Wednesday, September 19, 2018

My brief PhD work in regard to Roman Catholic theology


Within my British PhD work, I found Roman Catholic Theologian, Alan Schreck quite useful academically, and have relied on Roman Catholic scholarship a fair amount in my academic work, on and offline, even with my somewhat different Reformed views.  I also documented work from  Roman Catholic theologian Peter Kreeft along with Ronald Tacelli.
---

Tradition

Roman Catholic theologian Alan Schreck states his Church agrees that the Bible is the inspired word of God,[1] but does not believe that the Bible is the only source of Revelation and spiritual guidance for Christians.[2]  A dividing point between Protestants and Catholics comes with Schreck’s idea that God within Catholic thought continues to select certain individuals that teach with God’s authority through the Holy Spirit.[3] Protestant and those within the Reformed camp have, at times throughout history disagreed, with the Biblical and theological interpretations of certain Roman Catholic leaders, in particular the Pope,[4] believed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.[5]

Trinity

Alan Schreck demonstrates the Catholic view is quite similar to Reformed on this issue as he explains it is a central belief of his Church,[6] and that the early Church comprised the word Trinity from the Biblical idea for the one God consisting of three equal and distinct divine persons.[7]  

Baptismal Regeneration

Concerning the idea of baptismal regeneration, Schreck explains that Roman Catholics view infant baptism ‘as normally the first step in accepting God’s salvation.’[8]  He admits that the New Testament does not explicitly state whether or not infants or children were baptized,[9] but it is possible they were as ‘whole households’ are mentioned in the New Testament as receiving baptism.[10]  He reasons that there is no solid evidence that before the third century infants and children were baptized in the Church,[11] but by the fifth century this practice was universal in the Church.[12]  The theological hope with the practice of infant baptism is that the initial stages of regeneration have taken place through the faith of the parents,[13] as Schreck notes ‘Jesus does respond in this way when infants and children are baptized.’[14]  In the baptism process it is Christ that saves, and therefore salvation is not merited.[15] Whale reasons infant baptism demonstrates that Christ did something for a person, without waiting for human approval.[16] Rebaptism[17] would never be needed as although baptized Roman Catholics can turn from the faith, if they do turn back to Christ the initial baptism is sufficient.[18] The sacrament of infant baptism is one of the ‘foundational stones of Church.’[19]

Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard reason it is not Biblically clear what type of baptism should be practiced.
[20]  Infant baptism is not taught in Scripture directly,[21] and therefore it can be deduced the same could be stated for the associated concepts of baptismal regeneration with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Churches. However, legitimate theological inference leads to concepts of infant baptism,[22] and so there are also historical arguments for baptismal regeneration within the Christian community which includes Catholic,[23] Eastern Orthodox, and even in some cases Presbyterian, Lutheran and Episcopal. 

BROMILEY, G.W. (1996) ‘Baptism, Infant’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) 
The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

KLEIN, WILLIAM W., CRAIG, C. BLOMBERG, AND ROBERT L. HUBBARD, JR. (1993) 
Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, London, Word Publishing 

SCHRECK, ALAN (1984) Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Servant Books. WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.

[1] Schreck (1984: 41). 
[2] Schreck (1984: 42). Strictly speaking as noted, those in Reformed theology do trust in non-Biblical truths for spiritual guidance. Calvin admitted this in the context of Scripture and tradition.  Calvin (1543)(1996: 64).   I should also add that any reliance on philosophy and philosophy of religion is not strictly Biblical and I and many Reformed scholars look to philosophy for truth.  
[3] Schreck (1984: 42). 
[4] Calvin explains, within The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, his opinion that at that point in history the Papacy was beyond Reform.  Calvin (1543)(1996: 17).
[5] Schreck (1984: 42). 
[6] Schreck (1984: 14). 
[7] Schreck (1984: 14).
[8] Schreck (1984: 124). 
[9] Schreck (1984: 126). 
[10] Schreck (1984: 126).  
[11] Schreck (1984: 127).  G.W. Bromiley writes that Irenaeus (ca. 130-ca. 200) and Origen (ca. 185-ca. 254) were Church Fathers that could be traced back to the Apostles, and these men practiced infant baptism.  Bromiley (1999: 116).  If Irenaeus did practice infant baptism, this would trace the practice to the second century.
[12] Schreck (1984: 127). 
[13] Schreck (1984: 128). 
[14] Schreck (1984: 128). 
[15] Schreck (1984: 128). 
[16] Whale (1958: 158).
[17] Or Believer’s Baptism as it is known within Baptist and Anabaptist theology.
[18] Schreck (1984: 129). 
[19] Whale (1958: 158).  Whale does not view infant baptism as mere dedication or as a rite effecting regeneration and so his position is not identical to Schreck’s, although he does support the sacrament being practiced.
[20] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard (1993: 140).
[21] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard (1993: 140).
[22] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard (1993: 140).
[23] Schreck (1984: 124).  

God and Sovereignty

Peter Kreeft (1988) explains that the problem of evil is the most serious problem in the world,[1] and is a very serious objection to theism.[2] 

Roman Catholics Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli (1994) suggest that God faces no real barriers in actions he wishes to commit, and that only what God allows, such as human sin, could thwart God’s plans.[3]   

They note if God did not allow human beings the option to misuse their freedom, they would not be human but animal or machine[4] having less value than creatures that had the potential to be persuaded by God to follow him, and turn from wrong doing.[5]

Satan

Kreeft, working with Ronald K. Tacelli, states Satan is a deceiver of humanity,[6] and this implies the assumption that Satan has personality.[7] 

In Regard to Calvinism

They note that some, but not all, forms of Calvinism subscribe to a view of hard determinism that denies any human free will.[8]  I would reason that in light of their statement[9] that most Calvinists are not hard determinists.[10]  

On Desires and Freewill

Kreeft and Tacelli approach desires in a similar way as Mele as they state that human beings have innate desire for natural things such as food and drink,[11] and external desires such as sports cars and political office.[12]  Kreeft and Tacelli’s innate desires concept would somewhat correspond to Mele’s intrinsic ones as these would be the inner most human desires.[13] Kreeft and Tacelli’s external desires would be similar to Mele’s extrinsic desires,[14] which would be secondary desires fulfilled in order to fulfill the deepest human desires.[15]

Immanence and Transcendence

Kreeft and Tacelli explain that God’s immanence means the creator must give created beings what they need.[16]  If God was not actively communicating being[17] to all his creation, his creation would cease to exist.[18] 

It is stated that God as transcendent is not part of the material universe.[19]  God is ‘other’ than his creation yet maintains it as transcendent.[20] 

Universalism

Kreeft and Tacelli explain that universalism is universal salvation and has been considered by some well-known orthodox Christians over the centuries[21] as a viable alternative to hell, although Kreeft and Tacelli reject this alternative.[22] 

KREEFT, PETER (1988) Fundamentals of the Faith, San Francisco, Ignatius Press. 

KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

MELE, ALFRED R. (1996) ‘Extrinsic Desire’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

[1] Kreeft (1988: 54-58).
[2] Kreeft (1988: 54-58).
[3] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 96).
[4] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 138).
[5] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 138).This assumes incompatibilism but it is true that human beings would be vastly different with significantly less freedom due to divine determining factors. 
[6] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 294).
[7] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 294).
[8] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 137).
[9] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 137).
[10] My research demonstrates that hard determinism is problematic for the majority of Calvinists and those within Reformed theology because Scripture (Romans 1-3, for example) condemns persons for sin and holds them morally accountable. Therefore, persons must at least freely embrace their own actions within soft determinism in order for punishment to be just.
[11] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 78).
[12] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 78).
[13] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 78). 
[14] Mele (1996: 259).
[15] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 78).
[16] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 93-94).
[17] Kreeft and Tacelli with the use of the word ‘being’ are stating that God, in an abstract sense, is communicating himself to his creation.
[18] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 93-94).
[19] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 93). 
[20] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 93). 
[21] This would, of course, provide another opportunity for a PhD thesis.
[22] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 286).

Edited from

Theodicy and Practical Theology (2010), The University of Wales, Trinity Saint David.

No comments:

Post a Comment