Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol

reformation21 ^ | April 2012 | Carl Trueman

[Gamecock]

Full Title: Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Roman Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol

In the field of Reformation studies, Professor Brad Gregory is somebody for whom I have immense respect.  Those outside the discipline of history are possibly unaware of the ravages which postmodernism brought in its wake, making all narratives negotiable and fuelling a rise in interest in all manner of trivia and marginal weirdness.  Dr. Gregory is trained in both philosophy and history and has done much to place the self-understanding of human agents back at the centre of historical analysis.  Thus, for those of us interested in the Reformation, he has also played an important role in placing religion back into the discussion.  For that, I and many others owe him a great debt of gratitude.

I therefore find myself in the odd and uncomfortable position of writing a very critical review of his latest book, The Unintended Reformation (Belknap Harvard, 2011). The book itself is undoubtedly well-written and deeply learned, with nearly a third of the text devoted to endnotes.  It is brilliant in its scope and execution, addressing issues of philosophy, politics and economics.  Anyone wanting a panoramic view of the individuals, the institutions and the forces which shaped early modern Europe should read this work. Yet for all of its brilliance, the book does not demonstrate its central thesis, that Protestantism must shoulder most of the responsibility for the various things which Dr. Gregory dislikes about modern Western society, from its exaltation of the scientific paradigm to its consumerism to its secular view of knowledge and even to global warming. I am sympathetic with many of Dr. Gregory's gripes about the world of today; but in naming Protestantism as the primary culprit he engages in a rather arbitrary blame game.

Dr. Gregory's book contains arguments about both metaphysics and what we might call empirical social realities. On the grounds that debates about metaphysics, like games of chess, can be great fun for the participants but less than thrilling for the spectators, I will post my thoughts on that aspect of the book in a separate blog entry. In this article, I will focus on the Papacy, persecution and the role of the printing press.  This piece is more of a medieval jousting tournament than a chess game and will, I trust, provide the audience with better spectator sport.

One final preliminary comment: I am confident that my previous writings on Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholics indicate that I am no reincarnation of a nineteenth century 'No popery!' rabble-rouser. I have always tried to write with respect and forbearance on such matters, to the extent that I have even been berated at times by other, hotter sorts of Protestants for being too pacific. In what follows, however, I am deliberately combative.  This is not because I wish to show disrespect to Dr. Gregory or to his Church or to his beliefs; but he has set the tone by writing a very combative book. I like that. I like writers who believe and care about the big questions of life. But here is the rub: those who write in such a way must allow those who respond to them to believe with equal passion in their chosen cause and to care about it deeply and thus to be equally combative in their rejoinders.

A key part of the book's argument is the apparent anarchy created by the Protestant emphasis on the perspicuity of scripture. In this, Dr. Gregory stands with his Notre Dame colleague, Christian Smith, as seeing this as perhaps the single weakest point of Protestantism. He also rejects any attempt to restrict Protestantism to the major confessional traditions (Reformed, Anglican and Lutheran) as he argues that such a restriction would create an artificial delimitation of Protestant diversity. Instead, he insists on also including those groups which scholars typically call radical reformers (essentially all other non-Roman Christian sects which have their origins in the turn to scripture of the Reformation). This creates a very diverse and indeed chaotic picture of Protestantism such that no unifying doctrinal synthesis is possible as a means of categorizing the whole.  

I wonder if I am alone in finding the more stridently confident comments of some Roman Catholics over the issue of perspicuity to be somewhat tiresome and rather overblown. Perspicuity was, after all, a response to a position that had proved to be a failure: the Papacy.  Thus, to criticize it while proposing nothing better than a return to that which had proved so inadequate is scarcely a compelling argument.

Yes, it is true that Protestant interpretive diversity is an empirical fact; but when it comes to selectivity in historical reading as a means of creating a false impression of stability, Roman Catholic approaches to the Papacy provide some excellent examples of such fallacious method.  The ability to ignore or simply dismiss as irrelevant the empirical facts of papal history is quite an impressive feat of historical and theological selectivity. Thus, as all sides need to face empirical facts and the challenges they raise, here are a few we might want to consider, along with what seem to me (as a Protestant outsider) to be the usual Roman Catholic responses:

Empirical fact: The Papacy as an authoritative institution was not there in the early centuries. 

Never mind.  Put together a doctrine of development whereby Christians - or at least some of them, those of whom we choose to approve in retrospect on the grounds we agree with what they say  - eventually come to see the Pope as uniquely authoritative.  

Empirical fact: The Papacy was corrupt in the later Middle Ages, building its power and status on political antics, forged documents and other similar scams. 

Ignore it, excuse it as a momentary aberration and perhaps, if pressed, even offer a quick apology. Then move swiftly on to assure everyone it is all sorted out now and start talking about John Paul II or Benedict XVI.  Whatever you do, there is no need to allow this fact to have any significance for how one understands the theory of papal power in the abstract or in the present.  

Empirical fact: The Papacy was in such a mess at the beginning of the fifteenth century that it needed a council to decide who of the multiple claimants to Peter's seat was the legitimate pope.  

Again, this was merely a momentary aberration but it has no significance for the understanding of papal authority.  After all, it was so long ago and so far away.

Empirical fact: The church failed (once again) to put its administrative, pastoral, moral and doctrinal house in order at the Fifth Lateran Council at the start of the sixteenth century.  

Forget it.  Emphasise instead the vibrant piety of the late medieval church and then blame the ungodly Protestants for their inexplicable protests and thus for the collapse of the medieval social, political and theological structure of Europe.  

Perhaps it is somewhat aggressive to pose these points in such a blunt form. Again, I intend no disrespect but am simply responding with the same forthrightness with which certain writers speak of Protestantism. The problem here is that the context for the Reformation - the failure of the papal system to reform itself, a failure in itself lethal to notions of papal power and authority - seems to have been forgotten in all of the recent aggressive attacks on scriptural perspicuity.  These are all empirical facts and they are all routinely excused, dismissed or simply ignored by Roman Catholic writers. Perspicuity was not the original problem; it was intended as the answer.   One can believe it to be an incorrect, incoherent, inadequate answer; but then one must come up with something better - not simply act as if shouting the original problem louder will make everything all right. Such an approach to history and theology is what I call the Emerald City protocol: when defending the great and powerful Oz, one must simply pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.  

Given the above empirical facts, the medieval Papacy surely has chronological priority over any of the alleged shortcomings of scriptural perspicuity in the history of abject ecclesiastical and theological disasters. To be fair, Dr. Gregory does acknowledge that 'medieval Christendom' was a failure (p. 365) but in choosing such a term he sidesteps the significance of the events of the late medieval period for papal authority. The failure of medieval Christendom was the failure of the Papacy. To say medieval Christendom failed but then to allow such a statement no real ecclesiastical significance is merely an act of throat-clearing before going after the people, the Protestants, who frankly are in the crosshairs simply because it appears one finds them and their sects distasteful. Again, to be fair, one cannot blame Roman Catholics for disliking Protestants: our very existence bears testimony to Roman Catholicism's failure. But that Roman Catholics who know their history apparently believe the Papacy now works just fine seems as arbitrary and selective a theological and historical move as any confessionally driven restriction of what is and is not legitimate Protestantism.  

As Dr. Gregory brings his narrative up to the present, I will do the same. There are things which can be conveniently ignored by North American Roman Catholic intellectuals because they take place in distant lands. Yet many of these are emblematic of contemporary Roman Catholicism in the wider world. Such, for example, are the bits of the real cross and vials of Jesus' blood which continue to be displayed in certain churches, the cult of Padre Pio and the relics of Anthony of Padua and the like (both of whom edged out Jesus and the Virgin Mary in a poll as to who was the most prayed to figure in Italian Catholicism). We Protestants may appear hopelessly confused to the latest generation of North American Roman Catholic polemicists, but at least my own little group of Presbyterian schismatics does not promote the veneration of mountebank stigmatics or the virtues of snake-oil.

Still, for the sake of argument let us accept the fideistic notion that the events of the later Middle Ages do not shatter the theology underlying the Papacy.  What therefore of Roman Catholic theological unity and papal authority today? That is not too rosy either, I am afraid.  The Roman Catholic Church's teaching on birth control is routinely ignored by vast swathes of the laity with absolute impunity; Roman Catholic politicians have been in the vanguard of liberalizing abortion laws and yet still been welcome at Mass and at high table with church dignitaries; leading theologians cannot agree on exactly what papal infallibility means; and there is not even consensus on the meaning and significance of Vatican II relative to previous church teaching. Such a Church is as chaotic and anarchic as anything Protestantism has thrown up. 

Further, if Dr. Gregory wants to include as part of his general concept of Protestantism any and all sixteenth century lunatics who ever claimed the Bible alone as sole authority and thence to draw conclusions about the plausibility of the perspicuity of scripture, then it seems reasonable to insist in response that discussions of Roman Catholicism include not simply the Newmans, Ratzingers and Wotjylas but also the Kungs, Rahners, Schillebeeckxs and the journalists at the National Catholic Reporter.  And why stop there?  We should also throw in the sedevacantists and Lefebvrists for good measure.  They all claim to be good Roman Catholics and find their unity around the Office of the Pope, after all. Let us not exclude them on the dubious grounds that they do not support our own preconceived conclusions of how papal authority should work.  At least Protestantism has the integrity to wear its chaotic divisions on its sleeve.

Moving on from the issue of authority, we find that Dr. Gregory also argues that religious persecution is a poisonous result of the confessionalisation of Europe into warring religious factions. Certainly, the bloodshed along confessional lines in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was terrible, but doctrinal disagreements did not begin with the Reformation. The New Testament makes it clear that serious doctrinal conflict existed within the church even during apostolic times (I hope I am allowed, for the sake of argument, to assume that the New Testament is perspicuous enough for me to state that with a degree of confidence); and the link between church and state which provided the context for bloodshed over matters of theological deviancy was established from at least the time of Priscillian in the late fourth century. It was hardly a Protestant or even a Reformation innovation.

When it comes to the empirical facts of Catholic persecution, Dr. Gregory only mentions the Inquisition twice. That is remarkably light coverage given its rather stellar track record in all that embarrassing auto da fe business. Moreover, he mentions it first only in a Reformation/post-Reformation context. Yet Roman Catholic persecution of those considered deviants was not simply or even primarily a response to Reformation Protestantism but a well-established pattern in the Middle Ages. No doubt the Spanish Jews and Muslims, the Cathars, the Albigensians, the Lollards, the Hussites and many other religious deviants living before the establishment of any Protestant state might have wished that their sufferings had received a more substantial role in the narrative and more significance in the general thesis. Sure, Protestantism broke the Roman Catholic monopoly on persecution and thus played a shameful and ignominious part in its escalation; but it did not establish the precedents, legally, culturally or practically.

Finally, the great lacuna in this book is the printing press. Dr. Gregory has, as I noted above, done brilliant work in putting self-understanding back on the historical agenda and thus of grounding the history of ideas in historical realities rather than metaphysical abstractions. The danger with this, however, is that material factors can come to be somewhat neglected. His thesis - that Protestantism shattered the unified nature and coherence of knowledge and paved the way for its secularization - does not take into account the impact of the easy availability of print. The printed book changed everything: it fuelled literacy rates and it expanded the potential for diversity of opinion. I suspect there is a very plausible alternative, or at least supplementary, narrative to the 'Protestantism shattered the unified nature and coherence of knowledge' thesis: the printing press did it because it made impossible the Church's control of the nature, range, flow and availability of knowledge.

Ironically, the printing press is one of the great success stories of pre-Reformation Catholic Europe. One might argue that it was a technological innovation and thus not particularly 'Catholic' in that sense. That is true; but for some years after it was invented it was unclear whether it would be successful enough to replace medieval book production. In fact, its success was significantly helped by the brisk fifteenth century trade in printed breviaries and missals and the indulgences produced to fund war against the Ottomans. In other words, it was the vibrancy of late medieval Catholic piety, of which Dr. Gregory makes much, that ensured the future of the printing press and thereby the shipwrecking of the old, stable forms of knowledge.

The Roman Catholic Church knew the danger presented by the easy transmission of, and access to, knowledge which the printing press provided. That is why it was so assiduous in burning books in the sixteenth century and why the Index of Prohibited Books remained in place until the 1960s. I well remember being amazed when reading the autobiography of the analytic philosopher and one-time priest, Sir Anthony Kenny, that he had had to obtain special permission from the Church to read David Hume for his doctoral research in the 1950s. At the start of the twenty-first century, Rome may present herself as the friend of engaged religious intellectuals in North America but she took an embarrassingly long time even to allow her people free access to the most basic books of modern Western thought. Women in Britain had the vote, Elvis (in my humble opinion) had already done his best work and The Beatles and The Rolling Stones were starting to churn out hits before Roman Catholics were free to read David Hume without specific permission from the Church.   

Of course, Dr. Gregory knows about the Index; but he seems to see it as a response to Protestantism, not as an extension of the Church's typical manner of handling deviation from its central tenets and practices which stretched back well before the Reformation. And therein lies the ironic, tragic, perplexing flaw of this brilliant and learned book: Dr. Gregory sets out to prove that Protestantism is the source of all, or at least many, of the modern world's ills; but what he actually does is demonstrate in painstaking and compelling detail that medieval Catholicism and the Papacy with which it was inextricably bound up were ultimately inadequate to the task which they set - which they claimed! - for themselves.  Reformation Protestantism, if I can use the singular, was one response to this failure, as conciliarism had been a hundred years before.  One can dispute the adequacy of such responses; but only by an act of historical denial can one dispute the fact that it was the Papacy which failed.

Thanks to the death of medieval Christendom and to the havoc caused by the Reformation and beyond, Dr Gregory is today free to believe (or not) that Protestantism is an utter failure.  Thanks to the printing press, he is also free to express this in a public form. Thanks to the modern world which grew as a response to the failure of Roman Catholicism, he is also free to choose his own solution to the problems of modernity without fear of rack or rope. Yet, having said all that, I for one find it strange indeed that someone would choose as the solution that which was actually the problem in the first place.

[daniel1212]

Adding to this (emphasis mine),

At Jerusalem there was a renascence, perhaps a survival, of Jewish ideas, the tendency there being distinctly unfavourable to the deuteros. St. Cyril of that see, while vindicating for the Church the right to fix the Canon, places them among the apocrypha and forbids all books to be read privately which are not read in the churches. In Antioch and Syria the attitude was more favourable. St. Epiphanius shows hesitation about the rank of the deuteros; he esteemed them, but they had not the same place as the Hebrew books in his regard. The historian Eusebius attests the widespread doubts in his time; he classes them as antilegomena, or disputed writings, and, like Athanasius, places them in a class intermediate between the books received by all and the apocrypha. The 59th (or 60th) canon of the provincial Council of Laodicea (the authenticity of which however is contested) gives a catalogue of the Scriptures entirely in accord with the ideas of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the Oriental versions and Greek manuscripts of the period are more liberal; the extant ones have all the deuterocanonicals and, in some cases, certain apocrypha.

The influence of Origen's and Athanasius's restricted canon naturally spread to the West. St. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus followed their footsteps, excluding the deuteros from canonical rank in theory, but admitting them in practice. The latter styles them "ecclesiastical" books, but in authority unequal to the other Scriptures. St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books... (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament, eph. mine)

The Catholic Encyclopedia also states as regards the Middle Ages,

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

More by God's grace.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I used the term “invincible ignorance” in its theological sense and Elsie became amused by that.

I can relate. I named myself in a theological sense. :-)

[daniel1212]

Two chief Protestant heresies are that the entire knowledge necessary for salvation is in the canonized scripture that can be read without reference to the doctrines of the Church that elucidate it; and that salvation does not require good works in imitation of Christ, but solely an intellectual faith in Christ. Neither of these is in the scripture and in fact each contradicts the scripture.

I will raise you to be 5 predominate if convenient canards, or largely straw men used by RC apologists is that sola scriptura SS meant and means that all that that can be known/revealed is in the canonized scriptures,

and only what is explicitly taught can be doctrine,

and all that is needed for growth unto perfection is formally provided in Scripture,

and that Scripture is all that is to be used in understanding God's will, thus it was and is to be read by itself, without reference to historical ecclesiastical doctrines or writings that can make it more comprehensible .

And that salvation does not require good works in imitation of Christ, but solely an intellectual faith in Christ.

SS does not mean that all that can be known from God is in Scripture, as it testifies otherwise, (Jn. 21:25; 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) and natural revelation as manifesting God's power, wisdom, grace and judgment. Ps. 19:1-6; Rm. 1:19-20; 2:14) But that Scripture alone is the infallible standard for Truth as the assured, established Word of God, providing what is needed for salvation and growth toward perfection. It formally provides what is needed for conversion and basic growth, so that normally a soul can for example, by God's grace, read a text such as Acts 10:36-43,47 and believe and be born again, justified by faith, (Acts 15:7-9) by baptized, and by other writings begin to grow in grace.

And that materially Scripture provides for such things as reason, teachers, magisterial authority, etc., including writings of God being recognized and established as being so, and thus by extension, for a canon.

“all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all, what is necessary is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, and Scripture is such that “not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”

Cp. VI: Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature , and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

III. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word. — http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm

Thus while even nature can provide light, it is judged by Scripture as the infallible source, but the Truths of which by "good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture," and the due use of the ordinary means [in which the church is a part]. .

And thus it provides for study helps, which evangelicals have much in via classic and largely complementary commentaries besides contemporary teachers. And rather than being hopeless divided, due to a common assent to core Truths, they historically contended against those who denied core salvific truths, both against cults and Catholic distortions.

In addition, as regards ignoring doctrines and historical church writings, while one may, yet Reformers did not. As Alister McGrath's [Irish theologian, pastor, intellectual historian and Christian apologist, currently Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at Kings College London] states in The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism,

Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. — Quoted by James R. Payton in, “Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings; http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/deliberate-fiction.html”

In fact, it was because of this that no less a neo-ultramontanist as Manning affirmed that history is only what Rome says it is:

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves....The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228 .

Thus SS does not hold that all that can be known/revealed is in the canonized scriptures, and only what is explicitly taught can be doctrine, and all that is needed for growth unto perfection is formally provided in Scripture, and that Scripture is all that is to be used in understanding God's will, that thus it was and is to be read by itself, without reference to historical doctrines or writings that can make it more comprehensible (elucidate it).

Finally, as for that salvation does not require good works in imitation of Christ, but solely an intellectual faith in Christ, this is false, and we have dealt with this before, for as while sola fide holds that it is precisely (God-given) repentant (God-granted) faith alone that appropriates justification before God for the God-motivated soul, "purifying the heart by faith," (Acts 15:7-9) not any system of actual merit, yet the kind of faith that justifies is not an intellectual faith, which even demons have, but is a faith that effects the "obedience of faith," (Rm. 16:26; Acts 26:20) "faith which worketh by love," (Gal. 5:6) given opportunity, confessing the Lord Jesus in word and deed, baptism being the first formal expression of that, manifesting "things which accompany salvation." (Heb. 6:9)

And as baptism expresses faith, it can be the occasion of conversion by faith, but neither it nor any works are the basis for it, and therein lies the difference. Salvation is promised and given to those who manifest the obedience of faith, (Jn. 10:27,28; Heb. 5:9) because this testifies to faith, which God rewards, but not because the works earn one eternal life, as what they earn is damnation. (Rm. 6:23)

And in contrast to the RC straw man that has Reformers preaching both a regeneration that leaves the redeemed simply whitewashed, with not interior change, and justified by a mere head vs. heart faith, that does not need to be a faith that effects obedience, Reformers clearly taught otherwise:

In those therefore in whom we cannot realize good works, we can immediately say and conclude: they heard of faith, but it did not sink into good soil. For if you continue in pride and lewdness, in greed and anger, and yet talk much of faith, St. Paul will come and say, 1 Cor. 4:20, look here my dear Sir, "the kingdom of God is not in word but in power." It requires life and action, and is not brought about by mere talk.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341-342]

This is what I have often said, if faith be true, it will break forth and bear fruit. If the tree is green and good, it will not cease to blossom forth in leaves and fruit. It does this by nature.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:340-341]

“This is why St. Luke and St. James have so much to say about works, so that one says: Yes, I will now believe, and then he goes and fabricates for himself a fictitious delusion, which hovers only on the lips as the foam on the water. No, no; faith is a living and an essential thing, which makes a new creature of man, changes his spirit and wholly and completely converts him. It goes to the foundation and there accomplishes a renewal of the entire man; so, if I have previously seen a sinner, I now see in his changed conduct, manner and life, that he believes. So high and great a thing is faith.”[Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341]

“For it is impossible for him who believes in Christ, as a just Savior, not to love and to do good. If, however, he does not do good nor love, it is sure that faith is not present." [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:40]

Contemporary Calvinistic theologian R. C. Sproul writes, The relationship of faith and good works is one that may be distinguished but never separated...if good works do not follow from our profession of faith, it is a clear indication that we do not possess justifying faith. The Reformed formula is, “We are justified by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone.”[[“Essential Truths of the Christian Faith,” Google books]

Also, rather than the easy believism Rome associates with sola fide, in Puritan Protestantism there was often a tendency to make the way to the cross too narrow, perhaps in reaction against the Antinomian controversy as described in an account (http://www.the-highway.com/Early_American_Bauckham.html) of Puritans during the early American period that notes,

“They had, like most preachers of the Gospel, a certain difficulty in determining what we might call the ‘conversion level’, the level of difficulty above which the preacher may be said to be erecting barriers to the Gospel and below which he may be said to be encouraging men to enter too easily into a mere delusion of salvation. Contemporary critics, however, agree that the New England pastors set the level high. Nathaniel Ward, who was step-son to Richard Rogers and a distinguished Puritan preacher himself, is recorded as responding to Thomas Hooker’s sermons on preparation for receiving Christ in conversion with, ‘Mr. Hooker, you make as good Christians before men are in Christ as ever they are after’, and wishing, ‘Would I were but as good a Christian now as you make men while they are preparing for Christ.’”

One cannot Biblically believe on the Lord Jesus without if effecting one's life, and to believe on Him as such is an act of implicit heart repentance that will be manifested in outward actions. And as works are saving faith in action, in contrasting mere intellectual faith, they can be said to justify, as they justify one as having a true faith, versus inert, dead.

We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; (2 Corinthians 4:13)

By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. (Hebrews 11:7)

And thus believers are judged by their works as having true faith, (1Thes. 1:4-10) and being are fit to be recompensed, God rewarding faith, (Heb. 10:35) in recognition of what it effected. Thus those who showed love to "the least of My brethren" enter glory, (Mt. 25:31-40) not because their works earned them the "gift' of eternal life, for they really deserve Hell, (cf. Rm. 6:23) but because such testifies of faith which works virtue.

[CynicalBear]

Well done and spot on. Thank you for posting that.

[daniel1212]

The question presented is whether this woman's statement A) validates veneration of Mary as a pattern for veneration of other saints, or B) suggests a contrast between Mary's blessing and the greater blessing of hearing and obeying God's word.

Catholics are not merely contending for venerating saints, but thinking of men above that which is written (Peter and claimed infallible successors), and the hyperventilation hyperveneration of Mary.

Even if menounge means doubtless, yes, (Phi_3:8 Rom_10:18) then in response to perhaps a protoCatholic, the Lord of all, being offered a most prime opportunity to exalt Mary like as Catholics do as the uniquely most holy, virtuous, and beloved saint, etc , the Lord does not do so, or even say as He uniquely did of John the Baptist ("Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist:" Lk. 7:28), but instead at best He said, "Indeed, she is blessed, but also blessed are all others that hear the word of God, and keep it," thus making no distinction btwn the two, much less that vast vast distinction they demand be made.

[Elsie]

I have some skin cancer issues but not a big deal.

We wuz just talkin' about this at church tonight.

Catch the stuff early and most problems are merely a flesh wound.

Good to hear you are fine, otherwise.

[Elsie]

The thread’s back open, folks!

This was strange.

Any reason given?

[Elsie]

...and curious, too.

[Elsie]

Right. Note how the eunuch was unable to understand the Holy Scripture until Philip — the Church — explained it to him, and converted him.

Wrong. Note how the eunuch was unable to understand the Holy Scripture until Philip — a disciple — explained it to him, and converted him.

[Elsie]

Two chief Protestant heresies are that the entire knowledge necessary for salvation is in the canonized scripture that can be read without reference to the doctrines of the Church that elucidate it; and that salvation does not require good works in imitation of Christ, but solely an intellectual faith in Christ.

Sorry, but neither of these is a Protest heresy; though the second one you list is a Catholic one.

[Elsie]

Then why don’t you venerate me?

[Elsie]

I named myself in a theological sense. :-)

I named myself in an alliterative one.

[Elsie]

I named myself in a theological sense. :-)

I named myself in an alliterative one.

Also less typing!

[Alex Murphy]

This was strange. Any reason given?

I wasn't done playing with my food.

[xone]

I view Martin Luther more critically, holding him personally responsible for most of German antisemitism

While he was living, he was like most Catholics, though that isn't offered for an excuse. Google papal bulls on Jews. An honest man will note the history.

As for anti-semitism in general as we know it in the 20th century and today, one has to be kidding. I've seen Hitler's claim, but it is interesting in light of his later work, that anyone believes what AH ever said. Course there may be some that do.

Further, the stubborn anti-semitism of the papacy can be seen in the 19th century, as outlined in #1337. An honest read of the sources says otherwise vis a vis that opinion that was posted.

As for the 30 Years War, that was a natural result of the realignment of states that came with the rejection of papal power that had been exercised in the secular realm by a long string of lousy Popes, a realm a Christian church had no business in from the get go. Christ's kingdom is not of this world, yet the papacy sure spent a lot of time building secular power.

[boatbums]

The reading that since the fullness of grace preceded the arrival of the angel it must have been there from her conception; and that grace does not go stale once received, and that God has the power to raise any kind of Mary He wants for His own mother, and probably would not want a sinner in that role -- that reading, the Catholic one, or rather that doctrine, had existed inside the Church even before Luke, under the dictation of the Holy Ghost, wrote his gospel.

Why would the "Catholic one" suppose that God "probably would not want a sinner in that role (the mother of the incarnate Son of God)"? Was not one of the main intents of the incarnation that Jesus was:

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:3-4)

And:

Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. (Hebrews 2:14-18)

There WAS no need for a "sinless" mother in order for the Christ to be born and be without sin so that He can make atonement for the sins of the world. That Jesus is God incarnate is how he could be sinless - it had nothing to do with His mother also needing to be. Mary was a human woman, born under the law, born under sin, and her faith in the Savior Jesus Christ is what saved her and cleansed her from all her sins just as He does for us.

That really IS the problem, Catholicism decides what is doctrine whether or not God's sacred word states it is so. I believe they have it exactly backwards. God tells us what is truth and our response is to believe it and obey. We don't get to make it up as we go along and superficially search for verification from Scripture afterward.

[boatbums]

One cannot Biblically believe on the Lord Jesus without if effecting one's life, and to believe on Him as such is an act of implicit heart repentance that will be manifested in outward actions. And as works are saving faith in action, in contrasting mere intellectual faith, they can be said to justify, as they justify one as having a true faith, versus inert, dead.

Thank you for your shut down of the typical straw man so often set up to dispute sola fide. If we actually understand who Jesus is and the sacrifice He made for our sins - I mean deep-down-in-the-gut getting it - how can we NOT also surrender our lives to Him? Once we understand that He is the Creator of the universe and He humbled Himself to enter into our experience of being a human being so that He could redeem us from eternal damnation separated from Him, how could we possibly imagine that our lives could ever be the same again?

We receive Jesus as Savior and Lord because He IS both. The sheer magnitude of understanding His calling to us and of His knowing us before the foundation of the world, conforming us into His image, is enough - or should be - to keep us ever in humble gratitude and love for His great mercy and grace. Anyone who says he is a believer in Christ, but who has had no deep-down heart change so that he can't help but notice it, should examine his heart to see if he is really in the faith. It is a serious and life-changing decision and one that we couldn't turn back from even if we tried. The indwelling Holy Spirit testifies to our spirits that we ARE the children of God. Praise be to Him! We must never treat the grace of God as meaningless. He saved us for HIS purposes and we will have all eternity to thank Him.

[boatbums]

I'm glad the thread was reopened. There were several questions/statements left unanswered. Just because a few were hounding the RM and abusing the abuse report feature, they got the thread closed - and it wasn't even the “Protestant” side. Thanks Gamecock for posting this. Have a great week y'all!

[metmom]

The reading that since the fullness of grace preceded the arrival of the angel it must have been there from her conception; and that grace does not go stale once received, and that God has the power to raise any kind of Mary He wants for His own mother, and probably would not want a sinner in that role

Yeah, those stinking sinners. Who needs them? They're just not good enough for God. Or for God to even use.

Romans 5:6-8 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Another thing to note.... If you think that Mary was sinless and yet still full of grace, it appears that you do not have the slightest clue what grace is all about.

One cannot be graced if one is without sin. Grace is ONLY for sinners.

So Mary cannot be sinless and yet graced. The whole premise of Mary being sinless falls apart.

[annalex]

it would have saved a lot of time and typing

I appreciate all posts to me, no matter how contentious; and I learn from them. Thank you.