tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post7280803432422605738..comments2024-03-15T09:07:15.798-07:00Comments on NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Why Head Coverings blind Protestants.Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-73588228312670429372016-09-03T11:55:20.504-07:002016-09-03T11:55:20.504-07:00…Resumed.
You said>>(5) The Catholic view o...…Resumed.<br /><br />You said>>(5) The Catholic view of Eucharist as a Sacrifice is not really the subject of this post, but 1 Cor 10:18-21 clearly puts it in the context of sacrifice (comparing it to both Jewish and Pagan Sacrifices). Why would Paul say "table of the Lord" and "table of demons" if he didn't mean sacrifice in each case? <<<br /><br />I've answered you on this point before. Here's the link to my blog article on precisely this point: http://fallibility.blogspot.com/2013/05/does-1-corinthians-1016-21-prove-roman.html Or if you don't want to read it, just know that it isn't enough to establish that the idea of "sacrifice" lies near to these texts; rather you must show that the precise sense of "sacrifice" matches what Rome teaches on the subject. Specifically, you have the burden of showing that an unbloody, repeatable, propitiatory sacrifice that can never perfect those for whom it is offered, no matter how many times they go to mass, and that only an ordained priest can offer it, and that the sacrifice is in fact immolated on the table/altar is exactly what the Apostle had in mind when he contrasted the table of the Lord to the table of demons--else you're entire argument, which clearly rests on an inference from silence, is at best circumstantial. Good luck with that. :-)<br /><br /><br />You said>>(6) Your claim that Catholics confuse Justification and Sanctification seems silly to me, given that the Reformed hold that Regeneration happens even before faith (and causes faith). In Regeneration for the reformed view, the individual is radically transformed within, given a new heart, new mind, etc. How is this not sanctification? How is this not the equivalent of what Catholics say happens at justification (but which you put before Justification)? Stuff to ponder. <<<br /><br />Regeneration is not sanctification. The former is God's making a spiritually dead person alive in Christ. I'd refer you to Ephesians 2 for that. Sanctification is a process of growing into Christ. In Romanism, justification is both a completed action and an ongoing process. So even you have to distinguish between the initial aspects of justification and ongoing justification. The problem is that Rome believes that sinners can, "convert themselves to their own justification," so long as God is helping them with quickening and assisting grace. In other words, God helps those who help themselves. You do realize that is the antitheses of Ephesians 1-2 where man-dead-in-sin is unable to do so and that God doesn't simply "help and assist," but rather saves us us outright according to good pleasure of his will. "Repent and believe the Gospel" (Mark 1:15).<br /><br />You said>>(7) Your claim that Baptism pictures Justification while Eucharist pictures Sanctification is highly problematic. The Eucharist very much pictures Justification, probably more than Baptism. The Eucharist is about body given up for sins, blood shed for sins, sacrifice, atonement, etc., far less "Sanctification" and far more "Justification" in the Eucharist imagery.<<<br /><br />I did not say that Baptism pictures *only* justification and that the Eucharist pictures *only* Sanctificaiton. You're drawing a sharp dichotomy where, if you read me in context, I intended none and even went on to say that both share overlapping concepts.<br /><br />All this because of head coverings? Michael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-47692223719993259092016-09-03T11:42:37.689-07:002016-09-03T11:42:37.689-07:00Nick,
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. ...Nick, <br /><br />Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I forgot to check the follow-up email box…<br /><br />You said: >>(1) I don't think my argument presupposes the Catholic view of the Sacraments, but rather it shows the Catholic view makes better sense than the redundant Protestant view.<<<br /><br />But it does. You keep begging the question over and over again. First establish why redundancy is a bad thing. Then show how your side avoids the same imagined problem since, I'm sure you would agree, both Baptism and the Lord's Supper picture the death of the Lords (cf, 1 Cor. 11:26; Rom 6:4; Col 2:12).<br /><br />You said>>(2) Your claim that the head covering teaching of Paul was limited to the Apostolic era is a weak claim exegetically….<<<br /><br />How so, exactly? All I see here is bare assertion on your part. Like I said, I'll leave it to you to argue why women must continue to cover their heads (as a universal imperative). If this were truly the case, then why wouldn't Rome require it of all Catholic women at mass?<br /><br />You said>>3) My argument against the Protestant view is that there is sufficient overlap between the Protestant sacraments that >>if they are both merely symbols<< of what Christ has done for you, then the Eucharist is essentially redundant. This would explain why the Eucharist is only celebrated quarterly in most of Protestantism. <<<br /><br /> Quarterly would be four times a year. Most Protestant churches celebrate the Lord's supper monthly, not quarterly. But the more important point is that you have no Biblical warrant for prescribing any frequency other than "how often." Paul was fine with leaving that decision up to the local church. Rome simply doesn't have the authority to usurp that of an Apostle. <br /><br />You said>>(4) In the Catholic view, there is no redundancy, because Baptism is akin to the initial birth and new life, i.e. a one time thing, while the Eucharist holds a feeding-growing function, i.e. a continuous thing.<<<br /><br />See comments above. In the Bible, both Baptism and the Lord's supper have overlapping symbolism. The same can be said of preaching. If the Bible has no problem with it, why do you?<br /><br />continued….Michael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-6050632168156285592016-09-01T09:02:39.747-07:002016-09-01T09:02:39.747-07:00Nick
Great article! ThanksNick<br /><br />Great article! ThanksMark Thimeschhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11121786376695375337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-21927817618149007702016-08-22T14:05:48.438-07:002016-08-22T14:05:48.438-07:00Hello Michael,
Here are my thoughts:
(1) I don...Hello Michael, <br /><br />Here are my thoughts: <br /><br />(1) I don't think my argument presupposes the Catholic view of the Sacraments, but rather it shows the Catholic view makes better sense than the redundant Protestant view.<br /><br />(2) Your claim that the head covering teaching of Paul was limited to the Apostolic era is a weak claim exegetically, and really ad hoc, leaving you unable to oppose people who would throw out other things on the same line of thinking. <br /><br />(3) My argument against the Protestant view is that there is sufficient overlap between the Protestant sacraments that >>if they are both merely symbols<< of what Christ has done for you, then the Eucharist is essentially redundant. This would explain why the Eucharist is only celebrated quarterly in most of Protestantism. <br /><br />(4) In the Catholic view, there is no redundancy, because Baptism is akin to the initial birth and new life, i.e. a one time thing, while the Eucharist holds a feeding-growing function, i.e. a continuous thing. <br /><br />(5) The Catholic view of Eucharist as a Sacrifice is not really the subject of this post, but 1 Cor 10:18-21 clearly puts it in the context of sacrifice (comparing it to both Jewish and Pagan Sacrifices). Why would Paul say "table of the Lord" and "table of demons" if he didn't mean sacrifice in each case? <br /><br />(6) Your claim that Catholics confuse Justification and Sanctification seems silly to me, given that the Reformed hold that Regeneration happens even before faith (and causes faith). In Regeneration for the reformed view, the individual is radically transformed within, given a new heart, new mind, etc. How is this not sanctification? How is this not the equivalent of what Catholics say happens at justification (but which you put before Justification)? Stuff to ponder. <br /><br />(7) Your claim that Baptism pictures Justification while Eucharist pictures Sanctification is highly problematic. The Eucharist very much pictures Justification, probably more than Baptism. The Eucharist is about body given up for sins, blood shed for sins, sacrifice, atonement, etc., far less "Sanctification" and far more "Justification" in the Eucharist imagery.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-30359031547791877022016-08-22T04:36:59.775-07:002016-08-22T04:36:59.775-07:00resumed...
Baptism, on the other hand, pictures ...resumed...<br /><br />Baptism, on the other hand, pictures (but does not cause) our incorporation into Christ, which includes our justification and regeneration. Life-long partaking of the Lord's supper pictures (but does not cause) our sanctification which is necessarily tied to our remembrance of his death on our behalf. We cannot grow in holiness without understanding our sin and what He did to take it away.<br /><br />In any event, that the two ordinances/sacraments would share overlapping concepts is hardly a surprise. Nor is it surprising that customs, such as head-coverings, would do the same. The question here is whether or not head-coverings were intended in the first place to be a universal practice for all time and all cultures. I'll leave it to you to make that case. For now I'm persuaded that there is certainly nothing wrong with wearing them. But Biblically, I see no mandate for this beyond the time/place in which they were in style, and would tend to suspect that those who require them today are most likely guilty of legalism, which is exactly the opposite of the freedom of the Gospel.<br /><br />Much the same can be said of Romanism. So much of the rules surrounding the sacraments do lend themselves to legalism, especially in the more traditional and conservative strains of Romanism. I've seen it first hand. It reminds me of Paul's letter to the Colossians where he says, "don't handle, don't eat, don't touch" (Col. 2:21) in order to mock a popular slogan of the legalists of his day. There's a lot of that same legalism in traditional Romanism. I was once asked by a lay female to remove a vacuum cleaner that had been left in the Chancel. I was in the back of the church praying. I didn't understand the request, so I asked her why she was asking me. She looked at me like I was some kind of moron. Because only men can go in that part of the church. That was her answer. Just then, a maid went into the Chancel and retrieved the vacuum cleaner she had left just before mass started. <br /><br />Apparently female worshippers can't go into some sections of the church. But female maids can when it is for the purposes of vacuuming and dusting. Obviously this was an extreme case of scruples on the part of the young lady who, if she were to be consistent, would probably have done well to avoid approaching a male stranger--as no doubt that too would have been a violation of the cultural norms way back when. (But seldom is any legalist consistent in their legalism....)<br /><br />In any event, if you would be free of such legalism, you need to repent and believe the Gospel, which is exactly opposite of what your brand of Romanism offers the world.Michael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-33039591361658751802016-08-22T04:35:17.091-07:002016-08-22T04:35:17.091-07:00Hey Nick,
Intriguing argument. But I think its p...Hey Nick,<br /><br />Intriguing argument. But I think its problem at root is that it can only get going by presupposing the truth of a Roman Catholic theory of the sacraments--which is precisely the question not to beg here.<br /><br />I'll grant your use of the word "sacraments" in this arguments for the sake of convenience. Many Protestant traditions use the word as well, albeit with a different underlying theory. I shy away from the term because it seems to me that it is more likely to confuse matters than clarify them given the various underlying theories. That said, I agree that the head-covering could be viewed as in some sense "sacramental" (loosely speaking). Clearly it is symbolic. It pictures a complimentarian view of the sexes with functional subordination of women to their husbands. <br /><br />I also agree that the Eucharist and Baptism overlap in their symbolism. But why that should be a a problem at all, much less a uniquely Protestant one, simply escapes me. Both picture the death of Christ. In the Eucharist we proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Baptism likewise pictures our death to sin and rising to new life. The two are closely related, but they are not the same thing. There is "one" baptism. But we permitted to celebrate the Lord's supper "as often" as we desire. <br /><br />I haven't given much thought as to why one is a unique experience and the other is repeatable (from a Protestant perspective), but I would surmise that it probably has to do with the distinction between justification and sanctification--something which Rome denies because it lacks the proper categories for doing a properly Biblical theology. But from a Roman Catholic perspective, it is clear why one is repeatable: You have a deficient view of the atonement that simply cannot be reconciled with the book of Hebrews. On the one hand, you believe in universal objective atonement which makes everyone savable, but which actually saves no one. (No where is this concept taught in scripture.). On the other hand, you have sacramental re-presentation of the atonement which is offered over and over again, but which also perfects no one. Contrast that to the once-and-for-all atonement that Christ made that perfects whomever it is offered for and does so eternally. I mean, Rome's view of the atonement (when integrated with its doctrine of the mass-as-sacrifice) is pretty much the exact **opposite** of what the Bible teaches. <br /><br />continued...<br /><br />Michael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.com