"Since you have demonstrated that there are some discontinuities between your understanding of the Faith and the real Faith, it is possible that your submission is flawed."
There is no question that a difference exists between my understanding of the message of the Bible and yours (or your organization's, since you are compelled to adhere to the party line). But, your remarks do not demonstrate that it is my understanding which is flawed. You quote a passage and then essentially say, QED you are wrong.
Let me say, the challenge we face is to harmonize the entire Bible. This is what a good hermeneutic does. It must deal with the fact that the message of the Bible is changing as it unfolds. OTOH, your hermeutic tacitly claims that those passages which are addressed to the Jews directly (the Torah, w'Nebiim, w'Kethubim and the Gospel accounts up to the crucifixion) are easily picked and chosen because the "early church" did so. This may be true, but does this do justice to the text?
I propose to you to consider how many Jews had the right use of the Mosaic Law? Not how many did it faithfully, but how many recognized as Paul did that it was a tutor to lead them to the mercy of God? He did not until he was knocked from his horse and blinded. How many recognized with Peter that they did not, could not, do the Law? Even Peter did not until confronted by Paul in Galatia (Gal. 1 - 3) Very few, I submit. That leads me to think that irrespective of what view those you claim were the "early Church" held(really just those whom you have been taught believed in a papist worldview), many were utterly, totally screwed up (read Acts 15). Much of the so-called "early Church" taught heresy (simon the sorcerer, the Judaizers, Peter in Galatia, the troublers of Phillipi, Pelagius, etc.). Their opinions are incidental to the argument of the text itself.
The power of the Pauline epistles lie in his speaking directly to us Gentiles (the word simply means "all other nations") now grafted into the Messiah, "at the cross" when the blood was shed. This is the plain teaching of Eph. 2. Here and in the letter to the Romans, Paul explains how the entire message of the Bible has been faith alone is the vehicle God used to rescue His people, beginning with Abraham (but likely included Adam and Noah). And faith is an undeserved gift, not a transaction of exchange.
Paul step by step explains the demands of the Law (and law of conscience for Gentiles) has been to force men (called of God) to see their failure. This is the tutorial work of Law/law, it is not to direct behavior. Good behavior is the natural outcome of the indwelling Spirit and couples with the continual failure of our flesh. We don't perform any ceremonies/sacraments to overcome this situation.
But, you deny this tutorial role of Law/law. Your hybridization of works/grace results from wrongly (but sincerely) attempting to harmonize the demands of Jesus' teachings about salvation by works for Jews (pushing the mirror into their faces), while ignoring the fact that we Gentiles were not on stage until the enmity of the Law was torn down at the cross. Read in order, the world changes and the text makes perfect sense.
But, here is a monster point. Your organization needs the obligatory load of the Law to be left active and blended into grace. It gives them the power, guilt, control needed over people. If they are right, then they are doing the right thing to inflict religion upon people. But, if we are right...then your organization is heretical and blasphemously teaching a salvation not contemplated by the Scriptures in total. We argue that understanding the Book is a therefore a precursor to recognizing any group's authority. If they are in harmony with the story line, they may speak. If not, they are meaningless. Rome has it reversed. They possess the power to tell what this story should mean (rather than what it means to the ordinary reader). That gives them authority over the story.
We who place the text before their authority conclude that a proper hermeneutic carefully follows the development of the story line, watching for our entrance onto the stage of the world. Thus, you quoting a passage, any passage, of Jesus teaching Law to Jews is an improper use of the Bible. You are simply reading another's mail, just as if I read Isaiah and claimed it is my country to which he refers. To prove you/I as a Gentile must "do" what He is referring to (do you take sacrfices to temples? do you observe the Sabbath? etc.), we contend you must first determine if your hermeneutic is proper...and according to Paul's clear explanation of the entire story, you cannot. You may call this a "kalidescope of Paul", but that is an epithet to detract from his substantive argument. Paul claims to be the Apostle to you and I and decodes the integration between the Jews being a picture of man's inability to produce personal righteousness and God drawing some into repentence. You dismiss it as a misuse of Paul. But, that is only true if your organization has the right to misuse the normal sense of his argument and treat the Scriptures as an encyclopedia of spiritual thoughts.
Paul makes it clear that repentence is not of failure to perform goodness (it is that, but a whole lot more). It is repentence from the sin of relying upon ourselves to generate the kind of righteousness that dwelt only in the Son of God. That we would think we possess the equipment on board to duplicate what is needed to stand before a holy God is sin of the highest degree. The Catholic Church implies (if not directly teaches) that men are called to do just that. Jesus is sort of the "make up" feature for however far short I fall. But, the heavy lifting is mine.
The reformed perspective says that this is, according to Paul, so monumentally far off the message as to miss it entirely. We are short of personal capacity as to make Catholicism qualitatively impossible, not quantitatively in need of effort. You and I must address who's view of Paul's contentions guides the proper hermeneutic. Is the Bible just an encyclopedia of spiritual facts, equally applicable (or selectively applicable) or does it unfold a story which comes along and includes all of mankind at certain points in the story.
I can’t believe Mark is still arguing with your truth and logic. He really has his feet cemented into that concrete block. He only has Roman, man made text, to argue scriptural truths and will not take off the blindfold. Oh well, he is not alone there, sadly to say. That must be where the word “sheeple” came from.
Certainly. Let us proceed.
There is no question that a difference exists between my understanding of the message of the Bible and yours (or your organization's, since you are compelled to adhere to the party line).
Oh dear, and we were starting off so nicely. The lesson of the Ethiopian eunuch much be learned, if not now, then at our Judgement. Jesus did not leave us any written words, nor did He cause any words to be written that we know of. All the NT was either bishops writing to their flock, or the remembrance many years later of Matthew and John (who apparently knew and walked with Christ) and Mark and Luke (who apparently knew and walked with Peter (Mark) and Peter and Paul (Luke)). We have the oral tradition that was in full force long before anything that we have today was written down. Jesus created His Church, not a book. The Church created that book.
"Since you have demonstrated that there are some discontinuities between your understanding of the Faith and the real Faith, it is possible that your submission is flawed."
There is no question that a difference exists between my understanding of the message of the Bible and yours (or your organization's, since you are compelled to adhere to the party line). But, your remarks do not demonstrate that it is my understanding which is flawed. You quote a passage and then essentially say, QED you are wrong.
Let me rephrase. I attempted to say that your understanding of the Catholic Faith is demonstrably what the Catholic Faith really is. In this post (and certainly in future posts), I shall attempt to demonstrate.
Let me say, the challenge we face is to harmonize the entire Bible. This is what a good hermeneutic does.
Correct. But remember that we place higher emphasis on the words of Jesus than we do an OT clerk.
OTOH, your hermeutic tacitly claims that those passages which are addressed to the Jews directly (the Torah, w'Nebiim, w'Kethubim and the Gospel accounts up to the crucifixion) are easily picked and chosen because the "early church" did so. This may be true, but does this do justice to the text?
The text of Scripture is given the emphasis and importance that the early Church did. For instance, the words of Jesus (our Lord and Saviour) matter infinitely more than anything from the pen of the worthy, but human Chronicler.
I propose to you to consider how many Jews had the right use of the Mosaic Law? Not how many did it faithfully, but how many recognized as Paul did that it was a tutor to lead them to the mercy of God?
Don't know. The Mosaic Law was not simply tutoring the Jews for God's mercy, it was a way of life that they would be judged on.
He did not until he was knocked from his horse and blinded.
Paul was apparently given a revelation from God. It appears different from the Revelation of John, or the Revelation of Peter and the dozen or so other Revelations that were circulating.
That leads me to think that irrespective of what view those you claim were the "early Church" held(really just those whom you have been taught believed in a papist worldview), many were utterly, totally screwed up (read Acts 15).
papist? Come on now. I use the term Reformed and Calvinist and capitalize them, as you well know. I am not speaking of screwed up individuals in the Church or those who were screwed up making certain statements. That is the magisterium that is constant, not individuals. Augustine made extra-magisterial statements that he later retracted, for instance. Origen and Tertullian made statements that the Magisterium rejected.
Much of the so-called "early Church" taught heresy (simon the sorcerer, the Judaizers, Peter in Galatia, the troublers of Phillipi, Pelagius, etc.). Their opinions are incidental to the argument of the text itself.
Simon Magus was never part of the Church; the Judaizers were otherwise Christian who were eventually rousted out of the Church. Peter was wrong on occasion and was corrected by the other bishops. That is the strength of the Church and where the various other claimants to the title of Christianity do not have that strength. Example - the Anglicans, the ELCA, the Methodists and 90% of the Presbyterians and other former Reformed in the United States.
The power of the Pauline epistles lie in his speaking directly to us Gentiles (the word simply means "all other nations") now grafted into the Messiah, "at the cross" when the blood was shed.
Follow the timeline. Peter converted the first Gentile; Paul spent most of his first years in the Jewish communities. Paul was a bishop speaking to his flock. Not our Lord and Saviour. We must look at his words through the prism of Jesus, not the opposite. Else we risk turning into those who follow a man (Paul) versus God.
Here and in the letter to the Romans, Paul explains how the entire message of the Bible has been faith alone is the vehicle God used to rescue His people, beginning with Abraham (but likely included Adam and Noah). And faith is an undeserved gift, not a transaction of exchange.
Faith is an attribute of the individual, nothing else. Adam rejected God in the Garden. Noah and Abraham did not. But the nation of Israel rejected God at almost every turn and every event in their long history. Yet God persisted even in their unbelief. Remember that God showed Himself in many ways to the Jews over the centuries and hardly faith alone.
Paul step by step explains the demands of the Law (and law of conscience for Gentiles) has been to force men (called of God) to see their failure.
Now we seriously part ways. Paul does no such thing. Paul emphasises behaviour of the Christians in his flock. The Corinthians are seriously screwed up and he chastises them.
This is the tutorial work of Law/law, it is not to direct behavior.
The Sermons on the Mount and Plain are definitely to direct behaviour. The Two Commandments are exact Commandments. Matthew 25 speaks to Judgement upon the fruits of the individual. Notice the order - the fruits are done, and then the Judgement occurs. The Reformed position reverses the order.
But, here is a monster point. Your organization needs the obligatory load of the Law to be left active and blended into grace. It gives them the power, guilt, control needed over people. If they are right, then they are doing the right thing to inflict religion upon people. But, if we are right...then your organization is heretical and blasphemously teaching a salvation not contemplated by the Scriptures in total.
If there is any doubt, one must go back to the words of Jesus. Peter is made Steward by Jesus. He instructs Peter to feed his sheep. The Apostles then experience Pentecost and head out to evangelize the world. Their actions. They are doing and not being done to. Jesus created His Church and taught and taught and taught. Not wrote and wrote and wrote. If the Reformed were correct about the indwelling Holy Spirit, then there would be no need for Scripture, or anything else for that matter. The indwelling Holy Spirit would simply take over and give the Reformed elect individual all that he would need. But that does not happen, simply because each man is responsible for his own conduct and responsible for accepting or rejection the talents and Grace of God.
Rome has it reversed. They possess the power to tell what this story should mean (rather than what it means to the ordinary reader). That gives them authority over the story.
It is not Rome. It is the Catholic Church. We wrote Scripture, we chose it (and the particular version of it), and we translated it first into Latin and then brought it to the world. The Venerable Bede was the first to translate any of it into English, for what it's worth, in the 800s.
We who place the text before their authority conclude that a proper hermeneutic carefully follows the development of the story line, watching for our entrance onto the stage of the world. Thus, you quoting a passage, any passage, of Jesus teaching Law to Jews is an improper use of the Bible. You are simply reading another's mail, just as if I read Isaiah and claimed it is my country to which he refers.
But when you read Paul, it is a bishop writing to his flock, and not the words of Jesus Christ, our Saviour.
Paul claims to be the Apostle to you and I and decodes the integration between the Jews being a picture of man's inability to produce personal righteousness and God drawing some into repentence. You dismiss it as a misuse of Paul. But, that is only true if your organization has the right to misuse the normal sense of his argument and treat the Scriptures as an encyclopedia of spiritual thoughts.
We treat Paul correctly - as a bishop. A number of the Apostles went to the Gentiles. Thomas, for instance, went to India.
Paul makes it clear that repentence is not of failure to perform goodness (it is that, but a whole lot more). It is repentence from the sin of relying upon ourselves to generate the kind of righteousness that dwelt only in the Son of God.
It is not either. Repentence is the understanding that one has failed, the admission of it, and the resolution to stop doing that particular sin.
That we would think we possess the equipment on board to duplicate what is needed to stand before a holy God is sin of the highest degree. The Catholic Church implies (if not directly teaches) that men are called to do just that.
Negative. Wherever did you get this idea?
Jesus is sort of the "make up" feature for however far short I fall. But, the heavy lifting is mine.
Negative again. This is not Catholic teaching and never has been. The poster "Footsteps" kinda illustrates a little more of the Catholic perspective. Not exactly, but a lot closer than what you posted here.
The reformed perspective says that this is, according to Paul, so monumentally far off the message as to miss it entirely. We are short of personal capacity as to make Catholicism qualitatively impossible, not quantitatively in need of effort. You and I must address who's view of Paul's contentions guides the proper hermeneutic.
Yes, but remember that we revere Paul, along with Peter as the greatest of the apostles. How can we do that if, as you claim, he is that far off in his meaning? Answer: he isn't. The NT is harmonized and both James and Paul are Scripture.
Is the Bible just an encyclopedia of spiritual facts, equally applicable (or selectively applicable) or does it unfold a story which comes along and includes all of mankind at certain points in the story.
Scripture is the word of God. It is events, stories, teachings and things that the Church was inspired to include for us for all time. It is not the only documentation available to us from the Church - the Catechism (the descendent of the Didache) tells us what the doctrines of the Church are, and explains Scripture. Remember too, that the Didache was written in the first century and actually was considered Scripture by many until the Church decided that it wasn't.