Devin Rose...Olympian?

So I turned on the television, and there he was:

image source

The Olympian. Who knew? 

I mean, all I had ever seen was this picture:

Congrats Devin! Although you won't make the drive to Florida, I look forward to seeing you in London. You are the man, after all. 

5 Reasons I Would Not Blog For Patheos

Since D-Money Rose, flush to his eye-balls with cash, swimming in Benjamin's, rolling cohibas with $20 bills, had the time to write this in between counting the net income in his IRA and stock options, I thought I would share with you my thoughts.

1. I don't have time.

Seriously, my life is way too busy to have to think about blogging all the time. In fact, I'm getting ready to announce a new "you-may-not-see-me-very-often-at-all" blogging schedule. It's coming. I'm not sure Pathos would like that.

2. The banner ads are creepy

For starters, a top banner ad about a "Swedish" anything is kind of creepy. "Swedish Prophet"? Then there is the "Genesis -- For Normal People" ad which promotes a book which basically assumes that normal folks can't read Genesis for themselves -- they need Biblical scholars to talk down to them. Lastly, I'm not sure about the "ancestry.com" ad. What is that about? Did I miss the ancestry worship portal? Never mind, I just found it (I"m not linking to it because I don't believe in promoting paganism).

3. Apparently, you lose street cred. Which I'll admit, I live for.

No elaboration needed.

4. At the bottom of your post, they link to posts of other non-Catholic blogs. 

Nothing like a seeker, stumbling upon a light-hearted post at your blog, only to be wisped away by a link to an article about inner healing through she-god-love-centeredness.

5. They cannot pay me enough.

I know on my last post, I said I would write for Patheos because they pay. Well, please understand that Patheos probably does not have the budget to pay me what I need to get paid. In fact, I know they don't. Plus, I think they pay for clicks or page views and by the looks of my blog, it might take me a couple months to earn enough dough to pay for the internet it took me to write those posts. That's not what they call breaking even.

All that to say, I'm glad we have some rock-solid-bad-arsenic Catholics blogging there. I recommend saying a prayer for them and all of their readers too.

Time for Catholic Praise and Worship?

You can read my response to that question at Devin Rose's blog, where he just published my guest post. Here's an excerpt:

I noticed something, and it was disturbing. Very disturbing. You or I may get something out of a “praise and worship” service but what about those who do not? What I mean is that in these experientially oriented services, there are the “silent sufferers” who are afraid they are either spiritually inept or out-right atheists. Why? Because they feel nothing.

Too bad. We like our music.

The Eucharist and the Liturgy is the solution. Why? For starters, it is what Our Lord gave us! At one point in my journey, I was overcome with joy by this truth. Watching a grandmother with a third grade education, a distinguished professor, and field welder, all receive the SAME gift of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist was overwhelming. This truly is a Church of grace!

Go read the rest on Devin's awesome blog St. Joseph's Vanguard! 

The Catholic Church and Sacred Scripture

I recently read a blog post by Devin Rose, author of If Protestantism if True, where he notes the futility of Bible thumping a Bible thumper. I agree with Devin's basic premise, but I felt like a follow up post was necessary. Devin didn't want to teach a class at his parish about "using the Bible to counter Protestant arguments for their beliefs and defend our Catholic ones."

Devin replied:

"But I don’t plan to teach such a class. Why not? Quite simply, I’ve learned in my ten years as a Catholic that, while it is helpful to present verses and the Catholic interpretation of them, this method of discussion can quickly devolve into a verse-slinging competition. And those go nowhere. That’s why I focus on the meta-level questions: Who has the authority to interpret the Bible in the first place?"

I'm going to agree with Devin that verse slinging is counterproductive. However, I think that the overall point can unintentionally put forward a false dichotomy that puts sound exegesis at odds with Catholicism. At the end of the day, Scripture shouldn't be slung on anyone by anyone; however, there is a place for Catholics to understand just how Catholic their Bible is and to be able to effectively communicate their faith using the Scriptures. Catholics can talk about their faith with their separated brothers and sisters using the Bible without it devolving into verse-slinging. This is important because the Scriptures are something for which we have common reverence, and thus it can serve as a common ground.

My problem with only focusing on the "meta-level" questions (e.g., authority) is that it in a way can imply the Catholic stance on Scripture is only valuable in relationship to the Church's authority to interpret it. In other words, the Catholic position on a doctrine makes sense biblically because the Church has authority. That's not accurate. The Catholic position binds the conscience because of authority, but the Catholic position makes sense because...well...it make sense.

Bare in mind, when I say "makes sense" I mean that it is a reasonable interpretation of Scripture, not that it is a rationally unassailable position. By rationally unassailable, I mean that it is binding on the conscience because the evidence is such that the cause of its conclusiveness can be found in the text. More simply put, a rationally unassailable doctrinal position would have to be found in Scripture in such a way that no other possible interpretation could compel the intellect to assent to it. That is not what I am talking about.

Becoming Catholic isn't counter-intuitive or anti-intellectual, nor does it require you to check your brain in at the door so that Rome can send your mind instant uploads. Submission doesn't imply that. If I don't understand the "how" or "why" of what the Church teaches with regards to the deposit of faith, it is incumbent upon me as a follower of Christ to pursue the Truth that Christ is revealing by the power of the Holy Spirit through His Church. The Anselmian axiom "faith seeking understanding" comes to mind, and it is truly faith, hope and charity that can aid our intellect in obtaining a good will for the truth taught by the Church.

THE BIBLE: GOD'S GIFT TO HIS CHURCH

If I wrote my wife a letter, and some guy picked it up and started interpreting it and getting it all wrong, it would be true that I would have the authority to interpret it correctly. However, my only and sometimes best recourse would be to explain to the misguided why my interpretation makes the most sense given both what is in the text, and what the text implies outside of the text (Sacred Tradition).

I think as Catholics we need to learn how to be conversant about Scripture--which doesn't include slinging texts. Someone who quotes Shakespeare may have simply googled Shakespeare but may have actually never read Shakespeare. Even more, slinging proves that the one who is slinging is unaware of the purpose of that which he is slinging and therefore resorts to misusing whatever it is that is in question--by slinging it. Rocks are meant for slinging, not words.

The Bible works in the Catholic Church because the Bible was meant for the Catholic Church. Like the letter, when understood from the vantage of the writer, who it was intended for, and the tradition in which it was written, the Bible does truly "make sense" in the Catholic paradigm (CCC 109). I emphasize Catholic paradigm, because so much of the Bible just doesn't make sense outside of that paradigm. Again using the letter analogy, some dude would never get the nuances of my letter since the letter was never intended to be read or used by him. That's why the catechism says (97): "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches." Thus we see the absolute necessity for Tradition, the Scripture that emerged from it, and the Church Christ established to faithfully lead the pilgrim people of God into all truth (John 16:13; 1 Timothy 3:15).

Here are a few suggestions for talking about Scripture with a separated brother or sister:

• Know where Catholic dogmas are supported by Scripture: there's no excuse. "My Church has authority"--right or wrong--will not foster brotherly love or gain a sense of respect from a separated brother or sister. It's a good question, but can cause the conversation to devolve just as quickly as verse slinging. If you don't know where it is in the Bible, find out.
• Don't sling, converse.
• Listen more than you talk.
• Only talk about one topic at a time.
• Remember that sola scriptura is not in the Bible.
• Your goal should be to get agreement, at the least, that the Catholic position is reasonable.

To the last point, this is a very charitable goal and one that will not likely lead to conflict. I am not trying to get you to agree with me in such a way that you give up your position. However, by getting you to admit that the Catholic Church does seem to be taking into account the full data of Scripture, you are planting a very important seed. As St. Paul says:

"Therefore, neither he that planteth is any thing, nor he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase."-1 Cor 3:7

The goal isn't to win. The goal is to plant seeds or water seeds that are already there, keeping in mind that we are truly nothing compared to the one who can make the seed grow. We must believe that it is Christ who is bringing his Church back together, and that it is His prerogative to do so (Luke 13:34, John 17:21). Moreover, rarely if ever does an argument win a convert. God who sees the heart, wins the heart. It is our job to simply make sure our bucket is full of water or seeds, and as Catholics, we should not be afraid to fill that bucket with the Sacred Scriptures (Luke 8:11).

___________________________________________________________

Note: Today I "saw" Ephesians 5:26-27 in a whole new light regarding baptism:

"That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any; such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish."

Through Sacrament--Word (Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Matt 28:19) and Matter (Water, baptizo)--we are renewed as His Bride because "we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones" (Eph 5:30). Just as water (Red Sea) was used by God to bring the children of Israel out of slavery, so too God uses what is ordinary to free us from the bondage of sin and death that we might rise again (Col 2:12).

The Jesus Seminar and The Jesus People

Evangelicals love Jesus. They are Jesus people, and for that reason Catholics and Evangelicals are together. Catholics, as the people who partake of Jesus' body, blood, soul and divinity, cannot help but be endeared to them.

Examining the Dead Sea Scrolls: "I know the canon is in here somewhere!"

At Devin Rose's blog, he posted an article about Bert Ehrman and his approach to "debunking" the Bible. Much like the Jesus Seminar, Ehrman believes that through textual criticism and the historical critical method, the Bible can be proved an unreliable source and therefore not a supernatural book. I want to share with you what I said to add to this discussion with a comment afterwards:

Devin,

I would like to add a caveat/caution. I’m going to number my comments to make it easier to respond to them.

1. Catholics and Protestants are on the same side of the table (same team) regarding the problems with the historical-critical method. Ehrman et al. make a decision regarding what import the textual variants have on the inspiration of Scripture and ignore evidence that is still overwhelming in favor of our ability to trust the texts we have today.

2. What Ehrman et al. are doing is deconstructionist/revisionist history. It starts with a theory and then makes a false deduction and then exports that theory and projects it onto the historical facts. This is a popular way “to do” history today. In this case, Ehrman et al. use this method to demythologize the text and in the end to make Christ no more than a tragic guru.

3. However, history does not take an infallible Magisterium to understand it or to know it with the certainty proper to our natural cognitive ability. It is not revealed religion but rather something we can apprehend through the right use of our reason. History is the unfolding and subsequent record of reality, not the in-breaking of the divine through accommodation and condescension as is the case for revealed religion.

4. Thus, the Catholic, employing the right use of reason, must acknowledge that there was not consensus regarding the canon in the early Church. No list nor set of lists sufficiently corroborates a Protestant or Catholic canon in such a way as to necessitate the assent of the intellect. In other words, it is not the same as the “sky is blue” and all one simply must do is look at the sky to confirm it.

5. This is not a problem for the Catholic. The Catholic does not claim that 1 and 2 Clement were not read in the liturgies of the early Church for some time. The Catholic doesn’t negate the fact that some lists speak of a 22-book canon and others don’t. We also don’t deny that Hebrews was called into question nor that the second letter to the Corinthians was likely lost (our second is the third letter). What we affirm is that Scripture is God-breathed, revealed religion, and as such requires supernatural authority (Christ and His Church) and not merely the right use of reason. History is a part of nature. Supernatural-theology is not. The fact that Christ resurrected is a part of natural history. His descent into Hades and his sacrifice in the heavenly realm is not.

6. Sadly, the Protestant–in an attempt to protect orthodoxy (which is commendable)–employs a similar type of wrongly used reason to wreak havoc on the history. Starting with a theory–that the canon was affixed, that Christ somehow implied what it was, that the Church was not in any way a part of the canonizing process but rather that the canon was “self-evident”, rationally unassailable, and historically precipitated (a theory derived from an incessant fear of admitting the authority (the “who”) of the Catholic Church–similar to Ehrman’s fear of admitting the Person (the “who”) of Jesus Christ)–they go on to do the same thing to the reality of history that the Jesus Seminar types do to the person of Christ.

7. The implications to the credibility of Christianity are devastating. Ehrman is thinking within the theory-paradigm of #6. He rejects the authority of God’s divine agent–the Church–to canonize Scripture. Scripture does not rest upon the authority of Christ’s presence in his Church–mediated through his Apostles and their successors. No, the Bible must (because of #6) be that which is beyond argument grounded in its historic continuity, inter-textual perfection, etc. and so on.

8. More importantly, even if we agree that the textual problems can be worked out (which we can and do–I suggest anything by Pope Benedict XVI), that still doesn’t get us to a canon. That is why Ehrman suggests a wildly different canon, and in a book I just read, an evangelical scholar suggested that if we discovered another letter from St. Paul the canon may not be in fact closed. (No, this is not the time to quote the end of Revelation in an attempt to proof-text the closing of the canon–if, in fact, that letter that was found was virtually included in what was implied in Revelation)

In conclusion, the Protestant theory of the canon necessitates a revisionist history that is as disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to the evidence as the Jesus Seminar is to the person of Christ. So, on the one hand we are on the same team–defending the inspiration of Scriptures and attesting to the historical reality of the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. However, on the other, I’m afraid, the Protestant revisionist history regarding the canon and their rejection of Christ’s authority mediated through his apostles (the one’s with the keys of the kingdom) foments the intellectual quagmire and bolsters the pagan claim that Christianity is a mere myth. And, sadly, as long as the historical reality of the canon is rein-visioned in a mythic tale of consensus and universal acceptance, the pagans will have a paradigm to operate in to discredit the texts of the canon themselves.

Peace in Christ,
Brent

Is the Evangelicals only way out to become Catholic? No! Instead, a view that would be consistent with the historical evidence might posit that The Church had an especial grace when canonizing Scripture. The Protestant could argue that the unique nature of Scripture as apposed to teachings from Scripture (laid down in other councils) makes this act of the Church of a particular species correlative to that which is its most proximate object: Scripture.

Some do argue this and I commend them. This demonstrates their willingness to admit to the historical reality while at the same time affirming the supernatural nature of the Word of God. It also cuts the legs out from under the pagans who would seek to discredit the theory that the Bible is trustworthy and then to call the canon into question. These are two different questions (textual variants and the canon) which get blurred only when someone refuses to accept the agency of the Church in defining the canon.

Christ is not trustworthy because our senses can perceive that he is God, just in the same way the canon is not divine because we can verify through reason alone its supernatural source. No, it is precisely when St. John the Baptist said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" that men and women were compelled to exercise the virtue of faith and believe in that which they couldn't see. This faith isn't against reasons (e.g., history affirms the reality of the resurrection) but is not grounded in pure reason. So, too, in a subsidiary and tertiary way, the Scriptures receive their authority directly from God. Yet, just as we perceive the Father through the Son, so too do we in the age of the Church perceive the Son's working to bring about Scripture through His Church empowered by the Holy Spirit, the one called along side to help (παράκλητος-paraclete). This doesn't detract from God's glory, but just the opposite proclaims and affirms his divine plan to build a Church--a family--that not only the gates of hell will not prevail against but that would be a sign to the world of the eternal reality of the Kingdom of God.

Sure Hope and the Not-So-Certain Certainty

Am I saved?

Recently, it was brought to my attention by Devin Rose that an individual is claiming that a number of Catholic converts will be greeted by our Lord with the words, "Depart from me, I never knew you." The damned in question are Christians who were previously Reformed Protestants and are now Catholic and ergo doomed for eternal separation from God. According to our friend's cell phone connection to the Father, the damned in question who held to the Reformed Gospel are now sealed to a fate with Beelzebub.

Maybe.

Here's my problem with this line of reasoning. If the Catholic converts are destined for eternal separation from God and were in fact Reformed at one time, an important part--dare I say crux--of reformed theology goes up in smoke. This isn't my first pony show. Pointing to the Bible won't convince the Arminian or the Calvinist that one is right and the other is wrong. So let's not go there. Instead, let's consider the Reformed confession (WCF), since according to it, it is the summary of the Biblical data, and amend it slightly to make our jurist's claim more coherent with the Reformed confession.

The Westminster Confession of Faith XVII states (my additions in red):

• They, whom God has accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved. Unless they, of course, be of the Romanist belief, and hold to the doctrines of infused grace, pious concern for Mary or show inordinate filial affection for so-called "saints". If one, no matter how strong their belief in the effectual call, hold to such doctrines let them be certain only of flame and torment.

• This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will (unless they use that will to become Catholic), but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father--who ceases to love only those who kiss the ring of the "Holy Pontiff"; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them (which is plucked out, as by a sickle, with every invocation of a "saint"), and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which arises also the almost certainty and kind of infallibility thereof.

• Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins--let us exclude the Catholic Church from that list, for she is of a completely different kind in evil and dishonor. Such is her sin and the belief thereof, which the angels shutter in terror, for in her is found no salvation but only damnation; and, for a time, continue therein: whereby they incur God's displeasure, and grieve His Holy Spirit, come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.

I call this the "not-so-certain certainty". How can our dear prosecutor be certain of his salvation if he claims that those who previously held his position concerning the Gospel, who believed it and placed their lives upon its foundation will be lost? No, our dear eternal jurist cannot be sure of his salvation. In fact, no such certainty can exist in that paradigm, only the fleeting certainty of a circular and self-affirming theology that is grounded not in the person of Jesus Christ but in the confidence of self-righteousness and "certain" knowledge of scriptures. It is no more than psychological self-congratulations.

If you are interested, I'll share with you another view: Sure Hope. The Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, reminds us in his encyclical Spe Salvi:

“Hope”, in fact, is a key word in Biblical faith—so much so that in several passages the words “faith” and “hope” seem interchangeable. Thus the Letter to the Hebrews closely links the “fullness of faith” (10:22) to “the confession of our hope without wavering” (10:23). Likewise, when the First Letter of Peter exhorts Christians to be always ready to give an answer concerning the logos—the meaning and the reason—of their hope (cf. 3:15), “hope” is equivalent to “faith”. We see how decisively the self-understanding of the early Christians was shaped by their having received the gift of a trustworthy hope, when we compare the Christian life with life prior to faith, or with the situation of the followers of other religions. Paul reminds the Ephesians that before their encounter with Christ they were “without hope and without God in the world” (Eph 2:12). Of course he knew they had had gods, he knew they had had a religion, but their gods had proved questionable, and no hope emerged from their contradictory myths. Notwithstanding their gods, they were “without God” and consequently found themselves in a dark world, facing a dark future. In nihil ab nihilo quam cito recidimus (How quickly we fall back from nothing to nothing)[1]: so says an epitaph of that period. In this phrase we see in no uncertain terms the point Paul was making. In the same vein he says to the Thessalonians: you must not “grieve as others do who have no hope” (1 Th 4:13). Here too we see as a distinguishing mark of Christians the fact that they have a future: it is not that they know the details of what awaits them, but they know in general terms that their life will not end in emptiness."

He goes on to say:

"In our language we would say: the Christian message was not only “informative” but “performative”. That means: the Gospel is not merely a communication of things that can be known—it is one that makes things happen and is life-changing. The dark door of time, of the future, has been thrown open. The one who has hope lives differently; the one who hopes has been granted the gift of a new life."

 And finally,

“Faith is the hypostasis of things hoped for; the proof of things not seen”. For the Fathers and for the theologians of the Middle Ages, it was clear that the Greek word hypostasis was to be rendered in Latin with the term substantia. The Latin translation of the text produced at the time of the early Church therefore reads: Est autem fides sperandarum substantia rerum, argumentum non apparentium—faith is the “substance” of things hoped for; the proof of things not seen. Saint Thomas Aquinas[4], using the terminology of the philosophical tradition to which he belonged, explains it as follows: faith is a habitus, that is, a stable disposition of the spirit, through which eternal life takes root in us and reason is led to consent to what it does not see. The concept of “substance” is therefore modified in the sense that through faith, in a tentative way, or as we might say “in embryo”—and thus according to the “substance”—there are already present in us the things that are hoped for: the whole, true life. And precisely because the thing itself is already present, this presence of what is to come also creates certainty: this “thing” which must come is not yet visible in the external world (it does not “appear”), but because of the fact that, as an initial and dynamic reality, we carry it within us, a certain perception of it has even now come into existence. To Luther, who was not particularly fond of the Letter to the Hebrews, the concept of “substance”, in the context of his view of faith, meant nothing. For this reason he understood the term hypostasis/substance not in the objective sense (of a reality present within us), but in the subjective sense, as an expression of an interior attitude (see WCF), and so, naturally, he also had to understand the term argumentum as a disposition of the subject. In the twentieth century this interpretation became prevalent—at least in Germany—in Catholic exegesis too, so that the ecumenical translation into German of the New Testament, approved by the Bishops, reads as follows: Glaube aber ist: Feststehen in dem, was man erhofft, Überzeugtsein von dem, was man nicht sieht (faith is: standing firm in what one hopes, being convinced of what one does not see). This in itself is not incorrect, but it is not the meaning of the text, because the Greek term used (elenchos) does not have the subjective sense of “conviction” but the objective sense of “proof”. Rightly, therefore, recent Protestant exegesis has arrived at a different interpretation: “Yet there can be no question but that this classical Protestant understanding is untenable”[5]. Faith is not merely a personal reaching out towards things to come that are still totally absent: it gives us something...Faith draws the future into the present, so that it is no longer simply a “not yet”. The fact that this future exists changes the present; the present is touched by the future reality, and thus the things of the future spill over into those of the present and those of the present into those of the future."

This all of course flows from the logic of Scripture which was affirmed in the sixth session of the Council of Trent:

CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.

CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end, unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema...

CANON XXII.-If any one saith, that the justified, either is able to persevere, without the special help of God, in the justice received; or that, with that help, he is not able; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIII.-If any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified (the only possible explanation for our eternal jurist); or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.

CANON XXVI.-If any one saith, that the just ought not, for their good works done in God, to expect and hope for an eternal recompense from God, through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if so be that they persevere to the end in well doing and in keeping the divine commandments; let him be anathema.

Let us put our confident hope in the merits of Jesus Christ! However, may we never presume to know, as if we were God exactly who will or exactly who will not persevere. And may we, as Catholics never--so as to make imposition upon the Divine Will--pass judgment upon our brother or sister who by God's mercy may be given their chance in their dying breath to repent. It is for this reason and this reason alone--His Mercy--that we have "sure hope" of the reality that transcends this temporal journey, but not just that, a reality that informs the here-and-now and transforms us continually into the image of the Only Begotten of the Father.