Posted on 10/31/2012 12:52:34 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
A blog post on the First Things web site some time ago was drawn to my attention by a couple colleagues as we were eating lunch the other day. A perceptive remark was made about it. The article, by a LCMS pastor, is rather typical of what the Roman Catholic journal, First Things, loves to publish: hand-wringing articles by Lutherans over the Reformation.
In the article, the pastor opines that the better color for Reformation Sunday would be a color of mourning, rather than a festive red. He laments the Reformation as a tragedy. He is correct, but for the wrong reason.
Must we lament our sin? Indeed. Must we lament our human pride? Yes! Is the Church always in need of Reformation? Absolutely. Is God, by His Most Holy Word and Sacraments constantly reforming you, me and the whole Christian Church on earth? Amen, Amen, may it ever be so! But, should we lament the fact of the Reformation? No, unless we wish to lament God’s gift of the Gospel, which came breaking through with great clarity once more at this time.
Ironically, though, the author of the article misses the actual tragedy of the Reformation; namely, that it was not wholly successful. The Roman Catholic Church, as such, was formed as a direct result of the Counter-Reformation Council of Trent. And at the Council of Trent the door was slammed shut on the very Gospel itself, the good news that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone. What was at least an option before Trent, was pronounced to be a damning error.
This is the tragedy of the Reformation!
That someone held in Rome's clutches would call one living in the freedom of Jesus Christ, alone, a "sick person" is the epitome of one missing the message of the Bible. It is we who would pray for you, my FRiend. You will be talking to the ceiling.
??????????????????????????????????????????
It's not really a Roman Catholic journal, and that's not really typical of what they publish.
Otherwise, you're right on target.
“There was no such thing as a RCC when the Bible was completed”
Which raises four questions.
One, when did the Catholic church form?
Two, when was the Bible completed?
Three, who was responsible for founding the Catholic church?
Four, who was responsible for completing the bible?
Okay, a lurking ceiling cat? I need to be very careful.
And I you.
Please note that I formed my statement as a syllogism in which the premise was one who would see Catholics or Protestants as a greater evil than secular humanism or radical Islam. If you think that then I do recognize the depth of your spiritual despair. If you hold hatred in your heart for those whom you believe love God, however imperfectly, you are absent the Holy Spirit. If you believe that I do not love God then you are tragically wrong. To believe you are somehow elect while holding that hatred is the sin of presumption.
Peace be with you.
Two, when was the Bible completed?
Three, who was responsible for founding the Catholic church?
Four, who was responsible for completing the bible?'
Notice all of the questions (except perhaps #2) are more or less rhetorical, aimed at defending your organization. But, here goes...
1. If you mean the RCC, then as late as Augustine (circa 390AD) there were arguments about whether the so-called bishop of Rome was in charge. Sadly, even Augustine rolled over. But, this is approx. when Rome shoved its foot in the door. All the tripe about Peter is utter nonsense. Find any reference to him being named a "Pope" in the Scriptures and I'll send you to Rome all expenses paid. The Matt. 16 citation is simply Peter's confession that Jesus was in fact the Messiah of Israel, the Son of Yahweh. Notice, little rock Peter, massive bedrock Recognition of Jesus. Five verses later Jesus says Peter is acting like Satan. No Pope...sorry.
If you mean "catholic" as in "universal", then the universal "church" of Christ was formed as Jesus added the elect to His family. One cannot tell from the text the precise moment Jesus began to build His Assembly. It may have been while He was speaking. But, it likely now includes Adam, if he was among the elect, and Abel, possibly not Cain, etc.
The reference to Him creating His "assembly" and calling this a "Church" is yet another mangling of the text. There is no such word as "Church" in the text. If you don't believe me, read any decent Greek text and see for yourself. The term "assembly" was morphed into a Scottish word Kirk, and later church. Jesus referred to His gathered assembly of all believers. You are in this by virtue of Him choosing you...if you are among the elect.
2. The Bible was completed circa 91AD by the last entries of the apostle John. No exact date is available.
3. I suspect some pretty odd fellows are responsible and I'd like to see them brought to justice, kind of like the Benghazi fiasco. If you come across them, let us know.
4. The people responsible for completing the Bible are the Jewish writers, such as Moses, David, Solomon, the Prophets, and other Jewish men. The Jewish Scriptures do reference men who were considered Pre-circumcised believers (like Abram/Abraham, etc.), but they were not writers. The writers of the NT were the three Jewish gospel writers, Luke (the only Gentile writer), the Jewish fisherman Peter, James (brother of Jesus), Jude, and principally Paul, a Jewish Pharisee. Notice...no RCC. Let go of the ego grease.
Please re-read my posts. I have no hatred for anyone, lost or otherwise. Perhaps you project. But, in any case, you did not follow my remark very closely. I simply said, Rome has enslaved its millions, the way Islam has misled its millions; Rome has misled its millions. No bombed children connection with Rome, my FRiend. Just a similarity with numbers. You were the one originally attempting to connect me to the Islamic world.
"That is a point on which you and the Islamic world agree,"
And, certainly presumption would be wrong.
1, So what faith was Origen? Tertullian?
“All the tripe about Peter is utter nonsense”
What do you make of Matthew 16:17-19 where Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ gives St. Peter the authority to bind and loose and gives him the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
“Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Straight from the NIV. Jesus gives the keys and authority to St. Peter.
“One cannot tell from the text the precise moment Jesus began to build His Assembly. It may have been while He was speaking. But, it likely now includes Adam, if he was among the elect, and Abel, possibly not Cain, etc.”
Actually, the bible is very clear on this. Pentecost is when the Church begins.
“If you don’t believe me, read any decent Greek text”
The greek word is EKKLESIA -> which we see in the english words ecclesiastical, “of pertaining to the workings of the Church”.
2. “The Bible was completed circa 91AD by the last entries of the apostle John. No exact date is available.”
Oh, so why then does St. Augustine cite that the Canon is closed then? Why does Origen discuss the canonicity of the New Testament books and debates the merit of each? The Canon was not set until Pope Damasus - the first bible published with the entire NT canon in the form to which we are now familiar is the Vulgate.
The best Greek manuscripts we possess from the period prior (Sinaiticus + Vaticanus), both lack certain NT books. If the Canon were indeed set in 90 AD, we would expect both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus to use the same set. They do not.
3. Answer the question. Who founded the Catholic church?
4. “The people responsible for completing the Bible are the Jewish writers”. Then why do you reject some of the books the Jews wrote?
Exactly, my friend. You know me well enough. I am fairly balanced (I can ride a velocipede).
However, I must agree with my friend Natural Law. If one does not consider the Gospels the highest and most sacred revelation of God to man; the New Testament to be viewed through the prism of the Gospels and OT to be viewed through the prism of the New, why then, the very intent and importance of the Incarnation comes into immediate question.
"However, I must agree with my friend Natural Law. If one does not consider the Gospels the highest and most sacred revelation of God to man; the New Testament to be viewed through the prism of the Gospels and OT to be viewed through the prism of the New, why then, the very intent and importance of the Incarnation comes into immediate question."
Herein lies our bright line. The RCC focuses on the Gospels (they are always used in the homily) as if the incarnation and Jesus' ministry on earth is the central message of the Bible. Additionally, they usually speak as though Jesus is teaching that life consists of obeying the Golden Rule (again, in the Gospels). I observe that this places the emphasis on a call to a highly ethical life, with a parachute for slippages. Commendable, if it is true.
You know what comes next, though, don't you Mark. Hermeneutics, my FRiend. If we read the end of the story, from the Book which your org repeatedly lays claim to, we find that Paul explains that Jesus was not teaching men to obey. He was breaking their backs with impossibly high bars of holiness (higher than that velocipede). When He said, "You have heard it said, thou shall not commit murder...But I say to you, ...whoever shall say, 'You fool' shall be guilty enough to go into the hell of fire.", He was not training us in righteousness. He was frustrating our sense of being able to actually be good enough to please God. If Natural Law wants to live the Gospels, he might want to consider his ultimate destination for implying I was a "sick person". Sounds like "you fool" to me.
But, that is not the intent of the Gospels. As Paul said, the message is that there is none righteous enough, there are none who seek God. This was the embedded message in David's Psalms & the entire OT. Jesus was simply bringing this truth to bear on the Jewiish community. And, most did not get it.
But, they did get that He was disturbing their delicate sense of dignity. He was offending their claims that they were doing the Law. So, they killed Him. And, here, my FRiend is the central point of the Bible. The crucifixion, burial and resurrection...not the incarnation. Had the blood not flowed, you might not be rescued. The Lamb of God slain BEFORE the foundation of the world had to be slaughtered, "...by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God,..." so that you might be rescued from yourself.
It is this fact that Paul says is the central message of the Book. Rome's error is that their focus on "religion", another self-help program, which in all honesty uses themselves as the main player...not Jesus, does not achieve what they wish it would. The seven sacraments, sacerdotalism, absolution, etc. all actions/works, but none of which will make one worthy to stand before God. And, none of that is even in the Book.
The simple message of the Book is that salvation in Jesus is by grace, through faith, and that NOT OF YOURSELVES it is a gift of God, not by actions/works, lest anyone turn into a great big organization which cannot set its ego aside and allow Jesus to be center stage. (a loose paraphrase of Eph. 2). Grace to you.
There is no "as if" about it. Everything in the Bible is ultimately about His life, death and resurrection.
Peace be with you.
Hopefully, you will get some Evelyn Woods courses for Christmas...go read the entire post. You miss the point by a country mile.
Not quite an accurate description, but good enough for this reply to post.
You know what comes next, though, don't you Mark. Hermeneutics, my FRiend. If we read the end of the story, from the Book which your org repeatedly lays claim to, we find that Paul explains that Jesus was not teaching men to obey. He was breaking their backs with impossibly high bars of holiness (higher than that velocipede). When He said, "You have heard it said, thou shall not commit murder...But I say to you, ...whoever shall say, 'You fool' shall be guilty enough to go into the hell of fire.", He was not training us in righteousness. He was frustrating our sense of being able to actually be good enough to please God.
Very good. You bring up hermeneutics. That is the art and science of text interpretation. Now, Scripture was written partially in Hebrew and Aramaic and partially in Greek. The OT was partially translated from Aramaic to Hebrew (and vice versa). The Greek and Hebrew was translated to Latin. The Greek, Hebrew and Latin was translated to English. There have been several translations of English to English as the language updated and more information was found from the Greek, Hebrew and Latin.
Back to hermeneutics. It is what you think that the interpretation is. Even given that a tome written in English for English speakers (ever attended literature classes?) is always understandable to all English speakers (an admission that I do not make), does that mean that that applies to multiple translations from various languages?
Pull up an online translation program such as Babel fish. Type in a sentence maybe 10 to 12 words (more if you feel lucky). Translate that into Latin. Translate that into Greek. Translate that into Hebrew. Then translate that back into English.
Compare the finished result with what you started with.
No, my friend. Without God as the interpreter, every human being will get something wrong. Probably a whole bunch of somethings, as the multiplicative proclivities of the children of the Reformation can show.
Jesus left us His teaching school. The Apostles and their successors. Paul especially was most insistent on his flock adhering to the Church's teachings, not on any interpretation of their own - or anyone else's.
Most people treat hermeneutics as if it was a study of a certain newspaper cartoon.
But, that is not the intent of the Gospels. As Paul said, the message is that there is none righteous enough, there are none who seek God. This was the embedded message in David's Psalms & the entire OT. Jesus was simply bringing this truth to bear on the Jewiish community. And, most did not get it.
The Church has always taught that without God's saving Grace, none will seek Him. From the beginning. We agree that fallen man without God will fail.
But, they did get that He was disturbing their delicate sense of dignity. He was offending their claims that they were doing the Law. So, they killed Him. And, here, my FRiend is the central point of the Bible. The crucifixion, burial and resurrection...not the incarnation. Had the blood not flowed, you might not be rescued. The Lamb of God slain BEFORE the foundation of the world had to be slaughtered, "...by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God,..." so that you might be rescued from yourself.
Very good. We do teach that. I have been instructed by Protestants on FR (and elsewhere) that the crux of Christianity is the crucifixion and death (leaving off the Resurrection). I have always strongly objected; you may have been a participant on some of those FR threads.
It is this fact that Paul says is the central message of the Book. Rome's error is that their focus on "religion", another self-help program, which in all honesty uses themselves as the main player...not Jesus, does not achieve what they wish it would. The seven sacraments, sacerdotalism, absolution, etc. all actions/works, but none of which will make one worthy to stand before God. And, none of that is even in the Book.
All will stand before God and be called on everything that they do and do not do. And why. All, by the way, is in the Book. Paul spends much ink instructing us on works that are required of us. The bishop of Jerusalem - James - tells us that faith without works is simply not - it is dead.
The simple message of the Book is that salvation in Jesus is by grace, through faith, and that NOT OF YOURSELVES it is a gift of God, not by actions/works, lest anyone turn into a great big organization which cannot set its ego aside and allow Jesus to be center stage. (a loose paraphrase of Eph. 2). Grace to you.
The Church saves nobody. It is the teaching authority that Jesus left on Earth to point the way to Him. That is all. His salvation is from Him alone, not the Church. His Judgement is from Him alone, not the Church. The Pope is sometimes called the servant of the servants of Christ. If you would, take a few minutes and review the life of the last few Popes, including our current Pontiff (bridge builder). Perhaps you might consider differently.
I believe you to be a good man. And I thank you for this conversation (a long way from some years back) and your blessing. Right back atcha. Grace and peace to you, my friend.
You are right, these are a lot better than the former conversations. I believe it has to do with your cartoons inspiring deep thoughts... :^| That's me contemplating your "wench v. wrench" illustration. Thanks.
I will make only a small contribution to your comments. Much of what you described is principally translation. Hermeneutics, however, is primarily interested in understanding what the writer/speaker is intending to communicate, vs the movement between two languages. We all believe the Greek/Hebrew translators are capable individuals (similar to the UN folks on headphones). We have the words right. Hermeneutics seeks to answer the question, "So what did the speaker/writer mean by that series of words/remarks?"
For example, when Jesus was walking with the two men to Emaus, He "dihermeneuticized the Scriptures" beginning with Moses (Torah) to the Prophets (end of OT) that He was woven throughout the story. Thus, whether "John went downtown" or "John went uptown", hermeneutics focuses on why John departed the area and how that contributes to Jesus being the Rescuer. But, hermeneutics is often dismissed as obvious or the domain of higher human authority.
If hermeneutics are obvious, why did Jesus need to open up the Scriptures to the men? If it is the domain of higher human authority, how does one avoid the need to understand what THAT authority finally claims the Book says? For example, if the RCC claims that it can control what Matt. 16 is about, how does one know they have correctly understood what the RCC actually says it meant? At some point the individual must say, "This is what I think the authority said is meant". Such a claim is a very small distance from "This is what the Scriptures mean directly", and thus both have taken on a "personal interpretation". That is, wherever one believes the hermeneutical train departs the station, its last stop is the individual mind.
Unless one believes the RCC inhabits the individual mind, everyone has a "private interpretation" defined as "what I finally believe this/that is getting at." and for this reason, the "personal interpretation" argument seems weak/disingenuous.
However, I understand you believe the first station of the train belongs to Rome.
"It is the teaching authority that Jesus left on Earth to point the way to Him. That is all."
I respect your opinion, although I ask you to consider anew whether it is actually taught by the Book. I cannot find it. But, we will stand and wait to see which view is correct...eventually, it will be apparent. Either way, I believe Jesus has captured your heart.
And, tomorrow we may have a new President and hopefully a few more years for the Gospel to move through the world.
I love the absurdity of cartoons such as Herman. It illustrates the absurdity of human perception and opinion in a very illustrative fashion.
Much of what you described is principally translation. Hermeneutics, however, is primarily interested in understanding what the writer/speaker is intending to communicate, vs the movement between two languages. We all believe the Greek/Hebrew translators are capable individuals (similar to the UN folks on headphones). We have the words right. Hermeneutics seeks to answer the question, "So what did the speaker/writer mean by that series of words/remarks?"
Translation is of utmost importance here. If you start with a faulty translation, you will inevitably end up with faulty conclusions. For instance, we know that St. Jerome's Vulgate was faulty and needed to be replaced, not his fault - he did the best he could at the time. We know that Martin Luther's Bible deliberately included faith 'alone'. We know that the King James Bible was politically influenced by the state religion of England. We know that the 'modern' and 'politically correct' versions of the Bible (including the gender neutral versions) are absolute crap and mislead those who would be Christian.
If hermeneutics are obvious, why did Jesus need to open up the Scriptures to the men? If it is the domain of higher human authority, how does one avoid the need to understand what THAT authority finally claims the Book says? For example, if the RCC claims that it can control what Matt. 16 is about, how does one know they have correctly understood what the RCC actually says it meant? At some point the individual must say, "This is what I think the authority said is meant". Such a claim is a very small distance from "This is what the Scriptures mean directly", and thus both have taken on a "personal interpretation". That is, wherever one believes the hermeneutical train departs the station, its last stop is the individual mind.
But I will still come back to the exhortations by the New Testament writers, especially St. Paul, that the interpretation of the Faith is from the Church, not the individual.
Unless one believes the RCC inhabits the individual mind, everyone has a "private interpretation" defined as "what I finally believe this/that is getting at." and for this reason, the "personal interpretation" argument seems weak/disingenuous.
I understand the Church to indicate that one's beliefs must align to the Church's interpretation. There is of course, latitude on many things, but the core beliefs of the Church are very well outlined in the Catechism.
I respect your opinion, although I ask you to consider anew whether it is actually taught by the Book. I cannot find it. But, we will stand and wait to see which view is correct...eventually, it will be apparent. Either way, I believe Jesus has captured your heart.
As I believe of you. Thank you. I do, however, believe that it is repeatedly taught by the Book - by Jesus and by the Apostles and NT writers.
I will serve up Matthew 28:18-20, 2 Timothy 4:3-4, Acts 2:42, 1 Corinthians 4:18 et al as evidence.
And, tomorrow we may have a new President and hopefully a few more years for the Gospel to move through the world.
The Gospel will survive even such as Barack Obama. Suleiman the Great tried to crush Christian Europe and failed. It is in the face of adversity that Christian greatness has prevailed and gotten stronger. The re-election of the President does not set the cause of Christianity back; neither does it indicate its decline and eventual fall.
Jesus has told us what is to befall us and the world. Idiots (creatures of Him) will not foil Him.
Jesus has told us what is to befall us and the world. Idiots (creatures of Him) will not foil Him."
Oh, yes, absolutely. I was referring to Paul encouraging Timothy to pray for the kings and authority figures to permit them to lead a "...tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity." Obama is certainly a part of God's overall plan and is well in His hands.
Your continued focus on translation still does not apprehend my remarks about the meaning of the phrases/sentences. For example, if Jesus said, "...But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also." it makes little difference if the original was, "...But I say unto you, resist not him that is evil; but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek..." you still get the idea.
The hermeneutical challenge is, "What did Jesus mean by this remark in light of the remark Luke 22:36?" Here, the Catholic rendition runs into slippery territory. If the Bible is "flat" (encyclopedic) then the remark in Matt. is still as operative as the remark in Luke. Hermeneutical train wreck. Don't bother defending this, I have read the ice skating rink attempts by Catholics all over the internet. This is one of the problems facing the RCC focus on the Gospels.
However, if the Bible is much like a historical novel, with a plot moving and developing along a story line, then the question could be answered, "Well, read the rest of the story." Jesus was laying the Law upon the Jews as the One sent only to them UNTIL his people reject Him for excessive righteous interpretations of the Law. Then, as the cross draws near, Jesus is saying, "Things are changing fellas. Get ready for battle." The next day, at the crucifixion, we Gentiles are grafted in (Eph. 2) and now we watch for the signals from the resurrection/ascension onward.
This is a hermeneutical view v. encyclopedic view.
And, the Luther translation was to explain the intent of the text, "justified by faith a man without works of law". How would the "without" be understood if not "apart" or "alone" or "without any works of law" added? Even Benedict admitted this was a correct translation...he just wanted to define faith differently to accomodate the nasty reality.
And, Mark, Matt. 28:18 gives the authority to Jesus not your organization. Might I say, here is another overreach of Rome? And, Paul is remarking that the "truth" has been delivered once for all and will in the future get altered. Which group has added papalism, sacerdotalism, genuflecting, absolution, purgatory, indulgences, and a load of man-made "myths" to the story of "justified by faith without..."? And, the Apostles teaching is not that which contained any of the above. Can you find them in the Book?
Rome has reinstituted a "law" for salvation. That law is a subtle reminder that "it" is the repository of truth and salvation...not Jesus. If Rome really wanted people to trust Jesus, alone, why not just say that and be done? After all, I don't need you to join my group to be rescued. But, you need me to join yours for me to be rescued...at least according to John Paul. In his paperback interview he specifically says there is no salvation outside of Rome. Yet another "myth" not taught by the Apostles. So, where are the "ear ticklers"?
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.