Response to a Roman apologist: my defense against an alleged fallacy

Marcus, in a gracious comment on my earlier post here, alleged that he'd found a fallacy in an item in one of my earlier comments on another site. In short, he claims that this comment holds up "cafeteria Catholics" as a major problem with the Roman church.

Simply put, I did NOT cite "cafeteria Catholics" as the problem with Catholicism; my post addressed the problems in the Magesterium, not in the flock (the only time I mentioned the flock, I made it quite clear that the problem was the same with Protestant churches; my intent was to point out that Rome's alleged infallibility had not protected it from the problems Protestants admittedly suffer under). One might justly paraphrase that I wanted to cite "cafeteria Popes and Priests" as the problem.

I admit that I used a list that wound up being very unclear; in particular, when I mentioned "the run-of-the-mill Catholic who listens to and obeys his teaching priest." I should have made it clear that the problems arise when the priest goes beyond established doctrine, as happened with Liberation Theology (I know of one entire convent of nuns that was disciplined for teaching one of the more extreme variants). Again, the mere teaching doesn't disprove the entire church -- but it entirely defeats the argument that merely being in the church removes the need for discernment.

Let me give one specific example of a cafeteria Pope.

Pope Honorius I erred into heresy around 634 (by failing to condemn the heresy of monothelitism, and in fact approving an argument that the monothelitists used); it took until 649 for the heresy to be condemned in council. In that time, a number of people relied on and defended Honorius, and some of them were anathematized by the same council. From 634 to 649, innocent people in the congregations of those pastors of Christ's flock were deceived and divided, because they heard the Pope speak at a time and place when all agreed that he should speak ex cathedra, and at least some of them thought that he WAS speaking ex cathedra, but the church later decided that he was NOT doing so. He was personally fallible, and in fact personally failed. The Church infallibly contests none of this, and it fits with the council's and later Pope's decree (although some notable apologists within the Church have fallibly disputed the details).

So here's the problem. Pope Honorious was speaking for a cause on which he should have spoken infallibly. He was truly a Pope. His letter, according to a site called "The Catholic Encyclopedia" (linked above, I don't know its credentials), met the formal definition of "ex cathedra". In other words, no observer at the time could have decided that he was not speaking ex cathedra without first deciding (by what Roman Catholics mock as "private interpretation") that he was actually wrong. So the Ecumenical church admits that in this case, and I claim in many others, the Pope led people into actual heresy; he personally failed in office, and those who depended on his infallibility found that it failed.

Thankfully, the council, like the Protestant Reformers after them, were not afraid to declare a Pope to be anathema. I'm not claiming that the specific judgement of the council or the Reformers was right or wrong. But I am claiming that to the extent that the Pope and the council and the Reformers (respectively) were seeking and declaring God's truth rather than man's word, they were to be praised and imitated; and to the extent that they were adding man's word to the Gospel of Christ, anathema sint.

-Wm

Response to a Roman apologist: "an objective authority"

This article, unlike most of what I intend to post, will not be heavily concerned with exegesis of the Scriptures; rather, I'll be looking at the historical separation of the Roman, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches, and some of the Roman and Protestant church's arguments.
There are two common reactive attitudes from the Protestant world towards Roman Catholic teaching: instinctive opposition, and acceptance of their terms for the debate. This article by the excellent theology blog Parchment and Pen attempts to correct the first problem, but errs on the other side by defining the debate in Roman Catholic terms, as though Protestants needed to accept Roman Catholicism in order to accept Roman Catholics as brethren. I've responded in the comments to the original poster's misconceptions (there are some excellent comments in that discussion, as you'd expect when Beckwith becomes involved in a discussion), so I won't recap here; rather, I'd like to respond to a Roman Catholic commenter, "Micah", who accurately and elegantly distilled the issues in a short post; and unlike the original poster he gives criteria for accepting the Roman church's claims.
The question, to Micah, is whether the Roman Church objectively and exclusively has apostolic authority. After some discussion, Micah made an elaboration, which nicely establishes his claim as requiring three points of proof. He explained that the Roman Catholic Church has objective authority because it has unbroken apostolic succession by holy ordination; because it is a single unified institution; and because it is "catholic" (universal) in not being tied to any particular ethnic origin or nation. He identifies how several other classes of local churches might have one, but lack another of these.
We can examine each of these three alleged marks of a true church to see how closely the Roman church adheres to the standard Micah requires of it. We can then examine the teachings of the Church throughout the ages to see whether it is in agreement with the Roman church on what the marks of the true church are.
The following posts, and hopefully comments, will dive into this issue more thoroughly. I plan to post four more posts in this series, but I will alter these plans based on trackbacks and/or comments.

Rom 9: God selects individuals from out of groups

Romans 9 is especially controversial, so I'll be constructing this exegesis around quotations from the text of the NET Bible, in something of the form of a commentary. The focus of my examination is on the question of whether the text addresses the election of individuals; my brother in Christ asserts that it does not.
This post has taken me a long time to compose, and I apologize; but in order to claim any kind of adherence to the text I had to reread, research, and analyse a good part of Romans.

9:1 I am telling the truth in Christ (I am not lying!), for my conscience assures me in the Holy Spirit – 9:2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed – cut off from Christ – for the sake of my people, my fellow countrymen, 9:4 who are Israelites. To them belong the adoption as sons, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the temple worship, and the promises. 9:5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever! Amen.

This passage has no obvious connection to the immediate controversy, but let's use this to bring in the larger context of Romans. The previous chapter just finished explaining how God's election is sure, and nothing could separate "us" from God's love. I think we'll have to exegete that in the future, since it's a passage very commonly cited by Calvinists and appears to make very personal and even individual claims. For now, let us note the obvious connection that Paul has just said that nothing could cut us off from God's love in Christ, and now he says that he almost wishes he could be personally cut off, if only it would save his people the Israelites. Here Paul ties things back into one of the central arguments of Romans, the question of the status of Jews and Gentiles in the plan of salvation and how that impacts the claim that God is just (I'll make that claim without exegesis, because I know it's not disputed by either of us).

Paul's concern here is clearly that some Jews are not recipients of salvation, a topic touched on as far back as Romans 3. And his response to that clearly echoes his praise of the benefits given to the Jews in Romans 3:1.

9:6 It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all those who are descended from Israel are truly Israel,  9:7 nor are all the children Abraham’s true descendants; rather “through Isaac will your descendants be counted.”

But now Paul considers the specifics of the promises made to Abram/Abraham. The promise was made to Abram before Isaac or Ishmael were conceived; yet only Isaac inherited the covenantal promises. And here we hit a passage which, in context, directly addresses the controversy. What does Paul mean when he says that "not all who descended from Israel are truly Israel"? Clearly, he's proven (and he mourns) that not all of the descendants of Abraham receive salvation; but now he takes it further, to Abraham's grandson, Israel (aka Jacob). It makes sense that, because one of Abraham's sons was not the child of promise, not all of his descendants would be saved; but all of Israel's sons are part of the promise, none of them explicitly excluded by the terms God gave Abraham.

We therefore see that the exclusions from God's redemptive plans are not predictable based on which group they fall into. So how are they chosen?

9:8 This means it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God; rather, the children of promise are counted as descendants.

Isaac and Jacob were both children of promise, so Paul here defends God's righteousness in rejecting Ishmael and Esau; but he also makes a deeper point which he will expand through the rest of this, that God selects His children apart from the flesh. We will see that when God declares that a group will be blessed, God can provide members of that group naturally or miraculously; and God can make natural members of that group receive none of the benefits.

9:9 For this is what the promise declared: “About a year from now I will return and Sarah will have a son.” 9:10 Not only that, but when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our ancestor Isaac – 9:11 even before they were born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose in election would stand, not by works but by his calling) – 9:12 it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger,” 9:13 just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

 Here Paul's argument first proves that not every child of the flesh fulfills the promise (Ishmael was a child of the flesh, but wasn't the promised son, because he was born at the wrong time and of the wrong mother); next, he shows that even where two children are identical in all humanly knowable ways (and equally innocent), God was able to choose one of them and reject the other. Now, is this a corporate rejection? When Malachi said that God rejected Esau and accepted Jacob, he was explaining a corporate rejection of Esau's national descendants; but when Paul quotes him here, Paul is explaining an individual rejection and acceptance, because Paul identifies the selection by circumstances that do not apply to nations, that is presence within a mother's womb.
In addition, the argument that Paul has already made clearly shows that "not all from Israel are of Israel", so the mere fact that Jacob/Israel was accepted says nothing about the children of his flesh, except that the promise of God would somehow be carried through at least some of them. Some of them would be accepted, according to the promise. Others, unmentioned in the promise, would be rejected. And the example of Esau (unlike the example of Ishmael) shows that the rejection need not be based on good or bad works or anything about the heritage of the person.

9:14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? Absolutely not!

 The injustice that Paul is speaking of -- or rather, the injustice that he's picturing other people asking about -- is the injustice of promising a covenant with an entire group, but then selecting individuals inside that group for salvation. Not all of the children of Abraham were covenantal, and this was entirely vindicated because Ishmael fell outside of the terms of the promise. Not all of the children of Isaac were covenantal, and this was vindicated because when God chooses to show special favor, it is indeed both special and voluntary to God. I have to suspect (and this is just my idea) that God planned Jacob and Esau to be twins for just this argument: nobody can claim that either one deserves more either according to the flesh or according to some hard rule. If God wanted the flesh to determine salvation, He could have made both brothers stand or fall together, or He could have made one evil and one good; but instead, if any is good, it's the hardworking but slightly foolish Esau -- and he loses the inheritance by God's determination even before his birth. And then, to drive home the point, at the very next generation all of Jacob's children are given the covenant, showing that God could have given the covenant to both Jacob and Esau.

9:15 For he says to Moses: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 9:16 So then, it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.

 Human desire and exertion are unambiguously not attributes of groups. These verses can only be talking about how God shows mercy on individuals as part of His plans.

 9:17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh: “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may demonstrate my power in you, and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” 9:18 So then, God has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses to harden.

And here, if Paul's argument has any continuity at all, we must see an argument about an individual's redemption or damnation. God's plan of redemption clearly called for Pharaoh to be hardened; and indeed so he was. This isn't an argument about the people of Egypt, but about Pharaoh himself. And here Paul explains himself more fully; God can not only have mercy, but He can also harden.

9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who has ever resisted his will?”

Paul here is addressing an objection to his argument. The form of this objection gives a clear clue as to the argument that Paul is attempting to convey. Clearly, the reader is expected to see that Pharaoh is made in such a way that he cannot do anything but oppose God; and clearly, the reader is expected to react in at least wonder that God would hold anyone responsible for an action that they could not control.

9:20 But who indeed are you – a mere human being – to talk back to God? Does what is molded say to the molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 9:21 Has the potter no right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special use and another for ordinary use?

Paul has two responses. The first one is to point out that anyone asking that question has reversed their priorities. Why should we protest when we find that God made us to act as we actually are? To go outside of Paul's text and express my own argument, I'd say that it would be more protestable if we found that God made us one way, and then caused us to act another way instead -- but this is what God says He does as part of salvation, taking our stone hearts and replacing them with hearts of flesh.

9:22 But what if God, willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath prepared for destruction?

Now, the immediate context of this verse is Pharaoh's opposition to God's commands, and the resulting carrying out of God's plan. So we see Paul's second response to the question: that God's plan is at least sometimes carried out by hardening hearts so that they will oppose Him; and furthermore, that the hearts so hardened were (in at least this one case, but Paul gives us no reason to take this as a special case) prepared for that hardening as part of God's purpose for their existence.
Some people believe that God elects people to condemnation, just as He elects His people to salvation. I believe this verse doesn't show anything about that; Pharaoh was an unbeliever, and already condemned as such. God's special provision for wrath didn't mean that God was going to send him to "an extra hot spot in hell"; his spot in hell was already earned. Pharaoh, like all of his subjects and all of us, was already planning to spend his life performing obstinate rebellion against the God he should obey; God simply made sure, as part of "raising him up" that the rebellion he would perform would fall along the lines God needed for His plan.

9:23 And what if he is willing to make known the wealth of his glory on the objects of mercy that he has prepared beforehand for glory – 9:24 even us, whom he has called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 9:25

 Paul here does two things. First, he turns the argument around, asking why we should protest that God makes some people out of a rebellious clay when we don't protest that God remakes some rebellious clay into vessels of glory; both are equally within His rights as the Maker. Second, he ties this argument into the broader argument, to look back at the question of how the election of individuals to salvation fits into the election of groups (both Jews and Gentiles) to covenantal membership.
And here the verse turns on a single word; God has called us from the Jews and the Gentiles. Paul is not saying that God has saved the Gentiles, or displaced the Jews; Paul is saying that we are a new people who are taken from all of the existing ones ("Jew" and "Gentile" completely cover the possibilities). What forms the people of God? Not physical descent; not adherence to some rule of membership; not human choice or effort (verse 16); but rather the freely given mercy of God, given not to a previously existing group, but given to the individuals that God has freely chosen for His mercy.

As he also says in Hosea: “I will call those who were not my people, ‘My people,’ and I will call her who was unloved, ‘My beloved.’” 9:26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

First Paul cites God's promise, given through the Jewish prophets, for some of the Gentiles to form a new people who belong to God...

9:27 And Isaiah cries out on behalf of Israel, “Though the number of the children of Israel are as the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved, 9:28 for the Lord will execute his sentence on the earth completely and quickly.” 9:29 Just as Isaiah predicted, “If the Lord of armies had not left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom, and we would have resembled Gomorrah.”

...and next Paul shows that the prophets promised that the Jews, the promise-bearers, would only fulfill that promise through a remnant.

9:30 What shall we say then? – that the Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness obtained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith, 9:31 but Israel even though pursuing a law of righteousness did not attain it. 9:32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but (as if it were possible) by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, 9:33 just as it is written, “Look, I am laying in Zion a stone that will cause people to stumble and a rock that will make them fall, yet the one who believes in him will not be put to shame.”

What indeed will we say? Although Romans, in the large view, is an explanation of how God is entirely just and justified in His plan of salvation; Romans many times, including chapter 9, examines God's election of individuals in order to vindicate it.

Eph 2 from a Calvinist

Summary: Ephesians 2 indicates that faith does not initiate our salvation; rather, God initiates it, and after He makes us alive, He saves us through our faith.
Text: Eph 2:1-10

Before we were saved we were “dead”, and “children of wrath, indulging the desires of the flesh and the mind”; then all of a sudden, “even though we were dead, made us alive”. What made that change in us? Was it our own desire for God? No, because our desires were as described before. Was it our own faith? No; how could faith, which is conditioned on believing God and desiring the rewards He gives to “those who diligently seek him”, be present in a “dead” “child of wrath”?
Something happened, and Paul describes it: God “made us alive together with Christ.” God didn’t wait for our faith, because if he had, we’d still be as much children of wrath and as dead as we were in verse 1. After God quickened us, He didn’t wait for further assent or understanding; He “raised us up with Him and seated us in the heavenly realms…” (Eph 2:5-6). He did this graciously (which means of his own free will), not out of obligation because their faith earned it; this is clear from the meaning of grace, and also evident from this passage, in which faith is not invoked to explain this bringing alive.
So faith's presence in us is due to the gift of God, and is part of the gift of God that constitutes our salvation. And remember, whatever that gift is, NONE of it is something we get by our own effort, “lest any man should boast.”