The Perspicuity of Scripture and Other Creation Myths

ic ^ | July 28, 2009 | Mark Shea

[NYer]

 

Last week, I wrote a little piece on the ways in which the various Protestantisms filter the sometimes ambiguous text of Scripture through various semi-permeable membranes in order to accept the bits of the Catholic Tradition they approve of while a) removing those things they dislike and b) stapling on those human ideas and notions they want to add or elevate to the status of Divine Revelation.

 

That sort of seditious talk immediately got blasted as a "classic attack on the perspicuity of Scripture" in the normal circles of anti-Catholic apologetics huff-puffery (my encounters with which I have discussed elsewhere).

A few words on that whole "perspicuity of Scripture" thing: It is a classic case of stapling on a purely human idea to the Tradition and elevating it to the level of equality with the word of God. It works like this: The enthusiast for the doctrine of the "perspicuity of Scripture" reasons, "God always does what is best. Having a Bible that is perspicuous is best. Therefore, God has done that."

(You can play that game with anything you like, by the way: "God always does what is best. Having the gift of tongues is best. Therefore, God demands all believers have the gift of tongues." "God always does what is best. Health and wealth are best. Therefore, God wills all believers to be healthy and wealthy.")

You can always find some sort of biblical justification for your pet idea. Didn't Paul thank God that he spoke in tongues more than anybody (1 Cor 14:18)? Doesn't Scripture say of the righteous man that whatever he does prospers (Ps 1:3)? Doesn't it say that the command of the Lord is clear (Ps 19:9)? Q.E.D.! And with sufficient willpower or ego, you can trumpet your pet idea as the Revealed Will of God Almighty, denouncing anybody who questions your pet theory, not as somebody who questions your pet theory, but as an enemy of God who "rails away" at God Almighty, while "the child of God knows better." It's a very cozy way to congratulate yourself.

The thing is, the perspicuity of Scripture is one of those ideas, like Marxism, that is the result of theory run amuck and removed entirely from the laboratory of real life. Basically, it's a creation myth that was cobbled together in order to get rid of the need for the Catholic Magisterium. The reasoning was archetypically fallacious. It went like this: God always does what is best. Communicating His revelation in the form of a book of pellucid clarity is best. Therefore, that's what He must have done. Otherwise, you condemn the Bible to the dreadful prospect of being interpreted by the Church and, worse still, by a Magisterium that sometimes directly contradicts what I am quite certain it must mean.

 

Since the whole project of the Reformation consisted of insisting that wherever the Church's Magisterium taught things not believed by A Man and His Bible, the Church was wrong, maintaining that creation myth was absolutely essential.

 

The problem is, doing that requires the believer in the perspicuity of Scripture to resolutely shut his eyes to the constant blandishments and encroachments of reality, reason, common sense, experience, and the very testimony of Scripture itself.

 

To this is often made the reply that "We walk by faith, not by sight." True enough, but faith never contradicts reason, whereas the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture achieves this feat on a daily basis.

 

 

Make no mistake: Christianity has room for doctrines that can't be empirically verified. The doctrine of the Trinity is a classic example. We believe it because God revealed it to us through Christ and His Holy Church. There's no scientific demonstration of it. Neither is there scientific disproof of it. It's not open to empirical investigation. You either trust God and His Church on this or you don't. All arguments against it can be refuted by reason. But it can't be proven by reason alone.

Other doctrines have a toehold in empirical observation (though, again, they are not provable by reason alone). A good example of this is original sin. People who deny it and assert the Pelagian notion that we can work our way to God on our own steam find that the Laboratory of Reality has proven this false in every single experiment where it has been attempted. The bulk of what the doctrine of original sin has to tell us about ourselves can be verified by reading a newspaper or turning on the TV.

But people who assert things like the Perspicuity of Scripture as Revealed Truth have to face the fact that the Laboratory of Experience is simply against them. The one thing Scripture is not is perspicuous. That's not me talking, that's Scripture:

 

So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures (2 Pt 3:15-16).

Standard boilerplate replies from the perspicuity dogmatist generally run toward saying things like, "Paul's writing is perspicuous, it's just the ignorant and unstable who screw things up."

Mm-hmm. Except that's not what it says. It says that there are some things in Paul's letters that are hard to understand. Yes, the ignorant and unstable muck up the interpretation of those letters. But that's partly because the letters themselves are "hard to understand." Whatever that is, it ain't perspicuity. And anybody who reads Paul can testify to that. It was C. S. Lewis who remarked of Paul, "I cannot be the only reader who has wondered why God, having given him so many gifts, withheld from him (what would to us seem so necessary for the first Christian theologian) that of lucidity and orderly exposition."

Heck, forget Paul. Anybody who says that Revelation is "perspicuous" is simply a fool. Calvin was smart enough not to attempt a commentary on it, because he knew it would give the lie to the notion of the perspicuity of Scripture. Luther, with his characteristic bluntness, sized the book up by remarking, "A Revelation ought to reveal." He tried to solve the problem by just excising it from the New Testament.

 

And this bleeding-obvious lack of clarity goes for great portions of Scripture. Jesus Himself sometimes seems to labor to be cryptic and difficult to understand. The meaning of the Parable of the Unjust Steward does not, for instance, leap off the page. His Olivet Discourse (cf. Matthew 24) is chockablock with mysterious passages. Likewise, the turbulent mixture of Paul's prose is often hard to follow. The prophets are often obscure and mysterious. The wisdom literature can be clear as mud sometimes. (What, for instance, does the book of Job mean? It's not that there's no meaning, it's that it's so rich in meanings that one comes away puzzled by what to make of the thing.) And don't get me started on the problems surrounding the "clear" meaning of Genesis 1-3.

 

 

Don't misunderstand. I'm not saying Scripture is a sealed book. I'm saying the problem is not so much that the meaning of Scripture is dark and obscure as that it is bright -- like the sun in Plato's allegory of the cave. Our eyes can't take in the dazzling radiance. We need -- just as the Ethiopian Eunuch and the disciples on the Emmaus Road needed -- somebody to help us understand what is written, because we can't understand it on our own.

 

Jesus, recognizing this need, gave us not just a book but a teaching office that could help us understand the book. In founding that office, He told the apostles: "He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me" (Mt 10:40). And they, acting on this, likewise ordained bishops to guard the deposit of Faith handed down by them with the help of the Holy Spirit.

What doctrines like the "perspicuity of Scripture" really mean is, "Scripture means what I take it to mean -- no more, no less. The easy-to-understand parts are the parts that agree with what I think. The hard-to-understand parts are the parts that a) talk about unimportant stuff or b) must be subordinated to what I understand."

It's a useful fiction elevated to the level of Revealed Teaching so that self-appointed, one-man Magisteria can say, "Ignorant and unstable people may twist Scripture, but I am safe from all that so I understand perfectly what Scripture means. And when the Catholic Church disagrees with me, that's because the ignorant and unstable Church is disagreeing with me, who is not ignorant or unstable."

In short, it's the rationale for erecting the sundry semi-permeable membranes of the sundry Protestantisms. Not surprisingly, then, the Bible teacher who claims that his special take on Scripture "disproves" the Church will react to criticisms of the absurd doctrine of the "perspicuity of Scripture" with the claim that it is an attack on God Himself. He has to say that, or his whole shell game comes apart. He has to say, in essence, "Oh sure, criticisms on the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture work in reality. But do they work in theory?" Because, as with Marxism, theory trumps reality, not simply in the experience of anybody who has ever attempted to read the Bible, but in the experience of the fragmented and mutually contradictory Protestantisms.

Normally, the standard boilerplate response to that last point is to a) deny the fragmentation of Protestantism by recourse to the "Catholics exaggerate the 33,000 denominations thing" complaint and to accentuate the differences among Catholics (this sort of boilerplate is as ritualized as kabuki).

Fair enough. Let's grant that Catholic apologist-types beat the 33,000 denominations drum too much and don't really pay attention to the commonalities that exist in much of Protestant theology. Let us also grant that Catholic apologist types often don't pay attention, in such polemics, to the divisions in our own house.

But at the end of the day, none of that really helps support the whole "perspicuity of Scripture" bunkum. If we grant that many denominations and little storefront churches are the result, not of some acrimonious split over doctrine, but of an amicable and harmonious church-planting mission or something else; if we grant that, in the words of G. K. Chesterton, "Catholics agree about everything, it is only everything else they disagree about," we are still faced with colossal and mutually contradictory differences between, say, Oneness Pentecostals (who deny the Trinity) and Trinitarian Protestants. We still have serious and flatly contradictory disagreements about whether baptism regenerates, whether children should be baptized, whether communion is or is not the Body and Blood of Jesus, whether marriage is a sacrament, whether anything is a sacrament, which books belong in the Bible, and so forth. You can't even get agreement on which issues are "core issues" and which are "peripheral."

 

And that points to the bleedin' obvious truth that none of this is very good prima facie evidence for the perspicuity of Scripture. Eventually, what it always returns to is that the individual Bible teacher declares that he can't see what the big deal is with baptism or communion or what not, so it's peripheral, while the things he cares about are "core." And on those matters he thinks important, Scripture is perspicuous: It clearly teaches what he says it teaches, while on any matter where the Catholic Church disagrees with him, you can take it to the bank that the Church is wrong and he -- the Famously Not Ignorant or Unstable He -- is right.

[NYer]

Mark Shea’s follow up piece on interpreting scripture.

[mikeus_maximus]

Jehovah's Witnesses have commonality of doctrine. So do Mormons. And muslims.

Doesn't mean they're teaching truth.

Thank you for that lengthy post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

[LiteKeeper]

The author complains about Protestants, and yet has nothing to say about the addition of the traditions of the Roman catholic Church. Where are those found in Scripture?

[mikeus_maximus]

Here’s a start: http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-tradition.htm

[Alex Murphy]

Let's grant that Catholic apologist-types beat the 33,000 denominations drum too much and don't really pay attention to the commonalities that exist in much of Protestant theology. Let us also grant that Catholic apologist types often don't pay attention, in such polemics, to the divisions in our own house.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Frankly, a somewhat poorly reasoned article.

Here it is: either you have a Bible that is true,
or it is an opinion as to what is true and what
is a myth - a Jeffersonian Bible.

“Since the whole project of the Reformation consisted of insisting that wherever the Church’s Magisterium taught things not believed by A Man and His Bible, the Church was wrong, maintaining that creation myth was absolutely essential.”

This part would have been more truthfully phrased, “Since the whole project of the Reformation consisted ... of insisting that wherever the Church’s Magisterium taught things not taught in the Bible, the Church was wrong...”

Any church that teaches things not in the Bible, which contradict that which is taught in scripture, that church, priest, reverend, or pope is wrong.

Really, the article, while making its argument, could have been much better written.

best,
ampu

[NYer]

The author complains about Protestants, and yet has nothing to say about the addition of the traditions of the Roman catholic Church.

Can you be more specific with some examples?

[NYer]

Here it is: either you have a Bible that is true, or it is an opinion as to what is true and what is a myth - a Jeffersonian Bible.

The focus of his article is on private "interpretation" vs a Teaching Authority.

Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,
2Peter1:21

[Kolokotronis]

I can't say as I understand what Shea is saying. Maybe it profound. It looks like Catholics good, Protestants bad, but it must be more than that. This:

"Other doctrines have a toehold in empirical observation (though, again, they are not provable by reason alone). A good example of this is original sin. People who deny it and assert the Pelagian notion that we can work our way to God on our own steam find that the Laboratory of Reality has proven this false in every single experiment where it has been attempted. The bulk of what the doctrine of original sin has to tell us about ourselves can be verified by reading a newspaper or turning on the TV."

however is simply nonsense...and "The Church" is not coextensive with the particular church headquartered in Rome.

[NYer]

It helps if you read Shea's piece from last week.

The Semi-Permeable Membranes of the Various Protestantisms

I'm always amazed at your selectivity of threads on which to post.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“The author complains about Protestants, and yet has nothing to say about the addition of the traditions of the Roman catholic Church. Where are those found in Scripture?”

Where in the Bible does it say that all truths are in scripture?

[Alex Murphy]

It looks like Catholics good, Protestants bad, but it must be more than that.

Catholics good! Protestants bad!

[Kolokotronis]

“I’m always amazed at your selectivity of threads on which to post.”

Ah, dear lady, many years ago I discovered the joy of amazing my friends and confounding my enemies! :)

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“The focus of his article is on private “interpretation” vs a Teaching Authority.

The Bible, God’s Holy Word, says, “And He (God) gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:11-12).

Protestants practice that. In fact, any good Church does.

That does not rule out that God speaks to individual Christians through His Word.

best,
ampu

[Nosterrex]

The teaching about the perspicuity of Scripture is based upon the assumption that the authors intended to be understood by the reader. They were not writing some arcane coded language that only a few enlightened (illumanti) few could interpret. There are a few passages that are open questions as to meaning, but doctrine should never be made on unclear passages of Scripture. The real issue is not the perspicuity of Scripture, but the presuppositions of those reading the Scripture. No one reads the Scripture tabula rasa. Every person and every denomination has a theological bias when they read the Scriptures. Whether you call this bias “tradition” or “inspiration” does not matter. The trick is understanding our bias and allowing the Scriptures to speak for itself.

[Iscool]

Continuing the relentless attack upon the word of God...

While studying and 'believing' the scriptures, I could never be a Catholic...Your religion is so, unscriptural...

Sure, you pull some verses out of the book and build a religion on your traditions and superstitions while using some vague scriptures to back them up, but you can not even imagine what you are in missing by way of God's communication with us who will believe what He says...

[terycarl]

instead of making asinine accusations, why don’t you attend a Catholic Mass, read their misalette to follow what it is that they are doing, and discover that the Catholic Church is extremely doctrinal.....since the Catholic church established Christianity in the first place,it would be kind of silly for them to ignore scriptures..The trouble with the protestant revolution is that it picks and chooses which teachings of the true church they care to accept???
the Catholic church existed for 1,500 years before the protestants (Martin Luther) decided that he knew better than Christ, how to establish a church...pretty arrogant I’d say!!!

[Religion Moderator]

Do not make this thread "about" individual Freepers. That is a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[1010RD]

Any church that teaches things not in the Bible, which contradict that which is taught in scripture, that church, priest, reverend, or pope is wrong.

Excellent and the irony spills like liquid mercury.

[1010RD]

Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, 2Peter1:21

Right to the heart of the matter. Well done.

[1010RD]

The real issue is... the presuppositions of those reading the Scripture. No one reads the Scripture tabula rasa. Every person and every denomination has a theological bias when they read the Scriptures. Whether you call this bias “tradition” or “inspiration” does not matter. The trick is understanding our bias and allowing the Scriptures to speak for itself [themselves].

This is really a solid insight. Without recognizing our interpretive bias we can prove anything we want to believe with the Scriptures.

[LiteKeeper]

I am not contending that all truth is contained in the Bible. I am contending that the RC considers the Traditions of the Church as authoritative as the Bible.

[bronxville]

“I’m always amazed at your selectivity of threads on which to post.”

Ahhh, “selective” being the key word. Well said.

There were a few threads posted about the EO within the last few days yet I didn’t see him jump to post on them. Maybe because one of them was about the ex-KGB patriarch who continues to impose his will on the Ukrainians? Or the other one which would have demanded an explanation as to why this same patriarch refused to permit Catholicism or Protestantism be taught in schools yet he gave permission for ISLAM!!!! Beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing.

[bronxville]

Here he is with the Ukrainian PM. Feel the love. :)

[bronxville]

Think of the Reformation and the atrocities a century ago in England/Scotland (touched Wales), especially Ireland, and the Ukrainian Catholics were the Irish. Instead of the Anglicans/Calvinists in Ireland forcibly making them Protestants - it was this dude et al in the Ukraine under the Soviets forcing Catholics to become Orthodox. The Catholics went underground similar to the Irish Catholics going underground. The famine in Ireland was approx. the equivalent to the famine in the Ukraine resulting in millions dead, tortured and persecuted. Many from both countries emigrated to the US and Canada.

The Catholics in both places wouldn’t drink the “soup” thus martyred for their faith!!!

[bronxville]

Bookmarking your post. I haven’t read the first part yet but will get to both soon.

[boatbums]

Hey, Iscool, I think we’re back down to only 33,000 denominations now. I wonder what happened to the rest. Weren’t there 40,000 last count?

[boatbums]

Intended audience, culture differences, governmental rules, CONTEXT, cross-references - all those are needed to comprehend God’s word for us. But the most important part is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the prayerful refective attitude when studying the Bible. It’s not like a novel you can just pick up and start right in.

[Nosterrex]

What do you mean by “governmental rules”? Do you mean grammatical rules or hermeneutical rules?

[Iscool]

instead of making asinine accusations, why don’t you attend a Catholic Mass, read their misalette to follow what it is that they are doing,

Been there, done that...So what's your next bit of advice to make your religion even a little palatable to a bible readin', bible believin' Christian???

The trouble with the protestant revolution is that it picks and chooses which teachings of the true church they care to accept???

Bible tells us that the 'true' church is the people settin' in the pews...But your true church is the magisterium...

the Catholic church existed for 1,500 years before the protestants (Martin Luther) decided that he knew better than Christ, how to establish a church...pretty arrogant I’d say!!!

And the Buddhist religion was around longer than that...So what's that prove???

[Iscool]

Hey, Iscool, I think we’re back down to only 33,000 denominations now. I wonder what happened to the rest. Weren’t there 40,000 last count?

Yep...The churches are dropping like dead flies...Probably be down to 27 or 28,000by next week...

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“I am not contending that all truth is contained in the Bible. I am contending that the RC considers the Traditions of the Church as authoritative as the Bible.”

Logically wouldn’t some have to be? The Trinity is no where defined or explained in any detail in the Bible except were told there’s a Father, Son and Holy Spirit and they’re all divine. Even Protestants rely HEAVILY on tradition for their understanding of doctrine about the Trinity. So, are they all wrong?

And what about sola scriptura itself? It appears no where in scripture but every Protestant claims it - even though many rely upon authoritative doctrinal definitions from tradition all the time. If it isn’t there, and it isn’t, then how can it be a doctrine at all for those who actually believe in it?

[Varda]

Mark Shea, my favorite. bttt

[LiteKeeper]

I wasn’t saying do away with Tradition. I was concerned that the writer was chastising Protestants for bowing to Tradition, and failed to mention that Roman Catholics do the same thing that he finds troubling in Protestants.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“I was concerned that the writer was chastising Protestants for bowing to Tradition, and failed to mention that Roman Catholics do the same thing that he finds troubling in Protestants.”

But isn’t that the point? That Protestants attack Catholics for traditions and yet they have them too and they most certainly put them on a par with scripture they just don’t admit it. Isn’t the doctrinal understanding of the Trinity a perfect example of that?

[LiteKeeper]

The doctrine of the Trinity is inferred from Scripture. Much of the doctrine re: Mary cannot be inferred from Scripture, ie, Immaculate Conception. This is the difference.

[boatbums]

No, I mean like what was society like back when the Scriptures were first written. The followers of Christ were under fierce persecution, the laws of the land (the government) were Roman laws and would, in some cases, determine the context of what was spoken to the believers.

An example would be we are told to obey those in authority, but when laws of man contradict the laws of God, we must obey God rather than man.

BTW, I nearly always agree with your postings and do not intend for my comments to sound like they are challenging you. In most cases, I’m agreeing and only adding more to what you said. I think we got off on the wrong foot several weeks ago and I may have given you the impression I was in opposition to you. I’m not, OK?

[Alex Murphy]

The churches are dropping like dead flies...Probably be down to 27 or 28,000by next week...

At one point, some Catholics were accusing us of having a million denominations, as if any of those numbers were defensible.

Related threads:
The Facts and Stats on "33000 Denominations"
30,000 Protestant Denominations?

....if we accept that there are 33,000 denominations, we must also accept that there are "242 total Roman Catholic denominations (year 2000 numbers)", as both claims are found in the same source....

....the Barrett work doesn't refer to 33,000 denominations as Catholics claim, but rather it speaks of 33,000 organizations, of which (as mentioned above) there are 242 Catholic ones among them. If you accept the one number, you have to accept the other. That armchair Catholic apologists continue to cherry-pick Barrett's work, gleefully citing the larger number as authoritative about Protestants while dismissing the smaller number because it suits them to, speaks volumes about the credulity of Catholic apologists and their work.

Alex Murphy, August 3, 2007

[Petronski]

The author complains about Protestants, and yet has nothing to say about the addition of the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.

Where is sola Scriptura in scripture?

[boatbums]

Here we go again. First, can you be so kind as to define in your own way, what you mean by sola Scriptura?

[Petronski]

First, can you be so kind as to define in your own way, what you mean by sola Scriptura?

The man-made tradition ironically not found in Scripture.

[boatbums]

The man-made tradition ironically not found in Scripture.

You mean like Mary, the mother of Jesus being immaculately conceived? Or Mary never committing a single sin? Or Mary not physically dying and ascending into heaven like Elijah? Or the doctrine of purgatory? Or the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), whoever he happens to be today, is infallible? Or, or, or... You want me to go on?

[Zionist Conspirator]

I find myself in a somewhat unusual position. I agree with Catholics that the Bible cannot be understood apart from an authoritative oral interpretive tradition (though I disagree on what that Tradition is). However, though I vigorously disagree with sola scriptura I usually find myself sympathizing with the Protestants in the debate because they defend the total inerrancy of G-d's Word while Catholics, in their zeal to discredit Protestantism, seem often to feel the need to degrade the Bible itself (especially if they're converts from Fundamentalist/Evangelical Protestantism trying to prove their loyalty to their new church by being "more historical critical than thou"). Cannot Catholics illustrate the validity of their oral tradition without implying an aversion to the Bible itself?

Allow me to illustrate. Ask a Protestant if he believes that Genesis is inerrant. He'll say yes. Ask him if he believes therefore that Genesis contains everything G-d has said to mankind. He'll say no. Repeat with Exodus as an example, or any other Biblical book. Each book is written by G-d Himself, each is inerrant, but none contain everything G-d wanted to communicate. Isn't this a much simpler method than getting angry and making statements about "people imposing their own dogmatic interpretations on the text" (which is code for "people who believe the events in the first eleven chapters of Genesis actually happened").

Furthermore, why did Mr. Shea label the "perspicuity" (is that the word he used?) a "creation" myth? Why did he have to drag that word in? Is it a Freudian slip that he, as a repentant former Evangelical (I assume) is now a Super Catholic because he now believes Genesis is mythology?

Pinged to Vladimir998 because recently he has been an ally on certain issues. Vlad, you see I didn't attack the Catholic Church or even Catholic apologetics, but don't you think that some Catholic apologeticists manifest an unwarranted hostility to the simple meaning of the Biblical text itself that is totally unnecessary to make their point?

[Nosterrex]

I wasn't assuming that you were criticizing me, I appreciate your clarification. Sometimes I assume that I know what someone is saying only to find out that I had misunderstood him.

[annalex]

I agree with you, all the more so because the “simple meaning of the Biblical text itself” invariably supports the Catholic doctrines. While the Bible is certainly not perspicuous, the Catholics should not tire to proclaim its inerrancy (if they receive their instruction from the Magisterium, that is) or use the Bible abundantly in defending their faith from Protestant or any other corruption.

[Petronski]

Go on if you want. The Catholic Church is not bound by the man-made tradition known as sola Scriptura.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“...Catholics, in their zeal to discredit Protestantism, seem often to feel the need to degrade the Bible itself (especially if they’re converts from Fundamentalist/Evangelical Protestantism trying to prove their loyalty to their new church by being “more historical critical than thou”). Cannot Catholics illustrate the validity of their oral tradition without implying an aversion to the Bible itself?”

Have you EVER seen me do otherwise? Just yesterday I was - incredinly - being labelled as a heretic by a fellow Catholic for daring to defend a traditional understanding of the Bible. Clearly not all Catholics do what you have suggested here.

You also wrote:

“Pinged to Vladimir998 because recently he has been an ally on certain issues. Vlad, you see I didn’t attack the Catholic Church or even Catholic apologetics, but don’t you think that some Catholic apologeticists manifest an unwarranted hostility to the simple meaning of the Biblical text itself that is totally unnecessary to make their point?”

Maybe unintentionally. What I see is that there is at least one Catholic here who will call you a heretic if you stand up for the more full and complete understanding of inerrancy and a traditional view of the Bible. Now, beyond that, I think that Mark Shea is something of a liberal in regard to his views on the Bible. I believe in the past he has refered to stories like Jonah and Tobit as essentially pious fiction. In other words, the stories teach valuable moral lessons, but shouldn’t be thought of as literally true. I know what he is saying is in itself possible, but to me it is best not to even hazard such ideas. They confuse the faithful and lessen respect for scripture. I don’t think that’s his intention. I do think that that is the result, however.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Or Mary not physically dying and ascending into heaven like Elijah?”

If you’re going to attack Catholic beliefs at least get them right. 1) The belief is the assumption of Mary. Some believe she was dead. Some believe she was alive. No part of the teaching defines whether she was dead or alive. 2) it’s the assumption, not the ascension. Only Christ can ascend into heaven, 3) Elijah never ascended into heaven nor was he assumed into heaven either. There was no way for him to get into heaven since Christ had not yet died on the cross. If you look at 2 Kings 2:11, for instance, you’ll see that “shamiyim” means sky.

“Or the doctrine of purgatory?”

It’s in the Bible: http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/how2purg.htm

“Or the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), whoever he happens to be today, is infallible? Or, or, or... You want me to go on?”

SHow me where the proper understanding of the Trinity is in the Bible. Show me where sola scriptura is in the Bible. SHow me where in the Bible it says Matthew wrote a gospel. You want me to go on?

[boatbums]

EXACTLY!!! People can choose to believe whatever and whomever they want. The sticking point in all of this is that whenever you have doctrine of a religious nature, what or who is the authority?

Catholics say the magisteria in Rome, today, can override what previous generations have said is truth and that if there is a contradiction between what Scripture states and what the religion teaches, the religion gets the final say because only the magisteria is infallible. ‘bout right?