Posted on 11/12/2005 10:15:17 AM PST by NYer
|
It does more than just tell us the pages on which the constituent books begin. It tells us that the Bible is a collection of books, and that implies a collector. The identity of the collector is what chiefly distinguishes the Protestant from the Catholic.
Douglas Wilson knows this. Writing in Credenda Agenda, a periodical espousing the Reformed faith, he notes that “the problem with contemporary Protestants is that they have no doctrine of the table of contents. With the approach that is popular in conservative Evangelical circles, one simply comes to the Bible by means of an epistemological lurch. The Bible ‘just is,’ and any questions about how it got here are dismissed as a nuisance. But time passes, the questions remain unanswered, the silence becomes awkward, and conversions of thoughtful Evangelicals to Rome proceed apace.”
Most Protestants are at a loss when asked how they know that the 66 books in their Bibles belong in it. (They are at an even greater loss to explain why the seven additional books appearing in Catholic Bibles are missing from theirs.) For them the Bible “just is.” They take it as a given. It never occurs to most of them that they ought to justify its existence. All Christians agree that the books that make up the Bible are inspired, meaning that God somehow guided the sacred authors to write all of, and only, what he wished. They wrote, most of them, without any awareness that they were being moved by God. As they wrote, God used their natural talents and their existing ways of speech. Each book of the Bible is an image not only of the divine Inspirer but of the all-too-human author. So how do we know whether Book A is inspired while Book B is not? A few unsophisticated Protestants are satisfied with pointing to the table of contents, as though that modern addition somehow validates the inspiration of the 66 books, but many Protestants simply shrug and admit that they don’t know why they know the Bible consists of inspired books and only inspired books. Some Protestants claim that they do have a way of knowing, a kind of internal affirmation that is obtained as they read the text.
Wilson cites the Westminster Confession — the 1647 Calvinist statement of faith — which says that the Holy Spirit provides “full persuasion and assurance” regarding Scripture to those who are converted. The converted,” says Wilson, “are in turn enabled to see the other abundant evidences, which include the testimony of the Church.” But the “testimony of the Church” cannot be definitive or binding since the Church may err, according to Protestant lights. (Protestants do not believe the Church is infallible when it teaches.) What really counts is the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. Without it, the Protestant is at a loss — but, even with it, he is at a loss. When young Mormon missionaries come to your door, they ask you to accept a copy of the Book of Mormon. You hesitate, but they say that all they want is for you to read the text and ask God to give you a sign that the text is inspired. They call this sign the “burning in the bosom.” If you feel uplifted, moved, prodded toward the good or true — if you feel “inspired,” in the colloquial rather than theological sense of that word — as you read the Book of Mormon, then that is supposed to be proof that Joseph Smith’s text is from God.
A moment’s thought will show that the “burning in the bosom” proves too much. It proves not only that the Book of Mormon is inspired but that your favorite secular poetry is inspired. You can get a similar feeling anytime you read an especially good novel (or, for some people, even a potboiler) or a thrilling history or an intriguing biography. Are all these books inspired? Of course not, and that shows that the “burning in the bosom” may be a good propaganda device but is a poor indicator of divine authorship.
Back to the Protestant. The “full persuasion and assurance” of the Westminster Confession is not readily distinguishable from Mormonism’s “burning in the bosom.” You read a book of the Bible and are “inspired” by it — and that proves its inspiration. The sequence is easy enough to experience in reading the Gospels, but I suspect no one ever has felt the same thing when reading the two books of Chronicles. They read like dry military statistics because that is what they largely are.
Neither the simplistic table-of-contents approach nor the more sophisticated Westminster Confession approach will do. The Christian needs more than either if he is to know for certain that the books of the Bible come ultimately from God. He needs an authoritative collector to affirm their inspiration. That collector must be something other than an internal feeling. It must be an authoritative — and, yes, infallible Church.
Agreed. The Word of God is Truth and any interpretation challenged with a perceived contradiction must place priority on the Truth as being able to harmonize the perceived contradiction. The perceived contradiction lies in the perception, not in the Truth. Likewise, within the proper body of Christ. There is no need to diminish the Body of Christ by some who would place a denomination first and attempt to claim it as priority over the Mind of Christ which all believers are commanded to have and exhibit. In this fashion, believers with the mind of Christ may occupy many different denominations, possibly with many different gifts, functions, and plans for their lives as predetermined in eternity past by Him.
"Who are they? The founding bishops of the Church. They are promised that the Holy Spirit "will guide you into all the truth."
Aw, you gave him the answer, M! He was supposed to figure it out himself. My bet, by the way, is that he did! :)
According to your 61, Jesus came just to teach man so that he might more easily follow the commandments (which he already has the "capacity" to do). All Christ did was make salvation easier.
Ezekiel is general and global in scope.
Ezechiel is not talking about Adam's sin, but about the sins of Israelites in his own time. The prophet was well aware of the need for the grace of Christ for the salvation of men, as he says elsewhere: "I will give them one heart, and will put a new spirit in their bowels: and I will take away the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh: That they may walk in my commandments, and keep my judgments, and do them: and that they may be my people, and I may be their God." (Ezech. 11:19-20).
"Or perhaps you are trying to say that St. Augustine believed that the blind man should have lied because, since he was a sinful man, he could do nothing but lie." Exactly!
You're worse than Julian of Eclanum! Unbelievable. Even if the blind man was unrighteous and remained so after his healing by Christ (something I hardly admit - and neither would St. Augustine, who sees in the physical healing an allegory of spiritual healing), the Saint would not have said he could not tell the truth! "In no way, therefore, are men devoid of good ... But to this, that these defend in the day of judgment their thoughts, so that they may be punished more tolerably, since they do naturally whatever things belong to the law, having the work of the law written on the hearts thus far, so that to others they would not do what they do not wish to endure: in this, however, sinning, that men without faith do not refer these works to this end [God] to which they ought to refer [them]." (Against Julian, IV, 3:22, 25) But if this man was justified, read what Augustine says of such: "by the law is the knowledge of sin, by faith the acquisition of grace against sin, by grace the healing of the soul from the disease of sin, by the health of the soul freedom of will, by free will the love of righteousness, by love of righteousness the accomplishment of the law" (On the Spirit and the Letter, 52).
Children are innocent.
Why, then, does our Lord say clearly: "Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. ... Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (St. John 3:3, 5)? According to you, no rebirth through baptism is necessary for salvation, since we all start out as righteous anyway!
"This is a really dumb conclusion and it certainly has nothing to do with actual Augustinism." Of course not! According to Augustine, children are unclean, conceived in iniquity and nourished in their mother's sin.
And where could he have gotten this silly idea? "For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me." (Ps. 50:7)
The idea that Augustine was the founder of Calvinism is ridiculous.
Who says that that is the upshot of the argument? Idiots? No. Educated beyond their intelligence? Perhaps. At least to the extent that that presumed to abandon the notion of providential guidance of the Church in the preceding 1500 years, in favor of starting afresh with a plethora of novel teaching. Yet it is the Catholics, somehow, who are accused thusly by their descendents.
I think that *those* arguments are getting old, too...
We are agreed. Jesus IS alive todayand is the Head of His Church. Nevertheless, have YOU spoken with Him in an independently verifiable way lately? Neither have I.
Yet we do speak to Him, don't we, and he does answer, doesn't He? And we still differ on our opinions about His message. A visible, physically breathing head is needed to His Church. Christ provided for him in Matt. 16:18, so that confusion about what "we" think He said can be avoided. The Catholic Church has succeeded in this for 2000 years. present confusion at the lower levels in that Church are as much a byproduct of living in the pluralistic culture you have fostered as much as anything. Some people just want to be popular, after all! But the truth has been preserved, the deposit of the Faith is intact, if you know ehere to look.
Jesus IS in charge. But He left us His vicar to oversee the daily running of our affairs till he comes in glory.
Jesu Christ is still physically alive and breathing.
The Apostle Paul who's living, breathing, and talking to you, OR do you ignore Paul and his words and say, "Alright everyone, that church over there...they're the ones who found him, so listen to them. They're the final authority....not Paul."
*The dilemma of the false alternative.
Saul/Paul was personally converted by Jesus who taught him that in attascking/persecuting the Church, Saul/Paul was attacking/persecuting Jesus Himself.
Saul/Paul had to go to the existing Catholic Church to have his blindness cured and to be catechized by the already existing Catholic Church. Do you know how long he spent in catechesis before he began preaching as a Catholic Bishop?
Your imagined scenario fails at all levels. Paul would tell us Himself to listen to the Church the Pillar and Ground of Truth.
In matters of doctrine, there is no diversity in the Catholic Church. People can choose to believe what the Church teaches or not. Yet, there is only one Catechism and one Scripture. Protestants, on the other hand, have numerous creedal statements - often diametrically opposed to each other. In matters of doctrine, the Spirit guides the Church, not individuals.
Then how can you claim that the Spirit lead your church to unilaterally slice of roughly half the body of Christ in the great schism????
You've answered this question yourself in this very post...
"...That doesn't evidence the lack of the Spirit guidance but the persistent sinfulness in the heart of man"
The Spirit leads the Church in many ways. But when defining doctrines, the Spirit leads the Bishops in union with the Pope. THEY have the power to bind and loosen - to define what we believe, not the individual. God desires that we obey authority set up over us to teach us humility, to teach us to be submissive to Him. Thus, knowing that Christ established this heirarchy, we submit to its definitions of the faith.
There are roughly 100,000,000 Christians in China today because of the work of one Christian man - Hudson Taylor. I find it hard to believe, based on the fruit he bore, that he was not being led by the Spirit.
There were Christians in China long before Hudson Taylor showed up. But be that as it may, I never denied that the Spirit moves powerfully in the individual. God works through whom He will - recall He even worked through Cyrus and Nebechadezzar (sp?) in the OT.
Regards
The Protestant ignorance of the origin of the Bible is a mere mirror image of Catholic/Orthodox ignorance.
I've found quite a diverse interpretation of doctrine when addressing Greek Orthodox, Anglican and Roman Catholics. Have they recently united in their beliefs?
Sorry, can't answer your question. I'm not a protestant, anyway, just a member of the catholic church (not the Roman one.) But why do you ask? Even Lutherans do not claim infallibility for Martin Luther. He got a lot of things right, but he did make mistakes. This is not a big deal to non-Roman Christians.
" And, since we have the words of an Apostle, those words have greater weight than any words from ANY source that might ensue and contradict the Apostle.
Those who have verified the words as coming from the Apostle are under the authority of the Apostle once they've verified those words."
The rub comes from who or what determines the weight and meaning of the words of +Paul or the other writers of the NT. If Paul himself were to return today and preach a new gospel, preach something other than that which the Church always and everywhere has believed, let us say that Christ was not born of a virgin or that the Eucharist is only a symbolic memorial of the Last Supper, or that the hierarchal system of The Church was not ordained by God, he would be condemned and rightly so.
"Even if the whole universe holds communion with the [heretical] patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching. +Maximos the Confessor
What the reformers of the 16th Century did, and their Protestant descendants to this day are doing, is "...introducing some new teaching", unknown to the One Church. In fact, certain mainline Protestant groups actually proclaim that the Holy Spirit is doing a "new thing" to justify their innovations.
At least that is how it appears to Orthodoxy, Padre.
The purpose was to give the gift of life. The characteristics given to that end to the being were his own. The characteristics refer to ability, not the results of the exercise of the abilities. That is His Spirit which He also gives, but the judgenment and acceptance f that Spirit is subject to the free will of the man.
"It also appears to me that you believe that Adam and Eve sinned by trying to become like God before they were ready and suffered the consequences of that sin, but the consequences of that sin (quite aside from the guilt) were all of us."
Not before they were ready, but by theft. As I outlined above, Genesis is parable. God knew beforehand that man woud attempt this. That is why we are here in this universe.
"let's posit that God is not the author of Evil and that His grace falls on the good and the evil equally, like the rain and always has since the day God created Man."
Why posit, It's a given.
Mark 10:18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone."
Matthew 5:45
"that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
I already gave that Enoch and Noah walked with God.
"Now I suspect that most non Reformed Christians would say that those men were on balance good and holy or evil and pernicious because of the exercise of their Free Will. I further suspect that the bishops of the local Council of Orange, when they wrote canon I, knew that as well as you and I do."
They did not. The held, or accepted the position of Augustine. I covered that in #67.
"do you believe that anyone, prior to the Resurrection, succeeded in attaining a state of being like God, of theosis as the Fathers put it, and so after physical death to have received immortality with God?"
On the Earth, no. Are they in Heaven, yes. John 8:56
"Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad." Also, Lazarus resided in Heaven, per Luke 16. I'll post this caution so that no one might misunderstand. Matt 10:24-25
"A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. ...
"the question becomes whether or not the "likeness of God" in which we had been created and in which abides our Free Will, a divine attribute, had been so distorted by the Sin of Adam that no matter how hard we tried to exercise our Free Will in a manner consistent with becoming like God, we simply couldn't because sin and the Evil One had us, even the most holy of us, chained and captive."
The question of whether, or not someone can become like God, requires that they obtain the same knowledge, wisdom and hold the same values that He does. It also requires that they attain the same power to give, not just the gift of life, but eternal life, and do so in a universal way out of love.
Their are barriers placed as per Gen in attaining this. No one mortal can create life on their own, provide for that life and there is the cherubim with the flaming sword, which is the physics of this world. Their is however nothing in their nature, their capacity, that prevents their free will from recognizing good and evil and valuing only the good. All barriers to that are out of the man himself, from his own free will.
God's intent, from the beginning is that the gift of life should be eternal and with Him. God came to teach, to enable us to do so. John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day." That draw is the recognition of the Holy Spirit. The presentaiton of the Holy Spirit is grace. Man judges the Holy Spirit according to what they value. The draw is realizaiton and judgement the what the Spirit holds and teaches is good.
The Holy Spirit is the bread prayed for in the Lord's prayer. He is the bread of life. He is the sign of Jonah that was given to all. Matthew 12:39, He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah." Judgement of the Holy Spirit by man is the mechanism by which eternal life with God is obtained. Matthew 12:32, "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
You stated:
”Both Adam and Eve attempted to take the bread of life and become like God. They were deceived.”
This isn’t quite true. Only Eve was deceived.
This is a fundamental point because even though Eve sinned first, it was Adam who sinned willfully and consequently doomed the entire race. God is not the author of evil but it is folly to say that this was not according to God’s will and divine plan.
I do believe you are correct in stating man’s options are restricted. Man is bound by sin and only God can set us free. None does what is right-not one.
From the beginning, this was His intent, that He should teach and we should learn. We were given the gift of capacity.
We do not have the gift of capacity for teaching and learning. The older you get the more you realize this-especially when you can’t remember where you put your car keys that you just sat down ten minutes ago. The simple fact is it is God from who our knowledge and wisdom comes from. We cannot learn anything apart from Him.
Perhaps Adam even in his perfect state lacked the wisdom about choosing the fruit? Hmmmm…..
Gen 3:5-6
"For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it."
Adam was there and was well aware the serpent had said. They both had attempted to become like God knowingly and through theft.
1Ti 2:11-15
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Just as Moses gave the divorce laws out of the hardness of their hearts, so too did Paul speak this.
" We cannot learn anything apart from Him." " Perhaps Adam even in his perfect state lacked the wisdom about choosing the fruit? Hmmmm….."
Yes.
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.