Why Protestantism? (or rather, why the Lutheran Church-Canada)

Devin Rose - a friend who has helped me in so many ways over the years, asked me a fair question.

If Roman Catholicism is not the true religion, how do you know your 'brand' of Protestantism is correct?

1. Rationalist Assumptions of Roman Catholicism

Like every argument for Roman Catholicism, this one begins with pure reason (which Kant despised so much). It assumes that divine revelation devolves naturally to arguments about divine revelation. It assumes that Aristotle's account of logic is the only account of logic, and that human nature is essentially Aristotelian.

What if Aristotle was wrong (as the Church Fathers thought he was)?

How would you disprove Roman Catholicism in a way that was satisfactory to them? Admittedly, you'd have to use Aristotelian logic.

For instance, Kant and (Lord) Russell, both ripped apart the 5 'proofs' for God's existence using empirical epistemology / analytic philosophy. What is RC's reply? Wrong logic. You started with the wrong rules. I might ask, who says we have to start with your rules?

So what I did, and what the Church Fathers did, was use the logic of a system against itself. With my concupiscence/consubstantiation argument, I used Thomism to show the why Trent was wrong.

Were I to then come up with a system based on the same epistemology, I'd have contradicted myself! Because the Roman Catholic claim is circular reasoning: logic is what we say it is, and this is logically demonstrable.

Protestantism says something quite different in it's epistemology.

Protestantism begins with God. God (as St. Anselm and Descartes understood him) was: that Being, a greater than which, cannot be conceived.

So we are presented with the Revelation of God's Word to Moses, through Jesus. How do we decide if this Word is true or not? If we require a rational argument to demonstrate it's truth (which Aristotelianism would have us do), then we aren't actually saying there is truth inherent in the Word. It's just a really good human philosophy, using allegedly divine sources.

By contrast God's Word is a pre-rational revelation that is necessarily self-referential, and circular. God says it, and it's authoritative because God says it. It can only be accepted or rejected. In any case, there's no way to falsify the claims of God about Himself, we can't know. We either trust, or reason.

In short: the epistemological authority of God's Word is greater than the epistemological authority of any argument about his Word.

2. Only Two Traditions

Again, retaining their rationalism, Roman Catholicism asserts that there are 22 000 Christian 'churches' all claiming to have 'the true religion', let alone Islam and Hinduism. Without reason, how can we judge which claims are best.

First of all, when we're judging claims outside of Christianity, we can certainly use philosophy and reason to undermine these things. (That's why Tertullian used Stoic philosophy to undermine the Stoics, but didn't adopt it in his theology.)

Secondly, there are hardly 22 or 25 k denominations. Likewise, Protestantism follows none of the rules Roman Catholicism does, regarding a communion. For RCs, a church is a communion. For Protestants a church is a confession. There are only really two confessions or Traditions in what I would identify historically as 'catholic Protestantism'. These are Reformed Theology and Lutheran Theology.

Also, it's important to note that both of these confessions acknowledge that the other teaches the saving gospel of justification by faith alone, which in the end is -at least existentially/salvifically- all that matters. So it's not even a necessary issue of 'which is right' (without being too latitudinarian), as any Christian who trusts in God's grace will be saved.

Furthermore as we've seen via Protestant epistemology, the only way to 'internally undermine' things (as I did for Roman Catholicism), as by making Scriptural arguments against them.

In the same way that Roman Catholics are fine having the Pope alone know the true interpretation of Scripture, they seem quite upset that Protestant confessions ultimately confess that their church has the most correct doctrine.

It must also be remembered the numbers have nothing to do with who has 'the true church', as at many times (Noah, Judah, St. Paul, St. Athanasius) the true church was a minority faction.

3. Inherently Humanist Implications in the Question

Next the RC apologist would revert to their argument that God didn't reveal himself properly in his Word, as it's easy if not obligatory to misunderstand it without the Pope (Magisterium and Church can easily be conflated to the Petrine office).

In the same way we saw Papal Infallibility as a de facto denial of the Inspiration of Scripture, we see here the de facto denial of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in two ways. First, it denies that the individual can actually be inspired by the Holy Spirit to be led into the truth. Secondly it denies that there is truly any difference which the Holy Spirit makes when reading the bible. (This is the rationalistic and pelagian understanding, coupled with an intellectually centred faith, that rejects grace alone or even de facto grace in the believer operating at all)

The individual Christian reading God's revelation with the illumination of the Holy Spirit and the rest of scripture to compare a passage to? Rubbish they say.

Conclusion:
How do I know that the Lutheran Church-Canada is either: the, or a, true church? First of all, it doesn't matter, because ecclesiastical membership is not a salvific issue. Salvation is the work of the regenerating Spirit of Christ, not church bodies. Secondly, when I accept God's Revelation as true (because he could swear by no one greater than himself Hb. 6:13), and am illuminated by the Holy Spirit, I conclude that the gospel of the Augsburg Confession, was the gospel of Christ.


In short, to require any extra-revelatory verification of either God's existence or the validity of his Revelation would be blasphemy.

*note* This is the primary reasoning and epistemological defense of Protestantism/Confessional Lutheranism. There are other arguments in its defense, such as an argument from Patristics or Church History, but these are not what establishes the fundamental truth. They are secondary arguments in both the general apologetic discourse, and importance generally.

Rebuilding From the Ground Up (1) - The Irrationality of the Theology of the Cross

What is the basis of philosophical justification? Is it reason? Is it practicality? Is it authority?

This is the first problem when trying to rebuild the faith. Some will say Reason is our starting point - heck, I used to say that.

But let's think about that idea in a historical-genealogical way. The ancient Greeks stated that reason was the mark of the gods in man, and that if we shared anything it was reason. Aquinas and other scholastics say that reason is the image of God in man, and that man is essentially a rational animal. But what if we disagree? Is there a reason to attribute reason a special place? or is this just arbitrary.

Using reason we can argue for the necessary being, God. But then what. Can we say that we really understand God? Wouldn't we be saying that we - finite beings - could comprehend an infinite being? (and thus make him finite).

The truth of the matter - I think - is that while we can say 'some necessary being' was required to start this whole thing, you can't say much more than that.

To say that a being would need to give us revelation is irrational. The deists quite easily argued that for God to love or be involved with humanity is not logical, it is gracious, love has no reason, and yet "love alone is credible" (Hans Urs Von Balthasar).

Thomas Aquinas in good patristic tradition said that the only thing we could actually say about God was - what Pelikan called 'the metaphysics of Exodus' - that God is who he is (Ex. 3:14). God is, and so we are. So then the smartest question would then be to ask: what does God say about humanity, reason, revelation, etc. And how can we judge between revelations?

Why should I trust the Bible and not the Qu'ran? In the end, really, there is no argument for why the Christian revelation really is true, except the conviction of the Holy Spirit. This is where I find Rome to be no better than Wittenberg. The Protestant says "God's revelation is true because God said so, and there is no authority higher than God", the other says "God's revelation is true because we say so, and there is no authority higher than us (the Church)".

So what is the Christian supposed to do. By the common grace of reason, he knows some kind of Being must exist. Then we have the Revelation to Israel in the Old Testament, and from that community Jesus of Nazareth, and the apostles of the church. The problem is that reason is uncapable of giving me an answer to tons of issues. Why did God have to become a man? Ockham argued that God could've become a Donkey and saved us. How can we say our finite human reason is capable of comprehending an infinite being. Likewise, even if we just accept the Old Testament, God does some crazily irrational things. He orders Moses to kill his son against the natural law (unreasonable) as old Soren reminds us (Fear and Trembling), and he orders the slaughter of every man, woman, and child of foreign tribes purely by his will, he says he "will have compassion on whom he will have compassion", and when Moses asked to see God's glory, God showed him his backside (Luther implies Butt). None of these are rational things.

I can explain after the fact that Jesus had to be a God-man, as Anselm did, and that makes sense, how God saved us seems rational. Why he saved us, is entirely another matter.

So the Christian is left with reason which has already been shown an inadequate tool at arriving at an understanding of this irrational God. Hans Urs Von Balthasar (I believe paraphrasing Karl Barth) said that God's revelation is like an unfinished symphony of Mozart's. There is no way to 'reason out' an ending to it, it is purely gracious and benevolent, it has no reason to exist, but it does, and yet people's hearts are moved by it.

The grace of God is like music, it is a gift, and gifts are not rational, or rather, they are not for our fallen minds. Scripture and Augustine teach us that humanity is fallen and that their minds have been corrupted by sin. "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" asks Tertullian (with an implied answer of Nothing). And the Scriptures warn against vain philosophy, and Paul writes that the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man (1 Cor 1:25).

Thus no such analogia entis, Analogy of Being, is possible for the Christian. Catholic Thomism proposed such an understanding, but really -as Barth claims- only an Analogy of Faith is possible, because if God is the ultimate truth of the universe, and he has given us his eternal word, and the deposit of faith once and for all (Jude 3), and reason is uncapable of 'explaining' him, then we can only use the faith. The Theology of the Cross is foolishness to the world of rationalism, which makes it's own Theology of Glory. But God is known by the Theology of the Cross, he gives life and takes life, his gratuitous and arbitrary grace and blessings flow where they will, and he descends to a stable to be born, dies on a cross between two criminals, and raises from the dead. There is nothing in Plato or Aristotle that will tell you that is logical, it is a theology of foolishness, a theology of the cross, not a theology of glory.

So for the Christian, we have our only epistemological foundation being God and what he reveals and enlightens via the Holy Spirit, who is "the light which enlightens everyone" (Jn 1:9).

As to which books fall within the Canon, which councils are correct, and which fathers orthodox, I'll give you all of them. The next post will be on Authority for the Christian.

I will be defending the Book of Concord's formulation that doctrine must be:

"supported by firm testimonies of Scripture, and to be approved by the ancient and accepted symbols... [which] ... have... [been] ... constantly judged to be the only and perpetual consensus of the truly believing Church, which was formerly defended against manifold heresies and errors, and is now repeated."

And defend Scripture first, read within the ancient creeds, and in accordance with the first councils, and with the insights of the Fathers, Tradition, and a very careful and limitted use of reason.

Textual Realism and Philosophical Realism

In my endless ruminations over the Reformation and amidst the constant disquiet of my heart and mind, I've been thinking about an important issue.

Catholicism affirms philosophical realism, where free agents who participate in Being are able to access the objective truth through their senses. It argues against any Cartesian or Berkeleyan attempt at undermining the reliability of the senses, or (at least after Thomas) a prioritizing of Platonic spirit over matter (see Transubstantiation).

One famous Lutheran rationalist Immanuel Kant, argued for subjectivism, that is, each person is only able to see from their own perspective. A person cannot be objective because they are a subject, and they can only know what they empirically see or can rationally prove. Catholicism reacts against this because it holds the priority of the objective metaphysical reality of Being, over and above the individual subjective and existential experience.

However, there is one area they seem to despise objective reality. Scripture. As a Roman Catholic I remember arguing with someone over exegesis, and exasperated they simply said: no matter what this verse says, there is no way that you can or would ever interpret it differently than the Church teaches you must. The Protestant was arguing that Scripture had an objective meaning and that we as subjects could understand it. By contrast I had to argue that Scripture is by nature murky, unclear, and has a hidden meaning that only the Magesterium can truly discover and declare.

The perfect example is my oft-repeated complaint about concupiscence, and where St. Paul calls it "sin" and Trent says that even though the apostle says sin, it is not formally "sin". Or perhaps the admonision of St. Paul that a bishop should be the husband of one wife, where the Magesterium declares that a bishop should not be the husband of one wife.

So as I ponder this, I'm starting to wonder who the real Realists are? It seems like we are just so many Cartesian exegetes, while claiming to be the children of St. Thomas in all other areas.

Which is more relevant?

At the risk of greatly oversimplifying things, I believe these two quotes consist of the main disagreement between Protestants and Catholics:

"...unless you understand first of all what your position is before God, and the judgment which he passes upon you, you have no foundation on which your salvation can be laid, or on which piety towards God can be reared" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 11.1, A.D. 1559).
(yes I stole that from Jay's blog)

or

"Anyone who is to find Christ must first find the church. How could anyone know where Christ is and what faith is in him unless he knew where his believers are?" - Martin Luther

Which is more important? The Existential (what must I do to be saved? - the question asked of Our Lord) or the Systemic (how can I know unless someone shows me - Ethiopian Eunuch). How does one choose between Aristotle and Kierkegaard?

All Saints Day - Aquinas

Hans Urs Von Balthasar said that the Saints were so important for us because they were examples of people who were holy, participants in the divine nature who reminded us that sanctification is not a myth, but a possibility and a reality through God's grace.

Today as we remember all the saints, I wanted to focus on how important the saints are in my life. The democracy of the dead as Chesterton called them/Tradition.



I have to write a paper for philosophy on Martin Buber's "I and Thou". It's basically existential monotheism/judaism. He says that any time we speak of God it is equivocal (he doesn't use the word) and we turn him into an It. Thus God can only be experienced. Thus it is a further renunciation of 'natural theology' and ultimately reason I think.

Modern Protestantism seems to almost agree with him on this for the most part because of Karl Barth's analogy of faith - the idea that we can only speak of God using analogies from his self-revelation / the Bible. Because of course we are all so depraved that we can't even think straight. Thus while they retain analogical description of God it is only in a pre-suppositionalist framework really.

On the contrary, St. Thomas proposed the Analogy of Being. The idea that as creatures, we can infer things about God the Creator, from his creation and from reason (as well as from the deposit of faith) and speak of God analogically. This is because our sanctifying grace lost in the fall is restored to us through the sacraments on account of Christ's superabundant merit and grace. This allows us to have meaningful dialogue about God and discuss his persons and works. This is particularly important for inter-faith dialogue, as presuppositionalism leaves us with nothing to talk about, as Buber's theory leaves us nothing to talk about.

This is where St. Thomas has helped me propose the analogy of being against Buber and where a saint on All Saints day has helped me. And far from being a dry philosopher, Aquinas could still speak of God using reason, and admit at the end of the day that compared to mystical union with God, it was all "straw".

Realist or Nominalist: Choose

"I was impressed by the argument that "the Church wrote the Bible:" Christianity was preached by the Church before the New Testament was written—that is simply a historical fact. It is also a fact that the apostles wrote the New Testament and the Church canonized it, deciding which books were divinely inspired. I knew, from logic and common sense, that a cause can never be less than its effect. You can't give what you don't have. If the Church has no divine inspiration and no infallibility, no divine authority, then neither can the New Testament. Protestantism logically entails Modernism. I had to be either a Catholic or a Modernist. That decided it; that was like saying I had to be either a patriot or a traitor. " - Peter Kreeft (http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/hauled-aboard.htm)

A Calvinist TA said to me last night : "But the Roman Church has so much from Paganism, how can you stand it?" I replied "The Reformed Church has so much from Nominalism how can you stand it?" he granted me the point and said "I guess you have to pick your poison". While I see Nominalism as the poison of all modern philosophy leading to Nietzsche, Thomism/Neo-Aristotelianism is the only other realistic option. You must choose. Either be a post-modern perspectivist (like Rob Bell and N.T. Wright) or a Catholic Thomist and recant the Reformation.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fea4.asp

Penitential Psalms (part 1) - Psalm 6

I'll be using the NRSV because it's more objectively pleasing to God (joke to traditionalist Catholics who think the Tridentine mass is more objectively pleasing to God than the Novus Ordo)



"O Lord, do not rebuke me in your anger,
or discipline me in your wrath.
Be gracious to me, O Lord, for I am languishing;
O Lord, heal me, for my bones are shaking with terror.
My soul also is struck with terror,
while you, O Lord—how long?

Turn, O Lord, save my life;
deliver me for the sake of your steadfast love.
For in death there is no remembrance of you;

in Sheol who can give you praise?


I am weary with my moaning;
every night I flood my bed with tears;
I drench my couch with my weeping.
My eyes waste away because of grief;
they grow weak because of all my foes.

Depart from me, all you workers of evil,
for the Lord has heard the sound of my weeping.
The Lord has heard my supplication;
the Lord accepts my prayer.
All my enemies shall be ashamed and struck with terror;
they shall turn back, and in a moment be put to shame."



3 things I've underlined about the Psalm which I think are noteworthy.



The comment about Death/Sheol being the end is typical of Old Testament thought, I was always taught that the Israelites believed in an immortal soul and Heaven and Hell, it wasn't until I started reading Plato and Aristotle and took a look at the promises in the Mosaic Law (all temporal) and read some N.T. Wright on the issue that things cleared up. At this point in revelation God hasn't revealed to the Israelites Plato and Aristotle's great arguments for the soul and it's immortality. I think it's cool that some early Christians though the 'pagan philosophers' who taught those things were 'prophets of Christ' :

"And so, too, Plato, when he says, The blame is his who chooses, and God is blameless, took this from the prophet Moses and uttered it. For Moses is more
ancient than all the Greek writers. And whatever both philosophers and poets
have said concerning the immortality of the soul, or punishments after death, or
contemplation of things heavenly, or doctrines of the like kind, they have received such suggestions from the prophets as have enabled them to understand and interpret these things. And hence there seem to be seeds of truth among all men" - Justin Martyr (First Apology, 44).

Crazy ol' Justin actually thought of Greek Philosophers as having read Moses and that they were prophets as well. Maybe I'm becoming too much of a Thomist but I think Aristotle and Plato could've been Prophets. (sorry Nominalist Protestants lol).



Anyway, this Psalm is interesting because David/the Author is just hoping to escape death.



I also like this Psalm because it is based on faith. When he says/sings that God has heard his prayer, that's more of a hope, and it says that God shall deliver him from his enemies and kill his enemies. That's future tense. Meaning that this was his hope.


I was reading the account of Benedict Biscop an early medieval abbot for history class the other day and it mentioned how the Psalms were constantly sung by the monks and that sometimes they would sing through all 150 psalms twice a day. I was amazed by that and I think in my mind of the Latin chanting and the Viking raids that were occuring and how they were probably praying for God to deliver them from their enemies as well. Just another great example of how many people have made the Psalms their prayer.



Personally the words that hit me the most are "I am weary with my moaning" - it's the image of someone crying and praying and sobbing so much that they're actually tired from it. It's amazing how weak the Psalm appears, a miserable man begging for help and yet I think of David as this great King going through all of this in a cave somewhere running for his life. In his own words "oh how the mighty have fallen". Grace is above no one.

Good Heathens - Pelagianism

I've been thinking alot lately (as usual) but about Chris Hedges the semi-christian-ish? author of 'I Don't Believe In Atheists' and another book calling the American Christian Right Fascists. But he has lived in awful conditions covering stories in El Salvador, Serbia, Croatia, the middle east and many places of conflict. He's been beaten, shot at, and imprisoned (wrongfully) just as a Journalist. An interview where he discusses his book and views is available at:http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=2036 it's very interesting. Where any of this ties to pelagianism is that he argues that someone being relgious (or Christian) has no effect on their behaviour as good or bad. I find that whatever the bible may say, from an empirical perspective this is certainly true. I know lots of people who have different religious views than I do and they are great people. And some of the worst people I know are Christians.

Right now I'm sure Jared and Augustine are getting pretty pissed off. Remember though that it was the Good Samaritan - a socially and religiously different character (they had a different torah - samaritan pentatuech, and disagreed with the Jews on where God told them to sacrifice and worship). I guess you could make the Augustinian argument that anytime someone does good who is not a Christian it is still by God's grace, but I don't see the world as that corrupted. St. Jerome said "God has bestowed us with free will. We are not necessarily drawn either to virtue or vice". It seems to me that this leaves the possibility that non-Christians can be good. Clement of Alexandria said "We…have believed and are saved by voluntary choice" as well as "Each one of us who sins with his own free will, chooses punishment. So the blame lies with him who chooses. God is without blame.".

This seems like a viable option of a free will ... just ignore modern psychology and you're good. Also it seems that once again Church 'tradition' is in utter contradiction with itself. I'd like to see how the Catholics use theological gymnastics to get out of this, when it is clear doctrinally both in their church and in Reformed and Lutheran circles that every good deed comes from God's grace, and that man in no way is responsible for saving himself.

So once again the philosophical ramifications make no sense. On the one hand Augustine claiming God is good, he has a complete plan, and all who are saved, are saved because of his good plan. And then Pelagius who says everyone can choose good if they want.

And then we have reality which says that horrible things happen to good people, natural disasters kill infants, the world is not a fair place by any Aristotelian definition. But at the same time we seem to have free will, and yet the whole genealogy of Christ shows us that history is somehow linear and has a meaning... hmm I think I'll just go with Kierkegaard, Pascal, and Isaiah in saying that God is beyond our comprehension.

Stoicism and Calvinism

So I know basically every post is about Calvinism which will annoy the hell out of some people (if you can call arminians 'people' j/k). But I was reading about Stoicism and how they believe that logos or this unknown god holds everything together and that we are all part of a universal city. Their basic beliefs are kind of like Taoists which say that you have to live in submission to the will of God. This sounds a bit like Calvinism's acceptance of the ultimate divine will of God which is unchangeable. The Stoic's conception of the universe sounds alot like Calvinism's / Paul in Acts 17 's position. That in Him we live and move and have our being and that in Christ all is held together. I guess it would make sense to find lots of platonism and stoicism in Christianity but it always surprises me a bit when I see these fundamentals repeated. Which leads me to question, can you be a Christian Stoic? Controlling simply your reactions to a situation rather than trying to control the situation? I don't think you could accept Prudence, Temperance, Fortitude and Wisdom as your Cardinal virtues... maybe Faith, Hope, and Love? this is my pondering for today...

Being "In Him"/"In Christ" from Paul to Descartes

Lately I've been reading some stuff on Justification and what it means. I was reading some N.T. Wright and he talked about how many scholars (though not himself I think) believed that the central theme of all of the apostle Paul's writing was the mystical (in a Christian sense - remove modern connotations) was his most important Idea.

In Philosophy we were going through Rene Descartes' Meditations and other metaphysical writings. I love learning about Descartes at Brock because 1) our Professor is smart and accurately portrays him, and 2) Descartes makes me feel like I have a friend, like somewhere even in the distant past there was actually someone who thought about the same things I do. Now I am not trying to compare myself to Descartes, but I'm just saying I love his philosophy because at this point of the book all that Descartes says he can trust is that he exists, and that in order for him to exist, God must exist, and somehow we exist in God.

It reminds me of Acts 17 when Paul goes to Athens and starts debating with the philosophers. Getting up early every morning I drive to philosophy makes me feel like Paul. Maybe I'm being melodramatic but I like to imagine these genius platonic philosophers, and it says that, "While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols". I know the feeling, you know the feeling, when you're sitting there and people around you are reading celebrity magazines and listening to iPods, and talking about money. Everyone has idols - especially here at brock, people embrace the strange polygamy of sources from Nietzsche to Buddha they all deem them 'respectible' but in the end there is no authority to which they owe their allegiance. They believe they are their own end and the 'master of their fate'.

as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.'

I think one of my Personal dreams is to somehow before I leave brock get a platform and microphone and scream this out.

Because this is Paul's thinking, it is Descartes thinking. When asking the biggest questions of life, when trying to realize what we are as humans, humanity itself can have no answer. Descartes Cosmological argument shows that the only thing you will ever get from human finitude is finite and human ideas. But as Paul reminds us, when we are 'In Christ' we have access to a whole other world. Something much greater than ourselves. When we enter into the new covenant we have bound our fates together, for all times.

The Greeks talked about an idea where when two people were born a soul was broken in two and your 'soulmate' is the other person in the world who makes you complete. Well call me cynical about women, but I've never met one who could be that (and certainly no men...let the rumors stop lol). I think Paul's idea parallels that quite nicely. That all of our idols and temples built by men cannot contain the greatness of the infinite God, and that only in this covenant with him can we be made whole (salvation means to make whole).

Those are just my thoughts from this morning.

Gratias Tibi Domine