tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post6604237340884427142..comments2024-03-28T21:43:44.433-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Feyerabend on empiricism and sola scripturaEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger255125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39836485122309012612017-04-24T11:29:06.475-07:002017-04-24T11:29:06.475-07:00Petronius,
According to the Catholic position, Go...Petronius,<br /><br />According to the Catholic position, God will judge each of us according to our own culpability. Searching the truth with intellectual honesty will greatly reduce our culpability when we are in error. Indifference or stubbornness will greatly increase our culpability. Also, minor doctrinal differences will not cast you into hell (which is not to say they are not important). I think Pascal's Wager has many flaws, but the main premise (that it is a sort of bet of extreme importance with drastic consequences) is pretty rock solid. Obviously your belief or disbelief will permeate every aspect of your life. If you genuinely search for the truth and are open to correction, you should have no problem being corrected by God at your judgement. If you are completely fixated on your own pride in being correct, then you will end up effectively telling God to go to Hell when he tries to correct you and in so doing will send yourself there.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481589239954065668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-561500548421153562016-01-10T09:59:40.906-08:002016-01-10T09:59:40.906-08:00It is divinely inspired "
That's where a...It is divinely inspired "<br /><br />That's where are problem isMichael Westenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07412821093636430016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51216112055011731272015-07-24T17:34:47.984-07:002015-07-24T17:34:47.984-07:00Dr. Feser or anyone else, I seem to remember that ...Dr. Feser or anyone else, I seem to remember that someone here linked a blog post to a message board about dogmatic theology. So would someone re-post that link if it's here or tell me where to find it? Thanks.<br /><br />BillBill McEnaneynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84520854107588427452015-07-22T15:27:34.991-07:002015-07-22T15:27:34.991-07:00Daniel-- N(icholas) T(homas) "Tom" Wrigh...Daniel-- N(icholas) T(homas) "Tom" Wright was the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England and the House of Lords, but is now a research professor of the New Testament in St Mary's College, St Andrew's University, Scotland. Theologically, he views himself as a Reformed evangelical, although one who is well within the Anglican tradition in such things as ministry, liturgy, sacraments, etc. As a proponent of the New Perspective on Paul, he denies Martin Luther's interpretation of St Paul's view of justification. Some of his Reformed critics view his own interpretation of this as Tridentine, but that seems a stretch. He has said that he looked for some sort of scriptural rationale for the veneration of St Mary, but did not find one. Perhaps while playing golf at the Old Course near her college, something will occur to him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60373562440071444472015-07-19T10:10:34.594-07:002015-07-19T10:10:34.594-07:00"Descend" not "depending""Descend" not "depending"Daniel D. D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37980219564387727922015-07-19T10:06:38.633-07:002015-07-19T10:06:38.633-07:00The problem is that the reformers stop trying to r...The problem is that the reformers stop trying to reform the Catholic Church, and instead started their own religion, claiming that the Catholic Church, the one Christ founded, failed.<br /><br />No wonder it took only two centuries, after 10 centuries of a strong Christian culture, for the West to depending into madness and unbelief.<br /><br />"You shall know them by their fruits."<br /><br />Christi pax. Daniel D. D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41853247180561194912015-07-19T09:59:34.818-07:002015-07-19T09:59:34.818-07:00@R Gillmann
I was once told that what Luther mean...@R Gillmann<br /><br />I was once told that what Luther meant by "sola Scriptura" is better expressed as "Creed alone."<br /><br />Also, "sola Scriptura" makes sense as a principle of reforming the Catholic Church. Claiming that we should bring Church practices more in line with Scripture is well founded in an age of superstitious devotionals (be honest; Catholics can be superstitious. That's just what happens when you have a religion for everyone, including the uneducated).<br /><br />Christi pax.Daniel D. D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59149271650490340952015-07-19T06:57:19.601-07:002015-07-19T06:57:19.601-07:00I came late to this discussion and don't have ...I came late to this discussion and don't have time to read all the comments but I just wanted to make sure that a few points are made: (1) Sola scriptura does not mean what it literally says; it was a slogan of the Reformation and should be read as a slogan rather than a full expression of anyone's position. (2) Some Protestants are Aristotelian realists so one cannot use Aristotelian arguments against all Protestants.R Gillmannhttp://www.isoul.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4280685431761127562015-07-18T18:29:43.552-07:002015-07-18T18:29:43.552-07:00I simply cannot understand why Christians living i...<i>I simply cannot understand why Christians living in the 21st century should not hold the same doctrines that the Christians in the first century were supposed to hold. If the apostolic teaching was sufficient for them, why shouldn’t it be sufficient for us? </i><br /><br />But you keep insisting that the apostles taught that the return of Christ was imminent in their day. Are you making an exception for this doctrine, or do you genuinely think all Christians should hold that Christ's return was a few decades after the resurrection?Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44726425515253923372015-07-18T16:53:08.354-07:002015-07-18T16:53:08.354-07:00Timocrates writes:
I think (presumably a) Cardina...Timocrates writes:<br /><br /><i>I think (presumably a) Cardinal Ratzinger was trying to argue that the original Word contains 'the fullness of truth' already in itself but that we, being human, need time to [flesh] this out.</i><br /><br />Which is precisely the relevant (and original) meaning of the word <i>develop</i> ("unfold, unfurl, reveal the hidden or implicit meaning(s) of").Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75552324494375013142015-07-18T16:02:30.490-07:002015-07-18T16:02:30.490-07:00@ Patrick,
I can't see why you think the argu...@ Patrick,<br /><br />I can't see why you think the argument you quoted would mean Christians today do not or would not hold the same doctrines the Apostles' did. The development of doctrine is not an abandonment of doctrine nor does it entail this.<br /><br />I think (presumably a) Cardinal Ratzinger was trying to argue that the original Word contains 'the fullness of truth' already in itself but that we, being human, need time to flush this out. Indeed, it is quite unlikely that we even could even given infinite time complete grasp all the meaning of the Word, given God's very nature contrasted to ours. The revelation of Christ for the Christian is just the revelation of God himself. How could we possibly understand everything there was to know? Further, there is no reason that I know of for us not over time to realize more and more something of God's infinite greatness and goodness without, of course, ever being able to in any way exhaust it.Timocrateshttp://classicaltheism.boardhost.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-571140676001480222015-07-18T12:57:27.458-07:002015-07-18T12:57:27.458-07:00Cletus van Damme: “Both Protestants and RCs hold t...Cletus van Damme: “Both Protestants and RCs hold to development of doctrine - it's unavoidable.”<br /><br />I don’t think that the development of doctrine is unavoidable. One may arrive at a deeper understanding of a doctrine, but this is not the same as the devolpment of the doctrine. <br /><br />Cletus van Damme: [Ratzinger:] “Altaner, the patrologist from Würzburg (who also had come from Breslau), had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the fifth century; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition”. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared. This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts. This was the position that our teachers represented. But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it had not caught sight of previously and yet was already handed down in the original Word.”<br /><br />The idea that the early Christians didn’t hold the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary because they couldn’t grasp it seems to me quite strange. I don’t see why we should be in a better position to grasp this doctrine than were the early Christians, especially as it is a doctrine that in my view is not difficult to grasp.<br /><br />I simply cannot understand why Christians living in the 21st century should not hold the same doctrines that the Christians in the first century were supposed to hold. If the apostolic teaching was sufficient for them, why shouldn’t it be sufficient for us?Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733557675273087950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5395592077964573912015-07-18T11:29:56.068-07:002015-07-18T11:29:56.068-07:00I think also it is a bad habit of thought (for Cat...I think also it is a bad habit of thought (for Catholics at least) to separate Sacred Scripture from Sacred Tradition, as if they were too different things. They are most definitely not in practice. The Scriptures are themselves received and handed on with the approval of the Church from generation to generation and, in practice, have their authority for the Christian in the first place exactly on account of that Christian tradition of receiving, maintaining and handing on the New and Old Testaments. Few people could or ever even do piecemeal together the Bible after looking at them and judging them individually and then collecting them together as certainly being inspired by God. Indeed, even the contents of each book would otherwise need to be judged in this way. That simply never happens. It was already on the basis of the authority of the Church coupled with Sacred Tradition that, e.g., Martin Luther himself received as sacred and inspired the most part of the Bible. But indeed, the danger here in his own logic already began to manifest itself when he took it upon himself to consider removing certain books altogether or reducing their status because he didn't believe they conformed to his own understanding of sacred or Christian doctrine.Timocrateshttp://classicaltheism.boardhost.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91691286563281055642015-07-18T08:21:50.150-07:002015-07-18T08:21:50.150-07:00Darn it. It's "Gemara!" Urrrrg! Gema...Darn it. It's "Gemara!" Urrrrg! Gemara Gemara GemaraDaniel D. D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13051576240749053082015-07-18T08:19:39.233-07:002015-07-18T08:19:39.233-07:00SpellCheck decided to place "Gemera" rat...SpellCheck decided to place "Gemera" rather than "Gamara."<br /><br />Christi pax.Daniel D. D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48096474054447552122015-07-18T07:58:15.544-07:002015-07-18T07:58:15.544-07:00@Aron
There is a difference between the Talmud an...@Aron<br /><br />There is a difference between the Talmud and the Oral Torah. The Oral Torah is mostly information regarding Temple sacrifices, and extra information on the Law, and is written in the Talmud in the section called the Mishnah. Around the Mishnah (and I mean literally: the Oral Laws of Moses are written in the center of the page) we have the Rabbinical commentary called the Gamera (which are written around the Mishnah), which is not infallible or from Moses, but rather contradictory writings on interpretations of the Torah by Rabbis (there are commentaries on commentaries on commentaries).<br /><br />Furthermore, Jesus didn't disagree with the Pharisees' doctrine, but on their emphasis. They decided to place, for example, "do not work on the Sabbath day" above "love your neighbor as yourself," and this is where the conflict lies (along with the Hypocrisy of the Pharisees').<br /><br />Remember, Christ straight out says that the Pharisees' "sit in the seat of Moses" (just as Pope Francis sits in the seat of Peter), telling the Jews to listen to what they teach, (and follow them in everythibg but sin), and so I believe that the Pharisaical Tradition is the correct Jewish tradition, because Messiah said so. Of course, Christ has fillfiled the Torah and the teaching authroity of Moses.<br /><br />The Oral Torah isn't of much use to a Christian anymore, as most of it regarded Temple information which has become obsolete, but it <i>is</i> of Divine origin.<br /><br />A Christian would still find some value in the Talmud, though, not only to understand the Jewishness of the Apostles, but also because the Rabbis record (and mock) information about Jesus's actions and some of the acts of the Apostles, which often corresponds to the Gospels and Acts. For example, they mock Jesus by calling Him a (paraphrasing) "heretic that was so bad they put to death on the Passover!" They also record some of Jesus's and His disicples miracles (which are not recorded in Acts), but (just like in the Gospels) attribute them to evil spirits. This mocking of Jesus got them in trouble during the Medieval period, where kingdoms like France would burn the Talmud for this, and so many Medieval to Modern Talmuds just remove the writings about Jesus altogether (there are two types: the Babylonian and the Jerselem, with the Babylonian being the one usually talked out).<br /><br />Christi pax.Daniel D. D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76422884741258701262015-07-18T07:26:00.527-07:002015-07-18T07:26:00.527-07:00@Patrick
When did circumstance become opposed to ...@Patrick<br /><br />When did circumstance become opposed to the Spirit?<br /><br />As I explained above, God, just as He is so powerful that He can use evil to bring out greater good, is so powerful that He can use heretical doctrine of the times to bring out true doctrine. Just as the metalworker adds pressure from outside the key to shape it in order to fit the door, the Spirit uses hersey from outside the Church to shape Her dogma, which opens the door to eternal life.<br /><br />And anyway, do you think Florence was driven by circumstance? Do you think Trent? I can understand you saying the both Vatican Councils were driven by an attempt to speak to the world (especially Vatican II), but most were not like that. If Trent is driven by circumstances, than ALL Councils are driven by circumstances.<br /><br />Christi pax.Daniel D. D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30159305452262394142015-07-18T07:18:12.167-07:002015-07-18T07:18:12.167-07:00The Roman Catholic Church seems to feel urged to c...<i>The Roman Catholic Church seems to feel urged to constantly adapt its doctrines to new circumstances. It seems to me that the Roman Catholic Church is driven by circumstances rather than by the Holy Spirit.</i> <br /><br />Patrick, I think those two sentences betray a profound disharmony. As the Old Testament and the New both show, God is in control of history and chooses to "write" into events and circumstances themselves preparatory background for new teaching. As St. Paul (and after him St. Augustine) tells us, He used the recurrent faithlessness of the Jews to show that without the sacraments, i.e. without the "law of grace", The Law could not save. He also prepared the revelation of Christ <i>as king</i> by using King David as a type of the Christ to come. Therefore, to say that "the Church [the people of God] is driven by the Holy Spirit" simply <i>cannot</i> exclude "the Church is driven by circumstances". <br /><br />And, indeed, as Moses and the prophets did throughout over 1000 years, they constantly <i>developed</i> the teaching of God as circumstances proved the need for development and clarification. Moses didn't hand over the entirety of all of the rules and procedures in one act, he did it piecemeal. The feast and ceremonial of Passover was given before the feast and ceremonial of Hanukkah, which had to wait for the event of the RE-dedication of the temple, obviously AFTER the temple was built and then ruined and then rebuilt and then desecrated...all <i>circumstances</i> necessarily preparatory to the re-dedication. <br /><br />It can sometimes be difficult to distinguish between, for example, BRAND NEW teaching, and adaption of old teaching to circumstance. But that should not dissuade us from the reality that these are indeed distinct kinds of things, and that the latter is not even slightly improper. The Church recognizes in "circumstance" the concrete needs to understand and state clearly what the Holy Spirit had before veiled in obscure parts of revelation. That we "knew" it in veiled manner before "circumstances" demanded more doesn't mean we had ever stated it clearly. And stating it clearly is not in any way detracting from the revelation from which we draw our understanding. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66091519016607772132015-07-18T07:02:03.440-07:002015-07-18T07:02:03.440-07:00Aron,
Is it not odd, then, that Jesus did not rev...Aron,<br /><br />Is it not odd, then, that Jesus did not reveal the New Testament personally, like a Christian Quran?<br /><br />It is also interesting that the New Testament quotes about ten times as much from the Septuagint, including the deuterocanonical work, than the original Hebrew Torah, if it was the letter of the written Torah that most preoccupied Jesus.<br /><br />Can it not just as easily be argued it was that the Pharisee's deviated from he spirit of the Torah and the whole teachings of earlier Judaism, rather than Jesus was preoccupied with there deviating from the Scripture per se.Jeremy Taylorhttp://classicaltheism.boardhost.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13321932768616472682015-07-18T05:54:52.609-07:002015-07-18T05:54:52.609-07:00Without getting into the complexities of all of th...Without getting into the complexities of all of the other Catholic vs. Protestant debates above, I was shocked to see two different commenters claim that Jesus embraced the "oral Torah" of the Pharisees. It is true that many of his theological intepretations (e.g. concerning the Resurrection) were closer to the Pharisees than the Sadducces). But even a very superficial reading of the Gospels indicates that Jesus was a harsh critic of the "Oral Torah" and that he frequently rebuked the Pharisees, not just for hypocrisy, but also for holding to their traditions which contradicted the inspired (Old Testament) Scriptures.<br /><br />Examples: Matt 12:1-14, 15:1-91, 16:5-12, 23 + parallel passages such as Mark 7.<br /><br />(Possible counterevidence in Matt 23:2-3, but I think Jesus is just telling people to go along with the rabbinic intepretations due to their leadership role in the community, not actually endorsing their positions, which Matthew 23:4 suggests are too harsh for people anyway.)<br /><br />Thus, it seems that Christ himself taught some doctrine indicating some sort of prioritiy of Scripture over Tradition, at least within his own Jewish context (one could also support this from Deut 4:2 or Proverbs 30:6). "Sola Scriptura" might be too strong a formulation to be internally consistent. But that does not allow us to neglect the clear teachings of Christ that sometimes even entrenched traditions are bad and wrong and need to be corrected through Scripture.<br /><br />(Obviously such a doctrine must be cashed out in a way that allows new revelation or Scripture to occur after these passages were written. Nor do I think the implication of these passages is that the oral teaching of a prophet or apostle is nonbining until such time as it is written down, although I personally would expect unwritten oral teachings to become degraded over the course of a few generations.)<br /><br />The key question is how to balance this against the various promises--also from the lips of the Lord---that the Church would be inspired by the Holy Spirit.<br /><br />One could try to argue that Christ's warnings applied ONLY to rabbinic Jews, and not to the successors of the apostles. But if reading the Scripture with the mind of the Church means anything at all, it surely includes the idea that we should interpret the major themes in Christ's teaching as relevant to present day Christianity, rather than being something only applicable for a couple years after they were given.Aron Wallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10552077344304954390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37355882551630900362015-07-18T05:31:14.072-07:002015-07-18T05:31:14.072-07:00In the second millenium there were 13 councils, wh...<i> In the second millenium there were 13 councils, which means that on average every about 80 years there was a new council.</i><br /><br /><br />I'm not sure why you keep focusing on the second millenium. There were one Apostolic Council (mentioned in Acts) and eight ecumenical councils in the first millenium, and that millenium includes eras in which Christianity was illegal and and at times actively persecuted. It's also without anything like the Council of Constance explicitly requiring that the next ecumenical council be called within the next few years to review how things were going. Your argument also overlooks the fact that most of the councils in the second millenium were disciplinary, not doctrinal, and that most of the doctrinal decisions just consist of identifying errors.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88021975032971021602015-07-18T05:28:06.742-07:002015-07-18T05:28:06.742-07:00I am (Anglo-) Orthodox, not Catholic.
Anyway, wh...I am (Anglo-) Orthodox, not Catholic. <br /><br />Anyway, what you have just wrote, aside from evading most of my points, really is not a proper attempt at analysing what can be adapted to circumstance (or, as the example of some of the early Church's apparent beliefs about the imminent end of the world suggests, in a few cases even changed) and how the Roman Church deals with the issue. Jeremy Taylorhttp://www.classicaltheism.boardhost.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36341198193866382152015-07-18T05:20:54.294-07:002015-07-18T05:20:54.294-07:00Hi Patrick,
With respect, your impression says so...Hi Patrick,<br /><br />With respect, your impression says something about you, rather than anything about the arguments presented. Was this the intention?Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58054284368712622642015-07-18T03:23:46.351-07:002015-07-18T03:23:46.351-07:00With respect to doctrinal matters the Roman Cathol...With respect to doctrinal matters the Roman Catholic Church gives me the impression of being, figuratively speaking, a permanent construction site. In the second millenium there were 13 councils, which means that on average every about 80 years there was a new council. In 1870 the First Vatican Council took place, but not even a hundred years later there was obviously a need for yet another council. The Roman Catholic Church seems to feel urged to constantly adapt its doctrines to new circumstances. It seems to me that the Roman Catholic Church is driven by circumstances rather than by the Holy Spirit.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733557675273087950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16563211321972872012015-07-18T02:24:12.526-07:002015-07-18T02:24:12.526-07:00And yet we have the record of the Apostolic Father...And yet we have the record of the Apostolic Fathers and the earliest generations to suggest otherwise. Besides, Apostolic succession is not just about temporal continuity but also geographic expansion. Moreover, it seems strange one would insist on an obviously incorrect belief - that Christ would soon return. This would surely undermine your claims about doctrines not changing. Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.com