Posing Problems in the Westminster Confession of Faith

[rogue06]

A string of unsupported assertions is not backup.

Some folks think merely making an assertion is providing evidence and when they repeat it they are substantiating it.

[hansgeorg]

A string of unsupported assertions is not backup.

You confused w h a t I was offering to backup with the backup I intend to give, if you start challenging the items on the string.

Some folks think merely making an assertion is providing evidence and when they repeat it they are substantiating it.

Not me. I was giving a string of at least four assertions and wondering exactly which of them I should back up first. And against excatly what attack. Some could be attacked from different standpooints.

[Roy]

Not very, no. And you are a sloppy historian, since there is such a thing as theocatagnostic heresy.

One Church Father, but it was five to ten years ago, no, more, I am no longer sure it was St Basil, made a list of 100 or so heresies, one of them being the theocatagnostic one.

Criticising God or His saints (that includes St Thomas Aquinas) for their words or deeds.

I'm not going to simply take your assertion as fact, especially since Google produces exactly 1 result for "theocatagnostic". Do you have any references?

According to Christian Faith, God has complete power to keep His promises and complete foreknowledge of what to us is the future. That means, God's promises are prophetic. No matter how you turn it, it will involve God's foreknowledge of His keeping His promises. AND according to the Christian Faith the man who uttered the words was, precisely, God. Therefore, His promise is also prophecy.

So it's not a prophecy. It may be equivalent to an extremely vague and untestable prophecy if certain beliefs are correct, but it is not a prophecy.

That verse does not say what you think it says.

Exactly how can "not even a day off" be compatible with "fifty years off"?

Neither pf those phrases occur in Matt 28:20. The verse does not say what you think it says.

[hansgeorg]

I'm not going to simply take your assertion as fact, especially since Google produces exactly 1 result for "theocatagnostic". Do you have any references?

I looked along, and think the work should be "On Heresies" by St John of Damascus.

That is a list of heretical attitudes rather than of specific sects. Theocatagnostic should be one on the list, but I do not find it, here I found another one on wikiquote:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_of_Damascus

The Christianocategori, or Accusers of Christians, are such and are so called, because those Christians who worship one living and true God praised in Trinity they accused of worshiping as gods, after the manner of the Greeks, the venerable images of our Lord Jesus Christ, of our immaculate lady, the holy Mother of God, of the holy angels, and of His saints.They are furthermore called Iconoclasts, because they have shown deliberate dishonor to all these same holy and venerable images and have consigned them to be broken up and burnt.
Likewise, some of those painted on walls they have scraped off, while others they have obliterated with whitewash and black paint. They are also called Thymoleontes, or Lion-hearted, because, taking advantage of their authority, they have with great heart given strength to their heresy and with torment and torture visited vengeance upon those who approve of the images.

On Heresies.
In, Saint John of Damascus: Writings (The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 37), 1958, 1999, Frederic H. Chase, Trans., Catholic University of America Press, ISBN 0813209684 ISBN 9780813209685, p. 160

It links to:

https://books.google.fr/books?id=H9w...ans%22&f=false

https://archive.org/details/fathersofthechur009511mbp

The reason why, without looking, I think exactly that work contains "theocatagnostic heresy" (or synonym in Latin, it means "despising God" [or by extension His saints]), is that I found a reference it contained another of the heresies I recalled from the list, that of the "thneotopsychitae" - those who think the soul dies with the body and doesn't exist again until resurrection (rehashed by JW as you may be aware). And here is my reference for that:

THNETOPSYCHITES, s. m. pl. (Hist. ecclésiast) anciens hérétiques, croyant que l’ame humaine étoit parfaitement semblable ŕ celle des bętes, & qu’elle mouroit avec le corps. Voyez .

Ce mot est composé du grec θνητὸς, mortel, & ψυχὴ, ame.

On ne trouve nulle part ces hérétiques que dans S. Jean Damascene, hérés. xc. ŕ-moins qu’ils ne soient les męmes que ceux dont parle Eusebe, hist. ecclésiast. liv. IX. c. xxxviij. oů il est dit que du tems d’Origene il y avoit en Arabie des hérétiques, croyant que l’ame humaine mouroit avec le corps, mais qu’elle ressusciteroit avec le corps ŕ la fin du monde. Eusebe ajoute qu’Origene réfuta ces hérétiques dans un concile nombreux, & qu’il les fit revenir de leurs erreurs. S. Augustin & Isidore les appellent hérétiques arabes.

Marshal, dans ses tables, a défiguré ce mot faute de l’entendre, car il l’écrit thenopsychites, au-lieu de thnetopsychites : il les place aussi dans le sixieme siecle, mais on ne peut deviner sur quel fondement il l’a fait.

This is from:
https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/L%E2%...HNETOPSYCHITES

(Sorry for using this condemned work, but it contained the reference I found)

So it's not a prophecy. It may be equivalent to an extremely vague and untestable prophecy if certain beliefs are correct, but it is not a prophecy.

Then you don't know what the relation is between "prophecy" in the Biblical sense and "promises of God". A promise of God is a prophecy, and the major prophecies of the OT were promises by God about Our Lord Jesus Christ.

It is on one particular point not vague or untestable at all ...

Neither pf those phrases occur in Matt 28:20. The verse does not say what you think it says.

"Every day" is equipollent to "not a day off".

And not a day off implies, by an a fortiori, not even fifty years off.

And this is a test implication for if the man the eleven saw fly up to Heaven or claimed to have seen really was seen and really was God.

If you can pinpoint a single time in which the Church did not exist between then and now, you have refuted His claim of being God, you would have proven He were just a man who could not prophecy, or even worse.

The problem with Protestantism is, while they don't agree on pinpointing a beginning for when there was no - or at least no adequate - Church, they agree such a period existed, since they regard the Reformation as the end of it.

[Roy]

I looked along, and think the work should be "On Heresies" by St John of Damascus.

That is a list of heretical attitudes rather than of specific sects. Theocatagnostic should be one on the list, but I do not find it, here I found another one on wikiquote:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_of_Damascus



It links to:

https://books.google.fr/books?id=H9w...ans%22&f=false

https://archive.org/details/fathersofthechur009511mbp

The reason why, without looking, I think exactly that work contains "theocatagnostic heresy" ...

According to Google's search of the text it doesn't. But see below.

This is from:
https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/L%E2%...HNETOPSYCHITES

(Sorry for using this condemned work, but it contained the reference I found)

So why couldn't you find this?

Also this, among many others:
THEOCATAGNOSTES: a sect of heretics who presumed to find fault with certain words and actions of God, and to blame many things in the scriptures.

I don't think OBP is one of them, and you owe him an apology.

But thanks for reminding everyone that the Catholic Church engages in censorship.

Then you don't know what the relation is between "prophecy" in the Biblical sense and "promises of God". A promise of God is a prophecy, and the major prophecies of the OT were promises by God about Our Lord Jesus Christ.

So your way of counting Matt 28:20 as a "prophecy" is to redefine "prophecy", misrepresent the old testament, and ignore that old testament prophecies contained details about events rather than being vague promises of continuity.

You are unconvincing.

Neither pf those phrases occur in Matt 28:20. The verse does not say what you think it says.

"Every day" is equipollent to "not a day off".

That phrase isn't in the verse either - and even if you take "always" as synonymous to "not a day off" (which it isn't) it still only applies to Jesus's presence, not to the teaching.

That verse does not say what you claim it does.

[hansgeorg]

According to Google's search of the text it doesn't. But see below. So why couldn't you find this?

Because I was googling "theocatagnostic" and "theokatagnostic", not a noun. Here is the reference from the google books version, transscribed by me:

92. The Theocatagnoastae, who are called Blasphemers, try to find fault with [the Lord] for certain words and actions, as well as with the holy persons associated with Him and with the sacred Scriptures. They are foolhardy and blasphemous people.

Key words relevant: as well as with the holy persons associated with Him

I took that as meaning, simply, the saints.

[Roy]

Because I was googling "theocatagnostic" and "theokatagnostic", not a noun. Here is the reference from the google books version, transscribed by me:

Key words relevant: as well as with the holy persons associated with Him

I took that as meaning, simply, the saints.

So on the basis of your personal interpretation of a misremembered reference written five centuries too early, you accused a fellow Christian of heresy.

You owe One Bad Pig a retraction and an apology.

[JohnMartin]

It does not follow from ignorance that the doctrine cannot be known. The doctrine remains in the sources of revelation.
But it does follow from ignorance that the doctrine is not known.

Either the majority of Catholics come to know the truth about geocentrism, or the majority of Catholics do not come to know the truth about geocentrism.

Pick one.

The doctrine of the stationary Earth and the centrality of the Earth are both assumed to be true and revealed by God in the scriptures as stated in the Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo in 1633 -

We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you.

The doctrine of the moving earth is considered to be a heresy according to the Papal condemnation of 1633. This condemnation has never been revoked. Once a Catholic understands the binding value of the statement, one must give ascent to the Papal statement.

JM

[JohnMartin]

The Westminster Confession was written 1600 years after the apostles were preaching. That's plenty of time for the oral transmission of the gospel to cease.
And yet you have provided no evidence that the oral gospel has ceased.
I don't need to.

You are comparing two pictures taken 1600 years apart and stating it is a problem that they are different. It is not a problem if something could have happened during those 1600 years to cause the differences.

If some-one showed me a painting of London painted in 400AD and a photograph of London taken yesterday, I wouldn't need to provide evidence that builders had been at work between the creation of the two images. 1600 years is plenty of time for builders to build buildings.

1600 years is also plenty of time for gospel transmission methods to have changed. If you want the differences between the NT and the Westminster Confession to be classed as a problem, you need to show that no such change is possible.

The Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that the sources of revelation are both scripture and tradition -

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."

Tradition remains a source of revelation and has never been superseded by scripture alone as taught by all the Reformed confessions of faith.

You haven't done that. What you have done is provide evidence for the change:

You only assume time has killed off the oral gospel. Nowhere in the NT did Jesus command any text to be written by any apostle. Jesus told the apostles to preach the gospel and that is what they did. Subsequently some of the apostles wrote down some of the gospel in the NT.

So the apostles started sharing the gospel as a written document. The means of sharing the gospel can and did change. Could oral transmission have ceased during the subsequent 1600 years? Yes. Therefore the Westminster confession describing that is not a problem unless you can show that oral transmission did not cease and the Westminster confession is wrong.

Otherwise the response to your 'problem' is simply that there is no problem because oral transmission of the gospel could have ceased during the 1600 year gap between the NT and the Westminster confession.

The above catechism statement shows the Church regards tradition as a source of revelation. We also see a similar command from St Paul to Timothy to pass on oral tradition.

2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me . . . guard the truth which has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

2 Timothy 2:2 And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

2 Timothy 4:2 preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching.

Tradition is binding from the scriptures and from Church teaching. The Westminster confession denies this clear teaching, yet the WC only assumes tradition, or the oral gospel is no longer binding. The WC provides no evidence that such has occurred, has no authority to make such a statement and contradicts the biblical principle of oral tradition passed from the Apostles to other generations.

Problem – If oral traditions have ceased and are no longer binding, why doesn’t the NT actually say such?

Probably because oral traditions ceased after the NT was written. This is akin to complaining that Tacitus's annals don't mention World War II.
Again, no evidence is presented. You have only assumed the problem has been resolved historically. The problem will not go away that easily.
The problem does go away that easily.

Church history shows your answer is false. The NT canon was not formally made until after Athanasius came up with correct canon in the 4th C. So up until the Church made a binding decision on the extent of the canon, all the Church had until then was the liturgical practice of using the NT books within the liturgy and the apostolic tradition that said some books were inspired. For over 365 years, the Church used tradition and the scriptures within the liturgy as the normative rule of faith. When the entire canon was formalised at the councils of Hippo, Carthage, Florence, Trent, and Vaican I, tradition and the liturgical practice did not cease. The formalisation of the canon only means the number and extent of the inspired texts are known. The canonisation of the text does not infer tradition has ceased, and the oral gospel is no longer binding. We know this because -

1. The Church teaches that tradition is binding.
2. The scriptures teach that tradition is binding and is carried through generations of Christians.
3. The Catholic faith is a faith that is lived, which assumes a lived tradition passed from one generation to the next. Such traidtion is not lost, or abandoned because of the finalisation of the canon.

Hence the Westminster confession is in error when it teaches that the only souce of revelation is the scriptures.

Why doesn't document X describe event Y that occurred after document X was written? Because event Y occurred after document X was written. Problem resolved.

That you fail to understand this trivial point is all the evidence of your ineptitude and lack of understanding that is necessary.

But the document was written by a Church, for use in the Church and the Church has taught that tradition remains binding. The problem of traidtion in the Westminster confession remains.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Geocentrism is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church. As there is no theological, or moral truth connected to the scientific claim of geocentrism, then the Church can make no binding claim about it. The only time it can make a binding claim about natural philosophy, is when the truth of such a statement is implied by other theological or natural truths, such as the monogenesis of mankind.

This has been pointed out to John Martin many times in the past.

The 1633 Papal condemnation of Galileo's moving Earth theory correctly expresses the modern Catholic belief in a stationary Earth. The Papal teaching correctly expressed the revelation made by God in the scriptures. As such, the Papal teaching which has never been revoked, remains normative and binding on the faithful.

JM

[Roy]

The 1633 Papal condemnation of Galileo's moving Earth theory correctly expresses the modern Catholic belief in a stationary Earth. The Papal teaching correctly expressed the revelation made by God in the scriptures. As such, the Papal teaching which has never been revoked, remains normative and binding on the faithful.

It was revoked in Discorsi dei Papi alla Pontificia Accademia delle Scienze (1936-1993) (Vatican: Pontificia Academia Scientiarum, 1994)

[hansgeorg]

So on the basis of your personal interpretation of a misremembered reference written five centuries too early, you accused a fellow Christian of heresy.

You owe One Bad Pig a retraction and an apology.

I am not sure my interpretation is personal, since all the saints are in fact asociated with Christ.

He hasn't asked for one.

[hansgeorg]

So your way of counting Matt 28:20 as a "prophecy" is to redefine "prophecy", misrepresent the old testament, and ignore that old testament prophecies contained details about events rather than being vague promises of continuity.

"all days" is not vague about how much continuity, and directed to the eleven supreme disciples (hierarchy previously already established) also indicates very clearly that the continuity is through the magisterium, not through some shapeless or vague body of faithful still trying to structure themselves.

As a divine promise is a prophecy, so is a divine order, the passage also contains a prophecy bearing on all nations becoming Catholic or at least getting an oportunity to become so.

Some take this as meaning, the world cannot end yet, because this or that nation is not yet a fully Catholic nation.

You are unconvincing.That phrase isn't in the verse either - and even if you take "always" as synonymous to "not a day off" (which it isn't) it still only applies to Jesus's presence, not to the teaching.

That verse does not say what you claim it does.

The correct phrase is not "always", but "every day".

πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας = omnibus diebus = all days

Jesus cannot be present, if his teaching is defiled.

Which is why Protestants who think Catholicism did defile the original teaching also do not think Christ is with the Catholic Church.

The problem is, they are only explaining why Christ is not all days with the Catholic Church, not why or how it can have been even up to now all days with ecclesiastical bodies going back to only a few centuries ago.

And the Reformers did not look after another Church in which Christ would have been all days up to then (like Orthodox, like two branches of Monophysite / Three Council, like Nestorian or Two Council), they started one in which they knew Christ had not been a single day of AD 1500.

Err... yes it has. It's tested every time someone uses the orbital equations to predict a body's location.

The orbital equations are ultimately about orbits as observed in relative motion, and therefore have no bearing either on which dynamic or mechanism is true, nor on whether Heliocentrism or Geocentrism is true.

It's tested every time some-one points a telescope,

No, telescopes were pointed by Riccioli, who integrated Keplers observational observations, without accepting his Heliocentrism or without accepting a naturalistic mechanics.

or launches a satellite,

Riccioli could have done as much, with learning about how satellites work, but without accepting the new theories.

It is possible that satellite orbits do illustrate the dynamics posited, at least somewhat, and especially if a satellite can go on in a graveyard orbit forever without added fuel expenses, but we do not have them up since centuries, only a shorter time, and I cannot exclude that angelic movers have sth to do with satellites staying up either.

or flies an aeroplane long-distance,

That would be alternative rotation of either Earth or Ether, as Geocentric I say it is that of Ether.

or sets an alarm clock for dawn.

That would be alternative rotation of either Earth or Sun, mainly with Ether, but with some delay. As a Geocentric, I say the latter.

Then tell me how the "Angelic movers" theory predicts solar eclipses.

How movement comes about or which of the relative motions are actual or closest to actual ones has no bearing on how the orbits of Sun and Moon around Earth interact so as to cause eclipses, both lunar and solar.

It was revoked in Discorsi dei Papi alla Pontificia Accademia delle Scienze (1936-1993) (Vatican: Pontificia Academia Scientiarum, 1994)

What exact Pope can be said to have revoked it?

Pius XI already?

Pius XII whom for other reasons I consider as apostate?

The ensuing ones, whom most sedevacantists consider as apostates?

[JohnMartin]

It was revoked in Discorsi dei Papi alla Pontificia Accademia delle Scienze (1936-1993) (Vatican: Pontificia Academia Scientiarum, 1994)

These documents only show the private opinions of the Popes addressed to a specific mixed audience. The talks are not from the Popes in their official capacity as Popes teaching the church on matters of faith and morals. Their has never been any official retraction of the 1633 Papal Bull. Therefore the 1633 Bull remains in force and the official position of the Magisterium is the Earth is stationary.

JM

[One Bad Pig]

You confused w h a t I was offering to backup with the backup I intend to give, if you start challenging the items on the string.

That's an odd way to debate. Why not provide the backup right off the bat? I'm not going to accept anything controversial on your say-so.