Replies

FK: ***We just look at what Paul actually says. While interpretations are needed and made by both sides at different times, the NUMBER of times Paul’s plain meaning is taken is FAR greater in Reformed theology.***

Really?

You then go on to list about 93 passages from Paul. Actually they aren't passages from Paul, they are the Catholic interpretation of those passages from Paul. In all seriousness, if I had known about this list I would have posted it to you as PROOF that Catholicism does not take the plain meaning of the text very often. It would take me a week to hit all of these, so since the theme is the same throughout, I will just touch on a couple of examples:

2 Cor. 5:10 - at the judgment Seat of Christ, we are judged according to what we have done in the body, not how much faith we had.

Again, this is not the passage, nor is it the plain meaning of the passage. It is the Catholic interpretation away from the plain meaning of the passage. Here is what it actually says:

2 Cor 5:10 : 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

Note that the actual verse doesn't mention faith. There is no plain meaning concerning faith here. Yet, the Catholic interpretation adds in that since faith isn't mentioned here it must not be important. This is at the heart of Catholic interpretation, adding in what isn't there and subtracting what IS there.

Extra-Scriptural Tradition says there is only one judgment, so everything along these lines concerns Heaven and hell. However, we use the Bible to interpret itself. So, the Catholic view would have Paul talking out of both sides of his mouth here because just three verses earlier he says:

2 Cor 5:7 : We live by faith, not by sight.

Your quote above says the Catholic view is that how much or whether we have faith is not what determines Heaven or hell, yet Paul says that faith is how we LIVE. To match Catholicism, Paul would have said "We live by works, not by faith." He clearly doesn't say that.

Heb. 7:27, 9:12,26;10:10; 1 Pet 3:18 - Jesus died once and redeemed us all, but we participate in the application of His redemption by the way in which we live.

Here are the verses:

Heb. 7:27, 9:12,26;10:10 : 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. .......... 9:12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. ...... 9:26 Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. .......... 10:10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

1 Peter 3:18 : For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,

Now, are you seriously trying to tell me there is ANYTHING in plain meaning from all of this that says anything about the need for Jesus' sacrifice to be "applied" by us or anyone else over time? By the plain meaning, ALL of these verses fully support the Reformed position and refute the Catholic position of Christ dying only to set things up for man to finish the job by "applying" what Jesus did. I'm starting to get the idea that our respective definitions of "plain meaning" are worlds apart.

Forest Keeper saith:

I'm starting to get the idea that our respective definitions of "plain meaning" are worlds apart.

To which I offer a hearty, "Amen, yeah, howdy!"

Finally, for a moment, someone gets it! We are very far apart in our weltanschaaungen. Yes. Very Very far apart.

To return to my artillery duel metaphor, we are so far apart that we can't tell if our shots hit their targets. But a difference between this and an artillery duel is that artillery folks, send out spotters, get information on the relationship between where shell landed and where the target is, and make corrections. Here however most participants just fire random shells and then get accuse the target of cheating when it doesn’t blow up.

And evidently some think that by firing lots of shell they are pleasing God and being obedient to their call, whether or not they hit the target. In related news, the_conscience saith: in post 881

I guess we can all shut off our computers and the debates are over since neither of us can know anything about the other.

, and earlier:

[I guess it got pulled - it was in a post that described me as "nauseating, as I recall. Anyway it was a response to my assertion of the syllogistic impossibility that if someone makes a statement about every member of a class, the expectation around here seems to be that the members of the class should not view that statement as being about them. I BELIEVE that the response was a complaint to the effect that if one could not make disparaging personal remarks about a class of people then we could not have a conversation on these matters.]

For adumbration of how easily one falls into personal attacks we have in Post 556

Romanists prefer playing in the shadows which satisfies their idolatrous nature.

and in post 280

***Who’d be dopey enough to believe that?***
Ask MarkBsnr.

And in post 288

Then I pointed you to the one “dopey enough”.

So what is that? The first post is a group mind-reading, the implication of which is that individual "Romanists" such as, say MarkBsnr, prefer playing in the shadows. The other two comprise directly calling a poster "dopey".

Personally, I don’t think we have to characterize the members of one another’s groups as dopey (or as anything else) to learn about one another. It IS possible to express the criticism of one another’s beliefs without making even general personalization.

Are we really to believe that calling a particular person “dopey enough” or saying a whole group of people have or want martyr complexes is going to help us know more about each other. Is it? Isn’t there another way that is likely to be more fruitful? Isn’t there a way which would ensure that subsequent “artillery duels” would have a higher percentage of actual hits?

In my exile I have had the salutary experience of watching the posts go by. And it is simply astonishing not only how little our thinking is understood, but how those who misunderstand seem to prefer not understanding the enemy (for such they think we are) to knowing the truth about us.

I think there is another way. I think it would involve not the intentional goading of others until they come around to one’s point of view but rather probing, patient, and intelligent questioning, questioning intelligent enough to deal with Forest Keeper’s perception of two groups with two very different “plain meanings” for a particular text.

It seems to me that once one sees that we are so very far apart that it seems that we don't even agree on the plain meaning of "something", then the whole paternalistic provocation to which Quix admitted, not only to no consequence, but to the acclaim of his co-religionists, in post 410 has got to be seen as worse than useless.

For those who came in late, here it is: a clear unabashed declaration of intent to provoke:

What loving purpose can my fiesty fierce provocative postings serve?

It might be useful and it might generate less heat than light if we tried to understand one another’s POV, rather than intentionally provoke them. Now that may be viewed as trying to make the RF "ecumenic", but I'm kind of wishing it would just be less disgraceful.

At least let the charges you all levy at us have some discernible relationship to the facts.

But, I really honestly believe, and Quix's #410 cited above confirms me in this opinion, that there are some here who intend insult and bad-feeling – all for our own good, of course.

Consider this, please: At Mass on Monday, before the service I was talking with a brother, who is doing advanced degree work in Patristics. I mentioned the new "diagnosis" of “Sado-Evangelism” to him, and he just shook his head, and then laughed ruefully.

Why do you suppose he reacted like that? Why the rueful laugh? I didn't have to give him any details. I just mentioned the coined word. It certainly resonated with him. As we chatted we began to share experiences of people showing that they assume that we don't know zip about the Bible, that we, well, do all the things we are accused of here, and, especially of people seeming to get a pleasure out of behaving in a condescending, insulting, impolite, aggressive, controlling manner, seeming to use “Evangelism” as a cover to hurt and control people.

You can say it as often as you like, and that seems to be pretty often, but I don’t worship our nice icon of Dominic or our tacky statue of Mary. I just don’t. You can say it 10,000 times and it won’t be any truer than it is now.

But, evidently the “provocation camp” is content to make accusations of us that we simply do not recognize, because somehow it’s good to upset us. Breaking the noses off statues in Anglican Churches won’t heal the wounds in hearts. But the evidently some think that spiritual warfare and healing is best carried out by destroying the beautiful.

So I think that Forest Keeper's highly useful comment will probably do no good. To establish some kind of meaningful communication -- even if only as a means which some Protestants might use to argue more persuasively about how very wrong we are -- seems to be a goal too few people would embrace. Much more fun just to keep on provoking.

So the Prots will continue to tell us what we think and do, and we will continue to deny it, and threads will become heated and some will be closed.

Whom that is supposed to serve or glorify is completely escapes me.

And yes, I quite seriously think that some of the posters here have serious "issues" such as I have described. I think trying to excuse a non-stop barrage of intentionally offensive posts on the grounds that it might save souls is, at the very kindest, eccentric.

I will be putting up a moderated forum on the topic of S-E within 10 or so days. I'm going to be gathering anecdotes from people who have been targeted by people claiming to be presenting the Gospel of Christ, especially those who explicitly or implicitly say that they are being intentionally cruel for the sake of our souls, and trying to classify and organize them and then I’m going to run the observations by some pros I know.