Recent Cross Examination with Ben Rosado
Well, if you haven’t been keeping up with them, I have finally been able to have a formal debate with a Roman Catholic gentleman by the name of Ben Rosado who I met on YouTube of all places. He is a very sincere fellow and a super nice guy from what I can tell.
Overall there were some good exchange and seeking of understanding on each others part. I was really pleased with the questions that Ben asked for clarification on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura because many have the idea that the doctrine means “separation from all other authorities and responsibility when interpreting the Scriptures.” In other words, it is taken that the doctrine worked out practically means that Protestant can interpret the Bible any way they please. This is hardly the case, nor is it really a direct implication from the doctrine as stated historically. Quite honestly, it is a caricature that seems to come from the Council of Trent and many other caricatures of Roman Catholic apologist.
I can honestly say, I understand Rome’s attempt to want say that Scripture should be interpreted correctly for the people of God. But just like the Jews want to put a “hedge” around the law with their “traditions” and ended up actually putting people and themselves further from God, so involving the “traditions” of – what I believe were good men – to act as the supplemental revelation to Scripture that alone, may correctly interpret Scripture. I won’t say that these men are “rolling over in their graves” because they are in the eternal bliss of heaven. I honestly don’t think these men ever intended their own words to be taken as revelation especially when you see what a high view of Scripture they had.
I only wish I could have quoted the Fathers more about their view of Scripture and then one could easily see what caused Luther or Calvin to hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Luther, especially being an Augustinian monk was immersed in Augustine’s work and surely would have come across statements like the ones I quoted in my second rebuttal. Reading Calvin’s institutes one is bound to run into a quote or two from Augustine or some other Father. I’m not saying the Father’s were perfect, but a fair reading of their works certainly doesn’t – as some “Protestant” assume – give basis for many Roman Catholic dogmas as Roman Catholics believe. At best, the Fathers were inconsistent, but certainly not Roman Catholic as Trent defined Roman Catholicism.
That being said, I was really disappointed that Ben was not familiar with how Rome dogmatically referred to “tradition” in the Council of Trent and even Vatican I as the “unanimous consent of the Fathers”. I’m not sure if it is obvious, or if I had mentioned it in the intro, but Ben is “Charismatic Catholic”. Now, I knew this going into the debate and I figured Ben’s knowledge of Dogmatic material might not be on par with what I have studied from the official teaching documents of Rome. But therein lies the key, I think.
As I pointed out in my Cross Examination rebuttal statement, there is a significant difference with how he defines “tradition” and how “tradition” has been dogmatically defined as. Also, there is the “partim-partim” view of revelation that is that “tradition” is revelation just like Scripture is and functions along side Scripture. Also, according to the Catechism as well as Trent and Vatican I, “sacred tradition” functions as the interpretive tool, the hermeneutical key as it were, to arriving at the correct interpretation of the Scripture. Mr. Rosado, rather, asserted that “tradition” is the “true interpretation of Scripture”, thus “tradition” as a product of Scripture rather than a tool for interpreting Scripture.
Now, I don’t want to say this means that I’m not debating a Roman Catholic. While I might not be debating one who is familiar with all the official and dogmatic teachings or documents of Rome, nevertheless, he considers himself Roman Catholic and, in a sense, he probably understands the “popular” teachings of Roman Catholicism rather than its academic representation. So there is still some validity in discussing with Him.
I didn’t really want to push the “Charismatic Catholic” issue in the Cross Exam, but maybe I should have. At one point he mentioned the “thousands of denominations of Protestantism” over against a unified Roman Catholic Church. Obviously I don’t see the validity in the argument as the statistics in how they come up with the “denomination count” is not what one expects. Eric Svendsen’s work, “Upon this Slippery Rock” has revealed that a “denomination” is not necessarily a significant gap in beliefs, but can be a different locale or name for a Church in the same denomination! For instance, - if I remember correct – a 1st Baptist Church could be counted as one denomination while a 2nd Baptist Church was also counted as a denomination! But are these really significant differences, especially regarding salvation? Both Church could be members of the Southern Baptist Convention or some other Evangelical organization, but they are counted as separate denominations. Each Protestant denomination, however, is unified in believing in Sola Fide and even Sola Scriptura.
Svendsen takes the time to show that distinctions within Rome are actually more in number and more significant than the supposed differences within Protestantism.
Needless to say, being a “charismatic Catholic” means that at some points, there is some departure with what is considered “mainline” Roman Catholicism. Let’s face it, the charismatic movement is something that has overtaken some denominations and not as an officially sanctioned side of it. Methodism in general – though having some history in Pentecostal phenomena and history – does not officially sanction the movement. Baptist, Presbyterians, etc…don’t officially sanction it but consider it “their own daughter who came home with a tattoo” (I heard something like that about the Methodist movement within Anglicanism by a Church history professor of mine, LOL). Thus, the fact that Ben is in a “sect of Catholicism” that has some significant differences from the dogmatic statements is not to be taken lightly, especially if there is the “30,000 denomination” argument.
Overall there were some good exchange and seeking of understanding on each others part. I was really pleased with the questions that Ben asked for clarification on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura because many have the idea that the doctrine means “separation from all other authorities and responsibility when interpreting the Scriptures.” In other words, it is taken that the doctrine worked out practically means that Protestant can interpret the Bible any way they please. This is hardly the case, nor is it really a direct implication from the doctrine as stated historically. Quite honestly, it is a caricature that seems to come from the Council of Trent and many other caricatures of Roman Catholic apologist.
I can honestly say, I understand Rome’s attempt to want say that Scripture should be interpreted correctly for the people of God. But just like the Jews want to put a “hedge” around the law with their “traditions” and ended up actually putting people and themselves further from God, so involving the “traditions” of – what I believe were good men – to act as the supplemental revelation to Scripture that alone, may correctly interpret Scripture. I won’t say that these men are “rolling over in their graves” because they are in the eternal bliss of heaven. I honestly don’t think these men ever intended their own words to be taken as revelation especially when you see what a high view of Scripture they had.
I only wish I could have quoted the Fathers more about their view of Scripture and then one could easily see what caused Luther or Calvin to hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Luther, especially being an Augustinian monk was immersed in Augustine’s work and surely would have come across statements like the ones I quoted in my second rebuttal. Reading Calvin’s institutes one is bound to run into a quote or two from Augustine or some other Father. I’m not saying the Father’s were perfect, but a fair reading of their works certainly doesn’t – as some “Protestant” assume – give basis for many Roman Catholic dogmas as Roman Catholics believe. At best, the Fathers were inconsistent, but certainly not Roman Catholic as Trent defined Roman Catholicism.
That being said, I was really disappointed that Ben was not familiar with how Rome dogmatically referred to “tradition” in the Council of Trent and even Vatican I as the “unanimous consent of the Fathers”. I’m not sure if it is obvious, or if I had mentioned it in the intro, but Ben is “Charismatic Catholic”. Now, I knew this going into the debate and I figured Ben’s knowledge of Dogmatic material might not be on par with what I have studied from the official teaching documents of Rome. But therein lies the key, I think.
As I pointed out in my Cross Examination rebuttal statement, there is a significant difference with how he defines “tradition” and how “tradition” has been dogmatically defined as. Also, there is the “partim-partim” view of revelation that is that “tradition” is revelation just like Scripture is and functions along side Scripture. Also, according to the Catechism as well as Trent and Vatican I, “sacred tradition” functions as the interpretive tool, the hermeneutical key as it were, to arriving at the correct interpretation of the Scripture. Mr. Rosado, rather, asserted that “tradition” is the “true interpretation of Scripture”, thus “tradition” as a product of Scripture rather than a tool for interpreting Scripture.
Now, I don’t want to say this means that I’m not debating a Roman Catholic. While I might not be debating one who is familiar with all the official and dogmatic teachings or documents of Rome, nevertheless, he considers himself Roman Catholic and, in a sense, he probably understands the “popular” teachings of Roman Catholicism rather than its academic representation. So there is still some validity in discussing with Him.
I didn’t really want to push the “Charismatic Catholic” issue in the Cross Exam, but maybe I should have. At one point he mentioned the “thousands of denominations of Protestantism” over against a unified Roman Catholic Church. Obviously I don’t see the validity in the argument as the statistics in how they come up with the “denomination count” is not what one expects. Eric Svendsen’s work, “Upon this Slippery Rock” has revealed that a “denomination” is not necessarily a significant gap in beliefs, but can be a different locale or name for a Church in the same denomination! For instance, - if I remember correct – a 1st Baptist Church could be counted as one denomination while a 2nd Baptist Church was also counted as a denomination! But are these really significant differences, especially regarding salvation? Both Church could be members of the Southern Baptist Convention or some other Evangelical organization, but they are counted as separate denominations. Each Protestant denomination, however, is unified in believing in Sola Fide and even Sola Scriptura.
Svendsen takes the time to show that distinctions within Rome are actually more in number and more significant than the supposed differences within Protestantism.
Needless to say, being a “charismatic Catholic” means that at some points, there is some departure with what is considered “mainline” Roman Catholicism. Let’s face it, the charismatic movement is something that has overtaken some denominations and not as an officially sanctioned side of it. Methodism in general – though having some history in Pentecostal phenomena and history – does not officially sanction the movement. Baptist, Presbyterians, etc…don’t officially sanction it but consider it “their own daughter who came home with a tattoo” (I heard something like that about the Methodist movement within Anglicanism by a Church history professor of mine, LOL). Thus, the fact that Ben is in a “sect of Catholicism” that has some significant differences from the dogmatic statements is not to be taken lightly, especially if there is the “30,000 denomination” argument.
posted by prchdaword at 6:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home