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."
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
Only if the people heed the words of Jesus.
Luke 18: 10 "Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, 'O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity--greedy, dishonest, adulterous--or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.' 13 But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, 'O God, be merciful to me a sinner.' 14 I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted."
The false pride of the Reformed will be Judged. Otherwise the claim of salvation will be false.
WOW.
INDEED.
As I understand it,
Baptists and Roman Catholics et al . . . maybe Lutherans, Presbyterians and Methodists, too.
both tend to cound on their membership rolls . . . folks who have long since stopped attending.
That has to inflate things somewhat.
You have my less often checked email, IIRC.
Can give you the more frequently checked one, if you wish.
I agree. I know of a number of cases like that.
However, I wouldn’t recommend waiting for folks hereon to address that straightforwardly and honorably from their side.
LOL. Stayed home.
Housemate graciously pureed an 88 cent Banquet turkey and stuffing dinner for me. Was different than oatmeal or mashed potatoes or some other usual mush or gruel these days! LOL, PTL.
Tonight took the babyfood grinder to a restaurant and ground up some chicken fingers. Better flavor but by the time all that was done, was cold. And, the effort was enormous—particularly with low energy from recent digestive trac challenges.
All in all, happy to be home. Tuckered out. Praising God that He is faithful.
Thankful for Joya’s helpfulness, kindnesses and generosities.
Trying to get up courage to go ahead and schedule the surgery on the upper teeth. Wheeeee.
Prayers for all your levels and related challenges.
LUB
It’s conceivable that John is dinking with the email system. Or else . . . some other worse monkey business is going on.
I think FREEPMAIL has had some problems off and over over the last 6 months or so.
My Auntie is Catholic.
(You asked, I answered.)
I encourage you to ignore the font whiners.
They couldn’t tell a
CAPS = raised eyebrows from a
CAPS = raised voice tone from a
CAPS = one raised eyebrow from a
CAPS = a slowed cadence from a
CAPS = a sing-song cadence from a
CAPS = a screechy tone from a
CAPS = a low frequency growl sort of tone from a
CAPS = a louder volume
if their life depended on it.
And many of the CAPS WHINERS seem to be allergic to CAPS and eagerly looking for something to COMPLAIN CHRONICALLY ABOUT.
Apparently you're with the folks who claim that the soul and spirit are one in the same...
There are over 1000 verses in the scriptures that contain the words soul or spirit or both...I'll post just a sampling but it would seem that a cursory study of the issue should put any doubts to rest...
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Jdg 15:19 But God clave an hollow place that was in the jaw, and there came water thereout; and when he had drunk, his spirit came again, and he revived: wherefore he called the name thereof Enhakkore, which is in Lehi unto this day.
3Jn 1:2 Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.
Rev 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
Rev 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
1Th 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
"acceptable" as in being believers or being Christian -- please could you clarify?
Acceptable as being Christian. A particular understanding of the Godhead is not part of the formula for being born again (Christian).
I appreciate your wanting us to embrace your church. You fervently believe in her, but as a Christan believer, I am just as committed to the church Christ founded, the universal body of Christ.
It's not my Church. It's the Church that Jesus created and the Holy Spirit commissioned. You know, the one in Scripture.
You fervently believe in her
Correct.
I am just as committed to the church Christ founded, the universal body of Christ.
The thing is, we believe that it is one and the same.
Apparently you're with the folks who claim that the soul and spirit are one in the same...
What's the matter, don't you understand the question? You never made any effort to answer it. And you apparently didn't read my post where I specifically mentioned that not once do the Scriptures mix up the terms "soul" and "spirit". They apply to different things, and are never one in the same!
There are over 1000 verses in the scriptures that contain the words soul or spirit or both...I'll post just a sampling but it would seem that a cursory study of the issue should put any doubts to rest...
Your sampling doesn't show anything in respects to what I said. Anyway, yes, there are many more places than the 1,000 you mention.
In the NT we find the word "spirit" 385 times.
In the OT we find the word "spirit" 400 times.
In the NT we find the word "soul" 105 times.
In the OT we find the word "soul" 752 times.
Of these 1642 times we find that not once is one used for the other. To the amazement of many, the OT mentions "dead" souls 26 times - souls can die! And the NT also says that many times - if one lets his/her eyes see what is said. And, BTW, not once do you find any "soul" going to Heaven at death, but, however, we do find that the "spirit", i.e., the breath of life returns to the One who gave it to mankind (and the animals also! Man and animals, they both have the same spirit)!
Pay attention to this:
Gen 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. "
My questions to you, if you dare answer them by reading what it actually says: "What two things made man a living soul? Does this say that God put a "soul" into the body of man?
I'll anxiously await your two answers.
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.