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."
Now, now.
THE MESSAGE IS A WONDERFUL ANOINTED WORK THAT HAS BROUGHT ME SIGNIFICANTLY CLOSER TO GOD.
LOL.
WELL and fittingly put, I think.
My bias is . . . that the traditional TRINITARIAN description . . . as fuzzy as it is . . .
is as reasonable to hold onto until we KNOW FULLY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF JORDAN . . .
as are the other perspectives on it.
Holy Spirit, not previously known to mankind
Except from the first chapter of Genesis second verse?
###
INDEED.
Father Son and Spirit are throughout Scripture.
Re: the Trinity, still uncomprehensible in Its workings and physical/ethereal construction.
Context is very important in such thinking. COnsider the two verses often translated with “comprehension”.
Eph 3:16-21
(16) That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
(17) That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
(18) May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
(19) And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
(20) Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,
(21) Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
Compared with Job
Job 37:2-8
(2) Hear attentively the noise of his voice, and the sound that goeth out of his mouth.
(3) He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends of the earth.
(4) After it a voice roareth: he thundereth with the voice of his excellency; and he will not stay them when his voice is heard.
(5) God thundereth marvellously with his voice; great things doeth he, which we cannot comprehend.
(6) For he saith to the snow, Be thou on the earth; likewise to the small rain, and to the great rain of his strength.
(7) He sealeth up the hand of every man; that all men may know his work.
(8) Then the beasts go into dens, and remain in their places.
Nice site. Thanks.
I think it should be considered an ecumenical religious duty to
take every advantage of every typo's humor to lighten things up around here.
The standard Papist strawman again!
Read in their completeness, the scriptures interpret, and canonize themselves. No one is entitled to their own interpretation.
Personal interpretation is exemplified in the Papist twisting of Rev. 12 to turn "the woman" into Mary to justify their Marian idolatry. That 'interpretation' is at odds with the entirety of scripture, including the rest of the book of Revelation. Let scripture interpret scripture!
To castigate those that say that the Trinity is not found in the scriptures in the form that is traditional in Euro-centric churches is a huge and unnecessary reach, in as much as that interpretation is not necessary for understanding the plan of salvation. (my personal beliefs tend toward the traditional)
There’s lots of wax in lots of spiritual ears.
And it seems that some are virtually deaf to Holy Spirit within and/or without.
Deliverance may be necessary in such cases.
Choice of words is delicate here.
I fully agree God the Holy Spirit acted throughout the Old Testament.
He didn’t indwell believers in the Old Testament, so there is a discernible difference in those ages.
INDEED.
WELL PUT.
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. – Isaiah 9:6
You are spot on!
Matt. 10:32 Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will confess before My Father who is in heaven.
We really don't have a choice. We can preach Christ Crucified and condemn the Marian heresy, or we can be "ecumenical" and act like worshiping Mary is not wrong.
I absolutely cringe when my pastor uses it. My sister always shoots me a glance whenever he uses it because she knows she'll see my head in my hands. It is bad enough that we have the ESV in the pews, but the Message should be banned in Mo Synod churches. Fortunately he only uses it for his text. But the beautiful phrasing of loved Scripture gets lost in the execrable 'street' paraphrase. I hate it.
I believe this verse is among the most definitive:
Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 28:19)
Any translation of Scripture, Catholic or Protestant, uses the singulare NAME rather than names. It is quite clear that it is Three Persons in ONE GOD.
I still don’t see your point. Neither citation explains the workings of the Trinity. If anything, they explain that that particular knowledge is something beyond human need but by the power of the Holy Spirit you understand the things that are needful.
Given decades of memory work in KJV, I don’t lack for such language.
THE MESSAGE bringing the earthy flavor of the original Hebrew and Greek to life in modern English has really brought me closer to the heart of God The Father whom I know and have learned to Love and feel closer to thereby.
It enlivened an inner sense that SUCH WAS THE FATHER’S NATURE AND LOVE all along. It helped flesh it out for me in modern unstilted language that was closer to my heart and realities.
I wish my Pastor would send his copy to you.
It's not something taught in Scripture. The whole organizational system pointing towards a "super duper priest here on earth" is wrong. However, I think it is below the idolatry of kneeling down to statues of Mary, praying to her and expecting her to do things that only God does.
The Marian heresy is probably the worst error that church is caught up in. It systematically moves Christians from seeking Jesus to seeking Mary.
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.