It appears
that
in this era
LOTS
of folks
are mystified
by
BIG
RED
BARN DOORS!
Posted on 01/23/2010 4:09:32 PM PST by NYer
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. 1 Corinthians 11:2
Most Protestant Christians believe that the Bible is the only source concerning faith. According to them, there is no need for Apostolic Tradition or an authoritative, teaching Church. All that they need is the Bible in order to learn about the faith and to live a Christian life. The "Bible Alone" teaching can be appealing in its simplicity, but it suffers from fundamental problems. A few are considered here.
First the Bible itself states that not everything important to the Christian faith is recorded in it. For example, not everything that Christ did is recorded in the inspired Books:
But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. [John 21:25; RSV]
According to John 20:31, some things have been recorded in the Gospel in order to come to know Christ; however, John 21:25 suggests that there is still more to know about Him. At least for St. John the Apostle, there was more that he needed to teach which was not recorded in the Bible:
I had much to write you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face. [3 John 13-14]
Also St. Paul instructs Timothy on how to orally pass on the teachings of the faith:
...what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. [2 Tim. 2:2]
St. Paul even commands (2 Thess. 3:6) the Thessalonian Christians to follow the oral Traditions of the Apostles:
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us (Apostles), either by word of mouth (oral) or by letter (Epistle). [2 Thess. 2:15]
These commands promoting Oral Tradition would be quite strange, if only the Bible were needed to pass on the entire Christian faith.
A second problem with the "Bible Alone" teaching is canonicity - i.e. which Books belong in the Bible? It must be remembered that the Books of the Bible were written individually along with other religious books. Centuries later the Church compiled together the inspired Books under one cover to form the "Bible." A big question in the early Church was which books are the inspired written Word of God. (Inspired=written by men but authored by God; See Catechism of the Catholic Church 106.)
Scripture did not come with an "inspired" Table of Contents. Nowhere in the sacred texts are all the Books listed. There are some Books cited in the sacred writings but these lists are vague and incomplete (Acts 28:23; 2 Peter 3:16). There are also references to books not found in the Bible, such as St. Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16). St. Paul even encourages the Colossians to read this epistle, but still it is not in the Bible. Jesus in the Gospel never attempts to list the "official" Books of the Old Testament (OT). This issue was hotly debated in His day. Today Protestant and Catholic Christians disagree over which Books belong in the OT. Catholics follow the list in the Septuagint (2nd century B.C. Greek translation of the Hebrew Scripture) while Protestants follow the list used by the Pharisees. A list from Jesus could have eliminated this problem, but no such list is found in the Gospel. As a result the Bible needs a visible authority outside of itself to list the inspired sacred Books. This authority must be guided by the Holy Spirit since these Books are from the Holy Spirit.
Some Christians claim that the Table of Contents in their Bible lists the inspired Books. Even though found in modern Bibles, the Table of Contents is still not inspired. It is not the Word of God but words added later by human editors, much similar to footnotes. The Table of Contents is basically the opinion of the publishing editor. Others may claim that the closing verses in the Book of Revelation, specifically Rev. 22:18-19, cap off the Bible and define all the preceding Books as inspired by God. But do these verses apply to the whole Bible or only the Book of Revelation? Another flaw with this idea is that not all Bibles have the same number of Books. As alluded to above, Catholic and Protestant Bibles contain different numbers of OT Books, yet all these Bibles close with the same verses: Rev. 22:18ff. Both cannot be right. Finally the Book of Deuteronomy contains similar verses (4:2 & 12:32). Does this imply that the Books after Deuteronomy are not inspired by God? No.
A third problem with the "Bible Alone" teaching is proper understanding of critical Bible passages. Most Protestant Christians promote personal interpretation of the Bible, i.e. anyone can interpret these passages by himself. Unfortunately this leads to chaos. For example over Baptism, some Protestants accept the validity of infant Baptism, while others do not. Some believe in the necessity of Baptism for salvation, citing Mark 16:16, while others disagree by citing John 3:16. They all claim to be Bible-based, but still they disagree over fundamental issues regarding salvation. Sadly the "Yellow Pages" phone directory is a witness to the many "Bible-Based" churches who disagree with each other over key issues of the Christian faith. Personal interpretation of the Bible naturally leads to a mire of human doctrines as a result of differing personal opinions.
The Bible was not written as a catechism. It is a collection of many different styles of writing - poetry, history, parables, letters, songs, etc. - requiring different ways of understanding. Sometimes Jesus in the Gospel purposely taught in figurative language and parables, which makes literal interpretation impossible. Even St. Peter admits that St. Paul's Epistles can be difficult to understand:
...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 Peter 3:15-16]
Finally the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:30ff needed St. Philip to explain the Book of Isaiah. Obviously not everyone can understand the meaning of Scripture by simply reading it. More is required. These difficulties in the Bible demand an independent visible teaching authority that is guided by the Holy Spirit.
Even the Bible points to the importance of the Church for teaching the Truth. According to St. Peter in the Bible:
First of all you must understand this, that no prophesy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. [2 Peter 1:20-21]
At least prophecies in the Bible are not a matter of personal interpretation. These prophesies must be properly interpreted by "men moved by the Holy Spirit" since the Holy Spirit is the Author. These "men" are the Bishops of the Church - the successors to the Apostles (Acts 20:28-32). Finally the Bible does not call itself the bulwark of the truth; however, St. Paul does make reference to the Church in those terms:
...the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. [1 Tim. 3:15]
According to the Bible, the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth."
All Christians, including Catholics, should read the Bible in order to grow more in the faith; however, we still need the Church. The Church is needed to accurately pass on Apostolic Tradition (Romans 10:17), define the canon of the Bible (i.e. list the inspired Books), safeguard the accurate transmission (e.g. translations) of the Bible and interpret key passages, all with guidance from the Holy Spirit according to God's Will. The Church is needed for other reasons too. It must be understood that the Church is not merely men making arbitrary decisions but men executing authority from God guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church may at times be tested by scandals or scarred by the sins of men. We may sometimes disagree with the policies of the Church, but she is still the instrument of the Holy Spirit. This visible Church is the one built by Jesus Christ on St. Peter, the rock (Matt. 16:18-19; John 1:24). This is the Catholic Church.
Would you like some mirrors?
Feel better now?
Thats' what your posts are like. Get a life.
LOL.
I enjoy my life.
Evidently particularly compared to some.
And one more thing. If I don't feel like reading someone's endless copies why is that "silly," boatbums? I am not "allowed" not to be interested? Goodness! Little preusmptious of you I would say. Feel particularly self-righteous and qualified to tell what I must do? Amazing! Please, mind your own business. Thank you.
Oh, thanks for sharing. Gee. Got anything else you want to spill out here for attention?
Not at the moment.
Would you like me to ping you if I get such an itch?
Not very likely to happen.
Just walking down the street breathing gathers me plenty of attention.
Thanks anyway for your very touching concern.
I also see errors in both camps...but salvation is gained through our belief in Jesus and His sacrifice, not whether we’re Protestants or Catholics
maybe so, probably not....Lucifer believes in Jesus and recognizes His sacrifice...why not follow the path that Jesus laid out, why not follow His true church, what’s the point in starting your own as did Luther, Wesley, HenryVIII, Calvin et al???....Iam also a RTL member, was the head of it in my area for several years, actually went to Washington, with my wife, to march in the January RTL parade. I also know 2 or 3 members of the Orthodox persuasion and they will adfmit to being severes from Catholocism, although we, as Catholics, still consider them as members, albeit slightly separated,from the true church. The protestants, however, have gone on their own path and many of the thousands of denominations have introduced practices, terminology, beliefs, etc that are not consistant with those of Christ’s church....do you believe that divorce and remarriage are perfectably acceptable to the Lord, do you have female ministers and bishops in your denomination, While I understand that you are personally pro-life, does your denomination O.K. abortion????are any members of your denomination against parental notification.....do your members vote for members of congress or even a president who is pro choice????while we have too many Catholics who vote for idiots like Ted Kennedy....we refer to them as CINO’s and hold them in low esteem.
After reading all of your engagements with modern day gnostic folks, the reason has is considered a heresy been very made very clear to me.
Gnosticism appears to cause the retardation of certain areas of the human brain that render the person pretty much incapable of extended thought and reason. I haven't figured out how it works, but it's very apparent gnosticism causes some sort of mental illness or brain damage.
I can find no other reason why seemingly intelligent people have such a difficult time answering your precise and simple to understand questions. Not only do they refuse to answer you, they feel compelled to attack you. It's all very fascinating.
I think that you have it backwards. Christ came to show us how to live. We will be Judged on our imitation of Christ. Even Paul calls for us to imitate him as he imitates Christ.
placemarker
Unfortunately, the Church herself has demonstrated (from outside the clergy) some evidence of Gnosticism to the exterior witnesses. The doctrine of the Trinity, for instance. Any of the great prounouncements. The selection of Scripture - and the particular version of each book of Scripture - and so on.
There is not a good explanation for it to the laity. A bunch of bishops disappear for a fortnight, and come out with the results of the latest Council. I'm not suggesting that they do other than what they do, but they do provide some examples to the heretic and the separated brethren. I understand that the separated brethren do not have the qualifications or the authorization that the Church does, but think of a 6 year old kid, watching his father go to the ATM and pull money out. That kid would give anything to be able to do the same, not realizing the whole business behind being able to pull money out of the ARM.
You’re right. That’s a good point.
Hey Quix! How are you?
Kosta is on to something here. Why must Jesus = God the Father? Lord is Adonai. Jehovah = "the existing One". Jesus = "Jehovah is salvation". Kyrios is Lord in Greek (NT).
This idea is carried on throughout the NT. 1Cor 1:3 says: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and [the] Lord Jesus Christ (Darby Translation)
Clearly, there is a distinction between God the Father and Jesus Christ recognized by the writers of the NT. If they were inspired then they are writing what God wants.
Mat 1:20 says: but while he pondered on these things, behold, an angel of [the] Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, fear not to take to [thee] Mary, thy wife, for that which is begotten in her is of [the] Holy Spirit. (Darby Translation)
Lord here is Kyrios again, but the angelic messenger is of Kyrios showing that Jesus is already God or a God.
If monotheism is not the goal, might God the Father be the Most High God and Jesus Christ, like us an heir, an equal heir thereby being equal to God the Father, but a separate person?
Why is monotheism a requirement for the attribute of God? The OT seems to indicate not a fight between monotheism v. polytheism, but between true God and dumb idols, no?
All showered and winding down, pleasantly.
I pray you have a beneficial, restful sleep.
I don’t know what such Biblical mysteries will look at from the perspective of Heaven.
I don’t lose sleep over it. Scripture is clear enough for me to establish and do what I can to cooperate in God The Father, Son, Spirit maintaining that relationship, being in me and me in God eternally.
That’s sufficient to keep me occupied.
Not only that, If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste more like prunes than rhubarb does.
Some recent research suggests that rhubarb crumb pie is a great cancer fighter.
I’d be disappointed if my rhubarb tasted like prunes.
Though 6 igloos X 12 chickens does seem to leave a lot of prune faces around here.
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.