Category Archives: Roman Catholicism
What are Doctrinal Divisions Really About?
Doctrinal divisions that permeate the church so profusely, at their core, aren’t about what Scripture says. Only the King James Version Onlyists dispute what Scripture says. We’ve taken them, and the famous NIV Quiz, on before. The divisions are over what Scripture means.
Case in point is the recent informal blog debate between Matthew Bellisario and the pseudonymous “TurretinFan.” The crux of the debate is whose interpretation of Romans 14 is correct–Mr. Bellisario, or TF. Mr. Bellisario insists, and correctly I believe, that Romans 14 is aimed at the Judaizers of Paul’s day who would impose the Law on Christians. Further, such a passage doesn’t remove from the Church the authority to impose new holy days and bind Christians to obeying them.
I agree with Mr. Bellisario’s assessment of the passage. I agree that it is aimed at the Judaizers of Paul’s day and I agree that it doesn’t preclude the Church from imposing holy days upon Christians.
However, the imposition of new holy days goes against the spirit of the passage, and indeed the spirit of the Gospel. Jesus died and rose again to free us from the legalism of the Jewish Law. This is TF’s primary point. However, Mr. Bellisario doesn’t see the Catholic Church as imposing a new legalism on Christians. This is why the two are talking past each other–Mr. Bellisario is unable to empathize with TF’s position. Mr. Bellisario sees the Catholic Church as the sole infallible authority for determining Christian morality and living, rather than giving Scripture that place.
So, what is my opinion of Romans 14? I believe that it applies to all holy days, new or old. As TF points out, Scripture is like a fine gem with many facets. It is important to look at all opinions, past and present, to get a feel for something that you might miss. I also agree with Mr. Bellisario that Romans 14 doesn’t preclude the addition of new holy days, however there is no authority anywhere in Scripture that confers the power to bind Christians under threat of mortal sin to observe these new holy days.
Does that mean that we are free of the Sabbath day? By no means. As TF reminds us, the Sabbath goes back to creation and is therefore binding on all people. The obligation to reserve a day of worship for God alone was not erased by the cross, since it predates the Law. The Cross is the end of the Law.
While I agree that new holy days aren’t out of the realm of the church’s authority, binding them on all Christians under penalty of mortal sin is out of the reach of the church.
I highly reccommend reading the informal debate. The links above are to the start posts of the debate.
Pope: No Contradiction Between Faith and Works
In another nod to Protestant theology, Pope Benedict XVI has declared that there is no conflict between faith and works. He says that good works, performed in love, are a natural outgrowth of the faith we profess in Christ. Provided that faith in Christ is genuine, good works will manifest in the person who professes that faith.
In a previous nod to Protestant theology, the Pope acknowleged that we are saved by grace through faith plus NOTHING. That works are not necessary for salvation was a Protestant idea, condmened by Catholicism. Catholic lay apologists scoff at the idea, one referring to it as “Luther’s convienent doctrine.”
We have now seen the Pope tip his mitre to two formerly Protestant ideas. It will be interesting to see the spin that Catholic lay apologists put on this. These are two ideas that the lay apologists have previously scoffed at and ridiculed as heresy. I expect either silence from their end, or else they will try to claim that Protestants stole the idea from “Sacred Tradition.”
Dave Armstrong Makes a Fair Assessment
When I read the title and the opening letter to this piece, I expected a different reaction from Dave Armstrong:
I am coming to believe that this [good works are the inevitable result of saving grace] is one of the most dangerous teachings within the Reformed tradition, because it makes sin to be of little significance. After all, if all your sins have been forgiven – Past – Present – and Future, and nothing can change that – then where is the fear of God within such a teaching? Can one fear to sin because it displeases a Holy and Righteous God if one thinks that no sin can separate them from God? Can’t this kind of belief cause one to treat God as a doormat? . . . This attitude of “its all been done for you by Christ on Calvary” and there’s nothing expected from the Christian, nothing that he can or should do to grow in righteousness and holiness, makes our lives as believers in Christ, our witness to the world as lights shining in the darkness of no consequence. If I think nothing is required of me to continue in the grace of God, I will live haphazardly and not care a hoot about living a godly, faithful life unto Christ my Lord.
I expected him to immediately agree with the writer and denounce Protestantism. However, Dave is full of surprises, as it turns out. In this case, he actually lauds Protestantism for getting something right. He makes a stronger case for the organic whole formed by good works with God’s grace than I ever could, and he makes it from Calvin’s writings. Read the entire piece here.
Wafergate Revisited
As expected, atheists loved PZ Myers’s desecration of the Eucharist. He drove a rusty nail through it, then threw it a trashcan next to a page from the Koran and a few pages from The God Delusion. His message: nothing is to be held sacred. Question everything.
I’m in sympathy with Jimmy Akin calling for PZ to be fired. I believe that he is a poor representative of the university. His conduct is inexcusable for a man in his position. He has proven that he will offend the sensibilities of religious and nonreligious alike, and an educator must show the utmost respect for the individuals that he educates. PZ has not done that.
However, instead of flaming PZ himself, send a letter to his bosses at the university. I think I’ll throw something together this weekend and mail it in. Jimmy provides the addresses in his thoughtful post, but I’ll reprint them here for convenience:
President Robert H. Bruininks
202 Morrill Hall
100 Church Street S.E.
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN 55455Via phone: 612-626-1616
Via fax: 612-625-3875
Via e-mail: upres@umn.eduChancellor Jacqueline Johnson
309 Behmler Hall
600 East 4th Street
Morris, MN 56267320-589-6020
E-mail: grussing@morris.umn.edu
Of course, we should join the hundreds already praying for Myers’s conversion to Christianity.
Wafergate
I’ve been reading the response to PZ Myers’s unfortunate blog post. It has been dubbed many things, but the one I like is “Wafergate,” which is what I will stick to in this post. I think that this issue is getting far more attention than it deserves, as PZ Myers is little more than a bitter and sour little man with an insanely popular blog. I can’t understand his popularity, even with atheists, because each of his virulent posts reveals nothing but hatred for religion. Such focused and intense hatred isn’t good for a person.
For the benefit of those of you that have no idea what is going on, let me start from the beginning. Webster Cook, a University of Florida student, palmed a Eucharist at a Catholic Mass instead of eating it. He took it out of the chapel and held it hostage for several days. Read the rest of this entry
Preview of this Friday’s Show
My podcast this Friday will be on how the Bible elevates women. The Pope has spoken on this controversial topic as well, according to Catholic News Agency. See the article here. The Pope agrees with me:
Criticizing male chauvinism, discrimination against women, and the undervaluation of women, he called for Christians to promote “a culture that grants women, in law and in everyday life, the dignity that is theirs by right.”
Thank you, Benedict XVI.
How God Identifies Himself
It’s interesting how God defines himself. He told Moses that he is the God of your fathers; the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. He did not define himself by his omnipotence or his omniscience but by his personal relationships with these common men. (source)
So reflects Albert Cardinal Vanhoye, leader of the Roman Curia’s Lenten retreat. I think that is absolutely fascinating because for many skeptics, God’s omnipotence and omniscience are not only God’s defining characteristics, but the logical basis by which many of them reject Him. The presence of an omnipotent and omniscient being can only lead to fatalism in their minds, regardless of the number of times that I’ve seen Christians refute this notion.
This is the ontological argument in reverse. Because the skeptic cannot conceive of how an omnipotent and omniscient being could exist within the framework of this universe, no such being can exist. Since God would be such a being, God does not exist.
But God doesn’t identify Himself on the basis of these characteristics. He identifies Himself on the basis of His relationship to His creation. How much more should we, then, identify ourselves on the basis of our relationship to Him. I think that the real problem is that the skeptic is ruled by his sin–and his sin is how he defines “fun.” Drinking, gambling, drugs, premarital sex–all of these things are “fun,” but all of these things have consequences.
Defining oneself on the basis of one’s relationship to God will have consequences, too. One must focus his thoughts on what is true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, and commendable (Phil 4:8)–and it is easy to conclude even without a Bible (cf. Gal 5:16-24) that those things I just defined as “fun” from a secular point of view do not fit with that mode of thinking.
Defining oneself on the basis of a relationship with God brings with it freedom from sin (cf. Rom 6:14). Paul exhorts us not to use that freedom for sin, “but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another” (Gal 5:13-14).
So, brothers and sisters in Christ, if God identifies Himself on the basis of a relationship to His creatures, why do the creatures not identify themselves on basis of a relationship to Him?
Back Rome Again 