UNCG Outreach Report 3-30-2010

Yesterday, the weather was beautiful and the evangelistic opportunities were plenteous. The weather was too blustery for open-air preaching, so I engaged in tract distribution and one-on-one evangelism for five hours. The question of the day was: Does absolute truth exist? The first conversation that I had using the "starter question" was with two physics majors named Adam and Steve. They behaved and conversed like true gentlemen and the interaction was truly pleasant. They both initially denied the existence of absolute truth and I pointed out to them that this claim was self-refuting since to deny absolute truth is to make an absolute truth claim. They didn't quite get the point initially (probably because I wasn't clear), but as I parsed out the argument they got the point. I then further reiterated the self-refutation by showing that to deny the existence of absolute truth causes you to use the invariant, abstract, universal laws of logic, thus showing that you believe in absolute truth in practice though you deny it in principle. We then discussed the laws of science and after some discussion, they both agreed that they were arbitrarily assuming that the laws of logic and science were going to work the same way in the future that they had in the past, thus committing the logical fallacy of begging the question. We then discussed the existence of moral absolutes and they both denied that such existed, so I asked them, "So, you believe that under certain circumstances that it would be okay to torture babies for fun?" They both hesitated initially, but then admitted that given their moral relativism, they couldn't morally object to it if their society condoned and legalized it. At this point, I pointed out to them that they had made my point for me, namely, that if they don't begin with God, then there is no objective, transcendent basis for right and wrong. They agreed too! I then answered more of their questions regarding creation/evolution issues, gave them some creation literature, and we then shook hands and parted ways. Please pray for Adam and Steve.

Next, I spoke with a girl that had a cross around her neck and after handing a tract to her I asked if she was a Christian and she said "yes". I then said, "Okay Christian, I've got a knife in my back and have three minutes to live, please tell me what must I do to be saved." She obviously had a Catholic background as she said that I had to go to purgatory first before being admitted to heaven. I then asked, "So, I don't need to do anything but die?" She never said that I needed to repent of my sins, ask for forgiveness and receive Jesus as Lord and Savior, or anything like that, but instead said, "Well, you should have gone to confession, attended Mass, etc." and I said, "But I don't have time for that now, I'm dying, I feel guilty about things I've done, and I want to go to heaven but I've only got 2.5 minutes to live". She said that as long as I lived a good and sincere life and didn't commit any mortal sins, then I don't have to worry because I'd be reconciled to God anyways. Knowing that adultery and murder are mortal sins per Catholicism, I then said, "But I remember reading in St. Matthew where Jesus said that if I have had a lustful thought then I've committed adultery in my heart and that if I've hated someone or called them a fool then I'm guilty enough to go to Hell." [Matt. 5:21-22; 27-28] She then reiterated that I should have went to confession, the Mass, etc. and then she walked into her building and the conversation ended there. I realize that her responses are not completely representative of how official Catholicism would answer my question, for I am aware of the doctrine of "last rites/extreme unction", but her inability to point me to Christ as the sole source of salvation is telling indeed.

After she entered the building, I then turned to two guys near the bike rack outside the entrance, handed them a gospel tract and asked them about the existence of absolute truth and one guy refused to enter into conversation with me and quickly left whereas his friend said that absolute truth existed but that it was subject to the individual. I then defined absolute truth (truth for all people, times, and places) and he denied it existed. I then pointed him to his own denial as a proposition that proved the contrary and he saw the problem, but demurred and said he had to go.

I then walked to the other side of campus, passing out tracts as I went and met up with a black man outside of the library named Dwight. Dwight was new to the area, was not a student, and was very open to the gospel. I had prayed for God to put people into my path today that were open to the gospel, and Dwight was my answered prayer. He seemed to absorb everything I was saying like a sponge. He admitted that he was a sinner, was not reconciled to God through faith and repentance in Christ, and was living contrary to God's ways. I used zero apologetics with him as he didn't need it. He simply needed to hear the old, old story of Jesus and His love. He was visibly convicted by my words and as I explained the kindness and love of God in sending His Son to die for wicked people who don't deserve His love, he seemed to really be affected by this. I told him to go home, read the gospel of John, put his face in the carpet, and beg God to save his soul. He shook my hand, asked where we went to church, and really appreciated my being there. I told him that our meeting didn't happen by chance, but that it was God ordained. Please pray for Dwight.

I then handed out more tracts, walking through the campus toward the Northern most side and had a great discussion with a young man that I handed a tract to that professed to be a Christian. I asked him that same thing that I asked the Catholic young lady earlier, and he couldn't explain to me what the gospel was, so I asked, "If you can't explain the gospel to me, why should I believe that you are a Christian when you aren't even familiar with it's most basic message?" I then gave him the gospel in a minute and he was off to his class.

At this point, I found myself outside of a building with college kids sitting and chatting everywhere. So, I went up to the young man that was closest to me and introduced myself and asked him what he was studying. He told me he was studying for a psychology test that was on the topic of people who think they have been abducted by aliens. We talked about this for a few minutes and then I asked him about the existence of absolute truth and he had an interesting response that I've never heard before: "I believe in absolute truth, but only if people have been exposed to it." I then pointed out that whether or not people have been exposed to it is irrelevant; what's relevant is whether it's true or not. I then used an imperfect analogy about how Australians who come into our country are still subject to our laws even though they are not specifically aware of what those laws are. He got the point, then I was able to share with him why I was there and we then had a great discussion about God, the gospel, evil, and salvation. He came from a non-churched home (both of his parents were "non-religious" scientists) and his big sticking point was "the problem of evil", specifically, the tremendous amount of suffering in the world. The next 20 minutes proved to be a very fruitful discussion where I was able to not only answer his objections, but also point him to the gospel of Christ. We shook hands and he left to take his test.

Next, I spoke with two young men who overheard some of my conversation with the previous young man. I gave them each a tract, asked them the question of the day, and they both denied the existence of absolute truth. I then pointed out the contradiction, they admitted the problem and retracted their original position, and then I asked them what was the source of absolute truth. They both essentially said that it was God. I asked them "Which God?" to which one responded, "I'm a supporter of the idea that there are many ways to get to God" and I then asked, "How can there be many ways to get to the same God when all the major world religions have competing and contradictory truth claims about who God is and how to be reconciled to their conception of the divine?" I then gave some clear examples. I got no meaningful answer but to be fair, they had to scoot off to class.

I then headed back toward my car and had a great conversation with a young Hispanic man named Carmelio (sp?) who also initially denied the existence of absolute truth, but retracted after being shown the refutation thereof. When asked, he said that he believed in God, but when he said that he didn't necessarily believe in the God of the Bible, I explained to him that he had made a god to suit his own likeness and that was idolatry. I spent some time working through some of the other commandments and he admitted that if God were to judge him based on his violation of those commands, that he would go to Hell. I then preached him the gospel, gave him a Bible (he said he didn't own one), and instructed him to read the gospel of John and call or e-mail me if he had any questions. Please pray for Carmelio.

I then kept heading back to the car and spoke with three young girls outside of the campus ice cream shop that couldn't have been more than 16-17 years of age each. They all professed faith in Christ but blew it when it came to explaining to me how a person is saved. I explained the gospel to them, two out of the three looked disinterested, so I gave them tracts, and thanked them for their time.

The next young man I spoke with was named Josh. I recognized him from somewhere else, but I just couldn't place where I knew him from. We had a great conversation, and he already understood repentance but didn't understand saving faith that well; and I had the opportunity to explain it to him and we shook hands and he took off.

I then spoke to a young black man taking a smoke break outside of a campus thrift shop. He was a really nice guy, listened well, and asked some great questions about Islam and Christianity. He thought that Christians and Muslims basically believed in the same God and I corrected that notion and explained the gospel to him. He gladly took a tract, and I told him if he had any questions to give me a call or e-mail me.

The last guy I spoke with was a black man named Derek. He didn't know what the gospel was, so I explained it to him and he too listened intently as we stood on the sidewalk. Please pray for Derek.

All in all, God granted a productive day of evangelism. A few things I need to work on are as follows:

1. Being more succinct instead of waxing eloquent.

2. When people object to Christ's exclusive claim in John 14:6 by asking about other world religions, ask them if they believe in those religions in order to avoid unnecessary discussion and debate about things they don't believe.

3. Use more Scripture in discussions with people (Romans 1:16; Hebrews 4:12).

May God grant those who I spoke with eyes to see and ears to hear. Indeed, as Jesus said, the fields are white unto harvest.

Healthcare deform

I'm reposting some comments I left at Darrel Bock's blog:

**********************************************************

Of course, Beck is Mormon,
Submitted by steve hays (not verified) on Fri, 2010-03-19 09:43.

Of course, Beck is Mormon, so we wouldn't expect him to have any grasp of the Gospel.


LL: "I shudder to think what
Submitted by steve hays (not verified) on Fri, 2010-03-26 15:06.
LL:

"I shudder to think what we would see if not for Social Security and Medicare, programs that many have criticized as socialism."

Both of which are going broke. Moreover, the health care bill slashes Medicare. So how does this prove your point? Doesn't it disprove your point?

"Health insurance related horror stories and bankruptcies are numerous."

It's easy to cite horror stories for every position. There are horror stories for Canadian healthcare, British healthcare, Dutch healthcare, &c.

"The conservatives typically aren’t addressing the real issues."

What conservatives do you read or listen to?

"I have no doubt that God is concerned, and yes offended, with the painting with a broad brush the concepts of social justice and economic justice, supported by churches, as one and the same with communism or an ungodly agenda."

You paint conservatives with a broad brush.

Lynn: “Considering that my
Submitted by steve hays (not verified) on Sat, 2010-03-27 19:38.
Lynn:

“Considering that my address wasn’t an endorsement of any specific health care bill, the fact that a bill may slash Medicare doesn’t disprove my point.”

The immediate context was clearly the debate over Obamacare.

“My point was simply that these programs--which many have criticized as socialism and therefore should not exist--have been indispensable to the lives of countless people who have relied on them for basic survival over the decades.”

That ignores the alternatives. For example, what if the income which gov’t garnishes in payroll taxes had been invested by wage-earners in compound interest-bearing accounts?

“The fact that these programs are in need of an overhaul, doesn’t make a case that they should never have been created in the first place.”

“Overhaul” is euphemistic. These programs are demographically doomed: too few workers to support too many retirees.

Moreover, as long as the gov’t controls the money, the so-called trust-fund will simply be a cash cow for politicians to raid and squander on their pet projects.

“It is best to leave well enough alone, because the wealthy are doing fine in America. Feel free to correct me, but you seem to be supporting the status quo.”

Since Nancy Pelosi is one of the wealthiest members of the Senate, your class warfare rhetoric is oddly misaligned. Moreover, I was simply making the point that anecdotal horror stories cut both ways. Answering you on your own terms.

“As to the conservatives’ addresses of the issue, I mentioned two: One was a well-known, and respected by many, televangelist, and the other was an anonymous, ordinary person, claiming that we can take care of ourselves. I haven’t heard everything that has been said in the public arena, but in my experience, the conservative position doesn’t address the full scope of the issues; they speak of how nice it currently is for the well off, as compared to other systems, and how that would supposedly be taken away from them if all people are considered. They seem to avoid most of the discussion on the need for a change, because they do not want to appear to be on the side of the Democrats. This is how it has come across to me, and pitifully so. I haven’t heard much open and honest discussion, only what has seemed to me to be self-serving.”

I don’t see any evidence that you have made a good faith effort to seek out conservative intellectuals who speak to these and other issues. For example, Albert Mohler is a far more reputable spokesman for the religious right than Pat Robertson. In addition, we have Christian and/or conservative bioethicists like Francis Beckwith, Robert George, and Wesley J. Smith.

On a related note, OT scholar James Hoffmeier wrote a book last year (The Immigration Crisis) in the course of which he discusses the Biblical notion of charity and how that could be applied to public policy today.

On the immediate point at issue, here are two discussions which present a conservative alternative to Obamacare:

http://www.aei.org/docLib/ABetterPrescription.pdf

http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/PCAsummary15p.pdf

“But I do stand by my statement, that I believe it is the typical conservative position to blatantly avoid the key elements of the issues, in all different areas of discussion.”

Your impressions of conservative thought seemed to be filtered through secondhand sources in the liberal media. What comes across is prejudice.

“Steve, do you believe it is accurate to address the health care issue in the context of whether we are to give our tunics ‘voluntarily’ or ‘by force’?”

That was addressed to Jews living under Roman occupation. Have you even considered the historical setting?

And I don’t see Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, or Michelle Obama sharing their wardrobe (or any of their other personal effects) with the poor, do you?

“Is it possible that we need to become a more giving people, in terms of what the government can do to insure support regarding the massive costs of health care that is needed by many of our citizens?”

That’s an ironic question since you’re taking the status quo for granted vis-à-vis the cost of healthcare. Conservative reformers have proposed various initiatives to make healthcare more affordable and thereby more accessible.

The limits of historical inquiry

One objection which unbelievers typically raise against the Bible is that Bible history lacks credibility because so many of the reported events lack multiple-attestation. Or even in cases where they do enjoy multiple-attestation, they still lack credibility given the religious bias of the narrator.

To this, Christian apologists typically respond that we believe many historical reports with little or no multiple-attestation. What is more, we believe many historical reports even though the witness may well be biased to some degree.

And I think that’s a sufficient response, for it answers the averate unbeliever on his own terms. However, it’s possible for the unbeliever to bite the proverbial bullet at this juncture. He could always say, “Perhaps we don’t know as much about the past as we think we do. Maybe we’re too credulous. Maybe our easy confidence in the historical record is misplaced.”

That would at least be consistent. However, if an unbeliever made that move, he would pay a price.

For the average unbeliever doesn’t content himself with the claim that Scripture lacks adequate corroboration. Rather, he usually alleges that Scripture is historically inaccurate. That it contains historical mistakes–contradicting what we know about the past from other sources.

But, of course, he has to resign that objection if he’s going to invoke historical scepticism in general to justify his specific scepticism in reference to Bible history. Like using your right hand to sever your left hand, then using your severed left hand to sever your right hand.

Frankfurt Counter Examples, Begging the Question, and Open Theism

Victor Reppert has been blogging on Frankfurt counter examples recently. Many claim that Frankfurt counter examples beg the question against libertarianism. This is because these examples assume a prior tell sign that the Frankfurt controller can use to know for certain how an agent will act (and we'll leave aside Frankfurt cases that do not assume this, such as Mele or Bergmann's, for example). No controller could know for certain how an agent will act because there is no tell sign that always guarantees a specific action to result. If there were, then we'd have determinism. This move is known as the Kane-Widerker response to Frankfurt (aka the indeterminist worlds objection).

But what if we leave out the "tell sign" and claim that the controller "just knows." That is, he has infallible foreknowledge of how Frankfurt-type subjects will act. More specifically, he knows propositions like this: S will do A unless I were to intervene and prevent S from A-ing.

So, we might have a situation like this (inspired by David Widerker in "A problem for the Eternity Solution," International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 1991):

Consider a scenario where Smith wants to murder Jones at t5. Suppose God, however, has different plans for Jones than for him to die at t5. So God reveals to Jones at t3 that Smith will try to shoot him at t5. Suppose further that Smith has LFW at t4. If so, Smith is free at t4 to refrain from trying to kill Jones at t5. But, since God is infallible, Smith cannot refrain. Is Smith responsible for his attempted assassination?

In this case, there are no "tell signs" and so the worry over question begging is gone. This puts Frankfurt counter examples right back into the game and the libertarian must deal with them. There doesn't seem to be anything about this Frankfurt counter example that begs the question and so we have a case where PAP isn't necessary for moral responsibility.

It turns out that there's a way to bring question begging back into the picture--the way of Open Theism. Here's what David Widerker has to say about the controller being omniscient:

"Examining now the previous examples from this point of view, it is not at all clear to me that they describe situations in which Jones can be said to be acting on his own. Since in them God is assumed to be infallible, the fact D(B) occurs at T is entailed (in the broadly logical sense) by the prior act of God's believing at T' that D(B) occurs at T (T' is metaphysically necessitated or metaphysically determined by the belief of God. Now, if a libertarian rejects as an instance of an agent's acting on his own a scenario in which an agent's decision is nomically necessitated by a temporally prior fact (or a conjunction of such facts), why wouldn't he reject the one in which the decision is metaphysically necessitated by a prior event? What, in my opinion, is crucial to the libertarian's conception of free decision is that such a decision is not necessitated or determined in any way by any antecedent fact. . . . Now, one may object that metaphysical necessitation is not nomic necessitation. But why should this difference be relevant? If a decision is rendered unfree by the fact that its occurrence at T is entailed by the conjunction of some temporally prior facts together with the laws of nature, then why would it not be rendered unfree if its occurring at T is entailed by God's prior belief that it will occur at T? If the critic still thinks that there is a difference between the two cases, it is incumbent upon him to explain why." (Widerker, Responsibility and Frankfurt Examples, Oxford Handbook of Freewill, 328, emphasis original).

Interestingly enough, in Robert Kane's review of Linda Zagzebski's book on foreknowledge problem (Mind, December 1991), he has this to say,

I have reservations about some of her arguments against [the solution to the freedom/foreknowledge problem], but on the whole I think the case against the three traditional solutions to the freedom-foreknowledge dilemma is strong. My critical comments will therefore be directed at two of the alternative solutions to the dilemma which she presents.

The first is an attempt to combine some Boethian insights of Aquinas with those of the Ockhamists-a Thomistic Ockhamism, as she calls it. Its difficulty is that it relies on the controversial doctrine of divine simplicity. Following Aquinas, she says "there is no distinction in God's knowledge between his knowledge of one fact and ... of another, since both are contained in the same simple vision of his own essence" (p. 89). Yet "in his simple ... intuition of his own essence, God knows secondarily everything else" which is "reflected" in the divine essence. To explain this, she introduces the analogy of directly viewing a young man's face and at the same time indirectly seeing the features of the man's mother reflected in his features. All God's knowledge is combined in one vision of the divine essence, and all other things are reflected in that vision as the mother's face in that of her son. It would follow that God's state of knowledge at t, that I will do S at t2 is numerically the same state as God would have been in had I not done S at t2, though that single divine state would have indirectly "reflected" different contingent states depending on what I actually did. Thus, God's foreknowledge would not rule out my doing otherwise. One problem with this inventive solution is that such foreknowledge, if it were consistent with either outcome, would seem to be merely knowledge of future possibilities, not of actualities. If it were more than that-if it were a "reflection" of my actually doing S at t2 rather than not, or vice versa-then it is not clear how I could have done otherwise. And if it did not reflect either outcome until t2, it would not be foreknowledge.

We see that the proponents of the Kane-Widerker objection seem to think that the Frankfurt controller could not "just know" what libertarian free agents will do.

So, yes, there is a way out against the beefed-up Frankfurt controller, a controller on epistemic steroids, and that way lies Open Theism. The up side is that it can be said that Frankfurt counter examples beg the question. The downside is that this way out is not available to classical Christian theists. They must find another way out besides the indeterminist worlds objection.

From Catholic to Democrat

Back when Bart Stupak was blocking the Federal funding of abortion, Catholic organizations were happy to claim him as one of their own and tout his Catholic credentials:

Bart Stupak: Catholic

Health Care Reform Passes: Catholic Democrat Bart Stupak Protects Life

Before the determined and courageous efforts of Congressman Bart Stupak, a Pro-Life Catholic Democrat whose name along with Republican Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania of the 16th District of Pennsylvania is on the now historic amendment, the legislation would have funded more abortions with tax dollars. The “Health Care Reform” legislation which passed last night as HR 3962 - by a vote in the House of Representatives by a vote of 220 – 215 - would have had a lethal effect, resulting in the intentional killing of potentially millions more of our first neighbors. Thank God for the courage and perseverance of faithful Catholic Democrat Bart Stupak!… Congressman Bart Stupak is a faithful Catholic and a Democrat from the first Congressional District of Michigan…Congressman Stupak is an example of how a faithful Catholic can be – indeed must be – morally and politically consistent and never compromise of the inviolable dignity of every human life [emphasis mine].

http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=34796§ion=Cathcom

But after he caved, a funny thing happened: He ceased to be a Catholic politician and suddenly became merely a Democrat:

Bart Stupak: Democrat

Bart Stupak: Yet Another Two-Faced Pro-Life (?) Democrat?

Very disappointing. Pro-life Democrats in Congress are already nearly extinct or an oxymoron, as it is. I was naive enough to think that Stupak had enough pro-life principles to actually not vote for the health care bill if it funded abortion [emphasis mine].

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/03/bart-stupak-yet-another-two-faced-pro.html

Now you’d never know that Stupak is Catholic. All at once that aspect of his identity disappears from view.

BTW, while Catholic bloggers are assailing him, what does his bishop have to say?

There ain't no rules here!

"There ain't no rules here, we're trying to accomplish something. . . .All this talk about rules. . . .When the deal goes down . . . we make 'em up as we go along."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2476071/posts

Q: A final question: is there any statue of limitation for "delicta graviora"?

A: Here you touch upon what, in my view, is a sensitive point. In the past, that is before 1889, the statue of limitations was something unknown in canon law. For the most serious crimes, it was only with the 2001 "Motu Proprio" that a statute of limitations of ten years was introduced. In accordance with these norms in cases of sexual abuse, the ten years begin from the day on which the minor reaches the age of eighteen.

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=35783&page=2

Here’s an institution that claims to be 2000 years old, indefectible, superintended by the Holy Spirit.

So why does it not have a consistent policy on clerical sex crimes? Surely the kinds of sex crimes which a priest is tempted to commit are both few and familiar. There’s nothing especially innovative about sexual immorality, is there? It’s not as if we’re discovering new-fangled types of sex crimes.

Where a priest is concerned, doesn’t it come down to fornication (with a woman), adultery (with a married women), and sodomy?

So why, after 2000 years, is the “one true church” still is the process of hammering out a consistent and principled policy?

Isn’t this exactly how you’d expect a merely human institution to behave? There ain’t no rules here! We make ‘em up as we go along!

Guilty silence

“In some English-speaking countries, but also in France, if bishops become aware of crimes committed by their priests outside the sacramental seal of Confession, they are obliged to report them to the judicial authorities.”

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=35783&page=2

Notice, under this principle, that any sex crime which a priest might admit to his confessor is automatically exempt from criminal referral. Given the “seal of the Confessional,” not only does the confessor have no duty to report a sex crime by a fellow priest to the civil authorities, but he has a duty not to report such a crime to the civil authorities.

Just following orders

Catholic epologists have been attempting to let Benedict XVI off the hook by claiming that he didn’t have the authority to prosecute cases of priestly abuse. Some commenters have challenged the factually accuracy of that claim.

But let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that he didn’t have the authority to take direct action. Does that absolve him?

First of all, there’s an elementary difference between moral responsibility and professional responsibility. Even if a certain duty is no part of your job description, that doesn’t automatically mean it ceases to be a moral duty.

Suppose a banker knows that higher-ups are defrauding their investors. The first thing he ought to do is notify the internal division of the bank that’s responsible for handling these cases.

But suppose, having done that, he sees the abuse continue apace. Does that absolve himself of further responsibility? Is he entitled to remain silent? No.

Several courses of action are available. He could become an anonymous source for a news outlet. Or he could become a confidential informant for the police or FBI. Or he could resign, keep copies of the incriminating evidence, then become a public whistleblower.

But Catholic epologists act as if Ratzinger’s ethical obligations begin and end with what is written down in canon law. As if Vatican policy demarcates his moral obligations.

But what if Vatican policy is the problem? What then? Is it sufficient to say, “I was just following orders” and leave it at that?

Let’s also keep in mind two other things about Ratzinger. As I recall, he had weekly meetings with his predecessor (John-Paul II) for 24 years. Surely he had ample opportunity to raise these issues directly with the pontiff.

And, of course, Ratzinger has been the pope for five years now. What priests and bishops have been defrocked? What priests and bishops have been excommunicated? What priests and bishops have been referred to the civil authorities for prosecution?

The Church, Authority, And Infallibility

The Church, Authority, And Infallibility (Part 1): Introduction
The Church, Authority, And Infallibility (Part 2): Irenaeus
The Church, Authority, And Infallibility (Part 3): An Overview Of Augustine On Authority
The Church, Authority, And Infallibility (Part 4): Augustine On Tradition And The Papacy
The Church, Authority, And Infallibility (Part 5): Augustine On Councils
The Church, Authority, And Infallibility (Part 6): Conciliarism

The Church, Authority, And Infallibility (Part 6): Conciliarism

In an earlier response to Dave Armstrong, I cited a recent book by the Roman Catholic scholar Joseph Kelly, in which he presents a view of church history significantly different than Dave's. What I want to do here is quote some of Kelly's comments on an issue related to medieval Western ecclesiology. People often think of post-patristic and Western ecclesiology as more unified and consistent than it actually was. Even as late as the post-patristic medieval era, and even in the West, such a foundational element of Roman Catholic ecclesiology as the papacy was widely questioned and sometimes rejected.

Kelly writes:

Codes of law always allow for all sorts of possibilities, no matter how seemingly minute or absurd or unlikely. In the early thirteenth century canon lawyers had speculated about what to do if a pope fell into heresy. Slowly but surely some canon lawyers constructed the view that the pope does not have absolute rule over the church because the power of the church is greater than his. They speculated that the ultimate power in the church resided in the ecumenical council. These few sentences summarize decades of very complex developments. The superiority of the council to the pope is the conciliar theory; its practical application is conciliarism. (The Ecumenical Councils Of The Catholic Church [Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2009], p. 107)

Conciliarism sometimes had popular support in the West:

Pushed by the rulers and the nobility [during the Great Schism], in 1409 the cardinals of both popes largely deserted them and met in the Italian city of Pisa, where they proclaimed the need to go above the popes' heads to a general council, citing the consequences of the schism for this clear violation of canon law. With some major exceptions (Germany, the Spanish kingdoms) Catholic Europe supported them....

Many in Catholic Europe, both clerical and lay, believed that the papacy would never reform itself and that only a council could truly reform the church....

The belief in the curative powers of a reforming council never died out until the Reformation....

Conciliarist traditions ran strong in northern Europe. (pp. 107, 121, 123)

There were multiple medieval councils that claimed authority over the papacy, which is a contradiction of modern Catholic ecclesiology. Kelly writes:

This [the teaching of the ecumenical Council of Constance] is conciliarism at its most basic. The council asserts that it meets under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that it represents the Catholic Church and thus has the supreme authority in the church, and that its authority derives from Christ and even the popes must obey the council....

But no scholar doubts that Constance meant what it said because in 1417, before choosing a new pope, the council passed a second monumental decree, Frequens, which asserted that the new pope must call another council five years after Constance closes, then another one seven years after that, and then a council every ten years so that there would be, in effect, a council in every pontificate. The leaders of Constance truly wished to change the governmental structure of the church....

Many Catholics, including rulers and bishops, favored conciliarism, and so Martin [Pope Martin V] obliged and obeyed the decree. (pp. 111, 114)

He also discusses the conciliarism of the Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence-Rome (pp. 114-119). He notes that the cardinal chosen by Pope Eugenius IV to open the council and preside over it was himself a conciliarist (p. 114). Even as late as the Council of Trent, the "specter of conciliarism" was still on the minds of the Catholic leadership, and a revival of conciliarism at Trent was feared when Pope Pius IV seemed to be nearing death (p. 145).

What's the significance of medieval conciliarism?

For one thing, it undermines the popular Catholic appeal to pre-Reformation unity. The sort of diversity of belief I've outlined in this post and in this series is much different than the picture that's often painted by modern Catholics.

Secondly, the conciliar and papal support for conciliarism is problematic for Catholic authority claims.

Third, the widespread doubt about something as simple and foundational as papal authority, as late as the post-patristic medieval era and even in the West, illustrates a point I made when responding to Dave Armstrong earlier this year. Scripture has better evidence supporting it, and has been more widely accepted, than Roman Catholic ecclesiology.

The Parable of the Good Anabaptist

MATTHEW BELLISARIO SAID:

“It is obvious that Cardinal Ratzinger had no authority to defrock anyone, nor was that his area of authority. He was the head of the CDF, which deals with doctrine, not canon Law or the canonical defrocking of priests. The Apostolica Signitura is usually responsible for those issues.”

And Jesus answering said, A certain five-year-old went wandering onto the highway betwixt Jerusalem and Jericho.

And by chance there drove by a certain pontiff that way: and when he saw him, continued on his way–saying to himself, That’s not my department. The Apostolica Signitura is usually responsible for those issues.

And likewise a cardinal, when he drove by, saw the child, but continued on his way, saying to himself, I don’t believe that contingency is covered under canon law.

And likewise an archbishop, when he drove by, and saw the child, continued on his way, saying to himself, That’s below my pay grade.

But a certain Anabaptist, as he was driving along, came to where the five-year-old was: and when he saw him, he stopped, got out of the car, and carried the boy out of harm’s way.

Which now of these four, thinkest thou, was neighbor unto the imperiled child?

And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Boys

Yet another example of Catholic corruption:

Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest [Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy] who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit.

The internal correspondence from bishops in Wisconsin directly to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, shows that while church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed, their highest priority was protecting the church from scandal.

The documents emerge as Pope Benedict is facing other accusations that he and direct subordinates often did not alert civilian authorities or discipline priests involved in sexual abuse when he served as an archbishop in Germany and as the Vatican’s chief doctrinal enforcer.

Click here to read the rest of the article.

HT: John Bugay.

Easter Issues

Last year, I put up a post with some links to Easter resources (articles on the resurrection, reviews of debates on the resurrection, Steve Hays' e-book on the resurrection, an article about whether it's acceptable for Christians to celebrate such holidays, etc.). You can search the Triablogue archives to find more material we've written since then. Below are several examples.

Here's an article I wrote about the common skeptical objection that if Jesus rose from the dead, God should have provided more evidence for it. I wrote an article on some neglected evidence relevant to Paul's conversion after seeing the risen Christ. Here's my review of the second resurrection debate between Mike Licona and Bart Ehrman. In an article here, I argue for the strength of the evidence for Jesus' resurrection without the empty tomb. Steve Hays wrote about the guard at the tomb here, and I added a post of my own in the comments section. Steve Hays wrote about the spiritual body referred to in 1 Corinthians 15. There are other relevant articles as well in the archives.

In one of my articles last year, I mentioned a resource that some of you might be interested in. Timothy and Lydia McGrew have written an article arguing for the probability of Jesus' resurrection using Bayes' Theorem.

The Church, Authority, And Infallibility (Part 5): Augustine On Councils

Later in the passage in Augustine I've been discussing, he writes:

"But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity? Wherefore the holy Cyprian, whose dignity is only increased by his humility, who so loved the pattern set by Peter as to use the words, 'Giving us thereby a pattern of concord and patience, that we should not pertinaciously love our own opinions, but should rather account as our own any true and rightful suggestions of our brethren and colleagues, for the common health and good,' — he, I say, abundantly shows that he was most willing to correct his own opinion, if any one should prove to him that it is as certain that the baptism of Christ can be given by those who have strayed from the fold, as that it could not be lost when they strayed; on which subject we have already said much. Nor should we ourselves venture to assert anything of the kind, were we not supported by the unanimous authority of the whole Church, to which he himself would unquestionably have yielded, if at that time the truth of this question had been placed beyond dispute by the investigation and decree of a plenary Council." (On Baptism, Against The Donatists, 2:3-4)

What are we to make of Augustine's comments, in which he speaks so highly of scripture, and refers to ecumenical councils correcting one another, yet also refers to how an issue can be "placed beyond dispute" by ecumenical councils? The Catholic patristic scholar Robert Eno saw some inconsistencies with Catholicism in this passage, but didn't think Augustine was denying the infallibility of ecumenical councils:

"Catholics, saying that ecumenical councils are infallible, conclude that Augustine, whatever he might have been talking about, could not have meant ecumenical councils. Protestants say: he was talking about ecumenical councils and taught that they could err....Were they [ecumenical councils] doctrinally authoritative in some unerring way? Ultimately, as Sieben concludes, this must remain an open question. Personally I lean to the view that Augustine believed that these universal councils did not err. He believed that Scripture was inerrant and that the universal Church taught the truth. The thrust of Augustine’s thinking points to support for the authority of these councils, under Scripture, to make decisions. Could Augustine envisage such a council making a doctrinal decision contrary to Scripture? It seems unlikely but it must be admitted that he did not say that explicitly....If a plenary council is the ultimate resort for decision making, it is not immediately certain whether he believed such a council capable of error in the strict sense or not. Even the decisions of such councils were subject in the long run to acceptance by the Church as the only means of judging the authority of one council over another." ("Doctrinal Authority In Saint Augustine", Augustinian Studies, Vol. 12 - 1981, pp. 163-164, 172)

I agree with Eno that we don't have much to go by, but I think the evidence we do have leans in the opposite direction of what he suggests. Before I explain why, though, here are some of Dave Armstrong's comments on the subject:

The truth of a question is "placed beyond dispute" by a council? How is that different from infallibility? I don't see any distinction. And this occurs in the passage that Jason brings out supposedly in support of a position supposedly "inconsistent with a Catholic or Orthodox view," as he claims. Later in this same chapter he refers to a doctrinal matter "brought to the full illumination and authoritative decision of a plenary Council."

In a later response to David Waltz, Dave wrote:

The Augustine quote I dealt with in my replies to Jason Engwer. My explanation was that he meant by "correct" not "correct what was dead wrong in earlier councils," but rather, "develop the thought of earlier councils." I suspect that if we were to examine whatever his word in Latin was for "correct" it would allow such an interpretation....

Even in English, "correct" can have such a meaning. Merriam-Webster online gives as a third definition for "correct":

"to alter or adjust so as to bring to some standard or required condition "...

We see that the various related Latin words that start with "emend" can carry the developmental meaning I have posited: "amendment," "improvement," "purifying," "perfect," etc.

Moral of the story: don't hang your argument on one word....

Moreover, I made two additional arguments: from the following context ("things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid") that strongly suggests development rather than contradiction; and St. Augustine's espousal of doctrinal development elsewhere....

What he states in the present citation under consideration ("correct" / Latin, emendari) is quite similar to what he wrote about development in other places.

I want to make several points:

- I wouldn't judge the passage by one word ("corrected").

- However, as far as that one word is concerned, our focus should be on its probable meaning, not a possible one. A development can be referred to as a correction, but that isn't the most natural reading of the term. The translators of Augustine could have chosen other terms that would have expressed the concept of development more effectively.

- I've read a few different English translations of the passage, and all of them, including the one Dave is using, render the Latin term with the English word "corrected".

- In the translation Dave is using, the term "corrected" is used twice just before the reference to ecumenical councils and twice just after. All four times, the term is used in reference to error, not development. The first two (in 2:1) and the fourth (in 2:4) refer to Paul's correction of Peter in Galatians 2. The third (in 2:4) refers to Cyprian's willingness to be corrected in the sense of being shown that his view of baptism was false. At least in the English translation Dave is using, the surrounding uses of the same term suggest correction in relation to error, not development.

- Augustine mentions that scripture is free of error. Then he refers to the fallibility of the writings of bishops. After that, he refers to the fallibility of local councils. He then says that "even" ecumenical councils can be corrected. If the previous two post-Biblical sources are being referred to as capable of error, and Augustine then says that "even" ecumenical councils can be "corrected", doesn't the context leading up to that comment suggest that he's extending the fallibility of bishops and local councils "even" to ecumenical councils?

- Does Dave agree that the writings of Roman bishops are fallible? Sometimes, but not always. He would have to add a qualifier to Augustine's assessment of bishops, a qualifier that Augustine doesn't suggest.

- As Robert Eno mentioned in my citation of him earlier in this series, Augustine didn't believe in the same ecumenical councils Catholicism believes in. The passage of Augustine currently under consideration refers to earlier ecumenical councils (plural) and later ones (plural). And it refers to corrections that "often" occur. Augustine was writing before what's commonly considered the third ecumenical council (Ephesus). The previous two councils, Nicaea and First Constantinople, don't explain Augustine's language well. It's likely that Augustine is defining ecumenical councils differently than Roman Catholics do. At a minimum, he included more in the category of ecumenical councils than a Catholic would.

- He refers to ecumenical councils correcting one another without arrogance, envious hatred, etc. Why would such things be mentioned if all that's being referred to is development without contradiction? If the councils are correcting one another in relation to error, then the references to arrogance, envy, and such make more sense.

- Augustine's next sentence begins with "Wherefore", then refers to Cyprian's willingness to be corrected in relation to error, not in the sense of development. Dave's interpretation would have Augustine giving multiple examples of correction in relation to error (bishops, local councils), only to then refer to correction without error (ecumenical councils), then return to correction in relation to error (Cyprian). It's more likely that Augustine was consistently referring to correction in relation to error throughout.

- Augustine would sometimes make comments such as:

"there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind. If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood. In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself." (Reply To Faustus The Manichaean, 11:5)

He places scripture above "all" later works, making scripture's authority "peculiar to itself". I agree with Robert Eno that Augustine was inconsistent on issues of authority. But passages like the one above suggest that a belief in the fallibility of post-Biblical ecumenical councils would be consistent with what Augustine sometimes argued in other places. It's not as though the passage Dave is responding to is the only one that suggests such a conclusion. There's precedent for my conclusion elsewhere in Augustine.

- As Eno mentions, Augustine's opponents were citing conciliar authority against him, so it would have been in his interest to mention the fallibility of such sources, even ecumenical councils:

"He also scorned the overblown language of the [Donatist] council [of Bagai], especially its claim to speak with 'infallible voice' (ore veridico), a phrase he repeated constantly, as well as its 'divine inspiration.' He refused to take such councils seriously and advised Donatist correspondents that they should not be concerned with them either. If the number of 310 bishops at Bagai impressed anyone, that person should consider the size of the world-wide episcopate of the Catholica." ("Doctrinal Authority In Saint Augustine", Augustinian Studies, Vol. 12 - 1981, p. 160)

- On the other hand, Dave makes the significant point that Augustine refers to ecumenical councils putting things "beyond dispute". If comments like the "beyond dispute" reference were all we had to go by, Dave's position would make sense. But other evidence, like what I've outlined above, has to be explained as well.

What did Augustine mean when he referred to placing matters beyond dispute through ecumenical councils? That sort of language could be used to refer to something infallible, as Dave is arguing. But we sometimes use that type of language to refer to something highly probable or widely agreed upon, even if it's not considered infallible. Elsewhere in his writings, Augustine uses "beyond dispute" in that manner (Letter 65:1; Answer To Petilian The Donatist, 3:22). Augustine often refers to matters being "beyond dispute", "settled", etc. without any authority Catholics would consider infallible. Just after his reference to an ecumenical council placing a matter beyond dispute, he comments, regarding Cyprian, "so holy and peaceful a soul would have been most ready to assent to the arguments of any single person who could prove to him the truth" (On Baptism, Against The Donatists, 2:4). Remember, in the previous section Augustine had referred to how a fallible individual bishop is to submit to the authority of a fallible group of bishops or a fallible regional council. Infallibility isn't needed in order for submission to occur or for submission to be appropriate. Augustine's comment that Cyprian would submit to an ecumenical council, even accompanied by his "beyond dispute" comment that follows, can reasonably be taken as a reference to submission to a source that's highly regarded, but fallible.

Later in the same work, Augustine appeals to not only an ecumenical council, but also a lesser council:

"By this witness he gives sufficient proof how much more ready he would have been to bear his testimony, had any Council been held to discuss this matter which either embraced the whole Church, or at least represented our brethren beyond the sea." (On Baptism, Against The Donatists, 2:9)

It seems that Augustine is appealing to the probable correctness of widespread belief represented in a council, not conciliar infallibility.

Later in the same section I just quoted, Augustine offers a practical justification for his reasoning:

"For both later Councils are preferred among later generations to those of earlier date; and the whole is always, with good reason, looked upon as superior to the parts." (On Baptism, Against The Donatists, 2:9)

Augustine does speak highly of ecumenical councils, and he refers at times to how God works through such councils. But we often make such comments about fallible sources. We refer to how God spoke to us through a sermon, how God worked in our lives through the efforts of a friend, etc. Near the close of his work under consideration here, Augustine refers to how God is speaking through that work (On Baptism, Against The Donatists, 7:54), even though he didn't consider it infallible.

Even if we were to conclude that Augustine wasn't referring to the fallibility of ecumenical councils in the passage under consideration, the fact would remain that the passage does support an anti-papal ecclesiology and seems to define ecumenical councils differently than Catholicism does. Contrast Dave's ecclesiology with Augustine's:

- Dave believes that the bishop of Rome has universal jurisdiction. Augustine believed that no bishop has universal jurisdiction.

- Dave believes that there were two ecumenical councils prior to when Augustine wrote. Augustine refers to an ecumenical council that can't be identified as either of those two Dave believes in, and Augustine speaks of ecumenical councils elsewhere in a manner that suggests there had been more than two of them. (Even under the dubious assumption that the events of Acts 15 constitute a third ecumenical council prior to that time, Augustine's language is most naturally taken to refer to more than three as well, not just more than two. And we would still have Augustine referring to a council that can't be identified as the one of Acts 15, Nicaea, or First Constantinople.)

- Dave believes that ecumenical councils are infallible. Augustine believed that they're fallible.

- Dave doesn't think that concepts like Augustine's view of predestination, his view of infant salvation, and his view of whether Mary was immaculately conceived are part of the catholic faith. Augustine believed that the former two were part of the catholic faith, and he believed that the third was consistent with that faith. In other words, the doctrinal content of Dave's notion of the catholic faith differs from, and sometimes contradicts, Augustine's.

"Inflated Self-Comparison to King David"

Dave:

John Calvin's Inflated Self-Comparison to King David

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-calvins-disgusted-agony-over.html

Double Dave:

I rather like that. I love to play David over against a “Goliath.”

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/03/books-by-dave-armstrong-biblical.html

Purge the evil from among you!

1 Corinthians 5:6-13

6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

9I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."

Catholics act as though it matters not how immoral their church becomes as long is their church is pure in doctrine. So long as their church condemns immorality on paper, the fact that it tolerates or even facilitates immorality in practice can never cast doubt on the claims of Rome.

Let’s compare this attitude with Paul’s ecclesiology. Here is what a Catholic scholar has to say about 1 Cor 5:1-13:

“The motivation for the remedy that Paul is applying to this situation in the Corinthian community is double: (a) eschatological: in view of judgment on the Day of the Lord (5:5); and (b) Christological: expressed in another metaphor, this time drawn from the baking of bread and the annual celebration of Passover. In the making of bread, a bit of leaven ferments the whole batch of dough. Immorality and other evil conduct have contaminated the community like ‘old leaven,’ because they have produced their evil effects in its corporate life. As Jews used to clear out their houses on the eve of Passover all leavened products, so Corinthian Christians must now clear out of their midst the ‘old leaven,’ that they may celebrate the Christian Passover, and also that they may become ‘unleavened,’” J. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians (Yale (2008), 230.

“The passage deals with what later came to be called ‘excommunication,’ for Paul recommends not only that ‘the one who has done this should be removed from your midst’ (v2c; cf. v13b), but that Corinthian Christians should not associate with immoral fellow Christians (vv9-11)…The roots of such exclusion are found in the OT…The reason for the exclusion was the corporate responsibility of Israel, if the wrongdoer were not cut off, as in the prayer of Moses and Aaron in Num 16:22, ‘O God, God of the spirits of all flesh, (if) one man’s sins, will you be enraged against the whole congregation?’” ibid. 231.

“[v5] In the long run, Paul is not so much concerned about the sin of the individual as he is about the smugness of community members in tolerating such a wrongdoer among them, which jeopardizes their status in God’s sight and will not be in their interest on the Day of the Lord; hence his recommendation of the exclusion of all that is immoral,” ibid. 240.

“[vv6-7] Paul’s rhetorical question quotes a common popular proverb [‘A little leaven ferments the whole batch of dough’], as also in Gal 5:9. The proverb suggests that it takes only one small instance of improper sexual conduct to contaminate the whole community; cf. the proverb cited in 15:33, ‘Bad company corrupts good habits.’ Christians of Roman Corinth are to clear out from their midst that which has made it impossible for them to be celebrating the new Passover. One corrupt member in their midst is enough to make the whole community unworthy,’” ibid. 240.

“[v13] Paul concludes this discussion of sexual immorality with a modified quotation of Deut 17:7…Thus, Paul uses the OT to bolster up his judgment already expressed in vv2c,5a,11a above, but not so bluntly as here. The Christian community is obliged to preserve its sanctity by excluding the wrongdoer from its mist, which is ‘the main point of the passage,’” ibid. 244-45.

By contrast, not only has the Roman hierarchy make no concerted effort to eradicate immorality from the priesthood, it has made a concerted effort to conceal and thereby propagate and perpetuate such immorality.

Rotten apples

One Catholic troll I’ve been responding to tries to deflect attention away from official malfeasance in the church of Rome by claiming that if I condemn the church of Rome on that score, then I should be prepared to condemn a Protestant denomination or some other organization (e.g. the BSA) if it is guilty of the same corruption.

What is odd about this argument is the assumption that I’m unwilling to call his bluff. But as a Protestant I have no hesitation to condemn or shun a Protestant denomination which I think is hopelessly corrupt or compromised. Indeed, to cite a few examples: CRC, PCUSA, ECUSA, ELCA.

I, as a Protestant, don’t regard any one denomination as the one true church. As such, no denomination claims my unconditional allegiance. As such, I can disassociate myself from corrupt ecclesiastical institutions–assuming I was ever associated with them in the first place.

Hence, it’s quite shortsighted for a Catholic epologist to try this tactic. For it will ricochet on contact.

By contrast, Catholics do regard their own denomination as the one true church. They do swear their unconditional fealty to the church of Rome. As such, no matter how vile their denomination may become (or has become), they must show it their unswerving loyalty.

By the same token, it won’t do for Catholics to drive a segregate the institutional church from a few rotten apples. For even if the rotten apples were few, they fall from the only true apple tree. The rotten fruit of a rotten tree. So Catholics can’t go from tree to tree and pick the good apples while leaving the rotten apples. For it all comes from the same tree.

The mercy of the wicked is cruel

Lawrence said...

As a Republican I'm not against what most people want Obama’s health care program to do, which is to give more people and especially poor people access to quality health care. But from an efficacy and practicality point of view and everything I view about it predicts failure.

We have a real problem with not enough medical resources and personnel to care for our needs. But Obama's program doesn't increase the medical care resources available, it just makes limited resources more accessible. (The government can force people to buy insurance but they can't force people to become doctors.)

In this the program attacks the wrong problem. We don't need more insurance to afford medical care. We need affordable medical care that doesn't require more insurance. We also need more medical care resources. This program doesn't make actual medical care cheaper, it doesn't increase available medical resources, and it doesn't increase incentive for more people to become doctors. The only thing this program does is give the government more control over telling doctors how to practice medicine, which is a significant disincentive to being a doctor.

The other medical problem is it doesn't help pharmaceutical companies generate the cash needed for researching new medical discoveries. The less money a drug company makes the less money goes into research. Since U.S. drug companies do 90% of the medical research globally, we end up footing the bill through higher drug costs. So, where will the money come from for new medical discoveries? Taxes? Government controlled insurance isn't going to support drug company profit margins. In this case, all we have done is shift the cost of drug research from private industry's pocket to the public tax payer's pocket.

>>>

When it comes to limited medical resources being applied to a significantly increased patient list, who decides the priorities of treatment among those patients? This program takes that decision out of the hands of doctors and patients, and parents, and puts it in the hands of government bureaucrats. And at this point the government can't magically make more medical resource in the same way they can magically print more money, the only real control government has at this point is to ration existing resources.

Tragically, as I noted before, the real problem we have in context of limited medical resources isn't addressed by this program. What it does provide incentive for is expanding lower quality medical care from a less trained and less skilled medical community who currently function at the cheaper end of the medical profession. And this lower end of the profession can't deal with the more exotic problems faced by many people who need true medical specialists and specialized care.

>>>

From a constitutional perspective this is one more step toward governmental tyranny. Our founding fathers fought a revolution against this very type of government control over society, and now we as a nation have effectively given a measure of that tyrannical control back to our government. From a federalist perspective this is a very dark thing for the gummint to force a system that takes away our rights to choose our own medical care, and dictates to doctors how we practice medicine.


Consider that the current medical insurance industry has to operate according to strict government rules. The government says the companies are failing, and the government is now taking over control of the insurance. So, if private industry can't be successful in following the government's rules, what makes us think that the government can be any more successful under its own rules?

We are placing an awful lot of faith in our government bureaucrats and politicians to be successful at something we are accusing our medical professionals and private business professionals of failing at.

3/24/2010 2:00 PM

http://metalutheran.blogspot.com/2010/03/annnnd.html?showComment=1269453650189#c4870923316834285903

Obamalpractice

I'm reposting some comments I recently left at two different blogs (Between Two Worlds, First Things: Evangel:

**********************


steve hays March 21, 2010 at 3:49 pm
A nonbinding executive order–which is trumped by judicial precedent.

Moral of the story, the Democrat party is a total loss. “Pro-life Democrat” is oxymoronic in practice. Same thing with the “conservative” Blue Dog Democrats. They all march in lock-step with the liberals.


steve hays March 22, 2010 at 10:09 am
ANDY:

“I guess God’s not sovereign anymore… Too bad, huh?”

Why did you bother to post a comment? Does this mean you don’t think God is sovereign anymore?


steve hays March 22, 2010 at 8:10 am
One Salient Oversight:

“As far as health care and Christians are concerned, the practice of the state taking a person’s wealth and redistributing it to the poor and punishing those who refuse can be found in Deuteronomy 24.18-22. This was when God required farmers to leave some of their produce behind so that the poor could ‘glean’ what they could from it. This command was seen in practice during the book of Ruth. You need to understand – this was NOT charity. It was a COMMAND from God. The verses in Deuteronomy that I have pointed to when taken in context quite clearly show that God expected Israel to obey his commands and those who did not were punished by the legal system that God set up (eg Deut 24.7).”

Correction:

i) When passages like this refer to “aliens,” the term denotes legal immigrants.

ii) In addition: “It is noteworthy that with this statute the landowners did not harvest the entirety of their fields or groves and give a certain percentage to the local authorities or religious officials to redistribute. Rather those who qualified for this assistance actually had to go out into the fields or climb trees and work for their food,” J. Hoffmeier, The Immigration Crisis (Crossway 2009), 87.

theologian:

“Can someone please help me understand how the pro-life democrat is a myth?”

Because they ally themselves with liberal Democrats who support abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, &c.

“That seems to be a wide sweeping generalization that is quite frankly untrue.”

Your sweeping denial is frankly untrue.

“However, their pro-life position does not just stop at abortion, it includes the sanctity of human life with regards to war, to poverty. to the orphan, to adoption, to the alien etc…”

As if conservative Christians ignore these issues.

steve hays March 24, 2010 at 8:57 am
theologian

“1) My statement regarding Christian democrats that I know having a robust pro-life stance which includes the sanctity of life with regards to war, to poverty, to the orphan, to adoption, and to the alien was simply to point out that it is untrue to say that a pro-life democrat is a myth.”

i) “Prolife” is an idiomatic label that refers to one’s position on abortion.

ii) I judge “prolife Democrats” by their actions, not their stump speech.

“I am currently working on a campaign for a pro-life democrat who is a passionate follower of Jesus Christ.”

i) Well, Stupak seemed to fill the bill until he betrayed the cause at the last minute.

ii) There’s not much a “prolife democrat” can do in a party dominated by abortionists. It’s not the individual position that matters, but having a working majority. If you’re consistently outvoted, then you’re in the wrong party.

“As far as your statement ‘as if conservative Christians ignore these issues’ I must say that I never said conservative Christians do ignore these issues. That being said I would say that in general the republican party has not been as responsive to these issues as the democratic party.”

Democrats aren’t genuinely responsive to these issues. They have lots of responsive rhetoric, but their policies are counterproductive.

“While I do not think that all of the social welfare programs are implemented in the best possible fashion, it is much easier to extend grace to a failed program that has the right intention behind it.”

Democrats don’t care about solutions, just symbolism.

“I have heard too many conservative talk show hosts wine and complain that government is taking their money away to help the poor and marginalized with social welfare programs and yet I do not see a robust solution being offered. In light of this, I would have to say that with regards to these social issues the democratic party has come closer to expressing the heart of God in these areas.”

You’re deceived by feel-good rhetoric. Moreover, the “poor” are not all of a kind. The Bible distinguishes between those who are poor through not fault of their own and those who are poor due to their reckless lifestyle choices.

“Also, the response of the republican party to war has been absolutely heinous and far from capturing the heart of God. ”

What I find “absolutely heinous” is Obama’s policy of attacking those who defend us while defending those who attack us.

“There has been to much a sense of superiority and pride that has been communicated.”

Are you including yourself in that indictment?

“I am not saying the democratic response is necessary the right one, but please Steve be fair in the discussions. There is already too much polarity in government today and to say flippant things like ‘the myth of the pro-life democrat’ only adds to the discord. It would be more accurate and helpful to say that you are disappointed by the response of those democrats who claim to be pro-life that are currently in congress, than to say that there is a myth to being a pro-life democrat.”

I’m not disappointed by Democrats. They’re behaving exactly as I’d expect, given their party affiliation.

And there’s nothing “flippant” in my statement. Democrats are what Democrats do.

steve hays
March 23rd, 2010 | 8:06 am | #7
Steve Dawson

“Greed, Gluttony,Avarice come to mind. I don’t see too many churches lining up to help those who have had medical problems and need financial help. When was the last time that a church offered to cover the cost of a major medical procedure because the patient had lost their job and hence their insurance?”

When was the last time you offered to pay for somebody’s costly medical procedure?

The only money churches have is from donations by parishioners, most of whom are middle-class or working-class wage-earners, and many of whom are retirees on fixed incomes.

Of course, if the tax burden were lower, that would free up more disposable income to donate to Christian charity. Ever bother to consider that?

And it’s well-known that, despite the tax burden, Christians are far more generous with their disposable income than unbelievers.


steve hays
March 24th, 2010 | 8:40 am | #12
Steve Dawson

“I’d love to be able to sponsor a patient. Unfortunately, my own health care costs (including premiums) last year ran about $10,000. That for me, is more than I pay in property and income tax put together. That’s why we need to do something about health care and why Collin’s list of what’s wrong with government is so hokey. If churches actually stepped up to the plate (there are some who could afford NOT to build excessive facilities) then maybe the government wouldn’t have to step in.”

You seem to think the average church has deep pockets. Where did you get that idea?

You also disregard the issue of cost containment, viz. tort reform, interstate competition, customized health care plans (where you can buy the coverage you want rather than a state mandated package).

Obamacare will increase the cost of healthcare, not decrease the cost of healthcare.

The Church, Authority, And Infallibility (Part 4): Augustine On Tradition And The Papacy

Some of what Augustine defined as catholic tradition is inconsistent with the tradition of Roman Catholicism. For example, he claims that the necessity of baptism for infant salvation is part of the Christian faith (On The Soul And Its Origin, 2:17). In contrast, Catholicism encourages people to "entrust them [unbaptized children] to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them" and "hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism" (Catechism Of The Catholic Church, 1261). Augustine approvingly quotes Ambrose's comments to the effect that Jesus is the only immaculately conceived human, and he writes that Ambrose's view is consistent with "the catholic faith" (On The Grace Of Christ, And On Original Sin, 2:47-48). In contrast, Catholicism claims that Mary's immaculate conception is part of the faith always held by the church. Catholics often claim to agree with Augustine's principles of church authority, yet they reject some of the conclusions he arrived at through the application of those principles.

As the Catholic patristic scholar Robert Eno noted in his comments I quoted in my last post, Augustine contradicted Catholicism by placing the authority of ecumenical councils above that of Roman bishops. Yet, Dave Armstrong writes:

Rather than cite the numerous Augustine utterances concerning Roman primacy, J. N. D. Kelly's assessment will suffice for our purposes:


It goes without saying that Augustine identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome.

(Early Christian Doctrines, HarperSanFrancisco, revised edition of 1978, 412-413)

Here's what Kelly goes on to say, several pages later:

"At the same time there is no evidence that he was prepared to ascribe to the bishop of Rome, in his capacity as successor of St. Peter, a sovereign and infallible doctrinal magisterium. For example, when in his controversy with Julian of Eclanum he appealed to Innocent, his view was that the Pope was only the mouthpiece of truths which the Roman church had held from ancient times in harmony with other Catholic churches. Nor was he willing, in practical matters, to surrender one jot of the disciplinary independence of the African church which Cyprian had defended so stoutly in his day. The truth is that the doctrine of the Roman primacy played only a minor role in his ecclesiology, as also in his personal religious thinking." (Early Christian Doctrines [New York: Continuum, 2003], p. 419)

Kelly compares Augustine's view to Cyprian's, something I've also done. In my 2008 article Dave was responding to, I cited a passage in Augustine (On Baptism, Against The Donatists, 2:2-4) that's inconsistent with Roman Catholic ecclesiology. In that passage, Augustine gives his approval to one of Cyprian's anti-papal comments:

"For no one of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or, by tyrannical terror, forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying, inasmuch as every bishop, in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge another. But we must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power both of setting us in the government of His Church, and of judging of our acts therein." (On Baptism, Against The Donatists, 2:2)

Just after what I've quoted above, Augustine comments:

"Now let the proud and swelling necks of the heretics raise themselves, if they dare, against the holy humility of this address." (On Baptism, Against The Donatists, 2:3)

Here's how Dave responds:

The same contra-Catholic argument is made about St. Gregory the Great's denial of being a universal bishop (that has a perfectly orthodox Catholic explanation), but the sense appears to be the same in both cases: a bishop has jurisdiction in his own domain, and is not merely an agent of the pope. The same Gregory who eschewed the title "universal bishop" also made many explicit proclamations of papal supremacy. And this is true of St. Augustine as well.

Dave doesn't demonstrate that Cyprian was saying the same thing he attributes to Gregory the Great. Rather, he just asserts that the two were saying the same thing. The qualifications Dave refers to aren't present in Cyprian's comments, and we have no reason to conclude that Cyprian was responding to a denial that "a bishop has jurisdiction in his own domain". Rather, the comments Augustine cites from Cyprian come from the context of Cyprian's dispute with the Roman bishop Stephen over heretical baptism. Cyprian and his fellow North African bishops were asserting their independence from the bishop of Rome. They weren't just saying that they had local jurisdiction under the universal jurisdiction of the Roman bishop, as if their possession of local jurisdiction was in dispute. Rather, they were denying that there is any bishop of bishops. For there to be a bishop of bishops, you would need to have "bishops" to begin with. Nobody in the dispute was denying that the North African bishops had local authority as bishops. Rather, the issue was whether they were beneath the authority of the bishop of Rome. Cyprian denies that they were. That's a contradiction of the papacy, which is foundational to Roman Catholicism. Cyprian was addressing "a necessity of obeying" another bishop, not whether he had local authority while having to obey the bishop of Rome. If the issue under dispute is whether you have local authority while submitting to a higher authority you must obey, you don't address such a dispute by denying that you have to obey any other bishop. Dave's interpretation of Cyprian doesn't make sense, which probably explains why he says more about Gregory the Great than he does about what Cyprian wrote. Both Cyprian's words and his actions are most naturally interpreted in an anti-papal sense. Dave hasn't given us any reason to read his qualifications into the text.

See here for some examples of modern scholarship's affirmation of Cyprian's anti-papal view of church government. That article just linked includes a citation of J.N.D. Kelly, the source Dave cited above concerning Augustine. I also cite some Catholic scholars on the subject.

Just before the passage Dave is responding to, Augustine wrote:

"Wherefore, if Peter, on doing this, is corrected by his later colleague Paul [in Galatians 2], and is yet preserved by the bond of peace and unity till he is promoted to martyrdom, how much more readily and constantly should we prefer, either to the authority of a single bishop, or to the Council of a single province, the rule that has been established by the statutes of the universal Church?" (On Baptism, Against The Donatists, 2:1)

But Augustine's approval of Cyprian's anti-papal ecclesiology is just the beginning of the problems this section in Augustine poses for a Catholic. In my next post, I'll address the remainder of the passage and its implications for the claims of Roman Catholicism.