Skip to main content

No, Justin Cooper, You Still Don't Understand

This is not some elusive quest for certitude. And your desire for historical and theological continuity is admirable, and shared by all. In fact, the Reformed are surprised to learn that Lutherans appreciate the Church fathers more than they do. [Yes. Pfft, I'm not impressed.--ed.] The question is not whether threads of continuity can be identified from one's own confessional position; they surely can. The question is, "What is the means by which continuity was established, and identified going forward?" The Church fathers themselves are not a norm in themselves; as you and countless have pointed out, they are all over the place, depending on what thing is under discussion. But they are useful, for this very purpose: they tell us how to find the Church. We can talk about what that Church believed, and who among us is the true continuation of that faith only after we identify how the Church marked herself out. This is what Stellman meant when he said (echoing Cross) that it was shooting an arrow and painting the target around it. Let me say it this way: I don't care what Lutherans of any era have said, nor decisions of Synods, commentators, etc. unless and until those people are shown to be the ones I should listen to. It's just an intellectual curiosity until then. Because the Anglicans and the Reformed are waiting in the next room to tell me why their theologies are just as "fully-orbed" and satisfying as yours. You can't assume your theological continuity, and then go about showing us where you find it.

Anglicans are fond of telling us that they have "purged" the "excesses" of Roman Catholic medieval theology, and I'm sure you say your Lutheran forbearers have done the same. But none of you have answered the fundamental question: Who sent you? And who gave you the charism, nay, the authority, to identify excesses in the first place? You can read all the Church fathers you want; if your pastor was not ordained by a bishop in apostolic succession, the Church fathers say I should flee. Right off the top. And that succession leads back to Peter's chair. Sorry to ruin the fun.

Pointing out for example that you have an orthodox Christology (more or less) is about as useless as a screen-door on a submarine, because that is not in question. This has always been an ecclesial question, and you assume precisely what is in dispute between us.

Fun Question, Never Answered: If the Reformation was licit because of corruption in the Catholic Church, why deny transubstantiation? In other words, why offer a theological solution to a moral problem? We're waiting.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un