Apologies for the length of this, but: deep topics sometimes require depths of text.
I don’t worry much about where scripture is disputed in interpretation.
(!) I'm not quite sure what to say, in reply to that. You do realize that this approach would neutralize the vast majority of the Bible, don't you? Some of the more... er... "ambitious" (read: heretical) proponents of the historical-critical method of analyzing Scripture, for example, are convinced that the only saying which can be verified (beyond reasonable doubt--whatever that means, to them!) as truly spoken by Jesus was "Amen"! And that doesn't even touch interpretation! Rudolf Bultmann, for example, was convinced that one could read and believe the Gospels without believing in a literal, bodily resurrection of Christ from the dead; he proposed that the stories of the resurrection really referred to the "Easter Faith" of the Apostles, which could (somehow) still endure even if Jesus' Body were to be found in the tomb. No... if you disregard the "contested bits" of Scripture, you jettison the whole thing, I'm afraid! Seriously: what IS the core content of your faith, and how do you arrive at certainly about it?
I assume some of my interpretations are wrong, but I’ll let God handle my correction. I suspect many of our disputes will seem silly when we see God.
Some might. It doesn't follow that ALL of them will be (some might be make-or-break issues of eternal salvation or damnation!), or that we shouldn't wrestle with them... unless you think the Gospel is completely irrelevant, and there's no such thing as damnation? (You'd be a very singular sort of Baptist, if you do believe that!)
2 - Canon. Luther did NOT reject James as scripture,
He rejected it as INSPIRED Scripture (i.e. worthy of being in the Biblical canon, written by an Apostle), and he claimed that it flatly contradicted St. Paul (William Barclay, The Daily Study Bible Series, The Letters of James and Peter, Revised Edition, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, KY, 1976, p. 7). He also tried to remove Esther, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation (mainly for doctrinal reasons... as in Revelation 20:12-13, where it insists that the dead will be judged according to their *works*, etc.). Apparently, he didn't see the canon of Scripture to be as "self-evident" as you apparently see it to be. So again: how do you arrive at your conclusion (i.e. the 66-book canon = true and complete Bible)?
but the reality is that every man will have to determine what they accept as scripture. I cannot prevent the Mormons from adding books. I can only tell them I do not agree and won’t accept those books as having any authority.
Ah. But you'll stop short of saying that they're objectively wrong, and that your view is objectively right? And if someone else drops Romans from the Bible, for example, you won't quibble about such a triviality? What in the Bible ARE you prepared to defend as being objectively true and divinely inspired? (And I must say: you're the first Baptist I've ever met who--and I've met many (my brother is one, in fact)--was so lackadaisical about the canon of Scripture!)
The Old Testament was accepted at the time of Jesus,
That's a bit of an oversimplification. There were two distinct canons of the Old Testament: the Palestinian Canon (39 books), and the Septuagint (46 books)--both of which were accepted as valid, in general. It wasn't until after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and the subsequent fierce move to consolidate/salvage Jewish identity versus the rest of the Gentile world, that the Septuagint (especially with its 1 Maccabees, which praises the Romans) was rejected by many of the non-Christian Jews of the time.
and early Christians accepted the gospels, the writings of Paul, Acts, 1 Peter and 1 John as scripture almost as soon as the ink was dry.
This is also a dreadful oversimplification, since there were scores of books which were also in "competition" for inclusion--some of which were likewise accepted quickly, and with enthusiasm, by many people (e.g. Gospel of Thomas, Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, the Acts of Paul, Paul's 3rd Epistle to the Corinthians, etc.). It'd be rather careless (and glib) to say that "the Gospels and the writings of Paul" were accepted, when it was uncertain which Gospels, and which of "Paul's writings", were authentic!
I would be hard pressed to know what critical doctrine can only be found in the remaining NT books.
That's rather reductionist and casual of you, I must say! Perhaps you might start a FR thread and ask, "What's so great about the Book of Revelation, anyway?", and watch the reaction? :) But surely you see that you already have a preconceived notion of "critical doctrines", yes? From where did you get them, if not from the Bible? And if from the Bible, how do you know the Bible is complete, or that some of the books you find to be "critical" are truly inspired Scripture? Because the early Church says so? They accepted the Eucharist, as well, but you somehow find the will to reject THAT. I admit to being baffled by your approach, here. For example: you apparently hold to the ideas that Romans is inspired Scripture; but you won't tell me WHY you think so. Care to make another attempt?
The Apocrypha has long been in dispute. Up until the Council of Trent, many considered it good enough for reading, but not good enough for determining doctrine. Jerome didn’t think much of it, either. Until the Council of Trent, it was acceptable for Catholics to question it, and some argue that the Council of Trent left open the possibility of two levels of ‘scripture’ (although scripture says “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”
(*sigh*) See, here's where I'm trying hard to believe that you're not being deliberately disingenuous: on one hand, you say, "Some believe that ___" (though the "___" is not supported by Catholic teaching, at all), and on the other hand, you say, "But I think that contradicts Scripture on ___", and leave the implication that the Church has somehow crashed Herself into a reef! Would it help if I said that your parenthetical "some argue ___" is contrary to Catholic doctrine, and provably so, cf. the documents of the Council of Trent?
[Paladin]
3 “E.g. your portrayal of Sacred Tradition as (essentially) a “blank check” which the Vatican can use to “invent” whatever it likes is simply an ad hominem canard, with no proof behind it at all.”
[Mr. Rogers]
That is not what I said.
Don't you remember saying, "Sounds to me like a “Living Constitution”, that changes meaning as required to fit the judges opinions..."...? I'm not sure how else to interpret a statement like that.
I did provide quotes from Mark Shea & the Catholic Encyclopedia to show that it ‘reveals truths previously hidden’, and that the process is one of evolution.
I never denied that. I denied your further assertion that Sacred Tradition was as malleable as its "judges" wished it to be. The Church
explicitly denies that charge (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 86).
[Paladin]
“If Jesus had meant merely to “come to Him and believe”, then He would hardly have allowed most of His disciples to leave Him on the basis of a simple misunderstanding...”
[Mr Rogers]
Already answered. Jesus said the people following him were NOT believers all, but that many were unbelievers following because of the feeding of the 5000.
First: He said that "there are SOME among you who do not believe"; He didn't say ALL. Second, you're assuming (without warrant) that the "disbelief" somehow had not involved disbelief in what He had just SAID! (You'll note that no one expressed significant incredulity before He started speaking specifically about eating His Body and drinking His Blood? Did you think that was mere coincidence?)
As it says in verse 64, “For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe...”
Yes... but: did not believe WHAT? That's our key disagreement, I think.
However, the plain meaning of scripture can be discussed. You say it refers to the Eucharist, although no one present knew anything about the Lord’s Supper.
Aside from Jesus, of course.
I say it was a response to the Jews bringing up manna, with Jesus telling them HE was the sign of God, and they needed to believe.
Then why not SAY that? Did you miss the reactions of horror and disgust from the crowd when they first started to argue? "How can this man give us His FLESH to eat?!?" It's patently obvious that this is the focal point of the crowd's resistance: the apparent reference to cannibalism; and a quick explanation about the so-called "metaphorical meaning" would have resolved that particular gripe, straight away. And again: believe WHAT?
<>I’ll let anyone else reading this thread decide which is more likely.
You're welcome to do so... but I'll note that you'd have to ignore a great deal of John 6, and twist the meaning of much of the rest, to avoid the fact that the John 6 crowd was upset about Jesus' "hard saying" about "giving His Flesh to eat". Do you seriously not see this?
Neither of us is likely to convince the other, so we need to leave that correction, to either or both of us, to God. We will both give account of our actions to God.
Well... if that means "I'm no longer interested in debating the topic", then: fair enough. But I don't think we've hit the bottom of the issue, yet. There IS such a thing as objective truth, and (if we hope to believe anything at all) we can access it in a trustworthy manner. God wouldn't have set us adrift in a sea of agnosticism and relativism (i.e. "every man for himself"); He must have left us a sure way to know the path to salvation (and more specifically than a glib, "Yes, it's Jesus!" We know that; now, we need to know what that MEANS, and how to appropriate that knowledge to the benefit of our souls, and the souls of others).
[Paladin]
“So... you appeal to your own fallible interpretation of a book for whose contents you cannot account (i.e. how did the books of the Bible get chosen, and by whom, and on what authority?)”
[Mr Rogers]
Actually, see this thread I posted a while back: How We Got the New Testament - 2 1/2 Views (LONG!)
I read a bit of it (and skimmed the rest); and it leaves the very same questions begged or unanswered. It does not presume to say with certainty which Biblical books are "real" Biblical books (i.e. divinely inspired); it merely appealed to tradition and popularity (two fallacies), and any further appeals to "sola Scriptura" would be circular, self-contradictory and useless. Unless you're willing to play the agnostic, you'll have to answer the fundamental question: "How do I know that the Bible is really the Bible, and that the correct Books were included?" I assert that you (perhaps unknowingly) inherited it from the Catholic Church, Who was led (through various councils and papal pronouncements) to settle the Canon of Scripture, and make the declaration with whatever solemnity the times might have needed.
Peter wasn’t the Vicar of Christ.
Christ, the Bible, and the early Church all soundly disagree with you. St. Peter was given the office of "prime minister" of the Kingdom of Christ (which was the fulfillment of the Kingdom of David); Look at Isaiah 22:22ff, and compare the wording to Matthew 16:18-20, and you may see what I mean: the "Keys to the Kingdom" aren't just words.
The Holy Spirit is.
(??) How on earth do you get that? The Holy Spirit is God, Himself--the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity! He's no more Christ's vicar (i.e. a subordinate who has been deputized to act with the ruler's authority) than Christ is the vicar of the Holy Spirit!
You can appeal to a church that killed Wycliffe & Tyndale for spreading the scriptures to the common man,
Ahem. I don't suppose you might research some of this, friend? Wycliffe died of a stroke, on December 28, 1384; neither the Catholic Church nor anyone else killed him. Even Tyndale was not killed by the Catholic Church, and his death was not due to a mere "spreading the Scriptures to the common man" (which would have been fine, had he distributed one of the AUTHORIZED English (or other) translations; he was ultimately executed by the Holy Roman Empire (not the Church) after having made enemies of everyone from the Emperor to King Henry VIII (which was particularly ironic, given that Tyndale is often lionized in modern Anglican circles as "the Father of the English Bible"... which is blithering nonsense; not only were there several approved English translations already in existence, but the founder of Anglicanism ordered Tyndale's "bible" burned throughout all of England. It was a theological and translative train-wreck, and it would have misled untold numbers of people in matters critical to salvation. (If you'll forgive my saying so: both Catholics and Protestants alike were, in past eras, far less blase about teaching the true faith and avoiding (what they saw as) error than you've described yourself to be.) For you, or anyone else, to say that the Church condemned "spreading the Scriptures to the common man", is silly at best, and libellous at worst.
But at any rate: is this discussion to degenerate into the violent things done in the past? Are you willing to defend the records of all of the "Reformers" of your tradition (Luther called for the death of the Jews; Calvin burned dissidents at the stake, etc.)? The violence done by both sides says nothing, WHATSOEVER, about the truth or falsity of their doctrines.
and that has changed its doctrine,
Sorry, no. Clarified, yes; re-presented to a new audience? Yes. Invented brand-new doctrines out of nowhere? A silly canard, and utter bunkum.
to include the primacy of the Pope,
Only a completely biased reading of Church history could come up with a wild statement like this. Did you not notice that only Simon was given a new name as he accepted a new ministry (i.e. prime minister--the "al bayt") and the Keys of the Kingdom; and like Eliakim in Isaiah 22:22ff, he would "be a father" (Latin: "Papa", from where we get "Pope") to God's people; what he opened, no one would shut, and what he shut, no one would open? Aside from that, and aside from the fact that St. Peter was always listed first among the Apostles (sometimes even to the point of neglecting the others' names entirely), was entrusted with the flock of Christ (cf. John 21:15-17), was the spokesman for the Apostles and the early Church (Acts 2, etc.), etc., you'd find it quite difficult to argue that St. Peter did not hold primacy among the Apostles. Beyond this, the Church's history (yes, I know your disdain for it) is clear on the successors of St. Peter, down to the present day (Pope Benedict XVI is the 264th successor of St. Peter, in unbroken succession), held primacy in the Church. You cannot coherently argue that this teaching was "recent" or "invented" after Apostolic times.
transubstantiation,
See my previous comments; if you find it (along with the staggering Biblical and historical support for it) "too hard a saying", I don't know what else would convince you.
Purgatory,
See 2 Maccabees 12:39-46, for starters, which was written over 100 years before Christ was born. Call it wrong, call it silly, call it repulsive; but you're in no position to call it a "recent invention".
Indulgences,
Do me a favour, please: describe, in your own words, the Catholic Church's teaching on indulgences, and let's see if your understanding is accurate (as opposed to mere parrot-talk of anti-Catholic sources). I'm not at all convinced that you have the foggiest idea WHAT indulgences are, much less why they might or might not exist... especially because there is NOTHING in the doctrine on indulgences that is in any way against anything in the Holy Faith; in fact, the teaching is as beautiful as it is consoling.
I’ll appeal to the Holy Spirit and scripture,
...except when you don't (i.e. when the meaning of Scripture is disputed)? I'd also be curious how you're sure that you're appealing to true Scripture and the true Holy Spirit (as opposed to spurious writings, and as opposed to your own imagination, or worse)... especially since the Catholic Church claims to appeal to the very same things. You haven't advanced your case here, one jot.
which is where the Apostles seemed content to leave authority.
If you mean that the Apostles "are content to leave authority with the Holy Spirit", then--in one sense--you're right, of course: no faithful and well-informed Christian will deny God's ultimate authority. But if you mean that the Apostles (and the Church) did NOT have God's Own authority delegated to them (to forgive men's sins: John 20:23; to heal and exorcise: Matthew 10:1, etc.; to judge: Matthew 18:15-17; and the authority to bind and loose everything having to do with the Kingdom: Matthew 18:18-19; etc.)), you're quite mistaken.
I have no intention of answering all this over Christmas, but a couple of quick points:
“Only a completely biased reading of Church history could come up with a wild statement like this. Did you not notice that only Simon was given a new name as he accepted a new ministry (i.e. prime minister—the “al bayt”) and the Keys of the Kingdom; and like Eliakim in Isaiah 22:22ff, he would “be a father” (Latin: “Papa”, from where we get “Pope”) to God’s people; what he opened, no one would shut, and what he shut, no one would open?”
You get all that from: “17And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”?????????????
Apart from the keys of heaven, the other promises were made to others as well - and there is nothing new about interpreting the keys as what Peter did at Pentecost and Cornelius’s house - opening heaven to the Jews first, and then the Gentiles. See Matt 18:”18Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” and John 20: “19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came...And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”
It is safe to say, at an absolute minimum, that if Jesus MEANT all you say, he could have prevented a lot of confusion by simply saying it. But what Jesus said was “ “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Maybe you think that sounds like he was setting Peter up as his Vicar, but no one else seems to have caught it.
“He rejected it as INSPIRED Scripture (i.e. worthy of being in the Biblical canon, written by an Apostle), and he claimed that it flatly contradicted St. Paul (William Barclay, The Daily Study Bible Series, The Letters of James and Peter, Revised Edition, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, KY, 1976, p. 7)”
Simply not true. See here for a good review:
http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm
“Then why not SAY that? Did you miss the reactions of horror and disgust from the crowd when they first started to argue? “How can this man give us His FLESH to eat?!?” It’s patently obvious that this is the focal point of the crowd’s resistance...I’ll note that you’d have to ignore a great deal of John 6, and twist the meaning of much of the rest, to avoid the fact that the John 6 crowd was upset about Jesus’ “hard saying” about “giving His Flesh to eat”. Do you seriously not see this?”
What I see is that Jesus didn’t TRY to keep them, because he KNEW they didn’t believe. What I see is that bread was brought up, not in reference to the Lord’s Supper (that NO ONE THERE had ever heard of) but in response to the Jew’s question: “26Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life...30So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”
It isn’t open to discussion or debate about why Jesus brought up bread. It is in the text itself.
Nor is there any dispute about the objection of the Jews - and it WASN’T cannibalism, unless you think Peter approved of cannibals. There objection is recorded here:
“41So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
They KNEW he wasn’t being literal about his flesh, but they ALSO knew he was claiming to have come from heaven. And Peter understood it too: “we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
Please don’t pretend the Jews were upset over cannibalism. If THAT had been the objection, Peter would have objected as well! The objected is recorded in the text. They objected to Jesus being the Holy One of God, while Peter and others believed.
There was never a hint of the Eucharist in John 6. It wasn’t why Jesus used the metaphor, and the Jews were not objecting to cannibalism. There isn’t anything to argue with you about. It is in the text.
“I don’t worry much about where scripture is disputed in interpretation. / (!) I’m not quite sure what to say, in reply to that. You do realize that this approach would neutralize the vast majority of the Bible, don’t you?”
If I had NO concern, I wouldn’t debate you, would I? My point is that many of the things we can argue about (did Mary remain a virgin?) are pretty stupid, really. In Romans 14, Paul makes my point - the same Paul who rebuked Peter over the content of the gospel.