Condescending Old Fart, and Heretic
After his failed prediction of the rapture, piece of crap false prophet Harold Camping has the following to say to reporters: (I personally transcribed from video from the AP from May 24) (Bold text indicates emphatic, slow voice with hands gesturing in the air for effect)
“On May 21st 2011 we didn’t feel any difference… we didn’t see any difference in the world, but we know from the bible that God brought judgment day to bear on the whole world… the whole world is under judgment day. And it will continue up until October 21 2011 and at that time the whole world will be destroyed. God had not opened our eyes yet to the fact that May 21 was a spiritual coming, as we had thought it was a physical coming, but He has come, he has come in the sense that He now has the world under judgment… if people want me to apologize I can apologize yes, I did not have all of that worked out as exactly as a should have... or wish I could have had it…uh... that doesn’t bother me at all. I’m not a genius, and I pray all the time for wisdom and when I make an error I admit, I say “yes, I was wrong”… I can’t be responsibility of anybody’s life, I’m only teaching the bible. I’m not teaching what I believe or that I’m the authority, but that this is what the bible says. I don’t have spiritual rule over anybody, except my wife.”
OK, so he is cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. And is the whole situation deliciously funny? Yes, Hilarious. He is a false prophet and deserves ridicule. But that is not what I want to focus on. I am a very sarcastic person and that is a fault of mine. I eat this kind of thing up because I get to point out someone’s failures which I tell myself I am far from following them into. Of course I have my own problems that I sweep under the rug amongst all my pointing, hooting, and mocking. Mote and beam, you know the drill. So I don’t wish to rub Harold Camping’s nose in his foul hairball he has hacked onto Christianity’s carpet. Anyway, it should be obvious to us all that he is a complete looney. Right? Hmm…
But WHY is he a looney? What is at the root?
Evangelicals need to ask themselves what is different about Camping’s method of bible interpretation and theirs? I want to argue that no matter which version of sola Scriptura (bible alone) Protestants take, they are solidly in Camping’s “camp” when it comes to method. Coming to a different conclusion does not mean other Protestants are off the hook. You can say all day that you would never predict the rapture day because Jesus says in Matt. 24:36 that we can’t know. And hey YOUR RIGHT! But I want to clue you into the fact that even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. Even Hitler loved his dog. Pretending the bible is all as easy as interpreting Matt. 24:36 is just silly and sad. Yet that is exactly what Protestants think about their interpretive abilities. Reformed Christians generally don’t even believe in a pre-tribulation rapture, so they like to think they are really far from the likes of Camping. But strangely, when they describe their method of interpretation, it will match Camping 100%
Here is what I mean. Take a look at the quote I transcribed. This is what Camping says:
“I’m only teaching the bible. I’m not teaching what I believe or that I’m the authority, but that this is what the bible says.”
This is EXACTLY what any Protestant would say! “BUT,” says Joe Protestant, “Camping is not teaching what the bible really says! He is taking things out of context and making things fit his preconceived view of things! So there!” Of course, I respond Camping would say and believe the same about you! Because the fact remains that he is using the
exact same method you are. Cases like his false prophecy are really easy for you to point at and say he got it wrong, but we all know that there is more to bible interpretation than sensational false prophesies. In the everyday world of the average Christian, there are DOZENS of important doctrinal and dogmatic issues that cannot be pointed at with the same confident finger. What about baptism? Is it a sacrament or an ordinance? Does it regenerate or just symbolize? Is it for or infants or adults? And this is merely ONE important issue that Protestants disagree among themselves about “what the bible says”.
And you all use the same logic as Camping; that you are just going by “what the bible says”. And sadly, from personal experience I believe you. I don’t believe you set out to deceive yourselves or anyone else, you just want the truth, and you believe your interpretation is true. You want to submit to what you see as an authority outside yourself (the bible) but what you end up with is some man’s opinion of what the bible says (maybe yours, maybe someone else’s, maybe right maybe wrong). To the Protestant skeptic, I offer proof of this fact:
Heretic Test.
To prove to yourself your method of discovering truth from the bible is no different than Harold Camping’s method; ask yourself the question
“How would my current situation look different if my interpretation were wrong?”
That is to say, assuming your current reading of scripture on (doctrine X) is correct, what would be different in your approach/interpretation in a situation where you fell into error? If there is no difference in what you would say or feel between these two situations, then what makes you so sure you are not in grave error? Remember we are talking about method not result.
Again, let’s assume for sake of argument one of the following propositions:
A. You have properly interpreted the bible and understand what God is saying in His word about doctrine X.
B. You have completely misinterpreted the bible and have an incorrect interpretation of doctrine X.
Now let’s ask our question. If your current situation is A, what would be different about how you would describe your situation
from within situation B? What would you say differently? If you believe you are in situation A at this moment (pick a doctrine), what would you say right now about your own situation that Harold Camping
would not say about his situation?
(queue Jeopardy music...)
Answer? The fact is you would say
nothing substantially different from him. You would say you have taken the bible at it’s word, that you have studied hard and asked the Spirit for help, that you had prayed for wisdom, and had gleaned the truth from the bible. In short, you would say you are following the bible.
Harold Camping would say the exact same as you.
So I ask you, how are you any different from him in this respect? If you can’t point to a difference, then there is none my friend!
Tu quoque?
As a Catholic, I do not fall into this trap with you. When I look at situation A above, I am using the Magisterium (teaching office) of the Church as a guide. So when I ask the question “what would be different?” my answer is that my doctrine would have to change from that of the Magisterium. For instance, a Catholic CANNOT hold to premillenialism and the usual “rapture” theology it entails. That is specifically forbiden for Catholics to hold that view. So if I were to start believing that tomorrow, I would immediately find a big change in my method. I will find that I no longer am in agreement with the Church on this matter and have either ignored or disobeyed the Magisterium of the Church.
The Magisterium of the Church. Bishops of the world gathered at the Second Vatican council.
I can then either return to orthodox belief or remain in my heresy, but either way, there is quite a difference in my situation, and I (unlike you) can describe it to you in detail. The Protestant (you) has no such difference. Each doctrinal position he takes will be for the same reasons as the gravest heretic, and both roads are paved with the best of motives and most inocent intentions.
The Protestant looks over and sees the heretic saying he believes the bible, the protestant believes the same, and would say the same.
The Protestant looks over and sees the heretic claiming the bible as his highest authority (and truly believing so) and the Protestant would say THE EXACT SAME THING ABOUT HIS OWN SITUATION.
If you behave like a heretic, talk like one, and can’t tell the difference between yourself and a heretic… then you are a heretic! So Protestants, I suggest you not be so quick to laugh at Harold Camping. You are standing shoulder to shoulder with him under the banner of sola Scriptura, using the EXACT same arguments he does and saying the EXACT same things about scripture he does, so the conclusion is inevitable: you are objectively a heretic just like he is. You fool! Cower in shame before the bishops of the Church Christ founded and repent of your arrogation of authority. There is ONE faith, and
ONE, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. Crawl back to Christ on your hands and knees and beg his priests for absolution for your schism. Kyrie Eleison!
Condescending Old Fart, and Heretic
After his failed prediction of the rapture, piece of crap false prophet Harold Camping has the following to say to reporters: (I personally transcribed from video from the AP from May 24) (Bold text indicates emphatic, slow voice with hands gesturing in the air for effect)
The Magisterium of the Church. Bishops of the world gathered at the Second Vatican council.
I can then either return to orthodox belief or remain in my heresy, but either way, there is quite a difference in my situation, and I (unlike you) can describe it to you in detail. The Protestant (you) has no such difference. Each doctrinal position he takes will be for the same reasons as the gravest heretic, and both roads are paved with the best of motives and most inocent intentions.
The Protestant looks over and sees the heretic saying he believes the bible, the protestant believes the same, and would say the same.
The Protestant looks over and sees the heretic claiming the bible as his highest authority (and truly believing so) and the Protestant would say THE EXACT SAME THING ABOUT HIS OWN SITUATION.
If you behave like a heretic, talk like one, and can’t tell the difference between yourself and a heretic… then you are a heretic! So Protestants, I suggest you not be so quick to laugh at Harold Camping. You are standing shoulder to shoulder with him under the banner of sola Scriptura, using the EXACT same arguments he does and saying the EXACT same things about scripture he does, so the conclusion is inevitable: you are objectively a heretic just like he is. You fool! Cower in shame before the bishops of the Church Christ founded and repent of your arrogation of authority. There is ONE faith, and ONE, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. Crawl back to Christ on your hands and knees and beg his priests for absolution for your schism. Kyrie Eleison!
After "judgment day" came and went, I thought to myself that it seemed a bit off to see protestants wagging their fingers at Camping.
ReplyDeleteThere is no principled difference between what Camping is doing and what all protestants do. The negative consequences are immediatley observable, but, as you said, his method is identical to the rest of the protestant communities.
When you shift interpretive authority from the Church to the individual you get Camping.
David,
ReplyDeleteThese words in your post -- are they the words of the magisterium copied over to your blog, or are they your interpretation of something you read?
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteThey are my expression of the the words of the magisterium, yes. Basically what I have said above amounts to "sola scriptura is crap". Tyhat is what the magisterium of the Church teaches.
You are assuming something in your statement that is a myth, is false, and is not shared by most Christians. That asumption is that everything must just be interpretation. Not so with the magisterium.
It is the difference between the monologue of a book towards the reader, and a conversation between teacher and student.
You would have me believe that the two situations are identical, when they could nor be more different. A student interprets, yes, but he can ask clarifying questions until the teacher says, "yes, that's it." Likewise the teacher can point out if the student has misconstrued something and clarify for him UNTIL HE UNDERSTANDS. So your assumption that the Catholic is in the same epistemic situation as the Protestant is just obviously off the mark.
-David
test comment
ReplyDeletetest
ReplyDeletetest
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeletePerhaps not so off the mark as you've portrayed it. In reality, Catholics do not have conversations with the magisterium. Catholics *read about* conversations with the magisterium. And it is this which you say removes the need for interpretation.
In that case, I appeal to Paul. Take the book of Romans for example. Throughout the entire book Paul stops from point to point and asks rhetorical questions on behalf of his audience. He does this because he, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, anticipates that the reader is going to ask this question in his own mind at this very point. So you see him often say, "Now's where you'll ask me such-n-such..." And then he answers the question, and moves on to the next lesson. It is very much like reading a work by Augustine, in which he has conversations with a fictional character, so that answers to objections can be included in the original work.
So -- you read about conversations with the magisterium, and I read about conversations with Paul. And here is a curious thing: for all the Roman Catholic reliance on the Holy Spirit to preserve the Roman church from error, RCs are so quick to deny that this same Holy Spirit sufficiently anticipated the problem areas. I'm not willing to concede that His foresight was so limited.
Now to clarify, I am not really assuming that everything is an interpretation in the way that I think you meant. (Heh -- irony there, eh?) Sure, if we want to pick the epistemological nits, we could say everything we take in is an interpretation, but that's not what either of us are concerned with here.
But I am saying this: when it comes right down to it, the Roman Catholic chairs are no closer to the loud speaker that the Protestant chairs. You're the same epistemological distance away as I am. Even if I concede that every word that procedeth out of the mouth of the Pope is inspired directly, the fact remains that neither you nor I have lunch with the guy on a daily basis. We just read about stuff he said, and stuff people asked him, and stuff he said back. Sounds a lot like reading the bible.
Even conceding further that you could have daily lunch with the Pope -- the last folks to have lunch with Jesus on a daily basis didn't fair much better than your average Prots, until the Holy Spirit spoke directly through them, putting words in their mouths. And even then, the hearers of those inspired words were in the same boat as you and I are now.
"for all the Roman Catholic reliance on the Holy Spirit to preserve the Roman church from error, RCs are so quick to deny that this same Holy Spirit sufficiently anticipated the problem areas. I'm not willing to concede that His foresight was so limited."
ReplyDeleteCatholics believe no such thing.. that the Holy Spirit didnt anticipate something. What we deny is that YOU are the Holy Spirit's voice. The scripture contains everything. But if you want to show me where it says polygamy is wrong, for instance, feel free. ANd if you don't see dozens of sola scripturists disagreeing on the "plain meaning" of the text, please inform me and I will show them to you. This is not theory, sir, it is simple fact. Look around you.
You example of Paul and Augustine are great. That is the magisterium in action. So if you can have a conversation with Paul or Augustine, pleae let me in on it, I would love to chat with them. Until then, I will stick with the living successors of Paul and Augustine.
"We just read about stuff he said, and stuff people asked him, and stuff he said back. Sounds a lot like reading the bible."
I disagree. Many times, many Christians, including me and you will read it, do our best exegesis, pray, beg God for insight, find other teachers more knowledgablethan us for guidance, and STILL find that we disagree on important doctrines with other sincere Christians. This is OUR fault of course, not the Bible's. But what it shows is the Bible alone, without an authoritative interpreter, cannot be our only guide.
One example will show this, and there are many more: Contraception.
The Protestant Position: Er, uh... which Protestant. The typical Protestant is A-Ok with the evil of contraception because they don't "see" it referred to in the scripture. Their "conversation" with St. Paul (like you refer to in your last comment) ends with them getting the last word, NOT St. Paul or the magisterium.
Catholics however had a conversation about it with our magsterium in the first half of the 20th century. That conversation has ended, and nobody need be confused about what the Church teaches:
"[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil" (CCC 2370).
And ireformably:
"The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative.aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive.aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life" (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997).
http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
This is the conversation I am talking about. You can look at your bible all day long and ask Moses what happened with the whole Onan spilling his seed incident. Moses will not answer you, and Paul is not around to either. But the successors of Paul are, and they have definitively spoken. And I don't need lunch with the Pope to figure out what the Catholic Church teaches on contraception.
The difference between a conversation and a book is huge.
David,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"So if you can have a conversation with Paul or Augustine, pleae let me in on it... Until then, I will stick with the living successors of Paul and Augustine."
But I wonder if maybe you missed my point: Your exposure to Paul is no different than your exposure to Ratzinger. So why do you think Ratzinger is so much more clear than Paul? Or perhaps this is not a question of clarity, but of novelty?
But then you wrote:
"The scripture contains everything. But if you want to show me where it says polygamy is wrong, for instance, feel free."
You seem to be saying two things at once. Did the bible speak of it, or didn't it? Was the Holy Spirit clear enough or wasn't He?
Let's clear this up. You must be saying one of the following: 1) "The bible says nothing about polygamy" (in which case you're claiming that the funtion of the magisterium is novelty); or else 2)"The bible says stuff about polygamy, but we can't understand what it is, so we defer to the magisterium" (in which case you are criticising the same Holy Spirit to which you later appeal); or else 3)"The bible says stuff about polygamy, and it is sufficient to be understood, and by the grace of God His children will understand it in due time, although we frequently find ourselves having to wrangle with boneheads" (in which case you're epistemologically protestant). Let me know which one you pick.
David,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"Many times, many Christians, including me and you will read it, do our best exegesis, pray, beg God for insight, find other teachers more knowledgablethan us for guidance, and STILL find that we disagree on important doctrines with other sincere Christians. This is OUR fault of course, not the Bible's. But what it shows is the Bible alone, without an authoritative interpreter, cannot be our only guide."
If that's the case, then Marcel Lefebvre shows how insufficient a guide the magisterium is.
Not only that, but of course the very fact that you yourself would admit to such frequent uncertainty demonstrates the insufficiency of the magisterium. If what you say about the magisterium is correct, there should be no RCs with the problem you described.
ReplyDelete"Your exposure to Paul is no different than your exposure to Ratzinger."
ReplyDeleteIf you merely mean I read the words of both, then yes. But like I took pains to point out in my contraception remark, the magisterium had a "conversation" with Christians where things were clarified. Neither you nor I can plausibly claim in 2011 to not know what the Catholic teaching is on contraception, yes or no?
"So why do you think Ratzinger is so much more clear than Paul?"..."You seem to be saying two things at once. Did the bible speak of it, or didn't it? Was the Holy Spirit clear enough or wasn't He?"
If I said that, I mispoke. I don't believe that. Like I said, the scripture contains the truth about contraception, polygamy, the Eucharist, divorce, etc. It is clear as glass. But YOU TELLING me what you think it says about those topics means zilch. So when you say "clear" we need to determine to whom it is clear. You saying it is "clear" that the bible teaches forensic justification is not an example of the bibles clarity. You have no authority to define doctrine so your interpretation ranks with mine or Arius. The Holy Spirit is clear as glass as well, and acomplishes all He wants to. But again, for you or I to say, "the bible teaches contraception is intrinsically evil" is not an example of the clarity of scripture. When the magisterium reads scripture, and informed by Tradition declares it, then the Holy Spirit has clarified the issue. If in 1935 you are giving your wife the birth control pill and complain like you are that there is no difference between the clarifying magisterium and your reading the bible, you MIGHT have a point. But the thing about clarifying is that it takes place in time and space. In 2011 you would have no point at all. In fact by the 1960's you would have no point.
So your Lefebre point crumbles here. We are in the wake of Vatican II still. Many things are in flux. Why do you have a greater expectation for the Church today than the Church in Acts?
ReplyDeleteThey had a period of time when certain things had not YET been resolved. "Should the gentiles be admitted?" "do they need to be circumcised?" "should they eat blood?"
The point is they WERE decided. in 50 years or so eveyone will know without a doubt what the deal with Lefebre was. And really, is Lefebre the best you can do to shake the magisterium? Weak if you ask me.
"You must be saying one of the following:
ReplyDelete1) "The bible says nothing about polygamy"
No.
2)"The bible says stuff about polygamy,"
Yes.
"but we can't understand what it is, so we defer to the magisterium" (in which case you are criticising the same Holy Spirit to which you later appeal"
False conclusion. You are incorrectly assuming that you or I can claim the illumination of the Holy Spirit when we interpret scripture. And assuming that the Holy Spirit is going to clarify for you. This assumption is completely unfounded and proven false by the many sects of Protestantism.
3)"The bible says stuff about polygamy, and it is sufficient to be understood,..."
Yes.
"and by the grace of God His children will understand it in due time, although we frequently find ourselves having to wrangle with boneheads"
Substitute "His children" for "His Church" and I agree. Especially about the boneheads! ;-) The authorized leaders of Christs Church have been wrangling for 2000 years.
"(in which case you're epistemologically protestant)."
No, because unlike Protestants I dont put MYSELF in the place of the authorized, Holy Spirit led teaching authority in the Church. If I ever tell you the "Holy Spirit clarified something in scripture, so listen to me, not the Church",... RUN away, I am a heretic.
"Let me know which one you pick."
#3 with the alteration given. You did not supply all possible answers.
"Not only that, [Lefebre comment] but of course the very fact that you yourself would admit to such frequent uncertainty demonstrates the insufficiency of the magisterium. If what you say about the magisterium is correct, there should be no RCs with the problem you described."
ReplyDeleteWhat I was describing was my situation as a Protestant. Not theory, but real tears and cries to God (if I can be personal a bit). Am am thankfully not in that situation any more on about 99.5% of issues, because like I said, we live in a physical world where the "conversation" takes time on some issues. Lefebre is one of those issues. I have NO doubt that all issues will be resolved though. (followed by some new unforseen issues to "talk" about.
Peace to you sir, good conversation. You would make a great Catholic.
In Christ,
David Meyer