Roman Catholic Intellectuals Always Did, and Still Do, Spread “Urban Legend” as Truth

Howard Kainz is “emeritus professor of philosophy at Marquette University” and contributor to “The Catholic Thing”, the same conservative Roman Catholic website that flashes the name of Roman Catholic Convert Francis Beckwith on its masthead. The site is run by the “Faith & Reason Institute”, and it advertises itself as “a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary”. But that doesn’t stop Kainz from spreading urban legends – outright falsehoods – in the effort to make a polemical point.

Kainz’s recent article, “How Can Protestants Be Saved?”, part of his effort to help poor Protestants be saved is to ruminate:

The quotation, “it is easier to live as a Protestant but better to die as a Catholic,” is ascribed variously to Martin Luther or one of Luther’s wavering followers...

Even though that statement has been “variously ascribed”, it has been falsely “variously ascribed”. Neither Luther nor Calving nor Melancthon ever said such a thing, as James Swan points out in this recent analysis of the history of the phrase. “Whomever first said it, I can't think of any plausible reason why either Luther or Melanchthon would say it.”

This is the kind of urban legend and even the kind of falsehood that Roman Catholics don’t mind to perpetuate in their efforts to make a polemical point. Roman Catholicism is a religious system that’s built on falsehoods and urban legends, given legitimacy merely because someone in “authority” says so. It has been so at least since the time of “Pope Damasus”, who hired a mob of gravediggers, essentially thugs with pick-axes, to enforce his "election" as pope.

Who consciously and determinedly re-wrote Roman history to include the Roman Church.

Who has also been officially canonized as a saint.

“How can Protestants be saved?” Here is Kainz’s answer:

… those who are not completely sure of being “saved” might avail themselves of some assistance from the Blessed Virgin, who promised to St. Dominic that those who say the rosary frequently, meditating on the life, passion, and resurrection of the Savior, will receive the graces necessary for salvation at the time of their death.

Who can say “amen and amen” to that recommendation?

Tammany on the Tiber: Enhancing the Allure of Celebrity through “Sainthood”

Tammany Hall was (in)famously the political machine in New York City in which for decades the political “bosses” ran an efficient and corrupt political machine based on patronage and graft. According to Wikipedia, Tammany “depended for its power on government contracts, jobs, patronage, corruption, and ultimately the ability of its leaders to swing the popular vote.”

Now Maureen Mullarkey now has compared the Vatican to Tammany Hall (HT: Paul Bassett) in its recent rush to name popes as “Saints” (Pope John XXIII and John Paul II recently canonized, and now rumblings that Pope Paul IV, the “contraception” pope is headed down that path as well).

It’s a system that can vote for its own infallibility AND its own celebrity. And the celebrity of a Saint Al Capone. Of course, it’s a system that also hides its own incompetence and its leftist agenda behind flashy headlines as well:

Catholics—popes among them—are no less subject than anyone else to the lure of the star system and its crafted emphasis on personality.

It took no time at all for Francis to degrade into a celebrity. And like any politically astute showman, he takes to the camera for carefully designed photo-ops. (Posing with an anti-fracking T-Shirt in November, he conferred on activist filmmakers the kind of endorsement we expect from Yoko Ono and Matt Damon.) Media-conscious symbolic gestures are mirrored in an airy, imprecise rhetoric that is a receptacle for whatever meaning the public drops into it.

Francis clearly likes the elusive phrase “economy of exclusion.” He has used it before. Imprecise, it is a phrase for rent to fixers and mongers of any stripe. This time he served it to Ban Ki-Moon and visiting attachés of that grand sepulcher on the East River. But what do the words signify? Are they a gloved jab at the crony capitalism disabling his native Argentina? Do they aim at an American president who obligates an unborn generation to insurmountable debts not of its making? Was Francis making veiled reference to the debased status of imperiled Christians in Syria? Or, perhaps, to Islamo-leftism and the price of totalitarian theocracy? Might the phrase have sideways, metaphoric application to Vatican recognition of a Palestinian state that refuses to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist?

None of these. Uttered in concert with an autocratic injunction for “legitimate redistribution” of wealth, our pope was lending his office to apostles of the same tired, ideological hostility toward the market that ends in economic slavery under the guise of social justice. Papal messianism, bolstered by lack of competence in economics, is the road to a familiar hell, however finely paved with lovely intention.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/mullarkey/2014/05/tammany-on-the-tiber

Science and philosophy

http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-the-value-of-philosophy/

BTW, Massimo Pigliucci is an atheist philosophy prof. with three earned doctorates in botany, genetics, and philosophy of science

Trueman at cross-purposes

Carl Trueman has an unwittingly ironic post on Tullian Tchividjian. 

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/05/a-call-for-muchneeded-facetofa.php

Tchividjian has been accused of antinomianism. Because he pastors an influential, high-profile, (nominally?) Reformed church, that's a cause for concern. 

I haven't bothered to investigate the allegation. At this point I'm prepared to defer to the judgment of his accusers, who seem to be responsible accusers.  

Trueman makes a point of highlighting the fact that Tchividjian is affiliated with TGC. Trueman is obsessed with TGC. He seems to think it's symptomatic of all that's wrong with evangelicalism. And that's because TGC, as a free association of independent ministries, isn't under the duly constituted authority of a proper ecclesiastical body–by Trueman's yardstick. 

But here's where the unintentional irony comes in. Tchividjian isn't the senior pastor of an independent church. He's not a lone ranger. Rather, he belongs to a confessional Presbyterian denomination. That's precisely the kind of ecclesiastical oversight which Trueman champions. 

If Trueman were consistent, he'd leave it to the PCA to police Tchividjian. I'm no expert on PCA canon law, but it's my understanding that a PCA pastor is answerable to his session. If his session is delinquent, the pastor is answerable to the regional Presbytery. And if the Presbytery is delinquent, the pastor is answerable to the general assembly. The general assembly can appoint a committed to study the issue and report back. It may issue a majority report and minority report. The general assembly can vote on the report (although it's not required to do so). If it votes on the report, that becomes official, enforceable denomination policy. That's my understanding.

The appellate process is inefficient. It operates at a glacial pace. Yet that's Presbyterianism. That's the ecclesiastical process Trueman recommends.

So why is Trueman advocating a public debate that bypasses the established channels of church discipline? Isn't that outside intervention subversive to the ecclesial accountability system that Trueman constantly touts? It seems as if he doesn't really have much faith in the process he champions. He's too impatient. It can't be trusted to yield timely, reliable results. 

Update on Possible First Century Mark Fragment

After a brief flurry of rumor and innuendo regarding the possible find of a number of early New Testament manuscripts (first hinted at by Dan Wallace), Tim Henderson has this update on his Earliest Christianity blog:

Most people know that Brill Publishing announced in 2012 that they would be handling the publication of the manuscripts acquired and studied by the Green Scholars Initiative. At that time, it was expected that the first volume would appear in early 2013. However, this has yet to take place. Many also are aware that the alleged first-century manuscript of Mark and other NT manuscripts from the 2nd and 3rd centuries are part of this same collection that will eventually be published in Brill’s series.

In correspondence with one of Brill’s editors, I was informed that they are currently planning to publish the first volume of the “Papyrus Series” by the end of this year, “hopefully” by the annual SBL meeting in November. It was not indicated to me which manuscripts would be appearing in this first volume, though the initial Brill announcement from 2012 indicated that the (then) planned initial volume would feature a 3rd-century BCE papyrus of a previously undocumented work of Aristotle.

So it appears that those of us waiting for the publication of the Mark fragment (and others) will be waiting quite a bit longer. Nothing appears to be imminent, unless they decide to release details in anticipation of publication.

In my estimation, any release of information about additional second- or third-century New Testament manuscripts will be an inestimable treasure, and worth the wait.

Kruger reviews How Jesus Became God

http://www.reformation21.org/articles/how-jesus-became-god-a-review.php

Religious Common Ground

One of the mistakes Christians have often made in recent decades when addressing abortion, homosexuality, and other controversial issues is to take an overly secular approach. In a previous post, I discussed a tendency among Christian apologists, which exists in other circles as well, to overestimate the significance of atheism. Much the same can be said of agnosticism. Only a small minority of people are atheists or agnostics, but non-religious belief systems, like atheism and agnosticism, receive a disproportionate amount of attention in some contexts. Christians often develop highly secular arguments in an attempt to reason with or counter the efforts of atheists, agnostics, and other people with similar beliefs.

Confused Catholics

http://blog.adw.org/2010/10/can-a-catholic-accept-evolutionary-theory-uncritically/

Morality is in the brain

Liberals are very moralistic. They believe social policy ought to reflect their values. This includes homosexual marriage, abortion on demand, and veganism.

Let's consider this from the standpoint of neuropsychology. In general, liberals are physicalists. They believe the brain is the source of the mind. 

According to neuropsychology, the frontal lobe is the source of consciousness, emotion, decision-making, and problem solving. The parietal lobe is the source of language. The temporal lobe is the source of  long-term memory, while the hippocampus is the source of short-term memory.

I'm oversimplifying. For instance, the temporal lobe is another source of language and emotion. 

Admittedly, this is a fairly crude description. My argument doesn't depend on localizing every function in an airtight compartment of the brain. There's a certain amount of redundancy and plasticity. 

We can debate where to draw the lines. But in general, neuropsychology does say different parts of the brain generate different aspects of human personality. 

In that respect, the human brain is analogous to an android brain. If you were a cyberneticist, you'd add or subtract specific cognitive functions by adding or removing the corresponding hardware. LIkewise, a neurosurgeon can subtract specific cognitive functions by removing the corresponding lobe. 

Suppose a liberal thinks homosexuals have a right to marry each other. From a neuropsychological standpoint, that just means a part of his brain tells him that homosexuals have a right to marry each other. If a neurosurgeon removed that part of his brain, he'd instantly cease to think homosexuals have a right to marry each other. Conversely, if it was medically feasible, a neurosurgeon could make him think homosexuals have a right to marry each other by adding that missing part to his brain.

On this view, morality is reducible to adding or removing relevant parts of the brain. Like adding or removing a chip from an android brain. 

Suppose E.T.s have frontal lobes that are differently configured than ours. Their frontal lobes don't tell them that homosexuals have a right to marry each other. Evolution programmed their frontal lobes with different moral instincts than we have. Their temporal lobes tell them that homosexuals are food. 

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that neuropsychology is true, what makes it a fact that homosexuals have a right to marry each other? If their values come and go depending on the presence or absence of the corresponding brain part, isn't that an arbitrary combination? Something extrinsic to right and wrong? Like programming a terminator android? Replacing one part with a different part changes morality. 

Rembrandt’s Calvinistic Art

http://www.cityofgodblog.com/2012/01/rembrandts-calvinistic-art/

Question authority

On the one hand

Richard Carrier is the renowned author of several books including Sense and Goodness without God and Proving History, as well as numerous articles online and in print. His avid readers span the world from Hong Kong to Poland. With a Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University, he specializes in the modern philosophy of naturalism and humanism, the origins of Christianity, and the intellectual history of Greece and Rome, with particular expertise in ancient philosophy, science and technology. 

On the other hand

And yet, it is often enough the case that a consensus of experts is wrong (as proved even by the fact that the scientific consensus has frequently changed, as has the consensus in any other domain of expertise, from history to motorboat repair). And our brains are cognitively biased to over-trust those we accept as authorities (the Asch effect), putting us at significant risk of false belief if we are not sufficiently critical of our relying on an expert. It’s only more complicated when we have warring experts and have to choose between them, even though we are not experts ourselves. 

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/5553

Inerrancy and dispensationalism

The debate over inerrancy is heating up. There's a growing list of scholars on the left. That's entirely predictable.

There is, however, a parallel debate going on with center-right scholars. I notice that two of the critics are Robert Thomas and David Farnell. Both men are affiliated with the Master's Seminary.

Thomas is a staunch critic of progressive dispensationalism. He's a throwback to classical and/or revised dispensationalism. And I wonder if that's driving Farnell's position as well. In addition, Norman Geisler is another critic of progressive dispensationalism. Cf. Conviction without Compromise. 

It may be that from their viewpoint, inerrancy is inseparable from classical/revised dispensational hermeneutics. Perhaps they view any deviation from classical/revised dispensational hermeneutics as implicitly compromising the literal inerrancy of Scripture. If that's their position, then it's only plausible if you agree with the hermeneutical system which underwrites their eschatological distinctives. 

Pruss on God's knowledge of the past

Commenting on a post of mine, Dr. Pruss draws attention to an interesting symmetry between God's knowledge of the future and the past:

Alexander R Pruss5/09/2014 6:00 PM 

I think it is deeply puzzling how God knows our future free choices. But it is no more puzzling than the deeply puzzling question of how God knows our past free choices. The problem in both cases is this: How can our actions affect the beliefs of a transcendent being? Whether our actions are in the past or in the future makes no difference here. 

(Now, granted, on growing block theories there is a difference, in that past actions and past persons (if there are any persons who don't exist forever) are real and future ones aren't. But on both presentism and eternalism there is ontological symmetry between past actions/persons and future actions/persons. And growing block is false. :-) ) 

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/05/when-smoke-clears.html?showComment=1399672858245#c296346453717369103

I believe he's alluding to divine impassibility, which Brian Davies defines as "not able to be causally modified by an external agent," "God cannot be altered by anything a creature does." 

To flesh this out, I think Pruss is suggesting a paradoxical trilemma:

i) Humans have libertarian freedom

ii) God is impassible (i.e. can't be affected by the world)

iii) God knows our past and future choices

I say that's a paradoxical trilemma because Pruss presumably affirms the truth of all three propositions.

In reponse:

1. A Calvinist will relieve the trilemma by denying (i). 

From my perspective, it's a false trilemma. 

2. Jerry Walls will relieve the trilemma by denying (ii-iii). 

3. Where revealed truths generate an apparent contradiction, I think appeal to mystery or paradox is legit. That's an argument from authority (revelation), which is legit so long as the authority is legit. 

But I don't think human libertarian freedom is a revealed truth. At best, it's a philosophical construct. So it can't take refuge in an argument from authority. It stands or falls at the bar of reason. 

Worse, I think human libertarian freedom contradicts revealed truths regarding predestination, meticulous providence, divine hardening, &c.

In Calvinism, God knows our past and future choices because he predestined them. That doesn't generate any tension with impassibility, for God is affecting the creature, rather than vice versa. 

Bernard Nathanson’s “The Silent Scream”: ultrasound video of an abortion

In the spirit of showing videos of abortions, here is one that was done some time ago. As I was saying in comments, I'm not sure why this one doesn't get more visiblility. This is an ultrasound video of a live child being aborted. The "procedure" begins around 16:00. Maybe some of our readers who hang out in pro-choice circles could share this video with some of their friends. Caution, this is graphic and disturbing.

"Anti-gay" remarks

"News" outlets are reporting that the Benham brothers have been blacklisted due to "anti-gay" remarks. 

I'd simply point out that to equate opposition to homosexuality with being "anti-gay" is about as logical as equating opposition to drug addiction with being "anti-junkie." 

To the contrary, it's because we care about the wellbeing of drug attics that we oppose drug addiction (including highly addictive and destructive drugs). By the same token, opposition to homosexuality is, among other things, out of concern for the mental health, physical health, and spiritual well-being of individuals trapped in homosexuality. 

Abortion and beheading

Emily Letts is now infamous for filming her abortion. It was due to an "unplanned pregnancy." It doesn't occur to her that this makes her look too intellectually immature to realize the link between sex and sexual reproduction. You'd think a counselor at an abortion clinic might have figured that out by now. 

In one sense, what she did was logical. If you're going to do wrong, you might as well be proud of it. 

Filming her abortion reminds me of jihadis who film beheadings. The jihadis are proud of what they do. Beheading the infidel is something to celebrate. Something to post on the Internet, like catching a prize salmon. 

Emily Letts  and Muslim terrorists both share the same moral blindness. Evil is something to celebrate. Evil is something to take pride in.

That's because both groups live and move in social circles which affirm their moral depravity. 

When the smoke clears

Jerry Walls is arguably the top Arminian philosopher of his generation. He's been making some striking concessions on Facebook. Dogmatic Arminians often refuse to acknowledge the tension between libertarian freedom and divine foreknowledge, but Walls is more candid about the dilemma:

Jerry Walls Well, that's a complex issue of course, but in brief, I find it utterly mysterious how it is possible to know far off future choices of people who do not yet exist. Even more perplexing is how it is possible to know every choice that would be made by an infinite number of persons in every possible state of affairs, who will NEVER actually exist. Again, not just possible choices, but the actual choices they would make if they were created. And simple foreknowledge I find as perplexing. Calvinism and open theism are both far more intelligible. In fact, I would not be surprised when the smoke clears and the dust settles if those were the two positions left standing as the viable options. But Calvinism is morally intolerable when it is consistent. That leaves open theism. Hard to say how far I lean that way, but I've leaned that way for a while. 

Jerry Walls Yes, God has foreknowledge of many things, just not infallible foreknowledge of undetermined choices. 

Here he touches on a point I don't generally see discussed. It's not just a question of whether God can know discrete libertarian choices. Rather, when dealing with choices in the distant future, that involves knowledge of nested choices. A long chain of choices, not only within the life of an individual, but over generations of individuals, where one thing leads to another, leading up to that decision point in the far-off future. Contingencies contingent on other contingencies. 

Let's assume libertarian freedom. The choices of the older generation create the situation from which the younger generation makes its choices. Even if the situation doesn't determine their choices, it determines their range of choices. To the extent that past choices create future circumstances, that's the pool from which a future generation makes its selection.

If the choices are truly free, then it's not just a question of how God can know an inherently unpredictable choice, but it's compounded by how God can know every link in a chain of contingencies, where each depends on the prior. 

Ironically, Walls cuts the Gordian knot by appealing to divine determinism! 

Jerry Walls God can determine many things, including human choices in order to accomplish his purposes. What he cannot determine is a free choice to love him, worship him, etc. 

Jerry Walls I do not think dispositions allow precise predictions, but more general ones, like the one in Matthew. Dispositions do not allow you to predict the exact people who will repent, the exact date and time of day, the exact words they will use and so on. According to Molinism, God know all those details and more.
And as for open theism, God is never surprised in the sense that he knows all potentialities and possibilities, so none emerge he did not know were possible. And indeed, I think Cyrus and John are explicable in terms of divine orchestration or even determinism. While God can determine actions, he cannot determine the essentially personal choices to love, to worship, to trust, etc. So open theism has a lot of options, as I said before.

So he labors to relieve the dilemma by resorting to an ad hoc alternation between determinism and indeterminism, even though those are intertwined.

Synoptic apologetics

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/midwestern-journal-theology/13-1_097.pdf

Daniel in Babylon

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/crossway/daniel_millard.pdf

Replacing "God" with "science"

If you say evolution occurs by natural selection, it looks scientific compared with saying God created everything. Now they say natural selection created everything, but they don’t explain how. If it’s science, you have to explain every step. That’s why I was unhappy. Just a replacement of God with natural selection doesn’t change very much. You have to explain how. 

http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/12-mutation-not-natural-selection-drives-evolution

Masatoshi Nei is Evan Pugh Professor of Biology and Director of the Institute of Molecular Evolutionary Genetics at Penn State.