Posing Problems in the Westminster Confession of Faith

[JohnMartin]

So the actual answer to the first question is: Do Catholics come to know this truth? No, they don't.

Yes they do, as evidenced by the historical witness to Papal statements, Statements made in the Council of Trent, the unanimous consent of the Church fathers, the Old Testament, and now the witness of modern science that has provided strong evidence for the special location of the earth in the universe.

If they did there wouldn't be so many - 90+%? - who remain 'ignorant' of it.

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

Yet another JM idea shot down immediately by JM himself.

No, just more evidence that you are immature.

JM

[DesertBerean]

[hedrick]

[Leonhard]

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.

[hedrick]

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.

This does point to an oddity about Catholic authority. While it claims to be able to make authoritative decisions, there doesn't seem to be an authoritative list of them. While in practical cases this doesn't seem to be a problem, at least in theory it seems to be a weakness.

[Roy]

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.

[hansgeorg]

Taking two chief points:

Sola Scriptura is not Biblical.

Scripture DOES say where we find infallible rule of interpretation:

Chapter 24 of the Gospel According to Saint Luke
http://drbo.org/chapter/49024.htm

[27] And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him.

... (same chapter)

[44] And he said to them: These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. [45] Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.

The Acts Of The Apostles : Chapter 1
http://drbo.org/chapter/51001.htm

[3] To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion, by many proofs, for forty days appearing to them, and speaking of the kingdom of God. [4] And eating together with them, he commanded them, that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but should wait for the promise of the Father, which you have heard (saith he) by my mouth.

In other words, Christ gave his disciples as crash course in OT exegesis. That crash course, not the text itself, nor just the parts of it making it to the NT, is infallible guide for Scripture exegesis.

And where is the whole of that crashcourse available?

In Catholic tradition.

[Roy]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[hansgeorg]

Try not to confuse your assertions with fact. Catholicism isn't monolithic either. How many Catholics go in for geocentrism these days?

Me.

I just diverged on one argument for Geocentrism or against Heliocentrism on JohnMartin's post, but agree Heliocentrism has no overall proof.

[hansgeorg]

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 problem does go away that easily.

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.

The first part is indeed conceivable - on the Catholic, non-Protestant, view that Christian doctrine is NOT established by Bible alone.

The second part is a very good argument for other things, like why the Bible does not describe the empty tomb of the Blessed Virgin Mary - according to oral tradition it happened and probably happened AFTER Luke had left off writing Acts (which in turn was before he went to Her himself and heard her version of the childhood Gospel).

But with disappearance of oral tradition, we have a greater problem than just non-mention in Bible.

We have a COUNTER-mention.

Matthew 28, verse 20, second half.

[Roy]

But with disappearance of oral tradition, we have a greater problem than just non-mention in Bible.

We have a COUNTER-mention.

Matthew 28, verse 20, second half.

Not really. "Teaching" does not have to be oral. cf MOOCs.

[One Bad Pig]

Me.

I just diverged on one argument for Geocentrism or against Heliocentrism on JohnMartin's post, but agree Heliocentrism has no overall proof.

Well, if you discount basic orbital dynamics, it might seem that way. Back in Galileo's day things weren't so obvious, but there's no excuse these days for hanging onto an outmoded model of the solar system based rather more on Ptolemaic speculation than scripture.

[hansgeorg]

Not really. "Teaching" does not have to be oral. cf MOOCs.

There are two points about that.

First is, Christ founded a Church. The locus provided says it cannot cease even for one day. That means it cannot shift position on even one essential - and that spells out a survival of oral tradition, as opposed to a Protestant scenario (aptly lampooned by followers of Joseph Smith because they note that mainstream protestants don't follow the logic out) in which oral tradition gets falsified, Church basically dies (at least as a visible pillar of truth) and has to be basically resurrected by study in what is left, namely written documents, including those written down between Jesus' giving an oral tradition and last Apostle dying or lying down in his grave.

Second is, teaching actually has to be oral in a continuous community. It is not exclusively oral, it backs up its oral teaching on a set of writings, but the oral teaching cannot cease unless the community ceases - which is precisely what the prophecy in Matthew 28:20, second half, excludes.

I do not know what MOOCs are, it rings a bell, but I have forgotten what it means.

Wait, do you mean ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massiv..._online_course

... or sth? Now, catechism could occasionally be given per correspondence to individuals (even apart from Epistles in NT), but that was not the most common or usual mode of transmission of faith, and therefore one could never have had a day in which it was only transmitted by correspondence.

[hansgeorg]

Well, if you discount basic orbital dynamics, it might seem that way.

The "basic orbital dynamics" you speak about hasn't been tested for being the true cause of day, month, year and of periods less concerned with earth (like orbit of Pluto).

Angelic movers are a fair alternative and with Tychonian orbits are giving a very beautiful piece of choreography.

And stars either being alive themselves OR, especially with a reference to St John of Damascus, moved by angels (since he excluded them being alive themselves, which Bishop Tempier of Paris confirmed in his condemnations of Laetare Sunday in Late 1276 or Early 1277) is clearly at least one major option of interpretation of certain words in the Bible.

Baruch 3:[34] And the stars have given light in their watches, and rejoiced: [35] They were called, and they said: Here we are: and with cheerfulness they have shined forth to him that made them.

And Saint Thomas Aquinas has interpreted a passage of Job in this way:

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Terra et Astra secundum Aquinatem in Commentario de Hiob capite xxxviij
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2014/05/terra-et-astra-secundum-aquinatem-in.html

Excerpted from Corpus Thomisticum : Sancti Thomae de Aquino
Expositio super Iob ad litteram
a capite XXXVIII ad caput XLI
http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/cio38.html

[Roy]

The "basic orbital dynamics" you speak about hasn't been tested for being the true cause of day, month, year and of periods less concerned with earth (like orbit of Pluto).

Err... yes it has. It's tested every time someone uses the orbital equations to predict a body's location. It's tested every time some-one points a telescope, or launches a satellite, or flies an aeroplane long-distance, or sets an alarm clock for dawn.

Angelic movers are a fair alternative ...

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