Posted on 08/30/2009 2:03:16 PM PDT by NYer
That’s simply wrong. There are modernist Catholics who follow the liberals hook, line and sinker. Which is our problem:they conceal their real views behind a veil of pious words, while in the biblical scholarship they aim to deconstruct the Scriptures. My assessment is that the pope is closer to Machem than he is to many in the Vatican.
That doesn't matter around here.
Here is the preferred version of history as portrayed by most anti-Catholic/Orthodox:
In the early Church, they all read their Bibles every day. The Epistles and Gospels were widely reproduced and Saint Timothy (who some here believe wrote the Epistle addressed to him) told them what order to put everything in and then they were bound together.
On Sundays, they would eat crackers and grape juice while thinking about Jesus. Sometimes, they would jump in the water and this was called baptism, but this really wasn't that important. They ALL understood that Jesus really didn't care all that much for His mother and simply told John to look after her as an afterthought. They also knew that Jesus enjoyed mocking his Disciples, He did this by switching from Aramaic to Greek in order to confuse them.
During this time, the city of Babylon was actually the greatest threat to Christianity, not Rome. So Peter went to Babylon.
Everything was going well and everyone knew how to interpret Scripture until the year 325 when the Emperor Constantine declared himself pope and incorporated the ROMAN Catholic church. He then held a council where he said that everything the "Bible-believing" Christians was wrong and he said they were heretics.
Nonsense! Rudolph Bultmann, the father of the modern Catholic/Orthodox interpretation of the Bible, said these were pre-modern fantasies that must be rejected by Modern Scientific Man. What are you, some sort of creationist?
but let's forget about that minor detail so we can join together to blame the errors of Wellhausen, Baur, von Harnack, and Darwin on the Pope of Rome.
Just what did Wellhausen, Baur, von Harnack, or Darwin teach that you disagree with?
See http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/04/do-70-of-catholics-deny-real-presence.html
That being the case, why are 99.999999% of Catholics and Orthodox--and apparently 100% of those on Free Republic--evolutionists and higher critics? I assume you have a reason somewhere.
Then why do you condemn them for rejecting evolution and higher criticism?
The Church Fathers are important guides to be sure but their works are commentaries on the scripture not scripture itself. All individual men are fallible.
Well, well, well. I thought the whole purpose of the article at the head of this thread was to laugh at "fundies" for not accepting the church fathers as authoritative, but now you want to turn around and say they aren't authoritative--at least when it comes to the historicity of the "old testament," eh?
The Catholics and Orthodox on this thread are definitely engaging in the latter. No humor involved.
“15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” - 2 Timothy 3
Since I don’t know Greek, please pardon a bit of expansion here...
“profitable” comes from “o-phelimos”. The NIV translates it useful. Profitable means “1. yielding profit; remunerative: a profitable deal. 2. beneficial or useful.” Unless one wants to apply this verse to TV evangelists, I think we can skip the idea that Paul means you can make money from scripture, and go to “beneficial or useful”.
What is it useful or beneficial for? “teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness”. Since doctrine is “something that is taught; teachings”, and one of the questions before us is how to correct bad doctrine, it seems scripture is useful or beneficial for the task.
And what is the result? “the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work”
Adequate comes from the greek “artios”, meaning “1) fitted; 2) complete, perfect: a) having reference apparently to “special aptitude for given uses”
So James White seems on solid ground when he said (lightly edited since I don’t have all the greek fonts):
“Because Scripture is God-breathed, and hence represents God’s very voice speaking, it is profitable for the work of the ministry in the Church of Jesus Christ. We are told that the work of teaching, and rebuking, and correcting, and training in righteousness, can be undertaken due to the nature of Scripture as God-breathed. What is Paul’s point?
The Church is not left without the voice of God. For when the Church listens to Scripture, she is hearing her Lord speaking to her. The authority of the Church then, in teaching, and rebuking, and instructing, is derived, despite Roman Catholic claims to the contrary, from Scripture itself.
Now, Mr. Madrid will certainly disagree for, in addressing this very passage less than fifty days ago in a debate on this topic, he said, speaking specifically of verse 16, “I defy you to show me where it says ‘sufficient,’ in your remarks you said, when you cited II Timothy 3:16, you said, ‘sufficient,’ but that is not what the Bible teaches.” Of course, no one asserts that the term, “profitable,” in verse 16, equates to “sufficiency” When his opponents referred him to verse 17, Mr. Madrid said, “Well, 17 doesn’t say ‘sufficient’ either! 17 says, ‘that, so the one that belongs to God may be competent and equipped for every good work.’ That does not teach sufficiency. Where does the Bible teach that it is sufficient?” Is Mr. Madrid correct here? Well, let’s see.
Verse 17 continues the thought of verse 16. The fact that the Church has God’s voice always present with her in God-breathed Scripture, means the man of God, specifically here, of course, Timothy, but I doubt anyone would disagree that these comments refer to all those who belong to Christ and who are a part of His body, the Church, might be complete, fully equipped for every good work.
The first term to examine, is the adjective translated, “complete,” the Greek term, artios. We note that it is related in its root to the second term we will examine, the verb which is translated, “fully equipped,” that being the verb, evxartivzw (exartizo). Paul is here providing us with a play on words—the verb compounding and emphasizing the meaning present in the adjective.
Now, the term, artios, Vine tells us means, “fitted, complete.” Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker tell us the term means, “complete, capable, proficient.” That is, as they say, “able to meet all demands,” giving the specific citation of II Timothy 3:17 as the reference. One of the newest lexical resources, Louw and Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains, uses the term, “qualified” as well. The great Greek scholar, Richard Trench, in his Synonyms of the New Testament, said with reference to this term, “If we ask ourselves under what special aspects ‘completeness’ is contemplated in artios, it would be safe to answer that it is not as the presence only of all the parts which are necessary for that ‘completeness’, but involves, further, the adaptation and aptitude of these parts for the ends which they were designed to serve. The man of God, St. Paul would say, should be furnished and accomplished with all which is necessary for the carrying out of the work to which he is appointed.”...
...But, Paul was not satisfied to merely state that the man of God may be, “complete,” but, he goes on to define what he means. “Fully equipped for every good work.” The term is evxartivzw, here in the perfect-passive-participial form, the prefix, ex, having, as Robertson noted, the perfective force. Vine tells us that here in II Timothy, it means “to fit out, that is, to furnish completely.” Bauer, Arndt Gingrich and Danker expressed this with the term, “equip.” Hendrickson makes reference to a related term, katarti,zw (katartizo), and it’s use at Luke 6:40, where it is translated, “fully trained.” We see here, then, that Paul teaches that the man of God is thoroughly or completely equipped for every good work. Now, what does it mean to say that one “is fully equipped,” if not to say that one is sufficient for a task?
I have recently taken up long-distance bicycle riding, and I’ve found a lovely little bike shack, a bike store where they are able to give me everything that I need, the clothes and the gloves and the helmet and the bike and the tires and the tubes, which you need a lot—they are able to fully equip me for the task of riding a bike. Does that not mean then, that they are sufficient as equippers for their task? Most definitely it does! “Let us never abandon the firm foundation of God-breathed Scripture, the Word of God, the Bible.” We further see, the Scriptures can equip the man of God for every good work. Now, Mr. Madrid, do you not believe that it is a good work to pray to Mary? Yet, the Scriptures nowhere teach this. Do you not believe that it is good to believe and teach that Mary was bodily assumed into Heaven? Yet, the Bible does not teach this. Do you not believe that the man of God should teach, in the Church, that the pope, in Rome, is infallible in his teaching office? Yet, the Scriptures know nothing of such a concept.”
This came from a debate - both sides are available for reading here:
http://vintage.aomin.org/SolaTop.html
At a bare minimum, these verses mean that scripture teaches, reprooves, corrects and trains a man adequately for salvation and provides what he needs to live a life of good works. That sounds sufficient.
So if traditions conflict, it is they that are wrong. Unless, of course, you argue that traditions are also “God-breathed”...if so, please provide a list of what traditions, handed down by what Apostles or Prophets.
You'll forgive me, I'm sure, for not knowing this about you, seeing as how you join your evolutionist, higher critical Catholic and Orthodox brethren without rebuke in this little celebration of superiority.
You certainly behave like one, big happy family.
“An argument has no authority because it comes from James White, either, yet you cite him.”
I quote his ARGUMENT. Agree with it or not, it is his argument that I’m interested in. I don’t expect anyone to be impressed by a name, only by whatever valid thought lies in the argument.
I’m pretty sure James White would reject the idea that his words have authority, apart from their compliance with scripture.
So when Paul says “all Scripture” he is referring to the books of the Old and New testament, including Revelation which might not have been written yet, as compiled and declared canonical some time after he died?
Where may I go to find that this is what he meant?
It must have been that there were a lot of “Billy Bobs” in the days of St. Paul or Justin Martyr. In any case, The evangelical view of the Eucharist is far more elitist and abstract than the doctrine of transubstantiation. At least if they follow the likes of Zwingli, who was very much the rationalist. Calvin’s teaching his Institutes is a strained version of the Real Presence,placing the “power” of Our Lord to be present in the bread and wine while remaining Himself “in heaven.” Going by the his actual words, or at least my impression of them, he was closer to Trent than many present day Catholic theologians. Of course, most Calvinists—and most Lutherans—moved away from the actual beliefs of Calvin and Luther toward those of Zwingli. However, my guess is that the devout Southern Baptist approaches the reception of Holy Communion with much the same faith as he/she does when being dunked during Baptism. To them it seems to be more than a “sign”and that they get the meaning of Flannery O’Connor when she said, “if it is only a sign, than the hell with it. If it is a “sign” it must mean a sign of God’s presence.
It would be kind of nice if those few Catholics who aren't threatened by the historical truth of the "old testament" occasionally stood up to your much louder, more numerous brethren.
I doubt any evolutionist, higher critical Catholic or Orthodox on FR doubts the real presence. It's too important to disagree with "Billy Bob" about something.
Ever notice that these people never mind agreeing with liberal Protestants about anything?
It would be wonderful if we could discuss a religion subject on FR without resorting to disparaging words like “laughable”, “ridiculous”, “nonsense”, etc. when referring to another’s views. I've been called worse, too, and it does nothing but turn me off to responding to anything that person posts. It does get personal here, at times, and shouldn't.
Shhh! Don't tell anyone!
Oh, come now! You're one of the few around here with an original perspective. A guy's gotta keep on his toes with you around. :)
It's really kind of you to say that, though I doubt I articulate my beliefs very well.
I wish wideawake were here. Not only was he totally, consistently, and unashamedly literal, but he was one of the most intelligent posters on FR. He could duel with anyone about theology, philosophy . . . even hip hop. He was a true champion.
Here again, just as with the opposition between Physical and Spiritual, an opposition which steers directly past Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, we have a kind of hidden pre-definition of God-breathed which enhances the likelihood that the conversation will miss what we really teach.
I'm beginning to suspect there is some connection between these instances of talking past one another and the regrettable temporary triumph of Nominalism or Realism in western thought.
I DO know that when somebody confuses "substance" with the modern idea of the stuff things are made of that that person is not going to be reliable for a criticism of Catholic thought. I mean no offense. I just mean that the argument doesn't come near what we say. It's irrelevant. If somebody insists that I think something I know I don't think, I tend to quit listening.
Where may I go to find that this is what he meant?
Ping me when you get an answer to this one, I'd love to see how this gets spun.
I would also love to know why, in light of 2 Timothy 3:16, Luther dismissed the Epistle of St. James as the "gospel of straw", declared the Revelation (Apocalypse) of St. John to be "neither apostolic nor prophetic" and actually removed the Apocrpha from canon.
And I might ask how you can lump all Catholics with Loisy just because they find nothing in evolution as a secondary cause that is incompatible with Scripture. The original meaning of evolution after all is “unfolding,” as in the unfolding of a flower, or, the process that leads from seed to fruit. What happened, of course, is that infidels like Huxley attached a biological theory to the cause of unbelief, and a century of demotion of the Bible from history to myth.
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.