Replies

Calvin *is* in that list, though not by name. That is because the assumption behind the construction of your list is "sola scriptura", a belief that came from Martin Luther and John Calvin. Each of your four ways quotes and appeals to Scripture. That shows the philosophical belief underlying the methodology by which you constructed the list. You are following the tradition of the Protestant Reformers without even knowing that you are doing so.

And with that you've managed to break two Religion Forum guidelines: 1) reading the mind of another poster and, 2) accusing another poster of dishonesty.

I am not Calvinist - for days now I've been having an intense sidebar in opposition to Calvinist doctrine on this very thread - even while posting in another sidebar with you.

The revelation in Scripture (point 3) is cited in points 1, 2 and 4 in support of the fact that all four revelations work together as one, but in that order of authority and completeness.

Speaking of Sola Scripture and Catholicism, how would you characterize yourself using this template from the Religious Tolerance website? (more on the link, this is just the header)

Biblical inerrancy (freedom of error) as understood by Roman Catholics

The term "inerrancy" is rarely used by Roman Catholics or by Eastern Orthodox churches. However, the concept of inerrancy is present in many of their beliefs about the Bible.

The teachings of the Church have evolved over the years. Various Catholic sources have given apparently conflicting views on the nature of biblical inerrancy:

Some claim that, in its original autograph version, the Bible is inerrant -- without error. This belief developed naturally from their conviction that God inspired the authors of the Bible. If God was influencing the writers, then he would not have led them into error. This appears to be the consensus of the popes, and most of the Catholic scholars and other church leaders until the mid 20th century.

Other Catholics teach a more recent concept: that of limited inerrancy. This views the Bible as being without error in certain matters such as faith, morals and the criteria for salvation. However, the Bible contains errors when describing other matters, such as scientific observations and historical events. This belief had its origins in the church with the writings of Richard Simon (1638 - 1712) who rejected Moses as author of the Pentateuch. He partly inspired the literary-criticism method of analyzing biblical passages which became influential among 19th century Christians.

Still other Catholic theologians and scholars have agreed with liberal Protestants by rejecting the inerrancy of the Bible. They interpret it as containing much legend, myth, historical and scientific inaccuracies, religious propaganda, etc. Of these intellectuals, Dominic Crossan is one of the most popular writers among the general public.

And with that you've managed to break two Religion Forum guidelines: 1) reading the mind of another poster and, 2) accusing another poster of dishonesty.

Careful. I never attempted to read your mind. The 'sola scriptura' assumption that lies behind your methodology is one that is there objectively, whether you realize it or not. So, I'm not claiming that you are aware of it mentally. Likewise, I am not in any way accusing you of dishonesty. I believe you that you are not a Calvinist with respect to predestination. But one can be a Calvinist in one respect while rejecting some other aspect of Calvinism.

The revelation in Scripture (point 3) is cited in points 1, 2 and 4 in support of the fact that all four revelations work together as one, but in that order of authority and completeness.

You don't appeal to "Jesus" to back up these four ways. You don't appeal to the "Spirit" to back up these four ways. You don't appeal to "creation" to back up these four ways. You appeal only to Scripture to back up these four ways. Therefore, whether you realize it or not, your methodology is 'sola scriptura'. In that respect, your 'sola scriptura' methodology (in constructing and defending these four ways) actually contradicts your 'four ways theory', because (1) all four ways are based on one way [i.e. Scripture] and (2) two 'higher' ways ["Jesus" and the "Spirit"] are based on a 'lower' way [i.e. Scripture].

-A8

Now, Angel-Gal,

mind reading is an old subversive hobby, habit, activity hereon. I wouldn't be too alarmed that the RM can't get around to it all ASAP and snuff it ALL out. I'm sure he's as diligent as he can manage.

And, I don't even know that I'm always aware of when I might be doing it.

Though I do think that example was a bit . . . overtly startlingly clear. LOL.

"YOU ARE FOLLOWING THE TRADITION OF . . . "

What is so difficult about taking the personal pronouns out of such? If I can do it at my age, anyone can learn to do it. imho, of course.

At least we should be able to say something like:

"It appears to me that the position stated is following in the same or a similar tradition to . . . "

But emphatic all knowing mind reading is . . . imho, more than a little cheeky, in addition to the forum rule part.

I'm actually a pretty good mind reader--in counseling and a lot of situations, by God's Grace. But I'm far from perfect. And on such a text based forum without eye contact, nonverbal cues etc. . . . the notion of successful mind reading is ludicrous.

my 1.5 cents.