tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post971931553198388307..comments2023-10-30T08:00:43.585-05:00Comments on Shameless Popery: The Untold Story of the Ecumenism of the TrenchesJoe Heschmeyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-34532698383942882442013-02-26T05:41:46.664-06:002013-02-26T05:41:46.664-06:00You people give me a headache. As far as Rhology ...You people give me a headache. As far as Rhology is concerned, it's fairly obvious that he is one of those unfortunate people who is Just Right, and everybody who disagrees with him is Just Wrong. No argument or discussion point you can offer is going to budge him in any way, because he is convinced that any statement that is pro-Catholic-teaching comes straight from the mouth of Satan, and he must close his ears to it. Leave him alone and let him hate us in peace. ;)Cassi Mosherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07665015720293096093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-31708933082975393932013-02-17T17:52:05.963-06:002013-02-17T17:52:05.963-06:00Josh, I humbly refuse your request, especially con...Josh, I humbly refuse your request, especially considering you have no earthly idea to which congregations either I or my husband have been a part of in the past. (And are you anticipating a list of my Reformed friends? With respect sir, I hardly know you.)Christinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14610084235933374679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-84474985359203294312013-02-06T15:42:21.101-06:002013-02-06T15:42:21.101-06:00I appreciate your thoughts, Christopher. I am wel...I appreciate your thoughts, Christopher. I am well aware that there are some paedobaptists who would not consider credobaptists to be Reformed. Of course I would take issue with that statement, but I would also stress that that's probably a minority opinion even among paedobaptists. The only major doctrinal distinctive which separates Reformed Baptists from others in the Reformed camp is the issue of baptism--we're even united on the point of covenant theology (as opposed to, say, dispensationalism). There's a paedobaptist seminary professor who happily assigns Greg Nichols' Reformed Baptist treatise on covenant theology to his own students.<br /><br />My issue with Christina is the fact that she's not probably using the term "Reformed." The broader issue here is the fact that being Reformed goes well beyond the five points of Calvinism. Unfortunately, the term "Reformed" gets attached to anything remotely Calvinistic which is a mistake. If we're lovers of truth, then we ought to be as accurate as possible when describing these things.<br /><br />I am familiar with the "Called to Communion" website. I appreciate the recommendation. Josh Dermerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14119120628385858676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-61102138645411398822013-02-06T15:07:57.838-06:002013-02-06T15:07:57.838-06:00Josh, out of curiosity, I clicked on your name, wh...Josh, out of curiosity, I clicked on your name, which led me to your blog, wherein you describe yourself as a "Reformed Baptist." You are exhorting Christina here to stop saying that she was once Reformed-- but surely you know that more than a few people in the Reformed confessional tradition(s) don't consider Reformed Baptists to truly be Reformed. <br /><br />I know this from my own experience, because I used to be a Reformed Baptist myself. I was sometimes told by others who also held to the "five points of Calvinism that I, a supposed "Anabaptist," was not genuinely Reformed. I was informed that there is much more to being Reformed than holding to the five points, even though, as a Reformed Baptist, I also held to a form of covenant theology. <br /><br />I write all of this mainly to say that, given the fact that some in the Reformed confessional tradition(s) would deny that you are Reformed, you are in an interesting place, insofar as your questioning of Christina's (former) Reformed credentials. I don't think that you would deny mine though. I used to be a member of a congregation which holds to the New Hampshire Confession of Faith, an historic "Reformed Baptist" confession. At the time, I sometimes wished that the congregation subscribed to the 1689 London Confession, the one to which you subscribe, as I thought that to be a stronger confession on some points, but overall, I was happy with the New Hampshire Confession. <br /><br />In 2010, after a very humbling period of intense Biblical, theological, and "church-historical" study and prayer (which I was involved in with a Calvinist elder in my congregation of that time), I returned to the Catholic Church-- the church which I had, for years, like you, believed was a "false church teaching a false gospel." I don't expect you to be anything but saddened (and, perhaps, disgusted) by my "reversion," but it may encourage you to know that I was "disciplined" by the elders for it. If you are interested in how a committed "Reformed Baptist" could possibly become convinced to return to the Catholic Church, I recommend, as a start, that you spend some time reading the articles at the site, "Called to Communion." All of the official contributors there were once Reformed (i.e. holding to the Five Sola's of the Reformation and to Reformed confessions of faith and being committed members of Reformed congregations). Christopher Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07327013707393086096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-89791947264770415082013-02-06T10:58:35.698-06:002013-02-06T10:58:35.698-06:00Christina, I humbly ask that you please refrain fr...Christina, I humbly ask that you please refrain from telling people that you were Reformed earlier in your life. You have repeated this claim here, on your website, and elsewhere. The fact is, you were never a member of any Reformed congregation. You may have had Calvinistic leanings at one time and expressed an interest in those teachings, but that's a far cry from being Reformed. <br /><br />I'm not here to call you a liar. I just think you were (and perhaps still are) very confused about Reformed theology and not very learned regarding its various distinctives. I exhort you to set the record straight, especially in the personal testimony you posted on your website. As for these "Reformed friends" to whom you referred above, who are they? I'm not aware you had any.Josh Dermerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14119120628385858676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-48563187202499756892013-02-04T08:09:04.827-06:002013-02-04T08:09:04.827-06:00After AHA came out as blatantly anti-Catholic
Oh,...<i>After AHA came out as blatantly anti-Catholic</i><br /><br />Oh, and AHA is not anti-Catholic. You may THINK we are, but that is because you don't know what "anti-Catholic" means. Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-53508396330836687282013-02-04T08:08:17.291-06:002013-02-04T08:08:17.291-06:00I hope Mr. Rhology decides to sincerely think abou...<i>I hope Mr. Rhology decides to sincerely think about some of the very excellent questions posed to him here.</i><br /><br />Ah, see, that's the thing. There haven't been any of those. There's no need to reinvent the wheel and answer things that have already been dismantled many times before. Anyone who wants the truth has plenty of opportunity to find it.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-11446661865356338022013-02-03T18:20:46.015-06:002013-02-03T18:20:46.015-06:00After AHA came out as blatantly anti-Catholic, I w...After AHA came out as blatantly anti-Catholic, I wasn't surprised to see some of my Reformed friends jump at the opportunity to double down on their support of the organization. In fact, a few of them went so far as to emblazon AHA logos across their Facebook profiles and "banner" photos and suddenly advocate for AHA loudly on their news feeds. Some of these folks really rejoice for an opportunity to be divisive. :( <br /><br />Interestingly, I believe at least a few of them would take issue with many of the things "Rhology" says here in this comments thread. It's also interesting to note that Rhology avoids answering questions from well-meaning Catholics here (citing a lack of time to do so), yet makes an exception for dissecting every declarative sentence the Catholics here provide in their own defense. I hope Mr. Rhology decides to sincerely think about some of the very excellent questions posed to him here. I did. And I'm no longer Reformed. :)Christinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14610084235933374679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-20039330949013698212013-02-01T20:07:52.140-06:002013-02-01T20:07:52.140-06:00Rhology,
Regarding "Canard #2": We don...Rhology,<br /><br />Regarding "Canard #2": We don't have to prove what you claim regarding 2 Thess. We are holding what that Scripture states. It is you who are asserting that the written Scripture is the exact same as the orally delivered word of God spoken of in that passage. What you have to prove is where the Scriptures teach that. You must prove your theory by Scripture. There is no such teaching in the Scriptures. It is a "tradition of men" created by Protestants in order to do away with the teachings in Scripture that clearly command adherence to oral tradition. Paul commands us to hold to both. The question is where is yours? You have been commanded to hold to oral tradition. You must claim that the oral and written tradition "have the same content" but that is never taught in Scripture. The burden of proof is on you to show, biblically, why you are able to reject one of its commands. You are not given the power to reject the commands of Scripture for unbiblical assertions.Jacob https://www.blogger.com/profile/02686351718977681806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-74172715510202711332013-01-29T10:07:35.380-06:002013-01-29T10:07:35.380-06:00thechemist,
that's fine. i understand, i have...thechemist,<br /><br />that's fine. i understand, i have two under two right now and we both work so i am certainly empathetic. However, I do feel that you should go making such blanket statements as you had before. In fact, why would/should such statements require such complicated and precise wording? These are things I think you should ponder. I do wonder simply when you feel the Church lost the true message of the Gospel?<br /><br />Caryscredsoxfan2https://www.blogger.com/profile/10162308671130564720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-28451621931409329872013-01-29T08:40:38.310-06:002013-01-29T08:40:38.310-06:00Cary,
Have you never encountered any explanations...Cary,<br /><br />Have you never encountered any explanations of these verses before? A large number of individuals have discussed them on the Internet, written books over them, and preached sermons on them. I commend those to you. I don't have the time nor energy to write them up in a blog combox because they require careful wording and precise language. It was difficult enough writing up what I have with three little ones under five. In fact, I already found one sentence above that is worded incorrectly. I just don't think I can devote the time to do this at the level it requires. I apologize.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-43335080735698646312013-01-29T02:54:37.496-06:002013-01-29T02:54:37.496-06:00I'm Catholic, yet I don't have a problem w...I'm Catholic, yet I don't have a problem with AHA's statements that Catholic doctrine is satanic. We often talk about the dangers of relativism, yet we get offended when the opposition rejects relativism. Either Catholic doctrine is completely true or AHA's very novel, very personal interpretation of Scripture is completely true. It cannot be both. And if you hold that your version of the Gospel is the only true version, then it is not unreasonable to hold that any other version is satanic. The devil is, after all, the enemy of truth.<br /><br />That said, I think AHA is going about it the wrong way. Catholic pro-life groups will not hesitate to say that Christ and Him crucified is the only way to overcome the attrocity that is abortion, but when we engage a godless culture we don't bash them over the head with Bibles and soapbox sermons. We engage them on common ground, Reason. Since human reason is corrupted by the fall, we also pray for God's grace to supplement it.<br /><br />Anyway, I would just ignore AHA from now on. If they want to bash Catholics or any other deviant from "True Christianity", let them. We should be secure enough in our faith not to let that faze us. They really ought to change their name though, since by their own admission they are not primarily about abolishing abortion.G Lainghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09736882298990748417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-12687582128302347882013-01-29T02:34:06.697-06:002013-01-29T02:34:06.697-06:00"Peace, peace, and there was no peace.""Peace, peace, and there was no peace."G Lainghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09736882298990748417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-84451690394510486922013-01-28T21:43:51.583-06:002013-01-28T21:43:51.583-06:00St. Paul says the Church is the pillar and foundat...<i>St. Paul says the Church is the pillar and foundation of _truth_, not Holy Scripture.</i><br /><br />But this does not respond to the point I made. <br /><br /><br /><i>even if you used Scripture, you miss the obvious point that without the proper foundation, everything else is on shaky ground--such as biblical interpretation.</i><br /><br />If biblical interpretation is shaky, all interpretation is shaky, including the question of which church is the right one.<br />This point of yours proves too much. <br /><br /><br /><i>if you want to be sure you don't get a liberal priest, contact one at St. Damien's parish in OKC. They are with the FSSP (not to be confused with the FSSPX--the FSSP is in communion with Rome)</i><br /><br />Why would I need to contact some special group-within-a-group in the RCC? This sounds like you don't have the unity you so often claim. <br />And who are you to guide me or anyone spiritually as to whom we need to talk to? I'm being 100% serious. Why are you even in this position?<br /><br /><br /><i> But perhaps you would be courageous to discuss with an authority figure of the Church in person.</i><br /><br />How is a priest authoritative if he is not infallible and can't be trusted not to be liberal? Is it because of his associations, or because of his doctrine?<br />If the former, why isn't association with RCC enough?<br />If the latter, that's what *I've* been saying.<br /><br /><br /><i>Catholics believe in the sufficiency of grace.</i><br /><br />That is flat untrue. The very idea of suffering purgation in Purgatory is directly contradictory.<br /><br /><br /><i>After all, St. Paul does say that "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church" in Colossians.</i><br /><br />And your argument that this does not refer to his missionary and discipling work, rather than some sort of purgation and suffering to partly merit his own salvation?<br />Hint: the Bible does not contradict itself.<br /><br /><br /><i>I gladly affirmed my acceptance of the Council of Trent at my confirmation, just so we're clear that Trent does not embarrass Catholics.</i><br /><br />Then you fully understand why I wrote the open letter the way I did. Excellent. <br /><br />Peace,<br />RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-48273686648078944082013-01-28T21:42:03.492-06:002013-01-28T21:42:03.492-06:00Agreed: I don't follow that logic, either. Of...Agreed: I don't follow that logic, either. Of course, that wasn't remotely what I'd said, but I suppose there's none as blind as them that don't want to see.Joe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-21313030207635362342013-01-28T21:38:44.384-06:002013-01-28T21:38:44.384-06:00So exalting the Gospel = defensiveness. I'm no...So exalting the Gospel = defensiveness. I'm not sure I follow that line of reasoning, to be honest.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-8849150731901556982013-01-28T19:29:14.616-06:002013-01-28T19:29:14.616-06:00St. Paul says the Church is the pillar and foundat...St. Paul says the Church is the pillar and foundation of _truth_, not Holy Scripture. You are inserting that, just as Luther inserted [alone] after the word "faith" in the passage in Romans. Furthermore, even if you used Scripture, you miss the obvious point that without the proper foundation, everything else is on shaky ground--such as biblical interpretation.<br /><br />Anyway, if you want to be sure you don't get a liberal priest, contact one at St. Damien's parish in OKC. They are with the FSSP (not to be confused with the FSSPX--the FSSP is in communion with Rome). He is not infallible, as we do not believe priests to be infallible. But perhaps you would be courageous to discuss with an authority figure of the Church in person.<br /><br />You may also enjoy perusing relevant sections of ScriptureCatholic.com or any of Joe's posts.<br /><br />Also, Catholics believe in the sufficiency of grace. It is the efficacy which is based on our actions. After all, St. Paul does say that "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church" in Colossians.<br /><br />And I gladly affirmed my acceptance of the Council of Trent at my confirmation, just so we're clear that Trent does not embarrass Catholics.<br /><br />Peace be with you.<br />Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13288875157147852833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-85250085737322811072013-01-28T17:20:08.939-06:002013-01-28T17:20:08.939-06:00Rhology,
Unfortunately, I don't have time to ...Rhology,<br /><br />Unfortunately, I don't have time to respond to every comment you raise, but I did want to respond to your comment directed to me, specifically. You said:<br /><br />“You sound like you don't agree with us that the solution to sin is the Gospel. If I may be so bold, this shows that you are the mission field. You are not one of God's children. Rather, you are His enemy, and you will come under His wrath unless you repent of thinking you know better than He what the solution to sin is. The Apostle Peter once found himself saying what you say here, and Jesus told him "Get behind Me, Satan". I fear greatly for the soul of any who do not love the Gospel, and you appear to be among them.”<br /><br />One of the reasons people have suggested that AHA is defensive is because of this kind of tactic. Rather than addressing what I actually said, you take a wild (and unfounded) guess that I “don't agree with us that the solution to sin is the Gospel.” <br /><br />But let me address your actual substance. Yes, I love the Gospel. And yes, I think that abortion is both a sin and a crime against humanity. But let’s make some important distinctions. <b>Inasmuch as abortion is a sin</b>, the only solution is Jesus Christ, and Him Crucified. But the <b>action</b> of abortion can be regulated quite apart from salvation: someone who hasn’t accepted Christ can still recognize abortion as a moral evil, and reject it. <br /><br />This isn’t just hypothetical, either . We saw this exact progression in Dr. Bernard Nathanson. He became pro-life before his acceptance of the Gospel. Currently, roughly 10% of atheists believe abortion is wrong in all cases. So clearly, recognizing abortion as wrong is <i>not</i> contingent upon previous acceptance of the Gospel. On the contrary, recognizing abortion as wrong can even help prepare souls for accepting Christ.<br /><br />I.X.,<br /><br />Joe<br />Joe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-71711333144297324092013-01-28T14:52:03.797-06:002013-01-28T14:52:03.797-06:00Why do you think that you have the Gospel?
Becaus...<i> Why do you think that you have the Gospel?</i><br /><br />Because God lovingly guarded His Scripture for us to have today.<br /><br /><br /><i>If you have the Gospel, then do you confess your sins to people who have the authority to bind and loose (John 20:21)?</i><br /><br />Your argument that this applies to people going fwd, not to the apostles, who are dead now?<br /><br /><br /><i>Do you have bishops and priests--episkopoi and presbyteroi?</i><br /><br />Those are the same thing in the NT, and yes, my church has those.<br /><br /><br /><i>Do you teach that we should hold fast to any traditions passed down (as in 2 Thess. above?) </i><br /><br />Yes, AND that we should them in light of Scripture. It's BOTH.<br /><br /><br /><i> Do you teach that faith without works is dead (James 2:14)? </i><br /><br />Most certainly.<br /><br /><br /><i>I ask that you actually talk to a good Catholic about what we actually believe, then reflect on why you don't believe them</i><br /><br />I have done that many times, thank you.<br /><br /><br /><i>Why not discuss with a priest in OKC or Norman? </i><br /><br />Why would I do that? Is he infallible? <br />Can I be sure that he's not a liberal? Can I be sure he's not been hidden from the authorities by the RCC hierarchy for past child molestation?<br /><br /><br /><i>If you don't, wouldn't you be wary of breaking the Commandment that we should not bear false witness?</i><br /><br />You've given me no reason to think I have misrepresented RCC in any way so far. <br /><br /><br /><i>And as a former Lutheran, I'm even insulted that you think you are carrying on the Reformation, so perhaps you should chill on that.</i><br /><br />As someone who has spent some significant time talking to Lutherans recently, it has never been clearer to me why further reformation is needed, though Lutheranism is a definite step in the right direction from Rome. It's a pity you decided to head backwards.<br /><br /><br />Peace,<br />RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-72045219931326238482013-01-28T14:51:51.403-06:002013-01-28T14:51:51.403-06:00Hi Taylor,
You are simply one of 30,000+ other de...Hi Taylor,<br /><br /><i>You are simply one of 30,000+ other denominations in the U.S.</i><br /><br />So is Rome. <br />This is just another misleading Catholic Answers canard. <br /><a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2218" rel="nofollow">Here you go.</a><br />Also, <a href="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/12/special-pleading-of-sola-ecclesia-ists.html" rel="nofollow">check this out</a>. <a href="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/12/jesus-prayer-for-unity-in-john-17.html" rel="nofollow">And this.</a><br /><br /><br /><i>to hear you act like the Council of Trent was directed specifically at you, when it was directed at the time at a group I was involved with, strikes me as odd.</i><br /><br />I'm a Reformed Baptist, and my spiritual forebears in the 16th century were partially Calvinist and partially Anabaptist, so... <br />Also, the language of Trent doesn't say anything about Lutheran in the canons I've cited. It says "If anyone believes... let him be anathema." That's pretty straightforward.<br /><br /><br /><i>How come you do not assault</i><br /><br />We're not assaulting anyone.<br /><br /><br /><i>They ultimately preach the same Gospel as us, and not as you.</i><br /><br />They fall under the same biblical condemnation as Rome does, sadly.<br /><a href="http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/search/label/Eastern%20Orthodoxy" rel="nofollow">I'm very familiar with EOdoxy, thanks.</a><br /><br /><br /><i>What is the Gospel? The Gospel is Christ crucified for our sins (1 Cor. 23)--and we are all sinners! </i><br /><br />Roman dogma does not hold to that Gospel, even that too-simplified version. That is because Roman dogma teaches that YOU must merit, partially, your own justification. You must be baptised. You must partake of the sacraments. You must suffer purgation in Purgatory. The Mass does not perfect you. <br />So no, our gospels are quite different. <br /><br /><br /><i>Here's the thing: perhaps you see the use of science, ethics, natural law, etc., as anti-Gospel. </i><br /><br />No, that's not what any of us think.<br /><br /><br /><i>But St. Paul says hold fast to the Traditions which have been taught (2. Thess 2:15),</i><br /><br />Catholic Answers canard #2.<br />And how can you prove that these traditions<br />1) were not of identical content, whether by word of mouth or by letter?<br />2) are not entirely contained in the NT? <br />You can't.<br />**AND** the standing command of the Lord Jesus is to test all traditions in light of Scripture - Mark 7.<br />That's not the Roman structure. That's the Reformedigelical structure.<br /><br /><br /><i>that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth (cf. 1 Tim. 3:15). </i><br /><br />Catholic Answers canard #3.<br />1) A pillar and foundation hold something else up - the Scripture.<br />2) That letter was written to non-Pope non-apostle Timothy.<br />3) That letter was written to non-Rome church in Ephesus. So I suppose the church at Ephesus is the pillar and foundation of the truth? Why aren't you the Ephesian Catholic Church?<br />4) What is your argument this applies to the modern RCC? <br /><br /><br /><i>And of course, no where does it say in the Bible that we are to use the Bible alone.</i><br /><br /><a href="http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/search/label/sola%20scriptura%20debate%20with%20David" rel="nofollow">Yeah, it really does.</a><br /><br /><br /><i>And yet, they preach the same Gospel as the Catholics</i><br /><br />Not the earliest ones. There's a solid sola fide passage in First Clement.<br />Even if it were true, Jesus said to judge the traditions of man by Scripture. <br /><br /><br /><i> If you don't believe that we think Christ crucified is absolutely necessary, 100%, and grace needed 100%--then why do we have crucifixes as the central theme as Catholics?</i><br /><br />The problem between us is not the necessity of grace, but the sufficiency of grace. <br /><br /><br /><i>In closing, you say that we anathematized the Gospel. What an a priori assumption</i><br /><br />I quoted Trent. It's not an assumption. <br /><br /><br />Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-73270810707625726922013-01-27T18:54:43.316-06:002013-01-27T18:54:43.316-06:00The Chemist,
First, I am thankful that you are st...The Chemist,<br /><br />First, I am thankful that you are standing for life of the unborn.<br /><br />Second, sorry to jump into the convo but given this statement: "I would argue that they take the normal meaning of the words at their face value, bearing in mind the genre they are reading."<br /><br />I was wondering what your position is on Peter's place among the twelve particularly given Matthew 16:16-18. Second, and perhaps more importantly what about on real prescense, particularly given John 6 (read especially in light of the context of Judaism) and the words of the last supper? Or how about Pauls words to Timothy and Titus or the what James says about works?<br /><br />There are plenty of rabbit holes we could dive down including the veracity of Scripture or how the Gospel is to be kept pure without a clear and authoritative Church or how the Apostles and those they taught could have been such failures at passing on the pure Gospel but Mr./Mrs. X were so succesful at recovering/spreading the true Gospel. If trent is the major issue then why was the Church right in all the time before Trent? So many questions but I'm sure neither of us have adequate time. I just thought my above questions, given your statement, would be straightforward enough for all of us to ponder.<br /><br />In Christ<br />Cary Balserscredsoxfan2https://www.blogger.com/profile/10162308671130564720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-55723692646756749792013-01-27T14:30:21.058-06:002013-01-27T14:30:21.058-06:00Right, it is 2 Peter. Slip of the finger. You ra...Right, it is 2 Peter. Slip of the finger. You raise an excellent point. How exactly does one know if their interpretation is correct? Before I get there, let me be clear. Every dogmatic statement coming from the Magisterium requires an interpretative step. Unless you assert that step is infallible, then any criticism about faulty interpretation cuts both ways.<br /><br />So, just how does one know if they are properly interpreting anything? I would argue that they take the normal meaning of the words at their face value, bearing in mind the genre they are reading. Passages ought to be read within the context it was written and interpretation must be faithful to that context. Moreover, an interpretation of Scripture should be consistent with the rest of the Scriptures. This was written fairly quickly, but I think it gets the main points across.<br /><br />About the 2 Peter 1:20 passage. Here is 2 Peter 1:16ff,<br /><br /><i>16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.</i><br /><br />Peter starts in vs 16 by saying that he is not following cleverly devised myths. Instead, he was an eyewitness of Christ's majesty. He then reminds his readers that he was present at the transfiguration; he saw the glory of Christ. Because of his experience, he has the prophetic word “more fully confirmed”. This is key to understanding versus 20 and 21. What prophetic word was more fully confirmed. It must be the Old Testament Scriptures, for they must have existed prior to his experiences. Otherwise, how could they be more fully confirmed? Peter then admonishes people to pay attention to what he is saying, and he then discusses the origin of those prophecies. In vs 20, we see that no Scripture <i>comes from</i> someone’s own interpretation. This is about the origin of the prophecy. It is not talking about someone’s interpretation <i>of those</i> prophecies. This is made especially clear in vs 21, where Peter next explains that prophecy is divine in origin. It is not “by the will of man, but men who spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” This passage is not talking about how someone interprets the prophecy, but the source of authority behind a prophecy.<br /><br /><i>I believe it refers to reading Scripture, since anyone writing at that time would not know they were writing Scripture.</i><br /><br />But these Christians had the Old Testament Scriptures! It is not as if they were totally void of any Scripture whatsoever. It is true that Scripture was being written during the first century, and the process was not completed at one moment in time. Furthermore, it is true that there was a period of time in which people recognized that which God inspired. However, it is not true that they did not recognize they were writing Scripture. Here are some examples. First, Peter calls Paul’s equates at least some of Paul’s writings as Scripture in 2 Peter 3:15,16. Second, Paul quotes Luke as Scripture in 1 Tim 5:18.<br /><br />Thank you for the very insightful question.<br /><br />Peace,<br />The Chemist<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-67344222075178276722013-01-27T10:35:31.202-06:002013-01-27T10:35:31.202-06:00If you have the Gospel, then do you confess your s...<br />If you have the Gospel, then do you confess your sins to people who have the authority to bind and loose (John 20:21)? Do you have bishops and priests--episkopoi and presbyteroi? Do you teach that we should hold fast to any traditions passed down (as in 2 Thess. above?) Do you have elders that anoint the sick (James 5:14)? Do you teach that faith without works is dead (James 2:14)? Those are actually integral to dispensing the Gospel--so if you don't have them, then you must not be preaching the full Gospel.<br /><br />In closing, I ask that you actually talk to a good Catholic about what we actually believe, then reflect on why you don't believe them--when they are contained in Scripture in ways that perhaps you do not understand or comprehend. After all, there can only be one true interpretation. Why not discuss with a priest in OKC or Norman? If you don't, wouldn't you be wary of breaking the Commandment that we should not bear false witness?<br /><br />And as a former Lutheran, I'm even insulted that you think you are carrying on the Reformation, so perhaps you should chill on that. Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13288875157147852833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-74591874666226899322013-01-27T10:35:21.305-06:002013-01-27T10:35:21.305-06:00Rhology,
I went to OU and in fact I recognized at...Rhology,<br /><br />I went to OU and in fact I recognized at least one person in your group (via your site) that I had as a classmate in several of my courses. Kind of interesting to me, so in a way a group like yours hits home a little close in different ways than other anti-Catholic accusers may be. I was actually a Lutheran at the time, so to hear you act like the Council of Trent was directed specifically at you, when it was directed at the time at a group I was involved with, strikes me as odd. You are simply one of 30,000+ other denominations in the U.S.<br /><br />How come you do not assault the Maronites, Byzantines, Syrio-Malabar, Eastern Orthodox, etc? They ultimately preach the same Gospel as us, and not as you. By the way, all except the Eastern Orthodox are in union with the Pope, are not Roman Catholic, and are scattered across the world--in union with the Pope, I emphasize again.<br /><br />What is the Gospel? The Gospel is Christ crucified for our sins (1 Cor. 23)--and we are all sinners! <br /><br />Here's the thing: perhaps you see the use of science, ethics, natural law, etc., as anti-Gospel. Far from it. If Christ by His death pours out grace, then it reaches all corners of nature to some extent. There is some proverb that says something like, "Let the tiger come down from the mountain before you try to tame it." This is exactly what St. Paul did when preaching the Gospel in Romans. Sometimes you cannot appeal to the spiritually dead instantly with the claims of supernatural life and forgiveness of sins, so you have to appeal to what is assuredly written on their heart.<br /><br />Furthermore, you continue to ascribe adding traditions, etc. But St. Paul says hold fast to the Traditions which have been taught (2. Thess 2:15), and that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth (cf. 1 Tim. 3:15). So are you contradicting St. Paul? And of course, no where does it say in the Bible that we are to use the Bible alone. Again, St. Paul contradicts that.<br /><br />You may not be aware, but you can look for the "Church Fathers" and find people who were literally disciples of the Apostles. The Apostles taught them everything Christ did. And yet, they preach the same Gospel as the Catholics, and some of their writings were written at or about the same time as the Apostles wrote the Epistles; and many were circulated before the Church codified which Gospels and Epistles should form the New Testament.<br /><br />Ultimately, of course the solution to the sin is the Gospel. Perhaps people here are too flustered countering this and that to directly answered you. But I have no qualms in doing so. If you don't believe that we think Christ crucified is absolutely necessary, 100%, and grace needed 100%--then why do we have crucifixes as the central theme as Catholics?<br /><br />In closing, you say that we anathematized the Gospel. What an a priori assumption. You are a Protestant group---daughters of daughters of cousins of any other denomination that came before you--leaning heavily on much of the theology of the Catholic Church from which you ultimately sprung. Why do you think that you have the Gospel? As a former Lutheran, who followed the original Protestant, I can tell you how much he twisted St. Paul's letters, as do you--see 2 Peter 3:16.<br /><br />Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13288875157147852833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-64068699852679227642013-01-27T09:20:03.650-06:002013-01-27T09:20:03.650-06:00"BTW, 1 Peter 1:20 is speaking about the proc..."BTW, 1 Peter 1:20 is speaking about the process of writing Scripture."<br /><br />It's 2 Peter 1:20, actually.<br /><br />My interpretation of this verse is different than yours. Based on the context, I believe it refers to reading Scripture, since anyone writing at that time would not know they were writing Scripture.<br /><br />So how do we know whose interpretation of that verse is correct? JoAnna Wahlundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09942928659520676271noreply@blogger.com