I. Tim's Critique of Pathetic, Misguided Catholic Internet Apologetics
II. Definition of Protestant and the True Reformation Heritage
III. Allegedly Fallacious Catholic Apologetic Arguments Frequently Advanced
IV. "Roman" vs. "Reformed" Ecclesiological Solutions and Epistemologies
V. The Nature of Christian Unity: Institutional, Spiritual, Theological, All of the Above?
VI. Apostolic Succession and Development of Doctrine: Arbitrary Traditions of Men or Divinely-Established Criteria of Orthodox Christian Legitimacy?
VII. Presuppositionalism and Logical Circularity: Characteristic of Catholic Apologetics but not Reformed?
VIII. Unnecessary Feuds Between Catholic and Protestant Apologists: "Bad" Words and Biblical Words
This is a friendly exchange which took place on Steve Ray's Catholic Convert Message Board (October 2000; uploaded on 16 November 2000). It has been slightly edited in order to eliminate material of little interest to the general reader, and to preserve thematic continuity. Tim's words will be in blue.
* * * * *
Tim's Critique of Pathetic, Misguided Catholic Internet Apologetics
Perhaps you don't hold to the kind of view of private judgment that [Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Eric] Svendsen was attacking. If not, I salute you--you're one of the few RC's I've met who's actually thought that matter through and come to the correct conclusion. But that means that you shouldn't take umbrage at Svendsen's argument, because as an insider to RC apologetics, you know well and good how many of your fellows rely on such trite, self-defeating arguments--and who add insult to injury by filling this Board up with that stuff.
And here we have Tim's never-ending complaint: the idiocies and fathomless imbecilities of your (if we accept his scenario) run-of-the-mill, garden-variety Catholic apologist. But who cares, I say? This is utterly uninteresting; why bother with those whom one thinks are not properly representing their faith? Who has time for that, pray tell? Tim knows enough to know which is which. He carps and complains about inadequate presentations. Well, how about critiques of some of the apologists you have a modicum of respect for? Don't waste time on trifles!
The problem is not that I think the “run-of-the-mill, garden-variety Catholic apologist” is not presenting his faith properly—in fact, the problem is that he is presenting his faith (i.e., his personal trust in Catholicism as true) properly, e.g., exactly the way he perceives it—as an Utterly Impregnable Fortress of Rationality and Light, Courageously Holding Back the Impious Darkness That Comes From Using the Mind to Sort Through Options.
To the extent that he doesn't understand the intricacies of the authority of the Church and the Magisterium, or the relationship of faith and reason (which you grossly caricature) this is true, but again I say, so what? Why does this interest or even flabbergast you? There is always plenty of error and painting with a broad brush to go around. This comes as a surprise to you? I find much more troubling the inability of the best champions on your side to interact with our best arguments. They want to fight straw men, slander, distort, and deal with a caricature of Catholicism (it has always been this way, since Luther), rather than truly engage those who are capable and willing to engage them.
He (and this is especially true of converts from various forms of syrupy “Evangelicalism”) makes his determination that Rome is the True Church by using the very thing he criticizes Protestants for using in their determination about the meaning of Scripture—“private judgment”. This is simply a double-standard no matter how many times you call the guy who points it out an “Anti-Catholic” or impugn his scholarly credentials.
In his methodology, it may be. In mine, it most assuredly is not. All it is, is the patristic method, and - I think - also that of the Apostles as shown in Holy Scripture, and even of the Jews before Christ. It is the historical method, combined with and bolstered by, the miraculous witness of changed lives, freedom from error, and other supernatural occurrences.
You ask why I should care about this “trifle”, and to some extent I see both yours and Mark’s point—this naive view of private judgment isn’t Magisterial Catholic teaching, and therefore, it would seem nobody should bother with it.
Indeed; you anticipate my response well!
But guess what, Dave? You have a whole website devoted to overthrowing something you call “Protestantism” when half the stuff on that site has nothing whatsoever to do with historic, classical Protestantism!!!
[later editorial note: actually, this isn't the essential purpose of my site, which is to present a positive exposition and defense of Catholicism. I also have extensive sections on Eastern Orthodoxy, so-called "traditionalist" Catholics, liberal theology, evolution, general apologetics, a C.S. Lewis page, a Middle Ages page, tons of Catholic biblical arguments, etc., etc.]
The reason is simple, and one can see it in your own answer, if they wish to, and if they look close enough. Protestantism, as it exists, goes far beyond "historic, classical Protestantism." This is simply a sociological fact, whether you like it or not. I know you Reformed guys pride yourself on uniquely preserving the "Reformation heritage" intact, and indeed, to a very large extent this is true. But that does not mean that you are the lone Protestants out there, as you love to think and delude yourself in your more self-preoccupied and self-important moments. If you wish to have an entire debate about the definition of "Protestantism" (or "Christian") I would be utterly delighted to do so.
Guess what, Tim? John Wesley (whom I greatly admire) was a Protestant. So was Bonhoeffer and A.W. Tozer, and C.S. Lewis and Dorothy Sayers and many others who do not fit in your square circle of Calvinism, the "elite" Protestants; supposedly the only "real" or "consistent" ones. And I deal in reality and not in the internal conflicts of Protestants, by which it follows that even definitional and dogmatic issues of "orthodoxy" are unable to finally be resolved (because there is no real authority to solve the problem).
I’ve had this discussion with Gary Hoge before, and he justified his website by saying, “Well, Tim, I’m reaching out to Fundamentalists, so you shouldn’t be surprised or dismayed if my arguments don’t engage historic Protestant thought.”
Quite true; fundamentalists are Protestants. It doesn't take a rocket scientist . . . What do you say they are: Zoroastrians? Druids? Farsi? How ridiculous a level will we sink to in these terminological controversies?
Well I say what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If you guys can make websites attacking non-official “Protestant” doctrines and apologetic positions, don’t begrudge me for attacking non-official portrayals of Catholic doctrine and non-official apologetics for those non-official portrayals.
This is absurd as well, for there is an obvious institutional difference and difference of fundamental authoritative principle. I have dealt with this time and again (notably above in the debates with White and Svendsen, cited elsewhere on this page), always to no avail, because the tunnel-vision of my opponent would allow no different way of seeing things. There are no "official Protestant" positions, simply because there is no institutional way to determine them, or to determine orthodoxy per se! So you cite your Westminster Confession or Calvin's Institutes. Whoop-de-doo! One has to accept it, and there is no way to demand obedience if someone is not in the Reformed denomination to begin with. If they dissent, then they go and join another group or form their own. Or they start to go liberal, as J. Gresham Machen and Francis Schaeffer have documented, with regard to "official" Presbyterianism in particular, during the 20s and 80s, respectively.
The only way to attain real, apostolic authority is to trace it back in an unbroken line to the Apostles and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and that is precisely what you and any other Protestant cannot do. You cannot show that your peculiar doctrines were present in the early Church. Just today a book by a Southern Baptist (Williams, I think) was mentioned to me, where the author agrees that sola Scriptura could not be found in the early Church (and this is a bedrock principle of all Protestants)! Norman Geisler and Alister McGrath have admitted the same concerning faith alone, or sola fide, the other pillar of Protestantism. It's a losing cause, Tim. You can continue special pleading for the indefensible, or you can give up the futile fight and join us.
After all, somebody has to try to set the record straight. You are trying to set it straight for Protestants who are confused about what the Catholic Church really teaches; I’m trying to set it straight for Catholics who are confused about what the Reformation really taught (and still teaches).
I think that's a worthwhile endeavor, as long as you don't promulgate this head-in-the-sand myth that your own brand of Protestantism is the only one. But there is still a qualitative difference between your attacking distortions of the one Catholic dogmatic position and my attacking variants of Protestantism. You say the "other guys" distort "true" Protestantism? Very well, then, tell me how you know what true Protestantism is? Right off the bat, you had four major strains (Lutherans, Calvinists, Zwinglians, Anabaptists), competing against each other, contradicting each other, mutually anathematizing, each claiming the glorious mantle of "true Protestantism." Now you want me to believe that Calvin carries more inherent authority than Luther, who (unarguably) started the movement! On what logical or ecclesiological or biblical basis can such claims be made, pray tell?
What’s your problem with this, other than being convinced that I’m wasting my time?
Just the above; it is thoroughly wrong-headed, except for the attempt to explain what your brand of Protestantism actually teaches. That I am in favor of, as long as you don't revel in your delusions of grandeur that your guys are the only true Protestants, which is as ludicrous and self-defeating as anti-Catholicism.
No, Svendsen is dealing with common RC apologetic arguments (NOT Magisterial teaching),
That's one of the problems in his approach and yours presently. This is a non sequitur. His "job" as an official anti-Catholic poobah is to critique actual Catholic teaching, not facsimilies of it, accurate to greater or lesser degrees. If one wants to refute Catholicism, one goes to Trent, Vatican II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If one wants to refute mainstream Protestantism, one goes to Calvin's Institutes or respectable modern exponents such as R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, et al.
Maybe he sees his “job” as doing both, just like I do and just like I assume you do.
Fine; I say it is a waste of time. I deal in "official" Protestantism as much as possible, defined by what the creeds, confessions, and major theologians and exponents of each Protestant tradition say about their own beliefs. With sola Scriptura, e.g., I was careful to cite prominent authorities such as Berkouwer, Sproul, Hodge, and Ramm as to its definition. I didn't make up my own definition, based on the idiocies and imbecilities which abound amongst Joe Q Protestant with Bible in hand, as you well know. I've been consistent all along in this. The urge for proper documentation has been with me ever since I was an evangelical cult researcher in the early 80s.
Or do you not recognize the difference between the Protestantism of Luther and Calvin and the “Protestantism” of, say, Jimmy Swaggart (or whoever)?
Of course. The difference between you and I, though, is that I am not foolish and intellectually-suicidal enough to render the Protestantism of Swaggart out of existence, as if it is not what it is. Is it different from Reformed Protestantism? Yes, of course (though not vastly so, in the scheme of things). Yet you guys on the anti-Catholic end of the spectrum will never be as hard on those folks as you will be on Dreaded Rome, will you? And why is that, if they are so immersed in error, also? Another question White has never answered . . .
Oh please. Swaggart is virtually a full-bore Pelagian.
Prove it. Swaggart's soteriology (as far as I know; unless he has degenerated theologically as much as he has morally) is that of the Assembly of God, the group which ordained him. This is standard Wesleyan, Arminian soteriology. I used to attend Assemblies of God myself (though I never became a member, because I disagreed with some of their tenets). Now if you are going to make a claim like this, then I want to see it documented.
Don't tell me you think that the Reformed are on the same sliding scale of rank heresy as Pelagius. That's one of those things that makes one wonder whether to laugh or cry.
When did I either say or imply this? You made the charge that Swaggart was a Pelagian (undocumented and then make out that I equate the two beliefs). Nice rhetorical sleight-of-hand, Tim . . . But see, this is so predictable. The inner logic of your exclusivistic, tunnel-vision hyper-Reformed mindset inevitably leads to equating Arminians (and Catholics) with Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. This does not follow at all. It is very shoddy logic and a slanderous blurring of crucial categorical distinctions. Yet it happens all the time. Someone has to call you guys on this, and I am more than willing to do so. :-)
Yet you guys on the anti-Catholic end of the spectrum will never be as hard on those folks as you will be on Dreaded Rome, will you?
Actually, yes, we are. In the first heady days after my conversion to the Reformed faith, I spent all my free time reading major Reformed works exposing the doctrinal lunacies and heretical practices of contemporary "Evangelical" Christianity. Reformed writers like Sproul, Horton, Riddlebarger, Wilson, Jones, and others don't waste any opportunities to be hard on the Jimmy Swaggarts of the sociological Protestant group you find so intriguing. Our sword has plenty of edge to handle both them and "the Dreaded Rome".
I didn't claim you weren't hard on these folks at all; just that the intensity never comes close to your derision of Rome. But again, you still exhibit the contradiction of speaking about your "lovefests" of communal worship with your "Lutheran brothers" while at the same time you detest their soteriology as Pelagian (i.e., if you are consistent, which is by no means apparent to me).
My focus has consistently been that this particular subgroup of Catholic apologists badly misrepresent the Reformation and utilize arguments that, if they were true, would render Catholicism as null and void as they think Protestantism is.
If it happens, it happens. I don't see the relevance of it, though. These people still accept Catholic dogma, by and large, though they lack the ability to defend it properly and to be fair to opponents.
Do you not have articles on your site critiquing both sets of ideas? Why is that?
Because they both exist and are both in error. Need I produce any other reason? I fight error wherever it is found. This is the apologist's task. I don't waste my time running around, defining other Christians out of the category they clearly belong in. That's your game; it is not the game of the serious historian or sociologist (I happened to major in sociology and have read a great deal of history on my own).
Protestants wishing to offer a serious critique don't cite and do battle with "Joe X amateur apologist" on Bulletin Board B or List C, or an elderly lady with no teeth, purple tennis shoes and a babushka (sp?) at morning Mass. Nor do we go to Swaggart or Bob Tilton or a back-pew warmer in the United Church of Christ, or Clinton or Gore (good Baptists both. Ha!). Is this not obvious?
They do if they are concerned about the misunderstandings that cloud the minds of those nice folks. Are you telling me I should just write off a whole large subgroup of Catholic apologists as rationally irredeemable?
No; just not representative of the Catholic position, and as such, not worth the time compared to those who accurately represent it. Go ahead and critique them, fine, but I think it is an unwise, less fruitful use of time (and yours is as limited as mine, if not more so). And don't foolishly claim that this is the equivalent of Protestant institutional chaos, moral relativism, and doctrinal confusion. It is not, and I have shown this many times on my website.
Is standing up for truth ever a waste of time?
No. One decides - using wisdom, discretion, and prudence - the proper and most fruitful forum to do so. And the method.
Well I can see that this theme of "one little variant among many" is pretty important to you, and apparently, all my talk about classical Protestantism versus modern American "Protestantism" has only added fuel to your fire.
Not really; it just hasn't overcome the inherent logical difficulties of your position.
Now you reiterate a challenge made a long time ago on your website about folks such as Wesley, Lewis, Bonhoeffer, and so forth.
Yep; the same challenge made to King James White in 1995 and meticulously avoided by him ever since.
So I guess I need to offer clarification of what I mean whenever I speak of non-Reformed folks as "Protestants", in quotations.
Yes, please do.
Basically the reason I do that is because the Reformation was first and foremost about the Gospel,
What is the Gospel? I define it from the Bible on my website. But Calvinists so often want to define it in a non-explicitly biblical basis, which is, of course, highly ironic and somewhat hypocritical, given their ostensible fundamental principles.
. . . not about papal primacy, apocryphal inspiration, apostolic succession, baptismal regeneration, or any of the other hot button issues we all discuss today.
And not about things like political power, sexual license, desire for freedom, anti-clericalism, anti-Latinism, mass propaganda, etc.
In fact, I read somewhere that Luther once said he'd be glad to tolerate a great many things in Rome that he considered to be wrong if Rome would have simply come clean about the Gospel.
And he assumes that he knows what the "Gospel" is, over against the entire history of the Church up till his time. Quite amazing.
Now, given that the Reformation was first and foremost about the Gospel, we need to ask ourselves what is the Gospel that is being preached in non-Reformed / non-Lutheran churches that call themselves "Protestant" churches?
Yes (assuming you first show me what the true Gospel itself is, from Scripture, or - if you must - from some man-made tradition).
Well, that's pretty simple. The official, doctrinal explanations of the Gospel that are given by non-Reformed / non-Lutheran Christians who call themselves "Protestants" are simply watered down versions of the Gospel proclaimed by Rome.
This means little unless you spell it out. I think I know your general thrust here, but the general reader may not, and you must learn to document things as it is.
To borrow the words of one of my teachers,
You won't even name him, for crying out loud. So now we have anonymous citations, when we finally get some at all . . .
"The Roman church holds that there is a reservoir of grace, and that sinners can come to receive that grace. The grace is, in their view, dispensed from seven sacraments, gold-plated faucets, overseen by priestly attendants."
Largely, but not totally, yes. I thought Calvinists still believed in two sacraments?
"In modern evangelicalism, the process is the same—only the grace in this case comes out of the reservoir through a green garden hose and is emptied into a dented tin bucket, overseen by a trained counselor while the busses wait."
I'm afraid I don't totally get the analogy. Maybe the garden hose is Protestant Christian radio and TV stations, the dented bucket the vast "reservoir" of Protestant man-made tradition, and the busses the massive cultural infiltration of supposed Protestant "quintessentially biblical" religion (both "sociological" and Calvinist).
"Put bluntly, modern evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism are both Arminian.
Great. But you haven't told me how Arminianism is somehow Pelagian, or how it denies the biblical gospel.
They both hold to the autonomy of the sinner’s will in conversion,
What do you mean by "autonomy"? Unless you carefully define all your key terms, this goes nowhere.
and they both offer to manage the process of closing the deal between a sinner who has 'decided' and the God who offers grace at the reservoir for those who will come and get it."
Again, you have to elaborate what you mean. I categorically deny that either "orthodox" Arminianism or Catholic soteriology is Pelagian in any way, shape or form.
Whatever the differences between the outward trappings, there is a profound similarity of viewpoint between Rome and modern Evangelicals as to how and why people are saved.
What is this "how" and "why" as you see it?
That's why Billy Graham, the greatest "Protestant" evangelist of this century once said that he had no real problem with Rome--he's preaching the same basic message about cooperating with God for justification
Does this "cooperation" include initial justification and the first move into the realm of "salvation"? Who causes the first move? God or man (in your estimation of what Arminianism would teach)?
. . . that Rome is preaching, but he just preaches it stripped of all the pretty wrapping paper that took Rome many centuries to develop.
So now Billy Graham is a Pelagian too? On what basis? Give me some quotes!!!!! This is very shoddy work, Tim. If you're gonna write a post this long with as many barbs, potshots, and (outrageous) claims, at least give me something solid I can work through, together with you.
In the final, bitterly ironic analysis, the most vehemently "anti-Roman Catholic" modern Evangelicals are little more than cheap imitations of the Roman Catholics they claim to abhor so much.
Does this include the Lutherans, with whom you have experienced such joyful ecstacies of spiritual brotherhood? How about the Methodists? How are they cheap imitations? All these summary statements (and false ones at that), with no substance!
The Reformed have always seen this clearly, especially when Arminianism first began rearing its head in Reformed countries.
And us non-Reformed have always seen clearly the blasphemies and denigration of God and His attributes inherent in certain dreadful aspects of Calvinism.
In fact, several prominent Reformed theologians of the seventeenth century identified Arminianism exactly the way I just did--as a corrupted version of Roman Catholicism that yet retained enough similarities to justify things like the Synod of Dordt's scathing condemnations.
Well, what would you expect? With such tunnel vision and highly-exaggerated self-importance as Reformed thinkers are burdened with, it is predictable that they would class any theological opponent in the same class as the all-horrible Beast of Babylon. This is the black-and-white mentality of self-defined, closed dogmatic systems. There is little understanding of fine distinctions, or of biblical paradox. "Either/or" and unnecessary false dichotomies and fuzzy definitions rule the day.
So, I really am not vulnerable to your criticism above that I'm making "arbitrary, novel categories".
Oh, your work has only just begun. Do you think the paltry "analysis" above settles the issue? LOL All you've given me is summary statements, themselves all highly debatable.
I'm just going to the heart of the issue that separated Rome from the first Protestants and concluding that if someone calls himself a "Protestant" but is not really protesting what he ought to be, he doesn't deserve to wear the label.
So because they are not Calvinists (TULIP), they are not Protestants. Only Calvinists are Protestants. Is this not circular reasoning, or am I missing something? Why and how is it that a denial of free will, and an acceptance of limited atonement, double predestination, and perseverance is somehow essential for "classic" Protestantism, when even Luther didn't accept all these notions (so I guess he is in bed with Rome), nor did the supposed exemplary precursor St. Augustine (so now he was a Pelagian, even as he fought them! LOLOL). Only Calvin got it right. Why? Because he said he did! That's what your argument boils down to. Luther himself is out of the fold, and all non-Reformed Protestants since. Calvin devises in the 1530s the highest version of Christianity known to man - never known in its fullness by anyone prior to his time - not Augustine, not any of the Fathers nor the early Councils, etc. Yeah, right. Very plausible, Tim.
I'm really not doing anything different than you are doing when you admit (as you did here) that there are historic Protestants and then there are sociological Protestants.
No. I acknowledge distinctions, and a mainstream of the so-called "Reformation." It does not thereby follow that I think Arminians (let alone Catholics) are Pelagians, or that they deny the "Gospel" which I believe both these parties, and Orthodox and Catholics hold in common. The "Gospel," as clearly defined in Holy Scripture and proclaimed by the first Christians so as to turn the world upside down, is neither TULIP nor sola fide. The Gospel is the incarnation, virgin birth, atoning death, Resurrection, and Ascension of our glorious Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and the implications of that for the attainment of salvation and eternal life.
The latter generally don't have a clue what they are supposedly "protesting",
Protestants who don't know any history? That's supposed to come as a surprise to anyone? LOLOL It is only a matter of degree, Tim. You claim a superior knowledge of Church history, yet you don't seem to have a clue that, e.g., apostolic succession was an undeniable, intrinsic part of that history and of Christian authoritative self-understanding, from the beginning.
and the ultimate proof of this is the fact that they get all wrapped up in things like Chick's convoluted conspiracy theories about Rome rather than in what really matters.
This is no more silly and stupid than someone as sharp as you (who should know better) not being able to discern the gigantic qualitative difference between Chick and Karl Keating and Catholic Answers. James White (supposedly so sophisticated himself) can't even figure out the difference between Chick and the writings of myself and Steve Ray. LOL
The upshot is that I'm as totally uninterested in "sociological Protestantism" as I'm sure you are in "nominal Catholicism". Both of these distort the real issues at hand.
But their fundamental principles of existence and implications of same are completely different.
[bypassed discussion of King James White and Wild Bill Webster]
Well I think we all could benefit from being a lot more careful in our definition of the term "Christian".
And definitions of "Protestant" too . . .
I remember reading some years ago an essay by the atheist philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell in which he gave something like ten different "acceptable" definitions of the term (one of them, for instance, had to do with the general Western tendency to speak of "Christian nations" in contradistinction from "Muslim nations").
There are different usages, but you would think that people who are Christians could come up with some consistent ways of thinking about this. My own overarching definition is: 1) those who have been baptized properly, 2) acceptance of the Nicene Creed; particularly trinitarianism and all its defined nuances - to the extent that the person can grasp the intricacies of it.
Protestant thought on Rome's status as a "Christian church" or not is much more nuanced than you may have been lead to believe.
I know that. In fact, I have taken note of some of the internal contradictions in this area, even among Calvinists alone, which are present amongst Protestants on virtually every issue:
You seem to think that if a Protestant says, "Rome is not a Christian church", he's pretty much damning everyone in Rome to hell for simply not being Protestants.
No, only the idiot anti-Catholics and greatly-misinformed Catholic observers think that. I'm concerned strictly with the (lack of) historic and biblical logic in the (intellectually-suicidal) claim that Protestants are Christians, while Catholics aren't.
But that may not be the case at all. It may be that all he means to say is that Rome doesn't preach the Christian Gospel as the Reformation sees it, which is certainly not a debatable claim from any side.
Then we would be in the same category (in that sense) as Arminians; a point you made above.
True enough, some Reformed stalwarts don't hesitate to abominate the whole of anything that even remotely appears to be Roman Catholic
Just look today at the difference between Sproul and White and MacArthur on the one hand, and Packer and Colson, on the other.
(I recall an e-mail exchange with some of the Chalcedon guys you recently forwarded to me where one of them basically said you couldn't possibly be a Christian because you were a Roman Catholic, or something like that). But Reformed thought has grown up quite a bit since the sixteenth century, and I feel pretty confident in saying that the majority of Reformed persons wouldn't be so quick to utterly damn "those ruddy Papists" (LOL) as the outspoken minority would.
Good. Not that they deserve much credit for arriving at utterly obvious truths . . .
Even among the leadership one can often find spirited debates on the issue. In the nineteenth century, for instance, Presbyterian Charles Hodge wrote a lengthy essay attacking fellow Presbyterian James Henry Thornwell for saying Rome was not a Christian church--and Hodge was about as Reformed as one could get back then!
Interesting; I thought Hodge was anti-Catholic? I only have his abridged Theology. They took out his treatments of Catholicism (maybe this bolsters your point LOL).
Even Turretin, whom I apparently gave you a sour taste for,
No, his own foolishness and presumption did that.
doesn't come out and absolutely deny Christian status to Rome.
He does sound like one strange cookie . . .
I also recently read a long article by some older Scottish theologian that made some fine distinctions on this issue (though I can't recall them at the moment).
Well, I understand that Calvin did not deny the Christian status of Catholic baptism, so that definitely makes us brothers in Christ, if his authority is accepted on the matter. I don't hesitate to call all Protestants and Orthodox my brothers in Christ (whatever they think of me), because this is non-optional Catholic teaching.
This is why, a few months after our abortive discussion earlier this year, after I'd had some time to think more clearly about the issues instead of the personal attacks that had become, I admitted to you that I could consider Roman Catholics to be Christians in a covenantal sense because they bear the covenant sign of baptism.
Yes; precisely as Calvin himself taught. I cite him in the above paper about this issue. He can be pretty brilliant when he is right about things. LOLOL
I realize that I never expounded that for you due to lack of time, but the gist of it is that I'm willing to extend the exact same courtesy to Roman Catholics as I do to the most wayward of Arminians.
You did somewhat, and at that point I acknowledged that I no longer thought of you as an anti-Catholic.
I don't assume they aren't Christians because they aren't Reformed, and since they do have the same basic Gospel you do (albeit in much more crass a form), consistency would demand that I not write Roman Catholics off in knee jerk fashion.
Indeed.
Allegedly Fallacious Catholic Apologetic Arguments Frequently Advanced
And not you or any other RC here or anywhere else can tell me that these sorts of arguments are not advanced frequently by the legions of RC apologetes who devour the populist propaganda of Catholic Answers and other such organizations.
LOL Populist propaganda? LOL This hardly has any meaning without specifics. Why don't you give us some examples?
I can’t believe I actually have to spell this out, because it’s the backbone of a great deal of modern RC polemics against Protestantism as presented on this Board and elsewhere.
“Protestants don’t have a Church to help them know the truth because all they have is a Bible interpreted by their own isolated private judgments.”
I agree that Reformed do much better than this, but not much, in the end.
“Protestants are Super-Popes.” (That one, at least, should sound familiar to you, LOL).
LOL Yes, and that is entirely true, and you can't deny it (if you understand what I mean by it), based on your own premises (if applied consistently). It was Herr Luther who lamented the fact that "there are as many beliefs as there are heads." He made himself the pope when he deemed his own judgment superior to all previous popes and Councils and apostolic Tradition at Worms in 1521, did he not? That is infinitely more "power" than any pope ever dreamt that he possessed. I don't think that you think through your own presuppositions adequately. Like so many clever, educated, intelligent people, you see minute points very clearly one way or the other, but you fail to see the big picture. You major on the minors. You elevate minutiae and minimize "gigantiae."
“Catholics have certainty of faith because of the Church; all Protestants have is a boiling cauldron of contradictory interpretations based on their own private judgment.” Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
This is pop apologetics in the worst sense of the word, lacking all nuance and subtlety (even charity), and as such, counter-productive (though it remains largely true in essence). I think I have offered much better in our dialogues.
“Protestants are hopelessly divided into 23,000 warring denominations.”
This is a fact (and I have documented it in the teeth of ferocious but deluded Protestant objections). I agree with Diane that whether the number is 23,000 or 2300 or 230 or 23 or 2.3, it is still an absolute scandal for there to be any number of "churches" beyond the biblical "one" of John 17.
“Sola Scriptura: Blueprint for Anarchy”
This is also true. I have more debates about this on my website than on any other topic.
“Sola Fide: James 2:24 says NO!!!!”
It does say that (go read it, folks!). We can be assured that if such a verse said what Protestants wish it would say - but in fact this never occurs in Scripture, with regard to faith alone - (e.g., "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ by faith alone, without any effort or merit, with the aid of your own private judgment, and the Holy Spirit, without the obligatory authority of any tradition or church") this would be trumpeted from the rooftops incessantly. But when Scripture clearly expresses Catholic concepts, somehow it is untoward and improper for us to point this out.
Yawn. Don't tell me you think Reformed people have never read James 2:24 or bothered to expound it in context and along with Romans 4 and 5. Gimmeabreak.
Give me a break! My response, of course, had nothing whatever to do with how Reformed might deal with the passage. Your charge was that this line is insubstantial to begin with. I responded that it is no less proper for Catholics to claim this verse than it is for Protestants to claim any number of pet verses for themselves (even adding the word "alone" to a Bible verse - which isn't present in the Greek text - if it takes that to drive a point home).
“The Church Fathers were Catholics Just Like Me.”
They certainly were far more like present-day Catholics than like Protestants. This has been demonstrated time and again. But why should that matter, when history has largely been abandoned by Protestants as any valid criteria of Christian truth? The classic example was Dave Hunt debating Karl Keating (a "debate" I attended) on the question of: Was the Early Church Catholic? He never mentioned the Fathers all night!!! I wrote and asked him how he could explain this, and he replied that (close paraphrase): "The Bible tells us what the early Church believed. Why should I cite Church Fathers?"
“Jesus established ONE Church, not 23,000.”
Indeed. John 17. Why this doesn't trouble you is beyond my comprehension. Be against the Catholic Church if you must. But at least have the integrity and guts to state that denominationalism is a scandal and troubling to you, as an unbiblical state of affairs.
Those are just for starters. Shall I continue?
Not if you are doing this rotten of a job. LOL
Informed Catholics take umbrage at this type of gross slander of their faith. Shall I not take umbrage at the gross slanders of my faith?
Go ahead, but you (by logical implication) tell me Wesley and C.S. Lewis and Bonhoeffer and Arminians in general are not of your faith (they aren't Protestants, cuz you put all non-Reformed in quotes), so why criticize me for taking on other Protestants? What do I care how you create your own arbitrary, novel categories? That's not my concern. You are only one variant among many. You are in your own little theological circle of your own making. But Protestantism is larger than just your circle. Christianity always dealt with the concrete realities, a la the Jews, not the ethereal abstractions of the Greeks. That led to Gnosticism.
I immensely enjoyed your response, as always. Man, can you be so dead-wrong, though! LOL I'm always amazed at how such brilliant people can get it so wrong . . . :-) You do remind me so much of myself in 1990, when I fought ferociously against papal infallibility and other "excesses": which I thought rendered Catholicism unworthy of assent (bringing to bear Salmon and Kung and many of the rest of the usual suspects).
I agree with Diane that your number will be up within two years, three at the most (depending on how much time you devote to relevant study). It's a sort of Enlightenment hyper-rationalistic "can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees" sort of outlook (which I have often observed). You know too much now to ever go back. You have sought (if not always succeeding) to be fair to Catholicism, and once one does that (as Chesterton says) it is only a matter of time . . . :-) Don't be offended; I really believe this, but I offer it half tongue-in-cheek, in the spirit of friendship and good-natured, respectful "teasing" of a sort.
Thanks for taking the time to reply, Dave.
You're welcome. Thank you too! I enjoyed it.
"Roman" vs. "Reformed" Ecclesiological Solutions and Epistemologies
This is not going very far. Virtually everything we discuss becomes a subjective issue ("your dad's uglier than mine," etc.). I would like to do some comparative exegesis on controversial topics, like the saints or purgatory. That would be nice for a change. Something objective to wrangle over, starting on common ground (Scripture). What we are doing now might be good armchair religious sociology or decent (not crappy) bathroom reading, but what does it really accomplish? Some further mutual understanding; not much else.
You and Diane are starting to remind me of people who think that if they say something enough times, it will inevitably come true.
:-) Naw; it's just that we have seen the same process so many times - in my case, in myself.
The simple fact is, I'm not looking for the type of "answers" that Rome provides because I don't find myself faced with the kinds of "problems" that people like you and she faced.
Oh, neither was I, believe me. I was very content in my evangelicalism. That is a small matter for God. He can change things fast! :-)
And for all the problems I do see with present-day Protestant ecclesiology, I'm not looking for the kind of "solution" that Greg K. thinks he found in Rome. So don't hold your breath waiting for me to swim the Tiber. :-)
You don't have to be looking. We tend to meet our brides when we aren't looking for them, even when we are content where we are at (even intellectually confident, as you appear to be). Likewise with the Bride of Christ, the Church.
The impulse of Catholic apologists elite and lay to paint all the major Protestant apologists as dishonest, egotistical quacks is just too powerful, it seems.
I try to avoid these ad hominem tendencies like the plague. I despise them. You're welcome to point out any slips on my website, and if you make a good case, I will remove that wording. That's all anyone can do, isn't it? I take the greatest pains to avoid this, which is why I don't think there is any of it on my site. But Anti-Catholics have called me dishonest, arrogant, damned, et al times without number. I agree it is a strong tendency on both sides; for my part I try my best to avoid this sin.
Maybe it ought to strike you as an indication that these guys have some sort of life outside of their internet activities...perhaps even a life that has caused them to overlook or be unable to reply to your e-mails for the last few months?
Ah yes, the "busy excuse." I think they have more than enough papers to indicate that they had some time somewhere along the line to engage lowly papist debate opponents. That's what they do after all. Look at all my papers, and I have had a regular job the whole time. One devotes time to what they really want to do (such as a date with a love interest or a vacation in Hawaii) - or to what they feel they are called to do. One somehow never has time for that which they do not want to do. I never have time to change the oil on my car by myself. LOL
Besides, if these guys are so busy, don't you think they could simply say that in a short e-mail? I don't buy it. I say James White is too intimidated by someone who will stand up to him point-by-point, as I have. I have the most experience with him. I don't know about Svendsen and Webster, but I don't buy the "busy" excuse. I've seen it used too many times. It's very convenient, and it gets one off the hook and enabled to forget the challenge altogether (or better yet, to hope that the prospective opponent forgets about it).
Such things have happened to me personally with several RC apologists I was talking to in the past, and it doesn't strike me as very charitable on your part to simply assume that Svendsen and Webster have no interest in debating the issues.
They do with their carefully chosen opponents, or with straw men. I'd be delighted to be wrong on this. Bring them on! We get accused of this all the time; what's good for the goose . . .
Why do Roman Catholic apologists make this type of charge against Protestants so frequently?
Because we observe the habitual reluctance to go more than one round in a debate from these folks, despite their seemingly-pompous bluster and chest-puffing beforehand.
For crying out loud, people only have so much time in a day to do things, and it's a truism of life that there's never enough time to do everything one wants to do.
Ok; you win. White and Svendsen and Webster are all too busy to have time for a simpleton like me. There, does that make you happy?
Seriously, though; White debated me once (in writing) and in my opinion he was severely beaten, so that he has avoided me ever since. It only takes once to polish off a dialogical opponent if they are ill-prepared or unwilling to subject their views to logical and biblical scrutiny. I say your arguments are infinitely better than Webster's or White's. So I am happy to debate you, and I enjoy the challenge and the thrust-and-parry. I just wish we could have some biblical debates. I really enjoy those. I have had my share of historical debates. I like them, too, but variety is good.
You can waste your time morphing historic Protestantism into sociological Protestantism if you
want, but I'm not interested in that sort of thing.
Fine; it matters little to me where your "interests" lie if they contradict demonstrable fact. Short of that, you still have to establish why your branch is the preeminent or only one, or "historic" or "Reformation" Protestantism, whatever the preferred appellation is.
The Nature of Christian Unity: Institutional, Spiritual, Theological, All of the Above?
Just how ridiculous it all gets is seen in the all too common RC apologetic "argument" that Luther and Calvin are simply at one end of a spectrum that is balanced out on the other side by the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Yawn.
??? This is "common"? Who has made this argument?
Well, that's where you're wrong, and it's because you look for a certain kind of solution (institutional) that has to be implemented at a specific time (RIGHT NOW!!!). In your view, the unity Christ prayed for MUST be outward and institutional,
That's right, because the Bible knows of no other view of the "Church." I and my Church try to be biblical in our views, rather than according to man-made traditions which endure a few hundred years and then claim to be "respectable" and "Christian alternative ecclesiologies" because they have been around so long. Spiritual and doctrinal unity can only be achieved by a simultaneous institutional unity (especially involving the papacy). History bears this out very well.
and it MUST exist at this precise instant
Yes - the Church being indefectible - one would assume it can be pointed to at the present time. No biggie here.
and be able to be traced all the way back to Christ Himself or else, seemingly, the whole of the Christian faith collapses like a house of cards.
Yes; precisely as the Apostles and Fathers (and the Bible) framed the question.
Needless to say, Protestants don't share these assumptions about Christian unity, and so we don't accept common arguments like the one you just made.
Fine, but what is your biblical evidence that there is no necessity for a unified, institutional, hierarchical Church? By what criteria do you claim the prerogative to utterly change the previous principle of authority and ecclesiology in the 16th century? Some problems are so obvious they are overlooked.
If you try to judge "Protestantism" (whatever that convenient abstraction happens to be for you at any given moment)
"Abstraction"? LOL Tim, you are too much sometimes. What you call mere "abstraction" I call Presbyterianism, Southern Baptists, Lutheranism, Methodism, Anglicanism, Mennonites, Christian Reformed, Assemblies of God, etc., etc. I call these people "Protestants." What do you call them?
by Roman Catholic ecclesiastical principles,
. . . derived from the history of Christianity and the Bible . . .
it's no big wonder that you're going to conclude the whole thing is disastrously messed up.
Yes; if something is radically unbiblical; in fact, radically opposed to biblical teaching (and apostolic tradition, which is harmonious with Scripture), I do have this strange, bizarre tendency to regard it as "messed up."
The "absurdity" of the Protestant position exists only in your own mind.
You can't deny that there are contradictions in Protestantism. Contradictions mean that there is error present necessarily. And error is not of God. It is from Satan, the father of lies. This much is absolutely certain and can't be otherwise. You can't deny it. Perhaps realizing that (as you are a sharp guy) you then are forced to identify the "real" Protestantism over against the pretenders and wolves in sheep's clothing. So you pick the Reformed (why you pick them is a whole 'nother story). However, James White is reformed but he is a Reformed Baptist (along with a guy like John MacArthur). So he has a different view of baptism and of ecclesiology. Therefore, one or both of you is mistaken in those areas where you clash. Luther, the founder of the whole thing, believed in baptismal regeneration and the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and several other things closely approximating the Catholic positions.
Thus, error is necessarily present, just between you and him. Yet Jesus told us to be "one" as He and the Father were one. There is no end to the logical and biblical problems inherent in Protestantism. It never ends. And there is no way out of it because the whole system (i.e., its ecclesiology and formal principle) is self-defeating, ultimately a-historical and unbiblical from the outset.
Again, you're trying to judge it by a criterion that is foreign to the system,
The Bible is foreign to the system???? Hmmmm, I wouldn't-a thunk that! Logic is foreign to it? I can much more readily see the plausibility of that . . . Previous church history is foreign to it? I can definitely see that, but we still have the problem of the Bible radically, conclusively condemning the alleged "Bible religion."
so it's no wonder your brain goes tilt.
Yes, it sure does when logical absurdities abound and unbiblical man-made traditions claim to be the preeminent upholders of the biblical message and teaching. Sorry, that's just the way my brain is wired. I think in logical categories; I'm sorta old-fashioned in that way. Not only does my brain go tilt, but my "hypocrisy detector" also goes haywire.
Try to understand this from your opponents' point of view:
That's pretty easy, as I used to be an avid proponent of the very same principles you are now expounding (directly above). Whether you truly comprehend our position, though, is not at all apparent to me.
the sine qua non of the Church is not a single institutional structure to which all Christians everywhere give (pretty much) unquestioning allegiance.
Oh, you mean you reject St. Paul's ecclesiology and handed-down tradition? Okay, go on . . .
Although the Church is almost never without visible institutional structures,
Okay, so it can defect institutionally (the Albigensians and Waldensians carry the torch of true Christianity through the Dark Ages . . . ).
it nevertheless transcends all institutional structures.
It does, yet it never annihilates the absolute necessity for these structures. Fire needs a fireplace, no?
Christian unity is deeper and more "mystical" than mere conformity to an external system.
In some senses, yes, but not in the "either/or" false dichotomy sense of much of Protestantism. We don't feel this burning need to pit everything against each other as you guys do. We accept paradox and mystery and harmony of many aspects working together in one glorious unity.
Yet, external systems are the norm because it's obvious that the Church isn't made up of invisible people who live in an invisible world and never come into contact with each other.
Now this I agree with. I hope this trend continues. :-)
Further, the externals of the faith can--and should!--be allowed to take on different forms (within reason) because not all people are alike.
Where is this novel idea found in Holy Scripture? Just what are you talking about? Diverse ecclesiologies? Diverse notions of the sacraments? Symbolism vs. realism vs. "dynamic" Eucharists? How do you know when this principle is extended far enough and must be suspended or limited?
Unity in diversity, and all that.
Yeah: liberalism, relativism, indifferentism.
All of this being the case, the Westminster Confession of Faith most certainly is an "official Protestant position, as is the Lutheran Formula of Concord and the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith.
Yes; that is my position. But I don't have to deal with the inner contradictions, which is your unresolvable problem (and fatal flaw - one among many, in my opinion).
What's really interesting is that when you get deep into internal discussions among Reformational Christians, you discover the shocking (at least to the Roman Catholic, it's shocking) fact that people as diverse as Baptists and Presbyterians can live in harmony with each other and even worship together despite their disagreements about the application of baptism.
What's so shocking or incredible about that? I can worship with these people (and have). I can worship with fellow baptized, trinitarian Christians who no longer believe in the Eucharist because what they do do when they worship is not all that inconsistent with Catholic belief; it is just a truncated and abridged version of Catholic Christianity. I can sit there and sing hymns and pray to God and recite the Creed, etc. I can listen to a sermon and weed out the relatively small percentage of error (we have to do that with some of our liberal priests). I can participate in a "least common denominator / "mere Christianity" religion because my religion possesses virtually all these characteristics, and also many more, as it is the fullness of apostolic Christianity.
But you have a hard time worshiping with me because you are under the illusion that idolatry is taking place, and an undue sacramental realism, with pagan accretions, superstitions, excessive sacerdotalism, vain repetition, necromancy, a Pelagian soteriology, hyper-authoritarianism, etc., etc. You don't comprehend what has been long since arbitrarily discarded from your religion. But I can comprehend what are the basic and elementary aspects of mine. So I deny your entire point.
Roman Catholics typically imagine that differences like that simply MUST mean that each group withdraws Christian charity from the other
We don't have to imagine anything. We simply observe the 23,000 + institutions.
and concludes that the other holds to "a different Gospel" and therefore, is "a different Church".
We do not say this. Rather, we are amazed that - claiming a common gospel and an alleged commonality in the "basics" or "core beliefs" or "essentials," that nevertheless you still feel compelled to separate from each other. In a large sense that is even more wicked and sinful than if the splits were over something truly substantial.
On the other hand, you guys deny the gospel to others in your own group. You do the very thing that you have just falsely accused us of doing. You unjustly, and absurdly place the Arminians in the Semi-Pelagian camp (along with us). You even refuse to call them "Protestants." Then you turn around and carp about this semi-mythical "unity" which is always used as an excuse to avoid real, biblical ecclesiology and the obvious superiority and biblical/historical nature of the Catholic system.
But this is all nonsense born of trying to judge the way the Protestant system currently exists by Roman Catholic criteria.
Not at all. It is judging it by the Bible, logic, previous Christian historical precedent (including - predominantly - the Fathers) and your own vaunted claims for yourself. We don't need to appeal to our own system to demolish the plausibility of your claims. It is a much easier and straightforward task than that.
Not even in the worst case scenario of dissenters leaving and joining another group or starting their own does your conclusion hold water (at least not the generalized form in which you stated it).
Please elaborate on this point. Show how your worst case of "dissent" does not support my arguments.
You speak of a single organization that can demand obedience, but in doing this, you seemingly forget that one of the cardinal principles of Reformational thinking is liberty of conscience.
Yes; where do we find in the Bible this notion of supremacy of conscience over against the One Church? You claim to base your system on the Bible? Then I judge it from the Bible, and it falls FLAT.
Just as Paul says no one can judge his brother on debatable matters because each man stands or falls to his own master (Rom. 14:4),
The immediate context of this passage was matters of what food was clean and what was unclean (the ceremonial law). This is hardly on the level of constructing entirely new ecclesiologies and formal principles.
so do Protestants say that no institution has some kind of divine right to demand implicit faith.
Then you have an awful big problem with Paul and the Jerusalem Council, which bound the consciences of the faithful.
"God alone is the Lord of the conscience and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men." (WCF ).
This very anti-ecclesiastical notion is a "doctrine of men" not a divine, apostolic, biblical one!
Most of the problems within Protestant circles that have given rise to the common argument you presented above are due, frankly, to Protestant immaturity and misunderstanding of our own principles.
Either way, there is a problem. Sheer ignorance leads to chaos, but so does an accurate understanding of foundational Protestant principles, because they are self-defeating and unbiblical themselves (except in those parts where they retained the traditional view).
The Reformed in particular seem to have let thorough catechesis on these issues go for way too long.
Yeah, we can relate to that problem - we have screwed up badly in that area ourselves in the last 40 years.
That's why I shake my head in amazement at my "Reformed" brethren (many of them Presbyterians like myself) who vitriolically stand up for their own pet issues (theonomy, young earth creationism, and so forth) and then insolently divide the Body up into true factions (as opposed to mere brotherly disagreements) while proudly proclaiming their solidarity with Luther, Calvin, and Machen.
Why should they not do so, given the supremacy of conscience and private judgment?
The majority of actual institutional splits simply are NOT carried out according to solid biblical and Reformational principles,
Which are: sola scriptura, (ultimately) invisible church, supremacy of conscience and private judgment . . . I say you may have it exactly backwards. They are following the principles at their presuppositional level and acting consistently with them.
and for this, we Reformed do definitely need to repent. We have truly undermined our own case with our juvenile behavior.
All groups have that problem. But I am talking mainly about the ideas and premises myself.
Of course, we dispute your absolute statement that unbroken lineal descent is the "only way to attain real apostolic authority."
Yet you love Fathers who established this principle (Justin Martyr, Augustine, Athanasius).
This is far from the truism you think it is,
Not a "truism"; a biblical and apostolic Christian tradition from the beginning.
Apostolic Succession and Development of Doctrine: Arbitrary Traditions of Men or Divinely-Established Criteria of Orthodox Christian Legitimacy?
the Old Testament record of national (=institutional) apostasy / repentance and restoration is a profound counterargument to Roman Catholicism's pretensions to be doing things the way Christ wanted them done. Fact is, in the Old Testament, lineal descent never proved anything about the truth value of someone's claims, and in fact, more often than not, it was simply one more damning indictment against them for having perpetuated the sins of their fathers.
Apostolic succession was not an OT concept, except for the rough analogy of the Jews as Chosen and God's eternal covenant with David. It was pretty much a new notion of the New Covenant, founded upon the twin gifts of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and infallibility. When Jesus established His Church on Peter as the Rock, this was a new entity altogether. One might cite, however, the OT priestly line, coming from the same tribe as a precursor.
I find it extremely interesting that some of Paul's strongest warnings against spiritual
presumption are found in the book he wrote to the Roman church. "You
think you are the root of the vine, but you're only a branch on it," and all that.
Pride being universal, we would expect it to be more prevalent among the more prominent in the Church. Why would this even strike you as "extremely interesting"? This is precisely why Paul rebuked Peter and why a big deal was made of it; because he was the leader of the Apostles and the Church. Catholics have a long tradition of rebuking the pope (St. Catherine, St. Bernard and St. Francis come immediately to mind).
You cannot show that your peculiar doctrines were present in the early Church.
Well now, that's precisely the point that folks like Webster and White labor to show, isn't it?
Yes, they labor and labor and labor and labor, all to no avail, because they are special pleading and presenting highly selective data, divorced from context (both the works from which they are chosen, and others of the same Father's teachings).
It's fascinating to me that the response from folks like [Steve] Ray and [Joe] Gallegos always boils down to the condescending charge that Protestants can't understand the Fathers properly because they (the Protestants) aren't operating from Roman Catholic criteria as they read the Fathers.
You just don't get it, do you? You always think we are applying this ridiculous circular criteria of legitimacy. I guess it means a lot to you, because if you dropped this rhetoric, much of your critique immediately falls flat, being based on this false assumption you have. We interpret the Fathers based on their own presentations of their own teachings. One classic case is Augustine and the Real Presence in the Eucharist. He makes many statements about the symbolism in the Eucharist. Yet elsewhere he often teaches that the consecrated elements are the Body and Blood of Christ. This is no contradiction. Symbolism and realism can co-exist. But Protestants, of course, jump on the symbolic statements and ignore the others. This is lousy scholarship and interpretive methodology. One must understand the whole of the Father's teaching to know what they held about some particular doctrine. I have a paper about this:
Or, see my paper against William Webster and how he distorts and mangles the teaching of Vatican I with regard to development of doctrine. There is a very good reason why he never counter-replied to this one:
Refutation of William Webster's Fundamental Misunderstanding of Development of Doctrine
What White and Webster engage in is what I call "historical eisegesis." They read into historical sources, Fathers, etc. what they want to see and present it without the aggravation of anomalous and contradictory evidence. I don't have to claim this is deliberate (as White charged concerning Steve Ray). It doesn't have to be. Most people who do this aren't aware of it (you know, like how the major media aren't "liberal," so they tell us; Gore says he doesn't deliberately lie - I believe him). The bias will produce the desired results.
I know this procedure very well. I engaged in the exact same endeavor throughout much of 1990, trying to disprove and mock papal and conciliar infallibility. All Webster is, is regurgitated and updated George Salmon: the Anglican polemicist of the 19th century (who has been decisively refuted at least twice in lengthy rebuttals). Again, I know this, because I used Salmon's arguments also. I thought he was the greatest thing going, till I read Newman . . . . In terms of scholarship, Salmon compared to Newman is as a scribble of a child to a Rembrandt masterpiece.
At any rate, it's fascinating to me how folks such as yourself can be deeply influenced by Newman's development hypothesis (which rather neatly gets you out of all kinds of historical problems)
Quite the contrary, it is facing history head on and calling a spade a spade, rather than playing games with it and using history as a gigantic front for propaganda, as White and Webster and their hero Salmon do (and liberal "Catholics" like Hans Kung, when they also butcher and twist history). History speaks for itself, if we will only allow it to. That's awfully hard for an inquirer to do if he gets a White and Webster book which presents one-sided views of history, like a biology textbook presents evolution as if it were an incontestable fact, with no anomalies.
. . . while simultaneously demanding that Protestants MUST find ALL their distinctives FULL GROWN in the Fathers.
LOLOLOL Tim, you are capable of so much better. As soon as I start to think you are brilliant (as much as possible in your own flawed system) you come up with a whopper like this to deflate my confidence in your abilities to accurately understand your opponents. I don't say that Protestants should find the doctrines full-grown any more than I think we should find ours all full-grown. What I claim is that the Protestant distinctives are so often not present at all - whether "full-blown" or in kernel, implicit form (an entirely different proposition). The very idea of development mitigates against the silly understanding you think I have. So you claim I believe this, when in fact I hold to no such thing! Why don't you document it; find something which backs up this bogus claim of yours? Failing that, I expect you to retract it.
And yes, I know you've written extensively about Protestantism and development of doctrine, so you don't have to post all the URL's for those writings.
Obviously you haven't read them very closely (if at all), or else you wouldn't come up with your cardboard caricature of what you think my view is regarding Protestantism and the early Church. I doubt now whether you even understand development itself. That is a real possibility. You sound like you accept the same fundamental error about development that Salmon accepted, and his disciples White and Webster after him.
Needless to say, I'm not convinced by your case.
Of course you wouldn't be, since what you think is my case, is no such thing, and absurd to the highest degree. So I wouldn't expect you to accept it, though you manage to accept many other absurdities without too much trouble.
Your case about Protestant diversity only works if you magnify that diversity to ridiculous proportions and ignore all the commonalities that existed between folks seemingly as totally opposite as Calvin and Luther (and that exist today between groups as seemingly totally opposite as Reformed Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists).
I've dealt with this 100 times in all my discussions about perspicuity, sola Scriptura, the sin of denominationalism, and the myth of Protestant "unity." You radically contradict yourself, even in your present answer, as I have already pointed out, by casting out non-Reformed Protestants, calling them "Protestants," yet on the other hand turning around and claiming such a remarkable, extraordinary unity, when it serves some rhetorical purpose in opposing my analysis. You can't have it both ways. "Ya pays yer money and ya makes yer choice . . . "
I don't believe you're giving Protestants a fair shake on this one, Dave. Granted, your polemics look really pretty on a computer screen, but they fall utterly flat when contrasted with the brotherly love and true spiritual unity I myself experience with my Baptist and Lutheran brothers.
This is beyond absurd; Alice-in-Wonderland. All this "E Fluvious Fluffyhead" good feelings and spiritual unity, yet you won't even admit that your beloved Lutheran brethren are "real Protestants." They have forsaken the "Reformation heritage" or "classic Protestantism," etc. They are Arminians, hence similar to Catholic soteriology, hence immersed in a false gospel, hence barely Christian: only by virtue of their baptism (and perhaps trinitarianism).
Yet you have this hunky-dory "unity" with them that you don't have with us! Why? Just because both of you are not Catholics? Back to "my enemy's enemy is my friend (no matter how much he resembles my enemy at key points)"? Arminians may be many things, but they are not (thank God) Catholics, and so that becomes the basis for a profound, brotherly spiritual unity. LOLOL I must admit that I immensely enjoy irony and farce, so please excuse my amusement.
At the same time you (and people like R.C. Sproul - especially him -, as on his radio show today) pretend that Augustine and Aquinas were these wonderful, spiritual "proto-Protestants" and theological ancestors and overlook the fact that they are in actuality the quintessential Catholics. These are our guys! You can't respect them so much and claim them as your own, ignoring large aspects of their teaching which you claim to despise when others express the same thing, and then read their true legatees out of the Church. The whole enterprise is ridiculous, laughable (if it weren't so tragic and aggravating) and fundamentally intellectually dishonest.
And I thought you said you didn't deal in abstractions, but preferred the realities!
I think I dished you up a mighty big dose of reality above . . .
Anyway, who cares if the Fathers were "far more like present-day Catholics than like Protestants"?
Precisely my point. Protestantism always has to be a-historical in the end (because Church history condemns it), no matter how much more sophisticated types like Sproul try to co-opt Catholic history for their side.
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times--historical expressions of belief are not the unquestionable criterion of what is true.
That's your view, but it is not the biblical, apostolic, or patristic one (apostolic succession) which no one seriously questioned until 1500 years after Christ -- unless you count people like the Gnostics and other Platonic-type, anti-incarnational cults which didn't care about history and the lineal, documented descent of orthodox Christian doctrine.
Get real, Dave. A thorough reading of 2 Chronicles would go a long way toward disabusing you of the silly idea that lineal descent somehow guarantees truth.
If I am "silly" then so were the Fathers - Augustine and Irenaeus preeminent among them. I will gladly side with them on this, rather than you and your Johnny-come-lately, self-anointed, insufferably arrogant cronies Luther and Calvin. "Lineal descent" and the historical argument is not only a patristic notion; it is already quite evident and undeniable in, e.g., Luke 1:1-4 (cf. Acts 1:1-3). Paul reiterates the same approach when he repeatedly refers to the "tradition" which is "passed down" and "received." His is a fundamentally historical criterion of Christian truth (see 2 Thess 3:6, 1 Cor 11:23, 15:1-3, Gal 1:9,12, 1 Thess 2:13, 2 Tim 2:2; cf. 2 Pet 2:21, Jude 3). All of this is absolutely obvious and plain in Scripture, yet you cavalierly mock it, as if it were some novel, unworthy concept.
This is Christian epistemology, not the bizarre, utterly implausible scenario of some fool-idiot with delusions of grandeur, who comes around in 1517 claiming that he is God's Man of the Hour and in possession of all theological truth, whereas the whole Church screwed it up for 1500 years (and a second one who calls the first "reformer" a "half-papist" and proceeds to construct his own counter-Church, as if the one established by Jesus were insufficient). I stand with Scripture, Apostles, and Fathers on this one.
And furthermore, I know some Orthodox apologists who would be all too happy to "educate" you on how the Church Fathers were "far more like present-day Orthodox than like either Catholics or Protestants."
Yes, I know. I have the most extensive Catholic critique of Orthodoxy on the Internet. Bring them on (but they tend to argue in a circle also, so it gets very wearisome after a while).
I just love how all you One True Visible Institution advocates cancel each other's historical claims out, leaving Protestants as the winners by default. LOLOL :-) :-)
I guess that's your equivalent of our target of 23,000 flying geese, huh? A billion-member Church and a 400,000-member one, which agree on some 85% of the issues, and - for the most part - fully acknowledge the sacramental validity and apostolic succession of each other. But you were joking, so maybe you know that this is not a serious argument.
even though I don't think denominationalism is a good thing, I also understand that by and large these denominations are not warring bitterly with each other for exclusive ownership of the title "Christ's One True Visible Institution". By God's grace, we aren't full of the hubris that makes Rome think she is the root of the vine. By God's grace, we keep our places as branches and pray for the day when God will humble Rome's pride and graft her branch back onto the vine.
By God's grace you will one day understand the full meaning and impact of Jesus' high priestly prayer of John 17, where He stated that our oneness will show the world that He was Messiah, and that our unity should be like His with His Father (a bit more profound than the ethereal Protestant "unity" you desperately cite).
Presuppositionalism and Logical Circularity: Characteristic of Catholic Apologetics but not Reformed?
Well there you go again importing your own conception of ecclesiology onto the Protestant scheme instead of trying to understand the Protestant scheme for what it is.
You act as if there is "one scheme" which is a myth to the extreme . . . .
Protestants don't see the "23,000 denominations" as being 23,000 different claimants to the title "Christ's One, True Church".
Of course they don't. They have to rationalize this wicked schism somehow, and false viewpoints always seek to distort terminology from the outset, so as to justify themselves as legitimate. The way this is done is by adopting this quasi-Gnostic idea of elitist, ethereal spiritual unity you discussed above, and by accepting the thoroughly unbiblical notion of the "invisible church" (to the exclusion of an institutional, historical one, or at least a relegation of same to ultimate insignificance; kind of like the monarchy in England).
For all the Reformed stupidity I spoke of above, we Protestants (whether classical or sociological)
Oh, so now you have created two classes of Protestants (rather than putting some in quotes)? So, let me get this straight: "sociological Protestants" are all those who disagree with your own peculiar brand of Protestantism. The guys in your camp are the good guys; the classicists. Gotcha . . . . It'll take a little practice, but I believe I can grasp these biblical distinctions in due course.
. . . are generally quite a bit more tolerant of each other's differences than you want to think we are.
Yeah . . . so much that you multiply faster than rabbits in heat . . .
Sure there's always the "lunatic fringe" of neo-Donatists who unchurch everyone else, but who
really takes them seriously? I sure don't.
Me neither. I have a whole web page on the anti-Catholics, as you know. Some just take the principle further, kicking out virtually all the other Protestants, too.
And both Calvin and Luther had some pretty choice words to say about that kind of schismatic mindset.
Yet it followed from their own anarchical principles. They set the wheels in motion. This is what they were so blind to (among many other things). They threw the "glass vase" of Christian unity up into the air, yet they were so shocked that it fell and broke into a million pieces. It has continued to break into even more pieces as the years go by.
“Sola Scriptura: Blueprint for Anarchy”
This is also true. I have more debates about this on my website than on any other topic.
You mean it's true if Catholic assumptions about Christian unity and about what Sola Scriptura actually means are true.
It is true because of the inner (unbiblical and a-historical and anarchical) logic of sola Scriptura. One can make this analysis from any perspective. One doesn't have to be a Catholic. I guess you think we have to analyze everything from exclusively Catholic presuppositions, because (I just realized this) this is your methodology: your own Reformed presuppositionalism. You seem unable to analyze anything in its own right, from within its own premises and framework (it's called classical, Aristotelian logic).
You have to superimpose your own axioms onto whatever you examine. You are like the fish in water, which can't get (or see) beyond it. Consequently, you keep projecting your method onto mine, and missing by a hundred miles (I was trying to figure out how you could so little understand some of my arguments). Now that I think of it, I have seen this repeatedly in James White, too. Well, we are not trapped in that logical circle! Don't project your own shortcomings onto us! We can look at all your little man-made systems and point out their internal contradictoriness and unbiblical natures, without having to first assume Catholic premises to do it (as you constantly and falsely charge). You may find a few inexperienced apologists who think that way, but I certainly don't.
But again, Protestants don't share those assumptions.
Case in point . . . this is absolutely irrelevant to the critique.
So what do any of your debates prove beyond the fact that you apparently haven't taken Protestants seriously on their own terms?
I think I systematically dismantled the system of sola Scriptura based on its internal incoherence, impausibility, and lack of biblical rationale - none of which criteria have anything directly to do with so-called "Catholic assumptions." The sooner you get this into your head, the better our dialogues will become (much more constructive).
[bypassing Tim's equation of the reasoning of Catholic Answers with that of Jack Chick, and his imbecilic, self-refuting statements: "So "rationality" is defined by what Dave Armstrong thinks?" / "After all, you "used to be a Protestant", and therefore you are qualified to tell the world how Protestants "really think", right?"]
Unnecessary Feuds Between Catholic and Protestant Apologists: "Bad" Words and Biblical Words
You asked what school I attend. It's called New St. Andrews, and it's a classical liberal arts school dedicated to inculcating Reformed thinking and practical living in its students. If you're familiar with Credenda / Agenda magazine, you are aware of the men who started and run this school.
I thought it sounded like that! I was gonna mention them. They have been sending me their magazine for free for quite some time now. :-) I tried to make contact with the two Dougs some time ago, to see if they would like to dialogue, but they never responded. 'Tis a pity.
The website is http://www.newstandrews.org if you want to see what
the curriculum looks like.
I will leave this in the website version of this, for an ad for about as good a Protestant school as one could find. Is Hillsdale College another example of classic learning, do you think? I've been receiving its magazine Imprimis for 16 years now.
What I meant was that it is entirely within the bounds of [anti-Catholic Protestant polemicist and apologist James] White's liberty for him to decide he doesn't want to continue a discussion with someone who "used foul language" in the discussion.
Sure, if the charge were true in the first place. To briefly reiterate what happened: I used two "bad" words in one e-mail, quickly apologized (he sent the private letter around); he forgave me, and accepted me onto his sola Scriptura list for several months after that; there were some other unfortunate exchanges where misunderstandings and questioning of my motives and honesty abounded, etc. I mentioned one embarrassing incident earlier. And there was excessive, unconstructive rhetoric on my part (for which I have apologized also), but not any further "vulgar" or "foul" language by any sensible definition.
In any event, it is simply not true that he ceased discussion altogether because I continually used foul language which was insufferable to him. This is what he has been lying about on public lists and in his chat room for four years now. You mentioned this other guy (John MacArthur comrade Phillip Johnson, I believe, if I recall correctly - he is no fan of mine at all), but I don't recall anything other than the usage of "ass" in the biblical sense, which is present in the KJV and RSV versions. I also mentioned (in discussing the subject of language on James' list) the word "piss" which occurs in the KJV (1 Sam 25:22,34, 1 Ki 14:10, 16:11, 21:21, 2 Ki 9:8, 18:27, Is 36:12). The latter reads:
. . . hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?
Wow! The Robert Mapplethorpe "art" exhibit anticipated 2700 years ago! LOLOL Now I know why James fights so vigorously against the KJV-Only crowd! LOLOL Just teasing; I agree with him totally on that one.
So I guess I am now an apostate because I cited the King James Bible, which is widely considered one of the most classy English (Elizabethan) translations. I'm used to having Protestants get mad at me for citing Scripture, though, so this is nothing new; this guy just took it a step further and tossed me out of the Christian faith, for the sin (so he says himself, according to your report) of quoting a famous, beloved, albeit somewhat dated version of Holy Scripture.
Meanwhile (to top off the hilarious absurdity), I have been told (by one with personal experience) that it is very common - even expected - for Dutch Reformed pastors (!!!) to utter a certain four-letter word denoting "dung" which happens to be one of the words I used which so utterly horrified James White and made him question my very intelligence. So I guess "vulgarity" - like beauty - is in the eye (ear) of the beholder. Even some of James' fellow Calvinists see nothing at all wrong with certain words he finds reprehensible. I find the entire discussion ridiculous myself. But I was fully willing to apologize on the basis of an offense to someone else, which I think is proper and the charitable thing to do.
That's all I can recall. If this person recalls otherwise, then please convey to me what he is thinking of. The whole thing is beyond absurd anyway when you look at the constant rhetoric James White uses, including one paper of his where he referred to "hatefilled [sic] Catholic apologists." It is on his website. He once wrote to me that if I had my way (so he thinks I think), that I would like to chop him up in little pieces like the Crusaders of old, and get an indulgence for it. And he's worried about two little, antiquated biblical terms from the KJV? That makes me a terrible person unworthy to interact with any longer, while he can accuse us of everything under the sun and lie and slander at will and that's fine? I know you can see through these wicked double standards, because you have expressed your disagreement with such tactics.
Now maybe he's just oversensitive to relatively benign words like "ass", I don't know.
I should think so! He doesn't know me very well, either! I have had a policy of not attending R-rated movies (with rare exceptions like Schindler's List or Glory or The Patriot) since becoming an evangelical in 1980, partly for this reason, and partly due to the sexual stuff and unnecessary violence. I also understand that language is a very culturally-relative thing, apparently a difficult concept for James to grasp. But a charge that I am "vulgar" or "profane" as some sort of character trait is as far from the truth and as slanderous as it could possibly be. I'm always acutely aware of the company I am in, and speak accordingly. Virtually all the women I work with habitually speak far more "vulgarly" than I ever would (I don't like that much myself). Even above, I only used the "objectionable" words (admittedly half-humorously) because they were in the Bible, so that I can't see how any Christian could object.
Maybe you consider him "puritanical" for being offended by that.
Yes, and hypocritical, given his truly offensive never-ending slanders and personal attacks on Catholics.
Fine. That's within the bounds of your liberty.
Correct. I don't mind his puritanism, though, as much as his lying about me in public venues.
As long as White doesn't claim that your arguments for Catholicism are bogus because
you "used foul language", then there's really no problem.
He comes very close! He has said that this shows I don't have any intelligence; therefore I am not worth spending any time debating.
Ad hominem isn't problematic logically until it starts masquerading as logical argument itself.
Agreed. But I think it is always a bad thing morally.
Until then, they are just personal opinions, and you know the old saying--"opinions are like noses....."
Yep. And people shouldn't stick their noses in other people's business, spreading false rumors and gossip.
Besides, as is always the case with every apologist for every position, White does think he answered your arguments, and quite well at that.
LOLOL Where is this paper?
In the debate itself. He didn't have a problem with you posting it because he thinks he won (or at least, that your behavior justified his decision to quit when he did).
What a joke! LOLOL He is just too much! Well, if he won, then why doesn't he provide a link on his website to the debate, to show everyone how he whooped me (supposedly his great personal nemesis) in debate and showed how shallow and silly all my arguments are, etc.? He loves posting all his other debates with ten million apologists. But he doesn't let anyone know about the one where he supposedly beat me. Hmmmmmmm. Very interesting . . .
You, of course, think you toasted him to a nice crispy black color. What a surprise. Very rarely does either side of a debate actually admit that it lost.
Correct (one must have confidence in this business), but the only way to get an idea what one really thinks down deep is to see how he acts with regard to publicizing a debate. James White has said exactly this with regard to his recent debate with Tim Staples. So, using his own criterion, I conclude that he knows he lost his debate with me. He ran even before the end, so this is not some startling revelation.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.gif)
.jpg)
0 comments:
Post a Comment