Posted on 02/24/2010 9:36:26 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg
Back in one my old philosophy classes I recall lengthy discussions as to the relationship between names and reality, and then spinning around for hours contemplating the brain teaser of what it means to "mean" something about anything. The aftermath: an entire class of young minds slipped further into skepticism, as if the reality each twenty something experienced was completely unknowable. Of course, arriving at the conclusion that ultimate reality is unknowable is... to know something about ultimate reality! Ah, the futility of the sinful mind in its continual construction of Babel towers. Without the presupposition "He is there and He is not silent" the sinful mind does what it does best: it creates a worldview that can't account for the reality it truly experiences.
Despite the aspirin needed after attending such classes, it did force me early on to think about ostensive definitions, and the carefulness with which one defines terms. With theology, correctly using terms takes on the greatest moral imperative: one is speaking about the very holy God that created the universe. Think of terms that are used to describe Biblical doctrine, like "Trinity." One is using a term to describe a collection of factual data given by the Holy Spirit. If ever one should use caution, it should be with the construction of theological terms.
Consider the designator "Catholic Church." The Westminster Confession of Faith explains, "The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all." The Belgic Confession states that one of its primary distinguishing marks is the "pure preaching of the gospel." If one were pressed to point to that vital factor placing one in the Catholic Church, it is the work of Christ and His Gospel. It is the Gospel which unites the members of the Catholic Church. It is the work of Christ, grasped onto by faith that links those in the Catholic Church together. This pure Gospel is of such importance, that the apostle Paul states if anyone (including himself) preaches another Gospel, he should be eternally condemned.
But what about throwing the word "Roman" into the the mix? The addition of one simple word adds in an ingredient that changes the taste, so to speak. In this short mp3 clip, Tim Staples touched on what "Roman Catholic Church" means. He says "Roman Catholic" has popularly and un-technically come to be synonymous with the term "Catholic". He states "Roman Catholic" popularly means "you're in union with the bishop of Rome." Recent mega-convert Francis Beckwith concurs:
One of my pet peeves is the intentional overuse of "Rome," "Roman," "Romanist," etc. by Protestant critics of Catholic theology. Here's why: the Catholic Church is a collection of many churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome. It's catechism--The Catechism of the Catholic Church--is that of all these churches that are in communion with one another and with the Supreme Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI. The theology found in that text, therefore, is not Roman Catholic theology. It is Catholic theology. That's the way the Church understands itself. Common courtesy suggests that those who are critical of that theology summon the respect to refer to it as such"[source].
I admit that I've often equated the two terms. I've used the term "Catholic" to describe Roman Catholics. It has taken a conscious effort on my part to keep the terms distinguished. On the other hand, I'm not sure how it's possible to "overuse" the word "Roman" when referring to those who actively and overtly pledge obedience to bishop of Rome. Beckwith is basically saying "Catholic" is the property of the papacy, and they will define the parameters of the word.
Whose theological usage reflects the teaching of sacred Scripture? Is union with the bishop of Rome an element of theological data mined from the Scriptures? Hardly. It's an extra-Biblical presupposition hoisted upon the text. One has to first assume the validity of the papacy and then read it back into the sacred text. The popular definition as described by Mr. Staples and Dr. Beckwith is entirely unbiblical.
There's one other theological term being thrown around with this: anti-Catholic. Recently Roman Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong stated he "temporarily suspended [his] ongoing policy of not interacting with anti-Catholic arguments and polemics." Well, after I ceased shaking in fear over this announcement, I scrolled through Armstrong's multiple diatribes to see his precise meaning of the term "anti-Catholic." His exact formula appears to boil down to: "One who denies that the Catholic Church and its theology is properly classifiable as Christian" [source].
By applying Armstrong's standard, an Anti-Mormon would be one who denies that the Mormon church and its theology is properly classifiable as Christian. Dave would probably say it's a good thing to be anti-Mormon. So, simply using the term "anti" as Armstrong suggests is either good or bad depending on one's presuppositions. According to Dave's definition, I would say it's a good thing to be anti-Catholic in the same way Dave would probably hold it's a good thing to be anti-Mormon.
Armstong's seemingly endless qualifications and examination of the term "anti-Catholic," as well as "his own definition" provoked me to apply what has been discussed above, and consider an alternate theological definition. If "Catholic" is connected symbiotically with the Gospel, wouldn't an anti-Catholic be someone who either denies the Gospel or denies it as that which unites the people of God into the universal Church? If a particular church overtly espouses a different Gospel, according to Paul, let him be anathema. If understood this way, it would be Roman Catholics who are anti-Catholics. Their Council of Trent explicitly rejected the Gospel in an official declaration.
How does one precisely refer to those in communion with Rome and obedient to the Bishop of Rome? Contrary to Beckwith, I've seriously considered using the word "Romanist." The term describes those devoted to the papacy quite succinctly. However, I was informed by another zealous defender of the papacy that "...many non-Catholic apologists are truly bigots at heart and they use 'Roman' as a derogatory insult. Their bigotry becomes even more clear when they use Romish or Romanist." No one wants to be thought of as a bigot. However, in the same Catholic Answers broadcast cited above, Tim Staples and his co-host positively referred to themselves as "Romanists" introducing their "open forum for non-Catholics" show, in which they only take calls from those outside of their worldview. Here is the mp3 clip. Perhaps they were kidding, although it's hard to tell.
I'm tempted to simply start using the term anti-Catholic for the reasons outlined. I can think of no better theological phrase to describe those who inject obedience to the papacy into the term "Catholic Church."
***.....you mean “denominations that were founded by false prophets 1500 years afterwards count? ****
False prophets?
You mean like the false prophets at Trent, who anathematized the Gospel?
Exactly. When they ask us why we give a hoot about their Roman Catholic church and its anti-Scriptural practices and beliefs it is because of the very thing you bring up -- they seek to rewrite history, and in so doing, they attempt to rewrite the history of the Christian church, as well as confusing and even defying the word of God.
Truth matters.
"For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth." -- Psalm 33:4
INDEED.
DOESN’T WASH.
Prottys are not the ones !!!!DEMANDING!!!!
Papists conform to our dictionary.
Prottys are not the ones reacting with such
OUTRAGEOUS ARROGANT HOSTILITY AND PERSONAL ASSAULTS
to Protty comments about organizational perspectives, dogma, doctrines, practices.
Prottys are not the ones with the chronic thin skin.
etc. etc. etc.
Your remedy sounds extreme, but hey, whatever works.
I think most of us would rather that the
Papists NOT sing Kum Bye Ya.
It would undoubtedly be in a chorus of raspy, cranky, whiney voices that would be worse than chalk on a blackboard screeching.
That would make Jesus Christ Anti-Papist.
LOL.
Thanks for your kind reply.
Sure appears that way to me.
Thanks for your kind reply.
More historical revisionism! LOL.
lol. A lot of us have found no amount of proficiency nor clarity can make up for a lack of eyes to see and ears to hear.
The word “catholic” means “universal,” as in the universal Christian church referenced in the Nicene Creed.
Since the Roman Catholic church is not universal, the word means something different when prefaced by “Roman.” It means allegiance to the papacy.
##########
INDEED.
"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36
Probably until things get really dramatic in these END TIMES and God is causing all those who Love Him Supremely in a given area to work together more or less without boundaries.
Even then, there will likely be Rabid Papists throwing rocks at what God is obviously doing.
And, if recent encyclical trends hold, they may be throwing more than rocks from the ranks of other globalist troops.
INCREDIBLE.
Exactly. When they ask us why we give a hoot about their Roman Catholic church and its anti-Scriptural practices and beliefs it is because of the very thing you bring up — they seek to rewrite history, and in so doing, they attempt to rewrite the history of the Christian church, as well as confusing and even defying the word of God.
Truth matters.
“For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.” — Psalm 33:4
#####
INDEED.
Actually, that would make St Peter an Anti-Papist, too.
Absolutely! It is quite an indication of the carnal mind of the Roman Church - As is the insistence that Christ was formed of Mary's DNA (which is not proven, but only assumed), so she also must be sinless to contain and contribute to Christ (her sinlessness is confounded by the Scriptures)...
Presuming to define MYSTERIES like these lead to all sorts of blasphemy.
WELL SAID.
LOL! There's a cold PBR in the fridge if you are desperate enough to drive up here... :P
Can you imagine the expressions on the faces of the Apostles assembled watching a man being carried arround on a “bier” when he ain’t even dead yet; in fact sitting up up on a throne in kingly apparel with throngs “attached to him” by being in this form of “Catholic” Church, being lauded and the world being enthralled before him him?
SD, the old man dies, the new man lives.
When a believer sins, they no longer abide in fellowship with Him, although He still abides in us.
When God the Holy Spirit indwells us, we are never commanded for Him to indwell us, rather His indwelling is purely by the Sovereign free will of God. That is why He seals us and places a regenerate human spirit in us at the time of salvation. That newly regenerated human spirit cannot be destroyed, but it only can return to Him at His timing.
The new man is composed of our body, sou, and spirit.
The old man, the natural man, is composed of our scarred body and soul, which is dead to Him.
We are identified with our soul and spirit. Our old man, in the scarred soul, is slowly rehabilitated or sanctified by the work of God the Holy Spirit, first through the human spirit, then while we remain in fellowship with Him, through our mind, then our heart, the 2 compartments of the soul.
When faced with a testing, some which are temptations, we are free to operate through faith in Christ, or through the old man. When we fail to remain in fellowship with Him, it might simply be by focusing on anything OTHER than Him, thereby grieving the Holy Spirit (sin, missing the mark of our proper aim by His Plan). When ever we sin, (not necessarily immorality, although immorality is sinful, I use the term sin directly, as ANYTHING other than the proper aiming point which is ALWAYS ONLY through faith in Christ) we fall out of fellowship with Him, but that doesn’t mean the human spirit departs from us nor that He departs as God the Holy Spirit from us.
Rather, whenever we sin, we are the ones who have turned away from Him. God is ALWAYS faithful. Our separation from Him is not due to Him turning away, it is from our turning away from Him, not being faithful to Him.
Even when Christ has fully reconciled us to God, we still have the ability to look at anything OTHER than God and fall out of fellowship.
We return to fellowship by turning back to Him, then confessing our sins, i.e. looking at anything BUT Him, and He is sure and just to forgive us those sins, thereby restoring our fellowship with Him.
This is not a license to sin, rather because the old man was already condemned for sin in Adam prior to us as believers ever having faith or belief, not ever having a regenerate human spirit in our anthropology prior to belief, AND because that penalty of sin has now been paid for on the Cross, God is now free to continually indwell the believer by His volition, ie. by His Sovereign decision to remain in us, something we do not experience, but He performs at His decision.
When we sin, we don’t get away with anything. Rather, many believers are simply bouncing back and forth between being outside the tabernacle and entering the tabernacle in order to be in the place where God the Holy Spirit can continue His sanctifying work in our soul. Likewise, by our soul not being further cleansed, we don’t have the amenities to make the right decisions when faced with testing at the proper time and place by His Plan, when we are not in fellowship with Him. This results in us not qualifying with our works, while out of fellowship with Him, as being recognizable as righteous works by Divine standards at the bema seat, thereby resulting in the rewards pre-made for us from eternity past, not being rewarded to us for all eternity future.
We still have eternal life, and are saved from the Lake of Fire, but have likely lost rewards at the bema seat, when we sin or fall out of fellowship with Him. Again refocus on sin not as immorality, but more broadly simply missing the target He has provided for us in His Plan. When we miss, there isn’t a reward from the miss, but we don’t loose all rewards nor eternal life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.