Skip to main content

Ted Said A Bunch Of Stuff. My Answer: Dogma

The Catholic Church is offensive. Jesus was, too, as I'm sure you know. Ted was saying that it's inappropriate for one Christian (Catholic) to tell another Christian (Reformed) that he hasn't fully accepted the gospel. Well, you don't accept Mary's perpetual virginity, do you? You've denied the gospel. That scares people, because granted, I don't think the finer points of Marian dogma would make it into my 2 minute elevator speech about "the gospel." But it doesn't mean those things don't matter. I think the greatest damage the Protestant revolt did--because Sola Scriptura wreaks its havoc within Protestantism, also--was that it made people talk more about their feelings about truths of divine faith, more than the truths themselves.

It's a function of Western evangelicalism, but also of indifferentism produced by necessity from the individualizing principle of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura strips away the power from the ecclesial communities that operate under it. Consider this: once you lose the power to tell people credibly that they must repent (of doctrines or of conduct) or face the fires of Hell, you actually lose the battle to defend dogma itself. Once the Reformation-era communities realized that they could not agree dogmatically, they adopted the concept of an invisible Church, and indifferentism was born. In truth, Sola Scriptura itself did it. If you say that there is no special protection for the Catholic Church in the definition and promulgation of revealed truth, that same principle will eventually undermine any other ecclesiastical authority that takes its place. Pomp and godly fear may make it happen slower in the PCA or the SBC, but it will happen. Call it the Leithart Anomaly: You will never convince a man who believes his interpretations are "biblical" that he is even possibly damnably wrong. The best you can do is convince him to trade his interpretations for yours. How good are yours?

By all means, appeal to an ecumenical Council, and its creed, or "symbol," in the patristic language. Yet realize that a creed cannot usefully function secondarily at all. Protestantism makes all creeds secondary, in the sense that they are appealed to insofar as they agree with "Scripture." Scripture according to whom?

One cannot be both the arbiter of divine revelation, and a humble receiver of it at the same time. Or, you cannot deny holy mother Church, and utterly rely on her authority (coherently) at the same time. It really is Catholic or bust, in the end.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

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...

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...