Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 50

September 23, 2011

Anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant John Q. Doe Again (for the Umpteenth Time) Misrepresents My Views: This Time Regarding Calvin and His Remarks on Public Repentance and "Symbolic" Absolution

I documented this constant practice of Doe's very recently. The topic last time was purgatory. In that instance, he falsely claimed that I and other Catholic apologists (folks like Keating and Madrid) were inaccurately conveying the biblical indications of purgatory (making them much stronger and developed than they are). This time (having learned nothing), he insinuates, in his paper, Calvin and Penance (9-22-11), that I am conveying (willingly or not) an inaccurate impression of what Calvin believed, by citing (he would say, too selectively and out of context) one statement of his. His words will be in blue.
* * * * *
Here's a quote which is supposed to be an example of a way in which Calvin and Romanism are in some sort of harmony:

[John Calvin] "I will speak briefly of the rite of the early Church, ... By the order observed in public repentance, those who had performed the satisfactions imposed upon them were reconciled by the formal laying on of hands. This was the symbol of absolution by which the sinner himself regained his confidence of pardon before God, ... I consider that ancient observance ... to have been holy and salutary to the Church, and I could wish it restored in the present day." ("Institutes," IV, 19:14)

The quote in this exact form has since disappeared from the Facebook page I first saw it on a few weeks ago (or I simply can't find it). Other versions of the quote are floating around as well that are slightly longer, but don't add anything more to the point being made.
As usual, Doe doesn't mention that it comes from me. In this case, he is excused from making a link (he usually doesn't, anyway, where I am concerned) by the fact that he finds himself unable (inexplicably) to locate the post on my Facebook page. Perhaps he isn't aware that, on Facebook, posts eventually become "old" and move off of the front page in due course. That is the case here. So one scrolls to the bottom, locates the textual link, "Older Posts" and clicks on it. Not rocket science . . . and scarcely different (if at all) from blogs and websites, that Doe is surely familiar with (since he has his own).

In this case, one had to click on that once and scroll down a little bit. The post in question (in caps, "Calvin and Penance") was a short "status" post, dated 9-13-11 (6:07 PM). The interesting question is to ask Doe how he has the quotation in the first place, straight from my Facebook page (which is undeniable from the placement of the ellipses), seeing that he now claims he can't find it? I guess at the time he grabbed it, hoping to try to "refute" me in the future.

I should note that the second and third set of ellipses (". . .") were added to make the quote fit, because one is allowed only so many characters (500, I think) in a status post. I have to mention this because Doe has been known to write entire posts detailing some nefarious conspiracy in my apologetics, based on use of ellipses.

If all that's being asserted is that both Rome's teaching and Calvin both admit that the early church practiced public repentance, then indeed Calvin and Romanism are both in harmony on the facts of history. Then again, any historical source that mentions this tidbit could be said to be in harmony with Romanism.

I asserted nothing at all in the Facebook post.

On the other hand, if a Romanist were arguing that Calvin was some way in harmony with Rome's sacrament of penance or that Calvin's view of penance was somewhat like Rome's sacrament of penance, then that would simply be an error.
I argued nothing, either. I simply presented this as evidence of common ground, as far as it goes. It is Doe who is making all these silly assumptions about what I was trying to argue, just as he did last time in relation to purgatory. So he inadequately and absurdly speculates as to what I am arguing, in falsely claiming that I was supposedly inadequately and absurdly speculating on Calvin's view of penance. I always immensely enjoy the humorous ironies present in any failed Doe analysis of my apologetics.

Calvin argues in IV, 19:3 that the notion of seven sacraments was unknown in the early church. He then goes on to argue that penance doesn't qualify as a sacrament (IV, 19:14-17).
I never stated, nor implied that he didn't do so. Now it is necessary to look at the larger context in my own papers and books, to clarify what I was doing here. Doe is still without excuse in so wildly misinterpreting my intentions, as I will clearly demonstrate. In the third comment in the combox for the Facebook post, I provide a link to the paper from which I drew the quotation. Note the title (and especially the use of quotation marks):

The "Catholic" John Calvin: 50 Areas Where His Views Are Harmonious With Catholic Teaching

It's extraordinary that Doe (for all his pompous self-promotion as the Reformed Researcher Extraordinaire) can't do so many things:

1) He couldn't figure out how to locate my quotation, so as to properly document it, before setting out to savage my research.

2) Even if he does find a source of mine he wishes to critique he habitually can't bring himself to actually link to it, so that readers may see both sides of the story.

3) He can't name me, lest someone be led astray down the "Romanist" road of destruction and the sky fall down. By not linking to papers of mine that he is criticizing, no one can even see whose they are, or read them in their entirety; whereas I link to his posts whenever I reply to their distortions, so that people can easily discover his real name (and I have explained why I use "Doe" in semi-provocative fashion), and read his entire paper.

4) He found my quotation on my Facebook page at some point, because he now has it, but at the time he visited it, he couldn't figure out that it was from a much longer paper, that I linked to in the third comment, complete with a painting of Calvin visible (hence, that more context and intentions could be found there). Doe is not even aware of this himself, let alone making the fact known to his readers who are enduring another vapid "anonymous" attack on my apologetics.

5) Then he either didn't visit the longer paper before setting out in his ridiculous and failed present efforts at "refutation" or if he did, he obviously missed the explicit disclaimer at the beginning (cited below).

6) Had he read the disclaimer, the whole thing would be a complete non-issue, and he couldn't possibly have made the rather stupid claims he is now making about what my intentions were, or if not deliberate intentions, the supposed irresponsible result of my citations.

Once we get to the larger paper from which the short quote on Facebook was drawn (i.e., the paper that I linked to there), we discover that the quotation in question is #49 (of 50). Note the title I use to describe it: "Approximation of the Catholic Sacrament of Penance." That gives a big indication of what was in my head. But no doubt is left if Doe had found and troubled himself enough to actually read the disclaimer at the beginning of the paper (after giving the source info. on the version of the Institutes I used, and providing the link to the entire online version (so people can check any quote in full context):

Note: I don't intend to imply that Calvin agrees with Catholics in every jot and tittle of all the following categories. What is agreed-upon is what is actually stated in these particular comments, which may be just a part of a doctrine or practice, not all of it. Two parties can agree, for example, on the basic fundamentals of a question, and then go on to differ on more minute particulars that each feels are a logical extension of the premises.

That said, the areas of agreement are voluminous and extraordinary, and my hope is that this compendium will give both Catholics and Calvinists a feel for how close we really are in many respects, despite our many honest, serious differences.

All the citations below were included in the extensive, 66-page compilation at the end of my book, Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin. That section thus accounts for about 18% of the 388 pages (minus the introductory sections).

This is quite sufficient to clear up any misconceptions that Doe has regarding the quote. It answers all of his questions and speculations before he uttered them. But obviously Doe never read this. Moreover, you see how the paper was in turn taken from my book on Calvin. In the book it appears on the very last page (p. 388), under the same title. We know that Doe has my book, because he has reviewed it (anonymously!), six times.

Moreover, Doe is aware that I posted the entirety of my replies to Calvin's Institutes, Book IV (listed at the top of my Calvin, Calvinism, and General Protestantism web page). Thus, Doe could easily look up the paper where I dealt with IV: 19:14 (since I listed them in the order of Calvin's sections). Doe can actually learn to do a word search ("Control-F" on a keyboard) to find the relevant section. If he managed to do that, he would discover that I made very little comment on the section. All I stated was: "We can be thankful, however, that Calvin retains some remote notion of formal penance and absolution." Obviously I wasn't equating his notion with the Catholic one at all.

Furthermore, I have a section in my book on Calvin, entitled, "Absolution and Forgiveness of Sins by the Clergy" (pp. 164-167). In it I stated, concerning Calvin's conception of these notions (p. 166):

Calvin intends more or less a preaching function (which is classic "low church" Protestantism): tell people the message of reconciliation and they (by God's grace and His will) will receive it of their own accord without need of sacramental absolution or even baptismal regeneration.

Calvin neglects to also include the transactional element of forgiveness of sins, through a priest, acting as the representative of God, as opposed to a mere declaration of the same (the preaching of the gospel of forgiveness). Calvin wants to spiritualize all this away, just as he (largely) does with baptism and the Eucharist. Binding and loosing are not merely the equivalent to the gospel: another way of saying "gospel."

The priest does not only, merely declare (by preaching or evangelizing) the availability of forgiveness and reconciliation through God's grace, to be subjectively appropriated by the individual; he also brings it about as a sacramental agent. Calvin apparently rejects this latter element.

So we have no less than six pieces of hard evidence that I was not engaged in an effort (as Doe accuses me) to pretend as equivalent what is clearly not:

1) The title of the paper in which the citation is found (prominently linked to in the Facebook post).

2) The title over the citation (#49) from the same paper.

3) The lengthy disclaimer in the paper, describing exactly what I was intending to argue.

4) The one-sentence comment on this section in the paper that was part of my complete reply to Institutes, Book IV (a series of replies Doe was quite aware of).

5) The title provided for the citation on p.388 of my book on Calvin (that Doe has in his possession).

6) Clarification of my understanding of Calvin's view of "penance and absolution" in my book (p. 166).

All of this, yet Doe can't comprehend just what it was that I was trying to argue and accomplish with the citation. It's truly astonishing (but not surprising to me, being quite familiar with his ramshackle research through the years). Now, having established and documented all of this that was perfectly accessible to Doe, to find out, let's go back to what he claims in his current paper:

Calvin then goes on to argue that penance isn't a sacrament (IV, 19:15). If there's any similarity between Calvin and Romanism here, it isn't at all related to penance being a sacrament.
Yes, of course. I know Doe regards me as dumber than a doornail and not to be taken seriously (as he has stated innumerable times), but does he really think I am so stupid as to not know that Calvin believed in only two sacraments? That's why I described his citation in my book and a paper based on it, "Approximation of the Catholic Sacrament of Penance." Duh!!!!

True, Calvin here states he would be in favor of the ancient observance of public penance. To my knowledge though, Romanism isn't interested in reviving the practice in the form Calvin outlines.
Never said it was, but this is irrelevant to the point, anyway.

For Calvin, the recent practice was a deterioration. This would hardly be similar to what Rome believes about the positive development of doctrine.
That's entirely beside the point as well, and no part of my argument, either.

In the Romanist version above of IV, 19:14,
It's not a "Romanist version," it is simply a slightly edited citation taken from a Calvinist translation of Calvin.

the selective citation appears to place an emphasis on "the formal laying on of hands" as "the symbol of absolution by which the sinner himself regained his confidence of pardon before God." The Romanist selective citation process chooses this as that which Calvin wishes restored.
Yes, because laying on of hands was a sacramental gesture. Calvin lies about what the early Church believed. For them, it was not merely a "symbol," but an actual transactional absolution: granting of forgiveness by God through the priest. I was well aware of all this, and wrote about it; nevertheless the similarities at least in outward form and general concept, remain, and that was all I was highlighting, per the disclaimer in the paper.

Is this the way in which Calvin and Romanism are similar?
Yes: outwardly in the laying on of hands, having to do with some semblance of absolution for sin (which is merely symbolic for Calvin. It's why I called it an "approximation" in my book and "'Catholic' Calvin" paper, and "some remote notion of formal penance and absolution" in my critique-paper for this section of the Institutes. One would think that Doe could get something right once in a while, if only by accident.

As I read Calvin here, he doesn't appear to think the laying on of hands is crucial to the practice of public penance, even if it were restored.
I never said that he did. Doe's analysis is a classic instance of relentless non sequitur comments.

One other point of difference as well: According to this section from the Institutes, Calvin understood that "symbol of absolution" to be just that, a symbol.
No kidding!!! That was in my citation, so this is a needless thing to point out.

As I understand Calvin, he denies the Bishop is forgiving the sin, only Christ can do that. A clergyman only proclaims the forgivness [sic] of sins.

Yep; no new revelation here, either.

I've gone through this little exercise of compare / contrast not in any effort to prove the dishonesty of the quote being put forth on Facebook.
A rare case where Doe doesn't accuse me of deliberate dishonesty.

Rather, I think the quote as selectively cited shows how a particular worldview, in this case, a Romanist worldview, sees what it wants to.
Sheer hogwash. I have proven that I perfectly understand what Calvin's belief was, and exactly how it was similar to ours and how it was dissimilar. I never argued for more than limited, qualified similarity and harmony: in some respects, not all. It is Doe who can't comprehend how I was arguing, because of his blinding anti-Catholic prejudice and also personal hostility to me. All the noncomprehension in this case lies with him, not myself.

It begins by presupposing the truth of Roman Catholicism, and then applies that template to Calvin.
As we have seen, this is a grossly inaccurate description of what I did.

Calvin's words are put forth in some sort of ecumenical attempt to demonstrate Calvin's agreement with a distinctive of Roman Catholicism. When one reads Calvin in context though, his entire presentation at this point is to distinguish the Christian faith from Romanism.
No kidding. Hence, we observe yet another atrocious example of Doe "reasoning" and "argument": a complete failure; utterly out to sea as to what the view that he opposes actually is, and precisely that I was contending in the first place. He does this repeatedly: all the while claiming to be such a profound researcher, while I am allegedly a prime example of the complete opposite: an incompetent buffoon and not fit to be called an apologist at all. Readers may judge the facts of the matter. I'm confident that anyone with any shred of fairness will conclude that Doe has royally botched this "refutation."

To conclude, I shall now add a comment that my friend Paul Hoffer made in Doe's combox for his post. I have been banned for a long time on Doe's blog, so my commenting was out of the question. Paul's comments are often allowed, so he still has a chance to get in. Nor is my name allowed to be mentioned on Doe's blog (thus, Paul had to use a pseudonym). Doe in his infinite wisdom and profoundly impartial judge-like fairness actually allowed it to be posted!:

Natamllc, you are greatly overreaching here.

All Mr. Swan established here is that Atty. Calvin did not share the view of the Catholic Church that reconciliation/penance is a sacrament which certainly is in accord with his widely known view that there are only two sacraments: baptism and communion. Our host did not lay out any ad fontes evidence that any of the Early Church Fathers actually agreed with Calvin's view or for that matter that they agreed with the view of the Catholic Church.

Thus, if someone used this quote to make Atty. Calvin out to be some sort of closet Catholic, Mr. Swan would be certainly warranted in taking the quote-giver to task which he did here.

On the other hand, I have seen the Catholic-apologist-who-may-not-be-named-on-this-blog use this quote in a far more reasonable, responsible manner to show that there are areas of harmony between the Church and the Reformers that could be used as starting points of discussion between Catholics and Protestants. If our gracious host allows it, I could offer a link to that situs or folks can just go out and buy Lord Armovalidus' book, "Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin".

Mr. Swan,

I much appreciate your efforts to actually put before your audience what the Church teaches by referencing the Catechism.

God bless you both! (3:47 PM, 9-23-11)

In a personal message, Paul informed me that "Latin for Armstrong is Armovalidus."

***

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 23, 2011 16:56

Fr. Robert Barron Denies That Adam Was a "Literal Figure"

Fr. Robert Barron made this statement in the following You Tube video, "Misreading Genesis" (5:52-6:04):

Here is the transcription of that portion:

Adam. Now, don't read it literally. We're not talking about a literal figure. We're talking in theological poetry. Adam: the first human being . . .

Sadly, it appears that Fr. Barron is heterodox on this point of the nature of Adam. He can't deny that Adam was a literal figure and the first man, who fell, without this having dire consequences for the Catholic doctrine of original sin, per Pope Pius XII's encyclical, Humani Generis (12 August 1950): one that was designed (in the subtitle) to counter "some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine" (my bolding):

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]
38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.
39. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.

Fr. Jim Tucker, blogmaster of Dappled Things : a popular site that was discontinued in 2008, wrote in the combox of the same video on a Word on Fire web page:

If we are not to read Adam as a literal person, but only a theological construct, then as we read St Paul's description of Jesus as the "New Adam", then Jesus becomes a theological construct. Yet, Jesus is God incarnate, God in the flesh, very much a real person. So, St. Paul's comparison brings out the fact that sin - sin which is very real in our lives even today - sin comes into the world through the choice of a real person Adam, so that redemption - a very real necessity for our lives even today - redemption comes through a real person: Jesus the Christ. (3-4-11)

Unfortunately, Fr. Barron did not reply, even though this is his own site, for his outreach apostolate. Fr. Barron's view on this issue is very troubling indeed, and an extremely serious error. Here is what St. Paul stated about the historical Adam and original sin:

Romans 5:12-19 (RSV) Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned -- [13] sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. [15] But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. [16] And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. [17] If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. [18] Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.[19] For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous.

1 Corinthians 15:21-22 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. [22] For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:45-49 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. [46] But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual. [47] The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. [48] As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. [49] Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

I would elaborate upon Fr. Tucker's comment, and add that the view of a non-literal, non-historical Adam is also contrary to the understanding of the Blessed Virgin Mary as the second Eve: a motif very common in the Church fathers and in Catholic Mariology ever since their time. If there wasn't a literal Eve who said "no" to God, then by analogy there would be no literal Mary who said "yes" and made redemption possible, in terms of being the Mother of (the incarnate) God (the Son).

Therefore, just as the Pauline analogy of Adam and second Adam (Christ) requires a literal understanding, so does the Eve-Mary analogy. Just as there was a literal Adam who really fell (and the human race with him (Rom 5:15; 1 Cor 15:22), thus requiring the redemption of Christ, so there was a real historical Eve who said "no" to God, and hence by analogy, a real Mary who said yes and led the way to redemption by being the Mother of (the incarnate) God.

Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., the renowned catechist and candidate for possible sainthood, who was also my own mentor, wrote in his Modern Catholic Dictionary , about Adam:

The first man. Created in the image of God. His wife was Eve and his sons Cain, Abel, and Seth. They lived in the garden of Eden but were expelled because Adam and Eve disobeyed God's command not to eat the fruit of a certain tree (Genesis 1,2). In early accounts of Adam's life he is referred to, not by a specific name, but "the man" (Genesis 3). Not until his descendants were given (Genesis 4:25) was the proper noun "Adam" applied to him. Many doctrines in the New Testament are traced back to the life of the first man, notably original sin and the concept of Jesus as the second Adam bringing redemption to the human race.

He stated in the same work about original sin:

Either the sin committed by Adam as the head of the human race, or the sin he passed onto his posterity with which every human being, with the certain exception of Christ and his Mother, is conceived and born. The sin of Adam is called originating original sin (originale originans); that of his descendants is originated original sin (originale originatum). Adam's sin was personal and grave, and it affected human nature. It was personal because he freely committed it; it was grave because God imposed a serious obligation; and it affected the whole human race by depriving his progeny of the supernatural life and preternatural gifts they would have possessed on entering the world had Adam not sinned. Original sin in his descendants is personal only in the sense that the children of Adam are each personally affected, but not personal as though they had voluntarily chosen to commit the sin; it is grave in the sense that it debars a person from the beatific vision, but not grave in condemning one to hell; and it is natural only in that all human nature, except for divine intervention, has it and can have it removed only by supernatural means.

I've written about this issue in the past: Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, and Noah as Actual Historical Figures: the Biblical Evidence and Catholic Agreement With It. I noted many biblical evidences in this paper. For example, our Lord Jesus refers quite literally to Abel in Matthew 23:35. The author of Hebrews does the same (11:4; 12:24). St. Paul refers to Eve as having been deceived by the devil, in 2 Corinthians 11:3. I cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

If Adam and Eve are not regarded as actual human beings, and the parents of the human race, then the doctrine of the Fall of man goes down with that, and we are smack dab in the middle of the Pelagian heresy, which holds that man is saved by his own works, and is not in need of being rescued from a fallen condition. The fall is clearly taught in the Bible; especially by St. Paul.

The Catechism refers to Adam and Eve eight times, and ties in their rebellion to the fall of man at least three times (#399, 404, 417).

Cain and Abel are referred to as actual human beings twice, and their actions also connected to original sin.

God made a covenant with Noah. It's pretty difficult to make a covenant with an imaginary, fictional person. Thus, the Catechism refers to Noah and the flood, and what is called the Noachic Covenant, nine times.

The problem (among many) is that the New Testament certainly accepts the Genesis account as literal, and this person as Adam, and his wife as Eve: precisely as stated. Thus Jesus said:

Matthew 23:34-35 (RSV) Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechari'ah the son of Barachi'ah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.

How, then, can Abel be an actual historical person, whose blood was shed: one used in an illustration of persecution up to Zechariah the prophet, yet his father be merely a "literary figure" and not the actual historical Adam? St. Paul's statements and analogies of Adam and Christ, seen above, clearly presuppose the historical Adam of the Genesis accounts and no other.

All of this smacks of good old-fashioned liberal heterodoxy regarding issues of historicity in Genesis. If this whole thing is simply a case of poor choice of words, or some misunderstanding on my part, I'd be more than happy -- in fact, delighted -- to be corrected, and to remove this paper if it is no longer necessary.

For much more discussion, see the combox thread for the cross-posting of this on Facebook (where I made several comments, and several others chimed in).

For related reading, see:

The Biblical Evidence for Original Sin

Adam and Eve: Defense of Their Literal Existence as the Primal Human Couple, by Catholic Philosopher, Dr. Dennis Bonnette

Catholics and the Historicity of Jonah the Prophet

***

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 23, 2011 10:35

Fr. Robert Barron Denies That Adam Was a "Literal Figure": a Very Serious Error Magisterially Condemned by Venerable Pope Pius XII, and Contrary to the Dogma of Original Sin

Fr. Robert Barron made this statement in the following You Tube video, "Misreading Genesis" (5:52-6:04):

Here is the transcription of that portion:

Adam. Now, don't read it literally. We're not talking about a literal figure. We're talking in theological poetry. Adam: the first human being . . .

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]
38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.
39. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.

Fr. Jim Tucker, blogmaster of Dappled Things : a popular site that was discontinued in 2008, wrote in the combox of the same video on a Word on Fire web page:

If we are not to read Adam as a literal person, but only a theological construct, then as we read St Paul's description of Jesus as the "New Adam", then Jesus becomes a theological construct. Yet, Jesus is God incarnate, God in the flesh, very much a real person. So, St. Paul's comparison brings out the fact that sin - sin which is very real in our lives even today - sin comes into the world through the choice of a real person Adam, so that redemption - a very real necessity for our lives even today - redemption comes through a real person: Jesus the Christ. (3-4-11)

Romans 5:12-19 (RSV) Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned -- [13] sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. [15] But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. [16] And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. [17] If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. [18] Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.[19] For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous.

1 Corinthians 15:21-22 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. [22] For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:45-49 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. [46] But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual. [47] The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. [48] As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. [49] Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

The first man. Created in the image of God. His wife was Eve and his sons Cain, Abel, and Seth. They lived in the garden of Eden but were expelled because Adam and Eve disobeyed God's command not to eat the fruit of a certain tree (Genesis 1,2). In early accounts of Adam's life he is referred to, not by a specific name, but "the man" (Genesis 3). Not until his descendants were given (Genesis 4:25) was the proper noun "Adam" applied to him. Many doctrines in the New Testament are traced back to the life of the first man, notably original sin and the concept of Jesus as the second Adam bringing redemption to the human race.

He stated in the same work about original sin:

Either the sin committed by Adam as the head of the human race, or the sin he passed onto his posterity with which every human being, with the certain exception of Christ and his Mother, is conceived and born. The sin of Adam is called originating original sin (originale originans); that of his descendants is originated original sin (originale originatum). Adam's sin was personal and grave, and it affected human nature. It was personal because he freely committed it; it was grave because God imposed a serious obligation; and it affected the whole human race by depriving his progeny of the supernatural life and preternatural gifts they would have possessed on entering the world had Adam not sinned. Original sin in his descendants is personal only in the sense that the children of Adam are each personally affected, but not personal as though they had voluntarily chosen to commit the sin; it is grave in the sense that it debars a person from the beatific vision, but not grave in condemning one to hell; and it is natural only in that all human nature, except for divine intervention, has it and can have it removed only by supernatural means.

If Adam and Eve are not regarded as actual human beings, and the parents of the human race, then the doctrine of the Fall of man goes down with that, and we are smack dab in the middle of the Pelagian heresy, which holds that man is saved by his own works, and is not in need of being rescued from a fallen condition. The fall is clearly taught in the Bible; especially by St. Paul.

The Catechism refers to Adam and Eve eight times, and ties in their rebellion to the fall of man at least three times (#399, 404, 417).

Cain and Abel are referred to as actual human beings twice, and their actions also connected to original sin.

God made a covenant with Noah. It's pretty difficult to make a covenant with an imaginary, fictional person. Thus, the Catechism refers to Noah and the flood, and what is called the Noachic Covenant, nine times.

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 23, 2011 10:35

September 22, 2011

Antidote to William Whitaker's Sola Scriptura Arguments, Part 12: Church Councils, St. Irenaeus' Rule of Faith, and St. John Chrysostom on St. Peter and His Successors

1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." 1 Corinthians 2:6 And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.

"Tradition" here is referring to false, heretical tradition. Irenaeus then notes how this heretical tradition is set against Scripture, and that the heretics deny that "the truth was not delivered by means of written documents." It is very easy to refute heretics from the Scripture. I've been doing it for thirty years: starting with an in-depth refutation of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth.. . .

Now St. Irenaeus refers to true, apostolic tradition and apostolic succession, which he regards as decisive. The heretics in turn reject that, because they know better and have a subjective grasp of truth without necessary need of the apostolic tradition and the Church: precisely as Whitaker argues is the norm and rule of faith in Protestantism. Thus, Protestants have adopted the heretical rule of faith rather than the Catholic one. Whitaker isn't even consistent with his own stated principles. He argues that everything comes down to Scripture, yet the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 was a counter-example of that rule.

Whitaker claims that he grounds all his arguments in Scripture, yet when he looks at Acts 15, he invents things that are not present in the passage at all, thus showing that he will treat Scripture itself with contempt if it doesn't teach exactly what he wants it to teach. We Catholics, on the other hand, can follow Scripture wherever it leads: including to an infallible Church, a pope, and apostolic succession and authoritative tradition (all of which notions are found there).

It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.

The heretics rejected the authority of apostolic tradition ( a thing that St. Irenaeus casually takes for granted); so do Protestants (giving it only lip service at best, but rejecting it as they wish). Protestants then assert sola Scriptura and claim to have an unrivaled devotion to Holy Scripture as the final norm and only infallible authority and rule of faith. Yet they ignore all in Scripture that doesn't suit them, eisegete, engage in extremely selective and arbitrary prooftexting tactics (as Whitaker has been doing throughout his book) while ignoring context, and often, different literary styles and linguistic factors.

They gloss over the fact that the Bible itself teaches about an authoritative Church and apostolic succession and tradition. They allow radically contradictory treatments of the same Scripture, and denominations, pretending that the former is not theological relativism, and the latter not violently opposed to the biblical teaching of One Church and one faith only. So in the end, all is not what it seems. Who really respects Holy Scripture the most?

St. Irenaeus, elsewhere in the same work, teaches a full acceptance of the authority of Church and tradition:

Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?

(Against Heresies, III, 4, 1; ANF, Vol. I)

. . . carefully preserving the ancient tradition . . . by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.

(Ibid., III, 4, 2)

And then shall every word also seem consistent to him, if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out.

(Ibid., IV, 32, 1)

Such passages in St. Irenaeus are countless, they are so prevalent . . .

Chrysostom follows in the fifth place, who, in his last Homily upon St John, says that Peter was set as a master over the whole world by Christ. I answer, but not as sole master. Neither does this avail anything towards establishing the pope's authority. For Chrysostom does not say that the pope was set as a master over the world. (p. 440)

Here is the reference (Homily 88; from the comment on John 21:19):

Here again He alludes to his tender carefulness, and to his being very closely attached to Himself. And if any should say, How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem? I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world.

Whitaker employs the usual Protestant tactic of denying that Peter had successors; therefore, his case has no relevance to the papacy. But here he is applying this mentality to St. John Chrysostom, as if it were his opinion. In other words, now it is a factual determination: one must see what the great saint and preacher believed on that score. Does he state that Peter had successors, in which case the prerogatives of Peter would descend upon them as well? The answer is yes:

For what purpose did He shed His blood? It was that He might win these sheep which He entrusted to Peter and his successors.

(The Priesthood, Book II, 1, NPNF1, 9:39)

If Peter was a teacher of the world, and he had successors, then it follows that the successors (popes) were also teachers of the world. So what Chrysostom says of Peter, applies also to the popes who continue his role and office, in succession, as in the following:

For those things which are peculiar to God alone, (both to absolve sins, and to make the church in capable of overthrow in such assailing waves, and to exhibit a man that is a fisher more solid than any rock, while all the world is at war with him), these He promises Himself to give; as the Father, speaking to Jeremiah, said, He would make him as "a brazen pillar, and as a wall;" Jeremiah 1:18 but him to one nation only, this man in every part of the world.

I would fain inquire then of those who desire to lessen the dignity of the Son, which manner of gifts were greater, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave him? For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to a mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven. "For heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35 How then is He less, who has given such gifts, has effected such things?

(Homily 54 on Matthew, 3)

Likewise, in many other passages, we find the same:

Peter the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the foundation of the faith, the base of the confession, the fisherman of the world, who brought back our race form the depth of error to heaven, he who is everywhere fervent and full of boldness, or rather of love than of boldness.

(Hom de decem mille talentis, 3, vol III, 20[4])

The foundation of the Church, the vehement lover of Christ, at once unlearned in speech, and the vanquisher of orators, the man without education who closed the mouth of philosophers, who destroyed the philosophy of the Greeks as though it were a spider's web, he who ran throughout the world, he who cast his net into the sea, and fished the whole world.

(In illud, Vidi dominum, 3, vol VI, 123[124])

After that grave fall (for there is no sin equal to denial) after so great a sin, He brought him back to his former honor and entrusted him with the headship of the universal church, and, what is more than all, He showed us that he had a greater love for his master than any of the apostles, for saith he: 'Peter lovest thou Me more than these?'

(Hom 5 de Poen 2, vol II, 308[311])

Peter, the coryphaeus of the choir, the mouth of all the apostles, the head of that company, the ruler [Greek] of the whole world, the foundation of the Church, the fervent lover of Christ (for He said: 'Peter, lovest thou Me more than these?') I speak his praises, that you may learn that he truly loves Christ, for the care of Christ's servants is the greatest proof of devotion to Him; and it is not I who say this, but the beloved Master: 'If thou lovest Me,' saith He, 'Feed My sheep.' Let us see whether he has truly the primacy [Greek] of a shepherd, whether he really cares for and truly loves the sheep and is a lover of the flock, that we may know he also loves the Shepherd.

(In illud, scitote quod in noviss, diebus, 4, vol VI, 275[282-3])

God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler of the whole world [Greek], that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying, 'Simon, Simon, how often hath Satan desired to sift thee as wheat, but I have prayed for thee that thy strength fail not, and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren'.

(Hom quod frequenter conveniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[329])

When he is told, 'Thou canst not follow Me now,' he says, 'Though all should deny Thee, yet will not I deny.' Because, then, it appeared likely he would be puffed up even to madness, since he practiced contradicting, He warns him not to rebel. This is what Luke refers to when he says that Christ said: 'And I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not,' viz. that it may not be lost to the end, throughout teaching him humility, and proving that human nature is nothing by itself. For since his great love made him contradictory, He moderates him, that he might not in the future have the same fault, when he should receive the government of the world, but that remembering his fault he might know himself.

(Hom 73[72] in Joann 1, vol VIII, 395[429])

For more along these lines, see the magnificent compilation of Dom John Chapman, "St. John Chrysostom on the Apostle Peter," from his book, Studies on the Early Papacy.

Whitaker continues in this fashion, trying to shoot down numerous examples of Church fathers writing on the rule of faith (which was then exactly what it is now in the Catholic Church). Frankly, I don't have the patience to wade through all of them. I'd rather deal with his attempted arguments from Scripture: where the battle is truly met with Protestants, since they can always dismiss any Church father or any argument of same, but cannot do so with the Bible. The two examples above from two very prominent fathers are typical and plainly show how Whitaker has misrepresented the facts of the matter, by sophistry and highly selective citation. Whitaker ends the section with the following smug, flippant remark:

I pass over Anselm and Bernard, and excuse them, considering the time they lived in, if perchance they ascribed some extravagant prerogatives to the Roman pontiff. If he had produced even more numerous and stringent arguments than these, yet, since they are merely human, they could make no reason of demonstrative force. (p. 444)
Whitaker, of course, forgets that his entire book is "merely human" as well, so why bother writing it, since it can never be "demonstrative"? Protestants, it seems, so often exempt themselves from the criticisms they make of others: usually ones far more eminent than themselves, as presently, with Whitaker picking away and allegedly "refuting" St. Robert Bellarmine and many Church fathers, or spinning the opinions of the latter, so that they are magically transformed into "proto-Protestants." This has been standard Protestant apologetic fare regarding the fathers ever since. And it is uniformly a dismal failure and untrue to the documented facts of patristic history.
***

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 22, 2011 14:00

September 21, 2011

Antidote to William Whitaker's Sola Scriptura Arguments, Part 11: Interpretation of Scripture: Moses' Seat, Pharisaical Authority, the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), and Whitaker's Irrational, Radically Individualist Subjectivism

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TYJynUQTlyc/TnKNYURtgUI/AAAAAAAADnQ/CXnZyzSVQ10/s1600/Dogtail.jpg

See the introductory post, New Upcoming Project: Refutation of William Whitaker's Disputation on Holy Scripture on Sola Scriptura.
I am utilizing a copy of the book available at Internet Archive.
Whitaker's words will be in blue. Page numbers will correspond to the above book version.
* * *
The third place of the new Testament cited by the Jesuit is Matth. xxiii. 2. The words are these: "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat; all, therefore, that they command you to observe, that observe and do." Therefore, says the Jesuit, if they must be obeyed who sit in the chair of Moses, much more they who sit in the chair of Peter. I answer: To sit in Moses' seat is to succeed Moses as teacher; for by the seat of Moses is understood the doctrine delivered by Moses and the function of teaching. In this chair of Moses the scribes and Pharisees sat, and taught some things legitimately and correctly. (p. 426)

In the last installment, we saw how Whitaker denied that Moses had any successors (being an extraordinary prophet); thus that his role as a settler of disputes was not passed on, and was irrelevant to the analogy of scriptural interpretation in the New Covenant. I replied that he was unique in important respects; yet in his teaching function and as leader of the Hebrews, he was not unique, and could have successors (and proceeded to show how the Bible expressly states that Joshua was commissioned by Moses himself as his successor.

Now Whitaker freely grants exactly what I argued against him last time. Some people are slow learners. If Whitaker can find it in his heart to reverse himself in the space of a few pages, who am I to refrain from giving him credit where it is due? He arrived at the truth. It just took a while . . .

They were to be heard, therefore, yet not in all, but then only when they taught according to the law, and when they followed Moses in their teaching, not in whatsoever simply they commanded. For then Christ would have contradicted himself; since, in the 6th and 7th chapters of Matthew, he refutes their false interpretations, and wholly sets aside certain dogmas introduced by them into the church contrary to the true sense of the law. (p. 426)
Now Whitaker argues as he did regarding Moses and his successors: they are to be obeyed only when they teach according to the law, which is actually determined by each individual, since, after all, they are expected to have some innate ability to correct their own teachers and a reserved right, therefore, to reject the teachers and rebel against them -- which is "pure Luther" when one ponders it: defying the entire Church because he is convinced he is right and the Church and all of previous dogmatic history wrong, where they differ.

There was no justification for disobedience in the Old Testament texts (as I noted) and there is none here. Jesus already observed in the same passage where He upholds their authority, that they were often hypocrites; hence He states, "observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt 23:3). In other words, "follow the teaching, but not their inadequate and hypocritical observance of it."

The same dynamic holds in Whitaker's supposed counter-examples of Matthew 6 and 7. Jesus is still talking about hypocrisy, and not false teaching, whereas Whitaker falsely spins this as "false interpretations" and "dogmas." Matthew 6:1-8 is a denunciation of the hypocrisy of an outward display of prideful piety, regarding alms and prayers, with "hypocrites" mentioned in 6:2 and 6:5.

After the Lord's Prayer, Jesus resumes His condemnation of the hypocrisy of public display, regarding fasting (6:16-18). The rest of the chapter is a discourse on faith in God's provisions, and seems to not have anything directly to do with the Pharisees.

In Matthew 7, our Lord continues talking about spiritual hypocrisy, with the example of the speck in our neighbor's eye and the log in our own (7:1-5). This arguably still applies to certain Pharisees, but certainly not to dogma and "false interpretations." Hypocrisy (if it were applied to doctrine, which it is not in this case), would mean that the person didn't act or teach consistently with his own teaching -- not that he didn't hold the view in the first place. He goes on to discuss faith and God's generous provisions again.

Jesus refers to false prophets in 7:15, "who come to you in sheep's clothing," but this doesn't refer to the Pharisees. Rather, it is a reference to those falsely posing as Christian disciples of Jesus, since in 7:22 He portrays them as saying, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?" Compare this to the seventy disciples of Jesus casting out demons (Lk 10:17).

These were false prophets who appeared to be like other disciples, but were in fact "wolves." The Pharisees who rejected Jesus as Messiah would never had said that. They wouldn't have done anything in His name, and when they saw Him cast out demons, they said that "It is only by Be-el'zebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons" (Matt 12:24).

The conclusion, then, is that Whitaker's counter-points, supposedly exhibited in Matthew 6 and 7 fail entirely, and are no refutation of the Pharisees' teaching authority that Jesus upheld in Matthew 23. Indeed, Christ didn't contradict Himself, but it is Whitaker who does so, and who misinterprets the teaching of our Lord in his desperate zeal to refute the "papists" at any cost. Not only did Jesus uphold their authority; He observed their ritualistic and religious customs as well, and Paul called himself a Pharisee three times (Acts 23:6; 26:5; Phil 3:5), after becoming a Christian.

The sixth place which the Jesuit objects out of the new Testament is contained in Acts xv. 5, 6, 7, 28; where, upon a question arising about the law of Moses and circumcision, the Christians who disputed amongst themselves, are not remitted (says the Jesuit) to a private spirit, but to a christian council over which Peter pre- sided, which came to this conclusion, ver. 28: "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us," and c. Hence the Jesuit gathers, that the Holy Spirit is always present in a council where Peter or Peter's successors preside. . . . Let the same thing, if possible, be now done as was done here. Let the pastors and bishops be gathered together to consider and define some question not by their own judgment, but by the authority of the Holy Spirit speaking in the scriptures. For thus they defined that controversy out of the scriptures, that we might understand that the supreme judgment is to be given to the scriptures. Nor was there anything there concluded but by the authority of scripture. (pp.431-432)
I have already noted in a past installment, that the opposite was true of this council, at least as far as we can determine from the record we have of it in Scripture. We know that the main issue in contention was whether Gentiles had to be circumcised (Acts 15:1-2, 5). When St. Peter spoke, he mentioned no Scripture (15:7-11). St. Paul and Barnabas also talked not about Scripture, but about "signs and wonders" in their missionary experiences (15:12). Then when St. James spoke, he did cite Scripture, but it was not about circumcision in particular; rather it was a general statement of the Gentiles being included in the kingdom, by God's will (15:13-21). This is the only Scripture we hear of. St. Paul and St. Peter are not recorded as having mentioned anything in the Bible at all.

Yet, oddly enough, Whitaker's sophistical take is that "they defined that controversy out of the scriptures, that we might understand that the supreme judgment is to be given to the scriptures." No such thing occurs in Acts 15! This notion is merely read into the text, and is a false representation of what occurred (i.e., as far as we know from the account), and Whitaker also utters falsehood when he writes, "Nor was there anything there concluded but by the authority of scripture." It's simply not true. Even if it were true (reading in-between the lines and speculating), this could not be concluded from the inspired biblical account passed down to us.

Thirdly, I confess, that the Holy Ghost was present and presided in this council, and that this sentence was that of the Holy Ghost, since it is proved by the testimony of scripture. (p. 432)
The problem is that we have just shown that the council was not undertaken with a "sola Scriptura outlook" at all. It is almost pure Church authority.

We confess that all have not the gift of publicly interpreting the scriptures; but in private all the faithful, taught by the Holy Ghost, can understand the scriptures and recognise the true sense of scripture. (p. 433)
Again, falling back on the pure subjectivism of "me, my Bible, and the Holy Spirit" does not solve the difficulty in the Protestant position (especially this variant held by Whitaker) at all; nor prove that sola Scriptura is taught in Scripture. It is sheer circular reasoning. I agree with a dead-on insight that "Adomnan": a regular on my blog, expressed in the combox of part 10 of this series:

Whitaker's theory of biblical interpretation can be summed up in a nutshell: "I don't pretend to interpret the Bible on my own. Rather, the Holy Spirit interprets it for me. And how do I recognize the Holy Spirit's interpretation? Well, because it agrees with mine!"

Also, Whitaker's "external persuasion" of the meaning of scripture is useless given his belief in "fully assured" understanding granted internally by the Holy Spirit.

He writes: "We must be illuminated by the Holy Spirit to be certainly persuaded of the true sense of scripture; otherwise, although we use all means, we can never attain to that full assurance which resides in the minds of the faithful. But this is only an internal persuasion, and concerns only ourselves."

Yet he goes on to talk about an "external persuasion" and "judgment of scripture" meant to "persuade others." This is pointless, given his assumptions. If these others are illuminated by the Holy Spirit as Whitaker claims to be, then they will agree with his "fully assured" interpretations. If they lack this illumination, then no amount of external persuasion, as Whitaker himself admits, will impart the correct understanding to them. So, "external persuasion" has no real function in Whitaker's system (which, incidentally, makes all expository sermons futile, as well as this Disputation).

One can see how Whitaker's radical individualism led rather quickly to the Quakers' "Inner Light." The Quakers, however, were more consistent. They regarded sermons explicating scripture as so much blather. Better to sit quiet until the Holy Spirit provided you with some insight you could blurt out.

The ninth and last place, which the Jesuit adduces from the new Testament, is contained in 1 John iv. 1, where we are admonished "not to believe every spirit, but to try the spirits whether they are of God:" therefore (says the Jesuit) a private spirit can not be the judge or interpreter of scripture, because it is to be judged itself. I answer: The Jesuit does not understand the state of the question. We do not say that each individual should acquiesce in that interpretation which his own private spirit frames and dictates to him; for this would be to open a door to fanatical tempers and spirits: but we say that that Spirit should be the judge, who speaks openly and expressly in the scriptures, and whom all may hear; by him we desire that all other spirits, that is, all doctrines, (for so the word is to be taken in this place,) should be examined. We recognise no public judge save scripture, and the Spirit teaching us in scripture: yet this man speaks as if we made the spirit within the judge of others; which should never be done. For we are not so mad or foolish as to deal thus: You ought to acquiesce in this doctrine, because my spirit judges it to be true; but we say, You should receive this doctrine because the Holy Spirit in the scriptures hath taught us thus to think and to believe. (pp. 433-434)
More subjective, viciously circular mush: so expertly demolished in the comment by Adomnan -- thus freeing me from the tedious, wearisome burden of having to dissect such obviously and profoundly illogical thought.

***

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 21, 2011 22:21

Antidote to William Whitaker's Sola Scriptura Arguments, Part 10: Interpretation of Scripture: Typology and Analogies to Moses, Joshua, and the Judges

See the introductory post, New Upcoming Project: Refutation of William Whitaker's Disputation on Holy Scripture on Sola Scriptura.
I am utilizing a copy of the book available at Internet Archive.
Whitaker's words will be in blue. Page numbers will correspond to the above book version.
* * *
Since scripture therefore is concerned not merely with the words, but the true sense of the words, which we may rightly call the very life and soul of scripture; it is plain that this precept of Christ, wherein he bids us ''search the scriptures," is to be understood of the sense and meaning of the scriptures, and not of the bare words alone. Hence arises this question, concerning which we dispute with the papists, — Whence the true interpretation of scripture is to be sought ? Here we must seek first the state of the question; and then come to the arguments on both sides. The Tridentine fathers, in their fourth session, command that no one shall dare to interpret holy scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother church hath held, and holds, to whom (as they say) it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of scripture; or contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers. They seem, therefore, to determine that the interpretation of scripture is the privilege of the church, and that that is the true one which agrees with the fathers. (pp. 402-403)

Of course, because the Bible says that the Church is the "pillar and foundation [or, bulwark] of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15). And the fathers always taught that the true theological position is the one that goes all the way back to the apostles and Christ, and is the consensus. That's how they invariably fought heretics: they cited Scripture, and then (trump card) appealed to apostolic succession and "what had always been believed" (St. Vincent of Lerins' "dictum").

This outlook was all thrown to the wind in the so-called "Reformation" (which was really a Revolt). They gave lip service to the fathers for a while, but then discovered that this was not a great strategy, since the fathers consistently bear witness to Catholic positions. Luther and Melanchthon at first cited St. Augustine in particular, with great enthusiasm, but at length grew tired of him because he contradicted them so often. But the Protestant Myth is that Protestantism supposedly restored what was before in the early Church. Hardly . . .

I again reiterate that the idea in Catholicism is not to run to the Church to understand every individual Bible verse (this is the Protestant caricature of our position in this regard). Rather, the Church provides an orthodox framework or parameter beyond which one may not go. For example, if one were to interpret John 14:28 (". . . the father is greater than I") in terms of Jesus being a mere creation and not God (as Jehovah's Witnesses and historic Arians habitually do and did), then the Church would say that this is impermissible since Jesus is God (hundreds of biblical indications), and that this referred to his lowering and humbling of Himself to become a man (cross-reference: Phil 2:5-8), while retaining His Divine Nature (Godhood or divinity or deity) all the while.

Scripture has to be interpreted with all of Scripture in mind, and also historic interpretation. Protestantism moves away from this state of affairs by taking away an infallible Church, and by emphasizing far too highly, individual "prooftexts" (as we have seen Whitaker do throughout his book). Heresy is always right around the corner if it is not held in check. If Church history teaches us nothing else, it teaches that.

But still the matter is left in doubt. (p. 403)
Of course. Heaven forbid that it should be otherwise . . . we must have needless discord and controversy.

For we inquire further, what is this church; and who are these fathers? (p. 403)
The Church had been perfectly identifiable for 1500 years, but all of a sudden, the "reformers" had the greatest difficulty figuring out what and where it was; and then they redefined it (as "invisible" and so forth) according to their own arbitrary whims and fancies. It's equally absurd for Whitaker to inquire as to the identity of the fathers, seeing that he has been citing them himself all through his book.

These things we do not wholly reject: we concede such things as allegory, anagoge, and tropology in scripture; but meanwhile we deny that there are many and various senses. We affirm that there is but one true, proper and genuine sense of scripture, arising from the words rightly understood, which we call the literal: and we contend that allegories, tropologies, and anagoges are not various senses, but various collections from one sense, or various applications and accommodations of that one meaning. . . . there is but one true and genuine sense of scripture, namely, the literal or grammatical, whether it arise from the words taken strictly, or from the words figuratively understood, or from both together; and that allegorical expositions are not various meanings, but only various applications and accommodations of scripture. (pp. 404, 406)

A distinction without a difference; quibbling about words; though there is such a thing as multiple meanings within passages (as he appears to deny). Whitaker's quick concession of the complexities of literary styles in the Bible, and hence, of its interpretation, should tell him something of the relative difficulty (not complete difficulty) of understanding, over against perspicuity.

Our third preliminary observation is, that we must not bring any private meanings, or private opinions, but only such as agree with the mind, intention, and dictate of the Holy Spirit. For, since he is the author of the scriptures, it is fit that we should follow him in interpreting scripture. (p. 410)
This is almost the whole point of having the Church as a guide. It is simplistic and naive to think that individuals (or relentlessly competing and contradictory denominations) will all arrive at this understanding minus such guidance. It is the easiest thing in the world to state and possess this noble ideal. To put it into practice on a wide scale is another thing entirely. But the high, sublime words sound great, don't they?

But what is the sense of the Holy Spirit? what his mind and intention, wherewith all our interpretation should suit and agree? In this the controversy consists. (p. 410)
Great question! It isn't the Holy Spirit's intention that there be contradictory opinions by the hundreds (as in Protestantism). We know that God isn't the author of that confusion and great amount of falsehood.
For we also say that the church is the interpreter of scripture, and that this gift of interpretation resides only in the church: but we deny that it pertains to particular persons, or is tied to any particular see or succession of men. (p. 411)
What sense does it make to hold the opinion at all, then? It's as if the sentence has no content, to be qualified away so much as to make the view literally meaningless.

The first caution is, that the enemies of the church are not to be listened to. This we also concede; — that when the sense of scripture is sought for, the enemies of the church are not to be consulted. (p. 411)
Then where there is contradiction, as in Protestant denominations, there necessarily must be an "enemy of the church": for no falsehood can be part of the truth or the teaching of the true Church. The Protestant may not know which of two competing views is wrong, but he knows that one of them must be (by the laws of logic). Therefore, denominations cannot possibly be defended from a biblical worldview. This has always been the strongest objection to Protestantism.

But which is that church? He takes it for granted that their church is the true church; which none of us will ever grant. (p. 411)
. . . because of wholly inadequate grounds for rejecting the indefectible, infallible historic Catholic Church, that has been continuous since the apostles.

Now we determine that the supreme right, authority, and judgment of interpreting the scriptures, is lodged with the Holy Ghost and the scripture itself: for these two are not mutually repugnant. We say that the Holy Spirit is the supreme interpreter of scripture, because we must be illuminated by the Holy Spirit to be certainly persuaded of the true sense of scripture; otherwise, although we use all means, we can never attain to that full assurance which resides in the minds of the faithful. But this is only an internal persuasion, and concerns only ourselves. (p. 415)
In other words, this is a completely subjective criterion: which never works in real life, with more than one person involved.

As to external persuasion, we say that scripture itself is its own interpreter; and, therefore, that we should come to the external judgment of scripture itself, in order to persuade others: in which proceeding we must also use means; of which more hereafter. But that the interpretation of scripture is tied to any certain see, or succession of men, we absolutely deny. (p. 415)
Back to the same old same old. After taking the greatest pains to mock the Catholic system of authority and dogma (bishops, councils, popes), Whitaker falls back on the good ol' individual, as if that is superior to a group of Church authorities or to apostolic succession itself. It's amazing. Such individualism certainly cannot be found in Holy Scripture. It's basically a cultural, post-Renaissance, post-Luther construct superimposed onto a Christian worldview, where it doesn't fit at all.

Stapleton . . . adduces four arguments, whereof the first is from the authority of the old Testament, the second, from the authority of the new Testament; the third, from the common practice of the church, and the testimonies of the fathers; the fourth, from necessary reason. He cites seven testimonies from the old Testament, which we will examine in order. The first place is Exodus xviii. 13, 26, from which he argues thus: after the people of God were collected and reduced to the form of a church, Moses sat as supreme judge; and afterwards also, though other judges were established, yet he reserved the more difficult causes for his own decision. (p. 416)

Exodus 18:13, 25-26 (RSV) On the morrow Moses sat to judge the people, and the people stood about Moses from morning till evening.. . . [25] Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. [26] And they judged the people at all times; hard cases they brought to Moses, but any small matter they decided themselves.

My friend Paul Hoffer provided several such examples in two combox posts (one / two). It is obvious that the Mosaic law was not self-evidently understood upon reading (as we saw in previous installments), or able to be applied without express guidance of ecclesiastical leaders. This is perfectly relevant as an analogy to Christian authority and Bible interpretation.

Therefore, now also there ought to be in the church one common tribunal, and some supreme judge and moderator of all controversies, from whom no appeal is to be permitted. I answer, first; Moses was a prophet, endowed with singular wisdom, adorned with extraordinary gifts of God, commended also to the people by divine testimonies, and sent immediately by God himself. (p. 416)

That is an irrelevant, silly objection on at least two counts. Exodus 18:25-26 shows that Moses' authority was delegated to others, in order to carry out the duties and obligations of his office on a more broad scale. This is analogous to and suggestive of apostolic succession, and even hierarchy and the papacy: with Moses as the "court of final appeal."

Secondly, Jesus sanctions the authority of Moses as passed down to others, by stating, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you . . ." (Matthew 23:2-3). Therefore, since Moses' authority is carried on through multiple successors (as we see from not one, but two Bible passages, and one from Our Lord), it is a non sequitur and irrelevant for Whitaker to argue that since he was a prophet, it is pointless to talk about successors.

Whitaker seems to be at his weakest when it comes to interpreting Bible passages (how ironic!). He persistently ignores context and cross-referencing in his exegesis, while praising the glories of same in his more abstract analyses and apologetics. I think he is far more of a mere polemicist than a particularly able exegete. But then again, look what he is trying to prove; it is a futile, uphill battle to try to establish a falsehood and unbiblical doctrine from the Bible.

Secondly, I confess that in every republic there ought to be judges to determine and put an end to such disputes as arise amongst men, although not with so much authority as Moses: I confess also, that, in every particular church there should be ministers to interpret the scriptures to the people, and answer those who inquire concerning the will of God. (p. 416)
Then Whitaker practically concedes the argument, if he can grant all this. It rather works against his overall argument. The biggest problem is if he uses "particular church" in the sense of denomination, rather than the biblical view of local churches as part of the One True Church.

But an argument from particular churches to the whole universal church does not hold: for then one might also conclude from this place, that there ought to be amongst Christians one supreme political judge (since Moses was such in the Israelitish republic), who should examine every thing that was brought into controversy. But even the papists themselves do not require this. (p. 417)
Correct; the pope is the head of the whole Church (lots of biblical evidence for that, from the overall primacy of Peter, from the "keys" and from Peter's being called the "rock" by Christ; also from biblical analogies [one / two] to infallibility). It is not his job to exegete every single passage of Scripture. There are only about 7-10 passages even to this day that the Church requires to have a certain meaning. The Church is the guardian of orthodoxy and intervenes when someone leaves the territory of apostolic tradition.

Thirdly, I affirm that this should be attributed to Aaron rather than to Moses, and that for two reasons: first, because Aaron was the ordinary priest and had successors; not Moses, whose function was extraordinary: for Moses had no successors in his office. (p. 417)
As already shown, he had helpers and assistants, and Jesus referred to the Pharisees having authority because of being in the line of "Moses' Seat" (a term that is not found in the Old Testament, by the way; hence as an "extrabiblical" and oral tradition). And this authority was independent of their own hypocrisy (Jesus went on in the next chapter to blast them for that). Aaron was Moses' direct aide, so in a sense it is irrelevant if one wants to hold (wrongly, I think) that he had successors and Moses did not. It is still a strong authority, including interpretation of Scripture.

Moreover, Whitaker is again strongly contradicted by Scripture. He says Moses had no successors. In one sense he is correct; only Moses was the initial lawgiver, leader of the exodus, etc. He had many unique and singular functions and qualities. But in terms of leadership authority, Joshua was quite his equal, according to God's own words, and Moses' wishes. And since that is the sense we are discussing, it is more than adequate to bolster the Catholic case:

Numbers 27:15-23 Moses said to the LORD, [16] "Let the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation, [17] who shall go out before them and come in before them, who shall lead them out and bring them in; that the congregation of the LORD may not be as sheep which have no shepherd." [18] And the LORD said to Moses, "Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand upon him; [19] cause him to stand before Elea'zar the priest and all the congregation, and you shall commission him in their sight. [20] You shall invest him with some of your authority, that all the congregation of the people of Israel may obey. [21] And he shall stand before Elea'zar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before the LORD; at his word they shall go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he and all the people of Israel with him, the whole congregation." [22] And Moses did as the LORD commanded him; he took Joshua and caused him to stand before Elea'zar the priest and the whole congregation, [23] and he laid his hands upon him, and commissioned him as the LORD directed through Moses.

Deuteronomy 34:9 And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands upon him; so the people of Israel obeyed him, and did as the LORD had commanded Moses.

Joshua 1:1-5, 16-18 After the death of Moses the servant of the LORD, the LORD said to Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, [2] "Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, you and all this people, into the land which I am giving to them, to the people of Israel. [3] Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given to you, as I promised to Moses. [4] From the wilderness and this Lebanon as far as the great river, the river Euphra'tes, all the land of the Hittites to the Great Sea toward the going down of the sun shall be your territory. [5] No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life; as I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will not fail you or forsake you. . . . [16] And they answered Joshua, "All that you have commanded us we will do, and wherever you send us we will go. [17] Just as we obeyed Moses in all things, so we will obey you; only may the LORD your God be with you, as he was with Moses! [18] Whoever rebels against your commandment and disobeys your words, whatever you command him, shall be put to death. Only be strong and of good courage."

When Joshua died, God in turn "raised up judges" to lead His people. Note how after a judge would die, the people would rush right back into immorality and false doctrine (polytheism, idolatry, etc):

Judges 2:16-19 Then the LORD raised up judges, who saved them out of the power of those who plundered them. [17] And yet they did not listen to their judges; for they played the harlot after other gods and bowed down to them; they soon turned aside from the way in which their fathers had walked, who had obeyed the commandments of the LORD, and they did not do so. [18] Whenever the LORD raised up judges for them, the LORD was with the judge, and he saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for the LORD was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who afflicted and oppressed them. [19] But whenever the judge died, they turned back and behaved worse than their fathers, going after other gods, serving them and bowing down to them; they did not drop any of their practices or their stubborn ways.

This supports the notion of authoritative leaders and interpreters of the Law / Scripture, doesn't it? people haven't changed. They are exactly the same now as they were, then. I'm delighted that Whitaker denied that Moses had successors, so that I could discover this insightful apologetic argument. I love to be motivated by erroneous contentions, to find more support for Holy Mother Church. That's what we apologists do, and I love it. I get blessed every time I am able to, because it is inevitably shown that the truth lies in its fullness with the Catholic Church, following inspired Scripture far more closely than any alternative view. Thus, I become more confident in my faith, and am happy to pass on that confidence and the truth to readers.

Now many of the priests, who in fixed succession after Aaron held the chief place in the church, were impious men and idolaters, as is clear from the sacred text. (p. 417)
Yes they were, but this does not man they are no longer authorities, since Jesus told His followers to do what the Pharisees taught, despite their own hypocrisy (Matthew 23:2-3). The high priest Caiphas is said to have given a true prophecy (Jn 11:49-52); Paul recognized the authority of the Jewish high priest even at his trial (Acts 23:1-8), Jesus still referred to the corrupt churches in Revelation (early chapters) as "churches", etc. But Joshua had more authority than they did (Josh 1:16-18 above).

Secondly, because Moses was not a priest, after the law was published and Aaron consecrated and anointed, nor discharged any priestly function, but was merely a prophet : therefore we must not ascribe to him a judicial power, which, according to them, belongs only to a priest. (p. 417)
He had a judicial power because Scripture said that he did. case closed. He was the leader of the assembly, and specially called and guided by God; just as we believe about popes, following the model of Peter (the leader of the apostles and the early Church) in the Bible.

The second place of the old Testament alleged by Bellarmine is contained in Deut. xvii. 8 — 13: "If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment between blood and blood," and c. (p. 418)

Deuteronomy 17:8-13 "If any case arises requiring decision between one kind of homicide and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another, any case within your towns which is too difficult for you, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the LORD your God will choose, [9] and coming to the Levitical priests, and to the judge who is in office in those days, you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision. [10] Then you shall do according to what they declare to you from that place which the LORD will choose; and you shall be careful to do according to all that they direct you; [11] according to the instructions which they give you, and according to the decision which they pronounce to you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside from the verdict which they declare to you, either to the right hand or to the left. [12] The man who acts presumptuously, by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die; so you shall purge the evil from Israel. [13] And all the people shall hear, and fear, and not act presumptuously again.

"We see from this place," says the Jesuit, "that all who are in doubt on any matter, are sent to a living judge, not to their own private spirits." I answer: It is a malicious assertion of the Jesuit to say that we send men in doubt on any matter to their own private spirits: for we send no man to his own private spirit, but to scripture itself, and the Spirit of God speaking clearly in the scripture. (p. 418)
This is another distinction without a difference, for the private man going to Scripture privately without authoritative guidance, can (quite possibly) merely read into Scripture things from his own whims and fancies, and be led into heresy. It still has to be interpreted, and we are left with the choice of historical, corporate, ecclesiastical interpretation, or private judgment.

But, to give a distinct answer, I say, first, that this precept was conditional, as appears from the very words themselves. For they who consulted that supreme judge were ordered to do according to "that sentence of the law which he should teach them." All, therefore, are commanded to obey the decree of the judge, but with this condition, provided that he judge according to the law of God, that is, shew from the law that it is the will of God. This we also willingly concede, that every priest and minister, and not the pope alone, is to be obeyed whenever he judges according to the law. Meanwhile this place does not establish any such supreme judge as may determine what he pleases at his own caprice, and by whose judgment, though destitute of all scripture authority, we are bound to stand: yea, rather, when it requires him to answer according to the law, it assigns the supreme judgment to the law and not to him. (pp. 418-419)
This is not true. The biblical teaching is that both the Law and the authoritative teacher are supreme. A book of laws cannot govern without human administrators and teachers. The US Constitution is simply a powerless piece of paper without judges and lawmakers who interpret and apply it. The same applies to Mosaic Law or New Testament teaching. Whitaker's "condition" is not present in the text. There is no such notion that every hearer can make a decision whether the priest was right or not according to the law. No! This is the unbiblical sola Scriptura mentality and arbitrary tradition gratuitously smuggled and read into the text.

In Deuteronomy 17 (the passage being discussed), the choice was to either obey the interpretation of the priest or die (17:12). It was the same with Joshua (Josh 1:18). Under the Law, one couldn't even curse his mother or father, under pain of death (Lev 20:9). It's as simple as that. Whitaker's Protestant "every man for himself" scenario is utterly absent from the text. We don't put people to death anymore, but obviously God's point was to uphold a strong teaching authority, and that analogy is still in force today.

. . . he who should presumptuously despise the priest or the judge should be put to death. Thus it is not every dissent from the decision, however modest, and with probable grounds, pious and reasonable; but such as was bold, presumptuous, headlong and frantic, that was punished capitally. (p. 420)
This is some prime sophistry. The text doesn't say that only exceptionally presumptuous or "bold" or "frantic" rebellion was punishable by death (Whitaker's spin), but rather, "The man who acts presumptuously, by not obeying the priest . . . shall die" (Deut 17:12). In other words, all disobedience was presumptuous; thus all punishable by death. But maybe, in charity, Whitaker was a victim of inaccurate translation. The King James Version, close to Whitaker's time, shows some ambiguity that he capitalized on:

And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest . . .

The comma implies a separation of the presumption from the disobedience, as if two different things were being discussed. But later translations within the textual / stylistic tradition of the KJV make this clearer, and the sense goes against Whitaker's textual argument:

ASV And the man that doeth presumptuously, in not hearkening unto the priest . . .

NASB The man who acts presumptuously by not listening to the priest . . .

RSV The man who acts presumptuously, by not obeying the priest . . .

Many other (non-Catholic) translations render the passage similarly. For example:

NEB + REB Anyone who presumes to reject the decision either of the priest . . . or of the judge . . .

Moffatt Any man who presumptuously refuses to listen . . .

Goodspeed The man who acts presumptuously, in not heeding the priest . . .

Clearly, the overwhelming consensus among Bible translators, is that the presumption is identical with the disobedience; not something distinct from it. It describes disobedience. Thus, Whitaker's exegetical / textual argument collapses.

But these men require obedience to whatever they prescribe, and will by no means suffer their decrees to be examined. (p. 421)
Just as in Deuteronomy 17! But the Catholic Church gives plenty of reasons for why someone should be obedient to her decrees (it's not arbitrary or blind faith): the other side of being "examined". Protestants simply reject them out of hand. But they are given in abundance. The lengthy treatises of Bellarmine and Stapleton that Whitaker himself is responding to is proof of this.

There is such a thing as unquestioned authority, that is found in both Scripture and Church history. Just because Protestants can no longer comprehend such a thing doesn't mean that it is nonexistent or incomprehensible or unbiblical. It is none of those things. It can be solidly defended, as I hope and wish I am presently doing. Obedience to leaders has always been the norm, in both covenants:

Numbers 27:20 You shall invest him [Joshua] with some of your authority, that all the congregation of the people of Israel may obey.

Deuteronomy 30:2 and return to the LORD your God, you and your children, and obey his voice in all that I command you this day, with all your heart and with all your soul;

Joshua 22:2 and said to them, "You have kept all that Moses the servant of the LORD commanded you, and have obeyed my voice in all that I have commanded you;

Judges 3:4 They were for the testing of Israel, to know whether Israel would obey the commandments of the LORD, which he commanded their fathers by Moses.

1 Chronicles 29:23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father; and he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.

Ezra 7:26 Whoever will not obey the law of your God and the law of the king, let judgment be strictly executed upon him, whether for death or for banishment or for confiscation of his goods or for imprisonment."

Jeremiah 38:20 Jeremiah said, "You shall not be given to them. Obey now the voice of the LORD in what I say to you, and it shall be well with you, and your life shall be spared.

Philippians 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;

2 Thessalonians 3:14 If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.

Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Secondly, I answer, that these words are not to be understood of a perpetual right of interpreting the scriptures, but only of an authority of determining difficult disputes and controversies; if ecclesiastical, by the minister; if political or civil, by the magistrate; so as that, in either case, there might be some one from whom there should be no appeal; for otherwise there would be no end of litigation. (p. 421)
This is precisely how the Catholic sees the role of the Church in Bible interpretation. The Church is not "looking over the shoulder" of every Bible reader, like a wet nurse, as if no one had a brain in their head, or cannot learn anything from Bible-reading. It gives the limits and solves doctrinal disputes. Otherwise, there is chaos. Protestants can do this in a denomination (after all, they have creeds and confessions to go by) but then it breaks down at some point, since there are competing denominations and views, and no way to resolve the division by Protestant principles.

***

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 21, 2011 14:07

September 20, 2011

Antidote to William Whitaker's Sola Scriptura Arguments, Part 9: "Plain" Gospel and Easily Understood Biblical Christology?

2 Corinthians 4:2 (RSV) We have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

The problem is that "God's word" here (as so often: "word of God"; "word of the Lord") is not necessarily or even likely a reference to Holy Scripture. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament confirms that it is not, defining it in 2 Corinthians 4:2 as "what is communicated by instruction, . . . the doctrines of faith . . . specifically, the doctrine concerning the attainment through Christ of salvation in the kingdom of God . . ." Even more specifically, for this passage, Thayer states that it is "the doctrine which he commanded to be delivered."

This can't be used as a proof for sola Scriptura because Paul uses terms for what is "delivered" and "received" synonymously: gospel (1 Cor 15:1; Gal 1:9; 1 Thess 2:9), word of God (1 Thess 2:13), tradition (2 Thess 3:6), and traditions (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15). He even specifically espouses authoritative oral tradition (2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2). If this passage proves a perspicuous Bible, then it also proves a perspicuous tradition; therefore, for a Protestant it proves too much; proves what is disbelieved, and thus, must be discarded.

. . . if he confess that the knowledge of Christ is manifest in the scriptures, we desire no more; for this is as much as we require or contend for, that all things necessary to salvation may be easily known from scripture. For if we openly and easily know Christ from the scriptures, we certainly understand from the scriptures all things necessary to salvation. (p. 387)
There are still many doctrinal areas where the individual could be led astray (thus the Church is still necessary). If we "know Christ" but believe wrong things about Him: that He was created and not part of the Holy Trinity (Arianism, Jehovah's Witnesses) or is merely one example of what all men could be (Mormonism), or has but one nature (Monophysitism) or one will (Monothelitism), or is also God the Father (Sabellianism or Modal Monarchianism), or never became man (Gnosticism), then this is not the Jesus Christ of the Bible, history, or of the Catholic (and larger Christian) faith. It is, in fact, a different "Jesus" altogether:

Matthew 24:5, 24 For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray. . . . For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.

Mark 13:6 Many will come in my name, saying, 'I am he!' and they will lead many astray.

Luke 21:8 And he said, "Take heed that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name, saying, 'I am he!' and, 'The time is at hand!' Do not go after them.

Therefore, teaching authority is still required, because of the various heresies that have to do with Christology. Whitaker says we simply read the Bible and learn about the true Christ, but the fact remains that many do so and come up with false theology: denying the Trinity, or the incarnation, or the divinity of Jesus, or any number of things.

These men concede that Christ is openly set forth in the scriptures: from which admission we shall easily prove that the scriptures should be diligently read to the people, that they may understand Christ from the scriptures; since they who have obtained him, and learned him aright, want nothing for eternal salvation. (p. 387)
Yes; He must be "learned aright" and that requires human teachers who are passing down orthodox Christology.

***

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 20, 2011 13:58

My Biblical Defense of Purgatory: Anti-Catholic John Q. Doe Misrepresents and Distorts it as Usual

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_FOIrYyQawGI/S9d2FhtivGI/AAAAAAAACzk/C8XMH0kIC-g/s400/SwanBentNeck.jpg

[John Q. "Deadhead" Doe's words will be in blue]
Can this guy ever get it right? Maybe he occasionally accurately portrays the views of others, but in any event, when it comes to me, it seems that anything goes: any kind of caricature, twisting, warped view will do; rather than his doing the proper homework, study, and preparation before setting out to burn down the straw man of his own imagining. Doe is a guy who prides himself on his own supposed stellar and singular research, while tearing down Catholic apologist and implying that the slightest error they might make discredits them. Yet he blows it again and again in his own work.

Those of you who have followed my apologetics know of Doe's pathetic antics. I've documented them many times. I won't go over the old ground presently, except to say that this is, sadly, a regular occurrence in his writing (see the Doe section of my Anti-Catholicism page for the gory details). Apologetics is often a battleground of sorts. If Doe is out there lying about my opinions on something, while my blog sits here with over 2600 papers on it, and we have the wonderful search capabilities of Google (hence he has little excuse for misrepresentation), then it is perfectly within my prerogatives to demonstrate how he has stretched the truth (or trampled it, as it were). That's all part of the rather serious "game" of apologetics.

Doe's relentless efforts to discredit Catholic apologists and apologetics is, of course, his way of seeking to tear down and paint a false picture of Holy Mother Church. His followers, who don't seem to trouble themselves to check the accuracy of what he writes, swallow up everything he claims, no matter how ridiculous. It's good, then, for their sake, and that of Catholics who are subjected to this sort of anti-Catholic tomfoolery, to demonstrate the falsehoods and unsavory tactics used.

The paper under present consideration from Doe is entitled, The Perspicuity of 2 Maccabees 12 on Purgatory? It was originally posted on anti-Catholic Grand Poobah James White's blog (3-3-09), and is now up on his own (9-16-11). In it he utilizes a time-honored strategy of making out that there is a vast chasm between the views of Catholic lay apologists of my type (ones who are not academics) and Catholic scholars. At least I am not alone this time. Doe also goes after Karl Keating and Patrick Madrid.

Doe and his cronies are not above using as examples, Catholic (real or supposed) scholars who are known dissidents. In those cases they misrepresent Catholic magisterial teachings, and absurdly make out that liberal dissidents are the norm. Other times, they exaggerate or create out of thin air, differences between apologists and scholars within the Catholic Church (where the scholar is fairly orthodox). This seems to be an instance of the latter tendency. Doe cites Franciscan theologian Zachary Hayes. Here is how he is compared with Catholic apologists:

Recently Dr. White pointed out the gulf between Catholic scholarship and popular Catholic apologists. . . . Reading Hayes was far different than reading the usual suspects that have taken it upon themselves to interpret Rome. Many of the current Catholic apologists look at Biblical texts and simply assume they clearly prove purgatory. Hayes argues quite differently. . . .

Overall, even though disagreeing with Hayes as to the positive origin and affirming development of Purgatory, there was something fundamentally more honest in reading his analysis as compared to the Catholic apologists cited above. Hayes seems to realize that simply assuming the conclusion of what one wants to prove Biblically becomes tenuous in light of history. For Hayes, elements of Purgatory are found in 2 Maccabees 12, but as to purgatory proper, it was the result of development begun at the level of popular piety. For Catholic apologists, the text simply means purgatory. These are two very different approaches.
In a related paper of his, he further elaborated:

It was quite refreshing to read an articulate honest defense of purgatory, minus the typical ignoring of presuppositions that's so characteristic of Rome's defenders.
Doe cites Hayes' words:

"One way or the other, the issue of purgatory is clearly an issue of development of doctrine" (p.109).

Then he densely concludes:

I appreciate these honest admissions. Think of how much time and energy could be saved in discussion with Catholics if they would simply admit that proving purgatory has more to do with finding biblical passages that seem to be in harmony with the development, rather than actually clearly proving purgatory? . . .

Interestingly, a person on the CARM boards was asking recently, "I need specific scriptures that the Catholic Church uses to prove purgatory." The question should really be, "What are the specific passages the Roman Catholic Church uses that coincide with their development of the doctrine of purgatory?" I agree with Hayes and his honesty. No Biblical passage clearly teaches Purgatory. The doctrine developed, and Catholics in each time period have had to go back into the Biblical text to find passages that seem to allude to it as it develops.
The upshot is that (so Doe tells us) Hayes accepts a development of doctrine in relation to purgatory, while we lowly, incompetent apologists supposedly do not. That's what Doe (astonishingly enough) thinks is the case. Hence he also wrote, regarding Hayes' view:

He argues for purgatory from tradition, and uses the classic acorn and oak tree analogy. "Is there some basis in the Scriptures for the doctrine of purgatory, or is there not? If we are looking for clear and unambiguous statements of the doctrine, we will look in vain... we might better ask if anything in Scripture initiated the development that eventually led to the doctrine of purgatory" (p.104).

Now, Doe has followed my work closely enough (since he has been obsessed with it for many years now), to know full well that I have an extensive web page devoted to development (one of very few online), have written a book on the topic (since it is my favorite theological subject and was the key reason for my conversion to Catholicism). He is also no doubt aware of my strong admiration for Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman (who is very well-known for his explication of development of doctrine), and my authorship of an upcoming collection of his quotations. He couldn't have possibly missed all that. Yet he has this goofy, absurd notion in his head that, somehow, I would deny that purgatory developed, just as all other doctrines did.

Now for the fun part: Doe plays his usual games of removing my name, even when he is citing one of my books (a curious and singular method of citation, to be sure). To see how this works, we can compare the two versions on White's blog to the new reprint:

White version: In his book, A Biblical Defense Of Catholicism [MS Word Version, 2001] Dave Armstrong has a section entitled "Scriptural Evidence for Purgatory."

Boors All blog version: In the book, A Biblical Defense Of Catholicism [MS Word Version, 2001] the author has a section entitled "Scriptural Evidence for Purgatory."

White version: For instance, Dave Armstrong's "Biblical defense" of this text boils down to saying . . .

Boors All blog version: For instance, an alleged "Biblical Defense of Catholicism" of this text boils down to saying . . .

Having documented Doe's inanities, I shall now document what he could have found on my site if he had ever learned how to search with Google, or if he had been willing to do so at all (assuming he knows how to do so). Let's look, for example, at what I wrote in my reply to James White himself, in my paper, Refutation of James White on 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 and Purgatory (3 March 2007):

Now, of course we won't find a fully-developed medieval conception of purgatory [in 1 Cor 3], but it is foolish to expect that anyway, just as it would be to expect to find full Chalcedonian Christology and trinitarianism in all its glorious nuanced complexity. That is true of all doctrines, so why should purgatory be an exception?

In my article, Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching? (published in The Catholic Answer, Sep / Oct 1995 and uploaded to my website on 5 July 2001), I stated:

The bulk of Newman's extraordinary work is devoted to the exposition of a series of analogies, showing conclusively that the Protestant static conception of the Church (both historically and theologically) is incoherent and false. He argues, for example, that notions of suffering, or "vague forms of the doctrine of Purgatory," were universally accepted, by and large, in the first four centuries of the Church, whereas, the same cannot be said for the doctrine of Original Sin, which is agreed upon by Protestants and Catholics.

Protestants falsely argue that Purgatory is a later corruption, but it was present early on and merely developed. Original Sin, however, was equally if not more so, subject to development. One cannot have it both ways. If Purgatory is unacceptable on grounds of its having undergone development, then Original Sin must be rejected with it. Contrariwise, if Original Sin is accepted notwithstanding its own development, then so must Purgatory be accepted.

Likewise, I stated in my paper, Reflections on Medieval Ecclesiology ("Fallibilist Conciliarism"?) (10 January 2004):

I would say that authority in the early Church was developing just as the biblical canon and Christology and Mariology and purgatory and prayers for the dead and original sin and everything else was developing.

Doe cited my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism .The most laughable portion of his paper was when he made the following remark:

In the book, A Biblical Defense Of Catholicism [MS Word Version, 2001] the author has a section entitled "Scriptural Evidence for Purgatory."

Doe evidently considered this proof-positive that my view was that purgatory was found in Scripture in its fully developed form. But of course this is not the case at all. If he had troubled himself to read the Introduction of the same book, he might have figured out what I meant by "biblical / scriptural evidence" in the first place:

Catholics need only to show the harmony of a doctrine with holy Scripture. It is not our view that every tenet of the Christian Faith must appear whole, explicit, and often, in the pages of the Bible. We also acknowledge sacred Tradition, the authority of the Church, and the development of understanding of essentially unchanging Christian truths, as is to be expected with a living organism (the Body of Christ) guided by the Holy Spirit. A belief implicitly biblical is not necessarily anti-biblical or unbiblical. (2003 paperback version, p. xv)

Doe states (citing the same book of mine): The account described in 2 Maccabees 12:39-42, 44-45 is said to "presuppose purgatory" (p.128).

First of all, he has inaccurately cited my words and described them wrongly as well. It's a technical distinction but a very important one: Doe says I was describing the biblical account or passage. But I was referring to the practice described in turn by the passage. This is two different things. A practice is distinct from a written account describing it. Moreover, by not providing the context, he leaves the reader with somewhat of a wrong impression. Doe can't even get the words right. I wrote "presupposes"; not "presuppose." This may seem quibbling, but it is not in his case, seeing that he squeals and squawks and gloats over the most minute mistakes that Catholic apologists make (he has treated me in that fashion dozens of times). I'm merely giving him his own medicine. Here is my entire relevant passage:

The Jews offered atonement and prayer for their deceased brethren, who had clearly violated Mosaic Law. Such a practice presupposes Purgatory, since those in Heaven wouldn't need any help, and those in Hell are beyond it. The Jewish people, therefore, believed in prayer for the dead (whether or not this book is scriptural; Protestants deny that it is).(p. 128)

My argument stands; there is nothing wrong with it at all. I gave the precise reason why some semblance of purgatory must have been presupposed. For Doe and his Reformed tradition, as well as most Protestants, save a few like C. S. Lewis or John Wesley, there is no third state after death (after Christ's death and resurrection and Ascension). Only heaven and hell exist, and it is useless and meaningless to pray for souls in either, as I argued in the passage.

Therefore, the question is, why did the Jews "pray for the dead" and "make atonement for the dead" as the passage in 2 Maccabees states? They did because they assumed that the dead were still in some sort of state in which they could be aided by intercessory prayer. And that can only be a third state besides heaven and hell. This is what the people whose practice is described must have believed. It doesn't require a fully developed notion of purgatory; only an intermediate state of some sort besides heaven and hell: a place where they can still be helped by prayer on their behalf.

An argument could be made (over against this scenario) for retroactive prayer (since God is outside of time and can quite arguably apply and answer prayers regardless of whether a person is dead) -- even Martin Luther held to something like this -- but I highly suspect that Doe and the Reformed Protestant (Calvinist) tradition would reject that outright as well. That leaves only some kind of third state as an explanation of prayer for the dead as historical Jewish practice.

That I was not holding that biblical descriptions evidence purgatory in its developed dogmatic form, was made very clear in my later commentary on Luke 16:19-31 (Lazarus and the rich man) and three related passages:

At the very least, these passages prove that there can and does exist a third, intermediate state after death besides Heaven and Hell. Thus, Purgatory is not a priori unthinkable from a biblical perspective (as many Protestants casually assume). True, the Hebrew Sheol is not identical to Purgatory (both righteous and unrighteous go there), but it is nevertheless strikingly similar. (p. 133)

It is supremely important in arguing against a position, to understand how the opponent defines his terms, exactly what he deems as evidence, and for what particular position the evidence is produced. Doe fails on all three counts. He doesn't get it. He doesn't have a clue about the nature of my arguments in this lengthy chapter. They go right over his head. It is a supreme (and quite humorous) irony that he doesn't, in a paper devoted to "proving" that Catholic apologists understand neither the very doctrines that they defend, nor the nature of the biblical evidence for it, and that Doe the anti-Catholic zealot / polemicist understands Catholic doctrines far better than Catholics (even Catholic apologists) do. It's a case study in incompetent ludicrosity and the very worst sort of "apologetics."

Doe gives the same treatment to insert H-2 ("Is Purgatory in the Bible?") of the New Catholic Answer Bible , co-authored by myself and Dr. Paul Thigpen. He cites a few words that are neither here nor there, in relation to his wrongheaded arguments. But what he doesn't cite is the following qualifying statement:

(Like "the Holy Trinity," "purgatory" is a term not occurring in Scripture, but the reality it refers to is implied by scriptural truths.)

This is a far cry from Doe's caricature: "For Catholic apologists, the text simply means purgatory."

I habitually either qualify or presuppose doctrinal development or make clear in context that I am not claiming that Scripture "proves" a full-blown doctrine of purgatory. Hence, I used to have a paper up, entitled, "Biblical Evidence For Purgatory and Analogous Processes" (50 passages,) which was removed because I included it as a section of my book, Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths . The very title shows that I was not maintaining that each passage was explicit, and that there were analogies of process that suggested the concept of purgatory.

***

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 20, 2011 00:07

September 17, 2011

Discussion With an African-American About President Obama, Institutional Racism, and the Alleged Ku Klux Klan-Like Tea Party

Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana: "some of them in Congress right now of this tea party movement would love to see you and me . . . hanging on a tree."

This occurred in a Facebook combox, with one of my friends there, David B. Chambers, who is a Catholic deacon, and who says he is not a "liberal." His words will be in blue.

* * * * *
Obama was elected to assuage white guilt for traditional racism. A year before we were told that a black man could never be elected. Right. Racism wasn't quite as bad as it was made out (as I had been saying for the previous 25 years). Now that it is out of our system, we can vote more sensibly (hopefully). The economy will be determinative.

Racism permeates the soul like insanity; the insane person is the FIRST to deny it. Why does money always trump fairness and equality??? People feared a black president because it is something they have ever experienced. Yes abortion is evil; I think it is a hate crime. I believe oral contraception was legalized to prevent interracial babies during a time when whites thought simply being around black people might cause a plethora of race mixing; I think abortion was legalized to further prevent black/mixed babies when forced busing was implemented in the schools. NIXON, a republican was president!!!!

There was definitely a racist (and abortion) connection with contraception, when one looks at the eugenic and hyper-racist views of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. She wanted less black folks around. I think there is a subtle racism today when contraception is particularly urged for the inner cities. The mentality is that if there are less African-Americans born in the first place, supposedly that is a good thing.

The greatest tragedy is to see former pro-lifers like Jesse Jackson and to see Obama himself, enthusiastically support black genocide and self-destruction of a community through abortion. Things are bad enough (broken homes, rampant illegitimacy, 50% unemployment rates for black teenagers) without black leaders espousing the radical abortion / contraceptive / historically racist agenda. Their co-option by the white racist liberal agenda has been quite complete.

Having inside knowledge about adoption, I know healthy white babies are more valuable; studying economics, I know people have a monetary value according to their race; I am well versed with Sanger. I also know our eugenics studies rivaled many an Austrian scholar. Many in this country thought people of color were going to naturally die out. Importing people from the most inhospitable place on earth nullifies our early extinction. America has an opportunity to retain it's greatness by trying harder to admit the past and learn from the past.

We have learned from the past, as evidenced by electing a black President. We're much more colorblind now. I would contend that the alarming problems in the African-American community at the present time stem mostly from the nonsense of liberalism, not racism. No doubt there is a residual effect from the abominable history, but the problems endemic now (and I was a sociology major at Wayne State in Detroit, and grew up in inner city Detroit so I know a little about this stuff) result from failed social policies like the Great Society, welfare, freely available abortion and contraception, and the more or less compete caving (even in the black Protestant churches) on the morality of premarital sex, etc. Broken homes determine almost everything: lives of crime, poverty, hopelessness . . .

[Patty Bonds] Shoot, I couldn't stand him long before he took the oath . . the first time.
I rest my case. God bless.

What, is Patty a racist because she doesn't care for Obama? Is Maxine Waters a bigot when she says the tea party can go to hell? Or that other clown from Indiana (Congressman Andre Carson), when he says the tea party wants to hang black people from trees?:

Rep. Andre Carson, a Democrat from Indiana who serves as the CBC's chief vote counter, said at a CBC event in Miami that some in Congress would "love to see us as second-class citizens" and "some of them in Congress right now of this tea party movement would love to see you and me ... hanging on a tree."

Carson also said the tea party is stopping change in Congress, likening it to "the effort that we're seeing of Jim Crow."

The explosive comments, caught on tape, were uploaded on the Internet Tuesday, and Carson's office stood by the remarks.

[Be sure to see Rep. Allen West's videotaped reply to these charges on the same page]

There are hateful people of color. I have never been black enough for many black folks; especially for my embrace of Roman Catholicism It might go both ways, but I along with millions never made laws to promote apartheid here in early America, and Blacks never had dogs, police, fire hoses, and billy clubs, to threaten whole populations.
No one is denying that! Any idiot knows the sad history. I'm talking about whether racism explains all problems in the African-American community today, and whether opposition to Obama's policies makes one a racist, and it can be no other possible reason.

We've elected a black President. That was the only thing I was happy about when he got in. Now, the test is to see if white folks will be allowed to dare criticize the black President. True equality, after all, means being subject to criticism just like any other President has been.

Equality is treating people equally regardless of color, ethnicity, class, etc. Presidents get criticized and voted out, like all other politicians. So Obama will be criticized. And now he is by prominent African-Americans like Cornel West, Tavis Smiley, etc. Therefore, precisely because I treat him no different from anyone else, I can criticize his policies without (hopefully) hearing the ubiquitous racist charge.

But if I treat him with kid gloves because he is black (half-black: he's as much white as he is black, and was raised by the white side of his family), then I am being patronizing and condescending, thinking he is too stupid to handle criticism because he is inferior.

What is threatening African-Americans today far more than racism is broken homes, drugs, rampant immoral sexual practices, and black-on-black crime. I agree that this can be traced to negative influences of racism in some sense, but not directly. If someone chooses to do or deal drugs or to kill someone else in his own community, I did not cause that. But I can help in starting to overcome these problems, by preaching the message of traditional Christian morality and by pointing out how well-intentioned liberalism has largely been the immediate or primary cause of this in the last 50 years.

No, Patty is not a racist simply because she dislikes Obama. But I have little faith in the tea party. In my lifetime I have never seen as much exposed hatred from that group and others like them whom I truly feel are on the wrong side of history, period.

Okay; if those in the tea party are such haters and racists, please document this for me. We have seen how loving those who oppose them are: Vice President Joe Biden called them "terrorists"; Rep. Maxine Waters said they could go to hell; Rep. Andre Carson said they want to lynch blacks, etc. It's the usual lunatic left-wing personal attacks: anything goes.

Now, since I have documented these things, please document for me similar words from anyone prominent in the tea party, or anyone at all. Thanks! Clearly you must know of some examples, to have the strong feelings that you do.

If you weren't implying that Patty was a racist, then what did you mean by saying, "I rest my case"? Rest it about what? How is that relevant to Patty saying she doesn't care for President Obama?

I am not a liberal. I have never been a liberal. I have gone to school, worked since I was 14. (I lied saying I was older). Went to college, dental school, became a deacon after six years of study,I had to be "whiter" than white in my classical training; and still, being black is like being NAKED in this society! Everybody sees you and immediately forms an opinion about my social nudity.

You're not a liberal. Great. Who did you vote for in 2008 then?

Do you want to talk about the topic or not? You have made claims; now please back them up. You claim that the tea party is full of hate. Why? Do you have no documented facts to bring to the table?

If America were as profoundly racist as you make out, how in the world could it elect a black President? Even during the primaries, many black people were supporting Hilary Clinton because they couldn't imagine that it could ever be possible that a black man could be elected. Wrong! Yet here we are with the same racism-as-the-explanation-of-everything thinking. What does it take?

Maybe if all 535 in the Congress are black then we will cease being an institutionally racist country? The President is not enough. Secretaries of State, governors, chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff, Supreme Court Justices aren't enough? When can we get past this? There are still plenty of individual racists, for sure, but I am saying that this country is not institutionally racist anymore.

When Republican Presidents were in office, every ill in the black community was blamed on them, even though the median income of African-Americans increased considerably during the Reagan years. Now that Obama is in there and black teenage unemployment is at 50%, that has nothing to do with him, and is because of Bush and historic racism and nothing else. I get sick of simplistic, shoddy thinking about these racial issues!

I cannot hide behind the social veil that whites hide behind.That veil might be hiding sexual orientation, poverty, criminality, ignorance,and even racism. if you are black, prejudice might label me as one or all of the above because white is still the gold standard.

Alright. I tried to have an intelligent, rational conversation. Takes two.

I am used to being insulted by people like you .....

I insulted no one. I simply stated that this is not a conversation, which is undeniable. You're not interacting with anything; just raving and preaching. And now it is "people like you" [me]. Right.

***

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 17, 2011 11:25

September 16, 2011

Comment / Rave on Mitt Romney's Waffling on Abortion and "Articulate" Republican Nominees

I put up a post on Facebook that linked to a long page documenting Mitt Romney's disturbing record on abortion. One person defended Romney as "articulate" and "smart and quick on his feet" (as opposed to Republicans who are not) and I made the following spontaneous response:
* * *
Someone with a history of being so avidly pro-abortion is suspect. Perhaps he has had a real change of heart, but even if so, I wouldn't trust such a man to be vigorously in favor of the sort of pro-life legislation that we need: tough measures to insure the protection of the children. We don't want another Souter on the Court, or even another Kennedy (whom Reagan appointed). It's very difficult to find a good Justice to put in. We managed to get Roberts and Alito. I don't believe that Romney would appoint such men.

If Romney appointed someone like himself (seems likely and plausible to me): a waffler and one who traditionally could not see that abortion is wrong, then such a person would not vote to overturn Roe or even alter it to any significant degree. He would do the bidding of the pro-aborts, just as Justice Kennedy (a Catholic!) often has.

This is all about the liberal media's desire to get Romney nominated because he is moderate enough that folks won't see much difference between him and Obama (Huntsman gets the same treatment, but he is a non-factor); thus giving the latter a better chance to be re-elected. One doesn't hear Romney being run down; it's all about Perry and Bachmann being wild-eyed extreme fundamentalists.

That's the dead give-away. If a Republican is absolutely despised, mocked, detested, called all kinds of names by our superior liberal masters and overlords, then you know you have the right person. Apologetics works the same way! [LOL] Find someone who is being called all kinds of names by the anti-Catholics, and you have someone who (chances are) is being an effective and successful defender of the faith. No names . . . :-) :-)

Same thing happened to Reagan, Gingrich (back in the mid-90s), Bork, Clarence Thomas, Rumsfeld, Cheney, W.: anyone who opposes the liberal status quo.

I couldn't care less than I do how "articulate" a candidate is. He can stumble all over his words and wear a dunce cap, as long as he does the right things and puts in place good policy. Obama is extremely articulate and likable to boot. But what good is that? Where has it gotten the country? So he looks good on camera and makes a great personal impression . . . so what!!!??

Joe Biden is not very "articulate", but Obama saw him as a great VP choice. Dick Cheney is extremely articulate and intelligent, yet did that make any difference in the liberals' opinion of him? Nope, of course not. Republicans are attacked and pilloried no matter what. Colin Powell was so "articulate" that he was stupid enough to vote for Obama.

Obama is so "articulate" that he didn't even know that the word "corpsman" had a silent "p". Imagine if W had said that? But W didn't say anything nearly that dumb . . .

I don't think Romney will be the nominee, because stuff like this is gonna come out, and the base won't put up with it. Perry is likely gonna be The Man. I like Bachmann better, but polls are clear that she is not as electable as Perry is, and you have to go back to Garfield, I think, to find a President elected from the House. Being a woman is not an issue; we have gotten beyond that now.

***

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 16, 2011 08:14

← Previous 1 2 … 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 … 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.