I love the Reformation & Liberal Christianity history lesson Keith Ward is presenting. It is a refreshing reminder of my understanding of the origins man's evolution of thought and belief relative to God and Jesus.
Keith Ward is mistaken at 17:09 ff. when he says that the II Vatican Council changed Pius IX doctrine about religious freedom. Check the Cathecism of the Catholic Church (1992), nn. 2104-2109.
Using his definition of liberal i am a liberal. But using Niebuhr definition i am not: "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.". Besides i believe that many times the problem is not that we cannot know what the bible says, but that we pick and choose according to our reason what part we want to believe. Thats why so many Liberals cannot conceive of the bible as something that is criticizing us but just as something that we need to criticize.
I'm sorry to say that the alleged Catholic definition of Faith given by Keith Ward at 42:50 is another oversimplification that does not match with what one may read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), nn. 1814-1816.
I'm very much puzzled with the oversimplificated answer Ward gives at 41:02 to the question: "Why is one a Catholic?" Notable English Catholic converts such as Newman, G. K. Chesterton or Maurice Baring do not fit in that frame...
One is Catholic because they are not a Christian. Catholicism is a utterly different Faith and not the one that is given of God,it's origins are in man., then again, so is 'Liberalism'...and so are all the other 'world religions'. The Reality is Christianity is not a religion, but a Person.,and the person is not the pope. If the pope's of this world Knew Him (as well man pastors/preachers/ 'clergyman'..they'd be utterly ashamed, just as Job in Job 42:5-6, they'd all repent in dust and ashes for playing God. but the Catholic System cannot say, 'Is this thing in my right hand not a lie. "(then again, many protestors fall in line with the same). The Fact Remains: "My Sheep Know My Voice and they follow Me"...you did not choose Me, but I chose you". "apart from Me you can do nothing". (not, 'apart from the catholic belief system you are not truly a child of God although He might be merciful after you go through 'non-existent' purgatory'.
"16:30" . The 1864 syllabus of errors statement about people not being free to embrace and profess whatever religion they consider, by the light of reason, true, was a response to direct challenges of religious indifferentism and rationalism of the time, ie that it doesn't matter what religion you believe and you are therefore morally free (without duty) to choose any religion and that all religious beliefs are merely creations of human reason and so reason alone, unaided by faith and revelation is the final arbiter of truth. Those beliefs are errors and in that context the statement can be seen to be correct. The statement he gives from the second vatican council that the human person has a right to religious freedom is referring to the Civil right to freedom from coercion or suppression by the state (or others) to public religious activity that is in keeping with the common good not a moral licence to adhere to error nor a moral right to error. The Church has always taught that people should not be forced to accept christianity privately (although people still have a moral duty towards it), but matters of what degree of public religious freedom is allowable depends upon the social circumstances in each particular society. So the 1864 syllabus error stated was not wrong, and later changed as Mr Ward suggests.
I wonder how professor Ward could be so wrong about the interpretation of the vatican council's statement, because it seems to be clear enough. If there was such a freedom the magisterium of the church would be meaningless.
I'm both a Catholic and a sincere admirer of Keith Ward; but the definition of Papal infalibility he gives at 11:33 ff. is incomplete: the Pope is NOT infallible in those circumstances. You find an crystal-clear synthesis of when He IS infallible in good old books such as Conway's "Question Box". That more than a few Roman Catholic theologians don't know anything about the matter is hardly a surprise, at least for me. Some of them believe they are the third source of Revelation! Need I say more?
Read for yourselves .. .Quoting Acts 15 :1-18 ..." 15 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. 7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." James never sent anyone to tell the people that they had to keep the laws. Now where did he got that from ?
Like most Protestants, you lack understanding on this issue. Luther wrongly interpreted the phrase "works of the law" to mean good works. Paul was writing about the RITUAL laws of Moses, not the moral law; he makes this clear in the book of Galatians in chapter 5. The book of Hebrews confirms this to be the position of the early church, when it describes the Mosaic system of ritual sacrifices obsolete, since the sacrifice of Christ has fulfilled the plan of God in a more perfect way.
I love the Reformation & Liberal Christianity history lesson Keith Ward is presenting. It is a refreshing reminder of my understanding of the origins man's evolution of thought and belief relative to God and Jesus.
Keith Ward is mistaken at 17:09 ff. when he says that the II Vatican Council changed Pius IX doctrine about religious freedom. Check the Cathecism of the Catholic Church (1992), nn. 2104-2109.
Using his definition of liberal i am a liberal. But using Niebuhr definition i am not: "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.". Besides i believe that many times the problem is not that we cannot know what the bible says, but that we pick and choose according to our reason what part we want to believe. Thats why so many Liberals cannot conceive of the bible as something that is criticizing us but just as something that we need to criticize.
lol did Ward take a jab at N.T. Wright at 35:35?!
LOL. YES!
Do you know where the second part of this video is? I would like to see Keith Ward speak about the 2nd Vatican Council.
I'm sorry to say that the alleged Catholic definition of Faith given by Keith Ward at 42:50 is another oversimplification that does not match with what one may read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), nn. 1814-1816.
I think you are right objective bob. It sounds like nt Wright
I'm very much puzzled with the oversimplificated answer Ward gives at 41:02 to the question: "Why is one a Catholic?" Notable English Catholic converts such as Newman, G. K. Chesterton or Maurice Baring do not fit in that frame...
One is Catholic because they are not a Christian. Catholicism is a utterly different Faith and not the one that is given of God,it's origins are in man., then again, so is 'Liberalism'...and so are all the other 'world religions'. The Reality is Christianity is not a religion, but a Person.,and the person is not the pope. If the pope's of this world Knew Him (as well man pastors/preachers/ 'clergyman'..they'd be utterly ashamed, just as Job in Job 42:5-6, they'd all repent in dust and ashes for playing God. but the Catholic System cannot say, 'Is this thing in my right hand not a lie. "(then again, many protestors fall in line with the same). The Fact Remains: "My Sheep Know My Voice and they follow Me"...you did not choose Me, but I chose you". "apart from Me you can do nothing". (not, 'apart from the catholic belief system you are not truly a child of God although He might be merciful after you go through 'non-existent' purgatory'.
"16:30" . The 1864 syllabus of errors statement about people not being free to embrace and profess whatever religion they consider, by the light of reason, true, was a response to direct challenges of religious indifferentism and rationalism of the time,
ie that it doesn't matter what religion you believe and you are therefore morally free (without duty) to choose any religion and that all religious beliefs are merely creations of human reason and so reason alone, unaided by faith and revelation is the final arbiter of truth. Those beliefs are errors and in that context the statement can be seen to be correct.
The statement he gives from the second vatican council that the human person has a right to religious freedom is referring to the Civil right to freedom from coercion or suppression by the state (or others) to public religious activity that is in keeping with the common good not a moral licence to adhere to error nor a moral right to error. The Church has always taught that people should not be forced to accept christianity privately (although people still have a moral duty towards it), but matters of what degree of public religious freedom is allowable depends upon the social circumstances in each particular society.
So the 1864 syllabus error stated was not wrong, and later changed as Mr Ward suggests.
I wonder how professor Ward could be so wrong about the interpretation of the vatican council's statement, because it seems to be clear enough. If there was such a freedom the magisterium of the church would be meaningless.
I think he did.
I'm both a Catholic and a sincere admirer of Keith Ward; but the definition of Papal infalibility he gives at 11:33 ff. is incomplete: the Pope is NOT infallible in those circumstances. You find an crystal-clear synthesis of when He IS infallible in good old books such as Conway's "Question Box".
That more than a few Roman Catholic theologians don't know anything about the matter is hardly a surprise, at least for me. Some of them believe they are the third source of Revelation! Need I say more?
The pope is a common man exactly as anyone else. He is no different than you or my grandmother.
how do u define dictate? First, And Secondly, Christ Dictated The Apostle John To Write The Book Of Revelation.
just say it. you want to become eastern orthodox.
Read for yourselves .. .Quoting Acts 15 :1-18 ..." 15 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world."
James never sent anyone to tell the people that they had to keep the laws. Now where did he got that from ?
Like most Protestants, you lack understanding on this issue. Luther wrongly interpreted the phrase "works of the law" to mean good works. Paul was writing about the RITUAL laws of Moses, not the moral law; he makes this clear in the book of Galatians in chapter 5. The book of Hebrews confirms this to be the position of the early church, when it describes the Mosaic system of ritual sacrifices obsolete, since the sacrifice of Christ has fulfilled the plan of God in a more perfect way.