In my response to my point that he is committing a fallacy of emphasis, he insisted that his position is not novel and quoted (he claimed) from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Here's what he said:
I'll begin with #6 - My explanation is not new. The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia says: "But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam (aka Original Sin) — from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death." The article actually dates back to 1910 - before even my parents were born.Except that's not actually what the entry says. The "(aka Original Sin)" is Mr. Windsor's insertion. What it actually says is this:
I trust this will silence the false allegation that this was somehow my "novel interpretation." I have also posted this part of my response to TF's blog.
The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin, the state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam — from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.(bold is mine, italics are original)
After that, he claims he doesn't need to give a supporting argument for his assertion ("It is not up to me to point out what the supporting argument should be"). In the world of reason, of course, people can't just make assertions.
He goes on to address two arguments I did not make, to wit:
1) He points out that Luther didn't write in Greek. Who said he did? I certainly didn't say so.
2) He alleges that, in context, Luther can't be referring to Jesus' brethren. I'm quite sure Luther isn't talking about the conception of any of Jesus' brethren, and I certainly wasn't suggesting otherwise.
He then claims I've abandoned my Greek argument. What argument exactly? Presumably it is one of those two arguments I didn't make.
He clarifies that his use of "ACCURATE" to describe a translation here "refers to the misplaced insertion of Greek into this discussion as if to confuse the reader." While I grant that Mr. Windsor was one of my readers, and that he was quite confused, I think he has only himself to blame for that. I didn't suggest in the least that the Greek word was a translation of anything that Luther wrote.
Mr. Windsor then basically admits that he had no basis for his claim regarding "every translator" but argues that if there were at least two translators, then he was correct. Of course, the only thing he would appear to be correct about is in his defeat of the straw man position that the Greek word is supposed to appear in the English text.
Mr. Windsor identifies the perpetual virginity as a side topic, as it indeed it is. That was, of course, why the point was raised inside parenthesis in my original comment. It was an aside - a point of interest for the reader.
He then makes the untrue assertion: "TF is alleging Luther used Greek in his writings." Now, don't get me wrong. Luther probably did use Greek words in his writings at certain points, but that has not been my argument here. Mr. Windsor simply hasn't followed what I have said.
After quoting my demonstration of my position and over twenty quotations from Ineffabilis Deus, Mr. Windsor boldly alleges: "First off, TF has misrepresented Catholic teaching here." That is a bold allegation because I've just presented numerous quotations from an official papal document, and indeed from the very document that defines the dogma of the immaculate conception.
Mr. Windsor continues: "The whole document, Ineffabilis Deus, does not define the Immaculate Conception - only one paragraph in it does and here it is for the reader". One supposes that Mr. Windsor thinks this contradicts my characterization of Ineffabilis Deus as "the document that defined the dogma." If he does think that, it's simply because of some weakness of his own. The document defines the dogma, whether it does so in one of its many paragraphs or all of its many paragraphs - the same way that Pope Pius IX defined the dogma, although that does not mean that every word that ever came out of Pope Pius IX's mouth (or pen) was the definition of the dogma. This is really just elementary English, in my opinion, but pointing this kind of thing out brings complaints of ad hominem from Mr. Windsor. In point of fact, my characterization is pretty much exactly the same characterization that one will find at EWTN, which describes Ineffabilis Deus as "Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius IX solemnly defining the dogma of the Immaulate Conception, 8 December 1854."
Mr. Windsor then quoted the formal definition of the dogma. Ironically, this formal definition is actually not a whole paragraph, or even a whole sentence. It is part of one sentence of one paragraph of one section of the document. Nevertheless, I think in fairness to Mr. Windsor we should point out that the portion he quoted is the formal definition, could stand alone as a sentence, and is long enough to be a paragraph.
Mr. Windsor then stated: "That's it - the rest of the document is Pope Pius IX's explanations - but the only part which can be called 'infallible' is the definition itself." Again, who said otherwise? I certainly didn't.
Mr. Windsor then states:
Secondly, the definition makes no mention of the temporal punishments due to Original Sin, and we believe she did suffer and die - which are part of these temporal punishments. Some may maintain that she didn't die - and was taken up just prior to her death - THAT definition only specifies "having completed the course of earthly life..."Yes, those who follow Rome cannot decide amongst themselves whether or not Mary died. And yes, Roman theology, even though it teaches that Mary was preserved from original sin, irrationally permits her to suffer the punishments due to sin. We will gladly grant Mr. Windsor those points - particularly since we have never said otherwise.
Of course, none of that supports Mr. Windsor's claim that Mary had original sin, just not its stain (as though the two were separable). And furthermore, if Mr. Windsor believes that the meaning of the words of the paragraph defining the dogma can be considered in a vacuum, without considering the usage of the words throughout the document, he is mistaken. Even though the rest of the document is not considered "infallible," it still provides the context in which the defining paragraph is to be understood.
Mr. Windsor's attempt to isolate the part of the sentence from its context is noted but futile. We all know that it has to be understood within context in order to be properly understood. Even Mr. Windsor knows that, whether he wants to admit it or not.
Moreover, while the rest of document may not be "infallible," it is still official. It is still papal. Mr. Windsor cannot simply ignore it because it contradicts his position. As between what Pope Pius IX thinks Roman theology is and what layman Windsor thinks Roman theology is, I think it is not "ludicrous" to think that it is Mr. Windsor who has a deficient understanding of Roman teaching.
-TurretinFan
19 comments:
"... The article actually dates back to 1910 - before even my parents were born."
I find that one sentence as well as the equivocations ironic.
My father, a Pomo Indian, was born on the Indian reservation my grandparents were forced to live on in the last decade of the 1800's. He was actually born into this world while my grandmother was out in the vineyards working. It came time to give birth so the old women gathered to prepare for the delivery. My grandmother put her back up against an old oak tree and started the birthing process when they were ready to receive the new born into the family of indians of my reservation, pushing! I can only image what that was like.
When my boys were born I was present and my wife didn't us any medications or yell. We were in a birthing room inside a sanitary hospital. I suppose my grandmother did not yell either. I suppose it was like that with the birth of my dad in 1910, no yelling, just a calm painful pushing until birth.
What's the point?
Well the RCC was governing the affairs of the Indians of my reservation back then. Thankfully they are not now. Their presence is still there. They built a building there and a Priest comes by ever so often, nothing regular to conduct mass or a funeral or holiday service according to their dogmas.
I am ashamed to tell you what was taught to my people on our indian reservation during my days there.
For the most part my people were interested in the Truth, not equivocations or false interpretations.
It doesn't seem to matter or be of any concern that time and time again issues like the ones being addressed in here with Scott's interpretation of what another wrote; here's the direct quote:
"Except that's not actually what the entry says. The "(aka Original Sin)" is Mr. Windsor's insertion. What it actually says is this: ..."
I cannot count the number of times I have read something similar to that after reading something a Romanist wrote in defense of their view of Truth or truths about Him!
I am convinced of two things now that Truth has come to me and revealed the Father to me; and the Father has reveal Him to me; and the Holy Spirit began working sanctification upon my spirit, soul and body.
First, the RCC is built on something other than the Rock, Who is Christ, the Truth.
Second, seeing the god of this world is revealed to be a liar, a thief, a murderer at the core of his own doing and being, (this is a mystery), all who are a part of his ways end up being accused of equivocations or misrepresenting what another meant or, at times sadly, outright lying.
It is not just a phenomenon of the RCC. Liars exist in all religions and corporations and yes, even in the Church as we learn by reading and understanding the Scriptures.
Paul's letter to Titus comes to mind. Sometimes Saints lie or deceive or are given to sophistry.
Thanks again for the work you are doing TF. It simply amazes me the track God is leading you on! For me, it has been quite an adventure to follow along and give comments from time to time in response to your threads! :)
At the end of the day, the same outcome awaits you as does every soul of Adam who finds their practice coming into the Truth as such as Psalm 143 teaches us, cited below:
"Psa 143:9 Deliver me from my enemies, O LORD! I have fled to you for refuge!
Psa 143:10 Teach me to do your will, for you are my God! Let your good Spirit lead me on level ground!
Psa 143:11 For your name's sake, O LORD, preserve my life! In your righteousness bring my soul out of trouble!
Psa 143:12 And in your steadfast love you will cut off my enemies, and you will destroy all the adversaries of my soul, for I am your servant."
TF leaves yet another smoldering crater in a spot a Romanist position once attempted to occupy.
In my opinion Romanist e-pologists like Scott Windsor and Dave Armstrong are funny. But not funny like someone who is trying to be funny, like a clown for example, but funny like a confused dog barking angrily at its reflection in a mirror.
Moving right along, there's a small editorial housekeeping item that needs attention, "provide" should be "provides":
Even though the rest of the document is not considered "infallible," it still provide the context in which the defining paragraph is to be understood.
In Him,
CD
Thanks for the correction! I have updated the post to reflect it.
nat wrote: It doesn't seem to matter or be of any concern that time and time again issues like the ones being addressed in here with Scott's interpretation of what another wrote; here's the direct quote:
"Except that's not actually what the entry says. The "(aka Original Sin)" is Mr. Windsor's insertion. What it actually says is this: ..."
I cannot count the number of times I have read something similar to that after reading something a Romanist wrote in defense of their view of Truth or truths about Him!
I defy you, nat or TF, to demonstrate how "aka Original Sin" is not aka "the temporal penalties of Adam." Certainly there are nuances here - but the "temporal penalties of Adam" IS Original Sin!
Your defiant attitude is noted. However, from the same encyclopedia you so love:
"We shall examine the several effects of Adam's fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:
(1) Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam." (bold emphasis is mine)
(link for the skeptic)
-TurretinFan
I concede the CE says this in a separate encyclopedic article. My initial point remains, but let me adjust the terminology to fit even this encyclopedic reference:
That which we received from the fall of Adam is the stain of Original Sin and the temporal punishments DUE TO Original Sin. The punishments are not the sin itself, but are due to the sin - thus we receive both the stain of the sin and the punishments due the sin. Note, on page 312 of the same article TF references it also says:
I. Meaning Original Sin may be taken to mean (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are all born on account of our origin or descent from Adam
Now, in the case of the Blessed Virgin Mary, through the Holy Ghost she was preserved from the active essence of Original Sin at the very first moment of her conception - and this is referred to as the Immaculate Conception. However, she was not exempted from the consequences due to the First/Original Sin of our father Adam. I submit, this has been my position all along. TF when he initially confronted me on this basically accused me of making it up - but what I've shown him from the CE proves I did not make it up. Try as he may to play a game of semantics - he was just plain wrong in his initial implication/accusation - and I am vindicated by the CE article.
Mr. Windsor:
You wrote: "I concede the CE says this in a separate encyclopedic article."
How about you just concede you were wrong?
You wrote: "My initial point remains, ..."
No, it doesn't. It's as dead as a doornail.
You wrote: "...but let me adjust the terminology to fit even this encyclopedic reference:"
Well - let's see what you say now ...
You wrote: "That which we received from the fall of Adam is the stain of Original Sin and the temporal punishments DUE TO Original Sin. The punishments are not the sin itself, but are due to the sin - thus we receive both the stain of the sin and the punishments due the sin."
ok
You wrote: "Note, on page 312 of the same article TF references it also says:
I. Meaning Original Sin may be taken to mean (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are all born on account of our origin or descent from Adam"
The original sin is "eating the forbidden fruit." What we call "original sin" in theology (both Roman and Reformed, which differ, of course) is a consequence of that sin. The effects of the original sin are both sin and the punishment due to sin. As the article I linked and quoted point out, in Roman theology the "temporal punishments" are separated from the sin. However, the "stain of original sin" is used (as I said) interchangeably with "original sin" in the theological sense of the word.
You wrote: "Now, in the case of the Blessed Virgin Mary, through the Holy Ghost she was preserved from the active essence of Original Sin at the very first moment of her conception - and this is referred to as the Immaculate Conception. However, she was not exempted from the consequences due to the First/Original Sin of our father Adam."
ok - that's great
You wrote: "I submit, this has been my position all along."
I submit you've revised your position as you went along - as you learned from us what your church teaches. But, anyway, now that you know better, perhaps you'll avoid making the same mistakes you made in the original article and in your comment above.
You wrote: "TF when he initially confronted me on this basically accused me of making it up - but what I've shown him from the CE proves I did not make it up."
I think the record above pretty much speaks for itself about who is making what up. My position about what your church teaches has stayed the same withstood your defiant criticism. Yours has adapted.
Your comment that I'm addressing now makes no attempt to separate the sin from the stain and no longer confuses the punishment and the sin, like your previous comments.
You wrote: "Try as he may to play a game of semantics - he was just plain wrong in his initial implication/accusation - and I am vindicated by the CE article."
That's simply not true, though you may well believe what you yourself are saying. Look over the record. Observe your own initial attempt to separate the "STAIN" and the sin, then your attempt to say that the punishments are the sin, and now your recognition of the obvious fact that your church says what I have been saying it says all along.
-TurretinFan
Scott,
why defy the Truth?
Here is one, during the adventure he was called to lead until death moved him on, because of Adam's sin:
Luk 2:25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him.
Luk 2:26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ.
Luk 2:27 And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the Law,
Luk 2:28 he took him up in his arms and blessed God and said,
Luk 2:29 "Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to your word;
Luk 2:30 for my eyes have seen your salvation
Luk 2:31 that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples,
Luk 2:32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel."
The sweetness of this man's soul is only overshadowed by the bitter bite of his death. He did not die alone, as some die leaving misery aside as they enter eternal damnation prepared for Satan and his angels.
The Apostle Paul rightly wrote of Truth, this:
1Co 15:21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
All I can offer you Scott is an olive branch, Living Hope, Alive and well and ready to redeem all those given to Him!
Finally, weasel your way anyway you wish? You as well will know this to be True yourself:
Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,
Heb 9:28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
or this:
Isa 2:6 For you have rejected your people, the house of Jacob, because they are full of things from the east and of fortune-tellers like the Philistines, and they strike hands with the children of foreigners.
Isa 2:7 Their land is filled with silver and gold, and there is no end to their treasures; their land is filled with horses, and there is no end to their chariots.
Isa 2:8 Their land is filled with idols; they bow down to the work of their hands, to what their own fingers have made.
Isa 2:9 So man is humbled, and each one is brought low-- do not forgive them!
Isa 2:10 Enter into the rock and hide in the dust from before the terror of the LORD, and from the splendor of his majesty.
Isa 2:11 The haughty looks of man shall be brought low, and the lofty pride of men shall be humbled, and the LORD alone will be exalted in that day.
Isa 2:12 For the LORD of hosts has a day against all that is proud and lofty, against all that is lifted up--and it shall be brought low;
Isa 2:13 against all the cedars of Lebanon, lofty and lifted up; and against all the oaks of Bashan;
Isa 2:14 against all the lofty mountains, and against all the uplifted hills;
Isa 2:15 against every high tower, and against every fortified wall;
Isa 2:16 against all the ships of Tarshish, and against all the beautiful craft.
Isa 2:17 And the haughtiness of man shall be humbled, and the lofty pride of men shall be brought low, and the LORD alone will be exalted in that day.
Isa 2:18 And the idols shall utterly pass away.
Isa 2:19 And people shall enter the caves of the rocks and the holes of the ground, from before the terror of the LORD, and from the splendor of his majesty, when he rises to terrify the earth.
Isa 2:20 In that day mankind will cast away their idols of silver and their idols of gold, which they made for themselves to worship, to the moles and to the bats,
Isa 2:21 to enter the caverns of the rocks and the clefts of the cliffs, from before the terror of the LORD, and from the splendor of his majesty, when he rises to terrify the earth.
nat,
You're not on the same page here, TF and I were discussing MY position on the Church's definition of the Immaculate Conception. TF is under the impression he knows the Catholic teaching better than I do, but he's been schooled here - whether he wishes to admit it or not does not matter. As he said himself, the record shows. He asked me to show how my position on the Immaculate Conception was not something I made up myself - and I documented the CE saying virtually the same thing I said - several decades before I was born. I didn't make it up - and that's the bottom line of this discussion.
TF writes: You wrote: "I concede the CE says this in a separate encyclopedic article."
How about you just concede you were wrong?
I would concede if you could prove your case - but you have not, and conversely, I have proven mine. You will, I'm sure, disagree, but you can't change the facts. You do have the power to delete them, but you can't change them (and I'm archiving as we go in case you decide to delete).
You wrote: "My initial point remains, ..."
No, it doesn't. It's as dead as a doornail.
Just because you say so doesn't make it so. I quoted the CE saying virtually the same thing I said - so you found another article seemingly contradicting what I said. From the same article you cited, but on a different page (I refer you again to page 312 of that same document) - which proved your premise to be false and thus your conclusion invalid.
My initial point stands.
A point of clarification too...
TF said: "from the same encyclopedia you so love:
I never made any comment about whether or not I liked the 1917 CE, much less "love" it. The sole purpose for referring to it in this discussion was to demonstrate the position TF implies I have "made up" actually pre-existed me by decades.
It is not a matter of TF agreeing with me or the CE, only that the concept I spoke of was not original to me. TF has been answered.
SW wrote: "TF is under the impression he knows the Catholic teaching better than I do, but he's been schooled here - whether he wishes to admit it or not does not matter."
Actually, the record shows whose defiant challenge was met, and who is hastily revising his position.
SW wrote: "I never made any comment about whether or not I liked the 1917 CE, much less "love" it."
I couldn't care less how you feel about the encyclopedia. I'll use any description that makes you happy. The point, which I trust was obvious to most people, was simply that it was the same encyclopedia you quoted.
- TurretinFan
SW wrote: "I would concede if you could prove your case - but you have not, and conversely, I have proven mine. You will, I'm sure, disagree, but you can't change the facts. You do have the power to delete them, but you can't change them (and I'm archiving as we go in case you decide to delete)."
I'm inclined to start deleting your further comments that just claim victory without actually adding anything of substance to the discussion. Let this be your warning.
- TurretinFan
Scott:
"...nat,
You're not on the same page here, TF and I were discussing MY position on the Church's definition of the Immaculate Conception...."
Are you looking for sympathy from me?
I thought I was on the same page and find it is a pattern with you to not deal directly with the issues, whichever one is being addressed.
I was not zeroing in on your one particular defining point, salient that it is, about who it is that was used historically to bring this teaching into existence, rather I was offering general comment about the character of the beast and the false prophet that seems to permeate your religion.
This is not novel with the RCC as I said, reiterated again, here:
"...It is not just a phenomenon of the RCC. Liars exist in all religions and corporations and yes, even in the Church as we learn by reading and understanding the Scriptures.
Paul's letter to Titus comes to mind. Sometimes Saints lie or deceive or are given to sophistry."
Thank you for responding to my comments nevertheless.
Again, the stark reality here and the difference with us and all false religions and human practices of men can best be summed up using the Words of the Prophet Isaiah:
Isa 2:22 Stop regarding man in whose nostrils is breath, for of what account is he?
TF writes: I'm inclined to start deleting your further comments that just claim victory without actually adding anything of substance to the discussion. Let this be your warning.
FACT 1: I initially stated, on another blog, my position on the IC stating that the Blessed Virgin while being purified from the STAIN of Original Sin was not exempted from the temporal punishments due to Original Sin. You accused me of making that up, I demonstrated how the concept existed long before I did.
FACT 2: You went to a different article in the 1917 CE in an attempt to prove Original Sin could not also refer to the consequences of the Original Sin. Now, keep in mind an encyclopedia is a collection of articles by different authors in different contexts. The different contexts are not always speaking to the same issue.
FACT 3: Related to FACT 2, in the SAME ARTICLE you quoted from I showed where Original Sin can be 1) the actual sin of Adam passed on to us and 2) the consequences of that sin. The context of the article YOU CITED has BETRAYED your conclusion!
I affirm that I did not "claim victory without adding anything of substance" when I pointed out the context of the same source, same article which you cited supported precisely what I said initially on the other blog.
Scott<<<
Consider this... one of the "consequences" of the Original Sin was being kicked out of the Garden of Eden. This was done, as the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” (Gen. 3:22). Thus, this "tree of life" which they were NOT forbidden to eat from became a "consequence" of the Original Sin - and therefore death itself is one of those consequences. Mary was not spared from this consequence. Nor was she spared from sorrow and suffering - also consequences of the Original Sin.
Scott<<<
Scott:
You're quite confused. I'll try to set you straight in a new post. But it may be my last post on this topic.
-TurretinFan
Well TF, I know what I said the first time this topic came up, and I know what my intentions were - and remain. The Blessed Virgin Mary at the first moment of her conception was preserved from all stain of original sin. She was not exempted from the consequences of original sin however, and she too stood in need of the Redeemer, her Son. I stand by that. Whether or not you or others agree with me on this is immaterial to what I said and you asked of me. I have provided enough evidence to demonstrate I did not make this up.
Scott<<<
Mr. Windsor:
Just wait until you see the new post. It will make things as clearly as I hope I can make them for you.
-TurretinFan
Post a Comment