A Catholic scholar makes a modern case for Christianity's creeds

Inasmuch as God's ways are vastly superior to ours,...

Agreed.

...and as God's Word is subject to no man's interpretation, I'd say no Bible truth is reasonably subject to (man's) philosophy.

The second phrase directly contradicts the first phrase. In the second phrase you make a sweeping judgement regarding the ability of man to interpret Scripture philosophically. Yet in the first statement you claim that Scripture "is subject to no man's interpretation."

If "[you] don't think [eternal begottenness being outside the Bible's revelation is] true," I welcome you to cite whatever Bible passage(s) you believe make it so. That would be very much to the point.

Nothing except for the fact that Jesus speaks of God as His "Father" and that the Bible describes Jesus as existing from all eternity. I don't see how you could argue the opposite considering these facts of divine revelation. This entry from the Catholic Catechism may be helpful.

So may this passage from the Athanasian Creed (from around the year 350 A.D.) which just seems like good, solid theology:

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith, except a man keep whole and integral, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. Now the Catholic Faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. For such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, the Holy Ghost uncreate; the Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible; the Father eternal, the Son eternal, the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet, there are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated, nor three incomprehensibles; but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise, the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Ghost is Lord. And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord. For, as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord; so we are forbidden by the Catholic religion to say there be three Gods or three Lords. The Father is made by none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before or after the other. None is greater or less than another, but the whole three Persons are co-equal and co-eternal together. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity. Furthermore it is necessary unto eternal salvation that he believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ is God and man. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the world; and Man of the substance of His Mother, born into the world. Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Godhead as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God, and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

Before you summarily dismiss Church teaching as invalid, consider these passages from Scripture:

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Rock (Peter), and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Jesus establishes a single church, His Church.

1 Timothy 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Christ's Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth."

Matthew 18:17
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Christ's Church is visible, since He tells us to take our disputes to His Church.

My two phrases are not in conflict with one another. Please re-read them. Nothing man can concoct affects the truth or meaning of anything God has inspired to be written, unlike your comment which suggested God's meaning was dependent on (man's) philosophy.

You suggest I would summarily dismiss Church teaching as invalid. That's setting up a straw man, a juncture at which you advantageously switch to wielding Scripture. Use of such construct says more about you than about me. I would not summarily dismiss Church teaching, nor did I do it. However, your use of the Bible text is an attempt to canonize everything done under the aegis of the church. That is entirely falacious--or do you hold to the sale of indulgences to raise money for the church....oops, you probably do. Anyway, suffice to say that your construct would ipso facto endorse anything the Church has taught with the same mantle of biblical canonization. I think this has shown itself to be untrue in the eyes of hundreds of millions of Christians, in whose company I would count myself in this instance.

Your tack has been to quote copiously from Anathansian Creed. Pronouncements therein are potentially useful, even possibly inspired. But the surest test I have for divine inspiration is whether it contradicts the Bible. If anyone or any writing does that, it's shown itself to be false (Gal. 1:8). End of story.

So, yes, in some sense I am ready in principle to be able to reject (any false) Church teaching. Especially when it would claim for itself a trump card even over the Bible. At such juncture, though my speech may be proscribed, I know fallible men will not be able to keep my name from being written in the Book of Life. I know the Pope is supposed to be infallible when speaking from his office as Pope, but to me, that's just another form of demanding to be given a trump card, inasmuch as nothing I see in the Bible remotely resembles a gift of the infallible, vicarious authority of God.

It's interesting that even in your citation from the Athanasian creed, the Church would forbid adherents to say certain false things. Is it really just its own construct (as per this quote that Jesus was "begotten before the world" or is there a Biblical citation for that? I don't remember reading that. Or, because you would call it Church teaching, is it simply therefore true? I think you probably said it earlier with your "nothing," right?

I agree Jesus is eternal, but that's not tantamount to saying Jesus was eternally begotten or begotten before the world. We know from Scripture there was a time when Jesus was not yet begotten. Philippians 2:8 says he emptied himself to take on the form of a bondservant. You say the eternal Jesus is eternally begotten, but the Bible says Jesus was with God from the beginning yet did not count His deity as a thing to be clung to, but emptied himself--at a well known time and place, not eternally--to take on the form of a bondservant. You who would elevate Church Tradition and Church Teaching at odds with the Bible over that Bible seem to me to be in error.

When you have to note that you have no Scripture to state your position for you, perhaps you'll be a bit more circumspect in the future. Does hearing still awken faith within you?

It is logically impossible to interpret Scripture without holding to some philosophical position. Stating that "Nothing man can concoct affects the truth or meaning of anything God has inspired to be written" is a philosophical position.

I would not summarily dismiss Church teaching, nor did I do it.

That's good. The one dogma I expect most non-Catholics to hold to is the dogma of "the Bible alone."

However, your use of the Bible text is an attempt to canonize everything done under the aegis of the church.

Not true. But I hold to the belief that Christ's Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth."

That is entirely falacious--

Yes it is. But it's a straw man. I simply accept as true what the Church teaches to be true. And I obediently accept disciplines which the Church tells me that I must accept out of obedience.

or do you hold to the sale of indulgences to raise money for the church....oops, you probably do.

This was a clerical abuse, not a Church teaching. There is a difference between impeccability and infallible teaching. This abuse doesn't undercut the validity of assigning charitable giving as penance to a miser.

Anyway, suffice to say that your construct would ipso facto endorse anything the Church has taught with the same mantle of biblical canonization.

That doesn't follow. The Church herself teaches that she teaches with varying degrees of authority.

But the surest test I have for divine inspiration is whether it contradicts the Bible. If anyone or any writing does that, it's shown itself to be false (Gal. 1:8). End of story.

Not quite, because Scripture itself tells us that it can be misused.

2 Peter 3:16
His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

nothing I see in the Bible remotely resembles a gift of the infallible, vicarious authority of God.

Isaiah 22
22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

The vice-king of the House of David wore a key around his neck which represented his office.

Revelation 3
7"To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

Jesus is the eternal King of the House of David and the ultimate power behind the "key of David."

Matthew 16
19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[1] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[2] loosed in heaven."

Jesus gives Peter the key of the office of the vice-King of the new House of David.

Or, because you would call it Church teaching, is it simply therefore true? I think you probably said it earlier with your "nothing," right?

The Church invoked Its infallible teaching authority and declared it to be true, so I accept this teaching as true.

I agree Jesus is eternal, but that's not tantamount to saying Jesus was eternally begotten or begotten before the world.

An (the?) essential aspect of a Father/Son relationship is that the Son is begotten of the Father. Since both are eternal, this must represent some kind of logical relationship. I don't see how you can logically take a contrary position. In other words, how can you justify the belief, based on Scripture, that God the Father did not beget His Son?

We know from Scripture there was a time when Jesus was not yet begotten.

In His human nature.

Philippians 2:8 says he emptied himself to take on the form of a bondservant. You say the eternal Jesus is eternally begotten, but the Bible says Jesus was with God from the beginning yet did not count His deity as a thing to be clung to, but emptied himself--at a well known time and place, not eternally--to take on the form of a bondservant.

He must be speaking of His human nature. Otherwise, this passage would contradict the nature of the Trinity.

You who would elevate Church Tradition and Church Teaching at odds with the Bible over that Bible seem to me to be in error.

There is no contradiction in this case. Maybe a paradox.

Moreover, in order to logically accept the inspired nature of Scripture one must accept the infallibility of the Church. Otherwise, how would we know with certainty which Scriptures are inspired? And, in fact, Protestants have made this error in accepting the abridged canon of Luther, a tradition of men.

When you have to note that you have no Scripture to state your position for you, perhaps you'll be a bit more circumspect in the future. Does hearing still awken faith within you?

I don't concede the point. My proof is straightforward:

1) Scripture tells us that Jesus is eternal and is God.

2) Scripture tells us that the Father and Jesus have a Father/son relationship.

3) Essential to the definition of a Father/Son relationship is that the son is begotten of the father.

4) Therefore, Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father.

Your assertion is analogous to saying that "the Trinity isn't in Scripture." HF

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.