Sunday, November 08, 2009

Works and Grace IV

Alan, aka "Rhology" is continuing the discussion on Works and Grace, but what really started from a discussion on "Roman" Catholic vs. "Catholic" alone being appropriate or not and was started from a comment made on my blog regarding something James White said on his blog. It then also branched out into Alan's personal attacks and probes about me. We see this quite often, unfortunately, that when confronted one of the first things these (typically Calvinist) apologists do is go into character assassination instead of dealing wholly with the point(s) of discussion. Well, enough of an introduction, on with this response to Alan. I will say too, on this matter I think we've about reached an end.

Friday, November 06, 2009

Seen Scott Windsor's imprimatur?


My Response:
Scott Windsor does not give imprimaturs.


Alan wrote:
Scott Windsor has responded to some of our recent interactions on his blog, in two parts. I'll address this first part here and then go on to the other post later.

> sw: It was YOU who referred to the Eph. 2 post

Yes, that's what's commonly called an "example". An "illustration". I apologise for using a concept that's apparently unfamiliar to you.


My Response:

Alan, save the sarcasm. I fully understand what examples and illustrations are, but how could I not respond to that when you posted it, linked it and made it part of what you were saying to me? If I had skipped over it you likely would have accused me of avoiding that discussion. The point is, you brought it up and then accused me of introducing differing subjects when I merely responded to the subjects YOU raised!



Alan wrote:
My question related to that post was very, very specific. You then responded to the Eph 2 post itself, which is not what I asked about. That is what I mean by your failure to follow the line of argumentation, and then you project your failure onto me and accuse me of shotgunning and partaking with Satan. Again, knock yourself out.

My Response:
Again, I could not just ignore what you wrote in your Eph. 2 posting when you explicitly referenced it as an example. I suppose I could have, but to what end?


Alan wrote:
> sw: Since when does a "boldfaced word" indicate
> an internal critique? Boldfaced words mean emphasis.


Sigh. The bold word indicates a critique. If you weren't so busy acting offended, you might remember that I've already explained this to you.
-Here's the original comment from me.
-Mr Windsor's is right after, where he says: "Your use of "Romanist" in a truly bigoted fashion (related to another thread going on here and on my blog too as well as White's) is noted...but even make sure we take note by using bold text?"
-My next comment explains: "I put "from Romanists" in bold b/c I was trying to help you understand what I'd said. It appeared you hadn't followed that I was noting an inconsistency between what you'd said and what *other* ppl have said many times in the past."
-Mr Windsor ignores my explanation and offers this: "For example, if I were using a term like "Prottie" here - and someone expressed to ME that it was a bit of a bigoted term - I would respect them and refrain from further use - I would not go on and not only use it, but bold face it as well!"
-I responded in the next comment: "And again (see how boldface imparts emphasis?), I bolded "Romanist" to try to be helpful and direct attention to my meaning." And then I even explained it AGAIN: "Thus you are showing that you care not for the argument that *OTHER PEOPLE* have often made *IN THE PAST* here on this blog, that private, individual interpretation is useless. That is the extent of my point here."

My Response:
1) You first state that a bold word indicates a critique then in the same context you AGREE WITH ME and say "see how boldface imparts emphasis?" So, critique or emphasis?

2) I am not offended. I apologize if I have made it appear so. It takes a bit more than what you have dished out to "offend" me.

3) No matter how you slice it - "Romanist" is a bigoted word. So, to steal a line from Meredith Wilson, "You watch your phraseology!" Why you folks see the need to defend the usage of such a word is beyond me.


Alan wrote:
-Mr Windsor seems finally to get it: "I can't speak for "*OTHER PEOPLE*" - but as for me, the only times I would have to be concerned about "private interpretation" is if I am interpreting something contrary to an already defined teaching"

If only you'd kept right on that train of thought, but no, it's apparently more amusing to vilify me. Whatever, have fun with that.

My Response:
As for vilifying you, I was just pointing something out - but hey, if the shoe fits.

As for "finally gets it," I stand by what I said and have not wavered from that statement. Private interpretation is used by us ALL - we only get into trouble if our private interpretation is contrary to an already defined interpretation. Frankly, I don't know of any Catholic who would disagree with that statement. Well, "only" is a big word there, let me amend that - we could also get ourselves into trouble if our private interpretation, regardless of validity, is scandalous.


Alan wrote:
> sw: As I pointed out, there were at least 5 different topics
> among those 8 questions.


Yes, b/c YOU RESPONDED TO THE EPH 2 POST, Mr Windsor. Sauce for the goose and all that.
And there aren't 5 diff topics. They're all directed at taking your comment that "works" in Eph 2 refers to "works of the OT Law", so I was asking you if you attempt to fulfill the OT Law since Eph 2:10 says we're created in Christ Jesus unto good works. Since "works" = "works of the OT Law", it should be obvious to any reader that, if you believe that, you'd better get right on top of obeying the OT Law!
I note in passing that you've never put fwd any answer beyond "Christ fulfilled the OT Law for us"...as if you completely forgot the original context of the question - Eph 2. It's yet another thread of the argument you've lost track of, but I'll look at your other post on that topic.

My Response:
And if you're going to use the "Eph 2 post" as an example, I would be remiss to NOT respond to it!

I already enumerated the 5 different topics - we don't need to go through that again.

You're still confusing "works" here too. You seem to not distinguish between "good works" (which are works done in the state of grace) with "works of the Law" done outside the state of grace.

Now, if there's a question you believe I've overlooked or failed to answer, I assure you, I have not done so on purpose. If you believe I've been incomplete in answering, just ask the question again and not merely make an unsupported allegation.


Alan wrote:
> sw: Question 4 was asking about my sons (a personal question).

Seriously? Asking whether you fulfilled the circumcision commandments in the OT Law for your sons is "a personal question"?

My Response:
Yes, seriously! How can a question about what *I* have done in *MY* family NOT be a personal question? You could have made it non-personal by asking, "Is it still a necessary law to fulfill to have ones sons circumcised on the 8th day, according to Jewish custom?" No, you asked *ME* about *MY* sons. That's personal. Do you not see that? Seriously?


Alan wrote:
> sw: 5) Question 7 asked about graven images...which is
> wholly a different subject


Oh, the OT Law doesn't deal with graven images? Not even in, say, the 10 Commandments? Like the 2nd one?
Deut 7:5, 25, 12:3 29:17; Num 33:52; Lev 26:30? Aren't those psgs in the OT Law too?

My Response:
The subject was, I thought, "Works and Grace" (the title of the series of posts on my blog responding to you). The subject of "graven images" would fall under a "Thou shalt NOT..." clause - or, in short things you should NOT do, not things you SHOULD do! That would be a NON-work. Can you see now how it is a wholly different subject?


Alan wrote:
> sw: Vague references to entire postings or entire
> threads of discussion don't cut it as documentation.


I told you where to see a couple of examples. You know, as an apologist you're not all that helpful. Don't you ever answer hypotheticals? It's not like it's not a specific hypothetical.

My Response:
Let's see, you don't provide specifics, just vague references to entire threads of discussion and now *I* am the one not being helpful? Why is it you continually attempt to put your flaws upon me? To answer your question though, I avoid dealing with hypotheticals, especially non-specific ones for they lead to open-ended questions with moving targets one can seldom pin down. Such hypotheticals do NOT make for good apologetics - only twisted arguments.


Alan wrote:
> sw: It sure sounds like St. Jerome was unilaterally acting
> in the quote you provided. Did he consult the elders of that
> congregation before acting? Or, did he just walk in and
> start ripping things down? Did he consult with the local
> bishop? Did he consult with ANYONE?


(You're shotgunning again, I note. I brought this up as an EXAMPLE, and you're taking it far afield, if we go by your own standard.)
Why would he consult the elders of a wrongdoing congregation?
Maybe he was very, very certain that such a thing was wrong and acted to communicate its wrongness to that church? Maybe he had consulted with the bishop. And wait a sec, why would he need to consult with the local bishop? I thought Christians and especially bishops throughout history have been in agreement about such important things as images. No doubt he agreed with you and knew his own bishop said images in church are a no-go, and thus figured the local bishop would agree, since bishops in Christ's church bind and loose and all that and have all that unity you like to talk about so often.

My Response:
See what I mean! Even in this rather specific situation, wherein we don't know all the details, the "hypothetical" or "speculated" answers are moving targets. No matter how I responded, you would have found another move/target to choose and attempt to demonstrate how I missed. Thank you for providing this perfect example of why I try to avoid such.

As for "all that unity you (me) like to talk about so often..." when have I discussed "unity" with you - or are you just "shotgunning" again?


Alan wrote:
> sw: There may be some (images) around, but I
> don't "use them" in "worship."


Let the reader judge whether the actions performed by RCs before their images is "using them" in "worship".

My Response:
No, the reader doesn't get to judge my personal intentions behind my worship!


Alan wrote:
One can find SOME of the defined teachings of the RCC in many places. Others are said to be defined but are not. Some, it would be nice if they were, but they're not, such as an infallible list of infall teachings, a list of the infallibly-interpreted Scr psgs, etc.
But for the 3rd time, you say on the one hand that it's the reader's responsibility to figure it out, and on the other decry this individual interpretation if it differs from the RCC's teachings. How can we know who's right here?
IOW, you're asking me to act like a Protestant. It's really weird.
How about you actually exercise some of this humility you claim and submit ALL your work to the Magisterium for the imprimatur? What's so wrong with that request?

My Response:
Again asking about this "infallible list of infallible teachings." The Church hasn't seen the need for such a list, not to mention that such a list would be outdated as soon as another definition is made. I'm not asking you to do anything - I'm telling you (as you've been told before) there ARE lists available for you to look at - you are just insisting upon one, infallible list - when you know such a list does not exist.

As for your request for me to submit my work - that's already in progress. Patience, Grasshopper, patience!


Alan wrote:
Anyway, the main point of this whole thing is that Mr Windsor apparently wants everyone to take his word for it on the question of whether he's submitted to the Magisterium. "Oh don't worry," he says, "I've written to my bishop, and in the past I've had good success getting a response." That's nice, and I'm sure such responses from men who wear such elaborate vestments and who hide and transfer pædophiles and can't decide what to do with obviously pro-baby-murder politicians among their constituents impart warm fuzzies, but from someone who's a little closer to the big-time than an anonymous race-baiting RC commenter like, say, Dozie, I'd like more than his assurance.

I've seen "Dozie" on BA, but beyond that, I do not know much about him (or her). But look at all the diversions you threw into the above statement! First, what's the subject? Works and Grace, right? But that has been diverted to a discussion on whether or not I am subject to the Magisterium. Then you talk about getting responses from men who wear elaborate vestments, as if what a person wears has anything to do with anything here. Next you talk about old news of bishops who hide and transfer pedophiles. Next you talk about alleged inability to deal with pro-baby-murder politicians and warm fuzzies. And finally you talk about some other apologist and state you want more assurance. And you wonder why I mention "shotgunning" and "diversion/confusion" tactics which are truly "tools of Satan," the Father of Confusion. Alan, you've heard the phrase asking, "If the shoe fits?" Well, you're already wearing that shoe!


Alan wrote:
I mean, I'm supposed to let RCC's dogmatic proclamations bind my conscience on pain of mortal sin (or, on pain of somehow wriggling out from under the virtual panacæa of the concept of "invincible ignorance"), but if Mr Windsor relies on his private interpretation to find out whether his own teachings are thus bound, I feel less motivated to do anything more than that.

My Response:
I am sorry that I am not a better example for you. I will try harder, but don't try to blame your lacking on me. When you stand before the Judgment Seat, God's not going to listen to excuses like, "But Scott Windsor didn't say it that way...." No Alan, you have the responsibility to KNOW YOUR FAITH. If I am lacking in any way, shape or form - and I'm sure I am on some points - then SEEK THE TRUTH. There is such a thing as "mortal sin" (a "sin which is unto death" 1 John 5:16-17). There ARE men whom Jesus selected with the authority to forgive sins (John 20:23) so if you're not in communion with one who has such authority... well, I'm digressing into this diversion a bit, and I haven't even touched upon the diversion of "Invincible Ignorance."

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

15 comments:

  1. In the continuing comments on Beggars All - you can see this discussion has led to a discussion of "canon." However Alan/Rhology seems to not differentiate one canon (list) from another. Here's the latest (at the time of posting this reply) from Alan on this topic:

    >> sw: Yes, you're asking two
    >> questions about "canon" - but
    >> two different "canons!"
    >
    > AR: Yes, that's true, and Rome
    > has infallibly defined neither.

    sw: Let's make note of the "neither" at this point... carry on...

    > AR: Which is why RCs' harping on
    > the Canon issue towards Sola
    > Scripturists is so rich in irony.

    sw: For the sake of continuing this discussion here, the two canons we're speaking of here are the Canon of Sacred Scripture and a canon of infallible decrees. There is no published canon of infallible decrees - but there IS an infallible decree regarding the Canon of Sacred Scripture! We KNOW who published the infallible decree of the Canon of Sacred Scripture! However, it's like pulling hen's teeth to get a sola scripturist to admit it!

    > AR: For SS-ists, the Canon of
    > Scr is our Canon of infallible
    > teachings.

    sw: And WHERE did this canon come from? Did God drop it from Heaven on golden tablets which take magic glasses to read? Oops, wrong religion! No, God guided the Catholic Church to decree the canon.

    > AR: For RCs, the non-existent
    > Canon of Magisterial teaching
    > would be your Canon of
    > infallible teaching.

    sw: Nice dodge, but the original challenge to you was to present an inspired table of contents for the Bible. Unless you're willing to grant such inspiration to the Catholic Church - you have no such thing! The Church being guided by the Holy Ghost decreed the canon!

    >> sw: The Catholic Church has
    >> infallibly defined the Canon of
    >> Sacred Scripture!
    >
    > AR: No, it has not; only the
    > Canon of the NT.

    sw: Well, I thank you for at least acknowledging the Canon of the New Testament was infallibly defined by the Catholic Church.

    Now would also be the time to point out that earlier you claimed "neither" were defined by the Catholic Church - but here you've conceded at least part of the Canon of Sacred Scripture was indeed defined, infallibly, by the Catholic Church.

    >> sw: You're welcome for that,
    >> well, as far as the New
    >> Testament is concerned anyway.
    >
    > AR: Well, the Canon of the NT is
    > hardly the Canon of Scripture,
    > now is it?

    sw: It is certainly PART of the Canon of Scripture! You accept the Church's authority and guidance for the NT, but not for the OT. That has been my point.

    >> sw: You trust US for the Canon
    >> of the New Testament, but for
    >> the Old Testament you trust
    >> those who rejected Jesus Christ
    >> as their Messiah.
    >
    > AR: I trust God for both.

    sw: Begging the question, Alan. Again, how and where did God give you the Canon of Sacred Scripture?

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't know how many times I have to remind you that Trent has passed over in silence at least one book in the question of the Canon of the OT. Going to respond to that or not?

    And when you ask for an inspired ToC for the Bible, why would anyone think you're in better shape when you don't have one, nor do you have one for your infallible teachings?

    Even if I can't answer the question, you have to answer these questions to show your position is better off.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Alan/Rhology wrote:
    > I don't know how many times I
    > have to remind you that Trent
    > has passed over in silence at
    > least one book in the question
    > of the Canon of the OT. Going to
    > respond to that or not?

    sw: I did respond to that when you asked it in another thread. My response was something along the line of "Trent defined the canon as that used in the Old Latin Vulgate" - so I don't know which book you claim is "passed over in silence."

    Here's a quote of what was said when you first asked that question:
    ============================
    >> sw: I take it you've never read Trent's infallible
    >> decree on the Canon of Sacred Scripture then?
    >
    > I take it you're unfamiliar with Trent's passing over
    > at least one DeuteroCanonical book in silence then?

    sw: Again, an allegation without substance. Which book do you say was "passed over?" The decree is regarding the books from "the old Latin Vulgate Edition." Here's the decree I spoke of:

    If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.Source.
    =============================

    sw: The actual decree refers to the old Latin Vulgate Edition, without enumerating any individual books - so again, which book do you claim is passed over in silence?

    > AR: And when you ask for an
    > inspired ToC for the Bible, why
    > would anyone think you're in
    > better shape when you don't have
    > one,

    sw: We have an infallible decree, bound on Earth so it is also bound in Heaven.

    > AR: nor do you have one for your
    > infallible teachings?

    sw: This is just an attempt to throw burden of proof back on us for a challenge you cannot or will not answer. You are the one who clings to sola scriptura - but without the Church, you don't even have a solid canon to adhere to!

    > AR: Even if I can't answer the
    > question, you have to answer
    > these questions to show your
    > position is better off.

    sw: The challenge to you was not on a matter of who is better off or not - it is to demonstrate your reliance upon the Church for the very canon you hold to be infallible.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  4. I pointed you to the link already. Here I've laid them out in chronological order.

    Here
    Here
    Here
    Here
    A bit of a summation

    We have an infallible decree, bound on Earth so it is also bound in Heaven.

    Ditto. I guess we're even.


    This is just an attempt to throw burden of proof back on us for a challenge you cannot or will not answer.

    I've answered it before, actually, on my own blog, but I don't have time right now. It's perfectly sufficient for me to point out that your position can't answer the challenge either.


    You are the one who clings to sola scriptura - but without the Church, you don't even have a solid canon to adhere to!

    Never claimed the Scripture was somehow assembled w/o the involvement of God's people. No strawmen, please.
    And ironically, how sad is it that you who DO have the "infallible Church" have no canon of infallible teachings nor a canon of Scripture?

    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rhology, thank you for admitting that the bishops at Trent were indeed God's people. You've given them more credit than Luther ever would have allowed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Alan,
    I provided you with the decree from Trent, which does NOT enumerate the individual books, but accepts the canon used in the old Latin Vulgate. You presented your argument as if you had "reminded" me several times already of something - then when pressed you refer to a conversation from nearly 2 years ago which I was not even a part of! You and I just started discussing matters within the last few weeks - so what's a 2 year old conversation got to do with anything between you and me?!

    Second, I asked you for a single Deuterocanonical book which Trent's infallible decree "passed over in silence" - you have not provided that book, only several links to a nearly 2 year old conversation - and I am not about to scour that whole conversation to try and find what you're talking about. Just answer the question.

    Alan wrote:
    >> sw: We have an infallible
    >> decree, bound on Earth so it is
    >> also bound in Heaven.
    >
    > Ditto. I guess we're even.

    sw: Well, I appreciate that you're recognizing our infallible decree - but something is missing here... oh, YOUR INFALLIBLE DECREE! So, where is this infallible decree which states the Canon of Sacred Scripture for you?

    > AR: And ironically, how sad is
    > it that you who DO have the
    > "infallible Church" have no
    > canon of infallible teachings
    > nor a canon of Scripture?

    sw: We have not seen the need for an infallible canon of infallible teachings. We DO have an infallible Canon of Sacred Scripture - the decree from Trent is provided above.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  7. RF,

    Is that what you read? That explains the quality of your biblical exegesis, then, too.



    Mr Windsor,

    You and I just started discussing matters within the last few weeks - so what's a 2 year old conversation got to do with anything between you and me?!

    It's not a conversation, I cited the posts as what they are - research.
    You don't want to read it, that's fine; enjoy your willful ignorance.


    Well, I appreciate that you're recognizing our infallible decree - but something is missing here... oh, YOUR INFALLIBLE DECREE!

    It's God's, the promise that His people will know His voice and listen to it, and be drawn to the Savior.
    Circular, you say? So's yours. Like I said, we're even.
    It's not an argument FOR Sola Scrip, it's a response to a bad RC argument.


    We have not seen the need for an infallible canon of infallible teachings.

    I don't know how to make this any clearer.
    We say Scr alone is infallible.
    You ask us for the Canon - the Canon of that which is infallible in our mind.

    We turn around and ask YOU for the Canon of that which is infallible in YOUR mind.
    The need is of your own creation. My suggestion is that you abandon this crappy argument.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Alan, with your last comment I think it's time to let you play in the sandbox by yourself.

    Seek that which is above.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Since this really is not a discussion of "Works and Grace" - I have posted my response under Protestant Canon of Sacred Scripture.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  10. Alan: “but from someone who's a little closer to the big-time than an anonymous race-baiting RC commenter like, say, Dozie, I'd like more than his assurance.”

    SW: “I've seen "Dozie" on BA, but beyond that, I do not know much about him (or her).”

    BTW, Dozie (he) is an actual given name and it is on my driving license. It is therefore silly to assume that because a name sounds unfamiliar it is a “no-name”. Incidentally, Rhology, which has until recently remained unmasked, is far more anonymous than Dozie.

    In any case, the one thing that needs to be known is that it is a complete waste of time to try to deal with likes of Alan or whatever pseudo name he goes by. The man has zero character and makes arguments and distortions that can only be inspired by his father, the Devil. This man simply has no ability to speak the truth. Sadly Alan/Rhology has no confidence in the system he has embraced and cannot offer a simple and straightforward response regarding how he came to believe that the scriptures are believable.

    If you have a job or family, do not squander your free time on Rhology.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Just for your edification, long after the fact, Robert Sungenis disagrees with Scott Windsor on this topic. And he actually gives some reasons for it!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Perhaps Alan can be more specific in his allegation? I've checked Bob's article, and don't really see the alleged "disagreement" - and Bob never mentions me by name in this article. I can see where the simple minded may THINK there is disagreement, but in reality there is none. So without specific examples we must dismiss Alan's comment as nothing more than a flimsy attempt to so discord and move along.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sungenis says:
    In giving this kind of answer, the Catholic thinks he has satisfactorily defended the Catholic faith and silenced the Protestant. To bolster his case, he may enlist the help of Romans 3:29 as proof that his answer is correct: "Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also." He then explains that since Paul speaks of "Jews only," then the "works of the law" mentioned in the previous verse (3:28) must be something that identifies only with the Jews but not with the Gentiles. In that he is correct, but as we will see later, the answer he gives as to the distinguishing characteristic (the ceremonial law) is only partially correct, and in being such, it is the wrong answer to this most crucial question.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Alan,
    Sorry for the delay, you're responding to a post that is over two weeks old and I have to remember to check for moderation/approval on comments left to messages that old.

    That being said, you have not demonstrated yet that Sungenis "disagrees" with me, or I with him. That quote leaves us hanging on what is "wrong" and what I may have said is "wrong" in Sungenis' view. I'd like to deal with this, but I'm not going to assume anything here. Present a complete argument or you have nothing.

    A complete argument:
    1) Opening Statement
    2) Documentation to support the Opening Statement
    3) Summary/Closing Statement which ties together the Opening Statement and Documentation to make a complete argument.

    Thanks,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete

Keep in mind while posting:
1) Please respond ON TOPIC to the article at hand.
2) Posts more than 4 weeks old are set to automatically save new comments for moderation - so your comment may not show up immediately if you're responding to an older post.
3) The "Spam Filter" is on - and randomly messages get caught in that filter. I have no control over which messages get caught in the spam filter and those that do must wait for me to mark them as "not spam." A message caught by the spam filter may show up for a moment, making you think it posted, and then disappear. Do not assume I have deleted your comment, it's probably just the spam filter and it will show up.