Skip to comments.
Unto What Shall We Liken the Roman Hermeneutic?
Thoughts of Francis Turretin ^
| 2/19/12
| "TurretinFan"
Posted on 02/19/2012 7:10:38 PM PST by RnMomof7
Unto What Shall We Liken the Roman Hermeneutic?
Rome insists that she is an authentic interpreter of Scripture. We can easily provide an example, within a document defining a dogma, of Rome making a clear blunder. But let's leave that aside for a second, and consider the effect of Rome's claims on a conversation.
Christian: We should reject Marian devotion because the Bible teaches us to trust in God alone. Roman apologist: You have wrongly interpreted the Bible. Only Rome can authentically interpret the Bible. Christian: That's not true, the Bible was written to be understood. Anyone can authentically interpret the Bible, and many do - some more, and others less, well than others. Roman Apologist: No, you cannot understand the Bible without the Roman Catholic church. Christian: That's not so. Roman Apologist: Look, it says so right here in Matthew 16:18.
Pause
Now, that appeal to Scripture looks an awful lot like the Roman Apologist conceding that people can understand the Bible without the Roman communion. But behind that appearance lies a question about what this Roman hermeneutic entails.
1) Is it like special decoder glasses?
Is the Bible simply incomprehensible on its own, and one needs the Roman church to provide spectacles to make the incomprehensible, comprehensible? If that were true, then it would make no sense to appeal to Scripture to anyone not already looking through the spectacles.
2) Is it like the answer key to a Rubik's cube?
Is the Bible simply highly complicated, and one needs the Roman church to show the map of the way through to get the solution? If this were the case, the appeal to Scripture might make sense. This is just the first breadcrumb along a trail that eventually leads to Rome. In fact, though, all of Rome's attempts to prove her distinctive doctrines from Scripture fail. When you get an answer key to a Rubik's cube, you can see the parts all come together to form the solved puzzle, even if you couldn't have done it on your own. But with Rome, you don't get satisfactory answers like that. You get alleged solutions, but even knowing the supposed solutions, one cannot arrive at these solutions from Scripture.
3) Is it like the person who showed you how to look at "Magic Eye" 3D pictures?
Sure, at first it was just a weird bunch of lines and patterns, but once you were taught how to change your focus, suddenly the beautiful stereoscopic patterns emerged. Some of Rome's converts stories make it sound like they feel Rome's hermeneutic is similar to this. The two problems are - first, they don't seem to be able to teach us how to see the butterfly amidst the squiggly lines - and second, until we see the butterfly, appeals to Scripture are just appeals to squiggle lines, and consequently futile.
4) Is it like Humpty Dumpty?
In Alice Through the Looking Glass, she encounters the character Humpty Dumpty who insists on making words mean what he wants them to mean, even when that meaning is quite distant from any conventional sense of the word. Some of the arguments from the Roman side favor this interpretation. After all, some Roman apologists try to approach the Bible as though it were the creation of the Church, rather than being God's word delivered to the churches (and CCC 111 and 113 seem to encourage them to take this approach). If the Bible were the product of the Church, then the authorial intent behind the words becomes important, and we need to let Humpty Dumpty use words like "only mediator" in a far from conventional sense. One problem with that is that it turns the text of Scripture into such a "living document" that the document itself has no particular significance. Matthew 16:18 might as well teach the papacy as it teaches the bodily assumption of Mary, so long as Rome says that is what it means. The fact that we don't see it in the actual meaning of the words doesn't matter.
Ultimately, no matter what we liken the Roman hermeneutic to, we should realize that the Roman hermeneutic boils down to sola ecclesia: what Rome says goes. If the Bible appears to say the same thing, and that convinces someone that Rome is right - great. If the Bible appears to say the opposite, the Bible's apparent meaning should be subordinated to what Rome teaches.
But if that's Rome's hermeneutic, then the appeals to Scripture as an authority are really disingenuous. Honest Roman apologists shouldn't argue that we should believe them because (to use their lingo) we interpret the Bible the same way they do. After all, when we interpret the Bible differently, we're supposed to just set that aside, no matter how clear the Bible is.
Yet, I welcome comments from Roman apologists, clergy, and even laity. To what do you liken the Roman hermeneutic, and to what shall I compare it? And when you try to quote the Bible to me, do you think I'm just unaware that your church teaches that "all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God" (CCC 119, quoting Dei Verbum 12, 3rd paragraph)?
-TurretinFan
P.S. Oh, and by the way - the alternative is that the Bible is the very word of God, and that God made it clear enough to serve as a rule of faith and life for his church. Not all parts are equally clear, however, and sin blinds the minds of some men so that even the most clear parts become dull. Nevertheless, core doctrines (like the contents of the Apostles' creed, for example) are plainly and unmistakeably set forth in the Scriptures, without the need for any special glasses, tricky eye techniques, or authoritative lexicography.
TOPICS: Apologetics; General Discusssion; Mainline Protestant; Theology
KEYWORDS: apologetics; calvinismisdead; hermeneutics; rome; scripture
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 next last
To: Apollo5600
Respectfully, that was the Lord questioning the religious leaders. We should not be so arrogant as to believe that we have the same genius as our Lord when interpreting the very scripture inspired by Him.
To: Apollo5600
The Church, being Christ's own Church established in Matthew 16, is indeed infallible. Are its members and leaders infallible? Nope, just people. Contrary to popular protestant believe, the pope is not deified and the pope as a person is not infallible. Rather, in order to prevent the faithful from being led astray God ensures that certain decisions in matters of faith and morals made by the pope are correct and divinely guided. If your interested in reading more on papal infallibility, check out http://www.catholicbible101.com/papalinfallibility.htm.
Another sticking point, the saints. Just as you can ask friends to pray for you, you can ask the saints to pray for you as well. This does not constitute speaking with the dead as banned in the bible for several reasons. One, Luke 20:36, NIV. "And they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection." Those that die in God's friendship aren't dead, they can't die. They're more alive than you and me.
Another, Ecclesiastes 9:5-6, 10, NIV. "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten. Their love, their hate and their jealousy have long since vanished; never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun… Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom." Those who are already dead (the unfaithful) will have no working or planning or knowledge or wisdom. But by stating that the unfaithful will not have those things, it seems pretty strongly suggested that those who are alive, the faithful, WILL have those things.
Finally, the Church (and Christianity in general) is facing a lot of trouble from secular powers, but didn't Jesus say that the faithful will be persecuted for His sake? That the powers that be are trying to reduce the influence of the Church is right in line with what Jesus told us would happen.
22
posted on
02/19/2012 10:51:03 PM PST
by
NakedRampage
(Puttin' the "stud" in Bible study)
To: dinoparty
“Respectfully, that was the Lord questioning the religious leaders. We should not be so arrogant as to believe that we have the same genius as our Lord when interpreting the very scripture inspired by Him.”
He argued the same way against the Sadducees. The Apostles argue the same way in the New Testament. Believers, such as Stephen, argue from the scriptures. They point to the scripture and teach from there. They do not point to Rabbanical decrees at any time. And if a genius is required to read the scripture, why is it that Jesus asks them to read the scripture that they can’t possibly understand with their own wisdom?
To: Apollo5600
** Sola scriptura is the only logical answer **
LOL! The Catholics gave the rest of the world the Bible. This statement is false as far as I am concerned.
24
posted on
02/19/2012 11:11:13 PM PST
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: NakedRampage
Whats more, sola scriptura is not in the bible. Its taking a doctrine that is not in the bible that states everything not in the bible is invalid. Wouldn't that make sola scriptura invalid? Yeppers. Falls by its own criteria. And it fails in practice, resulting in trinitarian, unitarian, calvin, armenian, etc.
25
posted on
02/19/2012 11:24:59 PM PST
by
D-fendr
(Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
To: NakedRampage
“The Church, being Christ’s own Church established in Matthew 16, is indeed infallible. Are its members and leaders infallible? Nope, just people.”
But yet, Peter, the “first Pope”, to whom you pretend was given the keys of heaven, was himself challenged and corrected for poor behavior and promoting bad doctrine as a result of it.
Galatians 2
11But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
15We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Come to think of it, your “Church” also denies that we are justified by the faith of Jesus Christ alone, requiring that we follow your Popish rituals and submit to the Pope, spend time in purgatory, be baptized, and hope that we are good enough to please God. We cannot even be forgiven of our sins lest we go to a Priest.
“Just as you can ask friends to pray for you, you can ask the saints to pray for you as well.”
No we can’t, because they’re dead. They can’t hear me. How do you propose that they can hear me while in heaven? How do you propose that one saint can hear the millions of prayers from Catholics across the globe all happening at the same time? Do the angels deliver the prayers one by one? How many angels and how much time do you suppose that requires? Even if Heaven exists outside of space and time, and so timing has no meaning... certainly, even in heaven, they would be quite busy.
“This does not constitute speaking with the dead as banned in the bible for several reasons. One, Luke 20:36, NIV. “And they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.” Those that die in God’s friendship aren’t dead, they can’t die. They’re more alive than you and me.”
But they were alive even before Jesus. As Jesus says himself,
Matthew 22:31-33
King James Version (KJV)
31But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
So why is there no instance of the Apostles recommending that we pray to Abraham, or Moses, or Isaac, or Jacob? Why is there no example of this in any of the scripture? Why didn’t Saul pray to Samuel to pray to God to answer him? Instead, he went to a witch who conjured a demon familiar of Samuel which sealed his doom.
There is no scripture that says that we should seek out some dead Saint, or Mary, or anyone else. Instead, it says we ought to seek out God.
“Finally, the Church (and Christianity in general) is facing a lot of trouble from secular powers, but didn’t Jesus say that the faithful will be persecuted for His sake? That the powers that be are trying to reduce the influence of the Church is right in line with what Jesus told us would happen.”
And this doesn’t happen to Christians? And the Catholic Church has been the force of persecution in the past. Nowadays, it simply sits idly by from most of it, or at least enables those who hate Christ. It does this through its support of collectivism and its inability to really condemn socialism.
To: dinoparty
We should not be so arrogant as to believe that we have the same genius as our Lord when interpreting the very scripture inspired by Him.Actually, we do have the same genius as our Lord when interpreting Scripture. Through faith in Christ, the indwelling Holy Spirit reveals to us spiritually His meaning as He sanctifies us. We have the mind of Christ.
27
posted on
02/19/2012 11:55:08 PM PST
by
Cvengr
(Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
To: Salvation
“LOL! The Catholics gave the rest of the world the Bible. This statement is false as far as I am concerned.”
No, it was God who did that. It was God who inspired the scriptures through the Holy Spirit, and it was God who preserved them and has preserved them to the present day.
Even the Catholics, however, deny that the word of God is infallible. They deny the Genesis account of creation, instead opting for theistic evolution.
To: Apollo5600
LOL!
Then what was the first Bible that the Guttenberg press printed?
It was a Catholic Bible! Please do your research and don’t depend upon the falsehoods that false teachers give you.
29
posted on
02/19/2012 11:59:47 PM PST
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: Apollo5600
30
posted on
02/20/2012 12:00:44 AM PST
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: Salvation
Papists seem incapable of considering things on a spiritual level. So the Catholics claim that they “gave us” the Bible, but interpret it in ways that produce evil, and add on to it in ways that the Bible has specifically condemned? What about a large portion of the religious Jews, who faithfully preserved the scriptures, who later condemned Christ?
What about those Publishing companies that now produce various versions of the Bible. Aren’t they “giving us” the Bible?
Or did God preserve his word?
And did the Popish church write the scriptures?
No, Moses did, and the Prophets, and Kings, and the Apostles wrote them, all under the direction of the Holy Spirit. And though these scriptures have come into the hands of unfaithful and evil men, they are still preserved.
Mark 7
5Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?6He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.8For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Over and over again, the scriptures talk about “Mighty men of the scripture”, or those who taught from the scripture “the things of Christ”. The Apostles themselves point to the scripture as they make their arguments.
But you insist that the scripture is worthless without the traditions of men to interpret them? So I must rely on how some man in a funny hat reads the scripture, as opposed to what the scriptures plainly teach?
To: dinoparty; Apollo5600
Respectfully, that was the Lord questioning the religious leaders. We should not be so arrogant as to believe that we have the same genius as our Lord when interpreting the very scripture inspired by Him. Yes, by The Holy Spirit we do possess the same genius as our LORD. The Bible clearly teaches that we, true Christians, have the mind of Christ and that The Holy Spirit teaches each one of us. Each one of us is not only capable of judging all things but we are responsible to. We must not rely on teachers but rather on The LORD Himself through the Holy Spirit to teach us. When men teach us lies and we accept them without finding out whether the lies they taught us are true or not we will not stand guiltless before The LORD.
All the false religions of the world say "trust us and blindly follow us because we are The Authority", but they are not to be followed blindly. They are good at their deceptions and convince countless to follow them into perdition.
God gave all true Christians the mind of Christ. God expects us to follow His Son directly by learning His truth through His Word which He left us, which he gives each one of us the ability to understand and learn, through the teaching and guidance of The Holy Spirit. We learn from our leaders, once we have gone through the trouble to established by comparing what they have been teaching with The Scripture that they teach truth, but even then what we learn from them God expects us each to verify through Scripture. We are each individually accountable to The LORD for truth.
1Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Cr 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
1Cr 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
1Cr 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
32
posted on
02/20/2012 12:27:59 AM PST
by
Bellflower
(The LORD is Holy, separated from all sin, perfect, righteous, high and lifted up.)
To: Apollo5600
And yet, we have their letters, their speeches, their wisdom, all in the Bible.Not sure what your point is unless you're suggesting that the Bible contains the entirety of their wisdom. If so, it seems unlikely that a culture that relied on oral transmission would commit everything to writing. Especially in times of persecution, but I don't argue with your right to hold an opinion.
If anyone had authority, it was those men who worked miracles wherever they walked. The Pope has no such power.
Catholics claim the pope is Peter's successor, not that he has miraculous powers. Take issue with that, if you like, but please don't misrepresent the teaching. If it's papal infallibility that you're referring to, that relates only to matters of faith and morals, and is not personal impeccability (inability to sin). There's more to it but I suspect you're not inclined to hear it so I'll just say that Jesus himself didn't hold Peter to a standard of perfection (Lk 22:31-32) despite giving him a position of leadership in the Church. But he did state that the gates of Hell wouldn't prevail against it. If the Church is filled with lies, then Jesus was wrong, wasn't he? Either you believe Jesus' words or you don't. Either you believe Scripture (church as pillar and foundation of truth) or you don't. Or perhaps your point was that apostolic succession is not scriptural, however Acts 1:15-26, 2Tim 2:2 and Ti 1:5 tell us otherwise.
Is that what you would like us to do? Honor the Catholic Church’s self appointed authority but criticize their hypocrisy?
This is why I don't care to dialog with people of ill will. Scripture has multiple references to the authority of the Church and Peter's position of primacy in it. It's only "self-appointed" to those who choose to view it in that light. There are ample scriptural references to support the Catholic view even if you personally choose to discount such verses. As for hypocrisy, yes there has been hypocrisy and sin in the Church from the beginning. All the apostles abandoned him on Thursday evening. One betrayed him. One denied him. None had the courage to do the right thing and only one had the guts to show up at the crucifixion. And it is sometimes that way today. Among many Christians, not just Catholics, by the way.
But yet we also have Jesus debating with the Pharisees and demonstrating how they were wrong in their interpretation of scripture.
True. He claimed authority to interpret Scripture. And he appointed 12 apostles to go and preach (he didn't say it had to be in writing). Jn 14:26 and 16:13 were spoken to the apostles, not the throngs who followed Jesus. You are free to disagree with the Catholic interpretation but you are incorrect to suggest it's not scriptural.
In fact, He did not point to the authority of some Jewish rabbi in a Rabbanical decree printed 300 years prior in a Jewish Catechism. He pointed to the scripture itself to back up each and every point.
Wrong. Jesus pointed to HIS authority (Mt 7:29) to interpret scripture. In Mt 5:21-48 Jesus seems to contradict your assertion that scripture fully backed up his each and every point. He took his followers beyond what scripture laid out every time he said, "But I say to you..."
Therefore, if Jesus did not appeal to some Jewish Rabbi to explain the scripture, why would you have us appeal to Catholic tradition to explain the scripture?
First, I wouldn't expect a noncatholic to appeal to Catholic tradition :) Second, I do not presume to have the same authority Jesus had. Therefore I choose to rely upon scripture (reading Old Testament as a type of the New) AND tradition (the authority of those Jesus appointed to spread his message) AND the writings of the early Fathers. Lacking fluency of the original language of the manuscripts and not having deep knowledge of the culture, I'd rather go with the understanding of early Christians and Fathers closest to the apostles than rely solely on my vantage point 2,000 years later. I also take seriously the last line in John's gospel, which means those closest to Jesus (the apostles and the fathers who learned from the apostles) just might have information I can never glean from Scripture.
The scripture should defend the scripture, and there are no examples of your Popish ways in the Bible.
I do not presume to put preconditions on Scripture. I trust the Holy Spirit was fully capable of saying whatever he wished without my making any demands on Him.
As for my "popish ways," I suspect I could find plenty of examples in the Bible to support my beliefs and practices. And I further suspect you'd discount each verse I gave you. I put away proof texting games a long time ago. You'll have to find someone else to play. It's past bedtime and I have a few prayers yet to say. Yes, they're probably vain and repetitious in your eyes. But my Bible says that Jesus prayed the same prayer three times in the garden. And that the hosts of heaven unceasingly repeat the same prayer of praise. I consider those pretty good role models :)
This papist wishes you peace :) Thank you for making me feel incredibly joyful in my Catholic faith as I trudge off to bed!
To: JustMeMcGee
“Not sure what your point is unless you’re suggesting that the Bible contains the entirety of their wisdom. If so, it seems unlikely that a culture that relied on oral transmission would commit everything to writing. Especially in times of persecution, but I don’t argue with your right to hold an opinion.”
They wrote it down. The writings that were quoted were written directly by them. They were not passed down in oral form for generations until someone else wrote them down on behalf of the Apostles.
“Catholics claim the pope is Peter’s successor, not that he has miraculous powers.”
The Catholic Church claims an unending succession of Apostles to the present day. Those men of God were healing people, receiving visions, having discourses with God. They were heavily equipped for the mission God gave to them to do, which was to preach the Gospel.
These Apostles were also impoverished. They did not value material goods, but specifically rebuked a love for them. They also rebuked public displays of vain religion, such as rituals or chantings.
Meanwhile, the Pope, who claims the title Holy Father, even though the Bible calls us all wicked, and calls himself the Vicar of Christ, does not have any of these characteristics.
“True. He claimed authority to interpret Scripture. And he appointed 12 apostles to go and preach (he didn’t say it had to be in writing). Jn 14:26 and 16:13 were spoken to the apostles, not the throngs who followed Jesus. You are free to disagree with the Catholic interpretation but you are incorrect to suggest it’s not scriptural.”
The Jews did not attack him for not having the authority to interpret scriptures. He merely read them, and argued from them, and they were forced to accept His superior reasonings. This means that anyone could have read the scriptures, argued from them, and proven their meaning using scripture. There are never any appeals to tradition or some other authority, even an ancient one, other than the scripture.
Matthew 22
41While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
42Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.
43He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
44The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
45If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
46And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.
Instead of no longer asking Him any more questions, they would have accused Him of not obeying the accepted teachings of their time if things were as you claim. In fact, Jesus Himself condemns their reliance on traditions.
In other words, you’re spinning things to accept the Catholic insistence that only they can read the Bible and understand it, since that is necessary for them to continue such blasphemies as requiring people to submit to their church in order to have salvation.
“If the Church is filled with lies, then Jesus was wrong, wasn’t he? Either you believe Jesus’ words or you don’t. Either you believe Scripture (church as pillar and foundation of truth) or you don’t. Or perhaps your point was that apostolic succession is not scriptural, however Acts 1:15-26, 2Tim 2:2 and Ti 1:5 tell us otherwise.”
Regarding Acts 1. Last I checked, the Popish Church does not choose Apostles by lot after prayer. I will also note that Christ appeared directly to Paul, who was blinded, and later was filled with the Holy Spirit and was baptized. None of this was done by the decision of the Apostles, and yet he is called the Apostle Paul. The same can be said of so many other heroes of the Bible who were not ordained by men, but by God directly. So with what justification do we have to believe that your men, who are ordained by other men, have more authority than those called by God directly and are sent “straightway [preaching] Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God”?
Regarding 2 Timothy. What if the “faithful men” are not faithful, to whom you want us to commit ourselves to? The scripture also says that if any man preaches a different Gospel than the one delivered to us by the Apostles, that man is an anti-Christ. The Catholic Church delivers a different Gospel than the one given to us by the Apostles, because they specifically state that having faith in Jesus Christ is not enough for salvation. One must follow Popish rituals, appear at Mass or suffer a mortal sin, commit certain verbal and physical acts in order to enter a “state of grace” in order to receive communion, which they say is the physical blood and body of Christ that only they can offer.
The Gospel of the Bible was never so difficult. The Gospel is in so many ways a specifically spiritual message, requiring salvation and a ‘state of grace’ that cannot be seen except by God.
John 4:19-23
King James Version (KJV)
19The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
20Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
21Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
And yet despite this, so much focus is placed on the ritual and the buildings and the objects in Catholicism. You assume that by participating in mass or in the Catholic traditions that they can achieve a “state of grace”, which then allows them to experience something no one else to experience.
And because I call this a lie, the Catholic Church condemns me to hell. Not because I do not submit to Christ, but because I do not submit to the Catholic “authority”.
“Wrong. Jesus pointed to HIS authority (Mt 7:29) to interpret scripture. In Mt 5:21-48 Jesus seems to contradict your assertion that scripture fully backed up his each and every point. He took his followers beyond what scripture laid out every time he said, “But I say to you...”
That’s quite the perversion of scripture. It says:
28And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
29For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
He taught them “as one having authority” is not the same as “he claimed authority” or “he had authority”. It means He spoke as one having confidence, and wisdom, and understanding. There was no official title that he received from any Jewish religious institution. Therefore, He had no visible authority of which to appeal to, and no such authority was ever used against Him. If the Pharisees thought He had authority just by looking at Him, they would have obeyed Him. There is no similarity between this as the Catholic Priests or Bishops, who claim authority based on having a physical system give them a title to it. Your argument is pitifully weak.
To: RnMomof7
One problem with that is that it turns the text of Scripture into such a "living document" that the document itself has no particular significance. IMO-This is the Catholics greatest failure in their many arguments. The church fathers understood the scriptures were infallible that they separate them from other writings. The problem is WHY would the church fathers separate the infallible scriptures from the rest of the Catholic writings?
I suspect some of the Catholics here will argue the Church put them together and that gave them their authority (haven't read the comments but I'm sure they'll be that argument). That doesn't explain why the fathers considered the scriptures to be above all other writings.
The author is absolutely correct that with this silly argument it turns the scriptures into a "living" document which has no more meaning than anything else the Catholics published. They claim they follow the teachings of the early fathers when, in fact, they have abandoned them.
P.S.-It is a bit laughable for Catholics to make this claim when they've rescinded doctrine or "clarified" teachings throughout the ages.
35
posted on
02/20/2012 3:50:15 AM PST
by
HarleyD
To: NakedRampage
“I’d also like to mention, the Bible was not assembled into a complete volume until the 400’s. Sola Scriptura rolled around much later. What were people supposed to do until then?”
Good point, since it’s a common perception.
However, if the sole criterion for canonicity is apostolic authorship (either direct or overseen), then the recognition of canonicity is tAkenback to the point of authorship, which is why Peter used that phrase “other scriptures”. Both Peter and Paul knew they were writing scripture, and the readers knew as well. In fact, that is why apostolic authorship was counterfeited so often. The counterfeits were rejected the same way the BoM and Ko-ran were rejected: by the evidence of their falseness.
36
posted on
02/20/2012 5:58:18 AM PST
by
fishtank
(The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
To: RnMomof7
One of the reasons I left Rome is their catechism had no glossary entry for “salvation”.
But the gospel of John had many references to salvation:
John 3:16
John 5:24
So I left Rome about 2 years AFTER God saved me by “grace through faith”. I was baptized by the RCC as a newborn, but I know I wasn’t born again until I was out of college,
37
posted on
02/20/2012 6:03:20 AM PST
by
fishtank
(The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
To: Thommas
This is Humpty-Dumpty verbage at its finest. You will not find this anywhere in the bible, but the Katholics spout it like it's gospel. It is. Matthew 16:18-19 to wit:
"And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"
There it is. Ya wanna stop now or go for double or nothing?
CC
38
posted on
02/20/2012 7:23:23 AM PST
by
Celtic Conservative
(Wisdom comes from experience. Experience comes from a lack of wisdom.)
To: Celtic Conservative; Thommas; smvoice; fishtank
"There it is. Ya wanna stop now or go for double or nothing?" If you read his post, you still have not answered his claim...and his claim is true, my FRiend. Read the passage very slowly. It does not say that the assembly will be built upon Peter. And it certainly does not create a papal succession, sacerdotalism, or any of the many other heretical doctrines arising from Rome. If Rome was instrumental in noticing the New Testament books/letters, it certainly failed to read them. This is why believers do not recognize Rome as able to teach the Gospel of grace.
To: RnMomof7
Christian: That's not true, the Bible was written to be understood. Anyone can authentically interpret the Bible, and many do - some more, and others less, well than others.Scripture disagrees but folks like you never let that fact get in your way.
"Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:20-21
40
posted on
02/20/2012 7:52:35 AM PST
by
A.A. Cunningham
(Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
