. It doesn’t show that Paul made room for progressive justification, or that he did so on the basis of justificatory works.
So Bryan can repeat himself as often as he likes, but repetition of an otiose distinction does nothing to salvage his position.
“Justification takes place through the sacrament of baptism, and then, if a person falls into mortal sin, through the sacrament of penance. At the instant of justification, the person receives sanctifying grace and the theological (supernatural) virtues of faith, hope and charity (agape).”
i) That’s simply an exposition of Catholic theology. It does nothing to harmonize Catholic justification with Pauline justification.
All Bryan has done is to lift a Tridentine phrase, in which Trent combines three different terms (faith, hope, agape), and apply that set of terms to justification. Bryan will then use that as a prism to view Pauline statements on justification. But unless and until he can show that Paul would combine the same terms in the same way, Bryan is filtering the Pauline data through a prism which is alien to Paul’s own teaching.
ii) Moreover, Bryan’s inference is fallacious. To say a justifying faith is also a loving faith doesn’t imply that love is justificatory. What they have in common is not each other, but a common source (faith). That hardly means one property is identical with another.
The married man may also be a father. But that hardly means a paternal relation is interchangeable with a spousal relation. To be a husband and father are properties of the same man without being properties of each other.
Likewise, a red object may also be a round object. But this doesn’t mean shape and color are the same thing. Or have the same function.
“This does not mean that these cannot be received prior to the actual reception of the sacrament of baptism. Even then, however, they come through the sacrament, and anticipate its reception.”
This is another distinction that Bryan will repeat ad nauseum, as if it’s self-explanatory to claim that someone is justified through baptism even though he can be justified prior to baptism. Bryan needs to pause and actually explain that anachronism.
Does he mean that baptism is retrocausal? Is this a case of sacramental time-travel in which baptismal effects precede their baptismal causes?
“An increase in justification is not the same thing as justification. An increase in justification is not the translation from a state in which one is deprived of sanctifying grace to a state in which one has sanctifying grace. An increase in justification is an increase in sanctifying grace from a condition in which one already has sanctifying grace.”
i) Now he’s using “sanctifying grace” as a synonym for justification. But to show that Catholic justification is reconcilable with Pauline justification, he needs to show that justification and sanctifying grace are interchangeable concepts in Paul. What Bryan has actually done is to swap one for the other, without lifting a finger to demonstrate the Paul would agree with his substitution.
ii) Bryan’s distinguishes the initiation of a state from the continuation (or augmentation) of the same state. Yes, that’s a difference, but that doesn’t have reference to two different states of being. Rather, both have reference to one’s state of sanctifying grace. In the first case, how an individual enters into that state–and in the second case, how he maintains or fortifies that state.
So, once again, Bryan has failed to show that Pauline justification makes room for different phases of justification, as if justification is a process with different stages. If that is Bryan’s position, he needs to exegete that distinction from Paul.
“This is what St. Peter means in exhorting believers to grow in grace. (2 Pet 3:18) An increase in justification is not receiving sanctifying grace where there is none, but a movement of growth from grace to more grace, and thus a growth in conformity to the likeness of Christ, by an increase in the capacity of our participation in the divine nature. (2 Pet 1:4)”
i) Bryan is resorting to private interpretation. His private interpretation of 2 Pet 1:4 and 3:18. Bryan will do that quite often in the course of this thread. But this generates a dilemma:
a) Either private interpretation is illicit, in which case we can automatically discount all of Bryan’s scriptural appeals,
b) Or else private interpretation is legitimate, in which case he can’t automatically discount the interpretations of his Protestant opponents.
ii) Bryan hasn’t shown that Peter’s concept of grace is synonymous with the Catholic doctrine of sanctifying grace. The Catholic doctrine is far more specific than what you can exegete from 2 Pet 3:18.
iii) Moreover, Bryan hasn’t begun to show that 2 Pet 1:4 and 3:18 refer to the same thing as Pauline justification. Where is the supporting argument to bridges this connection? How does Bryan go from Petrine grace or progressive sanctification (or “participation in the divine nature”) to progressive justification? How did he exegete any of that from the terms of his prooftexts?
“The reason this distinction between justification and its increase is important for understanding the Catholic doctrine concerning justification is that although a person can and should prepare for justification (Trent VI.6), he cannot merit justification by any works. But, a person who is already justified and in a state of grace, can merit an increase in justification by doing good works out of love (agape) for God. Among these good works are works in keeping with the moral law, done out of love (agape) for God. God rewards our works done in agape by increasing our capacity to participate in His divine nature, and thus by increasing our participation in His agape. He Himself is our reward, and growth in grace is growth in Him, a reward we receive already in this present life, to be multiplied abundantly in the life to come.”
The question at issue is not what distinctions a Catholic can concoct, but whether one can map Catholic distinctions onto corresponding Pauline distinctions. Where does Paul draw an analogous distinction? Unless Bryan can exegete a relevant parallel, a Catholic distinction does nothing to salvage Catholic justification from the Pauline anathema.
“Does St. Paul teach that justification is by keeping the ceremonial law? No. Does St. Paul teach that justification is by keeping the moral law? No. According to St. Paul, justification is not by works of the law, and in St. Paul ‘works of the Law’ refers to the whole law under the Old Covenant. That’s what Robert is saying, and I agree with him, and nothing I said contradicts what he said.”
This is what Bryan originally said:
“You are not making any distinction between the works of the ceremonial law as part of the Old Covenant, and works of the moral law, done in a state of grace in the New Covenant, out of love [agape] for God. In his letter to the Galatians, St. Paul wasn’t condemning (or even referring to) growth in justification through good works done in a state of grace; he was condemning a return to the Old Covenant by Christians, because that was a rejection of the New Covenant and implicitly a rejection of Jesus as the Messiah who established the New Covenant in which the requirement of those ceremonial laws is done away. If you don’t understand the distinction between the ceremonial law and the moral law, then you have entirely misunderstood Paul’s point in his letter to the Galatians. Then your whole warrant for calling the Church’s teaching a ‘false gospel’ is based on a misinterpretation of Scripture.”
Let’s compare Bryan’s attempt to drive a wedge between the moral law and the ceremonial law with the observations of a leading Catholic NT scholar:
“Given Paul’s Jewish background, and especially his own affirmations about his pre-Christian past as a Pharisee, one might expect that the phrase frequently used by him, (ta) erga (tou) nomou, ‘(the) deeds of (the law’ (Gal 2:16; 3:2,5,10; Rom 2:15; 3:20,28), or in its abbreviated form, ta erga (Rom 3:27; 4:2,6; 9:11,32; 11:6) would have come from Pharisaism…the Hebrew equivalent has turned up in Qumran literature from Palestine itself,” J. Fitzmyer, According to Paul (Paulist Press 1993), 19-20.
“It [deeds of the law] has recently been restricted by J. D. G. Dunn to mean ‘particular observances of the law like circumcision and the food laws’…According to Dunn, such ‘works of the law’ are regarded neither by Paul nor by his Jewish interlocutors as ‘works which earn God’s favour, as merit-amassing observances. They are rather seen as badges: they are simply what membership of the covenant people involves, what mark out the Jews as God’s people,’” ibid. 23.
“Yet it is now seen in the light of this Qumran text that ‘works of the law’ cannot be so restricted. The text of 4QMMT does single out about twenty halakhot, but they are not limited to circumcision and food laws; they are moreover associated by the Jewish leader who wrote this letter with the status of ‘righteousness’ before God….From this Qumran text it is made clear than the sloganlike phrase did indeed have a legalistic connotation and that it was used in connection with the way a Jew would seek for righteousness in God’s sight,” ibid. 23.
So much for Jason’s having “entirely misunderstood” Paul’s point. Unfortunately, Bryan’s conceited ignorance is endemic among Evangelical converts to Catholicism. Not only are they at odds with wide swaths of Protestant exegetical literature, but equally at odds with modern Catholic exegesis.
Continuing with Bryan:
“But, as I will explain below, unless we recognize the difference between the meaning of ‘works of the Law’ as including the ceremonial law, and the New Covenant law that does not include the ceremonial law, we can mistakenly treat St. Paul’s teaching that justification is not by the former as though it also denies increases in justification by means of the latter.”
So Bryan seems to be saying that whereas moral law-keeping wasn’t justificatory under the old covenant, moral law-keeping is justificatory under the new covenant. But there are some fundamental problems with that argument. Let’s consider just two or three:
i) The Judaizers aren’t suggesting that Christian gentiles become old covenant proselytes. They don’t deny that Jesus is the Messiah. They don’t deny that Jesus inaugurated the new covenant.
Rather, they regard circumcision and other aspects of the ceremonial law as an ongoing part of the new covenant. For them, gentile Christians, to be genuine Christians, must convert to Messianic Judaism.
The Judaizers aren’t like the Jewish-Christians in Hebrews who were tempted to deny Christ and revert to the old covenant.
ii) When Paul uses the paradigm-case of Abraham, who was justified by faith rather than works, he does so to underscore the essential continuity between the principle of justification under the old dispensation and the new. Both Abraham and his Christian counterparts are justified the same way: by faith rather than works. That accentuates the analogous rather than disanalogous relation between the old dispensation and the new in reference to the nature of justification.
iii) Does Bryan think that Abraham and other OT saints were not in a state of grace? Does he think that Abraham and other OT saints did not exhibit faith, hope, and love?
“Without sanctifying grace and living faith, we cannot merit heaven; to claim otherwise would be Pelagianism. And that is why we cannot be justified by works. For St. Paul justification is by living faith, and we receive this living faith by hearing (Rom 10:17), and it is poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5) through the sacrament of baptism (Rom 6, Col 2). But none of that condemns or denies increases in justification through good works in accordance with the moral law done out of love (agape) for God.”
i) Notice Bryan’s resort to private interpretation.
ii) Bryan hasn’t shown that, according to Paul, we merit heaven through good works or sanctification. Where’s the argument?
“Jason thinks that the Catholic doctrine is that we are justified by ‘faith and works.’ But that is not true. As I explained above, in Catholic doctrine we are justified not by works, but by living faith, and living faith includes the supernatural virtue [i.e. disposition] of agape. Yet we may increase in justification by works done out of love (agape) for God, according to the order Christ has gratuitously established.”
If good works increase our justification, then we are partially justified by works.
“Here I was pointing out that St. Paul’s condemnation of the teaching of the Judaizers was not for believing that works done in agape (in accordance with the moral law under the New Covenant) increase our justification, but for believing that the keeping of the ceremonial law, and thus returning to the Old Covenant (and a keeping of the whole law) is necessary for justification.”
i) Bryan is interpolating a distinction which Paul doesn’t draw. And he does so in the teeth of what Paul actually says.
ii) The Judaizers weren’t suggesting that we “return” to the old covenant. Rather, they regarded the ceremonial law as an integral part of the new covenant.
“First, the Judaizers were rejecting the New Covenant, in which we are justified by sanctifying grace and [living] faith in Christ, received through the sacrament of baptism instituted by Christ.”
i) Bryan hasn’t show that, according to Paul, we are justified by sanctifying grace, much less that we are justified by sacramental grace. And, by the same token, he hasn’t show that this is what the Judaizers rejected.
ii) Moreover, baptism is the NT counterpart to circumcision. But if, according to the paradigm-case of Abraham, the patriarch wasn’t justified by circumcision, then it follows, by the logic of Paul’s argument from analogy, that a Christian isn’t justified by baptism.
“But the Catholic Church affirms the New Covenant.”
It pays lip-service to the new covenant.
“In fact the Catholic Church is the New Israel, the Israel of the New Covenant (cf. Gal 6:16).”
Except that Paul doesn’t say or even imply that the church of Rome is the New Israel. How does Bryan exegete the church of Rome from Gal 6:16?
“The Catholic Church teaches that we are justified by [living] faith in Christ, a faith that we receive as a gift from God, along with sanctifying grace, in the sacrament of baptism instituted by Christ. Jason’s assumption that St. Paul’s condemnation of the Judaizers’ doctrine applies to Catholic doctrine overlooks the role of the Covenants in the Galatian account. Jason thinks that St. Paul’s concern in his letter to the Galatians is simply excluding works of any sort from justification. It is true that St. Paul recognizes that works cannot justify. But St. Paul’s primary concern for the Galatian believers is that they remain within the New Covenant, and thus remain united to Christ.”
But both sides of the debate (Paul and the Judaizers) affirmed the new covenant, as they understood it. The problem turned on their mutually exclusive understanding of the new covenant.
“By adding the requirement of the ceremonial law they were returning to the Old Covenant, and thus nullifying the New Covenant and the sacrifice of Christ, the long-awaited Messiah and Savior. (cf. Gal 5:1ff) The Catholic Church rejects the requirement of returning to the Old Covenant for justification or salvation. From the Catholic point of view, adding the requirements of the ceremonial law would be nothing less than apostasy from the New Covenant established by the blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God. So in this respect, the Catholic Church does not fall under St. Paul’s condemnation of the doctrine of the Judaizers.”
Actually, the Catholic church merely substitutes one justificatory ceremony for another. Instead of treating circumcision as a justificatory rite, it treats baptism as a justificatory rite. So both Catholics and Judaizers believe in justification by ceremonial works. Ritual law-keeping.
“St. Paul’s condemnation of justification by ‘works of the Law’ is not about increases in justification through good works done in a state of grace under the New Covenant.”
Paul's condemnation is expressed in categorical terms.
“St. Paul rules out justification by works, but so does the Catholic Church. (Cf. Trent VI.1).”
A fallacy of equivocation, since Catholicism redefines key terms and concepts.
“In none of his writings, including his letter to the Galatians, does St. Paul teach that good works done in a state of grace under the New Covenant do not increase justification.”
i) To the contrary, he condemns the principle of justificatory works in general. And he does so by drawing attention to the continuity, rather than discontinuity, between the way in which Abraham was justified under the old dispensation, and Christians are justified under the new covenant. Abraham is the exemplar.
ii) Moreover, this is significant because it uses the same rule of faith as the Judaizers. Because they appeal to the OT, so does Paul.
“My point here is not to demonstrate from Scripture that good works done out of love (agape) for God merit an increase in justification. My point here is to show that claiming that the Catholic Church teaches that we are justified by ‘faith and works’ is false, because such a claim mistakenly conflates increases in justification with justification. A role for works in the increase of justification does not entail that there is a role for works in justification.”
Bryan needs to document these distinctions in the Pauline formulation to avoid the Pauline anathema.
“If in Gen 15 Abraham was already justified, then the justification referred to in Gen 15 either is a ‘maintaining of or increase in justification, based on the act of faith Abraham makes in Gen 15, or is referring back to Gen 12 (or whenever was the first time Abraham believed).”
That hardly follows, either logically or exegetically. In context, Gen 15 describes the inauguration of the covenant.
“Of course it wasn’t accompanied by baptism under the Old Covenant, since Christ established Christian baptism only in the New Covenant. But the absence of baptism in the Old Covenant doesn’t tell us anything about how it is to be received in the New Covenant.”
What we have in the OT is circumcision, which is the OT counterpart to NT baptism. Given Paul’s argument from analogy, baptismal justification makes the same mistake. If baptismal justification were true, then the most direct argument which Paul could deploy to refute the Judaizers would simply be: “Of course the Gentiles don’t need to be circumcised to be justified, for baptism takes the place of circumcision, and as long as you’ve been baptized, then that’s how you’re justified!”
Continuing with Bryan:
“And it seems clear that Abraham’s faith was accompanied by works, as James points out.”
i) It’s methodologically invalid use James to explicate Paul. Bryan needs to construe each writer on his own terms.
ii) The question at issue is not whether we can be justified by works in the Jacobean sense, but whether we can be justified by works in the Pauline sense.
iii) Moreover, Bryan needs to demonstrate that Catholic justification is reconcilable with Pauline justification and Jacobean justification alike. He hasn’t done either–much less both.
“Justification” is an English word, derived from Latin, which is used to translate a Greek word. You can’t start with Catholic usage, then appeal to Biblical usage (in translation, no less!) as if these are synonymous concepts.
“A mere suggestion is not sufficient to warrant schism from the Church, or the public charge that the Catholic Church teaches a false gospel.”
Jason isn’t proposing schism from “the Church.” Rather, he’s attributing a false gospel to Bryan’s sectarian denomination.
“There is continuity between the Old and New Covenants, but the New Covenant exceeds the Old Covenant, and for this reason baptism exceeds circumcision.”
i) That’s a fallacious inference. The fact that the new covenant exceeds the old covenant in key respects doesn’t mean the covenant sign of the new dispensation exceeds the covenant sign of the old dispensation. Bryan is confusing the sign with what it signifies. What exceeds the old dispensation is not the sign, but the significate.
ii) Indeed, one of the major points that Paul was making in Rom 4 is that a covenant sign has no intrinsic value. It doesn’t justify you. Rather, a covenant sign is, at best, a token of a preexisting state. Apart from a prior, underlying act of justifying faith, the covenant sign is nothing more than a bare token.
“It is St. John who tells us at the beginning of his gospel (written later in his life, according to tradition) that Jesus said to Nicodemus, ‘unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.’ (John 3:5) Jesus is the one who ‘added’ baptism, just as He did in Mark 16:16, and just as Peter did on Pentecost: ‘repent, and let each of you be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’ (Acts 2:38) It is baptism that now [in the New Covenant] saves us. (1 Pet 3:21)”
i) Notice that Bryan is resorting to private interpretation.
ii) Concerning Jn 3:5:
a) The sacramental interpretation cuts against the grain of the dialogue. Jesus upbraids Nicodemus for his failure to grasp what Jesus is referring to. But if Jesus is referring to Christian baptism, then Nicodemus would be in no position to know what Jesus referred to since Christian baptism had yet to be instituted. Therefore, Bryan’s interpretation is pitifully anachronistic.
b) The Fourth Gospel frequently uses natural metaphors. And as Jason rightly pointed out, John specifically uses an aquatic metaphor in 7:37-39, where water symbolizes spiritual renewal. So, in terms of Johannine usage, we’d also construe 3:5 as a figurative description of spiritual renewal, using a hendiadys to make his point.
c) As Jason also points out, the use of aquatic metaphors to symbolize spiritual renewal go back to the OT. Many commentators think Ezk 36:26-27 lies behind the picturesque imagery in Jn 3:5.
And some OT allusion or another fits the historical context, since that’s something that Nicodemus would be familiar with.
iii) Concerning Mk 16:16:
a) As Jason rightly points out, this is a spurious scribal interpolation.
b) Even if, for the sake of argument, we concede the authenticity of this verse, then it proves too much. For it would make water baptism a sine qua non for salvation. Yet that’s hardly the position of Vatican II, or even Trent.
iv) Concerning Acts 2:38:
a) There is no fixed sequence between baptism and reception of the Spirit in Acts (cf. 8:12,14-17; 9:17-18; 10:44-48; 19:5-6).
b) Baptism is a concrete metaphor for spiritual purification. The same imagery is used for repentance in 3:19. Therefore, baptism is simply a picturesque figure for God’s forgiveness of the penitent believer. Repentance, not baptism, is what literally results in divine forgiveness. Baptism merely signifies that transaction.
c) Apropos (b), the Book of Acts attributes forgiveness to three different things: faith, repentance, and baptism. How are these related? Do they represent three alternate routes to arrive at forgiveness?
It’s easy to see how faith and repentance are interrelated. These flow from a common source: a change of heart and mind.
In relation to faith and repentance, baptism would symbolize the effect of repentance and faith. It trades on the figurative imagery of washing and cleansing as a concrete emblem of inner purification. What scholars call an enacted parable.
d) In this passage, repentance is a precondition for baptism. Yet infant baptism is the norm in Catholicism. But infants aren’t penitent. Therefore, Bryan can’t cite this as a Catholic prooftext for baptismal justification (or baptismal regeneration.
v) Concerning 1 Pet 3:21:
a) This passage undermines the efficacy of baptism. For one thing, it tells us what baptism can’t do: baptism can’t wash away moral corruption.
b) And its moral inefficacy stands in contrast to a clear conscience.
c) Conversely, baptism is the token of a “pledge” which the baptismal candidate made at the time of his baptism. This is just another way of saying forgiveness is contingent on faith.
For the exegetical details, cf. K. Jobes, 1 Peter, 253-56.
“Faith comes by hearing, of course. But if it comes to a person in its fullness (as a virtue), it has come to them through the sacrament of baptism, even if they have not yet been baptized. The Spirit ordinarily works through the sacrament, but the Spirit is capable of outrunning the sacrament, as John outran Peter at the tomb. This ability of the Spirit to act prior to the sacrament, should not be interpreted as nullifying the sacrament or implying that the Spirit has not come through the sacrament.”
Once again, this is not self-explanatory. If saving faith sometimes occurs prior to baptism, then it comes apart from baptism at the time of its occurrence. So, in that event, what does baptism subsequently confer?
“When Paul says ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?’, he is asking them if they were confirmed when they were baptized.”
i) Is that what he’s asking? What evidence does Bryan adduce that a sacrament of confirmation even existed in the NT church? Can he point to some example in the Book of Acts or Pauline epistles? Later he mentions Acts 8, but there is no fixed sequence for reception of the Spirit in Acts.
ii) Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Bryan’s interpretation is correct. According to Catholic theology, confirmation is normally applied to candidates who reach the age of discretion:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a2.htm
So, if we apply that to Acts 19, then no baptized Catholic has the Holy Spirit unless and until he attains the age of discretion and submits to confirmation.
“St. Paul’s question shows that when the Apostles speak about believing the gospel, they are not speaking of this believing as something merely mental; ‘believing the gospel is a phrase that implicitly (when not explicitly) includes baptism…Faith is not merely an internal epistemic change; it is also a public profession and identification.”
Bryan is equivocating. Faith is a private, mental state. Public profession of faith is a way to share that private mental state with others. But the two are hardly equivalent. Bryan is confusing the nature of a mental state with acting on a mental state.
“Correct, but this believing includes baptism; it is not a merely private, internal epistemic change. It is sacramentally effected in the presence of many witnesses, by Christ.”
i) Except that Bryan admits you can have saving faith prior to baptism.
ii) Moreover, what about the Catholic “baptism of desire”?
“In neither the Cornelius situation nor the Acts 19 situation is faith truly separated from baptism. Faith precedes it, but the Apostles do not take this as nullifying the need for baptism.”
Once again, Bryan is equivocating. The obligation to be baptized doesn’t mean saving faith or justifying faith is equivalent to baptism.
“Likewise, when St. Paul says ‘hearing with faith’ (in Gal 3:2) he is not saying that faith does not come through baptism.”
i) Notice that Bryan doesn’t cite any verse from Galatians where Paul tells us that faith comes through baptism.
ii) And what does that even mean? Does every baptized Catholic have faith? Hitler received Catholic baptism. Did Hitler exercise justifying faith?
“But faith is public.”
Once again, this repeats the same equivocation (see above).
“St. Paul is essentially saying in Gal 3:2: Did you receive the Spirit through the sacraments of the Old Covenant (e.g. circumcision) or through the sacraments of the New Covenant (i.e. baptism and confirmation)?”
If that’s what Paul is essentially saying, then why doesn’t he say that, either explicitly or implicitly?
“Catholics aren’t limited to trying to determine the faith from Scripture. We have the living Tradition from the Apostles, the ‘view from the inside’ handed down to us faithfully within the community of faith, by which we understand what the Apostles were saying. We don’t read Scripture in an ecclesial or historical vacuum; we read it with the living memory of the community to whom it was entrusted.”
i) Bryan will continue to use this fallback for the remainder of the thread. It’s a backdoor admission that he lost the exegetical argument. So his prooftexting is just a charade since, by own reckoning, his prooftexts don’t really prove what he needs them to prove. He can’t get what he needs from his prooftexts. So he repairs to the backup system of the Magisterium.
ii) Needless to say, an argument from authority is comically tendentious without a preliminary argument for his authority. Before he can appeal to the authority of his church, he needs to make a case for his church. What’s the point of telling a Protestant opponent that apostolic tradition has been faithfully preserved by the church of Rome? That begs the very question in dispute.
iii) His Jungian appeal to collective memory is specious. Timothy had a living memory of the apostles. Pope Benedict XVI does not. A living memory is an eyewitness memory.
It’s true that recollections can be passed down from one generation to the next, like family lore. But that’s a precarious and often unverifiable process.
Say I have a living memory of my parents. I might also remember some things they told me about their parents. And that’s about as far back as it goes.
iv) Evangelical Bible scholars don’t interpret the Bible in a historical vacuum. And they don’t disregard the community of faith. But the question at issue is which historical context supplies the relevant context. Which community supplies the relevant community?
Is it future to the text? Or is it past and present at the time of writing? The historical background leading up to the text. The community to whom it was written.
“You don’t seem to realize Who is doing the baptizing. Does the believer exercise his free will in stepping into the font? Of course. But that’s not baptism. Who does the baptizing? Christ. Christ is the Baptizer.”
And the argument for that is what, exactly?
“The gift of eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord is free in this sense — it comes to us from God without any merit on our part. But, we should not therefore think that working out our salvation (Phil 2:12) will require no sacrifice on our part. Jesus said, ‘If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.’ (Luke 9:23, cf. Mt 16:24, Mk 8:34) We are fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him. (Rom 8:17) So the freedom of the gift of eternal life should not be conceived in an unqualified (or antinomian) way, but with respect to the utter graciousness of God’s offer of eternal life to us. On our part, it requires giving up everything. ‘If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.” (Lk 14:26)’.”
i) What percentage of Roman Catholics is regularly called upon to suffer for their faith? Is Pope Benedict XVI suffering for the faith? If he’s suffering, it’s pretty well-concealed. With a game face like that, the Holy Father missed his calling as champion poker player.
Is the College of Cardinals suffering? Is the Archbishop of Boston, Venice, Vienna, Paris, or New York suffering? If that’s what you call suffering, I daresay millions of hurting people around the world would envy their suffering.
Does Bryan have a pain-o-meter to register the rate of Catholic pain and suffering? Are devout Catholics in Monte Carlo taking up their cross every day? Inquiring minds want to know!
ii) Lk 14:26 has reference to a willingness to forgo everything, if push comes to shove. Not a necessity to do so. But something we must be prepared to do, if the situation arises.
If every Catholic followed the example of Mother Theresa, the Catholic church would go broke.
“Assuming that simply going by ‘the most natural way’ of reading the Bible correctly guides you to the proper understanding of the Apostolic deposit of faith is your underlying hermeneutical mistake. To understand the Bible, we need to read it in and with the persons to whom it was entrusted. In the history of the Church, we see that in many cases, the heretic’s most natural way of interpreting Scripture is to see his own heresy in it. That’s the danger of simply going by ‘the most natural way’ of reading Scripture.”
Of course, that’s a popular Catholic argument. I’m struck by the number of Catholic epologists who think it’s a good argument. On the one hand they admit that, if we simply read the Bible on its own terms, then the “heretical” interpretation is the most natural interpretation. So the only way to avoid heresy is override the most natural interpretation by the deus ex machina of Mother Church. Raw authority trumps exegesis.
But that’s what people always say when they lose the argument. Having lost on the merits of the case, they take refuge in authority to silence opposition and compel submission.
“Such a claim presupposes the falsity of the distinction between justification and its increase, and thus begs the question.”
If the question at issue is the nature of Pauline justification, then the onus hardly lies on a Protestant to disprove the Catholic distinction between initial justification and progressive justification. Rather, the onus lkes on the Catholic to document that distinction in Pauline theology.
“We work not for justification, but only for its increase. We can never merit justification. But once justified, we can, by the grace of God, merit eternal life, because in a state of grace (initiated by God), even one act done in agape for the God who is infinite Love merits an infinite reward, and this infinite reward is the eternal vision of God Himself.”
Well, it’s nice to hear a Catholic baldly tell us the reward (eternal life) is directly proportional to our merit.
“Only if we persevere. All the Scriptural warnings about persevering would be heretical if past justification guaranteed future justification.”
To say it’s “heretical” simply begs the question in favor of Catholicism. Bryan makes no effort to argue for Catholicism. He simply preaches at us.
“Mere suggestions do not establish anything, including your public charge that the Catholic Church teaches a false gospel. No schism from the Church is justified by a mere suggestion. If greater continuity were the criterion by which we adjudicated between competing interpretations, Ebionism would be the orthodox understanding of the New Testament. But, Ebionism is not the orthodox understanding of the New Testament. Therefore continuity does not carry the interpretive weight that you suggest. And for this reason your criteria of continuity is a kind of covenantal Ebionism.”
If Bryan wants to make invidious comparisons, then Catholic ritualism and sacerdotalism are Ebionitic in their continuity with OT ritualism and sacerdotalism.
“Of course I’m not denying that living faith is first inward. If justification absolutely depended on works, then even baptized babies who die in infancy could not be saved. But we know that baptized babies who die in infancy are saved. Hence, we know that justification does not absolutely require that the living faith possessed be expressed in works, or that justification be increased.”
Does Bryan think that unbaptized babies who die in infancy are damned?
“You don’t know that Jesus and the apostles didn’t say that. What you mean is that the NT does not explicitly say it. I grant that. I’m speaking as one guided by the Apostolic Tradition, which is a living Tradition, and in which therefore, by the work of the Holy Spirit, there has been growth in understanding of the Apostolic deposit throughout the Church age. All the grace that comes from Christ’s Passion, comes to us in the New Covenant through the sacraments He has established in His Church.”
When Bryan can’t win the argument, he impersonates a cult member. He might as well be a Moonie or Mormon or Raëlian or Rosicrucian, Freemason or Swedenborgian.
“That is true even when this sanctifying grace comes to a person prior their reception of the sacrament. In such a case it is not that sanctifying grace came to them apart from the sacrament; rather, the grace they received came through the sacrament, prior to their reception of the sacrament.”
He keeps making statements like this as if the distinction were self-evident. They receive sacramental grace prior to reception of the sacrament, but somehow, that’s not apart from the sacrament, but through it.
“The canon is determined by the Magisterium of the Church, not by the latest opinion of academic scholars. And the Church has determined that Mark 16:9-20 is inspired and canonical. Jesus didn’t choose twelve scholars to govern His Church; He chose twelve Apostles. And those whom the Apostles chose to succeed them were not authorized to govern the Church by their scholarship, but by the laying on of the Apostles’ hands. And so it belongs to the bishops (i.e. the Magisterium), not the scholars, to determine what is the authentic canon, and which texts belong to it.”
i) Bryan would make a dutiful member of a suicide cult. Such unquestioning, unconditional allegiance. Of course, one problem with being a blind loyalist is that every competing cult makes the same fideistic, totalitarian demands. Yet they can’t all be right.
ii) Of course, the point of evangelical scholarship is not to replace the apostles, but to defer to the apostles by distinguishing their authentic writers from forgeries, and allowing them to speak for themselves.
iii) Catholic Bible scholars also practice textual criticism. It’s not as if the Vatican prohibits textual criticism.
“The Church Fathers frequently refer to John 3:5 to show the necessity of baptism under the New Covenant. You might think that makes ‘little sense’, but that is precisely how the Church Fathers understood it, and how they understood Jesus to be intending it.”
So what? Notice he doesn’t give us a reason for assuming that their understanding must match the intention of Jesus. Bryan constantly substitutes his ipse dixit for reason, evidence, and exegesis.
“It is bad reasoning, because the relative difference in the frequency of terms used in Scripture tells us absolutely nothing about the ontological relation of the referents of those terms. You are seeking to be guided by Ron Fung, published by Eerdman’s in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and by J. Ramsey Michaels published by Thomas Nelson Publishers in Nashville, Tennessee. But I am not an ecclesial deist; I am following St. Justin Martyr, St. Theophilus bishop of Antioch, St. Irenaeus bishop of Lyon, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Augustine bishop of Hippo and the many other Church Fathers, who consistently taught that the sanctifying grace by which we are justified comes to us through baptism. This is what is meant in the Creed by ‘one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.’ This is the faith of the Church, handed down from the Apostles.”
i) It’s fine with me if Bryan can only defend his Catholicism by resorting to rampant anti-intellectualism.
ii) It’s pretty meaningless to quote church fathers to vego to modern scholarship when they had no exposure to modern scholarship. They were indebted to, and reacted to, the cultural influences and challenges of their own time and place.
Suppose Chrysostom was born in Biloxi, Mississippi. Suppose he attended Trinity Evangelical Divinity School or Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Suppose he studied under Tom Schreiner or D. A. Carson.
The church fathers occupied a very different intellectual environment than we do. And it’s asymmetrical. While we know a fair amount about theirs, they know nothing of ours. It’s not as if they consciously rejected modern scholarship. They wouldn’t know what to reject. And there’s no telling whether they’d reject it or accept it. They never had that opportunity.
“Without the Fathers and the Church, you are left groping about, like Nicodemus, trying to understand what Jesus could have meant in John 3:5. And, not surprisingly, your conclusion is anti-sacramental and gnostic. If you start with propositions alone, it is no surprise you end up with gnosis alone.”
To the contrary, Jason interprets Jn 3:5 in light of Johannine usage and Johannine allusions. He is sensitive to the way in which the Johannine Jesus uses aquatic metaphors, as well as how the OT supplies the comparative background for many dominical statements in John. That’s not “groping.” That’s entering into the world of the narrative. Seeing it from within.
“Of course, you are presupposing that justification is not an initial sanctification. The Church Fathers believed and taught that justification is sanctification. According to the Fathers, we come up from the font holy, and without sin. The notion that Christian baptism does not justify, provided the recipient places no obstacle, is not the teaching of the Fathers.”
For Bryan, Biblical exegesis is nothing and patristic exegesis is everything.
“Again, I have an advantage in bringing the Apostolic Tradition to the Scriptures. It makes Scripture so much easier to understand.”
So much easier on the groundless assumption that patristic understanding directly correlates with apostolic understanding. But Bryan doesn’t give us any reason to believe that. All we’re getting from Bryan is the expression of his childish faith in Mother church. But how is his implicit faith any different than a suicide bomber’s implicit faith in the Hadith?
“My intention here (in this exchange) is, as I said above, only to show that the Catholic Church does not teach a false gospel.”
He hasn’t begun to show that. All he’s done is to stipulate that his own denomination doesn’t teach a false gospel. But he never gets around to defending his stipulation.
“I’m not going to take your solo scriptura point of view, and then try to establish from that limited perspective, the Catholic understanding of Scripture. I’m standing with the Church Fathers, and I seek to read Scripture through their eyes, not as though they never existed.”
i) Spoken like a loyal Moonie, Mormon, Raëlian, &c. Does he gets a pat on the head and a doggie biscuit for fealty?
ii) At the same time, this preemptive line of attack sounds the death knell for Catholic apologetics. If you have to be a Catholic insider to properly evaluate the meaning of Scripture, then no outsider can ever be persuaded by Catholic prooftexting since Bryan has automatically disqualified an outsider from sifting the argument.
How did Bryan decide? Did he flip a coin to choose between the “authoritative” interpretations of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or Oriental Orthodoxy?
“I’m not sure who the ‘we’ is, but Catholics and Orthodox read Scripture through the eyes of the Fathers. And the Fathers show that [Christian] faith includes baptism.”
Both groups say they read Scripture through the eyes of the Fathers, and both groups claim to represent the one true church, to the detriment of the other one true church. Do the church fathers have squinty vision?
“That would be a ‘problem’ if I were stuck in the solo scriptura paradigm. But, Catholics don’t need to treat the New Testament as an exhaustive theology manual. We have the Apostolic Tradition by which to understand Scripture. So what looks like a problem from a Protestant point of view, is not a problem from a Catholic point of view, precisely because of the Tradition that provides the interpretive framework by which to understand Scripture.”
What’s the difference between a Raëlian and a Roman Catholic? Their dress code.
“See, we’re talking past each other. When I say that we (Catholics) read Scripture through the Fathers, you respond by saying that Scripture is more authoritative than the Fathers. Of course Scripture is more authoritative than the Fathers. That’s not the question. The question is whether we come to Scripture through the Fathers, or we use our own individual interpretation of nuda scriptura to critique the Fathers, accepting from the Fathers only what fits our nuda scriptura interpretation, and rejecting what doesn’t. (And thus making the Fathers hermeneutically superfluous and irrelevant.) Because Catholics are not ecclesial deists, we don’t use nuda scriptura to critique the Fathers; we come to Scripture through the Fathers and the Tradition.”
i) Bryan makes the Bible writers hermeneutically superfluous and irrelevant.
ii) Bryan accepts from the Fathers only what fits into his 21C Catholic theology.
“The baptizing person acts in persona Christi, because it is Christ who baptizes.”
He says it, but he doesn’t show it. Truth by stipulation.
“Even an atheist can administer a valid baptism, so long as he/she intends to do what the Church does in baptism.”
On the one hand, Bryan cites passages from the Book of Acts to allegedly show that only an apostle could administer the sacrament of confirmation. Yet he tells us that even an atheist can administer baptism. Why can the lesser (atheist) do the greater (baptize), but only the greater (apostle) can do the lesser (confirm)?
Why not have an atheist administer confirmation? Or celebrate the Mass? Why didn’t Jesus appoint the twelve atheists instead of the twelve apostles?
“If you read the Greek, the word in Romans 6:23 is _______, which means gift. There is no word which means ‘free’ in the Greek text of Romans 6:23. Eternal life is the gift of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. And union with Christ requires saying yes to Christ and no to self and to the world. Living faith is not mere internal trust; it includes agape, which is love for God above all other things. The one who claims to have living faith, but does not love God above all things, is deceived. Agape, by its very nature, includes denial of self, flesh and the world. So the person who does not deny himself, flesh and the world, does not have agape, and hence does not have living faith, and hence is not justified and does not have eternal life. The denial of self, flesh, and world is in this way an intrinsic part of the cost of attaining eternal life. This is why there is no justification without repentance, for those who have attained the age of reason. Your notion that eternal life is absolutely free would make repentance entirely optional.”
Bryan has a shallow grasp of saving grace. To say eternal life is absolutely free doesn’t make repentance entirely optional. For repentance is, itself, the effect of spiritual renewal. The grace of God has a transformative dimension as well as a forensic dimension.
“The Scriptures were entrusted by the Apostles to the Church, and in particular to those whom they had ordained. And that is why it belongs to the Church to interpret them. Heretics and schismatics have no right to interpret Scripture, or to tell the Church what Scripture means. Scripture does not belong to them.”
i) Which church would that be? The Eastern Orthodox church? The Oriental Orthodox church? The Roman Catholic church? The LDS church?
ii) What’s to prevent, say, the President of the LDS church from making similar, unaccountable claims? Because it’s a cult? But you’d need some independent criterion to say that.
iii) Even if, for the sake of argument we accept his claim that the Scriptures were entrust to “the Church,” how does that make the trustees reliable interpreters? Imagine Caiaphas resorting to the same argument:
“The Scriptures were entrusted by the Prophets to the Levitical priesthood. And that is why it belongs to the Sanhedrin to interpret them. Nazarenes have no right to interpret Scripture, or to tell the Sanhedrin what Scripture means. Scripture does not belong to them.”
Bryan appeals to the papacy, which he traces back to Peter. But Caiaphas could deploy the very same argument against “Pope Peter”!
“Those documents testify that Christ founded a Church, and that the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. Once we know that, then to understand Scripture rightly, we must submit to the Church’s interpretation of Scripture.”
How does Bryan know those documents testify that dominical institution and indefectibility of the church? If, on the one hand, he knows it through private interpretation, then he didn’t submit his interpretation to the prior review of the church.
If, on the other hand, the Church’s interpretation is his starting-point, then how does he know those documents testify the dominical institution and indefectibility of the church? Unless he already knows that the church which interprets those documents is the same church which Jesus founded and preserves, then there’s no reason to credit that interpretation.
Bryan needs the true church to arrive at the true interpretation, but he needs the true interpretation to arrive at the true church. How does he cut into the circle to even get started?
Unless he knows the true interpretation apart from the church’s interpretation, he has no independent criterion to distinguish a true church from a false church. But in that case, private interpretation takes precedence over the claims of the church.
“As I said before, all the Scriptural warnings about persevering would be heretical if past justification guaranteed future justification. Nothing in your immediate paragraph above resolves that problem. If ‘initial justification’ determined our ‘future justification’, all the Scriptural warnings about perseverance and apostasy would not only be misguided; they would be heretical, i.e. contradicting the doctrine that initial justification guarantees future justification.”
At the risk of stating the obvious, contradicting Catholic dogma is only heretical on the prior assumption that Catholicism is true. The onus is hardly on Jason to resolve a problem which is only problematic on the very assumption which Jason denies. Since Jason isn’t Catholic, that isn’t a problem for him.
What if a Mormon told Bryan that Catholicism was heretical because it contradicted Mormon dogma, and Bryan had thus far failed to resolve that problem?
“For fifteen hundred years (and to this day) the Church believed that justification can be lost. The Orthodox also have always believed that justification can be lost. There are many places in the Fathers where we see that justification can be lost.”
Of course, that’s a silly argument. He’s invoking to tradition to warrant tradition. But it’s just a tautology. Yes, tradition is…traditional. Once something becomes entrenched, then tradition-bound believers continue to say and do the same thing because it is…traditional to do so.
“But we can find the same teaching clearly in the New Testament. Jesus tells us: ‘Anyone who does not remain in Me will be thrown out like a branch and wither; people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned’ (John 15:6). Why is Jesus wasting our time talking about impossible hypotheticals?”
Needless to say, the doctrine of perseverance doesn’t reduce Jn 15:6 to an “impossible hypothetical.” It’s quite possible for nominal believers to fall away. And we also need to make allowance for the limitations of the horticultural metaphor.
“Your implicit argument presupposes your Ebionitic notion of continuity of the New Covenant with the Old Covenant. Christ is the Son of God. He instituted a new and better Covenant with His own infinitely precious blood. So from some weakness in the Old Covenant, it does not follow that the New Covenant suffers from this same weakness.”
In that case, Bryan’s interpretation of Heb 6 & 10 presupposes his Ebionitic notion of continuity of the New Covenant with the Old Covenant. Even though Christ is the Son of God, who instituted a new and better Covenant with His own infinitely precious blood, Bryan assures us that Christians can fall away–just like the members of the Exodus generation who fell away in Heb 3-4. For Bryan, the new covenant suffers from same liability as the old covenant.” Christians are just as vulnerable as OT apostates.
“The fall that he is talking about is falling from grace. The very warning would make no sense unless St. Paul believed it is truly possible to fall, just as did those Israelites. If we couldn’t lose our salvation, then instead of warning them about taking heed lest they fall, he would be enjoining them not to worry, since they could not possibly fall.”
The warning functions as a deterrent. So Bryan is telling us a deterrent makes no sense unless it’s possible for the deterrent to fail. But that’s rather odd. Why would the deterrent value of a warning be contingent on potential failure of the warning to achieve its intended effect? Must a warning be ineffectual to be meaningful? Does it serve no purpose unless its purpose can be thwarted?
“And in his letter to the Galatians he says: ‘You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace” (Gal 5:4). That verse makes no sense if it is impossible to be severed from Christ and to fall from grace.”
In Gal 1:6, Paul uses “grace” as a synonym for the “gospel.” Therefore, Paul is not describing a lapse in their state of grace, as if, in this context, “grace” has reference to their subjective condition. Rather, he’s talking about their defection from the content of the gospel. A contrast between the message of Paul and the message of the Judaizers.
“Notice the warning. He is speaking to Christians. If Christians cannot lose their salvation, then there could be no warning about not inheriting the kingdom of God. It would make no sense.”
He’s speaking to members of the Corinthian church. That doesn’t carry any presumption regarding the spiritual status of anyone in particular. In the nature of the case, a public letter is addressed to a range of different individuals. Paul knew some better than others. And the congregation probably had a certain turnover, with various individuals cycling in and out.
“The warning is an actual warning, because it is truly possible (through committing the mortal sins he lists there) to lose one’s salvation, be cut off from Christ, and not inherit the kingdom of God. He gives these lists of mortal sins frequently: (Rom 1:28-32; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Eph 5:3-5; Col 3:5-8; 1 Tim 1:9-10; 2 Tim 3:2-5).”
i) There’s a difference between saying it’s possible not to be saved if you commit these “mortal” sins, and saying it’s possible to lose your salvation if you commit these “mortal” sins.
ii) Moreover, it’s counterfactually possible to lose your salvation if you do these things. But that doesn’t make it a live possibility. Does Paul think 1 Cor 15:12-19 is a live possibility?
“And in the book of Hebrews we find the same doctrine about the real possibility of losing one’s salvation. These enlightened persons have tasted the heavenly gift and become partakers of the Holy Spirit (through baptism, which was early in the Fathers called the sacrament of illumination/enlightenment), and then rejected Christ. But it would be impossible for them to fall away if they were never regenerated (and hence justified) in the first place. And yet they do fall away — the warning is not merely hypothetical. Such persons cannot be restored to repentance by baptism, because in baptism we are crucified with Christ (Rom 6), and Christ died only once. (But they can be restored by the sacrament of penance.)”
i) Bryan isn’t faithful to his own prooftext. On the one hand, he quotes it show that true believers can commit apostasy. On the other hand, he hastens to add that such apostates can be restored through penance. But, of course, the text doesn’t say that! So his appeal either proves too much or too little.
ii) A basic problem with this appeal is Bryan’s failure to construe the author’s terminology on his own terms. As one scholar explains:
“More importantly, the above analysis sheds some valuable light on the vexing question of the status of those envisioned in Heb 6:4-6. After analyzing the statements in vv. 4-6, McKnight confidently concludes that ‘[i]f the author is accurate in his description of the readers' experience, then we can only say that they are believers—true believers.’49 However, the preceding analysis leads us in a different direction. It appears that in analogy to the old covenant community the people depicted in 6:4-6 are not genuine believers or true members of the new covenant community. Like their OT counterparts, they have experienced all these blessings (vv. 4-5), but like the wilderness generation they are hardhearted, rebellious (3:8) and possess an "evil heart of unbelief” (3:12, 19).50 More clearly, 4:2 poignantly states that both groups (the wilderness generation and the new covenant community) have had the gospel preached to them, but the wilderness generation to which the readers of Hebrews are compared failed to believe, and therefore the message was of no value to them. Thus, the conclusion of Lane that ‘[t]ogether, the clauses describe vividly the reality of the experience of personal salvation enjoyed by the Christians addressed’ is premature.51 Wayne A. Grudem has recently proposed a similar understanding to the one presented in this section.52 According to him, the descriptive phrases themselves in vv. 4-6 are inconclusive as to whether the subjects are genuine believers or not. Here in Hebrews 6 they describe ‘people who were not yet Christians but who had simply heard the gospel and had experienced several of the blessings of the Holy Spirit's work in the Christian community.’53 The falling away (v. 6) is not a falling from salvation, but a failure to exercise saving faith in light of the blessings to which the readers have been exposed through association with the Christian community.54 The preceding analysis of the OT background to 6:4-6 confirms Grudem's conclusions. Thus in analogy to the old covenant community, those envisioned in vv. 4-6 have experienced the blessings of the new covenant (‘being enlightened,’ ‘tasting the heavenly gift,’ etc.), experiences common to all by virtue of belonging to the new covenant community, but have recapitulated the error of their old covenant predecessors by failing to believe and rejecting what they have experienced. In doing so they come under the covenantal curse."
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/04-Numbers/Text/Articles/Mathewson-Heb6OT-WTJ.pdf.
Continuing with Bryan:
“Later in Hebrews the author writes about the apostasy of Christians in chapter 10…The writer speaking as a Christian to Christians, says that if “we” sin deliberately [he's speaking of mortal sin] after receiving the knowledge of the truth, we face the fearful prospect of judgment and a fury of fire. How do we know he is talking about justified people? Because he explicitly says that a man who ‘was sanctified” by “the blood of the covenant,’ who then profanes this blood and outrages the Spirit of grace, will deserve much worse punishment than those (Israelites) who violated the law of Moses and died without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. Then he says that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Under what condition is it fearful? Under this condition: when we who are sanctified by the blood of Christ, then sin deliberately [i.e. commit mortal sin]. Such a person forfeits all the benefits of the grace of the New Covenant, and, if he dies in that condition, is punished in the eternal fires of Hell. Yes, that’s something to fear. The Christian is not told not to fear this possibility because he can never lose his salvation. Rather, the warning (about falling into the “fury of fire” [i.e. Hell]) is precisely to Christians. The warning implies the real possibility of Christians losing their salvation.”
i) The “we” is a rhetorical device. It’s not as if the author feared that he himself was in danger of apostasy by reverting to Judaism.
ii) The author is using categories of ritual purity or impurity. “Sanctify” in the sense of ritual consecration. Cultic holiness rather than actual holiness. As Ellingworth explains in his commentary:
“Koinon [common] contrasts with hegias the [consecrated]…the apostate treats as profane…that which is in fact not only holy in itself, but the source of cleansing holiness for the believer. The language is cultic, not ethical” (540).
Likewise, Hagner says, in his commentary, that “the word for ‘common’ (koinos)…is a cultic world meaning ‘unclean’ or unholy” (172).
Moving along:
"[Andrew Preslar] Interestingly, Protestantism, especially in its Lutheran and some of its Reformed strains, has insisted that saving faith is essentially passive (this is one of the reasons why Luther could sometimes accept baptismal justification)."
I’m not Lutheran. Neither is Jason. The elect are passive in regeneration, but active in faith.
"[Sid Cundiff] Without desiring to start a flame war: The New Perspective(s) on Paul scholarship — the work of E. P. Sanders, James G. D. Dunn, the Right Rev. N. T. Wright, and their precursors Schweitzer and W. D. Davies — as far as I can tell demolishes the Lutheran-Calvinist view of “righteous-making”. And when Calvinists attempted to demolish the NPP, Wright demolished them in his _Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision_, 2009. Frankly, reading these men — and I’m reading now more from them — makes me wonder if classic Protestantism has any Biblical foundation at all anymore.”
i) Of course, it sounds more impressive if you only read one side of the argument. Wright’s book as already been subjected to some withering reviews:
http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_123_2_Editorial.pdf
http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-life/justification-gods-plan-and-pauls-vision.php
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/publications/34-3/book-reviews/justification-pauls-vision-and-gods-plan
ii) It’s a kamikaze mission for Catholics to take refuge in the New Perspective on Paul. If that undercuts the Protestant doctrine of justification, then it equally undercuts the Catholic doctrine of justification. For folks like Wright don’t regard justification as a soteriological category. Yet traditional Catholic theology does regard justification as a soteriological category.
“[Ciatoris] In other words, this is a pivotal moment in St Paul’s argument. It cannot be a mere ancillary illustration. It is, in fact, the hinge that connects justification by faith (for uncircumcised Gentiles of all people!) with the Heilsgeschichte of the promise to Abraham that St Paul has sketched out in chapter 3. His answer? ‘For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus’ (vv. 27-28; cf. 1 Cor 12.13). This is St Paul’s logical warrant for the chapter’s conclusion: ‘And if your are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise’ (Gal 3.29). If St Paul thought of baptism as a “work of the law,” and therefore as in potential conflict with justification by faith, I cannot imagine why he would use it as an “illustration” at such a crucial moment in his argument. That would be misleading in the extreme.”
This fails to adequately address the function of Gal 3:27 in Paul’s argument. As one commentator points out:
“Whereas the Jewish ‘rite of passage’ was reserved for males only, in the new community of God’s people, entered into by faith in Christ Jesus and experienced by the coming of the Spirit, the ‘rite of entry’ was available to all. This is quite the point of the clause that follows (v28), where Paul singles out the three most obvious ways people are ‘distinguished,’ and thus separated, from each other–ethnicity (Jew and Greek), social status (slave and free), and gender (male and female)–but who have now been made ‘one’ Christ Jesus. It is especially true of the last designation, where Paul does not use the more traditional, case specific, language of ‘man and woman’ (cf. Gen 2:22), but the language which puts emphasis on gender as such (from Gen 1:27). Thus the very thing that excluded women from full participation in Israel, the fact that they were ‘female’ and could not be circumcised, has been set aside in Christ, since ‘all of you’ are baptized into Christ. Now ‘all of you’ have the same ‘rite of passage,’” G. Fee, Galatians (Deo Publishing 2007), 140-41.
“It needs to be emphasized that this alone is what the passage is all about; but because of other concerns that have surrounded it, much more needs to be said. We begin with the reference to baptism in v27. This is often read as having to do either with the necessity of baptism or with baptismal regeneration, but that is to read later ideas back into Paul’s text. The ‘for’ does not here explain how they became ‘sons=children’ or how they were regenerated, but what they have in common with all other brothers and sisters in Christ that makes circumcision for men in the Christian community so anathema for Paul…The point is that Paul is not trying to make any point at all about baptism other than the one he makes: it is the common entry point into the Christian community for everyone, irrespective of race, social status, or gender,” ibid. 141.
Continuing with Ciatoris:
“(I should add that if baptism were a ‘work’ extraneous to or even in competition with justification by faith, St Paul would also have been extremely misleading in Titus 3.5-7. There, he opposes baptism to “deeds done by us in righteousness”; he links baptism to the renewal of the Spirit, to justification, and to inheritance; and he does not even mention faith.)”
Of course, this uses one tendentious interpretation of prop up another tendentious interpretation. As Jason rightly points out, aquatic imagery is a common Biblical metaphor for spiritual cleansing. The mere use of aquatic imagery (“washing”) doesn’t imply or even presume that baptism is in view, and Paul had a specific word to denote that rite if he wanted to refer to it without fear of ambiguity.
“Your denial that John 3.5, 1 Cor 12.13(!!), Titus 3.5, etc., refer to the sacrament of baptism instantiates Andrew’s point. Your denial is sufficiently idiosyncratic that I’m at a bit of a loss for how to counter it succinctly and in a way that remotely adheres to the subject and scope of this combox. To my knowledge, your denial is contrary to the entire Christian tradition of scriptural exegesis from the Fathers of the Church forward. And I’m including Luther and Calvin. I suppose you might be able to build a case for your reading if the Bible were interpreted in an ecclesial vacuum. But the Bible is to be read in the Church and through her eyes.”
i) By “idiosyncratic,” Ciatoris apparently means any interpretation which runs counter to tradition. Of course, appeal to tradition is circular. By definition, tradition is…traditional. Tradition represents groupthink. Both synchronic and diachronic groupthink. The next guy repeating whatever the last guy said, and so on and so forth.
But that’s one of the problems with tradition. For it may codify a primitive error. Once the cement is dry, then even if the foundation was laid over a fault-line, the traditionalist will continue to raise one story atop another on that unstable foundation. The superstructure is increasingly precarious the higher it rises.
ii) While it’s certainly possible that 1 Cor 12:13 refers to water baptism, that isn’t clear in view:
a) Although the Greek verb and noun came to be technical terms for the Christian rite of initiation, the words also retain an ordinary meaning in Greek. Whether or not Paul is using the word in a specialized sense must be determined by context. We need to guard against assuming the English connotation of the word every time the Greek term is used.
b) And, as I’ve said before, Scripture frequently uses aquatic imagery as a spiritual metaphor.
c) One problem with assuming that Paul refers to baptism in this verse is that he uses two different aquatic images: to be “immersed in” (or “baptized by”) the Spirit, and to “imbibe” the Spirit. But the imagery of “drinking” is clearly figurative. Do Catholic think we literally sip or guzzle the Spirit? Therefore, it makes more sense to construed the paired images the same way. And that favors a figurative interpretation for both.
iii) Through the eyes of which church should we read the Bible? If we ought to read the Bible through the eyes of the church, then logically we’d read the NT through the eyes of the NT church. And what about the OT? Through the eyes of what church did OT or Intertestamental Jews read the OT scriptures?
However, it’s possible for NT churches to misinterpret NT scriptures. The Corinthians and Thessalonians were both capable of misunderstanding what Paul told them, which is why he had to write follow-up letters. But if the eyesight of the NT church sometimes misreads the NT scriptures, then the vision of the subapostolic church is scarcely more acute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)