Antidote to John Calvin's Institutes (IV,1:13-17) ["Puritanical" Fanaticism / Sinners in the Church / Communitarianism / Unity]

See the introduction and links to all installments at the top of my John Calvin, Calvinism, and General Protestantism web page. Calvin's words will be in blue throughout. All biblical citations (in my portions) will be from RSV unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

Book IV

CHAPTER 1.

OF THE TRUE CHURCH. DUTY OF CULTIVATING UNITY WITH HER, AS THE MOTHER OF ALL THE GODLY.

13. The immoral lives of certain professors no ground for abandoning the Church. Error on this head of the ancient and modern Cathari. Their first objection. Answer to it from three of our Saviour’s parables.

Our indulgence ought to extend much farther in tolerating imperfection of conduct. Here there is great danger of falling, and Satan employs all his machinations to ensnare us. For there always have been persons who, imbued with a false persuasion of absolute holiness, as if they had already become a kind of aërial spirits, spurn the society of all in whom they see that something human still remains.

This is a marvelously apt, on-target description of a particular corruption of certain Christians along the lines of self-righteousness and condescension towards others. Ironically, the ones perhaps most infamous for this are often self-proclaimed followers of Calvin, who have become hyper-legalistic and downright Pharisaical. We must give Calvin credit and thank him for denouncing such things, and quote him against those of his followers who don't yet get it.

Such of old were the Cathari and the Donatists, who were similarly infatuated. Such in the present day are some of the Anabaptists, who would be thought to have made superior progress. Others, again, sin in this respect, not so much from that insane pride as from inconsiderate zeal. Seeing that among those to whom the gospel is preached, the fruit produced is not in accordance with the doctrine, they forthwith conclude that there no church exists. The offence is indeed well founded, and it is one to which in this most unhappy age we give far too much occasion. It is impossible to excuse our accursed sluggishness, which the Lord will not leave unpunished, as he is already beginning sharply to chastise us. Woe then to us who, by our dissolute licence of wickedness, cause weak consciences to be wounded!

Sin among Christians is always a cause of scandal, and this is how it should be. But we cannot conclude from this that "no church exists."

Still those of whom we have spoken sin in their turn, by not knowing how to set bounds to their offence. For where the Lord requires mercy they omit it, and give themselves up to immoderate severity. Thinking there is no church where there is not complete purity and integrity of conduct, they, through hatred of wickedness, withdraw from a genuine church, while they think they are shunning the company of the ungodly. They allege that the Church of God is holy. But that they may at the same time understand that it contains a mixture of good and bad, let them hear from the lips of our Saviour that parable in which he compares the Church to a net in which all kinds of fishes are taken, but not separated until they are brought ashore. Let them hear it compared to a field which, planted with good seed, is by the fraud of an enemy mingled with tares, and is not freed of them until the harvest is brought into the barn. Let them hear, in fine, that it is a thrashing-floor in which the collected wheat lies concealed under the chaff, until, cleansed by the fanners and the sieve, it is at length laid up in the granary. If the Lord declares that the Church will labour under the defect of being burdened with a multitude of wicked until the day of judgment, it is in vain to look for a church altogether free from blemish (Mt. 13).

Again, Calvin offers a fabulous biblical condemnation of the naive, self-righteous idea that there will never be any sinners in the Church at all. Bravo!

14. Second objection. Answer from a consideration of the state of the Corinthian Church, and the Churches of Galatia.

They exclaim that it is impossible to tolerate the vice which everywhere stalks abroad like a pestilence. What if the apostle’s sentiment applies here also? Among the Corinthians it was not a few that erred, but almost the whole body had become tainted; there was not one species of sin merely, but a multitude, and those not trivial errors, but some of them execrable crimes. There was not only corruption in manners, but also in doctrine. What course was taken by the holy apostle, in other words, by the organ of the heavenly Spirit, by whose testimony the Church stands and falls? Does he seek separation from them? Does he discard them from the kingdom of Christ? Does he strike them with the thunder of a final anathema? He not only does none of these things, but he acknowledges and heralds them as a Church of Christ, and a society of saints. If the Church remains among the Corinthians, where envyings, divisions, and contentions rage; where quarrels, lawsuits, and avarice prevail; where a crime, which even the Gentiles would execrate, is openly approved; where the name of Paul, whom they ought to have honoured as a father, is petulantly assailed; where some hold the resurrection of the dead in derision, though with it the whole gospel must fall; where the gifts of God are made subservient to ambition, not to charity; where many things are done neither decently nor in order: If there the Church still remains, simply because the ministration of word and sacrament is not rejected, who will presume to deny the title of church to those to whom a tenth part of these crimes cannot be imputed? How, I ask, would those who act so morosely against present churches have acted to the Galatians, who had done all but abandon the gospel (Gal. 1:6), and yet among them the same apostle found churches?

I think this is exactly right, and I have often made the same argument, citing the Galatians, Corinthians, and seven churches in the book of Revelation. Especially noteworthy is Calvin's pointing out how St. Paul reacted to these scandals: "Does he seek separation from them? Does he discard them from the kingdom of Christ?"

15. Third objection and answer.

They also object, that Paul sharply rebukes the Corinthians for permitting an heinous offender in their communion, and then lays down a general sentence, by which he declares it unlawful even to eat bread with a man of impure life (1 Cor. 5:11, 12). Here they exclaim, If it is not lawful to eat ordinary bread, how can it be lawful to eat the Lord’s bread? I admit, that it is a great disgrace if dogs and swine are admitted among the children of God; much more, if the sacred body of Christ is prostituted to them. And, indeed, when churches are well regulated, they will not bear the wicked in their bosom, nor will they admit the worthy and unworthy indiscriminately to that sacred feast. But because pastors are not always sedulously vigilant, are sometimes also more indulgent than they ought, or are prevented from acting so strictly as they could wish; the consequence is, that even the openly wicked are not always excluded from the fellowship of the saints. This I admit to be a vice, and I have no wish to extenuate it, seeing that Paul sharply rebukes it in the Corinthians. But although the Church fail in her duty, it does not therefore follow that every private individual is to decide the question of separation for himself.

Catholics agree again. We merely point out the obvious: that the last sentence is contrary to both Protestant private judgment and to the behavior of those, like Calvin, who themselves decided to separate from the historic Christian Catholic Church.

I deny not that it is the duty of a pious man to withdraw from all private intercourse with the wicked, and not entangle himself with them by any voluntary tie; but it is one thing to shun the society of the wicked, and another to renounce the communion of the Church through hatred of them.

Excellent point, and important distinction between the public and private realms . . .

Those who think it sacrilege to partake the Lord’s bread with the wicked, are in this more rigid than Paul.

I love Calvin's emphasis on comparison with the Apostle Paul, who told us more than once to imitate him.

For when he exhorts us to pure and holy communion, he does not require that we should examine others, or that every one should examine the whole church, but that each should examine himself (1 Cor. 11:28, 29).

Excellent . . .

If it were unlawful to communicate with the unworthy, Paul would certainly have ordered us to take heed that there were no individual in the whole body by whose impurity we might be defiled, but now that he only requires each to examine himself, he shows that it does no harm to us though some who are unworthy present themselves along with us. To the same effect he afterwards adds, “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself.” He says not to others, but to himself. And justly; for the right of admitting or excluding ought not to be left to the decision of individuals. Cognisance of this point, which cannot be exercised without due order, as shall afterwards be more fully shown, belongs to the whole church. It would therefore be unjust to hold any private individual as polluted by the unworthiness of another, whom he neither can nor ought to keep back from communion.

This is a much-needed emphasis on Church authority and a corporate (biblical) approach to Christianity, that should be required reading for all Protestants.

16. The origin of these objections. A description of Schismatics. Their portraiture by Augustine. A pious counsel respecting these scandals, and a safe remedy against them.

Still, however, even the good

Many Calvinists today and some other Protestants wouldn't speak in terms of a "good person." They would immediately retort that we are all sinners, with no good in us. I've engaged in debates with people (followers of Calvin) who think exactly like that. But Calvin didn't.

are sometimes affected by this inconsiderate zeal for righteousness, though we shall find that this excessive moroseness is more the result of pride and a false idea of sanctity, than genuine sanctity itself, and true zeal for it.

A better description of the essential wrongheadedness and harmfulness of both "puritanism" and fundamentalism (in the derogatory sense of both words) has probably never been given.

Accordingly, those who are the most forward, and, as it were, leaders in producing revolt from the Church, have, for the most part, no other motive than to display their own superiority by despising all other men.

Another true observation, but would that Calvin would take his own advice and apply it to how he views Catholics!

Well and wisely, therefore, does Augustine say, “Seeing that pious reason and the mode of ecclesiastical discipline ought specially to regard the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, which the Apostle enjoins us to keep, by bearing with one another (for if we keep it not, the application of medicine is not only superfluous, but pernicious, and therefore proves to be no medicine); those bad sons who, not from hatred of other men’s iniquities, but zeal for their own contentions, attempt altogether to draw away, or at least to divide, weak brethren ensnared by the glare of their name, while swollen with pride, stuffed with petulance, insidiously calumnious, and turbulently seditious, use the cloak of a rigorous severity, that they may not seem devoid of the light of truth, and pervert to sacrilegious schism, and purposes of excision, those things which are enjoined in the Holy Scriptures (due regard being had to sincere love, and the unity of peace), to correct a brother’s faults by the appliance of a moderate cure” (August. Cont. Parmen. cap. 1).

A better description of the essential wrongheadedness and harmfulness of the Protestant Revolt against the Catholic Church and doctrinal tradition has probably never been given. How ironic that Calvin cites it, and how tragic that he seems to have no inkling of how this criticism could quite accurately be applied to his own schismatic movement. But those things never enter his head: so sure is he of his own rightness.

To the pious and placid his advice is, mercifully to correct what they can, and to bear patiently with what they cannot correct, in love lamenting and mourning until God either reform or correct, or at the harvest root up the tares, and scatter the chaff (Ibid. cap. 2). Let all the godly study to provide themselves with these weapons, lest, while they deem themselves strenuous and ardent defenders of righteousness, they revolt from the kingdom of heaven, which is the only kingdom of righteousness. For as God has been pleased that the communion of his Church shall be maintained in this external society, any one who, from hatred of the ungodly, violates the bond of this society, enters on a downward course, in which he incurs great danger of cutting himself off from the communion of saints. Let them reflect, that in a numerous body there are several who may escape their notice, and yet are truly righteous and innocent in the eyes of the Lord. Let them reflect, that of those who seem diseased, there are many who are far from taking pleasure or flattering themselves in their faults, and who, ever and anon aroused by a serious fear of the Lord, aspire to greater integrity. Let them reflect, that they have no right to pass judgment on a man for one act, since the holiest sometimes make the most grievous fall. Let them reflect, that in the ministry of the word and participation of the sacraments, the power to collect the Church is too great to be deprived of all its efficacy, by the fault of some ungodly men. Lastly, let them reflect, that in estimating the Church, divine is of more force than human judgment.

I think this is an extraordinarily eloquent and wise observation, flawed only insofar as (I hate to keep repeating this) it is not applied with consistency to his own party of dissidents from Catholicism. This is a general irony and tragedy of Protestant rationales: what is said of the "radical" Protestant factions and sectarians can usually just as easily be applied from a Catholic and historical perspective to the so-called "magisterial reformers" or "mainstream Reformation." We contend that the difference is only one of degree, not of essence. But the leaders of the latter school virtually never see this. They're blind to the analogy and the applicability. It's often charged that the Catholic Church is blind to its faults (that quasi-prophets Luther, Calvin et al were, of course, born to correct), but assuredly there is plenty of blindness and tunnel vision to go around. We all often see the faults of others with minute accuracy, while being completely oblivious to our own (often of the same exact type as those being criticized).

17. Fourth objection and answer. Answer confirmed by the divine promises.

Since they also argue that there is good reason for the Church being called holy, it is necessary to consider what the holiness is in which it excels, lest by refusing to acknowledge any church, save one that is completely perfect, we leave no church at all. It is true, indeed, as Paul says, that Christ “loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:25-27). Nevertheless, it is true, that the Lord is daily smoothing its wrinkles, and wiping away its spots.

Very true . . .

Hence it follows, that its holiness is not yet perfect. Such, then, is the holiness of the Church: it makes daily progress, but is not yet perfect; it daily advances, but as yet has not reached the goal, as will elsewhere be more fully explained.

And this is true also of any individual Christian desiring to grow in grace and sanctification as time goes on.

Therefore, when the Prophets foretel, “Then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through her any more;”—“It shall be called, The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it” (Joel 3:17; Isa. 35:8), let us not understand it as if no blemish remained in the members of the Church: but only that with their whole heart they aspire after holiness and perfect purity: and hence, that purity which they have not yet fully attained is, by the kindness of God, attributed to them. And though the indications of such a kind of holiness existing among men are too rare, we must understand, that at no period since the world began has the Lord been without his Church, nor ever shall be till the final consummation of all things. For although, at the very outset, the whole human race was vitiated and corrupted by the sin of Adam, yet of this kind of polluted mass he always sanctifies some vessels to honour, that no age may be left without experience of his mercy. This he has declared by sure promises, such as the following: “I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations” (Ps. 89:3, 4). “The Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation. This is my rest for ever; here will I dwell” (Ps. 132:13, 14). “Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever” (Jer. 31:35, 36).

This is reasonable. Calvin again makes an analogy of the Church to the chosen people. Like them, the Church is what it is wholly because of God and His purposes for it, not because all of us in it are shining examples of sainthood and perfect nobility of character and conduct. There is much in the Institutes (at least in these sections thus far) that Catholics can agree with, as I have already noted many times, and will be delighted to keep noting as I proceed.

Antidote to John Calvin's Institutes (IV,1:6-12) [Synergism / Grace Alone / the Elect / True and Secondary Doctrines / Mass Apostasy]

See the introduction and links to all installments at the top of my John Calvin, Calvinism, and General Protestantism web page. Calvin's words will be in blue throughout. All biblical citations (in my portions) will be from RSV unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

Book IV

CHAPTER 1.

OF THE TRUE CHURCH. DUTY OF CULTIVATING UNITY WITH HER, AS THE MOTHER OF ALL THE GODLY.

6. Her ministry effectual, but not without the Spirit of God. Passages in proof of this.

Moreover, as at this time there is a great dispute as to the efficacy of the ministry, some extravagantly overrating its dignity,

Likely a veiled dig at Catholicism . . .

and others erroneously maintaining, that what is peculiar to the Spirit of God is transferred to mortal man,

Probably a swipe at Protestant radicals and sometimes "fanatics" to the "left" of Calvin (folks that Luther also opposed) . . .

when we suppose that ministers and teachers penetrate to the mind and heart, so as to correct the blindness of the one, and the hardness of the other; it is necessary to place this controversy on its proper footing. The arguments on both sides will be disposed of without trouble, by distinctly attending to the passages in which God, the author of preaching, connects his Spirit with it, and then promises a beneficial result; or, on the other hand, to the passages in which God, separating himself from external means, claims for himself alone both the commencement and the whole course of faith. The office of the second Elias was, as Malachi declares, to “turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers” (Mal. 4:6). Christ declares that he sent the Apostles to produce fruit from his labours (John 15:16). What this fruit is Peter briefly defines, when he says that we are begotten again of incorruptible seed (1 Pet. 1:23). Hence Paul glories, that by means of the Gospel he had begotten the Corinthians, who were the seals of his apostleship (1 Cor. 4:15); moreover, that his was not a ministry of the letter, which only sounded in the ear, but that the effectual agency of the Spirit was given to him, in order that his doctrine might not be in vain (1 Cor. 9:2; 2 Cor. 3:6). In this sense he elsewhere declares that his Gospel was not in word, but in power (1 Thess. 1:5). He also affirms that the Galatians received the Spirit by the hearing of faith (Gal. 3:2). In short, in several passages he not only makes himself a fellow-worker with God, but attributes to himself the province of bestowing salvation (1 Cor. 3:9).

How interesting that Calvin, after going through several uncontroversial points, affirms that Paul was God's co-worker, who "attributes to himself the province of bestowing salvation." Calvinists today are very wary of such talk as that, because they immediately classify it as semi-Pelagian, or a form of works-salvation, and decry it as "synergism." But Calvin is not averse to speaking in such a fashion, since it is explicitly biblical. I've collected, myself, many passages along the lines of men being the direct instruments of salvation: Biblical Evidence for Human Distribution of Grace and Salvation; also pertaining to the motif of being God's "fellow workers":

Mark 16:20 And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it. Amen.

John 15:13-15 Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.

1 Corinthians 3:9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.

1 Corinthians 9:22 . . . I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

2 Corinthians 4:15 For it [his many sufferings: 4:8-12,17] is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.

2 Corinthians 6:1 Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.

Ephesians 3:1-2 For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles -- assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for you,

1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

All these things he certainly never uttered with the view of attributing to himself one iota apart from God, as he elsewhere briefly explains. “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but (as it is in truth) the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe” (1 Thess. 2:13). Again, in another place, “He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles” (Gal. 2:8). And that he allows no more to ministers is obvious from other passages. “So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase” (1 Cor. 3:7). Again, “I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me” (1 Cor. 15:10). And it is indeed necessary to keep these sentences in view, since God, in ascribing to himself the illumination of the mind and renewal of the heart, reminds us that it is sacrilege for man to claim any part of either to himself. Still every one who listens with docility to the ministers whom God appoints, will know by the beneficial result, that for good reason God is pleased with this method of teaching, and for good reason has laid believers under this modest yoke.

And this is, of course, exactly the same teaching as in Catholicism (I've argued precisely the same way in many of my own apologetics teachings): all these things are completely enabled by the grace of God. But because Calvin has a very poor understanding of Catholic soteriology, and specifically of merit, he wouldn't know that, which is sad. If he had comprehended that there was no disagreement at all on this point, as lot of mutual ill will and misinformation and useless polemics back and forth for almost 500 years now would have been avoided. Alas, that is not what happened, as we all know, and to this day, Calvinists and even Lutherans (per the latter's confessional works) falsely accuse the Catholic Church of teaching semi-Pelagianism. It's the devil's victory: divide and conquer. We have more than enough true disagreement with our Protestant brethren in Christ, without adding on "phantom disagreements," where in fact we actually agree; yet many on both sides don't realize it. I've always found that very troubling, and I do all I can to educate folks, so that we can rejoice in agreements and discover that the disagreements (though many and broad) are less in number than has largely been supposed.

7. Second part of the Chapter. Concerning the marks of the Church. In what respect the Church is invisible. In what respect she is visible.

The judgment which ought to be formed concerning the visible Church which comes under our observation, must, I think, be sufficiently clear from what has been said. I have observed that the Scriptures speak of the Church in two ways. Sometimes when they speak of the Church they mean the Church as it really is before God—the Church into which none are admitted but those who by the gift of adoption are sons of God, and by the sanctification of the Spirit true members of Christ. In this case it not only comprehends the saints who dwell on the earth, but all the elect who have existed from the beginning of the world.

Catholics agree. We have no objection to the "Mystical Body" concept, as long as it isn't pitted against the visible, institutional, historical Church. And Calvin recognizes the "visible Church" once again. He presupposes this whenever he makes an analogy to the Temple and OT priesthood, etc., as relevant to Christianity and Christian ecclesiology.

Often, too, by the name of Church is designated the whole body of mankind scattered throughout the world, who profess to worship one God and Christ, who by baptism are initiated into the faith; by partaking of the Lord’s Supper profess unity in true doctrine and charity, agree in holding the word of the Lord, and observe the ministry which Christ has appointed for the preaching of it. In this Church there is a very large mixture of hypocrites, who have nothing of Christ but the name and outward appearance: of ambitious, avaricious, envious, evil-speaking men, some also of impurer lives, who are tolerated for a time, either because their guilt cannot be legally established, or because due strictness of discipline is not always observed. Hence, as it is necessary to believe the invisible Church, which is manifest to the eye of God only, so we are also enjoined to regard this Church which is so called with reference to man, and to cultivate its communion.

Calvin (most importantly, in light of later widespread Protestant developments to the contrary; even in some Calvinist circles), does not ditch the notion of "sinners in the Church" and the "visible Church." He knows the Bible too well to do that. I've documented the biblical rationale for believing that (serious) sinners and hypocrites and nominal practitioners will always be in the Church, both in a summarizing fashion, and at some considerable length.

8. God alone knoweth them that are his. Still he has given marks to discern his children.

Accordingly, inasmuch as it was of importance to us to recognise it, the Lord has distinguished it by certain marks, and as it were symbols. It is, indeed, the special prerogative of God to know those who are his, as Paul declares in the passage already quoted (2 Tim. 2:19). And doubtless it has been so provided as a check on human rashness, the experience of every day reminding us how far his secret judgments surpass our apprehension. For even those who seemed most abandoned, and who had been completely despaired of, are by his goodness recalled to life, while those who seemed most stable often fall. Hence, as Augustine says, “In regard to the secret predestination of God, there are very many sheep without, and very many wolves within” (August. Hom. in Joan. 45). For he knows, and has his mark on those who know neither him nor themselves. Of those again who openly bear his badge, his eyes alone see who of them are unfeignedly holy, and will persevere even to the end, which alone is the completion of salvation.

Calvin again reiterates that no one knows for certain who is in the elect except God, and this ties into the necessity of bearing with rank sinners in the ranks of he church and the body of Christians. The main difference here is that Calvin (and his followers today) would say that those who "fall" had never truly been in God's grace or right with God at any time (or never justified, as Protestants construe that). We would agree with him that they are probably not in the elect if they die with serious unrepented sin, but disagree that eventual outward "falling away" proves that they had never been truly regenerated or justified at any time. Both sides agree that those who have an authentic faith in God and are true disciples, will inevitably manifest fruit and do good works. I've collected Calvin's statements along those lines, that are quite agreeable to Catholics, who want to stress the high importance of good works, while denying that man-produced works can save (the doctrine of sola gratia).

On the other hand, foreseeing that it was in some degree expedient for us to know who are to be regarded by us as his sons, he has in this matter accommodated himself to our capacity. But as here full certainty was not necessary, he has in its place substituted the judgment of charity, by which we acknowledge all as members of the Church who by confession of faith, regularity of conduct, and participation in the sacraments, unite with us in acknowledging the same God and Christ. The knowledge of his body, inasmuch as he knew it to be more necessary for our salvation, he has made known to us by surer marks.

In other words, there is a sense of the word "Christian" as defined by outward observances of attending church, partaking of sacraments, and subscribing to creeds. This is another thing that is often poorly understood by many Protestants today. Calvin makes crucial distinctions that too many of them never even consider, let alone grasp, at all. Full certainty of salvation or being in the elect is neither attainable nor "necessary," but the judgment of charity dictates that we acknowledge a brother in Christ if he is conforming at least outwardly. Only God knows the human heart.

9. These marks are the ministry of the word, and administration of the sacraments instituted by Christ. The same rule not to be followed in judging of individuals and of churches.

Hence the form of the Church appears and stands forth conspicuous to our view. Wherever we see the word of God sincerely preached and heard, wherever we see the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ, there we cannot have any doubt that the Church of God has some existence, since his promise cannot fail, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Mt. 18:20).

Sure, but Calvin presupposes what the entire "word of God" (i.e., correct doctrine) is in the first place. He neglects to see that this "word of God" must be in accord with what has been passed down and received (apostolic tradition and patristic consensus). His own theology, of course, fails this test (though elsewhere he will vigorously argue the contrary); therefore it is impossible for Calvin to successfully contend that his circles constitute the remnant and true Church while Catholicism (for the most part, in his jaded view of the Catholic Church) does not. His form of Christianity is only valid and true insofar as it conforms with received, traditional Christianity (i.e., Catholicism).

But that we may have a clear summary of this subject, we must proceed by the following steps:—The Church universal is the multitude collected out of all nations, who, though dispersed and far distant from each other, agree in one truth of divine doctrine, and are bound together by the tie of a common religion.

Protestantism certainly hasn't agreed about "one truth of divine doctrine." Even among Calvinists as a sub-group, there are constant in-fights and institutional splits (which is their only method -- when all is said and done -- of "resolving" disputes). I observe this all the time. What Calvin desires (doctrinal unity) can only be achieved in the Catholic Church.

In this way it comprehends single churches, which exist in different towns and villages, according to the wants of human society, so that each of them justly obtains the name and authority of the Church; and also comprehends single individuals, who by a religious profession are accounted to belong to such churches, although they are in fact aliens from the Church, but have not been cut off by a public decision. There is, however, a slight difference in the mode of judging of individuals and of churches. For it may happen in practice that those whom we deem not altogether worthy of the fellowship of believers, we yet ought to treat as brethren, and regard as believers, on account of the common consent of the Church in tolerating and bearing with them in the body of Christ. Such persons we do not approve by our suffrage as members of the Church, but we leave them the place which they hold among the people of God, until they are legitimately deprived of it.

The "sinners in the Church" motif again . . .

With regard to the general body we must feel differently; if they have the ministry of the word, and honour the administration of the sacraments, they are undoubtedly entitled to be ranked with the Church, because it is certain that these things are not without a beneficial result. Thus we both maintain the Church universal in its unity, which malignant minds have always been eager to dissever, and deny not due authority to lawful assemblies distributed as circumstances require.

Catholics wouldn't object to these sentiments; only to Calvin's inaccurate and inconsistent, anti-Catholic application of the principles.

10. We must on no account forsake the Church distinguished by such marks. Those who act otherwise are apostates, deserters of the truth and of the household of God, deniers of God and Christ, violators of the mystical marriage.

We have said that the symbols by which the Church is discerned are the preaching of the word and the observance of the sacraments, for these cannot anywhere exist without producing fruit and prospering by the blessing of God. I say not that wherever the word is preached fruit immediately appears; but that in every place where it is received, and has a fixed abode, it uniformly displays its efficacy. Be this as it may, when the preaching of the gospel is reverently heard, and the sacraments are not neglected, there for the time the face of the Church appears without deception or ambiguity and no man may with impunity spurn her authority, or reject her admonitions, or resist her counsels, or make sport of her censures, far less revolt from her, and violate her unity (see Chap. 2 sec. 1, 10, and Chap. 8 sec. 12). For such is the value which the Lord sets on the communion of his Church, that all who contumaciously alienate themselves from any Christian society, in which the true ministry of his word and sacraments is maintained, he regards as deserters of religion.

The unending irony of the revolutionary and schismatic (as Calvin was) commending the nobility and virtue of Christian unity . . . Again, he says the right thing, but does the wrong thing, in deciding to reject the Holy Catholic Church, headed in Rome by the pope, and with an unbroken history of orthodoxy all the way back to Christ.

So highly does he recommend her authority, that when it is violated he considers that his own authority is impaired. For there is no small weight in the designation given to her, “the house of God,” “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

How often do we hear this passage cited by Protestants (or Calvinists)?! These days, it is mostly Catholics who bring attention to it.

By these words Paul intimates, that to prevent the truth from perishing in the world, the Church is its faithful guardian, because God has been pleased to preserve the pure preaching of his word by her instrumentality, and to exhibit himself to us as a parent while he feeds us with spiritual nourishment, and provides whatever is conducive to our salvation.

I've dealt with this aspect of Calvin's reasoning in past entries. It sounds extraordinarily Catholic, but this consciousness is largely lost to Calvinists today, and Calvin cannot consistently apply this principle in his own domain because he has no authority and because his rule of faith (sola Scriptura and private judgment: exemplified by Luther's intransigence and entirely subjective appeal at the Diet of Worms) undermines it

Moreover, no mean praise is conferred on the Church when she is said to have been chosen and set apart by Christ as his spouse, “not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing” (Eph. 5:27), as “his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all” (Eph. 1:23). Whence it follows, that revolt from the Church is denial of God and Christ.

Indeed. Obviously, the dispute between Protestants and Catholics at this point has to do with determining what the Church is and where to find it. Calvin's rhetoric about the Church, as far as it goes, is not inconsistent at all with Catholic notions. It's what he doesn't say and what he falsely assumes, that are the problems.

Wherefore there is the more necessity to beware of a dissent so iniquitous; for seeing by it we aim as far as in us lies at the destruction of God’s truth, we deserve to be crushed by the full thunder of his anger. No crime can be imagined more atrocious than that of sacrilegiously and perfidiously violating the sacred marriage which the only begotten Son of God has condescended to contract with us.

Catholics couldn't agree more. If only Calvin and all Protestants had heeded his own sage advice . . .

11. These marks to be the more carefully observed, because Satan strives to efface them, or to make us revolt from the Church. The twofold error of despising the true, and submitting to a false Church.

Wherefore let these marks be carefully impressed upon our minds, and let us estimate them as in the sight of the Lord. There is nothing on which Satan is more intent than to destroy and efface one or both of them—at one time to delete and abolish these marks, and thereby destroy the true and genuine distinction of the Church; at another, to bring them into contempt, and so hurry us into open revolt from the Church.

Amen!

To his wiles it was owing that for several ages the pure preaching of the word disappeared,

This is, of course, a self-serving, undemonstrated opinion, that presupposes the familiar "The Catholic Church fell away in [take your pick] 100, as soon as the Bible was completed and the last apostle died / 313 [Constantine] / 900 / with the Inquisition / in the early 16th century / at Trent" mentality. All these arguments fail miserably and are easily shot down. Calvin assumes some form of this throughout the Institutes.

and now, with the same dishonest aim, he labours to overthrow the ministry, which, however, Christ has so ordered in his Church, that if it is removed the whole edifice must fall.

Yet Calvin wars against bishops, popes, priests, continuing ecumenical councils, and maintains only a minimalist clergy.

How perilous, then, nay, how fatal the temptation, when we even entertain a thought of separating ourselves from that assembly in which are beheld the signs and badges which the Lord has deemed sufficient to characterise his Church! We see how great caution should be employed in both respects. That we may not be imposed upon by the name of Church, every congregation which claims the name must be brought to that test as to a Lydian stone.

How profoundly true!

If it holds the order instituted by the Lord in word and sacraments there will be no deception; we may safely pay it the honour due to a church: on the other hand, if it exhibit itself without word and sacraments, we must in this case be no less careful to avoid the imposture than we were to shun pride and presumption in the other.

And if it teaches novel, ahistorical doctrines contrary to the ones that have always been believed in the Catholic Church from the beginning, and consistently developed through the centuries, according to the Mind of that same Church, all Christians must avoid it.

12. Though the common profession should contain some corruption, this is not a sufficient reason for forsaking the visible Church. Some of these corruptions specified. Caution necessary. The duty of the members.

When we say that the pure ministry of the word and pure celebration of the sacraments is a fit pledge and earnest, so that we may safely recognise a church in every society in which both exist, our meaning is, that we are never to discard it so long as these remain, though it may otherwise teem with numerous faults.

In other words, the essentials define it, not the faults and corruptions in practice. Very true.

Nay, even in the administration of word and sacraments defects may creep in which ought not to alienate us from its communion. For all the heads of true doctrine are not in the same position. Some are so necessary to be known, that all must hold them to be fixed and undoubted as the proper essentials of religion: for instance, that God is one, that Christ is God, and the Son of God, that our salvation depends on the mercy of God, and the like.

All things concerning which Catholics and Calvinists are in full agreement . . .

Others, again, which are the subject of controversy among the churches, do not destroy the unity of the faith; for why should it be regarded as a ground of dissension between churches, if one, without any spirit of contention or perverseness in dogmatising, hold that the soul on quitting the body flies to heaven, and another, without venturing to speak positively as to the abode, holds it for certain that it lives with the Lord?

Here Calvin starts to exhibit a fatal flaw in Protestant thinking that has perpetually plagued it from the beginning: this notion of "primary" vs. "secondary" doctrines, where the latter are regarded as "up for grabs", so that Protestants may freely disagree with each other (and other Christians), thus adding a dangerous element of sanctioned doctrinal relativism. Catholics agree that some doctrines are far more important than others in the scheme of things, but they don't take this additional step of throwing all less important doctrines up to individual subjectivism and philosophical relativism.

The general notion of "essential" or "central" and "secondary" doctrines is an unbiblical distinction. Nowhere in Scripture do we find any implication that some things pertaining to doctrine and theology were optional, while others had to be believed. Jesus urged us to "observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:19), without distinguishing between lesser and more central doctrines. Likewise, St. Paul regards Christian Tradition as of one piece; not an amalgam of permissible competing theories: "the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6); "the truth which has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit" (2 Tim. 1:14); "the doctrine which you have been taught" (Rom. 16:17); "being in full accord and of one mind" (Phil. 2:2); "stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel," (Phil. 1:27). He, like Jesus, ties doctrinal unity together with the one God: ". . . maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, . . . one Lord, one faith, one baptism, . . ." (Eph. 4:3-5). St. Peter also refers to one, unified "way of righteousness" and "the holy commandment delivered to them" (2 Pet. 2:21), while St. Jude urges us to "contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). Luke 2:42 casually mentions "the apostles' teaching" without any hint that there were competing interpretations of it, or variations of the teaching.

The words of the Apostle are, “Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you” (Phil. 3:15). Does he not sufficiently intimate that a difference of opinion as to these matters which are not absolutely necessary, ought not to be a ground of dissension among Christians?

But this passage has been yanked out of context and made to apply to supposed doctrinal latitude, when in fact, St. Paul, in this entire chapter of Philippians, is discussing striving towards a salvation not yet certainly obtained. When Paul says "be thus minded" he is referring to his statement immediately prior:

Philippians 3:12-14 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. [13] Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, [14] I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

This has nothing to do with supposed doctrinal disputes, as Calvin oddly seems to think. Elsewhere in the same book (and many other times throughout his letters) Paul makes clear that there is one truth and unchanging set of doctrines that he has passed on, without any shade of variability:

Philippians 1:25,27 Convinced of this, I know that I shall remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith, . . . Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel,

Philippians 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.

The best thing, indeed, is to be perfectly agreed, but seeing there is no man who is not involved in some mist of ignorance, we must either have no church at all, or pardon delusion in those things of which one may be ignorant, without violating the substance of religion and forfeiting salvation.

Protestants have too readily given in to human ignorance and mere subjectivism: that is a huge part of its problem. It lacks authority to maintain unity because its principles undermined Church authority from the beginning.

Here, however, I have no wish to patronise even the minutest errors, as if I thought it right to foster them by flattery or connivance; what I say is, that we are not on account of every minute difference to abandon a church, provided it retain sound and unimpaired that doctrine in which the safety of piety consists, and keep the use of the sacraments instituted by the Lord.

Again, the problem is that the original "minute" difference (even if we grant that it is, indeed, "minute" and inconsequential) quickly becomes a loophole, then a gaping hole, and finally, a broad highway of mutually contradictory opinions, leading to further dissent, sectarianism, acrimony, and doctrinal uncertainty. Nowhere does Holy Scripture ever envision such an uncontrolled state of affairs.

Meanwhile, if we strive to reform what is offensive, we act in the discharge of duty. To this effect are the words of Paul, “If anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace” (1 Cor. 14:30). From this it is evident that to each member of the Church, according to his measure of grace, the study of public edification has been assigned, provided it be done decently and in order. In other words, we must neither renounce the communion of the Church, nor, continuing in it, disturb peace and discipline when duly arranged.

This discipline has become practically impossible in Protestantism-at-large, because if discipline occurs, there is always the option of the person simply going to another denomination and starting afresh, or starting a new denomination altogether. There is no "Church" to speak of, given this absurd institutional division and multiplicity of competing sects.

Antidote to John Calvin's Institutes (IV,1:3-5) [Denial of Infallibility / the Elect / Private Judgment / Absolute Necessity of the Church]

See the introduction and links to all installments at the top of my John Calvin, Calvinism, and General Protestantism web page. Calvin's words will be in blue throughout. All biblical citations (in my portions) will be from RSV unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

Book IV

CHAPTER 1.

OF THE TRUE CHURCH. DUTY OF CULTIVATING UNITY WITH HER, AS THE MOTHER OF ALL THE GODLY.

3. What meant by the Communion of Saints. Whether it is inconsistent with various gifts in the saints, or with civil order. Uses of this article concerning the Church and the Communion of Saints. Must the Church be visible in order to our maintaining unity with her?

Moreover, this article of the Creed relates in some measure to the external Church, that every one of us must maintain brotherly concord with all the children of God, give due authority to the Church, and, in short, conduct ourselves as sheep of the flock.

Bravo! A sorely needed exhortation for Protestants today . . .

And hence the additional expression, the “communion of saints;” for this clause, though usually omitted by ancient writers, must not be overlooked, as it admirably expresses the quality of the Church; just as if it had been said, that saints are united in the fellowship of Christ on this condition, that all the blessings which God bestows upon them are mutually communicated to each other. This, however, is not incompatible with a diversity of graces, for we know that the gifts of the Spirit are variously distributed; nor is it incompatible with civil order, by which each is permitted privately to possess his own means, it being necessary for the preservation of peace among men that distinct rights of property should exist among them.

More admirable emphases . . . When Calvin is right, he is really right, and when he is wrong, he is dead-wrong.

Still a community is asserted, such as Luke describes when he says, “The multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul” (Acts 4:32); and Paul, when he reminds the Ephesians, “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling” (Eph. 4:4). For if they are truly persuaded that God is the common Father of them all, and Christ their common head, they cannot but be united together in brotherly love, and mutually impart their blessings to each other.

Amen! Yet Calvin's theology and ecclesiology ultimately war against and undermine this strong desire for profound unity, and the sad thing is that he never seems to have seen the irony or to have recognized the causal relationship between his teaching (where it departs from Catholic, apostolic tradition) and the fruits of the so-called "Reformation." Luther was the same way. I suppose it was too painful to acknowledge that their false teachings led to so much social uproar and doctrinal and ecclesiological chaos. Luther hints at times at this (and in the Peasants' Revolt, the connection -- at least partially -- is undeniably obvious), but never directly acknowledges it.

Then it is of the highest importance for us to know what benefit thence redounds to us. For when we believe the Church, it is in order that we may be firmly persuaded that we are its members.

Again, Calvin's denial (per all the Protestant revolutionaries) of conciliar and ecclesial infallibility directly undermines his recommending Christians to "believe the Church." For anyone always has a "loophole" to say (because of the Protestant bedrock principles of sola Scriptura and private judgment and supremacy of the individual conscience over against received tradition), "except in the case of doctrine A, where Mother Church is obviously wrong . . . " And as we know from constant experience with loopholes and "hard cases", the loophole soon becomes a gaping hole big enough for a truck to drive through, and the "hard case" and "exception to the rule" soon becomes the norm. Therefore, to assert a strong Church authority without the essential component of binding authority and infallibility, is self-defeating: if not immediately in principle, then inevitably in practice. This is plainly one fatal flaw in Calvin's ecclesiology.

In this way our salvation rests on a foundation so firm and sure, that though the whole fabric of the world were to give way, it could not be destroyed. First, it stands with the election of God, and cannot change or fail, any more than his eternal providence. Next, it is in a manner united with the stability of Christ, who will no more allow his faithful followers to be dissevered from him, than he would allow his own members to be torn to pieces.

That's right: whoever is truly of God's elect will be saved and cannot not be saved. That is a truism. But, as Calvin himself knows (noted in my last installment), no one person can be positive that they are included in the elect. Thus, it is an abstract (and definitely true) concept we can discuss, but it has no bearing on our alleged absolute assurance of salvation. Yet to this day many thousands of Calvinists (often now observed on the Internet) are perfectly obsessed with these notions of predestination and the elect, and frantically determining who is "in" and who is "out" (often with the utmost lack of charity and also blatant anti-Catholic prejudice and ignorance). Christians surely have far better and more important things to do to spend their time on. But this is one way that Satan zaps the energy and effectiveness of Christians: to keep them preoccupied with abstracts that have little or no bearing on day-to-day life and discipleship. We all tend to fall into this and have to be vigilant to avoid it. The harvest is plentiful and the laborers are few.

We may add, that so long as we continue in the bosom of the Church, we are sure that the truth will remain with us.

"Sure"? This is untrue, given Protestant principles, that always allow the individual the right to judge and reject various teachings of the Church, just as Luther did, and as Calvin did, following his model of dissent. Just as they dissented against the Catholic Church, so (by the same epistemological and ecclesiological principles and premises) Protestants can dissent against their mere denominations and their supposed high "authority". Hence, denominations (even though utterly despised and condemned by both Luther and Calvin) were inevitable. How ironic and sad . . . Former Lutheran and Catholic convert Louis Bouyer, in his classic book, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, makes an extended, fascinating (and, I think, compelling) argument about how Protestantism's first principles inevitably led to results not at all desired by the so-called "reformers" themselves.

There is a reason all of that occurred in history (it wasn't just a random accident): why the splits and divisions never end. It's because they are latent in the first principles of the Protestant movement. The Protestants were warned by the Church what would occur if they insisted on these premises (we Catholics knew full well what schism would lead to, and always leads to), but they refused to heed the advice. They knew better. The Church is wise enough to take the "long view" of history, and cause and effect. This is part and parcel of her Spirit-led wisdom. But the first Protestants, for some strange reason that has always been inexplicable to me, didn't seem to be able to see beyond their own noses, or have the slightest inkling of what their novel premises and fundamentals would lead to. Their ongoing strength was basically only as good as their amount of agreement with ancient Catholic teachings (a notion also argued by Louis Bouyer in his book, cited above).

Lastly, we feel that we have an interest in such promises as these, “In Mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance” (Joel 2:32; Obad. 17); “God is in the midst of her, she shall not be moved” (Ps. 46:5). So available is communion with the Church to keep us in the fellowship of God. In the very term communion there is great consolation; because, while we are assured that everything which God bestows on his members belongs to us, all the blessings conferred upon them confirm our hope. But in order to embrace the unity of the Church in this manner, it is not necessary, as I have observed, to see it with our eyes, or feel it with our hands. Nay, rather from its being placed in faith, we are reminded that our thoughts are to dwell upon it, as much when it escapes our perception as when it openly appears.

All of this outwardly great thought about the Church, yet it is contradicted by Calvin's rule of faith, which (as history has now amply shown) in fact undermined all of this marvelously touted assurance and certainty and supposed guarantee of institutional (as well as doctrinal) unity. It's a case study of internal incoherence leading to bad consequences. Ideas do have consequences, after all.

Nor is our faith the worse for apprehending what is unknown, since we are not enjoined here to distinguish between the elect and the reprobate (this belongs not to us, but to God only), but to feel firmly assured in our minds, that all those who, by the mercy of God the Father, through the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, have become partakers with Christ, are set apart as the proper and peculiar possession of God, and that as we are of the number, we are also partakers of this great grace.

Another worthy statement of caution, urging his followers to not speculate about who is of the elect and who is not: tragically unheeded by many Calvinists and also "instantaneous salvation / eternal security" sorts of Protestants: the result being much worthless and unedifying conversation and fruitless speculation. If they would all simply heed Calvin's advice, this could be avoided and maybe the seemingly endless energy and zeal could be expended towards a bit more important activities, such as, for example, reaching out to the lost and sharing the gospel with them, rather than foolishly concluding that fellow Christians (notably, Catholics) are certainly lost and should be condemned and treated with extreme harshness for being supposedly lost and "enemies of God," etc. May the Lord help us all to be good stewards of our time.

4. The name of Mother given to the Church shows how necessary it is to know her. No salvation out of the Church.

But as it is now our purpose to discourse of the visible Church,

Note that Calvin maintains a notion of the visible Church: not merely invisible. We saw this also in his reference to the "external Church" in the previous section. Thus, he accepts this "Catholic" belief; he is simply inconsistent in applying it and in blending it with his rule of faith, where an inherent incoherence and a clash of principles is entailed.

let us learn, from her single title of Mother, how useful, nay, how necessary the knowledge of her is, since there is no other means of entering into life unless she conceive us in the womb and give us birth, unless she nourish us at her breasts, and, in short, keep us under her charge and government, until, divested of mortal flesh, we become like the angels (Mt. 22:30).

An extraordinary expression of Church authority . . . Calvin essentially states that the Church is necessary for salvation (virtually asserting, "outside the Church there is no salvation"), which is, of course, Catholic doctrine, and foreign to the mentality of many Protestants today, and even from the beginning of their movement, for those (such as the Anabaptists) termed "radical reformers" even by fellow Protestants.

For our weakness does not permit us to leave the school until we have spent our whole lives as scholars. Moreover, beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for, as Isaiah and Joel testify (Isa. 37:32; Joel 2:32).

Calvin asserts the same thing in even stronger terms, and it's certainly true as far as Calvin intends it. . . this should be required, standard reading for every Protestant and regularly taught in their Sunday schools. And then we Catholics need to tell them after they learn this basic stuff, that an infallible Church is the necessary and perfectly natural accompaniment of this true teaching of the necessity of the Church as Mother and trustworthy teacher. Protestants don't have that (don't even claim to have it); we both claim it and actually possess it, by God's express design, and only due to His supernatural guidance and protection. Here are Calvin's prooftexts, that are interesting insofar as they are specifically tied to the OT concept of "remnant":

Isaiah 37:31-32 And the surviving remnant of the house of Judah shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward; [32] for out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and out of Mount Zion a band of survivors. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.

Joel 2:32 And it shall come to pass that all who call upon the name of the LORD shall be delivered; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls.

To their testimony Ezekiel subscribes, when he declares, “They shall not be in the assembly of my people, neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel” (Ezek. 3:9); as, on the other hand, those who turn to the cultivation of true piety are said to inscribe their names among the citizens of Jerusalem. For which reason it is said in the psalm, “Remember me, O Lord, with the favour that thou bearest unto thy people: O visit me with thy salvation; that I may see the good of thy chosen, that I may rejoice in the gladness of thy nation, that I may glory with thine inheritance” (Ps. 106:4, 5). By these words the paternal favour of God and the special evidence of spiritual life are confined to his peculiar people, and hence the abandonment of the Church is always fatal.

In other words, Calvin draws a useful and compelling analogy between the chosen nation of Israel in the Old Covenant, and the Body of Christ, the Church, in the New Covenant. He often makes good analogical arguments of this sort. I have utilized one of them myself in my own apologetics: his analogy (following Paul) between circumcision and infant baptism.

5. The Church is our mother, inasmuch as God has committed to her the kind office of bringing us up in the faith until we attain full age. This method of education not to be despised. Useful to us in two ways. This utility destroyed by those who despise the pastors and teachers of the Church. The petulance of such despisers repressed by reason and Scripture. For this education of the Church her children enjoined to meet in the sanctuary. The abuse of churches both before and since the advent of Christ. Their proper use.

But let us proceed to a full exposition of this view. Paul says that our Saviour “ascended far above all heavens, that he might fill all things. And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Eph. 4:10-13). We see that God, who might perfect his people in a moment, chooses not to bring them to manhood in any other way than by the education of the Church.

Amen! So much for the radical versions of sola Scriptura rampant today: what are often called by the more articulate Protestants, solo Scriptura. Calvin's version, though still ultimately internally incoherent, at least still had a strong place for the Church (even if partially erroneously defined). We should give credit where it is due.

We see the mode of doing it expressed; the preaching of celestial doctrine is committed to pastors. We see that all without exception are brought into the same order, that they may with meek and docile spirit allow themselves to be governed by teachers appointed for this purpose.

One can hardly be "governed" by pastors if one always has the "right" to question their authority at every turn by a bogus appeal to "private judgment." I have firsthand experience of this internal contradiction myself. My old pastor used to say from the pulpit: "keep your pastors honest and correct them from the Bible if they go astray." Well, I did that, and it wasn't pretty. I was denounced from the pulpit as a troublemaker. So Protestants can question their pastors in good conscience but at the same time they can't. The same tension is present in Calvin and never satisfactorily resolved. He himself took very poorly to being corrected by anyone, and was brutal with theological opponents (even, at times, with Luther himself). Yet he had no authority than anyone else. He simply assumed it without adequate reason. Calvin once described Lutheranism as "evil." Lutherans and Calvinists bitterly fought and wrangled in wars with words, too. Who was right? More importantly for our purposes, how could the two settle their differences, since both appealed to Scripture and claimed to be authoritative? As we know, there was no way to resolve the conundrum.

Isaiah had long before given this as the characteristic of the kingdom of Christ, “My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever” (Isa. 59:21).

A good description of the very infallibility of the Church that Calvin rejects . . .

Hence it follows, that all who reject the spiritual food of the soul divinely offered to them by the hands of the Church, deserve to perish of hunger and famine.

And how do we find this Church so we may follow its heaven-sent teaching? We look for Calvin and wherever he is, is where the one true Church resides?

God inspires us with faith, but it is by the instrumentality of his gospel, as Paul reminds us, “Faith cometh by hearing” (Rom. 10:17). God reserves to himself the power of maintaining it, but it is by the preaching of the gospel, as Paul also declares, that he brings it forth and unfolds it.

Indeed. There is a perfectly motivating reason for evangelism, and lots of it. We are vehicles used by God to distribute His grace.

With this view, it pleased him in ancient times that sacred meetings should be held in the sanctuary, that consent in faith might be nourished by doctrine proceeding from the lips of the priest.

How often do we hear this sort of language from Calvinists today? They need to go back to their roots, from within their own paradigm, just as Catholics need to do that, too.

Those magnificent titles, as when the temple is called God’s rest, his sanctuary, his habitation, and when he is said to dwell between the cherubims (Ps 32:13, 14; 80:1), are used for no other purpose than to procure respect, love, reverence, and dignity to the ministry of heavenly doctrine, to which otherwise the appearance of an insignificant human being might be in no slight degree derogatory. Therefore, to teach us that the treasure offered to us in earthen vessels is of inestimable value (2 Cor. 4:7), God himself appears and, as the author of this ordinance, requires his presence to be recognised in his own institution.

Indeed; this is the same sort of sentiment that causes we Catholics to believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Calvin obviously didn't see that connection, having rejected the apostolic, patristic, Catholic doctrine of the substantial presence and substituted a mystical, "spiritual" presence which is scarcely indistinguishable from the omnipresence of God.

Accordingly, after forbidding his people to give heed to familiar spirits, wizards, and other superstitions (Lev. 19:30, 31), he adds, that he will give what ought to be sufficient for all—namely, that he will never leave them without prophets.

Luther seemed to think he was some sort of prophet. Maybe Calvin did, too (and if so, was, of course -- very unlike Luther, -- too humble to ever assert his office), which would explain a lot.

For, as he did not commit his ancient people to angels, but raised up teachers on the earth to perform a truly angelical office, so he is pleased to instruct us in the present day by human means.

Yes; but we disagree that these "human means" can ever contradict the received doctrines of the Church.

But as anciently he did not confine himself to the law merely, but added priests as interpreters, from whose lips the people might inquire after his true meaning,

Authoritative interpretation! How interesting . . .

so in the present day he would not only have us to be attentive to reading, but has appointed masters to give us their assistance. In this there is a twofold advantage. For, on the one hand, he by an admirable test proves our obedience when we listen to his ministers just as we would to himself;

Obedience to the Church is a good thing, but again, what is the true Church; why should we think Calvin heads it (rather than, say, Luther or Henry VIII or various Anabaptist "prophets"), etc.?

while, on the other hand, he consults our weakness in being pleased to address us after the manner of men by means of interpreters, that he may thus allure us to himself, instead of driving us away by his thunder.

Exactly. God always uses men because we respond better to our own.

How well this familiar mode of teaching is suited to us all the godly are aware, from the dread with which the divine majesty justly inspires them. Those who think that the authority of the doctrine is impaired by the insignificance of the men who are called to teach, betray their ingratitude; for among the many noble endowments with which God has adorned the human race, one of the most remarkable is, that he deigns to consecrate the mouths and tongues of men to his service, making his own voice to be heard in them.

This is an excellent argument for the lack of impeccability in the pope not being any sort of reason to suppose that God is not speaking through him. The pope is "consecrated" in those special instances where he proclaims a doctrine to be infallible. God is "making his own voice to be heard in them". I don't think any Catholic could have expressed it more eloquently.

Wherefore, let us not on our part decline obediently to embrace the doctrine of salvation, delivered by his command and mouth; because, although the power of God is not confined to external means, he has, however, confined us to his ordinary method of teaching, which method, when fanatics refuse to observe, they entangle themselves in many fatal snares.

Indeed. The ones who disagreed with Calvin, were, relatively, "fanatics." But how is that essentially different from the Catholic Church's stance whereby it deemed that Protestantism was a radical dissenting movement? Calvin (rather remarkably) everywhere seems to assume that the Church now resides peculiarly in his own environs. Yet he can't prove that the ancient Catholic Church has decisively fallen away from its unique status. He assumes it, just as Luther does. In other places, however, he will acknowledge some remote remnant of the true Church remaining in Catholicism (such as his position that it retains true baptism and some other genuine attributes; see, e.g., Inst., IV, 2:11-12), but apart from that, he thinks the "ball has been passed" to the Calvinist "Church" as the remnant, over against the Catholic Church headed by the pope.

Pride, or fastidiousness, or emulation, induces many to persuade themselves that they can profit sufficiently by reading and meditating in private, and thus to despise public meetings, and deem preaching superfluous. But since as much as in them lies they loose or burst the sacred bond of unity, none of them escapes the just punishment of this impious divorce, but become fascinated with pestiferous errors, and the foulest delusions.

A wonderful condemnation of sectarianism and the "lone ranger" Christian, that we see so often today.

Wherefore, in order that the pure simplicity of the faith may flourish among us, let us not decline to use this exercise of piety, which God by his institution of it has shown to be necessary, and which he so highly recommends. None, even among the most petulant of men, would venture to say, that we are to shut our ears against God, but in all ages prophets and pious teachers have had a difficult contest to maintain with the ungodly, whose perverseness cannot submit to the yoke of being taught by the lips and ministry of men.

Indeed. That's why Catholics have always been concerned to maintain the teaching ministry of the magisterium: popes, bishops, councils, priests, catechisms. Calvin systematically got rid of all except some sort of catechism: an odd thing to do if he was concerned with the high importance of a guiding teaching authority.

This is just the same as if they were to destroy the impress of God as exhibited to us in doctrine. For no other reason were believers anciently enjoined to seek the face of God in the sanctuary (Ps. 105:4) (an injunction so often repeated in the Law), than because the doctrine of the Law, and the exhortations of the prophets, were to them a living image of God. Thus Paul declares, that in his preaching the glory of God shone in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:6). The more detestable are the apostates who delight in producing schisms in churches, just as if they wished to drive the sheep from the fold, and throw them into the jaws of wolves.

Exactly. Once we determine what schism is and what the true Church is, then it is seen that Calvin participated in and fostered the very thing that he vociferously condemned over and over. That is the ironic tragedy of his revolutionary movement.

Let us hold, agreeably to the passage we quoted from Paul, that the Church can only be edified by external preaching, and that there is no other bond by which the saints can be kept together than by uniting with one consent to observe the order which God has appointed in his Church for learning and making progress. For this end, especially, as I have observed, believers were anciently enjoined under the Law to flock together to the sanctuary; for when Moses speaks of the habitation of God, he at the same time calls it the place of the name of God, the place where he will record his name (Exod. 20:24); thus plainly teaching that no use could be made of it without the doctrine of godliness. And there can be no doubt that, for the same reason, David complains with great bitterness of soul, that by the tyrannical cruelty of his enemies he was prevented from entering the tabernacle (Ps. 84).

Yet many of Calvin's very followers were iconoclasts and had quite a low view of sanctuaries, since they went around smashing statues even of Christ, and organs, and stained glass, as if they were some evil thing. The same sanctuary Calvin refers to (the old temple and tabernacles) had huge images of cherubim on the walls. But the profoundly biblical notions of sacred and holy places and of physical objects as aids of worship have gradually become nonexistent among Protestants (particularly Calvinists).

To many the complaint seems childish, as if no great loss were sustained, not much pleasure lost, by exclusion from the temple, provided other amusements were enjoyed. David, however, laments this one deprivation, as filling him with anxiety and sadness, tormenting, and almost destroying him. This he does because there is nothing on which believers set a higher value than on this aid, by which God gradually raises his people to heaven. For it is to be observed, that he always exhibited himself to the holy patriarchs in the mirror of his doctrine in such a way as to make their knowledge spiritual. Whence the temple is not only styled his face, but also, for the purpose of removing all superstition, is termed his footstool (Ps. 132:7; 99:5). Herein is the unity of the faith happily realised, when all, from the highest to the lowest, aspire to the head. All the temples which the Gentiles built to God with a different intention were a mere profanation of his worship,—a profanation into which the Jews also fell, though not with equal grossness. With this Stephen upbraids them in the words of Isaiah when he says, “Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the Prophet, Heaven is my throne,” &c. (Acts 7:48). For God only consecrates temples to their legitimate use by his word. And when we rashly attempt anything without his order, immediately setting out from a bad principle, we introduce adventitious fictions, by which evil is propagated without measure.

All true . . .

It was inconsiderate in Xerxes when, by the advice of the magians, he burnt or pulled down all the temples of Greece, because he thought it absurd that God, to whom all things ought to be free and open, should be enclosed by walls and roofs, as if it were not in the power of God in a manner to descend to us, that he may be near to us, and yet neither change his place nor affect us by earthly means, but rather, by a kind of vehicles, raise us aloft to his own heavenly glory, which, with its immensity, fills all things, and in height is above the heavens.

Another good argument for the "holy place" . . . Would that Calvinists today felt the same way. A Christian church set aside for worship of God is not a barn or a gymnasium or a sports arena or airplane hangar. It is a holy and sanctified place, set aside. Calvin commendably argues all this, yet it is clearly a consciousness that is largely lost among Calvinists and other Protestants today. In this respect, Calvin sounds far more Catholic than Protestant (though not in agreement with us in all respects, even in this area).

Antidote to John Calvin's Institutes (IV,1:1-2) [General Ecclesiology / the Elect / Denominations]

See the introduction and links to all installments at the top of my John Calvin, Calvinism, and General Protestantism web page. Calvin's words will be in blue throughout. All biblical citations (in my portions) will be from RSV unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

Book IV

CHAPTER 1.

OF THE TRUE CHURCH. DUTY OF CULTIVATING UNITY WITH HER, AS THE MOTHER OF ALL THE GODLY.

1. The church now to be considered. With her God has deposited whatever is necessary to faith and good order. A summary of what is contained in this Book. Why it begins with the Church.

In the last Book, it has been shown, that by the faith of the gospel Christ becomes ours, and we are made partakers of the salvation and eternal blessedness procured by him. But as our ignorance and sloth (I may add, the vanity of our mind) stand in need of external helps, by which faith may be begotten in us, and may increase and make progress until its consummation,

Good emphasis on the progressive element of faith, or sanctification . . .

God, in accommodation to our infirmity, has added such helps, and secured the effectual preaching of the gospel, by depositing this treasure with the Church. He has appointed pastors and teachers, by whose lips he might edify his people (Eph. 4:11); he has invested them with authority, and, in short, omitted nothing that might conduce to holy consent in the faith,

What "the faith" is, was, of course, the very matter under dispute between Catholics and the new revolutionary Protestants.

and to right order. In particular, he has instituted sacraments, which we feel by experience to be most useful helps in fostering and confirming our faith. For seeing we are shut up in the prison of the body, and have not yet attained to the rank of angels, God, in accommodation to our capacity, has in his admirable providence provided a method by which, though widely separated, we might still draw near to him.

But of course, Calvin (by what authority, I ask?) ditched five sacraments and (again, by what authority?) redefined the two he retained.

Wherefore, due order requires that we first treat of the Church, of its Government, Orders, and Power; next, of the Sacraments; and, lastly, of Civil Government;—at the same time guarding pious readers against the corruptions of the Papacy, by which Satan has adulterated all that God had appointed for our salvation.

Ah! Gratuitous, polemical anti-Catholicism wasn't long to make its appearance in this book, either.

I will begin with the Church, into whose bosom God is pleased to collect his children, not only that by her aid and ministry they may be nourished so long as they are babes and children, but may also be guided by her maternal care until they grow up to manhood, and, finally, attain to the perfection of faith.

"Perfection of faith" is a very Catholic-sounding notion as well: one that is lost by many current-day Calvinists.

What God has thus joined, let not man put asunder (Mark 10:9): to those to whom he is a Father, the Church must also be a mother. This was true not merely under the Law, but even now after the advent of Christ; since Paul declares that we are the children of a new, even a heavenly Jerusalem (Gal. 4:26).

Indeed the Church is a "Mother" (how often does on hear that description among Protestants today!?) But by removing infallible, binding authority from the Church, and by arbitrarily and selectively dissenting from the historic Christian, Catholic Church, Calvin is radically inconsistent.

2. In what sense the article of the Creed concerning the Church is to be understood. Why we should say, “I believe the Church,” not “I believe in the Church.” The purport of this article. Why the Church is called Catholic or Universal.

When in the Creed we profess to believe the Church, reference is made not only to the visible Church of which we are now treating, but also to all the elect of God, including in the number even those who have departed this life.

The communion of saints . . . Catholics believe in the notion of the "elect" as well.

And, accordingly, the word used is “believe,” because oftentimes no difference can be observed between the children of God and the profane, between his proper flock and the untamed herd.

Sinners in the Church is a thing that Calvin was well aware of. He was not a Puritan in the popular sense of wanting to sweep out every person from the Church who is the least bit sinful; as if there can be a totally pure assembly of professed Christians on this earth, comprised, as they all are, of sinners.

The particle in is often interpolated, but without any probable ground. I confess, indeed, that it is the more usual form, and is not unsupported by antiquity, since the Nicene Creed, as quoted in Ecclesiastical History, adds the preposition. At the same time, we may perceive from early writers, that the expression received without controversy in ancient times was to believe “the Church,” and not “in the Church.”

This is an interesting point and historical linguistic question. The former has to do more with authority; the latter (at least in English) seemingly with more abstract ecclesiology: having a doctrine of the Church at all in the first place, rather than, e.g., an extreme version of "Bible Alone" as the rule of faith. Protestant historian Philip Schaff, in his book, Creeds of Christendom (p. 28; footnote 55) noted that the Greek version of the Nicene Creed had "in" but that Latin and English versions mostly omitted the "in." That's fine with Catholics, because omitting "in" would appear to emphasize the high authority of the universal, (i.e., catholic) Church, which makes more sense, since the ancients (unlike many Protestants today) understood and took for granted that the any Christian would believe in "the Church."

This is not only the expression used by Augustine, and that ancient writer, whoever he may have been, whose treatise, De Symboli Expositione, is extant under the name of Cyprian, but they distinctly remark that the addition of the preposition would make the expression improper, and they give good grounds for so thinking. We declare that we believe in God, both because our mind reclines upon him as true, and our confidence is fully satisfied in him. This cannot be said of the Church, just as it cannot be said of the forgiveness of sins, or the resurrection of the body.

Calvin is here utilizing on particular definition of believe (more akin to trust or faith), that goes beyond the notion of assent that is the essence of a creed, so I think he overargues a bit. This may have to do with Latin or French expression, too (the original languages of the Institutes).

Wherefore, although I am unwilling to dispute about words, yet I would rather keep to the proper form, as better fitted to express the thing that is meant, than affect terms by which the meaning is causelessly obscured. The object of the expression is to teach us, that though the devil leaves no stone unturned in order to destroy the grace of Christ, and the enemies of God rush with insane violence in the same direction, it cannot be extinguished,—the blood of Christ cannot be rendered barren, and prevented from producing fruit. Hence, regard must be had both to the secret election and to the internal calling of God, because he alone “knoweth them that are his” (2 Tim. 2:19); and as Paul expresses it, holds them as it were enclosed under his seal, although, at the same time, they wear his insignia, and are thus distinguished from the reprobate.

Of course God ultimately knows who are His. The Catholic fully agrees.

But as they are a small and despised number, concealed in an immense crowd, like a few grains of wheat buried among a heap of chaff, to God alone must be left the knowledge of his Church, of which his secret election forms the foundation.

Calvin seems to equate "elect" and "Church" here, which is a false equation, and tending towards the erroneous "invisible church" notion endemic among Protestants today. Elsewhere, he understands, however, that sinners are part of a visible, institutional Church as well. Apart from that, we agree that God alone knows who the elect are. Calvin (as I have noted in a past paper) elsewhere states that no one can know for sure who is in the elect (e.g., Inst. III, 21, 2; IV, 1, 3; IV, 1, 8; IV, 12, 9; Commentary on John 6:40) . Many Calvinists today, nevertheless, sure seem to think that they know (especially where orthodox Catholics are concerned!), and they (curiously) go against the founder of their brand of Christianity.

Nor is it enough to embrace the number of the elect in thought and intention merely. By the unity of the Church we must understand a unity into which we feel persuaded that we are truly ingrafted.

This unity is doctrinal and institutional as well as spiritual, and that was a great truth that the "Reformation" spurned, by espousing institutional schism and fostering (by false first premises on authority) the very sectarianism and denominationalism that both Luther and Calvin always derided as absurd and scandalous. They didn't seem to realize the connection between first principles (sola Scriptura, private judgment, denial of an infallible Church and councils and popes, supremacy of the individual conscience even over against the Church in instances of disagreement) and how folks consistently acted on and applied these first principles.

For unless we are united with all the other members under Christ our head, no hope of the future inheritance awaits us.

A striking assertion of profound unity . . .

Hence the Church is called Catholic or Universal (August. Ep. 48), for two or three cannot be invented without dividing Christ; and this is impossible.

Denominations are thus ruled out. Why, then, are they so prevalent (to put it lightly) in Protestantism? Even Calvinists have many sub-denominations that would have been (presumably) condemned by Calvin based on this statement and many other like-minded ones.

All the elect of God are so joined together in Christ, that as they depend on one head, so they are as it were compacted into one body, being knit together like its different members; made truly one by living together under the same Spirit of God in one faith, hope, and charity, called not only to the same inheritance of eternal life, but to participation in one God and Christ.

Then one would think that Protestants could see the importance of this and get together and start eliminating competing (often contradictory) denominations. So far, they mainly seem to do that as they become theologically liberal and thus have more in common with other liberals who believe less and less as they do; hence the ease of uniting in liberal bliss.

For although the sad devastation which everywhere meets our view may proclaim that no Church remains, let us know that the death of Christ produces fruit, and that God wondrously preserves his Church, while placing it as it were in concealment. Thus it was said to Elijah, “Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel” (1 Kings 19:18).

Calvin ends with the "remnant ecclesiology" that suggests an invisible church. This is a direct frontal attack on the Catholic Church. That irrational and unbiblical and unhistorical hostility of Calvin's will be dealt with over and over again in the course of this critique.

Purgatory is the Waiting Room for Heaven, Not a Temporary Stint in Hell (1st C. Jewish and Jesus' and NT Understanding of Gehenna)

Illustration for Dante's Purgatorio, by Gustave Doré

The following friendly exchange took place on the CHNI board with a self-described "Hebrew Catholic." His words will be in blue.

* * * * *

The reason that Purgatory is not mentioned in the New Testament is the same reason that neither hell, nor heaven are mentioned in the NT--The NT is written in Greek. All three of these words: Purgatory, Heaven and Hell are English words. So, none of them is in the NT!

The question is whether the Greek word Gehenna, which is usually translated into English as the word "hell" really means "hell." Or does Gehenna mean something different?

Gehenna is a Greek form of the Hebrew word Gehinnom. Ge means "valley", so Gehinnom is the Valley of Hinnom--a garbage dump to the south of Jerusalem in the time of Jesus. It was always burning garbage, so we get the image of a place where "the fire not stops burning and the worm never dies."

The question whenever we translate a word is what the particular word meant to the writer's contemporary audience--in this case 1st C Jews. What did 1st C Jews think Gehenna meant?

For this we have a clear answer. The Talmud records the debates between the schools of Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Shammai--the two great rival rabbinic schools of 1st C Israel. Hillel and Shammai. In Talmud tractate Rosh Hashanah 16b-17a, the two schools are arguing about how many souls will escape Gehinnom to go to Gan Eden (Garden of Eden--the rabbinic name for Paradise.) Hillel was more lenient than Shammai, so the school of Hillel thought that more souls would leave Gehinnom than did the school of Shammai. Both schools believed that some souls were so evil that they would spend eternity in Gehinnom.

So, to 1st C Jews, Gehinnom was place much like a maximum security US prison in which some inmates are sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, while others will get out after say 10 years served for armed robbery.

However, in English, we don't have a single word that refers to the punishment of those who will be purged and eventually go to heaven vs. those who will spend eternity in hell. So, in practice, translators have chosen to translate Gehenna as "hell." However, this has the unfortunate result of convincing those who do not understand the culture of 1st C Israel that "Purgatory is not in the Bible."

The concept of Purgatory is definitely inherent in Gehenna and therefore is mentioned throughout the NT! Shalom!

Doesn't this show that the rabbis had a notion of Gehenna that was really more akin to Sheol / Hades than to our notion of hell (since some souls can escape it)?

As I understand Gehenna, as used by Jesus, and pretty much the equivalent of "hell", there is no way out of it, so I don't see how you could think the NT Gehenna contains the concept of purgatory within itself.

Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the NT supports my argument above:

The NT distinguishes between hades and geenna: a. the former is temporary, the latter definitive (cf. Mk. 9:43, 48); b. the former is for the soul alone, the latter for the reunited body and soul (Mk 9:43ff.; Mt. 10:28).

(p. 113 in one-volume edition)

Kittel also states about pre-NT belief that "Later it was also used for the place where the wicked are punished in the intermediate state" but doesn't apply this meaning to the NT understanding.

Gerhard Kittel (1888-1948) was a German Protestant (not a Catholic) scholar and an ardent anti-Semite, whose anti-Semitic works of scholarship formed an ideological foundation and justification for the Third Reich. As such, one must be concerned with the issue of bias in his scholarly output.

See: Studying the Jew: scholarly antisemitism in Nazi Germany By Alan E. Steinweis Edition: illustrated Published by Harvard University Press, 2006

Also, he lived prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scholars of his era made the same skeptical assumptions about the veracity of rabbinic compilations of oral traditions that they made in Higher Criticism of the Bible. Since older rabbinic traditions were passed down orally, later compiled by editors, they were assumed to be inaccurate, filled with mistakes, and biased.

The discovery of the DSS showed that the Masoretic text of the Bible, the New Testament and Pharisaic traditions compiled in rabbinic literature were unexpectedly and remarkably accurate.

So, even though the 1st C rabbinic schools are cited in the Mishnah of Rosh Hashannah, compiled in 200AD by Rabbi Judah the Prince, they accurately reflect 1st C thought.

The Encyclopedia Judaica version 2 article on Paradise, traces the development of the idea of Gehinnom from Jewish Pseudepigraphical sources such as I Enoch that predate the birth of Jesus, through Deuterocanonical books, through Rabbinic sources. Since Judaism never produced an orthodoxy of belief, but rather an orthopraxy of obedience to law, there are, of course, varying speculations about the afterlife. All of which shows that Gehenna cannot have had the static and fixed meaning attributed to the Christian doctrine of "hell."

Neither Mark 9:43ff, nor Mat 10:28 states that imprisonment in Gehenna must be permanent for all therein:

Mk 9:43 "And if your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire,

44 where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.

45 "And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than having your two feet, to be cast into hell,

46 where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.

47 "And if your eye causes you to stumble, cast it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into hell,

48 where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.

What is permanent here is not the imprisonment of any particular person, but the constancy and duration of the worm and the fire. It is the worm that does not die and the fire that is not quenched, not the individual. No statement is made about how long these forces act upon an individual there, only that their punishment is constant and unrelenting for whatever duration they are imprisoned. Undoubtedly any period of imprisonment in a state of constant torture is worse than self-denial here on earth. This point is valid, regardless of how long the imprisonment may be.

Mt 10:28 "And do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

The rabbinic understanding of Gehenna includes some who will be there forever due to their sins. God is able to imprison such forever, so we should fear him who is able to do this. This does not mean that all who are in Gehenna will suffer this extreme punishment. Again, the passage does not state that imprisonment is eternal in Gehenna for all who are there.

You can dismiss Kittel if you wish. I'm sure I could produce other linguists with the same understanding. It doesn't all rest on him. I'm confident that I can defend the NT understanding of Gehenna as pertaining to eternal hellfire. I'm not sure exactly what your position is on this. Do you have some objection to the Christian and catholic doctrine of hell? I deal mostly with the NT understanding of eternal judgment in this paper:

Biblical Evidence for an Eternal Hell

See also related papers:

The Development of Old Testament and Jewish Views of Sheol, the Afterlife, and Eternal Punishment

Dialogue on Sheol / Hades (Limbo of the Fathers) and Luke 16 (the Rich Man and Lazarus) With a Baptist (+ Discussion)

I read your article on the Development of Jewish idea of punishment in the afterlife. I agree with it. The question is whether this development of Jewish concept of Gehenna is present in the use of the term in the NT. If so, then both Purgatory and Hell, as understood by Catholics, are present in the concept of Gehenna as defined in the NT.

Certainly, linguists have historically only seen hell in the use of the term Gehenna. I would argue that this is a matter of historical prejudice in the reading of the text, caused by a Gentile tradition of reading that was not informed by the Jewish context of the NT.

The discovery of the DSS [Dead Sea Scrolls] is causing many New Testament texts to be read in an entirely new light, by scholars of Jewish, Protestant and Catholic background.

Whenever we use the work of scholars who interpret the NT prior to the publishing of the DSS, we are seeing their best interpretation of these texts prior to a mountain of new historical evidence. Such scholars only see the development of Jewish interpretation in the Pharisaic tradition. They are perforce entirely ignorant of the development of interpretation among the Essenes. Their interpretations are simply outdated by the facts!

Read the texts yourself in Greek. Without the lens of centuries of Gentile (mis)interpretation, pre-DSS, these texts simply do not say that Gehenna is a place of eternal punishment for all of its initial inhabitants!

Even Edersheim admits this from the Rabbinic tradition, writing in 1883! He argues that the Pharisaic tradition understands Gehenna as a permanent place of punishment for at least some of its inhabitants. This is exactly what I am saying in my previous post.

Similarly, many Protestant scholars have re-read Galatians, only to discover that ek pistos means equally: out of faith and faithfulness. Thus overturning 500 years of Protestant interpretation!

The Pope in a recent homily (Holy Thursday 2007, if memory serves) identified the Passover celebration of the Last Supper as an Essene seder. This would mean that the Last Supper was celebrated according to the Essene calendar, not celebrated on Holy Thursday, overturning many centuries of RC tradition. But, very plausibly explaining the differences between the Synoptics and John on the dating of the Last Supper. So, there is a lot of this reinterpretive activity going on!

So, my comments are entirely in accordance with the RC Catechism and the teaching of the RCC. Too bad for linguists born just a century too early!

Your comments are fascinating as always, and I am enjoying this exchange a lot. I continue to disagree with you regarding Gehenna. I have never seen, to my recollection, anywhere in the NT where it is definitively taught that souls can escape hell or Gehenna. Whatever the pre-Christian and immediately post-Christian Jews taught, it doesn't overcome the dogmatic force of the texts in the NT that we have. I'm all for the idea of a consistent development of Judaism into Christianity. I defend that very often in my writings. I have no hostility to that at all. I love it. So my motivation here is not to downplay Hebrew precursors to Christianity (which I never try to do, because I think it's silly and most unhelpful). I just don't see that Gehenna is treated in the NT and by Jesus Himself (who talked most about it) as you are positing.

I think the more accurate analogy to purgatory is Sheol / Hades, as seen most clearly in Luke 16 and the story of Lazarus and the rich man. Secondly, the analogy is to purging and suffering processes in general: God's chastisement of His sons and daughters: a common theme in the OT and continued in the NT. Thirdly, the Protestant conception of the judgment seat of Christ (1 Corinthians 3) is highly analogous to purgatory.

But purgatory is the anteroom (or, if you will, holding-tank or halfway house) to heaven, not of hell. That's the biggest problem I have with your reasoning. Purgatory in Catholic theology is not a "five-year sentence" in hell, then the prisoner is pardoned and released to heaven. No; heaven and hell are so essentially different that there could never be any such connection between the two. Whoever is sentenced to hell is damned, and damned forever. Whoever is in purgatory is saved, and only there temporarily. Hell is the utter absence of God, which is why no saved person who is a follower of God can ever go there, even temporarily.

From a NT perspective, I would say that the late-period Jews had confused Sheol and Gehenna in their eschatology. We expect some confusions as categories are developed and worked-through, just as we saw in Christian development concerning the Trinity a few centuries later. Some will get it wrong. So the Jews who thought Gehenna could be a temporary state for some, who were released to heaven, were simply wrong.

I don't know Greek, so I don't have that benefit, but I have some linguistic aids to help me get to the Greek text. I can locate all the instances of Gehenna in the NT. I'd like to examine those to see what we find there, and if there is any hint of a temporary stay in hell for some, as you suggest.

Matthew 5:22,29-30 (RSV) But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, `You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire. . . . If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. [30] And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

The distinction between "council" and "hell of fire" in 5:22 is an argument for purgatory, but note that they are separate, not that purgatory (if this argument holds) is part of hell.

Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matthew 18:9 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire. (18:8 refers to "eternal fire")

Matthew 23:15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.

Matthew 23:33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?

Mark 9:43,45,47-48 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. [45] And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. [47] And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, [48] where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.

[RSV states that verses 44 and 46 are omitted by the "best ancient authorities" but it is repeated in verse 48 anyway]

cf. Isaiah 66:24 "And they shall go forth and look on the dead bodies of the men that have rebelled against me; for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

Luke 12:4-5 "I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. [5] But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear him!

James 3:6 And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is an unrighteous world among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the cycle of nature, and set on fire by hell.

I don't see any hint of temporary stay here (I would say that is a weak argument from silence). I think eternal duration is strongly implied by "unquenchable fire" and the "worm does not die" clause. You have argued (rather weakly, I think) that it only refers to the worm and not to men. The Navarre Bible comments on Mark 9:44:

They are taken from Isaiah 66:24 . . . Our Lord uses them to refer to the torments of hell. Often, "the worm that does not die" is explained as the eternal remorse felt by those in hell, and "the fire which is not quenched" , as their physical pain. The Fathers also say that both things may possibly refer to physical torments. In any case, the punishment in question is terrible and unending.

(p. 274)

Similar data (obviously also referring to hell) occurs in the metaphor of "outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth" (Mt 25:30; cf. 8:12; 22:13).

A stronger indication, for determining whether hell is eternal for all who are in it, is Jesus' metaphor of the tree that doesn't bear good fruit being thrown into the fire:

Matthew 3:12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire." (cf. 3:10)

Matthew 13:40,42 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. . . . [42] and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth. (cf. 13:50; 7:19; Lk 3:9; Jn 15:6)

No hint of nuance and temporary stays here, either. The chaff is burned and that's it. It's interesting that Jesus in Matthew 3:12 says that the chaff is burned with unquenchable fire; not that it is burned and then the fire continues on, unquenchable. There is a logical difference.

We get more information in Jesus' account of the Last Judgment:

Matthew 25:41,46 Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; . . . [46] And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

cf. the metaphorical parallel:

Jude 7 just as Sodom and Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Again, we see no hint whatsoever of temporary stays in hell. It is either cursed = eternal hellfire = eternal punishment or righteous / saved = eternal blessedness in heaven (25:31-40,46).

The clincher verses come, I think, in Revelation:

Revelation 20:10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Revelation 20:13-15 And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done. [14] Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire; [15] and if any one's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Revelation 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death."

Again, we see stark contrasts all around. The damned go to this lake of fire prepared for the devil and his angels (as we learn from Matt 25:41,46). This is hell, which is eternal fire, and we so no mention of anyone getting out of it. The damned go there, and it is eternal punishment (Matt 25:46, Rev 20:10). The mention of "eternal punishment" lays to rest any notion that the fire may go on forever but not the punishment of the people (as punishment always refers to a person being punished). Temporary punishment is entirely absent. I would contend that it is eisegesis to read it into any of these texts. We can't eisegete from late pre-Christian Jewish eschatological tradition (no matter how rich and interesting it may have been). We have to go with what the text itself teaches us. Jesus and the NT writers are the definitive interpreters and developers of authentic Jewish theology. They have defined the eschatology that was still somewhat confused in 1st c. Pharisaic Judaism.

Lastly, I think it is notable that Hades is contrasted with the Lake of Fire. The dead in Hades who were to be damned eternally were thrown into hell (Rev 20:14). In other words, Hades was a holding-tank. Some went to heaven and the others went to hell (cf. Luke 16). But it is not to be confused with Gehenna. The damned in Hades are eventually consigned for eternity to hell, or the Lake of Fire.

The Catechism draws the same distinctions I made above (my bolding):

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.⁶⁰⁶ The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire . . .

1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.⁶¹⁴ Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"⁶¹⁵ and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"⁶¹⁶

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."⁶¹⁷ The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1054 Those who die in God's grace and friendship imperfectly purified, although they are assured of their eternal salvation, undergo a purification after death, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of God.

1057 Hell's principal punishment consists of eternal separation from God in whom alone man can have the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

Board Helper David W. Emery also chimed in:

I see Jesus’ return to the proper distinction as a way to reconcile the two viewpoints, just as he did in a number of other areas, especially in moral theology. Sheol had a number of “levels,” depending on the relative merit of the deceased, and those (at least in the higher levels) were destined for their respective places in Heaven (“…for star differs from star in glory. So it is with the resurrection of the dead.” – 1 Corinthians 15:41). Gehenna was envisioned by the scholars sometimes as the lowest levels of Sheol and sometimes separately. Jesus separated out Gehenna as he did Heaven, and Christians followed that doctrine. So I don’t think it is so much a gentile thing as a Christian thing that we distinguish three “places” after death: eternal hell, temporary purgatory and eternal heaven.

* * * * *

For more resources on purgatory:

My most extended, in-depth treatment of purgatory comes from my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, that was completed in 1996 (this portion is available online). It's comprehensive in scope (I also deal with relevant passages like 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 in great depth, in a debate with anti-Catholic Reformed Baptist apologist James White).

I have 15 papers listed about purgatory on my Saints, Purgatory, and Penance web page. One that isn't yet listed (because it is so new) is from my upcoming book, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Biblical Evidence for Purgatory and Analogous Processes (50 Passages).

But that is completely Scripture with no commentary. The other paper of mine first cited above has explanatory commentary, which is probably better for most efforts of trying to defend the doctrine and showing how it is biblical.

The best short / nutshell argument to use, in my opinion, is the following:

It's an extremely serious business when we meet God face to face. There won't be any more of this "imputation" -- merely "covering over" of sins) then. No, we MUST be sinless to be in His presence, because that is how we were created to be in the first place, in His image. Therefore, we have to be cleansed of actual sin (sanctification in Protestantism). There is no question about that, from either side.

The only difference is a quantitative one: Protestants seem to think this all occurs in an instant; Catholics think it will involve a process, more like how our life on earth is. To me, that is where the heart of this discussion lies.

Theology of the Atonement: Catholic Distinctiveness Over Against the Calvinist "Penal Substitution" Model

St. Anselm

A Protestant contributor to the CHNI forum wrote:

Penal Substitution...Wikipedia says.

Penal substitution is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, especially associated with the Reformed tradition. It argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalised) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins. It is thus a specific understanding of substitutionary atonement, where the substitutionary nature of Jesus' death is understood in the sense of a substitutionary punishment.

This is rejected by the Orthodox who speak more of substitutionary atonement based on the love of God more than the anger of God.

So is God the father so angry at us that he has to beat the snot out of his son in order to be appeased? Crude, I know, but this has become the measuring stick of the new Calvinists such as John Piper and Mark Driscoll of the Mars Hill church in Seattle.

My understand[ing] is the western church...including the RCC is more in line with the Calvinists on this issue than the Orthodox. Is this true? Sounds platonic to me.

* * * * *

It's not true. Orthodox apologetics, insofar as it outwardly disagrees with Catholicism, often tries to contend that we are closer to Protestantism than to Orthodoxy. One must read both sides. One can't just read Orthodox treatments of Catholicism in order to understand Catholicism. One should read a Catholic treatment of a topic and an Orthodox treatment and decide which is more cogent and plausible. Read what proponents say about themselves; not what critics say about their opponents.

Hence, a Catholic apologist (Nick) has engaged in a lengthy debate with an anti-Catholic Calvinist apologist on this very issue. See many installments on his blog. Here is a second article denying that it is the Catholic view. See also The Catholic Encyclopedia: "Doctrine of the Atonement". Note particularly from the latter article:

In their general conception on the atonement the Reformers and their followers happily preserved the Catholic doctrine, at least in its main lines. And in their explanation of the merit of Christ's sufferings and death we may see the influence of St. Thomas and the other great Schoolmen. But, as might be expected from the isolation of the doctrine and the loss of other portions of Catholic teaching, the truth thus preserved was sometimes insensibly obscured or distorted. It will be enough to note here the presence of two mistaken tendencies.

The first is indicated in the above words of Pattison in which the Atonement is specially connected with the thought of the wrath of God. It is true of course that sin incurs the anger of the Just Judge, and that this is averted when the debt due to Divine Justice is paid by satisfaction. But it must not be thought that God is only moved to mercy and reconciled to us as a result of this satisfaction. This false conception of the Reconciliation is expressly rejected by St. Augustine (In Joannem, Tract. cx, section 6). God's merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction.

The second mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment. This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins.

See also:

The "Ransom Theory" of Atonement in the Fathers: Development in the Doctrine of the Work of Christ

Catholic-Protestant Discussion on the Atonement (+ Part Two) (Jonathan Prejean, Paul Hoffer, Ken Temple et al) [from my blog, but I didn't participate]

New "Antidote to John Calvin's Institutes" Series Commences (Introduction)

Title page of a Latin edition of John Calvin's Institutes, published in 1834 by Gustave Eichler

[ source ]

For quite a while now, I've desired to make an in-depth, point-by-point reply to large portions of John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. Calvin is, quite arguably, the most articulate and "meaty" (though often obscurantist and illogical) Protestant theologian, and almost certainly the most systematic. I've done a great deal of research on Martin Luther, so it is long overdue for me to start paying relatively more attention to the second most influential figure in the Protestant Revolt (perhaps even the most influential): John Calvin.

Other tasks (mostly books, as of late) have required my attention. But now I'm in a place where this can be my next "project": and it will be a major undertaking, prolonged for many months. It'll give me plenty of work to do, and keep me busy, for sure. I expect that it will be eventually contained in a book or two, after all the labor I will have devoted to it. Much of Calvin's subject matter gets to the heart -- the very crux -- of the disagreement between Catholics and Protestants.

Calvin, of course, has the big advantage going in, in such a "debate." He's the famous and extremely influential theologian and scholar, with tons of education, rhetorical and literary ability in droves, and a remarkable encyclopedic knowledge in many areas. I'm just a lay Catholic apologist with a degree in sociology, and no formal theological education (but with lots of informal theological education for over thirty years). I rather like that. I love to play David over against a "Goliath." I relish the challenge, and this will assuredly be one that will take a lot of effort and very hard work on my part: with intense research often required.

If it is concluded that I prevail here and there in my replies, then it will bring (all the more) the point home that Calvin is wrong in his arguments, where he opposes the Catholic Church. I'm confident that he can very often plainly be shown to be in error. I have no doubt about that, from what I have seen of his work thus far. I've often noted that one can be the greatest genius of all time, but if the facts and the truth are not on their side, they can be defeated by an infant who knows the truth. So I'll give it my best shot.

I'll be utilizing for my purposes, the Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by Henry Beveridge for the Calvin Translation Society in 1845, from the 1559 edition in Latin; reprinted by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (Grand Rapids, MI), 1995, and available online. This work is in the public domain because of its age. That being the case, I am able to easily cut and paste everything in it, without a great deal of extra typing being necessary. This allows me to easily reply in my usual socratic manner, and go "back and forth" with Calvin. At times I will also refer to the recent translation of the Institutes (John T. McNeill, editor, and Ford Lewis Battles, translator; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960; also from the 1559 edition). That will be referred to as "Battles."

I'll also (it should be noted) make some response to every portion of the sections that I deal with, and cite the entire Calvin text; leaving out nothing, per my standard modus operandi when replying to others. I don't pick and choose, or select that which is more easily answered. When seriously replying to opposing arguments we need to deal with all of the contents. If I don't have an immediate answer to something, I'll happily admit it. I never claimed to have all the answers. But I do claim to have some answers and substantive replies to a wide range of contra-Catholic arguments. Calvin can't counter-respond, but such is the necessary disadvantage of being dead for 450 years. Calvin's superior education will be his advantage. But the Institutes is widely used to this day, and since it is so critical of Catholicism, it needs to be answered from a Catholic perspective.

My biggest interest lies in Book IV: Of the Holy Catholic Church. It runs 510 pages in the 1960 Battles edition. This is where the real contrast between Calvinism and Catholicism is most evident, in my opinion: even more than in soteriology, or the theology of salvation (Book III), where the two sides are far closer than many in both parties realize. I like to go right to the heart of any given issue, and that's located here, in my opinion.

I hope my reply is edifying and educational for readers who seek to understand the difference between the two theological systems, and to decide which is more worthy of allegiance. I will try to keep my own polemics to a bare minimum, which will be somewhat difficult, because Calvin (due to his anti-Catholicism: mirrored today in some of his most ardent followers) is often highly provocative and polemical. I'll let him rave against Catholicism. My aim is to stick to theology and rational argument: to Scripture and history. When he makes an actual argument or claim, it'll be scrutinized, and if it is clearly false, exposed for the falsehood that it is. When he simply takes gratuitous potshots at Catholicism (as he often does), that is not an argument and thus, needs no particular response other than a bemused half-smile and yawn.

Papal Participation (Through Legates) in the First Seven Ecumenical Councils

Ruins of Hagia Sophia in present-day Iznik, Turkey, where the first Ecumenical Council met. (photo credit: David Trobisch; Trip to Turkey)

Here is my understanding of papal presence (personally or through legates) at the first seven councils:


1) Nicaea, 325 [papal legates; possibly including Hosius or Ossius, who presided]

The recommendation for a general or ecumenical council . . . had probably already been made to Constantine by Ossius [aka Hosius], and most probably to Pope Silvester as well (9). . . Ossius presided over its deliberations; he probably, and two priests of Rome certainly, came as representatives of the Pope.

(Dr. Warren Carroll, The Building of Christendom, Christendom College Press, 1987, 11)

For much more on this, see the Brian Harrison article cited below in #2 and my paper, Pope Silvester and the Council of Nicaea.


2) Constantinople, 381 [no pope and no legates]

No bishops from the west were present, nor was the Pope represented. Therefore, this was not really an ecumenical council, though due to later historical confusion and the enthusiastic acceptance by the whole Church of its strongly orthodox creed, including an explicit confession of the full divinity of the Holy Spirit, it came to be regarded and numbered as such.

(Dr. Warren Carroll, The Building of Christendom, Christendom College Press, 1987, 62)

With the First Council of Constantinople (381) we are dealing with another case in which there are not extant acts. This council also was convoked by an emperor, Theodosius I. [Ibid.] The language of his decree suggests he regarded the Roman see as a yardstick of Christian orthodoxy. He commands all his subjects to practice the religion which Peter the apostle transmitted to the Romans. In calling the Council, Theodosius did not envisage the assembled bishops debating Roman doctrine as thought it were an open question.

The fact that Meletius of Antioch presided at Constantinople I, and the absence of any Roman legates, might appear to be evidence against the Roman primacy. It must be remembered that the Council was not originally intended to be ecumenical in the same sense as Nicaea.

It included, after all, only 150 bishops from Thrace, Asia Minor, and Egypt and was convoked to deal with certain Eastern problems.[New Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "Constantinople, First Council of."] In fact, it was not recognized as ecumenical by the Council of Ephesus half a century later, and it was left to Pope Gregory the Great to elevate it to that status.

("Papal Authority at the Earliest Councils," Brian W. Harrison, This Rock, Jan. 1991)

3) Ephesus, 431 [papal legates Arcadius, Projectus, and Philip]

The pope . . . sent two bishops, Arcadius and Projectus, to represent himself and his Roman council, and the Roman priest, Philip, as his personal representative. Philip, therefore, takes the first place, though, not being a bishop, he could not preside. It was probably a matter of course that the Patriarch of Alexandria should be president. The legates were directed not to take part in the discussions, but to give judgment on them. It seems that Chalcedon, twenty years later, set the precedent that the papal legates should always be technically presidents at an ecumenical council, and this was henceforth looked upon as a matter of course, and Greek historians assumed that it must have been the case at Nicaea.

(Catholic Encyclopedia: "Council of Ephesus"; written by John Chapman)

4) Chalcedon, 451 [papal legate Paschasinus, who presided]

The honour of presiding over this venerable assembly was reserved to Paschasinus, Bishop of Lilybaeum, the first of the papal legates, according to the intention of Pope Leo I, expressed in his letter to Emperor Marcian (24 June, 451). Shortly after the council, writing to the bishops of Gaul, he mentions that his legates presided in his stead over the Eastern synod. Moreover, Paschasinus proclaimed openly in presence of the council that he was presiding over it in the name and in the place of pope Leo. The members of the council recognized this prerogative of the papal legates. When writing to the pope they professed that, through his representatives, he presided over them in the council. In the interest of order and a regular procedure the Emperor Marcian appointed a number of commissioners, men of high rank, who received the place of honour in the council. Their jurisdiction, however, did not cover the ecclesiastical or religious questions under discussion. The commissioners simply directed the order of business during the sessions; they opened the meetings, laid before the council the matters to be discussed, demanded the votes of the bishops on the various subjects, and closed the sessions. Besides these there were present several members of the Senate, who shared the place of honour with the imperial commissioners. At the very beginning of the first session, the papal legates, Paschasinus at their head, protested against the presence of Dioscurus of Alexandria. Formal accusations of heresy and of unjust actions committed in the Robber Council of Ephesus were preferred against him by Eusebius of Dorylaeum; and at the suggestion of the imperial commissioners he was removed from his seat among the bishops and deprived of his vote. . . .

When the pope's famous epistle was read the members of the council exclaimed that the faith contained therein was the faith of the Fathers and of the Apostles; that through Leo, Peter had spoken. . . .

At the closing of the sessions the council wrote a letter to Pope Leo I, in which the Fathers informed him of what had been done; thanked him for the exposition of Christian Faith contained in his dogmatic epistle; spoke of his legates as having presided over them in his name; and asked for the ratification of the disciplinary matters enacted, particularly canon 28. This letter was handed to the papal legates, who departed for Rome soon after the last session of the council. Similar letters were written to Pope Leo in December by Emperor Marcian and Anatolius of Constantinople. In reply Pope Leo protested most energetically against canon xxviii and declared it null and void as being against the prerogatives of Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, and against the decrees of the Council of Nicaea. Like protests were contained in the letters written 22 May, 452, to Emperor Marcian, Empress Pulcheria, and Anatolius of Constantinople. Otherwise the pope ratified the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, but only inasmuch as they referred to matters of faith. This approval was contained in letters written 21 March, 453, to the bishops who took part in the council; hence the Council of Chalcedon, at least as to the first six sessions, became an ecumenical synod, and was considered as such by all Christians, both in the time of Poe Leo and after him.

(Catholic Encyclopedia: "Council of Chalcedon," written by Francis Schaefer)

5) Constantinople, 553 [no pope and no legates, due to imperial strong-arm tactics and imprisonment of Pope Vigilius]

From 25 January, 547, Pope Vigilius was forcibly detained in the royal city; . . . Vigilius had persuaded Justinian . . . to proclaim a truce on all sides until a general council could be called to decide these controversies. Both the emperor and the Greek bishops violated this promise of neutrality;. . .

For his dignified protest Vigilius thereupon suffered various personal indignities at the hands of the civil authority and nearly lost his life; he retired finally to Chalcedon, in the very church of St. Euphemia where the great council had been held, whence he informed the Christian world of the state of affairs. Soon the Oriental bishops sought reconciliation with him, induced him to return to the city, and withdrew all that had hitherto been done against the Three Chapters; the new patriarch, Eutychius, successor to Mennas, whose weakness and subserviency were the immediate cause of all this violence and confusion, presented (6 Jan., 553 his professor of faith to Vigilius and, in union with other Oriental bishops, urged the calling of a general council under the presidency of the pope. Vigilius was willing, but proposed that it should be held either in Italy or in Sicily, in order to secure the attendance of Western bishops. To this Justinian would not agree, but proposed, instead, a kind of commission made up of delegates from each of the great patriarchates; Vigilius suggested that an equal number be chosen from the East and the West; but this was not acceptable to the emperor, who thereupon opened the council by his own authority on the date and in the manner mentioned above. Vigilius refused to participate, not only on account of the overwhelming proportion of Oriental bishops, but also from fear of violence; moreover, none of his predecessors had ever taken part personally in an Oriental council. To this decision he was faithful, though he expressed his willingness to give an independent judgment on the matters at issue. . . .

The decisions of the council were executed with a violence in keeping with its conduct, though the ardently hoped-for reconciliation of the Monophysites did not follow. Vigilius, together with other opponents of the imperial will, as registered by the subservient court-prelates, seems to have been banished (Hefele, II, 905), together with the faithful bishops and ecclesiastics of his suite, either to Upper Egypt or to an island in the Propontis. Already in the seventh session of the council
Justinian caused the name of Vigilius to be stricken from the diptychs, without prejudice, however, it was said, to communion with the Apostolic See. Soon the Roman clergy and people, now freed by Narses from the Gothic yoke, requested the emperor to permit the return of the pope, which Justinian agreed to on condition that Vigilius would recognize the late council. This Vigilius finally agreed to do, and in two documents (a letter to Eutychius of Constantinople, 8 Dec., 553, and a second "Constitutum" of 23 Feb., 554, probably addressed to the Western episcopate) condemned, at last, the Three Chapters (Mansi, IX, 424-20, 457-88; cf. Hefele, II, 905-11), independently, however, and without mention of the council.

(Catholic Encyclopedia: "Second Council of Constantinople," written by Thomas Shahan)

For more, see the article "Pope Vigilius".


6) Constantinople, 681 [papal legates]

Owing to the desire of Pope Agatho to obtain the adhesion of his Western brethren, the papal legates did not arrive at Constantinople until late in 680. The council, attended in the beginning by 100 bishops, later by 174, was opened 7 Nov., 680, in a domed hall (trullus) of the imperial palace and was presided over by the (three) papal legates who brought to the council a long dogmatic letter of Pope Agatho and another of similar import from a Roman synod held in the spring of 680. They were read in the second session. Both letters, the pope's in particular, insist on the faith of the Apostolic See as the living and stainless tradition of the Apostles of Christ, assured by the promises of Christ, witnessed by all the popes in their capacity of successors to the Petrine privilege of confirming the brethren, and therefore finally authoritative for the Universal Church. . . .

The greater part of the eighteen sessions was devoted to an examination of the Scriptural and patristic passages bearing on the question of one or two wills, one or two operations, in Christ. George, Patriarch of Constantinople, soon yielded to the evidence of the orthodox teaching concerning the two wills and two operations in Christ, but Macarius of Antioch, "almost the only certain representative of Monothelism since the nine propositions of Cyrus of Alexandria" (Chapman), resisted to the end, and was finally anathematized and deposed for "not consenting to the tenor of the orthodox letters sent by Agatho the most holy pope of Rome", . . .

The letter of the council to Pope Leo, asking, after the traditional manner, for confirmation of its Acts, while including again the name of Honorius among the condemned Monothelites, lay a remarkable stress on the magisterial office of the Roman Church, as, in general, the documents of the Sixth General Council favour strongly the inerrancy of the See of Peter. "The Council", says Dom Chapman, "accepts the letter in which the Pope defined the faith. It deposes those who refused to accept it. It asks [the pope] to confirm its decisions. The Bishops and Emperor declare that they have seen the letter to contain the doctrine of the Fathers. Agatho speaks with the voice of Peter himself; from Rome the law had gone forth as out of Sion; Peter had kept the faith unaltered." Pope Agatho died during the Council and was succeeded by Leo II, who confirmed (683) the decrees against Monothelism, and expressed himself even more harshly than the council towards the memory of Honorius (Hefele, Chapman), though he laid stress chiefly on the neglect of that pope to set forth the traditional teaching of the Apostolic See, whose spotless faith he treasonably tried to overthrow (or, as the Greek may be translated, permitted to be overthrown).

(Catholic Encyclopedia: "Third Council of Constantinople," written by Thomas Shahan)

7) Nicaea, 787 [papal legates archpriest Peter and abbot Peter]

The pope's letters to the empress and to the patriarch (see ICONOCLASM, II) prove superabundantly that the Holy See approved the convocation of the Council. The pope afterwards wrote to Charlemagne: "Et sic synodum istam, secundum nostram ordinationem, fecerunt" (Thus they have held the synod in accordance with our directions).

The empress-regent and her son did not assist in person at the sessions, but they were represented there by two high officials: the patrician and former consul, Petronius, and the imperial chamberlain and logothete John, with whom was associated as secretary the former patriarch, Nicephorus. The acts represent as constantly at the head of the ecclesiastical members the two Roman legates, the archpriest Peter and the abbot Peter; after them come Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and then two Oriental monks and priests, John and Thomas, representatives of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. The operations of the council show that Tarasius, properly speaking, conducted the sessions.

(Catholic Encyclopedia: "The Second Council of Nicaea," written by Henri Leclercq)

* * * * *

Conclusion: popes were not personally present at the first seven councils. The custom in those days was to send papal legates. These were present at five of the seven councils. They weren't at Constantinople in 381 because no western bishops at all were present; hence it was not regarded as an ecumenical council at first, because it was of an exclusively eastern nature and not representative of the universal church. But it was orthodox, and so later declared to be ecumenical. And they weren't present at Constantinople in 553 because the pope was being held prisoner and the Emperor didn't want western Catholicism to be proportionately represented. Pope Vigilius refused to participate because of the disproportion, and due to fears of further violence. It was later deemed an ecumenical council by Rome since it was also orthodox in outcome (by God's grace, as always).

Biblical Argument (From Analogy and Plausibility) For the Immaculate Conception of Mary

Saint John the Baptist, by Jean Valentin de Boulogne (c.1591-1632)

John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from the Womb.

Elsewhere I have presented what I believe to be a rather strong biblical case for Mary's actual sinlessness:

A Straightforward Biblical Argument For the Sinlessness of Mary [most concise presentation]

Luke 1:28 (Full of Grace) and the Immaculate Conception: Linguistic and Exegetical Considerations

Dialogue on the Exegesis of Luke 1:28 ("Full of Grace"), and the Immaculate Conception

Dialogue with an Evangelical Protestant on Catholic Mariology (including an explicitly biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, from Luke 1:28, related exegesis, and the meaning of grace)

In a nutshell, the argument works like this (but one needs to read one or more of the above papers to fully comprehend the scope and power of this argument):

1) Grace saves us.

2) Grace is the antithesis of sin and gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.

3) To be full of the grace (Lk 1:28) which gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin, is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.

I have noted many times that sinless created beings are not impossible. The angels (excepting the fallen ones, or demons) are sinless and always have been. They never sinned. They never rebelled against God. They're creatures as we are, with a free will to sin or not sin. Adam and Eve were originally sinless and could have remained so had they not rebelled against God's commands. Babies in the womb are without actual sin (though not without original sin), and even after birth they cannot sin mortally (with full subjective awareness necessary for mortal sin) for quite some time, until they attain the age of reason.

I've also dealt with (and, I believe, disposed of) the supposed disproof of "all have sinned . . . ". And I have agreed that the Immaculate Conception was not, strictly speaking, absolutely necessary for God to do. God could possibly have gone about things a different way, just as He could have saved mankind with just His word, without a bloody cross and Jesus' agonizing suffering, had He chosen to do that. That is freely granted in Catholic (as well as in most non-Catholic Christian) theology. But -- that said -- on the other hand, we contend that the Immaculate Conception is a completely plausible act of God, and most fitting and proper and not at all "surprising," in light of several analogous variables in Scripture.

I've made the additional argument from "proximity to God": in other words, "the closer one gets to God, the more holy one must be." I developed this at some length in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (pp. 178-185). The presence of God imparts holiness (Deut 7:6; 26:19; Jer 2:3). The temple site was sacred and holy (Is 11:9; 56:7; 64:10), and the Holy of Holies where God was specially present above the ark of the covenant (Ex 25:22), was the holiest place of all within the temple. When we are ultimately with God in heaven, sin is abolished once and for all (1 Jn 3:3-9; Rev 14:5; 21:27). Etc., etc., etc. Related to this consideration is the analogy that the biblical writers draw between the ark of the (old) covenant and Mary as the ark of the new covenant (Jesus). See: Mary as Ark of the Covenant, in the Church Fathers and the Bible.

That is already quite a bit of biblical evidence, at least for Mary's actual sinlessness (after birth), or why she should be sinless in order to bear God the Son and carry God in the flesh in her own womb for nine months (in light of how the Bible consistently treats proximity to God). It is unfathomable to us how sublime and profound such a thing is, but what is not difficult to understand at all is the notion that in order to be such a magnificent vessel of God Himself, it stands to reason that the Blessed Virgin Mary would have to be an exceptional human being: to be, in fact, not only sinless (Luke 1:28) but ordained as completely free from original sin, from the moment of her conception: to be preserved by a special act of grace from God, from all sin whatever: original and actual. This was an event that obviously had nothing to do with her own meritoriousness, since it was from the moment of her conception: before she was aware of anything whatever.

Now, the challenge at this point is to show how and why one would posit the Immaculate Conception, based on the biblical data alone (since our Protestant brethren put the highest emphasis on Scripture, and make it the only infallible authority in Christianity). Is it possible to do that? Can some semblance of an argument be made from the Bible: if not directly (as we grant), at least from analogy, plausibility, and indirect deduction? I think so.

We've already established, I think, that a sinless Mary is a completely biblical concept: even a fairly explicit one: once one examines Luke 1:28 very closely and realizes the inexorable deductions based on the nature of grace and its relation to sin (about which the Bible has much to say). Perhaps there is a way out of that argument, but I don't think so, and in any event, no Protestant has stepped forward to attempt any serious refutation of it: at least not my own argument (a challenge I would welcome with great pleasure). I think the argument is a strong one; in order to change my mind someone will have to show where its alleged fatal weakness lies.

Now we must make some connection between Mary's conception or (failing that) at least sanctity from the womb. The Bible doesn't directly say anything in that respect regarding Mary. It informs us (through the mouth of the angel Gabriel) that she is "full of grace" and that this state was present at the time of the Annunciation. From that information, however, we can't tell how long Mary had been full of grace and without sin. Therefore, that particular aspect has to be argued from analogy and plausibility. And I think that can be done as well.

It's fairly easy to find examples of holy people who have been sanctified or made righteous from the womb, and even (in terms of God's foreordination or predestination) from before they were ever conceived. So there is such a notion presented in the Bible of holiness being imparted even before birth; indeed, even before conception.

Before we get into that, let's step back a bit and note that the biblical writers are fully aware of the notion of conception itself. And this presupposes that a person (with a soul; otherwise he or she is no person) is in existence from that time (e.g., Gen 25:21; Num 5:28; 2 Sam 11:5; Job 3:3; Ps 51:5; Song of Solomon 8:2 [RSV]; Lk 2:21; Rom 9:10).

Does the Bible refer to people being called from the womb for His purposes? Yes; for example, Samson:

Judges 16:17 (RSV) And he told her all his mind, and said to her, "A razor has never come upon my head; for I have been a Nazirite to God from my mother's womb. If I be shaved, then my strength will leave me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man."

A Nazirite was a person who separated himself and was specially consecrated to God: one who made special vows that went beyond the ordinary requirements of the Law. But we know that Samson was not without sin, so his example suffices only to show that being called by God before birth is not unknown in Holy Scripture. The same notion occurs in relation to Isaiah the prophet:

Isaiah 49:1,5 . . . The LORD called me from the womb, . . . [5] And now the LORD says, who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him, and that Israel might be gathered to him, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD, and my God has become my strength --

We find the same in the book of Job:

Job 31:15,18 Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb? . . . (for from his youth I reared him as a father, and from his mother's womb I guided him);

We also see in Sacred Scripture that God has plans for His servants from even before they were conceived (God being out of time in the first place):

Psalm 139:13-16 For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mother's womb. [14] I praise thee, for thou art fearful and wonderful. Wonderful are thy works! Thou knowest me right well; [15] my frame was not hidden from thee, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. [16] Thy eyes beheld my unformed substance; in thy book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.

Thus, the idea that a person is somehow spiritually formed and molded by God and called from the very time of their conception (and before) is an explicit biblical concept. But we can produce even more than that: having to do also with holiness. The prophet Jeremiah reported the Lord's revelation to him:

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations." (KJV: "sanctified thee")

Sirach 49:7 . . . he had been consecrated in the womb as prophet, . . .

"Consecrated" or "sanctified" in Jeremiah 1:5 is the Hebrew word quadash (Strong's word #6942). According to Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979 printing, p. 725), in this instance it meant "to declare any one holy." Gesenius applies this particular meaning also to the temple:

1 Kings 9:3 And the LORD said to him, "I have heard your prayer and your supplication, which you have made before me; I have consecrated this house which you have built, and put my name there for ever; my eyes and my heart will be there for all time.

Here are a few more related appearances of the word:

Exodus 29:42-43 . . . the door of the tent of meeting before the LORD, where I will meet with you, to speak there to you. [43] There I will meet with the people of Israel, and it shall be sanctified by my glory;

Isaiah 5:16 But the LORD of hosts is exalted in justice, and the Holy God shows himself holy in righteousness.

Ezekiel 20:12 Moreover I gave them my sabbaths, as a sign between me and them, that they might know that I the LORD sanctify them.

So Jeremiah was consecrated or sanctified from the womb; possibly from conception (the text is somewhat vague as to the exact time). This is fairly analogous to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It approximates it. We know Jeremiah was a very holy man. Was he sinless, though? Perhaps he was. I don't recall reading accounts of Jeremiah sinning (though I may very well have forgotten). I don't think it is impossible for there to actually be a sinless person other than Mary, and after the Fall. God would have to remove original sin and sanctify them, of course, as we believe He did with Mary. We know that the Bible is very frank about exposing sins where they existed (David's adultery, Noah's drunkenness, Moses' murder, Isaiah's "unclean lips," Elijah's and Jonah's lapses of faith, Doubting Thomas, Peter's betrayals, Paul's persecutions, etc.). Therefore, though the lack of such an account of sin does not prove sinlessness, it is consistent with its possibility.

The retort at this point might be that there is a lack of this notion in the New Testament. But that's not true. We have the example of John the Baptist:

Luke 1:15 for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.

Luke 1:41,44 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. . . For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy.

We know that John the Baptist was also a very holy man. Was he sinless? We can't know that for sure from the biblical data. I don't recall any mention of a sin from John the Baptist, in Scripture. St. Catherine of Siena, for one, believed that he never sinned (A Treatise of Prayer). But we know that he was sanctified from the womb. And that forms some plausible analogy to the Immaculate Conception. Lastly, St. Paul refers to being called before he was born:

Galatians 1:15 . . . he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace,

With all this in mind, how do we then construct an argument by analogy and plausibility, for the Immaculate Conception of Mary? I think one excellent model comes from the great catechist James Cardinal Gibbons, as cited in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (pp. 182-184):

Whenever God designs any person for some important work, He bestows on that person the graces and dispositions necessary for faithfully discharging it . . .

The Prophet Jeremiah was sanctified from his very birth because he was destined to be the herald of God's law to the children of Israel: "Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee" (Jeremiah 1:5) . . . .

John the Baptist was "filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb" (Luke 1:15). He was "a burning and a shining light" (John 5:35) because he was chosen to prepare the way of the Lord.

The Apostles received the plenitude of grace; they were endowed with the gift of tongues and other privileges (Acts 2) before they commenced the work of the ministry. Hence St. Paul says: "Our sufficiency is from God, who hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament" (2 Corinthians 3:5-6) [other translations have able, competent, qualified] . . . .

There is none who filled any position so exalted, so sacred, as is the incommunicable office of Mother of Jesus; and there is no one, consequently, that needed so high a degree of holiness as she did.

For, if God thus sanctified His Prophets and Apostles as being destined to be the bearers of the Word of life, how much more sanctified must Mary have been, who was to bear the Lord and "Author of life" (Acts 3:5) . . . If God said to His Priests of old: "Be ye clean, you that carry the vessels of the Lord (Isa. 3:2); nay, if the vessels themselves used in the divine service and churches are set apart by special consecration, we cannot conceive Mary to have been ever profaned by sin, who was the chosen vessel of election, even the Mother of God.

(The Faith of Our Fathers, New York: P.J. Kenedy & Sons, 1917, 135-137)

Therefore, by analogy and plausibility, based on many biblical cross-references, we can conclude that it is "biblical" and reasonable to believe in faith that Mary was immaculately conceived. Nothing in the Bible contradicts this belief. And there is much that suggests various elements of it, as we have seen. It takes faith, sure (of course), and Catholics believe it (among other reasons) because it is a dogma of the Church, and we believe that God specially guides Holy Mother Church and leads her into all truth, but based on the biblical data alone it is not an unreasonable or "unbiblical" belief at all.

Her sinlessness is explicitly taught in Luke 1:28, so we need only extrapolate the sinlessness back into the womb (which is easy to do), and with regard to original sin as well (not as easy, assuredly, but not impossible to imagine, either). If God calls and predestines people for a specific purpose from all eternity, from before they were ever born, as David states and as Jeremiah strongly implies, then what inherent difficulty is there in His sanctifying a very important person in salvation history, centrally involved in the Incarnation, from conception? None that I can see . . . the possibility simply can't be ruled out. And if God can call Jeremiah and John the Baptist from the womb and (possibly) from conception, why not Mary as well? The one case is no less plausible than the other, and so we believe it, by analogy.

Since there are several biblical examples of something akin to that, it's not out of the question at all to posit an immaculate conception for the Blessed Virgin Mary. It's not foreign to biblical thinking, and I believe it makes perfect sense. According to the Catholic Church, God restored to Mary the innocence of Eve before the Fall, and filled her with grace, in order to prepare her for her unspeakably sublime, sanctified task as the Mother of God the Son. Why should He not do so?

Biblical Evidence for Human Distribution of Grace and Salvation

[KJV]

Psalm 51:13 Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.

Acts 2:40-41 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. [41] Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 11:14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

Romans 11:13-14 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: [14] If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

Romans 15:17-18 I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God. [18] For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, (RSV: “In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God. For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed,”)

1 Corinthians 1:18,21 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. . . . [21] For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

1 Corinthians 7:16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

1 Corinthians 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

2 Corinthians 1:6 And whether we be afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer: or whether we be comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation.

2 Corinthians 2:10 To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; (RSV: “Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ,”)

2 Corinthians 4:8-15 We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; [9] Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; [10] Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. [11] For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. [12] So then death worketh in us, but life in you. [13] We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; [14] Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you. [15] For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God.

2 Corinthians 5:18-19 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; [19] To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Ephesians 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to youward: (RSV: “assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you”)

Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. (RSV: “impart grace . . .”)

Philippians 1:7 Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace. (RSV: “you are all partakers with me of grace”)

Philippians 1:19 For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, (RSV: “For I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance,”)

Philippians 2:12-13 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. [13] For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee. (RSV: “Take heed to yourself and to your teaching: hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers”)

2 Timothy 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Hebrews 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

James 5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

James 5:19-20 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; [20] Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. (RSV: “whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins”)

1 Peter 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

1 Peter 4:8-10 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins. [9] Use hospitality one to another without grudging.
[10] As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.

Moreover, when we pray for someone and God answers, they are blessed, and one might say that they are given more grace thereby, just as Paul often opens his epistles, “grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Cor 1:2, RSV). This common greeting of "grace to you" (cf. in RSV: Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2; Phil 1:2; Col 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:2; Phlm 1:3; Rev 1:4) is in the sense of “may God give you more grace.” Thus, everyone who prays is potentially a “mini-distributor” of grace (and indirectly – in a limited sense -- of salvation as well).

Revelation 1:4-5 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; [5] And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, . . .

The angels also participate in this spreading around of God’s grace.

Do 70% of Catholics Deny the Real Presence and Transubstantiation? Hardly! (Complexities of Polling Examined)

[ source ]

It is often heard that 7 out of 10 Catholics disbelieve in the Church's teaching on the Holy Eucharist. A quick Google search along these lines shows that many Catholics have accepted these figures, based on polling data. It's nothing new or unknown among Catholics at all. I have accepted this bit of "common knowledge" myself in the past. For example:

. . . about 70% of self-described Catholics deny the Real Presence . . .

(Catholic Debate on the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, 1998)

. . . some 70% of Catholics in America deny transubstantiation . . .

(How to Receive Communion: Tradition, Abuses, Symbolism, and Piety, 1-28-00)

If, then, an under-catechized man in the pews denies the Real Presence (as 70% do), . . . .

(my book, Twin Scourges: Thoughts on Anti-Catholicism and Theological Liberalism, completed in June 2003; #124 on p. 71)

Surveys show that 70-80% of Catholics deny the Real Presence, let alone transubstantiation.

(Agreements and Disagreements With Reformed Protestant Alastair Roberts' Series: "Some Thoughts on Transubstantiation", 1-31-05)

Thus, by simply changing the meaning of words, traditional doctrines can be eroded. We see the same thing in the Catholic Church. "Real Presence" has been so eroded historically that 70% of Catholics have picked up this thinking, and deny transubstantiation, as defined by the Church.

(Second Dialogue With Alastair Roberts (Reformed) on Transubstantiation, 2-4-05)

But is it correct? On occasion I have heard otherwise, and have seen some materials indicating that the situation is far more complex than that. Curious, I tried to find more data today that might challenge this understanding. For example, James D. Davidson, professor of sociology at Purdue University Purdue University, and co-author, with William V. D'Antonio, of American Catholics: Gender, Generation, and Commitment (Alta Mira Press, 2001) and contributor to The Search for Common Ground: What Unites and Divides Catholic Americans (Our Sunday Visitor, 1997), has done extensive study on the polls that arrived at this conclusion, and factors relating to why they arrived at the 70% figure, as summarized in a fascinating 2001 article:

Yes, Jesus is Really There: Most Catholics Still Agree (alternate URL)

After examining some factors involved in the well-known polls, he also cites other ones that produced a far different result: a Roper poll from 1997 indicated that 82% among American Catholics believed that "the bread and wine used in Mass are actually transformed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ." A CARA poll in 2001 found that 70% accepted that "Jesus Christ is really present" as opposed to 30% who thought "the bread and wine are symbols of Jesus." Davidson cites several additional studies and concludes that, while belief in the Real presence is declining somewhat, it is nowhere near as bleak as the 1992 Gallup and 1994 Times/CBS studies made out. It's a case study of how to ask poll questions, and how the question affects the answer. Davidson opined that the 1992 poll (of 519 Catholics) offered four elaborate choices over the phone: the nuances of which would have gone over many people' heads.

A commenter at Catholic Answers Forums, on 9 January 2008, fully understood the factors that go into polls and the results they can achieve (as a sociology major in college, I'm well-acquainted with these sorts of things, and so I should have known better than to uncritically accept the 70% figure, myself):

I keep hearing that figure but I have no idea whether or not it is true. I suspect it is false. No one has ever conducted such a poll of the parishioners in my parish; if they did, I'm confident that number of believers in the real presence would be quite high. Polling is hardly an infallible endeavor. If the source was in fact from a Gallup poll conducted 10 years ago, it would be instructive to see how the questions were worded and how the respondents were selected. What percentage of people believe in the validity of poll data extrapolated to general populations?

Even a non-Catholic who commented two days later understood this:

I'm not Catholic, in fact I am an anti-Catholic. Anyway, in the poll that I saw which is likely the one being discussed here the folks answering the poll had to choose the correct theological definition of the "real presence" from four different answers. I forgot how the answers were worded but not being able to choose the correct techinical definition of a doctrine doesn't mean that the folks rejected the idea. Maybe it means that 70% of the people polled needed to attend better catechism classes but it doesn't prove anything else. So, I am quite sure the number of catholics who believe in the real presence is quite a bit higher than 30%, though they may grasp the theology behind their belief as well as they should.

The late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, in the 11 January 2008 issue of the widely-read journal First Things (see alternate URL too), noted similar findings from an even more recent study:

. . . American Catholics Today: New Realities of Their Faith and Their Church, edited by William V. D’Antonio and his sociological colleagues (Rowman & Littlefield). . . .

The research behind the book was sponsored by the National Catholic Reporter, the premier voice of liberal Catholicism in this country, but, to their credit, the authors generally keep their liberal leanings in check. . . .

There are also items of real interest. For instance, 81 percent say that "belief that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist” is essential in their understanding of the Catholic faith. Keep in mind that the survey is of a cross section of the 65 million Catholics in the U.S. (although Latinos are greatly underrepresented). Among the more highly committed Catholics, it is reasonable to assume that belief in the Real Presence is considerably higher than 81 percent. This is worth keeping in mind because some years ago a clumsily worded question in a survey came up with the conclusion that only one third of Catholics believed in the Real Presence, and that “finding” still crops up in discussions on the state of Catholicism. Among active Catholics, belief in the Real Presence, as also in the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, and the Resurrection of Jesus, edges up toward unanimity.

In any event, counting heads has no bearing whatever on the status of Catholic dogma and the fact that we Catholics can resolve doctrinal disputes, whereas Protestantism has lost that ability, due to its first principles. This is what Catholic apologists contend -- not that unity automatically occurs in practice, which is obviously not the case, since liberalism and nominalism still are huge problems in Catholicism in terms of the views of poorly catechized individuals, who poorly understand or reject various Catholic teachings. I have dealt with this profound epistemological divide in my paper, Dissident Catholics and Catholic Doctrinal Unity: A Contradiction?

Self-Publishing and "Podunk Publishing" Efforts of Some of the Leading Anti-Catholic Authors (King, Webster, White, Svendsen)

[ source ]

Recently, some prominent anti-Catholics online have tried to make out that I am merely a "self-published" author, when in fact I now have four of my books published by two major Catholic publishers: Our Sunday Visitor (the largest Catholic publisher in the world), and Sophia Institute Press: a highly respected publisher that specializes in Catholic classics. Two of my books had been published by the year 2003; three by 2004, and four by 2007. Shortly, I'll have two more out: one with Sophia (Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths) and one with Saint Benedict Press (a Chesterton quotations book), making a total of six; with many more to come, by all reasonable indications and communications to me by my editors.

As always with these anti-Catholic naysayers, there has to be a glaring double standard. As I was eating my dinner tonight I was pondering a few of the big names among anti-Catholics online and who their publishers were. One of these luminaries of the anti-Catholic online provincial world is Pastor David T. King: the most ill-mannered man, bar none (including atheists and other non-Christians), -- though Gene "Troll" Bridges comes close -- that I've ever encountered online in 12 years. He referred to me recently (3 April 2009) as a "filthy, foulmouthed Romanist".

David T. King is co-author with William Webster of a three-volume set on sola Scriptura: Holy Scripture: the Ground and Pillar of Our Faith (see vol. 1 / vol. 2 / vol. 3 on amazon: currently at a 1 million sales rank or lower, while my books are generally in the range of 10,00-50,000 sales rank). I couldn't recall, sitting at dinner, try as I might, the name of the publisher. Well, after cruising over to trusty amazon, I discovered that it is the publishing industry titan Christian Resources, based in Battle Ground, Washington. Ever heard of them? I didn't think so. You're not alone. I did a bunch of Google searches in an effort to track down this publisher, to see what other books it has published. It took some work, as nothing was coming up.

After some difficulty, and after finding the location of the publisher in a Google Book Search, I finally ran across a website for this operation. And what did I find? Well, sure enough, it is a self-publishing operation. Very impressive, isn't it? Right on the home page, we read:

Christian Resources is a non-profit teaching, apologetics and publishing ministry . . . The director and Founder of Christian Resources is William Webster.

Ah; how difficult it is to publish your own book, without the burden of outside editors, or any quality control. Perhaps there is a board of directors? Maybe; though at this website one obtains no information whatsoever about that, if indeed it is the case. All we find are ten additional books by Webster. I fail to see how this makes him somehow a superior apologist. He publishes 13 of his own books with his own publishing company. I've done 13 of mine with Lulu. The difference, of course, is that I also have four books (soon to be six) with actual publishers, with boards and editors, and theological monitoring by scholars and bishops and priests, and operations independent of little ole Dave Armstrong, whereas Webster and King have none of that. They just have their own books published by themselves.

I thought that at least Webster must have "advanced degrees in theology and philosophy" in order to attain to the sublime title of apologist. So I set out on another difficult searching journey on the Internet, to look for his credentials. Well, I found this:

William A. Webster is a business man, living with his wife and children in Battle Ground, Washington. He has already authored The Christian Following Christ as Lord and Salvation, The Bible, and Roman Catholicism, and is a founder of Christian Resources, Inc., a tape and book ministry dedicated to teaching and evangelism.

Now, that doesn't tell us a whole heck of a lot, does it? We don't even know what business he is in, for heaven's sake. He founded a ministry. Big wow. Many have done that. Who is he accountable to? What denominational affiliation does he have? We learn none of that. All we know is that he has basically proclaimed himself an apologist and publishes his own books. Well, I should qualify that a little bit. His book, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (1996) was formerly published by Banner of Truth Trust. It is no longer. But at least that is a "real" publisher. Give credit where it is due . . . It specializes in the classics of Protestant history. That being the case, it is quite analogous from a Protestant perspective, to my publisher Sophia Institute Press, which specializes in Catholic classics. Thus, Webster has no more credentials than I do in that regard, and arguably even less.

I continued to search in vain for the man's education or credentials of any sort, other than being a "businessman" and self-publisher. I remembered that he had a chapter in a book in my own library, of several different authors, Roman Catholicism (1994; Chicago: Moody Press, edited by John Armstrong). I thought that might say something about his education and background. And alas, my search ended. On p. 11, in the "Contributors" section I learned that Webster obtained a B.A. from Southern Methodist University in who knows what?, and is a "businessman."

He was the least credentialed contributor of all those in the book (13 in all). That made him (at least at that time) no more formally educated than I am myself, with my B.A. in sociology and minor in psychology (Wayne State Univ., Detroit, 1982, cum laude). Elsewhere, I learned that the degree was in history (not theology), that Webster is a pastor, and that he was a graduate of the Evangelical Institute in Greenville, SC.

That's better, but what degree? The website for this school gives little information on degrees available, or whether it is an accredited institution. On a web page for the U.S. Department of Education about accreditation, I couldn't find the school listed under South Carolina. Perhaps I missed something. But it looks like Webster is little more educated than I am.

Webster's and King's three-volume obscurantist sophistry-fest on sola Scriptura was self-published and co-written by a man with no advanced degrees in theology (King has an M. Div. degree from Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, MS). 

Moving on to Eric Svendsen, here is (finally) a man with advanced degrees of some sort, granted. Who are his publishers, though? Upon This Slippery Rock is put out by Calvary Press, of Merrick, New York: not exactly an industry giant. Same thing for Who Is My Mother? Evangelical Answers: published by Reformation Press, which is such an influential force in evangelical publishing that it currently has four books in print (but alas, not including this one). The North American Distributor is Gospel Mission: Box 318, Choteau, MT 59422. This is clearly a thriving operation.

This is the best that a guy with a doctorate can do? He can't even keep a book in print from way back in 1999? What else can Eric come up with, book-wise? Well, there is always Learning to Master Your Bible: A Guide to Plumbing the Depths of God's Word (2001), self-published and spiral-bound, available for the bargain rate of $26.99 (+ $3.99 S&H). We must snap that up right away! There is also the self-published Table of the Lord (1996). Mighty impressive, all that . . .

The Grand Poobah and (Allegedly) Unvanquishable, Unanswerable Conqueror of Romanists, Rt. Rev. Bishop James R. White does a little better. He has a legitimate degree from Fuller Seminary and a highly questionable "doctorate" from an illegitimate storefront diploma mill (his "doctoral dissertation" was on the Trinity: really original, ain't it? I guess White is the world's biggest expert on that now). Who publishes his vaunted, much ballyhooed books?

Admittedly, his beginnings as a published author were quite humble. He was kind enough to send me three of his early books, when we first debated through the mail in 1995: The Fatal Flaw,  Justification by Faith, and Answers to Catholic Claims (all 1990). These were published by Crowne Publications, out of Southbridge, MA (that's how it is spelled on my copies, but in Google search, the title seems to be "Crown"). I couldn't find a thing about this company online. Somethin' tells me (just a hunch) that they ain't doin' too well these days. We all gotta start somewhere. I don't blame White for this. It is only the lies and double standards I object to.

White does have seven listed books with Bethany House Publishers, which is indeed a reputable, respectable (mostly) evangelical publisher, so he can get the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval in this respect of being published by a "real" and influential publisher, whereas King, Svendsen, and Webster surely cannot.

On a humorous note, however, Bethany also publishes all sorts of books by authors whose theology White would detest: folks whom he would say deny the gospel (yet we don't see White protesting and pulling his books in outrage, just as he abruptly ceased participating in Operation Rescue -- an effort I was also part of -- rather than pray with Catholics). For example, the roster of authors includes Catholics (all friends or acquaintances of mine) Scott Hahn (gasp!!!!), Francis J. Beckwith (including the conversion story, Return to Rome), my own editor at Sophia, Stratford Caldecott, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Christopher and Rachel McCluskey, and Joseph Pearce, as well as a host of Protestants he would consider misguided: Arminians, charismatics (e.g., Derek Prince), liberals (e.g., Clark Pinnock), compromisers on various scores, etc.

New Low in Anti-Catholic Protestant Polemics: Steve Hays Says I Want Child Molesters and Sexual Abusers to be Given Free Access to Children

Well, I suppose I can't say it is completely new. Kevin Johnson went after Catholic apologists en masse in the same way, a while back. So he was the pioneer of this new tactic. Steve "Whopper" Hays (never much of an innovator) merely made it more personal and comes after me with his latest sordid charge (his blog post of 4-25-09), in an attempt to get the spotlight off of real sexual offenders. Anti-Catholic "argumentation" in its finest hour . . .

My words were cited:

Steve Hays is saying today that the very accusation ruins someone's life. Not in Christianity. We are forgivers because that is God's nature. I could just as well argue that King David's reputation was forever ruined because he committed adultery and murder.

From this, Hays -- obviously a man of great intelligence, if not wisdom or ethical profundity, somehow or other deduces the following:

This is a very revealing statement. It helps to explain the mentality which permits Armstrong to remain a Catholic. . . . As long as a predatory priest confesses his sin, then he receives absolution, and he can continue to work with young people. . . .

If a man has a strong sexual attraction to teenage boys, then he shouldn’t be ministering to teenage boys. What could be more obvious? If a man’s a compulsive gambler, would you first forgive him and then put him right back in the casino?

But you can tell from Armstrong’s attitude that if he were the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston, he’d do exactly what Bernard Law was doing. And that’s because he shares the same twisted mindset. As long as a predatory priest fesses up in the privacy of the confessional, then it’s time to forgive and forget. At most we reassign him to another parish. He may be a repeat offender, but he’s been forgiven.

It doesn't need to be refuted, of course, so outrageous and patently ridiculous is this charge (and I debated in my mind whether I should respond at all to this filth), but needless to say, Hays can't prove that I have ever advocated such a scenario; can't prove it, because it doesn't exist, so (failing that) he draws the illogical and unfounded conclusion from the data he presents and hopes no one will notice his shameless twisting and lying. And this was the man who was lecturing all of us about -- of all things -- the nature of legal evidence (!!!) some two weeks ago, when a certain sad case was being discussed.

For those who haven't yet perceived the huge logical lapse that occurred here, it involves either not comprehending (or deliberately mispresenting, which is an ethical rather than a logical matter) the distinction between the following two scenarios:

1. X commits habitual, addictive sex crime Y that entailed victim Z.

2. X can and should be forgiven if he repents.

3. Having repented, X ought to be allowed free private access to the class of people from which Z was drawn [in this instance, young girls: the victim being his own daughter], since he won't commit crime Y again, having repented of it.

* * *

1b. X commits habitual, addictive sex crime Y that entailed victim Z.

2b. X can and should be forgiven if he repents.

3b. Even if X truly repents, however, X should never be allowed free private access at all to the class of people from which Z was drawn [in this instance, young girls: the victim being his own daughter], since he will likely commit crime Y again, despite having repented of it; because it is well-known that sexually addictive crimes are extremely difficult to extirpate from the consciousness and behavior of the sex offender.

My position is, of course (and always has been, and never has not been), set of propositions / ethical position [1b-2b-3b]. Hays is caricaturing and torturing my position to make out that it is set of propositions / ethical position [1-2-3].

More specifically, the inexcusable logical error is to assume that 1 and 2 (granting biblical teaching) entail 3, rather than 1 and 2 entailing 3b. He merely assumed that in my head 3 followed from 1 and 2, but it does not at all. It doesn't follow logically and it doesn't morally, incorporating the information that we have learned about such cases of addictive sexual sin. Then he makes an equation between my supposed beliefs and the actions of Cardinal Law in the sexual scandals. Thirdly, he makes out (as did Kevin Johnson) that it is intrinsic to authentic Catholic morality (not just abuses of same) that such an outrage would be sanctioned according to the principles of same. This is slander (with the accompanying slimy anti-Catholicism) of the highest order.

All I said was that a pedophile and perpetrator of incest could be forgiven. If even victims of this outrage are willing and able to do so by God's grace, everyone else should be willing also. I was trying to find some semblance of a positive kernel in this whole sordid affair. That was the context of my remark (4-14-09 on my blog):

"Deb": [Name] has some wonderful articles on her blog about dealing with the scars of sexual abuse. You don't have to be Catholic or even a Christian to find her blog helpful for victims of sexual abuse.

I agree. I think her series is extraordinary, which is why I linked to it months ago (without incident at the time). [Name]'s approach is the biblical, Christian one: all can be healed and there can be reconciliation. But the rest of her family wants none of that. They want to keep the rift going and to blame her.

Steve Hays is saying today that the very accusation ruins someone's life. Not in Christianity. We are forgivers because that is God's nature. I could just as well argue that King David's reputation was forever ruined because he committed adultery and murder.

That's not how God saw it. He decided to include that episode in the Bible precisely to demonstrate His extraordinary mercy. David was forgiven, because he profoundly repented. The covenant with him was not revoked.

If [Name]'s father would simply repent and acknowledge his sin I for one would admire him. If we truly understand the depths of man's sin (as [Name] always emphasizes, being a Calvinist), then this shouldn't be so unspeakable. We're all potentially capable of these sins. It's all around us. Sexual sin is endemic. The thing is to repent of it and move on.

If [Name] can forgive her father, all of us ought to as well. I would be happy to have the whole family over for dinner were this to be resolved.

I didn't say a word about some horrific scenario of allowing a pedophile to be with young girls again merely because he had repented. Hays assumed that what I said entailed that, but it doesn't at all. I was talking strictly about forgiveness, not about the temporal penalties of sin or the clear, understood restrictions that ought to be put on pedophiles. I assumed that was so obvious that no one would imagine in their wildest dreams that I thought otherwise. But I didn't count on the extreme anti-Catholic irrationality and hostility to Catholics that Hays infamously exemplifies. I should have known "Whopper" Hays was capable of doing just that and shameless enough to actually do it, so as to concentrate the focus on exactly all the wrong things and not where the spotlight should be. And so here we are.

Hays (who, note also, wants to keep this ugly controversy going, publicly, not I, by writing this latest ridiculous post of his; whereas I haven't even named any names or made links in this post, save one to the unrelated Kevin Johnson potshot) had cited my same words (yanked from their context, of course) in a combox comment of 4-14-09) and replied as follows:

Of course that's hardly the point. Indeed, that's the polar opposite of the point I was making. If a man is guilty as charged (of incest or child molestation), then the charge ought to ruin his reputation. It would be disappointing if a crime like that didn't ruin his reputation.

My point was quite relevant because if some sin can utterly ruin a man's reputation, then why is it that God didn't revoke the covenant with David: the adulterer and murderer, and why did He use St. Paul (mass murderer of Christians) so wonderfully? Hays isn't even distantly biblical on this score. He vastly underestimates God's grace and mercy and ability to reconcile sinners with each other, as well as with Him. My point was not to put the pedophile back with more of his potential victims (heaven forbid) , but to forgive even the despised, detested pedophile if he would just repent. That's how deep mercy runs.

We're talking about the soul of the perpetrator as well as that of the victim. That is Christianity (love it or hate it). Hays may want every pedophile and child molester to go to hell and rot and be tormented forever. I do not and I don't think God does, either. He wants them to repent of their sin and stop doing it, and to accept His amazing grace and be saved. [Victim Name]'s message is ultimately positive: healing and reconciliation and the necessary acknowledgment of sin that leads to same.

Hays continued in the same comment:

But that's the point–the real point. It's because the charge is so damaging that you should never accuse someone of incest of child molestation unless you know what you're talking about. Especially in the very public medium of the blogosphere.

Exactly. I think if someone was there and thus (not to be crude) was an eyewitness, for ten years, then they indeed "know what [they're] talking about." But Hays will have none of the victim's report. He wants to play games instead and cavalierly dismiss the victim and use the tragedy as a pretext for lying about me, as if I want to see children be sexually abused because my Catholic theology supposedly encourages such evil.

Having discharged his anti-Catholic duty to lie shamelessly, utilizing no logic at all and not a shred of factual documentation for this ludicrous accusation, Hays at least provides an ironically precious example of absurd humor, by lecturing me about the Catholic doctrine of the temporal consequences of sin:

Finally, the comparison with King David is a very ill-considered example to illustrate Armstrong’s point. It’s not as though God simply forgave David and wiped the slate clean, like nothing ever happened. To the contrary, God made David suffer punitive consequences for his sin:

“Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.' Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.'…Because by this deed you have utterly scorned the LORD, the child who is born to you shall die” (2 Sam 12:10-12,14).

I guess that's why I utilized the same passage in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, completed in 1996 (on p. 157: anyone can look this up on Amazon Reader), with the comment:

Again, the sinner David was forgiven, but the temporal punishment was not obliterated (his child was to die; particular sins often harm the innocent who have nothing to do with them), as in Catholic teaching.

Thanks for the belly laughs, Steve . . .

In all seriousness, though (I thought we all needed a little comic relief by now), is this not a sickening and revolting scenario? Having argued at the greatest length, with thorough vigor (if not sense) that one victim of relentless incest for years can't be believed because that is all "hearsay," Hays then thinks he is taking the moral high ground by lecturing me (with no reason whatever to think that I think in this hideous fashion) for allegedly not caring about victims of sexual abuse. I'm the one who doesn't care, yet he will wink at and take no stand at all about this one particular case, . . .

I didn't make the charge; I simply believe what the alleged victim is saying (publicly). And what is more like the tragic Catholic pedophile scandal (and many similar Protestant clergy sexual scandals) than turning your head, disbelieving victims' firsthand reports, attacking victims as delusional and unstable, pretending as if nothing has happened, and becoming enablers? That could cause further grave harm to more potential victims and lead to the ruination of the soul of the perpetrator as well. No one helps the alcoholic by putting their head in the sand or under a pillow or doing the "see no evil, hear no evil" monkey routine and pretending there is no problem. Real love will confront the sinner who is himself a victim, because love and Christian compassion wants to see the sin gone and the person liberated from bondage to that sin, through the power that is available in our Lord and Savior and Redeemer Jesus Christ, to transform lives and turn sinners into new creatures.

And again (I have to make this disclaimer for obvious reasons), in saying that, I am not advocating allowing known sex offenders to be alone with the sorts of persons they have been known to exploit and use and abuse in the past. Absolutely not. Keep them away, for the good of all.

* * * * *

This guy is flat-out amazing and extraordinarily dense: even by the rock-bottom standards of anti-Catholic mentality. Here is how he "responded" on 4-27-09:

Not only was King David forgiven, but he kept his job. He continued to exercise his royal duties. So, by analogy with sexually abusive Catholic clergy–and, remember, this is Armstrong’s own analogy–a Catholic priest who seduces minors should be allowed to keep him job as long as he’s penitent about his crimes.

It’s not my fault if Armstrong’s circuitry is too crisscrossed to think straight. But that’s the clear implication of his argument from analogy. . . .

If, according to Armstrong, confession and absolution is sufficient to rehabilitate the reputation of a child molester, then why not return him to active duty? It’s not as if he has a reputation for pedophilia. For, according to Armstrong, confession and absolution rehabilitate his tarnished image in the eyes of God. So, then, why wouldn’t you allow a pedophile to minister to kids if his reputation is intact?

!!!! Is it possible for a thinking, conscious human being to be this obtuse and noncomprehending? Has his personal derision towards me truly made his brain stop functioning to this astonishing degree? With Hays I often wonder if he is playing and pretending to be an idiot rather than actually being one, in how he "reasons." This sad specimen of "reasoning" won't solve that because it is so utterly ludicrous that one almost has to conclude in charity for Hays' sake that he is playing games: that he couldn't possibly be so dense and clueless.

King David kept being a king, therefore child molesters should be in close proximity to children . . . wow. I don't think Hays' anti-Catholic cronies will be able to top (er, "bottom") this new low. The bar has been set (um, well, buried), and this record will stand the test of time and defeat all efforts to be dumber!

Biblical Evidence for Penitential and Redemptive Suffering

The stigmata, as seen on the hand of St. Padre Pio

[KJV]

Matthew 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Matthew 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. (cf. Mk 8:34-35)

Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Romans 15:1-2 We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. [2] Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification.

1 Corinthians 12:26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

1 Corinthians 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? (RSV: “Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?”)

2 Corinthians 1:5-7 For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ. [6] And whether we be afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer: or whether we be comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation. [7] And our hope of you is stedfast, knowing, that as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so shall ye be also of the consolation.

2 Corinthians 4:8-12,15 We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; [9] Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; [10] Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. [11] For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. [12] So then death worketh in us, but life in you. . . . [15] For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God. (cf. 5:12-13)

2 Corinthians 12:15,19 And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved . . . [19] Again, think ye that we excuse ourselves unto you? we speak before God in Christ: but we do all things, dearly beloved, for your edifying. (RSV: “be spent for your souls”)

Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Galatians 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

Galatians 6:17 From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.

The Greek word for “marks” here is stigma, from which Catholics derive the term stigmata.

Ephesians 3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,

Ephesians 3:13 Wherefore I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which is your glory.

Philippians 1:7,12-14 Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace. . . . [12] But I would ye should understand, brethren, that the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel; [13] So that my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places; [14] And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.

Philippians 1:29-30 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake; [30] Having the same conflict which ye saw in me, and now hear to be in me.

Philippians 2:17 Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all.

Philippians 3:10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

Colossians 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: (RSV: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,”)

2 Thessalonians 1:4-5 So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure: [5] Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer: (cf. 1 Thess 1:5)

2 Timothy 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

2 Timothy 4:6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. (RSV: “For I am already on the point of being sacrificed”)

1 Peter 2:19-21 For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. [20] For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. [21] For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

1 Peter 4:12-14 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: [13] But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. [14] If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified. (cf. 4:1)

1 John 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

Biblical Evidence for Baptismal Regeneration

[ source ]

[KJV]

Joshua 3:15-16 And as they that bare the ark were come unto Jordan, and the feet of the priests that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of the water, (for Jordan overfloweth all his banks all the time of harvest,) [16] That the waters which came down from above stood and rose up upon an heap very far from the city Adam, that is beside Zaretan: and those that came down toward the sea of the plain, even the salt sea, failed, and were cut off: and the people passed over right against Jericho.

2 Kings 2:7-11 And fifty men of the sons of the prophets went, and stood to view afar off: and they two stood by Jordan. [8] And Elijah took his mantle, and wrapped it together, and smote the waters, and they were divided hither and thither, so that they two went over on dry ground. [9] And it came to pass, when they were gone over, that Elijah said unto Elisha, Ask what I shall do for thee, before I be taken away from thee. And Elisha said, I pray thee, let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me. [10] And he said, Thou hast asked a hard thing: nevertheless, if thou see me when I am taken from thee, it shall be so unto thee; but if not, it shall not be so. [11] And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

Ezekiel 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (cf. Lk 24:47)

Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. (RSV: “for the forgiveness of sins”)

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Luke 1:76-77 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; [77] To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, (cf. Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3; Acts 2:38)

Luke 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (cf. Mt 28:19)

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Acts 2:38-41 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. [39] For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. [40] And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. [41] Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. (RSV: “for the forgiveness of your sins”; cf. 10:43-48))

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Romans 6:3-4 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? [4] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (RSV: “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified”)

1 Corinthians 10:1-2 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; [2] And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; (cf. Ex 15:19)

Galatians 3:26-27 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. [27] For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Ephesians 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Hebrews 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

1 Peter 3:20-21 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. [21] The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Biblical Evidence for Relics and the Sacramental Principle

Peter Healing the Sick With His Shadow, by Masaccio (1401-1428)

[KJV]

Exodus 29:37 Seven days thou shalt make an atonement for the altar, and sanctify it; and it shall be an altar most holy: whatsoever toucheth the altar shall be holy.

Exodus 30:28-29 And the altar of burnt offering with all his vessels, and the laver and his foot. [29] And thou shalt sanctify them, that they may be most holy: whatsoever toucheth them shall be holy.

Leviticus 6:27 Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy: . . . (cf. 6:18)

2 Kings 2:11-14 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. [12] And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces. [13] He took up also the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and went back, and stood by the bank of Jordan; [14] And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said, Where is the LORD God of Elijah? and when he also had smitten the waters, they parted hither and thither: and Elisha went over.

Elijah’s mantle is an example of a “second-class” relic: items that have power because they were connected with a holy person.

2 Kings 13:20-21 And Elisha died, and they buried him. And the bands of the Moabites invaded the land at the coming in of the year. [21] And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.

The bones or relics of Elisha had so much supernatural power or “grace” in them that they could even cause a man to be raised from the dead. His bones were a “first-class” relic: from the person himself or herself.

Mark 5:25-30 And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years, [26] And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse, [27] When she had heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, and touched his garment. [28] For she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole. [29] And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague. [30] And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes?

Luke 8:43-48 And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any, [44] Came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched. [45] And Jesus said, Who touched me? When all denied, Peter and they that were with him said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me? [46] And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me. [47] And when the woman saw that she was not hid, she came trembling, and falling down before him, she declared unto him before all the people for what cause she had touched him and how she was healed immediately. [48] And he said unto her, Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace.

Jesus did say that the woman’s faith made her well, yet the instrumentality of a physical object in contact with Jesus was also a factor: as indicated precisely by its effect of causing “power” to go “forth from him.” God used the physical object for spiritual (and supernatural physical) purposes: a healing. We see it again, when Jesus heals the blind man:

John 9:6-7 When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, [7] And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

Jesus could have simply declared him healed, with no material object used. But, interestingly enough, Jesus didn’t do that. He used a bodily fluid (his own), and also clay, or dirt, and then the water of the pool, and rubbed the man’s eyes, to effect the miracle (two liquids, solid matter, and physical anointing action of fingers). The Bible thus teaches that physical things related to a holy person in some fashion, can be channels in order to bring about miracles. This is exactly how Catholics view relics. There are several other examples of the same thing, with touch or matter of some sort being utilized to heal:

Matthew 8:14-15 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever. [15] And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them.

Matthew 9:28-30 And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord. [29] Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you. [30] And their eyes were opened; and Jesus straitly charged them, saying, See that no man know it.

Mark 1:30-31 But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her. [31] And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and immediately the fever left her, and she ministered unto them.

Mark 7:33-35 And he took him aside from the multitude, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spit, and touched his tongue; [34] And looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened. [35] And straightway his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain.

Mark 8:22-25 And he cometh to Bethsaida; and they bring a blind man unto him, and besought him to touch him. [23] And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought. [24] And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking. [25] After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly.

Mark 9:26-27 And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him: and he was as one dead; insomuch that many said, He is dead. [27] But Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him up; and he arose.

Luke 13:12-13 And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. [13] And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God.

Luke 14:2-4 And, behold, there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy. [3] And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? [4] And they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go;

See also the examples of lepers healed by Jesus’ touch (Mt 8:2; Mk 1:40-41; Lk 5:13), and touch used to raise the dead (Mt 9:24-25; Mk 5:40-42; 8:53-55), and further similar examples in Chapter Nine. One of these miracles is particularly interesting:

Luke 7:13-15 And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not. [14] And he came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. [15] And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother.

Note that Jesus merely touched the bier that the coffin was being carried on, not even the person himself. Luke thought that this was important enough to mention. The implication is that grace was indirectly channeled by touch through the bier (an inanimate object) to the dead man, for the purpose of raising him.

Acts 5:15-16 Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. [16] There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.

St. Peter’s shadow is another example of a “second-class” relic. Jesus’ garments and saliva are also in this category.

Acts 19:11-12 And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: [12] So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them. (cf. Mt 9:20-22)

This is a third-class relic: a thing that has merely touched a holy person or first-class relic (St. Paul’s handkerchiefs and aprons).

Helpful Critique of the Footnotes of the New American Bible (Ben Douglass)

"Ben, DA will not listen to anything you say,. . ."

". . . a disclaimer should be put forth, that the NCAB [Dave: which uses the NAB] has theological poison in it harmful to Roman Catholics. Will DA do this? I doubt it. . . . He's more interested in praise for his work . . . Mr. Armstrong is a theologian of glory. It's all about the glory of DA."

(Anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant sophist and muddleheaded "thinker" John Q. "Deadhead" Doe, 4-15-09 and 4-14-09)

Ben Douglass, an orthodox Catholic of the "traditionalist" variety, has written a meaty critique of the footnotes of the New American Bible. I wouldn't necessarily agree with every jot and tittle of it, upon closer inspection, and it cites Catholic popes and scholarship from nearly exclusively 50 years ago or more (Popes Benedict XVI and John Paul II are never mentioned), but overall, the amount of study and research that he has put into this is highly commendable, and it deserves considerable respect and attention.

See:

Wolf in Calfskin: The Rampant Liberalism of the NAB (+ Part Two)

Note that Ben recently clarified on John Q. Doe's blog, that his primary concern is with the footnotes, not the text:

The NAB's footnotes are hideously liberal.

(4-9-09)

In order to recommend the NCAB, I'd have to attach a cumbersome number of qualifiers. The text is reliable for the most part but I would have to point out examples of where not to trust it. It would be much easier just to recommend the RSV-CE and A Biblical Defense of Catholicism or The One Minute Apologist.

(4-10-09)

I agree with those recommendations (!), as I have used RSV myself for many years now, and always do in my own books (excepting my latest, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, which is almost all Scripture, so I used KJV due to copyright restrictions). If Ben wants to note texts that he considers questionable in the combox here, in which case he could make a highly qualified recommendation of the text, he is more than welcome to do so.

I used to link to an older critique of Ben's on my Theological Liberalism web page (I carry a lot fewer links than I used to, because I got sick of always updating them). Here are the links, including Ben's, that I formerly listed under "Higher Criticism of Holy Scripture" (from my old website: dated 26 August 2006):

Crisis in Scripture Studies (William G. Most)
Critique of the Documentary Theory (William G. Most)
Is Scripture Full of Errors? (William G. Most )
On Bible "Errors" and "Contradictions" (Luke Wadel)
"Contradictions" of the Bible (Luke Wadel & William G. Most)
The Bible: Free From All Error (Fathers' Views; compiled by Joe Gallegos)
Objections (Replies to alleged Bible contradictions)
Destroying the Bible (John Young)
Contemporary Catholic Biblical Scholarship: Certitudes or Hypotheses? (Msgr. Michael J. Wrenn)
Historical-Critical Scripture Studies and the Catholic Faith (Michael Waldstein)
Kulturkampf and the Gospel (John Beaumont)
Catholic Encyclopedia: BIBLICAL CRITICISM (HIGHER)
Catholic Encyclopedia: HISTORICAL CRITICISM
Catholic Encyclopedia: BIBLICAL CRITICISM (TEXTUAL)
Are the Biblical Documents Reliable? (Jimmy Williams)
Manuscript Evidence for the Bible (Ron Rhodes)
Are the Gospels Mythical? (Rene Girard)
Gospel Debate (Historicity) (Antonio Gaspari)
Historicity of the Gospels (Pontifical Bible Commission)
Gospels Controversy (Dating and Authorship) (Robert Moynihan)
The Gnostic Gospels: Are They Authentic? (Douglas Groothuis)
Catholic Encyclopedia: MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE
Catholic Encyclopedia: DELUGE
Modern Biblical Scholarship: Friend or Foe? (James Hitchcock)

The New American Bible: Is It Good for Catholics? (Ben Douglass and Jacob Michael)

Genesis is a Book (Documentary Hypothesis) (Jeremy Holmes)
NEO-PATRISTIC EXEGESIS TO THE RESCUE (John F. McCarthy)
Response to a Form-Critical Interpretation of the First Four Days of Creation (John F. McCarthy)
The Literal Sense of Genesis 1:1-5: The First Day of Creation (John F. McCarthy)
CONTRADICTIONS IN SCRIPTURE? (Brian W. Harrison)
A NEO-PATRISTIC REPLY TO THE HISTORICAL-CRITICAL QUESTION (John F. McCarthy)
A WAYWARD TURN IN BIBLICAL THEORY (Raymond Brown) (Msgr. George A. Kelly)

Note Ben's article, separated from the others, to show where it is. It is no longer online under this URL. I tried to find a current version but was unsuccessful (since Ben has split with his former boss, Robert Sungenis, on whose site this was posted). Perhaps Ben knows where one can be found.

For related reading, see:

The New American Bible, Jimmy Akin

Why Folks Are Buying the Bestselling New Catholic Answer Bible / Clueless Anti-Catholic Attacks On It

Aids For Catholics: Selecting a Bible Translation

Tim Enloe Disses Apologetics

[originally posted on 8 April 2004]

From the Greg Krehbiel Board:

-----------------------

Tim (Presbyterian) took down both his blog and his website a day or two ago, exasperated with the ignorance, tunnel vision, and bullheadedness of (from hearing him report it) many fellow Protestants (I certainly wholeheartedly agree with him where it concerns anti-Catholics, and he makes many dead-on observations about them). He has already (predictably) indicated that he will be back; but I am interested here in one particular comment that he made:

. . . thanks to all this crap I have at last realized that "apologetics" as a way of living is fundamentally destructive to a healthy Christian life, and I will not do that "defensor fidei" thing anymore. Much of my material will have to be re-written to excise that "Catastrophe! Emergency! Defend THE TRUTH NOW!" tone from it . . .

The reason I cite this is because Tim took a swipe at my own vocation: apologetics, on irrational and most unfair grounds. Having failed at the enterprise himself (by his own admission), he applies the old familiar scenario of "throwing the baby out with the bath water." He acts as if no one can do apologetics better than he has been able to do it, and without serious harm to Christian spirituality and discipleship. But (hello!!!) his life and his experience are not everyone else's.

Having been mentored by the very worst examples of apologists (hanging around their forums and being a moderator in them for years): James White, Eric Svendsen, and David T. King (all of whom are now falsely and absurdly attacking him publicly as "heterodox" and so forth), he seems to conclude (at least one might get the impression) that they represent apologetics per se. Who wouldn't be fed up with apologetics if these guys were the example and model they were going by? But they are not "mainstream" either. They are anti-Catholics: an intellectually and ecclesiologically suicidal and bankrupt position which belongs in the dung-heap with all the other false and idiotic theologies throughout history.

I guess Tim thinks that if he fails at apologetics, the entire apologetic enterprise and endeavor must somehow be at fault. He has primarily chosen the path of blaming others, rather than simply examining his own life, style, and methodology, to see if he has any cause in the perpetual controversy that seems to surround him (I don't deny that he examines himself, too, but it is far from his highest priority, judging by his recent utterances). There is necessary controversy and unnecessary controversy. God is the main cause of the first, but men generate the second.

I would like to draw an even larger moral from all this. Another poster, "On the Road to Emmaus," offered a much better course, I think:

Somehow, no matter what crap gets thrown at us, no matter the frustrations, trials and adversities we face, we must find a way to live by the Spirit, abiding faith, hope, love. It's only natural to resort to anger, bitterness and cynicism, but it's just as surely a defeat, both to ourselves and to the cause of the gospel, as is the present intellectual state of Christianity that you decry. In fact, I think you could make a strong case that it is an even worse defeat, but I'll leave that much alone for now.

When you see something true, just as in the day that you first understood the gospel, you want to share it. You want to share how clear, understandable and transforming it is. Yet what follows is often a disillusionment, as we realize that others are not easily persuaded of what we know to be true. Our words should be able to persuade, yet they more often than not don't, and that is very perplexing and frustrating.

But how quickly we forget that nothing comes apart from grace. Even for us who believe, God must continue to lead us like babes. We can know nothing rightly apart from the ongoing revealing and enlightening work of the Spirit. If our articulations persuade anyone, it's my opinion that it is still grace that has allowed this to happen. But I think we are conditioned to think that our reasonings are the immediate cause of change in cases like this. So when that fails to happen, we respond predictably in line with this presupposition.

Tim, it looks to me like you're forgetting this, and in your frustration, you're resorting to the same attitude towards your "opponents" that you despise when you observe it in others, which only reflects the fact that you're carrying on as though reasoning alone ought to be able to overcome whatever obstacles there are to Christians moving toward a more informed type of Christianity.

I wanted to suggest some time off for you some months back, after reading a similar cynical outburst, but I didn't follow through. I do encourage you to make yourself stay with your proposed course. I believe you will be surprised at the refreshment that it will bring.

This is spiritual wisdom and great insight (wise words for all apologists and all who comment and engage in theological discussion on the Internet or anywhere else), and a far better response than my own. In another post, the same person wrote:

I don't have the answers for you, Tim, but I've wanted to say before that your increasing cynicism is NOT the answer. The anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.

What you seem to be suggesting, boiled down, is simply one more version of the same things you are decrying, which all amount to different takes on "How we really ought to think (live, act, perceive)". The standard, no matter what it may be in this case or that, always comes down to something you have, but which the masses lack. Be very careful here, brother. A man can see lots of truth, yet allow it to produce the fruit of bitterness rather than the fruit of the Spirit.

. . . What I've noted with some perplexity is how the critic in Christendom much more often than not functions almost exactly parallel to the music critic, the cultural critic, the political critic, even down to the snide condescension which invariably manifests itself.

. . . the fact remains that the only victory is found if we crusade with the right spirit. See James 3:17-18. I find this to be a beautiful promise, a fully sufficient cause to stay the course of peacableness and gentleness in all that we do, despite its apparent ineffectiveness to our eyes at times.

Everything you note may be true, but if it is not directed through the proper channel, it becomes destructive rather than edifying. If you want a tangible example, think of Moses before the rock. Moses possessed the truth regarding the rock, and its coming supply of water. Yet his anger made him sin. There were consequences to Moses for this, and I'm sure there was a spiritual analogy to Christ that got muddied up through his disobedience.

. . . it may be that the critic/reformer fulfills his calling, not by decrying the fact that everyone else isn't like him, but by simply manifesting in himself the principles that he believes to be important, and leaving the conformity or non-conformity of others to his image to God's sovereign good pleasure. It may very well be that in doing that, he is fulfilling his calling in the church.

Tim didn't seem to accept this wise, godly counsel:

. . . it's worst among my own tradition, the Reformed. Why can't I get all these Heroic Champions of the One True Gospel of Solafidian Propositions to think for two seconds about the cultural implications of the Nicene Creed (just to take an example)? Why, simple. They're too busy being stuck up little Modernists with their noses rammed in the cracks of their Bibles and their minds endlessly running in the grooves of "literal interpretation" and "thank God I'm really regenerate unlike that bastard over there who doesn't spell 'justification' right" to think about the bigger issues. They're so busy saying "We have Luther and Calvin for our fathers and have never been slaves to anyone" that they can't even tolerate a little MODERATE dissent about whether it's really possible for radicalized credobaptist expectations of culture to unite with historic paedobaptist expectations of culture under the rationalistic (i.e., non sacramental and merely propositional) banner of "the Five Solas". Challenge this Evangelical status quo with serious resources from the Christian past (before, during, and after the supposed High Point of All Civilization, the Protestant Reformation), and what you get is a ridiculous egalitarian emotionalism and self-serving refusal to even process the questions being asked, much less try to deal with them: "You just stepped on my pansy little toes you Big Meanie! You need pastoral oversight of your internet activities and serious prayer for all this hate you're manifesting toward me."

Cynical, Road? Yeah, I'm cynical. I stopped sucking on the rarified atmosphere of "The Only Thing That Matters is TULIP and to Hell With All Idolators, Which Of Course, I Am Not" a long time ago and started taking historic Christianity seriously. Wonder of wonders, I'm still Reformed and am not going to become not-Reformed. But everywhere go I meet other Reformed people who think Fundamentalist obscurantism is the key to godliness and that if they have to think seriously for two seconds about something that doesn't instantly comport with their "common sense" understanding of the Reformed Faith and of Holy Scripture, why, it's Game Over and we might as well all go back to Rome. Cynical? Yeah, I'm cynical. Why should I not be?

But Tim also showed some signs that he accepted the validity of this wise counsel, in another response:

Of course those are good thoughts insofar as they go. But I guess I wonder what sorts of controversies you've been involved in . . .

Now you might be wiser than me, perhaps, in that you might simply back off when you're talking to Hard Heads Who Just Don't Get It. If so, I accept your comments as a just rebuke of my immaturity in continuing to deal with such idiots . . .

If you can be "nice" and show endless charity to fools who claim that they really love the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura even though they publicly and with increasing radicalism dissociate themselves from its most relevant historical expressions, or zealots who reduce the Church of Christ to a tiny clique that can say the soteriological "shibboleth" properly, then you really are a better man and a better Christian than I.

The path has been shown by this other "counselor": wise, charitable spiritual exhortation that we would all be wise to heed and follow to the best of our ability, with God's enabling grace making it possible.

The Sham Ecumenism and "Reformed Catholicism" of Tim Enloe

[originally posted on 22 December 2005]

The seeming cynicism of the title has come very slowly to me, but the latest developments over at the Reformed Catholicism blog have more or less forced me (albeit reluctantly still) to come to this conclusion. Please let me explain.

Genuine ecumenism accepts another brand of Christianity (and even respects it in large degree) for what it is. It doesn't try to paper over differences or pretend that others are something that they are not, or deny that one's own affiliation is (in their opinion) the preferable and indeed, best and most belief-worthy type of Christianity. Liberal attempts at "ecumenism" fall into these traps, but conservative evangelical and Catholic ecumenism (such as seen in the Evangelicals and Catholics Together ["ECT"] accords or Vatican II or Pope John Paul II's ecumenical encyclicals) does not.

Thus, the trouble with Tim Enloe, and to some extent, even the much more rhetorically and temperamentally moderate Kevin Johnson, who is the main figure at Reformed Catholicism, is that they reject these key distinctions. Tim (the main culprit) is not content to let other Christians simply be who they are, and to rejoice in the common ground that can be acknowledged. No; instead, it seems to be fundamental to his outlook to run down others who don't agree with him; indeed, even to systematically mock them as undesirables and as unacceptably, outrageously hostile to his own particular (almost self-designed) program and mindset of "Reformed Catholicism." We see this repeatedly, and I shall provide examples of this sad behavior below.

This is what has led me to conclude that "Reformed Catholicism" (at least how Tim Enloe construes it) is a sham. It is not in actuality what it often professes to be. Otherwise, there would be the appropriate amount of respect shown to other Christians who may not agree in its entirety with the program and agenda of "Reformed Catholicism." In fact, according to Tim's mentality, there is something fundamentally wrong for a Catholic to be a Catholic, or an Orthodox to be an Orthodox. This is to not only be opposed, but mocked and derided as almost a mentally ill hindrance to the Grand Project of Christian Unity (on Tim's terms, of course).

"Reformed Catholicism" seems to be, then, at bottom, merely a clever (even ingenious) attempt at pretending that Reformed Protestantism hold the "pride of place" in the Christian world, so to speak: the position that Catholicism now holds. It gives lip service to both ecumenism and Church history and history of doctrine in order to undermine Catholic emphases on same and to co-opt Catholic distinctives (knowing that it must do so to have any semblance of preeminence).

You see, to be an Orthodox or a Catholic, in Tim's eyes, is to automatically be arrogant and unwilling to learn from others, because Orthodox and Catholics believe that Christian truth can and has been found. We both believe that there is an apostolic deposit which can be concretely identified; it has been located; it is possessed by the Church already, and was from the beginning. Christians are not on an eternal quest after truth (at least not in its main outlines, but also even down to significant detail). This has always been the case, and was also the case for the early Protestants (whom Tim claims to be hearkening back to and reviving in spirit).

Tim Enloe believes, on the other hand, that the entire Christian truth can never be found in its entirety or located in any particular group. For him, all Christian communions possess serious error, and always will. No one will ever be able to arrive at the fullness of Christian truth (as Catholics and Orthodox claim). It's an eternal quest. This mentality essentially lacks faith and ties the hands of God. God is unable to overcome human weakness and fallibility (even though he already did so in producing an infallible Bible by means of fallible, sinful men).

Christianity is, then (in a large epistemological sense) reduced to philosophy (which often suffers from the same shortcoming of never seeming to be able to arrive at a set of undeniable truths). This is why several observers have noted that Tim's outlook is corrupted with postmodernist ideals. The postmodernist takes a jaded view of someone saying that they have "found the truth." No one can claim to know more than anyone else, based on the pedigree that they have inherited as part of an historical Christian communion. This is considered to be insufferably arrogant. We are all to hold at all times that we only have part of the truth, just like everyone else, so that we all need each other - like a jigsaw puzzle - to fit together and become this new glorious "Super Church" of the fantasy and fancy of Tim Enloe's imagination. It is merely a variation of the old Anabaptist / Baptist invisible church: which John Calvin would have utterly rejected.

As an example (the one that led me to finally reject Tim and Kevin's "Reformed Catholicism" as a sham), consider how Tim (words in green) responded to the Orthodox Perry Robinson (words in purple). Note how Perry is not allowed to disagree without somehow being characterized as an unsavoury, rabble-rousing sort (and ultimately, an "enemy" - how ecumenical!). Pay close attention to Tim's usual condescending, patronizing tone (which suggests to me that he lacks confidence in his own position):

The question is not if God has been working outside of the visible walls of Rome or any other body for that matter. Even Rome affirms that. The question is, has God sanctioned Protestant views and practices or been working in spite of them?

To appeal to what "history" has shown is a nice way of saying that God in his providence has sanctioned Protestant views and practices. This seems like question begging. Working because of and in spite of are two different things.

As to Orthodoxy, Rome has never denied God working in that body either visibly or invisibly and has never affirmed that God was doing so in spite of Orthodox teaching and practices, but rather because of them. The same can't be said for Protestantism from a Roman or Orthodox perspective.

For me, history is far too messy to draw such conclusions.

(12-19-05)

Perry, what tests / criteria do you propose for determining whether God has sanctioned something? I already know you don't consider the total destruction of Orthodox civilization in the 15th century at the hands of infidels who hate the Triune God to be an indication of God's displeasure with Orthodoxy, so please do tell what tests you apply to determine God's sanction.

(12-19-05)

In good Augustinian fashion I would take Revelation as the principle for history. No particular temporal order can be fully identified with eschatological entities. So the not so complete destruction of the Roman Christian Empire by the Franks, Goths and Muslims no more signals the displeasure of God than the sack of Rome signals the displeasure of Zeus. Unless of course we are to take the self inflicted implosion of Protestant scholarship cannibilizing itself in the forms of higher criticism and liberal theology as a sign of divine judgment. ;)

(12-19-05)

At this juncture, Tim starts mocking apostolic succession (because that distinguishes both Orthodoxy and Catholicism from classic Protestantism) - just as he reserves a special disdain for papal infallibility, for the same sort of reason: it is distinctive of Catholicism and an exclusive claim, and so must be rejected as "arrogant" because it is something other than common ground of all Christians. The only way the papacy can be retained is to redefine it. Note also how being merely an orthodox Orthodox or orthodox Catholic is now mockingly redefined by Tim as being "Rad Trad":

That's a vague answer, Perry. Just like last time we did this, on Greg's board, you really don't have anything but hand waving about "apostolic succession" and Christo-LOGICAL metaphysical necessities, do you? Just be forthright like other Orthodox Rad Trads out there and say that nothing we say here matters in the least because we have no bishops, we are contumacious heretics, and the only remedy is for us to embrace "the" Church, and embrace her yesterday, no questions asked.

You like to feign scholarly detachment and personal uninvolvement, but really all you've got is a bunch of self-referential insults toward your brothers dressed up in scholarly language. This website is about a CONVERSATION, but you don't want to have a conversation. You want to dictate and demand and peremptorily tear down anything that doesn't meet your overly strict criteria, the result of which is to run off to some other communion just because of angst over problems in the current one. If you don't have anything positive to contribute, why are you even here?

(12-20-05)

I suppose nothing I can write will convey my genuine good intentions to you. I thought my answer was clear and quite Augustinian (how ironic for an Orthodox eh?). I don't identify the kingdom of God with the City of God so that the fact that the Mahoundians, Crusaders, Franks, Goths and assorted other pagans and semi-Christians brought the down fall of the Theodosian establishment doesn't imply that they touched the City of God.

I take Apostolic Succession to be a deal breaker along with a few other issues. . . .

If you think that my arguments for or concerning Apostolic Succession, Christology, or Triadology amount to nothing more than hand waving and such things then I am sure we could find a venue where you could show that this is the case. . . .

I don't think that truth is limited to bishops so I listen to and read a wide variety of views. I try to listen to thoughtful Protestants, even those in the Anabaptist tradition for example. I also try to offer passage through and diagnosis of various theological problems for Protestants I converse with. However much you may dislike my criticisms of your specific position, they aren't intended to be personal.

I don't like to feign anything and to impute such ill motives to me is an ad hominem. And to baldly claim that all I have are a bunch of insults dressed up in scholarly language ironically enough isn't anything more than an insult. Why complain about being insulted when by doing so you deliberately insult others? My comments are pointed but they aren't intended to be insulting. I want to tear down things I see as false, which is no different than what you or anyone else in the conversation desires. It is true that I am not on the same kind of journey you and others are on and it seems you resent that. In any case I have some constructive things to contribute and also some critical things to contribute. I am here to help people understand. In any case, I am not your enemy.

(12-20-05)

That was the final straw for Tim. No one must ever claim to be in a group that claims to possess the fullness of Christian truth in a way that necessarily excludes others who differ (which claims to truth have a way of logically doing):

Perry, I don't identify any earthly order with the City of God, either. In fact, that's why I think Rome's typical rhetoric about her own authority is wrong. She's not the City of God, and she can fall just like any other particular church can. [all churches being necessarily fallible, and indefectibility or infallibility being a priori impossible - God cannot possibly bring that about for anyone]

But biblically speaking, God judges peoples for covenantal unfaithfulness, and often this takes the form of the ungodly being given power over the believers. I'm not saying 1454 means Orthodoxy is totally and completely false, but I am saying 1454 ought to knock some of the wind out of all this blustering Orthodox like to do, same as the loss of Western Christendom ought to inspire some humility in Rome. [if people leaving the fold disproves or casts serious doubt upon a particular fold then obviously the Muslim defection of millions out of Christianity when the former religion began disproves the claims of Christianity itself; in fact it proves nothing other than that apostasy exists and is always a danger] Authority isn't a naked given, and if those in authority (or their convert apologists) [disdain for converts is another droning Tim theme] haven't got anything but assertions that they are the Authorized Authorities [Tim must project and mock in others what supposedly is present in their systems - circular claims - because that is all he has for his own], So There, I really don't know why anyone ought to listen to them. [I say their claims are circular - with no demnonstration - so that proves no one should listen, while they ought to listen to my endless incoherent, logically-circular, condescending jeremiads] Apostolic Succession just isn't good enough if all it is is a bare naked authority claim, not attached to any kind of meaningful sense of responsibility and charity toward those not so graced.

I don't care about your good intentions. [even though I will question them shortly] I have good intentions too. It's the all-or-nothing nature of your critiques that drives me nuts, not merely that you have critiques. [in other words, Perry holds to a non-negotiable truth, and that is intolerable and insufferably arrogant, according to Tim] Maybe if you could restrain yourself from running down everything we do here [more irrational defensiveness, suggestive of a lack of confidence] in terms that suggest we're just vainly beating the air in a futile quest for something that's just flat metaphysically impossible [infallible churches and apostolic deposits are obviously "metaphysically impossible" but not so-called "Reformed Catholicism"!] I might be more inclined to give you a better hearing. But yes, right now I do believe you are my enemy. [this was the assertion that was the last straw for me. If this grand supposedly ecumenical project of "Reformed Catholicism" makes an "enemy" out of an Orthodox Christian, then it must be a sham, and not even what it claims to be] Just like with the Rad Trad Catholics [here is the usual pejorative use of newly-adopted nicknames for "enemies" - now charitably including orthodox Catholics who dare to arrogantly believe what their Church teaches] , your kind of Orthodoxy is part of the problem, not the solution. [his "kind" being, well, simply Orthodoxy as it has historically understood itself] But hey, maybe we can all just keep doing this same old same old stuff for another thousand years, or even two more thousand. It's all "for the Truth" in the abstract, ["truth" being something that is worthy for mocking] so who gives a crap if it never leads anywhere but concrete fratricide? It's more important to Be Right than it is to sacrifice a little bit of traditional pride in order to bear with each other's weaknesses. [i.e., all Christian traditions are equally fallible and wrong: good ole modern epistemological relativism and postmodernism]

(12-20-05)

As but one example of many dozens which could be produced, of Tim's mocking of exclusive theological / ecclesiological claims:

I know that's too much to ask from all-or-nothing polemicists, who have to have everything just So-So by yesterday, or else there is no Truth, Beauty, and Goodness in the world and everything is up for grabs and Christ lied about the Church never falling, yada yada yada.

(11-18-05)

But of course (who would ever think of doubting it?), Tim and Kevin are always open for constructive criticism. Tim wrote in the same piece:

We're very open here about the flaws of Protestantism generally and Reformed theology particularly.

Also, in a comment from 12-12-05, Tim described the Catholic Church in Luther's day as "a system that was totally destroying the whole Christian world." How ecumenical and respectful . . . If anyone had dared say such an extreme thing about Luther, Calvin and other Protestant "reformers," imagine how kindly Tim would have taken to that. But Tim can say and believe anything, no matter how ridiculous. Why? I don't know. Ask him.

Anyway, to get back to the back-and-forth chronology, Perry replied:

My posts aren't all or nothing, but they do aim to argue for definite points. I don't run down everything you do here. I barely post here at all and I haven't posted on your blog in months from what I recall. Often I argue in favor of the many good things in your project against many of its detractors, To be fair though I think it is only right to point out conceptual deficiencies where I see them or to call you out when I think you are being rather unfair or downright mean as I thought you were with Al Kimel. Kimel has suffered a lot. As a former Episcopalian myself he gave up a whole lot for the sake of mere Christianity. So what if he is a cheer leader for Rome during his honeymoon.

(12-21-05)

This leads us into several related points. One key reason why I have become fed up with the "Reformed Catholicism" sham is precisely how it treats and regards others who have adopted a different position, in good faith. Granted, Tim and I have long been personally at odds for various reasons. I've tried to reconcile with him many times with no success. Yet it remains true that his main problem with me is that I am simply a Catholic, and that I (as an apologist) defend Catholic claims as preeminent and, to some extent, exclusive. Thus, even when we were getting along fairly well, all it took was for me to simply be a Catholic in the (perfectly orthodox, expected) senses that Tim decries (described above) and that was sufficient for him to become hostile again, and to sink the good relations I thought we had achieved. I now understand this much better in retrospect.

I, like Perry, had been an ally and friend of the "Reformed Catholicism" movement (my essentially commendatory remark was even posted on their old front page), because I thought it had some great things to offer, and a sort of ecumenism which could be consistent with Catholic and the best evangelical ecumenism (exemplified, in my opinion, by ECT). Like him, I disagreed on some things (big wow). But that didn't mean that I therefore became (in Tim's black-and-white, all or nothing mentality) an "enemy".

Short of total agreement, however, my participation in the project was not desired, and so Tim decided to recently publicly excoriate and "diss" me, with Kevin Johnson's approval (see: "Business as Usual" Catholic Apologetics and My Alleged "EXTREMELY SERIOUS" Deficiencies, According to Tim "Quixote" Enloe). That was a severe wake-up call, but still not enough for me to become completely disenchanted with "Reformed Catholicism" (for I could still dismiss it as primarily the result of personal animus). It took Tim calling an Orthodox Christian an "enemy" to cause me to totally change my opinion and write this piece. Tim may try to second-guess my motives and believe that this was a long time coming, but it was not. I decided only today to write this.

Nor are Perry Robinson and myself the only targets of this campaign to "diss" others as out of the fold (which also contributes to my total disenchantment: this isn't just about the personal troubles Tim and I have had). As Perry noted, Tim went after "Pontificator" (Al Kimel): a former Episcopal priest who recently converted (see the last-cited paper above for some details). Tim used to cite him favorably and think he was an okay guy (when he was a possibility for persuasion to his position). But then when he converted to the dreaded, despised Catholicism, all of a sudden that changed very rapidly. The same applied to blogmaster Elliot Bougis. He became a Catholic, and so he was mocked and dismissed as some kind of crackpot. I witnessed all of this myself. Anyone who is a confident Catholic or Orthodox (and above all, converts and apologists: Tim constantly mocks both categories) eventually comes in for this kind of treatment. That's why I have often described Tim as a "quasi-anti-Catholic." I can now add "quasi-anti-Orthodox" as well . . .

Another thing that Perry Robinson wrote reminded me of a critique of C.S. Lewis's "mere Christianity":

Moreover, if your comments could only be correct on the assumption that Catholic or Orthodox ecclesiology was false and some kind of Protestant ecclesiology were true, this seems to not only prejudice without argument the "game" in your favor but to beg the question as well since what is the church is one of the crucial questions at issue.

(12-20-05)

I love C.S. Lewis. He remains my favorite author, and I have one of the largest Lewis web pages on the Internet (it is regularly recommended by the evangelical magazine Christianity Today, because the largest site is run by a Mormon). I'm ecstatic about the new Narnia movie. But on this point ("mere Christianity") he was simply wrong, and clearly so, I think. My friend Al Kresta, a former evangelical pastor who returned to the Catholic Church, elaborated on this, in a talk given in my own home in 1992:

Mere Christianity also undermines confidence in the local church, or (if you believe in them) the denomination, which is secondary to one's primary commitment to Christ. But this is schizophrenic. It pits the head against the body, and ultimately it betrays Jesus Who says the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, the body. These things are connected. The head doesn't regard the body as a "necessary evil" like many evangelicals do. They think that you gotta go somewhere to get Bible teaching, so you go to church. [The Church] is secondary only in the sense that it flows from my commitment to God, and is entailed in that commitment. How ecumenical is mere Christianity, if it removes the doctrine of the Church, which is central to two of the three Christian traditions? So it really isn't very fair to Orthodoxy and Catholicism. [It amounts to saying that] God is not able to adequately reveal Himself through the things that he has made, or the people that
He has called. It's a slap in the face of God.

Mere Christianity is dishonest in that it requires a soft-peddling of differences between Christians. And it belittles our brothers and sisters in the past. When we say "let's transcend and rise above all these denominational distinctives," we are actually emasculating the various Christian traditions. The very things that Wesley and Luther and Calvin found as solutions to the problems of their day, we're saying, "it's not important. Let's just get above 'em. It doesn't matter that these brothers regarded these things as central and essential to the Christian life. We're so superior to them that we can just rise above it." And I find that that's a very belittling approach to these men and women. Accept them on their own terms. Disagree with them if you have to. But don't say they're irrelevant. Within their systems, these denominational distinctives are meant to be solutions to serious problems in the Christian life, and when we don't take them on their own terms, then we're regarding these men and their traditions as pathological, petty, or unwise. I think Luther was
wrong [about justification], but I can'tsay he's unimportant, you see. And that's what I don't like about "mere Christianity."

(Why I Returned to the Catholic Church: Including a Searching Examination of Various Flaws and Errors in the Protestant Worldview and Approach to Christian Living)

Even C. S. Lewis, however, in the book of the same title, acknowledged that in the larger Christian "house" everyone had their own specific "rooms" to retreat to, and that this was to be expected, and okay. Tim and Kevin in effect deny that these rooms exist, or should exist, and that it is okay to live in them or to respectfully visit others of a different persuasion. Apparently they regard the "real" Christianity as one big hallway with no individual rooms.

We should all be pretty much the same, and if anyone dares to go off to a particular room to practice distinctive beliefs that might (egads!) exclude any other poor soul in any respect, then that person is to be mocked, derided, ridiculed, regarded as an inferior and a ninkempoop and "enemy" and an arrogant, intolerant, "fundamentalist" or "rad trad" misfit and screwball and feather-ruffler, and written about and ultimately (Tim and Kevin hope) removed from the Great Hall of "Reformed Catholic" Minimalist, Lowest Common Denominator Postmodernist Christianity, where everyone is equally fallible and all alike believe that ultimate truths in Christianity (at least many of them, apart from core truths such as trinitarianism, etc.) are unable to be obtained.

Harsh? Perhaps. Even likely. But it's high time someone besides Tim's anti-Catholic critics (White, Svendsen, Hays, King, Turk / aka "centuri0n", Eric Vestrup / aka "Pedantic Protestant"), make these observations and point out the gross hypocrisy of the "Reformed Catholic" sham. If this were a legitimate, respectable movement, then its proponents would live up to their rhetoric and dialogue with those who differ on some points but who are not fundamentally hostile, and they would be willing to defend their distinctives in a respectable, substantive manner, rather than mock and dismiss anyone with the slightest criticism (who happen to be in a camp which makes truth claims that drive Tim and Kevin nuts: as supposedly outrageous and eternally divisive towards other Christians).

The spectacle of an allegedly uniquely ecumenical and tolerant "ecumenism" and cutting-edge Christianity which quite deliberately makes a pariah out of Catholics (myself, Elliot Bougis, Al Kimel) and an "enemy" of Orthodox brethren (Perry Robinson) is ridiculously hypocritical, and must be exposed as such, lest others be taken in by it. This is neither historically "Reformed" (which would never stand for the incipient relativism and postmodernism of this "movement") nor "Catholicism" (since it has no pope, no bishops, no councils, no apostolic succession, and only two sacraments). Thus, the very title of the sham is itself a sham.

Fictional Dialogue on Sola Scriptura With a "Reformed Catholic" Protestant (Greatly Resembling Tim Enloe)

[originally posted on 29 November 2005]

This is a new fictional dialogue that I wrote today.

[based (in spirit and tenor) mostly on the repeated mantra-like arguments of a former frequent "dialogue" opponent of mine, whose initials are TE]

CC = Catholic Catholic [i.e., in this case, myself]
RP = Reformed (Protestant) "Catholic" (green)

Past "Catholic" comments of mine from the old fictional dialogue on sola Scriptura will be in blue. Past "fictional Protestant" comments will be in purple.

*****

CC: Hey, how are ya?

RP: Okay, but I'm sick to death of how much you misrepresent Reformed Catholic beliefs.

CC: [astounded look] Huh??!! What did I do now?

RP: Oh, I'm thinking of that silly fake dialogue of yours with a "Protestant" on sola Scriptura . . . but of course I could mention many of your million and a half papers where you either distort what Protestants as a whole believe or act like there is no difference between your typical Anabaptistic Protestant and we Reformed Catholics. If you understood epistemology and had read (in Latin) the canon law of Sigmund of Engelbert Humperdinckburg (1092-1206), complete with glosses by Hugo of Yugo (1434-1448), then you would understand this. Instead you rely solely on the Great Infallible Oracle Newman who said that idiotic thing that torments - oops, I meant to say "bugs" - me to no end (that I have devoted my life to obsessively disproving): "to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant". If I ever had the time to read Newman, I would rip his arguments to shreds.

CC: I see. Well, what can I do? I'd be glad to revisit the dialogue with you, to see how you would answer differently from my hypothetical Protestant. Is that fair enough?

RP: No, because you'll distort what I say, or edit it unfairly or something. I don't trust you. And I change my mind every six months anyway, so it'll be obsolete by then, but you will have it forever on your blasted website, and people will see the silly things I have said in the past.

CC: Then how about if you post it on your website, too, so you can edit it however you like? I'll even post a link to that on my posting. If you take it down, I'll agree to take my version down, too. Game?

RP: I've had enough of your "socratic dialogue" where everyone is expected to play by your rules or else you will pout and whine and go home. You act like you have a lock on Plato and Socrates.

CC: I'm just talking to you. People who disagree ought to talk to each other and try to reach a better understanding or resolution of their differences if possible. I prefer this method, but of course there are many other good ways to do it as well. I say that we should each post our versions of the conversation, so that no one can cry "foul". If you like, we can do an audio tape. I'm not scared of what might happen, and I promise to post everything before we start.

RP: It's still not fair. I have to have a way to flee for the hills if you ask a question that I can't answer, but you never allow me to have an exit strategy so I can save face and my superior view can always appear superior despite my refusal to ever fully defend it against critiques. You're so arrogant that you think conversations actually have to be followed through, and I don't have the time to do that. Even if I did, I have read so much that you would never be able to keep up with all this book knowledge I have accumulated. All you do is rely on second-hand scraps and the Great Irrefutable Triumphal Newman.

CC: What you do is up to you. You have claimed that I misrepresent both Protestant and "Reformed Catholic" views and (elsewhere) that I can't provide any answer to them. I deny it, and am willing to go through the matter with you point-by-point, to explain why your accusation is untrue. What else can you ask of me? For the last time: do you want to do this or not?

RP: Yes [dander now up and blood boiling but heroically subdued for appearance' sake].

CC: Good. So, then, I propose that we go through the past fictional dialogue. I'll give my original comments (represented by the Catholic in that dialogue), and you can answer differently if you think I misrepresented the Protestant. But first let me point out that when one is generalizing about Protestants, there are always exceptions to the rule, and this is understood. I tried to fairly represent what a typical Protestant (not absolutely every conceivable type of Protestant) might say; how he would argue.

Of course, the natural bias is towards the Catholic view, but I do try my best to present a plausible Protestant argument. After all, I used to be one myself, and made most of the same arguments I now critique. It's understood that there are more sophisticated Protestants who would answer differently and provide a better answer. That's why I am offering this opportunity to you. Okay; here we go:

Protestant (P): X is a true, biblical doctrine because it is biblical.

Catholic (C): According to which denominational tradition?

P: Ours.

C: How do you know your tradition is true, while others which contradict it are false?

P: Because we are the most biblical.

RP: No!!! See, now this is exactly what I mean. You make the Protestant out to be this know-nothing, Bible-only ignoramus.

CC: I don't see how. Protestants' last appeal is to the Bible, over against Tradition. It was Martin Luther who said at the famous Diet of Worms in 1521 (close paraphrase) "here I stand; unless I can be convinced by plain Scripture and reason I do not recant." Protestants (virtually all of them) DO appeal to the Bible, and we catch misery whenever we make an argument that doesn't include the Bible. It is not making them out to be "ignoramuses" to merely point out this obvious fact.

RP: The Protestant magisterial reformers also appealed to the testimony of Tradition. They didn't believe in this radical rationalistic notion of "Bible Only."

CC: I know that (and nothing in my fictional dialogue denies this, because it is understood to be a generalization). Yet Protestants do believe Scripture is the final and only infallible authority, right?

RP: Yes. Thank heavens you finally have figured this out after my educating you for six years.

CC: I always knew this. I knew this as a Protestant. My earliest papers as a Catholic back in 1991 made this distinction, as I have pointed out to you many times now.

RP: Don't confuse me with the facts! We are trying to be rhetorical, polemical, and sophistical here, and to portray your opinions in the worst possible light!

CC: Oh, sorry to mess up the plan. Occasionally I slip and some facts fall between the cracks of your rhetoric.

RP: Rhetoric is an honorable field of ancient classical Christian education. If you had read Cicero like I have you would know this.

CC: [laughing] I never denied that. I was using the word in the common, more derogatory sense [more smiles]. Anyway, moving on:

C: How do you know yours is the most biblical?

P: Because our exegesis is the most all-encompassing and consistent, and true to the clear teaching of Scripture.

C: But the other Protestant traditions claim the same superiority . . .

P: I must say in love that they are wrong.

C: How do you know they are wrong? I thought that Protestants were supposed to be tolerant of each other's "distinctives," especially in "secondary" issues, yet you are calling fellow brothers in Christ "wrong."

P: I am compelled to because they have a faulty hermeneutic and exegesis, and I must stand firm for biblical truth.

RP: C'mon, Dave; you have distorted the presentation again to a Bible-only mentality, by ignoring the role of legitimate Protestant tradition in the scheme of things. Calvin is always citing not only the Fathers but also classical writers. He was not ahistorical.

CC: Granted. But if you appeal to Protestant tradition (in the lesser, non-infallible sense of "the most biblically-based and honorable tradition" available among the options), you still must decide which Protestant tradition among many, right?

RP: No, because we are merely going back to the pure biblical tradition of the Fathers, and getting rid of the unbiblical Roman Catholic addditions. We're not these rebels you make us out to be, who have no respect for precedent whatever. You have to understand how rotten the conditions were in the medieval Church because of the oppressive, arrogant papacy, which usurped all power to itself and ignored the cries of all the great conciliarists (many of whom were semi-Pelagians, but we can easily overlook that if they help our cause of anti-papalism).

CC: You miss the point. As soon as Protestants disagree, they have to have some means to determine who is right and who is wrong (or that both are wrong; but logically-speaking, both cannot be right when they contradict each other). So what is that means or method?

RP: We simply go back to the fathers and the unbroken Christian tradition. See, if you could only figure out that we respect tradition, you wouldn't even ask these silly questions. But I understand why you answer in this way because you have mostly dealt with dough-head "reformed [Anabaptistic] Protestants" like Eric Svendsen and James White (whom I idolized for years, and imitated when I first tried to goad you into a live chat back in 1999 so I could kick your butt in debate, to prove that I was a man and valiant defender of White Orthodoxy and smarter than you are).

CC: Yeah, we finally had that "live chat" in late 2000 in White's chat room. I seem to remember you not holding to our prior agreement, apologizing to the crowd, and handing the chore of defending Protestantism over to your good buddy James White.

RP: I don't recall that . . .

CC: You wouldn't. We all repress painful, embarrassing memories, don't we? In any event, this "debate" did NOT turn out at all like you had hoped and prayed. Your potential Finest Hour turned out to be a mere Whimper and Retreat. And we have clashed ever since then, with few exceptions (not having anything to do with this encounter, of course; needless to say). But back to the topic at hand:

C: How do you know they have a faulty method of interpretation?

P: By Scripture and linguistic study, and the consensus of scholarly commentaries, and because R.C. Sproul said so [ :-) ]

RP: This is inaccurate! I would say because Peter Leithart, Andrew Sandlin, Alastair Roberts, Paul Owen, Kevin Johnson, and Douglases Wilson & Jones said so!

CC: Great, but the problem is: you are not Protestant Everyman. Not every Protestant thinks as you do, and many think the way this hypothetical Protestant does. What's wrong with that (in terms of the alleged "inaccuracy" of my presentation)?

RP: It doesn't present we Reformed Catholics! This is an outrage! After all, there are about 256 of us now, and we ought to be counted as representative of Protestantism as a whole.

CC: Yeah, you're right. I do owe you an apology. Hopefully, this clarifying paper can make amends for this horrendous and inexcusable oversight on my part.

C: But again, the others claim the same prerogative and abilities.

P: Then if they are wrong, they must be blinded by their presuppositional biases, or else by sin.

C: How do you know that?

P: Because they come to the wrong conclusions about the perspicuous biblical data.

RP: It is true that White, Svendsen, and their ilk show such blindness . . .

CC: You mean your former comrades-in-arms?

RP: [ferocious anger] I've paid a great price for disagreeing with them. You don't know anything about being lied about on the Internet.

CC: No, I don't. It must be terrible, huh? But then again, I have never been a former anti-Catholic and former anti-intellectual Protestant like you, so I wouldn't be able to relate.

RP: You act like White and his attitudes are the only Protestant options. You don't point out that there are those of us who are far more nuanced than that.

CC: I have done so many times, and am doing so again now. But a brief fictional dialogue cannot possibly cover all that ground. It's not required to, anyway. Every generalization has exceptions. Besides, when I wrote it ten years ago there were only 39 Reformed Catholics. Now y'all have impressively multiplied six-and-a-half times to 256. But let's cut to the quick. How do you know how to identify the perspicuous meaning of the Bible?

RP: I never discuss exegesis and hermeneutics.

CC: Why not?

RP: Because I don't know enough to do it. That's for the scholars.

CC: What becomes of Luther's proverbial "plowboy," then, interpreting the Scriptures on his own?

RP: That's a distortion: back to the radical Bible-only view again.

CC: It's not a distortion of classic or "magisterial" Protestantism; it's right from Martin Luther, whom you classify as a "magisterial reformer".

RP: Sure; but Calvin understood this better.

CC: Okay; how does he determine the perspicuous meaning of Scripture?

RP: By following the consensus of Christian tradition.

CC: Oh, so then he must have believed in episcopacy and papacy, right (as well as the traditional understanding of apostolic succession)?

RP: No.

CC: No??!! How could that be? After all, the papacy was a clear feature of Church government, at least in the West, where Calvin came from. Episcopacy is even more clearly an aspect of ecclesiology - accepted by the Orthodox as well. Apostolic succession was clearly the final court of appeal of the Fathers over against the heretics. No historian of Church doctrine (whether Kelly, or Oberman, or Pelikan, or Schaff, etc.) denies that for a second.

RP: Ecclesiology is not made clear enough in the Scriptures. Men of good will can disagree on that.

CC: So now you are back to the radical "Bible Only" outlook that you say you despise [big "gotcha" smile]? You claim that Scripture doesn't make it clear enough, yet nevertheless, you fall back on Scripture, rather than accept the very clear testimony of Church history. There's that bugaboo of Protestants and difficulties with history again . . . what a nuisance . . .

RP: You know, Dave, it is miserable dialoguing with you because you think you know everything, and you distort Protestant views, and refuse to be fair to us. I explain over and over how the Reformed Protestant view explains all of these questions you have, but you ignore that . . .

CC: Please, by all means, explain how it accounts for the difficulties just raised. This is your opportunity. I beg you to continue defending your view. How about if I give you $100? Naw, make that $1000. I'm sure I could raise that much from my friends, just to watch you participate in a dialogue and defend your view without losing it and flying off into the Hyper-Polemical Stratosphere, leaving everything unresolved yet again, for the umpteenth time.

RP: . . . and you go off on your endless tirades, citing Newman for everything you argue as if He Can Do or Say No Wrong, and is Next to God . . .

CC: I haven't cited Newman once here, to back up any argument I made (I only gave that one quote that I provided merely to make it known that you hate it so much).

RP: . . . ah, but you WANTED to. He was always in your mind . . .

CC: What is this? The "Willie Nelsonization" of apologetic discussion? LOL "YOu were always on my mind . . ."

RP: . . . because you despise Protestants so much and can't get any to talk to you at all and you think we're all anti-Catholic and that we are radical Enlightenment individualists and "rebels" because you are a self-appointed "apologist".

CC: Is that why the late Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., close adviser to Pope Paul VI and Mother Teresa, enthusiastically recommended my first book [one can read that here]?

RP: That means nothing. He was probably just a Newman nut like you.

CC: Well, being a Jesuit, he rather stressed St. Ignatius of Loyola and his Spiritual Exercises. I heard little from Cardinal Newman in the marvelous classes of his which I attended.

+ + + + + + + + + + +

RP: Don't change the subject! And don't bring in facts. That drives me nuts!!!!! Don't you know that I know more about your history, motivations, and opinions than you do yourself? After all, all you do is post outdated, ill-thought through broken-record Catholic apologetic propaganda. Nearly everything you write about Protestantism is utterly irrelevant to everything we Reformed Catholics are doing. Perhaps someday you'll get a new record and be able to actually join in a substantive conversation.

CC: That may be, but how about we get back to the subject: how Protestants resolve their differences and their relationship to this Christian consensus-tradition you refer to? How is that resolved with regard to ecclesiology (which is what I brought up as a problem for your point of view to grapple with)?

RP: I don't have time to spell it all out for those who are inordinately attached to the brilliant utterances of Cardinal Newman, or unrealistically convinced that they understand Christological metaphysics so well that all they have to do is throw terms around and they've won. I suppose I just shouldn't post at all. I have a life now, sorry.

CC: No, you should post! You should defend your view and demonstrate how it can provide plausible answers to the hard questions I have asked, and those from others. I encourage you; I beg you; I'll give you $1000 and an all-expenses paid trip to Cheboygan, Michigan, including the boat ride to Mackinac Island . . . please, PLEASE!!!! Just make it to the end of ONE dialogue without exploding in a fit of rage . . . that's all we ask, We'll never ask again, or make such a generous offer.

RP: We see self-styled "apologists" for Catholicism all the time, and particularly those who convert and then instantly start preaching the glories of their newfound "fullness of the faith." Been there, done that, so I know how it goes. Nevertheless, orthodox Catholic apologists need to stay on their own websites, because intelligent interaction with critiques of Catholicism requires a LOT more than memorizing Newman and learning to talk big about "the" Church.

CC: Yeah, I agree. You call for "intelligent interaction with critiques of Catholicism." I couldn't agree more. I try to make such responses all the time. But do you have no similar obligation to defend your views?

RP: I ceased engaging orthodox Catholic apologists (who are actually - egads!!! - confident in their beliefs and not always simultaneously fashionably tentative and temperamentally dogmatic like I am), some time ago on my own website, since it was clear that for the most part they weren't interested in anything but their little boxes construed in the most narrow way possible. But some of these folks (like you) won't return the favor of basically minding their own business and doing their own circle-running routine with equally narrow Protestant apologists. Some of them keep coming around reading my stuff and then purporting to refute it either in my comments boxes or on their own sites to which they gratuitously link.

CC: What a shame. Everyone knows that no one can refute Reformed Catholicism.

RP: That's right, and that's why I never try to defend it, because it can't be refuted, so why waste that time? If someone doesn't get it, they're just ignorant.

CC: But can we please get back to the subject of ecclesiology and the Protestant rule of faith? You already have the $1000 and the free trip to Cheboygan on the table. Now you gotta earn that!

RP: There are EXTREMELY SERIOUS problems with your way of carrying on discussions.

CC: You mean, like not staying on the subject or descending into personal attack? Sorry I fell into those things. I shall try my very best to do better next time. Now where were we after I got us off track?

RP: Please stop all the silly one-sided pontificating and actually have real discussions.

CC: What did I "pontificate" about? Please do tell.

RP: I'm a Protestant, but I guess it's just news to you that I'm not a "business as usual" Protestant, and you can't dispose of me with catenas of blustering from Newman, vague hand-waving about the "DNA" of Protestantism, and all the other comfortable grooves of polemics that have created so much ill-will between our communions for the last 500 years. It's time to grow up.

CC: I'm not trying to "dispose" of anyone. I had a few questions that I think your side needs to seriously consider . . .

RP: We don't subscribe to the theory of historical discontinuity that drives the Catholic propaganda about Protestantism that you promote. We aren't fazed by your Great Hero Cardinal Newman because he's not even in the same world of conceptual discourse as we are.

CC: Yeah, I know that; so how would you answer the questions I raised, then?

RP: Your historical apologetics, based as they are it seems exclusively in Newman, are simply irrelevant to what I do. None of the devices which you have gathered up from the writings of Newman have any relevance to my program, and indeed, because of the dogmatic fervor with which you hold to Newman, they merely make you incapable of even processing my program, much less intelligibly responding.

CC: I said already: Newman has played no part in this discussion at all.

RP: Sure he did. He's behind everything you write. The Newman-derived construct about "private judgment" which you rely upon as the foundation of your view of the work of the Protestant reformers is something which entirely misses the classical Protestant views, derived from Medieval catholic theology, of ministerial government and conciliar-based publicly-binding arbitration of disputes.

CC: Now that may get us back to the subject: ecclesiology (cuz you mentioned "government").
Thanks. Glad to be back there . . .

RP: Your apologetics are based on the need to create and exploit the purely angst-driven concerns of conversion mania.

CC: Huh? [dazed, befuddled, frustrated look - I would certainly be angry too if I weren't so nauseatingly familiar with this routine] Fiddlesticks! I actually thought we were back on the subject . . .

RP: An excellent example of this deep hermeneutical failure on your part is your "plain texts" approach to Scripture and history, for instance, which is a leftover hangup from your Evangelical days, and which constantly self-sabotages your interactions with other Christians.

CC: Well, if it's left over from evangelical Protestantism and the "perspicuity" of Luther and Calvin, I should think that you would rejoice in that, since it is a remnant from the days before my terrible apostasy into Unbiblical Catholicism. Perhaps I have a warped, stunted version of hermeneutics, but for all my faults, at least I discuss and write about Holy Scripture a thousand times more than you do. How ironic, huh? I stress biblical arguments and you stress (besides vapid, boorish, endless jeremiads) . . . what?

RP: You are a quirky Evangelical-ish conservative with narrow and rigid self-contained, self-justifying paradigms from which you cannot entertain the slightest doubt. You exude a Protestant Fundamentalist angst which has produced no end of historical caricatures and total failure to engage with different paradigms.

CC: Can we please get back to the subject? My shortcomings (which are many, but not usually what you think they are) can be the topic of another post . . .

RP: Your apologetics is the subject, because it can bring nothing to the table of intelligent discussion except shrill, childish, sectarian demands. These criticisms are just off the top of my head. You are as bad as James White, I swear. I have to get in that dig because I am still mad at myself for being stupid enough to idolize him, and mad at you because you were never so stupid. Why couldn't you believe the stupid things I have in the past so my constant projection-lecturing you about things you have believed for many years (as if I tell you something new) would be the remotest bit plausible?

CC: Well, folks, I tried. There you have it. We can all learn something from the above "discussion." Not sure what, but something . . .

*****

NOTE: "RP"'s words underneath the plusses (+ + + + +) heavily rely on recent actual quotes from this real person "TE" - found here.

"Business as Usual" Catholic Apologetics and My Alleged "EXTREMELY SERIOUS" Deficiencies, According to Tim "Quixote" Enloe

[originally posted on 17 November 2005]

[Tim's words will be in red; Kevin Johnson's in green, and my older words in purple]

* * * * *

This guy just never quits . . .

Presbyterian polemicist and controversialist and former close comrade of prominent anti-Catholics James White, Eric Svendsen, David T. King et al, Tim Enloe is at it again. About a week ago he issued a rant against the Pontifications blog and its esteemed master, Al Kimel (a recent convert to the Catholic Church), which he later retracted. I was watching things very closely, since Tim deigns to frequently lecture all and sundry about decent, charitable Christian behavior and discourse one towards another. I wrote on that blog on 11-12-05):

The esteemed Pontificator may not be aware that there is yet another reply to his paper (well, kinda sorta), by Tim Enloe. It is also partly a reply to yours truly, without naming me (in typical fashion), since he is lauding a paper by Edwin Tait that was a direct reply to me . . . Tim's more polemical papers have been known to be either removed or greatly modified, on these sorts of blogs (which are making a valiant, laudable attempt at being ecumenical and conciliatory) so read quickly before it disappears!

Sure enough it did, the next day (possibly due in part to my making it known), as I noted there again:

Sure enough, the paper is already gone. :-) :-) We need to understand that the "old" vitriolic, hyper-polemical Tim Enloe still lurks just beneath the surface of his ostensibly more "ecumenical" and at least semi-irenic writings in the last six months or so. It doesn't take much to bring it out (in this instance papers by "rigidly orthodox" Catholics - reputedly full of vanity and foolishness and the obligatory triumphalism - like Pontificator and myself). :-) One must enjoy the fine humor and irony in these things.

Later that same day (11-13-05), I commented further, citing Tim's retraction:

. . . It seems that ole Tim cannot even recite the Lord's Prayer or issue a retraction without including an insult of Cardinal Newman in it. :-) Here is his entire post (in case, it, too, is removed because Tim has a "life" and therefore can't be careful enough in his habitual "rants" to show how far above us "rigidly orthodox" Catholics he is):

Retractio

Filed under: Catholicity -- Tim Enloe @ 11:47 pm

I admit that last night's post by me was more in the class of a "rant" than in that of a decently-constructed argument. These days I have very little time for blogging at al -- much less for blogging that requires large amounts of time to think through the composition process before hitting "post." A lot of what I write these days is "off the cuff" because it has to be. I just literally don't have the time that I used to have to play on the Internet. I'm married now, and trying to finish up my last (and it seems, disproportionately hard) year of undergrad work so that, Lord willing, I can move on next year to grad work in Church history.

I wrote it in a hurry, and though I think it had some good points I've removed it because hurried posts aren't what is needed on issues like this. If I don't have time to spell it all out for those who are inordinately attached to the brilliant utterances of Cardinal Newman, or unrealistically convinced that they understand Christological metaphysics so well that all they have to do is throw terms around and they've won, I suppose I just shouldn't post at all. Mea culpa and goodnight. I have a life now, sorry.

(posted at the Reformed Catholicism blog but since removed, along with the paper thus retracted)

But Tim started right in again on 11-14-05, in a discussion thread at Reformed Catholicism: (which may also cease existing after I document it here!):

. . . there is another factor, certainly, as we see in self-styled "apologists" for Catholicism all the time, and particularly those who convert and then instantly start preaching the glories of their newfound "fullness of the faith." I've been there, done that, so I know how it goes. Nevertheless, "business as usual" Catholic apologists need to stay on their own websites, because this isn't a "business as usual" Protestant site. Catholicism isn't civilization, and intelligent interaction with critiques of Catholicism requires a LOT more than memorizing Newman and learning to talk big about "the" Church.

(11-14-05, 2:19 PM)

Fellow (Protestant/Catholic Reformed) blogmaster Kevin Johnson (with whom I have enjoyed several cordial and friendly dialogues), also entered in:

We don't intend to focus an undue amount on the sort of apologetic material that lends itself to the kind of "business as usual" approach to Catholicism as I heard on the radio.

Still, there is a need to occasionally address it since not all of us are in the same place or understanding of these matters. Many come to this site and elsewhere new to the debates that have raged for years and have little if any experience in dealing with these sorts of shallow but oft repeated arguments.

. . . But I do believe it is time to work towards changing the approaches of both sides in regards to these issues and part of that change necessarily exposes what we have been doing wrong as Roman Catholics and Protestants. I hope our readers notice that in general we have been very open, honest, and frank about our own faults as Reformed and Protestant folks in this regard (to the best of our ability!) and so the occasional reference to overblown and overdone Roman Catholic approaches seen in that light ought not to be too troubling to those who read what we write on a regular basis.

(11-14-05, 8:20 PM)

Then Tim came back:

. . . I ceased engaging "business as usual" Catholic apologists some time ago on my own website, since it was clear that for the most part they weren't interested in anything but their little boxes construed in the most narrow way possible.

However, I would add to Kevin's point in that some of these folks won't return the favor of basically minding their own business and doing their own circle-running routine with equally narrow Protestant apologists. Some of them keep coming around reading our stuff and then purporting to "refute" it either in our comments boxes or on their own sites to which they gratuitously link. Sometimes it's necessary to mention them for the reasons Kevin mentioned, particularly the one that we're not all in the same place.

If "business as usual" Catholic apologist, who has 1,500 regular readers, writes some "refutation" of us on his site, and bunches of his 1,500 readers come over here to watch us get "beat" by him, at some point we are going to have to mention them, however briefly.

(11-14-05, 11:34 PM)

Confused as to whether or not I was included in this jeremiad, I asked clarifying questions:

Is Kevin Johnson no longer interested in my opinion or in discussing anything with me? If the former, this is certainly a new development, since Kevin stated several times that he appreciated my input, and I was even cited writing basically positive things about your enterprise in the earlier version of this blog.

Just say the word . . . no sense playing games and beating around the bush. If I'm not welcome here I will be happy to honor that and make myself scarce, since I have no interest in interacting with people who aren't willing to dialogue (with me, at any rate).

(11-15-05, 10:58 PM)

Kevin responded:

Ummm -- I'm not sure where you got the impression that I'm not interested in talking. Of course, you and anyone else are welcome here. I just can't always respond to everything presented here or elsewhere.

Let me know though if there is something specific you wanted to discuss and you are also free to email me privately as well.

(11-15-05, 11:05 PM)

And I, in return:

Just checking. I wasn't sure if Tim had me in mind in his negative remarks about Catholic apologists. He has written about those who have visited here recently, and I know I was one, so by simple deduction, it was reasonable to assume I may have been one of the ones (among others) to whom he referred, when he wrote, above:

. . . "business as usual" Catholic apologists need to stay on their own websites, because this isn't a "business as usual" Protestant site. Hence my desire for clarification. To whom was he referring? Pontificator? Elliot Bougis? (both recent converts, which was also alluded to - whereas I have been a Catholic for over 15 years) Myself? All of the above? If I am one, then that's why I asked if I am still welcome to comment here. If I am not, on the other hand, I am curious who was intended as the target of these criticisms.

Thanks. You have always been a gentleman in our interactions.

(11-16-05, 6:10 PM)

Tim then felt that it was his job to make things a bit more plain:

Oh, I think you know what I'm talking about, Dave. All unpleasantness aside which you and I apologized to each other about several times (but about which you continue to maintain VERY detailed records, ready to be brought out any time you feel the need to "expose" me to others), there are EXTREMELY SERIOUS problems with your way of carrying on discussions.

But don't worry. You're [sic] Divinely-Given Right to "free speech" is safe here. You are free to post as much outdated, ill-thought through broken-record Catholic apologetic propaganda all you like. And others are just as free to either not respond at all or to point out that it is outdated, ill-thought through, broken-record propaganda --and very little else. I don't shrink at all from publicly stating that nearly everything you write about Protestantism is utterly irrelevant to everything we are doing on this blog. Perhaps someday you'll get a new record and be able to actually join in a substantive conversation.

(11-17-05, 10:56 AM)

I replied:

Exactly. That settles that. I guess, then, that the only question left is to ask Kevin whether he agrees with this assessment or not. :-) If so, it hardly makes any sense for me to ever post here, given what would then be considered the worthless nature of my writing. If not, then I will simply restrict myself to Kevin's papers or other comments, and address those, while ignoring Tim's papers and comments, since to interact with those is obviously futile and vain, given his opinions above.

(11-17-05, 5:33 PM)

That's how it stands as of writing. We'll keep you posted on any further developments! It might be interesting for some folks to pursue Tim as to what he means by all this rotten apologetics I am supposedly doing (since I don't bother with him anymore - anyone can see why, above). But Tim has never been very good at either narrowing down to particulars, or defending his own often wild, irrational assertions.

In related "news", Tim wrote on Reformed Catholicism, on 11-13-05:

To the present crop of Catholic convert critics of this site, please let's stop all the silly one-sided pontificating and actually have real discussions. We're Protestants here, but I guess it's just news to you that we're not "business as usual" Protestants, and you can't dispose of us with catenas of blustering from Newman, vague hand-waving about the "DNA" of Protestantism, and all the other comfortable grooves of polemics that have created so much ill-will between our communions for the last 500 years. It's time to grow up.

Also, on the same day he wrote:

This comment thread contains some hard-hitting, and very true, remarks on the fundamental wrongness of using complaints about "private judgment" to convert to some other community--and particularly in the name of giving up "private judgment" for the sake of "Truth". These comments are in reference to the recent conversion to Catholicism of the semi-popular blogger and Anglican priest "Pontificator." His conversion was preceded for months by many entries full of attacks on strawmen about Protestantism, which he very neatly disposed of by all the usual interminably long Cardinal Newman quotes about the evils of "private judgment" and the greatness of "submitting" to something outside oneself.

One looks in vain for comments of mine on this blog that would lead to Tim's tirade, partially directed towards yours truly. The most recent one was a reply I made (11-7-05) in response to Kevin Johnson's post about his having read Louis Bouyer's book, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, which is one of my favorites and oft-highly-recommended. I opined:

Glad to see that you have discovered this classic book (one of my favorites) by Louis Bouyer. I converted just before I read it (in 1990), but if I hadn't yet, the book would have certainly moved me closer to that eventuality.

You act as if it is some novelty that a Catholic agrees with much that is good in Protestantism. I would say that this is a virtually universal sentiment amongst Catholic apologists, and also Catholic converts from Protestantism.

As for Al Kimel's critiques of Anglicanism: bear in mind that that is only one Protestant denomination, and pretty far gone at that. Thus his approach to Anglicans is not necessarily representative of how he would view other Protestant denominations. But it's true that recent converts (either way) are overly-zealous. Everyone knows that.

I don't remember the last time I commented before that, and indeed, hardly anyone has been commenting, since the papers previous to the one I commented on have received the following numbers of comments, as of writing (it hardly appears like a "business as usual Catholic apologist propagandist" conspiracy to overwhelm this blog):

These Guys Are Hilarious (11-4-04): 0 comments

A Theology of History (11-4-04): 3 comments; two are by Justin Nickelsen, a friend of mine, and someone that Kevin and Tim like, and link to (because he has a blog devoted to the Ressourcement theology of JP II, Balthasar, de Lubac, Bouyer, the present pope, most of the Catholic apologists I know, myself, etc.)

The Thought of Pope Benedict XVI (11-4-05): 0 comments

Once in awhile I read Peter Leithart's blog (11-3-05): 0 comments

Mohler and Patterson to Debate "Calvinism": A Few Thoughts (11-3-05): 0 comments

podcast Credo - The Synod of Dort (10-29-05): 0 comments

The Sign and the Reality: Calvin on Acts 10:44-48 (10-29-05): 0 comments

Archbishop Rowan Williams and Richard Hooker on the Sufficiency of Scripture (10-29-05): 0 comments

Profound -- "for we all are the body" (10-29-05): 0 comments

Refreshing Commentary on the Nature of Apologetics (10-28-05): 0 comments

Pastor Meyers on Calvin and the Sacraments (10-28-05): 0 comments

An Excellent Post on William Temple and Ecumenism (10-28-05): 0 comments

Gee whiz; looks like overwhelming evidence of a nefarious conspiracy on the part of us "business as usual" Catholic propagandists, to take over the Reformed Catholicism blog! More recently, I saw one single provocative comment by Al Kimel, and a completely harmless comment by convert Elliot Bougis. That's it!! Those are all the Catholics who have commented there in the last 21 days (whereas I have had many dozens of constructive, interactive Protestant comments on my blog during the same period; folks like "Grubb", "BWL", Ken Temple, Edwin Tait, etc.). Call out the National Guard! Or, better yet, call out Tim "Quixote" Enloe with his usual shrill rhetoric against Catholics and especially those who commit the unpardonable sin of defending the Catholic faith.

Tim's rantings and ravings have become so ridiculously ubiquitous that they require comment from one of the great writers. I found one which fits the present circumstance perfectly:

Of all the causes which conspire to blind

Man's erring judgment, and misguide the mind,

What the weak head with strongest bias rules,

Is pride, the never-failing vice of fools.

(Alexander Pope [1688-1744], Essay on Criticism, Part II, Line 1. 14 lines later is his very famous saying, "A little learning is a dangerous thing")

*****

Dave: Here are some detailed reasons why your apologetics, and all forms similar to them, are irrelevant to what we are doing here:

(1) We don't subscribe to the theory of historical discontinuity that drives the Catholic propaganda about Protestantism that you promote. We aren't fazed by your Great Hero Cardinal Newman because he's not even in the same world of conceptual discourse as we are. We look, for instance, at his classic statement "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant" and see it less as an expression of some deep truth arising out of sustained, intellectually-honest reflection on history and more as a reflection of one particular answer (by no means the only one even from that era) to the vexing problems of defending Christianity in the age of Enlightenment with which 19th century Christians were faced. Accordingly, your historical apologetics, based as they are it seems exclusively in Newman, are simply irrelevant to what we are doing here. None of the devices which you have gathered up from the writings of Newman have any relevance to our program here, and indeed, because of the dogmatic fervor with which you hold to Newman, they merely make you incapable of even processing our program, much less intelligibly responding.

(2) We don't envision the Protestant reformation as restarting "True Biblical Christianity" -- virtually from scratch. We don't view it as a self-conscious, self-contained, self-willed departure from centuries of Tradition which had been summarily dismissed as "unbiblical" merely according to the private lights of Luther and Calvin. The Newman-derived construct about "private judgment" which you rely upon as the foundation of your view of the work of the Protestant reformers and your presumptuous beliefs about the "internal dynamic" that Protestantism is supposedly inxorably driven by, is something which entirely misses the classical Protestant views, derived from Medieval catholic theology, of ministerial government and conciliar-based publicly-binding arbitration of disputes. Accordingly, your apologetics, based as they are in historically and theologically ridiculous caricatures of Luther and Calvin's principles, desires, and work, and subsequent charity-challenged, presumptuous and rationalistic analyses of "internal dynamics" that only Newmanites can see, are simply irrelevant to what we are doing here.

(3) We're not trying to make converts to Reformed Theology. Accordingly, your apologetics, based as they are in the need to create and exploit the purely angst-driven concerns of conversion mania so that you can contribute to the making of converts to Catholicism, are simply irrelevant to what we are doing here.

(4) We don't subscribe to the quirky Evangelical hangups concerning "philosophy" and the supposed need to have a "faith" that isn't "contaminated" by it. An excellent example of this deep hermeneutical failure on your part is your "plain texts" (the texts that "speak for themselves if only we will let them") approach to Scripture and history, for instance, are leftover hangups from your Evangelical days, and constantly self-sabotage your interactions with other Christians.Accordingly, your apologetics, which are deeply rooted in remaining Evangelical quirkiness about "philosophy" which you don't even recognize that you have or realize are incompatible with not just Catholicism but with any kind of really self-conscious understanding of worldview and its implications, are simply irrelevant to what we are doing here.

(5) We don't place exaggerated phobias derived from felt-need concepts of "conservatism" above catholicity. That is, just as we don't fear to allow our faith to engage with things that are "outside the box," we don't conceive of ourselves as maintaining some kind of rigid "deposit" that is fully self-contained and self-justifying and can never undergo any modification because it comes to realize that itself has missed some things. By contrast, you are a quirky Evangelical-ish "conservative" who cares more about narrow and rigid self-contained, self-justifying paradigms from which you cannot entertain the slightest doubt, lest the whole thing fall apart at the seams. Your apologetics for "conservative" Catholicism come off like Protestant Fundamentalist angst about "evolutionism" or "family values," which has produced no end of historical caricatures and total failure to engage with different paradigms. Accordingly, your apologetics, which can bring nothing to the table of intelligent discussion except the shrill, childish, sectarian demand that as a "Catholic" you cannot re-think anything you are currently settled on for the sake of anyone else (because if you did you would be somehow "compromising Truth"), are totally irrelevant to what we are doing here.

These are just off the top of my head, and constitute some reasons behind what I said earlier.

(11-18-05, 10:21 AM)

I replied, on that blog:

Kevin obviously would not hold to this entire opinion of my apologetics and my person, since he wrote, above: "Let me know though if there is something specific you wanted to discuss." Tim thinks I have nothing whatsoever of any substance or relevance to add to the ongoing discussion here. But it doesn't sound to me like Kevin agrees with that. Since Kevin is more active here than Tim, I would give his opinion much more creedence vis-a-vis this blog.

So again, I am asking clarification from him as to whether he wants me to keep posting here (rarely as that is, in the first place). If not, that's fine, too. Just say the word. I'm not interested in attempted "dialogue" with overtly-hostile folks. I went through that with the anti-Catholics. I'm not about to start up with Tim and others of his hyper-polemical manner and mindset, which kills all good discussion before it begins.

For other readers' sakes: I've had hardly any trouble at all in discussion with other Reformed Catholics or those generally within this school of thought (one can find many entirely cordial dialogues on my website with ecumenical Reformed Protestants); it's only Tim with whom I clash. And I think one can see the obvious reason why, above.

(11-18-05, 10:38 AM)

Kevin and I are in agreement on a very large number of things, including the basic points about the irrelevance and superficiality of much of "conservative" Catholic apologetics. My personal applications of said points to you are my own, but on said points I know that Kevin and I very much agree. Now, Kevin can speak for himself so I won't presumptuously commit him to making a statement about the merits of Dave Armstrong's apologetics. He wants to get away from polemics and have conversations, as do I. But it's hard to converse when polemicists like you and Father Kimel and so many others of similar war-mongering attitude, keep tunelessly humming the same tired old five songs as if they are really just cutting edge critiques.

We're very open here about the flaws of Protestantism generally and Reformed theology particularly. It would be most excellent, for once, to get to deal with some Catholics who could return the favor by being open about the terrible flaws of Catholicism. Perhaps even some Catholics who understood the concept and existential realities of the Atlas-sized responsibility that Rome bears as part and parcel of the authority that she claims. But I know that's too much to ask from all-or-nothing polemicists, who have to have everything just So-So by yesterday, or else there is no Truth, Beauty, and Goodness in the world and everything is up for grabs and Christ lied about the Church never falling, yada yada yada. You guys are as bad as James White, I swear.

(11-18-05, 12:15 PM)

Still awaiting Kevin's opinion . . . he said I was welcome, earlier, along with everyone else. You say, in effect that I am not, and that I have nothing to offer to the ongoing discussion.

You say Kevin agrees with you, pretty much all down the line. Yet he and I have had many perfectly normal discussions. Unless something has radically changed (I haven't; I'm the same as I have always been), I have no reason to believe that he has adopted your almost entirely negative view of my work.

This just keeps getting weirder. Curious, I looked up some of my past dialogues with Kevin. Here's one from April 2004: The Problem of Authority. Kevin wrote:

I would also be very interested to learn if you have interacted at all with Keith Matheson's book, The Shape of Sola Scriptura . . . If so, I would love to review and/or hear your comments on the work.

[Later, I did do a critique of some of it. But I never heard back from Kevin]

Thank you, also, for the comments you left regarding the paper I wrote on The Passion. It was very encouraging to read your response.

. . . I look forward to continued discussions. Thank you for your efforts.

Okay; that doesn't sound like Tim's condescending judgment. . . What else can we find in the Archives? Here's another one (from 6-19-04):

Reply to Joel Garver and Kevin Johnson on Calvin's Eucharistic Theology Compared to St. Cyril of Jerusalem's and the Fathers (Generally-Speaking)

What nasty things did Kevin write there? Oh, man, it was terrible. Clearly he thought my work was worthless, as Tim does:

First, I want to thank you for a response that obviously took some work to research and put together. I intend to reply more fully at another time, . . .

Then we proceeded to have a great dialogue (one of many I have had with him) . . .

The next example is (from July 2004): Discussion With a Reformed Protestant (Catholic) on Art, Early Protestantism, & Catholic Corruption . Kevin wrote:

I wouldn't be interacting with you if I didn't feel there was some value in what you are saying.

Here is what most non-anti-Catholic Protestants who take the time to actually read some of my stuff and interact with me a bit, think of my work and my approach and attitude, contra Tim's cynical trashings. Christopher Atwood is a Lutheran professor of history. He made the following remarks, unsolicited (c. 7-12-05). I happened to run across them:

Let me just say a word here for Dave Armstrong. Despite his tendency to unload
hundreds of pages and somewhat excessive self-promotion, he is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of "any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine" coalition-building we've been discussing . . . Maybe he went through a 'I despise all of my past' stage at one point in his life, but at least now, he's pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).

Now, if something has changed in Kevin's opinion of me, I would like to know. Perhaps Tim has convinced him that I am Attila the Hun and Vlad the Impaler all wrapped up into one, or that I am some clown-caricature of his nonsense that he continues to spew about me. But I can assure everyone that I am the same old Dave Armstrong with whom Kevin had several perfectly amiable, constructive dialogues (or so it seemed to me at the time, anyway).

Something's got to give, here. I don't think Tim and Kevin's friendship will be destroyed if Kevin doesn't think I am the epitome of Catholic Apologetic Folly, Triumphalism, and hubris, as Tim does . . . :-)

I simply want to know whether Kevin wants me to continue commenting here, and thinks I have anything worthwhile to add to the discussion. How hard is that??!! Tim has spoken; now I want to know Kevin's opinion.

Trent a Radical Corruption of What it Coulda or Woulda Been, So Sez Tim Enloe

[originally posted on 3 August 2005]

Tim Enloe, Reformed Protestant controversialist, polemicist, and apologist, is at it again. Though I've long since taken issue with the content and logic of many of his positions, nevertheless the man is interesting, and so (being a naturally intellectually curious type) I simply can't resist looking in on his ramblings from time to time. Lo and behold, in my latest visit to his blog, I learned that the Council of Trent -- far from being orthodox -- was (so Tim informs us) hijacked by radical extremists:

Unfortunately, the Zelanti ["zealots"] appear to have taken over the Council of Trent fairly early in its career, and so it is no wonder that such sweeping condemnations issued forth from that Council in total betrayal of the conciliar spirit which had given rise to it in the first place.

(Part 2: Giovanni Pietro Carafa, a.k.a. Pope Paul IV {1476-1559} )

Pastor's narrative reminds me of many things I've read about Gregory VII and his fanatical supporters (particularly Cardinal Humbert). It reminds me also of many things I've read about the competing lines of popes from 1378-1418, and about Pius II and Julius III and Leo X. These men were the types of men who were so unswervably convinced of their capital-r Rightness that they were willing to see society burn so long as their rigorist intellectual idealisms about themselves and their glorious authority remained on top of the ashes at the end of the day. Fanatics every one, and ironically (given a popular Catholic apologetics attack on Protestantism) their fanaticisms are all based upon taking only one side of a very complicated problem and magnifying it out of all proportion, creating an entire self-contained, self-referential system out of a half-truth that is myopically proclaimed as the whole.

(Giovanni Pietro Carafa, a.k.a. Pope Paul IV {1476-1559} )

Too caught up in fanatically condemning fanaticism and railing against extremity with extreme language, Tim neglects to point out (it's called historical context and fairness) how very "moderate" and "reasonable" and "conciliatory" men like Luther and Calvin were. "Can't we all just get along?" Martin Luther (whom no one would ever -- could ever possibly -- consider a fanatic . . .) was so committed to moderation and a conciliatory spirit that he wrote things like The Babylonian Captivity of the Church in 1520: before he was excommunicated, and a full generation before Trent, which was faced with the task of reacting to all the rampant heresy which had sprung up since Luther's revolt. He was so respectful of opposing theological views that he commissioned woodcuts showing cardinals emerging from the rear end of a demon-like donkey and issued forth many proclamations of the damnation of folks like fellow Protestant "reformer" Zwingli, who used Luther's own principles of authority to dare differ from him on the Eucharist.

Was Calvin any different? Not much. He may not have cussed and ranted and raved with the ferocious intensity of Luther, but he wrote such wonderfully ecumenical and edifying things like the following, in his altogether moderate reaction to Trent before it was over (1547):

. . . We complain that the whole doctrine of godliness is adulterated by impious dogmas; that the whole worship of God is vitiated by foul and disgraceful superstitions; that the pure institution of the sacraments has been supplanted by horrible sacrilege . . . that nothing is seen in the Christian Church that is not deformed and debased; that the grace of Christ not only lies half-buried, but is partly torn to pieces, partly altogether extinguished.

In any event, we can be grateful that Tim Enloe is obviously now applying his recent self-reprimand of his own past shortcomings in discussion with other Christians. He has stated that he is now:

. . . emphasizing the historical nature of many theological disputes in order to try to better understand them and perhaps see some ways of dealing with them more fruitfully than all-or-nothing denunciations. Neither side seems to like this more moderate sort of approach to the issues of dispute.

(Once More on Controversies....Isn't Enough Enough?)

Certainly, his studied moderation and conciliatory tone in his latest posts about the "total betrayal" of Trent and the many "fanatics" running about here and there in the medieval papacy, indicate that he is succeeding in his goal. By examining a statement he made about Trent almost a year ago, it will become evident how moderate and irenic in language and demeanor Tim has become:

By the time the papalists actually got a Council called (Trent), it was not only an utter betrayal of the spirit of conciliar reform (it was a mere creature of the pope, not a free Council of the Church Catholic), but also too little and too late. The papalists' utterly divisive, destructive theory of absolute divine-right authority had exhausted the Church and her societas Christiana, and left room only for open war based upon the principles summarized in the preceding paragraph . . . unbalanced maxim-mouthing subservience to "self-evident" axioms about "authority" . . . an easy confusion of personal ecclesiastical patriotism with fidelity to truth, . . . a contemptuous sneering attitude based upon the possession of mere words and titles . . . .

(A Truly catholic Theory of Authority)

Tim says he is different from others who write about the events of the 16th century and Catholic-Protestant issues:

It's better, most seem to think, to just keep repeating the Party Line, even though after 500 years of such mutual repetitions nothing has occurred but the creation of seemingly endless quantities of bad blood. I don't want to play that game, so I incur the wrath of both teams.

(Ibid.)

Tim is (by his account) engaged in an entirely different brand of apologetics; far more sophisticated than 95% of what passes for "apologetics" these days. He is even willing to be the object of "wrath" from not just one, but "both teams." Let's "listen in" some more to Tim's self-description of how he is different from other apologists:

Interestingly, then, both the Catholic and Protestant apologists have problems with me because I don't want to comport myself in discussion like either of their little controversialist groups thinks a Protestant ought to comport himself, and so I seem to regularly catch it from both sides.

(Ibid.)

Tim, however, has not entirely conquered his demons as of yet, and he has the humility to openly recognize straggling, remaining faults in his ongoing efforts at Christian unity and historical integrity:

Of course, having learned the controversialist habit right from the start, as I said above, I have to admit that I have the bad habit of finding my own clever little ways of keeping fracases going. I mean, really, nobody forces me to go to Catholic message boards and start arguing with extremely dogmatic controversialists about the Schism of 1378-1418.

(Ibid.)

Give him time; this, too, shall pass in due course. But we can see from his charitable language that his heart is in the right place, no matter how he might act in any given circumstance, having found himself (by "bad habit") caught up in yet another "fracas" with "extremely dogmatic controversialists" . . .

Tim Enloe's Inconsistent Use of Religious "Anti" Terms

[originally posted on 27 June 2005]

I've chronicled in many papers how (mostly anti-Catholic, as opposed to ecumenical) Protestants have been irrationally frowning upon the legitimate, scholarly use of the description anti-Catholic, while at the same time inconsistently using their own equivalents (e.g., anti-Calvinist, anti-Baptist, anti-Reformed, anti-Evangelical). Tim Enloe, on the very thin and sometimes hard-to-decipher borderline between anti-Catholic Reformed Protestantism and ecumenical Reformed Protestantism, unfortunately falls prey to the same ludicrous tendency.

Words mean things, and they reflect a person's true opinions. Though some may think that I am unduly belaboring this "linguistic argument" (they ought to stop reading now and move onto some other paper), I think it is highly important to show how illegitimate use of terminology reveals logical and ethical inconsistencies, not to mention undue bias, and possible prejudice. Descriptions reflect how we think about others who differ from us.

The anti-Catholic denies that Catholic theology is Christian theology, so the term is quite appropriate and literally applicable. Catholics don't deny that Reformed Protestants or evangelicals or Baptists or any other trinitarian Protestants are Christian, so if we must be called anti-Protestant or any of the other terms, that must be construed as indicating mere honest disagreement, not denying the fundamental Christian status of our separated brethren. Therefore, use of those "anti" terms as a supposed parallel to anti-Catholic is fundamentally wrongheaded and a disanalogy.

In Tim's case, it seems that virtually anything is open game for following "anti" (except, of course, Catholicism, where the "anti" prefix is unacceptable). Here is a record of his inconsistencies in this regard (and by no means an exhaustive one). First I'll show how he disagrees with the use of anti-Catholic, often (like Eric Svendsen and James White) using quotation marks around it to express his disapproval . Then I'll document his use of numerous equivalent "anti" terms (often without the quotation marks and with implied full approval). Bolding is mine; italics are Tim's:

And one-sided classifications of your opponents into neat, tidy little boxes ("Anti-Catholic") that don't do justice to their objections. In an "open" discussion, one side doesn't demand that its opponent(s) answer questions about their alleged psychological hangups (again, "Anti-Catholic" as a prerequisite to further discussion . . . I simply can't make those kinds of broad-brushed judgments. Hopefully this issue of "Anti-Catholicism" can now be dropped as the irrelevancy it is. . . . Whatever your own intentions may be, "Anti-Catholic" is simply not a helpful term, and you could advance the cause of Catholic apologetics greatly, in my opinion, by repudiating the use of it. But I doubt you'll see it that way.

(Dialogue on Church Authority and Epistemological "Certainty" (The "Infallibility Regress"), July 2000)

The main error of what you posted lies in your tired use of your old rhetorical device of "Anti-Catholicism". You speak of Luther's "ferocious anti-Catholic polemics of 1520", but you are dead wrong. Luther was never any sort of "Anti-Catholic", period. He was obviously increasingly "Anti-Papal", but as hard as it is for your Roman "Catholic" mind to understand, being against thePapacy is not the same thing as being against the Catholic Church.

(Dialogue on Martin Luther: All-Conquering Hero or Anti-Catholic Heel?, 2-5-01)

Consider, for instance, the very widespread use of the term "Anti-Catholic" as a description of a wide variety of opponents of the Roman Catholic belief system. This term can be found in many contexts, but nearly always it is found in contexts of what amounts to little more than complaining about this or that person who is "attacking" the Church out of sheer bigotry or hatred. I have personally seen the term used in one Roman Catholic forum as a broad sociological description on the same level as the secularist battlecries of "Anti-Gay" or "Anti-Abortion". That such language inevitably prejudices discussions of deep principled disagreements is undeniable. That it reveals a deep current of unreflective, fearful introversion is perhaps at least arguable, if not undeniable.

(The "Perspicuity of Church History" and the "Objectivity" of the Student, Part II , 2002)

Much space would be required to develop the importance of this theme of an "obsolete hypothesis" being stubbornly maintained by mere force of rationalistic tradition against all the actual circumstances of the world. The reformist writings of the 14th and 15th centuries are simply saturated with explicit and implicit complaints against this very thing, so it is really no wonder that a great explosion finally happened in the early part of the 16th century. And even for a Protestant trying hard not to be "anti-Catholic" (i.e., merely bigoted against the Papalist Church) it is very difficult to read these writings and the replies of the papalists throughout these times and not see in the latter a whole lot of stubborn obtuseness, uncritical zealotry, and simple inability to mentally grapple with the profound changes sweeping uncontrollably throughout Christendom.

(Some Quotes on Wessel Gansfort and Fifteenth Century Reform Efforts, 9-4-04)

. . . frustrations quite similar to those you yourself have expressed MANY times regarding "anti-Catholics" and message boards) . . . apparently, although I'm not myself an "anti-Catholic" I'm even worse than the "anti-Catholics"!

(discussion for An Outline of Presuppositionalism, II, 10-10-04)

As you know, I'm generally uncomfortable with getting too deeply into discussions about "anti-Catholicism". Yes, of course, I disagree with your analysis of that factor in the original Reformers, . . . when writing diatribes that you might call "anti-Catholic" Calvin in particular often distinguished between "the Church of Rome" considered as an institutional structure and "the Church of Rome" considered as the people under its subjection. . . . I agree that "anti-Catholicism" is a very serious issue in terms of men like Eric and the groups they create, but I really don't wish to spend vast amounts of time discussing whether that attitude is of the very esse of the Reformational viewpoint. I don't believe it is.

(Dialogue on Current Evangelical Anti-Catholicism, Whether Luther & Calvin Were Anti-Catholics, & on the Mass (is it a Christian Service?) , 11-1-04)

Hi, Dave. Saw your blog tonight. Hope you enjoyed this post and have fun warping it in the service of your latest theory about the deep irrationality of non-Catholics--the theory of the grim specter of "quasi-anti-Catholicism". Which Fish-like theory of the irrationality of others will not, of course, be attacked by Jonathan since he's too busy being wowed by your book on biblical evidence for Catholicism to notice your dialogue-destroying behavior. More of those "liberal" double-standards, I guess.

(Thanks again, 12-19-04)

Do you actually believe that this brand new category of "irrational bigot" that Armstrong has created, "quasi-anti-Catholic", has any kind of substantive meaning outside his own head and helps further positive discussion? Please!

(Re: "He's a pro-Catholic hack", 12-19-04)

Also, the following stunning statement is relevant to Tim's overall mindset:

Conciliarism as a movement did die in the fifteenth century, but the theory lived on and continued to cause the papal absolutists no end of trouble for the rest of that century, most of the sixteenth century, and even into the seventeenth century. Nowadays it's alive and well again, and as we're seeing here it's causing guys like you no end of trouble as you seek to defend the absolutely indefensible absolutism of Romanism--a legalistic and schismatic ideology, not a humble and Christ-honoring faith.

(Try again, 12-20-04)
===================================================

Anti-sacramental:

(The "Perspicuity of Church History" and the "Objectivity" of the Student, Part II , 2002)

Anti-Luther (3), anti-Lutheran:

(John Q. Doe paper posted / hosted on Tim's site: The Roman Catholic Perspective of Martin Luther (Part One), July 2003 / Doe himself -- whom I have debated at great length with regard to Martin Luther's beliefs -- has also inconsistently objected to my use of anti-Catholic in the past)

Anti-Reformational:

(The Medieval Attitude Toward Holy Scripture (IV), 10-31-03)

Anti-Christian (2), anti-Calvinism (2), anti-Calvinist, anti-theistic, anti-intellectual:

(The Great Nineteenth Century Apostasy: Herman Melville and Moby Dick as the Cultural Triumph of Paganism, 2004)

Anti-Calvinist:

(The Great Evangelical Disaster: An Open Letter to My Internet Evangelical Brethren, 7-28-04)

Anti-Reformational:

(Toward A Legitimately Reformational Theory of Private Judgment, 7-29-04)

Anti-Reformed, anti-Reformational:

(Sacralism, Secularism, and the Christian Antithesis (Part I), 3-23-04)

Anti-sacralism or anti-sacralist (18 times)

(Sacralism, Secularism, and the Christian Antithesis (Part III), 3-25-04)

[11 more times in Part II]

Anti-Reformational, anti-Trinitarian, anti-Christian:

(The Clarity of Scripture II: Some Preliminary Notes on Confusions of This Doctrine With Modern Philosophical Hermeneutics, 6-28-04)

Anti-Auburn attacks:

(Perceptions, 9-26-04)

Anti-Christian (2), anti-social (2), anti-society (2), anti-culture, anti-cultural, anti-worldview, anti-incarnational:

(An Excursus on "Christian Society" Relative to Certain Gnostic Distortions of "the Gospel", 12-5-04)

Anti-Reformational:

(Some Questions Inspired by Richard Muller on Protestant Scholasticism, 1-3-05)

Anti-worldview (2), anti-Christian, anti-traditional:

(Intellectual Justification and the Evangelicalized-Reformed Anti-Worldview, 1-6-05)

Anti-worldview (5), anti-Christian, anti-Reformational:

(Answering A Defender of a Baptist War-Monger, 1-7-05)

Anti-realism or anti-realist (24 times)

(Some Important Talking Points on "Postmodernism" (I), 3-6-05)

[8 more times in Part IV]

Tim Enloe Ceases Dialogue With Catholics, but Not Pompous Lectures and Outrageous Sweeping Insults

[originally posted on 4 December 2004]

For brief background on the latest sizzling controversy swirling around Presbyterian apologist and polemicist Tim Enloe: Jonathan Prejean posted his piece Stanley Fish and Liberalism, which apparently put Tim over the edge and made him decide to cease interaction with Catholics (supposedly . . .). But his resolve obviously didn't extend to condescending lectures. I've noted for a while now that Tim loves one-way sermons, but doesn't much like dialogue (He has blown off almost all Catholics who have attempted serious dialogue with him as of late). So it stands to reason that he would claim to have given up the latter, without ceasing the former.

I have been observing Tim very closely to see if he could handle any disagreement, without exploding and going right back to his self-destructive, verbally-volcanic ways. I've been standing mostly on the sidelines lately, simply noting and documenting Tim's latest phases and strong reaction to Jonathan's posts. I defended Tim against any insinuation that he is a liberal, period (as a classification of his entire outlook). Jonathan then clarified (twice now) that this was not what he was contending (he and I confine our observations to certain prominent, repeated manifestations of Tim's methodologies). But no matter.

In any event, Tim has started to distort and twist my points of view again, it seems, since he names me in the following rant (I bolded it): the only person he directly addresses, other than Jonathan Prejean. So now we can reasonably assume that Tim thinks I am all these terrible things that he conjures up in his mind when he thinks of "Catholic [read, "orthodox"] conservative." As usual, I (as the published apologist with a fair degree of influence in Internet Catholic apologetics circles, etc.) am the quintessence of everything that is wrong with Catholicism and Catholic apologetics, in Tim's mind (when one scrutinizes exactly what he means by "Catholic conservative").

He thought that four years ago, when he wrote several articles taking my apologetics to task, and he thinks it again now. The more things "change," the more they stay the same . . . As soon as he gets angry about something (even with someone else), I go right back on his manure list. That speaks volumes, I think. This is another classic case of "don't just look at what a person says; watch what he does, too." Or, as we used to say in my old evangelical circles (where I learned so much about God and Christianity, for which I'll always be tremendously grateful): "don't just talk the talk; walk the walk."

Anyway, Jonathan followed up his first article about Tim's severely-flawed methodology (noted above) with Can We Discuss This? Tim couldn't contain himself and issued the following tirade on Jonathan's blog:

I see. So to use the colloquialism "think" is a clear indication of having bought into the "liberal" paradigm. I'll remember that next time you use the word or any of its cognates, and I'll also remember that you know exactly NOTHING about my actual real-life situation--like for instance the fact that for four years I've been learning how to, as Doug Wilson puts it, make my "theology come out my fingertips" and not just stay on the pages of books. Maybe you need to ask yourself your own question: "Can we talk about this?" Maybe there are more options than the simplistic grid through which you're filtering the word "think" in my posts.

As for my "theory of Catholic conservatives" and can I put real people in it, well sure. As a matter of fact, I put you and Dave Armstrong and any number of other real Catholics into it, because to me you all sound like a bunch of dedicated abstractionists, just like the late Medieval high papalists I've spent so much time tracking through the records. All this grandiose talk of your "faith", but what you really mean is not that you simply "believe" in the divine origin of Christianity (as do I), but rather that you're so attached to your particular SECT of Christianity that you're willing to basically thumb your proud little "Catholic" noses at everything and everyone else, who are literally too inferior for your Exalted Apostolic Tradition to learn anything from. What you're saying about your "faith" boils down to this exquisite bunch of utter PRESUMPTION: "Nothing whatsoever can count against my Super Intellectual Theological Theory of Divine-Right Petrine Jurisdiction--not even the destruction of an entire Christian society. It's all everyone else's fault for not taking Jesus literally and playing Nominalist / Positivist games with clear historical facts." Generations of Christians lived and died under absolute papal tyranny, a whole society was lost to horribly destructive wars that even today cause Secularists to viciously mock everyone who names the name of Christ, and what do you "conservative Catholics" give me? "My faith requires me to believe this." Well pardon me, but I think the proper Latin response to that sort of closed-minded position is "Go jump in a lake."

That's the kind of stupid attitude that's got me riled up of late. I'm not going to sit and take that kind of flippancy from Catholics. It's dishonoring to the genuinely catholic (not exclusively Roman) tradition that we see fighting its way throughout the Middle Ages, it's an absolutely absurd dismissal of many generations of very sober-minded theologians constantly frustrated by papalist instransigence, and I think it's based, more often than not, upon the EXTREME ignorance of "conservative" Catholics of the historical sources and their contexts in REAL LIFE, FLESH AND BLOOD Christian society. I've stopped playing games with the apologists because the apologists can't even trouble themselves to read the primary sources. What the hell do they know about what happened in the fifteenth century and how it prepared the way for the sixteenth? NOTHING, that's what, and it shows in the fact that all they can say is "You're a postmodernist! You don't read history through the lens of faith!". I, Tim Enloe, who have taken more absolute GARBAGE from my own side than anyone should ever have to take, and all because I "dared" to suggest that Reformed BIGOTRY against Rome is something we should repent of, don't deserve that kind of absolute flippancy from Catholics, and in fact, it does nothing except shore up typical "Catholic" prejudices against / about other Christians and help to create these situations where the apologists, whose minds and hearts appear to be constructed almost entirely of right angles, look all bewildered and go "Who us? What'd we do?" Duh!

If you expect me to believe you're not like the "Catholic" and "conservative" jerk who bluntly stated to Luther that because the pope was Jesus Christ's Vicar the pope's commands had to be obeyed even if they sent millions to hell, then perhaps you should talk a little less about your "faith" and what it "requires" you to