Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
The Catholic Church has never claimed that individual bishops are inerrant.
I know, I meant it as a straightforward question. I DO believe that the scribes of the scriptures were given a special grace. Since later bishops did not have it, that diminishes the powers transferred through Apostolic succession.
But I understand your dilemma: because you reject the idea that the Holy Spirit has ever guided the Church that compiled and finalized the New Testament, you have no logical reason to believe that the New Testament is inerrant.
No, there's no dilemma at all. And Kosta is right about my "pre-fab" answer in this situation, (as if only Protestants have pre-fab answers or that it is a bad thing). I actually think the Holy Spirit guided the Church 1000 times more strongly than you do! :) I don't think that God left anything to chance with the creation of the scriptures, so He didn't have to "hope" that all the scribes would follow His guidance. He took matters into His own control and produced the works despite the fallibility of the scribes.
That is not our difference at all! Everything you say is what Catholics and Orthodox believe: faith comes from God; faith moves us to do good works in His name. Where we differ is that the Church believes, and has always believed, that man is free and capable to accept or reject the faith.
OK, then exactly what is it that would cause a man to accept the faith?
"as if only Protestants have pre-fab answers or that it is a bad thing"
They don't and its not. It's all about that bit in St. Peter's epistle:
"We have the more sure word of prophecy; and you do well that you heed it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns, and the morning star arises in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit."
The whole point to this passage is that divine revelation comes from God through holy men of God, that divine revelation cannot be of private interpretation but only of the interpretation of those holy men of God, and that the Church thus has "the more sure word of prophecy" than do those who try to interpret it privately -- by whatever personal, spiritual, or scholarly means.
The entire witness of the Fathers is that they did not ever consider themselves to be writing anything new, but only to be restating for their own times what those sure words of divine revelation say and mean. This, by definition, leads to pre-fab answers (a major criticism of the Fathers is that they "never say anything new.")
The question, FK, is whether whose pre-fab answers you are going to trust -- those of the Fathers of the Church from the earliest centuries, or those of the Reformation's fathers (not directly appealed to as authority, of course, but passed off as being understandings that each person just happens to arrive at through independent reading of Scripture...)
The other thing that I would point out is that the pre-fab answer needs actually to fit the question being asked. You do a pretty good job of trying actually to answer questions and statements directly, and I appreciate that. What is annoying is when a specific question is asked, and the reply given is "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..." -- a point no-one disagrees with but that had nothing to do with the point at hand.
Ping to 6843 -- sorry.
Yes, I can agree with you in principle. But that brings us to the issue of the timelessness of the Bible, and what the translations have meant throughout the ages. I freely admit that I am probably in a small minority of all posters here who prefer to use the NIV. My impression is that versions like this were made to handle just this sort of problem. The main objection that I have seen to the NIV is that it is not word-for-word, which, of course, is true.
However, it has always been my habit here that, when I read a verse from another poster from another translation which I have not already memorized, that I look it up in my NIV. In all of those times (a few hundred) the number of times I have thought that the verse actually said something materially different from my version has been less than 2%. I don't think that's so bad, since it doesn't even necessarily mean that the other translation was "better". The whole point of going idea-for-idea is to compensate for the contexts and culture differences, etc.
When you look at your loved ones, you know a lot about them, because you have a memory of them. Sola scriptura, to us, is like looking at them for the first time, read their resumes, and claiming to know them. Impossible! The Holy Tradition is a documented "memory" of the Church. The Church knows the faith as you know your family.
Sola Scriptura for me is just as you describe Holy Tradition is for you. Sola Scriptura is the ultimate "documented" memory. :) And likewise, when I see Tradition that appears not to match with scripture, then that is like looking at my loved ones for the first time.
The Church knows the faith as you know your family.
And I would say the Bible knows my faith like I know my family.
[On an analogy of using the Sola Scriptura approach to learning about Vietnam:] Your approach is that all one needs to do is read a reliable weekly magazine story about that era, or a lengthy summary in an encyclopedia, and you will get the whole picture! That's what sola scriptura is; incomplete; impossible.
Well, that's not a bad summary of our disagreement. I happen to believe that when God puts His holy word to page, that He is both complete AND possible. In fact, perfect. When fallible men start adding or subtracting from God's word, I think that's asking for trouble.
I would respectfully disagree. Faith doesn't produce anything. God does. Whether it is our love, our faith, our repentance, our contrition - it is all moved by God. God calls man to respond to Him in faith, in love, in repentance.
And I would respectfully disagree that you disagree, I would say that you do agree. :) You are true to Catholicism in being a champion of free will and cooperation with God. It seems to me then, that you actually need some of your own "faith" in order to accept God's faith. On what else does a man base his decision to accept God, given that he has free will to reject? Therefore, this "faith" that a man uses to accept God's gift is "man-generated". That's what I'm talking about. I still put the number at 0%. I'm guessing you would have to put it higher.
FK backs this up by making the amazing comment : "You did when you said: "Who is going to have sex with another person's wife? Not a normal person." Who is the other person, if you don't mean God?
I'm speaking about Mary being married to Joseph! Who is going to have sex with Joseph's wife? How in God's name did you ever think that I said Mary was married to God??? Wow! Weren't we talking about Mary and Joseph and why they got married?
And please speak for yourself on "things to do" when we reach 70. :)
How old are you?
Yes, it sure does [Mary and Joseph had sex], and I still don't see why this is the end of the world for you, especially since you appear now NOT to think of Mary as Mrs. God. :)
Oh brother. This from a Sola Scriptura charecter? Where does it say that "Joseph knew Mary"? Don't go beyond what the Scriptures say - what ever happened to that?
Mary asks how can this be since "I AM a virgin" or "I have known not a man". Mary does not say since "I am PLEDGED to be a virgin (forever)".
Sure. Woman who are betrothed to be married always asks such questions like "duh, how am I going to have a child - I am going to be wed soon..." What sort of arguement is that? The response of Mary would be "Wow, that's wonderful. Thanks and praise to God". Not "how can that be...?" A person in a normal relationship does not ask how a child will come into existence...
And the question for you - why are you arguing this point anyway? Does it crush a Protestant belief or do you just enjoy arguing about Christ's Mother?
Regards
What a mess. Fortunately, God didn't leave us in such a state. God desired that all men come to the knoweldge of the truth. WHERE IS THE PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF THE TRUTH? Deny it all you want, but it is in the Bible. Or are you one of those Protestants who ignores the parts of Scriptures you don't like?
This does appear to be quintessential Catholicism. Men have the power and authority, not God's written word.
Men's power is based on the Written and Spoken Word of God given by Christ (God) to the Apostles. Unless, of course, you don't believe in the Apostles' teachings are from God.
They are so different that one must dominate, one must be read in light of the other. You already indicated above which is the dominant authority. Men have the power. Sure, you can make the meanings match through interpretation, but you'll never be able to get the actual words to match.
Are you aware of how Christians came to the belief of the Trinity? Do you think the Scriptures alone told us? Arius thought that and was flat wrong, just like Protestants who read the Scriptures outside of Sacred Tradition.
Are you forgetting that the history of the Catholic Church has been to discourage the reading of the Bible in favor of oral teachings?
The Church discourages people from reading the Bible OUTSIDE of the Apostolic Tradition, the original meaning and intent of the authors. Heresy starts when man thinks he can rationalize God's intent spoken through the Church.
That [The very fact that we disagree on Scriptures should point out that Scriptures do not interpret themselves!] is a disjointed argument. That's like me saying that because we disagree on your Tradition, it is wrong. The scriptures do interpret themselves. Some see it, some do not.
The Scriptures are read through a particular concept that the reader already has. You read it with different ideas. You, for example, think that man is evil and totally corrupt and can do nothing to cooperate with God's grace, nor can he refuse the Holy Spirit. Thus, you read over passages that deny that or twist them to mean something else. Thus, Scriptures alone don't do much good by themselves. You should know by now that a person can prove practically any point of view from the Scriptures. Have you not argued with another Protestant over whether Baptism is necessary for Salvation? The two of you will post verses that prove your points and you will both call each other wrong.
And neither will ever know who REALLY is correct...
Not really a great way for "man to come to the knowledge of the truth".
Regards
God doesn't provide absolute certainty. He provides HOPE.
Regards
The Judaism of Christ's time is vastly different from post-Temple Judaism of today.
I have to agree with you here. Looping in the related conversation with Kosta, do you have a view as to whether the OT righteous (with only the views they had during their lives) would have "recognized" Christ had they lived during the ministry of Jesus?
God gives us a gift. Faith. We can use it or not. God works within us the desire to do His will. We can choose to or not. At some level, man is expected to use his own intellect and will to decide on whether to follow the promptings that are foreign to him - to do good. If man does not cooperate at all, then this drastically changes the meaning of great swathes of Scripture that tell US to persevere, US to love, US to have faith, US to repent. WHO EXACTLY is God telling to do these things? Himself? Is God talking to Himself to provide faith in "x" man?
You are forgeting that the Bible clearly expects man to respond at some level to God's gifts. It is MAN who will be judged based on what he does - not on what God does.
Regards
I believe that the Second Temple Judaism is in continuity with the Catholic/Orthodox Church. Christianity is not a brand new religion, but developed out of Christ's fulfillment of the Law. Would the OT righteous recognized Jesus? Yes, I think that Christ says that Himself in John's Gospel during one of His "I AM" discourses.
Regards
That makes absolutely no sense. What better way of identifying baptism as grace, as a free gift, than Baptism given to an infant - who can do absolutely nothing to deserve or earn it, unlike the adult who must first "achieve" a certain amount of faith...?
That makes absolutely no sense. :) You are making my point. You have told me a hundred times that a free gift cannot be forced, it must be freely accepted. This cannot happen with an infant. By definition, Baptism IS 100% FORCED on an infant. The idea of proxy is a cop-out. Lay-parents cannot bestow salvific effects, even in Catholicism, unless you have a new lesson for me. :) This grace that you have God ramming down the throats of infants sounds exactly like what you accuse us of all the time. :)
It is not Catholic teaching that babies are condemned to hell for not being baptized. St. Augustine's theory was never accepted as Catholic doctrine. We do not believe such are reprobate - since one must actively sin to "earn" hell.
OK, perhaps this is a difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy that I didn't know about.
Kosta, I thought you have said that in Orthodoxy, an unbaptized baby who dies is not free of the fallen nature and would be technically lost forever. Of course, God makes the final call, and can save whoever He wants. But "by the book", an unbaptized baby who dies has a serious problem. :) Is this fair?
This is contrasted to Joe's above, which says that any baby cannot go to hell before he reaches the age of reason and is capable, for the first time, to sin. Is that fair?
If I have been fair with all of this, then is it just a difference of opinion, like mine with other Reformers about infant Baptism, or is this a matter of doctrinal difference?
So every Jew up until the time of Christ - to include Christ - was "FORCED" into the community of God by circumcision? If it is a cop-out, then go to the Scriptures and blame them - they tell us that an infant should be circumcised to become part of God's people. So is God "coping-out"? In both Baptism and Circumcision, Jews nor Catholics consider this as the final means of entering Heaven. It is just the entry into the Church. We are now God's children as a result. We can certainly give up our inheritance later. If Christianity is a fulfillment of Judaism, it should be plain that there is a precedent being set for infant baptism by the fact that for 2000 years, people were already bringing their children into the Church by circumcision (Church defined as God's community of people)
You have said that unwritten traditions are fine as long as they have apostolic basis. Really, are you defending Sola Scriptura for the sake of an idea? Isn't 4000 years enough precedent for you?
Kosta, I thought you have said that in Orthodoxy, an unbaptized baby who dies is not free of the fallen nature and would be technically lost forever. Of course, God makes the final call, and can save whoever He wants. But "by the book", an unbaptized baby who dies has a serious problem. :) Is this fair?
I think on this, Latins and Greeks agree that something different is in store for unbaptized babies - but it is not hell. I think some would call it paradise but without God's abiding presence.
Regards
I will, albeit late. Since this is my first Christmas vs. Easter debate I have to warn you that my arguments are very unpolished. :)
The Incarnation is the defining moment of Christianity. Cosmos-shaking, The Word was God, the Word became flesh. This, fully contemplated, cannot be fully contemplated. ...
The Incarnation cannot be the defining moment of "Christianity". Think of it this way: in order for Christianity to even exist, the Incarnation was necessary, but not sufficient. Christ could have been incarnated, walked around for a while, said "hello" to some folks, and then went back to heaven. The result is no Christianity. God doesn't "need" Christianity, we do. So, its existence and meaningfulness has to be taken from our POV.
Only the Resurrection was both necessary AND sufficient for Christianity to exist. You agreed that it was the proof of what Christ claimed. If He had not risen, then He would have been rightfully exposed as a liar, and Christianity would have fallen on its face immediately. This makes the Resurrection superior to the Incarnation, even though the latter is still necessary. The "birth" of Christianity was much more tied to His being risen than to His being born.
The Incarnation is inseparable from the Trinity; it defines the Diety for Christianity, it is unique. It unites God and Man like no other event, like no other religion.
But the only value that definition has owes itself completely to the Resurrection. If Christ does not rise, then there is no definition. We can play chicken/egg which I assume many do. I ask myself, which was the bigger event from man's POV? Christ could have been born and walked among us, but that doesn't mean there ever would have been Christianity. Only the resurrection meant, as absolute proof, that Christianity was real and true.
Oh but I do! The OT righteous did not believe in Three Persons united in one Divine Essence (Nature) in a perfect loving community that we know as God(head). The post-Jamnia Judaism (derivative of Pharisees) doesn't either.
Our faith is defined by Christology. We believe that God's Word became Incarnate and was born of the Virgin, and suffered and died for our sins, and was buried, and resurrected on the third day, and sits to the right side of the Father, and shall return to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holky Ghost (Spirit), who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and Son is worshiped (as one God).
The Jews know God through the Law; we know God through Christ. The most important difference is that Judaism does not believe man needs to be saved. We do. Judaism believes that God made us capable of saving ourselves by works, and thus making ourselves, as obedient children, acceptable to God. We believe we are made acceptable to God through His grace. Your Calvinist friends believe some are acceptable because they were pre-destioned from all eternity to be acceptable. That is not Judaism, OT or post-Jamnia!
Messianic anticipation in Judaism did not begin until about a century before Jesus was born. Prior to that, the Jews did not expect a meshiach (messiah). The interpretations of the Tanakh (the Five Books of Moses) of an "anointed" one (a mortal human) who would restore the disintegrated Kingdom of Israel (Jewish kings of at the time of Chrust, as well as the High Priests, were Roman appointees; to wit: Octavian, Ceasar Augustuis, appointed Herod as king; Pontius Pilate, a governor of occupied Israel, appointed Joseph Chaiphas as High Priest; they were Roman puppets). The meshiach (messiah), which does not mean "savior" but the "anointed [by God]," a title bestowed to all kings on the kings of the fallen Kingdom of Israel, never meant anything even closely resembling our definition of Christ, the Greek term also meaning "anointed," which morphed into "Savior," and the "Son of God." So, neither etymologically, not spiritually, does the Hebrew word "meshiach" (messiah) correspond to what the Christians made of it later on.
The OT righteous did not expect the savior because Judaism does not expect one. The OT righteous did not even expect a meshicach because of the historical time frame in which they lived. Messianic mindset began to grown after the Babylonian Captivity and the fact that the Jews were once again not free. If anything, the Jews from about 500 BC onward could have believed only in God's mercy to send them a new Moses, someone who would deliver them from the oppressors, and who would re-establish the Kingdom(of Israel), first and foremost. As time passed, that expectation grew into a mythical belief that the meshiach will establish peace on earth and be the one who will make the God of Abraham known to all so that they may convert to Judaism (i.e. believe in the same God).
Only the Resurrection was both necessary AND sufficient for Christianity to exist.
Nope. Necessary only in "proof." Had God been incarnate and not claimed resurrection, or visible resurrection, Christianity would still exist. The trinity, the passion, the sacrifice, all there. Resurrection was mostly proof, and what do we hear about those who require miracles to believe?
If He had not risen, then He would have been rightfully exposed as a liar…
True, but for this exercise, I'm stipulating that if He wasn't going to resurrect, He wouldn't have said He was, hence no claim of resurrection, thus no liar.
But the only value that definition [Trinity] has owes itself completely to the Resurrection. If Christ does not rise, then there is no definition.
Sure there is, the Trinity still exists with or without the resurrection.
Now here's where you've got me thinking. The Ressurrection is proof, but also one thing more in Christianity: it describes/defines a great deal of Christian eschatology.
So I'm gonna concede a tad, it's more than just proof. Without the Resurrection, Christian eschatology would not be as clear - absent additional teaching or theology from other sources.
thanks for your reply.
I forgot one other, important argument: You proposed, what if there was Incarnation but no Resurrection. Turn that around.
What if there was Resurrection without Incarnation? What would we have then? No Trinity, no perfect sacrifice, no "For God so loved the world..."
So, I claim, Chrisitianity would be much less, or more different, without the Incarnation than without the Resurrection.
I'm not really new to the thread was just away for a few weeks, but thanks for the welcome all the same my FRiend.
Now you are beginning to articulate my mindset -- the Scripture proclaims ideas that are eternally true and inerrant. The Scripture transcends all time and culture in its message, not in physical facts.
Sola Scriptura for me is just as you describe Holy Tradition is for you. Sola Scriptura is the ultimate "documented" memory
Unfortunately that is wrong. Read Didache. Written before the end of the first century AD, (while the Gospels were still being written, and the Gospel of John not even in the works yet!), it tells us a lot about Christian practices and early Christianity in general.
For instance, it describes baptism as being done by triple immersion into a "living" water (when possible), or by triple pouring over the head if a baptismal pool were not available. It also requires that the person baptized and those participating in baptism fast for two days, on Wednesdays and Fridays and not on "Mondays and Thursdays as the hypocrites do," here making reference to the Jewish custom of fasting on Mondays and Thursdays. The Baptism is to be made in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
ALL of these customs are still practiced in the Orthodox Church, so we can be pretty certain that in that respect the Orthodox Church, and the Orthodox Church alone, remained unchanged in the last 2,000 years.
What is important here is that none of this is described in any of the three Gospels that existed until then, nor in John's Gospel that followed. So, here we have a definite example of the Holy Tradition working in the Church while the Gospels were in the making.
It shows that not everything in the Bible (sola scriptura) is the "ultimate memory."
The Didache, however, also shows that the Church did change and even invent some things as time passed. For instance, it talks only of bishops and deacons, but not of presbyters (priests). Yet +Ignatius mentions as early as 107 AD that the Church already had a full three-tier clergy, bishops, priests and deacons. Today we even have subdeacons.
One could object that this is not theology, yet Didache also describes something that does affect our theology very much: concerning the Eucharist. First the order of the Eucharistic offering is reversed from the current practice: wine first, bread second. It is unclear why the Church reversed the order except that the habit may have become entrenched in the primitive Church before the Gospels account of the Mystery (Last) Supper in which they place breaking of the bread first, and drinking the wine second, contrary to the Jewish custom of wine first and then bread.
It is difficult to believe that Jesus, Who was a pious Jew, would have reversed it. Perhaps the Gospel writers decided to do so to distinguish Christian "Eucharist" from the Jewish custom.
More importantly, the Didache (which means "Teaching") talks about the Eucharist as simply being the "breaking of the Bread" and "drinking of the Wine" and not of Christ's Real Presence (i.e. physicial, bodily presence), or it's life-giving mysteries.
So, from this work we can see that some of the practices have indeed been preserved by the Church before the New Testament was completed and are therefore part of the Holy Tradition and the "combined memory" of the Church that exists besides, and in parallel, and in spiritual congruity with the Scriptures, thus rendering a very strong argument against the Lutheran sola scriptura error.
At the same time, there is some substance to the Protestant claims that the Church was not delivered ready-made (just as the NT was not!), and that human intervention and interpretations had a lot to do not only with the ecclasiastical structure and praxis, but with some of the passages that we know from the Gospels, such as the deliberate reversal of the Jewish custom of drinking the wine before the bread.
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.