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."
One thing I think you meant to say when you said that Jesus is in Heaven with his creator God, you of course mean that this will be until Jesus’ second coming on earth, right?
Actually, your statement need any deciphering:
"Jesus is still separate from God."
You give me two options to believe in...And I of course reject both of those...
Then what DO you believe? Explain how you can reconcile the above statement with a belief that does not either deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ or embrace polytheism. Statements that we don't understand or ramblings about the Catholic Church are nothing more than evasion because you are making statements that Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists and Baptists ALL denounce as heresy.
I would state without exception, those who take upon them the name of Christ, their enemies are those who are the enemies of Christ and as Saul of Tarsus/later the Apostle Paul, said he was "chief."
No. God has revealed Himself in three persons, one God still.
Nobody can learn who God is, without humbling their thinking before Him. The only way to learn truthfully about God, is not by thinking independently from Him, but by understanding through faith in Him by what He reveals in His Word.
The Mystery doctrine of the Church Age relates to the action of God the Holy Spirit, not previously known to mankind before Pentecost after the Ascension, except for the announcements and requests of its coming by Christ and the angels after the Last Supper.
Our Lord Christ Jesus came to us as a man, with a body, and a soul, and a human spirit. We can identify with the doctrines of kenosis and hypostatic union to understand how we are to take on the mind of Christ, by remaining in fellowship with God the Holy Spirit in all things before us individually and collectively.
We also can recognize that in God's Plan, set by the Father, the Son performed the role God had planned for him, but his role is not identical with each of ours. Each of us have different functions and roles planned for us, but through faith in Him, and remaining in fellowship with Him, no matter what circumstances are placed before us, we are able to be in the right place, at the right time, to perform or not perform anything, while remaining in fellowship with Him, through faith in Christ, exercising another good work by divine standards which He is authorized to judge and grant us rewards at the bema seat.
Iscool: “And I of course reject both of those... “ Of course, you said “Jesus Christ is separate from God” i.e. that Jesus Christ is not God. you would reject the second option of course in sola scriptura.
John 10:30 and Matthew 28:19 make it all very clear.
Now, from an earlier statement of yours: Disagreements are not hatred. Repeated false statements in the same thread about what others believe, IS.
I submit that despite what 'my interpretation' is, you insist on using yours. Is this an example of 'hatred'? I don't think so. But in a contentious argument, this type of thing happens.
As to early reformers not being in agreement: the best construction is that the others were wrong and Luther right of course. Those of the Reformed that we can't doctrinally agree with we don't have altar fellowship with. But we don't hate on them, we deny their error and work to resolve the differences.
What I meant to say was that if one truly believes that it should be by scripture alone, then one will: 1. Reject any word, any phrase, any tradition, any whisper that is not in the Bible (like the words "Trinity" or "bible") and 2. Accept that their own interpretation is the right one.
Confessional Lutherans are Sola Scriptura, they accept the words Trinity/Bible and don't reject the concept. As to #2 don't all Christians accept an interpretation whether their own or their denominational one?
This is what Uri or roamer says -- he interprets the examples we Trinitarians give as being "false" interpretations.
I can accept their interpretations, I accept them as incorrect, but accept them. It doesn't shake my faith and as pointed out, we WILL know finally. Although I disagree with roamer on the concept of red-facedness. We'll all have bigger fish to fry.
I think I am going to have to jump on the bandwagon of those who think that statement is at odds with the Christian understanding of the Trinity. Maybe you should explain what you mean, because on the surface that is the kind of statement I would expect from a Jehovah's witness or maybe a Mormon.
One thing I think you meant to say when you said that Jesus is in Heaven with his creator God, you of course mean that this will be until Jesus’ second coming on earth, right?
Err, IIRC, Jesus was “begotten, not made”.
I believe Scripture is silent for a reason on Marian aspects outside of the facts leading up to the Virgin birth of our Lord. And that is that Scripture isn't about Mary, it is about Christ, all of it.
The 'how' of the Trinity is beyond human reason. I am compelled to suppress my reason when faced with the majesty and power of God. As a created finite being, I must leave God's things to Him. I have in my life done a micro-Job without Job's righteous behavior. You can resist the Holy Spirit, you just can't win. You WILL end up doing it God's way. It is all a matter of how much you want it to hurt until you do, how much of your life do you want to live contrary to the blessings His way offers.
Is the Trinity beyond human reason, or might it be revealed to the human spirit by God the Holy Spirit, and then made known to our mind from the spirit and then when comprehended in categories of other Bible doctrine made available to the human reason in our hearts, but all through faith in Christ?
IMHO, the doctrine is even more rich, in that without remaining in fellowship with God the Holy Spirit, and attempting to reason in our hearts, without adequate regeneration and sanctification from Bible doctrine in our thinking, the doctrine of the Trinity is always muddled and confused.
Through faith in Him, it is much simpler than many suspect.
I only see Trinitarians referenced in this message. Here is a better explanation:
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.