tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post5813528326539570987..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Brief Exchange with Lutheran Nathan Rinne on Luther's Revolt (the So-Called Protestant "Reformation")Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-49888288775726395732011-09-27T14:14:37.372-04:002011-09-27T14:14:37.372-04:00Dave,
One more thing I want to say: Gerhard's...Dave,<br /><br />One more thing I want to say: Gerhard's devotional books are amazing - so Walther's statement does not surprise me. When one reads them one wonders how pietism could possibly accuse the institutional church of cold-heartedness...<br /><br />And if you needed one more reason, consider this:<br /><br />http://www.worldcat.org/title/thomas-aquinas-and-john-gerhard/oclc/639827&referer=brief_results<br /><br />...evidently he appreciated Thomas (and knew his work) much more than Luther...<br /><br />e-book? Not yet, I guess (but you should ask McCain : ) ). There is one for other books of Gerhard's: <br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Theological+Commonplaces%3A+On+Christ&x=0&y=0<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/Theological-Commonplaces-Theology-Scripture-ebook/dp/B003GEKKQQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317147117&sr=1-1<br /><br />...so maybe you should wait. <br /><br />In the meantime, I'm sending you an interesting article on Gerhard via email.<br />! <br />+ NathanNathan Rinnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13994922104672096902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-30294882120519539482011-09-27T13:41:42.720-04:002011-09-27T13:41:42.720-04:00Is Gerhard available online or as an e-book, thoug...Is Gerhard available online or as an e-book, though? That's what I need to properly do a point-by-point reply, as I did with Calvin, <i>Institutes</i>, Book IV (in its entirety).Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-39990572239526027072011-09-27T13:38:17.139-04:002011-09-27T13:38:17.139-04:00Maybe I'll look it over. No one seems to care ...Maybe I'll look it over. No one seems to care when I do these studies (you're a rare exception). I've done Calvin, Chemnitz; now I'm working on William Whitaker. <br /><br />I'm getting very impatient with relentlessly fallacious arguments and the usual straw man "Catholicism" that is supposedly being refuted, but we'll see. If he actually puts up some decent arguments, and understands his opponent (for a change: what a novelty!) it would be fun to tackle.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-82396512912839238922011-09-27T12:09:18.257-04:002011-09-27T12:09:18.257-04:00Dave,
As if you needed more reasons to read Gerha...Dave,<br /><br />As if you needed more reasons to read Gerhard on the Church, here is a quotation from Dr. C.F.W. Walther, the revered founder of the LC-MS, as he describes the importance of Johann Gerhard’s Loci Theologici:<br /><br />"Among the works that deal with dogmatics in detail, one can ask which one is first and foremost just as little as one can ask which star outshines all the others. Just as in the latter question one can only speak of the sun, so in the former question one can only speak of Johann Gerhard’s Theological Commonplaces. . . . The proofs from Scripture are everywhere clear and exhaustive. <b> ***The refutation of opponents is pervaded and pulses just as much with the spirit of love toward them as with the love of the truth*** </b> ; it seeks out the opponents in all their hiding places and always robs them of their last supports, so that no further contradiction seems possible. The application of the whole as well as of the particular is simple, illuminating, clearly arranged. Free from destructive fragmentation—at times an error of the later dogmaticians—the entire development of the doctrine flows along briskly with its linguistic, historical, and antithetical excursus like one great stream that describes pleasant bends in the river. Everything is all of a piece. Ethics here are not yet separated from dogmatics; the former appear here like grapes growing from a ripe vine. Biblical isagogics, hermeneutics, exegesis, history of dogmas, patristics, and polemics are added here not like a merely worthwhile appendage, but are organically woven into the whole like necessary beams, like adornments in this architectural marvel. The expression and style are so certain and thereby so simple and brisk; the development of topics, even with its exhaustive precision, goes forward without burdensome repetition so swiftly; even the most dry and subtle subjects are discussed with such exceptional freshness and facility; everything is handled with such holy seriousness; and the words are soaked with such devout meaning that the reader, being taken away by the speech of this precious man, does not know whether he has before him a work for the promotion of Christian erudition or a devotional book. One does not tire of it as long as he reads it and notes how light and warmth go forth from this speech of noble simplicity and true depth of spirit. In sum, in our opinion this work of dogmatics is, in content and form, the most glorious, most complete work in this field that has ever been achieved within Christendom, and until the Last Day it will probably remain the model for all who labor in this field."<br /><br />Source for Walther quote:<br />C. F. W. Walther, “Lutherisch-theologische Pfarrers-Bibliothek,” Lehre und Wehre 1 (1855): 300–301. Translation by Benjamin Mayes.<br /><br />That's a bit of a ringing endorsement, huh? In this day and age where theological shallowness is so much the norm, this makes me very hungry/thirsty reading about this.<br /><br />I am also actively seeking to find out what kinds of substantial and/or rebuttals are available to this work. Will let you know what I find out in my initial searching soon...Nathan Rinnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13994922104672096902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-75242597754184516022011-09-27T12:03:09.889-04:002011-09-27T12:03:09.889-04:00Dave,
I humbly say: I believe, good sir, that the...Dave,<br /><br />I humbly say: I believe, good sir, that the shoe is on the other foot. : ) <br /><br />Seriously, if you'd like to keep going after Chemnitz, I have the next thing for you to take on: <br /><br />http://cyberbrethren.com/2010/10/26/more-treasure-from-johann-gerhard-now-in-english-the-church/<br /><br />After 2 (or has it been 3) have now told me that this book is even better than the Confessio Catholica (the two volume work where Gerhard defends the Lutheran Church as the true church), it has finally sunk in and I will stop bothering everyone to translate the CC from Latin/German. <br /><br />Here's more on the author and the series as a whole: <br /><br />http://cyberbrethren.com/2011/03/17/johann-gerhards-loci-theologici-the-best-and-most-comprehensive-lutheran-presentation-of-christian-doctrine/<br /><br />Just perusing the content I think I can give you assurance Dave that this man takes care of all your concerns about the dearth of strong arguments vs. the RCC. As I look at the index of this book - and all the sources Gerhard quotes and seems to be very familiar with - I am in a bit of awe. <br /><br />So go get him...Nathan Rinnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13994922104672096902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-73708150311252164512011-09-27T11:33:37.845-04:002011-09-27T11:33:37.845-04:00I look forward to it. I wish you the best in defen...I look forward to it. I wish you the best in defending a hopeless cause. :-)Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-54180752951324128122011-09-27T08:42:59.102-04:002011-09-27T08:42:59.102-04:00....
Me: "he took his stand on Scripture.&qu.......<br /><br />Me: "he took his stand on Scripture."<br /><br />You: "Don't you mean on his interpretation of Scripture?"<br /><br />As Augustine says, many passages are so clear on the face of it, that it does not make sense to talk much about personal interpretations or opinions. The meaning of the text is externally clear to everyone, even if they, not having spiritual illumination, do not understand or believe it (internal clarity). <br /><br />Me: "Against the Anabaptists, he took his stand on tradition."<br /><br />You: "As interpreted by himself." <br /><br />I disagree. As interpreted by the Church, with the true Rule of Faith. Here, think remnant, both in O.T. and N.T. <br /><br />Ben - next week on Wednesday I hope to send David my reply to all of his Chemnitz postings. I am sure you will find my reply (and David's as well) very interesting at least.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />NathanNathan Rinnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13994922104672096902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-746959790675252572011-09-27T08:42:50.799-04:002011-09-27T08:42:50.799-04:00"No one denies that Church needed reform at t..."No one denies that Church needed reform at the time. What is denied is that the Church at any time officially taught error."<br /><br />Yes, we say it clearly did, as anyone can see by examining the Scriptures vs. Trent (see Chemnitz)<br /><br />"Well Nathan, I think we can safely say that no individual constitutes “the Church.”"<br /><br />Luther simply put into words more clearly than any before him what many in the Church felt in their bones to be true. He was not the only respected pastor to think that he had truth on his side. Others resonated with what he said of course. It has always been the same in the Church, even if, admittedly, some of the brave defenders of the truth in the past gained a following in wider quarters and in a more speedy fashion. <br /><br />"There were thousands of ordained priests in Luther’s day (and countless others before him). Could any of them have been “legitimately ordained” in any but the one true Church?"<br /><br />That depends on what you think of the E.O. I see their ordinations as being just as valid as those in the R.C.C.<br /><br />"Then all the Doctors and Fathers before Luther were wrong?"<br /><br />No - it is as Chemnitz says of Augustine. Here, he explains that Augustine himself talked about how painful but necessary it was to have to correct many of the respected and revered fathers of the church before him. The only reason he had to do this was because the errors of the time (Donatism and Pelagianism especially) forced him into the Scriptures more and more, and he realized in the course of his arguments with his opponents how badly off the fathers were in many topics. He tried his best to "cover" their errors so to speak (without being dishonest), by putting their interpretations in a generous light. This all he says himself, and he also talks about how he realized that he himself was in error regarding certain important doctrines...<br /><br />"Well, speaking just for myself, I always feel a bit less "comfort" when it comes to certain doctrines ... such as the doctrine of hell! But if Lutherans find “comfort” in such doctrines... ;)"<br /><br />Of course we do. In hell, we have the ultimate in protection for the faithful. Our enemies, those who would destroy us and the King we serve, will be kept far from us. There will be a great chasm between those who fear, love, and trust God perfectly - and whose only joy is Him - and those who would use any means necessary to pull us down into the pit with them. Yes, *extremely comforting*....Nathan Rinnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13994922104672096902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-43602165027688030802011-09-24T08:51:09.796-04:002011-09-24T08:51:09.796-04:00Cont.
The question is, was his view of the Rule o...Cont.<br /><br /><i>The question is, was his view of the Rule of Faith correct? I argue it was, or at least is closer than the RCC view(s).</i><br /><br />Then all the Doctors and Fathers before Luther were wrong?<br /><br /><i>In addition, because Luther held to the genuine Rule of Faith so tenaciously, he would not have, like the pretenders who followed him, ever rejected infant baptism. If you think this for a minute, you need to actually read his writings. In general, after 1520, his teachings did not change much.</i> <br /><br />I may have read a line or two of Luther. <br /><br /><i> You ask where I find the Catholic Church ever failing to uphold Christ or teach that his grace was not free. I have continually referred to this post: http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2009/10/20/a-child-of-the-reformation/ (not sure how to do the links with html, but please cut and paste it if you have not already).</i><br /><br />How’s <a href="http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2009/10/20/a-child-of-the-reformation/" rel="nofollow">this</a>? (To see how hyperlinks are made (in Firefox), just point the mouse anywhere on a web page (except pics and links) and right click. Then choose <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=%22view+page+source%22&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=" rel="nofollow">“view page source” </a> from the menu. This will show the underlying html code, which can then be easily searched (as with any other document) by pressing “control f” (or “control g”). <br /><br /><i>Like I said, I suspect this is the crux. This, I think, is where the errors of Rome really come to a head: the discouragement of the confidence of faith (as I mentioned before, Luther at one point said of Rome: “our opponents cannot find comfort in any doctrine”</i><br /><br />Luther (and all the Reformers) had a well-documented tendency to misrepresent Catholic teaching. <br /><br /><i>Lutherans basically find some comfort in every doctrine).</i><br /><br />Well, speaking just for myself, I always feel a bit less "comfort" when it comes to certain doctrines ... such as the doctrine of <i>hell</i>! But if Lutherans find “comfort” in such doctrines... ;)<br /><br /><i>Regarding “Sola Scriptura” I suppose there is a sense in which we can say the most serious Lutherans (like Chemnitz) did believe something like this. At the same time, their version of “Sola Scriptura” is far more nuanced then, and almost unrecognizable from, the more modern notions of Sola Scriptura, often trumpeted by Reformed and Baptist apologists.</i><br /><br />I agree.<br /><br /><i>The Lutheran view is totally different. In Luther’s circumstances, given the claims of Rome, he took his stand on Scripture.</i><br /><br />Don't you mean on his <i>interpretation</i> of Scripture? <br /><br /><i>Against the Anabaptists, he took his stand on tradition.</i><br /><br />As <i>interpreted</i> by himself. <br /><br /><i>This is not because he was being inconsistent, it is because it he was also captive to the genuine Rule of Faith...</i><br /><br />Again, shouldn't we rather say captive to his own <i>opinions</i>? <br /><br />Looking forward to your reply…<br /><br />God bless. †Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-56033550776187561422011-09-24T08:38:49.078-04:002011-09-24T08:38:49.078-04:00Nathan,
I challenge you the way I challenged Dave...Nathan,<br /><br /><i>I challenge you the way I challenged Dave: deal with the issue of what the Biblical concept of “remnant” means in RC theology. And does it play out on the ground, through history?</i><br /><br />Nathan, “remnant” simply means that God will never abandon His Church(just as He promised). The wheat and the chaff must grow together until the harvest; but it is the Wheat who always remain faithful to the "Apostolic Tradition" of truth in every age. Read this <a href="http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=Athanasius+%22May+God+comfort+you+i+know+moreover%22&btnG=#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=+%22May+God+comfort+you%22+athanasius&pbx=1&oq=+%22May+God+comfort+you%22+athanasius&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=3626l7307l3l7628l11l11l0l0l0l0l247l1990l0.5.6l11l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=92f4c9932522fda1&biw=1240&bih=735" rel="nofollow">letter fragment</a> from St. Athanasius.<br /><br />Read also another all but untold story of faithfulness - a holy German Prioress and her nuns, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=xhMJAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA53&dq=%22suffocated+with+rage,+and+foaming+at+the+mouth,+bucer%22&hl=en&ei=e6p9TrqbDImKsgL6pdQO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22suffocated%20with%20rage%2C%20and%20foaming%20at%20the%20mouth%2C%20bucer%22&f=false" rel="nofollow">embattled by the fanatical Bucer</a>. Their story begins <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=xhMJAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=%22her+successor+ursula+von+bock%22&source=bl&ots=x5Wi4ip14W&sig=0DreN6erb0m_p2G8K4qaZowj0gQ&hl=en&ei=Xap9TojmC4vJsQL9yagX&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22her%20successor%20ursula%20von%20bock%22&f=false" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br /><i>I’m trying to get you to think outside of your self-chosen box (yes, you, as an individual, have chosen to side with the interpretation of the RC church, whom you consider to have the only authoritative, and evidently “non-private” interpretation…</i><br /><br />Doesn't seem like such a bad idea to “side” with the Roman Church, especially given that this church is honored and esteemed by <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=romans+%22All+the+churches+of+Christ+%22&hl=en&biw=1240&bih=735&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=" rel="nofollow">“all the churches of Christ” </a> in Scripture! ;)<br /><br /><i>Luther wanted to remain faithful to what was then recognized as the visible Church on earth but could not, in good conscience do so.</i><br /><br />“Good conscience”? But what about those who also in “good conscience” saw things differently from Luther?<br /><br /><i> He believed that he, not they, was closest to the Rule of Faith of the catholic and universal church on earth. Their errors were so great – and their condemnations of him so strong – that he obviously could not remain in the RC church. This is why it was legitimate – nay, a tragic necessity – to reject its teaching and authority (though not deny that they were still Church, albeit one that was daily mitigating the truth and grace found there)</i><br /><br />No one denies that Church needed reform at the time. What is denied is that the Church at any time officially taught error. <br /><br /><i>Yes, only the Church can faithfully expound the Scriptures, but the question is “who is Church and who speaks for it”?</i> <br /><br />Well Nathan, I think we can safely say that <i>no individual</i> constitutes “the Church.” <br /><br /><i>Luther was a legitimately ordained pastor in the Church and one possessing the authority of Christ to preach to/teach/guide the nations, to bind (not absolve) and to loose (absolve).</i><br /><br />There were thousands of ordained priests in Luther’s day (and countless others before him). Could any of them have been “legitimately ordained” in any but the one true Church?Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-22373345272474830992011-09-23T13:40:36.485-04:002011-09-23T13:40:36.485-04:00Cool. Have a great weekend, my zealous friend in C...Cool. Have a great weekend, my zealous friend in Christ. :-)Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-61000503709325350612011-09-23T12:59:01.648-04:002011-09-23T12:59:01.648-04:00Dave,
I'm getting a 404 error on the Webber p...Dave,<br /><br />I'm getting a 404 error on the Webber paper I referred to in the initial post. Here it is again: <br /><br />http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/WebberReformationsBefore.pdf<br /><br />Eventually, I will be taking on your take of Chemnitz. It will be an honor to do battle with you. I've enjoyed your series on Whiticker. <br /><br />+ Nathan <br /><br />+ NathanNathan Rinnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13994922104672096902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-48398575243219311122011-09-20T15:24:03.889-04:002011-09-20T15:24:03.889-04:00Hi Nathan,
If I do engage you on your Chemnitz po...Hi Nathan,<br /><br /><i>If I do engage you on your Chemnitz posts, may I do so here, on this post (just to keep everything tidy)?</i><br /><br />If you were to actually attempt a point-by-point rebuttal, I would request that you send me an e-mail:<br /><br />apologistdave [at] gmail [dot] com<br /><br />Then I would create a new post with your entire reply and my counter-reply. I want to keep comboxes generally on the topic of the post they are under. Thanks.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-54614430489140136472011-09-20T15:21:15.889-04:002011-09-20T15:21:15.889-04:00To say that someone can possibly be saved "ou...To say that someone can possibly be saved "outside" the one true Church is not the same as saying that there should not be or is not, one true, identifiable, institutional, visible, apostolic Church.<br /><br />Therefore, there can be "remnants" of folks who are ignorant of true ecclesiology and tradition who are saved. That says not a whit about what the true Church is; nor is it any denial that there is only one Church, per the Bible. This Church is visible and hierarchical; not merely abstract. E.g., the Jerusalem Council . . .Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-41939918094966013592011-09-20T15:18:35.322-04:002011-09-20T15:18:35.322-04:00Hi Nathan,
The sin of schism doesn't go down ...Hi Nathan,<br /><br />The sin of schism doesn't go down through many generations. That's why today's Protestants aren't guilty of it. The Bible allows for those "outside" the gates to possibly be saved (Romans 2). <br /><br />In Luther's case it is different. He was in the Church; knew it to be the Church, and deliberately decided to dissent on at least 50 beliefs and practices (as I have documented), thus leading to inevitable excommunication and schism, since he started up a rival communion.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-26898535863726319532011-09-20T13:53:36.045-04:002011-09-20T13:53:36.045-04:00Dave,
By the way, you have said:
"“Since s...Dave,<br /><br />By the way, you have said: <br /><br />"“Since sola Scriptura is devoid of any unquestionable patristic support (as I and many other Catholics have shown, I think), then it must be ditched, according to this true and wise maxim of Martin Chemnitz. I continue to await modern-day adherents of Chemnitz' position (Lutherans) to come and defend both him and his argument.<br /><br />Usually, at this point of the argument (i.e., after patristic demonstration), the argument from my esteemed Lutheran brothers in Christ ceases, or (as in cases such as the extreme polemicist Josh Strodtbeck, descends into the merely personal and ad hominem and is entirely devoid of rational substance). But where are the modern defenders of Lutheran orthodoxy, who will be willing to amiably engage a Catholic critic? Few and far between, they are . . .”<br /><br />I might be your guy - although I have nothing on Chemnitz (will try though). For a short while that is (not that I am afraid of debate - just that I have full time work and more, 4 kids, etc. etc.).<br /><br />If I do engage you on your Chemnitz posts, may I do so here, on this post (just to keep everything tidy)? <br /><br />+ NathanNathan Rinnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13994922104672096902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-68304568658930849362011-09-20T13:50:03.596-04:002011-09-20T13:50:03.596-04:00David,
Thanks. I will take a look at these - and...David,<br /><br />Thanks. I will take a look at these - and hopefully be back to comment in a week or so. <br /><br />"the remnant of faithful followers are also in the Church, not outside of it."<br /><br />How do you see the situation with Israel and Judah in Elijah's time? Israel seems to have fallen away from the true Assembly by this time (if not now en toto, later for sure). There is all kinds of false worship and false belief among the people, the priests, and the prophets there. In the midst of this, God tells a discouraged Elijah that there are still 7,000 faithful in Israel (don't know if they are attending the worship services that are offered around there or not - I'm guessing some were and some weren't). Note, I do not think that this exhausts the ways that "remnant" is used on the Old Testament, but it is interesting in that I'm not sure how it would go along with what you said above. How do you see this? Do you think that these people were in the visible Church of the day? If not, how were they connected to the Church? <br /><br />Back in about a week. Thanks.<br /><br />+ NathanNathan Rinnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13994922104672096902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-67104806549340796232011-09-20T12:28:35.187-04:002011-09-20T12:28:35.187-04:00I've already commented on the "remnant&qu...I've already commented on the "remnant" business, I believe. This cannot be justified in a way that entails schism from the Church. Luther denied (by redefining) apostolic succession, thus rationalizing his schism from the One true Church.<br /><br />The Church is what it is. It can't be redefined by whim. Since sinners will always be in the Church, the remnant of faithful followers are also in the Church, not outside of it. What you do is pit piety and faithfulness against allegiance to the Church, which is entirely unbiblical.<br /><br />Of relevance here would be the biblical evidence for indefectibility:<br /><br />http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/05/biblical-evidence-for-indefectibility.html<br /><br />See also my paper, "The Visible, Hierarchical, Apostolic Church"<br /><br />http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/01/visible-hierarchical-apostolic-church.html<br /><br />I have a number of papers on infallibility in the Bible: of the Church and the pope; and analogies for same. See the "Infallibility" sections of my Church and papacy pages:<br /><br />http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/church-index-page.html<br /><br />http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/papacy-index-page.htmlDave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-75959809019290615642011-09-20T10:00:24.492-04:002011-09-20T10:00:24.492-04:00Dave,
I am hoping that I will get something from ...Dave,<br /><br />I am hoping that I will get something from you today - if you are still planning on continuing our discussion. <br /><br />I have almost finished all of your Chemnitz posts (reading them very carefully, and am formulating a detailed response), in addition to the Luther links you posted on this original blog post. <br /><br />Again, I would be very eager to hear your take on "remnant" as well as the unfolding of infallibilty in the Old Testament. I know you do your research!<br /><br />+ NathanNathan Rinnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13994922104672096902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-5938292488082318802011-09-20T09:56:28.888-04:002011-09-20T09:56:28.888-04:00...
That said, let me briefly try to deal with th......<br /><br />That said, let me briefly try to deal with these things you bring up again. 1) Luther wanted to remain faithful to what was then recognized as the visible Church on earth but could not, in good conscience do so. He believed that he, not they, was closest to the Rule of Faith of the catholic and universal church on earth. Their errors were so great – and their condemnations of him so strong – that he obviously could not remain in the RC church. This is why it was legitimate – nay, a tragic necessity – to reject its teaching and authority (though not deny that they were still Church, albeit one that was daily mitigating the truth and grace found there) 2) Yes, only the Church can faithfully expound the Scriptures, but the question is “who is Church and who speaks for it”? Luther was a legitimately ordained pastor in the Church and one possessing the authority of Christ to preach to/teach/guide the nations, to bind (not absolve) and to loose (absolve). The question is, was his view of the Rule of Faith correct? I argue it was, or at least is closer than the RCC view(s). In addition, because Luther held to the genuine Rule of Faith so tenaciously, he would not have, like the pretenders who followed him, ever rejected infant baptism. If you think this for a minute, you need to actually read his writings. In general, after 1520, his teachings did not change much. 3) You ask where I find the Catholic Church ever failing to uphold Christ or teach that his grace was not free. I have continually referred to this post: http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2009/10/20/a-child-of-the-reformation/ (not sure how to do the links with html, but please cut and paste it if you have not already). Like I said, I suspect this is the crux. This, I think, is where the errors of Rome really come to a head: the discouragement of the confidence of faith (as I mentioned before, Luther at one point said of Rome: “our opponents cannot find comfort in any doctrine” – Lutherans basically find some comfort in every doctrine). 4) Regarding “Sola Scriptura” I suppose there is a sense in which we can say the most serious Lutherans (like Chemnitz) did believe something like this. At the same time, their version of “Sola Scriptura” is far more nuanced then, and almost unrecognizable from, the more modern notions of Sola Scriptura, often trumpeted by Reformed and Baptist apologists. The Lutheran view is totally different. In Luther’s circumstances, given the claims of Rome, he took his stand on Scripture. Against the Anabaptists, he took his stand on tradition. This is not because he was being inconsistent, it is because it he was also captive to the genuine Rule of Faith, which hopefully, we will get into more detail about… (if people actually care to discuss what it looks like on the ground: concrete examples, etc.). <br /><br />+ NathanNathan Rinnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13994922104672096902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-35758959176119568772011-09-20T09:56:13.068-04:002011-09-20T09:56:13.068-04:00Ben,
Most of the stuff you bring up here, I think...Ben,<br /><br />Most of the stuff you bring up here, I think that I have already addressed above. As such, there is really not more that I can say, I think. I realize that you obviously do not find my arguments convincing. I would only ask of you two things: A) pay attention to the specific thing Dave says that I misinterpreted in his original post, and then see my replies. After my first reply, Dave surprised me a bit, saying: “You not only hung yourself with this particular dead-end argument, but you nailed your own casket shut and lowered yourself into the ground.” I went on to directly answer his points quite effectively I think, and have yet to hear another rebuttal. My conscience is quite clear here. B) I challenge you the way I challenged Dave: deal with the issue of what the Biblical concept of “remnant” means in RC theology. And does it play out on the ground, through history? I’m trying to get you to think outside of your self-chosen box (yes, you, as an individual, have chosen to side with the interpretation of the RC church, whom you consider to have the only authoritative, and evidently “non-private” interpretation [maybe you’d say the EO don’t have this either, but then you must talk about how they are different from Confessional Lutherans, who hold to a public, not private confession, claiming not to be just a bunch of “like-minded” individuals, who have found that we all share similar private interpretations, but to actually be Church])...Nathan Rinnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13994922104672096902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-4392309114982469102011-09-15T20:04:38.083-04:002011-09-15T20:04:38.083-04:00Nathan:
[Luther] demonstrated by his actions (ear...Nathan:<br /><br /><i>[Luther] demonstrated by his actions (early on) that he was concerned to remain faithful to the church.</i><br /><br />Why then wasn’t he? And really, is there ever a time when any of us are permitted to be 'unfaithful' to the Bride??<br /><br /><i>[We are to listen to the] one who faithfully expounds the Scriptures, recognized by the faithful as God’s Word from the very beginning.</i><br /><br />But ultimately, <i>ONLY THE CHURCH</i> can FAITHFULLY expound the Scriptures. It's part of her very mission as a "teaching" (not a <i>self</i>-teaching) Church. <br /><br />Go ye therefore, and TEACH all nations ... TEACHING them to OBSERVE all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you ALWAYS, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matt. 28: 19-20)<br /><br />But the Church could not teach without having Christ's authority. This he gave to her in saying<br /><br />“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" Matt. 28:18<br /><br />The Church therefore TEACHES and DISCIPLINES with <i>Christ's</i> authority. Luther in his own way understood this. Calvin too (in his own way) seems to have <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Under+certain+conditions+the+authority+of+the+Church+is+nothing+less+than+the+authority+of+Christ+Himself%22&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=#q=%22Under+certain+conditions+the+authority+of+the+Church+is+nothing+less+than+the+authority+of+Christ+Himself%22&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=79cf3c727013599b&biw=1240&bih=735" rel="nofollow">recognized this basic truth.</a><br /><br />And why not? After all, we look in vain for an instance in Scripture where <i>laypersons</i> are teaching doctrine and / or correcting error. On the contrary, what we find, always and everywhere, is the CHURCH - AND ONLY THE CHURCH - teaching, interpreting and correcting.<br /><br /><i>The one who upholds Christ (like the early ecumenical councils did) and defends His free grace in all its freeness.</i><br /><br />The Church has always done this. Or <i>where</i> do you find the Catholic Church ever failing to uphold Christ, or teach that his grace was <i>not</i> free??<br /><br /><i>You really need to define “private interpretation” for me…. It seems to me that when you say "private interpretation" I can just interpret that to mean I disagree with the Magisterium.</i><br /><br />Well, it would help to know <i>which</i> “Magisterium” you’re referring to – Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, so and so's “Bible church" etc. But whichever you choose, you must then show why it’s legitimate to reject its teaching and authority. <br /><br />Regarding “private interpretation,” I mean simply the determining for <i>oneself</i> which <i>doctrines</i> and <i>practices</i> shall be <i>binding</i> on the universal Church. <br /><br />As for the Reformers use of tradition…<br /><br />Yes, they appealed to tradition – as it suited them. But had Luther for example, at any point in his career decided that say, infant baptism had to go, gone it would’ve been! Should he have felt differently later, back it would’ve come! And so on... <br /><br /><i>please try and find “Sola Scriptura” in our confessions</i><br /><br />Nathan, have you forgotten what <i>Luther</i> himself declared? <br /><br />“I am bound by the <i>SCRIPTURES</i>” and <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=luther+%22captive+to+the+word%22&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=#q=luther+%22captive+to+the+word%22&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=79cf3c727013599b&biw=1240&bih=735" rel="nofollow"> “captive to WORD” </a>. <br /><br />When is the last time you heard a Protestant speak of being “bound” or “captive” to <i>Sacred Tradition</i>? <br /><br />Later, <br /><br />God bless.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-25033920505893253862011-09-15T13:42:56.036-04:002011-09-15T13:42:56.036-04:00Hi Nathan,
I'm glad you pointed this out. It ...Hi Nathan,<br /><br />I'm glad you pointed this out. It was a completely bad URL (happens, with all my multiple hundreds of papers!). I corrected it, and here it is:<br /><br />http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/08/critique-of-martin-chemnitz-examination.htmlDave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-23075085840043820692011-09-15T09:16:19.502-04:002011-09-15T09:16:19.502-04:00David,
I am looking for this, but I get a 404 err...David,<br /><br />I am looking for this, but I get a 404 error:<br /><br />Critique of Martin Chemnitz' Examination of Trent: Scripture I (Poisoning the Well as to the Catholic Rule of Faith and Veneration of Holy Scripture)<br /><br />+ NathanNathan Rinnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13994922104672096902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-37966138065318358012011-09-14T15:44:25.687-04:002011-09-14T15:44:25.687-04:00No need to answer today, then.No need to answer today, then.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.com