Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 38

June 20, 2012

On Whether C. S. Lewis' Belfast Childhood and Remnant Prejudices Therefrom Were a Key to Why He Didn't Become a Catholic (Kreeft, Pearce, Tolkien?, and Derrick Think So)

Rare color photograph of C. S. Lewis
This is a discussion from a Facebook thread on a recent Anglican convert. I've known Rob Corzine for almost 20 years. He currently works with Scott Hahn as a Program Director for the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology. His words will be in blue. I have presently added or modified a few things, and added relevant links as well.
* * *
C. S. Lewis was raised in Belfast, and by his own frank admission to his good friend J. R. R. Tolkien, this had more than a little to do with his never "poping."

I can't really buy the "just couldn't shake the residual childhood anti-Catholic bigotry" argument for why CSL never became Catholic. It's psychologically tempting, especially for those of us who benefited so much from his wisdom on our journey into the Church. He saw so much, he was obviously much better read in the Tradition than us, he was also a man of prayer and clearly submitted to the Lord. It seems to call for some extraordinary explanation that he never came the whole way home. After all, how could it possibly be that I was graced to see farther than the great teacher?

But the Ulster argument fails, I think, on at least two grounds. First, I think it wrongs him. Let's grant that his friendship with the Catholic Tolkien was old and based on other grounds. His long correspondence published as Letters to an American Lady was always respectful of her Catholicism, but it was hardly a relationship of equals and perhaps he was just being charitable and polite. But look again at his correspondence with Blessed Giovanni Calabria; where's the bigotry there? or the dissimulation?

If the first ground is a notable absence of evidence (for his residual anti-Catholicism), the second ground could be called evidence from absence--absence that is of any developed ecclesiology in his entire body of writing. There is a lovely, if fleeting, reference to the Church across the ages in Screwtape. Then there is the (wholly inadequate and unbiblical) image of a great house with many equally serviceable rooms in the introduction to Mere Christianity.

Can you think of any others? It is a curious lacuna in such a relatively extensive ouevre. Add to that his strained and evasive responses (the only piece of really poor reasoning that I can recall from his adult pen) when H Lyman Stebbins confronted him directly with the claims of the Teaching Church, and I think a more plausible answer appears. Lewis never found the Church because he never looked for her; he was quite content (and to be fair, not entirely incompetent) to be his own Magisterium.

At the end of the day, I think we just have to admit that David Mills is right and Joseph Pearce is stretching the data. Lewis, sadly, remained a Protestant until November 22, 1963 (though I've no doubt whatever that he is a Catholic now).

This theory comes from Tolkien's report of what Lewis said to him.

I do agree, though, that he had a very weak ecclesiology. Catholic author and talk show host Al Kresta as noted that his Mere Christianity was woefully deficient, insofar as it eliminated as basic what is essential to two of the three great divisions in Christianity: the Church. It presupposes Protestant relative ecclesiological minimalism.

I can accept a two-part theory of Lewis' refusal to pope: a Belfast background and your theory. That seems quite plausible to me. But I can't discount Tolkien (assuming that story is true): especially given his role in Lewis' adoption of Christianity and their close friendship.

I'm sure Tollers' report is trustworthy, but I'm not familiar with it. Where does it appear? Does it give any evidence that he really wrestled with the question of the Church? Or is it more a matter of "I'm from Belfast; why would I ever pick that room to make my home in?". It might also make a difference to know when in his life it was.
I heard it from the premier Catholic apologist and philosopher, Peter Kreeft (author of several books about Lewis: one / two / three / four / five / six) in an interview on Al Kresta's talk show. As I recall, Kreeft said that Tolkien asked Lewis why he wasn't a Catholic, and Lewis replied (paraphrase from memory), "If you had grown up in Belfast, you would understand and wouldn't ask me that question."

If this is a true report, I think it is admirable of Lewis to so honestly admit his biases, and to acknowledge that they had a sort of irrational effect on his position: sort of like Aldous Huxley admitting with remarkable candidness, that he adopted some of his views merely for the sake of sexual freedom.

Tracking down some hard evidence on that incident would be a real find. I know I have seen snippets in Lewis that seem borderline bigoted where Catholicism is concerned, so it did seem plausible to me, but of course that is no proof of its accuracy in the first place.

Joseph Pearce, in his C. S. Lewis and the Catholic Church (Ignatius Press, 2003) takes a nuanced, moderate position on this:

. . . we will be doing him a grave injustice should we fall into the trap of translating Puritania's importance into a presumed omnipotence. It is important but it is not that important.

In essence, although Puritania remained a powerful presence in Lewis's life, it was by no means an all-powerful presence. It would be truer to say that Puritania cast a shadow across the length of his life. . . .

In summary, Lewis's religious upbringing seems to have been characterized by an inherited anti-Catholicism, whether implicit or explicit, combined with a tepid low-church Anglicanism spiced with Presbyterianism. (pp. 3, 5)

In searching on this topic, I found a remark of my own from the Coming Home Network forum (where I was a moderator for three years):

I'm convinced Lewis would be a Catholic now if he were still alive. As it was, I heard a story from Peter Kreeft that Tolkien asked Lewis one day why he wasn't yet a Catholic. Lewis reputedly said something to the effect of, "if you had grown up in Belfast, you would understand why."

That's about it, I think. The leap was simply too great and wasn't "thinkable" for Lewis. But today, with all the nonsense in Anglicanism, I think it would be a very different story. He would have been an outcast in his own communion. He sort of was, anyway, because there were plenty of Anglican liberals, then, too.

Here's some more. Kreeft states in a 2003 interview:

The fault is that that is the only subject Lewis didn't want to talk about, even with his friends, much less in public -- the differences between the churches, especially the differences between the Church of England and the Church of Rome. He addressed issues within his own church and demolished Modernism, which infected (and still infects) all the churches. But he refused to deal with 1517 (or 1054, for that matter.)

Why? Both Christopher Derrick, Lewis's student [author of C. S. Lewis and the Church of Rome: Ignatius: 1981], and Joseph Pearce, Lewis's biographer, give the same answer: he was born in Belfast and knew his prejudices sat deep.

But he [generally avoided this question] for two good reasons. This is true even if the above constitutes a bad reason. For we must take him at his word in Mere Christianity when he says that the reason why he does not address the issues between the churches are these: first, he is not a professional theologian but an amateur whose "expertise" is in the "basics." Second, that he thought God wanted him to address the "basics" because most Christian writers were not doing so; they were fighting on the flanks while the center was going undefended.

He also made very clear, in the preface to Mere Christianity, that "mere Christianity" is not an alternative to any church, nor itself a church. It is like a hall, from which different specific doors lead out, and only beyond those doors, only in the concrete churches, is there food and fire and bed.

Thus, both authors who wrote books specifically devoted to Lewis and Catholicism, give credence to this theory, and a major Lewis scholar today, Peter Kreeft, concurs with it. All three men are or were Catholics (Derrick died in 2007). But I have not as yet found any additional confirming evidence of Tolkien saying what I heard Kreeft on Al Kresta's radio show report him claiming about Lewis, Belfast anti-Catholicism, and Catholicism.

If any of you Lewis fans out there finds anything, please let me know, in the combox below: I'm extremely interested and curious about this.

* * * * *

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on June 20, 2012 11:19

May 30, 2012

Dialogue with a Mennonite on Christian Ecclesiology (Especially That of the Early Church, and the Jerusalem Council)

Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15)
This exchange took place on Devin Rose's blog, in the combox of his review of my book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura . Phil Wood is a Mennonite, and sometimes calls himself an Anabaptist as well. His words will be in blue. This dialogue is posted with Phil's express permission.

* * *
Devin, as you know by now I’m no fan of Catholic/Protestant apologetic ping pong. I agree with your tack on this one for the first few steps, but part company half way through. It is quite right that Sola Scriptura is biblically untenable. I offer a loud ‘Amen’ to the role of the Church. Even a mainstream Conservative Evangelical scholar such as F.F. Bruce makes a cogent case for the importance of Tradition in ‘Scripture in Relation to Tradition and Reason’ (ed Dewery and Baukham, Scripture Tradition and Reason).
I do think you make a leap though, in assuming that ‘the Church’ is co-terminous with the views of the hierarchy. I’m coming at hermeneutics from below. I believe in a hermeneutic of peoplehood and (with Moltmann) that there is nothing higher than the congregation. The best example I can find of that perspective is found in John Howard Yoder, The Priestly Kingdom. I have also developed his theme of the ‘shape of conversation’.

I’m curious how this is squared with the Jerusalem Council in Scripture (Acts 15)? Are you saying that this council was strictly a temporary (and henceforth merely optional) expedient, and that St. Paul preached its results as binding (Acts 16:4), but then as history goes on all that is kaput and we go to a strictly congregational model?

That makes no sense to me. There is also all the scriptural data about Petrine primacy that seems to presuppose an overarching authority of one “super-bishop” and leader of the Church, so to speak. I lay that evidence out most succinctly in my “50 New Testament Proofs for the Primacy of Peter”.

I am somewhat surprised that you should use the example of the Council of Jerusalem. Of Peter, Paul and James it is the latter who takes the lead role. Acts 15:22 makes explicitly shows ‘the whole church’ engaged in the decision-making.
I followed your link. My overall sense is that you are seeking biblical precedent to bolster the authority claims of a contemporary institution (i.e. it’s anachronistic). Petrine primacy is a phrase from a later period. As far as we know it was Clement of Rome who first used the term ‘lay’ to mean a non-minister in A.D.96. The idea of priestly ordination wasn’t fully complete until the 5th Century (as Herbert Haag points out).
Congregationalism makes far more modest claims. One of the few passages in the Gospels which mentions ‘church’ (Matt 18.15-20) follows the rabbinic precedent of binding and loosing, focusing on ethical reasoning, pastoral care and conciliation. Where two or three gather together in the name of Christ, there Christ is present (Matt 18.20). I see no mention of clergy or super-bishops.
You didn’t reply to my direct questions; instead heading off onto various rabbit trails, of varying degrees of irrelevance; therefore I won’t answer yours (too busy anyway to get into this in depth today). It so happens that I just cited one of my arguments in the book in another discussion that had to do with the Jerusalem Council. I’ll quote it here again (slightly different from the book, as it is my final manuscript):

74. Paul’s Apostolic Calling Was Subordinated to the Larger Church and Was in Harmony with Peter

Paul’s ministry was not “self-validating.” He was initially commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles. After his conversion, he went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter (Gal 1:18). In Acts 15:2-3 we are told that “Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent their way by the church,” they went off on their assignment.

That is hardly consistent with the idea of Paul being the “pope” or leading figure in the hierarchy of authority; he was directed by others, as one under orders. When we see Paul and Peter together in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6-29), we observe that Peter wields an authority that Paul doesn’t possess.

We learn that “after there was much debate, Peter rose” to address the assembly (15:7). The Bible records his speech, which goes on for five verses. Then it reports that “all the assembly kept silence” (15:12). Paul and Barnabas speak next, not making authoritative pronouncements, but confirming Peter’s exposition, speaking about “signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles” (15:12). Then when James speaks, he refers right back to what “Simeon [Peter] has related” (15:14). Why did James skip right over Paul’s comments and go back to what Peter said? Paul and his associates are subsequently “sent off” by the Council, and they “delivered the letter” (15:30; cf. 16:4).

None of this seems consistent with the notion that Paul was above or even equal to Peter in authority. But it’s perfectly consistent with Peter’s having a preeminent authority. Paul was under the authority of the council, and Peter (along with James, as the Bishop of Jerusalem) presided over it. Paul and Barnabas were sent by “the church” (of Antioch: see 14:26). Then they were sent by the Jerusalem Council (15:25, 30) which was guided by the Holy Spirit (15:28), back to Antioch (15:30).

Just one more thing:

Acts 15:22 makes explicitly shows ‘the whole church’ engaged in the decision-making.

Yes, of course; but so what? This is the Catholic model: ecumenical councils make decisions (led and guided by the Holy Spirit), in tandem with the popes who preside and have “veto power.” It’s both/and.
The Council spoke for and to the entire Church. This is the whole point. Paul then proclaimed its edicts (in other regions; in this case, Asia Minor or modern-day Turkey, which was quite a ways away) as binding and obligatory upon all (Acts 16:4: “for observance”). If you want to say James was top dog at the council, fine. Even on that view, he is being a bishop (of Jerusalem), and presiding over a council that makes binding legal decisions, obligatory on all Christians everywhere. That ain’t congregationalism, sorry; it’s not even Presbyterianism [i.e., that form of Church government]. It is clearly episcopal / Catholic ecclesiology.

This precisely contradicts some notion of local congregationalism only. The problem is with your view of ecclesiology, not ours. Hence, you sidestepped the relevant issue and went into diverting side-issues.
Perhaps you didn’t intend to (people often wander off-topic to the detriment of constructive discourse and dialogue), but that was the result.

Dave,as I began by original contribution to this thread by expression disdain for ping pong I’m not going to go down the route of you say black and I say white. I think you’re beating the text into shape to make it serve the truth claims of a clerical elite. I’m a Mennonite writing from a UK and not a US context. Frankly, after thousands of years of Christendom truimphalism we have had enough of hierarchical church structures and forms of argumentation that resort to ‘our bishop is more purple than yours’.

Why comment at all, then, Phil, if you’re not willing to subject your positions to scrutiny and defend them? I don’t write this in any anger whatsoever, but in perfect calmness, and with true befuddlement. I always marvel at people who want to take their potshots at other views; then when challenged back, appeal to a calm, “above the fray” non-involvement ethos, as if their initial comments were not getting involved in the discussion. :-)

So you were involved in this thread, but really not. You entered the discussion but in fact never did . . . I can’t be faulted for simply responding to your critique, in any event.

Hi Dave, I apologize if I was unclear. I’m looking over what I said in my previous comment and I agree with you; it’s inconsistent. I suspect the business of arguing back and forth, point by point would take up more time than either of us have. I’m in something of a cleft stick where this blog is concerned, as Devin knows from my previous comments. Fundamentally I don’t believe apologetics is an appropriate form of Christian communication. I am very much an unreconstructed liberal wishing for the good old days of enthusiastic ecumenism. At the same time, I think it’s important for Christians of different traditions not to retreat into our comfort zones.

There are clearly disagreements between us. Broadly, I believe we have stumbled over centuries of scaffolding and encrustation where the ‘Council of Jerusalem’ is concerned. The phrase ‘Council of Jerusalem’, is after all a later interpretation of what went on. I am wary of attempts to impose a model (e..g. the Calvinist fourfold ministry) on a 1st Century picture than was almost certainly far more fluid and eclectic than attempts at systematization allow.

My sense of ‘befuddlement’ lies mainly in why it should matter so much to ‘prove’ Petrine Primacy. Is this a way of arguing us back to Rome? What is your objective?

Fair enough. I appreciate the clarification.

I’m as ecumenical as you are, which is why I just completed the book, The Quotable Wesley : presently under serious consideration by a Protestant publisher. There is no fundamental conflict between ecumenism and apologetics, though for some odd reason lots of folks seem to think there is.

Last Friday we had a very friendly discussion at my house with three atheists (one the main presenter) and about a dozen Catholics. That’s about as ecumenical as it gets, I think.

I agree that there was fluidity in early ecclesiology, and stated that in my first book, written in 1996. We would fully expect this, because ecclesiology developed, just as all theology did. That said, the outlines of the later episcopal structure of Christian government is remarkably evident in the New Testament. See my Appendix Two from A Biblical Defense of Catholicism : The Visible, Hierarchical, Apostolic Church.

Apologetics is thoroughly biblical, as I have, I think, demonstrated many times. “Contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 3). “Stand ready to make a defense [apologia] for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15). Paul argued and disputed endlessly with Jews and Greeks; he didn’t simply preach. Jesus argued with Pharisees, and engaged and challenged them. Paul defended his Christian views at great length at his trial. It’s all very biblical. In fact, the word apologia is the same one that was the title of Plato’s famous book, detailing Socrates’ defense of himself at his own trial.

My “objective” (since you asked) is to seek truth and follow it wherever it leads. Period. End of story. I defend what I believe to be the fullness of Christian truth (Catholicism) because I think it is better to reside in the fullness than not to: that truth (along with love) is a wonderful, godly end that all should seek with all their might. We all [should] proclaim and defend what we believe in good faith to be true. If I am convinced that the fullness of truth lies elsewhere, then I surely will move to that position, just as I moved from religious nominalism / paganism to evangelicalism, and from that to Catholicism.

It’s all by God’s grace. I proclaim and defend, as an apologist / evangelist. God moves hearts as He wills, and as human free will allows, in cooperation with God’s grace. But (like Paul) “woe to me if I preach not the gospel” because this is my calling.

Is it okay with you if I put our dialogue on my blog (it’s already public here, anyway)? I can include your name or not, as you wish. I think it is an exchange that might be of some value to others. I am a great advocate of putting up dialogues and letting people decide where truth lies.

Dave, you are welcome to include the dialogue on your blog. It may also give me an opportunity to contribute in some more detail on some of the knotty ecclesiology we have touched on. I’ll place your blog on my blogroll. It’s an interesting discussion, partly because I’m not coming at this from a mainstream Protestant perspective.
As for Apologetics, I entirely agree with your helpful biblical summary. Where I have concerns lies in interface between Apologetics and ecumenism. I have a strong sense, in talking to some Traditionalist Catholic interlocutors, that Apologetics have supplanted ecumenism. As you will gather from my own blog (and blogroll) I have an extensive range of Catholic contacts. My wife Anna is Roman Catholic. I wish you well with the writing. I also have a book in process at present – The Gospel of Slow.
I sometimes wonder why I have stuck with this blog for so long. In large part it’s because I have always found Devin gracious and fair. To be honest, some of the discussion has been bruising, because I’m frequently expressing a minority viewpoint. God forbid, five hundred years after the Reformation, that disunity should ever be seen as ‘normal’. Speaking as an Anabaptist can be a painful in-between place – as Walter Klaasen said, ‘neither Catholic nor Protestant’. I believe there is something in that experience of value across the ecumenical spectrum, as all of us encounter a sense of loss and marginality after Christendom.
If you'd like to continue the discussion, that would be great. From where I sit, the "hard questions" I asked about the Jerusalem Council still remain to be dealt with. I'm curious how an advocate of congregational government would answer those. You can always concede that you don't have any answers to my questions; that's fine, too. :-)

Dave, as I am heading off to Strasbourg tomorrow in connection with Mennonite Central Committee responsibilities, I shall try to keep this succinct. You should be aware that I am a British Mennonite and that there is considerable variety amongst Mennonites in terms of polity. Overall, I think it would be true to say that Mennonites in particular and Anabaptists in general have congregational DNA. Whilst it is true that local congregations are self-governing, strong inter-Mennonite institutions such as the Mennonite Central Committee and the Mennonite Mission Network act as a counterpoint and ensure that congregations have a view beyond the local and are able to act in concert.

Sort of like Baptists or evangelicals, who form overarching associations of varying governing or at least significantly guiding force . . .

I do not believe that there is a single New Testament leadership model. Over the past two thousand years Christianity has existed in many forms - fusions of cultural, pragmatic and biblical concerns. This does not mean that the New Testament is exegetically unintelligible. In response to your suggested 'hard question' I do wonder how you would address the open multi-voiced mutuality of 1 Cor 12-14, for example.

Well, again, that is not responding to my question; it is simply asking a different one of your own (that you think runs counter to my assumptions). But I do directly respond to questions, so here I go:

These three chapters, first of all, indicate a strong central authority, since it is the apostle Paul giving all of these rather obligatory instructions (see, e.g., 1 Cor 11:2 and 23, where Paul refers to traditions he received and delivered, to be followed). At the time, remember, it was simply a letter, and not known to be Scripture. So there is your authority. Paul is writing to the Corinthians, but that is only one church of many that he oversees and guides.

This is apostolic authority, and to the extent that it continues to be a model and binding today, it remains apostolic authority, now encapsulated in Scripture. Peter does the same thing in his letters, and he doesn't even narrow them down to one congregation. Both of those phenomena are strongly indicative of the later more fully-developed episcopacy with a pope leading.

You call this "mutuality". But I see strong central authority far more akin to Catholicism than Anabaptism or wider Protestant sectarianism and denominationalism with a congregational notion of governance. Paul details a clear hierarchy of authority and ("higher") gifts in 12:28-31, mentioning apostles, prophets, teachers: not all fit in every category (is his point in 15:29-30). Thus, hierarchy . . .

Most of the material Paul deals with here has to do with worship practices, which can vary widely according to time and place, and which are not doctrines or dogmas, strictly speaking. Nothing here goes against the Catholic model, so it is mostly irrelevant to our discussion.

Turning to the so-called 'Council of Jerusalem',

This is one of the curiosities of your view: the reluctance to call a thing what it is. I was unaware that this was some controversial thing (and certainly not a position confined to those who hold to episcopal ecclesiology). For example:

The first council of the Church was that described in Acts 15.

(Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by F. L. Cross & E. A. Livingstone, 2nd edition, Oxford Univ. Press, 1974; p. 351: "Council")

The Council of Jerusalem is the name commonly given to the meeting convened between delegates form the Church of Antioch (led by Paul and Barnabas) and the apostles and elders of the Church of Jerusalem . . .

(New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. D. Douglas, Eerdmans, 1962; p. 263: "Council, Jerusalem")

The Bible seems clear enough to me:

Acts 15:6 (RSV) The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.

Apostles and elders gathered together to discuss doctrinal issues and issue binding decrees is not a council? That's odd. What is it then? A pow-wow? A campfire meeting with a singalong? A Sunday get-together after church with (beef) hot dogs?

One of my "hard questions" that you have chosen not to respond to directly was the following:

Paul then proclaimed its edicts (in other regions; in this case, Asia Minor or modern-day Turkey, which was quite a ways away) as binding and obligatory upon all (Acts 16:4: “for observance”). If you want to say James was top dog at the council, fine. Even on that view, he is being a bishop (of Jerusalem), and presiding over a council that makes binding legal decisions, obligatory on all Christians everywhere.

If you want to say it is merely a local council of Jerusalem (F. F. Bruce takes that view), then how is it that Paul acts as he does above, in Asia Minor? How can the Jerusalem Church have jurisdiction over those Christians unless episcopalian government is in place?

Moreover, the biblical text informs us that a letter was written to "the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cili'cia" (Acts 15:23). It is written in the language of command (though gently so):

Acts 15:28-29 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: [29] that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.

How is it that one local church in Jerusalem (according to your view) can give "binding orders" to other local churches far away? That is nonsensical in a congregational interpretation. But it makes perfect sense with an episcopal or even papal / Catholic view.

I begin by saying that there is no evidence that there was some superior organizational level to which local congregations are accountable.
I just gave an example (a pretty compelling one, in my opinion) of why I think this perspective is biblically untenable.

There is no indication that this gathering should be be taken as a standing paradigm for wider authority.
Again, if it shows a "higher" church authority giving binding decisions to Christians over wide geographical areas, then it is a model, by common sense. Otherwise, why is it included in revelation? These things are in Scripture for our instruction. It's not just the council, but also Peter and Paul exercising apostolic 9and papal) authority.

In fact the use of the word 'Council' is potentially misleading. We tend to think of 'Ecumenical Councils' and so on. Paul and Barnabas didn't go to Jerusalem to get a ruling on the issue. This was straightforward fraternal contact between two churches over a pressing matter of mutual concern.

That's not what I see in the text:

Acts 15:2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.

The ruling came in Acts 15:22-29. Paul them "delivered them for observance" in Asia Minor. This is exactly how Catholicism works: an ecumenical council takes place (Vatican II: in my lifetime), and I am to receive the instruction from it in Detroit, Michigan, since it applies to all Catholics.

Elsewhere in the New Testament ethical reasoning (i.e. binding and loosing) is practiced by the local church body rather than by elders or bishops (see Matt 18:15-17).

That's right. We believe it is exercised by every priest, and that is local. However, there is also a sense in which Peter and his successors can bind and loose for the entire Church. I have detailed many Protestant commentators writing about this, in my book on Catholic ecclesiology. For example:

And what about the "keys of the kingdom"? The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or majordomo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . (Isa. 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward.
(F. F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1983, 143-144)

In Matthew 16:19 it is presupposed that Christ is the master of the house, who has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, with which to open to those who come in. Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord lays the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so Jesus commits to Peter the keys of his house, the Kingdom of Heaven, and thereby installs him as administrator of the house.
What do the expressions “bind” and “loose” signify? According to Rabbinical usage two explanations are equally possible: “prohibit” and “permit”, that is, “establish rules”; or “put under the ban” and “acquit.”
(Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, translated by Floyd V. Filson, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953, 203-205)

These terms [binding and loosing] thus refer to a teaching function, and more specifically one of making halakhic pronouncements [i.e., relative to laws not written down in the Jewish Scriptures but based on an oral interpretation of them] which are to be 'binding' on the people of God. In that case, Peter's 'power of the keys' declared in [Matthew] 16:19 is not so much that of the doorkeeper, who decides who may or may not be admitted to the kingdom of heaven, but that of the steward . . . . whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household. . . . [Isaiah 22:22 is] generally regarded as the Old Testament background to the metaphor of keys here. . . .
(R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1989, 247)

In the . . . exercise of the power of the keys, in ecclesiastical discipline, the thought is of administrative authority (Is 22:22) with regard to the requirements of the household of faith. The use of censures, excommunication, and absolution is committed to the Church in every age, to be used under the guidance of the Spirit . . . So Peter, in T.W. Manson's words, is to be 'God's vicegerent . . . The authority of Peter is an authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community. His decisions will be confirmed by God' (The Sayings of Jesus, 1954, p. 205).
( New Bible Dictionary , edited by J. D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962, 1018)
It was a local church that commissioned Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13.1-3).
That's a partial truth, but not the whole truth. From chapter three of my book, mentioned above:

He [Paul] went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Gal 1:18), and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Gal 2:1-2, 9). He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27). Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).

Acts 15:2 states: ". . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question." The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas "being sent on their way by the church." St. Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role), and Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27),. . .

In Galatians 1-2 Paul is referring to his initial conversion. But even then God made sure there was someone else around, to urge him to get baptized (Ananias: Acts 22:12-16). He received the revelation initially and then sought to have it confirmed by Church authority (Gal 2:1-2: “. . . I laid before them . . . the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain”); then his authority was accepted or verified by James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9). . . .
In Galatians 1:8-9 Paul tells the Galatians to reject any gospel that is different from what he presented to them. He preached the truth to them. In the same book, however, he says how this gospel had been confirmed as true by the Church (Gal 1:18; 2:1-2, 9). No opposition between Paul and the apostolic tradition and gospel of the Church is present in these biblical texts. The Church is guided by God to preserve apostolic truth. St. Paul is in communion with this same Church, and obedient to her.

Whatever the unevenness of the biblical text, I believe Congregationalism best expresses the dynamic open process described in 1 Cor 12-14.

And I believe Catholicism best reflects the overall biblical picture (all things considered). I have stated why I don't think 1 Cor 12-14 is decisive for your side.

I am quite aware of Episcopal and Presbyterian objections to a congregational approach. There is clearly, for example, evidence of the influence of the Jewish synagogical model on early churches. So, I am not arguing that the New Testament is a 'flat' text. There is, for example, clearly a change of temperature with the Pastoral Epistles.

I'd love to see how you would reply to my arguments above.

Behind the scenes of our discussion is a broader question that relates to change and continuity in the Christian tradition. Is it possible for example for the church to 'fall' so that restitution is required. Luther drew back from that position but the Radical Reformers carried in through.

Luther was more correct. It is biblically, historically, and logically absurd to posit a Church that initially was in God's grace and then entirely fell away. Most of the biblical arguments for this position of mine is detailed in my book on the Church and papacy (I can send you a free pdf if you like), but there is some in a dialogue I had with a Lutheran.

Whatever the variations in the biblical record, we continue to argue strongly that what the Church became under Constantine was an aberration.
Not at all. There was a lot of caesaropapism in the east, but the papal model is already strongly indicated in the Bible (my 50 NT Proofs that you passed by without comment), so that Church history merely develops that kernel

This is why Anabaptists regard our peace testimony and open, congregational process as in some sense, a 'looping back' to Christian origins. I offer two reflections on restitution by way of starting points for further discussion [one / two].

I read those; thanks. I didn't see much of direct relevance to this discussion, though.

* * *

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on May 30, 2012 09:16

Dialogue with a Mennonite on Christian Ecclesiology (Especially in the Early Church)

74. Paul’s Apostolic Calling Was Subordinated to the Larger Church and Was in Harmony with Peter

Paul’s ministry was not “self-validating.” He was initially commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles. After his conversion, he went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter (Gal 1:18). In Acts 15:2-3 we are told that “Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent their way by the church,” they went off on their assignment.

That is hardly consistent with the idea of Paul being the “pope” or leading figure in the hierarchy of authority; he was directed by others, as one under orders. When we see Paul and Peter together in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6-29), we observe that Peter wields an authority that Paul doesn’t possess.

We learn that “after there was much debate, Peter rose” to address the assembly (15:7). The Bible records his speech, which goes on for five verses. Then it reports that “all the assembly kept silence” (15:12). Paul and Barnabas speak next, not making authoritative pronouncements, but confirming Peter’s exposition, speaking about “signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles” (15:12). Then when James speaks, he refers right back to what “Simeon [Peter] has related” (15:14). Why did James skip right over Paul’s comments and go back to what Peter said? Paul and his associates are subsequently “sent off” by the Council, and they “delivered the letter” (15:30; cf. 16:4).

None of this seems consistent with the notion that Paul was above or even equal to Peter in authority. But it’s perfectly consistent with Peter’s having a preeminent authority. Paul was under the authority of the council, and Peter (along with James, as the Bishop of Jerusalem) presided over it. Paul and Barnabas were sent by “the church” (of Antioch: see 14:26). Then they were sent by the Jerusalem Council (15:25, 30) which was guided by the Holy Spirit (15:28), back to Antioch (15:30).

Just one more thing:

Acts 15:22 makes explicitly shows ‘the whole church’ engaged in the decision-making.

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on May 30, 2012 09:16

May 28, 2012

Debate with a Protestant on Aspects of my Book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura, Whether Mary is Referred to in Revelation 12, and Peter and Paul

This was on a public Facebook discussion thread on my friend Mary Patsy John's Facebook page, underneath mention of a review of the above book of mine by Devin Rose. Greg Still describes himself as a ""skeptical Pentecostal" and is a former Catholic. His words will be in blue. A few things are not included here because I didn't have time to reply to them, but you can read everyone's full comments in the initial thread (if you are on Facebook).

* * *
I have a Lutheran "friend" who insists that The Church (meaning his church) is the ultimate interpreter of scripture. He thinks that an individual cannot properly read/understand scripture without the aid of The Church and its creeds.

Oddly, he also believes in Sola Scriptura. (He cannot be accused of being consistent)
This is perfectly consistent. Most Protestants don't deny the usefulness; even necessity of the Church and creeds. They only deny that any church or tradition is infallible. Only the Bible is that. This is what sola Scriptura means: "the Bible is the only infallible and final authority." But of course in practice that means: "I am the final authority, since I ultimately interpret the infallible Bible as I see fit and can dissent against any church if necessary to preserve truth as I see it." That is filled with difficulties and self-contradictions, as I show in my book.

Luther himself appealed to Church tradition and authority. The only problem is that he reserved the right to disagree with what the Church says. Protestantism is always [in the final analysis] a self-defeating proposition, in terms of authority, anyway you slice it.
I simply asked, "Which Church?" In reply he answered, "The one that follows the Bible most correctly".

"Uh huh, and how will I know which Church follows the Bible most correctly if I am not able to read and understand it for myself?"

He never has answered this adequately, insisting that the individual cannot interpret scripture without the aid of "the Church".
____________

When dealing with Tradition, I must point out that the RCC uses " bait and switch". Yes, the Bible speaks of the "traditions" of the apostles and elders. But the RCC adds to these the accumulated traditions of 2000 years, some of which I find to be simply distracting, and some I find to be anti-biblical.

So here's the "rub". Someone might respond to this post attempting to use the Bible to prove that the traditions of the RCC are reliable reflections of apostolic faith. They will expect me, an individual, to be able to discern from scripture the truth of the RCC - which brings us back to the same argument - whether or not an individual can discern from scripture which teachings and/or traditions are an accurate reflection of apostolic doctrine.

We do, after all, have the words of the Apostles. It seems that their letters should be given the most weight over any ecclesiastical tradition.

Lots of issues here I don't have time [at the moment] to delve into fully. My specialty is "biblical evidence for Catholicism" and I have writings on my blog (almost 2500 posts) about all the major bones of contention. Nothing is "anti-biblical."

For example, Mary's Assumption is not directly asserted in Scripture. Yet it is not contrary to anything in Scripture, and indeed there are parallels in some respects: Enoch being translated to heaven; Elijah going to heaven in a chariot, Apostle Paul being taken up to the third heaven; possibly in body. In other words, an assumption (or a bodily resurrection after death) is entirely possible and consistent with what we know in Scripture.

But sola Scriptura is directly contradicted in Scripture, and there are things (like the canon of Scripture) that are not present in the Bible at all. Zip, zero, zilch, nada.
Strictly speaking, this book of mine is not doing "biblical evidence for Catholicism". Rather, it is critiquing one of the pillars of Protestantism: sola Scriptura, and showing how it is not biblical. I make reference to tradition and so forth, but within this larger context and purpose. Several other books of mine show how Catholic tradition is completely harmonious with, and usually (not always) directly or explicitly supported by the Bible.

In other words, this book is saying, "we don't believe your system of sola Scriptura because it is unbiblical, and we're showing you why." It's purpose is not, "we believe in x, y, z Catholic doctrines because of biblical passages a, b, c, etc." Other books of mine do the latter.

The irony of your book is that you use the Bible as your ultimate authority to defend the Catholic teaching that the Church, not the Bible, is the ultimate authority.

Do you see the problem here?

Yes: in your comment, which is neither factual, nor logical. First of all, I'm not using the Bible as the "ultimate authority"; only as an authority that Protestants and Catholics agree upon. It is smart in dialogue to start with a common premise and then move on to disagreements. I do that here, and often elsewhere. I show that the Bible does not teach sola Scriptura. I could do that if I were an atheist. My own beliefs have no necessary connection to the logic of that at all. I could argue that "the Koran doesn't teach that elephants fly through the air." To say that shows nothing [necessarily] about what I believe.

Nor is "Catholic teaching" what might be called sola ecclesia. It is not at all. Our view is that Bible-Church-Tradition are all of a piece: a "three-legged stool" of authority. But the Bible is inspired, whereas Church and tradition are infallible, so in that sense the Bible is "higher"; but in terms of authority all three are in play, and harmonious. You simply miscomprehend the Catholic view of the Bible and authority. You're not alone; many millions do so.

I was raised Catholic - went to parochial school, and considered being a priest. Sorry, but I know Catholicism, and it cannot be supported Biblically. It must rely on the supposed "authority" or "infallibility" of the Church.

Sorry, you clearly don't: at least not in these respects, because you have made a number of factual errors. Of course it can be supported biblically. I show that again and again in my writings. Not only can it be shown, but it can be demonstrated that Catholicism is far more in harmony with all of Scripture than any form of Protestantism.

May I post this discussion on my blog? I can do so with or without your name.

The whole "authority/infallibility" argument fails with two words, WHICH CHURCH?

I agree that one must ask "which Church is the one true Church mentioned in the Bible?" We can demonstrate that the Catholic Church goes historically back to Christ, and has consistently espoused true Christian doctrine. We're the ones who keep apostolic morality: things like no divorce and no contraception. No other major body has done so. If you want apostolic morality and doctrine, you have one choice. That's a major reason why I became a Catholic, by the way. I was sick of Protestant compromise on crucial moral issues.

Since you brought up the supposed "Assumption of Mary"
[comment added now: I brought it up merely in passing, after having already stated that I was busy; never intending to have a complete discussion on a side issue to the main topic]

let us deal with that. You suggest that because a thing did happen to others (Enoch, Elijah etcetera) that it could have happened to Mary. That's a poor argument for the idea that Mary was assumed.

Angels came down many times in the O.T. and a couple of times in the NT. Should we then say that Moroni visited Joseph Smith?

Certainly, if Mary had been assumed, the Bible would have mentioned something about it - for it would have occurred during the apostolic era. And if the Apostles wanted the saints to "venerate" her, they would have mentioned SOMETHING about it? But, no. Catholic apologists take a few words that Jesus spoke to John on the cross, "behold thy mother", and add to it a dumpster-full of tradition.

Like I said, I am busy today and don't even have time for this. Now we're off on the rabbit trails of Mary and the pope, so you can avoid the bottom-line issue and subject of my book: the falsity of sola Scriptura.

Briefly: the Bible does mention the "woman clothed with the sun" in heaven (Rev. 12:1). Her child is clearly Jesus (Rev 12:5). Doesn't take a rocket science to figure out that this is Mary, and she is portrayed in quite a glorious state in heaven. If you want more Catholic perspectives on this (and Mary as mediatrix and intercessor and spiritual mother), see my Blessed Virgin Mary web page.

Did the apostles ever pray the rosary? Where did that arise? Did they even ONE TIME adocate [sic] prayers to Mary? Yet millions of Catholics are trusting these prayers to be efficacious and meritorious.

Nice try at bringing in a million different topics at once. Classic tactics used against Catholics all the time. It doesn't work with me. I never get diverted from the topic (esp. not if I am already busy with something else). I've written about all this stuff. If you are serious about hearing the Catholic side, the papers are there for you. But the scattershot approach to discussion suggests a lack of seriousness to me.

[nevertheless I deal with Mary and Revelation 12 at some length below because he would not cease discussing Mariology]

Asking saints to intercede is dealt with on my Saints, Purgatory, and Penance page.

Or let us address your argument (in your book) that Peter had authority over Paul at the Jerusalem council.

It NEVER says anything like that. This is made of whole cloth. Both Peter and Paul gave testimony, but it was James who stood and gave the final word, not Peter.

You want to bring up one of the arguments in my book. Very well, then. Rather than cynically portray what I said, and denying it with no substance, let's let readers see what I actually wrote. Here is the entire argument #74 (a few minor differences from the book since this is from my last manuscript):

74. Paul’s Apostolic Calling Was Subordinated to the Larger Church and Was in Harmony with Peter

Paul’s ministry was not “self-validating.” He was initially commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles. After his conversion, he went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter (Gal 1:18). In Acts 15:2-3 we are told that “Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent their way by the church,” they went off on their assignment.

That is hardly consistent with the idea of Paul being the “pope” or leading figure in the hierarchy of authority; he was directed by others, as one under orders. When we see Paul and Peter together in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6-29), we observe that Peter wields an authority that Paul doesn’t possess.

We learn that “after there was much debate, Peter rose” to address the assembly (15:7). The Bible records his speech, which goes on for five verses. Then it reports that “all the assembly kept silence” (15:12). Paul and Barnabas speak next, not making authoritative pronouncements, but confirming Peter’s exposition, speaking about “signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles” (15:12). Then when James speaks, he refers right back to what “Simeon [Peter] has related” (15:14). Why did James skip right over Paul’s comments and go back to what Peter said? Paul and his associates are subsequently “sent off” by the Council, and they “delivered the letter” (15:30; cf. 16:4).

None of this seems consistent with the notion that Paul was above or even equal to Peter in authority. But it’s perfectly consistent with Peter’s having a preeminent authority. Paul was under the authority of the council, and Peter (along with James, as the Bishop of Jerusalem) presided over it. Paul and Barnabas were sent by “the church” (of Antioch: see 14:26). Then they were sent by the Jerusalem Council (15:25, 30) which was guided by the Holy Spirit (15:28), back to Antioch (15:30).

You make bald statements of denial; I make solid biblical arguments.

You, of course, know that Paul withstood Peter to his face for his hypocrisy on this very issue. Obviously Paul did not recognize Peter as having "papal" authority over him.

The Peter vs. Paul hypocrisy argument proves nothing because it is irrelevant (hypocrisy being distinct from authority). A person can have full authority and be a flaming hypocrite. For example, Republican ads against President Obama show him to be a hypocrite in a number of ways regarding what he has promised and what he has done. Assuming their correctness, they show he is a hypocrite, but they have no effect on his authority. He remains the President, and has that authority till we boot him out in November. apples and oranges. See my paper on the topic.

I note in this paper that Jesus upheld the authority of the Pharisees, even though they were hypocrites (Matthew 23:2). This flimsy, misguided objection proves nothing whatever regarding Peter's primacy or supposed lack thereof.

I asked if I could post your words in this dialogue on my blog? It is already public here, but it is a courtesy to ask. . . . If you don't reply, I will assume it is okay to post the dialogue on my blog. I will post everything you say except for your last long reply, because I don't have time to reply to all that, and a dialogue includes both sides.

Lastly: is the Catholic Church a Christian organization? Or is Catholic theology in its entirety to be defined as not Christian? I no longer debate anti-Catholics (those who deny the first thing and assert the second) as a matter of policy.

[both of these questions were ignored]

‎Certainly, if Mary had been assumed, the Bible would have mentioned something about it.

By Protestant reasoning, "certainly, if sola Scriptura were true, the Bible would have mentioned something about it". But it never does, which is the topic of my book. That doesn't stop Protestants from making an entirely non-biblical, anti-biblical concept the very foundation and bedrock and pillar of their authority structure. They do it anyway. Then, having done that, they demand that we adopt the same illogical reasoning with regard to Catholic distinctives like Mary's Assumption.

We never claimed that absolutely everything has to be explicitly laid out in Scripture, precisely because the Bible never teaches this. That is your game, and thus your burden to defend, not ours.

Your statement above is classic. You believe this firmly, yet the Bible never states such a thing. Thus, you supposedly appeal to the Bible itself with a completely non-biblical idea that can't be found there. Then you try to bind Catholics to this silly notion: so now you are arbitrarily applying an arbitrary tradition of men to us, as if we have to play by those rules . . . We think logically and biblically, so no dice!

I am not the one bringing up different issues. You have brought up Mary and Peter as defences of Catholicism. I have responded to them.

I never said Paul was Pope. Where did you get that?? I said Paul never recognized Peter as pope.
By the way - Even in Catholic circles the identity of the Woman of Rev. 12 has been in dispute.
___
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

It is true that commentators generally understand the whole passage as applying literally to the Church, and that part of the verses is better suited to the Church than to Mary. But it must be kept in mind that Mary is both a figure of the Church, and its most prominent member. What is said of the Church, is in its own way true of Mary. Hence the passage of the Apocalypse (12:5-6) does not refer to Mary merely by way of accommodation [108], but applies to her in a truly literal sense which appears to be partly limited to her, and partly extended to the whole Church. Mary's relation to the Church is well summed up in the expression "collum corporis mystici" applied to Our Lady by St. Bernardin of Siena. [109]

Cardinal Newman [110] considers two difficulties against the foregoing interpretation of the vision of the woman and child: first, it is said to be poorly supported by the Fathers; secondly, it is an anachronism to ascribe such a picture of the Madonna to the apostolic age.

___

I note that Cardinal Newman recognizes that the Madonna figure is an "anachronism" to the apostolic age. That is, the apostles never regarded Mary as a "Madonna".
______________

I do not have a copy of the Confraternity version with me at present, but I do distinctly recall reading the footnotes of it regarding Rev 12. The writer said that the application to Mary was "useful" but that the Woman represented the church.
____________

Personally I think the Woman represents the Church at the last age, and the "manchild" represents a certain group within her who, like Christ and with Christ, will rule the world with a rod of iron.

The fact that the woman has "other children" indicates that this is not speaking of a "Virgin Mary". (Rev 12:17)

You just plan to keep going on, huh (knowing I am busy)?

I must respond to a few things, at least. Yes; in past treatments of the topic I have taken the view that the passage has a dual application: to Mary and the Church (and Mary as a figure of the Church). That is quite common in Scripture. I did this in my first book, which was completed 16 years ago this month, so that is nothing new with me.

However, the part specifically about giving birth to the child (who is Christ) must be about Mary, I contend, if it is about Christ, because Jesus was not a product of the Church, since He preceded it and initiated it. Therefore, that part is specifically talking about Mary. The Bible never uses a terminology of Jesus being a "child" (Rev 12:5) of the Church. He is the child of God the Father (His Divine Nature) and of Mary (as a person with both a Divine and human nature). The Church is "of Christ"; Christ is not "of the Church"; let alone its "child." Those categories are biblically ludicrous and indeed almost blasphemous.

Your interpretation of "male child" is incoherent. "Rule all nations with a rod of iron" is clearly hearkening back to the messianic passage Psalm 2:7-9, which is again reflected in Rev 19:15 (absolutely about Jesus). It's true that there is a secondary application along your lines in Rev 2:27, but you still have to deal with the phrase "caught up to God and to his throne" (Rev 12:5; RSV). That can't mean "the twelve thrones" referred to in Matt 19:18 (cf. Lk 22:30; Rev 4:4; 11:16) because it says " his [i.e., God's] throne." Only Jesus is connected directly with that, because He is God.

And so we see Jesus (unlike any created men) sitting on God's throne (Matt 19:28; 25:31; Heb 1:8; Rev 7:17; 22:1, 3).

Therefore, this proves that Rev 12:5 is referring to Jesus alone, and thus, His mother in this particular passage must be Mary, since it cannot be the Church, per the reasoning above. Other parts of the entire passage also have an application to the Church, as the Catholic Church continues to teach today.

You want to bring up Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman. Bad choice, since he was my main theological influence in becoming a Catholic; I've had a large web page about him for 15 years, and a 448-page book of his quotations coming out in a few weeks (I mentioned it this very day on my Facebook page). In my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (p. 200), I cited his words from 1875 ("Letter to Pusey"):

What I would maintain is this, that the Holy Apostle would not have spoken of the Church under this particular image, unless there had existed a blessed Virgin Mary, who was exalted on high and the object of veneration to all the faithful. No one doubts that the 'man-child' spoken of is an allusion to our Lord; why then is not 'the Woman' an allusion to his mother?

Exactly! And precisely as I argue . . .

Revelation 12:17 is no problem since it can either be an instance of the dual meaning of "Church" or Mary as a spiritual mother in a different sense (tying into the same John at the cross receiving Mary as his "mother"). We accept the dual application. It is you who are denying the Marian application, which doesn't fly in light of the exegesis and cross-referencing that I have shown you.

And if it is Mary in this passage (as well as the Church), then we have an indication of both her veneration and glorification in heaven, akin to the Assumption (whereas you claimed there was nothing in Scripture at all about it: as if the Assumption were solely an arbitrary tradition of men, like sola Scriptura is :-).

I never said "absolutely everything has to be explicitly laid out in scripture". This is a straw man.

Is that so? You stated:

"Certainly, if Mary had been assumed, the Bible would have mentioned something about it - for it would have occurred during the apostolic era. And if the Apostles wanted the saints to "venerate" her, they would have mentioned SOMETHING about it?"

BUT if there is a MAJOR DOCTRINE of the church, then the scriptures must surely say SOMETHING about it.

Yes, and I showed that it does: by analogy (Enoch, Elijah, and Paul's experience in the second heaven), and the data of Revelation 12, just discussed. Therefore I have demonstrated "SOMETHING about it." You just disagree (on inadequate grounds). I showed implicit grounds, which is what you want, since you deny that you require explicit grounds. Therefore, I succeeded in my task, according to your challenge. I provided what you asked for. It continues to be the case, on the other hand, that sola Scriptura is entirely absent from the Bible and massively contradicted in it at every turn. So you hang by your own false premise, whereas we are not harmed at all by it because we reject it as unscriptural in the first place.

Moreover, you made the statement (referring to biblical proof):

"Did the apostles ever pray the rosary? Where did that arise? Did they even ONE TIME adocate prayers to Mary?"

I have papers about the Rosary (one / two) and intercession of the saints, too, showing that there is nothing contrary to Scripture in these practices.

For the last time, I have to do other things (I've already taken up another 75 minutes), so I can't answer your typical laundry list of 1001 Protestant objections. But I have dealt with all of them in various papers and books, including a book about Mary that I will send you in a message (pdf).

God bless,

Dave

***

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on May 28, 2012 12:46

May 26, 2012

Correcting "Traditionalist" Lies About My Supposed Denial of a Literal Adam and Eve, Original Sin, Etc.

The following comments were made on a post, entitled, Cardinal Pell, Richard Dawkins, Adam and Eve, from a "traditionalist" page called Unam Sanctam Catholicam. Steve Dalton's words will be in blue; "Affe's" in green.
* * *
Cardinal Pell was quoted, from his recent debate with the atheist Richard Dawkins:

Well Adam and Eve are terms that mean ‘life’ and ‘earth’. Like an Everyman. It’s a beautiful, sophisticated, mythological account. It’s not science. But it’s there to tell us two or three things. First of all that God created the world and universe. Secondly that the key to the whole universe is humans. And thirdly it’s a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world….It’s a religious story told for religious purposes.

"Boniface" sums up his article as follows:

It is good to have dialogue for the purpose of defending our faith and giving an answer to the heathen. But if the result of the debate is going to be that Christians go away more confused than before, then it becomes folly. Trying to present sophisticated, modern interpretations of the Faith that explain away or mythologize the Scriptures do not help Catholics strengthen their faith; it simply confuses them and makes us look like idiots.

I fully agree. But Steve "scotju" Dalton: a Catholic "traditionalist" who takes it upon himself to frequently bring up my name in public Internet venues, and almost always in a derogatory sense, thinks I would disagree with Boniface and agree with Cardinal Pell.

"Boniface" and Dalton first yucked it up about my turning up on sites where distortions of my beliefs are bandied about, with the former observing:

Are you trying to goad DA into showing up here and debating about it, LOL? I have noticed that mentioning DA's name in any combox inevitably conjures him up - we call it "getting Armstronged."

I show up when I am lied about (something that Dalton seems particularly prone to, in cases of anything remotely involving me). He can't tell the truth about what I believe to save his life, even though he's been corrected time and again.

I do searches to see what claptrap is being written about me precisely because of people like Dalton, who lie and distort things (about myself, and, no doubt, others) unashamedly, and who refuse to contact the people they are lying about, so they can present another side of the story (or to ever be corrected).
I happen to believe that truth, honesty, and fairness are highly important. It's important to set the record straight if it is falsely portrayed. I am a Catholic apologist after all, who defends and represents the faith to many thousands. It's my responsibility to get things right, or else I'll stand accountable to God.

But I guess I'm not supposed to correct baldfaced lies about what I believe and teach (which is Catholic orthodoxy, all down the line). To do so is a cause for uproarious laughter and mockery: lighthearted, granted, but still absurd and off-mark, since it is a serious thing (not a laughing matter at all) for someone to be slandered in a public place, and the target of such hogwash has a right to set the record straight. Bearing false witness is, after all, prohibited by the Ten Commandments, and if deliberate with full reflection and knowledge, a mortal sin.

Dalton started in with his nonsense:

Lay evangelists and apologists like Mark Shea and Dave Armstrong also believe in this nonsense as well. One the reasons they believe in this foolishness is due to people like Cdl. Pell who try to be 'modern' or 'sophisticated'.

"Affe" added:

I understand the temptation of believing something like this, for people like Dave Armstrong or Mark Shea, while ignoring the theological difficulties it creates. For some reason it is easier to do that than to ignore apparent contradictions with modern scientific findings.
The nonsense here is Dalton's clueless statement, which is the exact opposite of the truth. Of course I believe in a literal Adam and Eve and original sin, etc., and have defended both for 21 years as a Catholic, and before that, as a Protestant. Fr. Hardon believed the same, and I have cited his words to that effect. Hence I have posted on my site articles like the following:

Dr. Dennis Bonnette Debunks the Argument Against Adam and Eve from Molecular Biologists (April 2012)
Adam and Eve: Defense of Their Literal Existence as the Primal Human Couple, by Catholic Philosopher,Dr. Dennis Bonnette (July 2009)
Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, and Noah as Actual Historical Figures: the Biblical Evidence and Catholic Agreement With It (Feb. 2008)

Catholics and the Historicity of Jonah the Prophet (June 2008)

I was recently involved in a huge stink on this very issue, when I criticized Fr. Robert Barron for seemingly denying a literal Adam:

Fr. Robert Barron Denies That Adam Was a "Literal Figure" (Sep. 2011) [631 Facebook shares]
Defending the Literal, Historical Adam of the Genesis Account (vs. Catholic Eric S. Giunta) (Sep. 2011)

May 21, 2012

The 27 Greatest Woody Guthrie Songs (One CD)

I've been wanting to put this collection together for many years. Anyone who wants to understand American folk music, the dust bowl, the folk revival of the 50s and 60s, Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen, the 1930s and the Great Depression, the political liberalism and unionism of two or three generations ago, the hobo phenomenon, the "Okie Migrations," and singer-songwriters in general, will need to listen to and appreciate Woody Guthrie (1912-1967).

Here are what I consider his best songs in their superior and best-sounding versions: all available on albums from 1997 or later. The sound on all these particular recordings / remasters, is excellent (especially considering how old the originals are); the only exception being #27, which is a little "scratchy" -- but not all that bad (and who doesn't love the old "crackling vinyl" sound once in a while, for old time's sake?!). They fit on one CD, clocking in at around 78 minutes:

1. So Long, It's Been Good to Know Ya (recorded on 26 April 1940)

2. Do Re Mi (26 April 1940)

3. Blowin' Down the Road (26 April 1940)

4. I Ain't Got No Home (26 April 1940)

5. Dust Storm Disaster (26 April 1940)

6. Pretty Boy Floyd (26 April 1940)

7. Dust Bowl Refugee (26 April 1940)

8. Tom Joad (26 April 1940)

9. Dust Bowl Blues (26 April 1940)

10. Vigilante Man (26 April 1940)

11. Talking Dust Bowl Blues (26 April 1940)

12. Dust Pneumonia Blues (3 May 1940)

13. Hard Ain't it Hard (16 April 1944)

14. Philadelphia Lawyer (19 April 1944)

15. Grand Coulee Dam (19 April 1944)

16. The Great Historical Bum (19 April 1944)

17. Worried Man Blues (19 April 1944)

18. What Are We Waiting On? (19 April 1944)

19. This Land is Your Land (25 April 1944)

20. Hobo's Lullaby (25 April 1944)

21. Jesus Christ (25 April 1944)

22. 1913 Massacre (24 May 1945)

23. Pastures of Plenty (April 1947)

24. Ramblin' Round (April 1947)

25. Hard Travelin' (1947)

26. Oregon Trail (1947)

27. Roll On, Columbia (1947)

Album Information:

1-12 Dust Bowl Ballads (2000)

13-15, 17-19, 21 My Dusty Road (box set: 2009)

16, 20, 23-24 This Land is Your Land: The Asch Recordings, Vol. 1 (1997)

22, 25-26 Hard Travelin': The Asch Recordings, Vol. 3 (1998)

27 Columbia River Collection (download, 2011)

* * *

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on May 21, 2012 13:34

May 18, 2012

Debate on Abortion with an Atheist, with Use of Reductio ad Absurdum

From a discussion thread on Facebook, about President Obama's support of partial-birth infanticide. My dialogue opponent, Tim Allen, is an atheist , according to his Facebook "About" page, and by his own statement in the exchange. His words will be in blue.
It is important to understand precisely what the reductio ad absurdum technique in logic and dialogue is, in order to not misunderstand its nature and intention (as Tim did). If you're not familiar with it, I urge you to follow the link to the words above and read a short description of it (here's also a longer, technical explanation). Then you'll know what I was trying to do in this dialogue. I am not actually in favor of killing atheists!!!
I use this ancient form of argumentation quite often in my apologetics; especially in disputing positions that I consider self-evidently absurd and or evil (as this position is, to extraordinary degrees in both respects). Unfortunately, it's usually misunderstood (because logic and ability to constructively dialogue and debate are mostly lost arts today), but it is a perfectly legitimate, sensible, and highly effective way to argue against a position.

I've also added the words of two other people that entered the discussion. Whether they are atheists or not, I don't know, but that is irrelevant to the points they were making. Their words will be in green and purple.
* * * * *
Partial-birth abortion is performed on full-term babies. All that is necessary is for the baby to be delivered to the neck; then the scissors are used, and the child's brains sucked out. We call this "enlightened civilization" and "pro-choice." Lots of people think this is "okay." The bill passed the US Senate. Many Democrats (as usual) voted for it [and the usual liberal Republican RINOs, too], though some drew the line.

I'm not looking for a heated debate or anything, but for me personally, I think ending the life of a nearly-born baby is better than ruining the lives of an actually-born baby and his real life mother (and potentially harming the lives of many others). For me, abortion is a cost-benefit analysis about harming one versus harming many.

That's morally absurd. Murder can never be justified. Love demands that we strive for a better life for the born, and the right to life of the preborn. Only barbarian societies slaughter their own. Do we never learn? Was not the Holocaust sufficient to put an end to this mass slaughter and genocide? The fact that you are sitting here writing this is a self-evident argument against abortion. You were allowed to live. Life has a self-evident value and worth.

I disagree that it is morally absurd. Many, many lives have been ruined by unwanted pregnancies - including the lives of the children - and I think it is morally acceptable to sacrifice a non-person for the greater good of actual, living human beings.
Fair enough. I think atheism ruins the life of many. Therefore, I advocate killing all atheists, so these lives won't be ruined: for the greater good of actual, living human beings who aren't atheists. [reductio ad absurdum] <---- bracketed comment in original discussion.

Alright, my bad. I thought you wanted an actual conversation about this stuff. That's my fault for assuming. Have a good one.
You've never heard of reductio ad absurdum? Look it up. Part of logic and philosophy . . . This is indeed a very serious discussion: dead serious (or was, since you now depart it). So the dead serious discussion is now seriously dead . . .

I've heard of reductio ad absurdum. I've also heard of the straw man argument...

Here is the reasoning (that you appear to have missed):

1. Many lives are ruined by unwanted pregnancies: of mothers and of the children born.

2. Therefore, in order to prevent these ruined lives, we ought to kill the children, in order to prevent what may, or likely (?) will occur.

By analogy:

1a. Many lives are ruined by atheism and its (from logical reduction) counsel of despair.

2a. (1 2) presupposes that events and persons who cause or have ruined lives should be eliminated for the good of all.

3a. Therefore, granting the truth of 1a, by analogy it is rational and for the good of society to kill atheists who promulgate the harmful philosophy / worldview.

I deny the truthfulness of proposition 1. People acting in an evil fashion cause misery (and have a free will choice to act otherwise): not the mere fact that a child is born.

You deny the truthfulness of proposition 1a. But the logic works the same in both instances. I am following your own logic and turning the tables on you. Your task is to show why 1a doesn't follow from your adopted premise 1.

But all of this went over your head and you responded with: "I thought you wanted an actual conversation about this stuff" and "I've also heard of the straw man argument."

Fine. You may not get it, but others will.
Just because a person doesn't agree with your argument doesn't mean they don't understand it or that they're too stupid to grasp your concepts. And, as an atheist myself, I can personally attest to the fact that I am not in "despair". Your level of condescension is ridiculous.

Why do you disagree? I didn't say you were personally in despair. I said that atheism was "(from logical reduction) [a] counsel of despair"). Just as atheists routinely claim that Christianity is by logical reduction, infantile, and blind, irrational faith . . .

I don't know anything about you, except that you are an atheist, and that you haven't yet grasped my current logic. Whether that is a general occurrence or not, of course I don't know. But I know it is true in this instance. Your replies prove that.

So I am challenging you, logically. I'm playing Socrates, as I have done for 35 years, since my Intro. to Philosophy class in college [with the illustrious Dr. Lawrence Lombard].

It's also routine (seen all the time) that a person who doesn't grasp the logic of a reductio ad absurdum, will feel that it is mere ridicule and condescension and personal disdain. Well, in a way it is that towards bad logic and conclusions, but not necessarily towards persons at all.

Well, any atheist who claims that Christianity is infantile is just as wrong as a Christian who claims atheism is "(from logical reduction) counsel of despair".

I haven't grasped your logic? Or I haven't agreed with it? That's the distinction that I think you need to make.

Atheists are actual human beings. Aborted fetuses are not. That's why the analogy you made falls apart. And when you start equating abortion with the Holocaust, you are intentionally using hyperbole to ridicule the other person's point. You can use whatever Latin term you learned 35 years ago in Intro to Philosophy to justify it, but in reality, that's just weak sauce.
I think the location is the more important piece than the ontological change. I should clarify: I think the location [i.e., birth] is the more important piece when determining personhood. Until the actual birth, they are still dependent on the mother to receive their oxygen and nutrients through the umbilical cord. Once the birth happens, they are able to breath and receive nutrients independently. I think that is a critical factor. If a mother is eight months pregnant and she dies, the baby will almost certainly die with her. If a baby is one month old and the mother dies, the baby will still live. . . . Feeding tubes and ventilators are artificial means of sustaining life, not a direct mother-to-fetus connection. Babies can't feed themselves or protect themselves, that's true. But their dependency at that point is not based on a direct, physiological attachment to the mother. I think its that direct, physiological connection that is a defining characteristic between a fetus and a human baby.

No problem. I don't think atheists are human beings, then. If you can define away a preborn child based on nonexistent reasoning and no basis whatsoever other than that they are small and hidden (and sometimes "unwanted"), then I can apply the same "reasoning" to other categories of persons; in this case, atheists. The analogy still holds. I use your premises all down the line and refute them by reductio.

You don't think small people are "human beings"; I come back and [in a similar manner, by reductio] arbitrarily claim that atheists aren't, because they lack the religious sense that the vast majority of mankind has always possessed. The Nazis defined Jews as "vermin" and disposable because they didn't like them. America in the 19th century did the same with Native Americans, and virtually towards African-Americans. too.

Today, little people just starting out their lives are the target of murder and disdain. Logically, if you apply this "reasoning" to them, it can easily be spread to other categories of people. So I used your own group, to (try to) bring the point home to you.

The viability argument is so medically and philosophically ridiculous that I hesitate to even rebut it. I'll simply note that the criteria of the beginning and end of life are the same. We determine that a person dies by cessation of brain waves and heartbeat. Heartbeat is present in a preborn human being at about 18 days; brain waves by six weeks or so. This all usually occurs before a woman even is aware that she is pregnant. All the DNA that is ever present throughout a person's life is in place at conception. By the latter criteria, humanity is present from the very beginning. But if we wish to go by either heartbeat or brain waves, then this child is a human being by 18 days or six weeks at the latest: early enough to preclude almost all abortions that take place.

Dave, I never once mentioned brain waves or a heartbeat, so I don't know who you're arguing with there.
I know you didn't So what? That has nothing to do with my response. It's another analogy that you missed (end-of-life criteria compared to beginning of life).

And I stopped reading your earlier response after the first paragraph when you claimed I had "nonexistent reasoning" and "no basis whatsoever".
Great; stop reading then. This exchange is not primarily for your benefit, anyway. You are beyond this particular reasoning at this time. The sad thing is that your "reasoning" leads directly to the continuance of genocide against preborn human beings. Your philosophy (or anti-philosophy) has very dire consequences. Thus it must be opposed, and sometimes strong language [directed against bad arguments, not persons] is completely justified in doing so. This is a very serious business; not just throwing around concepts for fun. It's lousy thinking that leads to evil consequences and yet more needless, preventable suffering for human beings.

But see, needless and preventable suffering is what I want to stop, too. Single mothers who want to go to school and have a career, but can't because they have a child at 16. Babies who are born to drug addicts or to mothers with HIV who have a very little chance of living a normal and healthy life. Women who are impregnated after being raped and do not want a permanent reminder of that traumatic event. All of that is needless, preventable suffering and abortion is an effective means of prevention. And yes, there are things like adoption and foster families that can help in those situations. And some babies in bad situations grow to be great people. But those are the exceptions, not the norms.

I don't think abortion is a "good thing". I would never encourage someone to use it as a toy or to use it as a form of birth control. But it is a "necessary evil", so to speak, because I would rather see a fetus aborted - a fetus who is still directly and physiologically connected to the mother, and cannot form complex thoughts about its own destruction - than to see actual human beings have their lives ruined, which in turn, will harm society at large. . . . I believe that a person becomes a person upon birth, when he or she is no longer directly and physiologically dependent upon the birth mother for oxygen and nutrients.
[Kala Vandeberg] Obama is not in favor of late term abortions. Where did the quote come from? By the way I am not saying that I am aligning myself with either side of the debate, I just want to ensure that we don't judge people on others' attributions to their actions.

He certainly is in favor of partial-birth abortion, or has historically been. He also voted for a bill that would allow the killing of children born as a result of botched abortions, as I already noted.

Dave, what else was in that bill? What was the main "meat" of it? And people are allowed to change opinions, maybe he has softened on the issue?

Here is the record. Here's another article (Washington Post).

Dave, I cannot take these clips seriously without context.

Do whatever you like; this is all a matter of record. If you are curious enough, go do further research yourself. Obama gets 100% ratings from NARAL. That's why that web page documents everything. When sources are provided, people may look into them further if they want more context. So the opportunity is yours. It's well-known that Obama is the most pro-abort President in history.

I do not support abortion, but I am against anger- mongering against individuals because of misunderstanding. . . . there is always more to the story, often times- bills are bigger than an abortion issue included in it. It is important to know the entirety of the bill before jumping to judgement.

It's not misunderstanding. It's the record of his policies. He has voted for partial-birth abortion more than once. And that's what the photo describes. It is 100% accurate. No distortion. You just don't like it. Makes you squeamish, I guess. Did you vote for Obama, Kala?

My position is that a fetus becomes a person when he or she is no longer directly and physiologically dependent on his or her birth mother. Therefore, examples like feeding tubes, people after car accidents, and mothering after birth do not count, since those are all either artificial or indirect. I don't really care what "pro-choice ethicists" say. This is my own opinion.

Dave's question, "did you vote for Obama?"is very revealing. It implies that, if she did vote for Obama, her criticism would be more or less valid. [I think he meant to say "invalid"]

No; it tells us what [some of] her biases are, and [possibly] partially why she feels passionately about the issue. It's a relevant consideration. If she didn't vote for Obama, on the other hand, it helps her case, because then she appears to be fair-minded and concerned for accurate presentation, even about someone she opposes (which I admire). Her argument stands or falls on its merits: not on whom she voted for. But if she did, she ought to be proud of the choice and defend it. Or say that it was a bad choice that she won't make again.

As usual, you don't understand why I asked the question, just like you have misinterpreted or not grasped (or even if so, have not directly replied to) my entire argument from beginning to end.

In any event, it does no good to split from the discussion if someone has a point they wish to proclaim and defend. I answered all her many questions. She decided to take a pass when I started asking her some.

[Nathan Howells] [initially expressed to page owner Jon] Don't post hyperbolic %$#& like this. How is this helpful in anyway [sic]? I voted for Barack Obama. I didn't vote for someone who thinks stabbing babies is legitimate medicine.

[I responded to the second statement] That's exactly what he stood for, by supporting those bills and opposing the ones that would stop it. But you can put your head in the sand if you wish to. By voting for a person who holds such evil positions, you make the acts that result possible. You help promote them.

[again, to page owner Jon] Your characterization is dehumanizing and inciting. There is no room for dialogue when you post this %$#&. So seriously, stop posting it. There are better ways to discuss weighty matters, but I'm not sure there are worse.

I think it was an excellent discussion: not in and of itself, but for the purpose of demonstrating through logic and criticism that the atheist pro-abortion argument is entirely groundless and irrational, as well as immoral to its core. Tim is just as much a victim of such outrageous thinking as he is a promulgator of it.

The only difference is that he himself is not tortured and murdered. He can sit in his armchair and wax eloquent about such monstrosities, while the babies continue to be legally killed every day (3500 ). It's not abstract for them . . . it has very real consequences.

Dave, you are an arrogant self righteous %$#&, but you can keep your head up your %$#& if you want to.

Is that your argument? Thanks for the demonstration.

That was your argument. You are an absurd caricature of a member of the profetus movement. And if you weren't so utterly offensive, you'd be ridiculously humorous. Your condescension helps your image of genuinely loving and caring for all humanity.

The problem with people like Dave, and the reason that it is nearly impossible to have a civilized discussion on abortion (and other key issues), is that they think they have a monopoly on the truth and on morality. It is not enough for a person who disagrees with his opinion to merely be wrong in his eyes, but that person must be a fool who fails to grasp even the simplest concepts of the topic. Honest arguments that are given by the other side are dismissed as "illogical" and "entirely groundless", merely because they do not agree with his opinion.

Jon, Dan and others in this conversation disagree with my opinion on abortion. That's fine. I don't expect or need everybody to agree with my opinion on when life begins, when abortion is acceptable, etc. That's the beauty of this whole thing is that people can disagree on major topics and still be civil.

Unfortunately, Dave's not interested in having civil discussions. He's interested in trolling for hits from his friends (who already agree with him) and baiting those who oppose him into arguments, so he can demonstrate his academic superiority. To do this, he uses hyperbole and he uses pseudo-philosophical buzz words that sound impressive.

It's not a new strategy, but it is still sad all the same.

"Your characterization is dehumanizing . . ." [italics and bolding added presently]

I note the extreme (and equally sad and pathetic) irony of a guy who votes for a guy who advocated partial-birth infanticide, using this particular term to describe the argument of someone else who objects to such voting and advocacy, in the context of a discussion with a pro-abort who thinks that the "fetus" does not become a "human being" until the moment he or she is born (umbilical cord cut). That's not "dehumanizing" but my pointing out how outrageous it is, is what is thought to be "dehumanizing".

Unbelievable . . .

Irony is a funny thing that way...
Note, folks, that it's all personal attack and smarmy psychoanalysis now. No effort to respond rationally at all . . . My criticisms, on the other hand, were directed solely towards bad arguments or unwillingness to interact with opposing arguments, not at persons, regarded as %&$#s, etc. (as my opponents are now doing). If they did spill over a little bit to persons, it was not my intention, and I apologize if so. My intention is always to attack bad reasoning and arguments. Unfortunately, people often take that personally. They can't separate their positions from themselves as persons: hold them abstractly during exchanges back and forth, if you will.

But name-calling is a fitting ending, proving my point in spades. Oftentimes when rational defense is not forthcoming, a person will stoop to mere personal attack. I am particularly despised (over against Jon and others) mostly because I dared to use the reductio ad absurdum. It makes lots of folks very angry. Nothing new at all. Socrates was killed because of that sort of argument and his generally provocative nature. I'm sure he was called just as many names as we see here. :-)

And here's "victim mode". Textbook, I guess.

‎The problem with people like Dave, and the reason that it is nearly impossible to have a civilized discussion on abortion (and other key issues), is that they think they have a monopoly on the truth and on morality.

Is that so, Tim? Gee, I guess that is why I once did a well-received presentation group discussion in person at a group with 16 atheists and agnostics and myself as the lone Christian. None of this sort of nonsense was said about me. I got along fine with everyone (and we discussed abortion as well as contraception and many other issues). In fact, one of their number is talking at my house one week from today, and he was well-received last time he came, and we are friends.

I guess I can't engage in civil debate, as indicated by my posted 625 dialogues on my blog, with every sort of belief-system imaginable (atheists, vegetarians, feminists, pro-abortionists, homosexual advocates, Marxists, pacifists; all kinds of different religious groups). For the most part, it was perfectly civil, though there are folks (particularly anti-Catholic Protestants) with whom it was nearly impossible to have a rational discussion. Apart from that, I have discussions with all sorts of people.

With a few, and especially in cases of use of the reductio ad absurdum, acrimony and name-calling came from my opponents, and rational discussion ceased (as presently). But as to the proposition of whether I can engage in civil, constructive discussion or not [with those who differ from me], that is manifest in the record of multiple hundreds of posted dialogues: the most objective evidence I can think of for disproving such a charge.

You make the charge; I respond with quite relevant countering information: reason; not empty and flatulent rhetoric seeking to put a person down and judge his character and supposed inner dispositions. People can see in this very exchange that I haven't responded in kind with silly personal insults.

That's great to hear about your past successes. If that's true, then maybe I misjudged you overall.

But in this particular conversation, every response to me told me how I didn't understand and failed to grasp your philosophical arguments. That's not evidence and that's not relevant countering information. That's absolutely "empty and flatulent rhetoric seeking to put a person down and judge his character."

Except, I understood your arguments quite well. I disagreed and provided my own counterarguments. You disagreed and called implied that I was a fool (and a victim of outrageous thinking). So much with not responding in kind with silly personal insults.

Quite a jaded view of what has gone down here. I'm not gonna restate the facts of the exchange as I see them. Readers can read it and judge for themselves what happened. I think you have reasoned badly, misunderstood many things I wrote and argued, and have chosen to not respond to several important aspects of my argument.

Granted, you may understand some of it, but simply chose to not respond (suggested by your saying you ignored certain parts of my comments because something offended you). But in instances where you did, you clearly did not understand my line of reasoning, as I showed. I'm sorry if it is hurtful to you to point this out, but we all have to improve in certain areas. This is an opportunity for you to learn from the experience so as not to repeat it in argument next time (at least not when someone springs a reductio on you).

In any event, I'm the world's greatest expert on what the intention and nature of my own argument is, along with my interior dispositions: a thing both you and Nathan have so articulately (but absurdly and wrongly) speculated upon.

Man, you're condescending. Holy cow.

You said on your blog that I called you names. What names did I call you exactly?

Let's see:

The problem with people like Dave, and the reason that it is nearly impossible to have a civilized discussion on abortion (and other key issues), is that they think they have a monopoly on the truth and on morality.

Unfortunately, Dave's not interested in having civil discussions. He's interested in trolling for hits from his friends (who already agree with him) and baiting those who oppose him into arguments, so he can demonstrate his academic superiority. To do this, he uses hyperbole and he uses pseudo-philosophical buzz words that sound impressive.

"And here's "victim mode". Textbook, I guess.

Or do you consider that civil discussion and not name-calling (and judging of interior dispositions) at all?
Also, I didn't say it was just you. I wrote: "The dialogue (if it can even be properly called that) descended into rather colorful name-calling, by two of my opponents." Most of the worst insults came from Nathan, not you. He's so embarrassed by them that he wants me to remove them, even though they remain up here. Unless he has removed them by now . . .

I was pointing out your argument tactics, which is perfectly valid.

This is clearly untrue. Claiming that I think I "have a monopoly on the truth and on morality" is no comment on my argument because I never claimed such a thing. It is a projection onto me of some mythical attitude that is not there. Classic ad hominem . . . . It's the same as what Nathan said, in different terms: it amounts to saying I am an arrogant know-it-all jerk. Some people on my Facebook page said far worse about you than I ever did.

Self-awareness is a tricky thing, Dave. How you can time and again claim that someone doesn't understand you, simply because they disagree with you, and then tell me I can learn something from you? That's arrogance. Sorry, but there's simply no other rational way to look at that.

Unfortunately, Dave's not interested in having civil discussions.

Again, this is no reflection of any argument I made, but a sweeping judgment of my imaginary motivation. I refuted it by giving the story of my in-person talk to 16 atheists and my 625 dialogues posted online. Even you softened a bit after reading that. But now you claim that this statement is merely in response to my arguments, which is sheer nonsense.

You clearly had no desire for a civil discussion today. Clearly. You didn't even try. Your very first response was filled with the same types of insults that you are up in arms about on your blog and in your last comment.

The rest of the paragraph cited above is just as bad, but readers surely see my point by now.

And here's "victim mode".

LOL Nice try. I was simply recounting how you were incapable of sustained on-topic rational discussion with me, and descended into mere insult. That's perfectly permissible in serious discussion because it is essentially pointing out a fallacy in the opponent's reasoning, which is absolutely relevant to how well he did in presenting his case.

Again, you get to decide what is permissible or not in a serious discussion. Not to mention the fact that you're allowed to be insulting towards people you disagree with, but when someone comes back on you, you're suddenly persecuted and called names.

But you don't get that, and so go right to personal psychoanalysis and personal attack. I've seen this tactic many times in my 30 years of arguing theology and philosophy with countless folks. I can spot it a mile away.

Let's see. Personal attack from you. Victim mode. Argument from authority. Arrogance. You captured them all so succinctly in three sentences. Well done.

I agree that I was too forceful at first, in retrospect. It was bad tactically, and in terms of charity. Nevertheless, the logic I used remains perfectly valid and sound. The analogy I used (killing of atheists), though it is logically analogous to your treatment of the preborn, was too extreme of an example for me to expect it to work in dialogue. Pamela did much better in that respect, with her excellent reductio analogy of slavery.

That said, your further speculations that all this proves I am an arrogant ass who had no interest in discussion, doesn't follow at all. This is what you feel, in your disgust, but it's untrue. I always have interest in debate and dialogue. That's why I have done so much of it, as an apologist.

I have less than no interest, though, in name-calling and ad hominem diversionary tactics. They give good dialogue and intellectual inquiry a bad name.

I'm sure you're going to come back with some witty response, but frankly, I have no more patience for you and your willfully dishonest debate tactics. #blocked

Right. A most fitting ending to your psychoanalysis of me. Thanks! We could have actually come to some common ground in rational discussion: if not of the issue itself, then this meta-analysis of the discussion of it. But you chose to give up and add further insults, while claiming that it is all I did or want to do.

As always in my posted dialogues, I'm happy for folks to read both sides and make up their own minds on it; to be influenced or persuaded as they will.

I can't see Tim's comments now on this thread (any of 'em) since he has now blocked me. I don't know if they are still here or not, or if he will make more comments and insults that I now cannot respond to. I can always use one of my three sons' computers to find out, though, if I really care to see what transpires now. :-)

But I got them all up to this point before he blocked me, and they will be duly recorded on my blog as classic instances of ad hominem evasion. Tim forgot that they also come into my in-box. But I didn't even have to do that. I just hit the back-button [after he blocked me]. :-)

Gotta love these "hit-and-run" tactics. Don't reply to arguments; misunderstand and then refuse to accept that you did so, when the opponent says so, start insulting, deny that you ever did insult, project your shortcomings onto the other guy, take a final potshot, and then block the other person, so that they can't record [or reply to] the last potshot . . . LOL
* * *

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on May 18, 2012 13:11

May 16, 2012

Logos Bible Software - Catholic Edition Now Includes Ten of My Books

[See the "Dave Armstrong Collection" page on the Logos Bible software website]
This is a very exciting development. Dr. Andrew Jones, Director of Catholic Products at Logos Bible Software -- the preeminent searchable, user-friendly, convenient research tool and resource -- invited me to have some of my books included in the Logos Catholic packages and available separately as well. In December I wrote a review of the fabulous, relatively new Logos Catholic library (various forms):

Logos Catholic Bible Software Provides Quick, Searchable Access to the Riches of Scriptural and Traditional Resources

Recently, I noted another new book development at Logos:

Logos Bible Software is Translating Three Major Works of St. Thomas Aquinas into English for the First Time

It's a great honor and privilege to be part of these collections, seeing that:

1) Much of the material consists of classic authors: Doctors of the Church, saints, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Cardinal Newman, Chesterton, great commentaries, etc.

2) Almost all of the rest of the material is from scholars, whereas I am a mere lay apologist (and make no claims to be otherwise).

3) Relatively little apologetics is included at present (though there are so many books I may have missed something). I noticed five titles by Scott Hahn and another by Peter Kreeft. The only other lay apologist I can find so far is G. K. Chesterton.

My works being included means that they will be capable of full integration into the search capabilities. Bethany Olsen from Logos explained to me:

Our products are fully tagged and networked with other books in a user’s library, so the user is able to conduct research with the content in addition to the possibility of reading it from cover to cover. Logos covers all product development, marketing, customer service, technical support, and sales costs. . . .

Logos users . . . will wait for a title to be available in Logos, or find a comparable resource that we already have, rather than purchasing print or another digital version of a book. This is because they know the product we create and want the functionality that we add.

Andrew Jones clarified that the books can be bought on their own as well:

[Purchasers] don't need to have a Logos library in order to order these books. The software engine itself is free and comes with all purchases. So, even if these are the only books they own, they will work together and with the Bible and on the mobile devices. Also, highlighting and notes and all those functions will work just fine.

This is all great news and a blessing in terms of getting the books that I publish on my own (at Lulu) more exposure, promotion and sales potential: all at no cost whatsoever to myself. I even retain full copyright on my books (non-exclusive use by Logos). This furthers, as well, my recent emphasis on electronic media (I am already tied in with Amazon Kindle, Barnes & Noble Nook Books, and Apple iTunes, as well as all my books being available as PDFs and ePubs on the Lulu website). E-books are definitely the wave of the future.

I don't want to sound cliched, but to me it is a clear instance of God providing for my financial needs as a full-time apologist once again (in light of a recent 42% downward trend in my "officially published" paperback royalties). It happens over and over and I want to give testimony to it and express my thanks to our wonderful Lord for His mercies and gifts. The opportunity was made available out of the blue, at no risk, and I usually walk through any new door that presents itself, if it is commensurate with my work and my goals.

Here are the ten books of mine that will soon be included and fully integrated into the comprehensive Logos collections of resources (five of them written just since 2010):

Biblical Evidence for the Communion of Saints (2012, 152p)

Biblical Catholic Eucharistic Theology (2011, 222p)

"The Catholic Mary": Quite Contrary to the Bible? (2010, 193p)

Biblical Catholic Salvation: “Faith Working Through Love” (2010, 187p)

Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin (2010, 388p)

Martin Luther: Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise (2008, 264p)

Orthodoxy and Catholicism: A Comparison (2004, 232p)

More Biblical Evidence for Catholicism (2002 181p)

Bible Conversations: Catholic-Protestant Dialogues on the Bible, Tradition, and Salvation (2002, 218p)

Development of Catholic Doctrine: Evolution, Revolution, or an Organic Process? (2002, 198p)

Thanks for reading, and for your support and prayers. God bless you!

***

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on May 16, 2012 09:00

May 13, 2012

Books by Dave Armstrong: Beatles, Motown, Beach Boys, Etc.: Classic Rock Discographies, Commentary, and Mono vs. Stereo Analysis

[213 pages; completed on 12 May 2012 and published the same day at Lulu]
--- for purchase information, go to the bottom ---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication / Nostalgic Reflection (p. 3) [read below]
THE BEATLES
1. Beatles Heaven: Review of the 2009 Remasters (p. 7)
2. The Ultimate Mono vs. Stereo Beatles Discography (p. 17)
3. Beatles Recordings: Chronological Master List (p. 31) [read expanded version online]

4. Review of The Capitol Albums, Volume 1 (American Versions) (p. 45) [read expanded version online]
5. The Beatles Are Still Around!: Paul McCartney Produces the Best Solo Beatle Album Ever (Electric Arguments) (p. 53)

6. Review of Two Beatles Imitation Groups: 1964-The Tribute and The Fab Four (p. 55)
MOTOWN / DETROIT ROCK
7. The Ultimate Collection of Chronological Motown Discographies (p. 61) 8. The Best-Sounding Motown Recordings and 11-CD Compilation Set: 1959-1998 (p.105)
9. Detroit “Blue-Eyed Soul”: Bob Seger (p. 119)
10. Discography: Very Best of Detroit Rock: 1965-1975 (p.125)
BEACH BOYS
11. Beach Boys Recordings: 1961-1989: Chronological Discography (p. 129)
12. A Musical and Personal Miracle: Brian Wilson’s New [2004] Smile Album (p. 151)
MISCELLANEOUS
13. The Great R&B Songs of Van Morrison: 42 Sizzlers from 1964-2003 (p. 157) [read online version with links to Wikipedia album pages and song samples]
14. Rockabilly: “White Man’s R&B” (p.161)
15. Buddy Holly: Comprehensive Discography of His 50 Greatest Recordings (p. 167)
16. Sam Cooke: Two-CD Collection of His Best 55 Songs (p. 173) [read online, with lots of nice photos]
17. My 2009 “Pilgrimage” to Historic Blues and Country Sites, in the Mississippi Delta, Montgomery, Alabama, Memphis, Nashville, and Detroit (p. 177) [read online version, with massive number of links, including to Google maps of musically significant locations]
18. Neil Diamond and the Glorious Year of 60+ Old Men in Rock Music (p. 189)
19. My Favorite Rock, Pop, and R&B Singles (p. 191)
20. The 50 Best Rock Albums: 1964-1997 (p. 209)

DEDICATION / NOSTALGIC REFLECTION

To my late brother Gerry Armstrong (1948-1998), who did the “60s thing” of being in a “blue-eyed soul” garage band in 1967, playing the organ for songs like Good Lovin’, 96 Tears, To Love Somebody, In the Midnight Hour, and their own original Miniskirt, thus causing our illustrious neighbor to call the police, in vain hopes of stopping the glorious sounds being produced in our dining room in working class southwest Detroit.
I got to play the drums and organ (not with the band!) and learn what “reverberation” was, by toying with the amplifier buttons. A “Motown scout” even came to the house one day, around 1970 or so. It came to nothing, but it was wonderful just the same. My sister Judy’s 45 records would fill the air, including, notably (and among many scores of great pop hits), Day Tripper, California Girls, Summer in the City, Beauty’s Only Skin Deep, But it’s Alright (J. J. Jackson), and Heavy Music (local hero Bob Seger).
I watched (during those happy formative years of my life) American Bandstand, Shindig, Hullabaloo, and Swingin’ Time, from Windsor, Ontario, across the river (Gerry and his band actually appeared on it one night). Of course, I was also there (all of five-and-a-half) watching with baited breath, The Ed Sullivan Show in January 1964, to see a certain new band from Liverpool, England. My three favorite songs still are (unsurprisingly) from the quintessential year of American Top 40: 1967: all of a soul / R&B style, and one even by a Detroiter (Jackie Wilson): most appropriate for a Motown native like myself.
BACK COVER

BACK COVER TEXT
Motown native and baby boomer Dave Armstrong (born in 1958) provides a goldmine of information in this homage to classic rock, with massive, fact-filled discographies of songs by Motown artists, The Beatles, The Beach Boys, Detroit Rock (1965-1975), Buddy Holly, Sam Cooke, and Van Morrison: including data concerning stereo and mono versions, recording dates, producers, songwriters, Billboard chart positions, best-sounding recordings, and many other facts.
Also contains chapters on the topics of rockabilly, a "blues and country musical pilgrimage" to the South, recent landmark albums by Paul McCartney and Brian Wilson, selected Beatles mono recordings (deemed as superior to their stereo counterparts), a review of Beatles imitation groups, Bob Seger, classic rock artists 60 years or older, and favorite singles and albums from the classic rock era.
A distinctly nostalgic tone is evident throughout. Any fan of classic rock (especially residents of Michigan and Detroiters) will love the musical reflections.
[smaller text at bottom]:

Lifelong metro Detroit resident DAVE ARMSTRONG grew up in southwest Detroit in the classic Motown era and "Golden Age of Pop" in the 1960s. He majored in music at Cass Technical High School (nationally renowned for its music program), playing trombone in the orchestra and band, and ushering at Detroit Symphony Orchestra concerts (his first job). Dave loves music of all kinds, has a vast personal collection, devours music biographies, and has played eight different musical instruments, including a mean blues harp.

PHOTO INFORMATION

Front cover photograph: Bob Seger in 1977 (unknown photographer): the year I first saw him in concert at Cobo Arena in Detroit (where Live Bullet was recorded in 1975, and where my high school graduation was held in June 1976), and just after he had finally hit it big nationally with his album, Night Moves; public domain per the Wikipedia file page.
Back cover photograph: Hitsville USA building (Motown) on West Grand Boulevard in Detroit, Michigan; taken on 19 June 2006 by Chris Butcher (cropped and greater contrast added); public domain per the Wikipedia file page.

PURCHASE INFORMATION

Paperback ($14.95)

$4.99

$1.99

$4.99 [SOON]

$4.99 [SOON]* * * * *

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on May 13, 2012 14:34

May 3, 2012

John Wesley's View of Purgatory and Analogous Processes: a Classic Case Study of Inadvertent Approximation of the Very Catholic Teaching He Ostensibly Opposes

I have noted on many occasions in the course of my research and apologetics dialogues, how Protestants (even major Protestant figures) will not infrequently hold an opinion highly similar to some particular Catholic belief, while at the same time railing against said Catholic belief, seemingly blissfully unaware of how close their own position is to the Catholic one. In most such cases, I think it is a matter of the Protestant being inadequately informed as to the precise nature of the Catholic belief. He or she fights a straw man; wars against a mere caricature of the actual Catholic teaching. If the belief were accurately understood in the first place, in these instances, it would actually be a welcome opportunity to find some common ground.

I believe this to be the case with regard to John Wesley and purgatory. He condemns the "Romish doctrine" -- yet I contend that once his own views are closely scrutinized, they turn out to be scarcely different from what Catholics believe with regard to purgatory. I noted this again and again in the course of my compiling his statements for my book, The Quotable Wesley (completed on 2 May 2012). I'd like to now use this interesting example as very illustrative of a general polemical tendency among Protestants.

Another similar dynamic I noticed in Wesley during my recent research was his denunciation of merit per se, yet simultaneous definition of "reward" in a way that it is virtually identical with what Catholics truly believe with regard to merit ("God crowning his own gifts": as St. Augustine put it: a line that is cited in the Catholic Catechism). Thus Wesley ends up condemning the notion of merit by that term, while practically asserting the same idea under another word. He even (almost sheepishly) notes in one place that he rejects merit, strictly speaking, but that "in a loose sense, meritorious means no more than rewardable" (Letter to his brother, Charles Wesley ; 3 August 1771). Elsewhere Wesley dances on the head of a pin again, with this issue:

Not by the merit of works, but by works as a condition. What have we then been disputing about for these thirty years? I am afraid, about words. As to merit itself, of which we have been so dreadfully afraid: we are rewarded 'according to our works,' yea, because of our works. How does this differ from 'for the sake of our works'? And how differs this from 'secundum merita operum'?— As our works deserve? Can you split this hair? I doubt, I cannot." (Large Minutes; 1770)

What Wesley teaches about works as the condition of salvation is not a whit different from what Catholics teach about merit. It's understood in both cases that the works and the merit as a result are entirely products of God's grace. Wesley knows that full well (as to his own traditional Anglican position), but he appears to not know that it is Catholic teaching as well. And so, because of that misunderstanding or ignorance, he splits hairs over the word "merit." He does seem to realize what is going on, though, in the probing analysis of the sentiment above.
With regard to purgatory, it's a very analogous process: he winds up teaching the notions that are the major marks of purgatory and its purpose, while denouncing it by name. He also seems reluctant at a gut level -- for some reason -- to believe in continuing purging processes that he acknowledges in this life, as present also in the next life, while at the same holding that there are intermediate states, and that it is our duty to pray for those who are there. I will argue that this is internally inconsistent: that by his own interior logic and the biblical data, he should have come close to purgatory per se (just as, e.g., C. S. Lewis did: actual belief in purgatory as an Anglican).
I suppose, however, that in his circumstances: being accused as a "Jesuit" or a "papist" by hostile Anglicans, and of being a Pelagian (advocate of works-salvation) by Calvinists, Wesley was not exactly in a very good position to assert a "distinctively Catholic" position, even if he did become convinced of it. The order of the day in good olde merrie England was anti-Catholicism. Judged in the light of that 18th-century context, Wesley (highly influenced early on by Thomas a Kempis) shows himself extraordinarily ecumenical in other statements regarding Catholicism, and is not properly categorized as "anti-Catholic" (one who denies that Catholicism as a system is Christian). But that is another topic beyond our present purview.

Wesley clearly disavowed what he understood to be purgatory, as defined by Catholics:

. . . that those who die in a state of grace go into a place of torment, in order to be purged in the other world, is utterly contrary to Scripture. (Popery Calmly Considered; 1779)

He nevertheless accepted the premise that underlies our belief in the necessity of purgatory (in most cases):

. . . far other qualifications are required, in order to our standing before God in glory, than were required in order to his giving us faith and pardon. In order to this, nothing is indispensably required, but repentance, or conviction of sin. But in order to the other it is indispensably required, that we be fully cleansed from all sin: that the very God of peace sanctify us wholly, even . . . our entire body, soul, and spirit. . . . it is necessary in the highest degree, that we should thus wait upon him after justification. Otherwise, how shall we be 'meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light?' (Answer to the Rev. Mr. Church’s “Remarks on the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s Last Journal”; 2 February 1745)

Q. 2. What will become of a Heathen, a Papist, a Church of England man, if he dies without being thus sanctified? A. He cannot see the Lord. (Minutes of the Methodist Conference at Bristol; 2 August 1745)

. . . all writers whom I have ever seen till now (the Romish themselves not excepted) agree, that we must be fully cleansed from all sin, before we can enter into glory. (The Principles of a Methodist Farther Explained; 17 June 1746)

“Without holiness no man shall see the Lord,” shall see the face of God in glory. Nothing under heaven can be more sure than this: . . . (A Blow at the Root; 1762)

All holiness must precede our entering into glory. (A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Horne; 5 March 1762)

None go to heaven without holiness of heart and life: . . . (Letter to Samuel Sparrow, Esq.; 28 Dec. 1773)

Thus far is agreement, and (as I have argued many times) the only difference lies in the time and duration involved, and whether this "cleansing" or "purging" can occur after death. Wesley acknowledges this in his words just prior to the 1746 quote above:

Indeed men do not agree in the time. Some believe it is attained before death: some, in the article of death: some, in an after-state; in the mystic, or the popish purgatory.

Wesley famously held the doctrine of perfection, or entire sanctification. Here he defines that vastly misunderstood doctrine for us:

I want you to be all love. This is the perfection I believe and teach. . . . to set perfection too high, (so high as no man that we ever heard or read of attained,) is the most effectual (because unsuspected) way of driving it out of the world. (Letter to Miss Furly; 15 Sep. 1762)

Absolute or infallible perfection, I never contended for. Sinless perfection, I do not contend for, seeing it is not scriptural: . . . I acknowledge no such perfection; I do now, and always did protest against it. (Letter to Mrs. Maitland; 12 May 1763)

The perfection I hold is so far from being contrary to the doctrine of our Church, that it is exactly the same which every Clergyman prays for every Sunday: "Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy name." I mean neither more nor less than this. In doctrine, therefore, I do not dissent from the Church of England. (An Answer to Mr. Rowland Hill’s Tract, Entitled, “Imposture Detected”; 28 June 1777)

. . . I advise you, frequently to read and meditate upon the thirteenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. There is the true picture of Christian perfection! Let us copy after it with all our might. (Letter to Miss Ann Loxdale; 12 April 1782)

Briefly explained, he did not believe that every Christian received a "second blessing": at which time he or she became a perfect saint or angel. This was the caricature of his teachings that his opponents pushed (and still do, to this day). In fact, Wesley believed that he himself had not attained this entire perfection:

I never told you so, nor any one else. I no more imagine that I have already attained, that I already love God with all my heart, soul, and strength, than that I am in the third heavens. (Letter to “John Smith” [probably one of the Archbishops of Canterbury, Thomas Herring or Thomas Secker]; 22 March 1748)

I have told all the world I am not perfect; and yet you allow me to be a Methodist. I tell you flat, I have not attained the character I draw. (Letter to the editor of Lloyd’s Evening Post; 5 March 1767)

He refers to the relative rarity of such a momentous work of grace:

. . . few of those to whom St. Paul wrote his Epistles were so [sanctified] at the time he wrote: . . . Nor he himself at the time of writing his former Epistles: . . . (Minutes of the Methodist Conference at Bristol; 2 August 1745)

This being the case, it's fascinating that Wesley feels led to conclude (in order to be consistent with the parameters he sets for himself in his own reasoning) that the entire sanctification occurs shortly before death, in order to make a man fit for heaven:

But none who seeks it sincerely shall or can die without it; though possibly he may not attain it, till the very article of death. . . . we grant, . . . That the generality of believers whom we have hitherto known were not so sanctified till near death: . . . (Minutes of the Methodist Conference at Bristol; 2 August 1745)

We grant that many of those who have died in the faith, yea, the greater part of them we have known, were not sanctified throughout – not made perfect in love – till a little before death. (Minutes of the Methodist Conference of 17 June 1747)

I believe this perfection is always wrought in the soul by a simple act of faith; consequently, in an instant. . . . As to the time. I believe this instant generally is the instant of death, the moment before the soul leaves the body. (A Plain Account of Christian Perfection; 27 Jan. 1767)

My question for Wesley, and (since he is no longer with us: at least on earth) those who think as he does is, however: why the felt necessity or urge to make all this happen before death? Nothing in Scripture that I recall confines such purging to this life. Is it not a further act of God's mercy to accept those not fully cleansed of sin into the fold of the saved elect, by means of purgatorial cleansing, making them appropriately cleansed in order to enter into His presence? The Bible no more indicates that such a cleansing will occur right before death, than it refers (very often) to purging after death.

But I dare say there is more data about it occurring after death than right before. The judgment seat of Christ, e.g. (2 Cor 5:10) is after death, and it arguably involves some sort of purging, insofar as it is able to be distinguished at all from the Last Judgment. Whatever is going on in 1 Corinthians 3 (sure seems amazingly like purgatory: even mentioning "fire" in some sense) is after death, in the next life. Why, then, does Wesley assert purging prior to death while vehemently denying the same thing after death? It seems wholly arbitrary and based on nothing logically or biblically substantial. What we are informed of repeatedly in the Bible is the divinely ordained process of cleansing and its purpose: not so much how long it takes or when it happens.

In any event, Wesley acknowledges -- many times -- that processes of purging occur in this life. What he describes is (for my money) scarcely distinguishable from what a Catholic understands concerning purgatory: its purpose and goals both:

So the Lord has chastened and corrected you; but he hath not given you over unto death. It is your part to stand ready continually for whatever he shall call you to. Every thing is a blessing a means of holiness, as long as you can clearly say, “Lord, do with me and mine what thou wilt, and when thou wilt, and how thou wilt.” (Letter to Miss Bosanquet; 16 Aug. 1767)

The refiner’s fire purges out all that is contrary to love, and that many times by a pleasing smart. Leave all this to Him that does all things well, and that loves you better than you do yourself. (Letter to Walter Churchey; 21 Feb. 1771)

Conflicts and various exercises of soul are permitted; these also are for good. If Satan has desired to have you to sift you as wheat, this likewise is for your profit: You will be purified in the fire, not consumed, and strengthened unto all longsuffering with joyfulness. (Letter to Mrs. Mary Savage; 6 May 1771)
. . . it is good for you that every grain of your faith should be tried; afterwards you shall come forth as gold. See that you never be weary or faint in your mind; account all these things for your profit, that you may be a full partaker of His holiness, . . . (Letter to Miss Pywell; 29 Dec. 1774)
Gold is tried in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of adversity. . . . You are suffering the will of God, and glorifying him in the fire. "But I am not increasing in the divine life." That is your mistake. Perhaps you are now increasing therein faster than ever you did since you were justified. (Letter to Miss Loxdale; 9 March 1782)

It has pleased God, for many years, to lead you in a rough and thorny way. But he knoweth the way wherein you go; and ‘when you have been tried, you shall come forth as gold.’ (Letter to Mrs. Jane Barton; 23 April 1783)

For it is not an easy thing always to remember, (then especially when we have most need of it,) that “the Lord loveth whom he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.” Who could believe it, if he had not told us so himself? (Letter to Mrs. Jane Barton; 11 June 1788)

A second way to critique Wesley's views from a Catholic perspective is to inquire as to the purpose of praying for the dead in the intermediate state. He accepts both things. First, here is what he writes about the intermediate state, or what he usually terms Paradise; alternately known as Sheol or Hades, or, sometimes, the limbo of the fathers:

Even in paradise, in the intermediate state between death and the resurrection, we shall learn more concerning these in an hour than we could in an age during our stay in the body. (Letter to Miss B; 17 April 1776)
In paradise the souls of good men rest from their labours, and are with Christ from death to the resurrection. This bears no resemblance at all to the Popish purgatory, wherein wicked men are supposed to be tormented in purging fire, till they are sufficiently purified to have a place in heaven. But we believe, (as did the ancient church,) that none suffer after death, but those who suffer eternally. We believe that we are to be here saved from sin, and enabled to love God with all our heart. (Letter to George Blackall; 25 Feb. 1783)
. . . Paradise: the place "where the wicked cease from troubling, and where the weary are at rest:" the receptacle of holy souls, from death to the resurrection. . . . paradise is not heaven. It is, indeed, (if we may be allowed the expression,) the anti-chamber of heaven, where the souls of the righteous remain, till, after the general Judgment, they are received into glory. (Sermon 112: The Rich Man and Lazarus; 25 March 1788)
. . . Hades, namely, the invisible world. . . . (which is the receptacle of separate spirits,) from death to the resurrection. Here we cannot doubt but the spirits of the righteous are inexpressibly happy. (Sermon 122: On Faith; 17 Jan. 1791)

Wesley firmly believes in praying for these souls:

It is certain "praying for the dead was common in the second century," . . . you might have said, and in the first also; seeing that petition, Thy kingdom come, manifestly concerns the saints in Paradise, as well as those on earth. . . . Praying thus far for the dead, 'That God would shortly accomplish the number of His elect, and hasten His Kingdom,' you will not easily prove to be any corruption at all. (A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Conyers Middleton Occasioned by His Late Free Inquiry; 4 Jan. 1749)
Your fourth argument is, That in a collection of Prayers, I cite the words of an ancient Liturgy—'for the Faithful Departed.' Sir, whenever I use those words in the Burial Service, I pray to the same effect: 'That we, with all those who are departed in Thy faith and fear, may have our perfect consummation of bliss, both in body and soul.' Yea, and whenever I say, 'Thy Kingdom come;' for I mean both the kingdom of grace and glory. In this kind of general prayer, therefore, for the Faithful Departed, I conceive myself to be clearly justified, both by the earliest Antiquity, by the Church of England, and by the Lord's Prayer. (Second Letter to Bishop George Lavington; 27 Nov. 1750)

But what is the purpose of such prayers? Catholics point out that those perfected in heaven are in need of neither help, nor prayer. Those in hell are beyond all redemption and help. All parties agree that judgment as to one's eternal destiny occurs at death Hence, it is meaningless to pray for either of those parties. It does make sense, though, to pray for those in transition from this world, to heaven. But what for? Well, we Catholics say it is an act of grace to lessen their time or amount of expiatory suffering in purgatory: God applying the grace-filled effects of prayer to the recipient (just as in all intercessory prayer). Otherwise, what is it for? Wesley expressly denies the Catholic sense of the prayer, but offers us no cogent alternative:

But it is far from certain, that "the purpose of this was, to procure relief and refreshment to the departed souls in some intermediate state of expiatory pains;" or, that this was the general "opinion of those times." (A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Conyers Middleton Occasioned by His Late Free Inquiry; 4 Jan. 1749)

Catholics submit, again, that the existence and process of purgatory after death is the most plausible background explanation of such prayers. Wesley does indeed at times admit some sort of process of continuing perfection after death (though not clearly defined):

But as happy as the souls in Paradise are, they are preparing for far greater happiness. For Paradise is only the porch of heaven; and it is there the spirits of just men are made perfect. (Sermon 73: Of Hell; 10 Oct. 1782; my italics)

. . . on the other hand, can we reasonably doubt, but that those who are now in Paradise, in Abraham's bosom, all those holy souls, who have been discharged from the body, from the beginning of the world unto this day, will be continually ripening for heaven; will be perpetually holier and happier, till they are received into the "kingdom prepared for them from the foundation' of the world?" (Sermon 122: On Faith; 17 Jan. 1791; my italics)

Exactly. Purgatory is the place / condition whereby (to use Wesley's own words) "the spirits of just men are made perfect" and where they are "continually ripening for heaven" and "perpetually holier and happier" until, once and for all, they are fit to enter heaven and to see God face-to-face. If this occurs by "fire" (whether real or metaphorical), then Catholics argue, by analogy (like Wesley) from many instances of Scripture, that such refining and purification is precisely what helps to make us holy (metaphorically, "gold" or "pure") and thus able to be in God's presence forevermore. It all flows from God's great mercy. He would rather refine us after death than send us to hell because we refused to allow Him to do His work of grace and purification and sanctification (indeed, perfection) in us before death.

Wesley says God zaps us in an instant right before death. We say it takes a little longer after death. No essential difference; no biggie. It's the same result by different methods. Be that as it may, I maintain that purgatory is far more indicated in Holy Scripture than a "zap" right before death. See, e.g., 25 scriptural arguments, backed up by massive attestation from the Church fathers.

Wesley loved a good debate, was unfailingly amiable and quite skilled in that art, and (I think) uniformly bested his opponents. How I wish he were here to reply to this two-pronged argument! I think we would both enjoy the mutual challenges very much.

* * *

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on May 03, 2012 07:25

← Previous 1 2 … 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 … 66 67 Next →

Dave Armstrong's Blog

Dave Armstrong's profile
20 followers

Dave Armstrong isn't a Goodreads Author (yet), but they do have a blog, so here are some recent posts imported from their feed.