tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post4803986511259064546..comments2023-04-02T07:03:21.099-05:00Comments on Principium Unitatis: Dodos, Passenger Pigeons, SchismsBryan Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-47141251404612987522008-09-09T17:52:00.000-05:002008-09-09T17:52:00.000-05:00Kevin,Consider the following dialogue. One of the ...Kevin,<BR/><BR/>Consider the following dialogue. One of the participants is a Protestant who claims that there is a visible Church. Call him VC-guy. The other is a Protestant who denies that there is a visible Church. Call him VC-denier.<BR/><BR/>The following dialogue ensues: <BR/><BR/>VC-denier: "There are Christians who get together and proclaim the Word and celebrate the Sacraments. And there are various denominations of which most of them are a part." <BR/><BR/>VC-guy: "Wait, you left out something else that is also there, i.e. the visible Church." <BR/><BR/>VC-denier: "I don't see any visible Church. I see only the things I listed."<BR/><BR/>VC-guy: "All the things you listed constitute the visible Church"<BR/><BR/>VC-denier: "What if it didn't exist?"<BR/><BR/>VC-guy: "What do you mean?"<BR/><BR/>VC-denier: "I mean, what would be different if there were no visible Church?"<BR/><BR/>VC-guy: "There wouldn't be people congregating together to proclaim the Word and celebrate the Sacraments."<BR/><BR/>VC-denier: "No, you're not following me. I mean, what if there were only people congregating together to proclaim the Word and celebrate the Sacraments, and not some additional entity called the visible Church? What would be different?"<BR/><BR/>VC-guy: "Well, nothing, but that's impossible, because wherever there are people congregating to pro-"<BR/><BR/>VC-denier: "I know, I know, wherever people are doing those things, by definition that is the visible Church".<BR/><BR/>VC-guy: "Right"<BR/><BR/>VC-denier: "But what if there wasn't actually another entity, i.e. a visible Church, but only a term [i.e. 'visible Church'] that was being used to refer to the plurality of persons doing these activities? What would be different?"<BR/><BR/>VC-guy: "I don't know. Nothing I guess."<BR/><BR/>VC-denier: "Have you ever heard of the principle of parsimony?"<BR/><BR/>VC-guy: "No, what is it?"<BR/><BR/>VC-denier: "It is the principle that the simpler explanation is to be preferred, all things being equal."<BR/><BR/>VC-guy: "Ok, how does that apply here?"<BR/><BR/>VC-denier: "Well, we can explain the same data equally well in two ways, one by positing another entity "the visible Church", and one without positing an additional entity."<BR/><BR/>VC-guy: "Ok, so what?"<BR/><BR/>VC-denier: "Therefore, by the principle of parsimony, the explanation that does not posit an additional entity is preferred, because positing the additional entity is entirely unnecessary."<BR/><BR/>VC-guy: "So according to your argument, there isn't actually a visible Church. Rather, what exists are visible persons who are proclaiming the Word and celebrating the Sacraments. We can give those persons a collective label (of any sort), but we shouldn't make the mistake of treating the label as referring to a single unified entity constituted by those persons."<BR/><BR/>VC-denier: "Exactly."<BR/><BR/>VC-guy: "So really, there is no visible Church; there are visible people engaged in meeting to proclaim the Word and celebrate the Sacraments, but not another entity 'the visible Church'."<BR/><BR/>VC-denier: "Yep."<BR/><BR/>VC-guy: "Thanks, that was helpful. I guess I'm also a visible Church denier, strictly speaking."<BR/><BR/>VC-denier: "That's what I have been trying to tell you."<BR/><BR/><BR/>The point of the dialogue is to show how VC-guy's position falls prey to the principle of parsimony. The application of the principle of parsimony shows how he has committed the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehead%27s_fallacy" REL="nofollow">fallacy of "misplaced concreteness"</A>.<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-53212674794957455652008-09-09T16:35:00.000-05:002008-09-09T16:35:00.000-05:00Visible church = Bob, Sam, and Joan congregating t...Visible church = Bob, Sam, and Joan congregating together in proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, through ministry of the Word (preaching, bible reading, hymns, etc.) and Sacrament (at certain times and when required, e.g., baptism for a convert). When Bob, Sam, and Joan commit themselves to this task of proclamation, they constitute part of the visible church.Kevin Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04313286544695110514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-43690101783789989382008-09-09T14:46:00.000-05:002008-09-09T14:46:00.000-05:00Thanks for the clarification. I re-read the origin...Thanks for the clarification. I re-read the original in light of the preceding comments and it made more sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-77754288430358128622008-09-09T14:30:00.000-05:002008-09-09T14:30:00.000-05:00Thanks for your comment Andrew. You wrote:In your ...Thanks for your comment Andrew. You wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>In your syllogism, shouldn't the conclusion (3) be A, that is ~ (~A), since there is a visible difference (per (2), implied)?</I><BR/><BR/>In (1) the statement is that if there were no visible Church, there would be no visible difference. Visibly, everything would be exactly the same as it is now. In (2), the statement is that visible things are by their nature the sort of things that, when added or removed, there is a visible difference. So it follows from that there is no visible Church, because if there were a visible Church now, then the removal of the visible Church would make a visible difference. Perhaps a better way to word the first argument would be like this:<BR/><BR/>(A) There is a visible Church. (Assumption to be tested)<BR/><BR/>(1') If A, then the removal of the visible Church would make a visible difference.<BR/><BR/>(2') The removal of the visible Church would not make a visible difference.<BR/><BR/>(3') Therefore, ~A. [from (1') and (2'), by modus tollens.<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-4999117318047351942008-09-09T14:11:00.000-05:002008-09-09T14:11:00.000-05:00I am pleased to find you waxing rhetorical in this...I am pleased to find you waxing rhetorical in this post. I could almost wish that you would follow suit in the combox. <BR/><BR/>In your syllogism, shouldn't the conclusion (3) be A, that is ~ (~A), since there is a visible difference (per (2), implied)?<BR/><BR/>Or am I misreading the argument?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-20165167034661300042008-09-09T04:40:00.000-05:002008-09-09T04:40:00.000-05:00Kevin,My whole point is that I define "visible" di...Kevin,<BR/><BR/><I>My whole point is that I define "visible" differently from you.</I><BR/><BR/>So, in one sentence, what is your definition of 'visible'?<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-19272641674702816442008-09-09T01:06:00.000-05:002008-09-09T01:06:00.000-05:00Joseph,I agree. I don't think having a degree in s...Joseph,<BR/><BR/>I agree. I don't think having a degree in something <I>de facto</I> necessitates oneself as an authority. However, it does make a difference in a discussion whether you are talking with someone who has no training in philosophy and someone who has quite a bit. I know fully well how syllogisms rarely fail due to a formal fallacy but, instead, due to a material fallacy. It is with the latter -- the terms used, how they are defined, in what context, and with what limits -- that arguments find their legitimacy.Kevin Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04313286544695110514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-13408176293694710062008-09-08T21:17:00.000-05:002008-09-08T21:17:00.000-05:00I have 24 credit hours of philosophy under my belt...<I>I have 24 credit hours of philosophy under my belt, not counting philosophy of religion.</I><BR/><BR/>I have a Business degree and a minor in Business Computer Systems, but, I can tell you with absolute confidence, that I've had alot to learn in the real world. The degree and that classes I took got my foot in the door. It wasn't long before I was humbled. I don't think I would ever say, "I took 18 hours of Systems Analysis in one semester and got a 'A', so you'd better realize that I have authority in it" to anyone in my field, let alone a professor.<BR/><BR/>Just some thoughts.Skyrim Geekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04809088855172879580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-2575206619260538082008-09-08T19:36:00.000-05:002008-09-08T19:36:00.000-05:00Wow! I give up. My whole point is that I define "v...Wow! I give up. My whole point is that I define "visible" differently from you. You sound like a kid who just finished his Logic 1101 course and is amazed at how he can throw around fallacy latinisms. Now, <I>that</I> was an ad hominem.Kevin Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04313286544695110514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-84574181834669387672008-09-08T05:24:00.000-05:002008-09-08T05:24:00.000-05:00Erick,I definitely agree that our division weakens...Erick,<BR/><BR/>I definitely agree that our division weakens our Christian witness, and that pursuing full visible unity is essential. Thanks for your comments.<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-43637551790430182912008-09-08T05:21:00.000-05:002008-09-08T05:21:00.000-05:00Kevin,Notice that nothing you said pointed out whi...Kevin,<BR/><BR/>Notice that nothing you said pointed out which premise is false [even with a Protestant conception of 'visible Church'] and why, or how the conclusion does not follow from the premises. <BR/><BR/>Therefore the argument remains unrefuted. Comments such as "until you are willing to understand the terms in a debate" are <I>ad hominems</I>.<BR/><BR/>Merely asserting that the entity you believe in is visible doesn't make the entity you believe in visible, anymore than the man who asserts that the numbers he believes in are visible makes numbers visible. It is merely a table-pounding assertion. I could just table-pound the opposite position. And that wouldn't get us any closer to knowing which claim was true, yours or mine. But if you refute my argument, we'll have less reason to believe the conclusion of my argument.<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-44793078307204045222008-09-08T02:02:00.000-05:002008-09-08T02:02:00.000-05:00This post is for everyone who has disagreed with t...This post is for everyone who has disagreed with the "visible" Church doctrine.<BR/><BR/>The reason that "visible" Church in the Catholic (even Orthodox) sense is important is because it solidifies true belief. Here's an easy example: the Anglican communion is pro-choice while the ancient Churches are pro-life. How does that mesh as belief in Christ??? Who is correct??? Since both sides claim legitimacy, imagine the confusion of a person looking for Christ. Division in the way Protestants have practiced Christianity for 500 years is a weakening of Christian witness.Erick Hernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05192369287610703425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-518986130043082592008-09-08T01:22:00.000-05:002008-09-08T01:22:00.000-05:00I sincerely propose that you drop the syllogisms u...I sincerely propose that you drop the syllogisms until you are willing to understand the terms in a debate. I have 24 credit hours of philosophy under my belt, not counting philosophy of religion. And I just finished a master's dissertation on Newman's epistemology, arguing, coincidentally, how syllogisms cannot get you very far in a realist metaphysics. So, I'm aware of what a deductive argument is. But, an argument is only as good as the terms which make-up the variables. Hence, I attacked your definition of "visible church." Your argument only works with your definition, not the Protestant definition. In fact, your argument is simply your way of defining "visible church." <BR/><BR/>Once again, a Church is where the Gospel is proclaimed, in Word and Sacrament. When the Protestants go home, does the Church exist? I don't care. I'll say, "Nope, it doesn't exist, and when they come back on Wednesday or Sunday, then it exists again." What do I care? It simply doesn't matter, as long as the only thing we're talking about is visible, which it is. Maybe I need to be more explicit: I do not care whatsoever about an "invisible church." In fact, whether there are any Christians ("saved") at all in a particular church does not negate it being part of the visible church as long as the Gospel is proclaimed. I have a totally objective view of the church. It is upon the confession of Christ as Lord and Savior, and those who proclaim it, that the church is founded.<BR/><BR/>This is all a silly debate, anyway. The real objection to Protestantism from Catholics is not that they don't believe in a visible church, it's that they don't believe in <I>the</I> visible church -- they do not put their faith in any church at all.Kevin Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04313286544695110514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-60795695632029994522008-09-07T21:55:00.000-05:002008-09-07T21:55:00.000-05:00Kevin,What I have offered is a deductive argument ...Kevin,<BR/><BR/>What I have offered is a deductive argument (actually two deductive arguments). The only two ways to refute a deductive argument are to falsify one or more premises, or to show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Here's the argument.<BR/><BR/>(A) There is a visible Church. (Assumption to be tested)<BR/><BR/>(1) If ~A (i.e. if there were no visible Church, but only visible Christians in various institutions), there would be no visible difference.<BR/><BR/>(2) When a visible thing is removed or added, there is a visible difference.<BR/><BR/>(3) Therefore ~A. [from (1) and (2)]<BR/><BR/>(4) The simpler position is preferred, <I>ceteris paribus</I>. (Principle of parsimony)<BR/><BR/>(5) Therefore, ~A. [from (1) and (4)]<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-83563385242736970882008-09-07T21:51:00.000-05:002008-09-07T21:51:00.000-05:00Sorry Bryan. I just get fed up with the attitude I...Sorry Bryan. I just get fed up with the attitude I see in them that I can't help saying something. I am not helping things when my comments lack love as well. Love wins over far more people than "being right". Your graciousness has meant a lot to me. May I be so gracious. And maybe it is I who need the break. I'm pretty weary right now.Kimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07011962056021112099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-28199141056534897422008-09-07T21:16:00.000-05:002008-09-07T21:16:00.000-05:00Bryan,I just read your piece. The problem is that ...Bryan,<BR/><BR/>I just read your piece. The problem is that a "visible church" <I>has to be</I> how you (and fellow Catholics) define it, so the way Protestants define it is thus not credible. However, Protestants do not believe there is a single, formal Church that is specially-protected, infallible in dogma, properly sacramental, and so on. Instead, they can say that the Church exists where the Gospel of Christ is proclaimed, through Word and Sacrament. With this more minimalist definition of the Church, they can affirm its existence in multiple denominations and churches with no denomination. This is a notion of the Church that <I>is</I> visible, whether you like it or not. Just because it is not <I>your</I> idea of the visible Church, does not make this idea of the Church any less a visible entity.<BR/><BR/>The problem is that you believe there must be a visible Church <I>that is an object of faith</I>. Protestants instead deny that any Church can claim the assent of faith, because every instantiation of the Church is subject to error, dogmatic and otherwise. I respect your position, but, please, at least give Protestants the respect their position deserves.Kevin Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04313286544695110514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-33973646275242758352008-09-07T21:13:00.000-05:002008-09-07T21:13:00.000-05:00Kim,I appreciate your encouragement. (I really do....Kim,<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your encouragement. (I really do.) But may I ask you not to say here (on my blog) anything critical of Reformed bloggers. We all have character deficiencies, and we should all pray for each other, that we will grow in patience and love. The only way, I believe, to overcome our schisms is through love -- the real kind, the kind that willingly suffers for the sake of the beloved, endures all things, believes all things, never fails, that sort of love. (I'm going to be posting something on that later this week.)<BR/><BR/>I think we can be encouraged that the Holy Spirit will not fail to work through love, to bring about true peace and reconciliation. Lord, may it be so.<BR/><BR/>Thanks Kim, for your grateful and open heart.<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-29287560094946778002008-09-07T20:56:00.000-05:002008-09-07T20:56:00.000-05:00I beg to differ with the last commenter about what...I beg to differ with the last commenter about what you do here, Bryan. I have benefited greatly. <BR/><BR/>The arrogance of many of the Reformed bloggers I've read for the last 3+ years is more than I can stomach anymore.Kimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07011962056021112099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-58274333724074883842008-09-07T20:53:00.000-05:002008-09-07T20:53:00.000-05:00John,As I said just above, ad hominems are not per...John,<BR/><BR/>As I said just above, <I>ad hominems</I> are not permitted here. Feel free to criticize my positions and my claims and arguments. But criticizing my level of knowledge (or anyone else's) is an <I>ad hominem</I>, and I simply won't allow it here. I spelled this out carefully last year <A HREF="http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2007/11/one-precondition-for-genuine-ecumenical.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>Those are the rules here. If you want to post here, please abide by them.<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-77096695564996674972008-09-07T20:42:00.000-05:002008-09-07T20:42:00.000-05:00Mr. Cross,I make mistakes sometimes, and I apologi...Mr. Cross,<BR/><BR/>I make mistakes sometimes, and I apologize if I have conducted myself improperly. With that said, having presented my thoughts, I think it best to allow the candid reader to decide between us.<BR/><BR/>You may have the last word. Should you extend the little gift of a reply, I will be providing a fresh link for visitors at Conscious Faith to read this page. I will not, however, be posting a response.<BR/><BR/>It would be remiss to go without saying this:<BR/><BR/>I thank you for what interaction you have offered, and I hope you will think seriously about what I have told you. I believe you to be intelligent, and I do not question your Christian profession. I do, however, sincerely believe that you are wasting your time and your talents on internet activities that neither honor Christ nor serve to advance the reunion of all Christians. Zeal is of little value if it is misdirected. There are decent arguments for Roman Catholicism, but I have not seen you make them. To me you look like someone who has been too long caught up in the world of the popular apologetics movement. That's not the real world, and I think a break from blogging might help you to grow more in the faith.<BR/><BR/>God bless,<BR/><BR/>JohnIohanneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12743631955149934728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-25941407239805957362008-09-07T17:53:00.000-05:002008-09-07T17:53:00.000-05:00Kevin,I wrote "The Church: Catholic or Invisible?"...Kevin,<BR/><BR/>I wrote "<A HREF="http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2008/03/christ-founded-visible-church.html" REL="nofollow">The Church: Catholic or Invisible?</A>" to show that the Protestant claim to believe in a visible Church is refuted by the principle of parsimony, because it is indistinguishable from a position which denies that there is a visible Church but affirms that some believers are visible.<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-54625315255209938532008-09-07T17:35:00.000-05:002008-09-07T17:35:00.000-05:00John,One more thing. If what I am saying is *true*...John,<BR/><BR/>One more thing. If what I am saying is *true*, then it is good that is "upsetting" some people. Whether or not an activity "upsets" some people tells us nothing about whether the activity is good or bad.<BR/><BR/>As a philosopher, I do not evaluate the worth of activities by whether or to what degree they do or do not "upset" people. Socrates upset a lot of people, and they killed him for it. The same can be said for Jesus. And MLK. What matters to me is the truth, not whether it upsets people. So, if anything I have said is false, please feel free to refute it.<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-1869995017012024762008-09-07T17:29:00.000-05:002008-09-07T17:29:00.000-05:00John,I saw no need to respond to your last comment...John,<BR/><BR/>I saw no need to respond to your last comment in the Corpus Christi thread, and the same is true of the "Schism from a Gnostic point of view" thread. You expressed your opinion; I read it, and took note of it. But I didn't see any question from you, or alleged refutation of some claim I had made. <BR/><BR/>As for my Tertullian quotation, I simply don't agree with your interpretation. Tertullian says similar things (about the primacy of Peter) in his earlier period. It seems to me, given the nature of sarcasm, that it only works if there is at least some truth to it. That's why, in my opinion, Tertullian's comment, even if sarcastic, only works if it was quite universally well-known that the bishop of Rome did have the primacy. Just because you state your disagreement with me, doesn't mean that you have shown me to be in error, or that I'm obliged to retract my claim or remove this Tertullian quotation from my list of selections from the fathers.<BR/><BR/>It is true that I haven't engaged Schatz's work. But that's not on account of rudeness on my part. I simply haven't had time.<BR/><BR/><I>At Conscious Faith, where Kepha and I blog, I directly asked you in "Many Parts, One Body" about the history of the papacy, and you completely ignored my question. Kepha complained about this in one of his comments, but then you just stopped commenting.</I><BR/><BR/>I generally don't visit that blog. I have it on my reader, so that when a new post comes in, I sometimes offer a comment. But I usually don't check back for follow-up comments. And regarding your question regarding the history of the papacy, one of the rules of rational discourse (as opposed to sophistry) is to focus on one question at a time, so as to avoid shotgun style exchanges. There was a different question on the table when you asked your question, and it was directed at Kepha. That is why I didn't answer your question then.<BR/><BR/><I>As I told you last night, these are serious topics,</I><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2008/04/trivial-pursuit.html" REL="nofollow">Indeed</A>. If I'm wrong, then I'm trying to get people into a visible unity that Christ did not found. But if you're wrong, then you're leading people to remain in schism from the Church Christ did found.<BR/><BR/><I> and if you will keep going around the internet challenging and upsetting people about them, I hope you will at least see your argument through to its conclusion.</I><BR/><BR/>As a philosopher, I wouldn't even know how to construct an argument without a conclusion. For me that would be like trying to construct a square without a fourth side. :-) But if anything I have said is false, please feel free to refute it. <BR/><BR/>This kind of self-defense is not something I wish to do on my blog. I wish to talk about the things that divide us. I ask all who contribute here not to engage in <I>ad hominems</I>. And that includes <I>ad hominems</I> directed at me, my character, my motives, my charity, my intellectual integrity and sincerity, etc. My point in asking that is to create a context and tone in which people feel comfortable to state and defend their opinions and positions, while willing to have their positions criticized, but knowing that this is a context in which they themselves won't be attacked or insulted. That security is essential, in my opinion, for a fruitful ecumenical dialogue. I hope you will respect that request in your interaction with me.<BR/><BR/>Thanks John.<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-64106929056671968342008-09-07T16:40:00.000-05:002008-09-07T16:40:00.000-05:00Bryan,Well, I don't put a lot of stock in the idea...Bryan,<BR/><BR/>Well, I don't put a lot of stock in the idea of an "invisible church" either. The Church is visible -- it proclaims, it worships, it prays, and so on -- in short, it is the herald of the Gospel. This is obvious from scripture. There is, to be sure, those who are "saved," the true disciples of Christ, and those who are not, but to call the former the "invisible church" as if it is the "more true" or "more real" church is nonsense. They are two separate, different "things" -- to predicate "church" of both is a categorical mistake. The Church as visible is necessary because it is given the necessary task of heralding the Gospel. The "saved" are just that, the saved, and I leave it at that.<BR/><BR/>You attack the Protestant position as if it denies the visible Church in favor of an invisible Church. But, as Protestants have long pointed out, this is nonsense and a caricature of the Protestant position. Protestants deny that the Church is an object of faith the way Catholics believe it is, but they do not deny the necessity of the visible Church and the holy task to which the Church is appointed. The whole point of the Reformation was to reform the visible Church precisely because it is visible, commissioned by Christ.Kevin Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04313286544695110514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-71003318165149704372008-09-07T16:36:00.000-05:002008-09-07T16:36:00.000-05:00Bryan,You have left on at least two occasions when...Bryan,<BR/><BR/>You have left on at least two occasions when asked to substantiate historically your claims about the papacy:<BR/><BR/>See the discussion in <A HREF="http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2008/05/corpus-christi-and-ecclesial-docetism.html" REL="nofollow">"Corpus Christi and Ecclesial Docetism"</A>, which carried over into <A HREF="http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2008/06/schism-from-gnostic-point-of-view.html" REL="nofollow">"Schism from a Gnostic Point of View."</A> It was there that I explicitly pointed out to you how misleading your appeal to Tertullian was. You neither defended your presentation of Tertullian nor did you correct it on your page of selections from the fathers. You simply let the topic drop, and when a week later I attempted to get some kind of answer in the comments to <A HREF="http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2008/06/fathers-gave-rome-primacy.html" REL="nofollow">"The Fathers Gave Rome the Primacy,"</A> you still did not engage Schatz's work on the history of the papal primacy. By then you were too busy.<BR/><BR/>At Conscious Faith, where Kepha and I blog, I directly asked you in <A HREF="http://consciousfaith.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/many-parts-one-body/" REL="nofollow">"Many Parts, One Body"</A> about the history of the papacy, and you completely ignored my question. Kepha complained about this in one of his comments, but then you just stopped commenting.<BR/><BR/>As I told you last night, these are serious topics, and if you will keep going around the internet challenging and upsetting people about them, I hope you will at least see your argument through to its conclusion.<BR/><BR/>In Christ,<BR/><BR/>JohnIohanneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12743631955149934728noreply@blogger.com