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."
Yes, that’s not worship. Those are statues, not divinity, not even statues of divinity.
As when Yah'shua breathed on the Apostles. YHvH also added a Hey (breath) to Abram I view the Holy Spirit as the Breath(pneuma) of G-d
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
to create Abraham and to Sarai to create Sarah.
Thank you — that is a beautiful description.
Thank you for your kind words.
C'mon, man. *rolls eyes* If you were on the outside, looking into any other religion that treats a woman as y'all treat Mary, I have *no doubt* you would be standing right beside wmfights and I. Take a step back, and see.
You're now telling me that you know it better than history? Better than the fact that this was the Church, not the hierarchy? If you wish to disagree, fine, but don't tell me that history was wrong and offer no proofs to the contrary.
I believe that you and I are talking past each other.
I will cede the point that the books that form the New Covenant canon grew together organically - That traditional attributions and outright popularity determined the canon long before it was made canon.
I will even cede that the council(s) gave great deference to what I would call the "organic canon," for the purposes of distinction...
I was speaking of the actual declaration of the canon (Trent). There were no ballots passed down to the lowest members. It was not by referendum. It was an high council - that's all.
Sorry, it won't work for ya...It didn't say bow down and serve them...It says, bow down; or, server them...Either of which...But more importantly, God says don't even build the statues...
You can't wish your way out of it no matter how you spin it...God said don't do it...He did NOT say don't build these things if you are going to use them for worship...He said, Don't Build Them at all...
Yahright, whatever...
Graetz has been discredited long ago. Even if he had been right, a Sanhedrin council from Jerusalem (in exile to be sure) holds far more credz than the Greek community.
This is a reasonable stance. However, I would assert that *none* are correct, and *ALL* are an artifice, each of which fail to contain Mighty Jehovah. He is the I AM. He is ONE.
Trinitarians can explain this, modalists can't. The one being model of the Trinity xplains your dilemma.
Only by making the three superfluous. If Jesus DID know, the Hypostatic Union is an unnecessary construction.
It's not perfct but it is close (just like the old saying "Democracy is a bad form of government, but the others are worse"
That will not do as doctrine. As I said, boolean... TRUE or FALSE.
Who is my Redeemer ?shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiachNAsbU Ruth 4:14 Then the women said to Naomi,Is YHvH your Redeemer ?
"Blessed is YHvH who has not left you without
a redeemer today, and may his name become
famous in Israel.NAsbU Job 19:25 "As for me, I know that my Redeemer
lives, And at the last He will take His stand on the earth.NAsbU Psalm 19:14 Let the words of my mouth and
the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in
Your sight, O YHvH, my rock and my Redeemer.NAsbU Psalm 78:35 And they remembered that God
was their rock, And the Most High God their Redeemer.NAsbU Isaiah 41:14 "Do not fear, you worm Jacob,
you men of Israel; I will help you," declares YHvH,
"and your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel.NAsbU Isaiah 43:14 Thus says YHvH your Redeemer,
the Holy One of Israel, "For your sake I have sent
to Babylon, And will bring them all down as fugitives,
Even the Chaldeans, into the ships in which they rejoice.NAsbU Isaiah 44:6 "Thus says YHvH, the King of Israel
and his Redeemer, YHvH of hosts: 'I am the first and
I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.NAsbU Isaiah 44:24 Thus says YHvH, your Redeemer,
and the one who formed you from the womb,
"I, YHvH, am the maker of all things, Stretching
out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the
earth all alone,NAsbU Isaiah 47:4 Our Redeemer, YHvH of hosts
is His name, The Holy One of Israel.NAsbU Isaiah 48:17 Thus says YHvH, your Redeemer,
the Holy One of Israel, "I am YHvH your God,
who teaches you to profit, Who leads you in the
way you should go.NAsbU Isaiah 49:7 Thus says YHvH, the Redeemer of
Israel and its Holy One, To the despised One,
To the One abhorred by the nation, To the Servant
of rulers, "Kings will see and arise, Princes will
also bow down, Because of YHvH who is faithful,
the Holy One of Israel who has chosen You."NAsbU Isaiah 49:26 "I will feed your oppressors
with their own flesh, And they will become drunk
with their own blood as with sweet wine; And
all flesh will know that I, YHvH, am your
Savior And your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob."NAsbU Isaiah 54:5 "For your husband is your Maker,
Whose name is YHvH of hosts; And your Redeemer
is the Holy One of Israel, Who is called the God
of all the earth.NAsbU Isaiah 54:8 "In an outburst of anger I hid
My face from you for a moment, But with everlasting
lovingkindness I will have compassion on you,"
Says YHvH your Redeemer.NAsbU Isaiah 59:20 "A Redeemer will come to Zion,
And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,"
declares YHvH.NAsbU Isaiah 60:16 "You will also suck the milk of
nations And suck the breast of kings; Then you
will know that I, YHvH, am your Savior And your
Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.NAsbU Isaiah 63:16 For You are our Father, though
Abraham does not know us And Israel does not
recognize us. You, O YHvH, are our Father,
Our Redeemer from of old is Your name.NAsbU Jeremiah 50:34 "Their Redeemer is strong,
YHvH of hosts is His name; He will vigorously
plead their case So that He may bring rest
to the earth, But turmoil to the inhabitants of Babylon.
Yahweh is One God. He IS GOD. Can you say that anything He desires is beyond His ability?
Then why did you ask that question?
In answer to your questions:
[Cronos:] That is, anyone who accepts Jesus as their Lord?
What of those who reject Jesus Christ's divinity yet call him Lord or Prophet?
IOW, Since Christ did not declare it before His followers at the time, since an imperfect knowledge was fine then, why would it be anything else today?
It is precisely this kind of exclusion that began this conversation.
On your knees in front of a statue is worship.
All that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego needed to do is bow before "a statue"... a representation of a creature... They even knew the creature (Nebuchadnezzar II) personally. No chance they "thought he was divinity"... Yet they would *not* bow. On pain of death, even.
A very good lesson to remember.
No, it was one person, in power, and the rest of the pagans followed on.
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.