Posted on 06/13/2012 2:59:02 PM PDT by Gamecock
Are you kidding me? I reject the Apocryphal books because they contain obvious errors. Please show me where in my post you found my rejection of the New Testament.
Um, perhaps because the Catholic church does not allow you the privilege.
That aside, the problem is that Scripture that is clearly and plainly stated and teaches facts, does not NEED to be *interpreted*. The problem arises when someone takes a clear passage of Scripture and tries to make it say something it doesn't by reading into it, or starting with preconceived notions/traditions and forcing Scripture to conform to their beliefs instead of conforming their beliefs to conform to Scripture.
Amen, sister.
That's because to them it IS. They call it *the Faith*.
The Biblical definition of *faith is
Hebrews 11:1-2 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
Hebrews 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.
Very true, Jesus Christ is the message of scripture. From the beginning to the end; from the Word at creation to the Lamb of God 'Who taketh away the sins of the world' whose kingdom shall have no end.
GOD'S HOLY SPIRIT inspired WORD IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY
JESUS, THE WORD, IS THE WAY AND THE ONE TRUTH!
HarleyD:
First off, let me say that as compared to some of the other Protestants on FR, you are at least willing to engage in the Theological Tradition of the Church down thru the centuries. I mean that in all honesty and You and I have been here long enough to know tha I don’t mince words.
Now, I think there is some misunderstanding here. The Council of Trent defined more defintively the Catholic position of Justification. The Christian Doctrine of the Atonement, while related to the Doctrine of Justification is distinct from it.
Our Sunday Visitors Catholic Enclyopedia (1998, p. 112) states regarding Atonement “ The Christian Doctrine that CHrist’s passion, death and resurrection, infinite satisfaction is made to God for the sins of humanity. Through this satisfaction, we are reconciled to God. Christ atonement consists, no primarily to the intensity of of the suffering he endured, but in the perfectly obedient and LOVING [emphasis mine] acceptance of the will of the Father which He displayed in embracing this suffering for our sake. Christ’s perfect obedience atones for the disobedience of Adam and wins for us the Grace of obedient discipleship and divinizing sanctification.......In the History of Christian Doctrine, a variety of theological explanationss have been developed to account for the mystery of atonement. Theories that emphasize the love and obedience of Christ in suffering for our sake are preferable to those theories [either penal or substitutional] that center on the appeasement of Divine wrath or the ransom paid to Satan.”
So as I stated earlier, the Catholic understanding of the atonement is rooted in the Christus Victor Theory-Recapitulation [St. Justine Martyr, St. Irenaus from the 2nd century] and the Satisfaction Theory. The Christ Victor-Recapitulation idea is very important in the Eastern Orthodox Church and many later Church Fathers also used this theory [St. Athanasius, St. Augustine and St. Clement of Alexandria]. Theosis, which is what happens to humanity because of Grace is rooted in Recapitulation theory of atonement, very important in the Theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church, is also part of the Catholic Church.
Satisfaction, most fully developed by St. Anselm is also acceptable as the Definition I cited cleary states. So the Catholic CHurch in terms of the atonement would combine aspects of the Christus Victor-Recapitulatio and Satisfaction theories. On the other hand, the Ransom theory paid to the Devil and Penal Subsitution are not acceptable from the Catholic perspective.
Justification, the process by which a sinner is made righeous, pure and Holy before God is what the Council of Trent defined against Luther’s Doctrine and Calvins Doctrine.
Now, the Catholic Doctrine of Justification is entirely consistent with the Theories of the Atonement that I cited above and while they are correlated with each other, there are still Distinct Doctrines. On that point, I think you would agree or at least you will see that In Catholic Theology those are Dictinct but Related Doctrines.
A comparison of England with Spain, or Scotland with Portugal, or the United States with Mexico and Peru or Brazil, proves the advantages of living variety over dead uniformity.
Nor should we overlook the important fact, that the differences which divide the various Protestant denominations are not fundamental, and that the articles of faith in which they agree are more numerous than those in which they disagree. All accept the inspired Scriptures as the supreme rule of faith and practice, salvation by grace, and we may say every article of the Apostles’ Creed; while in their views of practical Christianity they unanimously teach that our duties are comprehended in the royal law of love to God and to our fellow-men, and that true piety and virtue consist in the imitation of the example of Christ, the Lord and Saviour of all.
Thank God for what the good article by Philip Schaff testfies to, to which can be added,
While iniquity was always a significant part of America, it was generally held as shameful and overall resisted by Church and State in Protestant America. Early on, in a pamphlet for Europeans titled Information to Those Who Would Remove to America (1754), Benjamin Franklin wrote, in part:
“ ...serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there; Infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel. And the Divine Being seems to have manifested His approbation of the mutual forbearance and kindness by which the different sects treat each other, and by the remarkable prosperity with which He has been please to favor the whole country. - ohn Gould Curtis, American history told by contemporaries .... Volume 3, p. 26
So, just to be clear about this, what is being said here is that the Catholic position is that it's Christ's SUFFERING which atones for our sins, correct?
Wow indeed. So if it is not in the Bible, you don't believe it?
1) Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?
2) Other than the specific command to John to pen the Revelation, where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?
3) Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?
4) Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible? Where did the table of contents come from?
5) Where is the concept of ‘Trinity” explained?
6) Where is the concept of ‘Sola Scriptura’ explained?
Just for starters.
The answer to all of those questions is easily answered by Christ’s example of referring to scripture which had been handed down. The New Testament books were written by those closest to Christ and have never proven to be in error unlike the books of the Apocrypha. I would suggest you read the posts by daniel1212 on the canon. As for Sola Scriptura, it’s becoming more clear as time goes on that no other authority can be trusted especially the RCC, Mormons, Muslims, et el.
To be more precise, RCs do not have the right to interpret Scripture according to their judgment if it conflicts with RC teaching, but within those boundaries (and Rome has infallibly defined very few verses, if at all) they have a great deal of liberty to interpret and wrest Scripture to support Rome, as they understand her.
And which (as recently seen in the case of Lumen Gentium) can vary somewhat from RC to RC, as well as the degree of extrapolation they must engage in when trying force Scripture to support traditions of men which do not depend upon Scriptural warrant.
“If you have the right to interpret Scripture according to your judgment why do I not have the same right?”
Hope you don’t mind, but I’d like to take a shot at answering your question. First, so you know where I’m coming from, I am Reformed and Baptist. But I also have some familiarity with and respect for the Fathers, as well as Augustine, Aquinas, etc. Truth is wherever you find it.
With that in mind, I’d like to probe your thoughts a bit, because I have always been fascinated by this authority question dividing so-called Protestants from Catholics, because it messes with my head like an Escher diagram.
The puzzle begins like this. You say there is a prohibition on private judgment in interpreting Scripture. I don’t have a textual basis for that (we can discuss 2 Peter 1:20 later if you like), but assuming it is so for the sake of argument, how can you comply with your own principle of non-private judgment?
Here’s the syllogism:
Minor Premise: God, being God, would be able and willing to make truth knowable to us to a reasonable level of certainty
Major Premise: Private judgment doesn’t produce reasonable certainty because reasonable people can arrive at significantly different conclusions using the same text
Therefore, private judgment cannot be God’s chosen path to reasonably certain truth.
From this syllogism, you get the motivation to look for something other than private judgment as a way to discover God’s truth, and you posit in it’s place an infallible interpreter, the Church.
Now here’s where Escher comes in. At first glance, the structure of the syllogism appears inarguable. So, for the sake of argument, let us assume it is correct. Now what? Now we must look for that alternate means of finding God’s truth, and we must find it without the use of private judgment, else we have introduced, according to the syllogism, a fatal uncertainty.
So by what means may we know truth? Through the Church, you say. But how do I know anything about the Church? So you present me with an array of facts about the history of the Church. Fine. Now what do I do? Sit passively staring at those facts like an unprogrammed automaton? No, I have to decide if I believe those facts as presented, along with an army of theological inferences that follow close behind. How do I do that? Because I am not yet in the fold. I am only standing at the door, looking in. To step in, I must judge those facts. No one else can do that for me. It happens in me. It is my private judgment, the very thing I am, under the syllogism, forbidden to do.
So I go back to the syllogism, because it is preventing me from finding my infallible interpreter. For if I use my private judgment to decide that the Church is that infallible interpreter, then I cannot be reasonable certain that my judgment is correct. In fact, if my major premise is correct, I cannot verify anything to be correct, even my major premise. And if I cannot rely on my major premise being correct, then my conclusion that an alternative to private judgment must be found cannot be verified as correct either.
You see how the system implodes on itself.
So, if you have a solution, I will listen patiently. And I will use my private judgment to determine if you are correct. Because happily, under my epistemology, I am allowed to do that. Indeed, I appear to have no other choice.
Then try answeing them, one by one. Be specific.
If you believe what you believe, you should have the answers.
I bet you won't do it. Because you can't.
Nope. Not ignoring. Simply pointing out the inconsistency. Catholics would like to take John 6:50+ and interpret these in a very literal sense although there could be many contextual differences especially since this was told to the Jews who would find the understanding difficult. Yet, as you demostrated, Catholics simply choose to ignore the ONLY obvious interpretation of John 6:40+ in favor of some made up Church belief.
I would suggest that the Church (and many Protestants for that matter) simply are not reading the verses for what they state. Doctrines are made up. Not studied.
Answer these questions.
1) Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?
2) Other than the specific command to John to pen the Revelation, where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?
3) Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?
4) Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible? Where did the table of contents come from?
5) Where in the Bible is the concept of ‘Trinity” explained?
6) Where in the Bible is the concept of ‘Sola Scriptura’ explained?
Just for starters.
Read “Rome Sweet Home” by Scott Hahn
A Trestise on the Presdistination of the Saints
1Sa 3:7 Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, and the word of the LORD had not yet been revealed to him.
1Sa 3:8 And the LORD called Samuel again the third time. And he arose and went to Eli and said, "Here I am, for you called me." Then Eli perceived that the LORD was calling the young man.
1Sa 3:9 Therefore Eli said to Samuel, "Go, lie down, and if he calls you, you shall say, 'Speak, LORD, for your servant hears.'" So Samuel went and lay down in his place.
1Sa 3:10 And the LORD came and stood, calling as at other times, "Samuel! Samuel!" And Samuel said, "Speak, for your servant hears."
1Sa 3:11 Then the LORD said to Samuel, "Behold, I am about to do a thing in Israel at which the two ears of everyone who hears it will tingle.
1Sa 3:12 On that day I will fulfill against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end. 1Sa 3:13 And I declare to him that I am about to punish his house forever, for the iniquity that he knew, because his sons were blaspheming God, and he did not restrain them.
1Sa 3:14 Therefore I swear to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever."
....
1Sa 3:18 So Samuel told him everything and hid nothing from him. And he said, "It is the LORD. Let him do what seems good to him."
1Sa 3:19 And Samuel grew, and the LORD was with him and let none of his words fall to the ground.
1Sa 3:20 And all Israel from Dan to Beersheba knew that Samuel was established as a prophet of the LORD.
As Augustine rightfully determined, we are saved to believe so that we might do good works.
From their own brethren:
Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development."
Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs...
On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation.(http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html)
Also see 871 of 904
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.