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."
Unreliable sources like the US Government?
And since four times as many Roman Catholics become Protestant as Protestants become Roman Catholic, we know this statistic of 24% must be quite inflated.
No, we don't know this. Do you have any sources for this claim? I provide official US Government census data. Do you have any as good?
Really? Jesus left us no written word? That's amazing. No wonder the Roman Catholic church is so lost.
Where in Scripture does Jesus leave us written words except in the dust? Chapter and verse please.
Jesus is the word of God made flesh
John 1. Yes.
His words were faithfully committed to paper to be handed down through time, preserved by God and made knowable by the Holy Spirit.
Wait a minute. You just criticized me for saying that Jesus left us His Church not any written word. What did Jesus write except for the unknown words in the dust? Chapter and verse please.
Pray for ears to hear.
I pray that God leads all those outside the Church to him.
John 12: 31 Now is the time of judgment on this world; now the ruler of this world 18 will be driven out. 32 And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself."
Everyone, Dr. E. Even the Reformed. I pray that the Reformed stop resisting the call of God and stop listening to the siren call of Calvin.
You don't have to right all the time. I agree.
And I understand the time-line very well. I just don't feel the need to expound on all the various books being read, I just bought out that the books of the Bible were being read by most of the Churches of Christ in various places before the counsel at Carthage.
Okay, buy it out. The facts are a little at odd with your beliefs, but so be it.
And, FYI, the church is not just a gathering of Elders/presbyters/overseers, i.e., Bishops; it is made up of all believers in Christ.
That is correct. I meant to say Church clergy overall, showing that there were many more bishops at Carthage than in Apostolic times total, because of the rise of Christianity; therefore the proceedings would be handled slightly differently than with a much smaller group.
Simply put, I don't.
Many remove statement 2 (Arius' belief). Uri seems to (please correct me if I'm wrong) not agree with statement 3.
So what? The first is patently wrong, and can be proven upon the Word, and the second depends upon what "separate" is exactly.
If you agree to the above 3 statements, then what is the only logical conclusion you can come to? That the Godhead is one, yet three in "some" way, correct?
"Yet 3 in some way" can be a lot of things different from the common, clinical Trinitarian view.
I've pointed it out and will point out again -- this is not an exclusively Catholic sense of the Trinity but one shared by all Trinitarian Christians, whether Reformed or Baptist or Anglican or Catholic or Lutheran or Orthodox.
Accepted. But as I stated, it is my position that the Protestants did not protest enough. The Trinitarian concept comes from the RC/Ortho side.
Bear in mind, I meant no particular offense in that attribution, either now, or before. Not in the saying of it anyway.
Do we consider it to be precise? No [...] Do we consider it to be exclusive? No [...]
Precise enough, and exclusive enough, that one is not a considered to BE Christian if one does not conform to that very particular model - I know it to be true, as I have been so accused - Even though I am basically Trinitarian, though I do not claim it as "truth". I refuse to say that the Trinitarian model is absolutely correct...
We don't know and could never know the exact nature of the Godhead, but we can, through scripture and Holy Tradition, know what it is not.
I would agree with half of that - What is in the Scriptures is all that matters.
I would say that "A" Trinity is supported. Whether that is the Trinitarian model is largely a matter of tradition.
As I have also said, an hierarchical model is also supported, as is a form of separation.
There is plenty of room for discussion wrt the Scriptural basis of the claim.
I asked you why you say "I will not criticize a Messianic Jew, nor a Lutheran, nor any that is in between except for the confusion" -- do you extend that non-criticism to Catholics and Orthodox on our opinions for the Trinity too?
To the extent that you would prove it upon the Word (and the Word alone), of course. But that is an unlikely scenario - You and I both know that the RCC/Ortho folks DO hold tradition to be equal to the Word of God. In that sense, and on that occasion, I will naturally become diametrically opposed...
That is not said to raise your ire, it is just the fact of the matter.
But it is not in accordance with the harmony of the scriptures. It places Rev 12 at odds with the rest of the word, and there is nothing in Rev 12 itself to lead one in that direction. It is a personal interpretation that has been enforced by political power and decree, and cries out for resolution.
mine won’t delete. very odd...
I disagree strongly on both points.
The Spirit "gave birth" to the Scriptures of the New Covenant. Just like He always has.
As to traditions, Somewhere, somehow, there must be an irrefutable standard (as in measurement) by which all things are judged. That must be the Holy Word of God. That which (as we agree)is God breathed is Holy, and by His Nature, MUST be revered above all else.
It is not that you HAVE tradition - Everyone does. It is in the use of tradition to change the truth of the Word...There is grave danger in that. And I do not suppose that the Roman Catholics are any better than any other Assembly in that regard. Judah made the same mistake. As did Ephraim. Christ Himself exhorted those of His day that held to tradition with tenacity while making God's words null.
In that fashion, I will reject ALL tradition, from any quarter, which makes the Word of God to be made less than it truly is.
WE HEAR THE CALL OF CHRIST..NO OTHER.
yep...
Interesting. You shout at me, but you provide no other evidence except what I have seen you post in the past. If you hear the call of Christ, do you follow that call? Many are called, but few make it. Many claim to follow Christ, but in actual fact, spurn His words and His teachings and follow newly minted doctrines of men.
I have seen you agree wholeheartedly with very nonChristian posts by some rather nonChristian folks in superlative nonChristian diatribes. I'm not sure how that fits into hearing only the call of Christ.
how was your birthday dinner and celebration?
It must be something in the water. I had the same problem. :-0
I’m not shouting. Because of my swollen hands I type slowly and in either upper or lower case.
In YOUR opinion you feel they are non Christian. God only will judge my walk with him, certainly not you, Mark.
God Bless you sister!
Once we hear His call all else false in place.
bad spelling, to excited! False should be falls
Reread your post to me and see how Christian it reads.
John 13: 33 My children, I will be with you only a little while longer. You will look for me, and as I told the Jews, 'Where I go you cannot come,' so now I say it to you. 34 I give you a new commandment: 12 love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. 35 This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."
1 Corinthians 13: 1 1 If I speak in human and angelic tongues 2 but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.
4 3 Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated, 5 it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, 6 it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 4 Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing. 9 For we know partially and we prophesy partially, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things. 12 At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.
13 5 So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
By their fruits do you know them. The antiCatholics here are loud and proud, vain and measure their salvation against the attacks on the Church. There is evidence of Christianity that is external to each person - both evidence of, and evidence against.
Mark, many of your posts to me have been unkind. Pot calling kettle black?
Quite possibly. If I am Judged for Salvation, it will only be because of the Mercy of God.
I do not mean my posts to you to be unkind - I have a regard for you that many of my friends here do not - and it distresses me when you flock to the antiCatholics with pompoms and repeat their battle cries.
I would have everyone come back to the Faith of Jesus Christ and relinquish the churches of men that litter the landscape like languid limpets.
Behold! How from her lair the youthful llama
Llopes and llightly scans the llandscape o’er;
With llusty heart she llooks upon llife’s drama,
Rellying on her llate-llearnt worldlly llore.
But lllo! Some lllad, armed with a yoke infama,
Soon lllures her into lllowllly lllabor’s cause.
Her woolll is lllopped to weave into pajama,
And lllanguidllly she lllearns her gees and haws.
My chilllldren, heed this llllesson from all llllanguishing young llllamas:
If you would llllive with llllatitude, avoid each lllluring llllay.
And do not llllightlllly lllleave, I beg, your llllonesome, lllloving mammas.
And lllllast of allllllll, don’t spellllll your name in such a silllllly way.
Theophilus Thadeus Thistledown,
The succesful thistle-sifter,
While sifting a sieve-full of unsifted thistles,
Thrust three thousand thistles through the thick of his thumb.
Now, if Theophilus Thadeus Thistledown,
The succesful thistle-sifter,
Thrust three thousand thistles through the thick of his thumb,
See that thou, while sifting a sieve-full of unsifted thistles,
Thrust not three thousand thistles through the thick of thy thumb.
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.