Here is a thoughtful response to the Manhattan Declaration by Alistair Begg. And an excerpt:
Sadly contemporary evangelicalism seems little concerned with the solas of The Reformation and is therefore susceptible to initiatives, which make something other than the Gospel, the basis of unity and the focus of our declarations.
44 comments:
I praise God for the clarity of thought that is evident in Alistair Begg's analysis of this Declaration, and commend John MacArthur for a similar response.
Randy Kirkland
Here is an excerpt from some thoughts I shared today with some brothers on this subject...
The drafters of the document use the terminology “we, as Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical Christians” and then cite what “we” are declaring….Now, you and I know the difference between these traditions but I think it is naïve to think the readers of this document will have much appreciation for the differences. Speaking for myself, I would not consider Catholic... doctrines(notably the “gospel”) true to Scripture and would relegate them to Galatian heresy to which Paul would say “anathema”. I would never sign a document that joins me with Catholics as co-adherents to the same Gospel. That said, the phrasing could be taken to mean 3 different types of Christians (which would at best be confusing) or 3 traditions within the true Christian faith (which is patently false and very deceptive). Now, I could cross my fingers and say these things but that is disingenuous. Or I could say “this document is not intended to clearly state the Gospel (which brother Doug has correctly pointed out it does not) so I will assume the reader will not get distracted by the theological “nuances” that differentiate us (I am being tongue in cheek…I don’t think Ridley, Latimer, Huss and Lady Jane Gray would see these things as so subtle). So, I cannot even fathom how I could sign this document...
To be sure, the Drafting Committee contains 2 men who are ecumenical (Tim George and Chuck Colson, who championed ECT). I don’t know Robert George. How sad that we were co-opted by a document that was drafted by men sympathetic to ecumenism and then circulated among men who are known to espouse a false gospel. Now, men like Alistair Begg and John MacArthur who have fought valiantly for Gospel purity are being set at odds with men like Lig Duncan and many others I respect immensely. Colson even said on Focus on the Family that all leaders of major evangelical seminaries have signed with the exception of one. I am personally gratified that Master’s Seminary (where Geoff received his MDiv and ThM) is led by John MacArthur. So now, we are divided amongst ourselves even within truly conservative Bible-believing (I did not say “evangelical”) circles. This is sad. Would it not have been wiser for men like Bryan Chapell, Lig Duncan, Al Mohler et al to have co-ventured with men like Alistair Begg and John MacArthur ala T4G where they really DO agree on the Gospel and they really DO agree on same-sex marriage etc? Instead, I would argue the deal was co-opted by a “big tent” mentality which I predict will recur with increasing frequency and passion in years ahead (just my perspective).
Good thoughts Randy. Thanks for sharing them.
Begg also says that Scripture is the sole authority for Christians. Then why in the world should I listen to him or read the comments of Calvin that Begg references?
If I need no guide or greater understanding with which to read Scripture, the primary authority of a genuine Christian life, then I do not need Begg or his divisive opinions. Correct?
Incorrect. You are reflecting a somewhat common aberration of the historic Protestant tenet sola Scriptura that some have labeled nuda Scriptura. The teaching that Scripture is our sole authority is not equivalent to the teaching that Scripture is our sole everything.
No, sir. I am not making the argument that Begg believes Scripture is everything. Whether as a metaphysical or epistemological, it would be a faulty argument. But if he believes that Scripture is the sole authority of Truth, then he is therefore cutting himself and his system of theology out of the picture.
Therefore, if Begg is no authority then I have no need for him and, in fact, should not listen to his thoughts on the matter (and so I don't).
He must see himself as an authority, though it crumbles his argument, because he needs a paycheck that these weak ideas supply for some reason.
My apologies. It seems I should have been a bit more precise with my language. I didn't intend to communicate "all that is" with the term "everything." What I meant by "everything" is the only thing we should consult for religious understanding.
This understanding is an aberration of the historic Protestant tenet sola Scriptura.
By the way, why should you be concerned with the logical coherence of anyone's arguments re: religion? Haven't you submitted your conscience to the Pope with all the docility your Catechism requires?
Though I'm tempted to give you a full response, it's clear that you're uninterested in intellectual debate, since you mention the Catechism requiring docility. I suggest you read it, before you mention it's dictates. Likewise, the Catholic Church has been the conscience for many societies and has championed the rights of the poor and needy since the time of Christ. I haven't seen too many Calvinists running along side Catholic Charities to do God's work with the same level of dedication...because, after all, they've already got their salvation.
Yes, disregarding one's opponent is certainly the easiest way out. I would have expected more from such a fierce defender of the faith.
You can ignore 2000 years of history for your 500 years of scraping for truth, but eventually you'll actually want the answers and you would have pushed away people who could answer them. Call it ducking if you will, but you're getting insulting and it's hard to take you seriously as a Christian when you do that. I only debate those who I respect, and you're loosing that, though other Calvinists haven't. Think about that. I try to place myself in serious discussion, not bickering. Perhaps, we can try again later when you're settled down and not looking for a fight. Though you may not see it this way, I see you as a brother in Christ and your pot-shots aren't helpful.
If you're hoping to bring people around to your frame of thinking, I would highly suggest an alternative method. I've met people from Dallas Theological Seminary who are better examples of those truly interested in bringing others to the one true faith. You're more interested in self-assurance. For a pastor, that's a quality you might want to reconsider.
Thanks for your advice sir. Nonetheless, I cannot help but recognize the train of argument you are employing here (which is really no argument at all). Here's the way it goes:
(1) Post a comment that has nothing to do with the essence of the post at hand in order to get a response on a subject you wish to debate.
(2) If the respondent seems to have a point dismiss him or his tradition as ignorant (Isn't that what YOU did when you suggested that Pastor Begg was in it for the money?).
(3) If the respondent points out your non-argument (that's putting it kindly), then continue your dismissal with a further allegation of harsh rhetoric.
Have I got the program about right?
When you are ready to discuss the issues along with a little side banter (I loathe the contemporary form of neutered polemics), I would be happy to comply.
By the way,
CCC, 1994, #87,
Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you , hears me," the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.
On Catholics following their conscience: CCC 1795 "Conscience is man's most secret core, and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths." Hopefully that begins to explain the Catholic position for you. Nothing is mentioned of papal interjection or docility in their conscience. Our consciences should be formed through reason and faithful teaching, otherwise why would anyone go to church? You'd be out of a job too, so be careful how hard you tell people you're teachings are inconsequential. If I were you, I might just hand out Bibles as the Gideon's do. Their work is much needed and a blessing for the Kingdom.
When I recommended you READ the Catholic Catechism, I didn't mean to imply that you skim it to fulfill your preconceived beliefs. It's better to think and read with reason, faith, and charity.
I also suggest you read more about what a non-argument is. You don't know what it is, judging from the context of it's use. You may disagree with my arguments, but that doesn't mean they aren't arguments. I recommend researching that too.
Now that you're done wallowing in your ignorance of the Catholic faith, please address my initial claim: Why should I listen to Begg, as he seems to be speaking from a self-proclaimed authority, if Scripture is the SOLE authority? Though I value Scripture immeasurably, I don't see why Tradition should be kicked out the door. 2 Thess 2:15 establishes the need for Tradition, prior to the assembly of the Bible by Catholics a few hundred years later (Catholics, who upheld apostolic succession). That Tradition came from the apostles. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 talks of Scripture as a valuable gift from God that is "profitable." It doesn't GIVE life, it is profitable for it, for teaching, reproof, training, etc. To be taught or trained, you need someone guiding you. You had teachers in Seminary for that very reason. The books alone wouldn't have sufficed.
So, why listen to Calvin, Begg, or you? Scripture tells me not to, according to you, correct? If not, explain.
Now that's some fun-loving polemical banter! I like it! Thanks for taking the time to interact. And again, thank you for your kind advice with (dis?)respect to my calling.
I am very much indebted to my teachers, particularly the Prof who taught me Roman Catholicism. He wrote his second PhD dissertation at the University of Texas on the subject.
I have to admit, I haven't read every word of the CCC, but I pray you will extend a little grace to a dumb ox like me.
I think the CCC's teaching on conscience, and many other issues, is very good in many respects. However, given the RC doctrine of the primacy of the Petrine ministry, to acknowledge that in the conscience man is “alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths” is another way of saying in the conscience “man is alone with God whose voice [which comes to him through the vicar of Christ on earth] echoes in his depths.” I believe the voice of God comes to man by his Word (incarnate and written) and his Spirit. In other words, God has spoken to his people in an essentially clear way in the text of Holy Scripture all of which points to the work of Christ our Lord. I have no biblical basis to believe God has ever required man to submit his conscience to any mere man in matters of faith and practice. Have you found such a basis?
On the teaching office of the church I would say you shouldn’t listen to any teacher if what you mean is “submit your conscience to that teacher as an ultimate authority.” However, you should listen to every teacher who is submitted to the ultimate authority of Scripture if what you mean is “consider what that teacher is saying in light of what the Scriptures say.”
My understanding of the doctrine of sola Scriptura is summarized well in Chapter 1 Section 10 of the Westminster Confession of Faith:
The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
Catholic's are not taught to submit their conscience to the Pope. The only man we submit our conscience to is Christ. But in Mt 16:15-19 Peter steps forward, representative of the disciples, and proclaims the most essential truth of the New Testament. He said that Jesus is the Messiah. Flesh and blood didn't reveal that truth to Peter, but the heavenly Father. Then, Peter is established as the rock, or foundation, or the church. The foundation of Christianity was Jesus Christ, and he left his Church to Peter and the Disciples to carry on. But, it isn't mere man that teaches this truth to those men, but the heavenly Father. There is no reason to believe that Christ would destroy the foundation of the Church and therefore also cut of the heavenly Father, the lifeblood of the Church. That's why in v. 18, Jesus says that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. "It" being the Church, founded upon Peter, the rock. That is why we believe the Pope is channeling the will of the heavenly Father.
You shouldn't deny that a mere man could have such insight, because you believe in the Bible, and it tells you that Peter was told something by God the Father, who established Peter as the rock of the Church.
In v. 19, we are told that Peter has the keys to heaven, and his bindings and loosings (I think I made that word up) will be recognized in heaven. Why wouldn't that continue in succession? If it wouldn't continue on for generations to come in apostolic succession, then Jesus would have just told them what to teach, and that would be it. But Jesus knew that the writings wouldn't be enough...heck, they weren't enough for the Jews, who had the Old Testament. Our failings to the text are why Christ died on the cross--why repeat the same folly? To alleviate this, Jesus instituted the Church.
Thoughts?
Now we're getting down to brass tacks. But before I reply to Rome's interpretation of Matt. 16:18 let me ask an even more fundamental question.
If there is a dispute over the meaning of Matt. 16:18, how do you say we should we go about deciding who is right?
I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for here. Usually disputes over the meaning of Scriptural text don't get resolved. This is one reason why there are thousands of Protestant churches. When you disagree on a point of the text, you just preach it your way in your own created denomination. It's an unfortunate byproduct of the Reformation, but natural given the way the Reformers say it best to change Christian thinking--namely, to just split off with your own circle of believers and ignore the rest of Christendom until they stumble across your blog, hah.
In my experience people discern the meaning of Scripture by using several tools: reason, prayer, evaluating other writings from those closest to Jesus and their successors, reading the early Church fathers, understanding the culture for which it was written, interpreting the Greek meaning, gaining the guidance of educated scholars and Church leaders, etc. This is where I was perplexed about Calvinist preachers. They, according to their own admission, speak with no authority. Although this idea conflicts with much of sacred Scripture, they seem content with it. It certainly is simpler, in some ways--though its far from complete.
How would we resolve a dispute? I guess we would both make our best argument and, in turn, we'll learn by exploring our own arguments and the arguments of the other.
How do you usually resolve such disputes?
I think you should reconsider your answer. Here's a hint: CCC 85.
You asked, "If there is a dispute over the meaning of Matt. 16:18, how do you say we should we go about deciding who is right?" You asked how WE should go about it. You aren't Catholic. If you are out of communion with the Catholic Church then I can't expect you to turn to the Pope or Bishops for authentic Scriptural analysis. So, where should I start with you then?
If you asked me in my opinion, I would reflect what the Church fathers and the successors of the Apostles of Jesus have taught. That's what we've been taught by Mt 16:15-19. Peter and the Apostles were given the keys and the ability to bind and loose.
Notice I said, "In my experience people discern the meaning of Scripture by using several tools..." I didn't say these were the preferred methods or my own. These tools are good at revealing how the teaching of the Church should be reflected in my life, on a more personal level. But, I can't act like I know more than 2000 years of Church teaching, as you so confidently do.
I do a lot of ecumenical work, and I have become accustomed to how Protestants and Catholics can work best together. For me to ask you, a devoted Calvinist, to rethink his interpretation of Scripture in light of a recent Encyclical would be silly. In evangelization, do you tell non-believers not to have premarital sex because God tells them not to? Of course not! You're starting out on ground they aren't standing on. If you would prefer me treat you as a Catholic in full communion with the Holy Catholic Church, I can, but I doubt the discussion will be very fruitful. After all, we don't stand on the same ground, so why act like it?
Don't dance around your questions. If you have a question about Catholic teaching and what I think about Scripture, church, etc, then just ask me. You seem to have motives other than understanding Catholics better.
You haven't answered my question about why listen to a Calvinist such as yourself, if you have no authority. I don't expect an answer at this point. We've both written enough that the initial questions should be answered.
God Bless.
My point has been established by your answer. You are submitted to the Roman magisterium as the final interpreter of divine truth. With respect to Matt. 16:18, nothing I could possibly say can trump the official Roman dogma. Correct?
Here's the bottom line: You have the Roman magisterium as your final arbiter of truth on the issues that divide us. I have the God as he has revealed himself in the Bible to all believers.
Now because I believe all believers through the ages have the responsibility to discern with the help of the Spirit the true meaning of Scripture, I am committed to wrestling with texts of Scripture alongside and along with all those who have done the same through the ages. I must take all perspectives into account when seeking to understand, including Roman Catholic perspectives.
You on the other hand have no such liberty. If the Roman magisterium has ruled definitively on an issue (e.g. the interpretation of Matt. 16:18), then you may not believe anything otherwise. If you do, you may be something but you cease to be Roman Catholic.
So, far from being limited in study and deliberation with others regarding religious truth, Protestants are at liberty, indeed we are required, to take into account as many perspectives as we can in seeking understanding of God's revelation. That's why I've studied Roman theology and continue to study it.
Personally, I think the CCC has much to commend. I find myself in agreement with a lot of it, not because the Roman magisterium says it (which is why RC's are ultimately required to believe it) but because much of it faithfully accords with Scripture.
You're taking us into subject matter different then what we began exploring. Initially I thought you were trying to understand common ground and probe, but now it seems that you are trying to avoid questions. You have not interpreted Mt 16:15-19 because you can't. Unless you get back to where you said you were going to go, I must assume this. I have no reason to think otherwise.
I believe Christ speaks through the Catholic Church. If what you have said about "wrestling" with Scripture is correct, then I must ask, why are Protestants so divided? Even Calvinists are not unified. The divisions within Protestant thinking are innumerable because if each person believes they hold the truth, then nobody has the truth. It's basically Scriptural relativism. The Mormons believe that reading their texts will defacto give them truth (no understanding to teaching required). That is why when they come door-to-door they try to get you to just read the words. You seem closer to this form of thinking than Roman Catholic teaching.
Catholics are called to embrace the text, try to understand it, pray about it, etc. But when it comes to knowing the Truth behind it, we must submit to the teachings of Jesus. He gave the Apostles the ability to bind and loose, heal and forgive, and even gave them the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. If those keys were buried with them, or left ONLY in the text of Scripture, then we've been done a grave disservice. The Sacraments are vital to forgiveness, repentance, justification, etc. Likewise, the Apostles were not instructed to simply write a book, they were given other things too.
So, you've succeeded in making you're point: "Catholics are drones who don't think for themselves." And yet, you still haven't answered my question. If you're so much more open-minded then me, then I would love to hear an answer.
Why should I listen to you, when you have no authority? The same goes for Begg.
Might I pose an additional 2 questions (though I'm less confident that you'll answer these, since you've dodged the most simple numerous times): What Catholic sources and/or Roman Catholic clergy have you studied Catholicism from? If you're studying it from a Protestant, you're likely not getting a full understanding; rather, it's likely taught to you with an immediate conclusion: Catholicism is wrong. That's more like propaganda. So, where have you studied Catholic teaching?
Second, why can't Calvinists align with the Catholic Church and evangelicals like Colson on issues where there is common ground? You admit to admiring elements of the Catholic faith and share some views with us, then why can't you admire and share with us on the issues mentioned in the Manhattan Declaration? Sanctity of life, tradition marriage between and man and woman, and rights of conscience are solid, common-ground issues. The Declaration does not say you have to agree with us on interpretation of Scripture, the Eucharist, etc. That's why folks like Colson, George of Princeton, and Metr. Jonah of the Orthodox Church came together. Begg is making himself seem arrogant and stubborn by throwing his hands up in the air in frustration at the first sight of a Catholic.
Please, at least, answer those three questions. You owe me that much after all this writing.
I am happy to respond to your questions. I simply wanted you to admit the subjection of your conscience to the Roman see on the issues that divide us before we moved further, which you've done. I appreciate your honesty.
Before we proceed with Matt. 16:18, surely you see I have answered your question regarding the continuing legitimacy of the teaching office in Christ's church in the fifteenth comment (counting from the top)?
I never said I submit my conscience to the Roman Catholic Church. I gave you evidence from the Catechism speaking contrary to this point. Are we clear on this? I do not subject my conscience to anyone. It's between me and God. See CCC 1795 and 1796. Those are nice bullet points, and explicit statements. Don't fall victim to a strawman argument, though it may be tempting.
Interpretation of Scripture, and discernment of your conscience are separate issues.
I hope you understand the difference and now better understand my statements.
I am no longer going to seek your answer to either question. The one you claim to have answered was answered insufficiently and you've dodged the other question more than I'm willing to stick around for. I'll research what Calvin spoke on those specific matters, since I doubt you deviate from his teaching.
Thanks anyway, but I don't have the time to continue back and forth like this if I'm not going to have you reciprocate answers to questions. I love defending the faith, but it gets boring waiting for a response from you that never comes. If you simply want to probe me about the Catholic Church, feel free. But don't say you'll get around to something and then dance around it instead.
I have no hard feelings on the matter and I don't mind doing the reading and study of Calvin, I would have just preferred it from someone as dedicated to him as you are. If you would like to recommend where I may read a good account, I'd be more than happy to consider it. Preferably not the entirety of the Institutes of the Christian Religion. More than a thousand pages is my breaking point I'm afraid.
Take care and God Bless.
If you might indulge my probing a bit more:
From where does the voice of God, to which I assume your conscience is submitted, come to you?
Or I might ask, do you believe you are required to submit to the interpretations of the Roman magisterium, to receive them with docility?
Also, I don't understand why you consider my previous response insufficient. Could you elaborate on that?
By the way, I highly recommend Calvin's Institutes Book 4 for reasons Protestants reject the Roman heresy.
If I understand your question, you want to know if I must submit to the Magesterium in order to hear the voice of God.
I think the voice of God reaches us through faith, prayer, Scripture, and good works. God speaks through the Catholic Church and the Church provides gifts such as the Eucharist, Confession, and others. This is what Christ told the Apostles they were in charge of.
So our conscience is formed from within, but is "aided" and "guided" as the Catechism says by the true teachings of the Church.
Do I have to submit to the Magesterium to have a conscience? No. To have a properly formed one? Yes. It would only make sense that if you improperly understand Tradition and Scripture that you would be lacking in your ability to live a Christian life. I'm sure this is similar to the way you feel that us heretical Catholics believe a false Gospel, it would surely hinder our formation of conscience. Interestingly enough, the "Roman heresy" was able to assemble the cannon of Scripture that you accept. This is not a question, since I don't expect you to answer any of them, but I'm curious why someone who so out-rightly rejects Catholic teaching, but accept our Bible.
It's funny that what is now "heresy" was once just called "Christianity". You seem to really resent 75% of Christian history, since what you believe to be truth didn't come around till Calvin.
I'm hope that satisfied your curiosity and explained myself so that you don't misunderstand the Catholic view of conscience formation. For more, to go Chapter 1, Article 6 of the Catholic Catechism. It contains the rest of Catholic teaching on Moral Conscience.
Interesting, you have thrown the "supposed" weight of 2000 years of history around three times now. This is not unexpected. Its the same argument that was thrown Luther's way back in 1521.
"Martin Luther, who are you to teach contrary to 1500 years of church teaching?!" To which Luther responded: "On these issues there is no such thing as 1500 years of church teaching. The Pope's and councils have often erred and contradicted themselves."
The claim is quite impressive indeed. 2000 years!!! WOW! Really? Unfortunately, not really. Multiple succession of earth revolutions does not equal unified doctrine. On that point church history is crystal clear.
My own tradition (i.e. the Reformed tradition) is self-consciously in direct line with the historic catholic church. The best of Reformed theologians (i.e. John Calvin, Francis Turretin, John Owen, et al.) were well versed in Patristic and Medieval teaching. They were quite appreciative and indebted to the teachings of churchmen through the centuries. I share their appreciation and indebtedness. Where would we be without Irenaus, Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Anselm, and Aquinas? These are the titans, blessed gifts of the triune God to his church.
It was what today is called Roman Catholicism that apostatized from Christ's church by accepting a false gospel, officially at Trent. That's when the Roman Catholicism to which you adhere (in distinction from Reformed Catholicism) was born.
You have admitted that God speaks through the Roman magisterium to his people. This is one of the great departures between us. In my view, while Scripture certainly acknowledges the authority of teachers within the church, those teachers are subordinate to Scripture in such a way that their teaching is not to be accepted unless it accords with Scripture. Roman Catholicism by placing tradition alongside Scripture as equally ultimate teaches that the magisterium is ultimately infallible in its interpretations. This is to take the place of Christ (i.e. to be anti-Christ) as the one head over his church.
On Matt. 16:18, I believe that the confessing Apostles, with Peter as their chief representative, were called by Christ to be the foundation on which he built his church. I say Apostles (plural) because just two chapters later in Matt. 18:18 Jesus, addressing the disciples as a group (cf. Matt. 18:1), pronounced that they all had the power to bind and loose. I say confessing for two reasons. First, Judas was with the disciples at the time of Jesus' pronouncement, but Judas did not continue to confess the faith and therefore lost his status as a Disciple/Apostle. Second, John records an event that occurred after Jesus' pronouncement to Peter and the Disciples about binding and loosing in which he predicts Peter's denial of him. There he calls Peter Satan. Later in John 21, Jesus reinstates Peter after he confesses his faith in Jesus three times.
(continued)
So, Jesus pronounced that he would build his church on the foundation of his confessing Apostles. This accords well with Paul's words in Eph. 2:19-21, "So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord." This foundation was completed with the passing of the last Apostle, which is why no one, not even Gregory the Great, claimed Apostolic status or supremacy for the first 600 years of the church. That ended during the Medieval era as power was centralized around the papacy. Thankfully, by and large the papacy continued to confess the Apostolic faith well into the middle age. But eventually, it apostatized and accepted a false Gospel, denying the very Lord it claimed to serve, hence the Reformation.
This is my perspective, and to the best of my understanding the perspective of those within the Reformed Catholic tradition, on these issues.
You have admitted that "God speaks through the Catholic Church."
I believe God speaks through Holy Scripture alone. The teaching office of the church is an indispensable gift from God to his people, but, nevertheless, it is subordinate to the Scriptures so that every teaching is to be tested against the clear teaching of Scripture to determine its legitimacy. Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, teaches that the interpretations (i.e. the teachings) of the magisterium are ultimately infallible. This is what I mean when I say Roman Catholicism subjects the consciences of men to men.
It is well and good to say your conscience is submitted to Scripture, but I believe inserting a supposedly infallible interpreter as the medium through which you come to know the teachings of Scripture is to undermine Scriptural authority. Protestantism confesses Scripture alone is the ultimately authoritative rule of faith and practice between God and his people. Roman Catholicism confesses Scripture as infallibly interpreted by the magisterium as the authoritative rule between God and his people, which in my view is anti-Christian idolatry.
I have never heard the term "Reformed Catholic Tradition." It sounds suspicious.
You say you adhere to teachings of the early Church fathers, and yet reject Aquinas' view on the Eucharist, etc.
More interesting to me than anything else you wrote is how by believing in Apostolic succession holding infallible truths on matters of morality and interpretation of Scripture, I make Scripture subservient to the impression and believes of The Holy See.
That is a bad logic to use, if you believe in any sort of interpretation of Scripture.
Here's what you said: "those teachers are subordinate to Scripture in such a way that their teaching is not to be accepted unless it accords with Scripture. Roman Catholicism by placing tradition alongside Scripture as equally ultimate teaches that the magisterium is ultimately infallible in its interpretations. This is to take the place of Christ (i.e. to be anti-Christ) as the one head over his church."
So, do you believe that your own interpretation of Scripture is correct? I must assume so, or else you wouldn't believe it! If you believe in your interpretation of Scripture, you better be sure of it, almost infallibly, or else you are in great jeopardy. Scripture is very hard on people who mislead the flock (James 3:1-2).
So, though you don't see yourself as infallible, or anyone else as infallible, then you don't believe access to the Truth is possible. Christ left us with a Church that held Truth until the Apostles died. Since then, we've been living a lie. No matter how hard we try we don't have access to the Truth, even if we read Scripture, because we have no faculty to interpret it. Do you see the problem with this view?
Now, if you believe that Truth IS accessible, and you have the right interpretation of Scripture, then you have placed yourself in the spot where Catholics place The Holy See...as the definitive interpreter of Truth. Likewise, since you believe you and the Reformers speak Truth, you are placing yourself above Scripture. Scripture must be subservient to your opinion.
You don't seem to have a problem with the idea of there being one Truth that we have access to, you just think you have it instead of The Holy See.
According to your own argument against Catholicism, you are either placing yourself above Scripture or your unauthoritative voice is placing you in jeopardy of damnation (since you might not have access to the Truth and are therefore preaching a false Gospel).
Reconsider your argument. It's nice to finally have some expressive opinions from you. I'll be out of town for a while, so I'll reply as I have time.
God Bless.
You say you adhere to teachings of the early Church fathers.
This is inaccurate. I didn't say I adhere to all the teachings of the early church fathers. I said I was appreciative and indebted to their teachings. Their teachings are true only insofar as they accord with Scripture.
You asked if I believe my own interpretation of Scripture is correct. I confess:
"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them" (Westminster Confession of Faith 1.7).
Access to the truth is possible, because God has clearly revealed himself in Holy Scripture. This is a significant point of departure between us, which leads to your reasoning. Roman Catholicism teaches that the authentic interpretation of Scripture is responsibility of the Roman magisterium alone. Protestantism, on the other hand, teaches that the fundamental message of Scripture is clear. Furthermore, those passages that are less clear should be interpreted in light of those that are more clear. Scripture interprets Scripture, not me or any other depraved man. I confess:
"The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly" (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.9).
By the way, with respect to the early church theologians, I believe their teachings are true only insofar as they accord with Scripture, and accordance is not ultimately guaranteed by their teaching office. Roman Catholicism would agree with this statement up until the italics.
The reality of the situation is that you disagree with the place where Catholics believe truth of Scriptural interpretation comes from. Instead of looking to The Magesterium, you turn to yourself. Personally, I can't rely on my own efforts as much as the institution of the Church. I don't have the collective education and understanding that the Magesterium does. This completely puts aside the fact that there is a succession of the Apostles.
You believe that YOU hold the truth, rather than The Holy See, but your arguments against The Holy See are self-refuting in some ways. Your arguments against the Catholic position weaken your own position and authority. In the end, you have to point to the true interpretations of Scripture and therefore establish a Truth that you see as infallible, otherwise you wouldn't make those claims.
What would you have recommended a Christian do to establish their faith in Christ, if you lived between the time of Christ and the completion of the Christian Canon? Simply, before there were Bibles, and even the access to them, what would you have done to inspire your faith?st
Also, you say, "Protestantism, on the other hand, teaches that the fundamental message of Scripture is clear."
Then why is it that the Roman Catholic Church has remained intact, while the Protestant churches have fractured to the point where counting them is almost useless?
If Scripture was so clear for you, then you need to explain why Protestants don't agree on virtually anything.
This is fun. I'm glad you've continued to discuss.
Your conclusion that sola Scriptura leads to me viewing myself as authoritative is false. Again, I refer you to my original distinction between sola Scriptura and nuda Scriptura. I don't turn to myself or the Roman magisterium alone. I turn to all those who've wrestled with the difficult task of interpretation on matters unclear, including myself and the Roman magisterium. I weigh interpretations as best I can, taking into account the testimony of the church catholic through the ages, of which I am a small part, along with the clear teaching of Scripture. I admit that this is the difficult road. It would be much easier to simply submit myself to the pope. Idolatry is always the easy way. But given the doctrine of total depravity, I'll take a multitude of counselors over one sinner (including myself) any day.
By the way, I believe the Roman magisterium has A LOT right. We are in agreement on much theology. Nonetheless, there are some essential things on which we disagree, things which myself and others believe are essential to the truth of the gospel itself.
In the time between Christ and he completion of the canon (by which you mean the completion of the NT), I would have recommended searching the OT, making sure their teachers were searching the OT, and following the teachings of the four Gospels and the Apostles that were being circulated by them personally and through their letters.
On your charge against the unity of Protestantism, I would say our bases of unity are different. The unity of the Roman church, is based on union with the pope. Protestants hold a similar basis of unity with respect to the church invisible (i.e. the elect). They are all those united to Christ who is the one head of his church. In the invisible sense many Protestants are very much unified.
But you are referring to visible unity. Visible unity for Protestants is not based on union with the pope. It is based on doctrinal purity. I submit that if we were to test Protestants and Roman Catholics, we would find just as much if not greater disunity among Roman Catholics as among Protestants. The charge that Roman Catholics are somehow more unified than Protestants is simply false, if you take into account the proper basis of visible church unity.
My point still stands. Whether alone or with the consultation of other believers, you still, in the end, believe that your doctrines are true as a matter of interpretation. You teach according to what you believe is true. I expect no contest to this point.
But you said that I place the Truth of Scripture underneath my allegiance to the interpretation of the Catholic bishops and Pope. According to your argument, the Truth of Scripture, though influenced by others, would be likewise placed underneath your devotion to your own beliefs.
I reject your argument because it misstates my own beliefs, and as a consequence, has troubling consequences for your own. We both have an allegiance to the head of the Church--Jesus Christ--but we glean our interpretation of Scripture from different places. We each believe that our own is correct.
Perhaps Papal infallibility might be illustrated this way--when someone touches a metal pipes that is conducting electricity, nobody says "the pipe electrocuted me!." That would be false. The electricity caused the reaction in the person, while the metal pipe was simply the conduit. Catholics believe the Church is the conduit for Christ--not a replacement for Him, or sufficient in place of Him. I hope that helps.
Furthering the point, my belief in The Holy See has nothing to do with idolatry. I suggest defining the terms you use, especially when placing such a charge. Idolatry is usually defined as worshiping an image or object, rather than God himself. Believing in the infallibility of the Pope or something of the like does not constitute worship. It is the one who gives the Catholic Church power that we worship. The Pope, Mary, communion of the saints, etc all have one purpose--to point us to Jesus.
I hope that clarifies your false claim that I'm an idolater.
You're misconstruing the Jewish faith. Jews are very rooting in Tradition and works. Pointing to the OT alone would have been insufficient. Christ didn't come and eliminate the need for works, rather, he fulfilled their purpose. Their purpose is to draw people into closer union with him and to help them grow in faith. Scripture has the same, equally important, effects.
As an Apologist, you might want to leave out the ole' "it's invisible" claim as much as possible. Though the mystery of the Gospels, the invisible nature of the Spirit, etc have powerful, invisible qualities, using the invisible union of Protestants is a lame claim. When that union doesn't materialize into something visible, then the "non-elect" are going to be very turned off to you and your churches.
You're right, in a sense, about problems of unity in the Catholic Church. We have encountering numerous instances where people are disengaged with their faith and are representing the Church poorly and inaccurately. Our unity is in Christ, not the Pope. The Pope was appointed by Christ, starting with Peter. You may be unified in your special and exclusive status with other elect, but Catholics believe that all are called to Christ. So I believe the glue that has held the Catholic Church together remarkably well, and better than any product of the Reformers, is because we are united in Christ, with Christ, and for Christ. Unfortunately, sin is a powerful tool that divides a Catholic's actions from the true teachings and faith we stand on. I suspect similar issues happen amongst Protestants, though the result is more likely a new denomination.
I believe that many Protestants hold true beliefs as well! My experience has been that the Reformers took certain things they liked from their Catholic heritage and rejected other things. In rejecting certain teachings, they sometimes created their own. In those things that remained untouched, we are certainly unified and those things should be optimally used for unity between us. That is why I'm upset that Begg will not stand with Protestants and Catholics alike on issues of sanctity of life, marriage as being the foundation of society between a man and a woman, and religious liberty. His self-righteousness is a sad divider in what could be additional unity. But, thankfully most Protestants do not stand with him. In just a few weeks the Manhattan Declaration has more than a quarter of a million signers, and growing by the thousands each day.
You teach according to what you believe is true. I expect no contest to this point.
Fundamentally, I teach what I along with a host of other churchmen through the ages, including the Roman magisterium on many crucial issues, believe is true. You, however, do not have the responsibility to discern with others what is an authentic interpretation of Scripture on the essentials. According to your catechism, that is a task "entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome." Again, may I refer you to the distinction between sola Scriptura and the perversion called nuda Scriptura (i.e. me on an island with my Bible. Can you take the veil of Roman polemics off for a moment to see this?
We each believe that our own is correct.
Indeed, but this is not the question. The question is why? Why do I believe what I do, and why do you believe what you do? My conscience is captive to the Word of God alone, by which all the interpretations of men (including my own) are to be judged. You, on the other hand, have no right to question the official teaching of the Roman magisterium, even if you believe Scripture teaches otherwise. That is what your catechism teaches.
On the conduit bit, I think you've offered a good analogy. I believe the same analogy applies to all believers. All believers equally, except in extraordinary circumstances, can and should be conduits of grace to one another and the world, not just the pope. Of course, this is the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.
The charge of idolatry holds because the Pope claims characteristics (e.g. infallibility) that are reserved for God alone this side of glory. The charge also holds because he claims to hold an exclusive position whereby, if anyone is to receive grace it must come through him. That is to claim a role (e.g. mediator) reserved for Christ alone.
I disagree with your assessment of the insufficiency of OT Scripture to ground and nurture faith at the time of the Apostles. If the OT was so insufficient, why did Jesus (Luke 16:31; 24:44-47) and the Apostles (citations to numerous to list) consistently point to the OT as the revelation of the gospel of Jesus' person and work?
If the invisible church is a "lame claim" I wonder why the Apostle Paul would speak of it in Romans 9:6-8? I would caution you to be more familiar with Scripture so that you might avoid the embarrassment of demeaning the teaching of an actual Apostle.
I am glad to see you acknowledge disunity in Roman Catholicism. Of course, while acknowledging the extraordinary possibility of invisible church members being withing the Roman Catholic communion, I believe, visibly speaking, it is a false church due to its adherence to the supremacy of the Petrine ministry and its condemnation of the true Gospel.
By the way, I failed to mention another important distinction within historic Protestant theology regarding Christian unity. As I mentioned earlier we believe the basis of Christian unity is doctrinal purity (i.e. truthfulness, fullness, and precision). We believe that the esse (i.e. the being) of visible Christian unity is based on a credible profession of faith. This would be require a very minimal (i.e. less full and less precise) confession of faith. In this sense Protestants have great unity across denominational boundaries. However, we also believe that the bene esse (i.e. well-being) of Christian unity is based on the fullness and precision of one's confession of faith. In this sense the health of Protestant unity within denominations and across denominational boundaries varies. These are very important distinctions to keep in mind when considering Christian unity.
Finally, I think you've misunderstood Begg. I'm not his spokesman but I share his view, and I can assure you he is NOT saying he's unwilling to stand alongside Roman Catholics as a cobelligerent on the sanctity of human life. He and I would be happy to do so, just as we'd be happy to stand alongside Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and a host of others from different religious persuasions. What we are concerned about is standing alongside Roman Catholics under the presumption of Christian unity. While we acknowledge that there are many Christian elements in Roman Catholicism, we simply do not believe that Roman Catholicism is Christian. In other words, sufficient elements of Christianity are missing from Roman Catholicism, namely sola Scriptura and sola fide.
You'll have to excuse me, I continue to use the argument that you call a "perversion" because you haven't made a case against it. You make the seemingly strong claim that Scripture is the only authority...so where is the wiggle room? There isn't--therefore, your opinions and teachings mean nothing.
Again, I would expect a pastor to use more charity. You misrepresented my statement about the invisible church. For one, my translations don't use the word "invisible" in Rom 9:6-8. Second, the Protestant movement isn't a "church" though I myself use the phrase sometimes. It is simply a "protest." It is a form of thought that descended from the Catholic Church. The claim was "lame" because you used it out of context. Protestants are not unified and would therefore not be connected the way you describe, especially when you can't stand with them against abortion, gay marriage, and those destroying religious liberty. And why? Because you hate Catholics. It's sad.
So I am in no way embarrassed in calling your use of the phrase "lame" because that's exactly the way you used it. If you had a better understanding of unity amongst Christians, rather than the division of them, then you would understand.
Now I see your issue. You don't see Catholics as Christians. This not only ignores history, but it also ignores the divine Revelation of Jesus' Church left on earth to carry out His mission.
You use the phrase "true Gospel" and yet you can not live it yourself. That is why you are left turning to leaders like Begg and Calvin who operate with subversive motives to propagate conspiracy and division. Why? So that they may be erected as the leader Christians need. That is the method of every tyranny.
I also find it troubling that you see yourself as a student of Catholicism and yet don't study it from Catholics. If you read enough anti-Catholic cartoons and tracts, you'll end up as dark as the people who start wars that shouldn't be.
You don't need to restate the fact that you believe the Catholic Church to be false. That's clear. If it makes you feel better...then carry on but it isn't charitable and it turns people like me away.
You've shown a need for improvement in your pastoral duties. Or perhaps your church defines pastor as one that incriminates and divides.
As we've continued I've realized that this conversation is going nowhere. We are talking past each other and there is no end in sight.
I will leave you with the last word. I just ask, as one stipulation, that your last words be one that establishes or explains your beliefs, and isn't an attempt at tearing down my own. Think, what would your last words be if you were to impress me with Calvinism? It would be a move of charity and respect on your part, I assure you.
In good measure, God Bless.
You make the seemingly strong claim that Scripture is the only authority.
I apologize if I've communicated this in some way. This is not what I believe or what historic Protestantism teaches. I believe that Scripture is our only ultimate authority in faith and practice.
Again to assert that Scripture is the only authority is the perversion of sola Scriptura called nuda Scriptura. To assert that Scripture is our only ultimate authority in faith and practice is sola Scriptura.
The only other comment I can muster with respect to your other thoughts is . . . interesting. I refer you to the substance of my previous explanations.
One final point. The second paragraph of chapter 2 of the Second Helvetic Confession (the first century Reformed confession written by Bullinger and used by Calvin) says:
Interpretations of the Holy Fathers. Wherefore we do not despise the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin fathers, nor reject their disputations and treatises concerning sacred matters as far as they agree with the Scriptures; but we modestly dissent from them when they are found to set down things differing from, or altogether contrary to, the Scriptures. Neither do we think that we do them any wrong in this matter; seeing that they all, with one consent, will not have their writings equated with the canonical Scriptures, but command us to prove how far they agree or disagree with them, and to accept what is in agreement and to reject what is in disagreement.
Post a Comment