 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1627 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17th, 2008 06:07 pm |
|
{moved from another thread, of a different topic}
Stupid Questions
Posted: Tue Jul 15th, 2008 08:19 am
Reading this thread illustrates and reminds me of a question I have always had. Let me see if I can ask it correctly.
I understand that Catholicism has a number of dogmas that Catholics "must believe".
Now Protestant churches don't use the words "dogma" and "must believe", but they do have their statements of faith that on some level members must sign-off on.
Now how it plays out in real life seems to be (from my experience) as follows.
* 80-90 percent of these statements of faith are generic Christian stuff that really any Christian should agree to.
*10-20 percent of these statements of faith are (I think the buzzword is) "distinctives" (which I understand to be the stuff that your denomination believes, but chances are the church down the road doesn't).
Now how this plays out in real life is that the level of belief that a member may have in the "distinctives" is far less than the level of belief a member should have in the generic stuff. In real life, it seems that the minimum required level of belief in a "distinctive" is "do not actively" oppose.
For example, my church has a few "distinctives" that I am..well unsure of and yes have my doubts about. However, I can't say for sure they are wrong, so I do not actively oppose them. I just haven't bought in on them yet (and maybe never will). However, I understand these are a part of the statement of faith of the church, when doing anything in a church capacity, I will support them.
My understanding has been that in Catholicism, the level of belief in Catholic distinctives is higher..you "must" wholeheartedly believe them (that it is an all or nothing deal). "Do not oppose" is not good enough.
However, this thread seems to illustrate that in real life, Catholicism really is not that much different than what I am used to. And from what I have read on say artificial contraception, homosexuality and abortion, that in real life a significant number of Catholics actively disagree with what they must believe (which seems odd to me because I would think that at least homosexuality and abortion are generic Christian beliefs). So now I am a little confused.
* * * * *
David W. Emery
Posted: Tue Jul 15th, 2008 01:19 pm
What real life illustrates, Rob, is that Catholics are human beings just like everybody else. They are weak, they are fallible, they commit sin. This is in perfect harmony with Catholic doctrine, which states that even though we are saved by the blood of Jesus, we continue to suffer the effects of Adam’s fall. We are called to an active struggle against sin, and those who do not make the effort will inevitably and repeatedly fall victim to it. This includes the adoption of wrong-headed opinions garnered from the surrounding culture. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church, #405 and context.)
* * * * *
Stupid Questions
Posted: Tue Jul 15th, 2008 02:45 pm
Dave (Emery):
Thanks, but that was not quite what I was asking. I was not asking about sin versus non-sin.
This thread prompted a question in my mind that might be a tangent to this thread.
I guess the question is about "What level of belief" in a point of faith is required in Catholicism.
There probably is a better term than "level of belief", but that is what my non-creative mind is coming up with. And what I mean is that on any point of faith I of course can give my unconditional approval (God says it, I believe it, that settles it). On the other hand I can actively oppose it (that belief is from the pits of hell). But there also are logical grey areas between these two poles.
Now from where I am coming from, being in a grey area is ok, particularly if it is on an issue where Christians of good faith who attend the church down the street disagree with you.
However, my understanding of Catholicism has been that being in a grey area on any point of dogma is just not allowed. If it is a point of dogma, you must give unconditional assent to it (mortal sin otherwise).
Do you understand my question (am I being clear)? Am I misunderstanding something?
* * * * *
Dave Armstrong
Posted: Tue Jul 15th, 2008 04:42 pm
Hi Rob,
I appreciate your good and fair and important questions. Here is my shot at answering them as best I can.
Reading this thread illustrates and reminds me of a question I have always had. Let me see if I can ask it correctly.
I understand that Catholicism has a number of dogmas that Catholics "must believe".
Correct. We call them de fide dogmas (or in some cases, ex cathedra). In a nutshell, though there are fine (sometimes very fine) distinctions that can be drawn, the Catholic is obliged, in the nature of the case, to accept all that the Church teaches. And that is because it is an act of faith to accept the notion that the Catholic Church is the One True Church established by Jesus Christ, historically continuous, universal, specially protected by the Holy Spirit for the purpose of passing down the apostolic deposit. Because we accept this in faith as Catholics, it is required that we accept all that the Church teaches. To do that is itself a result of supernatural grace from God.
Protestants don't look at it that way because, first of all, they deny that the Church is infallible. Once one does that, then it is a completely new rule of faith. For Protestants, that is sola Scriptura, or the idea that Scripture is the only infallible source of faith. Therefore, it is very difficult for a Protestant to accept the notion of submitting to a Church's teaching in faith, because for them, no Church has it right: only the Bible does that. They often see this as virtually a violation of people's right to think for themselves or of one's own conscience.
It's not at all: it is a recognition of our own limitations, of something higher than ourselves: established by God, and of a Christian faith that includes acknowldgement of an authoritative, infallible Church. It takes faith, and faith is a supernatural gift granted by God through His grace and the assistance of the Holy Spirit. It's not mere reason, but can be supported by reason: like all Christian dogma.
Now Protestant churches don't use the words "dogma" and "must believe", but they do have their statements of faith that on some level members must sign-off on.
Yes. I think some would use the word, but Protestants generally prefer the word doctrine. Protestants, to the extent that they are serious about historic Christian doctrine, do, of course, require a set of beliefs, too: just not as many as we do. I always use the example of Calvinists. A truly Calvinist denomination (Presbyterian, Reformed, in their traditional forms and belief-structures) would not allow a member to deny all five tenets of TULIP:
Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints
. . . or even two or three. They would no longer be considered members of the denomination, in terms of adherence to the creed of the group.
Now how it plays out in real life seems to be (from my experience) as follows.
* 80-90 percent of these statements of faith are generic Christian stuff that really any Christian should agree to.
I think the figure would be lower than that: maybe 60-70%, but maybe you're right.
*10-20 percent of these statements of faith are (I think the buzzword is) "distinctives" (which I understand to be the stuff that your denomination believes, but chances are the church down the road doesn't).
I write entire books about Catholic distinctives. There is quite a bit. It's true that most Christians can agree on something like the Nicene Creed, but even there (and this is illustrative of the problem) one has to stretch quite a bit to include even Baptists, and anyone else who denies baptismal regeneration (including your Assemblies of God) because of the clause:"We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". Thus we see that even on this broad level, there are huge differences.
Now how this plays out in real life is that the level of belief that a member may have in the "distinctives" is far less than the level of belief a member should have in the generic stuff. In real life, it seems that the minimum required level of belief in a "distinctive" is "do not actively" oppose.
There are always people who join groups but disagree on some of the tenets. Catholics are allowed to have doubts and uncertainties in their head (the Church is not simplistic or naive about such things), but they are supposed to accept in faith all that the Church teaches, and certainly not openly oppose it, whether they fully understand everything or not.
For example, my church has a few "distinctives" that I am..well unsure of and yes have my doubts about. However, I can't say for sure they are wrong, so I do not actively oppose them. I just haven't bought in on them yet (and maybe never will). However, I understand these are a part of the statement of faith of the church, when doing anything in a church capacity, I will support them.
I attended Assemblies of God myself, for four years (1982-1986), met many of my friends there, in the singles group, including my wife, got married there, started my old campus evangelistic ministry while there, and even decided to get "baptized" as an adult by full immersion in 1982, because that's what I believed at the time (in retrospect my true baptism was my Methodist baptism as an infant).
I never agreed with one of the "16 Fundamental Truths": the one (actually a combination of #7 and #8) that said everyone had to speak in tongues in order to receive the "enduement of power." This I felt to be expressly contrary to Paul's teaching about tongues, where he says that not all speak in tongues. Because of this, I never became a member. I was simply being honest: "I don't accept all 16 Truths that I am supposed to accept, so I won't become a member, but I agree with most everything else taught.
Actually, now looking at them again, I didn't realize that #12 on divine healing was as sweeping as it was. It almost promises a healing for any true believer, which is dangerously false teaching, that has caused untold misery and suffering and deaths in many cases, because people were misunderstanding how biblical healing works, and how often it should be expected (and I opposed that general teaching in writing in 1982; it is on my site today).
That gets back to our subject at hand: what to do when you disagree with something in the church you attend? If we say we are Catholics, then it should be understood that we accept all Church teaching, and are not reserving the right to express private judgment in dissent against the Church. To say that one is in A/G is to accept the 16 Fundamental Truths, which is pretty much its confession. I did not, so I didn't become a member. I was not trying to be controversial; I was being true to myself, and, I think (then and now) to St. Paul's teaching that I believe contradicts Assembly of God teaching. Private judgment is itself a distinctively Protestant notion, basically stemming from Luther's dissent. See my papers:
The Logical Circularity and Hidden Premises of Sola Scriptura Catholic vs. Protestant Conceptions of the Meaning and Consequences of Private Judgment (Including Lengthy Citations From Reformed Protestants Arthur W. Pink, Archibald Bruce, and Charles Hodge, Four Protestant Confessions, and Catholic John Henry Newman)
Private Judgment: Its Meaning and How it is Viewed by Protestants and Catholics
Refutation of the Common Protestant Polemical Charge That Catholics Inconsistently & Arbitrarily Apply Private Judgment in Accepting Catholicism (+ Discussion)
Protestant Ecclesiology and Epistemology is Always Ultimately Self-Defeating
My understanding has been that in Catholicism, the level of belief in Catholic distinctives is higher..you "must" wholeheartedly believe them (that it is an all or nothing deal). "Do not oppose" is not good enough.
That's pretty much the case, though the Church doesn't expect everyone to have perfect faith or knowledge and to fully understand every jot and tittle. The Church expects a humble submission to that which has been established and held from the beginning (with development of doctrine and increased understanding along the way). See my articles:
Is a Catholic at Liberty to Selectively Choose Which Catholic Dogmas He Will Abide By?
On the Scandal of a Church Outrageously Claiming to be a Church
On Whether God Could, Would, or Should Protect His Church From Doctrinal Error (vs. Dr. Edwin Tait: Anglican)
However, this thread seems to illustrate that in real life, Catholicism really is not that much different than what I am used to. And from what I have read on say artificial contraception, homosexuality and abortion, that in real life a significant number of Catholics actively disagree with what they must believe (which seems odd to me because I would think that at least homosexuality and abortion are generic Christian beliefs). So now I am a little confused.
Yes, there are always people who are "in" a group but not totally "of" it. Many times, they don't properly understand the teachings of their own group. Other times, they do full well, and disagree, as I did in the A of G. I did what I felt was the only honest thing, and did not ever become a member, because that would entail "agreeing" with a tent that I did not accept.
There is still a vast difference between the situation with Catholic dissenters or liberals or modernists and the situation found in Protestant denominations adopting wholesale liberalism and heterodoxy "officially." We have not done that. That is the difference. You can only look at what a group officially teaches. I wrote about this oft-made comparison, too:
Dissident Catholics and Catholic Doctrinal Unity: A Contradiction?
I guess the question is about "What level of belief" in a point of faith is required in Catholicism.
There probably is a better term than "level of belief", but that is what my non-creative mind is coming up with. And what I mean is that on any point of faith I of course can give my unconditional approval (God says it, I believe it, that settles it). On the other hand I can actively oppose it (that belief is from the pits of hell). But there also are logical grey areas between these two poles.
Now from where I am coming from, being in a grey area is ok, particularly if it is on an issue where Christians of good faith who attend the church down the street disagree with you.
However, my understanding of Catholicism has been that being in a grey area on any point of dogma is just not allowed. If it is a point of dogma, you must give unconditional assent to it (mortal sin otherwise).
Do you understand my question (am I being clear)? Am I misunderstanding something?
I think I understand. I've given the more nutshell version of how a Catholic responds to this important question. If you really really want to get into it (be forewarned!) there are nuances and complexities on a more "fine-tuned" level that are often vastly misunderstood and falsely portrayed by our esteemed "progressive" Catholics that we are blessed with (like mosquitoes) in our ranks. I wrote about this in the following (long!) paper:
Vatican II: Is it Orthodox and Binding? / The Infallibility and Sublime Authority of Conciliar and Papal Decrees / Different Levels of Church Authority
Also, the related question of conscience is dealt with in this paper:
Conscience: The Catholic Church's (and Newman's) View
Catholics are not at liberty to disagree with, for example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that was promulgated under Pope John Paul II in 1992, accompanied by the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, which stated in part:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. . . .
Therefore, I ask all the Church's Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph 3:8). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.
Last edited on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 06:16 pm by Dave Armstrong
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1627 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17th, 2008 06:18 pm |
|
Stupid Questions
Posted: Tue Jul 15th, 2008 06:29 pm
Dave:
Thanks for answering my question. You actually understood what I was trying to ask.
Of course you supplied a ton of links that will take time to read and digest.
Just a couple comments on Assemblies of God.
We live in a rural setting where there are limited number of churches. I find the local Assemblies of God church to be the best match considering where we live, but not a perfect match.
Now it turns out that our church has a statement of faith, but our statement of faith is much more general than the Assemblies of God one. For example Baptism of the Holy Spirit
The Baptism of the Holy Spirit. We believe in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as a distinct experience from and subsequent to the experience of the new birth, and in the gifts of the Holy Spirit as being valid and operative today, and that they should be earnestly desired by the believer.
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.
I Corinthians 12:7
And divine healing:
- Divine Healing
We believe in Divine Healing, through the power of the Holy Spirit.
...to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit.
I Corinthians 12:9
I don't have issues with these statements, but I'm sort of with you on the Assemblies of God denomination statements. In fact I've had the same thoughts of the divine healing one that you have had..but I have resolved that as an just another inconsistency because Assemblies of God does seem to be opposed to hyper-faith nonsense..but anyway.
So the way that I figure it is that we are members of our local church first. Our church is a member of Assemblies of God. However we are not members of Assemblies of God (should we ever move we may not choose Assemblies of God next time around). So therefore the church statement of faith has precedence over the Assemblies of God statement of faith. And since we have no problems with our local church statement of faith..
Yeah I know this is an inverse of the way it is with Catholicism.
Oh by the way..some folks think of Assemblies of God as anti-Catholic, but in my experience that has not been the case. I know that in my current church if Catholics are ever mentioned (we don't obsess ourselves with other denominations) it has always been positive.
Anyway..I will try to go through your stuff. Be warned..I'm not really a theological type and I have a low attention span. Meaning I get lost in big theological words that end in "..ology". However I do think I have been trained to think fairly logically about stuff..so I'll give it a whirl.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Stupid Questions
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 13 |
| First Name: | Rob | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Assemblies of God now but checking things out |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17th, 2008 09:22 pm |
|
Just to let you know that I have found this thread here.
You have sort of put me on information overload with all the references to your web page.
So..I am working through the first four that deal with "Private Judgement".
First of all, I am trying to understand exactly what you are saying. Remember that I am at best an armchair theologian.
I'll ask one question that sort of sticks out from reading your response and reading one of your papers.
Now you say that you were once a member of Assembly of God, correct. So you started studying the Scripture and saw a disconnect between what you were reading in Scripture and what Assembly of God was telling you. So in the end, you had to be true to yourself and what you believed God was showing you through Scripture, and so you did not become a member. (Now I too understand the disconnect..I guess you and I handled it differently..not to say that either one of us is right or wrong).
But isn't this really what you call "private judgement"?
One of your papers referenced Luther when he went before (was it) Diet of Worms..and he spoke on the disconnect he saw when he read Scripture and what his church was telling him. In the end, Luther said he had to be true to what God was showing him in Scripture (or something like that anyway).
But isn't this really the same thing?
So what is a poor believer to do when his church is telling him one thing..then he starts studying the Bible..and the more he does so..the more he senses a disconnect between what he is reading in the Bible and what his church is telling him?
Last edited on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 09:34 pm by Stupid Questions
|
|
|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 768 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17th, 2008 11:09 pm |
|
Stupid Questions wrote: So what is a poor believer to do when his church is telling him one thing..then he starts studying the Bible..and the more he does so..the more he senses a disconnect between what he is reading in the Bible and what his church is telling him?
Personally speaking, I've been 'round and 'round with this church's teaching and that church's teaching, been on a very long journey, and have now been brought to the point, based in reason, that I trust my Catholic Church. When my 'senses' tell me something different from what the Church teaches, I keep reading and studying and asking questions until I understand and am conformed to the Church. It's invariably been smarter than I and made more sense!
____________________
"I praise you, for I am wondrously made. Wonderful are our works! My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret." Ps 139
"Guard me, O Lord, from the hands of the wicked; preserve me from violent men." Ps 140
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1627 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19th, 2008 05:25 pm |
|
Hi Rob,
You really need a new name!  You ask some of the best questions on the board . . .
Just to let you know that I have found this thread here.
Cool!
You have sort of put me on information overload with all the references to your web page.
No need to read all of them. I just let people know when I have covered certain topics (sometimes at great length). It's like finding a bunch of books on a topic in the card catalogue at a library. One generally doesn't read all of them or even look at all of them. People can, of course, read as little or as much as they need and want. I just want to make it known that I've offered some sort of answer. How well I did is up to readers (and my theological critics) to decide.
So..I am working through the first four that deal with "Private Judgement".
First of all, I am trying to understand exactly what you are saying. Remember that I am at best an armchair theologian.
I'll ask one question that sort of sticks out from reading your response and reading one of your papers.
Okay.
Now you say that you were once a member of Assembly of God, correct.
I attended for four years and believed in most of the doctrines that they taught (adult baptism, Arminianism, etc.).
So you started studying the Scripture and saw a disconnect between what you were reading in Scripture and what Assembly of God was telling you.
In that instance, I didn't have to study much: I thought it was plain as day in Scripture that not all folks speak in tongues, just as none of the other spiritual gifts is possessed by all, either, or by all "super-spiritual" people. I think it is a no-brainer. So for a denomination to specifically, legalistically tie baptism of the Holy Spirit to one gift only is rather silly, in my opinion, and essentially an insult to those who don't speak in tongues, as if they are intrinsically inferior spiritually (many have objected to this sort of "spiritual elitism" and legalism that is too often found in charismatic circles). It's a classic case of putting traditions of men on a higher plane than Scripture.
So in the end, you had to be true to yourself and what you believed God was showing you through Scripture, and so you did not become a member. (Now I too understand the disconnect..I guess you and I handled it differently..not to say that either one of us is right or wrong).
Correct.
But isn't this really what you call "private judgement"?
Indeed, because for a Protestant, there is no higher court of appeal than the individual, by the nature of the system. This is the heart of the disagreement on authority. The Protestant can sit as an individual and judge all denominations by Scripture, and regard himself as, in effect, the final court of appeal. This is private judgment or the primacy of the individual conscience, in the Protestant system.
It can't be otherwise, actually, because Protestantism involves a vicious logical circularity: Scripture judges all denominational teachings, but Scripture has to be interpreted and in many cases (e.g., baptism) the correct theology is either not proclaimed by a denomination, or it is proclaimed, but contradicted by other denominations. The infallibility of the Church is denied; therefore, each denomination is its own entity, and the end result is theological relativism or indifferentism on the "secondary" matters. There is no concrete, practical, "institutional" way to decide between competing theologies because there is a multiplicity of "authorities" and sects.
So what does one do when one sees what he believes to be a clear conflict with Scripture, as a Protestant? One has to go with their own interpretation. St. Paul is quite clear in teaching that not all speak in tongues (1 Cor 12:29-31) and that the Spirit distributes gifts individually as He wills, not as we will (1 Cor 12:7-11). I think that is crystal-clear in Scripture. I did as a Protestant, and I do as a Catholic. Much in Scripture is quite clear, in my opinion (or perspicuous). Catholics are not required to deny that. We only deny that individuals en masse, alone with their Bibles can arrive at all truth, without the aid of an authoritative Church and Tradition to guide them.
One of your papers referenced Luther when he went before (was it) Diet of Worms..and he spoke on the disconnect he saw when he read Scripture and what his church was telling him. In the end, Luther said he had to be true to what God was showing him in Scripture (or something like that anyway).
But isn't this really the same thing?
So what is a poor believer to do when his church is telling him one thing..then he starts studying the Bible..and the more he does so..the more he senses a disconnect between what he is reading in the Bible and what his church is telling him?
Great questions. I've explained the "epistemological" situation of the Protestant who sees something he doesn't agree with. He is left to rely ultimately on himself as a judge of true and false doctrine. I think this is ultimately a burden and a bondage, because who has time to become the world's best expert on every theological topic? In a way, that is what Protestantism (in principle and theory, if not in practice) places on every individual person: he or she is the arbiter. He chooses between denominations. He figures out what denomination or set of favorite scholars or radio / TV preachers are correct and which are wrong. It's a sort of "magisterium by scholars."
The Catholic system is very different in how it all works practically, because we believe in faith that the Church is infallible when it definitively proclaims on faith and morals. Luther specifically denied this: first at the Disputation at Leipzig in 1519, with Johann Eck, and then again at the Diet of Worms in 1521. It was all quite spontaneous, and he was backed into a corner because his novel teachings contradicted received Church tradition. Faced with a choice of submitting to the Church and recanting his errors by that standard, and judging the Church as an individual by Scripture, he chose the latter. This was the radical change in the principle of authority.
Previous to that, Catholics accepted the infallibility and authority of the Church, just as the apostles had (council of Jerusalem) and the Church fathers had. Apostolic succession was the key: the apostolic deposit was preserved supernaturally and passed down in unbroken succession in the Catholic Church. This is how we ultimately know what is true: it will be harmonious with Scripture, and it will also be a tenet that the Church has always held, in kernel or more fully developed through time. The Church fathers argued this way. They saw no conflict between Church, Scripture, and Tradition.
They were all of a piece, and this was believed in faith. They argued with the heretics from Scripture, but then when the heretics disagreed and also used Scripture, the fathers would then appeal to the Church and tradition, and "what had always been held" and would challenge the heretics to show that their doctrine can be shown to have been widely taught all the way back to the apostolic period.
For example, then, if an Arian (who thinks Christ was a creature) was challenged to show this, he could not do so, because the heresy was of 3rd-century origin. It cannot be traced back in the Catholic Church because it simply wasn't there. No one taught it. It sprung up suddenly, as a theological novelty. And that was conclusive for the Catholic. The Arian was wrong because he couldn't produce a theological pedigree. Period. Case closed. Whatever is true, must be able to be traced back to the apostles and Jesus, because that is the apostolic deposit of Christian truth that the Church preserves. It is preserved primarily in inspired Scripture. No true doctrine can contradict Scripture.
So how does this work in a concrete situation, where a Catholic thinks he sees something in Scripture that contradicts Catholic teaching? It's very different. If a faithful, obedient Catholic, who believes in faith that the Church is infallible, thinks he sees a conflict between Church teaching and the Bible, he doesn't automatically go with his own opinion and conclude that the Church is wrong, because he believes in faith that the Church is infinitely more wise than he is; that he is limited, and that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from serious error (which presupposes that God is powerful and willing enough to do such a thing). It takes more faith to be a Catholic, because we believe that God preserves institutions, that have sinners in them, as well as holy books. But infallibility is a lesser gift than inspiration, so in that sense it is easier to accept. It's mostly a negative guarantee, that the Church will not err: not that it is positively inspired, as Scripture is.
So if we think we see a conflict, we have the choice that Luther had: trust the Church and acknowledge our limitedness and fallibility as individuals, or start disbelieving the Church on this, that, and the other, which is a slippery slope with no end, and the adoption of the Protestant rule of faith, which is sola Scriptura and private judgment.
Now, the question will immediately arise as to how this is not mind control or blind faith. I think it is solved in three ways:
1) Recognizing that Catholic doctrine requires faith, but is not incompatible at all with reason, as far as reason can take one. Catholic mysteries are not unreasonable; they simply go beyond reason.
2) Recognizing that Catholic faith is distinct from philosophy. It's not merely the end result of a syllogism or a theory made up by a brilliant philosophical mind.
3) Accepting the necessity of apologetics, at least in cases where one thinks he sees a lack of sufficient reason or a contradiction.
The heart cannot accept what the mind regards as false or illogical or nonsensical. Faith comes through grace. The Catholic faith requires lots of grace on God's part and lots of faith on our part.
The Catholic, then, accepts in faith all that the Church teaches. No Catholic claims to have a perfect, exhaustive grasp of all Catholic teachings. This is where authority and faith in God's provisions for that authority come in. So a Catholic might, for example, say, "Hey, I don't understand transubstantiation; I don't even come close, but I believe the doctrine in faith, because the Church teaches it and it has been passed down in kernel from the beginning (Real Presence) and developed through the centuries, through reflection of many great minds and saints. I believe that these great teachers have ably defended it, even though I myself may not have all that knowledge."
This is the Catholic mind and approach. The Protestant cannot say this in this same fashion. He could only say it, at best, in a limited way. If he appeals to history, he has to appeal to a denominational authority like Luther or Calvin or various confessions and creeds. But since those contradict each other, the question immediately arises: why trust one over the other? On what basis?
Some Protestants will attempt to argue that the Church fathers were more similar to their brand of Protestantism than to Catholicism. They can try, but I think they fail every time in actually demonstrating this. And if they cannot make the historical case, then they are left with the weak pillar of one denominational claim. Or, worse yet, they fall back on themselves and their own interpretation of Scripture, which is contradicted a dozen times over by other equally fervent, biblically-oriented Protestants.
If you appeal to a denomination, you have to show why it is valid over against hundreds of other Protestant denominations. If that can't be done historically, then it has to be done by comparative biblical interpretation, and then it is all-out war and anarchy and relativism. Protestants can't solve these questions. They can only continue to disagree: all appealing to Scripture.
But the Protestant can still say we are throwing away our minds in submitting to the Church. Not really: and the reason it is not is because all fields of study have authority figures and require folks to accept some things on the word of others. We accept any number of scientific truths that we do not fully understand, and the authority of those, like Newton and Einstein, who came up with the theories. That doesn't make us blind faith adherents. We simply haven't personally worked through all the intricacies of the theories.
We have faith in our automobiles, without necessarily knowing how they work, in great detail. We have "faith" in electricity and in our washing machines.
Truth is ascertained by many different ways, in a cumulative fashion: it is a convergence of many different things, determined in many different ways. A Catholic exercises faith in many things, insofar as he can understand. Then he accepts things at times that he doesn't understand, based on the "success" of all the other indicators.
Say, for example, that the typical Catholic sees doctrine A in Scripture that he thinks contradicts Catholic doctrine A2. He accepts his own limitations and doesn't feel that he has to resolve the cognitive dissonance, because he has seen enough about Catholicism, to accept it as true, in faith. But then suppose that, over time, he sees "biblical doctrines" B, C, and D, that he believes pose difficulties for Catholic dogmas B2, C2, and D2. How many such "difficulties" pose a problem for his overall Catholic faith, so that they may possibly overthrow same?
That's a good question, and I think this is where my field, apologetics, becomes crucial and important. If difficulties are occurring in a mind, it seems to me that they have to be resolved in a mind, not just by appeal to faith and authority. Catholic apologetics grapples with such questions and provides the best Catholic answer that it can.
The individual can then pursue these apologetic answers and see if they are sufficient to "level" or resolve his doubts. In many instances they are. Other times, the individual concludes that the answers are insufficient, and that Catholicism is no longer worthy of belief. I have argued, time and again, that the reasons given for this rejection are insufficient. I look at them (whether coming from atheists who were once Catholics, or a Protestant former Catholic) and I don't see that they are sufficient to overthrow (by reason alone) what I believe as a Catholic. And I write about the deficiencies of these reasons, in order to aid other Catholics who may be going through the same or similar thought processes.
Reason can be brought to bear all down the line. But Catholicism still requires faith, in harmony with this reason. One doesn't arrive at it by reason alone. Or a man may think he has found 13 reason to disbelieve Catholicism, and subsequently adopts some form of Protestantism. But Protestantism suffers from a host of internal contradictions. He has merely substituted (from where I sit) one set of alleged problems that can be resolved, for another set of real difficulties that cannot be solved. But oftentimes, the reason for leaving the Church are not really reasons at all, but rather, justifications for a prior decision of the will: often based on something one desires to do.
As an apologist who has been answering millions of questions that people have about Catholicism, for now 17 years (thus, one who is acquainted with many difficulties that arise), I can sincerely say that I have never seen a "problem" or "difficulty" that I find insuperable or faith-destroying. To the contrary, my Catholic faith has inevitably been bolstered, the more I study and defend the Church. Many people report finding such "deal-breaker" problems in Church teaching. I have not yet found one. I've always found Catholic beliefs to be in accord with both Scripture and history, and to be free from logical contradiction. I know that many find this hard to believe, but what can I say? It is my experience.
The experience of former Catholics or Protestants unconvinced of Catholicism is their own and I don't question it, viewed from their own internal perspective (I would question the validity of the reasoning, though). Likewise, my experience is valid and not made-up, and I am always happy to discuss any of my reasoning against cordial, substantive critique. . This is what I have truly experienced as an apologist. We can offer answers. No one has to feel as if the Catholic faith is unreasonable or unworthy of belief because of this, that, and the other.
I challenge people as an apologist, to compare the best of both sides of any issue they are going over. If they are struggling with transubstantiation, then they should read the best Catholic apologetics on that question andf the best Protestant apologetics (preferably, an actual dialogue between the two), then decide for themselves. The Catholic accepts the authority of the Church, but it is still good to understand why he believes what he believes. And it is good for Protestants to engage in comparative reasons for each side, too. Reason is always good, as long as it isn't made the sum total of truth, because it is not so.
We Catholics believe in what the Catholic Church teaches, in faith, and we can produce reasons for why we believe it: biblical, logical, experiential, mystical, and historical. In conclusion, I'll cite my words from my most detailed paper on this question that you ask about:
So when someone like me (a very low-church evangelical) becomes convinced of Catholicism, it is not merely another Protestant exercise of private judgment and de facto alleged self-infallibility. It is, to the contrary, the yielding up of private judgment and the acknowledgement of something far greater than oneself: an entity which is "out there;" which has always been there since Christ established it, preserving (only by God's enabling grace and will) apostolic Christian truth in its fullness and undiluted splendor.
Photo: Which denomination to choose, with such a bewildering variety? [ source of photo ]
Attachment: Denominations.jpg (Downloaded 30 times) Last edited on Sat Jul 19th, 2008 05:27 pm by Dave Armstrong
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Stupid Questions
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 13 |
| First Name: | Rob | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Assemblies of God now but checking things out |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 21st, 2008 02:20 am |
|
Hi Rob,
Oh, I chose the name "Stupid Questions" because that is one of my favorite sayings (I use the phrase concerning my questions at work all the time).
I do love self-effacing humor . . .
I have read quite a bit of stuff on your web page. Not that I understand much of it..but anyway.
Ah yes..denominations..
Well, since I have no interest in defending something as amorphous as "Protestantism", let me say right off the bat (in all fairness)..
If I were Catholic..
The biggest disconnect that I would have looking at Protestants would be their denominations. If I were a devout, practicing Catholic and were ever thinking of becoming Protestant, I think my thought process would be to tell the Protestants to come back to me once they get their act together and with one voice give me the one definitive interpretation of the Bible. Otherwise I would have absolutely no idea which denomination I should accept.
Exactly. It is a HUGE problem that has never been overcome.
Now I have some disconnects with Catholicism, but I'm just saying that disconnects go both ways.
You touched on your post a question I have long had. That would be on whether a rule of faith is provable? Or how do you know that your rule of faith is in fact correct?
You can't prove it like 2+2=4 or "I exist" or "heavy objects go down if left on their own." It is a proposition held in faith, with strong support in reason and history and Scripture (revelation). We believe it because we argue that this is the way it always was in the Church; therefore, it was passed down by Jesus and the apostles: the deposit of faith. Sola Scriptura certainly wasn't that rule of faith. So if one is interested in historically connecting one's present Christian beliefs to the earliest Christians and our Lord Jesus, sola Scriptura is ruled out immediately. The Catholic rule of faith, on the other hand, seems perfectly plausible, and is able to be abundantly backed up with Scripture, too.
If a rule of faith is provable, then I must be really stupid, because I have no idea how this would be done. If it is not provable, then it seems to me that is is an assumption.
Not strictly "provable" (few things are), but made immensely probable and plausible by a convergence of many different evidences of different sorts . . .
It also seems to me that their is a mutual standoff concerning the rule of faith assumptions between Catholics and Protestants. If I were Catholic, I would ask the Protestants to prove that the Bible alone is the rule of faith for Christians using the Bible alone. Protestant apologetics notwithstanding, we can not do this. So end of story.
However, I am Protestant and have come to believe in the Bible as the inspired word of God out of a reasonable act of faith.
You can't prove that, either. It all requires faith in the end. But there are many reasons to accept biblical inspiration, as there are to accept the Catholic rule of faith.
Now, I have never held as an assumption that the Bible is the only rule of faith (to be honest I've never thought about it all that much for a long time).
Great. Then you are close to Catholicism in that regard.
I just have never adopted any other rule of faith, and I would ask anybody that proposes an alternative to prove their case. Otherwise I could become a Mormon. Now it seems to me that the only way any group could prove their alternative rule of faith to a stubborn Protestant like myself would be through the Bible, and that they can not do (Catholic apologetics notwithstanding).
I've given quite a bit of biblical evidence in many of my papers and books for Tradition, and the authority of the Church. It's rather easily done. Paul talks a lot about tradition: even oral tradition. The sublime, binding authority of the Church is seen in the Jerusalem Council in the book of Acts. There are many indications in the Bible of Petrine primacy (the papacy in kernel), etc.
That having been said, Catholicism does seem to be consistent if you start with Catholic assumptions (of which infallibility is one). It is just that I am not convinced these assumptions are in fact true.
The Catholic argument on this is not circular (whereas the Protestant argument for sola Scriptura always is, in the end). The only assumptions you need to start with are these:
1) The inspiration of the Bible.
2) The relevance of the example of Jesus, the early apostles, and the fathers, for later Church history (i.e., historical continuity and the premise that God can teach us things through what He has taught our Christian brothers and sisters in the past).
If you accept those two and fairly consider all of the competing arguments side-by-side, I think it is no contest: you will become Catholic or possibly Orthodox.
Anyway..I have many more thoughts and questions rattling around in my brain, but this is enough for now.
I hope you'll share the rest of your thoughts, in due course, and continue this line of inquiry. I'm enjoying our discussion a lot. I hope you and others reading are, too.
Last edited on Mon Jul 21st, 2008 04:48 pm by Dave Armstrong
|
|
|
Current time is 04:38 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
