tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post3307909005276640327..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Reply to a Calvinist Critique of Dave Armstrong's Book, "The Catholic Verses" ("Introduction")Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-42661573805739879142012-03-27T11:50:54.353-04:002012-03-27T11:50:54.353-04:00..Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-14382204521147712362012-03-26T20:22:27.974-04:002012-03-26T20:22:27.974-04:00And how about this for someone "playing the H...And how about this for someone <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=%22I+was+not+commissioned+to+preach+by+any+man+in+this+world+nor+by+any+lord+but+by+Him+who+is+the+Lord+of+lords%22&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&prmd=imvns&filter=0" rel="nofollow">"playing the Holy Spirit card"</a>?Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-46980801855744224392012-03-25T18:42:29.686-04:002012-03-25T18:42:29.686-04:00Dr. Rentler,
I have certainly encountered "R...Dr. Rentler,<br /><br />I have certainly encountered "Reformed" people who relied heavily on the Jedi mind trick to insinuate their beliefs. However, as any Jedi Knight will concede, it only works on the weak-minded, which is why they can trick themselves so effectively.<br /><br />Self-hypnosis is another way to describe it when they use the trick on themselves. It can be surprisingly difficult to snap them out of it.<br /><br />As you accurately and amusingly describe, the trick is to assert boldly the opposite of what a biblical text says and then to repeat the assertion if challenged. That's the level of Reformed exegesis I've encountered from, for example, Ken Temple and John Bugay, who have commented on Dave's blog. Very often they will go one step further, though, when pressed, and move to their second most frequent argument: "Well, I can't explain it (even though this is the core of my belief and I consider myself quite the expert on biblical matters), but some other reformed genius will explain it all to you. Just go read his stuff." <br /><br />Finally, when all else fails, there's always the argumentative clincher: "I can't explain it, but the Holy Spirit whispered it into my inner ear and so you must accept it as true." Borrowing Mormon terminology, I like to call this the "burning in the bosom" defense or, if you prefer, "playing the Holy Spirit card."Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-35406326944198256732012-03-23T21:51:05.353-04:002012-03-23T21:51:05.353-04:00http://crossed-the-tiber.blogspot.com/2012/02/jedi...http://crossed-the-tiber.blogspot.com/2012/02/jedi-knight-school-of-biblical-exegesis.htmlRuss Rentler, M.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00659833542780220795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-48574452545086604532012-03-23T21:50:04.397-04:002012-03-23T21:50:04.397-04:00Adomnan: your comments about contradicting scriptu...Adomnan: your comments about contradicting scripture made me think of a recent post I did called the Jedi Knight School of Biblical Exegesis.<br />Give it a spin here<a href="http://crossed-the-tiber.blogspot.com/2012/02/jedi-knight-school-of-biblical-exegesis.html" rel="nofollow"></a>Russ Rentler, M.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00659833542780220795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-28424962133520783182012-03-06T12:38:53.122-05:002012-03-06T12:38:53.122-05:00Thanks for the invitation, Tony-Allen; but I don&#...Thanks for the invitation, Tony-Allen; but I don't accept it. <br /><br />Take another look at the example I gave in my original comment on this thread.<br /><br />I am sure that you would be willing to write reams "arguing" that the imputation of Christ's righteousness is biblical, even though it plainly isn't. Your Reformed presuppositions will always trump the text. <br /><br />In any event, I have already discussed this topic at length on Dave's blog, most recently with someone named John Bugay. If you're curious and wish to look it up, Dave has posted that discussion on his justification page. There's no point in my going over the same ground with you.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-29435787669427335992012-03-06T00:50:09.277-05:002012-03-06T00:50:09.277-05:00Adomnan - I humbly invite you to go through my blo...Adomnan - I humbly invite you to go through my blog and respond to any post where you think I have construed what a verse says and gone with my presuppositions and demonstrated "simply a grab bag of pious-sounding words and isolated sentences that can be fit into any preconceived scheme." I would enjoy the discussion.Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04232209481041145155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-34395427574771421652012-03-06T00:41:18.977-05:002012-03-06T00:41:18.977-05:00Tony-Allen: Hence it is not really scripture that ...Tony-Allen: Hence it is not really scripture that truly has the final say, but that "final authority" which gets the final say. However this "final authority" may interpret the Bible, we are to accept it.<br /><br />Adomnan: I have yet to encounter a hard-core Reformed Protestant who gives scripture the "final say." It is always their personal take that has the final say, and their take is based entirely on the presuppositions they bring to the text. This renders the text itself irrelevant, since any arbitrary meaning can be given to it. <br /><br />Here's an example: The Reformed notion of the "imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer" is not only absent from scripture; it explicitly contradicts scripture. Yet, given that Reformed presuppositions trump Paul's actual words, they simply interpret his statement that "faith is imputed as righteousness" to mean the opposite of what it says -- to mean that "faith is not imputed as righteousness, but 'Christ's righteousness,' which Paul never mentions, is." <br /><br />If someone wants to construe a text to mean the opposite of what it says, who can stop him?<br /><br />That is why it is almost always a waste of time to dialogue with hard-core Reformed people. We really have no common ground.<br /><br />The only thing one can do is to point out how starkly their tenets contradict what the scripture actually states. In the end, though, they don't care. They often take an interest in the wording of a pssage, because sophists love to play around with words. However, letting the scripture speak for itself and searching for its true, objective meaning is of no interest to them. In short, scripture has no say in their theology and is no authority whatsoever, final or otherwise. It's simply a grab bag of pious-sounding words and isolated sentences that can be fit into any preconceived scheme. <br /><br />I have seen this over and over. It's just the way it is.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-32234012803636713372012-03-05T20:11:53.939-05:002012-03-05T20:11:53.939-05:00Thank you, I'm aware of that quote from First ...Thank you, I'm aware of that quote from First Vatican. I suppose I was responding more to lay Roman Catholics and some Roman Catholic apologists.Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04232209481041145155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-18156599369845263552012-03-05T18:59:06.606-05:002012-03-05T18:59:06.606-05:00Just one factual clarification:
You wrote:
"...Just one factual clarification:<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br />"For the Catholic, the Bible is 'inerrant' so long as their understanding of it agrees with the theology of Mother Church, and the Bible is an 'inspired revelation of God' only so long as those books are declared by Mother Church to be 'inspired revelation of God.' That’s a presupposition that has to be addressed, for while on the surface both sides may appear the same, the root is still different."<br /><br />This is untrue. The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is inherently what it is, and comes to us in that essential way:<br /><br />First Vatican Council (1870):<br /><br />These the Church holds to be sacred and canonical; not because, having been carefully composed by mere human industry, they were afterward approved by her authority; not because they contain revelation, with no admixture of error; but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and have been delivered as such to the Church herself.<br /><br />(Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, chapter II )<br /><br />Second Vatican Council (1962-1965):<br /><br />The divinely-revealed realities which are contained and presented in the text of sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For Holy Mother Church relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that they were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn. 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:15-16), they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.<br /><br />(Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation [Dei Verbum], Chapter III, 11)Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-27249300371671306732012-03-05T18:23:08.048-05:002012-03-05T18:23:08.048-05:00Greetings, sir.
I've posted a response on my ...Greetings, sir.<br /><br />I've posted a response on my original page (I updated it at the bottom). However, out of respect for your time and your policies, I'll let you know what I say at the beginning, which is that I am "anti-Catholic" according to your definitions. If you choose not to continue correspondence, I will respect that. God bless.Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04232209481041145155noreply@blogger.com